![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Importation of Exotic Wild Birds Into the United States; Adding Blue-Fronted Amazon Parrots From Argentina's Approved Sustainable-Use Management Plan to the Approved List of Non-Captive-Bred Species
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 6, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 151)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46559-46567]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06au03-44]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 15
RIN 1018-AH89
Importation of Exotic Wild Birds Into the United States; Adding
Blue-Fronted Amazon Parrots From Argentina's Approved Sustainable-Use
Management Plan to the Approved List of Non-Captive-Bred Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this rule, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
proposes to approve a sustainable-use management plan developed by the
CITES Management Authority of Argentina for blue-fronted amazon parrots
(Amazona aestiva), under the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA).
Approval of Argentina's petition would allow the import into the United
States of blue-fronted amazon parrots removed from the wild in
Argentina under an approved sustainable-use management plan. Criteria
for approval of sustainable-use management plans are contained in 50
CFR 15.32. This rule proposes to add blue-fronted amazon parrots to the
approved list of non-captive-bred (wild-caught) species contained in 50
CFR 15.33(b).
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 6, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Materials related to this proposed rule are available for
public inspection by appointment from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
Please send comments and materials relating to this proposed rule
to Dr. Peter O. Thomas, Chief, Division of Management Authority, at the
above address, or via E-mail at: cites@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter O. Thomas, Chief, Division
of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and
[[Page 46560]]
Wildlife Service; telephone (703) 358-2093; fax (703) 358-2280.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
This proposed rule would amend the regulations implementing aspects
of the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA), which was signed into law on
October 23, 1992. The WBCA limits or prohibits imports of exotic bird
species to ensure that their wild populations are not harmed by trade.
It also encourages wild bird conservation programs in countries of
origin by ensuring that all imports of such species into the United
States are biologically sustainable and not detrimental to the survival
of the species. A final rule published in the Federal Register on
November 16, 1993 (58 FR 60536), implemented the prohibitions
stipulated in the WBCA and provided permit requirements and procedures
for some allowed exemptions.
Import quotas were established for CITES-listed bird species for
the year immediately following enactment of the WBCA, from October 23,
1992, to October 22, 1993. Those quotas were announced in the Federal
Register on December 4, 1992 (57 FR 57510). In that same notice, we
informed the public that, after that year, the importation of all
exotic bird species listed in the CITES Appendices would be prohibited
unless the species was listed in an approved list, or unless the
species was a member of one of the ten families of birds specifically
exempted from the WBCA. A notice published on March 30, 1993 (58 FR
16644), solicited public comments and announced a public meeting, held
April 15-16, 1993, to receive input for developing regulations to
implement some of the provisions of the WBCA. We received input, both
at the meeting and in writing, from a broad cross-section of the
interested public. During the year in which import quotas for CITES-
listed bird species were in place, we published two notices in the
Federal Register, one on April 16, 1993 (58 FR 19840), and one on
August 10, 1993 (58 FR 42573), announcing species for which the quotas
had been met and no further individual birds could be imported.
Since the publication of the final rule of November 16, 1993,
imports of all CITES-listed birds (as defined in the final rule) are
prohibited, except for (a) species included in an approved list; (b)
specimens for which an import permit has been issued; (c) species from
countries that have approved sustainable-use management plans for those
species; or (d) specimens from approved foreign captive-breeding
facilities. We published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on
March 17, 1994 (59 FR 12784), that would implement procedures for the
establishment of an approved list of captive-bred species listed in the
CITES Appendices that could be imported without a WBCA permit, provide
criteria for including non-captive-bred (wild-caught) species in the
approved list, and provide criteria for approval of foreign captive-
breeding facilities.
As the result of a lawsuit filed on February 15, 1994, and a
resultant District Court Order that found a portion of the regulation
in the November 16, 1993, Federal Register invalid, we announced in the
Federal Register on May 24, 1994 (59 FR 26810), that all exotic birds
listed in Appendix III of CITES would also be covered by the automatic
import moratorium of the WBCA, regardless of their country of origin. A
proposed rule was published on June 3, 1994 (59 FR 28826), to
promulgate that regulatory change, and the final rule was published on
December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62254).
On December 2, 1994 (59 FR 62255), we published a final rule
implementing procedures for the establishment of an approved list of
captive-bred species listed in the CITES Appendices that could be
imported without a WBCA permit; the approved captive-bred species were
those for which it had been determined that trade involved only
captive-bred specimens.
