# Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Scarlet Macaw

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2019-03165

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** February 26, 2019
- **Citation:** 84 FR 6278

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0039; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-BC81
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Scarlet Macaw

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
Ara macao cyanoptera
) is an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended; the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) is a threatened species under the Act, and the southern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) and subspecies crosses (
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
) to be threatened species based on similarity of appearance. We are also establishing a rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act for the
A. m. macao
subspecies and subspecies crosses to provide for its further conservation.

DATES:

This rule is effective March 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

Comments and materials we received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of this rule, are available for public inspection at
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Don Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS:ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone 703-358-2444. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule.
Under the Act, a species may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a rule.

On July 6, 2012, we published in the
Federal Register
(FR) a 12-month finding on a petition to list the scarlet macaw. We determined the scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) did not warrant listing under the Act at the species level but found the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
Ara macao cyanoptera
) and the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the southern subspecies (
A. m. macao
) warranted listing and issued a proposed rule to list those entities as endangered under the Act (77 FR 40222). On April 7, 2016, we published a revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302) maintaining the proposed endangered status for
A. m. cyanoptera,
but (1) revising the proposed listing determination for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies (
A. m. macao
) from endangered to threatened; and (2) proposing to treat the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses as threatened based on similarity of appearance to
A. m. cyanoptera
and the northern DPS of
A. m. macao.
We also proposed a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (a “4(d) rule”) that incorporated the prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 that we found necessary and advisable for the species' conservation.

This rule lists the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. cyanoptera
) as an endangered species, the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) as a threatened species, and the southern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) and subspecies crosses (
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
) as a threatened species due to similarity of appearance under the Act. This rule also establishes a 4(d) rule for those listed as threatened species to further provide for the species' conservation.

The basis for our action.
Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. The primary causes attributed to the decline of the scarlet macaw (
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
) include habitat loss and forest degradation (Factor A), poaching for the pet trade (Factor B), lack of enforcement of existing regulations (Factor D), and small population size (Factor E).

Section 4(d) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to extend to threatened species the prohibitions provided for endangered species under section 9 of the Act. For threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service discretion to specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, as well as include provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. A rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act allows us to include provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of that threatened species.

Our implementing regulations for threatened wildlife found at 50 CFR 17.31 incorporate the section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except where a species-specific rule is promulgated under 4(d) of the Act. While we proposed to rescind this provision last summer (83 FR 35174; July 25, 2018), that proposal has not been finalized at this time.

Peer review and public comment.
We sought comments from independent specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited peer reviewers and the public to comment on our listing proposals. All substantive information from peer review and public comments was fully considered and is incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.

Previous Federal Actions

Please refer to the proposed listing rule, published in the
Federal Register
on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 40222), for more comprehensive information on previous Federal actions for the scarlet macaw. The publication of the proposed listing rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on September 4, 2012. Based on new information, we published a revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016) to make the following changes to our proposed rule: (1) Revise the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the two subspecies of
A. macao;
(2) provide additional information on the species in northeast Costa Rica, southeast Nicaragua, and Panama, and reevaluating the status of
A. m. cyanoptera;
(3) provide additional information on the northern DPS of
A. m. macao,
reevaluating the status of this DPS, and revise our proposed listing of this DPS from endangered status to threatened status; (4) add a proposal to treat the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses (
A. m. macao
and
A. m. cyanoptera
) as threatened based on similarity of appearance to
A. m. cyanoptera
and to the northern DPS of
A. m. macao;
and

(5) add a proposed rule pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
) to define the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to scarlet macaws listed as threatened. That revised proposed rule also opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on June 6, 2016.

Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule

In this final rule, and based on public comments, we incorporate additional information regarding the distribution of scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica (Mexico and Central America). Specifically, we include information pertaining to reintroduction programs occurring throughout the range of
Ara macao cyanoptera,
and we include information that indicates the populations in Costa Rica in the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) are likely increasing.

We also took into account the relevant information from eBird into our analysis regarding the distribution of the species.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We reviewed all comments we received from peer reviewers and the public for substantive issues and new information. All substantive information from peer review and public comments has been fully considered and is incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.

We received 282 public comments combined on the proposed and revised proposed rules to list the scarlet macaw under the Act during their respective comment periods. Some of the comments we received were similar to comments that we received previously for the proposed rule; therefore, we only address these comments once in this final rule. See the Substantive Changes to the Proposed Rule section in the revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016).

The following section summarizes information and issues raised in the public comments and provides our responses.

Comment (1):
Several commenters stated that listing the scarlet macaw will hurt U.S. businesses such as aviculture, pet food and supply companies, and veterinarians.

Our Response:
Determinations on whether a species should be added to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants are based on whether the species meets the definition of “endangered species” or of “threatened species” in section 3 of the Act. The Act directs the Service to make these determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. Therefore, we may not consider economic impacts when determining the status of a species. We understand that listing the scarlet macaw will have an effect on those involved in the pet bird industry, especially bird breeders. The 4(d) rule that we are putting in place streamlines the permitting process by extending certain prohibitions but deferring to existing laws (CITES and the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) that are protective of scarlet macaws (
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses) in the course of import and export and by not requiring permits under the Act for certain types of activities. Additionally, we are not prohibiting the interstate commerce of scarlet macaws (
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses) within the United States (see 4(d) Rule, below).

Comment (2):
Several commenters stated that reducing the availability of captive birds by listing the species under the Act may lead to an increase of wild-caught birds for the pet trade.

Our Response:
We do not anticipate that listing the scarlet macaw under the Act will further reduce the availability of captive birds or lead to an increase of wild-caught birds for the pet trade. The scarlet macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES, which is an international agreement among governments to ensure that the international trade of CITES-listed plants and animals does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild. Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and certificates that are issued by the designated CITES Scientific and Management Authorities of each CITES Party. For species included in CITES Appendix I, international trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The United States implements CITES through the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 23. It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any specimens contrary to the provisions of CITES, or to possess any specimens traded contrary to the provisions of CITES, the Act, or our implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 23. Protections for CITES-listed species are provided independently of whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species under the Act.

Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act also already provide protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into the United States: The WBCA and the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378). The WBCA ensures that exotic bird species are not harmed by international trade and encourages wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin. Under the WBCA and our implementing regulations (50 CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into the United States any exotic bird species listed under CITES except under certain circumstances. The Service may issue permits to allow import of listed birds for scientific research, zoological breeding or display, cooperative breeding, or personal pet purposes, when the applicant meets certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22-15.25). Under the Lacey Act, in part, it is unlawful: (1) To import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law; or (2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law. Similarly, under the Lacey Act it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase specimens of this species traded contrary to CITES.

Based in large part on the protection from illegal and legal trade afforded to the scarlet macaw by CITES, the WBCA, and the Lacey Act, the best available data indicate that the current threat from trade to the scarlet macaw stems mainly from illegal trade in the domestic markets within Central and South America (Weston and Memon 2009, pp. 77-80; Shanee 2012, pp. 4-9). Additionally, interstate commerce within the United States is not a current threat to the scarlet macaw and will not affect any efforts to recover wild populations. Therefore, we do not anticipate that listing the scarlet macaw under the Act will further reduce the availability of captive-bred birds or lead to an increase of wild-caught birds since those birds are already regulated by existing laws. This 4(d) rule, in large part, adopts the framework of those laws.

Comment (3):
Several commenters stated that at least 25 States adopt the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants to their State list, which they claim would make it illegal to possess scarlet macaws or its feathers. The commenters stated that these laws do not include “grandfathering,” which means that those who have scarlet macaws prior to the listing and live in one of these States would be in violation of the law immediately once the listing is effective.

Our Response:
Ownership of a listed species is not prohibited by the Act and therefore, does not require a permit. We further note that, under section 9(b)(1) it is not unlawful to import or export a scarlet macaw that was held in captivity prior to the date of this final rule provided that its holding was not in the course of commercial activity. Further, while we have certainly not conducted an in-depth study on the various provisions of state law, we observe that under Article I of the United States Constitution, retroactive application of a law is permitted only in extraordinary cases.
Ex post facto
laws (or laws that criminalize conduct that was legal when originally performed) are generally prohibited. However, we acknowledge that we have no discretion over regulations that certain States implement regarding federally listed wildlife and plants.

Comment (4):
A few commenters stated that breeders and pet owners in the United States have been supplying feathers through sales or trade to Native American artisans, and the Service should find a way to accommodate feather and art sales within the United States because these artisans make ceremonial products to support themselves and their tribes.

Our Response:
The 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and noncommercial international shipments of live and dead scarlet macaws, the southern subspecies of
A. m. macao
and subspecific crosses (
A. m. macao
and
A. m. cyanoptera
), and their parts and products, including the import and export of personal pets and research samples. In most instances, the 4(d) rule adopts existing regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of scarlet macaws. Under the 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses in interstate commerce in the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate commerce without a permit under the Act (see 4(d) rule, below). Therefore, the 4(d) rule would allow individuals to engage in certain commercial activities with
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses that could provide Tribal artisans materials to make their products.

The 4(d) rule does not include subspecies
A. m. cyanoptera
that is listed as endangered, and therefore, all the prohibitions of 50 CFR 17.31 apply to this subspecies. While the Act does not prohibit intrastate (within a state) sale of a listed species, it does prohibit interstate (between states) commercial sale, unless a buyer obtains a permit. Permits for prohibited activities, such as interstate sale, import and export, can be issued for endangered species if the activities enhance the propagation or survival of the species in the wild. Additionally, a breeder could obtain a Captive-bred Wildlife Registration (CBW), which would authorize interstate commerce. However, it must be shown that the sale enhances the propagation or survival of the affected species and the principal purpose is to facilitate conservation breeding and not for the sale of protected species as pets.

Comment (5):
Several commenters stated that the Endangered Species Act is designed to protect domestic species only, and listing scarlet macaws under the Act does not address the main cause of decline for the species, which is habitat destruction in the species' native countries.

Our Response:
The broad definitions of “species,” “fish or wildlife,” and “plant” in section 3 of the Act do not differentiate between species native to the United States, species native to both the United States and one or more other countries, and species not native to the United States. Further, sections 4(b)(1)(A) and 4(b)(1)(B)(i) expressly require the Service to consider efforts by a foreign nation prior to making a listing determination. Additionally, the findings and purposes at sections 2(a)(4), 2(a)(5), and 2(b) also speak to the application of the Act to meet the United States international commitments under treaties and conventions, and numerous provisions of the Act and the implementing regulations refer to foreign jurisdictions (
e.g.,
sections 8 and 8A of the Act, 50 CFR 424.11(e)). As such, we have no basis to determine the protections of the Act only apply to domestic species. However, we acknowledge that we do not have authority to directly regulate activities in a foreign country that may cause the species to be endangered or threatened.

Comment (6):
Several commenters stated that there is no benefit to listing scarlet macaws under the Act because the species is already sufficiently protected by CITES and the WBCA.

Our Response:
The decision to list a species under the Act is based on whether the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species as defined under section 3 of the Act and is made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. The purpose of the WBCA is to ensure that exotic bird species are not harmed by international trade and encourages wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin. The purpose of CITES is to ensure that international trade in plants and animals does not threaten their survival in the wild. Protection provided by other laws, such as CITES and WBCA, is taken into consideration when determining the status of the species. However, simply being protected by these other laws does not preclude the requirement to list and provide additional protections under the Act where the species meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species. Further, the standards for listing under each legal regime are different, and the protections afforded to species listed under each legal regime are different, though they can overlap in some respects. While CITES regulates the international trade of certain wildlife, it has limited regulatory authority once the species enters the United States for activities that take place within the United States, though there are restrictions on use after import for some specimens, especially Appendix I specimens. Listing under the Act helps ensure that the United States and its citizens do not contribute to the further decline of the species.

