Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39894-39916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17319]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0013; 4500030115]
RIN 1018-BC79

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Hyacinth Macaw

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine threatened
species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as
amended, for the hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), a species
that occurs almost exclusively in Brazil and marginally in Bolivia and
Paraguay. This rule adds this species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. We are also establishing a rule pursuant to
section 4(d) of the Act to further provide for the conservation of the
hyacinth macaw.

DATES: This rule is effective September 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this rule, are available for
public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-
R9-ES-2012-0013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Morgan, Chief, Division of
Delisting and Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA
22041; telephone 703-358-2444. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act
(Act), a species may warrant protection through listing if it is found
to be an endangered or threatened species. Listing a species as an
endangered or threatened species can only be completed by issuing a
rule. On July 6, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
published in the Federal Register (FR) a 12-month finding and proposed
rule to list the hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) as an
endangered species under the Act (77 FR 39965). On November 28, 2016,
the Service published a revised proposed rule to list the hyacinth
macaw as a threatened species (81 FR 85488), which included a proposed
rule under section 4(d) of the Act that defined the prohibitions we are
extending to the hyacinth macaw and the exceptions to those
prohibitions, as well as provisions that are necessary and advisable
for the species' conservation. This rule finalizes the listing of the
hyacinth macaw as a threatened species under the Act, and establishes a
4(d) rule to further provide for the species' conservation.
The basis for our action. Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we
determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based
on any of 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. The primary causes attributed to the
decline of the hyacinth macaw include habitat loss and degradation
(Factor A), hunting (Factor B), predation (Factor C), competition and
low reproduction rate (Factor E), and climate change (Factor E).
Section 4(d) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to extend to threatened species the prohibitions provided
for endangered species under section 9 of the Act. Our implementing
regulations for threatened wildlife, found at title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at Sec. 17.31 (50 CFR 17.31), incorporate
the section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except when a
species-specific rule under section 4(d) of the Act is promulgated. For
threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service
discretion to specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those
prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, as well as include
provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the species. A rule issued under section 4(d) of the
Act allows us to include provisions that are tailored to the specific
conservation needs of that threatened species and which may be more or
less restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our analysis is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited peer reviewers and
the public to comment on our listing proposals. All substantive
information from peer review and public comments was fully considered
and incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.

[[Page 39895]]

Previous Federal Actions

Please refer to the proposed listing rule, published in the Federal
Register on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39965), for previous Federal actions
for this species prior to that date. The publication of the proposed
listing rule opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on
September 4, 2012. Based on new information, on November 28, 2016, we
published a revised proposed rule (81 FR 85488) to list the hyacinth
macaw as a threatened species, which included a proposed rule under
section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that defines the
conservation measures that apply to the hyacinth macaw (50 CFR
17.41(c)). That revised proposed rule also opened a 60-day public
comment period, which closed on January 27, 2017.

Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule

We included additional information regarding action plans in Brazil
that aim to reduce deforestation.
Brazil has implemented actions plans that aim to reduce
deforestation rates in the Amazon and Cerrado, referred to as the Plan
of Action for Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal
Amazon (PPCDAm) and the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of
Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado (PPCerrado), respectively. In
the proposed rule we stated that we did not have any details regarding
the success or progress of these plans. However, in this final rule we
included the most recent information available and results achieved by
these plans (see Factor D discussion, below).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We reviewed all comments we received from peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information. All substantive
information from peer review and public comments has been fully
considered and is incorporated into this final rule, where appropriate.
We received 104 public comments combined on the proposed and
revised proposed rules to list the hyacinth macaw under the Act during
their respective comment periods. Many commenters supported listing the
hyacinth macaw as an endangered or threatened species under the Act.
However, many commenters also recommended that we issue a rule under
section 4(d) of the Act that would allow interstate commerce of
hyacinth macaws to occur without needing a permit. The following
discussion summarizes issues and substantive information from public
comments and provides our responses.
Comment (1): Many commenters opined that the Act was meant to
protect species native to the United States, and the hyacinth macaw
should not be listed since it is a foreign species.
Our Response: The Act does not differentiate between domestic and
foreign species as it applies to our responsibilities to determine
whether species are endangered or threatened, and sections 4(b)(1)(A)
and 4(b)(1)(B)(i) expressly require the Service to consider efforts by
a foreign nation prior to making a listing determination. The broad
definitions of ``species,'' ``fish or wildlife,'' and ``plants'' in
section 3 of the Act do not differentiate between species native to the
United States, species native to both the United States and one or more
other countries, and species not native to the United States. Further,
the findings and purposes at sections 2(a)(4), 2(a)(5), and 2(b) of the
Act also speak to the application of the Act to foreign species and
numerous provisions of the Act and the implementing regulations refer
to foreign jurisdictions (e.g., sections 8 and 8A, 50 CFR 424.11(e)).
Comment (2): Some commenters believed that there is no demonstrable
benefit to listing the hyacinth macaw under the Act because it is
already protected by CITES and the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA; 16
U.S.C. 4901-4916).
Our Response: The decision to list a species under the Act is based
on whether the species meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species as defined under section 3 of the Act and is made
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. Conservation measures provided to species listed as
endangered or threatened under the Act include recognition,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
may encourage and result in conservation actions by foreign
governments, Federal and State governments, private agencies and
interest groups, and individuals. The purpose of the WBCA is to ensure
that exotic bird species are not harmed by international trade and
encourages wild bird conservation programs in countries of origin. The
purpose of CITES is to ensure that international trade in plants and
animals does not threaten their survival in the wild. Protection
provided by other laws, such as CITES and WBCA, is taken into
consideration when determining the status of the species. However,
simply being protected by these other laws does not preclude the need
to list if the species still meets the definition of an endangered or
threatened species. Listing under the Act can help ensure that the
United States and its citizens do not contribute to the further decline
of the species. That said, we considered the conservation role that
CITES and WBCA provide when developing the 4(d) rule for the species.
The 4(d) rule that we are putting in place streamlines the permitting
process by deferring to existing laws that are protective of hyacinth
macaws in the course of import and export and not requiring permits
under the Act for certain types of activities. Additionally, we are not
prohibiting interstate commerce of hyacinth macaw within the United
States (see 4(d) Rule, below).
Comment (3): Several commenters stated that the information used in
the proposed rule was outdated; one also expressed concern that the
information was from English-only sources.
Our Response: The Service is required by the Act to make
determinations solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available. We based the proposed rule on all the
information we received following the initiation of the status review
for the hyacinth macaw, as well as all of the information we found
during our own research. The information we use is not always current,
as it depends on research being conducted in the field and the
availability of information. At that time, the information we compiled
was considered the best available information. After we published the
proposed rule in 2012, additional information became available or was
submitted by the public, including more recent information and studies
from a species expert and conservation organizations within the
hyacinth macaw's range countries. Literature that was not in English
was professionally translated and then reviewed, to the best of our
ability. The information we received has been incorporated into this
final rule and helped serve as the basis for our determination that the
hyacinth macaw is threatened, not endangered.
Comment (4): Two commenters stated that significant additional wild
populations have been recently discovered and were not included in the
data cited for the proposed listings.
Our Response: The commenters did not provide any information or
citations to support their claims. The information that we have
indicates that hyacinth macaws may be expanding into new areas or areas
previously abandoned; however, we found no support for significant
additional populations