A final rule published on January 24, 1996 (61 FR 2084),
implemented procedures for the establishment of an approved list of
non-captive-bred (wild-caught) species listed in the CITES Appendices
that could be imported. The list of approved non-captive-bred species
is contained in 50 CFR 15.33(b). For wild-caught CITES-listed birds to
be on the approved list, we must determine that CITES is being
effectively implemented for the species for each country of origin from
which imports will be allowed, CITES-recommended measures are
implemented, and there is a scientifically based management plan for
the species that is adequately implemented and enforced. The
scientifically based management plan must: (a) Provide for the
conservation of the species and its habitat; (b) include incentives for
conservation; (c) ensure that the use of the species is biologically
sustainable and is well above the level at which the species might
become threatened; (d) ensure that the species is maintained throughout
its range at a level consistent with its role in the ecosystem; (e)
address factors that include illegal trade, domestic trade, subsistence
use, disease, and habitat loss; and (f) ensure that the methods of
capture, transport, and maintenance of the species minimize the risk of
injury or damage to health. For a species with a multinational
distribution, we must also consider (a) whether populations of the
species in other countries will be detrimentally affected by exports
from the country requesting approval; (b) whether factors affecting
conservation of the species are regulated throughout its range so that
recruitment and/or breeding stocks will not be detrimentally affected
by the proposed export; (c) whether the projected take and export will
detrimentally affect breeding populations; and (d) whether the
projected take and export will detrimentally affect existing
enhancement activities, conservation programs, or enforcement efforts
throughout the species' range. A species and country of export listed
in 50 CFR 15.33(b) may be approved for three years, after which time
the Service will have an opportunity to consider renewal of the
approval.
On August 10, 2000, we published a notice of receipt of application
for approval in the Federal Register (65 FR 49007), which announced the
receipt of a petition from the Management Authority of Argentina,
Direcci[oacute]n de Fauna and Flora Silvestre, for approval of a
sustainable-use management plan for the blue-fronted amazon parrot
(Amazona aestiva) in Argentina. We accepted comments on that
application until October 11, 2000. Although we have used information
received to date in formulating this proposed rule, we will address
previously received comments as well as any new comments in our final
rule.
Criteria for Approval of Species for Importation (50 CFR 15.32)
Section 15.32(b)(1) Whether the Country of Export Is Effectively
Implementing the Convention
Argentina has been a Party to CITES since 1981 and has established
two Management Authorities and two Scientific Authorities. Designation
of competent CITES authorities is crucial for effective implementation
of the Convention and ensures that the country has the necessary
regulatory and technical infrastructure for the issuance of CITES
documents and for making the required findings for the issuance of
those documents. Argentina received a Category 1 rating in the CITES
National Legislation Project. As directed in this project, the CITES
Secretariat made this determination following a thorough review of
Argentina's CITES implementing
[[Page 46561]]
legislation. Category 1 is the highest rating possible and indicates
that a Party has enacted ``legislation that is believed generally to
meet the requirements for implementation of CITES.'' Furthermore, the
CITES Standing Committee has never recommended that other CITES Parties
enact sanctions against Argentina for failure to submit annual reports
or properly implement the Convention. Argentina has also taken
additional steps to demonstrate its commitment to the conservation of
blue-fronted amazon parrots. In 1992, in response to concerns regarding
the large number of blue-fronted amazons in trade, Argentina instituted
a zero export quota. Prior to re-opening the export of blue-fronted
amazons, Argentina worked to develop and implement a sustainable-use
management plan for the species. Based on this information, we conclude
that Argentina is effectively implementing CITES.
Section 15.32(b)(2) Whether the Country of Export Has Developed a
Scientifically Based Management Plan for the Species
Although the population biology information provided in the
application is not exhaustive, we conclude that there is sufficient
baseline data provided in the petition to determine that Argentina has
developed a scientifically based management plan and has established
levels of harvest that will not be detrimental to the survival of the
species in the wild.
Conservation of species and habitat and incentives for
conservation: The management plan provides for the conservation of the
species and its habitat. The purpose of the sustainable-use management
program, Project El[eacute], is to increase wild populations of blue-
fronted amazons by working with private landowners to protect critical
habitat (Chaco and transitional forests) and allow a strictly
controlled limited harvest for export. The project currently covers
150,000 km2 in the Provinces of Chaco, Formosa, Jujuy, and
Salta. These Provinces contain the majority of the remaining Chaco and
transitional forest habitat and are where the greatest concentration of
blue-fronted amazons in Argentina occurs (Moschione and Banchs, 1993).
The habitat occurs primarily on privately or communally owned land. The
main threat to the species in Argentina is habitat loss. According to
Flombaum, et. al. (1997), the most limiting factor for survival of the
birds is the lack of nest sites caused by accelerated deforestation.
The birds nest only in primary-growth forests, with most nests in white
quebracho trees (Aspidosperma quebracho-blanco)--a species that is in
demand for tannins used for curing leather. Other species, such as
quebracho colorado (Schinopsis quebraco-colorado), ceiba (Ceiba
insignis), algarrobo blanco (Prosopsis alba), and palo santo (Bulnesia
sarmientoi), which are used by the birds as nesting sites and for food,
are commercially valuable for use as fenceposts, telephone poles, and
furniture. In addition, large tracts of forest are cleared for
cultivation of sugar cane, soybean, cotton, tobacco, and other crops.
Because much of the remaining habitat used by the blue-fronted amazon
is on private property, participation of property owners in the
management program provides a deterrent to destroying parrot habitat
for agricultural or development purposes.
We believe that the proposed level of harvest will maintain the
species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the
ecosystem (See Sustainability, effect on wild population number). The
collection quotas are conservative and based on science (Bucher et al.,
1995; Flombaum et al., 1997).
