[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19549-19559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06723]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0134; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BG93


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Significant 
Portion of Its Range Analysis for the Northern Distinct Population 
Segment of the Southern Subspecies of Scarlet Macaw

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final determination; notification of additional analysis.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as 
amended, for the northern distinct population segment (DPS), of the 
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (Ara macao macao). Scarlet macaws 
are brilliantly colored parrots native to Mexico and Central and South 
America. This action affirms the 2019 listing of the scarlet macaw 
under the Act.

DATES: This determination is effective March 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Supporting materials for this action, including comments we 
received on our November 2, 2022, Federal Register document (87 FR 
66093) are available in Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0134 on https://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 19550]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Chief, Branch of 
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 
22041-3803 (telephone 703-358-2171). Individuals in the United States 
who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability 
may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications 
relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the 
relay services offered within their country to make international calls 
to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Scarlet macaws (Ara macao) have the broadest range of all the macaw 
species (Ridgely 1981, p. 250). The range of the species extends from 
Mexico, south through Central America, and into the Amazon of South 
America to central Bolivia and Brazil. In Mexico and Central America, 
the scarlet macaw's historical range and population have been reduced 
and fragmented over the last several decades primarily as a result of 
habitat destruction and collection of wild birds 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). The majority (83 percent) of the 
species' range and population lies within the Amazon Biome of South 
America (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; BLI 2011b, unpaginated; BLI 2011c, 
unpaginated). In South America, the scarlet macaw occurs over much of 
its historical range within the Amazon and occurs in small areas 
outside the Amazon, such as west of the Andes Mountains in Colombia.
    The scarlet macaw is classified as two subspecies, the northern 
subspecies (A. macao cyanoptera) and southern subspecies (A. macao 
macao) (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 735). The 
northern subspecies of scarlet macaw ranges from Mexico, south through 
Central America in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, and down the 
Atlantic slope of Costa Rica, as well as on Isla Coiba in Panama. The 
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw occurs along the Pacific slope of 
Costa Rica and southward through mainland Panama and into the remainder 
of the species' range in South America. The subspecies are separated by 
the central cordilleras in Costa Rica (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt 
et al. 2019, p. 744).
    On February 26, 2019, we published in the Federal Register a final 
rule under the Act at 84 FR 6278 (hereafter, ``the 2019 rule''). The 
2019 rule revised the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (at 50 CFR 17.11(h)) to add 
the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. cyanoptera) as 
endangered, the northern DPS of the southern subspecies (A. m. macao) 
as threatened (hereafter, ``the northern DPS''), and the southern DPS 
of the southern subspecies (A. m. macao) and subspecies crosses (A. m. 
cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as threatened due to similarity of 
appearance. The 2019 rule also added protective regulations to 50 CFR 
17.41 pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act for the northern and southern 
DPSs of the southern subspecies and for subspecies crosses. For a more 
thorough discussion of the taxonomy, life history, distribution, and 
the determination of listing status for scarlet macaws under the Act, 
please refer to the Species Information section in the 2019 rule.

This Action

    In the 2019 rule, we found the northern DPS of the southern 
subspecies of scarlet macaw was not currently in danger of extinction 
but likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range. At that time, we followed our Final 
Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ''Significant Portion of Its 
Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ''Endangered 
Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (hereafter, Final Policy, 79 FR 
37578; July 1, 2014), which provided that if the Services determined 
that if a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the 
Services would not analyze whether the species is endangered in a 
significant portion of its range. Therefore, we did not conduct a 
``significant portion of its range'' analysis for the scarlet macaw in 
the northern DPS and determine whether it met the definition of an 
endangered species as a result.
    However, in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. 
Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Everson), the Court vacated that 
provision of the Final Policy. This decision came after the threatened 
determination for scarlet macaw published in the 2019 rule. Therefore, 
we have since reconsidered our ``significant portion of its range'' 
analysis for the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS based on the plain 
language of the Act and the implications of Everson. As part of this 
process, we published a notification of additional analysis in the 
Federal Register on November 2, 2022 (87 FR 66093). We conducted our 
``significant portion of its range'' analysis in line with what we 
submitted to and was approved by the Court in Friends of Animals v. 
Williams (No. 1:21-cv-02081-RC, Doc. 22).

Summary of Comments

    In the November 2, 2022, Federal Register document, we requested 
any interested party to submit comments that pertain to how we should 
reassess the ``significant portion of its range'' for the northern DPS 
in light of the plain language of the Act and the Court's order in 
Everson. We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues. We 
address four substantive comments by the one commenter below.
    Comment (1): One commenter stated that the Service should 
incorporate Schmidt et al. 2019 in the ``significant portion of its 
range'' analysis. Schmidt et al. 2019 describes the genetic divergences 
between subspecies of the scarlet macaw (Ara macao). The commenter 
believed that this study warranted the Service's consideration in its 
``significant portion of its range'' analysis.
    Response: We note that this 2019 study was published after the 
publication of the 2019 rule and would be information considered after 
our final rule became effective. We also note that we requested public 
comments only on how recent case law regarding the Service's 
``significant portion of its range'' analysis based on the plain 
language of the Act and the implications of Everson could affect the 
2019 rule. Any public comment that is beyond the scope of our request 
is not relevant. Nevertheless, in the 2019 rule, we incorporated 
information in Schmidt 2013, which includes the same information as 
Schmidt et al. 2019 in terms of genetic divergences between the 
subspecies of scarlet macaw, Ara cyanoptera and A. macao. Schmidt et 
al. 2019 published their research in the International Journal of Avian 
Science, Ibis (2020), 162, 735-748. Schmidt 2013 is research submitted 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of 
Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Columbia 
University (2013), 188pp. The information in both Schmidt et al. 2019 
and Schmidt 2013 conclude the northern subspecies, A. m. cyanoptera, 
ranges from Mexico to northern Costa Rica and the southern subspecies, 
A. m. macao, ranges from lower Central America to South America 
(Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 742). We incorporated the genetic analysis of 
the two subspecies in the 2019 rule. Additionally, we incorporated the 
analysis of the unique trans-Andean populations of scarlet macaws, 
which are the same populations within the northern DPS that include the 
populations on the