Conservation measures or benefits provided to foreign species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and may encourage and result in conservation actions by foreign governments, Federal and State governments, private agencies and interest groups, and individuals.

Comment (7):
Several commenters noted that the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies the scarlet macaw as “least concern;” and therefore, listing under the Act is not warranted.

Our Response:
The decision to list a species under the Act is based on whether the species meets the definition of an endangered or threatened species as defined under section 3 of the Act and is made solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. The IUCN uses different standards and criteria and the designations are not interchangeable. Within certain countries, particularly in the range of
A. m. cyanoptera,
the subspecies is considered in danger of extinction or on a country's list of threatened or endangered species (Government of Mexico 2010a, p. 64; (Biodiversity and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize 2012, unpaginated; Meerman 2005, p. 30; (Government of Guatemala 2001, p. 15; Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. 2008, p. 62). However,

because of the relatively good status of the species in the Amazon, which accounts for the majority of the species range and population, and the scarlet macaw's relative tolerance of degraded and fragmented habitat (BLI 2011c, unpaginated), we found the scarlet macaw did not warrant listing under the Act rangewide at the species level (
A. m. macao
). The IUCN classified this entity—the overall species—as “Least Concerned.”

Comment (8):
A few commenters questioned our decision in the revised proposed rule to change the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) from endangered to threatened. The commenters assert that because we revised the boundaries and now attribute the population on Isla Coiba, Panama, to be part of the northern subspecies (
A. m. cyanoptera
), the decline in the number of known populations for the northern DPS of
A. m. macao
does not warrant a reversal of the Service's prior determination. It indicates a reduction in the number of populations; therefore, the DPS is now at a greater risk of extinction.

Our Response:
The northern DPS of the southern subspecies,
A. m. macao,
consists of two main populations in Costa Rica, the Central Pacific Costa Rica (Área de Conservación Pacífico Central (ACOPAC)) and South Pacific Costa Rica (Área de Conservación Osa (ACOSA)) populations that are likely stable or increasing Vaughan
et al.
2005, p. 128; Dear
et al.
2010, p. 20; Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
pp. 10-13) and consist of 1,000 to 2,000 birds; a group of at least 14-25 birds in Palo Verde (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 14; Dear
et al.
2010, p. 8) in northwest Costa Rica, along with scattered sightings of scarlet macaws from Palo Verde National Park south to Carara National Park and throughout western Guanacaste (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 14); small groups of captive-released birds in some locations within the Costa Rica portion of the DPS; small populations in northwestern Panama in the Chiriquí province (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 17; Sullivan
et al.
2009, unpaginated), and an unknown number on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 17; Sullivan
et al.
2009, unpaginated; Rodriguez and Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated); and an unknown but likely small number of birds in northwest Colombia. Thus, although the two largest populations currently appear to be increasing and appear stable even with ongoing poaching pressure, they both are small and their total range represents only a portion of the range. Northwest Colombia has large tracts of suitable habitat capable of supporting a population (although we have no information about the current population estimate for northwest Colombia). However, because current threats to scarlet macaws are ongoing, enforcement of existing regulations is inadequate, and the population sizes of scarlet macaws in this region are small, we reaffirm our determination that the northern DPS of
A. m. macao
is threatened in accordance with the definition in the Act.

Comment (9):
Several commenters stated that by listing the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. cyanoptera
) as endangered, bird owners will not be able to sell birds, and if they cannot sell birds they will not breed birds or will breed hybrids to get around the listing. Thus, the gene pool for
A. m. cyanoptera
will be reduced, if not be eliminated.

Our Response:
Commenters responding to the 2012 proposed rule (77 FR 40222; July 6, 2012) noted that aviculturists have bred the species without regard for taxa, resulting in crosses of the two subspecies (
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
). Therefore, the best available information indicates that pet scarlet macaws may be bred with little regard for genetics and include an unknown number of subspecies crosses, regardless of whether the species is listed under the Act (Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75). The Act does not prohibit intrastate (within a state) sale of a listed species so bird owners could sell birds within state, but because
A. m. cyanoptera
is listed as endangered, interstate (between states) commercial sale is prohibited without a permit. We do not believe that the gene pool will be reduced or eliminated because while some scarlet macaws in captivity in the United States will be a mixture of subspecies, it is possible to determine with genetic techniques where individual scarlet macaws have come from and whether or not they are from one pure single subspecies or a mix of subspecies (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 23).

Comment (10):
Several commenters stated that we dismiss the benefit of captive-bred scarlet macaws, which may be used to repopulate the population if a major natural, biological, or manmade disaster occurs in the native habitat of the species, and to educate and raise awareness for the species.

Our Response:
We find that there is a difference in conservation value between captive-bred scarlet macaws that are bred for the pet trade and those bred for potential release into the wild and that are not in trade. We are not aware of any evidence indicating that release of pet or pet-trade scarlet macaws benefits wild populations. Pet scarlet macaws are poor candidates for reintroduction programs because those bred for the pet trade are bred with little regard for genetics and include an unknown number of subspecies crosses (Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75), pets socialized with humans fail to act appropriately with wild individuals when released, and individuals held as pets may pose a disease risk to wild populations (Brightsmith
et al.
2005, p. 471). However, scarlet macaws bred in captivity for soft-release programs are more appropriate than pet scarlet macaws to contribute to the wild population because of the breeding techniques, decreased level of human interaction, disease testing, and training of these birds to survive on their own in the wild upon release. Refer to “Reintroduction of Scarlet Macaws,” below, for examples of captive-bred birds raised and released into the wild to integrate with the wild populations of scarlet macaws. These birds released back into their native range and nearby existing populations may increase the overall population and contribute to the long-term conservation of the species.

Comment (11):
A few commenters stated that the information used in the proposed rule was outdated.

Our Response:
The Service is required by the Act to make determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. We use the existing information and are not required to develop new data. We based the proposed rule on all the information we received following the initiation of the status review for the scarlet macaw, as well as all of the information we found during our own research and that received during the comment periods of the 2012 proposed rule and 2016 revised proposed rule. The “best available” information depends on research being conducted in the field and the availability of information and may be more, or less, recent depending on the efforts being conducted. After publishing the proposed rule, we found additional information that had become available since the publication of the proposed rule and reviewed information that was submitted by the public, including studies from a species expert and conservation organizations within the scarlet macaw's range countries.

Comment (12):
One commenter claimed that the Service violated mandatory statutory deadlines by waiting nearly 4 years to take further action on its original listing proposal

and never formally invoking the legally allowable 6-month extension.

Our Response:
We acknowledge that we failed to meet the statutory deadline for this rulemaking. However, we are obligated to make listing determinations under the Act based on the best available scientific and commercial information. In our proposed rule (77 FR 40222; July 6, 2012), we found that the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw,
A. m. cyanoptera,
and the northern DPS of the southern subspecies,
A.m. macao,
were in danger of extinction (an endangered species) based on their populations sizes and the magnitude of threats, such as loss of habitat and poaching, within the subspecies' respective ranges. We also found the southern DPS of the southern subspecies,
A. m. macao,
not to be warranted for listing under the Act. During the public comment period on the proposed rule, we received several requests from the public to extend the comment period. Additionally, subsequent to the proposed rule, we received new information from the public and peer review, and we issued a revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016). As a result of this information, we made five substantive changes to our July 6, 2012, proposed rule. Specifically, we: (1) Revised the location of what we consider to be the boundary between the northern subspecies,
A. m. cyanoptera,
and the northern DPS of the southern subspecies,
A. m. macao;
(2) provided additional information on
A. m. cyanoptera
in northeast Costa Rica, southeast Nicaragua, and Panama, and reevaluated the status of the subspecies; (3) provided additional information on the northern DPS of
A. m. macao,
reevaluated the status of this DPS, and revised our proposed listing of this DPS from endangered status to threatened status; (4) added a proposal to treat the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses
(A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao)
as threatened based on similarity of appearance to
A. m. cyanoptera
and to the northern DPS of
A. m. macao;
and (5) added a proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act to define activities that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of scarlet macaws listed as threatened and crosses of the two scarlet macaw subspecies. We then revised our determination for the southern subspecies of
A. m. macao
in consideration of the new information and comments we received to conclude that the northern DPS of
A. m. macao'
s risk of extinction is not as imminent as previously determined and that the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
has similarity of appearance and will therefore be treated at threatened. We opened a new comment period to allow the public the opportunity to submit additional comments in light of the new information and our revised determinations. Thus, we have used this time to consider and incorporate complex data so that we may ensure our rulemaking is based on the best available information.

Comment (13):
A few commenters claimed that the Service offers no explanation on how the proposed 4(d) rule allowing all commercial and noncommercial international shipments of live or dead members of the southern subspecies (
A. m. macao
) and subspecies crosses (
A. m. macao
and
A. m. cyanoptera
) can be effectively limited to only those entities given the similarity of appearance. The proposed 4(d) rule depends entirely on the ability to differentiate between birds and products made from their bodies, which the Service has previously stated cannot be done without genetic analysis.

Our Response:
Scarlet macaw subspecies,
A. m. macao
and
A. m. cyanoptera,
primarily differ in the coloration of their wing coverts (a type of feather) and wing size. We recognize that differences between
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
are not always apparent, particularly in birds from the middle of the species' range, and evidence in trade is usually in the form of partial remains, detached feathers, and artwork incorporating their feathers. Additionally, aviculturists often breed species without regard to their taxa. Thus, identification of the subspecies or the geographic origin of birds can be difficult or improbable without genetic analysis.

The 4(d) rule allows a person to import or export certain scarlet macaws (
A. m. macao
and subspecies crosses (
A. m. macao
and
A. m. cyanoptera
)) without a permit issued under the Act. However, to import and export scarlet macaws a person must follow procedures and requirements of CITES and the WBCA, as the 4(d) rule adopts existing conservation regulatory requirements of CITES as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of certain scarlet macaws (see 4(d) Rule, below). Both subspecies of the scarlet macaw are listed in Appendix I of CITES, which ensures that the international trade of CITES-listed species does not threaten the survival of the species in the wild. Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and certificates that are issued by the designated CITES Authorities of each CITES country. For species included in CITES Appendix I, international trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade.

Any scarlet macaws or parts in international trade to the United States would require documentation that indicates the source and purpose of the specimen or parts, and we identify which countries the southern subspecies (
A. m. macao
) and potential subspecies crosses (
A. m. macao
and
A. m. cyanoptera
) are located in the wild. Birds from the two extremes of the range (Mexico and the Amazon) are morphologically discernable (Schmidt 2011, pers. comm.). However, we recognize that it can be difficult to differentiate between subspecies and determine whether the specimen is part of
A. m. cyanoptera,
and also requires a permit under the Act. Over the last 20 years less than 200 entries in the LEMIS (Law Enforcement Management Information System) database were scarlet macaw parts or unspecified, and 38 percent of the overall entries were seized. Therefore, even if some parts are difficult to determine which subspecies of scarlet macaw without genetic analysis, which would add considerable cost and effort to law enforcement, the quantity of scarlet macaw imports into the United States is not extensive.

Comment (14):
One commenter cited Matuzak
et al.
(2008) for evidence that scarlet macaws are willing to feed on introduced species, which makes the species less susceptible to loss of native habitat. The commenter asserts that this is one reason why we should not list
A. m. cyanoptera
as endangered.

Our Response:
The fact that scarlet macaws consume nonnative species does not change our determination that
A. m. cyanoptera
is in danger of extinction because of the extent of the decline in the range and numbers of
Ara macao cyanoptera
due to ongoing habitat destruction and degradation, poaching for the pet trade, the lack of enforcement of existing regulatory mechanisms addressing these threats, and the small population sizes that work in combination with the other threats.

