Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Two South American Parrot Species, 63480-63508 [2011-25807]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63480-63508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25807]



[[Page 63479]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 197

October 12, 2011

Part V





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 
Petition To List Two South American Parrot Species; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 63480]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071; MO 92210-0-0010 B6]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List Two South American Parrot Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a status 
review (12-month finding) on a petition to list the blue-headed macaw 
(Primolius couloni) and grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera) 
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and 
commercial information, we find that listing the blue-headed macaw or 
grey-cheeked parakeet is not warranted at this time. However, we ask 
the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available 
concerning the threats to these species or their habitat at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 12, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R9-ES-2011-0071. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203.

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. 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 threatened or endangered, 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.

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 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 under the Act to list as threatened or endangered 
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)
Yellow-crested cockatoo (C. sulphurea)

    We initiated this status review to determine if listing each of the 
12 species is warranted, and opened a 60-day period to allow all 
interested parties an opportunity to provide comments and information 
on the status of these 12 species. The public comment period closed on 
September 14, 2009.
    On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court 
(CV-10-357, D. D.C.) in which the Service agreed to submit to the 
Federal Register by July 29, 2011; September 30, 2011; and November 30, 
2011, respectively, determinations on whether the petitioned action is 
warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing 
actions for no fewer than four of the petitioned species. On August 9, 
2011, the Service published in the Federal Register a 12-month status 
review and proposed rule for the following four parrot species: Crimson 
shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and yellow-crested 
cockatoo (76 FR 49202).

Current Action

    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 the blue-headed macaw and grey-
cheeked parakeet. This Federal Register document complies, in part, 
with the second deadline in the court-approved settlement agreement 
mentioned above.

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

[[Page 63481]]

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.
    Below is a species-by-species description and analysis of the five 
factors. The species are considered in alphabetical order, beginning 
with the blue-headed macaw, followed by the grey-cheeked parakeet.

I. Blue-Headed Macaw (Primolius couloni)

Species Description

    The blue-headed macaw is a small species of macaw belonging to the 
family Psittacidae, the parrot family. It measures approximately 41 
centimeters (cm) (16 inches (in)) in length. Average male and female 
wing length measures approximately 226 millimeters (mm) (8.9 in) and 
220 mm (8.6 in), respectively. Average tail lengths for males and 
females measure 223 mm (8.7 in) and 204 mm (8.0 in), respectively 
(Forshaw 1973, p. 386). There is little sexual dimorphism between males 
and females (Lee 2010, p. 5). Adults are characterized by green general 
plumage with slightly more yellowish underparts. The entire head, 
except for the grey bare facial area, is blue. Primaries and primary-
coverts (wing feathers) are blue and secondaries and outermost upper 
wing-coverts are blue edged with green. The upperside of the tail is 
blue, whereas the undersides of flight and tail feathers are a dusky 
yellow. The bill is grey-black, which becomes horn-colored on the 
culmen (the upper ridge of the bill) and at the tip of the upper 
mandible. The iris is yellow, and legs are flesh-pink. Immature blue-
headed macaws have not been described (Forshaw 1973, p. 386).
    The blue-headed macaw occurs mainly in eastern Peru, in the 
departments of Loreto, Hu[aacute]nuco, Pasco, Ucayali, Cusco, Madre de 
Dios, Ayacucho, Puno, and Jun[iacute]n; but it also occurs just inside 
the border of extreme western Brazil, in the States of Acre and 
Rond[ocirc]nia, and just inside the border of northern Bolivia, in the 
departments Pando, Beni, and La Paz (BirdLife International (BLI) 
2011a, unpaginated; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007b, pp. 1-6). It has been 
recorded from 61 localities, with no significant association with 
forest type, riverine habitats, degree of disturbance, or altitude. 
Records of the blue-headed macaw occur in both foothill regions and 
lowlands ranging in elevation from 200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) to 
1,500 m (4,921 ft), and in a wide range of habitats, including terra 
firme forests (forests not inundated by flood waters), mature 
floodplain forests, successional river edge forests, and Mauritia palm 
swamps. One study found that this species was slightly more common in 
degraded areas than in pristine forests (Brightsmith 2009, personal 
communication (pers. comm.); Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 126, 129-
130).
    The estimated total global range for this species is 609,494 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (235,326 square miles (mi\2\)) and spans large areas 
of remote and unexplored terrain. The extent of occurrence (the global 
range, excluding disjunctions and major areas of inappropriate habitat) 
has been calculated as 460,000 km\2\ (177,606 mi\2\), an area larger 
than previously thought (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, pp. 126, 129, 133). However, the extent of occurrence 
may be underestimated, as data is lacking from Brazil, the global range 
is more than 90 percent forested, and data suggest anthropogenic 
pressures have not eliminated this species from any large areas (Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 129). Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) notes 
that the blue-headed macaw is not absent from any portion of its 
historical range.
    In 1990, Lambert et al. (2003, as cited in Tobias and Brightsmith 
2007, p. 127) estimated the global population of blue-headed macaws to 
be 10,000 individuals. In 2003, Gilardi estimated the global population 
to be well under 1,000 mature individuals; BLI revised the global 
estimate to 1,000-2,499 mature individuals in 2005 (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 127). It is unclear why population estimates have 
varied, but may be due to few published sources, anecdotal accounts, 
poor data quality (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 127), or differences 
in methodology. The most recent data suggest that this species occurs 
at a conservative density of one mature individual per 10-50 km\2\ 
(3.0-19.3 mi\2\); using the calculated 460,000 km\2\ extent of 
occurrence, Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, p. 126) estimate the 
population to be 9,200-46,000 mature individuals and 11,500-57,500 
individuals if immature birds are included (Tobias and Brightsmith 
2007, p. 133). Most of the 61 localities where this species has been 
recorded are easily accessible by road or river, potentially causing a 
bias towards areas affected by trapping and underestimating abundance. 
Furthermore, much of the global range has yet to be surveyed (Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133).
    BLI (2011a, unpaginated), based on Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, 
pp. 126-138), reports that the population is declining at a slow-to-
moderate and ongoing pace. However, Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) 
notes that this conclusion is not based on real evidence from wild 
populations. In fact, Tobias and Brightsmith (2007, p. 134) and 
Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) note that based on sightings data, 
there is no evidence of a decline in range or numbers of blue-headed 
macaws in the wild and that the possibility that the blue-headed macaw 
is increasing with the spread of degraded forests along rivers cannot 
be discounted (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133). Hennessey 
(2011, per. comm.) also notes that populations in Peru and Bolivia have 
remained healthy. There is no place within its range where this species 
has been searched intensively and does not occur (Brightsmith 2009, 
pers. comm.). At the Tambopata Research Center, blue-headed macaws have 
been steadily increasing since the year 2000 (Brightsmith 2009, pers. 
comm.). Sightings of the blue-headed macaw in Peru have also increased 
in the past 10 years (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.). Additionally, the 
lowlands of southeastern Peru, the core of the species' range, are the 
home of a wide variety of international research stations; parrot 
populations are monitored annually, so if the blue-headed macaw begins 
to decline, the research community would note this and begin specific 
protection and recovery actions (Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.).
    The diet of the blue-headed macaw has not been observed; however, 
parrots generally feed on seeds, ripe and unripe fruit, and flowers, 
but may also utilize other plant parts, such as nectar, leaves, and 
bark (Lee 2010, p. 6; Brightsmith 2006, p. 2; Cowen no date (n.d.), pp. 
5, 17). Cowen (n.d., p. 16) found that a psittacine community, which 
included the blue-headed macaw, mainly fed on three tree species: 
Ochroma pyramidale (balsa), Euterpe precatoria (a species of palm), and 
Cecropia peltata (trumpet tree). This species may undergo some form of 
nomadism to track food across the landscape (Tobias and Brightsmith 
2007, p. 132). Parrots may travel a few kilometers to hundreds of 
kilometers in search of food resources (Lee 2010, p. 8). Because 
parrots feed primarily on fruits and flowers, they are linked to the

