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]
Download as PDF
62740
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
and may possibly require, disturbance
in order to complete its life cycle. The
only available information is monitoring
data from one location, and two of the
other locations have not been seen in
quite some time, although attempts to
find these populations again have not
occurred. As such, there is an
incomplete set of information about this
species, which makes it difficult to
assess threats and make valid
predictions on how potential threats
may affect E. piscaticus. For instance,
climate change will affect temperature
and precipitation in the Southwest, but
it is not known what that means for
changes in flooding, and how that will
affect E. piscaticus.
Other factors potentially affecting
Erigeron piscaticus—including
recreation and watershed degradation—
are either limited in scope, or lacking
evidence indicating that they adversely
impact the species. There is no evidence
that overutilization, disease, or
predation are affecting this species.
Although the existing populations are
small, there is no evidence that the
populations are subject to a lack of
genetic diversity or are more vulnerable
to stochastic events. In addition, we
conclude that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is not a threat to
the species.
Based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information pertaining to the five
factors, we find that the threats are not
of sufficient imminence, intensity, or
magnitude to indicate that Erigeron
piscaticus is in danger of extinction
(endangered) or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future (threatened), throughout all of its
range.
its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion
of its range’’ is not defined by the
statute. For the purposes of this finding,
a portion of a species’ range is
‘‘significant’’ if it is part of the current
range of the species, and it provides a
crucial contribution to the
representation, resiliency, or
redundancy of the species. For the
contribution to be crucial it must be at
a level such that, without that portion,
the species would be in danger of
extinction.
In determining whether Erigeron
piscaticus is endangered or threatened
in a significant portion of its range, we
considered status first to determine if
any threats or potential threats acting
individually or collectively threaten or
endanger the species in a portion of its
range. We evaluated the current range of
E. piscaticus to determine if there is any
apparent geographic concentration of
the primary stressors potentially
affecting the species including flooding,
recreation, and watershed degradation.
We have analyzed the stressors to the
degree possible, and determined that
they are essentially uniform throughout
the species’ range. We also found the
stressors are not of sufficient
imminence, intensity, magnitude, or
geographically concentrated such that it
warrants evaluating whether a portion
of the range is significant under the Act.
We do not find that E. piscaticus is in
danger of extinction now, nor is likely
to become endangered within the
foreseeable future, throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, listing E. piscaticus as an
endangered or threatened species under
the Act is not warranted at this time.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that Erigeron
piscaticus is not in danger of extinction,
or likely to become so, throughout all of
its range, we must next consider
whether there are any significant
portions of the range where E. piscaticus
is in danger of extinction or is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable
future. We also considered the historical
range of the species, and have
determined that the current range is no
different from the historical range.
Therefore, there has been no loss of the
historical range, and no further analysis
of the historical range is required.
The Act defines an endangered
species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a threatened species as
one ‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
We find that Amoreuxia gonzalezii
(Santa Rita yellowshow), Astragalus
hypoxylus (Huachuca milk-vetch), and
Erigeron piscaticus (Fish Creek
fleabane) are not in danger of extinction
now, nor is any of these three species
likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of their ranges.
Therefore, listing any of these three
species as endangered or threatened
under the Act is not warranted at this
time.
We request that you submit any new
information concerning the distribution
and status of, or threats to, Erigeron
piscaticus to our U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Office (see ADDRESSES section)
whenever it becomes available. New
information will help us monitor E.
piscaticus and encourage its
conservation. If an emergency situation
develops for E. piscaticus or any other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Conclusion of 12-Month Finding
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
species, we will act to provide
immediate protection.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is
available on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov and upon request
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this finding
are the staff members of the Arizona
Ecological Services Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
Dated: September 22, 2011.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–25470 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month
finding.
AGENCY:
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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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:
DATES:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 12month findings in the Federal Register.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) publishes an annual notice of
resubmitted petition findings (annual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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: blueheaded 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62741
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 courtordered 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.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62742
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(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.’’
