Rule2025-09857
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis for the Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Southern Subspecies of Scarlet Macaw
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 3, 2025
Effective
June 3, 2025
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine that the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (Ara macao macao) is appropriately listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. Scarlet macaws are brilliantly colored parrots native to Mexico and Central and South America. This notification affirms the Service's February 26, 2019, final rule listing the scarlet macaw under the Act and provides a final significant portion of its range analysis for the northern DPS.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 105 (Tuesday, June 3, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 3, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23446-23457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-09857]
[[Page 23446]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0134; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BG93
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Significant
Portion of Its Range Analysis for the Northern Distinct Population
Segment of the Southern Subspecies of Scarlet Macaw
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final analysis and determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
that the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (Ara macao macao) is appropriately listed
as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act),
as amended. Scarlet macaws are brilliantly colored parrots native to
Mexico and Central and South America. This notification affirms the
Service's February 26, 2019, final rule listing the scarlet macaw under
the Act and provides a final significant portion of its range analysis
for the northern DPS.
DATES: The final analysis and determination are effective June 3, 2025.
ADDRESSES: This final notification is available on the internet at
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Comments and materials we received on our
December 26, 2024, Federal Register document (87 FR 66093) are
available for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at
Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0134.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel London, Manager, Branch of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service; 703-358-2171; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9dbc8cac1ccc5f6c5c6c7cdc6c7e9cfdeda87cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8efcefede6ebe2d1e2e1e0eae1e0cee8f9fda0e9e1f8">[email protected]</span></a>. Individuals
in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have
a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Scarlet macaws (Ara macao) have the broadest range of all the macaw
species (Ridgely 1981, p. 250). The range of the species extends from
Mexico, south through Central America, and into the Amazon of South
America to central Bolivia and Brazil. In Mexico and Central America,
the scarlet macaw's historical range and population have been reduced
and fragmented over the last several decades primarily because of
habitat destruction and collection of wild birds for the pet trade
(Vaughan et al. 2003, pp. 2-3; Collar 1997, p. 421; Wiedenfeld 1994, p.
101; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150). The majority (83 percent) of the
species' range and population lies within the Amazon biome of South
America (Birdlife International (BLI) 2011a, unpaginated; BLI 2011b,
unpaginated; BLI 2011c, unpaginated). In South America, the scarlet
macaw occurs over much of its historical range within the Amazon and
occurs in small areas outside the Amazon, such as west of the Andes
Mountains in Colombia.
The scarlet macaw is classified as two subspecies, the northern
subspecies (A. macao cyanoptera) and southern subspecies (A. macao
macao) (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 735). The
northern subspecies of scarlet macaw ranges from Mexico, south through
Central America in Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras, and down the
Atlantic slope of Costa Rica, as well as on Isla Coiba in Panama. The
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw occurs along the Pacific slope of
Costa Rica and southward through mainland Panama and into the remainder
of the species' range in South America. The subspecies are separated by
the Central Cordilleras in Costa Rica (Schmidt 2013, pp. 52-53; Schmidt
et al. 2019, p. 744).
On February 26, 2019, we published in the Federal Register a final
rule under the Act (84 FR 6278; 2019 final rule). The 2019 final rule
was the outcome of a rulemaking proceeding that began with a proposed
rule (77 FR 40222, July 6, 2012; 2012 proposed rule) and a revised
proposed rule (81 FR 20302, April 7, 2016; 2016 proposed rule). The
2019 final rule revised the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (at 50 CFR
17.11(h)) to add the northern subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m.
cyanoptera) as an endangered species, the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies (A. m. macao) as a threatened species (hereafter, ``the
northern DPS''), and the southern DPS of the southern subspecies (A. m.
macao) and subspecies crosses (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as
threatened species due to similarity of appearance. The 2019 final rule
also added protective regulations to 50 CFR 17.41 pursuant to section
4(d) of the Act for the northern and southern DPSs of the southern
subspecies and for subspecies crosses. For a more thorough discussion
of the taxonomy, life history, distribution, and the determination of
listing status for scarlet macaws under the Act, please refer to the
Species Information section in the 2019 final rule (84 FR 6278 at 6284,
February 26, 2019).
This Action
We are reassessing whether the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. macao) is in danger of extinction
throughout a significant portion of its range (SPR) in response to an
order issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in
Friends of Animals v. Williams, Case No. 1:21-cv-02081-RC. On April 3,
2023, in compliance with the Court's order, we published an initial SPR
analysis and final threatened species determination for the northern
DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw (88 FR 19549;
hereafter, ``the 2023 SPR analysis''). Having determined that the
northern DPS is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant
portion of its range, we did not propose to revise the status of the
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw in the northern DPS. Therefore, we
affirmed the listing of the scarlet macaw as set forth in the 2019
final rule. However, on July 10, 2024, the Court found that we
inappropriately limited the scope of public comments in the 2022
reconsideration. The Court vacated the 2023 SPR analysis and remanded
it to us to reconduct after soliciting and considering public comments
on the relevant, substantive issues.
On October 8, 2024, the Court further ordered that, ``if the
Service receives no public comments on the SPR analysis that result in
the need to repropose the listing decision for the Northern DPS, the
Service will submit a final SPR analysis to the Office of the Federal
Register no later than 120 days from the end of the public comment
period.'' The Court's Order continued, ``if the Service does receive
public comments on the SPR analysis that cause it to reconsider the
Northern DPS's listing determination, the Service will need additional
time to revise the listing determination to incorporate analysis of
those comments and any additional data that addresses them. If this
additional analysis leads the Service to reach a different listing
determination that the public could not have anticipated, the Service
may need to revise and repropose the Northern DPS listing
determination. The Service will then submit any such re-proposal to the
[[Page 23447]]
Office of the Federal Register no later than September 30, 2025.'' The
2019 final rule has remained in effect, including with respect to the
listing status (threatened species) and protective regulations under
the species-specific section 4(d) rule for the northern DPS of the
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw.
Summary of Comments
In the December 26, 2024, Federal Register document (89 FR 104950),
we requested any interested party to submit comments on the 2023 SPR
analysis for the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of the scarlet
macaw (A. m. macao), with no limitations on the comments requested. We
reviewed all comments received for substantive issues. In total, we
received two non-substantive comments and one comment letter, with four
attachments, that raised multiple substantive issues. We address these
substantive comments below.
Comment (1): Commenter Friends of Animals claimed that in 2012 we
determined that the northern DPS in Costa Rica was endangered.
Our response: Before issuance of the 2019 final rule, the scarlet
macaw--including the northern DPS--was not a species listed under the
Act. We issued two proposed listing rules for the scarlet macaw before
the 2019 final rule: the 2012 proposed rule (77 FR 40222, July 6, 2012)
and the 2016 proposed rule (81 FR 20302, April 7, 2016). Friends of
Animals repeatedly refers to the 2012 proposed rule as if it
represented a final agency action, as opposed to a proposal which, by
definition, is subject to change. The fact that the 2016 proposed rule
and 2019 final rule differed from the 2012 proposed rule does not mean
the agency ``reversed course'' and must therefore provide more
justification for its northern DPS listing decision than is typically
required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
A final rule may properly differ from a proposed rule and indeed must
so differ when the record evidence warrants the change (USW v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Friends of Animals
previously raised this issue in litigation, and our threatened listing
determination was upheld by the Court in its July 10, 2024 opinion.
Comment (2): Friends of Animals stated that we did not use the best
available science in making the final (2019) determination for the
northern DPS.
Our response: The Act requires us to make a determination using the
best scientific and commercial data available. We based our 2019
decision to list the northern DPS as a threatened species on the best
scientific and commercial data available and adequately explained our
reasons for doing so (84 FR 6278 at 6308), including why the final
listing differed from the 2012 proposal (84 FR 6278 at 6278-6279). We
also considered the new information provided as a result of the 2024
document opening a comment period, and for reasons described below, we
are re-affirming our final threatened determination for the northern
DPS. Friends of Animals previously raised this issue in litigation, and
the Court upheld our threatened listing determination and its use of
best available science in its July 10, 2024 opinion.
Comment (3): Friends of Animals stated that a peer reviewer of the
2012 proposed rule displayed pervasive biases in public statements that
undermine their previous statements and comment submissions to the
Service. Friends of Animals included as an attachment a November 2024
article that quotes the peer reviewer.