[[Page 63482]]

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). In some locations within 
its range, the blue-headed macaw is not considered uncommon and is 
recorded throughout the year, but appears scarce in others or varies 
seasonally in response to food availability (BLI 2011a, unpaginated).
    Geophagy, the intentional consumption of soil, is known for parrots 
(Brightsmith 2004a, p. 534). In South America, parrots, including the 
blue-headed macaw, gather at riverbanks to consume soil; these sites 
are referred to as ``clay licks'' (Brightsmith 2004c, pp. 134, 137; 
Brightsmith 2004b, p. 5; Brightsmith 2004a, p. 535). Clay lick usage by 
blue-headed macaws is regular at several sites, and occurs year-round 
at Tambopata, Peru (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 131). There have 
been many theories proposed to explain why birds consume soil, 
including mineral supplementation, mechanical aid to digestion, pH 
buffering, treatment for endoparasites, and adsorption of dietary 
toxins (Brightsmith 2004c, p. 143; Brightsmith 2004b, p. 1; Brightsmith 
2004a, p. 534-535). The reasons for soil selection may vary, with sites 
depending on the needs of the birds and the characteristics of the 
soils present (Brightsmith 2004a, p. 542). Research in Peru has shown 
that parrots consume soil to obtain sodium (mineral supplementation) 
and assist in the adsorption of dietary toxins (Brightsmith 2004c, p. 
134; Brightsmith 2004b, pp. 3-4; Brightsmith 2004a, pp. 541-542). 
Furthermore, research conducted at the Tambopata Research Center in 
Peru found that local clay lick use by parrots varied seasonally, with 
low use occurring at a time when parrots appear to leave the area due 
to low fruit availability and peaks occurring during the breeding 
season (Brightsmith 2004b, p. 3). Peak clay lick use coincided with the 
breeding season when adults feed clay to young chicks during the period 
of maximum growth and least resistance to natural toxins found in their 
diet (Brightsmith 2004b, p. 4).
    The blue-headed macaw is reported to occur in pairs or groups of 
three. However, groups of 4 or more are routinely reported throughout 
the range, groups of 10 or more have been reported from 13 localities, 
and 2 groups were reported to have 53 and 60 individuals, respectively 
(Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 131-132). Few courtship displays have 
been described for parrots, but are assumed to be simple and include 
actions such as bowing, wing-drooping, wing-flicking, tail-wagging, and 
foot raising (Austin 1961, p. 33). Most parrot species are monogamous 
and remain paired for long periods of time, even for life. The age at 
which parrots reach sexual maturity varies but, in general, is between 
3 and 4 years in larger species and 1 to 2 years in smaller species 
(Austin 1961, p. 32). In captivity, the age in which the species is 
able to breed ranges from 2.5 to 5 years (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, 
p. 132). The nesting season of the blue-headed macaw is not known, but 
for other species of parrots and macaws found at the same site, the 
nesting season runs from June to November and November to March, 
respectively (Brightsmith 2006, pp. 7, 9). Although nesting has not 
been recorded for the blue-headed macaw, most parrots use natural tree 
cavities or cavities within cliffs (Lee 2010, p. 4). This species is 
reported to have low reproductive output in the wild (CITES 2002, p. 
1), but this may be based on little data (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, 
p. 32). In captivity, the clutch size for blue-headed macaws is 
reported to be 2-4 eggs (Vit 1997, as reported in Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 132). Female parrots generally incubate the eggs 
and rely on the male for food, although in some species the males 
contribute to incubation (Lee 2010, p. 5; Austin 1961, p. 33). Parrot 
chicks are born blind and naked or with sparse down, which is white in 
most species. The young of small parrots develop slowly and remain in 
the nest for 3-4 weeks (Austin 1961, p. 33). Adult longevity in the 
wild is unknown for the blue-headed macaw, but a congeneric (a species 
belonging to the same taxonomic genus as another species), the blue-
winged macaw (Primolius maracana), is reported to live at least 31 
years in captivity (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 132).