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
Public Hearing
inches (in)) in length. This species is
generally characterized as a green parrot
At this time, we do not have a public
with white lores (between the eye and
hearing scheduled for this proposed
bill) and frontal bar (forehead), a blue
rule. The main purpose of most public
hearings is to obtain public testimony or crown, pink throat and upper breast,
bluish primary feathers, and a yellow
comment. In most cases, it is sufficient
to submit comments through the Federal bill (BLI 2011a, unpaginated; Forshaw
and Knight 2010, p. 278).
eRulemaking Portal, described above in
This species occurs in mid-level (up
the ADDRESSES section. If you would like
to 1,200 meters (m) (3,937 feet (ft)), wet
to request a public hearing for this
limestone and lower montane, mature
proposed rule, you must submit your
forests of Jamaica. The late successional
request, in writing, to the person listed
forest canopy height ranges from 15–20
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
m (49–66 ft), with occasional emergence
CONTACT section by November 25, 2011.
of Terminalia and Cedrela tree species
Species Information and Factors
at 25–30 m (82–98 ft) (BLI 2011a,
Affecting the Species
unpaginated; World Parrot Trust, 2009,
unpaginated; Tole 2006, p. 790; Koenig
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
2001, pp. 205–206; Koenig 1999, p. 9;
and implementing regulations (50 CFR
part 424) set forth procedures for adding Wiley 1991, pp. 203–204). Undergrowth
is thin, but mosses, vines, lianas, and
species to, removing species from, or
epiphytes are abundant (Tole 2006, p.
reclassifying species on the Federal
790; Koenig 2001, p. 206). They may
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
also be found near cultivated areas with
Wildlife and Plants. Under section
trees at forest edge (World Parrot Trust,
4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be
2009, unpaginated; Tole 2006, p. 790);
determined to be endangered or
however, compared to the other
threatened based on any of the
endemic parrot species, the black-billed
following five factors:
parrot (Amazona agilis), the yellow(A) The present or threatened
billed parrot appears to prefer interior
destruction, modification, or
forests, rather than edge habitat (Koenig
curtailment of its habitat or range;
2001, pp. 207–208, 220).
(B) Overutilization for commercial,
In the latter part of the 20th Century,
recreational, scientific, or educational
the overall range and population of the
purposes;
yellow-billed parrot decreased (Juniper
(C) Disease or predation;
and Parr 1998 in BLI 2011a,
(D) The inadequacy of existing
unpaginated). The range of the yellowregulatory mechanisms; or
billed parrot is estimated to be 5,400
(E) Other natural or manmade factors
square kilometers (km2) (2,085 square
affecting its continued existence.
In considering whether a species may miles (mi2)) (approximately half the
warrant listing under any of the five
total area of Jamaica) (BLI 2011a,
factors, we look beyond the species’
unpaginated). However, this species
exposure to a potential threat or
occurs in fragments within this range.
aggregation of threats under any of the
The greatest occurrences are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 yellowbilled 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
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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). Yellowbilled 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).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 yellowbilled 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 longterm 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 clearcutting 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
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62743
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
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62744
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(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. Slashand-burn practices are used on hillsides
to clear land for cash crops, such as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 forestdependent species, such as the yellowbilled 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
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 yellowbilled 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62745
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, latesuccessional 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
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62746
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 blackbilled 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 blackbilled 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 yellowbilled 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 yellowbilled 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
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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 yellowbilled 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 yellowbilled 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62747
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 yellowbilled 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
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62748
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 yellowbilled 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
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
is needed (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 107;
Wiley 1991, p. 202). At a meeting in
February 2010, NEPA, along with
others, decided to take actions to cut
down on trade. These actions include a
public awareness program, increased
monitoring of ports and territorial
waters, adding pet stores in the Natural
Resources Conservation Authority’s
Permit and License System, and
publicizing information on seizures and
confiscations; to date the agency has
undertaken the awareness campaign
(Williams-Raynor 2010, unpaginated).
Protected Areas
Habitat in the Blue and John Crow
Mountains was declared a national park
in 1989 and is managed by the Jamaica
Conservation and Development Trust, a
local nongovernmental organization
(NGO) (BLI 2011d, unpaginated; BLI
2011e, unpaginated; Dunkley and
Barrett 2001, p. 1; Snyder et al. 2000, p.
107; Wiley 1991, p. 202). It protects one
third of the approximately 30 percent of
Jamaica that remains forested (TNC
2008b, unpaginated). The purpose of
this national park is to ensure long-term
conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem
services, and other cultural heritage.
The main conservation objective is to
maintain and enhance the remaining
area of closed broadleaf forest and the
flora and fauna within it. The park is
guided by a 5-year management plan
(IUCN 2011, unpaginated).
Enforcement and management of the
national park are weak. Laws that
prohibit forest clearance inside National
Parks are largely not enforced as park
rangers fear reprisals from farmers (Chai
et al. 2009, pp. 2489, 2491). One study
found that even after designation as a
protected area, the Blue and John Crow
Mountains National Park continued to
experience forest clearance and
fragmentation, resulting in an increasing
number of smaller, more vulnerable
fragments, species shifts, and loss in
biodiversity. However, forest regrowth
increased, resulting in a 63 percent
decline in deforestation (Chai et al.