Included with Argentina's application is Decision 425/97, the
Letter of Agreement To Conserve the Blue-fronted Parrot (Amazona
aestiva) in Argentina, issued by the Department of Natural Resources
and Sustainable Development. The Decision requires the establishment,
using income generated from the program, of government-owned reserves
where harvesting of blue-fronted amazons is prohibited. It also
authorizes designating wooded areas within large private properties
where parrot harvesting is permitted. The program coordinators work
closely with provincial officials to determine where the reserves
should be established in order to maximize critical habitat protection.
Since the program's inception, three reserves have been established:
Salta Province (dry transitional forest, established November, 2001,
15,000 ha), Chaco Province (dry chaco forest, established May, 2002
with 17,500 ha), and Jujuy Province (transitional forest, established
December, 2002 with 10,000 ha). The reserve in Salta Province now also
serves as the nucleus of a larger biosphere reserve. In Reserva Natural
Loro Hablador, Chaco Province, funds from the project paid for the
construction of a small building which is used as a guardhouse and a
dormitory, and to store supplies for researchers and staff. The
reserves are managed with funds and staff from the project.
The sustainable-use management plan prohibits the felling of nest
trees to collect nestlings, thereby protecting nest sites. Exportation
is only authorized for birds from nests that are marked and numbered
and meet the project criteria. The financial benefits to the landowners
from the controlled harvest provide the landowners an incentive to
protect the nesting habitat on their property. In citrus groves where
juvenile birds are collected, the killing of birds as agricultural
pests, normally permitted by provincial law, is prohibited. The
applicant notes that participating landowners become sensitized and
educated regarding conservation of the species and its habitat through
the authorization process, inspections, and advice on how to minimize
environmental impact in the harvest process. Based on this information,
we conclude that Argentina's scientifically based management plan for
blue-fronted amazons provides for the conservation of the species and
its habitat.
Implementation and enforcement: The applicant has provided
substantial implementation and enforcement information. Decision 425/97
gives oversight of the project to the Wildlife Office. It provides
mechanisms for the administration and enforcement of the program,
establishment of reserves, control of illegal trade, and handling and
disposition of confiscated birds at the national and provincial levels.
Annual decrees also address collection zones, quotas, and export
requirements.
Most of the oversight for the project is done by project staff
members. Project staff live in the communities or on the properties of
collectors during the harvest seasons. They place leg bands on each
captured nestling and record biological data, inspect nests, mark each
tree from which nestlings are removed, and inspect animal care
conditions. All inspection and biological information is maintained in
a large database. Staff members also accompany all collectors of
juvenile birds to ensure compliance with project policies. The project
coordinators identify collection properties and establish collection
quotas for each broker so that brokers do not purchase more birds than
allotted. In addition, project staff members accompany brokers when
birds are purchased from the collectors. Staff members also inspect the
parrot housing facilities of collectors and brokers. Frequent
inspections by staff members and the perceived importance of the
project in communities where the income generated by the collection is
shared among community members reduce the incentive to cheat. During a
site visit in January 2003, two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
International Affairs, biologists observed the project
[[Page 46562]]
coordinators take every available opportunity to provide outreach
materials and information to national law enforcement personnel at
highway checkpoints in the region. Officers were reminded to contact
the provincial wildlife authority if they observed any individual with
numerous parrots who did not have authorized certificates of origin and
leg bands on the birds (contact information was provided). Unlike in
the 1980s, birds can no longer be exported directly from the provinces;
all legal exports of blue-fronted amazons from this project are through
Buenos Aires.
The provinces participating in the program are responsible for
meeting the criteria set forth in the national decrees, and only birds
from authorized and inspected properties will be permitted to be
exported. We received international trade data from the United Nations
Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
showing that the number of blue-fronted amazons exported from Argentina
during 1998 and 1999 closely matched the number of birds that were
harvested for the program and certified for export, as reported in the
application. Based on the above information, we conclude that the
program appears to be adequately implemented and enforced.
Sustainability, effect on wild population number: The blue-fronted
amazon is one of the most common amazon species in South America.
Although the species is listed in CITES Appendix II, it is not listed
in Birds To Watch 2: The World List of Threatened Birds (Collar et al.,
1994), Parrots: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2000-2004
(Snyder et al., 2000), or the 2002 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals
(http://www.redlist.org). 
In their comments to the Division of
Management Authority (October 2000), TRAFFIC--North America and
TRAFFIC--South America argued that the wild blue-fronted amazon parrot
population could sustain the proposed harvest.
The applicant proposes collection of nestlings during the breeding
season (December and January) and juvenile birds, which are designated
as pests by landowners, on citrus farms in May, June, and July. While
the species' range extends over 430,000 km2 in Argentina,
not all of the range is available habitat. The greatest population
densities are within an area of 200,000 km2, and the area
subject to management that contains optimal roosting, foraging, and
nesting areas is 170,000 km2 in the Provinces of Chaco,
Formosa, Jujuy, and Salta (Moschione and Banchs, 1993). Sampling in
three localities between 1996 and 2002 resulted in an estimation of
7.70 nests per km2 (1,309,000 active nests per breeding
season within the management area). The mean number of hatchlings per
nest at the sites sampled ranged from 3.87 to 4.27 hatchlings (Banchs
et al., 2000).