[[Page 39896]]

having been established. The overall population estimate for the
hyacinth macaw remains 6,500 individuals.
Comment (5): Many commenters raised concerns about the listing of
the hyacinth macaw due to economic impacts on small businesses because
of the restriction on commercial trade within the United States.
Our Response: Determinations on whether a species should be added
to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
are based on whether the species meets the definition of ``endangered
species'' or of ``threatened species'' in section 3 of the Act. The Act
directs the Service to make these determinations solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available. Furthermore, the Act
directs the Service to consider economic impacts only when designating
critical habitat. Therefore, we may not consider economic impacts when
determining the status of a species. We understand that the regulations
imposed by the listing of the hyacinth macaw will have an effect on
those involved in the pet bird industry, especially bird breeders. The
4(d) rule that we are putting in place streamlines the permitting
process by deferring to existing laws that are protective of hyacinth
macaws in the course of import and export and not requiring permits
under the Act for certain types of activities. Additionally, we are not
prohibiting interstate commerce of hyacinth macaw within the United
States (see 4(d) Rule, below).
Comment (6): Some commenters requested that captive birds in the
United States be considered a separate and self-sustaining population
from the wild population because the wild populations are in need of
immediate help and should be managed and listed independently under the
Act.
Our Response: We have determined that the Act does not allow for
captive wildlife to be assigned separate legal status from their wild
counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including through
designation as a separate distinct population segment (DPS) (80 FR
34500; June 16, 2015).
Comment (7): One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not
address the many positive steps that have been taken to conserve the
hyacinth macaw in the wild. The commenter referenced the work of the
Hyacinth Macaw Project specifically.
Our Response: We included a detailed description of the work being
done by the Hyacinth Macaw Project under Conservation Measures in the
November 28, 2016, revised proposed rule (81 FR 85488, November 28,
2016 see pp. 85499-85501) and ``Conservation Actions'' in the July 6,
2012, proposed rule (77 FR 39965, see pp. 39971-39972). Our final rule
considers and incorporates additional information we subsequently
received from the President of the Hyacinth Macaw Institute and
Coordinator for the Hyacinth Macaw Project, Neiva Guedes.
Comment (8): Two commenters pointed to a recent increase in
deforestation within the hyacinth macaw's range as a reason why the
species should be listed as endangered rather than threatened.
Our Response: The deforestation rate is generally decreasing from
historical levels (see Factor A discussion, below), although we
recognize that the rates of deforestation may fluctuate annually, with
some years having a higher rate than other years. If the deforestation
rates are maintained or further reduced, the loss of all native habitat
from these areas, including the species of trees needed by the hyacinth
macaw for food and nesting, and the hyacinth macaw's risk of
extinction, is not as imminent as predicted. Additionally, Brazil has
implemented plans to reduce deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm) and
Cerrado (PPCerrado) and has obtained significant reduction of the
deforestation rate after 12 years of the PPCDAm and 6 years of
PPCerrado (see Factor D discussion, below). Therefore, we do not find