[[Page 19551]]

Pacific slope of Costa Rica, mainland Panama, and northwest Colombia. 
Therefore, we included the best available information regarding the 
genetic status of the two subspecies of scarlet macaw, and already 
considered the genetic information in the 2019 study, when we issued 
the 2019 rule.
    Comment (2): One commenter stated that if the Service does conclude 
that the northern DPS is endangered in a significant portion of its 
range, then it must list the entire northern DPS as endangered. The 
commenter stated that there is no basis to list the northern DPS found 
in certain portions of its range as endangered but to list the northern 
DPS found in other portions of its range as threatened. As support, the 
commenter cited Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 
1162 (D. Or. 2001) (``Listing distinctions below that of a subspecies 
or a DPS of a species are not allowed under the ESA.'').
    Response: We agree. In addition to Alsea Valley Alliance, our 
listing determination and analysis for chimpanzees in 2015 provides 
additional information and a thorough discussion of this issue (80 FR 
34499; June 16, 2015). However, as discussed further below, the Service 
does not conclude that the northern DPS is endangered in a significant 
portion of its range.
    Comment (3): One commenter stated that just because the populations 
of the northern DPS may be stable in Costa Rica, does not mean that the 
northern DPS is not endangered in other portions of its range or that 
those other portions of its range are not significant, as an individual 
population must be considered independently from the whole northern 
DPS. Citing to the Service's findings in the 2019 rule, the commenter 
asserts the northern DPS populations in both Panama and northwest 
Columbia are endangered and that both populations are ``significant--
biologically, genetically, and in comparison to the overall range of 
the northern DPS.'' Thus, the commenter concludes that we should find 
that the northern DPS is endangered in a significant portion of its 
range.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that in addition to the 
population in Costa Rica, the population in Panama and the population 
in northwest Columbia are the appropriate populations to consider in 
our ``significant portion of its range'' analysis for whether they are 
endangered and significant. As discussed further below we have 
considered whether either of these populations is significant 
biologically, genetically, and in comparison to the overall range of 
the northern DPS. To determine whether a portion is ``significant,'' we 
considered how the portion contributes to the viability of the northern 
DPS. We considered the northern DPS' population sizes, geographic 
distribution, and threats to the northern DPS, including the northern 
DPS' response to the threats and cumulative effects. We also considered 
whether the effects of the threats on the northern DPS are greater in 
any biologically meaningful portion of the northern DPS' range than in 
other portions such that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction 
now in that portion. We explain our rationale that the northern DPS is 
not endangered in a significant portion of its range in more detail 
below.
    Comment (4): A commenter asserted that the Service never determined 
that the northern DPS migrates between Costa Rica and either Panama or 
northwest Colombia.
    Response: Scarlet macaws have been shown to make small and larger 
range movements to areas with greater food and/or nesting resources. 
Parrots and macaws can travel tens to hundreds of kilometers (km) and 
are able to exploit resources in a variety of habitats within the 
larger landscape (Lee 2010, pp. 7-8, citing several authors; 
Brightsmith 2006, unpaginated; Collar 1997, p. 241). Radio telemetry 
studies were conducted on scarlet macaws in Guatemala, Belize, and 
Peru, and preliminary results showed variation in the distances over 
which scarlet macaws range but suggest home ranges of individuals cover 
hundreds of square kilometers (Boyd and Brightsmith 2011, in litt.; 
Boyd 2011, pers. comm.). Of nine scarlet macaws tracked over periods of 
3 to 9 months, the maximum extent of an individual's range (farthest 
distance between two points at which individuals were located with 
radio telemetry) varied between 25 km to 165 km, with most moving 
between 25 km and 50 km (Boyd and Brightsmith 2011, in litt.; Boyd 
2011, pers. comm.). Additionally, scarlet macaws are moving within 
Costa Rica between the [Aacute]rea de Conservaci[oacute]n 
Pac[iacute]fico Central (ACOPAC) and the Southern Pacific Costa Rica 
([Aacute]rea de Conservaci[oacute]n Osa (ACOSA)) populations and the 
scarlet macaw is basically continuous between the two populations in 
Costa Rica (see Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS, below). However, we 
are not aware of information on the movements or migration within the 
northern DPS of scarlet macaws between Costa Rica and Panama, Panama 
and Colombia, or Costa Rica and Colombia.

Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS

    The scarlet macaw inhabits various habitat types throughout its 
range, including tropical humid evergreen forest, deciduous and humid 
forest, intact and partially cleared lowland rainforest, mixed pine and 
broad-leaved woodlands, open areas and edges with scattered stands of 
tall trees, gallery forest, mangroves, and savannas, often 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). Scarlet 
macaws prefer lowland, humid habitats that are dependent on the 
availability of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744; Schmidt 2013, 
p. 175). 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).
    Generally, the species is geographically constrained between 
central highlands and either the Pacific or Atlantic Coasts. In the 
northern DPS, the range of the scarlet macaw occurs south of the 
central cordilleras of Costa Rica, along the Pacific slope, and south 
through Panama to northwest of the Andes Mountains in Colombia. Scarlet 
macaws are confined to the tropical forests in lower Central America by 
the central highlands and the Pacific Ocean. Similarly, in Colombia 
scarlet macaws inhabit moist tropical ecosystems along the mid- to 
lower-Magdalena River Valley, bounded by the Central and Oriental 
Cordilleras of the Northern Andes (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200). The 
geographical extent of these lowland habitats covers an area markedly 
smaller than either upper Central America or the Amazon Basin, with 
fewer major sources of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 745).
    The total population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is 
approximately 1,000 to 2,000 birds (see table 1, below). Populations 
include: (1) Two populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica--the 
ACOPAC and the ACOSA populations, (2) very small populations in the 
Chiriqu[iacute] province and at the southern end of the Azuero 
Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park in Panama, and (3) 
population(s) in northwest Colombia west of the Andes Mountains, 
although we have minimal information on the population size or 
distribution in Colombia west of the Andes Mountains.
    The Costa Rica populations account for almost all the total known 
population of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet 
macaw

[[Page 19552]]