2009, pp. 2487–2488, 2489). Because
this park is managed by an NGO,
funding is a continuing problem and
restricts actions (BLI 2011d,
unpaginated).
Fifteen important bird areas (IBAs)
cover approximately 3,113 km2 (1,202
mi2), or 25 percent, of Jamaica’s land
area. The yellow-billed parrot is listed
as occurring in 10 of these IBAs,
although population estimates are not
available for most. IBAs are
international site priorities for bird
conservation. These areas may overlap
with forest reserves or Crown lands that
offer protection, but designation as an
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62749
IBA itself does not afford any protection
to the area. In Jamaica, 44 percent of the
area covered by IBAs is under formal
protection, but active management is
minimal in many areas (Levy and
Koenig 2009, p. 265).
International Laws
The yellow-billed parrot is listed in
Appendix II of CITES. CITES is an
international treaty among 175 nations,
including Jamaica and the United
States, entered into force in 1975. In the
United States, CITES is implemented
through the U.S. Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended. The Act
designates the Secretary of the Interior
as lead responsibility to implement
CITES on behalf of the United States,
with the functions of the Management
and Scientific Authorities to be carried
out by the Service. Under this treaty,
member countries work together to
ensure that international trade in animal
and plant species is not detrimental to
the survival of wild populations by
regulating the import, export, and
reexport of CITES-listed animal and
plant species.
Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev.
CoP15), the Parties to CITES adopted a
process, termed the National Legislation
Project, to evaluate whether Parties have
adequate domestic legislation to
successfully implement the Treaty
(CITES 2010b, pp. 1–5). In reviewing a
country’s national legislation, the CITES
Secretariat evaluates factors such as
whether a Party’s domestic laws
designate the responsible Scientific and
Management Authorities, prohibit trade
contrary to the requirements of the
Convention, have penalty provisions in
place for illegal trade, and provide for
seizure of specimens that are illegally
traded or possessed. The Government of
Jamaica was determined to be in
Category 1, which means they meet all
the requirements to implement CITES
(https://www.cites.org, SC59 Document
11, Annex p. 1).
As discussed under Factor B, we do
not consider international trade to be a
threat impacting this species. Therefore,
protection under this Treaty against
unsustainable international trade is an
adequate regulatory mechanism.
The import of yellow-billed parrots
into the United States is also regulated
by the Wild Bird Conservation Act
(WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), which
was enacted on October 23, 1992. The
purpose of the WBCA is to promote the
conservation of exotic birds by ensuring
that all imports to the United States of
exotic birds are biologically sustainable
and not detrimental to the species. The
WBCA generally restricts the
importation of most CITES-listed live or
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62750
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
dead exotic birds except for certain
limited purposes such as zoological
display or cooperative breeding
programs. Import of dead specimens is
allowed for scientific specimens and
museum specimens. The Service may
approve cooperative breeding programs
and subsequently issue import permits
under such programs. Wild-caught birds
may be imported into the United States
if certain standards are met and they are
subject to a management plan that
provides for sustainable use. At this
time, the yellow-billed parrot is not part
of a Service-approved cooperative
breeding program and has not been
approved for importation of wild-caught
birds.
International trade of parrots was
significantly reduced during the 1990s
as a result of tighter enforcement of
CITES regulations, stricter measures
under EU legislation, and adoption of
the WBCA, along with adoption of
national legislation in various countries
(Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). As discussed
under Factor B, we found that
commercial legal international trade has
been very limited; however, yellowbilled parrots are taken for the local
Jamaican market. We believe that
regulations are adequately protecting
the species from international trade, but
national laws are inadequate to
ameliorate threats from poaching for
Jamaica’s domestic pet bird trade.
Summary of Factor D
Although there are laws intended to
protect the forests of Jamaica and the
yellow-billed parrot, deforestation from
mining, logging, and agriculture
continues to be a threat, even within
protected areas such as the Blue and
John Crow Mountains National Park;
predation increased by habitat alteration
continues to be a threat, and yellowbilled parrots continue to be poached
for the local pet bird market. Therefore,
we find that inadequate regulatory
mechanisms are a threat to the yellowbilled parrot throughout its range now
and in the foreseeable future.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Species’ Continued
Existence
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Hurricanes
Hurricanes are a constant threat to
island populations of wildlife and are a
frequent occurrence in the Caribbean
(Wiley and Wunderle 1993,
p. 320). In 1988, Hurricane Gilbert hit
Jamaica causing widespread damage to
the island’s mid-level and montane
forests; Cockpit Country, Blue
Mountains, and John Crow Mountains
all suffered severe and very extensive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
damage (Varty 1991, pp. 135, 138).