Conservation Status

    The blue-headed macaw is currently classified as ``vulnerable'' by 
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and listed in 
Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Species included in CITES 
Appendix I are the most endangered CITES-listed species. They are 
considered threatened with extinction, and international trade is 
permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally 
precludes commercial trade.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Blue-Headed Parrot

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

    One of the main threats to neotropical parrot species, in general, 
is deforestation (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98). The Amazon region has the 
world's highest absolute rate of deforestation (Laurance et al. 2002, 
p. 738) and is currently threatened by increasing legal and illegal 
logging, road projects, conversion of forests to agriculture, cattle 
ranching, oil and gas extraction, and mining (Lee 2010, p. 2; MacLeod 
2009, p. 6; Cowen 2007, p. 9; Magrin et al. 2007, p. 590; Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134; Hume et al. 2006, p. 10; Asner et al. 2005, 
p. 480; Alverson et al. 2001, p. 113; Laurance et al. 2001, p. 309; 
Snyder et al. 2000, p. 98; Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505). However, in 
western Amazonia, especially in Peru and Bolivia where this species 
occurs, the proportion of forest cover is still high and large tracts 
of intact forests continue to exist even though some forests have been 
cleared around some major towns (Finer et al. 2008, pp. 1, 6; Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134; Kometter et al. 2004, p. 6). Information 
on the extent of deforestation within the States or departments where 
the blue-headed macaw occurs is limited; most information is at the 
national level and may not necessarily apply to this species, 
especially in Bolivia and Brazil where it occurs just inside the 
borders of these countries.
Logging
    Tropical forests, especially the Amazon, have experienced 
increasing rates of deforestation for the past few decades, largely for 
the conversion of land to food crops or pastures, and selective 
harvesting of timber has increased in rate and extent (Granoff 2008, p. 
553; Asner et al. 2005, p. 480; Laurance 1999, p. 112; Laurence 1998, 
p. 411).
    Selective logging targets older, larger trees that parrot species 
depend on for nesting and food (Cowen 2007, p. 9; Hume et al. 2006, p. 
11). The loss of these keystone trees may pose a threat to parrot 
populations by creating a shortage of suitable nesting sites, 
increasing competition, and causing the loss of current generations 
through an increase in infanticide and egg destruction (Lee 2010, pp. 
2, 12). If not managed correctly, selective logging may also cause 
widespread collateral

[[Page 63483]]

damage to remaining trees, subcanopy vegetation, and soils (Asner et 
al. 2005, p. 480). An additional 10 to 40 percent of the living biomass 
of a forest may be damaged by a poorly managed logging harvest process 
(Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505) and can double the total amount of forest 
degraded by human activities (Asner et al. 2005, p. 481). The loss of 
trees may influence the availability and abundance of food sources for 
the blue-headed macaw and may result in changes in diet or movement to 
areas with greater food availability. Although individual blue-headed 
macaws, nests, or eggs may be affected by logging activities, we have 
no information to indicate impacts are occurring at a level affecting 
the status of the species.
    Typically, logging involves a low rate of extraction (less than 3 
cubic meters (m\3\) per ha (106 cubic feet (ft\3\) per ac) and, if 
implemented correctly, only removes as many trees as the forest can 
regenerate (Colitt 2010, unpaginated; Rodr[iacute]guez and Cubas 2010, 
p. 78). Because the valuable timber removed is often very old, long 
intervals are needed for timber stands to recover from harvest 
(Laurance 1999, p. 114), and if provisions are made for the 
regeneration of these commercial trees, the effects of logging on tree 
diversity and species composition may be short-lived (Fredericksen 
2003, p. 10). In fact, if well managed, selective logging can mimic 
natural disturbances, and if hunting pressure is low, most wildlife 
species can persist in logged forests or recolonize harvested areas 
from nearby unlogged patches (Laurance 1999, p. 114). Studies have 
indicated a relatively minor impact on some wildlife species from 
logging, and among those that may actually benefit are frugivorous 
birds, such as the blue-headed macaw, due to the positive impact on 
fruit abundance (Fredericksen 2003, p. 11). Additionally, frugivores 
usually tolerate fragmentation better and are capable of using 
deforested areas (Sekercioglu 2007, p. 285). Many parrots are not 
habitat specialists and thrive in mosaics of different successional 
habitats (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Many species of lowland forest 
habitat seem to do relatively well in modified human environments, as 
long as a mosaic of habitats in different successional stages is 
maintained and poaching and trapping are controlled (Snyder et al. 
2000, p. 99). Although the blue-headed macaw could potentially benefit 
from some logging activities, we found no information to what extent, 
if any, this species benefits from these activities. However, species 
experts have stated that the possibility of the species increasing with 
the spread of degraded forests along rivers cannot be discounted 
(Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133) and Hennessey (2011, pers. 
comm.) has stated that the blue-headed macaw populations in Peru and 
Bolivia have remained healthy.
Peru
    With approximately 68 million forested hectares (ha) (168 million 
acres (ac)) covering 53 percent of its land area, Peru has the second 
most extensive forests in Latin America, after Brazil (FAO 2011, p. 
118; Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610). In the early 2000s, Peruvian 
Amazonia experienced a series of forestry reforms, including the 
implementation of forest concessions (forest leases), which led to a 
rush for newly allocated timber resources (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 
609; Oliveira et al. 2007, p. 2). More than 7 million ha (17.2 million 
acres; approximately 10 percent of the country's forest) are now 
designated as forest concessions in the regions of Ucayali, Loreto, 
Madre de Dios, San Martin, and Huanco; another 18 million ha (44.5 
million ac; nearly a quarter of Peruvian forests) are still potentially 
available for concession designation in the near future 
(Rodr[iacute]guez and Cubas 2010, p. 79; Salo and Toivonen 2009, pp. 
609-610).
    The aim of the forestry reform was to target issues such as control 
and enforcement of forestry activities, as well as illegal forestry 
activities (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610). Part of the new forestry 
reform included a new forestry law (See Factor D) which classified 
Peru's forests into 6 categories, including permanent production 
forests. This category includes those forests in which forest 
concession contracts can be assigned. A concession contract gives the 
holder the right to exploit the resources within a given area, but also 
gives the holder responsibility to manage the resources (Salo and 
Toivonen 2009, p. 611). Studies have shown that forest concessions in 
Peru have provided forests with protection from deforestation (Salo and 
Toivonen 2009, p. 620; Oliveira et al. 2007, pp. 2-3). Although we do 
not know the exact location of the recently designated 7 million ha 
(17.2 million acres) of forest concessions, they do not appear to have 
impacted the blue-headed macaw, given that the range has remained 90 
percent forested and there is no evidence in a decline in the range or 
population of this species. We do not know where the 18 million ha 
(44.5 million ac) of potential forest concessions are located in 
regards to locations of blue-headed macaw; however, if located within 
the range of this species, data suggest that these concessions could 
provide forests with protection against deforestation.
    To date, the forests of Peru, including large areas within the 
range of the blue-headed macaw, have mainly been subjected to selective 
logging (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, 
p. 134; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10), which has contributed to only 2.5 
percent of Peru's overall deforestation (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 
610). Nonetheless, there are reports of illegal logging in Peru, 
including one study that found evidence of illegal logging within the 
Muruanahua Reserve and Alto Pur[uacute]s National Park in Peru, which 
is a known location for the blue-headed macaw (Upper Amazon Conservancy 
2010, unpaginated; World Wildlife Fund in Indian Country Today 2007, 
unpaginated). However, there is no evidence that selective logging 
removes habitat for this species (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). 
Furthermore, it is possible that the blue-headed macaw could benefit 
from logging given that frugivores tend to benefit from logging due to 
the increase in fruit availability, and lowland habitat species, such 
as the blue-headed macaw, do well in modified human environments if 
successional forests are left intact and poaching is controlled. In 
addition, species experts have stated that the possibility that the 
species is increasing with the spread of degraded forests along rivers 
cannot be discounted (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133). 
Because the range of the blue-headed macaw has remained 90 percent 
forested and there is no evidence of a decline in either the range or 
population, we have no indication that selective logging or illegal 
logging has impacted the blue-headed macaw. Large areas within the 
range of the blue-headed macaw are slated for selective logging (Tobias 
and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134); however, because there is no evidence 
that selective logging removes habitat, and in fact the species may 
benefit from selective logging, we have no reason to believe that 
future selective logging activities in Peru will be a threat to this 
species.
    In summary, we find that deforestation via current forest 
concessions and selective logging have not impacted the status of the 
blue-headed macaw based on the fact that the range has remained 90 
percent forested and there is no evidence of a decline in the range or 
population of this species. Although we do not know the locations of 
the forest concessions that may be designated in the future, if they 
are located within the range of the blue-headed macaw, they may provide