that the hyacinth macaw is currently in danger of extinction.
Comment (9): One commenter stated that deforestation stabilization
does not equate with regeneration and does not account for negative
impacts of historical habitat disturbance, which effects manduvi in the
Pantanal, upon which the hyacinth macaw relies almost exclusively for
nesting.
Our Response: Although the recruitment of the manduvi tree has been
severely reduced and is expected to become increasingly rare in the
future, active management has contributed to the increase in the
hyacinth macaw population in the Pantanal, and farmers have begun to
protect hyacinth macaws on their property. Additionally, hyacinth
macaws have been reported in various trees species and even on cliffs
on the border of the Pantanal (see Essential Needs of the Species,
above), although the majority of their nests are in Brazil nut
(Bertholettia excels) (in Par[aacute]) and manduvi (in the Pantanal).
Further, hyacinth macaws in the Gerais region now use rock crevices for
nesting. While we do not know if the hyacinth macaws in this region
will respond in the same way to the loss of nesting trees as those in
the Gerais region, it is possible that if these primary nesting trees
become scarcer, hyacinth macaws may adapt to using cavities of other
trees (van der Meer 2013, p. 3) or perhaps even cliff faces.
Comment (10): One commenter stated that we provide conflicting data
on annual deforestation rates in the Gerais region because we stated
that annual deforestation rates were more than 14,200 km\2\ (5,483
mi\2\) each year from 2002 to 2008, an estimated 12,949 km\2\ (4,999
mi\2\) per year from 2000 to 2005, and 11,812 km\2\ (4,560 mi\2\) per
year from 2005 to 2010.
Our Response: We cited the best available data from research that
used time frames that overlap or vary; therefore, it is difficult to
make comparisons between studies and across years to provide a linear
estimate of the annual deforestation rates within the species' range.
Estimates of the deforestation rate from 2002 to 2008 of 14,200 km\2\
(5,483 mi\2\) each year are based on data from the PROBIO program
(Projeto de Conserva[ccedil][atilde]o e Utiliza[ccedil][atilde]o
Sustent[aacute]vel da Diversidade Biol[oacute]gica) using imagery from
2002 (Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 117). The Project to Monitor
Deforestation of Brazilian Biomes by Satellite (PMDBBS) used this
baseline data to estimate deforestation rates from 2002 through 2008 in
the Cerrado (see Table 2, below), and to map cleared areas from 2008 to
2009, 2009 to 2010, and 2010 to 2011; these data are also cited by
Brazilian Ministry of the Environment (Minist[eacute]rio do Meio
Ambiente) (MMA) (2015, p. 9) and World Wildlife Fund--United Kingdom
(WWF-UK) (2011b, p. 2). The PMDBBS is one of the official national
biome scale estimates for the Brazilian biomes. Estimates of the
deforestation rate we cited from 2000 to 2005 of 12,949 km\2\ (4,999
mi\2\) per year and from 2005 to 2010 of 11,812 km\2\ (4,560 mi\2\) per
year are from Beuchle et al. (2015, pp. 124-125), who were comparing
their results to PMDBBS (see Factor A discussion, below).
Comment (11): Some commenters, while not opposed to the listing of
the species, requested a rule under section 4(d) of the Act, which
would allow ownership and interstate trade of the species to occur
without obtaining a permit under the Act.
Our Response: Ownership of a listed species is not prohibited by
the Act and, therefore, does not require a permit. Section 4(d) of the
Act allows the Service to apply the prohibitions of section 9 or to
provide measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species. Therefore, whenever we list a
species as a threatened species, we may issue regulations as we deem
necessary and

