Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition and Proposed Rule To List the Yellow-Billed Parrot, 62740-62754 [2011-25811]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62740-62754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AY28
[FWS-R9-ES-2011-0075; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition and Proposed Rule To List the Yellow-Billed Parrot

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list as 
threatened the yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria) under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are taking this 
action in response to a petition to list this species as endangered or 
threatened under the Act. This document, which also serves as the 
completion of the status review and as the 12-month finding on the 
petition, announces our finding that listing is warranted for the 
yellow-billed parrot. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would 
extend the Act's protections to this species. We also propose a special 
rule for the yellow-billed parrot in conjunction with our proposed 
listing as threatened for this species. We seek information from the 
public on this proposed rule and status review for this species.

[[Page 62741]]


DATES: We will consider comments and information received or postmarked 
on or before December 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R9-
ES-2011-0075.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2011-0075, Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept comments by e-mail or fax. We will post all 
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information 
Requested section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; 
telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains 
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the 
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the 
date of receipt of the petition (``12-month finding''). In this 
finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.
    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) publishes an annual 
notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign 
species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but 
precluded.
    In this document, we announce that listing the yellow-billed parrot 
as threatened is warranted, and we are issuing a proposed rule to add 
that species as threatened under the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
    Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take 
into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses of commenters, will become part of the administrative record.

Previous Federal Actions

Petition History

    On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January 
29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental 
Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting that 
we list 14 parrot species under the Act. The petition clearly 
identified itself as a petition and included the requisite information 
required in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July 
14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day finding in which we 
determined that the petition presented substantial scientific and 
commercial information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 12 
of the 14 parrot species. In our 90-day finding on this petition, we 
announced the initiation of a status review to list as threatened or 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), 
the following 12 parrot species: blue-headed macaw (Primolius couloni), 
crimson shining parrot (Prosopeia splendens), great green macaw (Ara 
ambiguus), grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera), hyacinth 
macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), military macaw (Ara militaris), 
Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), red-crowned parrot 
(Amazona viridigenalis), scarlet macaw (Ara macao), white cockatoo (C. 
alba), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), and yellow-crested 
cockatoo (C. sulphurea). We initiated this status review to determine 
if listing each of the 12 species is warranted, and initiated a 60-day 
information collection period to allow all interested parties an 
opportunity to provide information on the status of these 12 species of 
parrots. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2009.
    On October 24, 2009, and December 2, 2009, the Service received a 
60-day notice of intent to sue from Friends of Animals and WildEarth 
Guardians, for failure to issue 12-month findings on the petition. On 
March 2, 2010, Friends of Animals and WildEarth Guardians filed suit 
against the Service for failure to make timely 12-month findings within 
the statutory deadline of the Act on the petition to list the 14 
species (Friends of Animals, et al . v. Salazar, Case No. 10 CV 00357 
D.D.C.).
    On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court 
(CV-10-357, D. D.C.), in which the Service agreed to submit to the 
Federal Register by July 29, 2011, September 30, 2011, and November 30, 
2011, determinations whether the petitioned action is warranted, not 
warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing actions for no 
less than 4 of the petitioned species on each date. On August 9, 2011, 
the Service published in the Federal Register a 12-month status review 
finding and proposed rule for the following four parrot species: 
crimson shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and 
yellow-crested cockatoo (76 FR 49202).
    In this status review we make a determination whether the 
petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but 
precluded by other listing actions for one of the remaining species, 
the yellow-billed parrot. This Federal Register document complies, in 
part, with the second deadline in the court-ordered settlement 
agreement.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final actions resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
clarifying information concerning:
    (1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and 
trends (especially breeding and foraging habitats), diet, and 
population abundance and trends (especially current recruitment data) 
of this species.
    (2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land 
uses on the distribution and abundance of this species.
    (3) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors, 
including live capture and hunting, domestic and international trade, 
predation by other animals, and any diseases that are known to affect 
this species or its principal food sources.

[[Page 62742]]

    (4) Information on management programs for parrot conservation, 
including mitigation measures related to conservation programs, and any 
other private, nongovernmental, or governmental conservation programs 
that benefit this species.
    (5) The potential effects of climate change on this species and its 
habitat.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial 
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''

Public Hearing

    At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for this 
proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain 
public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient to submit 
comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described above in the 
ADDRESSES section. If you would like to request a public hearing for 
this proposed rule, you must submit your request, in writing, to the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by 
November 25, 2011.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing 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. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of 
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential 
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate 
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that 
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that 
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a 
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include 
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly 
or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are 
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of 
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.