[[Page 63484]]

protection to blue-headed macaw habitat from deforestation. 
Furthermore, we found no information indicating that the known areas of 
the blue-headed macaw's range that are slated for selective logging 
will impact the status of the species; in fact, it is possible that the 
species could benefit. Additionally, there are several conservation 
programs being implemented in Peru to address deforestation (see 
Conservation Programs below). Therefore, we have reason to believe that 
future deforestation will not impact the status of this species in 
Peru.
Bolivia
    Approximately 57.2 million ha (141.3 million ac) (53 percent) of 
Bolivia's total area is forested (FAO 2011, p. 118); of this forested 
area, 38.9 million ha (96.1 million ac) are within the Bolivian Amazon 
and constitute 5 percent of the total Amazon forest (Locklin and Haack 
2003, p. 774). Large tracts of primary forest remain in Bolivia, but it 
is likely that some of these will be subjected to logging (Fredericksen 
2003, p. 13) as forest products contribute to Bolivia's national 
exports (Byers and Israel 2008, p. vi). As of 2006, 89 timber companies 
held the rights to 5.8 million ha (14.3 million ac) of logging 
concessions (Pacheco 2006, p. 208). The forests of Bolivia have mainly 
been subjected to selective logging (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; 
Fredericksen 2003, p. 10), which has been done at very low levels and 
with low human pressure, allowing them to remain largely intact 
(Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). There are management issues that still need 
to be addressed, including sufficient regeneration time for commercial 
species (Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). However, given that Bolivia 
constitutes only a small part of this species' range, and the fact that 
we found no information indicating that logging has impacted the blue-
headed macaw range or population in any of its range countries, we have 
no reason to believe that logging is a threat to the species in 
Bolivia. Furthermore, we have no information indicating any future 
logging activities will impact the blue-headed macaw.
Brazil
    Brazil contains 519.5 million ha (1.2 billion ac) of forested area, 
62 percent of the total land area (FAO 2011, p. 118). Logging 
concessions total only 150,000 ha (370,658 ac) (Colitt 2010, 
unpaginated). However, by the end of 2010, Brazil was to have auctioned 
off an additional 1 million ha (2.5 million ac) of forest concessions 
to private companies in an effort to reduce the demand for illegal 
logging. Concessions help establish control over public areas usually 
occupied illegally (Colitt 2010, unpaginated).
    Logging is occurring in blue-headed macaw habitat in extreme 
western Brazil, but this species is a generalist and can exist within 
degraded habitats. Rond[ocirc]nia and Acre are among Brazil's major 
timber-production states (Asner et al. 2005, p. 480); however, this 
species occurs just inside the border of western Brazil and we found no 
information suggesting that the range or population of the blue-headed 
macaw have been impacted by logging in Brazil and no information 
indicating logging may affect this species in the future.
    Large areas within the range of the blue-headed macaw have 
experienced, or are slated for, selective logging (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134), and designation of forest concessions could 
potentially cause changes in land-use practices, perhaps affecting 
plant and wildlife species composition and diversity of an assigned 
area (Salo and Toivonen 2009, p. 610; Fredericksen 2003, p. 10). 
However, BLI (2011a, unpaginated) reports that ``much of the forest 
within the species' range is still intact, and although the Bolivian 
forest is threatened by expansion of the logging industry, this species 
may benefit from the consequent patchwork clearance.''
    Ninety percent of the range of the blue-headed macaw remains 
forested, and there is no evidence of a decline in either the range or 
the population. Logging could affect individual blue-headed macaws 
though the loss of food or nesting resources; however, considering the 
extent of intact forests within the range of this macaw and no evidence 
of a decline in the population (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134), 
as well as the possibility that the blue-headed macaw is increasing 
with the spread of degraded forests along rivers (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, pp. 132-133), we have no evidence to suggest that 
logging is affecting the blue-headed macaw to a degree that it is 
affecting the status of the species. Additionally, we have no 
information to suggest that logging may become a threat to the status 
of the blue-headed macaw in the future.
Roads and Infrastructure
    Oliveira et al. (2007, p. 2) estimated that 75 percent of the total 
Peruvian Amazon forest damage was within 20 km (12.4 mi) of the nearest 
road. In Bolivia, studies have detected small-scale roadside 
deforestation extending over 30 km (18.6 mi) from major roads 
(Steininger et al. 2001, p. 132). Studies on the effects of roads on 
deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon have shown a 30 percent forest 
loss within 10 km (6.2 mi) of roads and highways, with highways causing 
an additional 20 percent forest loss within 11-25 km (6.8-15.5 mi), and 
15 percent loss within 26-50 km (16-31 mi) (Zambrano et al. 2010, p. 
158). Despite the deforestation occurring along roads and highways, the 
range of the blue-headed macaw is 90 percent forested, and we found no 
information indicating that the species has been impacted by roads or 
any subsequent deforestation. In fact, species experts (Hennessey 2011, 
pers. comm. and Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) indicate that this 
species is doing well, despite some localized impacts from 
infrastructure and roads.
    The Initiative of the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure of 
South America (IIRSA) is a plan endorsed by the South American 
presidents, which includes around 350 infrastructure projects, such as 
highways, bridges, railways, ports, airports, and transmission 
corridors, to accomplish regional economic integration and facilitate 
trade (Babbitt 2009, pp. 28-29). At the center of this plan is the 
nearly complete Transoceanic Highway, a 1,000-km (621.3-mi) highway 
that connects the Brazilian State of Acre to the Peruvian coast, 
passing through Puerto Maldonado (Garcia-Navarro 2009, unpaginated; 
Babbitt 2009, p. 28; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) and near 
several other locations in which the blue-headed macaw has been 
recorded, bisecting its range (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). 
The blue-headed macaw occurs within the immediate outskirts of Puerto 
Maldonado, one of the areas with significant disturbance, suggesting 
that this species is not greatly affected by anthropogenic pressures 
(Brightsmith 2009, pers. comm.; Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 129).
    Future urban expansion in Puerto Maldonado resulting from the 
highway may put pressure on the protected area of Tambopata (Delgado 
2008, p. 27), where the blue-headed macaw has been recorded. Although 
the Transoceanic Highway is not located within Bolivia, the connection 
between Cobija, Bolivia, and Brasil[eacute]ia, Brazil, allows Cobija, a 
recorded location for the blue-headed macaw, to benefit from the road 
project and potentially grow in the future (Delgado 2008, p. 31). 
Additionally, IIRSA plans to build another highway that would branch of 
from the Transoceanic Highway in Rio Branco, the capital of Acre. If 
completed, this highway will run through the forests of Serra do 
Divisor National Park, a known