The nestling collection quotas are based on the total number of
participating properties, the amount of forest in each, and the degree
of past compliance by each collector. For new properties, satellite
photographs are used to determine the area of forest and estimate nest
density. If the property is fully forested, there is a high probability
that there will be at least one nest per 7 hectares. However, to be
conservative, the project assumes one nest per 20 hectares. Therefore,
on a 100-hectare property, nestlings may be collected from only 5
nests, regardless of the actual number of nests on the property. In
each nest from which birds are collected, a minimum of one nestling
must be left in the nest. Because the typical nest contains 4 eggs, of
which 3 hatch, and 2 nestlings survive to fledge, on the 100-hectare
property, two nestlings could be taken from each of the five nests.
Thus, the quota for the property would be 10 nestlings. Using fledgling
rate only, the harvest per nest is less than that recommended by Bucher
et al. (1995) as sustainable. Using fledging rate only, Bucher et al.
(1995) recommended a harvest of 1.5 nestlings per nest based on a study
of the population biology of the blue-fronted amazon at the Los
Colorados Field Station, Salta Province. According to the model by
Bucher et al., on a 100-hectare property, 21.4 nestlings could be
harvested sustainably given one nest per seven hectares.
The greater the number of properties that participate in the
program, the higher the quota. Large properties are given much smaller
quotas ( based on an estimate of 1 nest/50 ha) because it is unlikely
that the collector will explore the entire property. The total national
quota is equal to the sum of the quotas from the different properties.
The quota per property in succeeding years may be adjusted in response
to the results of sampling (actual nest counts and number of hatchlings
per nest). If a collector does not abide by the rules of the project,
his quota may be lowered or, in rare instances, he may be expelled from
the program. Only birds removed from individually numbered nest
cavities in standing trees may be collected. Capture involves cutting a
hole into the cavity to reach the nestling and resealing the hole
following take. The project staff and landowners have observed pairs
re-using nests that have been opened in previous years, indicating that
opening nests has minimal effect on the quality of a nest cavity.
The blue-fronted amazon in Argentina is viewed as a pest species by
citrus growers (Bucher 1992). The species is legally classified as a
pest species in provinces where the project permits the harvest of
juveniles, and large numbers of blue-fronted amazon parrots were
regularly shot by citrus-grove managers prior to the establishment of
the sustainable-use program. During their visit, the Service biologists
were informed that there has not been an observed decline in the number
of juvenile birds at nearby roosting areas in spite of shooting that
may occur on properties not participating in the program. The maximum
take of juveniles is set at one-third of the number of nestlings
collected in the immediately preceding breeding season. Although the
number of participating properties may increase each year, the take of
juveniles per unit area does not change. Juveniles can only be taken
when the owners declare in writing to the local administrative
authority that the birds are damaging their crops, and project staff
must verify that the damage is due to blue-fronted amazons. Banchs and
Moschione believe that there are over 700,000 juveniles in the
transitional forest area (Pers. comm. with DSA and DMA biologists, Jan.
2003). Because few nestlings are found in the Salta and Jujuy
Provinces, the creation of reserves there to protect the transitional
forests, as required by Decision 425/97, was made possible only through
the harvest of juveniles. Thus, the limited harvest of juveniles may
actually increase the population by protecting important roosting
areas. As with nestlings, a project staff member bands each bird
captured and collects biological data. The staff member also explores
the property to determine if the participant is also shooting parrots.
If so, the quota is reduced in the current or following year, or the
collector is suspended from the program.
It is doubtful that the individuals that are left in the nests
following the nestling collection become the source of juveniles
collected in the citrus groves are the same. According to Banchs and
Moschione, this is because the distance between the nesting areas and
the citrus groves is over 150 km. It is unlikely that the flocks
observed in the citrus groves are those that nest on the properties
participating in the program (E-mail to M. Kreger, February 7, 2003).
The total quota for nestlings and juveniles has not been met in any
given
[[Page 46563]]
year. This is because the properties are extensive and may not be
completely explored. The applicant notes that it is difficult to locate
nests, the vegetation is often dense and impenetrable, and most
indigenous communities prefer to take only the birds they need to pay
for short-term (subsistence) economic needs. No birds may be collected
before or after the collection period. From a total authorized quota of
16,348 birds (nestlings + juveniles) for the period 1998-2002, only
8,940 were actually collected and exported.
Although complete information on the population biology of this
species is not available, funds generated by the sustainable-use
program are being used to address information gaps. All of the data
collected each season by program staff members are entered into a
database maintained by I. Berkunsky, a Ph.D. student and author of the
management plan for the reserve in Chaco Province. These data are
providing information on the number of nestlings per nest, nestling
health and mortality, nest locations, whether or not nests are being
re-used, harvest trends at each property or habitat, who is harvesting,
and levels of compliance.
Now that reserves are in place, basic biological studies can be
accomplished. Because there is no extraction of parrots in the
reserves, these areas serve as a control for comparison with properties
involved in the harvest. Berkunsky is also studying the reproductive
biology of the birds, including clutch size, fledging rate, frequency
of repeated nest use, predation of fledglings, natural recruitment,
etc. Another study, which will involve radio-tracking of individuals,
will examine population dynamics, flock movements, and habitat use.
