# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Two Foreign Macaw Species

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-24820

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** October 2, 2015
- **Citation:** 80 FR 59976

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0101; 450 003 0115]
RIN 1018-AY33
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Two Foreign Macaw Species

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are listing the military macaw (
Ara militaris
) and the great green macaw (
Ara ambiguus
) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). These species are both endemic to Central and South America. Despite conservation efforts, these species' populations are in decline, primarily due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; small population size; poaching; and regulatory mechanisms that are inadequate to ameliorate these threats throughout their ranges.

DATES:

This rule becomes effective November 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov
and comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January 29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, represented by the Environmental Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting that we list 14 parrot species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
). As part of a court-approved settlement agreement, the Service agreed to submit a determination as to whether the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing actions for the military macaw (
Ara militaris
) and the great green macaw (
Ara ambiguus
) to the
Federal Register
by June 30, 2012. On July 6, 2012, the Service published a proposed rule (77 FR 40172) to add the military macaw and great green macaw as endangered species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This final rule completes the listing process for these species.

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

We are listing the military macaw (
Ara militaris
) and the great green macaw (
Ara ambiguus
) as endangered species under the Act. We are finalizing this action primarily because of the effects of poaching, habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation on their populations; their small and declining population sizes; and inadequate regulatory mechanisms to ameliorate the threats to the species throughout their ranges.

In this final rule, we used public comments and peer review to inform our final determination, as required under the Act. When we published the proposed rule on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40172), we opened a 60-day comment period on the proposed listing for these species. During the comment period, we sought comments from independent specialists (peer reviewers) on the specific assumptions and conclusions in our listing proposal to ensure that the designation of these species as endangered is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. In addition, we sought comments from interested parties and the public. We considered all comments and information received during the comment period. In this final rule, we present and respond to peer reviewer and public comments. This rule finalizes the protections proposed for these two foreign bird species as endangered species, following careful consideration of all comments we received during the public comment period.

III. Costs and Benefits

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.” Further, this action is not a “significant” regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, we have not analyzed its costs or benefits.

Background

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

In this document, we announce that listing these two species as endangered species is warranted, and we are adding these two species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Petition History

On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January 29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting that we list 14 parrot species under the ESA. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite information required in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day finding in which we determined that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 12 of the 14 parrot species.

In our 90-day finding on this petition, we announced the initiation of a status review to list as endangered or threatened under the ESA the following 12 parrot species: Blue-headed macaw
(Primolius couloni),
crimson shining parrot
(Prosopeia splendens),
great green macaw
(Ara ambiguus),
grey-

cheeked parakeet
(Brotogeris pyrrhoptera),
hyancith macaw
(Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus),
military macaw
(Ara militaris),
Philippine cockatoo
(Cacatua haematuropygia),
red-crowned parrot
(Amazona viridigenalis),
scarlet macaw
(Ara macao),
white cockatoo
(Cacatua alba),
yellow-billed parrot
(Amazona collaria),
and yellow-crested cockatoo
(Cacatua sulphurea).
We initiated the status review to determine if listing each of the 12 species is warranted, and initiated a 60-day public comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on the status of these 12 species of parrots. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2009.

On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court (CV-10-357, D. DC), in which the Service agreed to submit to the
Federal Register
by July 29, 2011, September 30, 2011, and November 30, 2011, determinations whether the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing actions for no less than 4 of the petitioned species on each date.

On August 9, 2011, the Service published in the
Federal Register
a 12-month status review finding for the crimson shining parrot (a finding that listing was not warranted) and a proposed rule for the following three parrot species: Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and yellow-crested cockatoo (76 FR 49202).

On October 6, 2011, we published a 12-month status review finding for the red-crowned parrot (76 FR 62016); on October 11, 2011, we published a 12-month status review and proposed rule for the yellow-billed parrot (76 FR 62740); and on October 12, 2011, we published a 12-month status review for the blue-headed macaw and grey-cheeked parakeet (76 FR 63480).

On September 16, 2011, an extension to the settlement agreement was approved by the Court (CV-10-357, D. DC), in which the Service agreed to submit a determination for the remaining four petitioned species to the
Federal Register
by June 30, 2012.

On July 6, 2012, the Service published in the
Federal Register
a 12-month status review finding and proposed rule for the four following parrot species: Great green macaw and the military macaw (77 FR 40172), hyacinth macaw (77 FR 39965), and the scarlet macaw (77 FR 40222).

Upon publication in the
Federal Register
on July 6, 2012, of the 12-month status review finding and proposed rule for these species (77 FR 40172), we initiated a 60-day public comment period, which ended on September 4, 2012. Following publication of the proposed rule, we implemented the Service's peer review process and during the 60-day comment period, solicited scientific and commercial information on the species from all interested parties.

Previous Federal Actions

In our proposed rule, published July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40172), we announced that listing the military macaw and the great green macaw as endangered was warranted, and we issued a proposed rule to add these two species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The comment period ended on September 4, 2012; we received 59 comments from the public.

In response to requests received during the public comment period, we reopened another public comment period on February 21, 2013, which ended on April 22, 2013 (78 FR 12011). During the second comment period (see
http://www.regulations.gov
, docket number FWS-R9-ES-2011-0101), we received 25 more comments on these two macaw species and on the hyacinth macaw; however, only one submission provided substantive information. All comments, including names and addresses of commenters, have become part of the administrative record and are available at
http://www.regulations.gov
, docket numbers FWS-R9-ES-2011-0101 and FWS-R9-ES-2012-0013.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We base this finding on a review of the best scientific and commercial information available, including all information received during the public comment period. In the September 4, 2012, proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties submit information that might contribute to development of a final rule. On February 21, 2013, we reopened the public comment period where we again requested that all interested parties submit information that might contribute to development of a final rule. We also contacted appropriate scientific experts and organizations and invited them to comment on the proposed listings. We received comments from four individuals; one of which was from a peer reviewer.

Peer Reviewer Comments

(1) Comment:
One peer reviewer provided information on military macaw population surveys confirming the presence of 100 macaws in the Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Biosphere Reserve in Mexico.

Our Response:
We have reviewed the additional literature and incorporated the new information into our finding. Although the new information has been incorporated into the final rule, the new survey provided did not change our finding that the military macaw meets the definition of an endangered species. The species' overall population remains small and fragmented despite additional macaws being observed in this one location, and the species is still at risk of extinction due to habitat loss, poaching, and small population size.

Public Comments

(2) Comment:
Several commenters expressed concerns about the potential impact the listings might have on their business.

Our Response:
We acknowledge that there may be impacts to different entities involved in captive breeding of great green and military macaws. However, Section 4(b)(1)(A) requires listing decisions to be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available, as it relates to the five listing factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Service did not consider the impacts on business in its listing determination.

(3) Comment:
Some commenters suggest that the Service is using outdated information when making the determination for the rule.

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 based the proposed rule on all the information we received following the initiation of the 12-month status review for the military and great green macaw, as well as all of the information we found while conducting our own research. The information we use depends on field research and our ability to acquire that information. At the time of the publishing of the proposed rule, the information we compiled was considered the best available information. After publishing the proposed rule, emerging information on the great green and military macaw became available. We reviewed that information, as well as additional information submitted by the public, including more recent information and studies from a species expert and conservation organizations within the great green and military macaw's range countries. Non-English literature was professionally translated, analyzed, and is cited in this document. The information we received and subsequently reviewed did not change any of our findings, but rather further supported our conclusions. That

information has been incorporated into this final rule.

(4) Comment:
Some commenters, while not opposed to the listing of the species, asked for a special rule under section 4(d) of the Act (also called a “4(d) rule”) that would allow ownership and interstate trade of the species to occur without obtaining a permit under the Act.

Our response:
Ownership of a listed species is not prohibited by the Act and, therefore, does not require a permit. Because we determined that listing the great green and military macaws as endangered species under the Act is appropriate, we are not able to develop a 4(d) rule for this species. Section 4(d) of the Act allows the Service to develop a special rule to apply the prohibitions of section 9 or to provide measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species only. A special rule cannot be promulgated for a species that is listed as endangered under the Act. The sale; offer for sale; and delivery, receipt, carrying, transport, or shipment in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity is prohibited. That said, not all interstate trade is prohibited under the ESA. Interstate transfer of animals that are not for sale, offered for sale, or in the course of a commercial activity is not prohibited.

We thank all the commenters for their interest in the conservation of this species and thank those commenters who provided information for our consideration in making this listing determination. Under section 4(b) of the Act, the Service is required to make listing determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species. When we published our proposed rule, we opened a public comment period during which we requested any additional information on the great green and military macaw. In making this listing determination, we reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, contacted species experts, and searched for the most current information on these species with due diligence. Therefore, we have obtained and considered the “best scientific and commercial data available” in our listing determination. After careful consideration, we conclude that these species meet the definition of an endangered species under the Act.

Species Information for the Military Macaw

Taxonomy

The military macaw (
Ara militaris,
Linnaeus 1766) is in the Psittacidae family and is also known as “guacamaya verde,” “parava,” and “ravine parrot.” Three subspecies of military macaw have been proposed and are recognized by some:
Ara militaris bolivianus
(Reichenow 1908),
Ara militaris mexicanus
(Ridgway 1915), and
Ara militaris militaris
(Linnaeus 1766). Avibase, a database of all birds of the world maintained by Bird Studies Canada, and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) both recognize subspecies (
http://www.itis.gov
and
http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/avibase.jsp
, accessed August 30, 2011). The range of
A. m. bolivianus
is thought to be in Bolivia and northwestern Argentina. The range of
A. m. mexicanus
is thought to be restricted to Mexico.

Because it is a strong flyer (it has been observed traveling up to 20 kilometers (km) (12 miles [mi]) per day) and it is a semi-migratory species, the physical similarities suggest that seemingly isolated populations may be in contact (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 423), and, therefore, their populations may be exchanging genetic material.

For the purpose of this rule, we are addressing the military macaw at the species level. Therefore, we are listing the military macaw species as an endangered species, which includes all subspecies.

Description

The military macaw is an extremely vocal species; it is described as being very noisy and is known to shriek (Birdlife International (BLI) 2011, p. 1). It is a large macaw (70 centimeters or 27.5 inches in length) and is vibrant in color. It has dark lime-green feathers mixed with blue flight feathers that are olive-colored underneath. Its forehead is red, and it has a bare white facial area and a black bill. Its lower back is blue; its tail is red and blue. The southernmost population in Bolivia, which extends into Argentina, exhibits reddish brown on their throats and cheeks (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 423). This species is often confused with the great green macaw (
Ara ambiguus
). The great green macaw is very similar in appearance to the military macaw, but the military macaw has more prominent blue tinge on its hind neck, is smaller, and has darker plumage. These two species are separated geographically.

Habitat and Life History

Military macaws nest in tree cavities and cliffs. Cliff-nesting parrots, such as the military macaw, also nest colonially (in groups) (Bonilla-Ruz et al. 2007a, pp. 730-731). Cliff cavities located in ravines used by this species have been documented 25 and 30 meters (m) (82 to 98 feet (ft)) above ground (Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 71). Tree cavities used by this species have been observed to be 18 m (60 ft) above ground and are approximately 75 cm (29.5 inches) deep (Baker 1958, p. 98). This species has also been observed to use secondary cavities, such as abandoned woodpecker holes, particularly in dead pine trees (Strewe and Navarro 2004, p. 50). Military macaws alternate nesting and foraging areas based on food availability (Bonilla-Ruz 2006, p. 1). Nesting appears to be synchronous with the peak fruiting season, which occurs during April and May (Huatatoca pers. comm. in Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 70). The military macaw is a social species that congregates in small flocks and is often observed in mated pairs. Its clutch size is usually two to three eggs. They begin reproducing between 3 and 4 years of age (Mexican National Commission for Protected Areas [CONANP] 2006 in Bonilla-Ruz 2006, p. 2). Colonial nesting is believed to be due to the lack of suitable disbursed nest sites, which may also explain why they are concentrated in certain sites (Salinas-Melgoza et al. 2009, p. 306).