(see table 1). The ACOPAC population is estimated to contain 
approximately 450 birds (Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in 
litt.). The estimates for the ACOSA population are between 800 to 1,200 
birds (Dear et al. 2010, p. 17) but possibly up to 2,000 birds (Guzman 
2008, p. 17). However, combining plausible subpopulation estimates, the 
total population of scarlet macaws on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica 
that includes both the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations was estimated at 
approximately 1,800 birds (McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
    By all indications the scarlet macaw population in ACOPAC 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 regularly observed south of Carara, up and down the coast 
and up to 70 km (43 mi) south of the point where the census in Carara 
is usually conducted. In addition, scarlet macaws from the areas 
immediately to the northwest of Carara have been reported. Scarlet 
macaws occur in Palo Verde National Park, in the surrounding areas, and 
in patchwork forested habitats in between. The species may frequently 
pass through these areas and is not present at high densities. Group 
sizes are small, and it is unclear if the birds are escaped or released 
birds from a nearby lodge or natural dispersers (Brightsmith 2016, in 
litt., p. 14). Regardless, 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 establishment 
of populations north of Carara is weak (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 
13).
    The best available information suggests that the ACOSA population 
is simultaneously expanding up the coast. Birds were reported to occur 
in multiple areas between the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, in Manuel 
Antonio National Park and Uvita, as well as Dominical that is the 
approximate midpoint between the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations. Thus, 
the scarlet macaw is basically continuous from the Osa Peninsula (ACOSA 
population) to Carara National Park (ACOPAC population) (Brightsmith 
2016, in litt., p. 13). Additionally, 85 percent of residents 
interviewed in 2005 believed scarlet macaws were more abundant than 5 
years prior in ACOSA, suggesting this population may be increasing 
(Dear et al. 2010, p. 10). Sightings of scarlet macaws between the 
ACOPAC and ACOSA populations may represent individuals from either of 
the populations, and 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).
    In Panama, the scarlet macaw was once described as almost extinct 
on the mainland but abundant and occurring in substantial numbers on 
Isla Coiba, a one-time penal colony where human settlement and most 
hunting was prohibited (Ridgely 1981, p. 253). The current population 
of scarlet macaws in Panama is estimated at less than 200 birds, with 
most of the population occurring on Isla Coiba and less than 25 birds 
estimated to occur on the mainland (Keller and Schmitt 2008, in 
Brightsmith 2012, in litt. and McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated). 
Scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba are considered the northern subspecies, A. 
m. cyanoptera (Schmidt 2013, pp. 69-73; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 740), 
and are not part of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of 
scarlet macaw. Therefore, the very small number of scarlet macaws 
existing on mainland Panama are the only scarlet macaws in Panama that 
are considered the northern DPS of the southern subspecies and part of 
this analysis.
    Sporadic sightings of scarlet macaws have occurred over the last 
few decades 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, and near Querevalo, in the Chiriqu[iacute] 
province (Burica Press 2007, unpaginated; McReynolds 2011, in litt., 
unpaginated; Brightsmith in litt. 2016, p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009, 
unpaginated). Scarlet macaws have been successfully reintroduced in 
Tiskita, Costa Rica, which is in the western border region of Costa 
Rica and Panama (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Therefore, it 
is uncertain if the birds that occur in the western border region of 
Panama are wild or the reintroduced birds dispersing south from 
Tiskita, Costa Rica (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 17). However, with 
the successful reintroduction of scarlet macaws at Tiskita, which has 
resulted in a viable population, scarlet macaws are established at this 
location (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Additionally, a 
small, but unknown number of scarlet macaws occur on the southern end 
of Panama in 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).
    In northwest Colombia, scarlet macaws are believed to occur in the 
Magdalena and Cauca River valleys in tropical ecosystems bounded by the 
northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, 
p. 407). They have been reported as probably close to extinction in the 
Magdalena Valley, Cauca Valley, and north (Donegan 2013, in litt.; 
Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60). However, they may occur 
in very low numbers in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the 
region, but its status is not clear. Therefore, we are aware of little 
information on the population or distribution of scarlet macaws within 
northwest Colombia.

                     Table 1--Estimated Population Size of Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS
                                 [Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao macao) Northern DPS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Population range country            Population name                    Population estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costa Rica...........................  Central Pacific          ~450                     Plausible estimate of
                                        Conservation Area--                               total population in
                                        [Aacute]rea de                                    Costa Rica ~1,800.
                                        Conservaci[oacute]n
                                        Pac[iacute]fico
                                        Central (ACOPAC).
                                                               -------------------------
Costa Rica...........................  Osa Conservation Area--  ~800-1,200, potentially
                                        [Aacute]rea de           up to 2,000.
                                        Conservaci[oacute]n
                                        Osa (ACOSA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 19553]]

 
       Population range country            Population name                    Population estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panama (mainland)....................  Cerro Hoya National                             <25
                                        Park.
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
Colombia.............................  Northwest Colombia.....                       unknown
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Population Size of A. m. macao; Northern DPS....1,000-2,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Primary Factors Affecting the Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS

    The two primary threats to scarlet macaws are the loss of forest 
habitat and collection of wild birds for the pet trade (I[ntilde]igo-
Elias in litt. 1997, in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Guedes 2004, p. 
280). The primary cause of forest loss is conversion to agriculture for 
crops and pasture, although other human activities such as construction 
of infrastructure, selective logging, fires, oil and gas extraction, 
and mining also contribute to the loss of forest cover within the range 
of the species (Blaser et al. 2011, Latin America and the Caribbean, 
pp. 262-402; 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).
    Historically, large areas of forest have been removed throughout 
the species' range, particularly in Mexico and Central America, and any 
large tracts of forest that remain are fragmented and are mostly 
isolated because they are cut off from each other (Bray 2010, p. 93). 
Deforestation continues throughout much of the scarlet macaw's range, 
including in the northern DPS, and is a threat to the species because 
it eliminates the species' habitat by removing trees that support the 
species' essential needs for nesting, roosting, and food. Scarlet 
macaws require a large range and a variety of food resources. Thus, 
large-scale land conversion presents a generalized threat to scarlet 
macaw nest sites, foraging areas, and migration corridors (Schmidt 
2013, p. 173). Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that 
have large nesting cavities. Additionally, they primarily forage in the 
forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding habits. 
Abundance may fluctuate because they may move to areas with greater 
resource availability, influencing local and seasonal abundance (Lee 
2010, p. 7; Cowen 2009, pp. 5, 23, citing several sources; Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 132; Brightsmith 2006, unpaginated; Renton 2002, 
p. 17). Thus, removal of older and larger trees decreases suitable 
nesting sites and food resources, increases competition, and causes the 
loss of current generations through an increase in infanticide and egg 
destruction (Lee 2010, pp. 2, 12). The species will use partially 
cleared and cultivated landscapes if they provide sufficient dietary 
requirements and maintain enough large trees. However, scarlet macaws 
have a better chance of surviving in large tracts of primary forest 
where suitable nesting cavities are more common than in open and small 
patches of non-primary forest (Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 91). Therefore, as 
the size of the suitable habitat is reduced, it is less likely to 
provide the essential resources for the species (Ibarra-Macias 2009, p. 
6; Lees and Peres 2006, pp. 203-205).
    Competition for suitable nest cavities negatively affects 
reproductive success of scarlet macaws, including in the northern DPS. 
Competition limits available nesting sites and thus the number of pairs 
that can breed, or competition may cause nest mortality stemming from 
agonistic interactions. Intraspecific competition between different 
pairs of scarlet macaws, and competition with pairs of other macaw 
species that are larger and more competitive, is intense in some areas 
(Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 96; Nycander 
1995, p. 428). Additionally, Africanized honeybees (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).
    Collecting wild birds for the pet trade has been occurring for 
centuries (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 9; Guedes 2004, p. 279; Snyder 
et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Removing birds from the wild is driven by 
demand for the pet trade and related to rural poverty because 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). Low salaries and high unemployment in the region drive 
people to search for extra sources of income that may include 
collecting wildlife for the pet trade (TRAFFIC NA 2009, pp. 23-24).
    Collection of scarlet macaws decreases the population, inhibits 
future breeding by removing reproductive age adults, causes mortality 
of eggs or chicks, and causes damage to and loss of nesting sites 
(Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 14). Scarlet macaws are long-lived 
species with a low reproductive rate, low survival of chicks and 
fledglings, late age to first reproduction, and large proportions of 
the population as nonbreeding adults. Therefore, the species is 
particularly vulnerable to overexploitation, especially when 
individuals are removed from the wild year after year (Munn 1992, p. 
57; Wright et al. 2001, p. 712). Collection and deforestation often 
work in tandem because activities that clear forests increase access to 
previously inaccessible areas, which in turn increases the 
vulnerability of species to overexploitation by humans (Peres 2001, 
entire; Putz et al. 2000, pp. 16, 23).
    The scarlet macaw is a popular pet species within its range 
countries, and most birds collected for the pet trade are sold as pets 
and remain within range countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; 
Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 102). Because of high mortality rates associated 
with capture and transport of wildlife, the number of birds 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). Pet collection is a threat for the scarlet macaw in the 
northern DPS.
    On June 6, 1981, the scarlet macaw was included in Appendix II of 
the Convention on International Trade in

[[Page 19554]]

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). On August 1, 1985, 
the scarlet macaw was included in Appendix I of CITES because of the 
high level of trade. Species included in Appendix I are considered 
threatened with extinction, and international trade is permitted only 
under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial 
trade. The United States and Europe historically were the main markets 
for wild birds in international trade (FAO 2011b, p. 3). Trade was 
particularly high in the 1980s (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best 
et al. 1995, p. 234). However, in the years following the enactment of 
the Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992 (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), 
there was a substantial reduction of wild-caught parrots imported to 
the United States from Mesoamerica and South America as well as the 
rest of the world (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 disease concerns (FAO 
2011b, p. 21), thus eliminating another major market and further 
reducing international trade of wild parrots and macaws.
    The scarlet macaw is protected by domestic laws within all 
countries and the countries have a system of protected areas or 
national parks that aim to conserve biodiversity. Enforcement of 
wildlife laws is generally lacking because the agencies responsible 
often do not have the financial resources, personnel, or both to 
adequately enforce their laws, particularly in remote areas (TRAFFIC NA 
2009, p. 20; Valdez et al. 2006, p. 276; Mauri 2002, entire).
    Historically, the scarlet macaw existed in much higher numbers. 
However, the species currently occurs in relatively small and 
fragmented populations throughout most of its range. Small, isolated 
populations place the 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). The 
species maintains some genetic diversity throughout its range and 
between the two subspecies. With the ongoing loss of habitat throughout 
the range, the loss of genetic variability could diminish their 
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). Other natural events that put small populations at 
risk include variation in birth and death rates, fluctuations in gender 
ratio, and environmental disturbances such as wildfire and climatic 
shifts (Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p. 
27; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Negative impacts associated with small 
population sizes of scarlet macaws may be magnified because of 
interactions with habitat loss and collection. Cumulatively, the small 
population sizes occurring in narrow lowland forested areas in 
fragmented habitat, combined with ongoing collection and a long-lived 
species' low reproduction rate, increases the species' vulnerability. 
As discussed later below, some populations of the scarlet macaw in the 
northern DPS are relatively small and fragmented.
    The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS occurs from northwestern 
Costa Rica, south through mainland Panama, and west of the Andes 
Mountains in Colombia. Deforestation, collection, lack of effective 
enforcement of existing laws, and small population size all 
cumulatively affect scarlet macaws in the northern DPS. In the 2019 
rule, we found the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet 
macaw was not currently in danger of extinction but likely to become in 
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of 
its range. We now consider our ``significant portion of its range'' 
analysis for the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS based on the plain 
language of the Act and the Court's order in Everson.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Following the court's holding in Everson, and having 
determined that the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet 
macaw is not in danger of extinction (endangered species) throughout 
all of its range, we evaluate whether the scarlet macaw in the northern 
DPS is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range--
that is, whether there is any portion of the northern DPS' range for 
which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the northern DPS is 
in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending on the case, it 
might be more efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question 
or the ``status'' question first for these potentially significant 
portions of the range. Regardless of which question we address first, 
if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that 
we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question. In 
undertaking this analysis for the northern DPS of scarlet macaw, we 
choose to address the status question first--we consider information 
pertaining to the population sizes and geographic distribution of the 
portions, the threats that the northern DPS faces, and the northern 
DPS' response to those threats to identify portions of the range where 
the northern DPS may be endangered.
    In examining the status question, we note that the statutory 
difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is 
the timeframe in which the species (subspecies or DPS) becomes in 
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction 
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but 
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we reviewed the 
best scientific and commercial data available regarding the time 
horizon for the threats that are driving the scarlet macaw in the 
northern DPS to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all 
of its range. We then considered whether these threats or their effects 
are occurring in any portion of the northern DPS' range such that the 
northern DPS is in danger of extinction now in that portion of its 
range. We examined the following threats: habitat loss and 
fragmentation, collection for the pet trade, small population size, and 
climate change, including synergistic and cumulative effects.
    We evaluated the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet 
macaw to determine if it is in danger of extinction now in any portion 
of its range. The range can theoretically be divided into portions in a 
number of ways. For the scarlet macaws in the northern DPS, we 
considered the northern DPS' population sizes, geographic distribution, 
and threats to the northern DPS, including the northern DPS' response 
to the threats and cumulative effects. We considered whether the 
effects of the threats on the northern DPS are greater in any 
biologically meaningful portion of the northern DPS' range than in 
other portions such that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction 
now in that portion. We focused our analysis on portions of the 
northern DPS' range that may meet the definition of an endangered 
species. We identified three portions of the northern DPS for these 
analyses: (1) the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, (2) mainland