Since 2004, Jamaica has been hit by 5
major storms, including 2 hurricanes
and 3 tropical storms (Thompson 2011,
unpaginated). The most vulnerable birds
are frugivorous and birds that require
large trees for foraging or nesting;
require a closed canopy forest; have
special microclimate requirements; or
live in a habitat in which vegetation is
slow to recover, like the yellow-billed
parrot (Wiley and Wunderle 1992, pp.
319, 337). Survival of small populations
within a fragmented habitat becomes
more uncertain if the destructive
potential of catastrophic events
increases, as predicted for hurricanes
with increased climate change (Wiley
and Wunderle 1993, p. 319).
Frequent hurricanes can have direct
and indirect effects on bird populations.
Direct effects include mortality from
winds, rain, and storm surges, and
geographic displacement of individuals
by the wind. Wet plumage may cause
hypothermia and death in birds, with
chicks being at greater risk than adults.
Additionally, birds may be killed by
falling trees or flying debris, thrown
against objects, or high winds may blow
them out to sea where they die from
exhaustion and drowning (Wiley and
Wunderle 1993, pp. 319, 321–322).
However, the greatest impacts to birds
are the indirect effects that come after
the storm has passed and stem from the
destruction of vegetation. These effects
include loss of food sources, loss of
nests and nesting sites, increased
vulnerability to predation, microclimate
changes, and increased conflict with
humans (Wiley and Wunderle 1993, pp.
319, 321, 326, 337; Varty 1991, p. 148).
Defoliation is the most common type
of damage caused by hurricanes. High
winds remove flowers, fruit, and seeds,
impacting frugivores like the yellowbilled parrot, the greatest. Larger trees,
which are typically the best producers,
are the ones most affected by
hurricanes. Certain sections of Jamaica
following Hurricane Gilbert regenerated
quickly, while the destruction in some
areas was so complete it was estimated
to take many years to be reestablished.
The majority of trees and shrubs were
reported to have been mostly or totally
defoliated; trees in flower or fruit lost
their blooms and crops (Varty 1991, pp.
139, 148). In some cases, the production
of flowers and fruits are less than 50
percent of pre-hurricane levels after 1
year (Wiley and Wunderle 1993, pp.
324–325). Seven months after Hurricane
Gilbert, some areas had little or no
apparent regrowth; although most trees
showed signs of refoliation, and after 10
months some trees began to show signs
of growth (Varty 1991, pp. 140–141). For
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
frugivores, food supplies are likely to be
reduced for several years following a
destructive hurricane, and with limited
resources birds may experience greater
competition for food, leading to a
decline in populations (Wiley and
Wunderle 1993, p. 332; Varty 1991, pp.
144, 148).
Nesting sites can also be damaged by
high winds, rain, or flooding. The larger,
taller trees, like those needed by the
yellow-billed parrot for nesting
activities, are the most susceptible to
snapping or uprooting (Wiley and
Wunderle 1993, p. 327). During
Hurricane Gilbert, many trees were
toppled or had crowns or major limbs
broken or snapped off. Others were
damaged or knocked over by other
windfall trees. In some places,
landslides totally destroyed the forests
(Varty 1991, p. 139). The loss of these
nesting trees further reduces the
already-limited nesting cavities
available. Damaged trees that remain
standing are more likely to be lost in
future storms, increasing the risk to
yellow-billed parrots using them.
However, trees that suffer limb breakage
but remain standing may create
additional cavities for nesting (Wiley
and Wunderle 1993, pp. 326–328). With
the loss of suitable nesting sites,
reproductive responses may vary
following a storm. Hurricane Gilbert
severely damaged or blew over 50
percent and 44 percent of the larger
trees in John Crow Mountains and
Cockpit Country, respectively; however,
some yellow-billed parrots were
observed successfully breeding in
Cockpit Country within 10 months of
the storm (Wiley and Wunderle 1993,
p. 335; Varty 1991, pp. 143, 149).
Defoliated habitat may increase the
risk of yellow-billed parrots to
predators, including humans. For
example, because of competition for
limited food resources, forest dwellers
may be forced to forage closer to the
ground or wander more widely,
exposing them to predators. Birds may
be weakened after a storm and serve as
an easy source of protein for predators
and humans in need of food.
Additionally, while in search of food
and cover, birds may come into conflict
with humans in agricultural regions,
making them more vulnerable to
poaching; farmers may shoot birds to
protect any remaining crops (Wiley and
Wunderle 1993, pp. 330–332).