Comment (15):
A few commenters stated that threats to
A. m. cyanoptera
have been reduced over the past decade due to ongoing conservation efforts. The commenters also assert that our description of “extreme fragmentation of habitat and population” is an overstatement and habitat loss and fragmentation do not threaten the survival of
A. m. cyanoptera.
They claim scarlet macaws can fly dozens to hundreds of kilometers in a day and generally overcome fragmentation of populations; scarlet macaws use small

protected areas with sufficient large trees; and large areas of undisturbed habitat exist in Northern Central America. Thus,
A. m. cyanoptera
should not be listed as endangered.

Our Response:
Reintroduction programs to introduce captive-bred scarlet macaws into wild populations have proven successful, especially within the range of
A. m. cyanoptera
(see “Reintroduction of Scarlet Macaws,” below). Information provided by a peer reviewer of the revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016) indicates that the scarlet macaw is likely increasing in numbers in the border region on the Caribbean slope of southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa Rica, as well as showing an ability to inhabit human-disturbed habitats. However, destruction of forest habitat is one of the main causes of the decline of the scarlet macaw in Mesoamerica (Comisión Nacional Para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) 2011, p. 5; Lezama 2011, pers. comm.; McGinley
et al.
2009, p. 11; Garcia
et al.
2008, p. 50; Hansen and Florez 2008, pp. 48-50; Snyder
et al.
2000, p. 150; Collar 1997, p. 421; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, pp. 251-253). The remaining forest is fragmented and includes few large tracts of forest habitat (Bray 2010, pp. 92-93; Snyder
et al.
2000, p. 150; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101). Although deforestation rates have declined in Mesoamerica since 1990, they are still very high (FAO 2010a, pp. 232-233; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487). Deforestation is occurring in many areas within the range of
A. m. cyanoptera,
including, but not limited to, in Chiapas, Mexico, western Petén in Guatemala; in the Mosquitia region in eastern Honduras and Nicaragua; and southeastern Nicaragua (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Fagan
et al.
2013, unpaginated; Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p. 63; Chassot and Monge-Arias 2011, p. 1; Chassot
et al.
2009, p. 9). Therefore, as discussed in our July 6, 2012, and April 7, 2016, proposed rules, and reaffirmed herein, the low numbers of individuals of this subspecies, fragmentation of its habitat and population, and the substantial threats of habitat loss and poaching acting on this subspecies throughout its range place it in danger of extinction at this time.

Comment (16):
One commenter disagrees with our determination that disease could be introduced through reintroduction programs that may affect wild populations of scarlet macaws. The commenter stated that disease does not pose a risk to wild populations, especially in northern Central America, and cited Boyd and McNab 2008.

Our Response:
We are not aware of any information indicating that disease poses a significant threat to the species, especially in northern Central America. The risk of introducing diseases into wild populations increases when a large number of birds are introduced annually, but this is cost-prohibitive and unlikely (Boyd and McNab 2008, p. vii). Generally speaking, disease risk is small because the probable frequency of occurrence is low (Clum 2008, p. 79). As long as adequate disease testing is performed, and there are existing protocols for minimizing the threat of introducing exogenous diseases (
i.e.,
diseases that originate outside of the organism) into wild populations, the birds for release could come from multiple suitable sources (Boyd and McNab 2008, p. vii, Boyd
et al.
2008, p. 112).

Comment (17):
Some commenters disagreed with proposing a 4(d) rule that would allow the import and export of captive-bred scarlet macaws and interstate commerce without a permit.

Our Response:
The Act does not prohibit these activities for threatened species. However, under 4(d), we may extend some or all of the prohibitions of 9(a)(1) to threatened species and are exercising our authority to do so here. We assessed the conservation needs of the scarlet macaw in light of the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA. The best available data indicate that the current threat of trade to the scarlet macaw stems mainly from illegal trade in the domestic markets of Central and South America (Weston and Memon 2009, pp. 77-80; Shanee 2012, pp. 4-9). Accordingly, we find that adopting the import and export prohibitions of 9(a)(1), which extend only to the jurisdiction of the United States, would not regulate such activity and is not likely to impact the species status. Additionally, because interstate commerce within the United States has not been found to threaten the scarlet macaw or affect efforts at recovery of wild populations, and international trade of this species is regulated under CITES, we do not find it necessary to regulate such activity for this species. Therefore, we find the 4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.

Comment (18):
One commenter asserts that the Service's statement that northwest Colombia has large tracts of forest suitable for supporting a presently unknown scarlet macaw population and could contribute to the resiliency and redundancy of the DPS is both speculative, because it is unknown if scarlet macaws presently exist there, and is undercut by the finding that deforestation is ongoing and expected to continue in this area.

Our Response:
The scarlet macaw was reported to occur in relatively small areas outside the Amazon, including west of the Andes in northwest Colombia (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200). The best available information indicates that the population in northwest Colombia faces significant ongoing threats and may be potentially extirpated from this region (Donegan 2013,
in litt.;
Ellery 2013,
in litt.;
McMullen 2010, p. 60). However, although no current population estimates are available, this region is reported to have large tracts of forest suitable for supporting scarlet macaws (Ortega and Lagos 2011, p. 82; Salaman
et al.
2009, p. 21). While the commenter did not provide any additional information to their concern, the information that this region is reported to have large tracts of suitable habitat was not a focus of our status determination regarding the status of the population of
A. m. macao.

Comment (19):
A few commenters provided new information concerning reintroduction efforts in the native range of
A. m. cyanoptera
and the northern DPS of
A. m. macao.
These commenters encouraged us to incorporate information about reintroduction programs into our final rule. The commenters claimed that positive information, such as captive-breeding and release programs that are occurring throughout the species' range, are discounted compared to negative information, such as threats, on population status. They encouraged the Service to equally consider information for and against endangerment, including the potential uses of captive birds in conservation.

Our Response:
Captive-bred birds released back into their native ranges and nearby existing populations have the potential to increase the overall population in the wild and contribute to the long-term conservation of the species, although the success of reintroduced scarlet macaws partly depends on the methods used to raise and release captive-bred birds into the wild. We have incorporated this information in our analysis and included a description of the reintroduction efforts for
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
in their respective ranges. See “Reintroduction of Scarlet Macaws,” below.

Comment (20):
One commenter claims that listing of the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
based on similarity of appearance alone is not warranted in

the absence of any potential threat to wild populations. The movement of the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
would be subjected to extensive permitting and reviews under CITES and the WBCA, so listing it under the Act would provide little extra protection.

Our Response:
During the public comment period for the proposed rule (77 FR 40222; July 6, 2012), we received additional information supporting a similarity of appearance listing for the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses between
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao,
which we incorporated into the revised proposed rule (81 FR 20302; April 7, 2016) and carry forward in this final rule. Because it can be difficult to visually differentiate between the two subspecies and this difficulty is an additional threat for the northern DPS of
A. m. macao,
we determined that treating the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
under the Act's section 4(e) similarity of appearance provisions will substantially facilitate law enforcement actions to protect and conserve scarlet macaws. Extending the protections of the Act to the similar entities through this listing of those entities due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable prohibitions and exceptions in a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act will provide greater protection to
A. m. cyanoptera
and the northern DPS of
A. m. macao.
For these reasons, we are treating the southern DPS of
A. m. macao
as threatened due to the similarity of appearance to the northern DPS of
A. m. macao,
pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act. Furthermore, simply being protected by CITES and the WBCA does not preclude the need to list and provide additional protections under the Act. Listing under the Act helps ensure that the United States and its citizens do not contribute to the further decline of the species.

Background

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines “endangered species” as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and “threatened species” as any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)).

We summarize below the information on which we based our final determination and evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We are also adopting a rule authorized under section 4(d) of the Act for the scarlet macaw to further its conservation. We find this rule contains the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and advisable for the conservation of the scarlet macaw.

Species Information

Species Description

The scarlet macaw (
Ara macao
) is one of several large neotropical parrot species commonly referred to as macaws. They measure 84-89 centimeters (33-35 inches) in length, weigh 900-1490 grams (2.0-3.3 pounds), and are one of the larger macaws (Collar 1997, p. 421). Scarlet macaws are brilliantly colored and predominantly scarlet red; most of the head, body, tail, and underside of the wings are red. Color on the upper side of the wing appears generally as bands of red, yellow, and blue, with varying amounts of green occurring between the yellow and blue band. Lower back, rump, and tail coverts (upper tail feathers) are blue. The species has large white, mostly bare facial patches on either side of its bill. The upper bill is a light, whitish color, whereas the lower bill is black. The sexes are similar, and immature birds are similar to adults, except immature birds have shorter tails (Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 100; Forshaw 1989, pp. 404, 406).

Taxonomy

The scarlet macaw was first described in 1758, by Linnaeus (Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 99). In 1994, the subspecies
Ara macao cyanoptera,
was separated from the originally described taxon (or nominate form),
A. m. macao
(Wiedenfeld 1994, entire).
Ara macao cyanoptera
occurs from southern Mexico south to central Nicaragua. Birds from southern Nicaragua to northern Costa Rica represent a zone of intergradation between the two forms; the nominate form (
A. m. macao
) occurs from this zone southward through the South American range of the species (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 100-101).
Ara macao cyanoptera
is different from
A. m. macao
in size and wing color;
A. m. cyanoptera
is larger than
A. m. macao,
with significantly longer wing lengths; and the yellow wing coverts that are tipped in blue have no green band separating the yellow and blue as in
A. m. macao.

The subspecies classification described by Wiedenfeld (1994, entire) is used in the scientific community and the subspecies are recognized by the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) as valid taxa (ITIS 2011, unpaginated). The subspecies classification is supported by genetic analyses (Schmidt 2011, pers. comm.; Schmidt and Amato 2008, pp. 135-137).

Schmidt (2013) represents the only spatial analysis of scarlet macaw genetic variation across the historical range of the species, and we consider this study to be the best available information on the range of the two subspecies. Therefore, the mainland Central America boundary between
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
is the central mountain range of Costa Rica, with
A. m. cyanoptera
found on the Caribbean (eastern) slope of the country and
A. m. macao
on the Pacific (western) slope. Additionally, scarlet macaws on Isla Coiba are likely to be the subspecies
A. m. cyanoptera.
Consequently, we consider scarlet macaws in Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, the Caribbean slope of Costa Rica, and Isla Coiba in Panama to be
A. m. cyanoptera.
We consider birds on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica and southward through the remainder of the species' range in South America to be
A. m. macao
(see Figure 1, below).

The data also show genetic differentiation between
A. m. macao
that occur on either side of the Andes in South America, indicating two populations: One consisting of birds west of the Andes in northwest Colombia, mainland Panama, and Pacific slope of Costa Rica; and the other population consisting of birds east and south of the Andes and throughout the species' South American range (Schmidt 2011, pers. comm.).

Range

The range of the scarlet macaw is the broadest of all the macaw species (Ridgely 1981, p. 250). Extending from Mexico southward to central Bolivia and Brazil, it covers an estimated 7,030,975-10,200,000 square kilometers (km
2
) (2,714,675-3,938,242 square miles (mi
2
)) (BirdLife International (BLI) 2018, unpaginated; Vale 2007, p. 112). The majority (83 percent) of the species' range lies within the Amazon Biome of South America (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; BLI 2011b, unpaginated; BLI 2011c, unpaginated).

