[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6278-6311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03165]
[[Page 6277]]
Vol. 84
Tuesday,
No. 38
February 26, 2019
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Scarlet
Macaw; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 38 / Tuesday, February 26, 2019 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 6278]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BC81
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Scarlet Macaw
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (Ara macao cyanoptera) is an
endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as
amended; the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) is a threatened species under
the Act, and the southern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet
macaw (A. m. macao) and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m.
macao) to be threatened species based on similarity of appearance. We
are also establishing a rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act for
the A. m. macao subspecies and subspecies crosses to provide for its
further conservation.
DATES: This rule is effective March 28, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of this rule, are available for
public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting
and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS:ES, Falls Church, VA 22041;
telephone 703-358-2444. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species may warrant
protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a
rule.
On July 6, 2012, we published in the Federal Register (FR) a 12-
month finding on a petition to list the scarlet macaw. We determined
the scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) did not warrant listing under the Act
at the species level but found the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw
(Ara macao cyanoptera) and the northern distinct population segment
(DPS) of the southern subspecies (A. m. macao) warranted listing and
issued a proposed rule to list those entities as endangered under the
Act (77 FR 40222). On April 7, 2016, we published a revised proposed
rule (81 FR 20302) maintaining the proposed endangered status for A. m.
cyanoptera, but (1) revising the proposed listing determination for the
northern DPS of the southern subspecies (A. m. macao) from endangered
to threatened; and (2) proposing to treat the southern DPS of A. m.
macao and subspecies crosses as threatened based on similarity of
appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. m. macao. We
also proposed a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a ``4(d) rule'')
that incorporated the prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and
17.32 that we found necessary and advisable for the species'
conservation.
This rule lists the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m.
cyanoptera) as an endangered species, the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) as a threatened species, and
the southern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m.
macao) and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as a
threatened species due to similarity of appearance under the Act. This
rule also establishes a 4(d) rule for those listed as threatened
species to further provide for the species' conservation.
The basis for our action. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based
on any of the following 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. The primary causes attributed to the
decline of the scarlet macaw (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) include
habitat loss and forest degradation (Factor A), poaching for the pet
trade (Factor B), lack of enforcement of existing regulations (Factor
D), and small population size (Factor E).
Section 4(d) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to extend to threatened species the prohibitions provided
for endangered species under section 9 of the Act. For threatened
species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service discretion to
specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those prohibitions that
are appropriate for the species, as well as include provisions that are
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species.
A rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act allows us to include
provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of that
threatened species.
Our implementing regulations for threatened wildlife found at 50
CFR 17.31 incorporate the section 9 prohibitions for endangered
wildlife, except where a species-specific rule is promulgated under
4(d) of the Act. While we proposed to rescind this provision last
summer (83 FR 35174; July 25, 2018), that proposal has not been
finalized at this time.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited peer reviewers and
the public to comment on our listing proposals. All substantive
information from peer review and public comments was fully considered
and is incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule, published in the Federal
Register on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40222), for more comprehensive
information on previous Federal actions for the scarlet macaw. The
publication of the proposed listing rule opened a 60-day public comment
period, which closed on September 4, 2012. Based on new information, we
published a revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016) to make
the following changes to our proposed rule: (1) Revise the location of
what we consider to be the boundary between the two subspecies of A.
macao; (2) provide additional information on the species in northeast
Costa Rica, southeast Nicaragua, and Panama, and reevaluating the
status of A. m. cyanoptera; (3) provide additional information on the
northern DPS of A. m. macao, reevaluating the status of this DPS, and
revise our proposed listing of this DPS from endangered status to
threatened status; (4) add a proposal to treat the southern DPS of A.
m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera) as
threatened based on similarity of appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and to
the northern DPS of A. m. macao; and
[[Page 6279]]
(5) add a proposed rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) to define the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to
scarlet macaws listed as threatened. That revised proposed rule also
opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on June 6, 2016.
Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule
In this final rule, and based on public comments, we incorporate
additional information regarding the distribution of scarlet macaws in
Mesoamerica (Mexico and Central America). Specifically, we include
information pertaining to reintroduction programs occurring throughout
the range of Ara macao cyanoptera, and we include information that
indicates the populations in Costa Rica in the northern DPS of the
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) are likely
increasing.
We also took into account the relevant information from eBird into
our analysis regarding the distribution of the species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We reviewed all comments we received from peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information. All substantive
information from peer review and public comments has been fully
considered and is incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.
We received 282 public comments combined on the proposed and
revised proposed rules to list the scarlet macaw under the Act during
their respective comment periods. Some of the comments we received were
similar to comments that we received previously for the proposed rule;
therefore, we only address these comments once in this final rule. See
the Substantive Changes to the Proposed Rule section in the revised
proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016).
The following section summarizes information and issues raised in
the public comments and provides our responses.
Comment (1): Several commenters stated that listing the scarlet
macaw will hurt U.S. businesses such as aviculture, pet food and supply
companies, and veterinarians.
Our Response: Determinations on whether a species should be added
to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
are based on whether the species meets the definition of ``endangered
species'' or of ``threatened species'' in section 3 of the Act. The Act
directs the Service to make these determinations solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore, we may
not consider economic impacts when determining the status of a species.
We understand that listing the scarlet macaw will have an effect on
those involved in the pet bird industry, especially bird breeders. The
4(d) rule that we are putting in place streamlines the permitting
process by extending certain prohibitions but deferring to existing
laws (CITES and the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) that are
protective of scarlet macaws (A. m. macao and subspecies crosses) in
the course of import and export and by not requiring permits under the
Act for certain types of activities. Additionally, we are not
prohibiting the interstate commerce of scarlet macaws (A. m. macao and
subspecies crosses) within the United States (see 4(d) Rule, below).
Comment (2): Several commenters stated that reducing the
availability of captive birds by listing the species under the Act may
lead to an increase of wild-caught birds for the pet trade.
Our Response: We do not anticipate that listing the scarlet macaw
under the Act will further reduce the availability of captive birds or
lead to an increase of wild-caught birds for the pet trade. The scarlet
macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES, which is an international
agreement among governments to ensure that the international trade of
CITES-listed plants and animals does not threaten the survival of the
species in the wild. Trade must be authorized through a system of
permits and certificates that are issued by the designated CITES
Scientific and Management Authorities of each CITES Party. For species
included in CITES Appendix I, international trade is permitted only
under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial
trade. 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 our implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 23. Protections for
CITES-listed species are provided independently of whether a species is
an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.
Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act also already
provide protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into
the United States: The WBCA and the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16
U.S.C. 3371-3378). The WBCA ensures that exotic bird species are not
harmed by international trade and encourages 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 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). Under the Lacey Act, in
part, it is unlawful: (1) To import, export, transport, sell, receive,
acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed,
transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of
the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or (2) to
import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase 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. Similarly, under the Lacey Act it
is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or
purchase specimens of this species traded contrary to CITES.
Based in large part on the protection from illegal and legal trade
afforded to the scarlet macaw by CITES, the WBCA, and the Lacey Act,
the best available data indicate that the current threat from trade to
the scarlet macaw stems mainly from illegal trade in the domestic
markets within Central and South America (Weston and Memon 2009, pp.
77-80; Shanee 2012, pp. 4-9). Additionally, interstate commerce within
the United States is not a current threat to the scarlet macaw and will
not affect any efforts to recover wild populations. Therefore, we do
not anticipate that listing the scarlet macaw under the Act will
further reduce the availability of captive-bred birds or lead to an
increase of wild-caught birds since those birds are already regulated
by existing laws. This 4(d) rule, in large part, adopts the framework
of those laws.
Comment (3): Several commenters stated that at least 25 States
adopt the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants to their State list, which they claim would make it illegal to
possess scarlet macaws or its feathers. The commenters stated that
these laws do not include ``grandfathering,'' which means that those
who have scarlet macaws prior to the listing and live in one of these
States would be in violation of the law immediately once the listing is
effective.
[[Page 6280]]
Our Response: Ownership of a listed species is not prohibited by
the Act and therefore, does not require a permit. We further note that,
under section 9(b)(1) it is not unlawful to import or export a scarlet
macaw that was held in captivity prior to the date of this final rule
provided that its holding was not in the course of commercial activity.
Further, while we have certainly not conducted an in-depth study on the
various provisions of state law, we observe that under Article I of the
United States Constitution, retroactive application of a law is
permitted only in extraordinary cases. Ex post facto laws (or laws that
criminalize conduct that was legal when originally performed) are
generally prohibited. However, we acknowledge that we have no
discretion over regulations that certain States implement regarding
federally listed wildlife and plants.
Comment (4): A few commenters stated that breeders and pet owners
in the United States have been supplying feathers through sales or
trade to Native American artisans, and the Service should find a way to
accommodate feather and art sales within the United States because
these artisans make ceremonial products to support themselves and their
tribes.
Our Response: The 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and
noncommercial international shipments of live and dead scarlet macaws,
the southern subspecies of A. m. macao and subspecific crosses (A. m.
macao and A. m. cyanoptera), and their parts and products, including
the import and export of personal pets and research samples. In most
instances, the 4(d) rule adopts existing regulatory requirements of
CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the
import and export of scarlet macaws. Under the 4(d) rule, a person may
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship A. m. macao and subspecies
crosses in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity,
or sell or offer to sell in interstate commerce without a permit under
the Act (see 4(d) rule, below). Therefore, the 4(d) rule would allow
individuals to engage in certain commercial activities with A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses that could provide Tribal artisans materials to
make their products.
The 4(d) rule does not include subspecies A. m. cyanoptera that is
listed as endangered, and therefore, all the prohibitions of 50 CFR
17.31 apply to this subspecies. While the Act does not prohibit
intrastate (within a state) sale of a listed species, it does prohibit
interstate (between states) commercial sale, unless a buyer obtains a
permit. Permits for prohibited activities, such as interstate sale,
import and export, can be issued for endangered species if the
activities enhance the propagation or survival of the species in the
wild. Additionally, a breeder could obtain a Captive-bred Wildlife
Registration (CBW), which would authorize interstate commerce. However,
it must be shown that the sale enhances the propagation or survival of
the affected species and the principal purpose is to facilitate
conservation breeding and not for the sale of protected species as
pets.
Comment (5): Several commenters stated that the Endangered Species
Act is designed to protect domestic species only, and listing scarlet
macaws under the Act does not address the main cause of decline for the
species, which is habitat destruction in the species' native countries.
Our Response: The broad definitions of ``species,'' ``fish or
wildlife,'' and ``plant'' in section 3 of the Act do not differentiate
between species native to the United States, species native to both the
United States and one or more other countries, and species not native
to the United States. Further, sections 4(b)(1)(A) and 4(b)(1)(B)(i)
expressly require the Service to consider efforts by a foreign nation
prior to making a listing determination. Additionally, the findings and
purposes at sections 2(a)(4), 2(a)(5), and 2(b) also speak to the
application of the Act to meet the United States international
commitments under treaties and conventions, and numerous provisions of
the Act and the implementing regulations refer to foreign jurisdictions
(e.g., sections 8 and 8A of the Act, 50 CFR 424.11(e)). As such, we
have no basis to determine the protections of the Act only apply to
domestic species. However, we acknowledge that we do not have authority
to directly regulate activities in a foreign country that may cause the
species to be endangered or threatened.
Comment (6): Several commenters stated that there is no benefit to
listing scarlet macaws under the Act because the species is already
sufficiently protected by CITES and the WBCA.
Our Response: The decision to list a species under the Act is based
on whether the species meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species as defined under section 3 of the Act and is made
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. The purpose of the WBCA is to ensure that exotic bird
species are not harmed by international trade and encourages wild bird
conservation programs in countries of origin. The purpose of CITES is
to ensure that international trade in plants and animals does not
threaten their survival in the wild. Protection provided by other laws,
such as CITES and WBCA, is taken into consideration when determining
the status of the species. However, simply being protected by these
other laws does not preclude the requirement to list and provide
additional protections under the Act where the species meets the
definition of a threatened or endangered species. Further, the
standards for listing under each legal regime are different, and the
protections afforded to species listed under each legal regime are
different, though they can overlap in some respects. While CITES
regulates the international trade of certain wildlife, it has limited
regulatory authority once the species enters the United States for
activities that take place within the United States, though there are
restrictions on use after import for some specimens, especially
Appendix I specimens. Listing under the Act helps ensure that the
United States and its citizens do not contribute to the further decline
of the species.
Conservation measures or benefits provided to foreign 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
may encourage and result in conservation actions by foreign
governments, Federal and State governments, private agencies and
interest groups, and individuals.
Comment (7): Several commenters noted that the International Union
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies the scarlet macaw as
``least concern;'' and therefore, listing under the Act is not
warranted.
Our Response: The decision to list a species under the Act is based
on whether the species meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species as defined under section 3 of the Act and is made
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. The IUCN uses different standards and criteria and the
designations are not interchangeable. Within certain countries,
particularly in the range of A. m. cyanoptera, the subspecies is
considered in danger of extinction or on a country's list of threatened
or endangered species (Government of Mexico 2010a, p. 64; (Biodiversity
and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize 2012, unpaginated;
Meerman 2005, p. 30; (Government of Guatemala 2001, p. 15; Secretaria
de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. 2008, p. 62). However,
[[Page 6281]]
because of the relatively good status of the species in the Amazon,
which accounts for the majority of the species range and population,
and the scarlet macaw's relative tolerance of degraded and fragmented
habitat (BLI 2011c, unpaginated), we found the scarlet macaw did not
warrant listing under the Act rangewide at the species level (A. m.
macao). The IUCN classified this entity--the overall species--as
``Least Concerned.''
Comment (8): A few commenters questioned our decision in the
revised proposed rule to change the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) from endangered to
threatened. The commenters assert that because we revised the
boundaries and now attribute the population on Isla Coiba, Panama, to
be part of the northern subspecies (A. m. cyanoptera), the decline in
the number of known populations for the northern DPS of A. m. macao
does not warrant a reversal of the Service's prior determination. It
indicates a reduction in the number of populations; therefore, the DPS
is now at a greater risk of extinction.
Our Response: The northern DPS of the southern subspecies, A. m.
macao, consists of two main populations in Costa Rica, the Central
Pacific Costa Rica ([Aacute]rea de Conservaci[oacute]n Pac[iacute]fico
Central (ACOPAC)) and South Pacific Costa Rica ([Aacute]rea de
Conservaci[oacute]n Osa (ACOSA)) populations that are likely stable or
increasing Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 128; Dear et al. 2010, p. 20;
Brightsmith 2016, in litt., pp. 10-13) and consist of 1,000 to 2,000
birds; a group of at least 14-25 birds in Palo Verde (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt., p. 14; Dear et al. 2010, p. 8) in northwest Costa Rica, along
with scattered sightings of scarlet macaws from Palo Verde National
Park south to Carara National Park and throughout western Guanacaste
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 14); small groups of captive-released
birds in some locations within the Costa Rica portion of the DPS; small
populations in northwestern Panama in the Chiriqu[iacute] province
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated),
and an unknown number on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of
Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p.
17; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated; Rodriguez and Hinojosa 2010, in
McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated); and an unknown but likely
small number of birds in northwest Colombia. Thus, although the two
largest populations currently appear to be increasing and appear stable
even with ongoing poaching pressure, they both are small and their
total range represents only a portion of the range. Northwest Colombia
has large tracts of suitable habitat capable of supporting a population
(although we have no information about the current population estimate
for northwest Colombia). However, because current threats to scarlet
macaws are ongoing, enforcement of existing regulations is inadequate,
and the population sizes of scarlet macaws in this region are small, we
reaffirm our determination that the northern DPS of A. m. macao is
threatened in accordance with the definition in the Act.
Comment (9): Several commenters stated that by listing the northern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. cyanoptera) as endangered, bird
owners will not be able to sell birds, and if they cannot sell birds
they will not breed birds or will breed hybrids to get around the
listing. Thus, the gene pool for A. m. cyanoptera will be reduced, if
not be eliminated.
Our Response: Commenters responding to the 2012 proposed rule (77
FR 40222; July 6, 2012) noted that aviculturists have bred the species
without regard for taxa, resulting in crosses of the two subspecies (A.
m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao). Therefore, the best available
information indicates that pet scarlet macaws may be bred with little
regard for genetics and include an unknown number of subspecies
crosses, regardless of whether the species is listed under the Act
(Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75). The Act does not prohibit intrastate (within
a state) sale of a listed species so bird owners could sell birds
within state, but because A. m. cyanoptera is listed as endangered,
interstate (between states) commercial sale is prohibited without a
permit. We do not believe that the gene pool will be reduced or
eliminated because while some scarlet macaws in captivity in the United
States will be a mixture of subspecies, it is possible to determine
with genetic techniques where individual scarlet macaws have come from
and whether or not they are from one pure single subspecies or a mix of
subspecies (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 23).
Comment (10): Several commenters stated that we dismiss the benefit
of captive-bred scarlet macaws, which may be used to repopulate the
population if a major natural, biological, or manmade disaster occurs
in the native habitat of the species, and to educate and raise
awareness for the species.
Our Response: We find that there is a difference in conservation
value between captive-bred scarlet macaws that are bred for the pet
trade and those bred for potential release into the wild and that are
not in trade. We are not aware of any evidence indicating that release
of pet or pet-trade scarlet macaws benefits wild populations. Pet
scarlet macaws are poor candidates for reintroduction programs because
those bred for the pet trade are bred with little regard for genetics
and include an unknown number of subspecies crosses (Schmidt 2013, pp.
74-75), pets socialized with humans fail to act appropriately with wild
individuals when released, and individuals held as pets may pose a
disease risk to wild populations (Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 471).
However, scarlet macaws bred in captivity for soft-release programs are
more appropriate than pet scarlet macaws to contribute to the wild
population because of the breeding techniques, decreased level of human
interaction, disease testing, and training of these birds to survive on
their own in the wild upon release. Refer to ``Reintroduction of
Scarlet Macaws,'' below, for examples of captive-bred birds raised and
released into the wild to integrate with the wild populations of
scarlet macaws. These birds released back into their native range and
nearby existing populations may increase the overall population and
contribute to the long-term conservation of the species.
Comment (11): A few commenters stated that the information used in
the proposed rule was outdated.
Our Response: The Service is required by the Act to make
determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available. We use the existing information and are not
required to develop new data. We based the proposed rule on all the
information we received following the initiation of the status review
for the scarlet macaw, as well as all of the information we found
during our own research and that received during the comment periods of
the 2012 proposed rule and 2016 revised proposed rule. The ``best
available'' information depends on research being conducted in the
field and the availability of information and may be more, or less,
recent depending on the efforts being conducted. After publishing the
proposed rule, we found additional information that had become
available since the publication of the proposed rule and reviewed
information that was submitted by the public, including studies from a
species expert and conservation organizations within the scarlet
macaw's range countries.
Comment (12): One commenter claimed that the Service violated
mandatory statutory deadlines by waiting nearly 4 years to take further
action on its original listing proposal
[[Page 6282]]
and never formally invoking the legally allowable 6-month extension.
Our Response: We acknowledge that we failed to meet the statutory
deadline for this rulemaking. However, we are obligated to make listing
determinations under the Act based on the best available scientific and
commercial information. In our proposed rule (77 FR 40222; July 6,
2012), we found that the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw, A. m.
cyanoptera, and the northern DPS of the southern subspecies, A.m.
macao, were in danger of extinction (an endangered species) based on
their populations sizes and the magnitude of threats, such as loss of
habitat and poaching, within the subspecies' respective ranges. We also
found the southern DPS of the southern subspecies, A. m. macao, not to
be warranted for listing under the Act. During the public comment
period on the proposed rule, we received several requests from the
public to extend the comment period. Additionally, subsequent to the
proposed rule, we received new information from the public and peer
review, and we issued a revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7,
2016). As a result of this information, we made five substantive
changes to our July 6, 2012, proposed rule. Specifically, we: (1)
Revised the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the
northern subspecies, A. m. cyanoptera, and the northern DPS of the
southern subspecies, A. m. macao; (2) provided additional information
on A. m. cyanoptera in northeast Costa Rica, southeast Nicaragua, and
Panama, and reevaluated the status of the subspecies; (3) provided
additional information on the northern DPS of A. m. macao, reevaluated
the status of this DPS, and revised our proposed listing of this DPS
from endangered status to threatened status; (4) added a proposal to
treat the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m.
cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened based on similarity of
appearance to A. m. cyanoptera and to the northern DPS of A. m. macao;
and (5) added a proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act to define
activities that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of
scarlet macaws listed as threatened and crosses of the two scarlet
macaw subspecies. We then revised our determination for the southern
subspecies of A. m. macao in consideration of the new information and
comments we received to conclude that the northern DPS of A. m. macao's
risk of extinction is not as imminent as previously determined and that
the southern DPS of A. m. macao has similarity of appearance and will
therefore be treated at threatened. We opened a new comment period to
allow the public the opportunity to submit additional comments in light
of the new information and our revised determinations. Thus, we have
used this time to consider and incorporate complex data so that we may
ensure our rulemaking is based on the best available information.
Comment (13): A few commenters claimed that the Service offers no
explanation on how the proposed 4(d) rule allowing all commercial and
noncommercial international shipments of live or dead members of the
southern subspecies (A. m. macao) and subspecies crosses (A. m. macao
and A. m. cyanoptera) can be effectively limited to only those entities
given the similarity of appearance. The proposed 4(d) rule depends
entirely on the ability to differentiate between birds and products
made from their bodies, which the Service has previously stated cannot
be done without genetic analysis.
Our Response: Scarlet macaw subspecies, A. m. macao and A. m.
cyanoptera, primarily differ in the coloration of their wing coverts (a
type of feather) and wing size. We recognize that differences between
A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao are not always apparent, particularly
in birds from the middle of the species' range, and evidence in trade
is usually in the form of partial remains, detached feathers, and
artwork incorporating their feathers. Additionally, aviculturists often
breed species without regard to their taxa. Thus, identification of the
subspecies or the geographic origin of birds can be difficult or
improbable without genetic analysis.
The 4(d) rule allows a person to import or export certain scarlet
macaws (A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. macao and A. m.
cyanoptera)) without a permit issued under the Act. However, to import
and export scarlet macaws a person must follow procedures and
requirements of CITES and the WBCA, as the 4(d) rule adopts existing
conservation regulatory requirements of CITES as the appropriate
regulatory provisions for the import and export of certain scarlet
macaws (see 4(d) Rule, below). Both subspecies of the scarlet macaw are
listed in Appendix I of CITES, which ensures that the international
trade of CITES-listed species does not threaten the survival of the
species in the wild. Trade must be authorized through a system of
permits and certificates that are issued by the designated CITES
Authorities of each CITES country. For species included in CITES
Appendix I, international trade is permitted only under exceptional
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade.
Any scarlet macaws or parts in international trade to the United
States would require documentation that indicates the source and
purpose of the specimen or parts, and we identify which countries the
southern subspecies (A. m. macao) and potential subspecies crosses (A.
m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera) are located in the wild. Birds from the
two extremes of the range (Mexico and the Amazon) are morphologically
discernable (Schmidt 2011, pers. comm.). However, we recognize that it
can be difficult to differentiate between subspecies and determine
whether the specimen is part of A. m. cyanoptera, and also requires a
permit under the Act. Over the last 20 years less than 200 entries in
the LEMIS (Law Enforcement Management Information System) database were
scarlet macaw parts or unspecified, and 38 percent of the overall
entries were seized. Therefore, even if some parts are difficult to
determine which subspecies of scarlet macaw without genetic analysis,
which would add considerable cost and effort to law enforcement, the
quantity of scarlet macaw imports into the United States is not
extensive.
Comment (14): One commenter cited Matuzak et al. (2008) for
evidence that scarlet macaws are willing to feed on introduced species,
which makes the species less susceptible to loss of native habitat. The
commenter asserts that this is one reason why we should not list A. m.
cyanoptera as endangered.