Hurricanes also create additional edge
habitat by increasing the number and
size of forest openings; this may enable
predators to invade forest tracts they
would otherwise avoid (Wiley and
Wunderle 1993, p. 336).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Furthermore, where trees have been
blown down, subsistence farmers may
move in to exploit the land.
Governments may also make subsidies
available for timber removal and
development of the land, including the
use of chainsaws and heavy equipment
to clear away debris and dead trees. The
equipment may not be recalled
following cleanup and may be used to
clear healthy forests (Wiley and
Wunderle 1993, p. 331). Following
Hurricane Gilbert, chainsaws brought in
for cleanup were later used to clear
forests for timber (Varty 1991, p. 146).
Additionally, farmers lost most or all of
their cultivated land, increasing the
demand for new land and, therefore,
deforestation (Varty 1991, p. 145).
Hurricanes are a natural occurrence in
the Caribbean, and birds have adapted
to periodic storms. Parrots should be
able to adapt to changes following
hurricanes and healthy, wide-ranging
populations should be able to, in the
long term, survive hurricanes. However,
hurricanes play a more important role in
extinction when a species already has a
restricted and fragmented range due to
habitat loss and is reduced to fewer
individuals (Wiley and Wunderle 1993,
pp. 340–341; Varty 1991, p. 149; Wiley
1991, p. 191). After a population has
declined due to deforestation activities,
they may not be able to recover from the
additional loss of forests from
hurricanes (Varty 1991, p. 149). The
yellow-billed parrot population has
survived through hurricanes, but longterm survival is a concern given the
impact of hurricanes on food and
nesting sources, combined with the
continuing habitat destruction by
humans (Wiley 1991, p. 203).
Competition With Nonnative Species
NEPA has noticed an increase in the
illegal importation of monkeys, birds,
and snakes into the country. Jamaica is
now believed to be a trans-shipment
point for illegal trade in animals from
Central and South America (NEPA
2010a, p. 1). Nonnative species not only
introduce diseases to native wildlife
(See Factor C), but escaped individuals
also pose a threat through hybridization
and competition for food and nesting
sources (Levy and Koenig 2009, p. 264;
Wiley 1991, p. 191). A temporary ban
was placed on the importation of
nonnative psittacines due to potential
introduction of disease, hybridization,
and competition with the two native
parrot species. Other nonnative species
known to have played a role in the
decline and extinction of parrots
include honeybees (Apis mellifera) and
rats (especially Rattus rattus); these
compete with parrots for nest cavities.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
We have no information on the extent
of non-native species being introduced
to Jamaica or the extent of hybridization
and competition. Therefore, we do not
find that competition with non-native
species is a threat to the yellow-billed
parrot.
Summary of Factor E
We do not have any information on
the actual impacts of nonnative species
on the yellow-billed parrot on which to
base an analysis of potential threats;
therefore, we do not find that nonnative
species pose a threat to the yellowbilled parrot.
Hurricanes frequently occur in the
Caribbean. Healthy, widespread
populations of birds should be able to
adapt to changes following a hurricane.
However, species like the yellow-billed
parrot that are frugivores and rely on
cavities in old growth trees, are
particularly vulnerable to the impacts of
hurricanes on forests. Food sources may
be reduced for years following a storm
and already-limited nesting cavities are
further reduced; declines in these vital
resources could result in competition
with other species and a decline in the
population. These impacts are further
exacerbated due to deforestation
activities that have caused a decline in
the extent and quality of yellow-billed
parrot habitat and declines in the
yellow-billed parrot population.
Because of the ongoing loss of habitat,
yellow-billed parrots may not be able to
recover from the impacts of a
destructive hurricane; therefore, we find
that hurricanes are a threat to the
yellow-billed parrot now and in the
foreseeable future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we conducted
a review of the status of the species and
considered the five factors in assessing
whether the yellow-billed parrot is
endangered or threatened throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. We
examined the best scientific and
commercial information available
regarding the past, present, and future
threats faced by the yellow-billed parrot.
We reviewed the petition, information
available in our files, and other
available published and unpublished
information.
The yellow-billed parrot is only found
on the island of Jamaica and occurs in
fragments across its range; at least 80
percent of the yellow-billed parrot
population occurs in one area of the
island. The entire population of this
species is reported as declining, and the
extent and quality of habitat is also
declining. This species faces immediate
and significant threats, primarily from
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62751
deforestation through logging,
conversion of land to agriculture, road
construction, and mining and the
subsequent encroachment of nonnative
species. Ongoing deforestation activities
threaten to remove more of the limited
mature trees the yellow-billed parrot
needs for nesting. Cockpit Country is
also threatened by potential future
mining. If mining were to occur, the
damage would be irreversible.