Our response: Friends of Animals' claim about the peer reviewer
does not reflect the record, including why the 2019 final rule differed
from the 2012 proposed rule. The record includes the peer reviewers'
comments on both the 2012 and 2016 proposed rules. No peer reviewer
feedback is accepted without question, and we consider it in light of
other scientific information and expert comments. Our decision was
based on the best scientific and commercial data available, including
all the information we received following the initiation of the status
review for the scarlet macaw in 2012 and in response to the 2016
proposed rule. This information included studies from a species expert
and conservation organizations within the scarlet macaw's range
countries. We examined the species' range; distribution and abundance;
and all the Section 4(a)(1) factors affecting the species, including
the destruction and modification of the species' habitat because of
deforestation and forest degradation and threats posed by legal and
illegal trade, including poaching (84 FR 6278 at 6290-6304, February
26, 2019). Lastly, Friends of Animals' attachment, selective quoting of
the peer reviewer, does not directly display pervasive bias because the
topic of attachment is on parental chick raising behavior, not on the
status of all scarlet macaws.
Comment (4): Friends of Animals stated that the Service must
conduct an SPR analysis that does not tie ``significant'' to the
overall survival of the northern DPS. They stated that the Service
appeared to be saying that a portion of the range can only be
significant if its loss would jeopardize the continued viability of the
northern DPS. They further stated that such reasoning is contrary to
the plain meaning of the Act, and multiple courts have held that this
very type of SPR analysis is arbitrary and capricious.
Our response: We disagree with Friends of Animals that we have
applied an arbitrary and capricious definition of ``significant.'' They
appear to suggest that we conducted a ``hypothetical loss test'' as was
our practice outlined in the Final Policy on Interpretation of the
Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (hereafter, 2014 SPR
policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). In actuality, we did not apply any
aspect of the 2014 SPR policy definition of significant, including this
hypothetical loss test, for the SPR analysis of the northern DPS of the
scarlet macaw. We also did not state that a portion can only be
significant if its loss would jeopardize the continued viability of the
northern DPS. In our 2023 SPR analysis, we assessed whether a portion
contributing meaningfully to the northern DPS' overall resiliency and
representation or by itself will have only a minimal impact on the
viability of the northern DPS (88 FR 19549 at 19557-19558, April 3,
3023). Contributing to viability is not the same standard as
significant. In this final SPR analysis, we further clarify that we
considered several factors related to the conservation value of a
portion of the range for the species.
Comment (5): Friends of Animals stated that the Service must
attempt to quantify the portion of the northern DPS's range when
determining whether the portions are significant, consistent with
analysis of other species. They suggest that Panama and northwest
Colombia are significant portions of the northern DPS's range because
they constitute most of the range and contain very large areas of
suitable forested habitat. The commenter provided a range analysis as
an attachment. They also provided several examples of previous
determinations for other species where the Service has quantified
portions of its range to help determine significant portion of its
range.
Our response: The Act requires us to make a determination using the
best scientific and commercial data available. We appreciate the
additional information provided by Friends of Animals and have updated
our SPR analysis below to better reflect our
[[Page 23448]]
understanding of the current range of the northern DPS. As discussed
further below, we have included this information in our reassessment of
whether the northern DPS is in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range. As discussed in response to comment
4, above, to determine whether a portion of the range is
``significant,'' we consider several factors that are related to the
conservation value of a portion of the range for the species. A strict
numerical quantification of the proportion of the range that a portion
constitutes is not a requisite for analysis of significance, nor is the
mere presence of suitable habitat confirmatory evidence of
significance.
Comment (6): Friends of Animals stated that the Service did not
provide clear evidence to support the determination that the northern
DPS in Costa Rica consists of two different populations. Per the
commenter, the ``range analysis,'' particularly reported sightings from
eBird, instead strongly show the northern DPS in Costa Rica to be one
population.
Our response: The two populations on the Pacific slope in Costa
Rica are referred to as the [Aacute]rea de Conservaci[oacute]n
Pac[iacute]fico Central (ACOPAC) and the Southern Pacific Costa Rica
([Aacute]rea de Conservaci[oacute]n Osa (ACOSA)) populations. According
to the best scientific and commercial data available, the scarlet macaw
population in ACOPAC has been expanding from the traditional stronghold
in and around Carara National Park (Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11).
The ACOSA population is simultaneously expanding up the coast. Thus,
scarlet macaws observed between the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations may
represent individuals from either of the populations, and it is
difficult to distinguish between expansion of the ACOPAC population to
the south and the expansion of the ACOSA population to the north (Dear
et al. 2010, p. 10; Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 11). Although we
recognize scarlet macaws between the Osa Peninsula (ACOSA) and Carara
National Park (ACOPAC) may come from either population, all are
considered part of the northern DPS in Costa Rica for the purposes of
this determination. We retain reference to these two populations solely
for historical context on the status of the northern DPS as a whole.
Comment (7): Friends of Animals suggests that Colombia and Panama
portions of the northern DPS's range are ``significant'' because they
represent two of the three countries in which the northern DPS is
found.
Our response: We do not consider geopolitical information as part
of whether a portion of the range is ``significant.'' We consider the
conservation value of the portion and its contribution to species'
viability.
Comment (8): Friends of Animals suggests that the Colombia and
Panama portions of the northern DPS's range are ``significant'' because
they provide a safeguard for the northern DPS if regulatory mechanisms,
or a natural disaster, disease, or other tragedy decimates the northern
DPS in Costa Rica.
Our response: The best scientific and commercial data available, as
considered and explained in our decision file does not suggest that
natural disasters, disease, or lack of regulatory mechanisms are
threats to scarlet macaws in the northern DPS in Costa Rica, and
Friends of Animals did not provide new information regarding these
threats. Further, we do not assess whether the loss of individuals of a
species within one part of the range results in another part of the
species' range being a ``significant portion of its range.'' The
construction of this argument would be akin (although inverse) to the
hypothetical loss test previously vacated by the courts (see response
to comment 4).
Comment (9): Friends of Animals suggested that the Colombia and
Panama portions of the northern DPS's range are significant because
these portions include unique-value habitat relative to the rest of the
habitat in the range. Both Colombia and Panama have large stretches of
continuous forest, far larger than any continuous forest habitat in the
northern DPS's range in Costa Rica.
Our response: Additional acreage of forested habitat does not
automatically equate to unique-value habitat, nor is it confirmatory of
significance. We are not currently aware of any life-history functions
that the Panama or Colombia portions are providing that are not
provided elsewhere within the range, within the context of a
``significant portion of its range'' analysis. For example, there is no
information that the very small population in Panama or the unknown but
likely small population in Colombia are serving as a source population
for the northern DPS. The northern DPS contains similar ecosystems
across its range--lowland tropical habitats bounded by highlands, the
Pacific Ocean, or both. Therefore, the best available information does
not indicate that forests where scarlet macaws occur in Panama or
Colombia are higher quality or provide unique-value habitat relative to
the remaining portions of the range in the northern DPS.
Comment (10): Friends of Animals claimed that populations in
Colombia and Panama are uniquely valuable because their large stretches
of continuous forests could provide ``potential habitat'' for scarlet
macaws if existing habitat is degraded. Per Friends of Animals, the
same cannot be said for populations in Costa Rica because there is no
additional ``potential habitat'' for scarlet macaws to move to within
Costa Rica.
Our response: We have no data or information supporting the claim
that scarlet macaws are occupying or moving into areas of ``potential
habitat'' in Colombia and Panama that the commenter states would
support scarlet macaws. Indeed, much of the habitat in the Colombia and
Panama parts of the northern DPS's range is already degraded.
Furthermore, the best scientific and commercial data available do not
demonstrate that scarlet macaws affected by habitat degradation readily
move to adjacent forested areas. The northern DPS includes populations
of scarlet macaw in each country that are separated from each other
with no known connectivity between them despite the existence of
suitable habitat. Therefore, Friends of Animals' statement that scarlet
macaws could move into ``potential habitat'' from degraded land is
speculation, unsupported, and not based on the best scientific and
commercial data available.
Comment (11): Friends of Animals provided two studies: a 2024 study
examining commercial captive breeding of parrots and a 2023 study on
genetic variation between subspecies of scarlet macaws.
Our response: We note that the 2024 study provided assesses whether
commercial captive breeding of parrots may be an effective supply-side
intervention but does not explicitly reference scarlet macaws. This
study does not change our prior assessment, as noted below, that
releases of captive scarlet macaws could augment wild populations, but
they may also introduce diseases if not conducted properly.