This species prefers the lower montane wet forests of the Andes. It inhabits remaining fragmented forested area in the Neotropics. However, in the northernmost part of its range, in Mexico, it is associated with seasonally dry, semi-deciduous tropical forest, deciduous tropical forest, and slopes of pine-oak forest (Bonilla-Ruz et al. 2007b, pp. 45-47; Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2006, p. 26).

The military macaw is a seasonal migrant, based on food and nutrient availability. In some areas, it has been observed at clay licks to obtain sodium and possibly other minerals, which is a common activity in some parrot species (Lee 2010, p. 58). Its diet varies seasonally. Some of the plant species it was observed feeding on include (Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2013, p. 1211; Carillo et al. 2013, p. 46; Huellega 2011, p. 9; Moschione 2007, in Navarro et al., 2008, p. 2; Contreras-González et al. 2006, p. 387; Renton 2004, p. 12; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 422):

Brosimum alicastrum
(capomo, Maya nut, ramón),

Bunchosia montana
(no common name (ncn)),

Bursera aptera
(ncn),

Bursera schlechtendalii
(ncn),

Carya illinoensis (
nuez de castilla),

Cedrela
species (cedar fruit),

Ceiba aescutifolia
(Pochote),
Ceiba pentandra (
ceiba),

Couepia polyandra (
zapotillo),

Cyrtocarpa procera
(Chupandilla),

Encyclia lancifolia
(orchid, ncn),

Ficus
species (fig),

Guaiacum coulteri
(soap bush),

Hura crepitans
(ochoo, arbol del diablo, acacu, monkey's dinner-bell, habillo, ceiba de leche, sand-box tree, possum wood, dynamite tree, ceiba blanca, assacu, posentri),

Hura polyandra
(arbol del diablo, habillo, haba, jabillo, tetereta),

Ipomoea arborescens
(palo santo, palo blanco, tree morning glory),

Juglans mollis
(nogal),

Lonchocarpus rugosus
(palo arco),

Lysiloma divaricata
(ncn),

Lysiloma microphylla
(palo corral),

Mangifera indica
(mango),

Melia azedarach
(Chinaberry tree),

Neobuxbaumia tetetzo
(cardon, higos de teteche, tetetzo),

Orbignea guacoyula
(palm),

Pinus ayacahuite
(pinabete),

Pinus engelmannii
(pino real),

Pinus durangensis
(pino alazán),

Plumeria rubra
(Frangipani),

Quercus affinis
(encinos),

Quercus castanea
(encinos),

Quercus crassifolia
(encinos),

Spondias mombin
(ciruelo),

Tecoma stans
(yellow trumpetbush),

Tillandsia grandis
(ncn), and

Tillandsia makoyana
(ncn).

Seeds were found to be 39 percent of this species' diet. They have also been observed feeding on bromeliad stems (species unknown) and cacti (species unknown). In the northern part of its range in Mexico, military macaws have been observed in desert habitat, although they tend to have lower reproductive success in this habitat type (Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2008, p. 261). In desert habitat, which is suboptimal, it has been observed consuming some flowers (species unidentified). Despite the low seasonal abundance of food, deserts offer some refuge from poaching due to the inhospitable dry climate, which can act as a deterrent to poachers (Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2008, p. 261). In addition, macaws tend to nest at very high locations, which can make it difficult for poachers to reach them.

Range, Observations, and Population Estimates

The military macaw is distributed in highly fragmented, small populations in Mexico and South America, with a distribution gap in Central America (BLI 2014a, pp. 1-2; Rivera-Ortiz 2013, p. 1,201; Juarez et al 2012, pp. 6-7). Its range extends from northern Mexico southward into Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, and the southern tip of Argentina (see Figure 1 for an approximation of its range and distribution). The species has been described as patchily distributed throughout the eastern foothills of the Andes Mountains (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). It occurs in altitudes up to 1,600 m (5,249 ft) (Strewe and Navarro 2004, p. 50; Snyder et al. 2000, pp. 102, 124-125). Although it has a large distribution (276,000 km
2
(106,564 mi
2
)), its populations are localized.

Its population is estimated to be 6,667-13,333 mature individuals (BLI 2014, pp. 1-2; Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2013, p. 1,201). Most areas where this species occurs are now estimated to have fewer than 100 individuals. However, in 2004, other populations in Colombia and Mexico were estimated to be 100-200 individuals (Flórez and Sierra 2004, p. 3). This species may have occurred in Guatemala in the past, but it is no longer found there (Gardner 1972 in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). Overall, its populations are fragmented and becoming more isolated (Rivera-Ortiz 2008, p. 256).

ER02OC15.009

The species inhabits tropical, semi-deciduous forests along the Pacific and Atlantic slopes through Central and South America. The best available information indicates there are reasonably healthy but small populations in El Cielo and Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserves (Sierra meaning mountain range) in Mexico, Madidi and Amboró National Parks, Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve and Apolobamba National Integrated Management Area in Bolivia, and Manu Biosphere Reserve and Bahuaja Sonene National Park in Peru, and a small but stable remnant population in Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Biosphere Reserve, Oaxaca, Mexico (Lowry 2014, p. 3; Hosner et al. 2009, p. 222; Arizmendi 2008, p. 3; Rivera-Ortiz 2008, p. 256). The population from Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Biosphere Reserve, Oaxaca is about 100 macaws (Bonilla et al. 2007a, p. 731).

Argentina

Argentina is the southernmost part of this species' range, and the species was never thought to have been abundant there (Navarro et al. 2008, p. 1). In fact, this species was initially thought to be extirpated (locally extinct) in Argentina, but surveys have found small populations in at least two locations in the northern province of Salta (Grilli et al 2013, p. 235; Juarez et al 2012, pp. 7-8). There are anecdotal reports of this species crossing the Itaú River (Navarro et al. 2008, p. 3), which borders Bolivia and Argentina. Between 2005 and 2007, approximately 100 individuals were observed in the Salta Province. These areas include: Finca Itaguazuti, and the Acambuco Provincial Flora and Fauna Reserve (8,266 hectares [ha] or 20,426 acres [ac]) in the Tartagal Mountains and which borders Bolivia (BLI 2014; Navarro et al. 2008, pp. 1, 4; Coconier et al. 2007, p. 59). In 2008, flocks of between 4 and 40 individuals of this species were observed in three ravines in the Salta Province. These locations were the Agua Fresca (Cool Water) Ravine north of Campo Cauzuti, El Limón Ravine (which had the largest population), and the Caraparí River Ravine. These are believed to be established populations, rather than flocks crossing over from Bolivia (Navarro et al. 2008, pp. 1, 4).

Bolivia

In Bolivia, the military macaw is regularly observed in five national parks: Tambopata National Reserve, Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve, Madidi National Park, Apolobamba National Integrated Management Area, and Amboró National Park (Hennessey 2011, pers. comm.). This species exists in the Andean foothills in Bolivia in forested areas extending from the northern Tambopata National Reserve to the southern Pilón Lajas Reserve (Hennessey et al. 2003, pp. 319, 329). These parks are in the general vicinity of the border of southern Peru and northern Bolivia (Hosner et al. 2009, p. 222; Navarro et al. 2008, p. 2; Hennessey et al. 2003, p. 322). They are part of the Greater Madidi-Tambopata Landscape (GMTL) (also known as “Parque Nacional Madidi”). Within the GMTL, there are thought to be reasonably healthy populations of this species in the Apolobamba National Integrated Management Area, Amboró and Madidi National Parks, and Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve (Hennessey 2011 pers. comm.; Hosner et al. 2009, p. 225). The Greater Madidi-Tambopata Landscape is 110,074 km
2
(42,500 mi
2
) in size, and encompasses one of the largest areas of intact montane forest in the tropical Andes (WCS 2009, p. 2). This area is a high conservation priority due to its large number of endemic bird species. Pilón Lajas consists of primary evergreen tropical lowland forest, foothill forest, and lower montane forest. Pilón Lajas was recognized as a Biosphere Reserve and Indigenous Territory by the Bolivian Government in 1992; however, it did not have any actual protections in place until 1994 (Hennessey et al. 2003, p. 319).

In 2008, this species was observed at Serranía Sadiri in Madidi National Park, La Paz Department, Bolivia (Hosner et al. 2009, p. 225). Serranía Sadiri is found just inside Madidi National Park. Here, flocks of between 2 and 36 individuals have been observed (Hosner et al. 2009, p. 228). The Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve is primarily in La Paz Department, but slightly overlaps into the Beni Department. Here, this species is described as uncommon (Hennessey 2003, p. 329). It was observed in Parapetiguasu-Taremakua, and Parapetiguas-Uruwigua in Santa Cruz, Cordillera Province, and at Altamachi and Madidi in Cochabamba, Ayopaya Province (MacLeod 2009, pp. 42-43). In summary, within Bolivia, there are many small populations of this species in areas that provide suitable habitat for this species (primarily large forest patches under some form of protection).

Colombia

In the late 1990s, there were approximately five disjunct populations in the central Andes Mountains (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). In Colombia, groups of 50 individuals have been observed, and in one case, a population was estimated to have 156 individuals (Flórez and Sierra 2004, pp. 2-3). In most cases, these individuals reside on cliff formations that are favorable for nesting (where they are less accessible to poachers), and where deforestation is having less of an impact (Flórez and Sierra 2004, pp. 2-3; Rodriguez and Hernández-Camacho 2002, p. 203). In Colombia, this species inhabits a wide range of altitudes and areas with various degrees of alteration (Flórez and Sierra 2004, pp. 1-3; Juniper and Parr 1998). In Colombia, this species has been observed between altitudes of 700 and 1,600 m (2,297 to 5,249 ft) (Flórez and Sierra 2004, pp. 1-3; Salaman et al. 2002, pp. 167, 187). Populations have been observed in Guajira peninsula, Las Orquideas, Tayrona National Park, Serranía de Perijá, Serranía de San Lucas, San Salvador Valley, Sierra Nevada De Santa Marta, La Guajira Department, and Cueva de los Guacharos National Park (Strewe and Navarro 2003, p. 3). In 1998, this species was observed in flocks of up to 12 individuals at Villa Iguana and Alto Cagadero in Serranía de los Churumbelos (Salaman et al. 2007, pp. 33, 38, 47, 89). It has been observed in palm stands in the San Salvador valley during the breeding season (December-July) (Strewe and Navarro 2003, p. 33).

There are two small, stable populations of military macaws at Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta and Churumbelos, Cauca, with approximately 50 mature birds at each site (Fundación ProAves 2011, p. 28). In 2004, Flórez and Sierra estimated that the population in the cliffs of the Cauca River was 156 individuals and contained 54 breeding pairs and 26 nests (2004, p. 3). However, this population is subjected to impacts from poaching and deforestation (Flórez and Sierra, 2004, pp. 3-4), so the population now may be smaller. These researchers also noted that many chicks fall from the cliff nests and die. As of 2011, there were no recent records in northern Antioquia (Paramillo), Serranía de San Lucas, or Perijá ranges (Fundación ProAves 2011, pp. 28-29).

In the Frío Valley of Colombia, this species is reported to be present only during the breeding season (Strewe and Navarro 2004, p. 50). Several nests were found here in forest fragments. A population at El Congo Reserve was intensively studied in 2001. One nest was located 12 m (39 ft) above ground in a
Ceiba
tree, within open primary forest on a steep slope at 900 m (2,953 ft). A breeding population of 12 pairs, with groups of up to 28 was observed in December 2000. However, here it is still threatened in the valley by habitat loss and domestic trade (two cases noted in 2001) (Strewe and Navarro

2004, p. 50), and the population may now be decimated.