Such a study will determine whether birds in the harvest areas flock to
the transitional forests or citrus groves. The project should also
allow estimation of the percentage of the total population involved in
foraging in citrus groves. Additional studies are proposed to focus on
taxonomy, landscape ecology, the impact of foraging on citrus groves,
and the impact of the project on local economies.
The information generated by these studies will also assist us to
determine whether to renew the program after the initial approval
period. If approved, we will require that the applicant provide an
annual report at the end of each collection season during the period
covered by the approval. The applicant will be asked to include in the
report the number and size of the properties participating in the
program, population censuses in the collection areas, and an assessment
of the short- and long-term impacts of collection on the population,
including recruitment, natural nestling mortality within the nest, and
the effects of artificially opening and resealing nest cavities.
Illegal Trade, Domestic Trade, Subsistence Use, Disease, Habitat Loss
The management plan for the species addresses illegal trade,
domestic trade, subsistence use, disease, and habitat loss. The program
is operated at a national level with collaboration at the provincial
level. In a supplemental letter dated September 2000, the applicant
stated that domestic demand for blue-fronted amazons has declined due
to economic factors and stricter controls over the harvest and
transport of the species. In addition, more field personnel have been
assigned to monitor legal harvest and control illegal trade.
Argentina's application states that domestic trade is under the same
guidelines as the proposed program and involves fewer than 150 birds
per year.
The project is the only legal means to export blue-fronted amazons
or commercialize parrots domestically. Some of the project birds are
sold as pets in large cities such as Buenos Aires at prices competitive
with export prices. There is a ``folkloric'' market in small pueblos
and aldeas within the range of the species, where birds captured by
individuals not participating in the program are sold as pets to local
people. Such trade of single birds is permitted within a province.
Larger numbers of birds in transport that are not certified as
originating from the program are confiscated. Because the birds are
imprinted on humans and their exact origin is unknown, they are non-
releasable. The project pays for their rehabilitation and distributes
them to local people as pets along with information about their care
and about conservation of the species. Although about 500 non-program
parrots were confiscated in 2002, Banchs and Moschione believe that
illegal exports have declined by 600 birds each year since the
inception of the program based on the numbers of birds confiscated by
provincial authorities (Pers. comm. with DSA and DMA biologists, Jan.
2003).
The program staff strictly controls the harvest and bands all
specimens in the field immediately after capture. Staff members ensure
that nesting trees are labeled with plastic tags, check that no tree
has been cut down to retrieve nestlings, and inspect some, to all, of
the nests from which the nestlings have been removed, to verify that at
least one nestling remains in the nest. The nestlings left in the nest
are marked by project staff members under each wing with methylene blue
to ensure they will not be harvested later and put into trade. Because
the bands, capture locations, and other identifying information for
each bird must be registered at a national level, and only birds
harvested in accordance with the sustainable-use management plan are
exported as part of this program, we believe that reasonable measures
are being implemented to prevent illegal trafficking in blue-fronted
amazon parrots from Argentina. More inspections are made on the
properties of first-time participants and on those identified as
needing closer oversight to ensure compliance with the program.
The possibility of disease is a concern within holding areas and in
the countries into which the birds are imported. Decision 425/97
requires that a veterinarian be present at the assembly areas,
separation within the assembly facility of birds captured from
different locations, and appropriate quarantine prior to export. The
birds are not assembled in the same housing area as other species, the
housing areas must be well-ventilated, the floors of the cages must be
cleaned daily, and sick birds must be isolated for diagnosis and
treatment. Quarantine in Argentina must comply with rules established
by SENASA (National Animal Health Service). Exotic birds imported into
the United States are subject to quarantine in U.S. Department of
Agriculture approved facilities before they can be released to U.S.
importers. If the program were approved, blue-fronted amazons from
Argentina would be subject to those quarantine requirements. Spain
currently imports a large number of blue-fronted amazons from
Argentina's sustainable-use program, and the Management Authority of
that country reports that they have not linked any avian disease
outbreaks to blue-fronted amazons from Argentina (E-mail to A. St.
John, May 12, 2003). We are confident that approving this program would
not increase the risk of introduction of avian diseases to the United
States.
Loss of parrot habitat results mainly from logging of nesting
habitat or habitat conversion for farming and agriculture. This program
is intended to reduce habitat loss by providing incentives for
protecting nesting areas on private property and requiring the
establishment of national reserves.