As for the 2023 study on genetics, the study further examines the
phylogenetic relationships and patterns of genetic variation of the two
subspecies of scarlet macaw (A. m. cyanoptera and A. m. macao) as well
as comparisons to the A. m. macao in Amazonian South America to the
subspecies in Central America. This study does not change our prior
determination that the scarlet macaw consists of two subspecies and
that the
[[Page 23449]]
A. m. macao ranges from Central America through the Amazon in South
America.
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act requires that we determine whether a
species meets the definition of an endangered species or a threatened
species because of 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. We consider these five factors and
the species' responses to these factors when making these
determinations.
Section 3 of the Act defines ``endangered species'' and
``threatened species.'' An endangered species is any species which is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, and a threatened species is any species which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Both definitions include not
only the phrase ``throughout all,'' but also the phrase ``or a
significant portion of its range.'' Thus, there are ultimately four
bases for listing a species under the Act (in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range, in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range, likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, or
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout a significant portion of its range). These four bases are
made up of two classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) and two
components (i.e., throughout all of its range or throughout a
significant portion of its range).
Beginning in 2001, several judicial opinions addressed our
interpretation of the phrase ``or a significant portion of its range''
(the SPR phrase) in the statutory definitions of ``endangered species''
and ``threatened species.'' In Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258
F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001), the court held that the interpretation of
the SPR phrase that we had applied in analyzing the status of the flat-
tailed horned lizard was unacceptable because it would allow for a
species to warrant listing throughout a significant portion of a
species' range only when the species ``is in danger of extinction
everywhere.'' The court held that the SPR phrase must be given
independent meaning from the ``throughout all'' phrase to avoid making
the SPR phrase in the statute superfluous.
In an attempt to address the judicial opinions calling into
question our approach to evaluating whether a species was endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, ``the
Services'') published a `` `Final Policy on Interpretation of the
Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species
Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'
'' (hereafter ``2014 SPR policy''; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The
notice of the draft policy provides more detail about litigation before
2014 regarding the phrase (76 FR 76987, December 9, 2011). The 2014 SPR
policy included four elements:
(1) Consequence--that the consequence of determining that a species
warrants listing based on its status in a significant portion of its
range is to list the species throughout all of its range;
(2) Significance--a definition of the term ``significant;''
(3) Range--that the species' ``range'' is the current range of the
species; and
(4) DPS--that, if a [vertebrate] species is endangered or
threatened in an SPR and the population in that SPR is a distinct
population segment (DPS), the Service will list just the DPS.
Subsequently, two district courts vacated the definition of
``significant'' contained in the 2014 SPR policy (Ctr. for Biological
Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) (``CBD v.
Jewell'') and Desert Survivors v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 321 F.
Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (``Desert Survivors'')). The
courts found that the definition in the 2014 SPR policy set too high a
threshold and rendered the SPR language in the statute superfluous,
failing to give it independent meaning from the ``throughout all''
phrase. In 2020, another court (Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (``Everson'')) also vacated
the specific aspect of the 2014 SPR policy under which, ``if the
Services determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its
range, the Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered
in a significant portion of its range.'' This was an extension of the
definition of ``significant,'' which required a stepwise process in
which we only considered whether a species may be endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range when the
species was not endangered or threatened throughout all of its range.
In an extension of the earlier rulings from CBD v. Jewell and Desert
Survivors, the court found that this aspect of the definition of the
2014 SPR policy was not only inconsistent with the statute because it
``rendered the `endangered in a significant portion of its range' basis
for listing superfluous,'' but was also ``inconsistent with ESA
principles'' and ``not a logical outgrowth from the draft policy.''
Under this ruling, if we find a species is not in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range, we must evaluate whether the species is in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range,
even in cases where we have determined that the species is likely to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future
(threatened) throughout all of its range. The remaining three elements
of the 2014 SPR policy remain intact.
In short, the courts have directed that the definition of
``significant'' must afford the phrase ``or a significant portion of
its range'' an independent meaning from the ``throughout all of its
range'' phrase. Therefore, to determine whether any species warrants
listing, we determine for each classification (endangered and
threatened) the appropriate component to evaluate (throughout all of
its range or throughout a significant portion of its range).
For either classification (endangered or threatened), we consider
the five factors and the species' responses to those factors regardless
of which component (throughout all of its range or throughout a
significant portion of its range) we have determined is appropriate for
that classification. When assessing whether a species is endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, we address
two questions because we must determine whether there is any portion of
the species' range for which both (1) the portion is ``significant''
and (2) the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout that
portion. We may address either question first. Regardless of which
question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect
to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the
other question for that portion of the species' range.
Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS
The scarlet macaw inhabits various habitat types throughout its
range,
[[Page 23450]]
including tropical humid evergreen forest, deciduous and humid forest,
intact and partially cleared lowland rainforest, mixed pine and broad-
leaved woodlands, open areas and edges with scattered stands of tall
trees, gallery forest, mangroves, and savannas, often near rivers
(Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 101; Forshaw 1989,
p. 407; Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps, Jr. 1978, p. 99). Scarlet
macaws prefer lowland, humid habitats that are dependent on the
availability of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 744; Schmidt 2013,
p. 175). The scarlet macaw generally occurs from sea level to about 500
meters (m) (1,640 feet (ft)) elevation, but it has been reported
ranging up to 1,500 m (4,921 ft) in Central America (i.e., Costa Rica)
(Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425; Vaughan 1983, in Vaughan et al. 2006,
p. 919; Vaughan 2011, p. 22).
Generally, the species is geographically constrained between
central highlands and either the Pacific or Atlantic Coasts. In the
northern DPS, the range of the scarlet macaw occurs south of the
Central Cordilleras of Costa Rica, along the Pacific slope, and south
through Panama to northwest of the Andes Mountains in Colombia. Scarlet
macaws are confined to the tropical forests in lower Central America by
the central highlands and the Pacific Ocean. Similarly, in Colombia
scarlet macaws inhabit moist tropical ecosystems along the mid- to
lower-Magdalena River Valley, bounded by the Central and Oriental
Cordilleras of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p.
200). The geographical extent of these lowland habitats covers an area
markedly smaller than either upper Central America or the Amazon Basin,
with fewer major sources of fresh water (Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 745).
The 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). 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 (Vaughan 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 1989, p. 407); pastureland with
scattered woodlots or remnant patches of rainforest (Vaughan et al.
2009, p. 396; Forshaw 1989, p. 407); and areas of human settlement
(towns) (Guittar et al. 2009, p. 390). However, scarlet macaws occur at
lower densities in disturbed or secondary forest habitat compared to
primary, undisturbed forests (Cowen 2009, pp. 11-15; Karubian et al.
2005, pp. 622-623; Lloyd 2004, pp. 269, 272).
The total population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is
approximately 1,275 to 2,475 birds (see table 1, below). Populations
include: (1) two populations on the Pacific slope in Costa Rica--the
ACOPAC and the ACOSA populations, (2) a very small population in the
Chiriqu[iacute] province and at the southern end of the Azuero
Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park in Panama, and (3)
a population in northwest Colombia west of the Andes Mountains.
The Costa Rica populations account for most of the currently known
population of the northern DPS of the scarlet macaw (see table 1). The
ACOPAC population is estimated to contain approximately 450 birds
(Arias et al. 2008, in McReynolds 2011, in litt. unpaginated). The
estimates for the ACOSA population are between 800 to 1,200 birds (Dear
et al. 2010, p. 17) but possibly up to 2,000 birds (Guzman 2008, p.
17). Combining plausible subpopulation estimates, the total population
of scarlet macaws on the Pacific slope of Costa Rica that includes both
the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations was estimated at approximately 1,800
birds (McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
In Panama, the scarlet macaw was formerly widespread on the Pacific
slope in the western half of the country. The species is currently
described as almost extinct on the mainland but abundant and occurring
in substantial numbers on Isla Coiba, a one-time penal colony where
human settlement and most hunting were prohibited (Ridgely 1981, p.