Ecuador

In Ecuador, this species is considered to be very rare (Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 71). This species has been observed in the areas of Sumaco and Zamora-Chinchipe in Ecuador (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125) and at Kichwa River Reserve (Reserva Kichwa Río), within the Gran Sumaco Guacamayos Biosphere Reserve (Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 72). Most records of military macaw in Ecuador during the 1980s and 1990s found groups of up to 20 individuals (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001); however, lately most records have not exceeded 8 individuals (Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 71) except for a breeding colony of 16 individuals that was observed in the Reserva Kichwa Río (Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, pp. 70-72). Prior to 1980, it was observed in the upper Upano River Valley (Ridgely 1980 p. 244). In 2006, 200 ha (494 ac) were turned into the Narupa Reserve, where this species was observed in approximately 2010 (Fundación ProAves et al. 2010, p. 42). Additionally, in 2010, a pair of military macaws was observed in northern Ecuador in the Sumaco region (Olah and Barnes 2010, p. 19).

Mexico

There are several small populations of military macaws in Mexico, each consisting of between approximately 20 and 90 individuals (Jimenez-Arcos et al. 2012, p. 864; Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2008, p. 256), although there has been an anecdotal report of a population estimated to be 130 individuals (Bonilla 2012, p. 6). This species follows seasonal food sources, so flocks move to other areas seasonally. In Mexico, there are reasonably healthy but small populations in the following areas:

• Alamos Rio Cuchujaqui (Sonora),

• Puerto Vallarta (Jalisco),

• Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Biosphere Reserve (at the border of Puebla and Oaxaca States) Mineral de Nuestra Señora Reserve (Sinaloa),

• El Cielo Biosphere Reserve (Tamaulipas),

• Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve (Querétaro),

• Sierra Manantlán Biosphere Reserve (Jalisco),

• Vicinity of Copalillo (Guerrero) (Jimenez-Arcos et al. 2012, p. 865).

ER02OC15.010

In Mexico, there may also be isolated populations of military macaws in other States. Figure 2 shows the approximate present day and historical distribution of the military macaw in Mexico as of 2008 (Arizmendi 2008, p. 4). Other States where it may exist include Colima, Durango, Michoacán, Morelos, Nayarit (in the Valley of Flags or “Valle de Banderas”), Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí, and Zacatecas. Areas where it has been recently documented are described below.

Chihuahua

Researchers believe there is a remaining population in the Sierra Madre Occidental Mountains (north-central Mexico) in Otachique (Cruz-Nieto et al. 2006, p. 14). In 2005, 25 nests were observed (Cruz-Nieto et al. 2006, p. 14). This canyon is approximately 700 m (0.5 miles) wide by 14 km (8.6 miles) in length and consists of mature pines, firs, and oaks. Some gallery temperate forest remains in this area.

Guerrero

A colony of approximately 20 military macaws was studied between 2006 and 2010 in the vicinity of Copalillo, Guerrero (Jiménez-Arcos et al. 2012, pp. 864-865). The vegetation is tropical deciduous forest; and a canyon is present.

Jalisco

This species is found sporadically in small groups of a few to approximately 100 macaws in the western foothills of Sierra del Cuale and Sierra Cacoma in Jalisco on the western coast of Mexico (Renton 2004, pp. 13-14). Other groups of macaws in the region are in Cabo Corrientes in the Horcones river basin (approximately 100 macaws). There are other small populations in the vicinity of Puerto Vallarta (Carrillo et al. 2013, pp. 45, 47). This species was observed in 2004 near a freshwater lake, Cajón de Peña (26 by 9 km (16 by 5.6 mi) in size), which was constructed in 1976. It is found in the Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve (132,000 ha or 32,617 ac), which is managed by Mexico's Instituto de Ecologia of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Patches of semi-deciduous forest in this area form corridors between existing protected areas, such as the Chamela-Cuixmala and the Sierra Manatlán Biosphere Reserves (Renton 2004, p. 14). These patches likely have served as critical ecological links for this species.

Oaxaca

This species has recently been the focus of research in Sabino Canyon, Oaxaca. Sabino Canyon is in the Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Biosphere Reserve (Reserva de la Biosfera Tehuacan Cuicatlan), created in 1998, in central Mexico. The reserve spans 490,187 ha (1,211,278 ac) and is located within the Mixteca Oaxaqueña Province between the cities of Puebla and Orízaba. It is approximately 150 km (93 mi) southeast of Mexico City (
http://www.parkswatch.org,
accessed July 11, 2011) and approximately 2 hours from Tehuacan, Oaxaca, Mexico. Large mountain ranges delineate the boundaries of the reserve, and six rivers are within the protected area's boundaries.

In 2001, this species was observed in two canyons within this reserve. In both ravines, 20 pairs were observed nesting (Salazar-Torres 2001, p. 18). Here, this species nests in the canyon cliff walls in crevices that can be as high as 250 m (820 ft). Between 2002 and 2004, approximately 100 individual military macaws were observed (Bonilla-Ruz et al. 2007a, p. 729). During 2007-2008, at least 67 birds were observed during the month of August (Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2008, p. 256; Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2006, p. 26). The known nesting site locations within the reserve increased from five to nine during the study period (Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2006, p. 28). Currently in the Sabino Canyon, the population of military macaws is thought to be between 90 and 100 individuals (Arizmendi 2008, p. 15).

Sinaloa

This species exists in Mineral de Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria Ecological Preserve, 12 km (7.4 mi) southeast of the town of Cosala in Sinaloa, Mexico (Rubio et al. 2007, p. 52; Bonilla-Ruz et al. 2007b, p. 45). The preserve is 1,256 ha (3,104 ac) and consists of dry tropical forest. In 2002, this area was designated as a protected area by the State of Sinaloa Decree.

Sonora

Between 2008 and 2009, it was observed at the Northern Jaguar Reserve in east-central Sonora, and was described as a rare summer resident there (Flesch 2009, pp. 5, 12). In this area, this species was recently observed in small flocks in cliff areas (Flesch 2008, pp. 35-36). In 2005, it was observed in the Río Aros canyon and upper Río Yaqui valley in an area known as the Yaqui Basin (O'Brien et al. 2006, pp. 4, 27-28). Flesch suggests that the species is likely to occur only in cliffs near stands of tropical vegetation (full citation 2008, p. 27).

Tamaulipas

Historically, in Mexico's eastern State of Tamaulipas, flocks of approximately 60 individuals were noted almost daily in the area of Gómez Farías, Mexico (Sutton and Pettingill 1942, p. 14). The Gómez Farías region is on the eastern slope of the Sierra Madre Oriental mountain range, known locally as the “Sierra de Guatemala.” This area is in the general vicinity of the state-protected El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, where this species is still known to occur (Arvin 2001, p. 8). The University of Texas at Brownsville maintains a research station, Rancho del Cielo, within the 145,687-hectare (360,000-acre) reserve. The research station supports locally driven scientific research and community development (University of Texas at Brownsville, unpaginated). Activities conducted by the research station have positive impacts on this species by attracting researchers and the birding community, preserving and protecting habitat, and creating awareness in the area.

Peru

There are populations in Manu Biosphere Reserve, Tambopata National Reserve, and Bahuaja Sonene National Park in Peru. The two latter parks border one another in the southern Peruvian Amazon region (ParksWatch 2002, p. 1). This species has been observed around the Pongo de Mainique of the Urubamba River and on the upper Tambopata River (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). According to a 2010 paper, it was observed in the Madre de Dios department in the southeastern Peruvian Amazon (Lee 2010, p. 14). Flocks of 40 to 50 individuals have been observed in Atalya at Madre de Dios (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). The species has been observed seasonally in small numbers in the area of the Huállaga River Canyon (JGP Consultants 2011 pp. 1, 5, 8).

Venezuela

Within Venezuela, it has been documented primarily within protected areas. In this country, little information about the species exists (Rodriguez et al. 2004, pp. 375-376). Here it persists in the Andes in the Central Coastal Cordillera and Sierra de Perijá (Rodriguez et al. 2004, pp. 375, 378, 379). It has been found on the north slopes of El Ávila, Guatopo, Henri Pittier National Park, the State of Cojedes, Cerro La Misión, and Sierra de Perijá National Park (Desenne and Strahl 1994 and Fernandez-Badillo et al. 1994 in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). A new population of this species was recorded at two localities at the Catatumbo-Barí National Park along the Colombian-Venezuelan border (Avendaño 2011, p. 2). Moist forests exist as four distinct enclaves within the Catatumbo Valley, in both northwestern Venezuela and northeastern Colombia. This extends the species' previously known range from the east slope of the Serranía de Perijá southwards (Avendaño 2011, p. 2).

Summary of Range

According to several surveys, the military macaw exists in small populations ranging from a few pairs to approximately 100 individuals. It is found in protected areas in Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, and to a lesser extent, in Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and Argentina (see Figure 1), and is unlikely to exist in small populations outside of protected areas where large expanses of suitable habitat still remain (Bonilla 2012, p. 9). The population in the Pilón Lajas Biosphere Reserve, Bolivia, may

serve as a link to other populations of this species to the northwest and to the south (Hennessey et al. 2003, pp. 330-331). Records indicate that this species occurs primarily in protected areas (Flesch 2009; MacLeod 2009; Flesch 2008; Flórez and Sierra 2004; Rodriguez 2004; Renton 2004; Hennessey et al. 2003), such as protected parks where there are large remaining areas of suitable habitat for nesting, feeding, and breeding (see Figure 1).

Summary of Population Estimate

There are various but imprecise population estimates for the military macaw. One report estimates the population to be fewer than 10,000 individuals (Arizmendi 2008, p. 3). BLI reports that the population is estimated to be between 10,000 and 19,999 mature individuals with a decreasing trend (BLI 2014, p. 2). We believe that the population is significantly fewer than 10,000 based on recent documented observations of this species, most of which are described in this status review. Researchers in Colombia agree with our conclusion (Botero-Delgadillo and Páez 2011, p. 13). Published literature (referenced in this document) has documented small flocks ranging from approximately 16 to 156 individuals distributed in disjunct locations in Mexico, Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia. In situations where the species is rare or has small populations, the number of observations made per survey may be very small and the number of sites limited, and, therefore, estimates may not be accurate (Pollack 2006, p. 891).

The current total population number is unclear; however, based on these recent records, we believe that the population is between a few thousand and 10,000 remaining individuals (BLI 2014, p. 1; Bonilla 2012, p. 9).

Conservation Status

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

There are various protections in place for this species at the international, national, and local levels. At the international level, this species is listed as vulnerable by the IUCN (2011). However, this status under IUCN conveys no actual protections to the species.

CITES

The military macaw is protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which is one of the most important means of controlling international trade in animal and plant species affected by trade. CITES is an international agreement through which member countries, called Parties, work together to ensure that international trade in CITES-listed animals and plants is not detrimental to the survival of wild populations by regulating their import, export, and reexport. All of the range countries for this species are Parties to CITES (
http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/parties/alphabet.php,
accessed May 7, 2014). Most psittacines (parrots), including the military macaw, were included in CITES Appendix II in 1981. An Appendix-II listing includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival. The military macaw was transferred to Appendix I of CITES in 1987, because populations were declining rapidly due to uncontrolled trapping for the international pet bird trade. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with extinction whose trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade.

WBCA

The import of the military macaw into the United States is also regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901
et seq.
), which was enacted on October 23, 1992, in an effort to ensure that exotic bird species are not adversely affected by U.S. trade. The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of CITES-listed exotic birds by ensuring that all imports into the United States are (1) sustainable and (2) not detrimental to the species. Permits may be issued to allow imports of listed birds for scientific research, zoological breeding or display, or as personal pets when certain criteria are met. The Service may approve cooperative breeding programs and subsequently issue import permits under such programs. Wild-caught birds may be imported into the United States if the Service approves a management plan for their sustainable use. At this time, the military macaw is not part of a Service-approved cooperative breeding program and does not have an approved management plan for wild-caught birds.