[[Page 19555]]

Panama, and (3) Colombia west of the Andes Mountains. Scarlet macaws 
can engage in large-scale movements to exploit resources within the 
larger landscape. They also undergo smaller scale movements between 
nocturnal roost sites and daily foraging areas (Marineros and Vaughan 
1995, pp. 448-450; Forshaw 1989, p. 407). Movements are often dictated 
by the spatial and temporal abundance of resources. The northern DPS 
includes populations of scarlet macaw in each country that are 
separated from each other with no known connectivity between them. 
Therefore, even if scarlet macaws can engage in larger scale movements 
within suitable habitat, the portions are based on the known population 
distributions of the northern DPS within each country and not strictly 
based on the geographic border of each country.

Analysis of the Costa Rica Portion

    The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS has been reduced from much of 
its historical range in Costa Rica due to the primary threats of 
habitat loss and collection. The northern DPS of scarlet macaw in Costa 
Rica occurs in lowlands along the Pacific slope flanked by the central 
highlands and the Pacific Ocean. The Costa Rica population in the 
northern DPS, including both the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, is the 
largest population and accounts for most of the total population of 
scarlet macaws in the northern DPS.
    Costa Rica is both losing and gaining forest cover throughout the 
country (Hansen et al. 2013, entire; Brightsmith 2016, in litt. p. 1). 
Even though Costa Rica was the only country in Central America to 
experience a positive change in forest cover over a recent 25-year 
period (1990-2015; FAO 2015, p. 10), 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 and 
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). The major driver of deforestation is the conversion 
of forest to livestock and agricultural uses because land users often 
generate a higher annual income with agriculture or livestock-raising 
than with forests. Indigenous communities have difficulties keeping 
nonindigenous farmers from encroaching onto their lands (Government of 
Costa Rica 2011, p. 1). Additionally, a lack of human and financial 
resources allows squatters and illegal loggers to exploit resources in 
protected areas.
    A comprehensive study of deforestation in Costa Rica's park system 
found that deforestation inside Level-1 protected areas, which denotes 
areas with absolute protections and where no land-cover change is 
allowed, was negligible from 1987 to 1997, and within the park's 1-km 
buffer zones the protected areas had a net forest gain for the same 
period. However, a 1 percent annual deforestation rate occurred in 10-
km buffer zones of protected areas. Thus, as distance increases from 
Level-1 protected areas, total deforestation and deforestation rates 
also increase (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 128). Corcovado 
National Park, the largest protected area in ACOSA, is one of the 
Level-1 protected areas in Costa Rica most affected by deforestation 
within 1 km of its boundaries (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-
129). Within 10 km of the park, significant clearing occurred (Sanchez-
Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 132). Additionally, in the ACOPAC scarlet 
macaw population, deforestation occurs around the Carara National Park 
with a higher rate of deforestation northwest of Carara than to the 
south (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-129; Brightsmith 2016, in 
litt., p. 12). Generally, National Parks on the Pacific slope are 
experiencing less deforestation on surrounding lands than those on the 
Atlantic slope, which is attributed to the intensification and 
expansion of agricultural cash crops such as banana and pineapple 
(Sanchez-Azofeifa et al., 1999, 2001, cited in Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 
2003, p. 129).
    Overall, the northern DPS' habitat and population size have been 
reduced from historical levels, and the primary threat of deforestation 
affects the wild population of scarlet macaws in Costa Rica. Even 
though some deforestation is ongoing, Costa Rica has experienced a 
positive change in forest cover over a 25-year period, 1990 to 2015. 
Deforestation or forest degradation in the current range of the scarlet 
macaw is not occurring at a level that is causing a further decline of 
the northern DPS in Costa Rica.
    Historically, northern DPS scarlet macaws in Costa Rica experienced 
heavy collection pressure, but there are ongoing efforts to reduce the 
magnitude of collection. Hunting is important in the communities for 
both subsistence and monetary gain; with low-income communities 
surrounding a park, the incentives to poach are great (Huson 2010, p. 
66). Intense management efforts in the mid-1990s that included anti-
poaching efforts increased recruitment into the population. However, 
the anti-poaching efforts and the associated increase in population 
size was not sustained over the long term (Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 
127). 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). Once 
successfully fledged from the nest, scarlet macaws appear to have a 
high survival rate (Myers and Vaughan 2004, cited in Vaughan et al. 
2005, p. 128).
    In 2005, the ACOPAC population of scarlet macaws was believed to be 
self-sustaining, even with heavy poaching pressure (Vaughan et al. 
2005, p. 128). We have no information that suggests a change in this 
conclusion since 2005. In the ACOSA, approximately half (48 percent) of 
residents interviewed believed that scarlet macaws were still being 
poached, although 85 percent of the interviewees believed numbers of 
scarlet macaws were increasing and 43 percent of the interviewees 
mentioned less poaching occurs now than before (and none said poaching 
had increased (Dear et al. 2010, p. 13)). Overall, while collection is 
ongoing in the ACOSA and ACOPAC populations, the population of scarlet 
macaws is increasing despite the collection pressure.
    Costa Rica's Wildlife Conservation Law and its amendments prohibit 
the hunting, collection, and extraction of all 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). Additionally, 
Costa Rica has protected its resources through an ambitious national 
parks and biological reserves system, but those parks and reserves 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 it is 
difficult to monitor and enforce hunting prohibitions with limited 
funds and supervision (Huson 2010, p. 18; Government of Costa Rica 
2010, p. 52). Officials in Carara National Park reported that they do 
not have enough staff to effectively control poaching (Huson 2010, p. 
8).
    Active reintroduction programs have added hundreds of scarlet 
macaws to the wild in the northern DPS in Costa Rica (Ara Project 2017, 
unpaginated; Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468; Dear et al. 2010, pp. 15-
17; Forbes 2005, p. 97; Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Most 
reintroduction projects also conduct environmental education at a local 
level and attract additional media attention to educate