Our Response: The fact that scarlet macaws consume nonnative
species does not change our determination that A. m. cyanoptera is in
danger of extinction because of the extent of the decline in the range
and numbers of Ara macao cyanoptera due to ongoing habitat destruction
and degradation, poaching for the pet trade, the lack of enforcement of
existing regulatory mechanisms addressing these threats, and the small
population sizes that work in combination with the other threats.
Comment (15): A few commenters stated that threats to A. m.
cyanoptera have been reduced over the past decade due to ongoing
conservation efforts. The commenters also assert that our description
of ``extreme fragmentation of habitat and population'' is an
overstatement and habitat loss and fragmentation do not threaten the
survival of A. m. cyanoptera. They claim scarlet macaws can fly dozens
to hundreds of kilometers in a day and generally overcome fragmentation
of populations; scarlet macaws use small
[[Page 6283]]
protected areas with sufficient large trees; and large areas of
undisturbed habitat exist in Northern Central America. Thus, A. m.
cyanoptera should not be listed as endangered.
Our Response: Reintroduction programs to introduce captive-bred
scarlet macaws into wild populations have proven successful, especially
within the range of A. m. cyanoptera (see ``Reintroduction of Scarlet
Macaws,'' below). Information provided by a peer reviewer of the
revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016) indicates that the
scarlet macaw is likely increasing in numbers in the border region on
the Caribbean slope of southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa
Rica, as well as showing an ability to inhabit human-disturbed
habitats. However, destruction of forest habitat is one of the main
causes of the decline of the scarlet macaw in Mesoamerica
(Comisi[oacute]n Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la
Biodiversidad (CONABIO) 2011, p. 5; Lezama 2011, pers. comm.; McGinley
et al. 2009, p. 11; Garcia et al. 2008, p. 50; Hansen and Florez 2008,
pp. 48-50; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Collar 1997, p. 421; Forshaw
1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, pp. 251-253). The remaining forest is
fragmented and includes few large tracts of forest habitat (Bray 2010,
pp. 92-93; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101).
Although deforestation rates have declined in Mesoamerica since 1990,
they are still very high (FAO 2010a, pp. 232-233; Kaimowitz 2008, p.
487). Deforestation is occurring in many areas within the range of A.
m. cyanoptera, including, but not limited to, in Chiapas, Mexico,
western Pet[eacute]n in Guatemala; in the Mosquitia region in eastern
Honduras and Nicaragua; and southeastern Nicaragua (Kaimowitz 2008, p.
487; Fagan et al. 2013, unpaginated; Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p.
63; Chassot and Monge-Arias 2011, p. 1; Chassot et al. 2009, p. 9).
Therefore, as discussed in our July 6, 2012, and April 7, 2016,
proposed rules, and reaffirmed herein, the low numbers of individuals
of this subspecies, fragmentation of its habitat and population, and
the substantial threats of habitat loss and poaching acting on this
subspecies throughout its range place it in danger of extinction at
this time.
Comment (16): One commenter disagrees with our determination that
disease could be introduced through reintroduction programs that may
affect wild populations of scarlet macaws. The commenter stated that
disease does not pose a risk to wild populations, especially in
northern Central America, and cited Boyd and McNab 2008.
Our Response: We are not aware of any information indicating that
disease poses a significant threat to the species, especially in
northern Central America. The risk of introducing diseases into wild
populations increases when a large number of birds are introduced
annually, but this is cost-prohibitive and unlikely (Boyd and McNab
2008, p. vii). Generally speaking, disease risk is small because the
probable frequency of occurrence is low (Clum 2008, p. 79). As long as
adequate disease testing is performed, and there are existing protocols
for minimizing the threat of introducing exogenous diseases (i.e.,
diseases that originate outside of the organism) into wild populations,
the birds for release could come from multiple suitable sources (Boyd
and McNab 2008, p. vii, Boyd et al. 2008, p. 112).
Comment (17): Some commenters disagreed with proposing a 4(d) rule
that would allow the import and export of captive-bred scarlet macaws
and interstate commerce without a permit.
Our Response: The Act does not prohibit these activities for
threatened species. However, under 4(d), we may extend some or all of
the prohibitions of 9(a)(1) to threatened species and are exercising
our authority to do so here. We assessed the conservation needs of the
scarlet macaw in light of the broad protections provided to the species
under CITES and the WBCA. The best available data indicate that the
current threat of trade to the scarlet macaw stems mainly from illegal
trade in the domestic markets of Central and South America (Weston and
Memon 2009, pp. 77-80; Shanee 2012, pp. 4-9). Accordingly, we find that
adopting the import and export prohibitions of 9(a)(1), which extend
only to the jurisdiction of the United States, would not regulate such
activity and is not likely to impact the species status. Additionally,
because interstate commerce within the United States has not been found
to threaten the scarlet macaw or affect efforts at recovery of wild
populations, and international trade of this species is regulated under
CITES, we do not find it necessary to regulate such activity for this
species. Therefore, we find the 4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions
and authorizations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
species.
Comment (18): One commenter asserts that the Service's statement
that northwest Colombia has large tracts of forest suitable for
supporting a presently unknown scarlet macaw population and could
contribute to the resiliency and redundancy of the DPS is both
speculative, because it is unknown if scarlet macaws presently exist
there, and is undercut by the finding that deforestation is ongoing and
expected to continue in this area.
Our Response: The scarlet macaw was reported to occur in relatively
small areas outside the Amazon, including west of the Andes in
northwest Colombia (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200). The best available
information indicates that the population in northwest Colombia faces
significant ongoing threats and may be potentially extirpated from this
region (Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010,
p. 60). However, although no current population estimates are
available, this region is reported to have large tracts of forest
suitable for supporting scarlet macaws (Ortega and Lagos 2011, p. 82;
Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21). While the commenter did not provide any
additional information to their concern, the information that this
region is reported to have large tracts of suitable habitat was not a
focus of our status determination regarding the status of the
population of A. m. macao.
Comment (19): A few commenters provided new information concerning
reintroduction efforts in the native range of A. m. cyanoptera and the
northern DPS of A. m. macao. These commenters encouraged us to
incorporate information about reintroduction programs into our final
rule. The commenters claimed that positive information, such as
captive-breeding and release programs that are occurring throughout the
species' range, are discounted compared to negative information, such
as threats, on population status. They encouraged the Service to
equally consider information for and against endangerment, including
the potential uses of captive birds in conservation.
Our Response: Captive-bred birds released back into their native
ranges and nearby existing populations have the potential to increase
the overall population in the wild and contribute to the long-term
conservation of the species, although the success of reintroduced
scarlet macaws partly depends on the methods used to raise and release
captive-bred birds into the wild. We have incorporated this information
in our analysis and included a description of the reintroduction
efforts for A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao in their respective
ranges. See ``Reintroduction of Scarlet Macaws,'' below.
Comment (20): One commenter claims that listing of the southern DPS
of A. m. macao based on similarity of appearance alone is not warranted
in
[[Page 6284]]
the absence of any potential threat to wild populations. The movement
of the southern DPS of A. m. macao would be subjected to extensive
permitting and reviews under CITES and the WBCA, so listing it under
the Act would provide little extra protection.
Our Response: During the public comment period for the proposed
rule (77 FR 40222; July 6, 2012), we received additional information
supporting a similarity of appearance listing for the southern DPS of
A. m. macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses between A. m.
cyanoptera and A. m. macao, which we incorporated into the revised
proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016) and carry forward in this
final rule. Because it can be difficult to visually differentiate
between the two subspecies and this difficulty is an additional threat
for the northern DPS of A. m. macao, we determined that treating the
southern DPS of A. m. macao under the Act's section 4(e) similarity of
appearance provisions will substantially facilitate law enforcement
actions to protect and conserve scarlet macaws. Extending the
protections of the Act to the similar entities through this listing of
those entities due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of
the Act and providing applicable prohibitions and exceptions in a rule
issued under section 4(d) of the Act will provide greater protection to
A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. m. macao. For these
reasons, we are treating the southern DPS of A. m. macao as threatened
due to the similarity of appearance to the northern DPS of A. m. macao,
pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act. Furthermore, simply being
protected by CITES and the WBCA does not preclude the need to list and
provide additional protections under the Act. Listing under the Act
helps ensure that the United States and its citizens do not contribute
to the further decline of the species.
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)).
We summarize below the information on which we based our final
determination and evaluation of the five factors provided in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. We are also adopting a rule authorized under
section 4(d) of the Act for the scarlet macaw to further its
conservation. We find this rule contains the prohibitions and
authorizations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
scarlet macaw.
Species Information
Species Description
The scarlet macaw (Ara macao) is one of several large neotropical
parrot species commonly referred to as macaws. They measure 84-89
centimeters (33-35 inches) in length, weigh 900-1490 grams (2.0-3.3
pounds), and are one of the larger macaws (Collar 1997, p. 421).
Scarlet macaws are brilliantly colored and predominantly scarlet red;
most of the head, body, tail, and underside of the wings are red. Color
on the upper side of the wing appears generally as bands of red,
yellow, and blue, with varying amounts of green occurring between the
yellow and blue band. Lower back, rump, and tail coverts (upper tail
feathers) are blue. The species has large white, mostly bare facial
patches on either side of its bill. The upper bill is a light, whitish
color, whereas the lower bill is black. The sexes are similar, and
immature birds are similar to adults, except immature birds have
shorter tails (Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 100; Forshaw
1989, pp. 404, 406).
Taxonomy
The scarlet macaw was first described in 1758, by Linnaeus (Collar
1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 99). In 1994, the subspecies Ara
macao cyanoptera, was separated from the originally described taxon (or
nominate form), A. m. macao (Wiedenfeld 1994, entire). Ara macao
cyanoptera occurs from southern Mexico south to central Nicaragua.
Birds from southern Nicaragua to northern Costa Rica represent a zone
of intergradation between the two forms; the nominate form (A. m.
macao) occurs from this zone southward through the South American range
of the species (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 100-101). Ara macao cyanoptera is
different from A. m. macao in size and wing color; A. m. cyanoptera is
larger than A. m. macao, with significantly longer wing lengths; and
the yellow wing coverts that are tipped in blue have no green band
separating the yellow and blue as in A. m. macao.
The subspecies classification described by Wiedenfeld (1994,
entire) is used in the scientific community and the subspecies are
recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) as
valid taxa (ITIS 2011, unpaginated). The subspecies classification is
supported by genetic analyses (Schmidt 2011, pers. comm.; Schmidt and
Amato 2008, pp. 135-137).
Schmidt (2013) represents the only spatial analysis of scarlet
macaw genetic variation across the historical range of the species, and
we consider this study to be the best available information on the
range of the two subspecies. Therefore, the mainland Central America
boundary between A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao is the central
mountain range of Costa Rica, with A. m. cyanoptera found on the
Caribbean (eastern) slope of the country and A. m. macao on the Pacific
(western) slope. Additionally, scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba are likely
to be the subspecies A. m. cyanoptera. Consequently, we consider
scarlet macaws in Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Caribbean
slope of Costa Rica, and Isla Coiba in Panama to be A. m. cyanoptera.
We consider birds on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica and southward
through the remainder of the species' range in South America to be A.
m. macao (see Figure 1, below).
The data also show genetic differentiation between A. m. macao that
occur on either side of the Andes in South America, indicating two
populations: One consisting of birds west of the Andes in northwest
Colombia, mainland Panama, and Pacific slope of Costa Rica; and the
other population consisting of birds east and south of the Andes and
throughout the species' South American range (Schmidt 2011, pers.
comm.).
Range
The range of the scarlet macaw is the broadest of all the macaw
species (Ridgely 1981, p. 250). Extending from Mexico southward to
central Bolivia and Brazil, it covers an estimated 7,030,975-10,200,000
square kilometers (km\2\) (2,714,675-3,938,242 square miles (mi\2\))
(BirdLife International (BLI) 2018, unpaginated; Vale 2007, p. 112).
The majority (83 percent) of the species' range lies within the Amazon
Biome of South America (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; BLI 2011b, unpaginated;
BLI 2011c, unpaginated).
Historically, the range of the scarlet macaw included the southern
portion of the Mexico state of Tamaulipas
[[Page 6285]]
southward through the states of Veracruz, Oaxaca, Tabasco, Chiapas, and
Campeche; all of Belize; the Pacific and Caribbean slopes of Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica; the Pacific slope of
Panama and Costa Rica; the Magdalena Valley in Colombia; and that part
of South America within Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Suriname,
Guyana, French Guiana, and Bolivia and Brazil as far south as Santa
Cruz and northern Mato Grosso, respectively (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 100-
101; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, p. 250; I[ntilde]igo-Elias
2010, p. 8). Some authors report the native range of the species to
include Trinidad and Tobago (BLI 2011d, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p.
406). However, the historical record consists of only two questionable
site records of the species in Trinidad and Tobago (Forshaw 1989, p.
407; French 1973, p. 76). The species may occur in that country as a
very occasional vagrant or an escapee from captivity (Forshaw 1989, p.
407).
The scarlet macaw's range in Mesoamerica (Mexico and Central
America) has been reduced and fragmented over the past several decades
primarily as a result of habitat destruction and harvesting the species
for the pet trade (Vaughan et al. 2003, pp. 2-3; Collar 1997, p. 421;
Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150). It has been
extirpated from almost all of its former range in Mexico, all of its
former range in El Salvador, and much of its former range throughout
Central America.
Currently, in Mesoamerica, the A. m. cyanoptera occurs in the Maya
Forest region of eastern Chiapas, in Mexico, western Pet[eacute]n, in
northern Guatemala, and Chiquibil, in southwest Belize; in the
Mosquitia region of eastern Honduras and Nicaragua; in the border
region of southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa Rica near the
Rio San Juan (San Juan River); the A. m. macao occurs in Palo Verde in
northwestern Costa Rica; Carara National Park and surrounding area, in
west-central Costa Rica; the Osa Peninsula and surrounding area, Costa
Rica; and in western border region of Panama and Costa Rica in the
Chiriqu[iacute] province and on the southern end of the Azuero
Peninsula and Isla Coiba, Panama. In South America, the A. m. macao
occurs in small areas outside the Amazon west of the Andes in northwest
Colombia and in parts of several northern Venezuelan states. Within the
Amazon, the scarlet macaw still occurs over much of its historical
range (see Figure 1, below).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26FE19.015
Distribution and Abundance
Using 1992 estimates from Honduras, and extrapolating from these
estimates, the total number of scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica is
approximately 5,000 birds, consisting of 4,000 A. m. cyanoptera
(occurring from southern Mexico to Nicaragua and Isla Coiba, Panama),
and 1,000 A. m. macao (northern DPS and occurring in Costa Rica and
mainland Panama) (Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 102). More recently, the current
population of A. m. cyanoptera was estimated to be fewer than 1,000
birds (McNab 2009, p. 1). The known populations of scarlet macaw in
their range countries are described below (see Table 1). All the
[[Page 6286]]
population estimates are of birds, except Mexico, in which breeding
pairs were estimated.
Table 1--Scarlet Macaw Populations Throughout Its Range
[Estimates are individuals unless otherwise stated]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population range country Population name Population estimates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ara macao cyanoptera:
Southeast Mexico........ upper Rio Uxpanapa ~50; < 200 breeding
region; Usamacinto pairs.
Watershed--Eastern
Chiapas, Mexico,
Lacand[oacute]n
Forest.
Guatemala............... Northern 150-250.
Pet[eacute]n.
Belize.................. Chiquibul........... 60-219.
Eastern Honduras, Mosquitia Region.... Honduras: 1,000-
Northeastern Nicaragua. 1,500; Nicaragua:
<100-700.
Southeast Nicaragua Rio San Juan (San possibly >200.
Border and Northeast Juan-La Selva/San
Costa Rica. Juan-El Castillo).
Isla Coiba, Panama...... Isla Coiba.......... 100-200.
---------------------
Total A. m. .................... 2,000-3,000.
cyanoptera.
Ara macao macao Northern
DPS:
Cerro Hoya National Park Mainland Panama..... <25.
Costa Rica.............. Central Pacific ~450.
Conservation Area
(ACOPAC).
Costa Rica.............. Osa Conservation 800-1,200; up to
Area (ACOSA). 2,000.
Northwest Colombia...... Northwest Colombia.. unknown.
---------------------
Total A. m. macao .................... 1,000-2,000.
Northern DPS.
---------------------
Total .................... 3,000-5,000.
Mesoamerica.
Ara macao macao Southern
DPS:
Amazon, south and east Amazon.............. 15,000-45,000.
of the Andes Mountains
(Colombia, Ecuador,
Peru, Venezuela,
Suriname, Guyana,
French Guiana, and
Bolivia and Brazil).
---------------------
Total Ara macao..... .................... ~20,000-50,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mesoamerica
Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize (Maya Forest) (A. m. cyanoptera)
Described as previously abundant in Mexico (CONABIO 20l1, p. 2) and
numbering in the many thousands (Patten et al. 2010, p. 30), the A. m.
cyanoptera is now reported to occur in only two small populations in
Mexico. One population occurs in the upper Rio Uxpanapa region near San
Francisco La Paz in Oaxaca (Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 16-17). Citing
several sources, Inigo-Elias (2010, unpaginated) and McReynolds (2011,
in litt., unpaginated) indicate that the upper Uxpanapa River
population consists of possibly 50 scarlet macaws. It is possible that
the species may occur seasonally in this area (Peterson et al. 2003, p.
232). The second population that occurs in Mexico is along the southern
Mexico and Guatemala border area of eastern Chiapas, and is discussed
below.
Within the tri-national region of southern Mexico, northern
Guatemala, and Belize, the species occurs in three small populations or
subpopulations: (1) In the Usamacinto watershed in eastern Chiapis,
Mexico, located in the Lacandon forest that is within the Maya Forest,
which is the largest remaining expanse of tropical rainforest in the
Americas (The Nature Conservancy 2018, unpaginated), and includes the
Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve (approximately 3,000 km\2\ (1,158
mi\2\), several smaller protected areas, and the municipality of Maques
de Commillas (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) 2012a, unpaginated; McReynolds 2011, in litt.;
Enriquez et al. 2009, p. 13; Castillo-Santiago et al. 2007, pp. 1215,
1217; Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 16-17, 23); (2) in the western Department
of Pet[eacute]n in northern Guatemala, primarily in the Maya Biosphere
Reserve (MBR) (Garcia et al. 2008, pp. 49-64; McNab 2009, p. 1); and
(3) in southwest Belize, where it is known to breed only in the
Chiquibul region, which includes Chiquibul National Park and other
protected areas (Salas and Meerman 2008, p. 42).
Based on field studies conducted from 1989 to 1993, it was
estimated that probably fewer than 200 breeding pairs exist within
Mexico's Usamacinto watershed (I[ntilde]igo-Elias 1996, pp. 96-97). In
Guatemala, the population is estimated at 150 to 250 birds (McNab 2008,
p. 7; Wildlife Conservation Society Guatemala 2005, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt., unpaginated; McNab 2009, p. 1). Estimates from Belize vary
from 60 to 219 individuals, but based on field observations in 2009,
the current Belize population is estimated at 200 individuals
(McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated). However, the total population
in the tri-national Maya region (Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize), based
on habitat modeling and current threats, was estimated to be 399
individuals--137 in Mexico, 159 in Guatemala, and 103 in Belize (Garcia
et al. 2008, pp. 52-53).
Populations in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize are described as not
being completely isolated from one another. It is likely that the
population in western Pet[eacute]n, Guatemala, and the population in
southeastern Mexico are connected because there is continuous habitat
and the birds from Guatemala, when they disperse in the non-breeding
season, are known to go to the west of their breeding grounds
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt. p. 8). In a radio telemetry study, a
fledgling radio-tagged in Guatemala flew 130 km (81 mi) to Mexico in
one day (McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated). In addition, studies
provide evidence of gene flow between nest sites in Guatemala and
Belize, and
[[Page 6287]]
high levels of genetic diversity in the tri-national region (Schmidt
and Amato 2008, p. 137). However, the Belize population may be more
isolated from the Guatemala and Mexico populations because the area
between these populations is well covered by eBird observers and no
scarlet macaws have been seen even though there is high-quality habitat
(Brightsmith in litt. 2016, unpaginated).
Honduras (A. m. cyanoptera)
The scarlet macaw was widespread in Honduras, occurring in the arid
lowlands of the Pacific slope and the interior below 1,100 m (3,609
ft), as well as in the Caribbean lowland rainforest (Monroe 1968, p.
139). The scarlet macaw may have had a distribution over 60 percent of
the national territory at the end of the 19th century (Monroe 1968, p.
139; Portillo Reyes et al. 2010, p. 69). Currently, the scarlet macaw
is restricted to the Mosquitia region, which is a region of extensive
forest straddling the southeastern Honduras-northeastern Nicaragua
border (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 101-102; Portillo Reyes 2005, p. 71). This
region includes several thousand square kilometers in protected areas,
such as the Pl[aacute]tano Biosphere Reserve (5,000 km\2\ (1,931
mi\2\)) Reserva de la Biosfera Tawahka (Tawahka Biosphere Reservation)
(2,500 km\2\ (965 mi\2\)), the Parque Nacional Patuca (Patuca National
Park) (3,755 km2 (1,450 mi2)) in Honduras, and the Bosaw[aacute]s
Biosphere Reserve (21,815 km\2\ (8,423 mi\2\)) in neighboring Nicaragua
(UNESCO 2012b, unpaginated; UNESCO 2012c, unpaginated; Vallely et al.
2010, p. 52).
The total population of Honduras was estimated at 1,000 to 1,500
birds in 1992, reportedly occurring in the Col[oacute]n area and
provinces of Olancho and Gracias a Dios that are in the Mosquitia
region of Honduras (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 101-102). An estimate of
scarlet macaws in the Rus Rus area of the Honduran Mosquitia (Rus Rus
is in the province of Gracias a Dios) was 1,000 to 1,500 birds
(McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated). However, this estimate was
based on the assumption that all the chicks reported as poached by
Portillo Reyes et al. (2004, in McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated)
would fledge and assumed a 20 percent reproductive success rate. There
are no population estimates for the R[iacute]o Patuca and R[iacute]o
Pl[aacute]tano areas, though there have been flocks as large as eight
counted on the R[iacute]o Pl[aacute]tano (Gallardo 2002, in McReynolds
2011, in litt., unpaginated). The most recent information indicates
that loss of habitat and demand for the pet trade pose a substantial
threat for the species in this region (Portillo Reyes 2005, in Portillo
Reyes et al. 2010, p. 6; Brightsmith in litt. 2016, p. 8).
Nicaragua (A. m. cyanoptera)
Scarlet macaws in eastern Nicaragua along the Caribbean slope were
estimated to be 1,500 to 2,500 birds in 1995 (Wiedenfeld 1995, in
Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150). However, the species was not detected
during either of two national surveys of parrots conducted in 1999 and
2004 (Lezama et al. 2004, p. 102; McReynolds 2011, in litt.,
unpaginated). Some estimates predict up to 700 birds in this region of
Nicaragua; groups of 30 to 40 scarlet macaws are frequently reported in
the R[iacute]o Coco area (Lezama 2011, pers. comm., in McReynolds 2011,
in litt., unpaginated), which forms the border with Honduras. Others
consider the number in eastern Nicaragua to be fewer than 100 birds
(Feria and de los Monteros 2007, in McReynolds 2011, in litt.,
unpaginated)). The only scarlet macaws on the Pacific slope of
Nicaragua are confined to Cosig[uuml]ina Volc[aacute]n Nature Preserve,
with approximately 20 to 50 birds (Bjork 2008, p. 15; Lezama 2011,
pers. comm., in McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
Costa Rica (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao)
Scarlet macaws (A. m. cyanoptera) occur in southeastern Nicaragua
and northeastern Costa Rica on both sides of the border. This region
consists of the El Castillo-San Juan-La Selva Biological Corridor that
is located on both sides of the R[iacute]o San Juan (San Juan River)
(Monge et al. 2012, p. 6), which separates Nicaragua and Costa Rica. In
2004, several groups of scarlet macaws were reported in the R[iacute]o
San Carlos area close to the border with Nicaragua, in what is now
designated as Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de
Vida Silvestre mixto Maquenque), which also abuts the Indio Ma[iacute]z
Biological Reserve in Nicaragua (Chassot and Monge-Arias 2004, pp. 12-
13; Chassot 2011, pers. comm.). Multiple scarlet macaws were observed
flying from Nicaragua over the R[iacute]o San Juan into Costa Rica
(Chassot and Monge-Arias 2004, pp. 12-13).