Additionally, habitat alteration creates
an optimal habitat for the yellow boa,
which has already been reported to prey
on yellow-billed parrot nestlings;
continuing deforestation increases this
risk of predation. Adults and nestling
yellow-billed parrots are captured for
the local pet bird trade. Poaching of
birds for the pet bird trade removes vital
individuals from the population and
essential nesting cavities. There are
regulatory mechanisms in place to
protect the yellow-billed parrot and its
habitat, but enforcement appears to be
inadequate given the threats this species
is currently facing. Hurricanes also pose
a threat to the yellow-billed parrot
because of the already ongoing
deforestation and population decline.
This species, in the long term, may not
be able to recover from the additional
impacts of hurricanes on foraging and
nesting resources given the continuing
loss of food and nesting resources by
logging, agriculture, road development,
and mining.
Section 3 of the Act defines an
‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as
‘‘any species which is likely to become
an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ The
magnitude of the threats the yellowbilled parrot is facing is high. Nesting
success is reported to be low for this
species. Given the declining population,
limited habitat and range, the ongoing
and future threats to the remaining
habitat, the associated increased risk of
predation, and the loss of individuals
from poaching, long-term survival of
this species is a concern. Impacts from
hurricanes are likely to be exacerbated
by the ongoing deforestation and
declining population. Any loss of
individuals from the population or loss
of vital nesting cavities from current or
future threats further reduces the
population and loss of already limited
habitat and is likely to affect the
reproductive success of this species.
Because the population of this species is
estimated at 10,000–20,000 individuals
and mining is not currently occurring in
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62752
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Cockpit Country, we do not believe that
this species is currently in danger of
extinction. However, we believe that if
mining occurs in Cockpit Country,
suitable habitat continues to be lost, or
the effects of the current threats acting
on the species are not sufficiently
ameliorated within the foreseeable
future, the species will continue to
decline and likely become in danger of
extinction; therefore on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial
information, we find that the yellowbilled parrot meets the definition of a
‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act, and
we are proposing to list the yellowbilled parrot as threatened throughout
its range.
Significant Portion of the Range
Having determined that the yellowbilled parrot meets the definition of
threatened throughout its range, we
must next consider whether the yellowbilled parrot is in danger of extinction
within a significant portion of its range.
The Act defines an endangered
species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range,’’ and a threatened species as
one ‘‘likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion
of its range’’ is not defined by the
statute. For the purposes of this finding,
a portion of a species’ range is
‘‘significant’’ if it is part of the current
range of the species and it provides a
crucial contribution to the
representation, resiliency, or
redundancy of the species. For the
contribution to be crucial it must be at
a level such that, without that portion,
the species would be in danger of
extinction.
In determining whether a species is
threatened or endangered in a
significant portion of its range, we first
identify any portions of the range of the
species that warrant further
consideration. The range of a species
can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways.
However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are
not reasonably likely to be significant
and threatened or endangered. To
identify only those portions that warrant
further consideration, we determine
whether there is substantial information
indicating that: (1) The portions may be
significant, and (2) the species may be
in danger of extinction there or likely to
become so within the foreseeable future.
In practice, a key part of this analysis is
whether the threats are geographically
concentrated in some way. If the threats
to the species are essentially uniform
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
throughout its range, no portion is likely
to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of
threats applies only to portions of the
species’ range that clearly would not
meet the biologically based definition of
‘‘significant’’ (i.e., the loss of that
portion clearly would not reasonably be
expected to increase the vulnerability to
extinction of the entire species to the
point that the species would then be in
danger of extinction), such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
If we identify portions that warrant
further consideration, we then
determine their status (i.e., whether in
fact the species is endangered or
threatened in a significant portion of its
range). Depending on the biology of the
species, its range, and the threats it
faces, it might be more efficient for us
to address either the ‘‘significant’’
question first, or the status question
first. Thus, if we determine that a
portion of the range is not ‘‘significant,’’
we do not need to determine whether
the species is endangered or threatened
there; if we determine that the species
is not endangered or threatened in a
portion of its range, we do not need to
determine if that portion is
‘‘significant.’’