Argentina

This species is considered to be a critically endangered species by the Government of Argentina (Navarro et al. 2008, p. 1). It is protected through national legislation (Law 22.421 and Decree 691/81), administered by the Dirección Nacional de Fauna y Flora Silvestres. Law 22.421 addresses the Conservation of Fauna, enacted in 1981. Decree 691/81 addresses the protection and conservation of wild fauna and is implemented through law 22.421.

Bolivia

In Bolivia, this species is listed as vulnerable. The 1975 Law on Wildlife, National Parks, Hunting and Fishing (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34) has the fundamental objective of protecting the country's natural resources. This law governs the protection, management, utilization, transportation, and selling of wildlife and their products. It also governs the protection of endangered species, habitat conservation of fauna and flora, and the declaration of national parks, biological reserves, refuges, and wildlife sanctuaries.

Colombia

Colombia categorizes this species as “vulnerable” (Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21). A vulnerable species is considered to be one that is not in imminent danger of extinction in the near future, but it could be if natural population trends continue downward and deterioration of its range continues (EcoLex 2002, p. 10).

Ecuador

In Ecuador, this species is considered endangered, “en peligro de extinción”. Here, this species is considered to be very rare (Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 69).

Mexico

In Mexico, the military macaw is protected as endangered under Mexico's Wildlife Protection Act (Benetiz-Diaz 2012, p. 2) and has been highlighted as a priority species for conservation in the Mexican Parrot Conservation Plan (Rivera-Ortiz et al. 2008, p. 256; Renton 2004, p. 12). Its official list of endangered and threatened bird species is termed the Norma Oficial Mexicana 059 (NOM-059, 2010) (Benetiz-Diaz 2012, p. 2).

Peru

In Peru, this species is listed as vulnerable and its protections fall under the jurisdiction of the National Institute of Natural Resources (Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales, INRENA). Peru's Supreme Decree No. 034-2004-AG (2004, p. 276,855) prohibits hunting, take, transport, and trade of protected species, except as permitted by regulation.

Venezuela

In Venezuela, this species is listed as endangered (Rodriguez et al. 2004, p. 376).

NGO Involvement

In the 1980s, conservationists realized the value of identifying areas or habitat in terms of numbers of endemic bird species. BirdLife International, in partnership with countries, other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and various other partners, developed the Important Bird Area (IBA) program, which is a worldwide initiative to identify and protect critical areas for bird conservation. IBAs are areas that regularly contain significant numbers of one or more globally threatened species or other species of global conservation concern. One of the criteria in identifying important regions for bird conservation is the distribution of restricted-range and globally threatened species such as the military macaw. As of 2007, more than 8,500 IBAs had been identified worldwide (García-Moreno et al. 2007, p. 324). The military macaw is included in 37 of those IBAs (BLI 2011b, pers. comm.). Note that this does not mean this species always occupies those areas; rather, the species has been identified in those areas.

A number of locally based and international conservation organizations have developed programs in connection with protected areas within this species' range, such as ecotourism, to observe clay lick areas (Lee 2010, pp. 167-168). The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) is implementing a range of projects aimed at strengthening the management of Greater Madidi-Tambopata Landscape in Bolivia. Its program is based on three main categories: (1) Park management, (2) natural resources management, and (3) scientific research (Parks Watch 2005, pp. 2-3). The Greater Madidi-Tambopata Landscape, where the WCS is monitoring populations of the military macaw (WCS 2009, pp. 2, 8), encompasses one of the largest swaths of intact montane forest in the Tropical Andes in northern Bolivia and southern Peru. The GMTL is 110,074 km
2
(42,500 mi
2
) and includes five protected areas.

A Colombian-based NGO, Fundación ProAves, is also working to protect this species and its habitats. Fundación ProAves developed a conservation plan for 2010 to 2020 for several parrot species, including the military macaw (Botero-Delgadillo and Páez 2011, p. 7). However, it is unclear if or when it will be adopted by the Government of Colombia.

In Mexico, several NGOs are participating in the conservation and management of this species. In 1989, a strong citizen movement began to conserve the 383,567-ha (947,815-ac) Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve by establishing the local group, Grupo Ecológico Sierra Gorda. In collaboration with the local community, this group has taken action to protect bird communities as well as other groups of wildlife in this area. Strategies include environmental education, establishment of private reserves, and payment for environmental services in a 25,000-ha (61,776-ac) area of this reserve (Pedraza-Ruiz, 2008 p. 1). The Chamela-Cuixmala Biosphere Reserve is managed by Mexico's Instituto de Ecologia of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and local NGOs. Other NGOs are working with communities to obtain macaw feathers from aviaries so that indigenous people will not hunt the macaws for their feathers (Renton 2004, p. 14). In the Sinaloa area, the Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa has been active in conservation of this species since 1998 (Rubio et al. 2007, p. 52). This university conducts research outreach activities to foster knowledge, and conservation of this species at the Mineral de Nuestra Señora de la Candelaria Ecological Preserve.

Evaluation of Threat Factors

Introduction

Section 4 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:

A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

C. Disease or predation;

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and

E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Throughout the range of this species, the factors impacting this species are generally very similar. The primary factors affecting the military macaw are habitat loss and degradation, and poaching (Carrillo et al. 2013, p. 46; Gastañaga et al. 2011, entire; Strewe and Navarro 2004, p. 50). Habitat loss is primarily due to conversion of the species' habitat (generally forests) to agriculture and other forms that are not optimal for the military macaw (Donald et al. 2010, p. 26; Flórez and Sierra 2004, p. 3). Conversion of habitat to soy plantations is now considered to be one of the principal causes of Amazon deforestation (Bonilha 2008, p. 17). Because this species has a small and fragmented population, poaching, while apparently uncommon, remains a concern (Botero-Delgadillo and Páez 2011, p. 13).

We focus primarily on where this species has been documented, particularly in parks and other areas with protected status and the peripheral zones. In some cases, we will evaluate the factor by country. In other cases, we may evaluate the factor by a broader region if we do not have adequate information specific to a particular country about this species. This is because often the threats are the same or very similar throughout the species' range.

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

Habitat

The military macaw has a large but fragmented distribution (276,000 km
2
(106,564 mi
2
)), and not all locations where the military macaw exists are known (BLI 2014, p. 1). Habitat destruction and modification is one of the main threats to the military macaw; significant amounts of this species' habitat have been converted such that its habitat is no longer suitable and no longer provides adequate shelter (nesting sites) and food sources, and these causes of habitat loss are likely to continue (Marin-Togo et al. 2012, p. 462). Between 2000 and 2005, of all the continents, South America had the largest net loss of forested area, experiencing a loss of 4.3 million ha (10.6 million ac) per year (FAO 2006 in Mosandl et al. 2008, p. 38). In some countries, extractive activities for nontimber forest products occur, such as the removal of palm trees (
Arecaceae
family) to obtain hearts of palm (ParksWatch 2011;
http://www.tropicalforestresearch.org
).

Currently, the military macaw exists in many parks and other areas that have protected status (Marín-Togo et al. 2012, p. 465; Coconier et al. 2009, p. 63; Arizmendi 2008, p. 4; Rodriguez et al. 2004, p. 78; Renton 2004, p. 12). Studies have found that, compared with the surrounding areas, conditions inside parks were significantly better than their surrounding counterparts (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). One study found that, in 40 percent of tropical parks, land that had formerly been under cultivation and that was incorporated into park boundaries had recovered. This subsequently led to an increase in vegetative cover. The study found that

83 percent of parks were successful at mitigating encroachment (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). This was confirmed in a study published in 2007 that found that forests in conservation units were four times better at protecting against deforestation than unprotected areas (Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1,235). However, this species still faces habitat loss (Benetiz 2012, p. 4).

We are limiting our analysis to areas where there is information available about this species. For instance, there is very little information available about this species in Argentina and Venezuela (Coconier et al. 2009, p. 63; Navarro et al. 2008, p. 1; Coconier et al. 2007, p. 52; Rodriguez et al. 2004, pp. 378-379). However, in both of these countries, the species faces similar threats (such as the lack of suitable habitat) as in other countries (Rodriguez et al. 2004, p. 373). The largest populations of this species, discussed in detail in the Range, Observations, and Population Estimates section, appear to be in Mexico and Bolivia. Even in these countries, its populations are small and fragmented. In other countries within its range such as Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador, it exists in smaller populations, and Argentina (Nores and Yzurieta 1994, pp. 315-316) and Venezuela have even smaller and possibly negligible populations. Additionally, the military macaw may have occurred in Guatemala in the past, but it is no longer found there (Gardner 1972 in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125).

Argentina

In Argentina, habitat destruction, particularly deforestation for agricultural expansion for soy plantations, and timber extraction had significantly increased as of 2009 (Devenish 2009, p. 60; Chebez et al.
in litt.
in Navarro et al. 2008, pp. 7, 9; DiPaola et al. 2008, pp. 1, 8). The species was thought to no longer exist in Argentina, which is the southernmost part of its range, but recent surveys found small populations of this species in at least two locations in the Salta Province (Navarro et al. 2008, p. 1). The primary threat to forested areas in Argentina is the expansion of agriculture, particularly soy, into remaining habitat such as the Chaco plains in the Andes mountain range (Centro de Acción Popular Olga Márquéz de Aredez (CAPOMA) 2009, p. 6). The practice of drying swamps through channeling is common in northern Argentina, particularly for producing soybeans, which is experiencing increasing demand in the global market. The current rate of deforestation stands at 25,000 ha (61,776 ac) per year resulting from land converted to agricultural use (Devenish 2009, p. 60). The area converted to soy production increased from as little as 3 percent in the 1970s to 40 percent of the total crop area in 2003, covering 14 million ha (34.6 million ac) (Devenish 2009, p. 60). Conversion of lands to soy production is favored by the current political and economic climate, both at the global and national levels (Devenish 2009, p. 60). With regard to other types of land use, the area used for cattle ranching has decreased, but exotic tree plantations have doubled (Devenish 2009, p. 60).

In addition, pipeline routes and associated roads are being established in this area in connection with oil, gas, and mineral exploration (Navarro et al. 2008, pp. 7, 9). Road building operations greatly facilitate access to large, previously inaccessible forested areas (Fimbel et al. 2001, pp. 511-512). The area occupied by permanent facilities including pipelines and refineries is relatively small, but oil development areas cover large tracts of land. Oil development can have significant negative impacts on nearby habitat through construction of roads and other buildings, discharge of contaminants, and oil spills and leaks (Gay et al undated, pp. 2-6).

Although some of this species' habitat is protected, its habitat continues to shrink in Argentina. In the area of Acambuco, where the military macaw has been observed, the designation of Acambuco Reserve as a provincial reserve provides some protective measures. The purposes of this reserve, in part, are to preserve its genetic resources, to preserve the environment surrounding catch basins of its rivers, and to guarantee the maintenance of the biodiversity living in the reserve. However, in the Salta Province, this species is primarily found in areas that are unprotected, with the exception of the Acambuco Reserve (Navarro et al. 2008, pp. 1, 7, 9). In summary, significant amounts of this species' habitat have been converted such that its habitat is no longer suitable, and these causes of habitat loss are likely to continue.