Evidence of scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica obtained during
several years of research on great green macaws (Ara ambiguus)
indicates that scarlet macaws in this region are increasing (Chassot
and Monge-Arias 2004, pp. 12-13; Brightsmith 2012, in litt.,
unpaginated). During the 2009 scarlet macaw breeding season, an
intensive search for scarlet macaw nests was conducted on both sides of
the R[iacute]o San Juan as part of a larger study to quantify and
characterize nests of both scarlet and great green macaws (Monge et al.
2012, entire). They found six scarlet macaw nests (five in Costa Rica,
one in Nicaragua). The scarlet macaw has recently expanded its range
southward to La Selva Biological Station, which is approximately 35-40
km (15-18 miles) south of the R[iacute]o San Juan, and sightings of
scarlet macaws have increased in the region (Brightsmith 2016, in
litt., p. 5; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated). Scarlet macaws were
absent from this station since it was established in the 1960s, but
they have been observed breeding on adjacent land since the mid-2000s
(Brightsmith 2012, in litt., unpaginated). Approximately 50 scarlet
macaws occur in Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Costa
Rica (Penard et al. 2008, in McReynolds 2011 in litt., unpaginated).
There are no density estimates of scarlet macaws from this area, but
based on the density reported for great green macaws (0.07 birds per
km\2\) in an area of 3,000 km\2\ (1,158 mi\2\), there could be more
than 200 scarlet macaws in northeastern Costa Rica (Brightsmith in
litt. 2016, p. 6; Brightsmith 2012, in litt., unpaginated).
Scarlet macaws were described as having previously occurred in
tropical wet and dry forests throughout most of Costa Rica (Vaughan et
al. 1991, abstract), while Ridgely (1981, p. 252) describes the species
as having always occurred primarily on the Pacific slope of the
country. Aside from the birds in northeastern Costa Rica, the scarlet
macaw (A. m. macao) occurs in two viable populations on the Pacific
slope: In the ACOPAC in the region of Carara National Park, which
contains approximately 450 birds (Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds
2011, in litt.); and in Costa Rica's Osa Conservation Area (ACOSA) in
the region of Corcovado National Park and the Osa Peninsula, which
contains between 800 and 1,200, but possibly up to 2,000 birds (Dear et
al. 2005 and Guzman 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in litt.). However, based
on plausible regional estimates, the population for the entire country
is approximately 1,800 birds (McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
By all indications, the scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) has been
expanding from the traditional stronghold in and around Carara National
Park (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11). Since 2013, scarlet macaws in
groups of up to 30, along with pairs during the height of the breeding
season, were observed hundreds of times down the coast and
approximately 70 km (43 mi) south of
[[Page 6288]]
the point where the census is usually conducted. In addition, scarlet
macaws from the areas immediately to the northwest of Carara have been
reported. Scarlet macaws may frequently pass through these areas but
may not be present continuously or at high densities (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt., p. 12). The nearest areas with repeated sightings of the
species are Ensenada Lodge at 60 km (37 mi) north of the census
location for Carara; 40 km (25 mi) from the small population of 14-25
birds in Palo Verde (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 12; Dear et al.
2010, p. 8); and 60 km (37 mi) from the core of the ACOPAC population.
This site has 16 sightings, with 13 since 2012, and group sizes have
been small (1 to 4). But it is unclear what the source of these birds
may be; they could be escaped or released birds, or could be natural
dispersers from either the Palo Verde or ACOPAC populations
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 14). Because there have been scattered
sightings of scarlet macaws from Palo Verde National Park south to
Carara National Park and throughout western Guanacaste, the birds near
Palo Verde are no longer considered completely isolated (Brightsmith
2016, in litt., p. 14). However, evidence to support successful
expansion and establishment to the north is weak (Brightsmith 2016, in
litt., p. 13).
The ACOSA population is simultaneously expanding up the coast from
the south, so sightings of scarlet macaws between the ACOPAC and ACOSA
may represent individuals from either of the populations. In fact,
birds were reported to occur in a 50-km (31-mi) area, which is the
midpoint between the two populations (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p.
11). Moreover, 85 percent of residents interviewed in 2005 believed
scarlet macaws were more abundant than 5 years prior, suggesting this
population may be increasing (Dear et al. 2010, p. 10). However, it is
difficult to distinguish between expansion of the ACOPAC population to
the south and the expansion of the ACOSA population to the north
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11).
Panama (A. m. macao)
The scarlet macaw was once described as almost extinct on the
mainland of Panama, but abundant and occurring in substantial numbers
on Isla Coiba, which once was a penal colony where settlement and most
hunting was prohibited (Ridgely 1981, p. 253). More recent information
on distribution and abundance in the country indicates that mainland
Panama has very few scarlet macaws (McReynolds 2011, in litt.,
unpaginated). In 1998, there were sporadic sightings of scarlet macaws
in the western border region of Panama and Costa Rica, in the area of
the upper R[iacute]o Corotu (or R[iacute]o Bartolo Arriba) near Puerto
Armuelles in the Chiriqu[iacute] province (Burica Press 2007,
unpaginated; McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated). A few (fewer than
10) scarlet macaws were observed in 2015, in northwestern Panama, near
Querevalo and also in the Chiriqu[iacute] province (Brightsmith in
litt. 2016, p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated), but it is
uncertain if these birds were wild or escaped captively-raised birds
dispersing south from a reintroduction program at Tiskita, Costa Rica
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 17) (see ``Reintroduction of Scarlet
Macaws,'' below). Additionally, there is a small, but unknown, number
on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro
Hoya National Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated;
Rodriguez and Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2011, in litt.,
unpaginated). The current population of scarlet macaws in Panama is
likely less than 200, with the vast majority of the population
occurring on Isla Coiba (Keller and Schmitt 2008, in Brightsmith 2012,
in litt. and McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
South America (A. m. macao)
Within South America, the scarlet macaw occurs primarily in the
Amazon Biome, which overlaps eastern Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana,
Suriname, French Guyana, northeast Ecuador, eastern Peru, northern
Bolivia, and most of Brazil (collectively referred to as the Amazon in
this document) (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; I[ntilde]igo-Elias 2010,
unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Collar 1997, p. 421;
Forshaw 1989, pp. 406-407). The Amazon comprises approximately 83
percent of the species' entire range (BLI 2011c, unpaginated). The
scarlet macaw is also reported to occur in relatively small areas
outside the Amazon, including west of the Andes in northwest Colombia
(Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200) and in parts of several northern
Venezuelan states (Hilty 2003, p. 327).
We are aware of little recent information on local (country,
region) populations within South America. The only local population
estimate we are aware of includes the Tambopata Province of Peru (Lloyd
2004, p. 270). Using density estimates calculated from field counts in
different forest types, and area of forest cover presented in Kratter
(1995, in Lloyd 2004, p. 269), the Tambopata population was calculated
to number from 4,734-24,332 individuals. The population of scarlet
macaws in Peru is adjacent to large populations in adjacent Ecuador,
Brazil, Bolivia, and Colombia (Brightsmith 2009, in litt.,
unpaginated). Therefore, the total individuals could represent scarlet
macaws from more than just Peru.
The remaining information on the species' populations in South
America is qualitative. In Colombia, the species is believed to occur
west of the Andes in the Magdalena Valley and in gallery forest and
partially cleared rainforest where large trees have been left (Hilty
and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p. 407); their presence may be
the result of seasonal movements for food resources (Juniper and Parr
1998, p. 425). The species is also common east of the Andes and in the
Orinoco and Amazon Basins in Colombia, but there are no current
population estimates (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; I[ntilde]igo-Elias
2010, unpaginated). In Venezuela, the species is becoming rare with
patchy distribution in the states of Bol[iacute]var, Monagas, Apure,
and Amazonas (I[ntilde]igo-Elias 2010, unpaginated; Meyer de Schauensee
and Phelps, Jr. 1978, p. 99; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425); there are
no current population estimates. The species has been described as
occurring widely throughout the Amazon basin of Brazil, eastern
Ecuador, and eastern Peru (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425). However,
more recently it was described as uncommon, locally extirpated in
areas, and declining in eastern Peru (Inigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated).
Citing several published works from the 1970s and 1980s, scarlet macaws
were described as locally extirpated from areas with a history of
ornithological study in northeastern Ecuador and northeastern Bolivia
(Forshaw 1989, p. 407), although it has also been described as
occurring in northern and eastern Bolivia in Santa Cruz (Juniper and
Parr 1998, p. 425). Other authors reported that in recent decades
scarlet macaws have rapidly declined in the lowland Ecuadorian Amazon
in Ecuador (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, in Karubian et al. 2005, p.
618). The scarlet macaw occurs widely in the Guianas, which includes
Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425),
although the species may be uncommon in the vicinity of settlements
(Forshaw 1989, p. 407). In Suriname, scarlet macaws are common in the
interior rainforest but seldom seen in the coastal area and are rare in
the eastern part of the country (Spaans et al. 2018, unpaginated).
Other sources indicate
[[Page 6289]]
that the species is found along tropical riparian evergreen forests in
western and central Suriname (Haverschmidt and Mees 1994, in
I[ntilde]igo-Elias 2010, unpaginated). In Brazil, the species is widely
distributed throughout the Amazon, but there are no current population
estimates (I[ntilde]igo-Elias 2010, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998,
p. 425).
Overall, the scarlet macaw is generally considered common and
widespread over much of its range in the Amazon (Hilty 2003, p. 327;
Angehr et al. 2001, p. 161; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Collar 1997,
p. 421; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Ridgely
1981, p. 251). Using the estimate of 20,000-50,000 birds for the total
population, and the estimate of 5,000 birds in Mesoamerica, the South
American population of the scarlet macaw can be very roughly estimated
to be 15,000-45,000 birds.
Essential Needs of the Species
Habitat
The scarlet macaw inhabits various habitat types throughout its
range, including tropical humid evergreen forest, deciduous and humid
forest, intact and partially cleared lowland rain forest, mixed pine
and broad-leaved woodlands, open areas and edges with scattered stands
of tall trees, gallery forest, mangroves, and savannas, with many of
the areas that scarlet macaw inhabit near rivers (Juniper and Parr
1998, p. 425; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Forshaw 1989, p. 407; Meyer de
Schauensee and Phelps, Jr. 1978, p. 99). The species generally occurs
from sea level to about 500 meters (m) (1,640 feet (ft)) elevation, but
has been reported ranging up to 1,500 m (4,921 ft) in Central America
(Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Vaughan 1983, in Vaughan et al. 2006,
p. 919).
The scarlet macaw is considered somewhat tolerant of degraded or
fragmented habitat (BLI 2011c, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406;
Brightsmith in litt. 2016, pp. 4-7). If not hunted or captured for the
pet trade, they can survive in human-modified landscapes provided
sufficient large trees remain for nesting and feeding requirements (BLI
2011c, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, p. 251).
Landscapes may include a combination of agricultural land, pastureland,
timber harvesting areas, and remnant forest patches (Vaughn et al.
2006, p. 920; Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 120; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 7);
partially cleared forest where large trees have been left standing
(Forshaw 89, p. 407); pastureland with scattered woodlots or remnant
patches of rainforest (Vaughn et al. 2009, p. 396; Forshaw 89, p. 407);
and areas of human settlement (towns) (Guittar et al. 2009, p. 390).
However, the species occurs at lower densities in disturbed or
secondary (recovering) forest habitat than in primary (undisturbed)
forest (Cowen 2009, pp. 11-15; Karubian et al. 2005, pp. 622-623; Lloyd
2004, pp. 269, 272).
Diet and Foraging
Scarlet macaws, like most parrots, feed primarily in the canopy
(Vaughan et al. 2006, p. 920; Renton 2006, p. 282; Lee 2010, p. 20) and
display a wide dietary breadth. They have been reported to consume up
to 52 plant species in the Amazon of Peru (Gilardi 1996, in Matuzak et
al. 2008, p. 361) and up to 43 different plant species in Costa Rica
(Vaughan et al. 2006, p. 920; Matuzak et al. 2008, p. 355). Fruits and
seeds comprise the majority of a scarlet macaw's diet, but they also
consume, to a lesser degree, fruit pulp, flowers, leaves, bark, lichen,
and bromeliads (Lee 2010, pp. 153-160; Matuzak et al. 2008, p. 355;
Renton 2006, p. 281; Vaughan et al. 2006, pp. 920, 924; Marineros and
Vaughan 1995, pp. 451-452; Nycander et al. 1995, p. 424).
Plant species consumed by scarlet macaws are both seasonal and
available year round (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 24). Changes in local
abundance patterns of parrots can be triggered by seasonal availability
of food resources within habitat mosaics (Renton 2002, p. 17; Haugaasen
and Peres 2007, p. 4179). Fluctuations in food abundance are likely to
result in seasonal movements of scarlet macaws to areas with greater
food availability (Karubian et al. 2005, p. 624; Haugaasen and Peres
2007, pp. 4179-4180; Renton 2002, pp. 17-18; Juniper and Parr 1998, p.
425). Additionally, in some areas of the scarlet macaw's range, they
regularly visit claylicks (naturally forming wall of clay on a
riverbank) where they consume soil or minerals; it is unclear whether
this provides a nutritional or other benefit to the species such as
counteracting toxins in food sources (Brightsmith et al. 2010, entire;
Brightsmith 2004, pp. 136-137; Lee 2010, p. 141).
Nesting and Reproduction
Reproductive biology of large parrots, including the scarlet macaw,
is generally characterized by low rates of reproduction, small clutch
sizes, low survival of nestlings and fledglings, late age to first
reproduction, a large proportion of nonbreeding adults in any given
year, and restrictive nesting requirements (Wright et al. 2001, p. 711;
Collar 1997, pp. 296, 298; Munn 1992, pp. 53-56).
Scarlet macaws are secondary cavity-nesting birds, meaning they do
not create their own cavities but rely upon natural or abandoned
cavities for nesting; their breeding success is dependent upon the
availability and quality of nesting sites. They nest in both live and
dead trees and in a variety of tree species, including, but not limited
to, Ceiba pentandra (kapok tree), Schizolobium parahybum (Brazilian
firetree), Vatairea lundellii (bitter angelim), Caryocar costaricense
(no common name), Acacia glomerosa (white tamarind), Dipteryx micrantha
(Brazilian teak), Iriartea deltoidea (stilt palm), and Erythrina spp.
(coral tree) (Guittar et al. 2009, pp. 389-399; Renton and Brightsmith
2009, pp. 3-4; Brightsmith 2005, p. 297; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 8;
I[ntilde]igo-Elias 1996, p. 57; Marineros and Vaughan 1995, p. 456;
Nycander et al. 1995, p. 431). Due to their large size, scarlet macaws
require large cavities, which are usually found in older trees. The
average height of scarlet macaw nests ranges from about 16 to 24 m
(52.5 to 79 ft) above the ground (Guittar et al. 2009, pp. 389-391;
Anleu et al. 2005, p. 44; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 59; Marineros and Vaughn
1995, p. 455). In addition to cavity size and height parameters,
scarlet macaws appear to select nest sites with a clear understory or
isolated from surrounding vegetation, possibly to reduce predation
rates (Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 93; Brightsmith 2005, p. 302). The species
will also nest in previously used cavities (Renton and Brightsmith
2009, pp. 4-5; Nycander et al. 1995, p. 428), and will readily
investigate and nest in artificial (human-made) cavities when supplied
(Brightsmith 2005, p. 297; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 10; Nycander et al.
1995, pp. 435-436).
Scarlet macaws are frequently observed competing for nest cavities
with other macaws, including other species and other scarlet macaw
pairs (Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 10;
Inigo-Elias 1996, pp.79, 96; Nycander 1995, p. 428). Thus, intense
competition for nest cavities suggests suitable nesting sites may be
limited in some areas (Vaughan et al. 2003, pp. 10-12; Inigo-Elias
1996, p. 92; Nycander et al. 1995, p. 428; Munn 1992, pp. 55-56).
Conservation Status
The scarlet macaw has been included in Appendix I of CITES since
1985 (United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation
Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) 2012, unpaginated). The species is
[[Page 6290]]
currently classified as ``Least Concern'' by the IUCN. In 2011, BLI
proposed reclassifying the scarlet macaw in the IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species from ``Least Concern'' to ``Threatened,'' based on
the area of Amazon habitat projected to be lost to deforestation by
2050 (BLI 2011b, unpaginated; BLI 2011e, unpaginated). However, based
on review and recommendations from regional experts, a current revision
of the proposal recommends the species remain classified as ``Least
Concern'' due to its level of tolerance of degraded and fragmented
habitat (BLI 2011c, unpaginated) and the relatively good status of the
species in the Amazon, which accounts for the majority of the species
range and population.
In Mesoamerica, the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m.
cyanoptera) is considered in danger of extinction in Mexico (Government
of Mexico 2010a, p. 32), Belize (Biodiversity and Environmental
Resource Data System of Belize 2012, unpaginated; Meerman 2005, p. 30),
Costa Rica (Costa Rica Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservacion 2012,
unpaginated), and Panama (Fundaci[oacute]n de Parques Nacionales y
Medio Ambiente 2007, p. 125). This subspecies is also on Guatemala's
Listado de Especies de Fauna Silvestre Amenazadas de Extinci[oacute]n
(Lista Roja de Fauna) (list of species threatened with extinction (red
list of fauna)) (Government of Guatemala 2001, p. 15), Honduras's
Listado Oficial de Especies de Animales Silvestres de
Preocupaci[oacute]n Especial en Honduras (Official List of Species of
Wild Animals of Special Concern in Honduras) (Secretaria de Recursos
Naturales y Ambiente. 2008, p. 62), and Nicaragua's list of species for
which the season of use (e.g., for harvest or capture) is indefinitely
closed (Nicaragua Ministerio del Ambiente y Los Recursos Naturales
2010, entire).
In South America, the subspecies A. m. macao is listed as
vulnerable in Peru (Government of Peru 2004, p. 276855), but a more
recent evaluation of the species categorizes it at the lower threat
level of ``near threatened'' (Brightsmith 2009, in litt., unpaginated).
The species is also categorized as ``near threatened'' in Ecuador
(Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, in Karubian et al. 2005, p. 618) and as
``near threatened'' on Venezuela's red list (Rodriguez and Rojas-Suarez
2008, p. 50). We are unaware of the scarlet macaw having official
conservation status in any other of the species' range countries (e.g.,
Colombia, the Guianas, Brazil, and Bolivia).
Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or
range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence.
In considering what factors may constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to the factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine if it may drive or
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as
those terms are defined by the Act. In 2016, we revised our proposal to
list the northern subspecies of the scarlet macaw (Ara macao
cyanoptera) as an endangered species under the Act, the northern DPS of
the southern subspecies Ara macao macao as a threatened species under
the Act, and the southern DPS of the southern subspecies Ara macao
macao as threatened due to similarity of appearance under the Act (81
FR 20302, April 7, 2016). Please see our analysis of those entities and
the factors affecting their status below.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
One of the two main threats to neotropical parrot species is loss
of forest habitat (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98). Deforestation, which
includes clear-cutting forests to convert them to other land uses such
as agriculture and cattle ranching, as well as forest degradation,
which is the reduction in forest biomass such as through selective
logging or fire, occurs throughout much of the scarlet macaw's range.
The primary cause of forest loss is conversion to agriculture (crop and
pasture), although other land uses such as infrastructure, logging,
fires, oil and gas extraction, and mining also contribute significantly
and to varying degrees in different areas of the species' range (Blaser
et al. 2011, pp. 263, 290, 299, 310, 319, 334, 343-344, 354, 363-364,
375, 393-394; Boucher et al. 2011, entire; Clark and Aide 2011, entire;
FAO 2011a, pp. 17-18; May et al. 2011, pp. 7-13; Pacheco 2011, entire;
Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 38-39; Belize Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 40-45; Armenteras and Morales 2009,
pp. 133-145, 176-191; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Mosandl et al. 2008, pp.
38-40; Nepstad et al. 2008, entire; Foley et al. 2007, pp. 26-27;
Fearnside 2005, pp. 681-683).
The construction of roads are an important driver of deforestation
because they provide access to previously remote areas and allow
further expansion of activities that result in additional areas of
deforestation and degradation (Davidson et al. 2012, p. 323; Lambin and
Meyfroidt 2011, pp. 3468-3469; May et al. 2011, pp. 6, 9-11; Foley
2007, pp. 26-27; Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 520; Fearnside 2005, pp.
681-683; Laurance et al. 2004, entire). Historically, large areas of
forest have been removed throughout Mesoamerica, and the large tracts
of forest that remain, such as the Maya and Lacandon Forests, the
transnational forest in the Mosquitia region, and the major
transnational forest on the Atlantic border of Costa Rica and Panama,
have almost been cut off from each other by deforestation (Bray 2010,
p. 93).
Activities that lead to deforestation and forest degradation pose a
threat to the scarlet macaw because they directly eliminate the
species' tropical forest habitat by removing the trees that support the
species' essential needs for nesting, roosting, and food (see Essential
Needs of the Species, above). Removing large sections of forest habitat
may fragment the landscape and reduce and isolate populations. As the
size of the habitat is reduced, it is less likely to provide the
essential resources for species that require large ranges--such as
scarlet macaws--and small patches of habitat retain far fewer species
and populations than large patches (Ibarra-Macias 2009, p. 6; Lees and
Peres 2006, pp. 203-205). Scarlet macaws use partially cleared and
cultivated landscapes if the landscape provides dietary requirements
and maintains enough large trees. This species is dependent on larger,
older trees that have large nesting cavities. However, scarlet macaws
have a better chance of surviving in large tracts of forest where
suitable cavities are more common than in open and small forest
remnants (Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 91). Selective
[[Page 6291]]
logging can lead to forest degradation because this practice generally
targets older and larger trees, thus decreasing suitable nesting sites,
increasing competition, and causing the loss of current generations
through an increase in infanticide and egg destruction (Lee 2010, pp.
2, 12). Indirectly, clearing or degrading forests often provides people
with easier access to previously inaccessible areas inhabited by
scarlet macaws, which in turn increases the vulnerability of species to
overexploitation by humans (Peres 2001, entire; Putz et al. 2000, pp.
16, 23) (see Factor B discussion, below). Additionally, gaining access
is also often followed by full deforestation and lands cleared for
agricultural use (Kaimowitz and Angelsen 1998, in Putz et al. 2000, p.
16).
Below, we provide a summary of information on deforestation and
forest degradation within the range countries of the A. m. cyanoptera
and northern DPS of A. m. macao.
Mesoamerica
Destruction of forest habitat is one of the main causes of the
decline of the scarlet macaw in Mesoamerica (CONABIO 2011, p. 5; Lezama
2011, pers. comm.; McGinley et al. 2009, p. 11; Garcia et al. 2008, p.
50; Hansen and Florez 2008, pp. 48-50; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150;
Collar 1997, p. 421; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, pp. 251-253).
Habitat destruction is occurring rapidly in many areas within the range
of the scarlet macaw in this region, including in Chiapas, Mexico;
western Pet[eacute]n in Guatemala; eastern Olancho in Honduras; and
eastern Nicaragua (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Hansen et al. 2013, entire).
This region has deforestation rates that are among the highest rates in
the world (Bray 2010, pp. 92-95; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Carr et al.
2006, pp. 10-11; FAO 2015, pp. 9-14); the remaining forest is
fragmented and includes few large tracts of forest habitat (Bray 2010,
pp. 92-93; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101).