[[Page 39897]]

advisable to conserve the species under a 4(d) rule. We determined that
listing the hyacinth macaw as threatened under the Act is appropriate,
and as part of our determination, this final listing includes a 4(d)
rule for the species articulating the measures that we deemed is
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species. See 4(d)
Rule, below, for more discussion.
Comment (12): Two commenters stated that the proposed 4(d) rule is
not adequate because it does not stem demand for illegally obtained
hyacinth macaws and makes wild-sourced supply of hyacinth macaws more
accessible to breeders.
Our Response: The 4(d) rule generally adopts the existing
conservation regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as the
appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of certain
hyacinth macaws. CITES is an international agreement between
governments and ensures that the international trade of CITES-listed
plants and animals does not threaten the survival of the species in the
wild. Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Scientific and
Management Authorities of each CITES Party. The hyacinth macaw is
listed in Appendix I of CITES. For species included in CITES Appendix
I, international trade is permitted only under exceptional
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The United
States implements CITES through the Act and our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR part 23. It is unlawful for any person subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any
specimens contrary to the provisions of CITES, or to possess any
specimens traded contrary to the provisions of CITES, the Act, or part
23. Protections for CITES-listed species are provided independently of
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species
under the Act.
Based on trade data obtained from the CITES Trade Database
(accessed on January 12, 2018), from the time the hyacinth macaw was
uplisted to CITES Appendix I in October 1987 through 2015, less than 3
percent of the live hyacinth macaws reported in trade were wild-sourced
(see Factor B discussion and Table 4, below).
Two other laws in the United States apart from the Act provide
protection from the illegal import of wild-caught birds into the United
States: The WBCA and the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-
3378). The WBCA ensures that exotic bird species are not harmed by
international trade and encourages wild bird conservation programs in
countries of origin. Under the WBCA and our implementing regulations
(50 CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into the United States any
exotic bird species listed under CITES except under certain
circumstances. The Service may issue permits to allow import of listed
birds for scientific research, zoological breeding or display,
cooperative breeding, or personal pet purposes when the applicant meets
certain criteria (50 CFR 15.22-15.25). Under the Lacey Act, in part, it
is unlawful: (1) To import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire,
or purchase any fish, or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or
sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United
States or in violation of any Indian tribal law, or (2) to import,
export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or
foreign commerce any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or
sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation
of any foreign law. For example, because the take of wild-caught
hyacinth macaws would be in violation of Brazil's Environmental Crimes
Law, the subsequent import of hyacinth macaws would violate the Lacey
Act. Similarly, under the Lacey Act it is unlawful to import, export,
transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase specimens of this
species traded contrary to CITES.
Based in large part on the protection from illegal and legal trade
afforded to the hyacinth macaw by CITES, the WBCA, and the Lacey Act,
the best available data indicate that legal and illegal trade of
hyacinth macaws is not currently occurring at levels that are affecting
the population of the species in the wild or would negatively affect
any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species.
Although illegal trapping for the pet trade occurred at high levels
during the 1980s, it has decreased significantly and we found no
information suggesting that illegal trapping and trade of wild hyacinth
macaws are current threats to the species. Therefore, we find that our
4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary
and advisable for the conservation of the hyacinth macaw.
Comment (13): One commenter stated that interstate and
international transport of hyacinth macaws seems to be a generally
accepted practice of the exotic pet trade, and one that is expressly
endorsed by the 4(d) rule, yet it is extremely dangerous and often
detrimental to the animal's health and well-being.
Our Response: International transport is guided by part 50 CFR part
14, subpart J--Standards for the Humane and Healthful Transport of Wild
Mammals and Birds to the United States. As mentioned earlier,
importers/exporters must meet the requirement of this and other
requirements in order to import their birds into the United States.
These regulations are enforced by the Service. Interstate transport is
guided by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), which
is the Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of
animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers (United
States Department of Agriculture 2017, unpaginated). While other laws,
policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or
specifications for animal care and use, all refer to the AWA as the
minimum acceptable standard. The AWA is enforced by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Therefore,
we determine that these laws and regulations adequately promote the
humane treatment and transport of hyacinth macaws.
Comment (14): One commenter recommended there be an exception for
legitimate parrot owners and opined that the United States should not
confiscate private property (i.e., legitimately purchased pets) because
of a problem occurring in Brazil, especially when there are already
laws to protect wild parrots.
Our Response: There is no prohibition for ownership of lawfully
acquired hyacinth macaws. With regards to import/export, we proposed
exceptions for personal pet parrot owners in the 4(d) rule to allow a
person to import or export either: (1) A specimen that was held in
captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act; or
(2) a captive-bred specimen, without a permit issued under the Act,
provided the export is authorized under CITES and the import is
authorized under CITES and the WBCA. A person may deliver, receive,
carry, transport, or ship a hyacinth macaw in interstate commerce in
the course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in
interstate commerce a hyacinth macaw without a permit under the Act.
However, the import and export of birds into and from the United
States, taken from the wild after the date this species is listed under
the Act; conducting an activity that could take or incidentally take
hyacinth macaws; and foreign commerce will need to meet the
requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including obtaining a permit
under the Act. See 4(d) Rule, below, for more discussion.