253). The current population of scarlet macaws in Panama is estimated
at less than 200 birds, with most of the population occurring on Isla
Coiba, which are a different subspecies (northern subspecies (A. m.
cyanoptera)) and not part of the northern DPS (Schmidt 2013, pp. 69-73;
Schmidt et al. 2019, p. 740). Less than 25 birds are estimated to occur
on mainland Panama (Keller and Schmitt 2008, in Brightsmith 2012, in
litt. and McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated). This very small
number of scarlet macaws on mainland Panama are the only scarlet macaws
in Panama that are considered part of the northern DPS of the southern
subspecies and included in this analysis. In the border region of Costa
Rica and western Panama, scarlet macaws have been successfully
reintroduced in Tiskita, Costa Rica (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018,
unpaginated). The successful reintroduction has resulted in a viable
population at Tiskita and scarlet macaws are established at this
location (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Additionally, a
small, but unknown number of scarlet macaws occur on the southern end
of Panama in the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National
Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt., p. 17; Sullivan et al. 2009, unpaginated; Rodriguez and
Hinojosa 2010, in McReynolds 2011, in litt., unpaginated).
In northwest Colombia, little information is available on the
population size, density, or distribution of scarlet macaws. Scarlet
macaws are believed to occur in the Magdalena and Cauca River valleys
in tropical ecosystems bounded by the Central and Oriental Cordilleras
of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw
1989, p. 407). They have been reported as very rare or probably close
to extinction in the Magdalena Valley, Cauca Valley, and to the north
(Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60).
They may occur in very low numbers in the more remote and inaccessible
parts of the region, but we lack further information on other potential
populations.
Table 1--Estimated Population Size of Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population range country Population name............ Population estimates number of individuals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarlet Macaw (Ara macao macao) Northern DPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costa Rica......................... Central Pacific ~450.................. Plausible estimate of
Conservation Area-- total population in
[Aacute]rea de Costa Rica ~1,800.
Conservaci[oacute]n
Pac[iacute]fico Central
(ACOPAC).
[[Page 23451]]
Costa Rica......................... Osa Conservation Area-- ~800-1,200,
[Aacute]rea de potentially up to
Conservaci[oacute]n Osa 2,000
(ACOSA).
-----------------------------------------------
Panama (mainland).................. Cerro Hoya National Park... <25.
Colombia........................... Northwest Colombia......... unknown.
-----------------------------------------------
Total Population Size of A. m. 1,275-2,475.
macao; Northern DPS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Factors Affecting the Scarlet Macaw in the Northern DPS
The two primary threats to scarlet macaws are the loss of forest
habitat and collection of wild birds for the pet trade (I[ntilde]igo-
Elias in litt. 1996, in Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150; Guedes 2004, p.
280). The primary cause of forest loss is conversion to agriculture for
crops and pasture, although other human activities such as construction
of infrastructure, selective logging, fires, oil and gas extraction,
and mining also contribute to the loss of forest cover within the range
of the species (Blaser et al. 2011, pp. 262-402; Boucher et al. 2011,
entire; Clark and Aide 2011, entire; Food and Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations (FAO) 2011a, pp. 17-18; May et al. 2011, pp. 7-
13; Pacheco 2011, entire; Government of Costa Rica 2010, pp. 38-39;
Belize Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2010, pp. 40-45;
Armenteras and Morales 2009, pp. 133-145, 176-191; Kaimowitz 2008, p.
487; Mosandl et al. 2008, pp. 38-40; Nepstad et al. 2008, entire; Foley
et al. 2007, pp. 26-27; Fearnside 2005, pp. 681-683).
Historically, large areas of forest have been removed throughout
the species' range, particularly in Mexico and Central America, and any
large tracts of forest that remain are fragmented and are mostly
isolated from each other (Bray 2010, p. 93; see 84 FR 6278 at 6290-
6296, February 26, 2019). Deforestation continues throughout much of
the scarlet macaw's range, including in the northern DPS, and is a
threat to the species because it eliminates the species' habitat by
removing trees that support the species' essential needs for nesting,
roosting, and food. Scarlet macaws require a large range and a variety
of food resources. Thus, large-scale land conversion presents a
generalized threat to scarlet macaw nest sites, foraging areas, and
migration corridors (Schmidt 2013, p. 173). Scarlet macaws are
dependent on larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities.
Additionally, they primarily forage in the forest canopy, and are
relatively general in their feeding habits. Abundance may fluctuate
because they may move to areas with greater resource availability,
influencing local and seasonal abundance (Lee 2010, p. 7; Cowen 2009,
pp. 5, 23, citing several sources; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 132;
Brightsmith 2006, unpaginated; Renton 2002, p. 17). Therefore, removal
of older and larger trees decreases suitable nesting sites and food
resources, increases competition, and causes the loss of current
generations through an increase in infanticide and egg destruction (Lee
2010, pp. 2, 12). The species will use partially cleared and cultivated
landscapes if they provide sufficient dietary requirements and maintain
enough large trees. However, scarlet macaws have a better chance of
surviving in large tracts of primary forest where suitable nesting
cavities are more common than in open and small patches of non-primary
forest (I[ntilde]igo-Elias 1996, p. 91). Therefore, as the size of the
suitable habitat is reduced, it is less likely to provide the essential
resources for the species (Ibarra-Macias 2009, p. 6; Lees and Peres
2006, pp. 203-205).
Competition for suitable nest cavities negatively affects
reproductive success of scarlet macaws, including in the northern DPS.
Competition limits available nesting sites and thus the number of pairs
that can breed, or competition may cause nest mortality stemming from
agonistic interactions. Intraspecific competition between different
pairs of scarlet macaws, and competition with pairs of other macaw
species that are larger and more competitive, is intense in some areas
(Renton and Brightsmith 2009, p. 5; I[ntilde]igo-Elias 1996, p. 96;
Nycander 1995, p. 428). Additionally, Africanized honeybees (Apis
mellifera scutellata) are also reported to be a competitor with scarlet
macaws for nest cavities (Garcia et al. 2008, p. 52; Vaughan et al.
2003, p. 13; I[ntilde]igo-Elias 1996, p. 61).
Collecting wild birds for the pet trade has been occurring for
centuries (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 9; Guedes 2004, p. 279; Snyder
et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Removing birds from the wild is driven by
demand for the pet trade and is related to poverty because capture for
sale in local markets can provide a significant source of supplemental
income (Huson 2010, p. 58; Gonz[aacute]lez 2003, p. 438). Low salaries
and high unemployment drive people to search for extra sources of
income that may include collecting wildlife for the pet trade (TRAFFIC
NA 2009, pp. 23-24).
Collection of scarlet macaws decreases the population, inhibits
future breeding by removing reproductive age adults, may cause
mortality of eggs or chicks, and may cause damage and loss of nesting
sites (Cantu-Guzman et al. 2007, p. 14; see 84 FR 6278 at 6296-6299,
February 26, 2019). Scarlet macaws are long-lived species and once
successfully fledged from the nest, they have a high survival rate
(Myers and Vaughan 2004, cited in Vaughan et al. 2005, p. 128).
However, with a low reproductive rate, low survival of chicks and
fledglings, late age to first reproduction, and a large proportion of
the population as nonbreeding adults, scarlet macaws are particularly
vulnerable to overexploitation, especially when individuals are removed
from the wild year after year (Munn 1992, p. 57; Wright et al. 2001, p.
712). Collection and deforestation often operate synergistically
because activities that clear forests increase access to previously
inaccessible areas, which in turn increases the vulnerability of
species to overexploitation by humans (Peres 2001, entire; Putz et al.
2000, pp. 16, 23).
The scarlet macaw is a popular pet species within its range
countries, and most birds collected for the pet trade are sold as pets
and remain within range countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 150;
Wiedenfeld 1994, p. 102). Because of high mortality rates associated
with capture and transport of wildlife, the number of birds sold or
exported for the pet trade represents only a portion of those removed
from the wild. Cumulative mortality rates before
[[Page 23452]]
parrots reach customers have been estimated to be as high as 77
percent; for nestlings, approximately 80 percent died before reaching a
pet store (I[ntilde]igo and Ramos 1991 and Enkerlin 2000, in Cantu-
Guzman et al. 2007, p. 60). Pet collection is a threat for the scarlet
macaw in the northern DPS.
On June 6, 1981, the scarlet macaw was included in Appendix II of
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES). On August 1, 1985, the scarlet macaw was
included in Appendix I of CITES because of the high level of trade.
Species included in Appendix I are considered threatened with
extinction, and international trade is permitted only under exceptional
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The United
States and Europe historically were the main markets for wild birds in
international trade (FAO 2011b, p. 3). Trade was particularly high in
the 1980s (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best et al. 1995, p. 234).