Species Description

    The yellow-billed parrot belongs to the family Psittacidae and is 
one of only two Amazona species endemic to Jamaica (Koenig 2001, p. 
205; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 106). It measures approximately 28 
centimeters (cm) (11 inches (in)) in length. This species is generally 
characterized as a green parrot with white lores (between the eye and 
bill) and frontal bar (forehead), a blue crown, pink throat and upper 
breast, bluish primary feathers, and a yellow bill (BLI 2011a, 
unpaginated; Forshaw and Knight 2010, p. 278).
    This species occurs in mid-level (up to 1,200 meters (m) (3,937 
feet (ft)), wet limestone and lower montane, mature forests of Jamaica. 
The late successional forest canopy height ranges from 15-20 m (49-66 
ft), with occasional emergence of Terminalia and Cedrela tree species 
at 25-30 m (82-98 ft) (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; World Parrot Trust, 
2009, unpaginated; Tole 2006, p. 790; Koenig 2001, pp. 205-206; Koenig 
1999, p. 9; Wiley 1991, pp. 203-204). Undergrowth is thin, but mosses, 
vines, lianas, and epiphytes are abundant (Tole 2006, p. 790; Koenig 
2001, p. 206). They may also be found near cultivated areas with trees 
at forest edge (World Parrot Trust, 2009, unpaginated; Tole 2006, p. 
790); however, compared to the other endemic parrot species, the black-
billed parrot (Amazona agilis), the yellow-billed parrot appears to 
prefer interior forests, rather than edge habitat (Koenig 2001, pp. 
207-208, 220).
    In the latter part of the 20th Century, the overall range and 
population of the yellow-billed parrot decreased (Juniper and Parr 1998 
in BLI 2011a, unpaginated). The range of the yellow-billed parrot is 
estimated to be 5,400 square kilometers (km\2\) (2,085 square miles 
(mi\2\)) (approximately half the total area of Jamaica) (BLI 2011a, 
unpaginated). However, this species occurs in fragments within this 
range. The greatest occurrences are concentrated in extant mid-level 
wet limestone forests in the Blue Mountains, Cockpit Country, John Crow 
Mountains, and Mount Diablo (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Koenig 2001, p. 
205; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 106; Koenig 1999, pp. 9-10; Wiley 1991, pp. 
203-204). Preliminary studies estimated 5,000 individuals in Cockpit 
Country, John Crow Mountains, and Mount Diablo (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 
107). Today the yellow-billed parrot population is estimated to number 
10,000-20,000 mature individuals, although the data quality is poor 
(BLI 2011a, unpaginated; World Parrot Trust, 2009, unpaginated). 
Cockpit Country is considered the stronghold of the species with an 
estimated 5,000-8,000 territorial pairs, at least 80 percent of the 
island's entire population (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; BLI 2011b, 
unpaginated; Koenig 2001, p. 205; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107). Flocks 
of 50-60 individuals are observed year round and this species remains 
common in suitable habitat (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Snyder et al. 2000, 
p. 106; Wiley 1991, p. 204); however, the yellow-billed parrot has 
declined, and is declining, in numbers and range based on habitat loss 
and degradation and trapping (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Snyder et al. 
2000, p. 106; Koenig 1999, p. 9; Wiley 1991, pp. 187, 204).
    Like most parrot species, the yellow-billed parrot is a frugivore, 
and feeds on catkins, nuts, berries, fruits, blossoms, figs, and seeds 
(Jamaica Observer 2010, unpaginated; World Parrot Trust, 2009, 
unpaginated). Parrots, including this species, generally fly 
considerable distances in search of food (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Lee 
2010, p. 8) and disperse seeds over large areas, contributing to forest 
regeneration (NEPA 2010b, unpaginated). Because parrots feed primarily 
on fruits and flowers, they are linked to the fruiting and flowering 
patterns of trees; fluctuations in abundance and availability of these 
food sources may change diets, result in movements to areas with 
greater food availability, and influence local seasonal patterns of 
bird abundance (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Lee 2010, p. 7; Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 132; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2; Renton 2002, p. 17; 
Cowen n.d., pp. 5, 23).
    The breeding season begins in March with yellow-billed parrots 
looking for and defending nest sites and ends in late July, the end of 
the fledgling period (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Koenig 2001, p. 208). 
Mated pairs of yellow-billed parrots appear to be monogamous (Koenig 
1998, unpaginated). Nesting areas, including the distance from the nest 
tree where pairs perch and engage in territorial vocalizations, the 
location

[[Page 62743]]

where males roost, and distance where pairs make their initial perch 
after arriving from foraging areas, is 50 m (164 ft) (Koenig 2001, p. 
208). Yellow-billed parrots are believed to require larger, mature 
trees for nesting; these parrots do not excavate holes, but make use of 
existing ones found in old growth forests. This may explain why this 
species is more common, especially when nesting, in interior forests; 
although they have been found in other habitat types, including 
disturbed plantations (NEPA 2010b, unpaginated; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 
107; Koenig 2001, p.220). Clutch size is typically 3 eggs measuring 
36.0 x 29.0 mm (1.4 x 1.1 in) (World Parrot Trust, 2009, unpaginated; 
Koenig 2001, p. 212). Amazona species tend to lay one egg every other 
day and the female alone incubates (Koenig 2001, p. 209). Nesting 
success has been low, with studies showing 70 percent of breeding pairs 
in Cockpit Country exploring and defending nest sites, but failing to 
lay eggs (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107). Outside of the breeding season, 
yellow-billed parrots have been seen in large communal roosts (World 
Parrot Trust, 2009, unpaginated).