Although deforestation rates have declined in Mesoamerica since 1990,
they are still very high (FAO 2010a, pp. 232-233; Kaimowitz 2008, p.
487; FAO 2015, pp. 9-14) and include the loss of significant amounts of
primary forest (FAO 2010a, pp. 55, 259).
Mexico (A. m. cyanoptera)
The main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Mexico
are conversion of forest to pasture and agriculture, and uncontrolled
logging (Government of Mexico 2010b, pp. 22-24; Jimenez-Ferrer et al.
2008, pp. 195-196; Castillo-Santiago et al. 2007, p. 1217; Oglethorpe
et al. 2007, p. 85). From 1990 to 2015, Mexico lost approximately 3.7
million hectares (ha) (9.2 million acres (ac)) of total forest (FAO
2015, p. 12) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below), and had one of the largest
decreases in primary forests worldwide (FAO 2010a, pp. 56, 233),
although the rate slowed toward the latter part of that period (FAO
2015, p. 12).
In southeastern Mexico, the area of land devoted to cattle ranching
has increased dramatically due to the increase of regional meat prices
and a decrease in the economy of staple crop cultivation (Jimenez-
Ferrer et al. 2008, pp. 195-196; Soberanes 2018, unpaginated). Most of
Mexico's remaining scarlet macaws occur in the Lacandon Forest of the
southeastern state of Chiapas. This state encourages cattle ranching
through subsidies, and clearing of forest for pasture in the state is
ongoing (Enriquez et al. 2009, pp. 48-49, 58). In fact, Chiapas had the
second highest rate of deforestation of Mexico's 31 states, with forest
losses averaging approximately 600 km\2\ (232 m\2\) per year (Masek et
al. 2011, p. 10). Within the Lacandon Forest, cattle ranching is the
most profitable activity, and it is extensive in the region (Jimenez-
Ferrer et al. 2008, pp. 195-196). Outside of protected areas in the
Lacandon Forest, the deforestation risk is primarily categorized as
high to very high; inside protected areas the risk of deforestation is
categorized as low to very low (Secretar[iacute]a de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales de M[eacute]xico--SEMARNAT 2011, unpaginated). Monte
Azules Biosphere Reserve is the largest protected area in the Lacandon
Forest, and it has been relatively successful at conserving the
resources within its boundaries (Castillo-Santiago et al. 2007, pp.
1223-1224; Figueroa and Sanchez-Cordero 2008, p. 3231). However,
according to Mexico's Federal Environmental Protection Agency
(Procuradur[iacute]a Federal de Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente
(Profepa)) more than 60 percent of illegal logging in the country
occurs in 32 priority forest regions, including the reserve (Enriquez
et al. 2009, pp. 28, 57). While illegal logging has received more
attention from Mexico's policy makers, efforts to address the problem
have had limited success due to insufficient human and financial
resources to enforce laws, and poorly designed control efforts (Blaser
et al. 2010, p. 346; Enriquez et al. 2009, p. 57; Kaimowitz 2008, p.
491) (see Factor D discussion, below). From 2001 to 2007, Profepa
secured about 0.13 percent of the calculated total of timber illegally
extracted in the country (CCMSS 2007, in Enriquez et al. 2009, p. 57).
We are unaware of information on projected future rates of
deforestation specifically in the Lacandon Forest region, but a loss of
approximately 20,000 km\2\ (7,722 mi\2\) between 2000 and 2015 in the
southeastern States (which include Chiapas) was projected, assuming the
same rate of loss that occurred during the period 1987-2000 (Diaz-
Gallegos et al. 2010, p. 194). By 2030, forest area in Mexico as a
whole is projected to decrease, with anywhere from about 10 to 60
percent of mature forests lost, and up to 54 percent of regrowth
forests lost (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2010, pp. 45,
75).
Mexico implements several forest conservation measures and has made
significant progress in conserving forest within its boundaries (Blaser
et al. 2011, pp. 344-346; Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR) 2010, pp. 34-36; Masek et al. 2011, p. 17; FAO 2010a, p. 233;
Enriquez et al. 2009, pp. 4, 36-41). However, deforestation and forest
degradation continue to be a threat to the subspecies in Mexico because
the clearing of forest for agriculture, cattle ranching, and illegal
logging is ongoing in Chiapas and projected to continue, and illegal
logging is ongoing in the largest reserve in the Lacandon Forest in
conjunction with the high risk of deforestation in protected areas
outside of the forest.
Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and Nicaragua (A. m. cyanoptera)
The countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua have the
highest deforestation rate in Latin America (FAO 2010a, p. 232; FAO
2015, pp. 9-14). Guatemala lost 483 km\2\ (186.5 mi\2\ or 1.2 percent),
Honduras lost 1,418 km\2\ (547.5 mi\2\ or 2.3 percent), and Nicaragua
lost, 560 km\2\ (216 mi\2\ or 1.5 percent) of total forest, per year
between 1990 and 2015 (FAO 2015, pp. 9-14) (see Tables 2a and 2b,
below). Belize has a lower deforestation rate of 100 km\2\ (39 mi\2\ or
0.7 percent) per year (FAO 2015, pp. 9), but deforestation is
increasing in the Chiquibul region, which is the only region scarlet
macaws are known to nest in the country (Belize Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 44-45; Salas and Meerman 2008, pp.
22, 42).
The main causes of deforestation and forest degradation within the
range of the scarlet macaw in these countries include clearing for
agriculture and cattle ranching, illegal human settlements in protected
areas, illegal logging, purposefully set fires, and in
[[Page 6292]]
some areas, activities related to drug trafficking. Some or all of
these activities are ongoing in areas occupied by the species,
including in the MBR in Guatemala; R[iacute]o Pl[aacute]tano Biosphere
in Honduras; Bosawas Biosphere Reserve in Nicaragua; and the Chiquibul
region in Belize.
Guatemala (A. m. cyanoptera)
Guatemala has lost approximately 1.2 million ha (3 million ac) of
forest area over the past 25 years (FAO 2015, p. 11). Approximately 38
percent of Guatemala's remaining forest area is primary forest (FAO
2015, p. 36). Deforestation is the dominant trend nationally, but rates
of loss appear to be much higher in tropical over temperate areas. The
most significant threat to the conservation of biodiversity and
tropical forests is habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from
wildfires, agriculture and cattle ranching, mineral and petroleum
development, and drug trafficking (Tolisano and Lopez-Selva 2010, p.
3). Deforestation in the conifer forests of the highlands has existed
for centuries, but today it mostly takes place in the Pet[eacute]n
(Blaser et al. 2011, p. 310) where a population of A. m. cyanoptera
occurs. Approximately 65 percent of the deforestation in Guatemala
occurs in the Pet[eacute]n region, with most (approximately 60 percent)
occurring outside protected areas (IARNA 2006, in Tolisana and Lopez-
Selva 2010, p. 22). Additionally, the Pet[eacute]n of Guatemala is one
of the few areas in the entire region that is still undergoing
intensive tropical colonization resulting in forest loss from
agriculture and represents the most intense deforestation threats to
the Maya Forest (Bray 2010, pp. 100-102). Colonization pressure in the
MBR is strong in the western and central regions; the human population
increased 20-fold since 1960 and was predicted to double from 2008 to
2018 in the Pet[eacute]n (Bray et al. 2008, unpaginated).
Habitat destruction is particularly severe in two protected areas,
Laguna del Tigre National Park and Sierra del Lacand[oacute]n National
Park; both of these areas were former strongholds of scarlet macaws
(Garcia et al. 2008, p. 50). Furthermore, some parks that compose the
MBR lost approximately 10 percent of forest cover between 1986 and
2004, with forest loss thought to be accelerating (Bray 2010, p. 100).
Between 1974 and 1997, the MBR lost 65 percent of its buffer zone, and
areas near roads showed increasing deforestation pressures in 1995-1997
(Hayes et al. 2002, p. 305; Bray et al. 2008, unpaginated).
Considerable efforts have been made since the start of the 21st
century to reorganize the control and management of forest resources in
Guatemala (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 317). In the rainforests of the
Pet[eacute]n, large community-run timber concessions allow local people
to improve their livelihoods on the basis of forest resources. However,
forest management is hindered by high rates of deforestation and forest
degradation driven by agricultural expansion, mining, illegal logging,
drug-trafficking, and other threats (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 317;
Reynolds 2008, pp. 6-7).
Belize (A. m. cyanoptera)
Belize has a lower deforestation rate (100 km\2\ (39 mi\2\, or 0.7
percent)) per year than the other countries in Mesoamerica (FAO 2015,
p. 9), but deforestation is increasing in the Chiquibul region, which
is the only region scarlet macaws are known to nest in the country
(Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 44-45;
Salas and Meerman 2008, pp. 22, 42). Belize lost 250,000 ha (618,000
ac) of total forest area over the past 25 years (FAO 2015, pp. 9, 40).
The Chiquibul National Park (CNP) is Belize's largest protected
area, measuring approximately 161,874 ha (400,000 ac). It is located in
the Cayo District and within a larger forest region known as the
Chiquibul Forest, which abuts the Belize-Guatemala border and is
contiguous to the Chiquibul-Monta[ntilde]as Mayas Biosphere Reserve
that is located in the Department of Pet[eacute]n, Guatemala (Salas and
Meerman 2008, p. 10). This region also includes the Chiquibul Forest
Reserve and the Caracol Archaeological Reserve. The most significant
pressure on the CNP, the Chiquibul Forest, and biodiversity within this
region includes deforestation from urban encroachment, agriculture
expansion, wildfires, legal and illegal logging, illegal hunting,
mining and oil exploration, and dam construction (Salas and Meerman
2008, pp. 45-46; Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
2010, p. 42).
The border areas of Belize, including the Chiquibul Maya Mountain
that contains the CNP, Chiquibul Forest Reserve, and Caracoal
Archaeological Reserve, are vulnerable because insufficient enforcement
resources are available, particularly for Guatemalans who are impacting
forested areas on the Belize side of the border. Satellite imagery
showed 113 ha (280 ac) in the CNP had been cleared as of 1987 by
Guatemalans for agricultural use, this increased six-fold to 692 ha
(1,710 ac) by 1994, and to approximately 3,126 ha (7,725 ac) by 2007
(FCD 2007, in Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
2010, p. 45). Additionally, more than 405 ha (1,000 ac) of freshly
cultivated area was reported in the CNP and incursions into Belize by
Guatemalan armed forces have also been observed (FCD 2007, in Belize
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, p. 45). Unlike
legal extraction, which can be regulated, illegal extraction and
particularly illegal extraction by non-Belizean nationals continues to
escalate, which poses a greater threat to forests than legal extraction
(Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 42-45).
Transboundary incursions, while temporary, can have a severe impact on
the forest because of the increase in demand for land for housing and
farms, as well as the introduction or reinforcement of unsustainable
agricultural practices (Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment 2010, p. 42).
Honduras (A. m. cyanoptera)
Honduras lost approximately 3.5 million ha (8.7 million ac) of
forest area over the past 25 years (FAO 2015, p. 11) and had the
highest rate of deforestation in the Americas (see Tables 2a and 2b,
below). The Honduran forest landscape is characterized by relative
stability in temperate areas with localized areas of variability in
forest cover but with continuing deforestation in tropical areas (Bray
2010, p. 104), especially in the eastern tropical broadleaved forest
(Blaser et al. 2011, p. 334; Humphries et al. 1998, p. 99; Hansen and
Florez 2008, p. 12). The most dramatic losses have been in the forests
of the Atlantic Coast, which declined by approximately 73 percent
between 1962 and 1990, compared to only 30 percent loss for other
broadleaf forests in the same period (Humphries 1998, p. 99).
The high level of deforestation is due to illegal logging,
infrastructure (e.g., roads), institutionalized forest sector
corruption, production of biofuels, and expanding agricultural
frontiers (although some of the latter may be regarded as socially
desirable) (Richards et al. 2003, p. 282). In the past, deforestation
was due to agro-industrial development, mainly for banana plantations.
However, more recently demand for land by small-scale farmers is
thought to be the major cause (ITTO 2006, in Blaser et al. 2011, p.
334); often, such small-scale farmers ultimately sell the deforested
land to larger farmers and agro-industrial owners (Blaser et al. 2011,
p. 334). In addition, the country has a high dependence on wood as an
energy
[[Page 6293]]
source for poor households; thirty-eight percent of the population uses
firewood for domestic purposes, which is considered a very high
consumption rate (Government of Honduras 2009, unpaginated).
The Mosquitia region has been characterized by relatively low
population density and inaccessibility, and its indigenous inhabitants
have maintained the forest cover for centuries. However, the Honduran
Mosquitia appears to be under significant deforestation pressure and
continues to suffer from colonization, agricultural expansion, and
illegal logging, which has led to deforestation and degradation in this
region and parts of the R[iacute]o Pl[aacute]tano Biosphere Reserve
(Bray 2010, p. 102; Anderson and Devenish 2009, pp. 256-257; Hayes
2007, pp. 733-734). Recent information indicates that loss of habitat
and demand for the pet trade (see Factor B discussion, below) are
significant threats in this region (Portillo Reyes 2005, in Portillo
Reyes et al. 2010, p. 6; Brightsmith in litt. 2016, p. 8).
Nicaragua (A. m. cyanoptera)
In terms of total forest loss, Nicaragua has lost more forest than
all other Central American countries except Honduras. Nicaragua has
lost approximately 1.4 million ha (3.5 million ac) of forest area over
the past 25 years (FAO 2015, pp. 11, 41) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below).
Much of the historic deforestation in Nicaragua was due to the
expansion of cattle ranching and cotton farming until both industries
declined in the 1980s, resulting in abandonment of much pasture land
that left almost 1 million ha (2.5 million ac) in forest fallow (Bray
2010, p. 106). More recently, forest loss and degradation in Nicaragua
was due to the expansion of agricultural and grazing land, slash-and-
burn agricultural practices that create a mosaic of forest and
cultivated patches across an increasing expanse of the landscape
(Global Witness 2007, in McGinley 2009, p. 13). Illegal logging and
institutionalized forest sector corruption have also led to forest loss
and degradation (Richards et al. 2003, p. 282). Deforestation and
forest degradation has also been attributed to forest fires, pests
(e.g., pine bark beetle (Dendroctonus sp.)) and hurricanes, though to a
much lesser degree than to anthropogenic factors (Rodr[iacute]guez
Quiros 2005, in McGinley 2009, p. 13). Farmers often use fire to clear
forest and scrubland in preparation for crops, and though these
practices are typically intended to be limited to a specific area, they
can spread to adjacent vegetation and lead to uncontrollable wildfires
that result in forest and other biodiversity degradation and loss
(McGinley 2009, p. 35).
The Nicaraguan Mosquitia (on the Caribbean slope), which is one
area where the scarlet macaw is known to occur in the country, is
considered an important area of extensive lowland tropical forest that
it is threatened by rapid deforestation due to colonization and the
advancement of the agricultural frontier (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487;
McGinley 2009, p. 31; Bray 2010, p. 105). The bulk of Nicaragua's
forests on the Caribbean slope are in indigenous territories that hold
rights to own their own forests, but most lack formal titles and tenure
conflicts are widespread (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; McGinley 2009, p.
13). For example, Mosquitia residents contend that public management of
protected areas fails to control agricultural expansion and violates
indigenous ancestral rights to the land and its resources (Hayes 2007,
p. 734). Illegal logging is a threat to forests in the Caribbean region
and the Mosquitia (Bray 2010, p. 105). Illegal logging in broadleaf
forests was estimated to be 30,000 to 50,000 m\3\/year (1.1 to 1.8
million ft\3\/year), or approximately 50 percent of the total
production (Richards et al. 2003, p. 284). However, with respect to the
binational Mosquitia region, the pressures appear to be greater on the
Honduran side, although areas outside the core of the Bosawas Biosphere
Reserve area are also under pressure (Bray 2010, p. 106). The
indigenous occupied core zones of Bosawas are showing virtually no
deforestation, with one such area having 97 percent forest cover in
2003 (Hayes 2007, p. 741). In contrast, the R[iacute]o Pl[aacute]tano
Biosphere Reserve on the Honduran side of the Mosquitia is under great
deforestation pressures because of failed efforts to centralize
management in the government, while protection is much more effective
in the Bosawas core area due to the decentralization of management in
the hands of the indigenous inhabitants (Bray 2010, p. 106).
Deforestation is ongoing in southeast Nicaragua and resulted in
forest cover loss from 2000-2017 (Hansen et al. 2013, entire).
Southeast Nicaragua includes the Indio Ma[iacute]z Biological Reserve
(IMBR) and its buffer zone. The reserve is situated at the southeastern
border of the country (Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p. 63) and is one
of Nicaragua's best preserved forested areas (Ravnborg et al. 2006, p.
2). However, the reserve is threatened by the growing human population
in or around the reserve, a result of the continuous arrival of
families from other parts of the country into the region in search of
cheap land (Ravnborg 2010, pp. 12-13; Ravnborg et al. 2006, pp. 4-5).
Between 1998 and 2005, the population increased more than 100 percent
in the municipality of El Castillo, which is composed entirely of IMBR
buffer zone and core area (Ravnborg 2010, p. 10). The expansion of
African palm plantations, pasture lands, human settlements, and logging
have contributed to an estimated 60 percent deforestation of the buffer
zones surrounding IMBR and these activities are expanding in the
reserve (Fundacion del Rio and IUCN 2011, pp. 7-8; Ravnborg 2010, pp.
12-13; Nygren 2004, pp. 193-194; Ravnborg et al. 2006, p. 2). Forest
conservation efforts in the Nicaragua-Costa Rica border region have
resulted in lower deforestation rates within the San Juan-La Selva
Biological Corridor, which includes the IMBR along with other protected
areas (Chassot et al. 2010a, in Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p. 67),
although both primary and regrowth forest within the corridor and
within the larger border region continue to decrease due to timber
extraction and agricultural expansion (Fagan et al. 2013, unpaginated;
Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p. 63; Chassot and Monge-Arias 2011, p.
1; Chassot et al. 2009, p. 9). Thus, despite the existence of protected
areas, deforestation continues to occur and is a serious threat to
biodiversity in this region (Fundacion del Rio 2012a, pp. 2-3;
Fundacion del Rio 2012b, pp. 2-3; Fundacion del Rio and IUCN 2011, pp.
34, 37, 73-74; Chassot et al. 2006, p. 84). According to eBird
(Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated), many sightings of scarlet macaws
exist in southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa Rica since the
issuance of our proposed rules (77 FR 40222, July 6, 2012; 81 FR 20302,
April 7, 2016), indicating that the species has continued to expand its
range in this region. However, expansion of scarlet macaws in this
region will likely be limited due to high rates of deforestation
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., pp. 4-8).
Costa Rica (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao Northern DPS)
Costa Rica experienced some of the highest rates of deforestation
in the world historically (Bray 2010, p. 107; Government of Costa Rica
2010, p. 68), and as a result, the country's forest cover declined from
67 percent in 1940, to 17-20 percent in 1983 (Bray 2010, p. 107). Much
of this deforestation was driven by agriculture and cattle ranching;
however, agriculture
[[Page 6294]]
expansion was not as prevalent as livestock expansion (Government of
Costa Rica 2010, p. 38). Cattle ranching underwent a serious
contraction after 1989 (Arroyo-Mora et al. 2005, p. 28). In 1993, only
20 percent of original scarlet macaw habitat remained, all within
protected areas (Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp. 445-446). However,
during the 1990s, Costa Rica implemented several forest conservation
strategies, including new laws protecting forests and mechanisms of
payment for ecosystem services (Bray 2010, pp. 107-109; Kaimowitz 2008,
pp. 488-491; Pagiola 2008, entire; Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003,
entire).
Costa Rica is the only country in Mesoamerica to experience a
positive change in forest cover from 1990 to 2015 (FAO 2015, p. 10)
(see Tables 2a and 2b, below). Total forest cover in 2005 was estimated
to be 53 percent (Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 68), more than
double the country's forest cover in the 1980s. Between 1990 and 2015,
Costa Rica gained 192,000 ha (474,442 ac) of total forest area, with an
annual rate of approximately 7,700 ha (19,000 ac or 0.3 percent) (FAO
2015, p. 10).
Even though Costa Rica has an increase in total forest over the
past 25 years (1990-2015), some level of deforestation still occurs in
parts of the country due to expansion of agriculture and livestock
activities, and to illegal logging in private forests, national parks,
and reserves (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 2; Government of Costa
Rica 2010, pp. 10-11, 38, 52-54; Parks in Peril 2008, unpaginated).
Fifty percent of forests in Costa Rica are found in individual rural
private properties (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 1). The major
driver of deforestation on private lands is the conversion of forest to
livestock and agricultural uses. In many cases, land users generate a
higher annual income with agriculture or livestock-raising than with
forests. In protected areas, underfunding and lack of human resources
allows the penetration of squatters and illegal loggers. Additionally,
land tenure issues contribute to forest loss because indigenous
communities have difficulties keeping nonindigenous farmers from
encroaching onto their lands (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 1)
National Parks on the Caribbean slope are experiencing higher
deforestation on surrounding lands than those on the Pacific slopes,
which is attributed to the intensification and expansion of
agricultural cash crops such as banana and pineapple (Sanchez-Azofeifa
et al. 2003, p. 129). However, Corcovado National Park, the largest
protected area in ACOSA, is one of the protected areas in Costa Rica
most affected by deforestation close to its boundaries (Sanchez-
Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-129). A comprehensive study of
deforestation in Costa Rica's park system found that deforestation
inside protected areas was negligible from 1987 to 1997, and that 1-km
(0.62-mi) buffer zones around the protected areas had a net forest gain
for the same period. However, a 1 percent annual deforestation rate was
found in 10-km (6.2-mi) buffer zones, suggesting increased isolation of
protected areas (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-134).
Additionally, in the ACOPAC population region, more deforestation is
ongoing northwest of Carara than to the south (Brightsmith 2016, in
litt., p. 12).
The scarlet macaw occurs in northeastern Costa Rica, near Palo
Verde and surrounding areas in northwest Costa Rica, and in the two
main populations of the ACOPAC and ACOSA. Overall, Costa Rica is both
losing and gaining forest cover throughout the country (Hansen et al.
2013, entire; Brightsmith 2016, in litt. p. 1). However, the best
available information indicates that the scarlet macaw population in
Costa Rica appears to be increasing, and Costa Rica is the only country
in Central America to experience a positive change in forest cover over
the past 25 years (1990-2015). We conclude that deforestation or forest
degradation in the current range of the scarlet macaw in Costa Rica is
not occurring at a level that is causing a further decline in the
species; however, this area is not enough to sustain the northern DPS
of A. m. macao in the future in given the threats occurring in the
remainder of the range.
Panama (A. m. macao Northern DPS)
Deforestation in Panama is relatively low for the Mesoamerica
region; the annual decrease from 1990-2015 was 169 km\2\ (65 mi\2\ or
0.4 percent) (FAO 2015, p. 12) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below). Drivers
of deforestation include urbanization, cattle ranching, agro-industrial
development, unregulated shifting cultivation, open mining, poor
logging practices, charcoal-making, and fire (ITTO 2005, in Blaser et
al. 2011, p. 354). Deforestation in the country currently occurs
primarily in the Darien, Colon, Ngabe Bugle, and Bocas del Toro
provinces (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 354), which are outside the range in
which scarlet macaw currently occurs in Panama. Illegal logging is
widespread in the humid forests, even in protected areas (Blaser et al.
2011, p. 361).
Most of Panama's scarlet macaw population occurs on Isla Coiba,
which was used by the government of Panama as a penal colony until
2004, thus limiting human access and development on the island
(Government of Panama 2005, p. 23; Steinitz et al. 2005, p. 26).
Consequently, forests on the island remain largely intact. The
Panamanian Tourism Authority has developed a master plan for
sustainable tourism for Isla Coiba (2007-2020), which includes
strategic guidelines for tourism management. Further details on these
guidelines are not provided, but the plan does not include
infrastructure or high-impact development (UNESCO 2011c, p. 60).