However, in the years following the enactment of the Wild Bird
Conservation Act in 1992 (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), there was a
substantial reduction of wild-caught parrots imported to the United
States from Mesoamerica and South America as well as the rest of the
world (Pain et al. 2006, p. 327). The European Union, which was the
largest market for wild birds following enactment of the WBCA, banned
the import of wild birds in 2006 due to disease concerns (FAO 2011b, p.
21), thus eliminating another major market and further reducing
international trade of wild parrots and macaws.
The scarlet macaw is protected by domestic laws within all range
countries, and all have a system of protected areas or national parks
to conserve biodiversity. However, enforcement of wildlife laws is
generally lacking because the agencies responsible often do not have
the financial resources, personnel, or both, to adequately enforce
their laws, particularly in remote areas (TRAFFIC NA 2009, p. 20;
Valdez et al. 2006, p. 276; Mauri 2002, entire).
The scarlet macaw currently occurs in relatively small and
fragmented populations throughout most of its range. Small, isolated
populations place the species at greater risk of local extirpation or
extinction due to a variety of factors, including loss of genetic
variability, demographic and environmental stochasticity, and natural
catastrophes (Lande 1995, entire; Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991, p. 37;
Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, pp. 25-33; Soul[eacute] and Simberloff
1986, pp. 28-32; Shaffer 1981, p. 131; Franklin 1980, entire). The
species maintains genetic diversity throughout its range and between
the two subspecies. With the ongoing loss of habitat throughout the
range, the loss of genetic variability could diminish their capacity to
adapt to changes in the environment (Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire;
Reed and Frankham 2003, pp. 233-234; Nunney and Campbell 1993, pp. 236-
237; Soul[eacute] and Simberloff 1986, pp. 28-29; Franklin 1980, pp.
140-144). Other natural events that put small populations at risk
include variations in birth and death rates, fluctuations in gender
ratio, and environmental disturbances such as wildfire and climatic
shifts (Blomqvist et al. 2010, entire; Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986, p.
27; Shaffer 1981, p. 131). Negative impacts associated with small
population sizes of scarlet macaws may be magnified because of
interactions with habitat loss and collection. Cumulatively, the small
population sizes occurring in narrow lowland forested areas in
fragmented habitat, combined with ongoing collection and a long-lived
species' low reproduction rate, increases the species' vulnerability.
As discussed below, some populations of the scarlet macaw in the
northern DPS are relatively small and fragmented.
The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS occurs on the Pacific slope
from northwestern Costa Rica, south through mainland Panama, and west
of the Andes Mountains in Colombia. Deforestation, collection, lack of
effective enforcement of existing laws, and small population size all
cumulatively affect scarlet macaws in the northern DPS. In the 2023 SPR
analysis based on the plain language of the Act and the Court's order
in Everson, we assessed four portions within the northern DPS: the
Pacific slope of Costa Rica, mainland Panama, Colombia west of the
Andes, and Panama and Colombia combined. We concluded that there were
no portions within the northern DPS where both the northern DPS is in
danger of extinction and that portion of the range is significant.
The following is a final SPR analysis for the northern DPS of the
southern subspecies of scarlet macaw based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, including new information received during
the public comment period opened on December 26, 2024 (89 FR 104950).
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
As discussed above, a species may warrant listing if it is in
danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Following
the court's holding in Everson, and having determined in our 2019 final
rule that the northern DPS of the southern subspecies of scarlet macaw
(northern DPS) is not in danger of extinction (endangered species)
throughout all of its range, we evaluate whether the northern DPS is in
danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of its range--
that is, whether there is any portion of the northern DPS' range for
which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the northern DPS is
in danger of extinction in that portion. In undertaking this analysis
for the northern DPS, we choose to address the status question first.
In examining the status question, we note that the statutory difference
between an endangered species and a threatened species is the timeframe
in which the species (subspecies or DPS) becomes in danger of
extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction while a
threatened species is not in danger of extinction but is likely to
become so within the foreseeable future. In undertaking this analysis
of whether the northern DPS is in danger of extinction throughout a
significant portion of its range, we reviewed the best scientific and
commercial data available regarding threats to the species, its
responses to those threats, and any associated conservation measures.
We then assessed the cumulative effects of those threats and
conservation measures under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors. We
examined the following threats: habitat loss and fragmentation,
collection for the pet trade, small population size, and the effects to
suitable habitat because of changing climatic factors, including
synergistic and cumulative effects.
The range of many species can theoretically be divided in several
ways. For the northern DPS, we considered population sizes, geographic
distribution, and threats to the northern DPS, including the northern
DPS's response to the threats and cumulative effects. We considered
whether the effects of the threats on the northern DPS are greater in
any biologically meaningful portion of the northern DPS's range than in
other portions such that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in
that portion. We focused our analysis on portions of the northern DPS'
range that may meet the definition of an endangered species. We
identified four portions of the northern DPS' range for these analyses:
(1) the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, (2) mainland Panama, (3)
[[Page 23453]]
Colombia west of the Andes Mountains, and (4) Panama and Colombia
combined.
The northern DPS includes populations of scarlet macaw in each
country that are separated from each other with no known connectivity
between them. Therefore, even if scarlet macaws can engage in larger
scale movements within suitable habitat, the portions are based on the
known population distributions of the northern DPS within each country
and not strictly based on the geographic border of each country.
Analysis of the Costa Rica Portion
The northern DPS of scarlet macaw has been reduced from much of its
historical range in Costa Rica due to the primary threats of habitat
loss and collection (Bray 2010, p. 107; Marineros and Vaughan 1995, pp.
445-446; Vaughan et al. 2003, p. 8; McReynolds 2016, in litt.,
unpaginated). The northern DPS of scarlet macaw in Costa Rica occurs in
lowlands along the Pacific slope flanked by the central highlands and
the Pacific Ocean. The Costa Rica population in the northern DPS,
including both the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations, is the largest
population and accounts for most of the total population of scarlet
macaws in the northern DPS.
Costa Rica is overall gaining forest cover throughout the country
(Hansen et al. 2013, entire; FAO 2015, p. 10; Brightsmith 2016, in
litt. p. 1). Nevertheless, some 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). The major
driver of deforestation is the conversion of forest to livestock and
agricultural uses because land users often generate a higher annual
income with agriculture or livestock-raising than with forests.
Indigenous communities have difficulties keeping nonindigenous farmers
from encroaching onto their lands (Government of Costa Rica 2011, p.
1). Additionally, a lack of effective enforcement allows squatters and
illegal loggers to exploit resources in protected areas.
A comprehensive study of deforestation in Costa Rica's parks system
found that deforestation inside Level-1 protected areas, which denotes
areas with absolute protections and where no land-cover change is
allowed, was negligible from 1987 to 1997, and within the park's 1-
kilomter (km) buffer zones the protected areas had a net forest gain
for the same period. However, a 1 percent annual deforestation rate
occurred in 10-km buffer zones of protected areas. Thus, as distance
increases from Level-1 protected areas, total deforestation and
deforestation rates also increase (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, p.
128). Corcovado National Park, the largest protected area in ACOSA, is
one of the Level-1 protected areas in Costa Rica most affected by
deforestation within 1 km of its boundaries (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al.
2003, pp. 128-129). Within 10 km of the park, significant clearing also
occurred (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, p. 132). Additionally, in the
ACOPAC scarlet macaw population, deforestation occurs around the Carara
National Park with a higher rate of deforestation northwest of Carara
than to the south (Sanchez-Azofeifa et al. 2003, pp. 128-129;
Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 12). Generally, national parks on the
Pacific slope experience less deforestation on surrounding lands than
those on the Atlantic slope, which is attributed to the intensification
and expansion of agricultural cash crops such as banana and pineapple
(Sanchez-Azofeifa et al., 1999, 2001, cited in Sanchez-Azofeifa et al.
2003, p. 129).
Overall, the northern DPS's habitat and population size have been
reduced from historical levels in Costa Rica. Even though some
deforestation is ongoing, Costa Rica has experienced a positive change
in forest cover over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2015. Deforestation
or forest degradation in the current range of the scarlet macaw is not
occurring at a level that is causing any further decline of the
northern DPS in Costa Rica.
Historically, northern DPS scarlet macaws in Costa Rica experienced
heavy collection pressure, but there are ongoing efforts to reduce the
magnitude of collection. Collection is important in many communities
for both subsistence and monetary gain; the incentives to poach are
great for low- income communities surrounding a park (Huson 2010, p.
66). Intense management efforts in the mid-1990s that included anti-
poaching efforts increased recruitment into the population. However,
the anti-poaching efforts and the associated increase in population
size was not sustained over the long term (Vaughan et al. 2005, p.