Conservation Status

    The yellow-billed parrot is currently classified as ``vulnerable,'' 
which means this species is facing a high risk of extinction in the 
wild, by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature due to 
the small, fragmented and declining range of this species, a decline in 
extent, area, and quality of suitable habitat due to logging and 
mining, and trapping (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 
106). This species is also listed in Convention on International Trade 
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendix II, 
which includes species that although not necessarily now threatened 
with extinction may become so unless trade is strictly regulated. The 
yellow-billed parrot is also listed under the Second Schedule of 
Jamaica's Endangered Species (Protection, Conservation and Regulation 
of Trade) Act.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Habitat or Range
    Historically, 97 percent of Jamaica was a closed-forest ecosystem. 
After centuries of improper land use and a high rate of deforestation, 
the island has lost much of its original forest (Berglund and Johansson 
2004, pp. 2, 5; Evelyn and Camirand 2003, p. 354; Koenig 2001, p. 206; 
Koenig 1999, p. 9). Some of the most important parrot habitat was 
protected from human activities by its inaccessibility, but today, even 
these areas are being encroached upon and degraded. Natural forests are 
being replaced with pine plantations and other fast-growing species 
(Wiley 1991, p. 201). Conversion of forest land to agriculture and 
pasture has accounted for a majority of deforested land and has 
resulted in the removal of valuable timber species as a byproduct, with 
natural regrowth removed as soon as it approaches marketable size (Eyre 
1987, p. 342).
    Today, Jamaica's forested area is estimated at 337,000 hectares 
(ha) (832,745 acres (ac)), or 31 percent (FAO 2011, p. 116). Of this 
remaining forested area, only 8 percent is classified as minimally 
disturbed or closed broadleaf forest, and these only occur on the 
steepest or most remote, inaccessible parts of the island (WWF 2001, 
unpaginated; Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 262; Koenig 1991, p. 9). This 
loss in forested habitat has resulted in a small and fragmented range 
for the yellow-billed parrot; a decline in the extent, area, and 
quality of suitable habitat; and a decline in the yellow-billed parrot 
population (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; World Parrot Trust 2009, 
unpaginated; Koenig 1999, p. 9). The greatest long-term threats to 
Jamaica's remaining population of yellow-billed parrot is deforestation 
via logging, agriculture, mining, road construction, and encroachment 
of nonnative species (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; NEPA 2010b, unpaginated; 
Levy and Koenig 2009, pp. 263-264; World Parrot Trust 2009, 
unpaginated; JEAN 2007, p. 4; John and Newman 2006, pp. 7, 15; Tole 
2006, p. 799; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 106; Koenig 1999, p. 10; Varty 
1991, pp. 135, 145; Wiley 1991, p. 190; Windsor Research Center n.d., 
unpaginated).
    Cockpit Country is characterized by yellow and white limestone 
karst topography with rounded peaks and steep-sided, bowl-shaped 
depressions, known as cockpits (John and Newman 2006, p. 3; Tole 2006, 
p. 789). Historically, the edge forests of Cockpit Country experienced 
extensive clear-cutting for timber, but the rugged terrain and 
inaccessibility of Cockpit Country have prevented extensive resource 
exploitation in its interior forests (Koenig 2001, pp. 206-207; Wiley 
1991, p. 201). This area has retained nearly all of its primary forest 
and is an important remaining tract of extensive primary forest in 
Jamaica; 81 percent of the region is under forest (John and Newman 
2006, p. 3; Tole 2006, pp. 790, 795, 798). However, gaps indicate the 
beginning of a decline in contiguity and connectivity and the periphery 
and surrounding plains are already badly degraded (Tole 2006, pp. 790, 
797; Koenig 2001, pp. 201-207). The greatest threat to the wet 
limestone forest habitat of Cockpit Country is deforestation due to 
bauxite mining. Additional threats include deforestation from road 
construction, conversion of forests for agriculture, poor agricultural 
practices, and logging, (BLI 2011b, unpaginated; Levy and Koenig 2009, 
p. 267; JEAN 2007, p. 4; BLI 2006, unpaginated; John and Newman 2006, 
p. 15; Wiley 1991, p. 201; Windsor Research Centre n.d., unpaginated).
    The Blue Mountains and John Crow Mountains are located on the 
eastern side of Jamaica and are separated by the Rio Grande. Almost all 
of the two ranges were designated forest reserves and contain important 
remaining tracts of closed-canopy, broadleaf forest (TNC 2008b, 
unpaginated). In 1989, 78,200 ha (193,236 ac) were designated as the 
Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park (BLI 2011d, unpaginated; BLI 
2011e, unpaginated; Dunkley and Barrett 2001, p. 1). The most 
significant threat to the Blue and John Crow Mountains is deforestation 
due to subsistence farming, commercial farming, and illegal logging and 
encroachment of invasive species (BLI 2011e, unpaginated; IUCN 2011, 
unpaginated; Chai et al. 2009, p. 2489; Dunkley and Barrett 2001, p. 2; 
WWF 2001, unpaginated; TNC 2008b, unpaginated).
    Mount Diablo is located in the center of Jamaica and makes up part 
of the ``spinal forest,'' the forests along the main mountain ridges 
that extend along the center of the island. Conversion of forest for 
agriculture land, forestry plantations, expanding settlements, and 
bauxite mining has left the spinal forest severely fragmented (BLI 
2011c, unpaginated).
Logging and Agriculture
    In the Cockpit Country Conservation Action Plan, threats to the 
limestone forests from conversion of forest, incompatible agriculture 
practices, and timber extraction are ranked high (John and Newman 2006, 
p. 15). The immediate vicinity of Cockpit Country has a population of 
around 10,000 people who exploit the area (Day 2004, p. 34). Illegal 
logging and farming have extended into the forest reserve within 
Cockpit Country (Day 2004, p. 34; Chenoweth et al. 2001, p. 651). 
Loggers, legal and illegal, are removing unsustainable amounts of trees 
for furniture factories and other industries (TNC 2008a, unpaginated). 
Illegal logging opens new pathways into the forest for squatters who 
usually clear a patch for growing food, then move on after one season 
to clear additional land

[[Page 62744]]