Bolivia

Madidi National Park experiences threats that are representative of threats to this species' habitat in Bolivia. The park is one of the key areas where this species likely has a viable population in Bolivia. Thus, we focused our analysis on this park. The National Service of Protected Areas (SERNAP) has authority over Bolivia's parks and protected lands. Approximately 53 percent (57.2 million ha; 141.3 million ac) of Bolivia's total area is forested (FAO 2010, p. 228). Of this area, 38.9 million ha (96.1 million ac) are within the Bolivian Amazon and constitute 5 percent of the total Amazon forest (Locklin and Haack 2003, p. 774). As of 2005, Bolivia had 12 national parks, including 6 with integrated management natural areas, 1 with indigenous territory (or communal lands), and 4 national reserves; 2 biosphere reserves; and 3 integrated management natural areas, totaling 16,834,380 ha (41,598,659 ac) (ParksWatch 2005, p. 2). A discussion of typical threats in Bolivia's parks follows. The region suffers from chronic and intense poverty levels, which affect more than 90 percent of the population (Instituto Nacional de Estadística de Bolivia (INE) 2005). The result is intense conflict between development and conservation. In Madidi National Park, the three greatest threats to the nature preserve are the construction of a highway within the park, drilling for oil, and a planned hydroelectric dam. Other activities that are impacting or are likely to impact this park are illegal logging, gold mining, and uncontrolled tourism (ParksWatch 2011b, pp. 1-15; Chavez 2010, pp. 1-2).

Deforestation and Logging

The forests of Bolivia have mainly been subjected to selective logging (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10), which has been done at very low levels and with low human pressures (Pacheco 2006, p. 206), allowing them so far to remain largely intact. In the five national parks where the military macaw is regularly observed, there are some protections in place for the species' habitat (Hennessey 2011, pers. comm.). However, logging still occurs within the range of this species (ParksWatch 2011b, p. 1). Large tracts of primary forest remain in Bolivia, but it is likely that some of these will be subjected to logging (Fredericksen 2003, p. 13) due to slash-and-burn activities by indigenous communities, and because forest products are one of Bolivia's primary exports (Byers and Israel 2008, p. vi). The use of slash-and-burn practices on steep and erodible slopes has considerably affected the area's hydrological regime, particularly near the city of Santa Cruz. In many areas of human settlement, soil erosion is compounded by logging, nutrient depletion, and weed invasion.

As of 2006, 89 timber companies held the rights to 5.8 million ha (14.3 million ac) of logging concessions (Pacheco 2006, p. 208). The Bolivian Forestry Law of 1996 (Forestry Law 1700)

requires the preparation and approval of management plans and adherence to best management practices (BMPs) (Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). For instance, harvesters must pre-map harvestable trees (which have minimum diameter limits), protect seed trees, and set aside areas that are designated as protected or not harvestable. Management issues still need to be addressed, including sufficient regeneration time for commercial species (Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). However, Bolivia continues to attempt to balance the use of its natural resources with competing priorities. For example, the Pilón Lajas Management Plan divided the reserve into specific zones to combine indigenous community rights with conservation initiatives (Hennessey et al. 2003, p. 320). Despite national laws and regulations, activities such as illegal timber extraction continue to spread unabated (World Bank 2006, p. 8; U.S. Forest Service 2007, p. 2; Pacheco 2006, p. 208).

Roads

There are increasing demands for road infrastructure within Bolivia for many reasons. It is one of the poorest countries in South America (MacLeod 2009, p. 6; INE 2005), and the government would like to improve its economy (ParksWatch 2011b, p. 13). The construction of the Apolo-Ixiamas Road is one way of facilitating access to its natural resources. A road has been proposed that would bisect the Madidi National Park and Natural Integrated Management Area, opening vast, currently inaccessible tropical forest areas to colonization and resource extraction (ParksWatch 2011b, pp. 1-2). This can promote illegal logging, and facilitate access to previously inaccessible forested areas (Fimbel et al. 2001, pp. 511-512). The construction of roads through this park has been a source of controversy for several years
http://conservation-strategy.org/sites/default/files/field-file/6_Madidi_Road_Complete_Document.PDF,
accessed May 6, 2014). The current status of the road and whether it will be constructed around the park or through the park remains unclear. However, regional development plans are often implemented without consideration of impacts on natural resources (WCS 2009, p. 4). Plans to connect Bolivia and Peru to Brazil's expanding markets and expand the energy industry (oil and gas) will affect fragile areas of high biodiversity (WCS 2009, p. 4). Roads constructed in the past have also been problematic. In the late 1990s, roads through Serranía Sadiri spurred an increase in unsustainable logging of the area's mahogany trees, which were the most valuable tree at the time (World Land Trust 2010, p. 1).

Hydroelectric Power

Possibly one of the greatest threats in the Madidi National Park is the proposed Bala Hydroelectric Dam Project at the Beni River in the Bala Gorge, where the Beni River goes through the Bala Mountain Range. The Bala Hydroelectric Dam, as proposed, could flood much of Madidi National Park and the adjacent biosphere reserve and indigenous territory Pilón Lajas, which is an area of about 2,000 km
2
(4,942 mi
2
) (Chavez 2010, pp. 1-2; Bolivia Supreme Decree 24191). Construction of dams can have severe impacts on ecosystems (McCartney et al. 2001, p. v). For example, a dam blocks the flow of sediment downstream. During construction of dams, disturbance to soils at the construction site is one of the largest concerns. This leads to downstream erosion and increased sediment buildup in a reservoir. Although the current status of this dam is unclear, it is clear that the Government of Bolivia is intent on becoming more self-reliant, in part through creating its own sources of energy through hydroelectric dams.

Other Pressures

In Madidi National Park, there is limited legal hunting, but in the areas surveyed, this species was described as common and not exploited (Hosner et al. 2009, p. 226). Nine villages or communities are within the national park, and 22 are in the integrated management natural area. Of the 31 communities, 3 are located in the Andean plateau zone. In the lowlands, two of the communities occupy the zone of valleys around the municipality of Apolo. Timber extraction occurs here (WorldLand Trust 2010, p. 1). In 2010, an additional 25,090 ha (62,000 ac) of pristine tropical rainforest in Bolivia were protected, following a decision by an indigenous community to create a tourism refuge in the Sadiri rainforest (WorldLand Trust 2010, p. 6). Landless Andean farmers make a living in the lowlands, and they at times expand the agricultural frontier, increasing the risk of disease transmission between domestic animals and wildlife, bringing crops and domestic animals closer to wildlife predators, and increasing hunting pressure in surrounding forests (WCS 2009, p. 4).

In summary, threats to the species' habitat in Bolivia include unsustainable land use practices, illegal logging, road building, and exploration activities for oil extraction, which are contributing to the erosion of Bolivia's ecosystems (MacLeod 2009, p. 6; ParksWatch 2005, p. 1). Large tracts of primary forest remain in Bolivia, but it is likely that many of these will be subjected to logging and other pressures, such as extraction of non-timber forest products, particularly because forest products contribute to Bolivia's national exports (Byers and Israel 2008, p. vi). The Government of Bolivia is attempting to balance improving its economy with conservation initiatives, and some of its development initiatives may negatively impact this species' habitat. Despite protections in place, this species' habitat in Bolivia continues to experience these threats, and we expect these pressures to continue into the future.

Colombia

In the past, human colonization, development, and exploration within the range of the species in Colombia were limited due to the exceptionally steep and high terrain of the Andes (Salaman et al. 2002, p. 160). However, researchers reported in 2004 that the Cauca River Canyon in northeastern Colombia, an area containing military macaws, was extensively deforested (Floréz and Sierra 2004, p. 3). The main threats in the lowlands are the expansion of agriculture, particularly by small farmers in the middle altitude areas, and extractive activities such as hunting (including the removal of birds to sell as pets) and wood harvesting (Salaman et al. 2007, p. 89). As resources become scarcer in the lowlands, these pressures move upland. Associated with these farming practices is the use of livestock and the erosion caused by livestock grazing on steep slopes, as well as erosion due to cultivation.

A 2010 report indicated that forest cover was largely continuous in Colombia, but deforestation had increased dramatically as of 2010 (FAO 2010, pp. 22, 106). Deforestation rates in lowland moist forest on the foothills of the eastern Andes of Colombia are rapidly accelerating. Deforestation has increased from 1.4 percent (1961-1979) to 4.4 percent (1979-1988), and is correlated with increasing human population density (Salaman et al. 2007, p. 89; Viña and Cavelier 1999, p. 31). Primary forest habitats throughout Colombia have undergone extensive deforestation. Viña et al. (2004, pp. 123-124) used satellite imagery to analyze deforestation rates and patterns along the Colombian-Ecuadorian border (in the Departments of Putumayo and Sucumbios, respectively), finding that between 1973 and 1996, a total of 829

km
2
(320 mi
2
) of tropical forests within the study area were converted to other uses. This corresponds to a nearly one-third total loss of primary forest habitat, or a nearly 2 percent mean annual rate of deforestation within the study area.

Since the 1970s, the Colombian Government has encouraged road construction and colonization projects. The goal is to create links to the vast and undeveloped Amazonian region, and to open up the Llanos and Amazonian lowlands for utilization of their natural resources (Salaman et al. 2007, pp. 10, 89; Salaman et al. 2002, p. 160). In recent years, this species' habitat has come under increased pressure with the completion of the Mocoa-Bogotá highway, the proposed Puerto Asís-Florencia road, and the discovery and exploitation of petroleum and precious metals. All of these factors contribute to an escalation in human encroachment and associated impacts that degrade this species' habitat (Salaman et al. 2007, p. 10). The few remaining forest connections between the upper and lower slopes are under pressure, even where they are minimally protected.

Five main routes link the lowlands from Colombia's high Andean interior to other areas. Infrastructure development on the eastern slope of the Andes in Colombia, as well as adjacent Ecuador, has also caused significant human population pressures and has led to much habitat degradation. Increased and improved access roads have led to the conversion of mature tropical forests for pasture lands, petroleum products exploitation, and coca plantations (Salaman et al. 2007, p. 89). These road projects to link Colombia with Venezuela and Ecuador along the entire eastern base of the Andes have contributed to additional deforestation.

Serranía de los Churumbelos National Park

Currently, the Serranía de los Churumbelos forest is almost entirely intact and is owned by the government (Salaman et al. 2007, pp. 10, 91-92). This mountain range has largely avoided the degree of human impact that other regions have suffered. However, this is changing rapidly due to mineral exploration (petroleum and precious metals) and natural resources (timber and rich organic soils for agriculture) demands. The Serranía de los Churumbelos could become the focus of large-scale deforestation and colonization in the near future (Salaman et al. 2007, p. 89). Parque Natural Nacional Cueva de los Guácharos provides some protection to the forests in this region although it is a small park (approximately 5,000 ha or 12,355 ac), and even here, illegal encroachment occurs (Salaman et al. 2007, p. 89).

Catatumbo-Barí National Park

The primary threat in the Catatumbo-Barí National Park (at the Colombian-Venezuelan border) is deforestation and impacts associated with coca plantations surrounding the Park (Fundación ProAves 2011, pp. 28-29). Coca cultivation has fluctuated for several years. Over a 4-year study period, it contained about 100 ha (247 ac) of coca (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, undated report, p. 33). A new population of this species was recently recorded at two locations in this park (Avendaño 2011 in BLI 2014a, p. 2). In addition, one population in the Cauca valley (fewer than 50 mature birds) could be affected by the construction of a dam (155 m (508.5 ft) in height) that could affect its sole breeding cliff. However, the status of the dam is still unclear (American Bird Conservancy 2012, p. 24).

Ecuador

Ecuador experiences one of the highest deforestation rates in South America (Mosandl et al. 2008, p. 37). Forested habitat within many parts of Ecuador has diminished rapidly due to logging, clearing for agriculture, and road development (Youth 2009, pp. 1-3; Mosandl et al. 2008, p. 37; Sierra 1999, p. 136; Dodson and Gentry 1991, pp. 283-293). Between the years 1990 and 2005, Ecuador lost a total of 2.96 million ha (7.31 million ac) of primary forest, which represents a 16.7 percent deforestation rate, and a total loss of 21.5 percent of forested habitat since 1990 (Butler 2006b, pp. 1-3; FAO 2003b, p. 1). Much of the primary moist forest habitat has been replaced with pastures and scattered trees (Collar et al. 1992, p. 533). Very little suitable habitat now remains for the species here, and remaining suitable habitat is highly fragmented (Bass et al. 2010, p. 2; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 122). In the area where this species exists, near the Gran Sumaco Biosphere Reserve, there are several oil reserves (Celi-Sangurima 2005, p. 22). However, specific impacts to this species as a result of oil exploration or extraction activities are unknown.