127). A significant effort to control poaching in the Carara area is
ongoing because poaching continues to be a serious problem (Vaughan
2005, pers. comm., in McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated).
In 2005, the ACOPAC population of scarlet macaws was believed to be
self-sustaining, even with heavy poaching pressure (Vaughan et al.
2005, p. 128). We have no information that suggests a change in this
conclusion since 2005. In the ACOSA, approximately half (48 percent) of
residents interviewed believed that scarlet macaws were still being
poached, although 85 percent of the interviewees believed numbers of
scarlet macaws were increasing and 43 percent of the interviewees
mentioned less poaching occurs now than before (and none said poaching
had increased (Dear et al. 2010, p. 13)). Overall, while collection is
ongoing in the ACOSA and ACOPAC populations, the population of scarlet
macaws is increasing despite the collection pressure.
Costa Rica's Wildlife Conservation Law and its amendments prohibit
the hunting, collection, and extraction of all species, except in
certain cases for subsistence by indigenous groups, scientific
purposes, or species control (Costa Rica Embassy 2013, unpaginated;
NOVA 2013, unpaginated; Tico Times 2017, unpaginated). Additionally,
Costa Rica has protected its resources through an ambitious national
parks and biological reserves system, but those parks and reserves are
inadequately funded and insufficiently controlled (Government of Costa
Rica 2010, p. 34). Poaching by local communities remains a concern;
hunting within national park boundaries is illegal but difficult to
enforce with limited funds and supervision (Huson 2010, p. 18;
Government of Costa Rica 2010, p. 52). Officials in Carara National
Park reported that they do not have enough staff to effectively control
poaching (Huson 2010, p. 8).
Active reintroduction programs have added hundreds of scarlet
macaws to the wild in the northern DPS in Costa Rica (Ara Project 2017,
unpaginated; Brightsmith et al. 2005, p. 468; Dear et al. 2010, pp. 15-
17; Forbes 2005, p. 97; Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). Most
reintroduction projects also conduct environmental education at a local
level and attract additional media attention to educate the public
about the importance of scarlet macaws and their conservation
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 22).
Success of reintroductions varies. On the Nicoya Peninsula in
northwestern Costa Rica, scarlet macaws are currently released at Punta
Islita, Playa Tambor, and Cur[uacute] National Wildlife Refuge, which
are all within 50 km of each other. These three release sites, though
isolated, could help repopulate the Nicoya Peninsula (Brightsmith 2016,
in litt., p. 15). Some released birds survived but have not produced
chicks; we do not have information concerning
[[Page 23454]]
the status of most released birds at these locations (Brightsmith et
al. 2005, p. 468). Within the South Pacific coast region, over 75
scarlet macaws have been released into the wild with close to 90
percent survival rate (Tiskita Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated). This
reintroduction program was ceased once a large enough population was
established to potentially connect with populations in the ACOSA
farther north along the coast (Ara Project 2018, unpaginated; Tiskita
Jungle Lodge 2018, unpaginated).
Releases of captive scarlet macaws could increase wild populations.
Many captive-raised and confiscated birds are released adjacent to
existing populations. Some released birds have found mates, food, and
nesting resources in the wild. Conversely, releases of captive scarlet
macaws could potentially pose a threat to wild populations by exposing
wild birds to diseases for which wild populations have no resistance
(Dear et al. 2010, p. 20; Schmidt 2013, pp. 74-75; also see IUCN 2013,
pp. 15-17). However, these risks are small as the frequency of disease
occurrence is low (see Factor C discussion in 77 FR 40222 at 40237-
40238, July 6, 2012).
The population of scarlet macaws in the northern DPS is estimated
to range between 1,475-2,475 birds (see table 1, above). Information
indicates that the ACOPAC and ACOSA populations in Costa Rica, which
make up the bulk of the northern DPS of scarlet macaw, are at least
stable and likely increasing. The population appears to be expanding
into suitable habitat along the Pacific slope between the ACOPAC and
ACOSA populations. With regular sightings of scarlet macaws between the
two populations, the scarlet macaw is now found from the Osa Peninsula
(ACOSA population) to Carara National Park (ACOPAC population)
(Brightsmith 2016, in litt., p. 13). While poaching, deforestation,
small population size, and inadequate enforcement of existing
protections continue to affect the species, because the population is
increasing and expanding in its range between the two populations, we
determine that the Costa Rica portion of scarlet macaw is not in danger
of extinction. As a result of our finding that the northern DPS is not
in danger of extinction throughout this portion of the range, we do not
need to determine whether this portion of the range is ``significant.''
Therefore, this portion of the species' range does not provide a basis
for determining that the species is in danger of extinction throughout
a significant portion of its range.
Analysis of the Mainland Panama Portion
The best scientific and commercial data available on distribution
and abundance indicates that there are very few scarlet macaws in the
northern DPS on mainland Panama. The current population on mainland
Panama is estimated to be fewer than 25 birds that occur in two areas,
in northwest Panama in the upper R[iacute]o Corot[uacute] near Puerto
Armuelles and Quer[eacute]valo in the Chiriqu[iacute] province, and on
the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya
National Park, Tonosi Forest Reserve, and farther to the east. In the
area of the upper R[iacute]o Corot[uacute] near Puerto Armuelles and
Quer[eacute]valo in Chiriqu[iacute] province, there have been sporadic
sightings of scarlet macaws. However, it is uncertain if the birds in
northwest Panama are a wild population or birds dispersing south from a
reintroduction program at Tiskita, Costa Rica, that have successfully
established in the area because of the program. Deforestation in Panama
is relatively low for the Mesoamerica region; the annual decrease
during 1990-2015 was 169 square kilometers (km\2\) (or 0.4 percent)
(FAO 2015, p. 12). Drivers of deforestation include urbanization,
cattle ranching, agro-industrial development, unregulated shifting
cultivation, open mining, poor logging practices, charcoal-making, and
fire (International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) 2005, in Blaser
et al. 2011, p. 354). Deforestation in the country currently occurs
primarily in the Darie[eacute]n, Colon, Ngabe Bugle, and Bocas del Toro
provinces (Blaser et al. 2011, p. 354), which are outside the scarlet
macaw's range in Panama. However, illegal logging is widespread in
humid forests throughout Panama, even in protected areas (Blaser et al.
2011, p. 361). We are unaware of information indicating that
deforestation and forest degradation are impacting scarlet macaws in
northwest Panama. We are also unaware of information indicating that
deforestation is occurring near the small but unknown number of scarlet
macaws on the southern end of the Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near
Cerro Hoya National Park and in the forest reserves just to the east.
Less than 15 percent of the peninsula is covered by mature forest, but
most of the remaining forest can be found in Cerro Hoya National Park
and the Tronosa Forest Reserve to the east (Miller et al. 2015, p. 1).
Little information is available on collection of scarlet macaws in
Panama, although it was historically a factor leading to the extremely
low population size of the species in the country (McReynolds 2016, in
litt. unpaginated). Cerro Hoya National Park is located on the southern
tip of the Azuero Peninsula within Panama's most impoverished province
(Veraguas) and the Los Santos province. Collection of wildlife
(including scarlet macaws) is a threat in this area because locals use
unoccupied lands for logging and to collect wildlife for sustenance and
income. Poaching of wildlife is common in rural areas (Government of
Panama 2005, p. 36; Parker et al. 2004, p. II-6). Therefore, it is
reasonable to conclude that some level of poaching of scarlet macaws
likely occurs in the country, although at what level is unknown.
Because the species is vulnerable to overexploitation based on their
life-history traits, poaching individuals from such a small population
would impact the population's viability. Moreover, despite a program to
use captive scarlet macaw feathers to reduce hunting of wild birds for
their feathers, hunting still occurs, and collection of chicks for pets
remains a concern at Cerro Hoya National Park (Rodriquez and Hinojosa
2010, in McReynolds 2016, in litt., unpaginated).
The National Environment Authority is the primary government
institution for forest and biodiversity conservation and management in
Panama. To protect and regulate the use of wildlife, flora and fauna,
the Panamanian Government has created numerous laws, including Wildlife
Law 24 that establishes wildlife as part of the natural heritage of
Panama and provides for protection, restoration, research, management,
and development of the country's genetic resources, including rare
species; the General Law on the Environment (41), which establishes the
basic principles and norms for the protection, conservation, and
restoration of the environment and promotes the sustainable use of
natural resources; and the National System of Protected Areas (Parker
et al. 2004, p. III-2; Blaser et al. 2011, p. 355). However, the
National Environment Authority has limited capacity and resources to
ensure adherence to forest-related laws and regulations (Blaser et al.