Historically, the range of the scarlet macaw included the southern portion of the Mexico state of Tamaulipas

southward through the states of Veracruz, Oaxaca, Tabasco, Chiapas, and Campeche; all of Belize; the Pacific and Caribbean slopes of Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Costa Rica; the Pacific slope of Panama and Costa Rica; the Magdalena Valley in Colombia; and that part of South America within Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana, and Bolivia and Brazil as far south as Santa Cruz and northern Mato Grosso, respectively (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 100-101; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, p. 250; Iñigo-Elias 2010, p. 8). Some authors report the native range of the species to include Trinidad and Tobago (BLI 2011d, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406). However, the historical record consists of only two questionable site records of the species in Trinidad and Tobago (Forshaw 1989, p. 407; French 1973, p. 76). The species may occur in that country as a very occasional vagrant or an escapee from captivity (Forshaw 1989, p. 407).

The scarlet macaw's range in Mesoamerica (Mexico and Central America) has been reduced and fragmented over the past several decades primarily as a result of habitat destruction and harvesting the species for the pet trade (Vaughan
et al.
2003, pp. 2-3; Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Snyder
et al.
2000, p. 150). It has been extirpated from almost all of its former range in Mexico, all of its former range in El Salvador, and much of its former range throughout Central America.

Currently, in Mesoamerica, the
A. m. cyanoptera
occurs in the Maya Forest region of eastern Chiapas, in Mexico, western Petén, in northern Guatemala, and Chiquibil, in southwest Belize; in the Mosquitia region of eastern Honduras and Nicaragua; in the border region of southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa Rica near the Rio San Juan (San Juan River); the
A. m. macao
occurs in Palo Verde in northwestern Costa Rica; Carara National Park and surrounding area, in west-central Costa Rica; the Osa Peninsula and surrounding area, Costa Rica; and in western border region of Panama and Costa Rica in the Chiriquí province and on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula and Isla Coiba, Panama. In South America, the
A. m. macao
occurs in small areas outside the Amazon west of the Andes in northwest Colombia and in parts of several northern Venezuelan states. Within the Amazon, the scarlet macaw still occurs over much of its historical range (see Figure 1, below).

ER26FE19.015

Distribution and Abundance

Using 1992 estimates from Honduras, and extrapolating from these estimates, the total number of scarlet macaws in Mesoamerica is approximately 5,000 birds, consisting of 4,000
A. m. cyanoptera
(occurring from southern Mexico to Nicaragua and Isla Coiba, Panama), and 1,000
A. m. macao
(northern DPS and occurring in Costa Rica and mainland Panama) (Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 102). More recently, the current population of
A. m. cyanoptera
was estimated to be fewer than 1,000 birds (McNab 2009, p. 1). The known populations of scarlet macaw in their range countries are described below (see Table 1). All the

population estimates are of birds, except Mexico, in which breeding pairs were estimated.

Table 1—Scarlet Macaw Populations Throughout Its Range
[Estimates are individuals unless otherwise stated]

Population range country
Population name
Population estimates

Ara macao cyanoptera:

Southeast Mexico
upper Rio Uxpanapa region; Usamacinto Watershed—Eastern Chiapas, Mexico, Lacandón Forest
~50; < 200 breeding pairs.

Guatemala
Northern Petén
150-250.

Belize
Chiquibul
60-219.

Eastern Honduras, Northeastern Nicaragua
Mosquitia Region
Honduras: 1,000-1,500; Nicaragua: <100-700.

Southeast Nicaragua Border and Northeast Costa Rica
Rio San Juan (San Juan-La Selva/San Juan-El Castillo)
possibly >200.

Isla Coiba, Panama
Isla Coiba
100-200.

Total
A. m. cyanoptera

2,000-3,000.

Ara macao macao
Northern DPS:

Cerro Hoya National Park
Mainland Panama
<25.

Costa Rica
Central Pacific Conservation Area (ACOPAC)
~450.

Costa Rica
Osa Conservation Area (ACOSA)
800-1,200; up to 2,000.

Northwest Colombia
Northwest Colombia
unknown.

Total
A. m. macao
Northern DPS

1,000-2,000.

Total Mesoamerica

3,000-5,000.

Ara macao macao
Southern DPS:

Amazon, south and east of the Andes Mountains (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana, and Bolivia and Brazil)
Amazon
15,000-45,000.

Total
Ara macao

~20,000-50,000.

Mesoamerica

Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize (Maya Forest) (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

Described as previously abundant in Mexico (CONABIO 20l1, p. 2) and numbering in the many thousands (Patten
et al.
2010, p. 30), the
A. m. cyanoptera
is now reported to occur in only two small populations in Mexico. One population occurs in the upper Rio Uxpanapa region near San Francisco La Paz in Oaxaca (Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 16-17). Citing several sources, Inigo-Elias (2010, unpaginated) and McReynolds (2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated) indicate that the upper Uxpanapa River population consists of possibly 50 scarlet macaws. It is possible that the species may occur seasonally in this area (Peterson
et al.
2003, p. 232). The second population that occurs in Mexico is along the southern Mexico and Guatemala border area of eastern Chiapas, and is discussed below.

Within the tri-national region of southern Mexico, northern Guatemala, and Belize, the species occurs in three small populations or subpopulations: (1) In the Usamacinto watershed in eastern Chiapis, Mexico, located in the Lacandon forest that is within the Maya Forest, which is the largest remaining expanse of tropical rainforest in the Americas (The Nature Conservancy 2018, unpaginated), and includes the Montes Azules Biosphere Reserve (approximately 3,000 km
2
(1,158 mi
2
), several smaller protected areas, and the municipality of Maques de Commillas (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 2012a, unpaginated; McReynolds 2011,
in litt.;
Enriquez
et al.
2009, p. 13; Castillo-Santiago
et al.
2007, pp. 1215, 1217; Inigo-Elias 1996, pp. 16-17, 23); (2) in the western Department of Petén in northern Guatemala, primarily in the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) (Garcia
et al.
2008, pp. 49-64; McNab 2009, p. 1); and (3) in southwest Belize, where it is known to breed only in the Chiquibul region, which includes Chiquibul National Park and other protected areas (Salas and Meerman 2008, p. 42).

Based on field studies conducted from 1989 to 1993, it was estimated that probably fewer than 200 breeding pairs exist within Mexico's Usamacinto watershed (Iñigo-Elias 1996, pp. 96-97). In Guatemala, the population is estimated at 150 to 250 birds (McNab 2008, p. 7; Wildlife Conservation Society Guatemala 2005, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated; McNab 2009, p. 1). Estimates from Belize vary from 60 to 219 individuals, but based on field observations in 2009, the current Belize population is estimated at 200 individuals (McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). However, the total population in the tri-national Maya region (Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize), based on habitat modeling and current threats, was estimated to be 399 individuals—137 in Mexico, 159 in Guatemala, and 103 in Belize (Garcia
et al.
2008, pp. 52-53).

Populations in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize are described as not being completely isolated from one another. It is likely that the population in western Petén, Guatemala, and the population in southeastern Mexico are connected because there is continuous habitat and the birds from Guatemala, when they disperse in the non-breeding season, are known to go to the west of their breeding grounds (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.
p. 8). In a radio telemetry study, a fledgling radio-tagged in Guatemala flew 130 km (81 mi) to Mexico in one day (McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). In addition, studies provide evidence of gene flow between nest sites in Guatemala and Belize, and

high levels of genetic diversity in the tri-national region (Schmidt and Amato 2008, p. 137). However, the Belize population may be more isolated from the Guatemala and Mexico populations because the area between these populations is well covered by eBird observers and no scarlet macaws have been seen even though there is high-quality habitat (Brightsmith
in litt.
2016, unpaginated).

Honduras (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

The scarlet macaw was widespread in Honduras, occurring in the arid lowlands of the Pacific slope and the interior below 1,100 m (3,609 ft), as well as in the Caribbean lowland rainforest (Monroe 1968, p. 139). The scarlet macaw may have had a distribution over 60 percent of the national territory at the end of the 19th century (Monroe 1968, p. 139; Portillo Reyes et al. 2010, p. 69). Currently, the scarlet macaw is restricted to the Mosquitia region, which is a region of extensive forest straddling the southeastern Honduras-northeastern Nicaragua border (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 101-102; Portillo Reyes 2005, p. 71). This region includes several thousand square kilometers in protected areas, such as the Plátano Biosphere Reserve (5,000 km
2
(1,931 mi
2
)) Reserva de la Biosfera Tawahka (Tawahka Biosphere Reservation) (2,500 km
2
(965 mi
2
)), the Parque Nacional Patuca (Patuca National Park) (3,755 km2 (1,450 mi2)) in Honduras, and the Bosawás Biosphere Reserve (21,815 km
2
(8,423 mi
2
)) in neighboring Nicaragua (UNESCO 2012b, unpaginated; UNESCO 2012c, unpaginated; Vallely
et al.
2010, p. 52).

The total population of Honduras was estimated at 1,000 to 1,500 birds in 1992, reportedly occurring in the Colón area and provinces of Olancho and Gracias a Dios that are in the Mosquitia region of Honduras (Wiedenfeld 1994, pp. 101-102). An estimate of scarlet macaws in the Rus Rus area of the Honduran Mosquitia (Rus Rus is in the province of Gracias a Dios) was 1,000 to 1,500 birds (McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). However, this estimate was based on the assumption that all the chicks reported as poached by Portillo Reyes
et al.
(2004, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated) would fledge and assumed a 20 percent reproductive success rate. There are no population estimates for the Río Patuca and Río Plátano areas, though there have been flocks as large as eight counted on the Río Plátano (Gallardo 2002, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). The most recent information indicates that loss of habitat and demand for the pet trade pose a substantial threat for the species in this region (Portillo Reyes 2005, in Portillo Reyes
et al.
2010, p. 6; Brightsmith
in litt.
2016, p. 8).

Nicaragua (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

Scarlet macaws in eastern Nicaragua along the Caribbean slope were estimated to be 1,500 to 2,500 birds in 1995 (Wiedenfeld 1995, in Snyder
et al.
2000, p. 150). However, the species was not detected during either of two national surveys of parrots conducted in 1999 and 2004 (Lezama
et al.
2004, p. 102; McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). Some estimates predict up to 700 birds in this region of Nicaragua; groups of 30 to 40 scarlet macaws are frequently reported in the Río Coco area (Lezama 2011, pers. comm., in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated), which forms the border with Honduras. Others consider the number in eastern Nicaragua to be fewer than 100 birds (Feria and de los Monteros 2007, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated)). The only scarlet macaws on the Pacific slope of Nicaragua are confined to Cosigüina Volcán Nature Preserve, with approximately 20 to 50 birds (Bjork 2008, p. 15; Lezama 2011, pers. comm., in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated).

Costa Rica (
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
)

Scarlet macaws (
A. m. cyanoptera
) occur in southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa Rica on both sides of the border. This region consists of the El Castillo-San Juan-La Selva Biological Corridor that is located on both sides of the Río San Juan (San Juan River) (Monge
et al.
2012, p. 6), which separates Nicaragua and Costa Rica. In 2004, several groups of scarlet macaws were reported in the Río San Carlos area close to the border with Nicaragua, in what is now designated as Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge (Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre mixto Maquenque), which also abuts the Indio Maíz Biological Reserve in Nicaragua (Chassot and Monge-Arias 2004, pp. 12-13; Chassot 2011, pers. comm.). Multiple scarlet macaws were observed flying from Nicaragua over the Río San Juan into Costa Rica (Chassot and Monge-Arias 2004, pp. 12-13).