Methods of Capture, Maintenance, and Transport
Nestlings are harvested in December and January. At least one
nestling must be left in every nest harvested. The blue-
[[Page 46564]]
fronted amazon is a cavity nester. In order to locate nests, collectors
look for holes in tree trunks that have insects swarming around the
opening, adult birds entering and leaving the cavity, or audible
vocalizations from within the cavity. In the 1980s, collectors cut down
nesting trees to collect the nestlings. However, Argentina's
sustainable-use management program prohibits this practice, and project
staff train collectors to use lassos and harness systems to safely
climb nest trees to collect the birds. Once at the opening of the
cavity, collectors use a weighted string to determine the depth of the
nest. When the depth is determined, the collector uses an axe or
machete to cut a hole in the side of the tree in order to remove the
nestlings. The nestlings are placed in a bag and the collector reseals
the new opening with mud and sticks. A plastic identification label,
indicating the unique number of the nest, is nailed to each harvested
nesting tree. There is no evidence, since full implementation of the
project in December 1997, that opening and resealing a hole near the
nest has caused mortality of the remaining nestlings or failure of
adult pairs to use the site in subsequent years. Project staff are
continuing to collect these data.
After harvest, the nestlings are placed in a holding area until
they are purchased by a broker. The holding areas must be dry to avoid
fungus-induced respiratory and skin infections. We observed several
different holding areas. The most common was a shallow hole dug into
the ground with wooden planks over the top to keep predators out and
maintain darkness typical of the nest.
The birds are hand-fed at least three times per day. The feed used
is a commercial corn-based mash produced specifically for parrots by a
pet food company in Buenos Aires. Project personnel provide the feed
and feeding instructions to the collectors. The mash is mixed with
water and fed by hand or spoon. On the site visit, we saw no evidence
of force-feeding. Collectors and their families often supplement the
commercial feed with local fruit and seeds that the birds would have
been likely to receive from their parents.
Brokers prefer to purchase nestlings when the birds can feed
independently. In addition, frequent handling of the birds is thought
to tame them. We did not see nestlings in the holding area resist
handling. We saw no evidence of illness or injuries in the nestlings in
the holding areas, and collectors report very few mortalities. The
nestlings remain with the collector 2-4 weeks, depending on the age of
the birds at the time of collection.
Project staff members (biologists or field technicians) visit each
collector before the arrival of the broker. They affix leg bands (open
metal bands that once closed can only be removed by breaking) with the
code AR or ARG and a unique identification number. Only staff members
may affix leg bands, reducing the likelihood of injury during banding
and ensuring that only legally acquired birds are banded. The birds are
weighed, wing length is measured, and the general health of each bird
is recorded. Injured birds are treated, and most injuries have been
superficial around legs or toes. If the project staff were to observe
evidence of a high mortality, injuries, or more birds collected than
the quota allows, the collector might have his quota reduced the
following year or be suspended from the program.
Juveniles are harvested from May through July in the citrus groves.
Project staff members live on the properties and accompany collectors
in every stage of the trapping process. Snares made of reeds are set at
dawn before the birds arrive to forage in the citrus groves. The snares
are set in the branches of the citrus trees to ensure that only birds
that are actually foraging are caught. If a parrot is captured, its
loud vocalizations alert the collector to the capture. In rare
instances, other species are captured (e.g., passerines); however,
mortality is reported to be minimal. Every trap is inspected and
disarmed within four hours of being set. The parrots usually retreat to
the transitional forest by midday to escape the heat. No blue-fronted
amazon has required euthanasia as a result of injuries sustained from
the trapping process for juvenile birds since the project's inception.
We visited the holding facilities of three brokers. Each facility
was indoors and contained stainless steel cages either suspended from
the ceiling, on legs above the floor, or mounted on the wall above the
floor. The cages are constructed of wire and contain water and feed
pans. Each facility had windows providing sunlight, ventilation,
drainage, and a source of clean running water. Depending on the size of
the bird, up to 25 birds can be housed in each cage. The same
commercial diet provided to collectors is provided to brokers. Brokers
typically maintain the birds for less than 2 weeks. According to the
application, cages at the assembly area may house up to 30 birds per
cubic meter. We believe that, particularly for nestlings, such space is
more than adequate. Other housing conditions, such as ventilation,
lighting, running water, and sanitation, also appear to be adequate.
Each assembly center is required to have a veterinarian available, who
is responsible for animal health and official reporting.
Transport from the point of capture to the quarantine facility in
Buenos Aires, road transport in excess of 500 kilometers, and air
transport, require the use of crates built to IATA (International Air
Transport Association) standards. Air circulation, crate handling, and
other conditions for transport within the province of origin are
addressed in the application, but do not have to meet IATA standards.
It is important to note that Standards for Humane and Healthful
Transport of Wild Mammals and Birds to the United States (50 CFR
14.105) prohibits the import of unweaned birds. Subsequently, we would
not allow the import of birds into the United States that still require
hand-feeding. However, during our visit to collection sites and broker
facilities, brokers noted that they only purchase birds from collectors
when the birds no longer require hand-feeding.
In a letter dated September 2000, the applicant reported that
mortality during capture and transport is less than one percent. The
nestling mortality, primarily during housing, in 1998 was 3.2 percent,
22.5 percent in 1999, and 4.2 percent in 2000. The high mortality in
1999 was due to Pacheco's disease at a quarantine facility that killed
95 percent of the birds at that facility. After that incident,
Resolution 1955/99 was passed, that suspends from the program any
exporters who experience mortalities greater than 25 percent in one
season. Other causes of mortality that have been experienced in the
program were not reported to us, although the application indicates
that such information is reported to the Wildlife Office. No numbers
were provided on animals that were sick or injured during the capture,
housing, and transport process. As a condition of program approval, we
would require that the annual reports include figures on disease,
injury, and mortality during capture, housing, and transport. We would
also require that the applicant provide training to program
participants to ensure that appropriate parrot husbandry (including
diet and basic animal health care) is provided to all individuals who
will be responsible for the birds.