(Tole 2006, p. 799). Farmers remove natural forests from cockpits, 
glades, and other accessible areas to plant yams, corn, dasheen, 
banana, plantain, and sugar cane, and graze cattle and goats (TNC 
2008a, unpaginated; Day 2004, p. 35; Chenoweth et al. 2001, p. 652).
    One of the greatest causes of deforestation and fragmentation in 
Cockpit Country is the illegal removal of wood for yam crops and yam 
sticks (JEAN 2007, p. 4; Tole 2006, p. 790; Chenoweth et al. 2001, p. 
653). Farmers clear hillsides to plant yam crops, reducing forest cover 
and nesting trees. Yam plants require a support stake that is typically 
a sapling approximately 8-10 cm (3-4 in) in diameter. With suitable 
trees dwindling elsewhere, Cockpit Country is quickly becoming a source 
of supply. Forty percent of the total demand for yam sticks is supplied 
by Cockpit Country; this translates to 5 to 9 million saplings 
harvested annually from Cockpit Country alone (Tole 2006, pp. 790, 
799). Yam stick harvesting is ranked as a medium threat to the 
limestone forests of Cockpit Country (John and Newman 2006, p. 15).
    Adjacent to the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park are 
isolated communities that rely on the park's resources for various 
economic activities; with almost unchecked access to the park, 
encroachment of these communities across the park boundary is cause for 
concern (IUCN 2011, unpaginated; Dunkley and Barrett 2001, pp. 2-3). 
Much of the area has been altered from its natural state and is used 
for forestry, coffee production, or subsistence farming (BLI 2011d, 
unpaginated). The adjacent communities have a tradition of small 
farming and, despite the steep slopes, hillsides are cleared and used 
by small subsistence farmers for carrots, peas, bananas, plantains, 
coconuts, pineapples, apples, cabbages, and tomatoes; coffee is also 
grown by small and large farmers for the well-known brand Blue Mountain 
Coffee (Dunkley and Barrett 2001, pp. 1, 3). Farmers use slash-and-burn 
techniques to clear forests for agricultural land; however, because of 
poor agricultural practices, the soil quality begins to deteriorate 
after one or two seasons, and farmers abandon their plots and clear 
additional land for new crops (Chai et al. 2009, p. 2489; TNC 2008b, 
unpaginated).
    The human population surrounding Mount Diablo is steadily growing. 
Native vegetation is removed for housing, crop cultivation, and lumber. 
In this area, farming is the main livelihood after bauxite mining. 
Slash-and-burn practices are used on hillsides to clear land for cash 
crops, such as banana, plantain, yams, cabbage, okra, peppers, and 
tomatoes. Various tree species are cut for lumber and add to the 
deforestation and poor condition of the soils (Global Environmental 
Facility, Small Grants Programme (GEF SGP) 2006, unpaginated). Native 
forests are also removed for forestry plantations, including Pine 
(Pinus caribaea), blue Mahoe (Hibiscus elatus), Honduran Mahogany 
(Swietenia macrophylla), and Cedar (Cedrela odorata). These activities 
have left the mountain without any native vegetation and the central 
spinal forest severely fragmented.
Bauxite Mining
    Bauxite is the raw material used to make aluminum and is Jamaica's 
principle export, accounting for over half of Jamaica's annual exports. 
Bauxite deposits occur in pockets of limestone and can be found under 
25 percent of the island's surface (BLI 2006, unpaginated). It is 
removed through open pit mining (soil is removed, stored, and then 
replaced following completion of the mine) and is considered the most 
significant cause of deforestation in Jamaica (Berglund and Johansson 
2004, p. 2). Bauxite mining is driving habitat destruction across the 
center of the island, including Mount Diablo, and has the potential to 
permanently destroy forests, including the wet limestone habitat found 
in Cockpit Country, resulting in irreversible effects on the yellow-
billed parrot (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 267; BLI 2006, unpaginated; 
John and Newman 2006, p. 7; Berglund and Johansson 2004, p. 6; Wiley 
1991, p. 201; Windsor Research Centre n.d., unpaginated).
    Within the past 50 years, bauxite mining has severely fragmented 
the spinal forests of Jamaica (BLI 2011c, unpaginated). In the past 40 
years, Mount Diablo has been subjected to bauxite mining, which has 
destroyed much of the area beyond repair and is presumed to have 
contributed to the decline of populations of forest-dependent species, 
such as the yellow-billed parrot (BLI 2008, unpaginated; Koenig 2008, 
p. 145; Varty 2007, pp. 34, 93). In 2009, several bauxite/alumina 
mining companies closed their refineries due to a drop in demand; 
however, in July 2010 an alumina plant in Ewarton, a town located at 
the foot of Mount Diablo, reopened due to a return in demand, and two 
other plants are expected to reopen as well (RJR News 2010, 
unpaginated; Jamaica Observer 2010, unpaginated). One of these plants 
was expected to reopen in July 2011 (The Gleaner 2011, unpaginated). 
Where mining has occurred, it has resulted in severe impacts to the 
environment. For example, mining sites within Mount Diablo that were 
completed 10-15 years ago typically have only herbaceous groundcover, 
including nonnative ferns, and no regeneration of native woody tree 
species (BLI 2011c, unpaginated).
    Bauxite mining is currently the most significant threat to Cockpit 
Country. It is ranked high in threats to the limestone forests in 
Cockpit Country (John and Newman 2006, p. 15). Bauxite deposits can be 
found throughout 70 percent of Cockpit Country and mining companies 
have already drilled for bauxite samples (BLI 2006, unpaginated; John 
and Newman 2006, p. 7; Walker 2006, unpaginated; Windsor Research 
Centre, n.d., unpaginated). In 2006, ALCOA Minerals of Jamaica and 
Clarendon Alumina Production were granted a renewal on two bauxite 
prospecting licenses, which encompassed more than 60 percent of the 
Cockpit Country Conservation Area and more than 42,000 ha (103,784 ac) 
of near-contiguous primary forest. After public outcry these licenses 
were suspended. The Jamaican Government has stated that it does not 
intend to allow mining in the Cockpit Country; however, the area 
remains open to future prospecting and mining interests are granted 
over other land uses, such as timber, agriculture, and conservation 
(Koenig 2008, pp. 135-137; TNC 2008a, unpaginated; JEAN 2007, p. 4; 
Walker 2006, unpaginated).
    Few lands are excluded from mining or prospecting under the Mining 
Act, including 22,000 ha (54,363 ac) of Cockpit Country designated as 
forest reserves, which could be subject to prospecting or mining if a 
license or lease is obtained (JEAN 2007, p. 6). Additionally, in some, 
if not all, mining agreements, the Jamaican Government provides mining 
companies with entitlements to specific amounts of bauxite and 
guarantees them additional land for mining if the original land does 
not contain sufficient levels, further contributing to deforestation 
(JEAN 2007, p. 8). Although bauxite extraction is not currently 
occurring in Cockpit Country, mining remains a significant impending 
threat to the area. The amount of deposits found throughout the area, 
and the facts that the area remains open to future prospecting and 
bauxite is Jamaica's principle export, leaves open the possibility that 
mining may occur in the future (JEAN 2007, p. 4; Windsor Research 
Centre n.d., unpaginated).
    If mining were to occur in Cockpit Country, the impacts to the wet 
limestone forest habitat and wildlife

[[Page 62745]]