Evidence of scarlet macaws in northeast Costa Rica obtained during several years of research on great green macaws (
Ara ambiguus
) indicates that scarlet macaws in this region are increasing (Chassot and Monge-Arias 2004, pp. 12-13; Brightsmith 2012,
in litt.,
unpaginated). During the 2009 scarlet macaw breeding season, an intensive search for scarlet macaw nests was conducted on both sides of the Río San Juan as part of a larger study to quantify and characterize nests of both scarlet and great green macaws (Monge
et al.
2012, entire). They found six scarlet macaw nests (five in Costa Rica, one in Nicaragua). The scarlet macaw has recently expanded its range southward to La Selva Biological Station, which is approximately 35-40 km (15-18 miles) south of the Río San Juan, and sightings of scarlet macaws have increased in the region (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 5; Sullivan
et al.
2009, unpaginated). Scarlet macaws were absent from this station since it was established in the 1960s, but they have been observed breeding on adjacent land since the mid-2000s (Brightsmith 2012,
in litt.,
unpaginated). Approximately 50 scarlet macaws occur in Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge in northeast Costa Rica (Penard
et al.
2008, in McReynolds 2011
in litt.,
unpaginated). There are no density estimates of scarlet macaws from this area, but based on the density reported for great green macaws (0.07 birds per km
2
) in an area of 3,000 km
2
(1,158 mi
2
), there could be more than 200 scarlet macaws in northeastern Costa Rica (Brightsmith
in litt.
2016, p. 6; Brightsmith 2012,
in litt.,
unpaginated).

Scarlet macaws were described as having previously occurred in tropical wet and dry forests throughout most of Costa Rica (Vaughan
et al.
1991, abstract), while Ridgely (1981, p. 252) describes the species as having always occurred primarily on the Pacific slope of the country. Aside from the birds in northeastern Costa Rica, the scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) occurs in two viable populations on the Pacific slope: In the ACOPAC in the region of Carara National Park, which contains approximately 450 birds (Arias
et al.
2008, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.
); and in Costa Rica's Osa Conservation Area (ACOSA) in the region of Corcovado National Park and the Osa Peninsula, which contains between 800 and 1,200, but possibly up to 2,000 birds (Dear
et al.
2005 and Guzman 2008, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.
). However, based on plausible regional estimates, the population for the entire country is approximately 1,800 birds (McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated).

By all indications, the scarlet macaw (
A. m. macao
) has been expanding from the traditional stronghold in and around Carara National Park (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 11). Since 2013, scarlet macaws in groups of up to 30, along with pairs during the height of the breeding season, were observed hundreds of times down the coast and approximately 70 km (43 mi) south of

the point where the census is usually conducted. In addition, scarlet macaws from the areas immediately to the northwest of Carara have been reported. Scarlet macaws may frequently pass through these areas but may not be present continuously or at high densities (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 12). The nearest areas with repeated sightings of the species are Ensenada Lodge at 60 km (37 mi) north of the census location for Carara; 40 km (25 mi) from the small population of 14-25 birds in Palo Verde (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 12; Dear
et al.
2010, p. 8); and 60 km (37 mi) from the core of the ACOPAC population. This site has 16 sightings, with 13 since 2012, and group sizes have been small (1 to 4). But it is unclear what the source of these birds may be; they could be escaped or released birds, or could be natural dispersers from either the Palo Verde or ACOPAC populations (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 14). Because there have been scattered sightings of scarlet macaws from Palo Verde National Park south to Carara National Park and throughout western Guanacaste, the birds near Palo Verde are no longer considered completely isolated (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 14). However, evidence to support successful expansion and establishment to the north is weak (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 13).

The ACOSA population is simultaneously expanding up the coast from the south, so sightings of scarlet macaws between the ACOPAC and ACOSA may represent individuals from either of the populations. In fact, birds were reported to occur in a 50-km (31-mi) area, which is the midpoint between the two populations (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 11). Moreover, 85 percent of residents interviewed in 2005 believed scarlet macaws were more abundant than 5 years prior, suggesting this population may be increasing (Dear
et al.
2010, p. 10). However, it is difficult to distinguish between expansion of the ACOPAC population to the south and the expansion of the ACOSA population to the north (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 11).

Panama (
A. m. macao
)

The scarlet macaw was once described as almost extinct on the mainland of Panama, but abundant and occurring in substantial numbers on Isla Coiba, which once was a penal colony where settlement and most hunting was prohibited (Ridgely 1981, p. 253). More recent information on distribution and abundance in the country indicates that mainland Panama has very few scarlet macaws (McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). In 1998, there were sporadic sightings of scarlet macaws in the western border region of Panama and Costa Rica, in the area of the upper Río Corotu (or Río Bartolo Arriba) near Puerto Armuelles in the Chiriquí province (Burica Press 2007, unpaginated; McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). A few (fewer than 10) scarlet macaws were observed in 2015, in northwestern Panama, near Querevalo and also in the Chiriquí province (Brightsmith
in litt.
2016, p. 17; Sullivan
et al.
2009, unpaginated), but it is uncertain if these birds were wild or escaped captively-raised birds dispersing south from a reintroduction program at Tiskita, Costa Rica (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 17) (see “Reintroduction of Scarlet Macaws,” below). Additionally, there is a small, but unknown, number on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 17; Sullivan
et al.
2009, unpaginated; Rodriguez and Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2011,
in litt.,
unpaginated). The current population of scarlet macaws in Panama is likely less than 200, with the vast majority of the population occurring on Isla Coiba (Keller and Schmitt 2008, in Brightsmith 2012, in litt. and McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).

South America
(
A. m. macao
)

Within South America, the scarlet macaw occurs primarily in the Amazon Biome, which overlaps eastern Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, French Guyana, northeast Ecuador, eastern Peru, northern Bolivia, and most of Brazil (collectively referred to as the Amazon in this document) (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Iñigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Collar 1997, p. 421; Forshaw 1989, pp. 406-407). The Amazon comprises approximately 83 percent of the species' entire range (BLI 2011c, unpaginated). The scarlet macaw is also reported to occur in relatively small areas outside the Amazon, including west of the Andes in northwest Colombia (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200) and in parts of several northern Venezuelan states (Hilty 2003, p. 327).

We are aware of little recent information on local (country, region) populations within South America. The only local population estimate we are aware of includes the Tambopata Province of Peru (Lloyd 2004, p. 270). Using density estimates calculated from field counts in different forest types, and area of forest cover presented in Kratter (1995, in Lloyd 2004, p. 269), the Tambopata population was calculated to number from 4,734-24,332 individuals. The population of scarlet macaws in Peru is adjacent to large populations in adjacent Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, and Colombia (Brightsmith 2009,
in litt.,
unpaginated). Therefore, the total individuals could represent scarlet macaws from more than just Peru.

The remaining information on the species' populations in South America is qualitative. In Colombia, the species is believed to occur west of the Andes in the Magdalena Valley and in gallery forest and partially cleared rainforest where large trees have been left (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p. 407); their presence may be the result of seasonal movements for food resources (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425). The species is also common east of the Andes and in the Orinoco and Amazon Basins in Colombia, but there are no current population estimates (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Iñigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated). In Venezuela, the species is becoming rare with patchy distribution in the states of Bolívar, Monagas, Apure, and Amazonas (Iñigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated; Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps, Jr. 1978, p. 99; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425); there are no current population estimates. The species has been described as occurring widely throughout the Amazon basin of Brazil, eastern Ecuador, and eastern Peru (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425). However, more recently it was described as uncommon, locally extirpated in areas, and declining in eastern Peru (Inigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated). Citing several published works from the 1970s and 1980s, scarlet macaws were described as locally extirpated from areas with a history of ornithological study in northeastern Ecuador and northeastern Bolivia (Forshaw 1989, p. 407), although it has also been described as occurring in northern and eastern Bolivia in Santa Cruz (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425). Other authors reported that in recent decades scarlet macaws have rapidly declined in the lowland Ecuadorian Amazon in Ecuador (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, in Karubian
et al.
2005, p. 618). The scarlet macaw occurs widely in the Guianas, which includes Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425), although the species may be uncommon in the vicinity of settlements (Forshaw 1989, p. 407). In Suriname, scarlet macaws are common in the interior rainforest but seldom seen in the coastal area and are rare in the eastern part of the country (Spaans
et al.
2018, unpaginated). Other sources indicate

that the species is found along tropical riparian evergreen forests in western and central Suriname (Haverschmidt and Mees 1994, in Iñigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated). In Brazil, the species is widely distributed throughout the Amazon, but there are no current population estimates (Iñigo-Elias 2010, unpaginated; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425).

Overall, the scarlet macaw is generally considered common and widespread over much of its range in the Amazon (Hilty 2003, p. 327; Angehr
et al.
2001, p. 161; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Collar 1997, p. 421; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Ridgely 1981, p. 251). Using the estimate of 20,000-50,000 birds for the total population, and the estimate of 5,000 birds in Mesoamerica, the South American population of the scarlet macaw can be very roughly estimated to be 15,000-45,000 birds.

Essential Needs of the Species

Habitat

The scarlet macaw inhabits various habitat types throughout its range, including tropical humid evergreen forest, deciduous and humid forest, intact and partially cleared lowland rain forest, mixed pine and broad-leaved woodlands, open areas and edges with scattered stands of tall trees, gallery forest, mangroves, and savannas, with many of the areas that scarlet macaw inhabit near rivers (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Forshaw 1989, p. 407; Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps, Jr. 1978, p. 99). The species generally occurs from sea level to about 500 meters (m) (1,640 feet (ft)) elevation, but has been reported ranging up to 1,500 m (4,921 ft) in Central America (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Vaughan 1983, in Vaughan
et al.
2006, p. 919).

The scarlet macaw is considered somewhat tolerant of degraded or fragmented habitat (BLI 2011c, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Brightsmith
in litt.
2016, pp. 4-7). If not hunted or captured for the pet trade, they can survive in human-modified landscapes provided sufficient large trees remain for nesting and feeding requirements (BLI 2011c, unpaginated; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, p. 251). Landscapes may include a combination of agricultural land, pastureland, timber harvesting areas, and remnant forest patches (Vaughn
et al.
2006, p. 920; Vaughan
et al.
2005, p. 120; Vaughan
et al.
2003, p. 7); partially cleared forest where large trees have been left standing (Forshaw 89, p. 407); pastureland with scattered woodlots or remnant patches of rainforest (Vaughn
et al.
2009, p. 396; Forshaw 89, p. 407); and areas of human settlement (towns) (Guittar
et al.
2009, p. 390). However, the species occurs at lower densities in disturbed or secondary (recovering) forest habitat than in primary (undisturbed) forest (Cowen 2009, pp. 11-15; Karubian
et al.
2005, pp. 622-623; Lloyd 2004, pp. 269, 272).

Diet and Foraging

Scarlet macaws, like most parrots, feed primarily in the canopy (Vaughan
et al.
2006, p. 920; Renton 2006, p. 282; Lee 2010, p. 20) and display a wide dietary breadth. They have been reported to consume up to 52 plant species in the Amazon of Peru (Gilardi 1996, in Matuzak
et al.
2008, p. 361) and up to 43 different plant species in Costa Rica (Vaughan
et al.
2006, p. 920; Matuzak
et al.
2008, p. 355). Fruits and seeds comprise the majority of a scarlet macaw's diet, but they also consume, to a lesser degree, fruit pulp, flowers, leaves, bark, lichen, and bromeliads (Lee 2010, pp. 153-160; Matuzak
et al.
2008, p. 355; Renton 2006, p. 281; Vaughan
et al.
2006, pp. 920, 924; Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp. 451-452; Nycander
et al.
1995, p. 424).

Plant species consumed by scarlet macaws are both seasonal and available year round (Abramson
et al.
1995, p. 24). Changes in local abundance patterns of parrots can be triggered by seasonal availability of food resources within habitat mosaics (Renton 2002, p. 17; Haugaasen and Peres 2007, p. 4179). Fluctuations in food abundance are likely to result in seasonal movements of scarlet macaws to areas with greater food availability (Karubian
et al.
2005, p. 624; Haugaasen and Peres 2007, pp. 4179-4180; Renton 2002, pp. 17-18; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425). Additionally, in some areas of the scarlet macaw's range, they regularly visit claylicks (naturally forming wall of clay on a riverbank) where they consume soil or minerals; it is unclear whether this provides a nutritional or other benefit to the species such as counteracting toxins in food sources (Brightsmith
et al.
2010, entire; Brightsmith 2004, pp. 136-137; Lee 2010, p. 141).