[[Page 39898]]

Comment (15): One commenter believed that we should have listed the
species as endangered because they believed that it is in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its range.
Our Response: Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a
species may warrant listing if it is an endangered or threatened
species. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species that is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species
that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C.
1532(20)). Because we have determined that the hyacinth macaw is
threatened throughout all of its range, under the Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in
the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and
``Threatened Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) (SPR Policy), if a
species warrants listing throughout all of its range, no portion of the
species' range can be a ``significant'' portion of its range.
While it is the Service's position under the SPR Policy that no
further analysis of ``significant portion of its range'' in this
circumstance is consistent with the language of the Act, we recognize
that the SPR Policy is currently under judicial review, so we also took
the additional step of considering whether there could be any
significant portions of the species' range where the species is in
danger of extinction. We evaluated whether there is substantial
information indicating that there are any portions of the hyacinth
macaw's range: (1) That may be ``significant,'' and (2) where the
species may be in danger of extinction. In practice, a key part of
identifying portions appropriate for further analysis is whether the
threats are geographically concentrated. The hyacinth macaw's primary
driver of its status is habitat destruction. This threat is affecting
the species throughout its entire range and is of similar magnitude
throughout its range; therefore, there is not a meaningful geographical
concentration of threats to the hyacinth macaw. As a result, even if we
were to undertake a detailed SPR analysis, there would not be any
portions of the species' range where the threats are harming the
species to a greater degree such that the species is in danger of
extinction in that portion.
Comment (16): One commenter stated that the Service was obligated
to issue a final regulation based on the proposal to list the hyacinth
macaw as endangered in 2012, or issue a notice of withdrawal. They
asserted the Service should have to go through the same requirements
and procedures as for a downlisting by making a full scientific finding
of why listing the hyacinth macaw as endangered is no longer warranted
before it can repropose to list the species as threatened.
Our Response: We are obligated to make listing determinations under
the Act based on the best available scientific and commercial
information. In our 2012 proposed rule (77 FR 39965; July 6, 2012), we
found that the hyacinth macaw was in danger of extinction (an
endangered species) based on information estimating the original
vegetation of the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal, including the hyacinth
macaw's habitat, would be lost between the years 2030 and 2050 due to
deforestation, combined with the species' naturally low reproductive
rate, highly specialized nature, hunting, competition, and effects of
climate change. However, subsequent to publishing that proposal, we
received new information from the public and peer review. As a result
of this information, we reevaluated impacts to the species, made
technical corrections, and assessed additional information regarding
conservation efforts. Subsequently, we revised our determination in
consideration of the new information and public comments we received to
conclude that the hyacinth macaw's risk of extinction is not as
imminent as previously predicted, and we published a revised proposed
rule that opened a new comment period to allow the public the
opportunity to submit additional comments in light of this new
information (81 FR 85488; November 28, 2016).
Comment (17): One commenter stated that, while the proposed 4(d)
rule is an amendment of an existing 4(d) rule for several other species
of parrots at 50 CFR 17.41(c), it leaves out two provisions of that
existing rule: (1) The exception for import and export of captive-bred
specimens, and (2) interstate commerce. They assert that because the
Service includes these provisions in the preamble of the proposed 4(d)
rule but does not include the actual text in the draft rule, the
Service did not provide sufficient notice and opportunity for public
comment.
Our Response: In the revised proposed rule, under Proposed
Regulation Promulgation (81 FR 85488, November 28, 2016, see pp. 81 FR
85506-85507), we proposed to amend 50 CFR 17.41 by revising paragraph
(c) introductory text, paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text,
(c)(2)(ii) introductory text, and (c)(2)(ii)(E). The amendatory
instruction and regulatory text were formatted in accordance with
Office of the Federal Register standards and only include those
provisions of the existing text that are being revised. The proposed
regulatory text for 50 CFR 17.41(c), together with the text we were not
proposing to amend in that paragraph of the CFR, encompasses the whole
of the proposed 4(d) rule for the hyacinth macaw. As the commenter
notes, we explain the proposed 4(d) rule for the hyacinth macaw in the
preamble of the revised proposed rule (81 FR 85488, November 28, 2016,
see pp. 85505-85506). We accepted public comments on the revised
proposed rule to list the hyacinth macaw as a threatened species,
including the proposed 4(d) rule (81 FR 85488; November 28, 2016), for
60 days, ending January 27, 2017. We have complied with the notice-and-
comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
chapter 5) and the Act.
Comment (18): One commenter stated that neither CITES nor the WBCA
provide for public notice and comment, which is required for permits
for endangered species under the Act. They indicated the public would
receive no notice about import/export or interstate movement of these
parrots, which makes it difficult to track and protect these species
from the pet trade.
Our Response: It is true that neither CITES nor the WBCA provide
for public notice and comment for interstate movement of species. It is
also true that there is required notice and comment for permits for
endangered species under the Act. However, there is no notice-and-
comment requirement for permits for threatened species. We found the
hyacinth macaw to be a threatened species; therefore, the notice-and-
comment provision for permits under the Act does not apply in this
case. Additionally, we found it was not necessary or advisable for the
conservation of the hyacinth macaw to extend the permit requirements to
certain import/export and interstate transport because we did not find
the pet trade to be a threat to the species. Further, interstate
commerce within the United States was not found to threaten the
hyacinth macaw, and the best available data indicate that legal and
illegal trade of hyacinth macaws is not currently occurring at levels
that are affecting the population of the species in the wild or would
negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations
of the species.