[[Page 63485]]

location for the blue-headed macaw (Babbitt 2009, p. 31). In spite of 
this information, we found no indication that the range, habitat, or 
population of the blue-headed macaw has been impacted by the 
Transoceanic Highway. Given that the species has not been adversely 
affected by road construction or other infrastructure, we have no 
information suggesting that the status of this species may be impacted 
in the future by the Transoceanic Highway.
    Although there has been road development within Peru, Bolivia, and 
Brazil, and individual blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected 
by road development through the loss of food and nesting resources, we 
have no information indicating that the status of the species has been 
adversely impacted by this development in the past. The range remains 
90 percent forested and there is no evidence that the range or 
population has declined. Furthermore, Brightsmith (2009, pers. comm.) 
notes that although road construction and related deforestation may 
affect part of the blue-headed macaw's range, habitat analyses to date 
show no evidence that deforestation will adversely affect the species 
in the future.
Agriculture and Ranching
    Logging and modern roads facilitate infiltration into pristine 
forests by migrant settlers who use slash-and-burn methods for 
agriculture and cattle pastures (Laurance 1998, p. 411). Slash-and-burn 
agriculture involves the clearing of land and burning of debris 
(Locklin and Haack 2003, p. 775; Nepstad et al. 1999, p. 505). Often, 
plots are abandoned after only two or three cycles, and then more 
forests are cleared to establish new plots (Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. 
2007, p. 406; Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 10). Production may be limited 
to subsistence farming if roads are in poor condition or if the cost of 
transportation is high. However, if roads are in good condition and 
provide access to international and national markets, production may 
expand to cash crops (Zambrano et al. 2010, p. 158; Locklin and Haack 
2003, p. 780).
    Agriculture is considered the main cause of deforestation in the 
lowlands of Bolivia (Pacheco 2006, p. 215). With pressures for 
agriculture expansion, large areas are being cleared for both soybean 
farms and cattle ranches (Pacheco 2006, pp. 213, 216; Duery and Vlosky 
2005, p. 10; TNC 2001, unpaginated: Laurance 1998, p. 411). The San 
Buenaventura-Puerto Heath road runs through the Madidi National Park, a 
known location of the blue-headed macaw. The greatest human-caused 
impact along this road was the conversion of forest via slash-and-burn 
agriculture, although rates of deforestation were relatively low 
(Locklin and Haak 2003, pp. 775, 778). Forest clearance patterns of 
indigenous communities practicing shifting cultivation have been 
observed, particularly along rivers, throughout Beni, Pando, and La Paz 
(Steininger et al. 2001, p. 131). Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. (2007, p. 
406) found that the Tsimane', a native Amazonian society within Beni, 
practice slash-and-burn agriculture and abandon their plots after one 
or two cultivation cycles to establish new plots. This society is also 
moving from subsistence farming towards cash crops, which requires 
additional forest clearing and contributes to further deforestation 
(Reyes-Garc[iacute]a et al. 2007, p. 407). We have no information 
indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been or will be impacted by 
agriculture in Bolivia, and given that Bolivia is such a small portion 
of the species' range, we have no reason to believe agricultural 
expansion is affecting or will affect this species at the population 
level.
    Current expansion of deforestation in Bolivia Amazonia is also 
associated with cattle ranching (Pacheco 2006, p. 216). Its 
contribution to deforestation is expected to increase in the future due 
to topographical limitations of mechanized agriculture. In Beni, the 
impacts of cattle ranching may be a greater concern, as 65 percent of 
all the cattle herds in Bolivia are located here (Pacheco 2006, pp. 
215-216). However, the species' range in Bolivia is limited to just 
inside the border and we have no information indicating that the blue-
headed macaw has been impacted, or could be impacted, by cattle 
ranching in that area of its range.
    In Brazilian Amazonia, cattle production is the dominate land use 
in deforested areas and is the main factor driving deforestation 
(Pacheco 2006, p. 223; Laurance 1999, p. 113; Fearnside 1996, p. 21). 
Large-scale ranchers (those that own over 100 ha (247 ac)) are thought 
to be responsible for 70-75 percent of all the deforestation in this 
region (Laurance 1999, p. 113). Furthermore, illegal slash-and-burn 
practices have already destroyed 20 percent of the Brazilian Amazon 
(Colitt 2010, unpaginated). The States of Rond[ocirc]nia and Acre, 
where the blue-headed macaw occurs, are currently experiencing 
conversions of forest for agriculture and cattle ranching (Tobias and 
Brightsmith 2007, p. 134). However, given this species' limited range 
just inside the border of Brazil and its ability to thrive in altered 
habitat, coupled with no information indicating that cattle ranching 
has impacted, or will impact, the blue-headed macaw within its limited 
range in Brazil, we do not believe that cattle production is currently, 
or will be a threat to this species, now or in the future.
    Although the migration of settlers, and the subsequent farming, has 
been named by some as a contributing factor to deforestation in Peru 
(Painter 2008, unpaginated; Hume et al. 2006, p. 3), we found little 
information on the extent of deforestation due to agriculture. In 
Man[uacute] National Park, 63,500 ha (156,911 ac) of 1.7 million ha 
(4.2 million ac) were deforested up to the year 2005 for agricultural 
activities (Cabieses 2009, p. 26). However, since 2006, the Integrated 
Programme to Strengthen the Local Capacity of Small Farmers of the 
Man[uacute] Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone of Peru has worked with 
families within the park to foster activities compatible with organic 
farming and incorporate natural resource management into agricultural 
activities. By 2008, 530 families helped reforest 151 ha (373 ac) with 
mostly native species (Cabieses 2008, pp. 26-27). In the area 
surrounding Cordillera Azul National Park (a recorded location for the 
blue-headed macaw), the rate of deforestation due to the coffee and tea 
plantations and cereal grain farms (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557) has 
increased. The core zone of the Park is largely free of human 
inhabitants, with the exception of one rancher with 220 ha (543.6 ac) 
of pasture and some reports of indigenous people in the southeastern 
part of the Park. In 2008, the Peruvian government granted a 20-year 
contract to the Peruvian NGO Centro de Conservaci[oacute]n, 
Investigaci[oacute]n y Manejo de Areas Naturales Cordillera Azue (CIMA) 
that allows CIMA to manage the park under the supervision of the State 
and according to clearly defined guidelines. (Ostoic n.d., p. 1). In 
addition, we found no information indicating agriculture in any of the 
range states has impacted, or will impact, the blue-headed macaw, thus 
we do not believe it will impact the species in Peru, especially given 
the limited and localized nature of agriculture activities.
    Agriculture and cattle ranching activities are currently taking 
place within the range of the blue-headed macaw, especially within 
Bolivia and Brazil. However, given that these two countries make up a 
minimal part of the species range, it is unlikely to have any effect on 
the species. Although it is possible that individual blue-headed macaws 
could be affected by these activities through the loss of food or 
nesting resources, we have no information indicating the species has 
been adversely impacted by either