The colony in Kichwa River Reserve is currently in an area designated as protected, although it is unclear what these protections entail. In this area, the local community group Macaw Rio is interested in conducting ecotourism. Although this colony has persisted for about 150 years (Huatatoca pers comm. in Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 72), it likely will be affected by logging and the resulting deforestation on nearby land. Researchers suggest that the apparent lack of this species in Ecuador is possibly related to lack of suitable sites for the formation of breeding colonies, or lack of knowledge about sites that may be located in inaccessible areas (Arcos-Torres and Solano-Ugalde 2008, p. 72). We know of no specific threats to the species in the Kichwa River Reserve, other than those associated with small population sizes, which is discussed under Small Population Size, below.

Mexico

Mexico has suffered extensive deforestation (conversion of forest to other land uses) and forest degradation (reduction in forest biomass through selective cutting, etc.) over the past several decades (Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 2010, pp. 45, 75). In recent decades, Mexico's deforestation has been rapid (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 343-344). Between 1990 and 2000, Mexico lost forest (factoring in natural regeneration of degraded forest and planting of forest in areas that previously did not have forest) at a net rate of 344,000 ha (850,043 ac) per year (FAO 2010, p. 21). During 1990-2010, Mexico lost approximately 6 million ha (15 million ac) of forest, and had one of the largest decreases in primary forests worldwide (FAO 2010, pp. 56, 233). Although Mexico's rate of forest loss has slowed in the past decade, it still continues. The current rate of net forest loss in Mexico is 155,000 ha (383,013 ac) per year, with an estimated 250,000-300,000 ha (617,763-741,316 ac) per year degraded (Government of Mexico (GOM) 2010b, in Blaser et al. 2011, p. 344; FAO 2010, p. 233).

As of 2010, Mexico had 64.8 million ha (160.1 million ac) of forest (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2010, p. 228), and 50 percent of these forests are considered degraded. Projections of lost forested area by the year 2030 in Mexico are between 10 percent to nearly 60 percent of mature forests lost, and approximately 0 to 54 percent of regrowth forests lost (CEC 2010, pp. 45, 75). Deforestation via forest conversion to agricultural uses remains a major driver of land transformation in Mexico (CEC 2008, p. 24). Agricultural production is projected to double within the country by 2030 (CEC 2010, pp. 34, 70). Although some of this increase in production is expected due to an increase in productivity on previously converted land, total agricultural land area in Mexico is projected to increase by 6,300 to 41,400 ha (15,568 to 102,302 ac) by 2030 (CEC 2010, p. 75).

In the range of the military macaw, such as the tropical forest along the Pacific coast of Mexico, high rates of deforestation have occurred; slash-and-burn agriculture still occurs along with grazing. In 2002, it was estimated that the species had suffered a 23 percent habitat loss within its range in Mexico using a Genetic Algorithm for Rule-set Prediction (GARP) analysis tool (Ríos-Muñoz 2002, pp. 24, 32). GARP analysis essentially uses ecological characteristics of known species locations in order to determine its likely distribution.

A 3-year study documented loss of habitat, particularly trees used by macaws, in the Tehuacan-Cuicatlan Biosphere Reserve, Sabino Canyon. In their study, researchers found a total of 170 individual plants of species consumed by military macaws in the pine forests in an area of 1,500 m
2
(16,146 ft
2
) in 2005 (Arizmendi 2008, p. 43). By January 2008, eleven (6.5 percent) of these trees had been logged. In the transitional forest between dry and pine (in an area of 1,000 m
2
or 10,764 ft
2
), 134 plants were documented in 2005, and by January 2008, fifteen (11.90 percent) of them had been logged. Arizmendi suggested that these activities are carried out by local communities, and suggested that a local environmental education campaign be implemented. A reduced number of trees limit the availability of adequate food resources across the landscape. With fewer trees remaining, the area cannot support the same number of individuals of the species and, therefore, causes a further reduction in the population. Macaws were not found in deforested areas, even where one of their important food sources,
Hura polyandra,
was left as shade for cattle (Rivera-Ortíz et al. 2008, p. 256). As further support, in Jalisco, most of the sites where macaws were present had little or no habitat loss (note that none of the sites in Jalisco where military macaws were located were in protected areas). No macaws were located in sites with more than 30 percent habitat loss, even though these sites may have had abundant trees.

Mining

At the Mineral de Nuestra Señora reserve in Cósala, where this species occurs, mining activities are occurring (Rubio et al. 2007, p. 52; Bonilla-Ruz et al. 2007b, p. 45). This reserve is 12 km (7.5 mi) southeast of Cósala in Sinaloa, Mexico. This reserve was created after a joint effort in 1999 between the state, municipal government, and the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. The Autonomous University of Sinaloa conducted technical studies to propose the area as a nature reserve. The university also conducted conservation projects here which focused on the “Ecology and Conservation of the Military Macaw” and “Environmental Education and Ecotourism.” In 2002, the Mineral de Nuestra Señora reserve was formally designated. Since then, parrot populations and their habitat here both within and outside the preserve have been affected by mining activities taking place in the area (Rubio et al. 2007, p. 52). In early 2005, mining efforts began on underground development and drilling (Scorpio Mining 2011, p. 2). The current effect of mining on the species is unclear.

Peru

There is little to no current published information with respect to specific threats to this species in Peru (Gastañaga et al. 2011, entire; JGP Consultants 2011, entire; Lee 2010, entire; Cowen 2009, entire; Terborgh 2004, entire; Brightsmith 2004, entire). It exists in several parks that convey some measures of protection (Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1,235; Terborgh 2004, p. 35). Peru's protected areas are managed by the General Department of Natural Protected Areas, INRENA, under the authority of Law No. 26834, Law of Natural Protected Areas, promulgated in 1997. The Peruvian national protected area system includes several categories of habitat protection. Habitat may be designated as any of the following:

(1) Parque Nacional (National Park, an area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation);

(2) Santuario (Sanctuary, for the preservation of sites of notable natural or historical importance);

(3) Reserva Nacional (National Reserve, for sustainable extraction of certain biological resources);

(4) Bosque de Protección (Protection Forest, to safeguard soils and forests, especially for watershed conservation);

(5) Zona Reservada (Reserved Zone, for temporary protection while further study is under way to determine their importance);

(6) Bosque Nacional (National Forest, to be managed for utilization);

(7) Reserva Comunal (Communal Reserve, for local area use and management, with national oversight); and

(8) Cotos de Caza (Hunting Reserve, for local use and management, with national oversight) (BLI 2008, p. 1; Rodríguez and Young 2000, p. 330).

Because the designations of national parks, sanctuaries, and protection forests are established by supreme decree that supersedes all other legal claim to the land, these areas tend to provide more habitat protection than other designations. All other protected areas are established by supreme resolution, which is viewed as a less powerful form of protection (Rodríguez and Young 2000, p. 330).

This species has been documented in the Tambopata National Reserve, which is a 275,000-ha (679,540-ac) conservation area created by the Peruvian Government in 1990. The main purpose was to protect the watersheds of the Tambopata and Candamo Rivers. This area protects some of the last pristine lowland and premontane tropical humid forests in the Amazon. Within the Tambopata National Reserve, there have been isolated human settlements along stretches of the Malinowski River, which flows into the Tambopata River. Fewer than 5,000 people inhabit the Tambopata National Reserve's border area to the north. They make a living of slash-and-burn agriculture, small-scale gold mining, timber extraction, and hunting and fishing. One area of Tambopata, including a buffer zone, was recently described as a “crisis zone” (Lee 2010, p. 169). It has been described as being at high risk for illegal settlement, timber extraction, and mining (Lee 2010, p. 169).

Populations of this species are thought to be in the Manu Biosphere Reserve and the Bahuaja Sonene National Park in Peru (WCS 2007, p. 1; Herzog
in litt.
2007; Terborgh 2004, pp. 40-41). The problems here are primarily due to human population growth (Terborgh 2004, pp. 40-41). Five indigenous groups reside in the Manu Biosphere Reserve—they are both legal and illegal settlers (Terborgh 2004, pp. 40-41). An ecological research station has been in place since 1973 in Manú National Park (Terborgh 2004, entire), which also adds some protection to the species. Research has shown that often simply having a long-term research presence there can help to reduce poaching (Campbell et al. 2011, p. 2). Unlike parks in the United States, in countries such as Peru, parks and protected areas were formed around the indigenous tribes that live there (Terborgh 2004, p. 51), and the management and purpose of the parks often include protection of the rights of indigenous human communities. This philosophy of park protection and mandates of parks differs from in the United States, where humans are viewed as visitors to the parks, rather than permanent residents (Terborgh 2004, p. 51). In Manu Biosphere Reserve, another potential threat is oil exploration. Both Shell and Mobil Oil

have conducted oil exploration activities in this area (Terborgh 2004, p. 55; ParksWatch 2002, pp. 5, 7). Within Bahuaja, as of 2002, there were no human establishments within its boundaries (ParksWatch 2002a, p. 1). However, activities that could affect the military macaw in this area include gold mining, illegal logging, extraction of forest resources, and farming (ParksWatch 2002b, p. 1).

Venezuela

There is little published information about the military macaw in Venezuela (BLI 2014, pp. 1-2; Rodriguez 2004, entire). Here it exists in the Andes in the Central Coastal Cordillera, and Sierra de Perijá (Rodriguez et al. 2004, pp. 375, 378, 379). It has been found on the north slopes of El Ávila, Guatopo, Henri Pittier National Park, Ceroo La Mision, and Sierra de Perijá National Park (Desenne and Strahl 1994 in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125; Fernandez-Badillo et al. 1994 in Snyder et al. 2000 p. 125). Most of its range in Venezuela is within protected areas, but as of 2000, threats still were reported to exist in the protected areas (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). In 2000, Snyder et al. noted that Sierra de Perijá was being deforested for narcotics, land speculation, and cattle (p. 125). A population of this species was recorded for the first time at two localities at the Catatumbo-Barí National Park in the Colombian-Venezuelan border, extending the previous species' range from the east slope of the Serranía de Perijá southwards (Avendaño 2011, p. 2).

Summary of Factor A

Habitat loss, human encroachment, and conversion to agriculture are the main threats acting on the species throughout its range. These threats are exacerbated by an inability by range country governments to adequately manage and monitor the species (see discussion under Factor D, below). South America had the largest net loss of forest area of all continents between 2000 and 2005 (Mosandl et al. 2008, p. 38), with a net loss of 4.3 million ha per year. Although specific, detailed information about this species' remaining occupied habitat status is not available for each country, we know that much of this species' habitat has been lost through conversion of land to farming, forestry, or other activities (Bonilha and Switkes 2008, p. 17; Etter et al. 2006, p. 369; Renton 2004, p. 13). Conversion of habitat to soy plantations is now considered to be one of the principal causes of Amazon deforestation. Deforestation may already have destroyed as much as 1.2 million ha (3 million ac) in the Amazon. This, combined with pressures of capture for the pet trade, has severely impacted the wild population of military macaws. Studies have shown that, over time, resident bird diversity generally declines as remaining forest becomes smaller and more fragmented (Turner 1996, pp. 202, 206).