Nesting and Reproduction

Reproductive biology of large parrots, including the scarlet macaw, is generally characterized by low rates of reproduction, small clutch sizes, low survival of nestlings and fledglings, late age to first reproduction, a large proportion of nonbreeding adults in any given year, and restrictive nesting requirements (Wright
et al.
2001, p. 711; Collar 1997, pp. 296, 298; Munn 1992, pp. 53-56).

Scarlet macaws are secondary cavity-nesting birds, meaning they do not create their own cavities but rely upon natural or abandoned cavities for nesting; their breeding success is dependent upon the availability and quality of nesting sites. They nest in both live and dead trees and in a variety of tree species, including, but not limited to,
Ceiba pentandra
(kapok tree),
Schizolobium parahybum
(Brazilian firetree),
Vatairea lundellii
(bitter angelim),
Caryocar costaricense
(no common name),
Acacia glomerosa
(white tamarind),
Dipteryx micrantha
(Brazilian teak),
Iriartea deltoidea
(stilt palm), and
Erythrina
spp. (coral tree) (Guittar
et al.
2009, pp. 389-399; Renton and Brightsmith 2009, pp. 3-4; Brightsmith 2005, p. 297; Vaughan
et al.
2003, p. 8; Iñigo-Elias 1996, p. 57; Marineros and Vaughan 1995, p. 456; Nycander
et al.
1995, p. 431). Due to their large size, scarlet macaws require large cavities, which are usually found in older trees. The average height of scarlet macaw nests ranges from about 16 to 24 m (52.5 to 79 ft) above the ground (Guittar
et al.
2009, pp. 389-391; Anleu
et al.
2005, p. 44; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 59; Marineros and Vaughn 1995, p. 455). In addition to cavity size and height parameters, scarlet macaws appear to select nest sites with a clear understory or isolated from surrounding vegetation, possibly to reduce predation rates (Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 93; Brightsmith 2005, p. 302). The species will also nest in previously used cavities (Renton and Brightsmith 2009, pp. 4-5; Nycander
et al.
1995, p. 428), and will readily investigate and nest in artificial (human-made) cavities when supplied (Brightsmith 2005, p. 297; Vaughan
et al.
2003, p. 10; Nycander
et al.
1995, pp. 435-436).

Scarlet macaws are frequently observed competing for nest cavities with other macaws, including other species and other scarlet macaw pairs (Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; Vaughan
et al.
2003, p. 10; Inigo-Elias 1996, pp.79, 96; Nycander 1995, p. 428). Thus, intense competition for nest cavities suggests suitable nesting sites may be limited in some areas (Vaughan
et al.
2003, pp. 10-12; Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 92; Nycander
et al.
1995, p. 428; Munn 1992, pp. 55-56).

Conservation Status

The scarlet macaw has been included in Appendix I of CITES since 1985 (United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) 2012, unpaginated). The species is

currently classified as “Least Concern” by the IUCN. In 2011, BLI proposed reclassifying the scarlet macaw in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species from “Least Concern” to “Threatened,” based on the area of Amazon habitat projected to be lost to deforestation by 2050 (BLI 2011b, unpaginated; BLI 2011e, unpaginated). However, based on review and recommendations from regional experts, a current revision of the proposal recommends the species remain classified as “Least Concern” due to its level of tolerance of degraded and fragmented habitat (BLI 2011c, unpaginated) and the relatively good status of the species in the Amazon, which accounts for the majority of the species range and population.

In Mesoamerica, the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (
A. m. cyanoptera
) is considered in danger of extinction in Mexico (Government of Mexico 2010a, p. 32), Belize (Biodiversity and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize 2012, unpaginated; Meerman 2005, p. 30), Costa Rica (Costa Rica Sistema Nacional de Areas de Conservacion 2012, unpaginated), and Panama (Fundación de Parques Nacionales y Medio Ambiente 2007, p. 125). This subspecies is also on Guatemala's
Listado de Especies de Fauna Silvestre Amenazadas de Extinción (Lista Roja de Fauna)
(list of species threatened with extinction (red list of fauna)) (Government of Guatemala 2001, p. 15), Honduras's
Listado Oficial de Especies de Animales Silvestres de Preocupación Especial en Honduras
(Official List of Species of Wild Animals of Special Concern in Honduras) (Secretaria de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente. 2008, p. 62), and Nicaragua's list of species for which the season of use (
e.g.,
for harvest or capture) is indefinitely closed (Nicaragua Ministerio del Ambiente y Los Recursos Naturales 2010, entire).

In South America, the subspecies
A. m. macao
is listed as vulnerable in Peru (Government of Peru 2004, p. 276855), but a more recent evaluation of the species categorizes it at the lower threat level of “near threatened” (Brightsmith 2009,
in litt.,
unpaginated). The species is also categorized as “near threatened” in Ecuador (Ridgely and Greenfield 2001, in Karubian
et al.
2005, p. 618) and as “near threatened” on Venezuela's red list (Rodriguez and Rojas-Suarez 2008, p. 50). We are unaware of the scarlet macaw having official conservation status in any other of the species' range countries (
e.g.,
Colombia, the Guianas, Brazil, and Bolivia).

Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

In considering what factors may constitute threats, we must look beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to the factor, but no response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine if it may drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as those terms are defined by the Act. In 2016, we revised our proposal to list the northern subspecies of the scarlet macaw (
Ara macao cyanoptera)
as an endangered species under the Act, the northern DPS of the southern subspecies
Ara macao macao
as a threatened species under the Act, and the southern DPS of the southern subspecies
Ara macao macao
as threatened due to similarity of appearance under the Act (81 FR 20302, April 7, 2016). Please see our analysis of those entities and the factors affecting their status below.

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

One of the two main threats to neotropical parrot species is loss of forest habitat (Snyder
et al.
2000, p. 98). Deforestation, which includes clear-cutting forests to convert them to other land uses such as agriculture and cattle ranching, as well as forest degradation, which is the reduction in forest biomass such as through selective logging or fire, occurs throughout much of the scarlet macaw's range. The primary cause of forest loss is conversion to agriculture (crop and pasture), although other land uses such as infrastructure, logging, fires, oil and gas extraction, and mining also contribute significantly and to varying degrees in different areas of the species' range (Blaser
et al.
2011, pp. 263, 290, 299, 310, 319, 334, 343-344, 354, 363-364, 375, 393-394; Boucher
et al.
2011, entire; Clark and Aide 2011, entire; FAO 2011a, pp. 17-18; May
et al.
2011, pp. 7-13; Pacheco 2011, entire; Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 38-39; Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 40-45; Armenteras and Morales 2009, pp. 133-145, 176-191; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Mosandl
et al.
2008, pp. 38-40; Nepstad
et al.
2008, entire; Foley
et al.
2007, pp. 26-27; Fearnside 2005, pp. 681-683).

The construction of roads are an important driver of deforestation because they provide access to previously remote areas and allow further expansion of activities that result in additional areas of deforestation and degradation (Davidson
et al.
2012, p. 323; Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011, pp. 3468-3469; May
et al.
2011, pp. 6, 9-11; Foley 2007, pp. 26-27; Soares-Filho
et al.
2006, p. 520; Fearnside 2005, pp. 681-683; Laurance
et al.
2004, entire). Historically, large areas of forest have been removed throughout Mesoamerica, and the large tracts of forest that remain, such as the Maya and Lacandon Forests, the transnational forest in the Mosquitia region, and the major transnational forest on the Atlantic border of Costa Rica and Panama, have almost been cut off from each other by deforestation (Bray 2010, p. 93).

Activities that lead to deforestation and forest degradation pose a threat to the scarlet macaw because they directly eliminate the species' tropical forest habitat by removing the trees that support the species' essential needs for nesting, roosting, and food (see
Essential Needs of the Species,
above). Removing large sections of forest habitat may fragment the landscape and reduce and isolate populations. As the size of the habitat is reduced, it is less likely to provide the essential resources for species that require large ranges—such as scarlet macaws—and small patches of habitat retain far fewer species and populations than large patches (Ibarra-Macias 2009, p. 6; Lees and Peres 2006, pp. 203-205). Scarlet macaws use partially cleared and cultivated landscapes if the landscape provides dietary requirements and maintains enough large trees. This species is dependent on larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities. However, scarlet macaws have a better chance of surviving in large tracts of forest where suitable cavities are more common than in open and small forest remnants (Inigo-Elias 1996, p. 91). Selective

logging can lead to forest degradation because this practice generally targets older and larger trees, thus decreasing suitable nesting sites, increasing competition, and causing the loss of current generations through an increase in infanticide and egg destruction (Lee 2010, pp. 2, 12). Indirectly, clearing or degrading forests often provides people with easier access to previously inaccessible areas inhabited by scarlet macaws, which in turn increases the vulnerability of species to overexploitation by humans (Peres 2001, entire; Putz
et al.
2000, pp. 16, 23) (see
Factor B
discussion, below). Additionally, gaining access is also often followed by full deforestation and lands cleared for agricultural use (Kaimowitz and Angelsen 1998, in Putz
et al.
2000, p. 16).

Below, we provide a summary of information on deforestation and forest degradation within the range countries of the
A. m. cyanoptera
and northern DPS of
A. m. macao.

Mesoamerica

Destruction of forest habitat is one of the main causes of the decline of the scarlet macaw in Mesoamerica (CONABIO 2011, p. 5; Lezama 2011, pers. comm.; McGinley
et al.
2009, p. 11; Garcia
et al.
2008, p. 50; Hansen and Florez 2008, pp. 48-50; Snyder
et al.
2000, p. 150; Collar 1997, p. 421; Forshaw 1989, p. 406; Ridgely 1981, pp. 251-253). Habitat destruction is occurring rapidly in many areas within the range of the scarlet macaw in this region, including in Chiapas, Mexico; western Petén in Guatemala; eastern Olancho in Honduras; and eastern Nicaragua (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Hansen
et al.
2013, entire). This region has deforestation rates that are among the highest rates in the world (Bray 2010, pp. 92-95; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; Carr
et al.
2006, pp. 10-11; FAO 2015, pp. 9-14); the remaining forest is fragmented and includes few large tracts of forest habitat (Bray 2010, pp. 92-93; Snyder
et al.
2000, p. 150; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101). Although deforestation rates have declined in Mesoamerica since 1990, they are still very high (FAO 2010a, pp. 232-233; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; FAO 2015, pp. 9-14) and include the loss of significant amounts of primary forest (FAO 2010a, pp. 55, 259).

Mexico (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

The main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Mexico are conversion of forest to pasture and agriculture, and uncontrolled logging (Government of Mexico 2010b, pp. 22-24; Jimenez-Ferrer
et al.
2008, pp. 195-196; Castillo-Santiago
et al.
2007, p. 1217; Oglethorpe
et al.
2007, p. 85). From 1990 to 2015, Mexico lost approximately 3.7 million hectares (ha) (9.2 million acres (ac)) of total forest (FAO 2015, p. 12) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below), and had one of the largest decreases in primary forests worldwide (FAO 2010a, pp. 56, 233), although the rate slowed toward the latter part of that period (FAO 2015, p. 12).