2011, p. 361).
Overall, the scarlet macaw exists on mainland Panama in two areas
with an extremely small overall population size (less than 25 birds).
Deforestation is a threat to forests in Panama, but primarily occurs
outside of the scarlet macaw's range. Illegal and small-scale
subsistence logging is ongoing with little oversight and causes forest
degradation. However, we are unaware of deforestation affecting the
northern
[[Page 23455]]
DPS on mainland Panama. Poaching was not identified as a main threat to
biodiversity in Cerro Hoya National Park (Parker et al. 2004, Annex G,
unpaginated), but poaching is common in rural areas and collection of
scarlet macaws within the park and in rural areas is likely ongoing.
The scarlet macaw's life history traits limit the species' ability to
recover, particularly if individuals are removed from the wild year
after year. Given the extremely small population of macaws in Panama,
the loss of even a few individuals in the wild represents an ongoing
threat to the species' viability in Panama. Therefore, we conclude that
the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in the Panama portion.
Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of
extinction in the Panama portion, we next proceed to evaluating whether
this portion of the range is significant. As discussed above, two
district courts vacated the definition of ``significant'' contained in
the 2014 SPR policy. Therefore, for the purposes of this revised
analysis, when considering whether this portion is ``significant,'' we
considered factors such as whether the portion may (1) occur in a
unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the
habitat in the range, (2) contain high quality or high value habitat
relative to the remaining portions of the range or (3) contains a large
geographic portion of the suitable habitat relative to the remaining
portions of the range for the species.
New Information--Range Analysis
To determine whether a portion of the range may represent a large
percentage of the range, we first map the current range. We received
additional information during the public comment period that we used to
revise the northern DPS range. The submitted ``range analysis''
(provided as an attachment) used multiple sources to map forested areas
below 500 m and below 1,500 m within Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia,
including: (1) the International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) range, (2) IUCN range with convex hulls of eBird point
observations (hereafter ``eBird observations''), and (3) potential
range polygons (hereafter ``potential range'') that include all lowland
forests adjacent or accessible to the northern DPS population. The
submitted ``range analysis'' removed areas with less than or equal to
75 percent tree cover that had not experienced forest loss since 2000,
retained areas with tree height greater than or equal to 10 meters, and
excluded areas in oil palm cultivation as of 2019. The ``range
analysis'' includes quantification of forest area and non-forest area
up to 500 m and up to 1,500 m.
After considering and evaluating the three recommendations
provided, we have determined that the IUCN range represents the best
scientific and commercial data available for the northern DPS.
The IUCN estimates the range of scarlet macaw on mainland Panama is
approximately 1,583 km\2\. This estimate represents the taxon's current
and historical distribution based on expert assessment of the available
data (IUCN 2018, p. 4). The best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that the species occurs on the southern end of the
Azuero Peninsula of Veraguas, near Cerro Hoya National Park, Tonosi
Forest Reserve, and farther to the east. This area is similar to the
range of eBird observations. We assume the eBird observations are
accurate and are true reflections of species' observations, as eBird is
managed by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and documents bird
distribution, abundance, habitat use, and trends through checklist data
collected within a simple, scientific framework (Sullivan et al. 2009,
unpaginated). However, the ``range analysis'' including eBird
observations is based on a convex hull and more than doubles the size
of the IUCN range. Convex hulls have known biases in overestimating
range (Burgman and Fox 2003, p. 22), and the ``range analysis'' does
not include the raw data of the eBird observations, limiting our
ability to assess the impact of this bias on the range estimate. The
``potential range'' presented in the ``range analysis'' includes all
lowland forests adjacent or accessible to the northern DPS population,
including areas where there is a lack of data on the presence of
scarlet macaws in the northern DPS. However, the presence of forested
land does not necessarily equate to suitable habitat for the scarlet
macaw. Given the northern DPS includes populations of scarlet macaw in
each country that are clearly separated from each other with no known
connectivity, the potential range likely overestimates the range by
assuming forested areas adjacent to known populations of the northern
DPS serve as habitat for the species, despite the lack of data to
support presence within those areas. Thus, we conclude the IUCN range
represents the best data available on the scarlet macaw's range in
Panama.
The northern DPS contains similar ecosystems across its range--
lowland tropical habitats bounded by highlands or the Pacific Ocean.
Scarlet macaws are dependent on larger, older trees that have large
nesting cavities, forage primarily in the forest canopy, and are
relatively general in their feeding habits. The best scientific and
commercial data available do not indicate that forests where scarlet
macaws occur in mainland Panama are of higher quality or provide high
value relative to the remaining portions of the range in the northern
DPS. The Panama portion of the range accounts for a very small (only 2
percent) proportion of the current estimated range of the northern DPS.
Finally, the total population of scarlet macaws on mainland Panama
(approximately 25 birds) represents only about 1 percent of the total
population of the northern DPS and best scientific and commercial data
available do not indicate that the Panama portion has ever contained a
large percentage of the rangewide population.
In summary, the Panama portion does not provide any unique habitat
or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the
range. This portion does not contain high-quality or high-value habitat
relative to the remaining portions of the range, nor does this portion
contain a large geographic portion of the suitable habitat relative to
the remaining portions of the range for the species. In addition, there
were no other factors that would suggest that the portion is a
significant portion of the northern DPS's range. Therefore, while the
northern DPS of scarlet macaw is in danger of extinction within the
Panama portion, that portion is not a significant portion of the
northern DPS' range.
Analysis of the Colombia Portion
Scarlet macaws historically occurred in northwest Colombia in the
tropical zone of the Caribbean region, and the inter-Andean valleys,
the largest of which are the Magdalena and Cauca River valleys (Salaman
et al. 2009, p. 21; Hilty and Brown 1986, p. 200; Forshaw 1989, p.
407). The species was reported to inhabit moist tropical ecosystems
along the mid- to lower-Magdalena River Valley, bounded by the Central
and Oriental Cordilleras of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and
Brown 1986, p. 200). However, northern DPS scarlet macaws have been
reported as probably close to extinction in the Magdalena and Cauca
River valleys, and areas north (Donegan 2013, in litt.; Ellery 2013, in
litt.; McMullen 2010, p. 60). Scarlet macaws may occur in very low
numbers in the more remote and inaccessible parts of the region, but
their status there is not clear. We are unaware of any other detailed
information on the
[[Page 23456]]
numbers, distribution, or status of the scarlet macaw in northwest
Colombia.
The primary factors affecting the northern DPS of scarlet macaws in
northwest Colombia are habitat loss, and to a lesser extent collection
(Donegan 2013, in litt., unpaginated). Colombia has lost forest at an
increasing rate (FAO 2020, p. 137; Ortega and Lagos 2011, p. 82;
Salaman et al. 2009, p. 21; Colombia Gold Letter 2012, pp. 1-2;
Restrepo et al. 2015, pp. 18-26; Restrepo and Escobar 2018, pp. 85-87)
due primarily to conversion of land to pasture and agriculture, mining,
illicit crops, logging, and palm oil agribusiness (Ortega and Lagos
2011, pp. 85-86; Salgado et al. 2022, p. 453). Agriculture is the major
driver of forest loss. However, the drivers of deforestation do not
operate at the same magnitude in all regions of Colombia (Arias Gaviria
et al. 2021, p. 90).
The percentage of forest cover in the Magdalena basin is estimated
to have declined by more than 40 percent, from 66 percent cover in 1980
to 22 percent in 2000, with an annual deforestation rate of 274,000
hectares per year (Restrepo et al. 2015, p. 15). In the central and
lower basins of the Magdalena River, 30 percent of lowland forests were
cut down by the year 2000 (Salgado et al. 2022, p. 458). The Magdalena
and Caribbean regions had approximately only 7 percent and 23 percent
(respectively) of their land area in original vegetation, with the
remainder converted primarily to grazing land (79 percent and 68
percent, respectively) (Etter et al. 2006, p. 376). Within the
Caribbean region, protected areas and sanctuaries have lost up to 70
percent of forest cover since they were created in the late 1970s and
early 1980s (Miller et al. 2004, p. 454). This loss of forest in the
Magdalena basin demonstrates that deforestation is ongoing in northwest
Colombia with few large tracts of forest remaining.