Available information indicates that deforestation is not occurring on
Isla Coiba (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 1; Hansen et al. 2013,
entire), although some level of degradation on the island may occur by
a herd of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 feral cattle (UNESCO 2011c, pp.
23, 43; Suman et al. 2010, p. 25). However, the extent of the cattle's
impact is unknown. The complete eradication of the cattle from Coiba
National Park was classified as a priority issue (Suman et al. 2010, p.
25), but we are not aware of information indicating that the removal of
cattle has occurred. While cattle on Isla Coiba may be inhibiting the
regrowth of former pasture to secondary forest, they are probably not
having a significant impact on the larger forest trees on which scarlet
macaws depend (Angehr 2012, in litt., unpaginated).
On the mainland of Panama, in the area of the upper R[iacute]o
Corot[uacute] near Puerto Armuelles and Quer[eacute]valo in the
Chiriqu[iacute] province where there have been sporadic sightings of
scarlet macaws, we are unaware of information indicating that
deforestation and forest degradation are impacting scarlet macaws. We
are also unaware of information indicating that deforestation is
occurring near the small (but unknown) number of scarlet macaws on the
southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya
National Park and in the forest reserves just to the east. Less than 15
percent of the peninsula is covered by mature forest, but most of the
remaining forest can be found in Cerro Hoya National Park and the
Tronosa Forest Reserve to the east (Miller et al. 2015, p. 1).
We are aware of little information on the magnitude and extent of
deforestation and forest degradation on Panama's mainland and Isla
Coiba, although the most recent information indicates that
deforestation is not occurring on Isla Coiba or any areas where the
scarlet macaw remains in
[[Page 6295]]
very small populations on the mainland. The World Heritage Centre and
IUCN concluded that the main conservation concerns (i.e., cattle) on
Isla Coiba remain poorly addressed (UNESCO 2011c, p. 61).
Summary Tables
Table 2a--Total Forest Area in Mesoamerica 1990-2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forest area (1,000 ha)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 2000 2005 2010 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belize.......................... 1,616 1,459 1,417 1,391 1,366
Costa Rica...................... 2,564 2,376 2,491 2,605 2,756
Guatemala....................... 4,748 4,208 3,938 3,722 3,540
Honduras........................ 8,136 6,392 5,792 5,192 4,592
Mexico.......................... 69,760 67,856 67,083 66,498 66,040
Nicaragua....................... 4,514 3,814 3,464 3,114 3,114
Panama.......................... 5,040 4,867 4,782 4,699 4,617
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2b--Percent Change of Total Forest Area in Mesoamerica 1990-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual change rate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2015 1990-2015
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,000 ha/yr % change 1,000 ha/yr % change 1,000 ha/yr % change 1,000 ha/yr % change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belize.......................................... -15.7 -1.0 -6.8 -0.5 -5.0 -0.4 -10.0 -0.7
Costa Rica...................................... -18.8 -0.8 22.9 0.9 30.2 1.1 7.7 0.3
Guatemala....................................... -54.0 -1.2 -48.6 -1.2 -36.4 -1.0 -48.3 -1.2
Honduras........................................ -174.4 -2.4 -120.0 -2.1 -120.0 -2.4 -141.8 -2.3
Mexico.......................................... -190.4 -0.3 -135.8 -0.2 -91.6 -0.1 -148.8 -0.2
Nicaragua....................................... -70.0 -1.7 -70.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -56.0 -1.5
Panama.......................................... -17.3 -0.3 -16.8 -0.4 -16.4 -0.4 -16.9 -0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South America
Northwest Colombia (A. m. macao Northern DPS)
Colombia has lost approximately 5.9 million ha (14.6 million ac) of
forest over the past 25 years, with a steady rate of change over that
time frame (FAO 2015, p. 10). In northwest Colombia, forest loss is due
primarily to conversion of land to pasture and agriculture, but also
mining, illicit crops, and logging (Ortega and Lagos 2011, pp. 85-86).
Scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia are believed to be affected
primarily by habitat loss, and to a lesser extent trade (Donegan 2013,
in litt., unpaginated).
The Magdalena and Caribbean regions of northwest Colombia have
approximately 7 percent and 23 percent (respectively) of their land
area in original vegetation, with the remainder converted primarily to
grazing land (Etter et al. 2006, p. 376). The Magdalena region lost 40
percent of its forest cover between 1970 and 1990, and an additional 15
percent between 1990 and 1996 (Restrepo and Syvitski 2006, pp. 69, 72).
Within the Caribbean region, Parque Nacional Natural (PNN) Paramillo
(460,000 ha (1,136,680 ac)), Santuario de Fauna y Flora Los Colorados
(Los Colorados Fauna and Flora Sanctuary) (1,000 ha (2,500 ac)), and
Reserva Forestal de Montes de Maria (Montes Maria Forest Reserve)
(7,460 ha (18,500 ac)) have lost 42, 71, and 70 percent of their
forest, respectively, since they were created in the late 1970s and
early 1980s (Millet et al. 2004, p. 454). The Caribbean region of
northwest Colombia showed the highest projected rate of change of
forest cover by the year 2030 of all regions evaluated (Gonz[aacute]les
et al. 2011, p. 45).
Deforestation is ongoing in northwest Colombia (Colombia Gold
Letter 2012, pp. 1-2; Ortega and Lagos 2011, pp. 81-82). Few large
tracts of forest remain within the range of the scarlet macaw in this
region, for instance, in the areas of Serrania de San Lucas and PNN
Paramillo, but these areas in northwest Colombia are also deforestation
hotspots (Ortega and Lagos 2011, p. 82; Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21).
Summary of Factor A
The destruction and modification of the scarlet macaw's habitat
because of deforestation and forest degradation is a threat to the
scarlet macaw throughout parts of its current range, although the
magnitude of this impact varies across its range. Deforestation has
fragmented habitat and continues to reduce and isolate areas that
support populations of scarlet macaws. It directly eliminates the
species' tropical forest habitat by removing the trees that support the
species' nesting, roosting, and food requirements. Further, clearing or
degradation of forests, including selective logging and the development
of roads, provides additional opportunities for humans to expand into
previously inaccessible areas, which in turn creates easier access and
opportunity to exploit previously undisturbed areas. Subsequent
encroachment is often followed by additional deforestation as lands are
cleared for cattle ranching and agriculture. Although scarlet macaws
are known to use partially cleared and cultivated landscapes, they are
only able to do so if the landscape maintains enough large, older trees
that provide the essential needs of the species.
Deforestation rates in Mesoamerica, excluding Costa Rica, are the
highest in Latin America due to expanding agriculture, cattle ranching,
and selective and often illegal logging. Destruction of forest habitat
is one of the main causes of the decline of scarlet macaw subspecies
Ara macao cyanoptera. Throughout the range of the northern subspecies
(A. m. cyanoptera) where most of the species' historical habitat has
been eliminated, evidence indicates that deforestation is ongoing. We
consider deforestation and forest degradation to be an immediate threat
to
[[Page 6296]]
the subspecies because clearing of forest for agriculture, cattle
ranching, and illegal logging that leads to the loss of scarlet macaw
habitat are ongoing in Mexico in the Lacandon Forest and Chiapas, in
the western Pet[eacute]n of Guatemala, and in the Chiquibul region of
Belize. The Honduran Mosquitia appears to be under significant
deforestation pressure and continues to suffer from rapid colonization,
agricultural expansion, and illegal logging. Nicaragua lost more forest
than all other Central American countries except Honduras. With respect
to the binational Mosquitia region, pressure appears to be greater on
the Honduran side, but Nicaragua suffers rapid deforestation due to
colonization and illegal logging. The border region (R[iacute]o San
Juan (San Juan River) of southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa
Rica has sections of contiguous forests; however, deforestation
continues to occur and is a serious threat to biodiversity in this
area.
Throughout the range of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies
(Ara macao macao) evidence indicates that Costa Rica is both losing and
gaining forest cover throughout the country. Costa Rica experienced
some of the highest rates of deforestation in the world historically.
More recently, Costa Rica has an increase in total forest over the 25-
year period from 1990-2015 and is the only country in Central America
to experience a positive change in forest cover. But some level of
deforestation still occurs in parts of the country due to expansion of
agriculture and livestock activities, and illegal logging in private
forests and in national parks and reserves. The available information
indicates that the scarlet macaw population in Costa Rica appears to be
increasing, and we are unaware of any information indicating that
deforestation or forest degradation in the current range of the scarlet
macaw in Costa Rica is occurring at a level that is causing or likely
to cause a further decline in the species.
In Panama, we are aware of little information on the magnitude and
extent of deforestation and forest degradation on the mainland,
although the scarlet macaw was described as almost extinct from
mainland Panama. Currently, deforestation is concentrated in provinces
outside the range of where scarlet macaws occur in Panama. On Isla
Coiba, where most of the population in Panama occurs, evidence
indicates large-scale deforestation is not a threat to the species.
Much of northwest Colombia has been deforested and it is expected
to continue in the region. The Caribbean region of northwest Colombia
showed the highest projected rate of change of forest cover of all
regions evaluated. Forest loss in the region is due primarily to
conversion of land to pasture and agriculture, mining, illicit crops,
and logging. The number of scarlet macaws in northwest Colombia is
unknown, but habitat loss has caused the decline of the species there,
such that the species has been all but extirpated from large areas in
the region. However, the region is reported to have large tracts of
suitable forest habitat.
The scarlet macaw subspecies (Ara macao cyanoptera and A. m. macao)
in Mesoamerica are significantly impacted by deforestation in many
countries in this region, which comprises less than 17 percent of the
species' range. Because deforestation is ongoing and the populations of
the scarlet macaw subspecies A. m. cyanoptera are small, we consider
habitat destruction and modification to be a substantial threat to the
northern subspecies A. m. cyanoptera throughout its range in Mexico,
Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica (Atlantic
slope). But even though deforestation continues in parts of Costa Rica,
we do not find that it is occurring at a level that is an immediate
threat to A. m. macao on the Pacific Coast of Costa Rica, especially
because the data indicate that the species is likely increasing within
the two main populations on the Pacific Coast. Similarly, the data
indicate that deforestation is not impacting the scarlet macaw in
Panama where it currently occurs. Therefore, we do not consider
deforestation to be as significant of a stressor to A. m. macao in
Costa Rica and Panama. However, in Colombia, habitat loss has caused
the decline of the species from large areas in the region, and many of
the areas in northwest Colombia are deforestation hotspots, even though
the region is reported to have large tracts of suitable forest habitat.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Parrots and macaws have been captured and traded for centuries in
the Neotropics (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 9; Guedes 2004, p. 279;
Snyder et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Because they are colorful, adapt to
captivity, and can imitate language, they are captured for their
feathers and used as pets (Guedes 2004, p. 279). The scarlet macaw is a
popular pet species within its range countries, and the majority of
birds sold as pets remain within country (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150;
Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 102). Poaching of parrots from the wild is driven
by demand from the pet industry and rural poverty where wild parrot
populations exist. Capture for sale in local markets can provide a
significant source of supplemental income in rural areas (Huson 2010,
p. 58; Gonz[aacute]lez 2003, p. 438). Overall, capture for the pet
trade, along with habitat loss as described above, are the main factors
impacting the existence of scarlet macaws in the wild (I[ntilde]igo-
Elias in litt. 1997, in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Guedes 2004, p.
280).
Because the scarlet macaw is a long-lived species with a low
reproductive rate, low survival of chicks and fledglings, late age to
first reproduction, and large proportions of nonbreeding adults, this
species is particularly vulnerable to overexploitation from harvesting
(Munn 1992, p. 57; Wright et al. 2001, p. 712). Capture of parrots
decreases the population, inhibits future breeding by removing
reproductive age adults, causes mortality of eggs or chicks, causes the
loss of or damage to nesting sites, and can stop population growth and
cause local extirpations if individuals are removed year after year
(Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 14). When chicks are targeted, the
effects on the population may be difficult to detect because scarlet
macaws are long-lived and it would take time to show a decline (Wright
2001, p. 717). When adults are targeted, the population is depleted
more rapidly because reproductive individuals are removed from the
population and the impact is immediate (Collar et al. 1992, p. 6).
Legal International Trade
The United States and Europe were historically the main markets for
wild birds in international trade (FAO 2011b, p. 3). Trade in parrots
was particularly high in the 1980s, due to a huge demand from developed
countries (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best et al. 1995, p. 234).
However, in the years following the enactment of the WBCA in 1992 (16
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), poaching levels were lower than in prior years,
suggesting that import bans in developed countries reduced poaching
levels in exporting countries (Wright et al. 2001, pp. 715, 718). A
massive reduction occurred in the number of wild-caught parrots
imported to the United States, both from Central and South America and
the rest of the world, following the enactment of the WBCA (Pain et al.
2006, p. 327). The European Union, which was the largest market for
wild birds following enactment of the WBCA, banned the import of wild
birds in 2006 due to
[[Page 6297]]
disease concerns (FAO 2011b, p. 21), thus eliminating another market
for wild birds and further reducing international trade.
The scarlet macaw was initially listed in Appendix II of CITES
(June 6, 1981), but effective January 8, 1985, was included in Appendix
I. Species included in Appendix I are considered threatened with
extinction, and international trade is permitted only under exceptional
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. Of the total
live specimens reported in trade between 1985 and 2016, approximately
95 percent of the total live, wild-sourced scarlet macaws that were in
trade during 1985 to 2016 were exported from Suriname, which is one of
only two countries in South America that still legally export
significant quantities of wildlife (Duplaix 2001, p. ii) and the only
scarlet macaw range country that entered a reservation to the Appendix
I listing of the species. A reservation means that these countries are
treated as a country not party to CITES with respect to the species
concerned. However, if a country with a reservation to a listing in the
CITES Appendices wishes to trade that species with a country that has
not taken the same reservation, then that trade must follow the CITES
permit requirements (CITES 2018, unpaginated). Wildlife exports
generate significant income and jobs in Suriname, and the country has
set an annual voluntary export quota of 100 live specimens per year
since 1998. The quota includes a notation that Parties may not
authorize import for primarily commercial purposes (CITES 2018,
unpaginated). Suriname's wildlife export quotas are reported to be
``realistic'' in that they are based on the belief that larger parrots
cannot sustain large harvests (Duplaix 2001, pp. 10, 65, 68). Actual
exports of CITES listed species are often lower than Suriname's allowed
quotas (FAO 2010b, p. 42; Duplaix 2001, p. 10). However, in a number of
recent years, Suriname has also reported exports in excess of its quota
of 100 live specimens.
Poaching Within Mesoamerica
The scarlet macaw is protected by domestic laws within all
countries in Mesoamerica (see Factor D discussion, below). However,
enforcement of wildlife laws in these countries is generally lacking
because they often do not have the resources, personnel, or both to
adequately enforce their laws (TRAFFIC NA 2009, p. 20; Valdez et al.
2006, p. 276; Mauri 2002, entire). Additionally, low salaries and high
unemployment in the region drives people to search for extra sources of
income, and as a result, scarlet macaws are still captured throughout
the region and traded illegally (TRAFFIC NA 2009, pp. 23-24). Due to
the high mortality rate associated with capture and transport, the
number of birds actually sold or exported for the pet trade represents
only a portion of those removed from the wild. Cumulative mortality
rates before parrots reach customers have been estimated to be as high
as 77 percent; for nestlings, approximately 80 percent died before
reaching a pet store (Inigo and Ramos 1991 and Enkerlin 2000, in Cantu-
Guzman et al. 2007, p. 60).
Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize (A. m. cyanoptera)
Poaching has occurred at significant levels in the Maya Forest
region of Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize, and is one of the most
important factors influencing population growth of the scarlet macaw in
this region, indicating that even relatively low levels of poaching
could result in population declines (Clum 2008, pp. 76-80).
Poaching is a persistent problem and the second largest threat to
scarlet macaws in Mexico after deforestation, although information on
the extent of poaching in Mexico is largely unavailable (Inigo-Elias
1996, p. 62; Boyd and McNab 2008, p. xiii). In many instances, poachers
damage trees to reach the birds. During the 1993 breeding season, four
nest trees from a total of 41 were cut down and another was burned
(Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 62). Detained traffickers reported that parrot
populations in Chiapas (the primary state in which the species occurs
in Mexico) have decreased so much that trapping is now conducted in
protected areas in Chiapas (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 14). Fewer
than 50 scarlet macaws are captured annually in Mexico (Cantu-Guzman et
al. 2007, p. 35).
Much of the scarlet macaw population in Guatemala is currently
protected through conservation efforts. Prior to the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS) monitoring nests in 2002, poaching was a
serious concern. Between 1992 and 2002, citing Proyecto Guacamaya of
ProPeten data, 115 chicks were poached from the Laguna del Tigre area
(Moya and Castillo Villeda 2002, in McReynolds 2016, in litt.,
unpaginated). However, since 2003, the severity of poaching has greatly
decreased because of WCS's conservation efforts (Garcia et al. 2008, p.
51). Although in areas where the WCS is not working and protection is
lacking, which is up to 25 percent of the population in Guatemala, it
is likely that these nests are poached (Boyd and McNab 2008, p. vi;
Garcia et al. 2008, p. 51).
In the Chiquibul Forest in Belize, poaching is a threat to scarlet
macaws, but the situation has improved in recent years. In 2011, the
poaching rate was 89 percent (Breaking Belize News 2017, unpaginated).
Nests were being poached by guaceros and xateros, which are Guatemalans
who illegally cross the border into Belize for economic reasons. Thus,
with this high percentage of poached chicks, scarlet macaws essentially
had no productivity (Harbison 2017, unpaginated). Of the nests
monitored in 2013, approximately 30 percent of the failed nests were
attributed to poaching; these nests contained 33 percent of the total
hatchlings (The Guardian Belize 2014, unpaginated). Incidences of
poaching were reduced to an average of 35 percent between 2012 and 2015
(Breaking Belize News 2017, unpaginated). Over the past 5 years, the
Scarlet Six team (see Conservation Measures, below) has reduced overall
nest poaching from higher than 90 percent to less than 30 percent, and
2017 is the second year in a row that no known nests were poached
(Harbison 2017, unpaginated).
Honduras and Nicaragua (A. m. cyanoptera)
Poaching of the scarlet macaw occurs in both Honduras and
Nicaragua, although little quantitative information is available
(TRAFFIC NA 2009, p. 5).
In Honduras, the scarlet macaw population has decreased and is
experiencing severe reproductive limits due to poaching (Lafeber
Conservation and Wildlife 2011, unpaginated). Nest monitoring indicated
5 of 6 nests active in February 2003 were poached by August (McReynolds
2016, in litt., unpaginated). In 2003, an estimated 200 to 300 chicks
were poached just in the Rus Rus area of the Honduran Mosquitia
(Portillo Reyes et al. 2004, in McReynolds 2011, in litt.,
unpaginated). In a 2010-2011 survey of 20 nests previously used by
parrots, 16 of which were scarlet macaws, 17 showed evidence of
poaching including all the scarlet macaw nests (Lafeber Conservation
and Wildlife 2011, unpaginated).
In Nicaragua, capture of parrots for the pet trade is described as
common (Herrera 2004, p. 1). Scarlet macaws are one of the three most
preferred species in Nicaragua's parrot trade and are among the main
CITES-species harvested for illegal trade in the country (McGinley et
al. 2009, p. 16; Lezama 2008, abstract; Nicaragua Ministerio del
Ambiente y Los Recursos Naturales
[[Page 6298]]
(MARENA) 2008, p. 25). Based on interviews with locals, Nicaraguan
poachers bring chicks into Honduras from Nicaragua, where they more
easily enter into trade (Portillo-Reyes et al. 2004, in McReynolds
2016, in litt., unpaginated). Confiscations and prosecutions by
government authorities occurred in 2009 in the Caribbean region of the
county and in 2010 in Managua where a dozen scarlet macaws were for
sale (McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated). Parrot populations in
Nicaragua have declined by as much as 60 percent since the mid-1990s,
although the loss of habitat has also contributed to the decline
(MARENA 2008, p. 51). Additionally, the small population in the
Cosig[uuml]ina Nature Reserve on the Pacific Coast suffers from
poaching of both chicks and adults (Boyd and McNab 2008, p. x).
Costa Rica (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao)
Historically, scarlet macaws in Costa Rica experienced heavy
poaching pressure. Of 56 known nest cavities in the ACOPAC studied from
1992 to 2000, 64 percent were considered at high risk and 23 percent
were at medium risk (Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 8; McReynolds 2016, in
litt., unpaginated). In studies conducted in the 1990s in Carara
National Park, which is the traditional stronghold of the ACOPAC
population of scarlet macaws, 56 to 64 percent of evaluated nest sites
showed signs of being poached with some nests poached yearly (Vaughan
et al. 2003, pp. 6, 8; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Marineros and
Vaughan 1995, p. 460). However, anti-poaching efforts in ACOPAC during
1995-1996 may have increased recruitment into the population (Vaughan
et al. 2005, p. 127). From 2004 to 2009, most of the poached animals
were paca (Cuniculus paca), but scarlet macaws were also poached and
were among the top four species identified by park officials as most at
risk of poaching, local extinction, or both (Huson 2010, pp. 19-20).
Hunting is important in the communities for both subsistence and
monetary gain; with low-income communities surrounding the park, the
incentives to poach are great (Huson 2010, p. 66). A significant effort
to control poaching in the Carara area is ongoing because poaching
continues to be a serious problem (Vaughan 2005, pers. comm., in
McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated). However, the ACOPAC population
of scarlet macaws was believed to be self-sustaining, even with heavy
poaching pressure (Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 128).
In 2005, in the ACOSA, approximately half (48 percent) of residents
interviewed believed that scarlet macaws were still being poached in
the ACOSA, although 85 percent of the interviewees believed numbers of
scarlet macaws were increasing (Dear et al. 2010, pp. 10-13). Forty-
three percent of the interviewees mentioned that less poaching occurs
now than before, and none said the activity had increased (Dear et al.
2010, p. 13). Therefore, it is believed that poaching is ongoing but
has decreased and the ACOSA population is increasing (Dear et al. 2010,
p. 19). Based on interviews, it was estimated that 25 to 50 chicks are
poached each year (Dear et al. 2005, p. 19). In 2006, 11 of 57 (19
percent) potential nest cavities found in ACOSA were reported by local
residents as recently poached, but the actual number of poached nests
is likely greater (Guittar et al. 2009, pp. 390, 392).
Panama (A. m. macao)
Little information is available on capture of scarlet macaws in
Panama, although it was a factor leading to the virtual extirpation of
this species from the country (McReynolds 2016, in litt. unpaginated).
Trade in rare and endangered species is a constant threat in the
country due to the high prices paid for these animals and their parts
(Parker et al. 2004, p. II-6; Keller and Schmitt 2008, abstract).
Additionally, poaching is a common occurrence in rural areas because
wild game is a traditional source of protein for residents (Parker et
al. 2004, p. II-6). Cerro Hoya National Park is located within Panama's
most impoverished province, and thus the capture of scarlet macaws is a
potential threat because campesinos (a Latin American Indian farmer or
farm laborer) invade unoccupied lands and poaching for sustenance and
monetary gain is common (Government of Panama 2005, p. 36). Moreover,
despite a program to use captive scarlet macaw feathers to cut down on
hunting of wild birds for their feathers, hunting still occurs and
poaching of chicks for pets remains a problem at Cerro Hoya National
Park (Rodriquez and Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2016, in litt.,
unpaginated).
While scarlet macaws may occasionally be illegally captured on Isla
Coiba, we are not aware of any information that poaching is currently a
threat to the species on the island. The scarlet macaw primarily occurs
on the south end where poaching is a possibility. However, based on
interviews with the owner of Bird Coiba (the bird guide service for the
island), two rangers with many years of experience on the island, and a
discussion with the superintendent of Isla Coiba National Park,
poaching is not a known problem on the island (McReynolds 2016, in
litt. unpaginated). The island has no permanent habitations except a
police base and the ranger base; the island has no roads and very few
maintained trails, which are all short; and access is by boats that are
boarded and checked regularly (McReynolds 2016, in litt. p. 8).