Applying the process described above
for determining whether this species is
endangered in a significant portion of its
range, we considered status first to
determine if any threats or future threats
acting individually or collectively
endanger the species in a portion of its
range. We have analyzed the threats to
the degree possible, and determined
they are essentially uniform throughout
the species’ range and no portion is
being impacted to a significant degree
more than any other.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against
certain practices. Recognition through
listing results in public awareness, and
encourages and results in conservation
actions by Federal and State
governments, private agencies and
interest groups, and individuals.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered and threatened
wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR
17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal
for any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States to ‘‘take’’ (includes
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt
any of these) within the United States or
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
upon the high seas; import or export;
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any endangered wildlife
species. It also is illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken in
violation of the Act. Certain exceptions
apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened
wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for
endangered species and 17.32 for
threatened species. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit may be
issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities. For
threatened species, a permit may be
issued for the same activities, as well as
zoological exhibition, education, and
special purposes consistent with the
Act.
Special Rule
Section 4(d) of the Act states that the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may,
by regulation, extend to threatened
species prohibitions provided for
endangered species under section 9 of
the Act. Our implementing regulations
for threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.31)
incorporate the section 9 prohibitions
for endangered wildlife, except when a
special rule is promulgated. For
threatened species, section 4(d) of the
Act gives the Secretary discretion to
specify the prohibitions and any
exceptions to those prohibitions that are
appropriate for the species, and
provisions that are necessary and
advisable to provide for the
conservation of the species. A special
rule allows us to include provisions that
are tailored to the specific conservation
needs of the threatened species and
which may be more or less restrictive
than the general provisions at 50 CFR
17.31.
If the proposed special rule is
adopted, all prohibitions and provisions
of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32 will apply to
the yellow-billed parrot, except that
import and export of certain yellowbilled parrots into and from the United
States and certain acts in interstate
commerce will be allowed without a
permit under the Act, as explained
below.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Import and Export
The proposed special rule will apply
to all commercial and noncommercial
international shipments of live and dead
yellow-billed parrots and parts and
products, including the import and
export of personal pets and research
samples. In most instances, the special
rule will adopt the existing conservation
regulatory requirements of CITES and
the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory
provisions for the import and export of
certain yellow-billed parrots. The
import and export of birds into and from
the United States, taken from the wild
after the date this species is listed under
the Act; conducting an activity that
could take or incidentally take yellowbilled parrots; and foreign commerce
will need to meet the requirements of 50
CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including
obtaining a permit under the Act.
However, the special rule proposes to
allow a person to import or export
either: (1) A specimen held in captivity
prior to the date this species is listed
under the Act; or (2) a captive-bred
specimen, without a permit issued
under the Act, provided the export is
authorized under CITES and the import
is authorized under CITES and the
WBCA. If a specimen was taken from
the wild and held in captivity prior to
the date this species is listed under the
Act, the importer or exporter will need
to provide documentation to support
that status, such as a copy of the original
CITES permit indicating when the bird
was removed from the wild or museum
specimen reports. For captive-bred
birds, the importer would need to
provide either a valid CITES export/
reexport document issued by a foreign
Management Authority that indicates
that the specimen was captive-bred by
using a source code on the face of the
permit of either ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ or ‘‘F.’’ For
exporters of captive-bred birds, a signed
and dated statement from the breeder of
the bird, along with documentation on
the source of their breeding stock,
would document the captive-bred status
of U.S. birds.
The proposed special rule will apply
to birds captive-bred in the United
States and abroad. The terms ‘‘captivebred’’ and ‘‘captivity’’ used in the
proposed special rule are defined in the
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 and refer to
wildlife produced in a controlled
environment that is intensively
manipulated by man from parents that
mated or otherwise transferred gametes
in captivity. Although the proposed
special rule requires a permit under the
Act to ‘‘take’’ (including harm and
harass) a yellow-billed parrot, ‘‘take’’
does not include generally accepted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
animal husbandry practices, breeding
procedures, or provisions of veterinary
care for confining, tranquilizing, or
anesthetizing, when such practices,
procedures, or provisions are not likely
to result in injury to the wildlife when
applied to captive wildlife.
We assessed the conservation needs of
the yellow-billed parrot in light of the
broad protections provided to the
species under CITES and the WBCA.
The yellow-billed parrot is listed in
Appendix II under CITES, a treaty
which contributes to the conservation of
the species by monitoring international
trade and ensuring that trade in
Appendix II species is not detrimental
to the survival of the species (see
Conservation Status). The purpose of
the WBCA is to promote the
conservation of exotic birds and to
ensure that imports of exotic birds into
the United States do not harm them (See
Factor D). The best available
commercial data indicate that the
current threat to the yellow-billed parrot
stems mainly from illegal trade in the
domestic markets of Jamaica. Thus, the
general prohibitions on import and
export contained in 50 CFR 17.31,
which only extend within the
jurisdiction of the United States, would
not regulate such activities. Accordingly
we find that the import and export
requirements of the proposed special
rule provide the necessary and
advisable conservation measures that
are needed for this species.