[[Page 46565]]
Section 15.32(b)(3) Whether the Country of Export Has Developed a
Scientifically Based Management Plan for the Species That Considers
Factors Relating to the Multi-National Distribution of the Species
The Division of Scientific Authority sent letters to the Scientific
Authorities of the range countries for this species (Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, and Paraguay) and asked them to address this
criterion. Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay responded in support of
Argentina's sustainable-use management plan. We did not receive a
response from Brazil. However, the predominant subspecies in Brazil,
Amazona aestiva aestiva, is not found in Argentina (Collar 1997). The
Bolivian Scientific Authority said that Bolivia's blue-fronted amazon
populations are non-migratory and would not be affected by the
sustainable-use program in Argentina (Marianela Subieta Fr[iacute]as,
Executive Director of the National Museum of Natural History in La Paz,
Bolivia, email to DSA, September 2000). Bolivia expressed its support
for Argentina's program, but noted concern over the possibility of
illegally harvested Bolivian birds entering Argentina and being
exported through this program. Studies of this species in Paraguay
indicate that breeding populations are non-migratory and are distinct
from populations in Argentina. Thus, the program in Argentina would not
affect the populations in Paraguay (Braulio Rom[aacute]n Sol[iacute]s,
Director, CITES Office, Paraguay, letter to DSA, August 2000).
According to Mr. Sol[iacute]s, Paraguay developed a similar program in
1999 based on the Argentine program and has regulations to ensure
sustainable management of the species. Although Paraguay reported that
its population of blue-fronted amazons is robust and that the species
is locally common, the European Commission has asked Member States not
to allow imports of blue-fronted amazons from Paraguay until further
notice. This decision was made in response to information received that
called into question the scientific basis of Paraguay's export quotas
for this species. (E-mail to A. St. John, May 8, 2003). Argentina,
Bolivia, and Paraguay have held roundtable discussions to develop a
regional study plan in order to determine optimal population management
for this species. They have also discussed the need for local
educational outreach.
The application and additional information received from Argentina
outline the safeguards in place to prevent illegally harvested birds
from entering this program. As discussed above, most of the oversight
for the project is done by project staff members. Only program staff
affix legbands (open metal bands that once closed can only be removed
by breaking) with the code AR or ARG and a unique identification
number, and only birds with official bands are permitted for export.
See earlier sections for discussion of additional safeguards. This
program is the only legal source of birds for export from Argentina,
and all exports are through Buenos Aires.
Complete population biology information is lacking for the specific
effects of this program on breeding and recruitment of this species in
other range countries, but we are unaware of any possible detrimental
effects of this program on conservation programs or enforcement efforts
throughout the range of this species. The program coordinators have
been in contact with biologists from the other range countries who have
expressed interest in developing similar programs (Pers. comm. with DSA
and DMA biologists, Jan. 2003). The export of blue-fronted amazon
parrots from each range country is regulated by CITES, and imports into
the United States would also be subject to the provisions of the WBCA.
We believe that the proposed level of harvest will maintain the
species throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the
ecosystem and that it is unlikely that the proposed harvest will
significantly reduce the wild population during the 3 years for which
the program would be approved. Critical research on the species'
population biology as a result of this program in comparison to non-
harvested areas will provide insight into the long- and short-term
effects of the program on the species' survival. Any problems that
arise during the 3 years could be addressed prior to renewing the
program. Furthermore, because the program protects nests, creates
nesting habitat, and reduces habitat loss, a population increase is
expected.
Conclusion
We reviewed the proposal by the Management Authority of Argentina
for the approval of a sustainable-use management plan for blue-fronted
amazon parrots (Amazona aestiva), based on the criteria in 50 CFR
15.32. We propose to add blue-fronted amazon parrots from Argentina to
the list of non-captive-bred species under the Wild Bird Conservation
Act of 1992, with the following condition:
1. The Management Authority of Argentina must provide an annual
report at the end of each collection season during the period covered
by this approval. The report must include the following information:
the number and size of the properties participating in the program,
results of population censuses in the collection areas, and short- and
long-term impacts of collection on the population, including
recruitment, nestling mortality, and the effects of artificially
opening and resealing nest cavities. The report must also include the
number of birds that became sick or injured during capture, housing,
and transport. Causes of mortality, illness, and injury should be
reported, if known. Such data will be considered at the time of a
request for program renewal.
References
Banchs, R., F. Moschione, M. Codesido, P. Gado, and P. Grilli. 2000.
Reproductive parameters of Amazona aestiva (Psittacidae) in the
Argentine Chaco. Abstracts of the VIII Brazilian Congress of
Ornithology.
Bucher, T. H. 1992. Neotropical parrots as pests. In: New World
Parrots in Crisis: Solutions from Conservation Biology. Sr.