Summary of Factor B
Parrots and macaws have been captured and traded for centuries in
the Neotropics. Despite regulation of international scarlet macaw trade
through CITES, the WBCA, and similar stricter measures by the European
Union, some level of international trade occurs with wild scarlet
macaws. However, most scarlet macaws reported in trade are from non-
wild sources; were captive-bred; or were parts, feathers, or scientific
specimens rather than live birds. Of the wild-sourced, live birds, the
vast majority were exported from Suriname, which is reported to set
realistic quotas. Therefore, international trade of scarlet macaws is
not a current threat to the species.
The scarlet macaw is a popular pet species within its range
countries and overutilization as a result of poaching for the pet trade
is a significant threat to the scarlet macaw in some areas of its
current range. The scarlet macaw is susceptible to overharvest because
it is a long-lived species with a low reproductive rate and it is slow
to recover from harvesting pressures; thus, removal of individuals year
after year can stop population growth and cause local extirpation. Most
harvested birds likely remain within the species' range countries.
The subspecies Ara macao cyanoptera occurs mainly in small
populations; thus, poaching wild birds for the pet trade is detrimental
to sustaining these populations. Evidence suggests poaching occurs at
significant levels in the Maya Forest region, where even moderate
levels of poaching could cause a decline in these already small
populations. Many of the scarlet macaws nesting sites in Guatemala are
currently protected through conservation efforts compared to nesting
sites in Mexico; therefore, success rates in Mexico are almost
certainly lower than in Guatemala, even though about 25 percent of
Guatemala's population is unprotected. In Belize, nest poaching has
been dramatically reduced over the past 5 years but continues. Although
quantitative data from Honduras and Nicaragua are lacking, poaching is
recognized as a significant threat to the scarlet macaws in these
countries.
[[Page 6299]]
The subspecies Ara macao macao in Costa Rica and Panama has
experienced heavy poaching pressure historically. Efforts to control
poaching are ongoing in Costa Rica, but it continues to be a
substantial problem. Little information is available regarding poaching
of scarlet macaws in Panama. It is one factor that led to the near
extirpation of this species from mainland Panama and remains a concern
at Cerro Hoya National Park. Poaching is not a threat on Isla Coiba.
The scarlet macaw in Mesoamerica consists mostly of small
populations, and it is reasonable to conclude that any level of
poaching poses a significant threat to the species in this portion of
its range, especially considering the susceptibility of scarlet macaws
because of its reproductive traits. The available information indicates
that poaching of Ara macao cyanoptera chicks and adults is a
significant stressor throughout its range. Populations of A. m. macao
in Costa Rica on the Pacific slope are likely increasing even with
poaching pressure, indicating that poaching may not be a major threat
in Costa Rica. However, poaching continues and remains a concern.
Little information exists regarding poaching of scarlet macaws in
Panama, but because poaching was one of the reasons for the species'
almost extirpation on the mainland and the remaining populations are
very small and susceptible to poaching, we consider poaching to be a
stressor to scarlet macaws on mainland Panama. We are not aware of
information regarding the level of poaching in northwest Colombia.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
In our proposed rule (77 FR 40237-40238; July 6, 2012), we
concluded that disease and predation are not threats to the northern
subspecies of scarlet macaw or the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies. We received no additional information indicating otherwise.
Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Forest Conservation Regulations
With the exception of Belize, all countries in the range of A. m.
cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. m. macao have a national or
subnational policy framework on forests and their management, although
Belize has a variety of regulations that protect their natural
resources. Of those countries with a policy framework, all but Colombia
have specific national forest laws in support of these policies, but
laws supporting national forest policy in Colombia are incorporated
within other laws (FAO 2010a, pp. 302-303). All range countries except
Belize also have National Forest programs that provide the framework to
develop and implement their forest policies, although the status of
Panama's program is unknown (for information on regulatory mechanisms
pertaining to forest management in scarlet macaw range countries see:
Pe[ntilde]a-Claros et al. 2011, entire; Espinosa et al. 2011, pp. 21-
26; FAO 2011c, p. 78; Government of Colombia 2011, pp. 89-91, 203-211;
Guignier 2011, pp. 12-22; Larson and Petkova 2011, entire; May et al.
2011, pp. 16-55; Stern and Kernan 2011, pp. 52-54, 88- 90; United
Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD)
2011, unpaginated; Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Development
2010, pp. 54, 57-58; Blaser et al. 2010, pp. 263- 267, 277-281, 291-
293, 300-302, 311- 312, 320-323, 334-337, 345-346, 365- 367, 376-377,
394-396; CIFOR 2010, p. 45; FAO 2010a, pp. 150-158, 302-303; Government
of Belize 2010, pp. 27-34; Sparovek 2010, pp. 6046-6047; Tolisano and
Lopez-Selva 2010, pp. 24-28; Bauch et al. 2009, entire; McGinley et al.
2009, pp. 18-30; Patriota 2009, pp. 612-615; Trevin and Nasi 2009,
entire; Byers and Israel 2008, pp. 29-34; Torres-Lezama et al. 2008,
entire; Hopkins 2007, pp. 398- 405; Playfair 2007, entire; Portilla and
Eguren 2007, pp. 19-32; World Bank 2007, pp. 10-28, 71-76; Clark 2006,
pp. 19-29; Grenand et al. 2006, pp. 49, 54- 56; Baal 2005, unpaginated;
Parker et al. 2004, pp. III-1-III-8, Annex H, Annex I; Government of
Belize 2003, entire; Bevilacqua et al. 2002, pp. 6-9; Mauri 2002,
entire; Vreugdenhil et al. 2002, pp. 6-10).
Habitat destruction or modification from deforestation and forest
degradation occurs in most portions of the range of the A. m.
cyanoptera. Many, if not all, of these countries have regulations aimed
at conserving forested area, but for the most part they are not able to
adequately enforce their regulations due to lack of financial,
personnel, and technical resources; conflicts over land ownership,
which can lead to illegal logging and expansion of agriculture and
pasture; and lack of oversight or coordination with a governing body.
In the northern DPS of the southern subspecies A. m. macao, Costa
Rica is both losing and gaining forested land, but we are unaware of
any information indicating that deforestation or forest degradation in
the current range of the scarlet macaw in Costa Rica is occurring at a
level that is causing a decline in the species. Forest area has
increased over 25 years and the range of scarlet macaws on the Pacific
slope of Costa Rica has increased. In Panama, although large-scale
deforestation is not occurring where the small populations of scarlet
macaws are currently known to exist, small-scale logging continues with
little oversight and significantly contributes to ongoing forest
degradation. In northwest Colombia, even though the region is reported
to have large tracts of suitable forest, many of the areas in northwest
Colombia are deforestation hotspots. Habitat loss has caused the
decline of the species from large areas in the region, and existing
regulations have not been sufficient to reverse the transformation of
natural ecosystems. Major forest reserves have been degraded from their
original condition. Therefore, the existing regulatory mechanisms
addressing this threat in Panama and Colombia are not adequate to
protect forested land that the species depends on.
Illegal Capture and Trade
The scarlet macaw is protected under CITES, an international
agreement among governments to ensure that the international trade of
CITES-listed plant and animal species does not threaten species'
survival in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES Parties (member
countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, and re-export of
specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant and animal
species. Trade under CITES is authorized through a system of permits
and certificates that are issued by the designated CITES Management
Authority of each CITES Party (CITES 2018, unpaginated). All the
countries within the range of the scarlet macaw are Parties to CITES.
However, when the species was included in Appendix I in 1985, Suriname
(along with three European countries: Austria, Switzerland, and
Liechtenstein) entered a reservation to the listing (Austria withdrew
its reservation in 1989) (UNEP-WCMC 2012, unpaginated). A reservation
means that a country is treated as not a party to CITES with respect to
the species concerned. However, if a country with a reservation to a
listing in the CITES Appendices wishes to trade that species with a
country that has not taken the same reservation, then that trade is
subject to the CITES permit requirements since the non-reserving Party
is bound by the CITES requirements (CITES 2018, unpaginated).
The import of scarlet macaws into the United States is also
regulated by the
[[Page 6300]]
WBCA, which was enacted on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA is
to promote the conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all
imports of exotic birds to the United States are biologically
sustainable and not detrimental to the species in the wild. The WBCA
restricts the import of most CITES-listed live or dead exotic birds.
Import of dead specimens is allowed for scientific purposes and museum
specimens. Permits may be issued to allow import of listed birds for
various purposes, such as scientific research, zoological breeding or
display, or personal pets, when certain criteria are met. The Service
may also approve cooperative breeding programs and subsequently issue
import permits to allow the import of birds for use in such programs.
The United States may also approve foreign sustainable use management
plants under the WBCA. At this time, the scarlet macaw is not part of a
Service-approved cooperative breeding program, and very few wild-caught
birds have been recorded for importation.
The Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378) 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.
The Lacey Act covers all fish and wildlife and their parts or products,
plants protected by CITES.
Although illegal trapping for the pet trade occurred at high levels
during the 1980s, international trade has decreased significantly as a
result of tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, adoption of the
WBCA, and similar stricter measures under European Union legislation,
along with adoption of national legislation in range countries (Snyder
et al. 2000, p. 99). Based on the best available data, we found no
information indicating international trade is currently a threat to the
scarlet macaw populations.
The laws and regulations that govern capture and trade of scarlet
macaw in the range countries are briefly discussed below.
Mexico (A. m. cyanoptera)
The General Law of Wildlife for Mexico establishes that no bird
specimen corresponding to the family Psittacidae or psittacid
(including Ara macao cyanoptera), whose natural distribution is within
the national territory, may be subject to extractive exploitation for
subsistence or commercial purposes, especially species that are
endemic, threatened, endangered, or protected by international treaties
(Official Mexican Standard NOM-059-SEMARNAT-1994; Animal Legal and
Historical Center 2018, unpaginated; Cantu-Guzman 2007, p. 45). Mexico
considers the scarlet macaw to be in danger of extinction within the
country (Government of Mexico 2010a, p. 32). The Secretariat may only
grant authorizations for extractive use for conservation or scientific
research purposes. Responsibility for implementation lies with Profepa,
the agency of the Environment Ministry in charge of policing
environmental laws (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 45). The most serious
difficulty Profepa faces in the combat against illegal bird trade is
the limited number of inspectors it has for the whole country (Profepa
2002, in Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 45). Seizures by Profepa was
estimated at approximately 2 percent of the annual illegal trade, which
represents a very small portion of the number of parrots captured each
year (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 49). Of the 65,000 parrots that were
captured annually, data indicate as few as up to 50 scarlet macaws (or
less than 0.1 percent of the total parrots) were captured annually in
Mexico, even though some of these may be from Central American
countries (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 35). From 1995 to 2005, 144
scarlet macaws were seized by Profepa (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p.
52).
Guatemala (A. m. cyanoptera)
National hunting legislation was first passed in Guatemala in 1970,
with the mandates of this national policy reinforced in the legislation
passed on protected areas in 1989. Hunting is widely used by most rural
residents in Guatemala to supplement food and income needs, and is
largely unregulated and inconsistently monitored (Tolisano and Lopez-
Selva 2010, p. 44).
Most of the data on hunting has not been published or
systematically organized to indicate the magnitude or intensity of
local and national hunting pressures (CECON-PROBIOMA 2005, in Tolisano
and Lopez-Selva 2010, p. 44). National and municipal agencies generally
have insufficient human resources, have insufficient training, and lack
the necessary equipment to effectively monitor or mitigate hunting
impacts, and much of the monitoring that does occur is done on a
relatively haphazard basis by different research institutions and
nongovernmental organizations (Tolisano and Lopez-Selva 2010, p. 44).
A similar situation to unregulated hunting exists for the capture
and sale of live animals to supply the pet trade, research
institutions, and zoological collections. Scarlet macaws are
overexploited; nestlings are taken from their tree cavity nests prior
to fledging and sold on the local market in the Pet[eacute]n (Tolisano
and Lopez-Selva 2010, p. 44). Guatemalan authorities do a relatively
good job of trying to control this traffic, but rumors that scarlet
macaw chicks can fetch $300-$600 USD on the black market continue to
fuel illegal trade within the country (Muccio 2009, p. 14).
Belize (A. m. cyanoptera)
Belize's Wildlife Protection Act provides for the regulation of
hunting and the commercial dealing in wildlife. It prohibits hunting of
specific species, in closed areas, and of immature wildlife or females
accompanied by their young. It is administered by the Forest Department
of the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (Government of
Belize 2010, p. 29). This law prohibits hunting of the scarlet macaw
and prohibits hunting wildlife in a forest reserve without a license
(Wildlife Protection Act 2000, entire). Scarlet macaws have been
poached by Guatemalans (guaceros and xateros) that illicitly cross the
border into Belize for economic reasons. Most poaching is
opportunistic. Past incidences of conflict between law enforcement and
Guatemalan nationals have occurred (Harbison 2017, unpaginated). The
Belize Defense Force cooperates with the Scarlet Six team to deter
poaching scarlet macaw chicks (see Conservation Measures, below).
Honduras (A. m. cyanoptera)
Three institutions are charged with biodiversity conservation in
Honduras: The Secretariat of Natural Resources and Environment (SERNA);
the Secretariat of Agriculture and Cattle Ranching (SAG); and the ICF
who develops programs, regulations, or projects for biodiversity
conservation with an emphasis on species in danger of extinction
(Hansen and Florez 2008, p. 17). Internal legislation concerning
biodiversity centered on a 1990
[[Page 6301]]
government decree prohibiting the capture and sale of wildlife within
Honduras. However, it has been criticized for contributing to illegal
trafficking of wildlife through neighboring countries, particularly
through the sparsely populated border with Nicaragua (Anderson and
Devenish 2009, p. 257). A National Biodiversity Strategy was published
in 2000 (Anderson and Devenish 2009, p. 257). However, no specific
legislation to manage biodiversity exists (World Bank 2007, p.
12).Wildlife is sold openly in the streets, and families maintain
scarlet macaws as pets (Hansen and Florez 2008, p. 22). Also, despite
the R[iacute]o Pl[aacute]tano Biosphere Reserve's status, poaching
occurs within its boundaries.
Nicaragua (A. m. cyanoptera)
Historically, wildlife in Nicaragua has been used as food for poor
rural and indigenous populations, for sport hunting, for medicinal and
cultural use, and as pets (MARENA 2008, p. 22). Illegal capture and
trade of wildlife species is also a source of income (McGinley et al.
2009, p. 16). Despite the scarcity of records, laws to regulate
wildlife trade in Nicaragua have existed since the late 19th century.
MARENA is a key agency responsible for conservation of endangered
species in Nicaragua. In 2008, 123 species were permanently banned from
harvest or use, and another 61 species were partially banned; many of
these banned species are also listed by the IUCN or by CITES. Hunting
of the scarlet macaw is prohibited (Nicaraguan laws 559 and 641; FAOLEX
2018, unpaginated). Nonetheless, these national species protection bans
are rarely applied and enforced (McGinley et al. 2009, p. 22). The
scarlet macaw is a principal species involved in illegal trade
(McGinley et al. 2009 p. 16; MARENA 2008, p. 25). On the Caribbean
coast, commercial harvesting occurs of species such as scarlet macaws,
which is not currently subject to a harvesting quota and are sold on
the local market (MARENA 2008, p. 25).
Nicaragua's adoption of CITES has led to improvement in the
management and regulation of domestic and international wildlife trade.
Nonetheless, the existing legal framework is inadequate for the
protection and sustainability of domestic wildlife trade (McGinley et
al. 2009, p. 22). Furthermore, nonregulatory instruments, such as
monitoring, research, education, and information, are poorly, if at
all, used in the oversight of commercial wildlife trade in Nicaragua
(McGinley et al. 2009, p. 22).
Costa Rica (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao)
Costa Rica's Wildlife Conservation Law and its amendments prohibit
the hunting, collection, and extraction of species, except in certain
cases for subsistence by indigenous groups, scientific purposes, or
species control (Costa Rican Embassy 2013, unpaginated; NOVA 2013,
unpaginated; Tico Times 2017, unpaginated).
The Biodiversity Law has the objective of conserving biodiversity
and the sustainable use of the resources, as well as to distribute in
an equitable manner the benefits and derived costs. The law includes
the obligation of the state to avoid and prevent damage or destruction,
present or future, to human, animal, or plant health, or to the
integrity of the ecosystems, and to avoid any risk or danger which
threatens the permanence of ecosystems (Hopkins 2007, p. 404).
Costa Rica has protected its resources through an ambitious
national parks and biological reserves system, but they are
inadequately funded and insufficiently controlled (Government of Costa
Rica 2010, p. 34). Poaching by local communities is a problem of great
concern; hunting within national park boundaries is illegal, but such
activities are difficult to monitor and enforce with limited funds and
supervision (Huson 2010, p. 18; Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 52).
This limitation is reported in Carara National Park, in which park
officials believe that they do not have enough enforcement staff to
effectively control poaching (Huson 2010, p. 8).
Panama (A. m. macao)
To protect and regulate the use of wildlife, flora and fauna, the
Panamanian government has created numerous laws. The initial
legislation protecting Panama's biological diversity was Law 23 (1967)
on the protection and conservation of wildlife (Parker et al. 2004, p.
III-2). Another important piece of legislation is Resolution DIR-002-80
(1980) that identifies 82 species in danger of extinction and bans
hunting, capturing, buying, selling, or exporting of all species
included in this list (Parker et al. 2004, p. III-2). Scarlet macaw is
one of these species. Other important regulatory mechanisms include
Resolution DIR-003-80 (1980) that regulates wildlife in captivity and
its importation and exportation, and the Wildlife Law 24 (1995), which
establishes that wildlife is part of the natural heritage of Panama and
provides for the protection, restoration, research, management and
development of the country's genetic resources, including rare species
(Parker et al. 2004, p. III-2; Blaser et al. 2011, p. 355).
The Panamanian national police force is responsible for preventing
all infractions of the law, such as hunting violations (Parker et al.
2004, p. III-8). ANAM counts on police support, which is often more
concerned about major crime, and routinely treats environmental
infractions as minor nuisances. Local corregidores (i.e., local
administrative officials) often have little knowledge of environmental
laws and little impact on their enforcement, but these local officials
are important links in the enforcement of environmental laws, and have
influence on resident's behavior (Parker et al. 2004, p. V-10).
Training officials adjacent to or within protected areas results in
less illegal hunting and harvesting in protected areas (Parker et al.
2004, pp. III-2, V-10). Nonetheless, sport and commercial hunting
without regulation and subsistence hunting in the country continue.
Colombia (A. m. macao Northern DPS)
Under Colombian wildlife legislation, all wildlife belongs to the
State; although local communities (e.g., mayors, regional autonomous
corporations, indigenous reserves) have the right to participate in
decisions regarding resources under their jurisdictions and to enjoy a
healthy environment (International Institute for Environment and
Development 2018, unpaginated; Blaser et al. 2011, p. 297). Wildlife
legislation stipulates a general ban on hunting, but subsistence
hunting and fishing are allowed provided no ban is in place for a
particular species. In 1994, illegal hunting was established as a crime
in the penal code, which includes penalties for poaching and illicit
use of renewable natural resources (Gomez et al. 2015, unpaginated).
Trade of scarlet macaws taken from the wild is forbidden in Colombia,
although regulations are not always followed and scarlet macaws are
involved in illegal trade in the country (CITES 2001, p. 8). The
Colombian National Army and National Police are cooperating with the
Ministry of the Environment to protect the country's wildlife and
combat illegal wildlife trafficking, much of that illegally acquired
wildlife is intercepted near the northern Colombian coasts (Pedraza
2015, unpaginated).
Summary of Illegal Capture and Trade
Legal international trade is not a current threat because of
international laws such as CITES, the WBCA, and similar stricter
measures under European Union legislation that restrict the trade of
wild scarlet macaws. All
[[Page 6302]]
range countries have laws and policies that aim to prevent illegal
capture and trade of scarlet macaws, although some hunting and capture
continues. However, illegal capture for the domestic pet trade within
most range countries occurs at a level that is likely to negatively
impact the species throughout all of the range of subspecies A. m.
cyanoptera, and in the range of the subspecies A. m. macao in Costa
Rica and Panama. Because capture for the pet trade is ongoing and poses
a threat to scarlet macaws in these regions, we conclude that the
regulatory mechanisms addressing this threat in these regions are
inadequate.
Summary of Factor D
We found threats discussed under Factors A and B to be threats to
the species throughout all of the range of subspecies A. m. cyanoptera,
except on Isla Coiba, Panama; and in the range of the subspecies A. m.
macao in Costa Rica (Factor B only), Panama, and Colombia west of the
Andes (Factor A only). The existing regulatory mechanisms do not appear
to be adequate to address threats, primarily because these countries
lack resources to effectively enforce all their laws. Therefore, we
conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to
protect subspecies A. m. cyanoptera throughout all of its range, and
the northern DPS of A. m. macao from the threats of deforestation and
overutilization.
Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
Small Population Size and Synergistic Effects of Threats
Small, isolated populations place species at greater risk of local
extirpation or extinction due to a variety of factors, including loss
of genetic variability, demographic and environmental stochasticity,
and natural catastrophes (Lande 1995, entire; Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero
1991, p. 37; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-33; Soul[eacute] and
Simberloff 1986, pp. 28-32; Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Franklin 1980,
entire). Stochastic events that put small populations at risk include,
but are not limited to, variation in birth and death rates,
fluctuations in gender ratio, inbreeding depression, and random
environmental disturbances such as fire and climatic shifts (Blomqvist
et al. 2010, entire; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 27; Shaffer 1981,
p. 131).
Overall levels of genetic variation in the scarlet macaw remain
high, but a decrease in diversity was noted among birds from the
Chiquibul Forest Reserve in Belize (Schmidt 2013, abstract). Gene flow
occurs between nest sites in Guatemala and Belize, and levels of
genetic diversity are high in the tri-national region (Schmidt and
Amato 2008, p. 137), but the Belize population may be more isolated
from the Guatemala and Mexico populations (Brightsmith 2016, in litt.,
p. 8). The isolation of populations and subsequent loss of genetic
exchange would impact the population at different timescales. In the
short term, populations may suffer the deleterious consequences of
inbreeding; over the long term, the loss of genetic variability
diminishes a species' capacity to adapt to changes in the environment
(Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire; Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. 233-234;
Nunney and Campbell 1993, pp. 236-237; Soul[eacute] and Simberloff
1986, pp. 28-29; Franklin 1980, pp. 140-144).
Negative impacts associated with small population size and
vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or natural
catastrophes may be further magnified by synergistic interactions with
other threats, such as those discussed in Factors A and B.
Small populations that are declining can be especially vulnerable
to habitat loss (O'Grady et al. 2004, pp. 513-514). As bird assemblages
in forest habitat are reduced because the size of the habitat is
reduced, smaller areas are less likely to provide the essential
resources for species such as scarlet macaw that have large ranges.
Thus, deforestation in combination with other negative impacts can have
profound effects and potentially reduce a species' effective population
(the proportion of the actual population that contributes to future
generations) by orders of magnitude (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p.
31). For example, an increase in habitat fragmentation can separate
populations to the point where individuals can no longer disperse and
breed among habitat patches, causing a shift in the demographic
characteristics of a population and a reduction in genetic fitness
(Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 31). This risk is especially
applicable for scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica, where the species was
once wide-ranging but has lost a significant amount of its historical
range due to habitat loss and degradation. Large forests areas have
been removed throughout Mesoamerica and the large tracts of forest that
remain, such as the Maya and Lacandon Forests, the transnational forest
in the Mosquitia region, and the transnational forest on the border of
Costa Rica and Panama, have almost been cut off from each other by
deforestation (Bray 2010, p. 93). Scarlet macaws may use partially
cleared and cultivated landscapes if the landscape provides dietary
requirements and maintains enough large trees because this species is
dependent on larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities.