would be irreversible (Varty 2007, p. 93; Windsor Research Centre n.d., 
unpaginated). During the prospecting phase, a company or individual is 
required to obtain a prospecting right from the Jamaican government; 
however, this does not require an environmental permit which requires 
an environmental impact assessment be conducted before being granted 
(Jamaica Ministry of Energy and Mining 2006a, unpaginated). Forests are 
cleared during this phase using heavy machinery to create roads for 
transporting drilling equipment. Once the area of interest has been 
identified and the existence of a commercially exploitable mineral 
exists, a mining lease must be obtained to mine and sell the product. A 
mining lease requires an environmental permit, and therefore, an 
environmental impact assessment (Jamaica Ministry of Energy and Mining 
2006b, unpaginated); however, one of the problems with conservation in 
Jamaica is incomplete and improper environmental impact assessments 
(Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 263). The mining phase requires a more 
extensive road network and all the vegetation covering bauxite deposits 
are removed. Mining in a karst region can lead to altered flow regimes 
and changes in drainage patterns, and can reduce the soil's water 
retention capability, making it difficult to restore the area to its 
original state (JEAN 2007, pp. 4-5; Berglund and Johansson 2004, p. 6). 
After mining is completed, companies are required to restore lands 
destroyed by mining. However, a typical restored site consists of a 
thin layer of topsoil bulldozed over densely packed limestone gravel 
and planted with nonnative grasses, preventing the regeneration of 
native forests (Koenig 2008, p. 141; BLI 2006, unpaginated). Penalties 
for failing to meet the reclamation requirements are often not enforced 
(BLI 2006, unpaginated).
    Bauxite mining has been shown to significantly impact native 
species and habitat. The forests of Mount Diablo have already suffered 
significant damage from bauxite mining, leading to the conclusion that 
mining cannot be allowed in Cockpit Country or it would destroy the 
area beyond repair (Varty 2007, p. 93). Because of the potential damage 
to the nesting environment, bauxite mining could drive the yellow-
billed parrot population to the level of barely surviving (Koenig 2008, 
p. 147).
Roads
    Access roads associated with bauxite mining is another significant 
cause of deforestation and a serious threat to the forest cover of 
Jamaica. Once established, either in the prospecting or mining phase, 
loggers use mining roads to gain access to additional forests and 
illegally remove trees in and around the mining area (BLI 2011a, 
unpaginated; JEAN 2007, pp. 4-5; Berglund and Johansson 2004, p. 6). If 
mining were to occur in Cockpit Country, roads established to access 
the cockpit bottoms would fragment the habitat, isolate forested 
hillsides, and increase the amount of edge habitat (Koenig 2008, pp. 
141, 144). Improved human access via mining roads and the subsequent 
alteration in habitat and predator-prey dynamics (See Factor C) are 
predicted to hasten the decline of the yellow-billed parrot.
    In addition to mining access roads, road construction and extensive 
trail systems have the potential to contribute to further deforestation 
or alter environmental conditions. Roads provide access to previously 
undisturbed forests. In Cockpit Country, forest clearance has occurred 
along the edge where roads have provided easy access (JEAN 2007, p. 4). 
Interior forests were once inaccessible; however, continued road 
construction into these areas will lead to increased deforestation and 
logging (WWF 2001, unpaginated). Construction of Highway 2000 along the 
southern boundary of Cockpit Country may threaten the area through 
subsequent logging and the need for limestone fill, which could be 
quarried from Cockpit Country (Day 2004, p. 35; Windsor Research Centre 
no date, unpaginated). Roads and trails are ranked high in threats to 
the limestone forest of Cockpit Country (John and Newman 2006, p. 15). 
Additionally, roads and trails create openings in the forest, exposing 
it to new environmental conditions that alter the high-humidity 
conditions in which species of wet limestone habitat are adapted and 
facilitate the spread of invasive species (JEAN 2007, p. 4; Windsor 
Research Centre no date, unpaginated).
Nonnative Species
    Forest clearance, whether through mining, road/trail development, 
logging, or agriculture, not only reduces the size of continuous 
forests and opens them up to further deforestation, it also alters the 
natural environment and facilitates the spread of harmful nonnative 
plants and animals (JEAN 2007, p. 4; Windsor Research Centre n.d., 
unpaginated). Nonnative invasive plant species have the ability to 
outcompete and dominate native plant communities and are ranked high in 
threats to the limestone forests of Cockpit Country (John and Newman, 
2006, p. 15). The many years of land clearance experienced by the Blue 
and John Crow Mountains National Park has led to the expansion of 
invasive species, including wild coffee (Pittosporum undulatum) and 
ginger lily (Hydicum spicatum), which are invading and quickly 
spreading in closed-canopy forests (BLI 2011d, unpaginated; TNC 2008b, 
unpaginated; JEAN 2007, p. 4; Windsor Research Centre no date, 
unpaginated). Nonnative species prevents the regeneration of native 
forests so that rare, late-successional species typical of old growth 
forests are replaced by common secondary species or nonnative species 
(Chai et al. 2009, p. 2490; Koenig 2008, p. 142; TNC 2008b, 
unpaginated).
Impacts of Deforestation
    Deforestation through mining, road construction, logging, and 
agriculture contributes to the loss of Jamaica's remaining primary 
forest, habitat for the yellow-billed parrot, and essential resources 
for the life functions of the yellow-billed parrot. The removal of 
trees reduces food sources, shelter from inclement weather, and most 
importantly, nesting sites, which are reported to be limited (NEPA 
2010b, unpaginated; Tole 2006, pp. 790-791; Koenig 2001, p. 206; Koenig 
1999, p. 10; Wiley 1991, p. 190). The removal of saplings for yam 
sticks eliminates the source of regeneration for mature trees in which 
nesting cavities will form. Deforestation also changes the quality of 
remaining resources (Koenig 2001, p. 206; Koenig 1999, p. 10) and 
prevents the regeneration of native forests. The agricultural practices 
of farmers leave the land unfertile and unstable, especially on 
hillsides. Cash crops do not have a sufficient root system to hold 
soil, and the loss of the forest canopy leaves the soil vulnerable to 
impacts from rainfall, resulting in massive soil erosion (GEF SGP 2006, 
unpaginated). This decrease in the quality of the land prevents native 
forests from regenerating (Dunkley and Barrett 2001, p. 2; WWF 2001, 
unpaginated). Furthermore, deforestation also allows human disturbance 
to extend further into the interior of the forest, contributing to 
further deforestation, altering the habitat, and affecting the 
predator/prey balance (See Factor C) (Tole 2006, pp. 790-791; Koenig 
1999, pp. 11-12). Threats to the limestone forest of Cockpit Country 
overall are considered very high (John and Newman 2006, p. 15).
    Deforestation can also change the species composition and structure 
of a forest, rendering it unsuitable for the yellow-billed parrot. 
Openings in the forest expose the forest edge to new environmental 
conditions, such as increased sunlight and airflow, altering

[[Page 62746]]