[[Page 19556]]

the public about the importance of scarlet macaws and their 
conservation (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 22).
    Success of the reintroductions varies. 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 of each other. It is difficult to determine how 
these populations will fare over time because these populations are 
isolated, but these three release sites could help repopulate the 
Nicoya Peninsula (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 15). Some released 
birds survived but have not produced chicks; we do not have information 
concerning the status of most of the released birds at these locations 
(Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468). Within the South Pacific coast 
region, over 75 scarlet macaws have been released into the wild with 
close to 90 percent survival rate (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 (Ara Project 2018, unpaginated; Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, 
unpaginated).
    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. Some 
of the released birds have adapted to surviving in the wild by finding 
mates, food, and nesting resources. 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 (Dear et al. 2010, p. 20; Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75; also see 
IUCN 2013, pp. 15-17). But 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).
    The population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is estimated 
to range between 1,000 and 2,000 birds (see table 1, above). 
Information indicates that the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations in Costa 
Rica, which make up the bulk of the northern DPS of scarlet macaw, are 
at least stable and likely increasing. The population appears to be 
expanding into suitable habitat along the Pacific slope between the 
ACOPAC and ACOSA populations. With regular sightings of scarlet macaws 
between the two populations, the scarlet macaw is basically continuous 
from the Osa Peninsula (ACOSA population) to Carara National Park 
(ACOPAC population) (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 13). While 
poaching, deforestation, small population size, and inadequate 
enforcement of existing protections continue to affect the species, 
because the population is increasing and expanding in its range between 
the two populations, it is reasonable to conclude that the Costa Rica 
portion of scarlet macaw is not currently in danger of extinction and 
does not meet the definition of an ``endangered species'' under the 
Act. However, we expect that the threats will continue and put the 
Costa Rica portion in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. 
Because we reached a negative answer with respect to the status of the 
scarlet macaws in the northern DPS in Costa Rica meeting the definition 
of an endangered species, we do not need to evaluate whether the Costa 
Rica portion of the northern DPS is significant.

Analysis of the Mainland Panama Portion

    The best available information on distribution and abundance 
indicates that there are very few scarlet macaws on mainland Panama. 
The current population on mainland Panama is estimated to be fewer than 
25 birds that occur in two areas, in northwest Panama in the upper 
R[iacute]o Corot[uacute] near Puerto Armuelles and Quer[eacute]valo in 
the Chiriqu[iacute] province, and on the southern end of the Azuero 
Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park, Tonosi Forest 
Reserve, and farther to the east. In the area of the upper R[iacute]o 
Corot[uacute] near Puerto Armuelles and Quer[eacute]valo in the 
Chiriqu[iacute] province, there have been sporadic sightings of scarlet 
macaws. However, it is uncertain if the birds in northwest Panama are a 
wild population or birds dispersing south from a reintroduction program 
at Tiskita, Costa Rica, that have successfully established in the area 
because of the program.
    Deforestation in Panama is relatively low for the Mesoamerica 
region; the annual decrease during 1990-2015 was 169 km\2\ (65 mi\2\ or 
0.4 percent) (FAO 2015, p. 12). 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 scarlet macaw's range in Panama. 
However, illegal logging is widespread in humid forests throughout 
Panama, even in protected areas (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 361). We are 
unaware of information indicating that deforestation and forest 
degradation are impacting scarlet macaws in northwest Panama. 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).
    Little information is available on collection of scarlet macaws in 
Panama, although it was a factor leading to the extremely low 
population size of the species from the country (McReynolds 2016, in 
litt. unpaginated). Cerro Hoya National Park is located on the southern 
tip of the Azuero Peninsula within Panama's most impoverished province 
(Veraguas) and the Los Santos province. Collection of wildlife 
(including scarlet macaws) is a threat in this area because locals use 
unoccupied lands for logging and to collect wildlife for sustenance and 
income. Poaching of wildlife is common in rural areas (Government of 
Panama 2005, p. 36; Parker et al. 2004, p. II-6). Therefore, it is 
reasonable to conclude that some level of poaching of scarlet macaws 
likely occurs in the country, although at what level is unknown. 
Because the species is vulnerable to overexploitation based on their 
life-history traits, poaching individuals from such a small population 
would impact the population's viability. 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 collecting chicks for 
pets remains a concern at Cerro Hoya National Park (Rodriquez and 
Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated).
    The National Environment Authority is the primary government 
institution for forest and biodiversity conservation and management. To 
protect and regulate the use of wildlife, flora and fauna, the 
Panamanian Government has created numerous laws, including Wildlife Law 
24 that establishes wildlife as part of the natural heritage of Panama 
and provides for protection, restoration, research, management and 
development of the country's genetic resources, including rare species; 
the General Law