[[Page 63486]]

activity; in fact, the blue-headed macaw seems to benefit from some 
fragmented habitat. There is no evidence of a decline in the range or 
population of the blue-headed macaw and 90 percent of the species' 
range remains forested. Both agriculture and cattle ranching are 
expected to expand in the future; however, we have no information on 
the extent of this expansion and no information indicating either 
activity will be a threat to the species in the future.
Oil and Gas
    The western Amazon contains large reserves of oil and gas, many 
that are yet untapped (Finer et al. 2008, p. 1). Global demand for 
energy and record oil prices have launched unprecedented levels of oil 
and gas exploration and extraction in western Amazonia, with some of 
the most intense activity occurring in Peru (Kolowski and Alonso 2010, 
p. 917; Babbitt 2009, p. 31; Finer et al. 2008, p. 1).
    National governments have delineated specific areas, or blocks, 
that are zoned for hydrocarbon (e.g., natural gas and petroleum) 
activities; these blocks may be leased to state and multinational 
energy companies for exploration and production (Finer et al. 2008, p. 
1). In western Amazonia, there are approximately 180 oil and gas blocks 
covering about 688,000 km\2\ (265,638 mi\2\), which are operated by at 
least 35 multinational companies (Finer et al. 2008, p. 2). These oil 
and gas blocks may bring new access routes throughout the area, 
contributing to deforestation, as it did in eastern Amazonia and the 
southern Brazilian Amazon (Finer et al. 2008, p. 6).
    In 2003, Peru reduced royalties to encourage investment and sparked 
an exploration boom. As of 2008, 72 percent of the Peruvian Amazon was 
zoned for oil and gas by the government into 64 separate blocks; 48 of 
these blocks are currently active, the others may be subjected to 
active exploration in the near future (Kolowski and Alonso 2010, p. 
917; Finer et al. 2008, pp. 2, 5). The only areas fully protected from 
oil and gas activities are national parks and national and historic 
sanctuaries, which cover approximately 12 percent of the Peruvian 
Amazon. However, 20 blocks overlap with 11 less strictly protected 
areas, such as communal reserves and reserved zones (Finer et al. 2008, 
p. 2). Although oil and gas exploration and production are occurring in 
Peru, we have no information indicating that the blue-headed macaw has 
been impacted, or will be impacted, by oil and gas activities in Peru.
    In Bolivia and Brazil, areas open to oil and gas explorations are 
increasing rapidly (Finer et al. 2008, p. 2). In Bolivia, two leased 
blocks, covering 15,000 km\2\ (5,791 mi\2\), include large parts of 
Madidi National Park, a recorded location for the blue-headed macaw, as 
well as other parks where the blue-headed macaw has not been recorded; 
exploration in this region is imminent. The primary task of a newly 
created oil company, comprised of the State oil companies of Bolivia 
and Venezuela, is to explore for oil in newly created blocks 
surrounding Madidi National Park. Many other blocks in Bolivia overlap 
with protected areas (Finer et al. 2008, p. 5). We have no information 
indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been adversely impacted by 
oil and gas exploration in Bolivia; species experts have indicated that 
there is no evidence of a decline in the range or population of the 
blue-headed macaw (Tobias and Brightsmith 2007, p. 134) . Furthermore, 
we do not have information to indicate that the species will be 
impacted by future oil and gas exploration in Bolivia.
    In Brazil, a 400-km (248.5-mi) gas pipeline was completed in 2009, 
running from Urucus gas field (State of Rond[ocirc]nia) to Manaus 
(State of Amazonas). Another 500-km (310.6-mi) pipeline has been 
proposed to carry gas to Porto Velho in Rond[ocirc]nia. Additionally, 
Brazil's National Petroleum Agency has announced plans to look for oil 
and gas in the State of Acre, on the border with Peru and Bolivia 
(Finer et al. 2008, p. 5), an area that contains known locations for 
the blue-headed macaw. Oil and gas exploration and production do not 
necessarily impact parrots. Drilling operations often have a smaller 
footprint than other extractive activities, and this is further reduced 
once the well is installed. Further, we found no information that 
existing oil and gas operations have impacted any parrot populations in 
any of the range countries. Because there is no evidence of a decline 
in the range or population of the blue-headed macaw in Brazil, we have 
no information indicating that the blue-headed macaw has been impacted 
by oil and gas exploration in Brazil. Furthermore, we do not have 
information to indicate that the species will be impacted by future oil 
and gas exploration in Bolivia.
    Pending oil and gas projects are the primary threats to Peru's 
Camisea region and Bolivia's Madidi region (Finer et al. 2008, p. 6). 
Although individual blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected by 
oil and gas explorations through the loss of food or nesting resources, 
there is no evidence of a decline in the range or population of the 
blue-headed macaw, and we have no information indicating that the 
species has been adversely impacted by oil and gas exploration. 
Furthermore, we have no information to indicate that the species will 
be impacted by future oil and gas exploration.
Mining
    Over the last decade, the price of gold has increased 360 percent, 
with an annual rate of increase of approximately 18 percent; 
subsequently, the number of non-industrial gold mining operations in 
developing countries has risen (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 1). Many of 
these operations are illegal, as they are set up by residents without 
permits or formal title to the land, and without an environmental 
impact analysis or miner education (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 1).
    In Peru, the expansion of gold mining has been encouraged by the 
Transoceanic Highway, which has drawn impoverished Peruvians into the 
lowlands in search of a livelihood and hoping to strike it rich 
(Garcia-Navarro 2009, unpaginated). Madre de Dios is currently 
undergoing a new gold rush due to the high price of gold, increased oil 
and gas activities, and the completion of infrastructure projects 
(Hajek et al. 2011, in press). This region is Peru's third largest 
producer of gold and accounts for 70 percent of Peru's artisanal 
(small-scale or subsistence miner) gold production (Swenson et al. 
2011, p. 2). Concurrent with increasing annual gold prices, mining 
deforestation has been increasing since 2003. From 2003 to 2006, annual 
mining deforestation was approximately 292 ha (721.5 ac) per year. From 
2006 to 2009 this rate increased to 1,915 ha (4,732 ac) per year, a 
six-fold increase (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 4). Furthermore, Swenson et 
al. (2011, pp. 4-5) found that mining deforestation in this area is 
outpacing deforestation due to settlements, although this scenario 
might be different for areas with more secondary roads, which tend to 
correlate with higher rates of deforestation. One study found that 
forest recovery following small-scale gold mining was extremely slow 
and qualitatively inferior to regeneration following other human-caused 
disturbances (Mol and Ouboter 2003, p. 202). However, these operations 
are typically small and require very little land-clearing. Given the 
relatively small amount of land conversion for gold mining, we found no 
information indicating that deforestation via mining has impacted the 
blue-headed macaw, nor did we find any information