the microclimate from the highly humid conditions of the interior 
forest, to which species such as the yellow-billed parrot are adapted 
(JEAN 2007, p. 4; Tole 2006, p. 798; Windsor Research Centre no date, 
unpaginated). The new environmental conditions facilitate the 
establishment of nonnative species and prevent the regeneration of 
native forests; rare, late-successional species typical of old growth 
forests are replaced by common secondary species or nonnative species 
(Chai et al. 2009, p. 2490; Koenig 2008, p. 142; TNC 2008b, 
unpaginated). This resulting ``edge habitat'' can exert a strong effect 
on species; birds have been shown to be affected from 50 m (164 ft) to 
250 m (820 ft) from the cleared edges (Chai et al. 2009, p. 2489). 
Studies on the black-billed parrot found that boa abundance and 
accessibility of parrot nests to boas were higher in forest edge than 
in the interior (See Factor C) (Koenig et al. 2007, p. 87). Only 26 
percent of black-billed parrot nests located in regenerating edge 
habitat successfully fledged at least one chick, whereas 60 percent of 
nests in moderately disturbed interior forests successfully fledged at 
least one nestling (Koenig et al. 2007, p. 86). Of 35 nests that 
failed, 50 percent experienced predation in regenerating edge, compared 
to none in the interior forest (Koenig et al. 2007, p. 86). Fecundity 
was found to decline in edge habitat; over 60 percent lower than that 
of the interior, a level inadequate for population persistence (Koenig 
2008, pp. 143, 145; Koenig et al. 2007, p. 86).
Conservation Programs
    Conservation International, South Trelawny Environmental Agency, 
the Windsor Research Centre, and Jamaica's Forestry Department are 
working together to produce a long-term protection strategy for Cockpit 
Country. Part of the strategy involves the use of plastic yam sticks, 
incentive programs to encourage farmers to set aside 40 ha (99 ac) of 
forest as a reserve, training members of the community as enforcement 
officers, and restoring abandoned land with native species (Tole 2006, 
p. 800). We do not know the status of this program or what goals have 
been achieved.
    Within the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park, there are 
programs aimed at controlling nonnative species. Parks in Peril and the 
Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust established a nursery as a 
forest restoration project; timber and fruit trees are distributed to 
adjacent communities for planting (TNC 2008b, unpaginated). The success 
of this program is unknown.
Summary of Factor A
    The yellow-billed parrot is restricted to the island of Jamaica. 
Past deforestation has resulted in a small and fragmented range on the 
island, a decline in the extent and quality of suitable habitat, and a 
declining yellow-billed parrot population. Deforestation remains a 
significant threat to Jamaica's forests. Mining, road and trail 
construction, logging, agriculture, and encroachment of nonnative 
species continue to threaten the remaining primary forests where this 
species exists. Removal of these forests without adequate regeneration 
permanently eliminates trees vital for foraging and nesting activities. 
Without these essential resources, the population of the yellow-billed 
parrot will likely continue to decline. Therefore, based on the best 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that the 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range is a threat to the yellow-billed parrot throughout its 
range now and in the foreseeable future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    Harvesting of parrot chicks for pets has seriously affected most of 
the parrot species in the West Indies (Wiley 1991, p. 191). In Jamaica, 
illegal poaching for the pet trade and farmers who shoot them to 
protect their crops have contributed to the decline of the yellow-
billed parrot (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Sylvester 2011, unpaginated; 
Jamaica Observer 2010, unpaginated; Koenig 2008, p. 145; JEAN 2007, p. 
4; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107; Windsor Research Center no date, 
unpaginated).
    In 1981, the yellow-billed parrot was listed in Appendix II of 
CITES. CITES is an international agreement between governments to 
ensure that the international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal 
species does not threaten species' survival in the wild. There are 
currently 175 CITES Parties (member countries or signatories to the 
Convention). Under this treaty, CITES Parties regulate the import, 
export, and reexport of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed 
plants and animal species (also see Factor D). Trade must be authorized 
through a system of permits and certificates that are provided by the 
designated CITES Scientific and Management Authorities of each CITES 
Party (CITES 2010a, unpaginated).
    For species listed in Appendix II of CITES, commercial trade is 
allowed. However, CITES requires that before an export of Appendix-II 
specimens can occur, a determination must be made that the specimens 
were legally obtained (in accordance with national laws) and that the 
export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the 
wild, and a CITES export document must be issued by the designated 
CITES Management Authority of the country of export and must accompany 
the export of the specimens.
    According to worldwide trade data obtained from UNEP-WCMC CITES 
Trade Database, from 1981, when the species was listed in CITES, 
through 2009, 210 yellow-billed parrot specimens were reported in 
international trade, including 208 live birds, 1 scientific specimen, 
and 1 body. In analyzing these reported data, several records appear to 
be overcounts due to slight differences in the manner in which the 
importing and exporting countries reported their trade, and it is 
likely that the actual number of specimens of yellow-billed parrots 
reported to UNEP-WCMC in international trade from 1981 through 2009 was 
195; including 193 live birds, 1 scientific specimen, and 1 body. Of 
these specimens, 11 (5.6 percent) were reportedly exported from Jamaica 
(UNEP-WCMC 2011, unpaginated). With the information given in the UNEP-
WCMC database, from 1981 through 2009 only 1 wild specimen of yellow-
billed parrot was reported in trade, and this was a nonliving body 
traded for scientific purposes. One live specimen with the source 
recorded as unknown was also reported in trade. All other specimens 
reported in trade were captive-bred or captive-born specimens.
    Because the majority of the specimens of this species reported in 
international trade (99 percent) are captive-bred or captive-born, and 
the one wild specimen reported in trade was a scientific specimen 
traded for scientific purposes, we believe that international trade 
controlled via valid CITES permits is not a threat to the species.
    Most yellow-billed parrot nestlings are poached for the local 
market and are not highly desirable in the international pet trade 
(Koenig 2001, p. 206). They are popular on Jamaica as pets because of 
their colorful plumage and ability to mimic human sounds; the yellow-
billed parrot appears to be in higher demand than black-billed parrot 
because of their brighter coloration (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107; 
Windsor Research Center no date, unpaginated). Most poaching operations 
are small-scale, although larger-scale operations exist (Sylvester 
2011, unpaginated). Poachers may use sticks baited with fruit and 
covered in

[[Page 62747]]