In southeastern Mexico, the area of land devoted to cattle ranching has increased dramatically due to the increase of regional meat prices and a decrease in the economy of staple crop cultivation (Jimenez-Ferrer
et al.
2008, pp. 195-196; Soberanes 2018, unpaginated). Most of Mexico's remaining scarlet macaws occur in the Lacandon Forest of the southeastern state of Chiapas. This state encourages cattle ranching through subsidies, and clearing of forest for pasture in the state is ongoing (Enriquez
et al.
2009, pp. 48-49, 58). In fact, Chiapas had the second highest rate of deforestation of Mexico's 31 states, with forest losses averaging approximately 600 km
2
(232 m
2
) per year (Masek
et al.
2011, p. 10). Within the Lacandon Forest, cattle ranching is the most profitable activity, and it is extensive in the region (Jimenez-Ferrer
et al.
2008, pp. 195-196). Outside of protected areas in the Lacandon Forest, the deforestation risk is primarily categorized as high to very high; inside protected areas the risk of deforestation is categorized as low to very low (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales de México—SEMARNAT 2011, unpaginated). Monte Azules Biosphere Reserve is the largest protected area in the Lacandon Forest, and it has been relatively successful at conserving the resources within its boundaries (Castillo-Santiago
et al.
2007, pp. 1223-1224; Figueroa and Sanchez-Cordero 2008, p. 3231). However, according to Mexico's Federal Environmental Protection Agency (
Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente
(Profepa)) more than 60 percent of illegal logging in the country occurs in 32 priority forest regions, including the reserve (Enriquez
et al.
2009, pp. 28, 57). While illegal logging has received more attention from Mexico's policy makers, efforts to address the problem have had limited success due to insufficient human and financial resources to enforce laws, and poorly designed control efforts (Blaser
et al.
2010, p. 346; Enriquez
et al.
2009, p. 57; Kaimowitz 2008, p. 491) (see
Factor D
discussion, below). From 2001 to 2007, Profepa secured about 0.13 percent of the calculated total of timber illegally extracted in the country (CCMSS 2007, in Enriquez
et al.
2009, p. 57).

We are unaware of information on projected future rates of deforestation specifically in the Lacandon Forest region, but a loss of approximately 20,000 km
2
(7,722 mi
2
) between 2000 and 2015 in the southeastern States (which include Chiapas) was projected, assuming the same rate of loss that occurred during the period 1987-2000 (Diaz-Gallegos
et al.
2010, p. 194). By 2030, forest area in Mexico as a whole is projected to decrease, with anywhere from about 10 to 60 percent of mature forests lost, and up to 54 percent of regrowth forests lost (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2010, pp. 45, 75).

Mexico implements several forest conservation measures and has made significant progress in conserving forest within its boundaries (Blaser
et al.
2011, pp. 344-346; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 2010, pp. 34-36; Masek
et al.
2011, p. 17; FAO 2010a, p. 233; Enriquez
et al.
2009, pp. 4, 36-41). However, deforestation and forest degradation continue to be a threat to the subspecies in Mexico because the clearing of forest for agriculture, cattle ranching, and illegal logging is ongoing in Chiapas and projected to continue, and illegal logging is ongoing in the largest reserve in the Lacandon Forest in conjunction with the high risk of deforestation in protected areas outside of the forest.

Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and Nicaragua (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

The countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua have the highest deforestation rate in Latin America (FAO 2010a, p. 232; FAO 2015, pp. 9-14). Guatemala lost 483 km
2
(186.5 mi
2
or 1.2 percent), Honduras lost 1,418 km
2
(547.5 mi
2
or 2.3 percent), and Nicaragua lost, 560 km
2
(216 mi
2
or 1.5 percent) of total forest, per year between 1990 and 2015 (FAO 2015, pp. 9-14) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below). Belize has a lower deforestation rate of 100 km
2
(39 mi
2
or 0.7 percent) per year (FAO 2015, pp. 9), but deforestation is increasing in the Chiquibul region, which is the only region scarlet macaws are known to nest in the country (Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 44-45; Salas and Meerman 2008, pp. 22, 42).

The main causes of deforestation and forest degradation within the range of the scarlet macaw in these countries include clearing for agriculture and cattle ranching, illegal human settlements in protected areas, illegal logging, purposefully set fires, and in

some areas, activities related to drug trafficking. Some or all of these activities are ongoing in areas occupied by the species, including in the MBR in Guatemala; Río Plátano Biosphere in Honduras; Bosawas Biosphere Reserve in Nicaragua; and the Chiquibul region in Belize.

Guatemala (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

Guatemala has lost approximately 1.2 million ha (3 million ac) of forest area over the past 25 years (FAO 2015, p. 11). Approximately 38 percent of Guatemala's remaining forest area is primary forest (FAO 2015, p. 36). Deforestation is the dominant trend nationally, but rates of loss appear to be much higher in tropical over temperate areas. The most significant threat to the conservation of biodiversity and tropical forests is habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from wildfires, agriculture and cattle ranching, mineral and petroleum development, and drug trafficking (Tolisano and Lopez-Selva 2010, p. 3). Deforestation in the conifer forests of the highlands has existed for centuries, but today it mostly takes place in the Petén (Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 310) where a population of
A. m. cyanoptera
occurs. Approximately 65 percent of the deforestation in Guatemala occurs in the Petén region, with most (approximately 60 percent) occurring outside protected areas (IARNA 2006, in Tolisana and Lopez-Selva 2010, p. 22). Additionally, the Petén of Guatemala is one of the few areas in the entire region that is still undergoing intensive tropical colonization resulting in forest loss from agriculture and represents the most intense deforestation threats to the Maya Forest (Bray 2010, pp. 100-102). Colonization pressure in the MBR is strong in the western and central regions; the human population increased 20-fold since 1960 and was predicted to double from 2008 to 2018 in the Petén (Bray
et al.
2008, unpaginated).

Habitat destruction is particularly severe in two protected areas, Laguna del Tigre National Park and Sierra del Lacandón National Park; both of these areas were former strongholds of scarlet macaws (Garcia
et al.
2008, p. 50). Furthermore, some parks that compose the MBR lost approximately 10 percent of forest cover between 1986 and 2004, with forest loss thought to be accelerating (Bray 2010, p. 100). Between 1974 and 1997, the MBR lost 65 percent of its buffer zone, and areas near roads showed increasing deforestation pressures in 1995-1997 (Hayes
et al.
2002, p. 305; Bray
et al.
2008, unpaginated).

Considerable efforts have been made since the start of the 21st century to reorganize the control and management of forest resources in Guatemala (Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 317). In the rainforests of the Petén, large community-run timber concessions allow local people to improve their livelihoods on the basis of forest resources. However, forest management is hindered by high rates of deforestation and forest degradation driven by agricultural expansion, mining, illegal logging, drug-trafficking, and other threats (Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 317; Reynolds 2008, pp. 6-7).

Belize (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

Belize has a lower deforestation rate (100 km
2
(39 mi
2
, or 0.7 percent)) per year than the other countries in Mesoamerica (FAO 2015, p. 9), but deforestation is increasing in the Chiquibul region, which is the only region scarlet macaws are known to nest in the country (Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 44-45; Salas and Meerman 2008, pp. 22, 42). Belize lost 250,000 ha (618,000 ac) of total forest area over the past 25 years (FAO 2015, pp. 9, 40).

The Chiquibul National Park (CNP) is Belize's largest protected area, measuring approximately 161,874 ha (400,000 ac). It is located in the Cayo District and within a larger forest region known as the Chiquibul Forest, which abuts the Belize-Guatemala border and is contiguous to the Chiquibul-Montañas Mayas Biosphere Reserve that is located in the Department of Petén, Guatemala (Salas and Meerman 2008, p. 10). This region also includes the Chiquibul Forest Reserve and the Caracol Archaeological Reserve. The most significant pressure on the CNP, the Chiquibul Forest, and biodiversity within this region includes deforestation from urban encroachment, agriculture expansion, wildfires, legal and illegal logging, illegal hunting, mining and oil exploration, and dam construction (Salas and Meerman 2008, pp. 45-46; Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, p. 42).

The border areas of Belize, including the Chiquibul Maya Mountain that contains the CNP, Chiquibul Forest Reserve, and Caracoal Archaeological Reserve, are vulnerable because insufficient enforcement resources are available, particularly for Guatemalans who are impacting forested areas on the Belize side of the border. Satellite imagery showed 113 ha (280 ac) in the CNP had been cleared as of 1987 by Guatemalans for agricultural use, this increased six-fold to 692 ha (1,710 ac) by 1994, and to approximately 3,126 ha (7,725 ac) by 2007 (FCD 2007, in Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, p. 45). Additionally, more than 405 ha (1,000 ac) of freshly cultivated area was reported in the CNP and incursions into Belize by Guatemalan armed forces have also been observed (FCD 2007, in Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, p. 45). Unlike legal extraction, which can be regulated, illegal extraction and particularly illegal extraction by non-Belizean nationals continues to escalate, which poses a greater threat to forests than legal extraction (Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 42-45). Transboundary incursions, while temporary, can have a severe impact on the forest because of the increase in demand for land for housing and farms, as well as the introduction or reinforcement of unsustainable agricultural practices (Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, p. 42).

Honduras (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

Honduras lost approximately 3.5 million ha (8.7 million ac) of forest area over the past 25 years (FAO 2015, p. 11) and had the highest rate of deforestation in the Americas (see Tables 2a and 2b, below). The Honduran forest landscape is characterized by relative stability in temperate areas with localized areas of variability in forest cover but with continuing deforestation in tropical areas (Bray 2010, p. 104), especially in the eastern tropical broadleaved forest (Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 334; Humphries
et al.
1998, p. 99; Hansen and Florez 2008, p. 12). The most dramatic losses have been in the forests of the Atlantic Coast, which declined by approximately 73 percent between 1962 and 1990, compared to only 30 percent loss for other broadleaf forests in the same period (Humphries 1998, p. 99).

The high level of deforestation is due to illegal logging, infrastructure (
e.g.,
roads), institutionalized forest sector corruption, production of biofuels, and expanding agricultural frontiers (although some of the latter may be regarded as socially desirable) (Richards
et al.
2003, p. 282). In the past, deforestation was due to agro-industrial development, mainly for banana plantations. However, more recently demand for land by small-scale farmers is thought to be the major cause (ITTO 2006, in Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 334); often, such small-scale farmers ultimately sell the deforested land to larger farmers and agro-industrial owners (Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 334). In addition, the country has a high dependence on wood as an energy

source for poor households; thirty-eight percent of the population uses firewood for domestic purposes, which is considered a very high consumption rate (Government of Honduras 2009, unpaginated).

The Mosquitia region has been characterized by relatively low population density and inaccessibility, and its indigenous inhabitants have maintained the forest cover for centuries. However, the Honduran Mosquitia appears to be under significant deforestation pressure and continues to suffer from colonization, agricultural expansion, and illegal logging, which has led to deforestation and degradation in this region and parts of the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Bray 2010, p. 102; Anderson and Devenish 2009, pp. 256-257; Hayes 2007, pp. 733-734). Recent information indicates that loss of habitat and demand for the pet trade (see
Factor B
discussion, below) are significant threats in this region (Portillo Reyes 2005, in Portillo Reyes
et al.
2010, p. 6; Brightsmith
in litt.
2016, p. 8).

Nicaragua (
A. m. cyanoptera
)

In terms of total forest loss, Nicaragua has lost more forest than all other Central American countries except Honduras. Nicaragua has lost approximately 1.4 million ha (3.5 million ac) of forest area over the past 25 years (FAO 2015, pp. 11, 41) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below).