However, scarlet macaws have a better chance of surviving in large
tracts of forest where suitable cavities are more common than in open
and small forest remnants (Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 91).
Commercial exploitation of scarlet macaw chicks may further
contribute to inbreeding depression and loss of genetic diversity.
However, other large, long-lived avian species have demonstrated
significant retention of molecular diversity after marked declines,
thus indicating that longevity of the species may act as an intrinsic
buffer against the rapid loss of genetic variation (Schmidt 2013, pp.
132-133). But the presence of high genetic variation in long-lived
species may mask demographic instability introduced by habitat
alteration and overexploitation, resulting in a sudden and marked loss
of diversity (Schmidt 2013, p. 133). Systematic removal of scarlet
macaw nestlings over extended periods of time has likely produced an
unstable age distribution in the tri-national region (Mexico,
Guatemala, and Belize), heavily skewed toward older individuals with
low recruitment (Clum 2008, p. 79).
Historically, the scarlet macaw in Mesoamerica existed in much
higher numbers in more continuous habitat. Currently, the scarlet macaw
occurs in relatively small and fragmented populations within
Mesoamerica; most populations in this region are believed to contain
approximately 100 to 700 individuals, with only two populations
potentially containing more than 1,000 individuals. The total
population size for scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica is likely no greater
than 5,000 individuals. Overall, suitable habitat is becoming
increasingly limited and is not likely to expand in the future.
Therefore, the species' reproductive and life-history traits, combined
with its limited and fragmented habitat, increases the species'
vulnerability to deforestation and overutilization in the A. m.
cyanoptera and northern DPS of A. m. macao subspecies due to the small
size of the species' populations.
Competition for Nest Cavities
Competition for suitable nest cavities limits reproductive success
by limiting the available nesting sites and thus limiting the number of
pairs that can breed, or by causing nest mortality as a result of
agonistic interactions.
[[Page 6303]]
Intraspecific competition between different pairs of scarlet macaws,
and competition with pairs of other macaw species, is reported to be
intense in some areas (Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; Inigo-Elias
1996, p. 96; Nycander 1995, p. 428).
Competition for nesting sites occurs throughout the scarlet macaw's
range. In Mexico, species including other psittacines (Amazona
farinosa, Amazona autumnalis), toucans (Ramphastos sulfuratus), and
falconiforms (Herpetotheres cachinnans) breed synchronously with
scarlet macaws and compete to use the same nest cavities (In[iacute]go-
Elias 1996, p. 61). In Costa Rica, quality nest sites appear to be in
demand because at least four pairs of scarlet macaws were seen
competing for the same nest cavity, which may be a limiting factor in
the successful fledgling in the population (Vaughan et al. 2003, p.
10). Additional avian nest competitors include chestnut-mandibled
toucan (Ramphastos swainsonii), barred forest falcon (Micrastur
semitorquatus), and yellow-napped parrot (Amazona auropalliata)
(Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 10). At a remote site in southeastern Peru,
approximately 70 percent of the nesting attempts involved competition
over nests (Brightsmith 2010, unpaginated). Competition for nest sites
with other macaws was found to be the primary cause of failure of nests
with chicks. Scarlet macaws and red-and-green macaws (Ara chloropterus)
frequently compete for nest cavities, which have been recorded
annually. The smaller and less competitive scarlet macaws are at a
disadvantage, perhaps contributing to their use of a wider range of
cavity resources (Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5).
Africanized honey bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) are also
reported to be a serious competitor with scarlet macaws for nest
cavities (Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 13; Inigo-
Elias 1996, p. 61). Africanized honey bees are an exotic species
originally introduced in Brazil in 1956 (Whitfield et al. 2006, p.
644). They subsequently spread throughout South and Central America,
displacing naturalized European honey bees (Apis mellifera), and
arriving in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize around 1986 (Whitfield et al.
2006, pp. 643-644; Clarke et al. 2002 and Rogel et al. 1991, in Berry
et al. 2010, p. 486; Fierro et al. 1987, unpaginated). Africanized
honey bees occur at higher densities and are more aggressive than
naturalized European honey bees (Rogel 1991 and Clarke et al. 2002, in
Berry et al. 2010, p. 486). Studies in Mexico, Guatemala, and Costa
Rica reported bees attacking nests with eggs and chicks and that the
bees usurped nesting cavities, resulting in the failure of the scarlet
macaw nest (In[iacute]go-Elias 1996, p. 61; Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52).
Additionally, breeding pairs of scarlet macaws were attacked when they
approached the nest cavity (In[iacute]go-Elias 1996, p. 61; Garcia et
al. 2008, p. 52). Because these bees occur throughout the scarlet
macaw's range in Central and South America and have demonstrated a
negative effect on scarlet macaw nesting, we assume these bees are
competitors for nest cavities throughout the scarlet macaw's range, but
we are unaware of any other data or information regarding the magnitude
of these impacts on scarlet macaw nesting success.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate and the effects of any such 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, and 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 the
effects of climate change that are relevant to the scarlet macaw.
Several studies project various changes in climate in Mesoamerica
and the Amazon by the mid- to late century or sooner (Karmalkar et al.
2011, entire; Kitoh et al. 2011, entire; Giorgi and Bi 2009, entire;
Anderson et al. 2008, entire; Cook and Vizy 2008, entire; Li et al.
2008, entire; Christensen et al. 2007, pp. 892-896). Although there are
uncertainties in these models and variation in projections, the general
trajectory under most scenarios is one of increased warming in
Mesoamerica and the Amazon, and decreased precipitation in Mesoamerica
and some areas of the Amazon. Several studies project changes in
habitat in areas of the species' range, either from the effects of
climate change or from the effects of climate change in combination
with deforestation (Imbach et al. 2011, abstract; Marengo et al. 2011,
entire; Asner et al. 2010, entire; Vergara and Scholz 2010, entire;
Malhi et al. 2009, entire; Malhi et al. 2008, entire; Nepstad et al.
2008, entire). However, high levels of uncertainty remain in projecting
habitat changes within the species' range (see review by Davidson et
al. 2012, entire), and there is no consensus on the type or extent of
habitat changes that will occur. Therefore, because the scarlet macaw
is tolerant of a relatively broad range of ecological conditions;
occurs in a variety of habitat types including wet forest, dry forest,
and savanna provided they contain suitable nest cavities and roosting
sites; has a broad diet including nonnative species; and is known to
inhabit patchworks of forest and human-modified landscapes, we assume
the scarlet macaw is likely to adapt to some level of change in its
environment provided its essential needs are met. Overall, we are
unaware of any information indicating that the effects of climate
change are now causing, or will in the future cause, declines in the
scarlet macaw population.
Summary of Factor E
Small population size and competition for next cavities may be
threats to the scarlet macaw in some parts of its range in Mesoamerica
and northwest Colombia. Populations have a high level of genetic
diversity, but they remain vulnerable to stochastic demographic and
environmental events because of their small populations. Competition
for nest cavities may be a limiting factor and likely reduces
reproductive success. The general consensus is that the scarlet macaw's
range is going to become hotter and drier; however, the scarlet macaw
is tolerant of a relatively broad range of ecological conditions.
Because the species persists in small and mostly isolated populations,
threats often operate synergistically, particularly when populations of
a species are decreasing. Thus, the initial effects of one threat
factor can exacerbate the effects of other threats (Gilpin and
Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-26).
Within the preceding review of the five factors, we have identified
threat factors A and B that may have interrelated impacts on this
species, particularly in Mesoamerica. The species' productivity in
Mesoamerica may be reduced because of any of these threats, either
singularly or in
[[Page 6304]]
combination. For example, deforestation reduces the amount of nesting
cavities, which increases competition among pairs of scarlet macaws and
other species for nesting sites. Deforestation and the infrastructure
that may accompany it creates access to previously inaccessible areas,
thereby opening up new areas of the species' range to the threat of
poaching and further habitat loss. Therefore, because the populations
of scarlet macaw are small and mostly isolated in Mesoamerica, and
these small populations are subject to a combination of threats, we
believe that small population size is a contributing stressor to
scarlet macaws throughout Mesoamerica, including the entire range of
subspecies A. m. cyanoptera and the range of A. m. macao in Costa Rica,
Panama, and northwest Colombia.
Conservation Measures
Reintroduction of Scarlet Macaws
Reintroduction efforts for the scarlet macaw have occurred
throughout the range of A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of the
southern subspecies A. m. macao. We briefly discussed some of the
reintroduction efforts in our July 6, 2012, and April 7, 2016, proposed
rules to list the scarlet macaw (77 FR 40222 and 81 FR 20302,
respectively). However, based on public and peer reviewer comments we
received, we are incorporating additional information regarding these
conservation efforts and programs that reintroduce captive-bred and
confiscated scarlet macaws back into the wild within their respective
historical ranges. We received information on some of the release sites
and reintroduction programs and describe many of them, although we may
not have information on every reintroduction program occurring for
scarlet macaws. Most, if not all, of the reintroduction sites are
within, adjacent to, or at least within flight distance of currently
existing populations.
Because of the increasing number of reintroduction projects
involving various species worldwide, the IUCN Species Survival
Commission published guidelines for reintroductions to help ensure that
reintroduction efforts achieve intended conservation benefits and do
not cause adverse side effects of greater impact (IUCN/SSC 2013,
entire; IUCN/SSC 1998, entire). Additionally, recommendations were made
specific to parrot reintroductions based on a review of previous
releases and reintroductions of psittacines worldwide (White et al.
2012, entire). We considered these guidelines and recommendations when
evaluating the effectiveness of the reintroduction programs to conserve
scarlet macaw throughout its range in Mesoamerica.
Reintroduction of Ara macao cyanoptera
Mexico
In 1993, Xcaret began a program of scarlet macaw reproduction in
captivity, developing and using the best protocols for hand rearing,
and establishing new procedures to facilitate parental rearing of the
chicks without human intervention (Raigoza Figueras 2014, p. 51). The
aim is to rear captive-bred macaws that will adapt to the wild
successfully and not require post-release supplemental feeding (Raigoza
Figueras 2014, p. 48). The release program began in 2013. Xcaret
supplies captive scarlet macaws for reintroduction at two sites in
Mexico: (1) Palenque, Chiapas; and (2) Los Tuxtlas, Veracruz (Xcaret
2014, unpaginated).
The Palenque, Chiapas, release site is located in forested habitat
of Aluxes Ecopark of Palenque, a wildlife rescue and rehabilitation
center that encompasses 44 ha (108 ac). This site is approximately 0.5
km (0.3 mi) from Palenque National Park (Amaya et al. 2015, p. 457) and
more than 100 km (62 mi) away from the nearest current wild population
(Brightsmith in litt. 2016, p. 21). All scarlet macaws used for
reintroduction were captive bred at Xcaret Ecopark.
In the April 7, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 20302), we identified
the program in Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico, in which 96 scarlet macaws
were released between April 2013 and June 2014, with a 91 percent
survival rate as of May 2015, including nine nesting events and
successful use of wild foods by released birds (Estrada 2014, p. 345).
Results of the reintroduction program in Palenque, Chiapas, show that
the dietary diversity and breadth of the reintroduced scarlet macaws
closely approaches that of wild macaws; the reintroduced birds have the
capacity to find and track wild food sources; they have very low
mortality in the released population (9 percent); they have had nine
successful nesting events, including seven in natural cavities
(Estrada, unpublished, in Amaya et al. 2015, p. 471); and they have
expanded their foraging and activity range outside of the release site
(Amaya et al. 2015, pp. 466-471). This reintroduction appears
successful at integrating captive-reared scarlet macaws into the wild
and could be a model for reintroduction efforts throughout the range.
During the years of 2008-2010, the status of parrot species in Los
Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico, was assessed by obtaining data on abundance,
habitat use, and date of pet trade. Only three species out of the nine
species previously reported remain in this area (De Labra et al. 2010,
p. 599). Scarlet macaw was not recorded, and there is a consensus of
local and historical extinction of the Ara macao in this region
(Schaldach and Escalante 1997 and Winker 1997, in De Labra et al. 2010,
p. 607).
Since that time, La Otra Opci[oacute]n is a 336-ac (136-ha) private
ecological reserve and breeding center for endangered species in the
Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve buffer zone has worked to reintroduce
scarlet macaws in the Los Tuxtlas region. In 2014, scarlet macaws were
reintroduced to this area after disappearing for 40 years, and to date,
more than 100 scarlet macaws have been released (Raigosa et al 2016, in
Defenders of Wildlife 2016, in litt., p. 4; Mexico Daily News 2017,
unpaginated; Escalante 2016, unpaginated). Many captive-bred scarlet
macaws remain in the wild with pairing observed and potential nesting
(Mexico Daily News 2017, unpaginated; Escalante 2016, unpaginated).
Thus, this reintroduction effort appears moderately successful
integrating scarlet macaws into the wild population in Mexico.
The reintroduction programs in Palenque and Los Tuxtlas were
aligned with the IUCN guidelines and the recommendations made by White
et al. 2012. After the first year of implementation in Palenque, the
number of reintroduced and surviving macaws raises the number of extant
macaws in the wild in Mexico by about 34 percent (Estrada 2014, p.
360). Considering Palenque and Los Tuxtlas together, the population of
scarlet macaws in Mexico has increased up to 82 percent in 3 years
(Rodriguez 2016, unpaginated; Lopez 2018, unpaginated).
Guatemala
The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) started working in
Guatemala in 1992, with the mission of conserving the MBR as one of
Mesoamerica's most important wildlife conservation areas. The MBR is
the last stronghold for scarlet macaws in Guatemala and contains the
most important nesting area for the species in the country. The WCS has
worked to reduce poaching, protect nesting sites from deforestation,
monitor nesting success and distribution, construct artificial nests,
provide environmental education in local communities, and create a
captive-release program (WCS 2016, pp. 6-16). In addition, they started
a veterinarian evaluation program, supplementary
[[Page 6305]]
feeding, and management of wild chicks during nesting season (WCS 2018,
unpaginated). In June 2016, WCS placed six rehabilitated chicks in safe
scarlet macaw nests (Boyd 2016, in litt., p. 9). With these
interventions, they have increased the number of fledglings per nest
(WCS 2018, unpaginated; WCS 2016, p. 11). WCS Guatemala is also working
in collaboration to eradicate wildlife trafficking between Belize and
Guatemala.
The Wildlife Rescue and Conservation Association (Asociaci[oacute]n
Rescate y Conservaci[oacute]n de Vida Silvestre (ARCAS)) is a
rehabilitation and breeding-for-release center for Guatemalan wildlife
that has been confiscated from the black market by the Guatemalan
government. Since its establishment, the ARCAS Rescue Center has grown
into one of the largest and most complex wildlife rehabilitation
centers in the world and a leader in training programs for other
wildlife rescue groups and veterinary students (Oakland Zoo 2018,
unpaginated). In October 2015, in Pet[eacute]n, ARCAS released nine
captive-bred scarlet macaws into the wild in Guatemala, which was the
first time captive-bred scarlet macaws were released into the wild in
Guatemala. At least 60 percent of the released birds survived more than
10 months on their own, showing that they successfully adapted to the
environment and were able to feed and fly on their own. This program
for rehabilitation and release has generated quantifiable results that
can be used to prove the viability of such a strategy in the
reinforcement of the depleted scarlet macaw population of the Sierra
del Lacand[oacute]n National Park, which is where the scarlet macaws
were released and is one of the largest and best protected natural
areas in the MBR (ARCAS 2016, pp. 5-6). In 2016, they planned to
release 10 more scarlet macaws (Boyd 2016, in litt., p. 10), but we do
not have any information regarding the results of this release.
Belize
In Belize, the protection of the scarlet macaw in the Chiquibul
region is provided by numerous organizations, some of which have joined
efforts to improve protection with the goal of increasing the chance of
survival for this species (Hagen Avicultural Research Institute 2015,
unpaginated). For example, the Scarlet Six Biomonitoring Team (Scarlet
Six), Friends for Conservation and Development (FCD), and the Belize
Self-Defense Forces work together to reduce illegal gold mining; timber
extraction; and poaching of animals, particularly scarlet macaw chicks.
The FCD rangers patrol the Chiquibul Forest, collaborate with the
Scarlet Six, and receive support from the Belize Defense Force. Their
goal is to conserve the natural and cultural resources of the western
Chiquibul-Maya Mountains (FCD 2016, p. 4). In addition to protecting
scarlet macaws in the wild, the FCD also started a captive-rearing
program modeled after successful programs in Mexico and Guatemala
(Harbison 2017, unpaginated). If a nest cannot be effectively protected
by the rangers while the chicks are growing, or if a nest produces a
third chick that will not survive, FCD removes the chicks from the nest
and brings them to the lab. All eight macaws in 2015's cohort
successfully fledged, but it took until January 2016 before they left
the area for good (Harbison 2017, unpaginated). The FCD also signed an
agreement with WCS in Guatemala and Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C.
in July to coordinate research, management, and conservation efforts of
scarlet macaws in the Maya Forest (FCD 2016, p. 13). In January 2016,
FCD signed an extended agreement of cooperation with Asociaci[oacute]n
Balam for the protection of the Chiquibul ecosystem for the period
2016-2020. This agreement primarily seeks to jointly promote the
protection of the Chiquibul Maya Mountains ecosystem and reduce
conflict among communities located on the Belize and Guatemala
adjacency zone (FCD 2016, p. 9).
Honduras
In Honduras, scarlet macaws have been released into multiple sites.
Releasing scarlet macaws at the Isla Zacate Grande biological station
in Honduras began around 1996-1997 (Raigoza Figueras 2014, p. 50; Boyd
and McNab 2008, p. x). A private reserve released scarlet macaws on the
island. This reintroduction effort started with four chicks; a few
years later, they received and released another five scarlet macaws
(adults and chicks) of unknown origin (Boyd and McNab 2008, p. x).
About 20 scarlet macaws have been released at the site (Bjork 2008, pp.
x, 17-18; Raigoza Figueras 2014, p. 50). Some of the reintroduced birds
have ranged outside the release point to nearby communities and the
adjacent island of Amapala, Honduras. Released birds have been observed
around the Gulf of Fonseca, where Paso Pacifico is conducting a scarlet
macaw conservation program on the Cosig[uuml]ina Peninsula, Nicaragua
(see ``Nicaragua,'' below), which hosts a small wild population of 20
to 50 birds (Paso Pacifico 2017, unpaginated; Boyd and McNab 2008, p.
x). Isla Zacate Grande is approximately 35 km (22 mi) (overwater) from
the Cosig[uuml]ina Peninsula, an overland flight distance within
documented range for scarlet macaws (Boyd and McNab 2008, p. x).
Although no formal records are kept, nesting activity has been observed
in artificial nests placed in natural hollows (Raigoza Figueras 2014,
p. 50). However, as a model, there are concerns about the
reintroduction at this site because disease testing was not performed;
there was no documentation of the project; the birds have no fear of
humans and continue to depend on regular supplemental food; and the
birds appear to have been conditioned to nest in inappropriate
situations (i.e., low to the ground), which makes them highly
vulnerable to human and non-human predators alike. High security and
long-term daily maintenance is required (Boyd and McNab 2008, p. x;
Bjork 2008, pp. 17-18).
A reintroduction of scarlet macaw at the Cop[aacute]n
archaeological site (Parque Arqueol[oacute]gico Cop[aacute]n Ruinas) in
Honduras began in 2011. The World Parrot Trust, the Macaw Mountain Bird
Park and Nature Reserve, the Institute of Anthropology and History of
Honduras and the Association Cop[aacute]n have organized a long-running
program to return the scarlet macaw to the Parque Arqueol[oacute]gico
Cop[aacute]n Ruinas, a national park (Raigoza Figueras 2014, pp. 50-
51). The Macaw Mountain scarlet macaw breeding program is releasing
birds into the forests surrounding the Cop[aacute]n Ruins (Boyd 2016,
in litt., p. 6). Most of the birds come from private donations of pet
birds; others were confiscated by the Environment Office of the Public
Ministry (Macaw Mountain 2017, unpaginated). In 2018, scarlet macaws
released produced seven chicks (World Parrot Trust 2019, unpaginated).
We are not aware of the release methods or if this program takes into
account the IUCN guidelines and White et al. (2012) recommendations.
However, this program has been judged a resounding success (Macaw
Mountain 2019, unpaginated; Asociaci[oacute]n Copan 2017, unpaginated).
A macaw conservation and local development program was started in
the Mosquitia region of Honduras by the Lafeber Company, Dr. Kim
Joyner, indigenous peoples of several villages, the Forestry Service of
Honduras, Universidad Nacional Aut[oacute]noma Honduras, and the
Universidad Nacional de Agricultura (Boyd 2016, in litt., p. 7; Lafeber
2018, unpaginated). This program started in 2010, and in 2011 through
2012, confiscated scarlet
[[Page 6306]]
macaws were released at the village Mabita. Once these birds grew large
enough to fly, they were released from their cages, slowly learning to
fly around the village. Government officials have released more birds,
for a total of 22, and approximately 16 regularly visit the village,
coming in every morning to feed. The earliest birds released in Mabita
(in 2011) have an active nest; they have produced two chicks, which
demonstrates that the program can successfully raise birds to reproduce
in the wild (Lafeber 2018, unpaginated). However, it is not ideal that
the birds are so dependent on humans for food. We are not aware of the
release methods or if this program takes into account the IUCN
guidelines and White et al. (2012) recommendations.
Nicaragua
Paso Pacifico works throughout Nicaragua, focusing on the natural
ecosystems of Central America's Pacific slope (Boyd 2016, in litt., p.
5). In 2015, they launched a scarlet macaw conservation program in the
Cosig[uuml]ina Volcano area of northern Nicaragua (Paso Pacifico 2017,
unpaginated). With financial support from the Loro Parque
Fundaci[oacute]n, among others, community rangers protect and monitor
the remaining scarlet macaws. Their objectives are to establish
accurate baseline information about the population, focusing on
demographics, nesting success, and habitat use in the reserve; to
strengthen the ability of the Nicaraguan army to deter poachers; to
involve and empower the local community to protect nesting scarlet
macaws; and to increase awareness among Ministry of Environment
officials and the Nicaraguan environmental community (Loro Parque
Fundaci[oacute]n 2015, unpaginated). They have also been working
closely with families from La Salvia, the village nearest to the
scarlet macaw nesting area, through an educational program involving
birdwatching and other field-based activities that highlight the
significance of the scarlet macaw and the dry tropical forests at
Cosig[uuml]ina (pasopacifico 2017, unpaginated). Two scarlet macaw
chicks have safely fledged, which was the first successful macaw nest
documented in this area in over 20 years (pasopacifico 2017,
unpaginated).
Reintroduction of Ara macao macao
Costa Rica
On the Nicoya Peninsula in northwestern Costa Rica, scarlet macaws
are currently released at Punta Islita, Playa Tamboor, and Cur[uacute]
National Wildlife Refuge, which are all within 50 km (31 mi) of each
other. It is difficult to determine how these populations will fare
over time because these populations are fairly isolated, but these
three release sites could help repopulate the Nicoya Peninsula
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 15). The Punta Islita release site is
situated in the tropical moist forest of Costa Rica's North Pacific
coast; wild scarlet macaws had been locally extinct in this area for
decades. Between 2011 and 2018, 37 scarlet macaws were released at this
site (Ara Project 2017, unpaginated). We have no data concerning the
current status of the released birds. At Cur[uacute], scarlet macaws
were released starting in January 1999. Ten of the 13 birds released
were still alive after 4 years, and pairs have attempted to nest in
natural tree cavities in two different years, but no chicks have been
produced (Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468). At Playa Tambor, we do not
have information on the number of scarlet macaws released into the wild
or the success of the releases at this site.
Within the scarlet macaw's range in southwestern Costa Rica, a few
reintroduction programs exist around the Gulf (Golfo Dulce) and the Osa
Peninsula. These include Santuario Silvestre de Osa (SSO), which
releases birds close to Piedras Blancas National Park; Zoo Ave, which
releases birds in the Golfito area; Amigos de las Aves, which releases
offspring of confiscated birds in Alajuela, Punta Banco (Dear et al.