[[Page 63487]]

indicating this species will be impacted by mining in the future.
    In addition to deforestation, impacts to the environment from gold 
mining stem from acid mine drainage and air and water pollution from 
contaminants, such as mercury. During gold processing, mercury is 
released into sediments, waterways and the atmosphere. As parrots are 
known to use riverside clay licks, they may be at risk of mercury 
entering their systems when they ingest soil particles. Many developing 
countries have reached agreements with large gold mining companies that 
do not use mercury, but regulating small-scale, artisanal mines 
continues to be a struggle (Swenson et al. 2011, pp. 1, 5). 
Furthermore, gold miners might actively erode riverbanks, which may 
include essential clay licks used by parrots (Lee 2010, p. 12). 
However, we have no information indicating that mining has affected the 
blue-headed macaw.
    Permits for mining require an environmental impact report. Madre de 
Dios has the highest number of unapproved mining permits in Peru; 
moreover, there is little effective enforcement of unapproved permits 
or illegal miners, and therefore, little incentive to apply for a 
permit (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 2). Miners are able to use waterways 
for transportation and are capable of invading far reaches of 
communities and protected areas. Lack of funding, staff, and staff 
training makes patrolling these remote areas difficult (Swenson et al. 
2011, p. 5). Two of the three mining sites studied by Swenson et al. 
(2011, p. 4) are located less than 7 km (4.3 mi) from the Amarakaeri 
Communal Reserve and less than 70 km (43.5 mi) from Manu National Park. 
In a study of 54 national parks in Latin America, mining was considered 
a threat in approximately 20 (37 percent) of the parks, of which 11 (55 
percent) were located in Peru (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 4). Peru's newly 
created Ministry of Environment is working to control illegal mining, 
and a recent effort was made through a moratorium on new mining 
concessions (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 5).
    In addition to the major mining growth centers, there are many 
small expanding areas of mining scattered across Madre de Dios, which 
are harder to detect (Swenson et al. 2011, p. 5). Rising annual gold 
prices and an increasing number of miners setting up illegal mines may 
fragment once large areas of pristine forests. Although individual 
blue-headed macaws could potentially be affected by mining through the 
loss of food or nesting resources, we have no information that the 
species has been adversely impacted by mining. In fact, this species 
tends to benefit from patchwork clearance of forests (BLI 2011a, 
unpaginated). Furthermore, we do not have any information indicating 
the species may be impacted by future mining operations.
Conservation Programs
    A new mechanism is emerging that may raise funds to protect forests 
from deforestation, as well as mitigate climate change. This mechanism 
is known as ``reduced emissions from deforestation and forest 
degradation'' (REDD). As forests are destroyed for logging, mining, or 
oil and gas, the carbon stored in the trees is released as carbon 
dioxide, which adds to the concentration of greenhouse gases; 20 
percent of global greenhouse gas emissions are thought to be from 
deforestation (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557). Lawmakers and businesspeople 
around the world are beginning to consider investing in REDD programs 
as a way to mitigate climate change. Under this type of program, 
developing countries would be paid to protect their forests and reduce 
emissions associated with deforestation. Funds would come from 
foundations, governments, or financial agencies such as World Bank; 
industries in developed countries would receive credits for saving 
trees in developing countries (Chatterjee 2009, p. 557). If REDD 
projects are able to generate revenue comparable to those of activities 
such as logging and agriculture, and revenues are distributed equally 
among stakeholders, this would give standing forests value and an 
incentive for forest conservation (Hajek et al. 2011, in press). REDD 
projects are emerging in many regions (Hajek et al. 2011, in press); 
however, we do not yet know the occurrence of these projects within the 
range of the blue-headed macaw and how successful these projects will 
be.
    Another program being implemented is certification of forests. The 
basis for certification is for consumers to be assured by a neutral 
third party that forest companies are employing sound practices that 
will ensure sustainable forest management. By being certified, a 
company can differentiate their products and potentially acquire a 
larger share of the market (Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 12). To be 
certified, companies must follow standards set by the Forest 
Stewardship Council (FSC). Certification companies not only certify 
forests, but also forest products that come from well managed forests 
and may also provide a means to track logs and remove illegally logged 
trees from the market (Duery and Vlosky 2005, pp. 13-14; Kometter et 
al. 2004, p. 9). To date, more than 670,000 ha (1.6 million ac) of 
Peru's forest have achieved FSC certification (Rodriguez and Cubas 
2010, p. 78). Bolivia has the largest area of FSC-certified tropical 
forests in the world; by the mid-2000s, Bolivia announced that 2.2 
million ha (5.4 million ac) of humid tropical forests were certified 
(Killeen et al. 2007, p. 600; Duery and Vlosky 2005, p. 14). In 2004, 
Brazil announced that 1.2 million ha (2.9 million ac) of native Amazon 