Much of the historic deforestation in Nicaragua was due to the expansion of cattle ranching and cotton farming until both industries declined in the 1980s, resulting in abandonment of much pasture land that left almost 1 million ha (2.5 million ac) in forest fallow (Bray 2010, p. 106). More recently, forest loss and degradation in Nicaragua was due to the expansion of agricultural and grazing land, slash-and-burn agricultural practices that create a mosaic of forest and cultivated patches across an increasing expanse of the landscape (Global Witness 2007, in McGinley 2009, p. 13). Illegal logging and institutionalized forest sector corruption have also led to forest loss and degradation (Richards
et al.
2003, p. 282). Deforestation and forest degradation has also been attributed to forest fires, pests (
e.g.,
pine bark beetle (
Dendroctonus
sp.)) and hurricanes, though to a much lesser degree than to anthropogenic factors (Rodríguez Quiros 2005, in McGinley 2009, p. 13). Farmers often use fire to clear forest and scrubland in preparation for crops, and though these practices are typically intended to be limited to a specific area, they can spread to adjacent vegetation and lead to uncontrollable wildfires that result in forest and other biodiversity degradation and loss (McGinley 2009, p. 35).

The Nicaraguan Mosquitia (on the Caribbean slope), which is one area where the scarlet macaw is known to occur in the country, is considered an important area of extensive lowland tropical forest that it is threatened by rapid deforestation due to colonization and the advancement of the agricultural frontier (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; McGinley 2009, p. 31; Bray 2010, p. 105). The bulk of Nicaragua's forests on the Caribbean slope are in indigenous territories that hold rights to own their own forests, but most lack formal titles and tenure conflicts are widespread (Kaimowitz 2008, p. 487; McGinley 2009, p. 13). For example, Mosquitia residents contend that public management of protected areas fails to control agricultural expansion and violates indigenous ancestral rights to the land and its resources (Hayes 2007, p. 734). Illegal logging is a threat to forests in the Caribbean region and the Mosquitia (Bray 2010, p. 105). Illegal logging in broadleaf forests was estimated to be 30,000 to 50,000 m
3
/year (1.1 to 1.8 million ft
3
/year), or approximately 50 percent of the total production (Richards
et al.
2003, p. 284). However, with respect to the binational Mosquitia region, the pressures appear to be greater on the Honduran side, although areas outside the core of the Bosawas Biosphere Reserve area are also under pressure (Bray 2010, p. 106). The indigenous occupied core zones of Bosawas are showing virtually no deforestation, with one such area having 97 percent forest cover in 2003 (Hayes 2007, p. 741). In contrast, the Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve on the Honduran side of the Mosquitia is under great deforestation pressures because of failed efforts to centralize management in the government, while protection is much more effective in the Bosawas core area due to the decentralization of management in the hands of the indigenous inhabitants (Bray 2010, p. 106).

Deforestation is ongoing in southeast Nicaragua and resulted in forest cover loss from 2000-2017 (Hansen
et al.
2013, entire). Southeast Nicaragua includes the Indio Maíz Biological Reserve (IMBR) and its buffer zone. The reserve is situated at the southeastern border of the country (Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p. 63) and is one of Nicaragua's best preserved forested areas (Ravnborg
et al.
2006, p. 2). However, the reserve is threatened by the growing human population in or around the reserve, a result of the continuous arrival of families from other parts of the country into the region in search of cheap land (Ravnborg 2010, pp. 12-13; Ravnborg
et al.
2006, pp. 4-5). Between 1998 and 2005, the population increased more than 100 percent in the municipality of El Castillo, which is composed entirely of IMBR buffer zone and core area (Ravnborg 2010, p. 10). The expansion of African palm plantations, pasture lands, human settlements, and logging have contributed to an estimated 60 percent deforestation of the buffer zones surrounding IMBR and these activities are expanding in the reserve (Fundacion del Rio and IUCN 2011, pp. 7-8; Ravnborg 2010, pp. 12-13; Nygren 2004, pp. 193-194; Ravnborg
et al.
2006, p. 2). Forest conservation efforts in the Nicaragua-Costa Rica border region have resulted in lower deforestation rates within the San Juan-La Selva Biological Corridor, which includes the IMBR along with other protected areas (Chassot
et al.
2010a, in Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p. 67), although both primary and regrowth forest within the corridor and within the larger border region continue to decrease due to timber extraction and agricultural expansion (Fagan
et al.
2013, unpaginated; Chassot and Monge-Arias 2012, p. 63; Chassot and Monge-Arias 2011, p. 1; Chassot
et al.
2009, p. 9). Thus, despite the existence of protected areas, deforestation continues to occur and is a serious threat to biodiversity in this region (Fundacion del Rio 2012a, pp. 2-3; Fundacion del Rio 2012b, pp. 2-3; Fundacion del Rio and IUCN 2011, pp. 34, 37, 73-74; Chassot
et al.
2006, p. 84). According to eBird (Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated), many sightings of scarlet macaws exist in southeastern Nicaragua and northeastern Costa Rica since the issuance of our proposed rules (77 FR 40222, July 6, 2012; 81 FR 20302, April 7, 2016), indicating that the species has continued to expand its range in this region. However, expansion of scarlet macaws in this region will likely be limited due to high rates of deforestation (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
pp. 4-8).

Costa Rica (
A. m. cyanoptera
and
A. m. macao
Northern DPS)

Costa Rica experienced some of the highest rates of deforestation in the world historically (Bray 2010, p. 107; Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 68), and as a result, the country's forest cover declined from 67 percent in 1940, to 17-20 percent in 1983 (Bray 2010, p. 107). Much of this deforestation was driven by agriculture and cattle ranching; however, agriculture

expansion was not as prevalent as livestock expansion (Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 38). Cattle ranching underwent a serious contraction after 1989 (Arroyo-Mora
et al.
2005, p. 28). In 1993, only 20 percent of original scarlet macaw habitat remained, all within protected areas (Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp. 445-446). However, during the 1990s, Costa Rica implemented several forest conservation strategies, including new laws protecting forests and mechanisms of payment for ecosystem services (Bray 2010, pp. 107-109; Kaimowitz 2008, pp. 488-491; Pagiola 2008, entire; Sanchez-Azofeifa
et al.
2003, entire).

Costa Rica is the only country in Mesoamerica to experience a positive change in forest cover from 1990 to 2015 (FAO 2015, p. 10) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below). Total forest cover in 2005 was estimated to be 53 percent (Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 68), more than double the country's forest cover in the 1980s. Between 1990 and 2015, Costa Rica gained 192,000 ha (474,442 ac) of total forest area, with an annual rate of approximately 7,700 ha (19,000 ac or 0.3 percent) (FAO 2015, p. 10).

Even though Costa Rica has an increase in total forest over the past 25 years (1990-2015), some level of deforestation still occurs in parts of the country due to expansion of agriculture and livestock activities, and to illegal logging in private forests, national parks, and reserves (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 2; Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 10-11, 38, 52-54; Parks in Peril 2008, unpaginated). Fifty percent of forests in Costa Rica are found in individual rural private properties (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 1). The major driver of deforestation on private lands is the conversion of forest to livestock and agricultural uses. In many cases, land users generate a higher annual income with agriculture or livestock-raising than with forests. In protected areas, underfunding and lack of human resources allows the penetration of squatters and illegal loggers. Additionally, land tenure issues contribute to forest loss because indigenous communities have difficulties keeping nonindigenous farmers from encroaching onto their lands (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p. 1)

National Parks on the Caribbean slope are experiencing higher deforestation on surrounding lands than those on the Pacific slopes, which is attributed to the intensification and expansion of agricultural cash crops such as banana and pineapple (Sanchez-Azofeifa
et al.
2003, p. 129). However, Corcovado National Park, the largest protected area in ACOSA, is one of the protected areas in Costa Rica most affected by deforestation close to its boundaries (Sanchez-Azofeifa
et al.
2003, pp. 128-129). A comprehensive study of deforestation in Costa Rica's park system found that deforestation inside protected areas was negligible from 1987 to 1997, and that 1-km (0.62-mi) buffer zones around the protected areas had a net forest gain for the same period. However, a 1 percent annual deforestation rate was found in 10-km (6.2-mi) buffer zones, suggesting increased isolation of protected areas (Sanchez-Azofeifa
et al.
2003, pp. 128-134). Additionally, in the ACOPAC population region, more deforestation is ongoing northwest of Carara than to the south (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 12).

The scarlet macaw occurs in northeastern Costa Rica, near Palo Verde and surrounding areas in northwest Costa Rica, and in the two main populations of the ACOPAC and ACOSA. Overall, Costa Rica is both losing and gaining forest cover throughout the country (Hansen
et al.
2013, entire; Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.
p. 1). However, the best available information indicates that the scarlet macaw population in Costa Rica appears to be increasing, and Costa Rica is the only country in Central America to experience a positive change in forest cover over the past 25 years (1990-2015). We conclude that deforestation or forest degradation in the current range of the scarlet macaw in Costa Rica is not occurring at a level that is causing a further decline in the species; however, this area is not enough to sustain the northern DPS of
A. m. macao
in the future in given the threats occurring in the remainder of the range.

Panama (
A. m. macao
Northern DPS)

Deforestation in Panama is relatively low for the Mesoamerica region; the annual decrease from 1990-2015 was 169 km
2
(65 mi
2
or 0.4 percent) (FAO 2015, p. 12) (see Tables 2a and 2b, below). Drivers of deforestation include urbanization, cattle ranching, agro-industrial development, unregulated shifting cultivation, open mining, poor logging practices, charcoal-making, and fire (ITTO 2005, in Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 354). Deforestation in the country currently occurs primarily in the Darien, Colon, Ngabe Bugle, and Bocas del Toro provinces (Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 354), which are outside the range in which scarlet macaw currently occurs in Panama. Illegal logging is widespread in the humid forests, even in protected areas (Blaser
et al.
2011, p. 361).

Most of Panama's scarlet macaw population occurs on Isla Coiba, which was used by the government of Panama as a penal colony until 2004, thus limiting human access and development on the island (Government of Panama 2005, p. 23; Steinitz
et al.
2005, p. 26). Consequently, forests on the island remain largely intact. The Panamanian Tourism Authority has developed a master plan for sustainable tourism for Isla Coiba (2007-2020), which includes strategic guidelines for tourism management. Further details on these guidelines are not provided, but the plan does not include infrastructure or high-impact development (UNESCO 2011c, p. 60). Available information indicates that deforestation is not occurring on Isla Coiba (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt.,
p. 1; Hansen
et al.
2013, entire), although some level of degradation on the island may occur by a herd of approximately 2,500 to 3,500 feral cattle (UNESCO 2011c, pp. 23, 43; Suman
et al.
2010, p. 25). However, the extent of the cattle's impact is unknown. The complete eradication of the cattle from Coiba National Park was classified as a priority issue (Suman
et al.
2010, p. 25), but we are not aware of information indicating that the removal of cattle has occurred. While cattle on Isla Coiba may be inhibiting the regrowth of former pasture to secondary forest, they are probably not having a significant impact on the larger forest trees on which scarlet macaws depend (Angehr 2012,
in litt.,
unpaginated).

On the mainland of Panama, in the area of the upper Río Corotú near Puerto Armuelles and Querévalo in the Chiriquí province where there have been sporadic sightings of scarlet macaws, we are unaware of information indicating that deforestation and forest degradation are impacting scarlet macaws. We are also unaware of information indicating that deforestation is occurring near the small (but unknown) number of scarlet macaws on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park and in the forest reserves just to the east. Less than 15 percent of the peninsula is covered by mature forest, but most of the remaining forest can be found in Cerro Hoya National Park and the Tronosa Forest Reserve to the east (Miller
et al.
2015, p. 1).

We are aware of little information on the magnitude and extent of deforestation and forest degradation on Panama's mainland and Isla Coiba, although the most recent information indicates that deforestation is not occurring on Isla Coiba or any areas where the scarlet macaw remains in

very small populations on the mainland. The World Heri

[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%3A2019-03165. Public record. Not legal advice.