As with most parrots, the military macaw requires large areas of suitable habitat, including large trees or other nesting cavities for nesting, feeding, and roosting as well as food sources. Deforestation and logging is a common form of habitat loss that affects this species (Benetiz-Diaz 2012, p. 4; Ríos-Muñoz et al. 2009, pp. 502-505). Deforestation via conversion of land to agricultural use is a threat to military macaws because it directly eliminates forest habitat, removing the trees that support the species' nesting, roosting, and dietary requirements. It also results in fragmented habitat that isolates military macaw populations, potentially compromising the genetics of these populations through inbreeding depression and genetic drift (Lande 1995, pp. 787-789; Gilpin and Soulé 1986, p. 27). We do not know the exact extent of deforestation in the range of the military macaw. However, the best available information indicates that deforestation continues to occur and affect the species throughout its range, despite protections that are in place.

Currently the population of military macaws is extremely small (likely a few thousand individuals), those populations are severely fragmented, and its suitable habitat is becoming increasingly more scarce. Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to the military macaw now and in the future.

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

The trade in wild parrots is common in some areas of South America (Gastañaga et al. 2011, entire; Cantú-Guzmán et al. 2008, entire). In its Red List assessment, the IUCN indicates that the two major threats to the military macaw are habitat loss and capture for the domestic pet trade (IUCN 2011, p. 1). Many reports indicate that poaching for the pet trade is still a problem for parrot species, particularly in poorer countries (Herrera and Hennessey 2007, entire; Dickson 2005, p. 548). For perspective, in the United States, captive-bred specimens of this species were recently found offered for sale for $699 (Basile 2010, p. 2). In 2006, four military macaws were advertised for sale with an average sale price of $850 (Cantú-Guzmán et al. 2008, p. 72). Although the scope of the illegal trade in the military macaw is unknown, poaching can be a lucrative and relatively risk-free source of income (Dickson 2005, p. 548).

A high percentage of birds die during the process of capturing from the wild, transporting, and selling them. Because most of these activities are illegal, it is difficult to accurately determine the actual mortality rate, but estimates vary between 31 and 90 percent (Weston and Memon 2009, p. 79; Cantú-Guzmán et al. 2007, pp. 7, 20, 22, 55, 60). Military macaws mate for life, are long-lived, and have low reproductive rates. These traits make them particularly sensitive to the impacts of their removal from the wild (Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1,121; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). Wild harvest can destroy pair bonds, remove potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool, and have a significant effect on small populations (Kramer and Drake 2010, p. 11). These activities adversely affect a species' population numbers (Pain et al. 2006, p. 322).

Although poaching continues to occur for the pet trade, it has been found to be significantly lower at protected sites (Pain et al. 2006, pp. 322-328; Wright et al. 2002, p. 719). Other reports have found that national or local protection, particularly when local communities are actively involved in conservation efforts, can successfully reduce nest take (Pain et al. 2006, p. 328; Chassot et al. 2006, pp. 86-87). Gonzalez (2003, pp. 437-446) found evidence of poaching, particularly during nesting seasons, in the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve, a protected area in the Loreto Department, Peru, during his 1996-1999 study. However, he also found that poaching decreased during the 1998 harvest season (Gonzalez 2003, p. 444), which he attributed to increased numbers of birds confiscated by regional authorities, which may have subsequently discouraged poaching (also see Factor D, below).

A related factor is the destruction of trees in this species' habitat due to poaching. This species primarily depends on tree-cavity nests as its habitat. Not only does nest poaching negatively affect this species by reducing the population size and the number of birds available to reproduce, it also in some cases destroys this species' habitat. Several studies have found that poachers will cut down trees to remove nests. A study conducted in the late 1990s found that in some cases

in Peru, poachers cut down the nesting tree in order to access the nestlings (Gonzalez 2003, p. 443). They also were observed “hacking” open the nest cavities to remove chicks (Bergman 2009, pp. 6-8; Low 2003, pp. 10-11). An average of 21 nests was destroyed per poaching trip (Gonzalez 2003, p. 443). Nest destruction was also reported by Bergman in Ecuador in 2009 (pp. 6-8).

The military macaw was listed in CITES Appendix II, effective June 6, 1981, and was transferred to CITES Appendix I, effective October 22, 1987. Most of the international trade in military macaw specimens consists of live birds. Data obtained from the United Nations Environment Programme—World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database show that, during the nearly 6
1/2
years that the military macaw was listed in Appendix II, a total of 1,034 military macaw specimens were reported to UNEP-WCMC as (gross) exports. Of those 1,034 specimens, 1,019 were live birds and 15 were feathers. In analyzing these data, it appears that several records may be over-counts due to slight differences in the manner in which the importing and exporting countries reported their trade. It is likely that the actual number of military macaw specimens in international trade during this period was 973, including 958 live birds and 15 feathers. Fourteen of the live birds were captive-bred, and the others were reported with the source unknown. Exports from range countries included: 364 live birds from Bolivia; 320 from Mexico; 11 from Ecuador; 4 from Venezuela; and 1 from Argentina.

During the more than 25 years following the transfer to Appendix I (October 22, 1987 through December 31, 2012, the last year for which complete data were available at the time the following numbers were compiled, the UNEP-WCMC database shows a total of 1,894 military macaw specimens as (gross) exports, including 1,455 live birds, 224 scientific specimens, 213 feathers, 1 body, and 1 trophy (UNEP-WCMC trade database, accessed May 20, 2014). As noted above, it appears that some records may be over-counts due to differences in the manner in which the importing and exporting countries reported their trade. It is likely that the actual number of live military macaws in international trade during the 25-year period was 1,301. Of those 1,301 birds, 1,022 were captive-bred or captive-born, and 119 were reported as wild. The source of the remaining live birds is unknown. Exports from range countries included: 54 live birds from Mexico; 10 from Argentina; 4 from Venezuela; 2 from Colombia; and 1 from Peru. Annual quantities exported ranged from a low of 14 live birds during 2006, to 122 live birds (including 80 exported from South Africa) in 2009. Since 2004, none of the exports from range countries has been reported as wild origin.

Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Mexico

In Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela, there is little to no information available about overutilization. International trade has diminished, but local trade continues to occur. In Bolivia, a report published in 2009 indicated that of 17,609 birds (including military macaws) documented in the market studied in Department of Santa Cruz (not far from the range of this species), 64 percent of the birds were found to be adults captured in the wild. Ninety percent (24,707) of the birds were found to be from the Department of Santa Cruz. A total of 2,604 individuals were from the Department of Tarija, 176 from the Department of Beni, 20 from Peru, and 12 from Brazil (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, p. 233). The report indicated that most parrots (some of which were military macaws) were locally sold, and found that 23,306 were in the city of Santa Cruz, and 4,156 were sent to Cochabamba.

In Mexico, the military macaw is reportedly one of the most sought-after species in the illegal pet bird trade (Cantú-Guzmán et al. 2007, p. 38), and poaching remains a concern. In 1995-2005, it was the fifth most seized Mexican psittacine species by Mexico's Environmental Enforcement Agency, becoming the fourth most seized psittacine species in 2007-2010 (p. 52). As an example, at a sinkhole in El Cielo Biosphere Reserve, a population of approximately 50 birds was decimated by poaching in the 1980s (Aragón-Tapia
in litt.
1989 in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 125). In many areas, it nests in relatively inaccessible cavities on cliff walls, which provide some protection against the pressures of nest poaching. However, nest poaching is a severe threat in Jalisco and Nayarit, where the species nests in tree cavities (Contreras-González et al. 2007, p. 43; Renton
in litt.
2007 and Bonilla
in litt.
2007 in BLI 2011a, pp. 1-2). Between 2005 and 2006 in Mexico, five military macaws were found for sale, and the average price was $373 (Cantú-Guzmán et al. 2007, p. 76).

Local residents in Argentina indicated that young chicks are removed “for foreigners” but also noted that it is extremely difficult due to the difficulty in accessing the species' preferred nesting sites and the aggressiveness of the macaws (Navarro et al. 2008, pp. 7, 9). Additionally, in Mexico and Ecuador, indigenous communities have used military macaw feathers for ceremonial and medicinal practices. However, NGOs are working with these communities to obtain macaw feathers from aviaries so that the indigenous people will not hunt the macaws (Renton 2004, p. 14).

Colombia

This species and other
Ara
macaws are occasionally hunted by indigenous people in Colombia. In one study, in the Catatumbo-Barí National Park, hunting was found to be concentrated around the 15 indigenous communities within the 160,000-ha (395,369-ac) park (Avendaño 2011, p. 2). In 2004, in a cliff-nesting location along the Cauca River, Colombia, threats to this species included poaching and loss of foraging trees (Flórez and Sierra 2004, pp. 2-3). They found that, at the Cauca River site, it was common for some people to remove hatchlings from the nests and sell between 20 to 30 chicks per year on the black market (p. 3). To counteract these activities, a local awareness campaign was initiated (Flórez and Sierra 2004, pp. 2-3). As a result of this project, 3,000
Hura crepitans
trees (a species used by the military macaw) were planted by the local communities, and the awareness campaign appeared to be effective. Researchers do not believe that hunting pressure is a serious short-term threat. However, local education and awareness programs generally need to be ongoing and long-term for them to be effective, and the local communities need to be aware of the benefits of conserving species in the wild as well as having an alternative source of income (
i.e.,
income other than that derived from poaching).

Peru

A recent study in Peru examined nest poaching and illegal trade of parrots, including the reasons for poaching, and the methods, seasons, and locations where the sale and actual poaching of parrots occurred. This study found that this species is still being poached in the wild (Gastañaga et al. 2011, pp. 79-80), even in protected areas and despite national protections in place. During the 2007-2008 study, eight military macaws were found for sale in two out of eight markets surveyed in Peru (p. 79). Seven of these birds were found in the Amazonian lowland city, Pucallpa (p. 80). The study also found that, where protections and enforcement have been implemented such as in Cusco, there were no parrots for sale in markets. This

indicates that, although it still continues, poaching is becoming less frequent due to involvement by NGOs, minimal international demand for the species, and enforcement by authorities.

Summary of Factor B

Among birds, parrots are the group most subject to commercial trade (Hutton et al. 2000, p. 14). Parrots have suffered a disproportionate number of extinctions, in part due to their desirability as pets. Conservation efforts by the various entities working to ensure long-term conservation of the military macaw may result in its population slowly increasing; however, it is likely that the population is still declining. Even though the military macaw is listed as an Appendix-I species under CITES and laws have been established within the range countries to protect this species, we are still concerned about the illegal capture of this species in the wild. Despite regulatory mechanisms in place and restricted international trade, poaching is lucrative and continues to occur. Additionally, because each population of military macaws is small, with usually fewer than 100 individuals, poaching is likely to have a significant effect on the species. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to the military macaw throughout its range.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease

Studies of macaws indicate that this species is susceptible to many bacterial, parasitic, and viral diseases, particularly in captive environments (Kistler et al. 2009, p. 2,176; Portaels et al. 1996, p. 319; Bennett et al. 1991). Viral diseases seem to be more prevalent and subsequently more studied in parrots than bacteria and parasites. Psittacines are prone to many viral infections such as retrovirus, pox virus, and paramyxo virus, and captive-held birds seem particularly susceptible (Gaskin 1989, pp. 249, 251, 252). A highly fatal disease, Pacheco's parrot disease, is also caused by a virus (Simpson et al. 1976, p. 218). After infection from this virus, death occurs suddenly without apparent sign of sickness other than some mild nasal discharge and lethargy (Simpson et al. 1976, p. 211). However, as transmission of this disease is mainly through nasal discharge and feces, it is less likely to happen in open habitat in the wild than in a confined aviary, particularly because in the wild this species has been observed to alternate nest sites based on food availability (Chosset
et al.
2004, pp. 35-39). Another disease, proventricular dilatation disease (PDD), may be one of the worst diseases known to affect parrots (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 2). PDD has been documented in several continents in more than 50 different parrot species and in free-ranging species in at least five other orders of birds (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 2). It is not clear if some diseases observed in birds in captivity also occur in the wild with the same frequency. However, because the populations of military macaws are small and widely distributed, disease is less of a concern because diseases tend to be more easily transmitted between individuals within close range, and wild birds disperse and are not constantly in close proximity. Also, captive conditions in aviaries make birds more susceptible to disease where the stress of confinement combined with inadequate diet can reduce the ability of birds to fight disease.