The threat of habitat loss is higher in Colombia compared to the
other parts of the range within the northern DPS. With limited
information on population size or trends, we assume collection for the
pet trade occurs throughout the range of the northern DPS and is not
geographically concentrated in Colombia or occurring at a different
scale from any other portion in the northern DPS. The best scientific
and commercial data available suggest that the scarlet macaw's
population in northwest Colombia is small and has been significantly
reduced from its historical range. Viability of the presumed small
population is likely low, exacerbated by ongoing threats of habitat
loss and collection in light of the species' life-history traits that
limit the rate of recovery from loss of wild populations. Therefore, we
conclude that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in the
Colombia portion.
Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of
extinction in the Colombia portion, we next proceed to evaluating
whether this portion of the range is significant. Similar to the Panama
portion, for the purposes of this analysis, when considering whether
this portion is ``significant'' we considered factors such as whether
the portion may (1) occur in a unique habitat or ecoregion for the
species relative to the rest of the habitat in the range, (2) contain
high quality or high value habitat relative to the remaining portions
of the range, or (3) contains a large geographic portion of the
suitable habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range for
the species.
For similar reasons articulated for the delineation of the Panama
range, we determined the IUCN range is based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and represents the most accurate and reliable
assessment of the scarlet macaw's range in Colombia. This species
occurs in the mid- to lower-Magdalena River Valley and Cauca River
Valley in tropical ecosystems bounded by the Central and Oriental
Cordilleras of the Northern Andes Mountains (Hilty and Brown 1986, p.
200; Forshaw 1989, p. 407). The IUCN estimates the range of the scarlet
macaw in Colombia is approximately 133,450 km\2\. This estimate
represents an accurate depiction of the scarlet macaw's current and
historical distribution in Colombia based on expert assessment of the
available data (IUCN 2018, p. 4).
The scarlet macaw is known to occur up to 1,500 m in Costa Rica but
at lower elevations in the remainder of its range, including up to 500
m in Colombia (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 425). Therefore, we consider
the range of scarlet macaw in Colombia to be limited to areas up to 500
m in elevation.
Strictly considering the IUCN range that was delineated in the
``range analysis'' as ``forest area up to 500m,'' Colombia would
account for approximately 75 percent of the total IUCN range of the
northern DPS of scarlet macaw. However, simply containing a large
percentage of the range does not automatically make a portion of the
range ``significant,'' nor does it account for the differences across
the range.
The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the
range of scarlet macaws in Colombia is consistent with the IUCN range;
however, that range includes significant areas of non-forest habitat.
The proportion of the IUCN range that is forest habitat in the Colombia
portion, per data provided in the ``range analysis,'' is 13.4 percent,
which is significantly lower than the proportion of forest habitat in
either Panama (33.1 percent) or Costa Rica (35.2 percent). Further,
within the IUCN range in Colombia, only 33 percent of the range is
forested and approximately 50 percent of the range is considered
rangeland according to Sentinel-2 10-meter land use data (Esri Land
Cover 2024). Based on the low proportion of habitat that is forested
within the IUCN range as compared with the amount of forested habitat
in other portions of the range, Colombia does not provide significant
habitat in terms of quantity and quality. Limited scientific and
commercial data are available regarding population size in Colombia.
However, the scarlet macaw's population in northwest Colombia is likely
small. We acknowledge recent population declines in this area as well
as ongoing deforestation; however, there are no data available that
indicate that the Colombia portion of the northern DPS historically
supported a higher density of birds. Therefore, the best scientific and
commercial data available suggest the Colombia population likely
represents a minimal proportion of the total population of the northern
DPS, and the best available information does not indicate that the
Columbia portion has ever contained a large percentage of the rangewide
population.
Additionally, the Colombia portion does not provide any unique
habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the
habitat in the range or contain high quality or high value habitat
relative to the rest of the range. The northern DPS contains similar
ecosystems across its range--lowland tropical habitats bounded by
highlands and/or the Pacific Ocean. Scarlet macaws are dependent on
larger, older trees that have large nesting cavities, forage primarily
in the forest canopy, and are relatively general in their feeding
habits. The best available information does not indicate that forests
where scarlet macaws occur in northwest Colombia are higher quality or
provide high value relative to the remaining portions of the range in
the northern DPS. No other factors suggest that the portion is a
significant portion of the northern DPS' range. In summary, while we
have determined that the northern DPS is in danger of extinction within
the Columbia portion, the
[[Page 23457]]
portion is not a significant portion of the range of the northern DPS.
Analysis of the Panama and Colombia Portions Combined
Having determined that neither the Panama nor the Colombia portions
are significant portions of the northern DPS's range, we considered
whether the Panama and Columbia portions combined might be a
significant portion of the range of the northern DPS' range where the
species is endangered. The scarlet macaw in the northern DPS may be in
danger of extinction in that combined portion because of ongoing
threats of deforestation that removes the species' habitat for nesting
and foraging, as well as collection for the pet trade. Viability of
very small populations in Panama and Colombia is likely minimal,
particularly because the species' life-history traits limit the rate of
recovery from loss of wild populations. Therefore, we conclude that the
scarlet macaw in the northern DPS is in danger of extinction in this
portion.
Because we concluded that the northern DPS is in danger of
extinction in this portion, we next proceed to evaluating whether this
portion of the range is significant. As discussed above, for the
purposes of this analysis, when considering whether this portion is
``significant'' we considered factors such as whether the portion may
(1) occur in a unique habitat or ecoregion for the species relative to
the rest of the habitat in the range, (2) contain high quality or high
value habitat relative to the remaining portions of the range, or (3)
contains a large geographic portion of the suitable habitat relative to
the remaining portions of the range for the species.
Considering forested area up to 500 m within the IUCN range that
was delineated in the ``range analysis,'' Colombia and Panama contain a
large portion of the range, accounting for approximately 77 percent of
the total IUCN range of the northern DPS of scarlet macaw. However,
simply containing a large percentage of the range does not
automatically make a portion of the range ``significant.''
Additionally, this portion does not provide any unique habitat or
ecoregion for the species relative to the rest of the habitat in the
range, contain high quality or high value habitat relative to the rest
of the range, and no other factors suggest that the portion is a
significant portion of the northern DPS' range.
The best scientific and commercial data suggest the population in
the Panama and Colombia portion is small and likely represents a
minimal proportion of the total population of the northern DPS and has
always been a smaller percentage of the rangewide population compared
to Costa Rica. In summary, while the northern DPS is in danger of
extinction within the Colombia and Panama portion, this portion is not
a significant portion of the northern DPS' range.
The analyses of the Panama portion, Colombia portion, and the
portion that combines Panama and Colombia together, does not conflict
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the
Interior and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, because, in
reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the aspects of the 2014
policy, including the definition of ``significant,'' that those court
decisions held to be invalid.
Conclusion
In compliance with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia's July 2024 opinion, we have reconducted our analysis of the
``significant portion of the range'' after soliciting and considering
public comments on the relevant, substantive issues.
In this analysis of the northern DPS, we assessed four portions
within the DPS: the Pacific slope of Costa Rica, mainland Panama, and
Colombia west of the Andes, and Panama and Colombia combined. We
concluded that none of the portions in the northern DPS are portions
where the northern DPS of scarlet macaw is both in danger of extinction
and the portion is ``significant.'' The northern DPS is not in danger
of extinction throughout the Costa Rica portion; therefore, we did not
need to address whether the portion is ``significant.'' The northern
DPS may be in danger of extinction throughout either the Panama or
Colombia portions; however, neither of these portions of the range are
``significant.'' Similarly, we concluded the northern DPS may be in
danger of extinction throughout the combined Panama and Colombia
portion; however, this portion of the range is also not
``significant.'' Having completed the ``significant portion of its
range'' analysis for the northern DPS and determined that the northern
DPS is not in danger of extinction throughout a significant portion of
its range, we are not revising the current status of the northern DPS.
Therefore, we affirm the listing of the scarlet macaw as set forth in
the 2019 final rule.
Authority
This document is published under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Signing Authority
Paul Souza, Regional Director, Region 8, Exercising the Delegated
Authority of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
approved this action on May 21, 2025, for publication. On May 27, 2025,
Paul Souza authorized the undersigned to sign the document
electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for
publication as an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Madonna Baucum,
Regulations and Policy Chief, Division of Policy, Economics, Risk
Management, and Analytics of the Joint Administrative Operations, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-09857 Filed 6-2-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 3, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.