Interstate Commerce
Under the proposed special rule, a
person may deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship a yellow-billed parrot
in interstate commerce in the course of
a commercial activity, or sell or offer to
sell in interstate commerce a yellowbilled parrot without a permit under the
Act. At the same time, the prohibitions
on take under 50 CFR 17.31 would
apply under this special rule, and any
interstate commerce activities that could
incidentally take yellow-billed parrots
or otherwise prohibited acts in foreign
commerce would require a permit under
50 CFR 17.32.
Although we do not have current
data, we believe there are few yellowbilled parrots in the United States.
Current ISIS (International Species
Information System) information shows
no yellow-billed parrots held in U.S.
zoos (ISIS 2011, p. 1). However, some
zoos do not enter data into the ISIS
database. Persons in the United States
have imported and exported captivebred yellow-billed parrots for
commercial purposes and one body for
scientific purposes, but trade has been
very limited (UNEP–WCMC 2011,
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62753
unpaginated). We have no information
to suggest that interstate commerce
activities are associated with threats to
the yellow-billed parrot or would
negatively affect any efforts aimed at the
recovery of wild populations of the
species. Therefore, because acts in
interstate commerce within the United
States has not been found to threaten
the yellow-billed parrot, the species is
otherwise protected in the course of
interstate commercial activities under
the incidental take provisions and
foreign commerce provisions contained
in 50 CFR 17.31, and international trade
of this species is regulated under CITES,
we find this special rule contains all the
prohibitions and authorizations
necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the yellow-billed parrot.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy,
‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered
Species Act Activities,’’ that was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinion
of at least three appropriate
independent specialists regarding this
proposed rule. The purpose of such
review is to ensure listing decisions are
based on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analysis. We will send
copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We
will invite these peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment
period, on the specific assumptions and
the data that are the basis for our
conclusions regarding the proposal to
list as as threatened the yellow-billed
parrot, under the Act.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule
during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, our final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Required Determinations
Clarity of Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
62754
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the names of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that we do not
need to prepare an environmental
assessment, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, in connection with
regulations adopted under section 4(a)
of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A list of all references cited in this
document is available at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
R9–ES–2011–0075, or upon request
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Endangered Species Program, Branch of
Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are
staff members of the Branch of Foreign
Species, Endangered Species Program,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We are issuing this proposed rule
under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
*
Parrot, yellow-billed
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 17.41 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 17.41
Special rules—birds.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(c) The following species in the parrot
family: Salmon-crested cockatoo
(Cacatua moluccensis) and yellowbilled parrot (Amazona collaria).
(1) Except as noted in paragraphs
(c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, all
prohibitions and provisions of §§ 17.31
and 17.32 of this part apply to these
species.
(2) Import and export. You may
import or export a specimen without a
permit issued under § 17.32 of this part
only when the provisions of parts 13,
14, 15, and 23 of this chapter have been
met and you meet the following
requirements:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 Oct 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
*
Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened
*
*
Jamaica ..................
Status
*
*
T
Frm 00111
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
*
When listed
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
....................
*
(i) Captive-bred specimens: The
source code on the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) document accompanying the
specimen must be ‘‘F’’ (captive-bred),
‘‘C’’ (bred in captivity), or ‘‘D’’ (bred in
captivity for commercial purposes) (see
50 CFR 23.24); or
(ii) Specimens held in captivity prior
to certain dates: You must provide
documentation to demonstrate that the
specimen was held in captivity prior to
the dates specified in paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section. Such
documentation may include copies of
receipts, accession or veterinary records,
CITES documents, or wildlife
declaration forms, which must be dated
prior to the specified dates.
(A) For salmon-crested cockatoos:
January 18, 1990 (the date this species
was transferred to CITES Appendix I).
PO 00000
*
*
(h) * * *
*
*
Entire ......................
*
*
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
*
*
Amazona collaria ....
PART 17—[AMENDED]
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
Scientific name
*
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Historic range
*
BIRDS
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an
entry for ‘‘Parrot, yellow-billed’’ in
alphabetical order under BIRDS to the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to read as follows:
Authority
Species
Common name
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Special
rules
*
*
NA
*
17.41(c)
*
(B) For yellow-billed parrots: [Insert
publication date for final rule] (the date
this species was listed under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
(3) Interstate commerce. Except where
use after import is restricted under
§ 23.55 of this chapter, you may deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in
interstate commerce and in the course of
a commercial activity, or sell or offer to
sell, in interstate commerce the species
listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 20, 2011
Gregory E. Siekaniec
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–25811 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Agencies
[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