glue to trap birds (Sylvester 2011, unpaginated). Additionally, 
poachers will cut down nesting trees to obtain nestlings (BLI 2011a, 
unpaginated; NEPA 2010b, unpaginated; Koenig 2008, p. 145). In March 
2010, Jamaica's National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) 
published a news release reminding residents that it is illegal to buy 
and/or sell Jamaican parrots locally or trade in them internationally 
(NEPA 2010b, unpaginated). In Cockpit Country, threats to the yellow-
billed parrot from collection are ranked as medium (John and Newman 
2006, p. 15).
    Poaching for use as a cage-bird places a strong pressure on the 
population of yellow-billed parrots and is the primary cause of nest 
failures and reduces the number of parrots in the wild (BLI 2011a, 
unpaginated; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 106). The cutting of trees to 
obtain parrots destroys nest cavities and reduces the number of 
available nesting sites for future generations. This has a significant 
negative impact on the yellow-billed parrot as it does not excavate its 
own holes for nesting, but relies on existing holes that often form in 
old-growth trees (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Sylvester 2011, unpaginated; 
NEPA 2010b, unpaginated; Wiley 1991, p. 191). Mining access roads 
create accessibility to forests, and illegal timber extraction in 
bauxite mining areas facilitates the poaching of both nestlings and 
adults and exacerbates the effects of poaching on nest failures (BLI 
2011a, unpaginated; Koenig 2008, p.136). Although we don't have 
detailed information on the numbers of yellow-billed parrots taken for 
the pet trade, when combined with habitat loss from deforestation, the 
impact to the survival of this species is severe (Sylvester 2011, 
unpaginated).
    As described under Factor A, parrot habitat is threatened by the 
conversion of forests to agriculture. As agriculture spreads into 
parrot habitat, farmers and birds came into conflict over crops (Wiley 
1991, p. 191). Some persecution for crop and garden damage, especially 
citrus, has been reported for the yellow-billed parrot (Snyder et al. 
2000, p. 107).
Summary of Factor B
    Since the CITES Appendix-II listing, legal international commercial 
trade has been very limited. However, the yellow-billed parrot appears 
to be popular in Jamaica's domestic market and has contributed to the 
decline of the species. In addition to removing individuals from the 
wild population, poachers cut trees to trap nestlings, removing limited 
essential nesting cavities and reducing the availability of nesting 
cavities for future generations. Ongoing deforestation in Jamaica may 
increase the likelihood of birds and farmers coming into conflict and 
yellow-billed parrots being killed to protect crops. Combined with the 
ongoing deforestation in Jamaica, poaching and further loss of nesting 
trees is a significant threat to the survival of this species. 
Therefore, we find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to the yellow-billed 
parrot throughout its range now and in the foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
    Nonnative psittacines imported for the pet trade pose a high threat 
to the yellow-billed parrot through the introduction of disease, the 
potential for hybridization, and competitive exclusion of nesting 
activities (See also Factor E) (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 264; Wiley 
1991, p. 191). However, in Cockpit Country, threats from introduced 
diseases are ranked low (John and Newman 2006, p. 15). A temporary ban 
on importation of nonnative parrot species was put in place based on 
concerns for the introduction of highly pathogenic strains of avian 
influenza (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 264).
    Avian influenza is an infection caused by flu viruses, which occur 
in birds worldwide, especially waterfowl and shorebirds. Most strains 
of the avian influenza virus have low pathogenicity and cause few 
clinical signs in infected birds, but it is highly contagious among 
birds (CDC 2010, 2005, unpaginated). Pathogenicity is the ability of a 
pathogen to produce an infectious disease in an organism. However, 
strains can mutate into highly pathogenic forms, which is what happened 
in 1997, when the highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (called H5N1) 
first appeared in Hong Kong (USDA et al. 2006, pp. 1-2). Signs of low 
pathogenic avian influenza include decreased food consumption, coughing 
and sneezing, and decreased egg production. Birds infected with highly 
pathogenic influenza may exhibit these same symptoms plus a lack of 
energy, soft-shelled eggs, swelling, purple discoloration, nasal 
discharge, lack of coordination, diarrhea, or sudden death (USDA 2007, 
unpaginated).
    Jamaica's ban on importation of nonnative psittacines is still in 
effect and efforts have been made to make the ban permanent (Levy and 
Koenig 2009, p. 264). Additionally, importation of caged birds from 
Trinidad and Tobago or any country of South America is prohibited under 
the Animal Disease and Importation Act (The Animal Diseases 
(Importation) Control Regulations 1948, p. 76). Most of the information 
regarding avian influenza is on domesticated bird species, especially 
poultry. We do not have information on the extent that introduced 
parrot species and the spread of avian influenza has impacted the 
yellow-billed parrot.
    The Jamaican boa, or yellow boa (Epicrates subflavus), is the only 
native predator to be of potential consequence for roosting parrots 
(Koenig 2008, p. 144). The yellow boa is also an endemic species listed 
as vulnerable. Edge habitats appear to provide an optimal habitat for 
the boa due to the proximity to human settlements and the subsequent 
increased number of pests, such as rats (Tole 2006, p. 799). Also, edge 
habitats are exposed to more sunlight than the interior forest; this 
exposure likely results in an increase in the abundance of vines, which 
enhances the connectivity between neighboring trees and facilitates the 
movement of boas (Koenig et al. 2007, p. 86). Habitat loss has 
contributed to the decline and isolation of yellow boas, although it is 
common in Cockpit Country, and nestling parrots represent one important 
prey item (Koenig et al. 2007, p. 87; Koenig 2001, p. 221). Although 
yellow-billed parrots appear to prefer interior forests and are less 
common in edge habitat than the black-billed parrot, there is direct 
evidence of yellow boas preying on yellow-billed nestlings and 
predation by yellow boas has been identified as a major cause of 
dwindling numbers (Koenig et al. 2007, p. 82; Tole 2006, p. 799; Koenig 
2001, p. 217; Koenig 1999, p. 10). As deforestation continues and more 
edge habitat is created, the yellow-billed parrot may become more 
vulnerable to predation by boas. Any decline in recruitment due to 
predation of nestlings will have a negative impact on the ability of 
the yellow-billed parrot population to stabilize or increase.
    Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), are another important 
predator of fledgling and juvenile parrots. They occur in low densities 
across the closed canopy of Cockpit Country, however, it is commonly 
observed in peripheral habitat. Mining in Cockpit Country would create 
additional suitable habitat for these birds and increase the risk of 
predation on parrots (Koenig 2008, p. 144).
Summary of Factor C
    Although imported nonnative psittacines were identified as a high 
threat to the yellow-billed parrot, in part, due to concerns for the 
introduction of highly pathogenic

[[Page 62748]]