Beissinger and N.F.R. Snyder, eds. Smithsonian Institution Press:
Washington, DC, pp. 201-219.
Bucher, E., J. Chani, C. Saravia Toledo, A. Echevarr[iacute]a, and
N. Marigliano. 1995. Status and Management of the Blue-fronted
Amazon Parrot in Argentina. Unpublished Research Report for TRAFFIC
USA. Centro de Zoolog[iacute]a Aplicada, University of
C[oacute]rdoba: Argentina, 12 pp.
Collar, N.J., M.J. Crosby, and A.J. Stattersfield. 1994. Birds To
Watch 2: The World List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife International/
Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, DC., p. 198.
Collar, N.J. 1997. Blue-fronted Amazon (Amazona aestiva). In:
Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 4: Sandgrouse to Cuckoos.
J. del Hoyo, A. Elliot, J. Sargatal, eds. Lynx Ediciones: Barcelona,
p. 473.
European Commission. April 11, 2003. Note for the Attention of the
CITES Scientific Authorities of the Member States. ENV.E.3 Brussels,
Belgium.
Flombaum, P., L.D. Boffi Lissin, and R. Banchs. 1997.
An[aacute]lisis del bosque chaque[ntilde]o en funci[oacute]n del
Loro Hablador (Amazona aestiva). Res[uacute]menes XVIII
Reuni[oacute]n Arg., Ecol. Fac. Agron. UBA Bs. As.
IUCN-The World Conservation Union. 2002. 2002 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Animals. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.
Juniper, T., and M. Parr. 1998. Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the
World. Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut. Pp. 540-541.
Moschione, F. and R. Banchs. 1993. Distribution of the Loro Hablador
(Amazona aestiva) in Northern Argentina. Book of Abstracts I,
Ornithology Meeting for the Plata watershed. Ornithology Association
of Plata: Iguaz[uacute], Paraguay.
Snyder, N., P. McGowan, J. Gilardi, and A. Grajal. 2000. Parrots:
Status Survey and
[[Page 46566]]
Conservation Action Plan 2000-2004. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland. Pp.
90-97.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, because:
a. The annual economic effect of the proposed rule would be less
than $100 million and it would not adversely affect any economic
sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of
government. A cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required.
b. This proposed rule would not create inconsistencies with
other agencies' actions.
c. This proposed rule would not materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof.
d. This proposed rule would not raise novel legal or policy
issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that the proposed rule
would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Most of the potential applicants who might take
advantage of the procedures implemented through this rule are
individuals or small entities. However, we do not expect that the
amount of trade generated as a result of this rule to be large enough
to have a significant economic effect on any industries, large or
small.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, because it:
a. Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
b. Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
c. Would not have significant negative effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, et
seq.). The proposed rule would not produce a Federal requirement of
$100 million or greater in any year, so it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Takings
Under Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule would not have
significant takings implications. The proposed rule would set forth
regulations under an existing law (the WBCA) and a takings implication
evaluation is not required.
Federalism
Since the proposed rule applies to the importation of live wild
birds into the United States, it does not contain any Federalism
impacts as described in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule would
not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
and a Federalism evaluation is not required.
Civil Justice Reform
Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has
determined that this proposed rule would not overly burden the judicial
system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the
Order.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
Because this proposed rule would allow the import into the United
States of blue-fronted amazon parrots removed from the wild in
Argentina under an approved sustainable-use management plan, it is not
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection
requirements that require approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Existing requirements in 50 CFR 15 are currently approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1018-0093, which expires on March 31,
2004.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment under regulations
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Council on Environmental Quality regulations in 40 CFR 1501.3(b) state
that an agency ``may prepare an environmental assessment on any action
at any time in order to assist agency planning and decision making.''
Future regulations implementing the WBCA may be subject to NEPA
documentation requirements on a case-by-case basis. The draft
environmental assessment for this proposed action is on file at the
Division of Management Authority in Arlington, Virginia, and a copy may
be obtained for review and comment by contacting Dr. Peter O. Thomas,
Chief, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; telephone (703) 358-2093; fax (703) 358-2280.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
Under the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, ``Government-
to-Government Relations With Native American Tribal Governments'' (59
FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally
recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects.
Author
This document was prepared by Ms. Anne St. John, Division of
Managment Authority, and Dr. Michael Kreger, Division of Scientific
Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 20240.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 15
Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, for the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to
amend part 15, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 15--WILD BIRD CONSERVATION ACT
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 102-440, 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916.
2. Amend Sec. 15.33 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.33 Species included in the approved list.
* * * * *
(b) Non-captive-bred species. The list in this paragraph includes
species of non-captive-bred exotic birds and countries for which
importation into the United States is not prohibited by Sec. 15.11.
The species are grouped taxonomically by order, and may only be
imported from the approved country, except as provided under a permit
issued pursuant to subpart C of this part. The list of non-captive-bred
species follows:
[[Page 46567]]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Common name Country Date approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Psittaciformes: Blue-fronted Amazon Argentina [date of publication of
Amazona aestiva..... Parrot. final rule].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: July 22, 2003.
Paul Hoffman,
Assistant Secretary--Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-19945 Filed 8-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P