We have no evidence of significant adverse impacts to wild populations of military macaws due to disease. Disease is a normal occurrence within wild populations. There is no indication that disease occurs to an extent that it is a threat. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that disease is not a threat to the military macaw in any portion of its range now or in the future.

Predation

Eggs and chicks are more susceptible to predation than adult macaws (Arizmendi 2008, p. 44). Chicks and eggs are particularly susceptible to predation by snakes (Arizmendi 2008, p. 44), but military macaws select their nests where they are likely to have a high level of reproductive success. Because military macaws generally construct their nests in high locations such as canyon cliffs, snake predation is less of a concern because snakes need tree canopy or vines to climb in order to gain access to eggs and chicks.

Other predators known to consume this species' eggs include iguanas, red-tailed hawks (
Buteo jamaicensis),
turkey vultures (
Carthates aura),
and some mammals (Arizmendi 2008, p. 44). In the Sabino canyon, iguanas were observed near the nesting sites. Researchers suggested that a predator control program here would benefit the macaws (Arizmendi 2008, p. 45). Macaws frequently exhibit alarmed behavior when red-tailed hawks and turkey vultures approach their nests (Arizmendi 2008, p. 44). In Argentina, a flock of parrots was attacked by a pair of peregrine falcons
(Falco peregrinus),
which also nest in ravines (Navarro et al. 2008, p. 6). However, although parrots and falcons can be combative, the peregrine falcon, which normally consumes small mammals and birds, is not thought to be a natural predator of the military macaw (Bradley et al. 1991, p. 193). Due to its large size and careful nest site selection, the military macaw is less susceptible to predation by both land and aerial predators (Floréz and Sierra 2004, pp. 2-3). However, even limited predation is still a concern in part because removal of potentially reproductive adults from the breeding pool can have a significant effect on small populations by destroying macaw mating pair bonds (Kramer and Drake 2010, p. 11). Additionally, studies on similar species in similar Andean habitats indicate that vulnerability to predation by generalist predators increases with increased habitat fragmentation and smaller patch sizes (Arango-Vélez and Kattan 1997, p. 140). Because each population of military macaws is small, with usually fewer than 100 individuals, and because this species mates for life, even low levels of predation are likely to have a significant effect on the species.

Summary of Factor C

Diseases associated with military macaws in the wild are not well documented. Although there is evidence that diseases occur in parrots in the wild, we found no information that diseases affect this species to the degree that they are negatively impacting this species in the wild. Because the populations are distributed across such a large area, these populations have resiliency against impacts from disease if one population is affected by a disease outbreak. Conversely, although disease in the wild is not a concern, predation does remain a concern; there is evidence that predation on this species occurs often enough that it can have a significant impact. Because of the species' small and declining population size, tendency to mate for life, low reproductive capacity, and existence in isolated habitat fragments, even minimal predation renders the species more vulnerable to local extirpations. Therefore, we find that predation, compounded by ongoing habitat loss and poaching, is a threat to the military macaw.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Regulatory mechanisms to protect a species could potentially fall under categories such as regulation of trade, wildlife management, parks

management, or forestry management. Regulatory mechanisms could be at the local, national, or international levels.

International Wildlife Trade (CITES)

A specimen of a CITES-listed species may be imported into or exported (or reexported) from a country only if the appropriate permit or certificate has been obtained prior to the international trade and it is presented for clearance at the port of entry or exit. The Conference of the Parties (CoP), which is the decisionmaking body of the Convention and comprises all its member countries, has agreed on a set of biological and trade criteria to help determine whether a species should be included in Appendix I or II. The military macaw is listed in Appendix I. For Appendix-I species, both an export permit (or reexport certificate) must be issued by the country of export and an import permit from the country of import must be obtained prior to international trade. An export permit for species listed in either Appendix I or II may only be issued if the country of export determines that:

• The export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild (CITES Article III(2) and Article IV(2));

• The specimen was legally obtained according to the animal and plant protection laws in the country of export;

• For live animals or plants, they are prepared and shipped for export to minimize any risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment; and

• For Appendix I species, an import permit has been granted by the importing country.

Except in certain cases, such as specific scenarios for approved captive-breeding programs, the import of an Appendix-I species requires the issuance of both an import and export permit. Import permits are issued only after the importing country determines that it will not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)) and that the proposed recipient of live animals or plants is suitably equipped to house and care for them. Thus, with few exceptions, Appendix-I species cannot be traded for commercial purposes.

The CITES Treaty requires Parties (member countries) to have adequate legislation in place for its implementation. Under CITES Resolution Conference 8.4 (Rev. CoP15) and related decisions of the CoP, the National Legislation Project evaluates whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully implement the Treaty (CITES 2011a). In reviewing a country's national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates factors such as:

• Whether a Party's domestic laws prohibit trade contrary to the requirements of the Convention,

• Whether a Party has penalty provisions in place for illegal trade, and if they have designated the responsible Scientific and Management Authorities, and

• Whether a Party's legislation provides for seizure of specimens that are illegally traded or possessed.

The CITES Secretariat has determined that the legislation of Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru is in Category 1, meaning they meet all the requirements to implement CITES. Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela were determined to be in Category 2, with a draft plan, but not enacted (
http://www.cites.org
, SC62 Document 23, pp. 7-8). This means the Secretariat determined that the legislation of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela meet some, but not all, of the requirements for implementing CITES. Based on the decrease in reported international trade, CITES and the range countries for this species have effectively controlled legal international trade of this species. Therefore, we find CITES is an effective mechanism for preventing overexploitation for international trade in this species.

Parks and Habitat Management

We are focusing our evaluation of the potential threats to this species primarily to parks for the following reasons. Most suitable habitat, primary forest, only remains in these protected areas. The best available information suggests that this species is now mostly found in protected areas such as parks, in part because this is where suitable habitat remains for the species. Additionally, the majority of the information available regarding the potential threats to the species pertains to the parks, where the species is usually found. Our rationale is supported by Cowen, who noted that encounter rates for large macaw species were generally higher in primary forests (2008, p. 15), which tend to be located in areas with protected status. Throughout this species' range, we found that many of the threats that occur to this species are the same or similar. Threats generally consist of various forms of habitat loss or degradation. Each range country for this species has protections in place, but for reasons such as limited budgets and limited enforcement capabilities, the laws and protections are generally not able to adequately protect the species.

Research has found that tropical parks have been surprisingly effective at protecting ecosystems and species within boundaries designated as parks or other protected status despite underfunding and pressures for resources (Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1,235; Bruner et al. 2001, p. 126; Terborgh 1999, entire). Bruner's study found that protected areas are especially effective in preventing land clearing. It found that, in 40 percent of parks, land that had formerly been under cultivation and that was incorporated into park boundaries had actually recovered. This subsequently led to an increase in vegetative cover. The study also found that 83 percent of parks were successful at mitigating encroachment (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). It concluded that the conditions inside the parks were significantly better than in their surrounding areas (Bruner et al. 2001, p. 125). Oliveira et al. found that forests in conservation units were four times better at protecting against deforestation than unprotected areas (2007, p. 1,235). However, despite these protections, this species has experienced threats such that their populations are now so small (generally fewer than 100 in each population) that any pressure now has a more significant effect. Parks, without management, are often insufficient to adequately protect the species. Our analysis of regulatory mechanisms is discussed essentially on a country-by-country basis, beginning with Argentina, and is summarized at the end. Conditions in specific parks are discussed below.

Argentina

In 2007, Argentina enacted a law mandating minimum standards for the environmental protection of native forests (Ley de Bosques). However, the federal government has not fully enforced the law, and provincial governments are not in full compliance with it (DiPaola et al. 2008, p. 2). Argentina lacks adequate protections of its natural environments; there is a lack of environmental awareness and commitment from the government to adequately protect its resources (FAO 2007, pp. 43-44, 59-60). Provinces usually allow landowners to decide whether to maintain forest cover or deforest the land. The absence of a serious land use planning strategy, particularly during the past 20 years, has led to significant habitat degradation (FAO 2007, p. 60). The threat to native forests has remained particularly high in the Salta Province. As a result, a coalition of indigenous communities and nongovernmental organizations filed for injunctive relief

in Argentina's highest court to attempt to combat deforestation (DiPaola
et a
l. 2008, p. 2). In this case, the court mandated deforestation activities to be halted pending the completion of a cumulative environmental impact study. The decision forced the Salta Province to comply with the deforestation moratorium imposed by the Forestry Law, and pressured the Province to comply with the other key provision of the law by completing an environmental land use plan (DiPaola
et al.
2008, p. 2). Although the Forestry Law is in place and the court case has set a precedent for compliance with this law, the area where this species occurs in Argentina to the best of our knowledge remains largely unprotected (Navarro et al. 2008, pp. 7, 9).

Bolivia

This species primarily inhabits the parks and protected areas in Bolivia's Andean region (Herzog 2011, pers. comm.). National parks are intended to be strictly protected; however, some areas where the species occurs are also designated as areas of integrated management, which are managed for both biological conservation and the sustainable development of the local communities. Bolivia attempts to balance natural resource uses; however, it is one of the poorest countries in South America (MacLeod 2009, p. 6; CIA World Factbook, accessed December 6, 2011), and subsequently has competing priorities. As of 2005, Bolivia had 5 national parks, 6 national park and integrated management natural areas, 1 national park and indigenous territory (or communal lands), 4 national reserves, 2 biosphere reserves, and 3 integrated management natural areas (ParksWatch 2005, p. 1). These make up Bolivia's National System of Protected Areas ((SNAP) Servicio Nacional de Areas Protegidas). Below are the designations and their relevant categorizations of protections (eLAW 2003, p. 3).

(1) Park, for strict and permanent protection of representative ecosystems and provincial habitats, as well as plant and animal resources, along with the geographical, scenic and natural landscapes that contain them;

(2) Sanctuary, for the strict and permanent protection of sites that house endemic plants and animals that are threatened or in danger of extinction;

(3) Natural Monument, to preserve areas such as those with distinctive natural landscapes or geologic formations, and to conserve the biological diversity contained therein;

(4) Wildlife Reserve, for protection, management, sustainable use, and monitoring of wildlife;

(5) Natural Area of Integrated Management, where conservation of biological diversity is balanced with sustainable development of the local population; and

(6) “Immobilized” Natural Reserve, a temporary (5-year) designation for an area that requires further research before any official designations can be made and during which time no natural resource concessions can be made within the area (Supreme Decree No. 24,781 1997, p. 3).

The foundation of Bolivia's laws is largely based on Bolivia's 1975 Law on Wildlife, National Parks, Hunting, and Fishing (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34), which has the fundamental objective of protecting the country's natural resources. This law governs the protection, management, utilization, transportation, and selling of wildlife and their products; the protection of endangered species; habitat conservation of fauna and flora; and the declaration of national parks, biological reserves, refuges, and wildlife sanctuaries, regarding the preservation, promotion, and rational use of these resources (Decree Law No. 12,301 1975, pp. 1-34; eLAW 2003, p. 2). Later, Bolivia passed an overarching environmental law in 1992 (Law No. 1,333 1992), with the intent of protecting and conserving the environment and natural resources. Studies have shown that protected areas have been successful in providing protection from poaching, logging, and other forest damage, especially when compared to unprotected areas (Lee 2010, p. 3; Killeen et al. 2007, p. 603; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 1,234; Asner 2005, p. 480; Ribeiro et al. 2005, p. 2; Gilardi and Munn 1998, p. 641). However, pressures on the parks' resources are increasing; these are described below.

Within the Greater Madidi-Tambopata Landscape, activities that could negatively affect this species occur, and there are competing priorities within these protect

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-24820. Public record. Not legal advice.