strains of avian influenza, we have no information that the yellow-
billed parrot has been impacted by this disease at a level which may 
affect the status of the species as a whole and to the extent that it 
is considered a threat to the species. Furthermore, we believe that the 
ban on importation on nonnative parrot species, although still 
currently temporary, and the prohibition on the importation of caged 
birds from Trinidad and Tobago and South America, play a vital role in 
preventing the spread of this disease. Therefore, we find that disease 
is not a threat to this species throughout its range now or in the 
foreseeable future.
    There is direct evidence of boas preying on yellow-billed parrot 
nestlings. Edge habitat provides an optimal habitat for the yellow boa. 
As primary forests diminish and edge habitat increases, predation by 
boas on parrots may also increase. We do not have any information on 
actual predation by red-tailed hawks on the yellow-billed parrot. 
However, if mining occurs in Cockpit Country, habitat may be altered to 
conditions suitable for the hawk and increase the risk of predation. 
Based on the direct evidence of predation by boas and the continuing 
threat of deforestation and conversion of primary forests to edge 
habitat, and the associated increased risk of predation, we find that 
predation is a threat to the yellow-billed parrot throughout its range 
now and in the foreseeable future.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
National Laws
    The yellow-billed parrot is listed under the Second Schedule of 
Jamaica's Endangered Species (Protection, Conservation and Regulation 
of Trade) Act (JESA). The Second Schedule includes those species that 
could become extinct or which have to be effectively controlled (JESA 
2000, pp. 72, 80). It is illegal to buy and/or sell Jamaican parrots 
locally or trade them internationally (NEPA 2010b, unpaginated; JESA 
2000, p. 14; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107; Wiley 1991, p. 202). CITES 
permits or certificates are required to import animals under JESA 
(Williams-Raynor 2010, unpaginated). Offenses can result in a fine of 
2,000,000 Jamaican dollars (approximately 23,500 U.S. dollars), 
imprisonment up to 2 years, or both. If convicted in a Circuit Court, 
the offender is subject to a fine, prison term up to 10 years, or both 
(JESA 2000, p. 39).
    Parrots have full protection under section six of the Jamaican 
Wildlife Protection Act (1974) (WPA) (Wiley 1991, p. 202). The WPA was 
originally passed in 1945 to regulate sport hunting and fishing, but 
since that time has undergone changes to address protection of animals. 
It does not, however, address habitat protection or the conservation of 
flora (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 263). Possession is regulated by the 
WPA (Koenig 1999, p. 10). Under this Act it is illegal for any person 
to hunt or possess a protected bird, including the yellow-billed 
parrot, take, or have in possession the nest or egg of any protected 
bird (WPA 1945, pp. 4-5). Under section 20 of the legislation, anyone 
found in possession of a live Jamaican parrot or any of its parts can 
face a maximum fine of 100,000 Jamaican dollars (1,200 U.S. dollars) or 
12 months in prison (WPA 1945, p. 11). However, fines levied are often 
much less. For example, one offender was charged a fine of only 5,000 
Jamaican dollars (55 U.S. dollars) (Sylvester 2011, unpaginated).
    As described under Factor B, the poaching of adult and nestling 
yellow-billed parrots for the local pet bird trade has contributed to 
the decline of the species and remains a threat; therefore, the JESA 
and WPA do not appear to adequately protect this species.
    Forestry Acts of 1937 and 1973 provide certain protections to some 
habitat (e.g., Cockpit Country Forestry Reserve) and other areas have 
been established as sanctuaries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107; Wiley 
1991, p. 202). There are more than 150 forest reserves, which provide 
for the preservation of forests, watershed protection, and ecotourism 
(Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 263). After Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, a new 
Forest Act (1996) was implemented. This Act provides for the 
conservation and sustainable management of forests and covers such 
activities as protection of the forest for ecosystem services and 
biodiversity (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 263). The Act provides for the 
declaration of forest reserves and forest management areas for purposes 
such as conservation of natural forests, development of forest 
resources, generation of forest products, conservation of soil and 
water resources, and protection of flora and fauna. The lease of any 
parcel of land in a forest reserve is also regulated. Management plans 
are required every 5 years which include a determination of an 
allowable annual cut, forest plantations to be established, a 
conservation and protection program, and portions of the land to be 
leased and for what purposes. Clearing of land for cultivation, cattle 
grazing, and the burning of vegetation are regulated. Permits are also 
required for harvesting of timber on Crown land, the processing of 
timber, or sale of timber; no person shall cut a tree in a forest 
reserve without a license. As described under Factor A, deforestation 
is the main threat to Jamaica's forests. Forests originally covered 97 
percent of the island; they now cover only 30 percent. The remaining 
forests continue to be threatened by deforestation from logging, 
agriculture, and mining; therefore, it appears that this regulation 
does not adequately protect the forest resources of Jamaica.
    Under the Natural Resources Conservation Authority Act, an 
environmental permit is required for the first-time introduction of 
species of flora and fauna and genetic material (Williams-Raynor 2010, 
unpaginated). Mining is also regulated by this Act. Before any physical 
development or construction can take place, a permit must be obtained 
from the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA). If the 
activity is likely to be harmful to public health or natural resources, 
NRCA can refuse a permit or order the immediate cessation of the 
activity or even closure of the plant (Berglund and Johansson 2004, p. 
8). This Act also addresses habitat protection by providing a framework 
for a system of protected areas, such as the Blue and John Crow 
Mountains National Park (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 263). We do not have 
information to completely analyze the adequacy of this regulation; 
however, one of the problems with conservation in Jamaica is incomplete 
and improper environmental impact assessments which are required to 
obtain an environmental permit (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 263). 
Therefore, it appears that this regulation may not be adequate to 
ameliorate threats to the forest resources of Jamaica.
    Under the Mining Act (1947), bauxite deposits are owned by the 
government, not by the owner of the land. The government may issue 
licenses to anyone to explore the land or mining leases to exploit it; 
therefore, in order to prospect and search for minerals, companies do 
not need to purchase the land. The Act gives the lessee or the license 
holder the right to enter government land or privately owned land to 
search for minerals or to mine minerals. Compensation is payable to the 
landowner for damages to land and property. The Act also stipulates 
that the mining companies must restore every mined area of land to the 
level of productivity that existed prior to the mining. Restoration 
must take place within 6 months following the end of mining activity. 
Failure to do so results in a penalty of 4,500 U.S. dollars per

[[Page 62749]]

acre. The average cost for mined-out bauxite restoration is 4,000 U.S. 
dollars per acre; therefore, companies are more encouraged to restore. 
According to the Jamaican Bauxite Institute (the government agency 
responsible for monitoring the bauxite industry), failure of 
restoration is very unusual (Berglund and Johansson 2004, p. 7). 
However, there are reports that penalties for failing to meet 
reclamation requirements are rarely enforced. Furthermore, when 
restoration is done, it is often planted with nonnative grasses and is 
not the same habitat that existed before mining (See Bauxite Mining 
section above) (BLI 2011c, unpaginated; Koenig 2008, p. 141; BLI 2006, 
unpaginated). Given the resulting habitat following bauxite mining on 
Mount Diablo, it appears that this regulation is not adequate to 
ameliorate threats to the forest resources of Jamaica.
    An import permit is also required from the Veterinary Services 
Division under the Animal Disease and Importation Act (Williams-Raynor 
2010, unpaginated). Additionally, no caged bird shall be imported into 
Jamaica from Trinidad and Tobago or any country of South America. Based 
on an increase in illegal importation of animals into Jamaica (See 
Factor E), it appears that this law may not adequately protect the 
yellow-billed parrots from potential disease, hybridization, or 
competition with non-native species.
    There are at least 34 pieces of Jamaican legislation that refer to 
the environment. However, there are problems with conservation in 
Jamaica that stem from poor communication between various government 
institutions, regulations insufficient at recognizing the value of 
biodiversity, insufficient funding, poor enforcement, and incomplete 
and improper environmental impact assessments (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 
263). In fact, due to the limitations of the Forestry Department and 
NRCA, management of the first national park was delegated to an NGO, 
Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust (JCDT) (Levy and Koenig 
2009, p. 263). The Forestry Department currently manages the entire 
Cockpit Country region as a forest reserve; however, they lack adequate 
technical and enforcement staff to respond to the increasing 
deforestation problem (Tole 2006, p. 799).
    Policies have led to a greater awareness of the legal status of 
parrots; however, they continue to be illegally harvested for local 
and, perhaps, some international trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107). 
Stringent gun control has been instituted by the Jamaican Government, 
but a stricter policy on poaching of nests is needed (Snyder et al. 
2000, p. 107; Wiley 1991, p. 202). At a meeting in February 2010, NEPA, 
along with others, decid