2010, pp. 15-17; Forbes 2005, p. 97); and Tiskita Lodge and the Ara
project, which releases birds in Tiskita Jungle Lodge's private reserve
also in Punta Blanco (Ara Project 2018, unpaginated). These
organizations receive and release birds confiscated from poachers from
all parts of the country (Dear et al. 2010, p. 15). Seventy-seven
scarlet macaws were released in 1997; as of 2002, almost 90 percent of
the released birds were still alive (Dear et al. 2010, p. 16).
Additionally, the range of birds released at Punta Banco has grown to
reach 84 km\2\ (32 mi\2\) (Forbes 2005, in Dear et al. 2010, p. 17).
The breeding center in Alajuela has since closed and moved to Tiskita
(Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Between 2002 and 2014, nine
groups of birds were released in Tiskita, most of which are thriving
and reproducing in the wild (Ara Project 2018, unpaginated; Tiskita
Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). To date, the survival rate is close to
90 percent, and at least five pairs have successfully fledged chicks in
natural cavities since 2008. Over 75 scarlet macaws have been released
into the wild at this site (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated).
This reintroduction program has ceased because a viable population has
been established that is large enough to potentially connect with
populations in the ACOSA that are farther north along the coast
(Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Thus, releases could
potentially aid in recolonization of the macaw population's original
range, to the extent that the habitat within that range remains
suitable.
In total, the past and ongoing reintroduction efforts have added
hundreds of scarlet macaws to the wild in Costa Rica. Additionally,
most reintroduction projects conduct environmental education at a local
level and attract additional media attention at the local and national
level. As a result, each reintroduction project educates the public
about the importance of scarlet macaws and of conservation and the
environment in general (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 22).
Impacts of Reintroducing Captive-Bred Scarlet Macaws Into the Wild
Releases of captive scarlet macaws could increase the wild
populations because many of the reintroduced captive-raised and
confiscated birds are released adjacent to existing populations or at
least within the range that scarlet macaws are known to disperse, and
some of the release birds have adapted to surviving in the wild by
finding mates and food and nesting resources similar to what wild
scarlet macaws use. In addition, releases of scarlet macaws could
potentially aid in recolonization of the population's original range in
Mesoamerica, to the extent that the habitat within that range remains
suitable and programs are available to protect scarlet macaws in the
wild from poachers. Conversely, releases of captive scarlet macaws
could potentially pose a threat to wild populations by exposing wild
birds to diseases for which wild populations have no resistance,
invoking behavioral changes in wild macaws that negatively affect their
survival, or compromising the genetic integrity of wild populations
(Dear et al. 2010, p. 20; Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75; also see IUCN 2013,
pp. 15-17). However, generally speaking, disease risks are small
because the probable frequency of occurrence is low (see Factor C
discussion in 77 FR 40237-40238; July 6, 2012).
Other Conservation Programs
Conservation programs operate in some areas of the scarlet macaw's
range but not throughout its entire range. Many partner organizations
work together to implement these
[[Page 6307]]
conservation programs that study and aim to increase the viability of
scarlet macaw populations in the wild. To the extent that we have
information indicating the effects of these programs on the scarlet
macaw's status, we included information in the Factors Affecting the
Species, above. In addition, general conservation measures such as
education, use of artificial nest boxes, and nest monitoring are
discussed below. Because too many organizations exist to list them all
here, we summarize the general actions taken. Organizations in certain
regions where scarlet macaws persist conduct the following conservation
efforts:
(1) Implement education programs that promote the scarlet macaw, as
well as sustainable forest management, because much of the territory in
the scarlet macaw's range is held by local communities or indigenous
people (Ara Project 2017, unpaginated; Vaughan et al. 1999, entire; WCS
2010, entire; FAO 2010a, pp. 238-239, Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 312, 346;
Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp. 462-463);
(2) Protect and monitor nests to reduce poaching, which has reduced
overall nest poaching in Belize from higher than 90 percent to less
than 30 percent, with 2017 the second year in a row that no known nests
were poached, and has greatly decreased the severity of poaching in
Guatemala (Harbison 2017, unpaginated; Garcia et al. 2008, p. xii);
(3) Construct artificial nest boxes, which increases nesting sites
and ultimately recruitment (Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 10; Brightsmith
2000a, entire; Brightsmith 2000b, entire; Brightsmith 2005, p. 297;
Nycander et al. 1995, pp. 435-436); and
(4) Use local conservation organizations to coordinate conservation
activities with stakeholders (Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 123; WCS 2008,
entire).
Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 3 of the Act
defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any species which is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range,''
and a ``threatened species'' as ``any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' As required by the Act, we
conducted a review of the status of the species and considered the five
factors in assessing whether the scarlet macaw meets the definition of
an endangered species or threatened species. We examined the best
scientific and commercial information available regarding factors
affecting the status of the scarlet macaw. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, information provided by peer review
and public comments, and other available published and unpublished
information.
Final Determination for the Northern Subspecies (Ara macao cyanoptera)
The northern subspecies of scarlet macaw, Ara macao cyanoptera,
exists in Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, eastern Costa
Rica, and Isla Coiba in Panama. Little quantitative data on historical
populations are available, but evidence indicates that the range of
this subspecies has been greatly reduced and the total current
population of A. m. cyanoptera, based on available data (see Table 1),
is estimated to be approximately 2,000 to 3,000 individuals.
The primary threats we identified to A. m. cyanoptera are habitat
loss due to activities that cause deforestation and forest degradation
(Factor A), poaching for the pet trade and sustenance (Factor B), and
small population size that works in combination with the other threats
(Factor E). The existing regulatory mechanisms are not adequate to
protect the species from these threats to the level that the species is
not in danger of extinction (Factor D).
Destruction of forest habitat is one of the main causes of the
decline of A. m. cyanoptera. Deforestation rates in Mesoamerica,
excluding Costa Rica, are the highest in Latin America due to expanding
agriculture, cattle ranching, and selective and often illegal logging.
Throughout the range of the subspecies where most of the species'
historical habitat has been eliminated, deforestation is rapidly
occurring, including in all the forested areas where scarlet macaws
currently exist (except Isla Coiba, Panama). Activities that lead to
deforestation and forest degradation directly eliminate the scarlet
macaw's tropical forest habitat by removing the trees that support the
species' essential needs for nesting, roosting, and food. Scarlet
macaws are known to use partially cleared and cultivated landscapes,
but they are only able to do so if the landscape maintains enough
large, older trees that provide the essential needs of the species.
Poaching, mainly for the pet trade but also for sustenance, is the
other main cause of decline of A. m. cyanoptera. The scarlet macaw is a
popular pet species within its range countries, and overutilization as
a result of poaching is a significant threat to A. m. cyanoptera
(except on Isla Coiba, Panama). The scarlet macaw is susceptible to
overharvest because it is a long-lived species with a low reproductive
rate and slow to recover from harvesting pressures. Thus, removal of
individuals year after year can inhibit population growth and cause
local extirpation. Evidence suggests poaching occurs at significant
levels in the Maya Forest region, even with conservation measures such
as monitoring and protecting nesting sites in Guatemala and Belize, and
is a significant threat in Honduras and Nicaragua. Poaching is
exacerbated by habitat removal because it increases access to
previously inaccessible areas, thereby opening up new areas to
poaching.
Most if not all of the countries within the range of A. m.
cyanoptera have regulations aimed at conserving forested lands,
biodiversity, and prohibit poaching of scarlet macaws. However, these
countries are not able to adequately enforce their regulations due to
lack of resources, conflicts over land ownership that lead to illegal
logging and expansion of agriculture and pasture, and lack of oversight
or a governing body to enforce the regulations.
Some range countries employ conservation measures such as
protecting nesting sites from poachers and reintroducing captive-bred
scarlet macaws into the wild. While these programs have had success
protecting nests from poachers and slightly increasing the number of
scarlet macaws in the wild in some populations (see Conservation
Measures, above), many of the reintroduction programs do not have data
to show long-term viability of reintroduced birds. Therefore, while
conservation measures have had a positive impact on the populations of
A. m. cyanoptera, these conservation actions occur in small sections of
the range of the subspecies and the threats identified above are
ongoing.
Scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica maintain a high level of genetic
diversity, but because of the few populations and the small numbers in
each of the populations, and their virtual isolation from other
populations due to deforestation, they remain vulnerable to extirpation
and extinction. Fewer than 5,000 scarlet macaws remain in this
relatively large geographic area.
Because of the extent of the decline in the range and numbers of
Ara macao cyanoptera due to ongoing habitat destruction and
degradation, poaching,
[[Page 6308]]
the lack of enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms addressing
these threats, and the small population sizes that work in combination
with the other threats, we find that these threats place A. m.
cyanoptera in danger of extinction. Therefore, on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial information available, we find that A. m.
cyanoptera meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' in
accordance with the definition in the Act.
Final Determination for the Northern DPS of Southern Subspecies (Ara
macao macao)
The range of Ara macao macao north and west of the Andes has been
greatly reduced and fragmented. The scarlet macaw has been almost
extirpated from mainland Panama and much of its former range in Costa
Rica. Its remaining distribution is on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica,
in the Chiriqu[iacute] province and at the southern end of the Azuero
Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park in Panama, and in
northwest Colombia.
Because information indicates that the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations
in Costa Rica, which make up the bulk of the northern DPS of A. m.
macao, may be stable and likely increasing and expanding their range on
the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, it is reasonable to conclude that the
northern DPS of A. m. macao is not currently in danger of extinction
and does not meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' under the
Act. A threatened species'' is ``any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.'' The Act does not define the phrase
``foreseeable future,'' but we interpret it to describe the extent to
which we can reasonably rely on the predictions about the future in
making determinations about the future conservation status of the
species. We conclude that it is reasonable to rely on the information
contained in the studies discussed above under ``Factors Affecting the
Species'' involving land-use trends and population sizes, as well as
the information regarding enforcement of existing regulations and other
factors that negatively influence the species, to make a determination
about the future conservation status of the northern DPS of A. m.
macao.
Poaching continues and remains a concern for the future viability
of the species for the foreseeable future. In Panama, poaching of
scarlet macaws was one factor that led to the virtual extirpation of
this species from the mainland, and poaching remains a concern at Cerro
Hoya National Park, which is one of the only locations where a very
small population of scarlet macaws exists on mainland Panama.
Additionally, the best available information indicates that the
population in northwest Colombia faces significant ongoing threats from
deforestation within the foreseeable future. No current population
estimates are available for northwest Colombia, and this region is
reported to have large tracts of suitable forest habitat, but many
areas in northwest Colombia are considered deforestation hotspots.
Thus, although the two largest populations currently appear to be
increasing, they both are small and their total range represents only a
portion of the range of the northern DPS. Therefore, we find that the
best available information indicates that current threats to scarlet
macaws in northwest Colombia (deforestation); ongoing poaching of
scarlet macaws in Costa Rica and mainland Panama; ongoing, small-scale,
subsistence logging in Panama; inadequate enforcement of existing
regulations; and the small population sizes of scarlet macaws in this
region put this DPS in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the northern DPS of A. m. macao meets the
definition of a ``threatened species'' in accordance with the
definition in the Act.
Similarity of Appearance
Final Determination for Southern DPS of Southern Subspecies (Ara macao
macao)
In our proposed rule we found that the southern DPS of the southern
subspecies A. m. macao did not warrant listing as an endangered species
or a threatened species based on its status. However, we determined
that it is advisable to treat the southern DPS as a threatened species
based on its similarity of appearance to the northern DPS of A. m.
macao and subspecies crosses of A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao.
Section 4(e) of the Act authorizes the treatment of a species,
subspecies, or distinct population segment as endangered or threatened
if: ``(A) [S]uch species so closely resembles in appearance, at the
point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to [section
4 of the Act] that enforcement personnel would have substantial
difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and
unlisted species; (B) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an
additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (C) such
treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the
enforcement and further the policy of this [Act].'' All applicable
prohibitions and exceptions for species treated as threatened under
section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to a threatened
or endangered species will be set forth in a rule issued under section
4(d) of the Act.
Several factors make differentiating between scarlet macaw listable
entities difficult. First, the scarlet macaw subspecies, Ara macao
macao and Ara macao cyanoptera, primarily differ in the coloration of
their wing coverts (a type of feather) and wing size. But these
differences are not always apparent, especially in birds from the
middle of the species' range (which may include crosses between A. m.
cyanoptera and A. m. macao), sometimes making it difficult to visually
differentiate between subspecies (Schmidt 2011, pers. comm.; Weidenfeld
1994, pp. 99-100). According to information received from the Service's
Forensics Laboratory, many scarlet macaw remains submitted for
examination by Office of Law Enforcement special agents and wildlife
inspectors do not consist of intact carcasses; rather, evidence is
usually in the form of partial remains, detached feathers, and artwork
incorporating their feathers. Therefore, identification of the
subspecies or the geographic origin of these birds is difficult or
improbable without genetic analysis, which would add considerable
difficulties and cost for law enforcement.
Second, we are not aware of any information indicating that
distinguishing morphological differences between the northern and
southern DPSs of A. m. macao would allow for visual identification of
the origin of a bird of this subspecies. Lastly, aviculturists have
bred the species without regard for taxa, resulting in crosses of the
two subspecies (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) that maintain a
combination of characteristics of either parent being present in trade
(Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 103). As a result, the similarity of appearance
between an unlisted southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses
to the listed northern DPS of A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera may
result in the ability to pass off a protected specimen as an unlisted
DPS or unlisted subspecies cross and poses an additional threat to the
northern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies A. m. cyanoptera. Therefore,
we consider this difficulty in discerning an unlisted southern DPS and
unlisted subspecies crosses from the listed northern DPS of A. m. macao
and
[[Page 6309]]
subspecies A.m. cyanoptera as an additional threat to the listed
entities.
The close resemblance between the listed and the unlisted entities
would make differentiating the listed scarlet macaws (the subspecies
Ara macao cyanoptera and the northern DPS of the subspecies Ara macao
macao) from those that are not listed (individuals of the southern DPS
of A. m. macao and subspecies crossings (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m.
macao)) difficult for law enforcement to enforce. Therefore, we
determine that treating the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies
crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) under the 4(e) similarity of
appearance provisions of the Act will substantially facilitate law
enforcement actions to protect and conserve scarlet macaws. If the
southern DPS of A. m. macao or subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and
A. m. macao) were not listed, importers and exporters could
inadvertently or purposefully misrepresent a specimen of A. m.
cyanoptera or the northern DPS of A. m. macao as a specimen of the
unlisted entity, creating a loophole in enforcing the Act's protections
for listed species of scarlet macaw. Thus, the listing will facilitate
Federal and State law-enforcement efforts to curtail unauthorized
import and trade in A. m. cyanoptera or the northern DPS of A. m.
macao.
Extending the prohibitions of the Act to the similar entities
through this listing of those entities due to similarity of appearance
under section 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable prohibitions and
exceptions in a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act will provide
greater protection to A. m. cyanoptera and the northern DPS of A. m.
macao. Although the 4(e) provisions of the Act do not contain criteria
as to whether a species listed under the similarity of appearance
provisions should be treated as endangered or threatened, we find that
treating the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies crosses (A. m.
cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened is appropriate because the
4(d) rule, for the reasons mentioned in our finding below, provides
adequate protection for these entities. For these reasons, we are
proposing to treat the southern DPS of A. m. macao and subspecies
crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened due to the
similarity of appearance pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act.
4(d) Rule
When a species is listed as endangered, certain actions are
prohibited under section 9 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR
17.21. These include, among others, prohibitions on take within the
United States, within the territorial seas of the United States, or
upon the high seas; import; export; and shipment in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity. Exceptions to
the prohibitions for endangered species may be granted in accordance
with section 10 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.22.
The Act does not specify particular prohibitions and exceptions to
those prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d)
of the Act, the Secretary, as well as the Secretary of Commerce
depending on the species, was given the discretion to issue such
regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to
prohibit by regulation with respect to any threatened species any act
prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. For the scarlet macaw, the
Service is exercising our discretion to issue a 4(d) rule. By adopting
the existing parrot 4(d) rule for the scarlet macaw, we are
incorporating all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and
17.32. However, import and export of certain scarlet macaws into and
from the United States and certain acts in interstate commerce are
allowed without a permit under the Act, as explained below.
The 4(d) rule will apply to the southern subspecies of scarlet
macaw (Ara macao macao) and to crosses of the two scarlet macaw
subspecies, A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera. We are including
subspecies crosses in this rule because aviculturists have bred the
species without regard to their taxa, resulting in crosses of the two
subspecies being present in trade. All prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31
will apply to A. m. macao and subspecies crosses of A. m. macao and A.
m. cyanoptera, except that import and export of certain A. m. macao and
subspecies crosses into and from the United States and certain acts in
interstate commerce will be allowed without a permit under the Act, as
explained below. For activities otherwise prohibited under the 4(d)
rule involving specimens of the southern DPS of the scarlet macaw and
subspecies crosses, such activities will require authorization pursuant
to the similarity-of-appearance permit regulations at 50 CFR 17.52. If
an applicant is unable to meet the issuance criteria for a similarity-
of-appearance permit and demonstrate that the scarlet macaw in question
is a subspecific cross or originated from the southern DPS,
authorization for an otherwise prohibited activity would need to be
obtained under the general permit provisions for threatened species
found at 50 CFR 17.32. For activities otherwise prohibited under the
4(d) rule involving specimen of the northern DPS of the scarlet macaw
(A. m. macao), such activities would require authorization pursuant to
the general permit provisions for threatened species found at 50 CFR
17.32.
Import and Export
The 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and noncommercial
international shipments of live and dead southern subspecies of scarlet
macaws and subspecific crosses of A. m. macao and A. m. cyanoptera and
their parts and products, including the import and export of personal
pets and research samples. In most instances, the rule will adopt the
existing conservation regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as
the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of
certain scarlet macaws. The import into the United States and export
from the United States of birds taken from the wild after the date this
species is listed under the Act; conducting an activity that could take
or incidentally take scarlet macaws; and foreign commerce must meet the
requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including obtaining a permit
under the Act. However, the 4(d) rule allows a person to import or
export without a permit issued under that Act if the specimen either:
(1) Was held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed
under the Act; or (2) is a captive-bred specimen, provided the export
is authorized under CITES and the import is authorized under CITES and
the WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the wild and held in captivity
prior to the date this species is listed under the Act, the importer or
exporter must provide documentation to support that status, such as a
copy of the original CITES permit indicating when the bird was removed
from the wild or museum specimen reports. For captive-bred birds, the
importer must provide either a valid CITES export/re-export document
issued by a foreign Management Authority that indicates that the
specimen was captive-bred by using a source code on the face of the
permit of either ``C,'' ``D,'' or ``F.'' Exporters of captive-bred
birds must provide a signed and dated statement from the breeder of the
bird confirming its captive status, and documentation on the source of
their breeding stock. The source codes of C, D, and F for CITES permits
and certificates are as follows:
[[Page 6310]]
(C) Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf.
10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under
the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 of the Convention.
(D) Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in
operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with
Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially
propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives
thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of
the Convention.
(F) Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that
do not fulfill the definition of ``bred in captivity'' in Resolution
Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof.
The 4(d) rule's provisions regarding captive-bred birds apply to
birds bred in the United States and abroad. The terms ``captive-bred''
and ``captivity''' used in the 4(d) rule are defined in the regulations
at 50 CFR 17.3 and refer to wildlife produced in a controlled
environment that is intensively manipulated by man from parents that
mated or otherwise transferred gametes in captivity. Although the 4(d)
rule requires a permit under the Act to ``take'' (including harm and
harass) a scarlet macaw, our regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 establish that
``take'' when applied to captive wildlife does not include generally
accepted animal-husbandry practices; breeding procedures; or provisions
of veterinary care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when
such practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in
injury to the wildlife.
We assessed the conservation needs of the scarlet macaw in light of
the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA.
The scarlet macaw is included in Appendix I of CITES, a treaty that
contributes to the conservation of the species by regulating
international trade and ensuring that trade in Appendix-I species is
not detrimental to the survival of the species. The purpose of the WBCA
is to promote the conservation of exotic birds and to ensure that
imports of exotic birds into the United States do not harm them. The
best available data indicate that the current threat of trade of the
scarlet macaw stems mainly from illegal trade that stays within the
domestic markets of Central and South America. Thus, the general
prohibitions on import and export contained in 50 CFR 17.31, which
extend only within the jurisdiction of the United States, would not
regulate such activities. Accordingly, we find that the import and
export requirements of the 4(d) rule provide the necessary and
advisable conservation measures for this species. This 4(d) rule
streamlines the permitting process by deferring to existing laws that
are protective of scarlet macaws in the course of import and export and
not requiring permits under the Act for certain types of activities.
Interstate Commerce
Under the 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship Ara macao macao and subspecies crosses (A. m. macao
and A. m. cyanoptera) in interstate commerce in the course of a
commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate commerce A.
m. macao and subspecies crosses without a permit under the Act. At the
same time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.21, as presently
extended to threatened species under 50 CFR 17.31, will apply under
this 4(d) rule, and any interstate commerce activities that could
incidentally take A. m. macao and subspecies crosses or otherwise
prohibited acts in foreign commerce will require a permit under 50 CFR
17.32.
We have no information that suggests current interstate commerce
activities are associated with threats to the scarlet macaw or would
negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations
of the species. Therefore, we are not placing into effect any
prohibitions on interstate commerce of scarlet macaw within the United
States. Because the species will be otherwise protected in the course
of interstate commercial activities under the take provisions and
foreign commerce provisions contained in 50 CFR 17.31 as applied to
this species, and international trade of this species is regulated
under CITES, we find this 4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions and
authorizations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
scarlet macaw.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations
adopted under section 4(a) of the 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 and upon request from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Macaw, scarlet'',
``Macaw, scarlet [Northern DPS]'', ``Macaw, scarlet [Southern DPS]'',
and ``Macaw, scarlet [Subspecies crosses]'' in alphabetical order under
BIRDS to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 6311]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
BIRDS
* * * * * * *
Macaw, scarlet................... Ara macao cyanoptera Wherever found..... E 84 FR [insert
Federal Register
page where the
document begins],
2/26/2019.
Macaw, scarlet [Northern DPS].... Ara macao macao..... Colombia (northwest T 84 FR [insert
of the Andes), Federal Register
Costa Rica page where the
(Pacific slope), document begins],
Panama (mainland). 2/26/2019; 50 CFR
17.41(c).\4d\
Macaw, scarlet [Southern DPS].... Ara macao macao..... Bolivia, Brazil, T(S/A) 84 FR [insert
Colombia Federal Register
(southeast of the page where the
Andes), Ecuador, document begins],
French Guiana, 2/26/2019; 50 CFR
Guyana, Peru, 17.41(c).\4d\
Suriname,
Venezuela.
Macaw, scarlet [Subspecies Ara macao macao X Costa Rica, T(S/A) 84 FR [insert
crosses]. Ara macao Nicaragua Federal Register
cyanoptera. (Atlantic slope page where the
border region). document begins],
2/26/2019; 50 CFR
17.41(c).\4d\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.41 by revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and
(c)(2)(ii) introductory text and by adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(E) to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.41 Special rules--birds.
* * * * *
(c) The following species in the parrot family: Salmon-crested
cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona
collaria), white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus
hyacinthinus), and scarlet macaw (Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw
subspecies crosses (Ara macao macao and Ara macao cyanoptera)).
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Specimens held in captivity prior to certain dates: You must
provide documentation to demonstrate that the specimen was held in
captivity prior to the dates specified in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A), (B),
(C), (D), or (E) of this section. Such documentation may include copies
of receipts, accession or veterinary records, CITES documents, or
wildlife declaration forms, which must be dated prior to the specified
dates.
* * * * *
(E) For scarlet macaws: March 28, 2019 (the date this species was
listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
* * * * *
Dated: February 4, 2019.
Margaret E. Everson,
Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Authority of the Director for
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-03165 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P