forests and 1.0 million ha (2.4 million ac) of plantations were 
certified (WWF 2004, unpaginated). The FSC promotes ``the equitable 
incorporation of social and environmental considerations when decisions 
are taken to manage forests. Under FSC certification, civil and 
indigenous rights are respected, areas of high social and environmental 
conservation value are maintained or enhanced, natural forests are not 
converted, highly hazardous pesticides and genetically modified trees 
are prohibited, and harvesting must meet national laws and 
international treaties.'' Furthermore, forests that are ``FSC certified 
forest products'' are verified from the forest of origin through the 
supply chain. The FSC label ensures that the forest products used are 
from responsibly harvested and verified sources (FSC n.d., 
unpaginated).
    In 2008, Peru announced its intention to reach zero deforestation 
within just 10 years. The Peruvian government stated that more than 80 
percent of the country's primary forests could be saved or protected 
with about $20 million U.S. dollars (USD) a year from the international 
community. However, there are major obstacles to achieving this goal. 
Additionally, Peru launched in 2010 its National Program for the 
Conservation of Forests and Mitigation of Climate Changes. This program 
aims to preserve 54 million hectares (133 million acres) of the 72 
million hectares (178 million acres) of tropical forest in the Peruvian 
Amazon, although it is expected that the entire area consisting of 72 
million hectares will be included (La Cruz 2010, unpaginated). 
Similarly, Brazil announced a plan to cut deforestation rates by 70 
percent over the next 10 years with the help of international funding. 
Brazil's plan calls on foreign countries to find $20 billion USD by 
2021 (Painter 2008, unpaginated). All three countries have committed to 
protecting their forest resources in the future and have moved towards 
their goals to reach zero deforestation by certifying nearly 4 million 
ha (10 million ac) of forests.

[[Page 63488]]

There are many obstacles to overcome to reach these goals, including 
annual funding. If these programs are implemented and goals reached, 
deforestation in the Amazon will be significantly reduced.
Summary of Factor A
    It is clear that the forests of the Amazon are being deforested for 
various economic activities, and deforestation rates have been 
increasing for several decades. How a species responds to this type and 
level of habitat disturbance depends on the preferences of the 
individual species, and the distance of undisturbed rainforest near 
disturbed areas. Many parrots are not habitat specialists and thrive in 
mosaics of different successional habitats. Many species of lowland 
forest habitat seem to do relatively well in modified human 
environments, as long as a mosaic of habitats in different successional 
stages is maintained and poaching and trapping are controlled (Snyder 
et al. 2000, p. 99).
    Although we do not know the exact extent of current deforestation 
within the specific areas occupied by the blue-headed macaw, especially 
within Bolivia and Brazil where the species occurs just inside the 
countries' borders, there is no evidence that deforestation has 
impacted the blue-headed macaw. Ninety percent of this species' range 
is still forested. There is no evidence of a decline in the range or 
population and populations within Peru and Bolivia have remained 
healthy. At a minimum, the population numbers 11,500 individuals 
(including immature individuals), and this may be an underestimate as 
the entire global range has not been surveyed. Furthermore, blue-headed 
macaws at the Tambopata Research Center have been increasing since 
2000, and sightings of the blue-headed macaw in Peru have increased 
over the last 10 years. Additionally, it has been found in a wide range 
of habitats, and is slightly more common in degraded habitats than 
pristine forests. The blue-headed macaw still occurs on the outskirts 
of Puerto Maldonado, Peru, one of the areas with significant 
disturbance, suggesting that this species is not greatly affected by 
anthropogenic pressures. Species experts have even suggested that the 
blue-headed macaw may increase with the spread of degraded forests 
along rivers.
    Although there is evidence that forest habitat within the species 
range is subject to selective logging, the patchwork clearance as a 
consequence of logging may benefit the species. Furthermore, we found 
no information that selective logging has adversely impacted the 
species. Additionally, road construction and related deforestation that 
are likely to affect the region in which the blue-headed macaw occurs 
is not likely to adversely affect the species. It is possible that 
individual blue-headed macaws may be affected by economic activities 
involving deforestation, such as logging, road development, agriculture 
and cattle ranching, oil and gas exploration, and mining, through the 
loss of food or nesting resources; however, we have no evidence to 
suggest that deforestation is affecting the blue-headed macaw to a 
degree that it is affecting the status of the species. Based on the 
best scientific and commercial information available, we find that 
deforestation from various economic activities, as discussed above, is 
not adversely impacting the blue-headed macaw and has not affected the 
range or status of the species. Additionally, we do not anticipate 
significant modification to the blue-headed macaw's habitat or 
curtailment of its range due to deforestation in the foreseeable 
future. A vast amount of the species' range has remained forested 
through