[[Page 19557]]

on the Environment (41), which establishes the basic principles and 
norms for the protection, conservation, and restoration of the 
environment and promotes the sustainable use of natural resources; and 
the National System of Protected Areas (Parker et al. 2004, p. III-2; 
Blaser et al. 2011, p. 355). However, the National Environment 
Authority has limited capacity and resources to ensure adherence to 
forest-related laws and regulations (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 361).
    Overall, deforestation is a threat to forests in Panama, primarily 
occurring in areas outside of the scarlet macaw's range. Illegal and 
small-scale subsistence logging is ongoing with little oversight and 
causes forest degradation. However, we are unaware of deforestation 
affecting the northern DPS on mainland Panama. Poaching was not 
identified as a main threat to biodiversity in Cerro Hoya National Park 
(Parker et al. 2004, Annex G, unpaginated), but poaching is common in 
rural areas and collection of scarlet macaws within the park and in 
rural areas is likely ongoing. The threats of habitat loss and 
collection are not geographically concentrated in Panama and are not 
occurring at a different rate or on an increased trajectory compared to 
the other parts of the range within the northern DPS. The scarlet macaw 
exists on mainland Panama in two areas with an extremely small overall 
population size (less than 25 birds). The scarlet macaw's life history 
traits limit the species' ability to recover, particularly when 
individuals are removed from the wild year after year. The loss of 
individuals in the wild coupled with any loss of habitat that removes 
large trees that provide resources for nesting and food are threats to 
the species' viability in Panama. Therefore, because of the very small 
population size and ongoing threats, we conclude that the northern DPS 
is in danger of extinction in the Panama portion.
    Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of 
extinction in the Panama portion, we next proceed to evaluating whether 
this portion of the range is significant. To determine whether a 
portion is ``significant,'' we considered how the portion contributes 
to the viability of the species. There are multiple ways in which a 
portion of the species' range could contribute to the viability of a 
species, including (but not limited to) by serving a particular role in 
the life history of the species (such as the breeding grounds or food 
source for the species), by including high-quality or unique-value 
habitat relative to the rest of the habitat in the range, or by 
representing a large percentage of the range.
    The scarlet macaw occurs in two areas in Panama, although it is 
uncertain if the birds that occur in the western border region of Costa 
Rica and Panama are wild or the reintroduced birds dispersing south 
from Tiskita, Costa Rica. The total range of where scarlet macaws occur 
in Panama is unknown, but the best available information indicates the 
size of the portion is very small and not a large percentage of the 
northern DPS's range.
    The total population of scarlet macaws on mainland Panama 
represents only about 1 percent of the total population of the northern 
DPS. The populations in Panama are not biologically or genetically 
unique from other populations in the northern DPS. We are not currently 
aware of any life-history functions that the Panama portion is 
contributing meaningfully to the northern DPS' overall resiliency and 
representation, within the context of a ``significant portion of its 
range'' analysis. For example, there is no information that the very 
small population in Panama is serving as a source population for the 
northern DPS. The northern DPS contains similar ecosystems across its 
range--lowland tropical habitats bounded by highlands or the Pacific 
Ocean. Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that have 
large nesting cavities, forage primarily in the forest canopy, and are 
relatively general in their feeding habits. The best available 
information does not indicate that forests where scarlet macaws occur 
in Panama are higher quality or provide high value relative to the 
remaining portions of the range in the northern DPS.
    Genetically, the populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica, 
mainland Panama, and in Colombia west of the Andes Mountains were 
determined to be a spatially discrete group within the broader lineage 
of Ara macao (Schmidt 2013, p. 49; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744). The 
populations we included in the northern DPS are those same populations. 
Thus, there is no information that the scarlet macaws in Panama are 
genetically or biologically unique from the rest of the northern DPS. 
Overall, this portion by itself will have only a minimal impact on the 
viability of the northern DPS, and therefore, cannot be significant and 
cannot be the basis for listing the entire northern DPS as endangered. 
Therefore, having found that the Panama portion is in danger of 
extinction, but the portion is not significant, the Panama portion is 
not a significant portion of the northern DPS' range because both 
factors must be true.

Analysis of the Colombia Portion

    Scarlet macaws historically occurred in northwest Colombia in the 
tropical zone of the Caribbean region, and the inter-Andean valleys, 
the largest of which are the Magdalena and Cauca River valleys (Salaman 
et al. 2009, p. 21; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p. 
407). The species' range was reported from eastern Cartagena to the low 
Magdalena Valley, southward to southeast C[oacute]rdoba, and the middle 
Magdalena Valley (Hilty and Brown (1986, p. 200). However, the scarlet 
macaw has been reported as probably close to extinction in the 
Magdalena and Cauca River valleys, and north (Donegan 2013, in litt.; 
Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60); few sightings have been 
reported. Scarlet macaws may occur in very low numbers in the more 
remote and inaccessible parts of the region, but their status there is 
not clear. We are unaware of any other detailed information on the 
numbers, distribution, or status of the scarlet macaw in northwest 
Colombia.
    The primary factors affecting the northern DPS in northwest 
Colombia are habitat loss, and to a lesser extent trade (Donegan 2013, 
in litt., unpaginated). Deforestation is ongoing in northwest Colombia 
with few large tracts of forest remaining within the historical range 
of the scarlet macaw (Ortega and Lagos 2011, p. 82; Salaman et al. 
2009, p. 21; Colombia Gold Letter 2012, pp. 1-2). 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). 
Colombia has lost forest at a steady rate over a 25-year period, 1990-
2015 (FAO 2015, p. 10). The Magdalena and Caribbean regions had 
approximately only 7 percent and 23 percent (respectively) of their 
land area in original vegetation, with the remainder converted 
primarily to grazing land (79 percent and 68 percent, respectively) 
(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 & Syvitski 2006, pp. 69, 72). Within 
the Caribbean region, protected areas and sanctuaries have lost up to 
70 percent of forest cover since they were created in the late 1970s 
and early 1980s (Miller et al. 2004, p. 454).
    The threat of habitat loss is not geographically concentrated in 
Colombia or occurring at a different rate or on an increased trajectory 
compared to the other parts of the range within the

[[Page 19558]]

northern DPS. Collection for the pet trade occurs throughout the range 
of the northern DPS, but collection is not geographically concentrated 
in Colombia or occurring at a different scale from any other portion in 
the northern DPS. All indications suggest that the scarlet macaw's 
population in northwest Colombia is very small and has been 
significantly reduced from its historical range in the larger inter-
Andean River valleys. With ongoing deforestation that removes the 
species' habitat for nesting and foraging, viability of a very small 
population is likely minimal, particularly because the species' life-
history traits limit the rate of recovery from loss of wild 
populations. Therefore, we conclude that the northern DPS is in danger 
of extinction in the Colombia portion of the species' range of the 
northern DPS.
    Because we conclude that the northern DPS is in danger of 
extinction in the Colombia portion, we next proceed to evaluating 
whether this portion of the range is significant. As explained above, 
to determine whether a portion was ``significant,'' we considered how 
the portion contributes to the viability of the northern DPS. The 
population is reported to be near extirpation from northwest Colombia, 
but a few individuals may possibly occur in more remote and 
inaccessible areas of the region. The total range of where scarlet 
macaws occur in Colombia is unknown, but the best available information 
indicates the size of the portion is very small and not a large 
percentage of the northern DPS's range. Additionally, all indications 
suggest the population is very small and likely represents a minimal 
proportion of the total population of the northern DPS.
    The population in Colombia is not biologically or genetically 
unique from other populations in the northern DPS. We are not currently 
aware of any life-history functions that the Colombia portion is 
contributing meaningfully to the northern DPS' overall resiliency and 
representation, within the context of a ``significant portion of its 
range'' analysis. For example, there is no information that the very 
small but unknown population in Colombia is serving as a source 
population for the northern DPS. The northern DPS contains similar 
ecosystems across its range--lowland tropical habitats bounded by 
highlands and/or the Pacific Ocean. Scarlet macaws are dependent on 
larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities, forage primarily 
in the forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding 
habits. The best available information does not indicate that forests 
where scarlet macaws occur in northwest Colombia are higher quality or 
provide high value relative to the remaining portions of the range in 
the northern DPS.
    Genetically, the populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica, 
mainland Panama, and in Colombia west of the Andes Mountains were 
determined to be a spatially discrete group within the broader lineage 
of Ara macao (Schmidt 2013, p. 49; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744). The 
populations we included in the northern DPS are those same populations. 
Thus, there is no information that the scarlet macaws in Colombia are 
genetically or biologically unique from the rest of the northern DPS. 
Overall, this portion by itself will have only a minimal impact on the 
viability of the northern DPS, and therefore, cannot be significant and 
cannot be the basis for listing the entire northern DPS as endangered. 
Therefore, having found that the Colombia portion may be in danger of 
extinction, but the portion is not significant, the Colombia portion of 
the northern DPS' range is not a significant portion because both 
factors must be true.

Analysis of the Panama and Colombia Portions Combined

    Having determined that neither the Panama nor the Colombia portions 
are significant portions of the northern DPS's range, we considered 
whether the Panama and Columbia portions combined might be a 
significant portion of the range of the scarlet macaw in the northern 
DPS that is endangered. The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS may be in 
danger of extinction in that combined portion because of ongoing 
threats of deforestation that removes the species' habitat for nesting 
and foraging, as well as collection for the pet trade. Viability of 
very small populations in Panama and Colombia is likely minimal, 
particularly because the species' life-history traits limit the rate of 
recovery from loss of wild populations. Therefore, we conclude that the 
scarlet macaw in the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in this 
portion of the northern DPS. However, even taken together, this 
combined portion is not significant because the populations are very 
small, they do not account for a large percentage of the range, and 
this portion is not biologically or genetically unique from the rest of 
the northern DPS. Panama and Colombia taken together will have only a 
minimal impact on the viability of the scarlet macaw in the northern 
DPS, and therefore, cannot be significant and cannot be the basis for 
listing the entire northern DPS as endangered. Thus, having found that 
the portion is in danger of extinction, but the portion is not 
significant, the portion of the scarlet macaw in the northern DPS's 
range combining Panama and Colombia together is not a significant 
portion because both factors must be true.
    The analysis of the Panama portion, Colombia portion, and the 
portion that combines Panama and Colombia together, does not conflict 
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018), and Center 
for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017), because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the 
aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of 
``significant,'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Conclusion

    In the document announcing that we were reexamining the 
``significant portion of the range'' analysis for the northern DPS of 
the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw, we stated that we would 
reconsider our analysis based on the plain language of the Act and the 
implications of Everson (87 FR 66093; November 2, 2022). If the 
analysis determined that there are no significant portions of the range 
for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw, the 
``significant portion of its range'' analysis ends the process. If the 
analysis determined that one or more significant portions of the range 
exist but do not warrant endangered status, the ``significant portion 
of its range'' analysis also ends the process. However, if the analysis 
found one or more significant portions of the range and found the 
northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw should be 
listed as endangered instead of threatened, we would submit a proposed 
rule to the Federal Register by March 28, 2024, seeking public comment 
on the proposed reclassification of the northern DPS of the southern 
subspecies of scarlet macaw.
    In this analysis of the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of 
scarlet macaw, we assessed four portions within the DPS: the Pacific 
slope of Costa Rica, Mainland Panama, and Colombia west of the Andes, 
and Panama and Colombia combined. We concluded that none of the 
portions in the northern DPS are both in danger of extinction and 
significant. The Costa Rica population is not in danger of extinction; 
therefore, we did not need to address its significance. For the Panama 
population and Colombia population, it is reasonable to conclude that 
each of

[[Page 19559]]

these portions may be in danger of extinction; however, neither of 
these portions of the range are significant. Similarly, combining the 
Panama and Colombia populations, we concluded this portion may be in 
danger of extinction; however, this portion of the range is not 
significant. Having completed the ``significant portion of its range'' 
analysis for the northern DPS and determined that the northern DPS is 
not in danger of extinction in any significant portion of its range, we 
do not propose to revise the current status of the southern subspecies 
of scarlet macaw in the northern DPS. Therefore, we affirm the listing 
of the scarlet macaw as set forth in the 2019 rule.

Author

    The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Branch of Delisting and Foreign 
Species.

Authority

    This document is published under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-06723 Filed 3-30-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P