[[Page 39899]]

Comment (19): One commenter stated that the Service provides no
logical basis for the proposed 4(d) rule's assumption that ``generally
accepted animal husbandry practices'' or breeding procedures do not
result in harm and harassment as covered under the Act's prohibition on
take.
Our Response: While the Act does not define ``harm'' or
``harassment,'' the Service's regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 provide
definitions for those terms. ``Harm'' is defined as an act which
actually kills or injures wildlife and ``harassment,'' when applied to
captive wildlife, does not include generally accepted animal husbandry
practices or breeding procedures as defined by the Service's
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Consequently, such actions would not be
prohibited or require a permit under the Act.
Comment (20): One commenter stated that wildlife-trade management
authorities have shown that fraudulent permitting has been a frequent
occurrence in many illicitly traded species across the globe (United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2016) and this impacts the hyacinth
macaw.
Our Response: Although we recognize that fraudulent permitting may
occur as part of the global wildlife trade, we have no information
indicating that fraudulent permitting practices are impacting the
hyacinth macaw. Furthermore, the commenter did not provide any
information regarding fraudulent permitting specific to hyacinth
macaws.
Comment (21): One commenter suggested an alternative 4(d) rule for
the hyacinth macaw, which they say would better further the
conservation of the species. The commenter suggested that any trade in
captive-bred specimens must be limited to specimens legitimately
designated as source code D instead of codes C, D, or F under CITES,
and that commercial interstate commerce should not be exempted. (Note:
Source codes indicate the source of the specimen used on CITES permits
and certificates. See 4(d) Rule, below, for more discussion.)
Our Response: We considered the commenter's alternative approach to
the 4(d) rule, and ultimately we determined that the import and export
requirements of 50 CFR 17.41(c) provide the necessary and advisable
conservation measures needed for this species. Interstate commerce
within the United States was not found to threaten the hyacinth macaw,
and the best available data indicate that legal and illegal trade of
hyacinth macaws is not currently occurring at levels that are affecting
the population of the species in the wild or would negatively affect
any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species.

Background

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

The hyacinth macaw is one of three species of the Anodorhynchus
genus and the largest bird of the parrot family, Family Psittacidae,
(Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 405). It measures
approximately 1 meter (m) (3.3 feet (ft)) in length. Average female and
male wing lengths measure approximately 400 to 408 millimeters (mm)
(1.3 ft), respectively. Average tail lengths for females and males are
approximately 492 mm (1.6 ft) and 509 mm (1.7 ft), respectively
(Forshaw 1989, p. 388). Hyacinth macaws are characterized by a
predominately cobalt-blue plumage, black underside of wing and tail,
and unlike other macaws, have feathered faces and lores (areas of a
bird's face from the base of the bill to the front of the eyes). In
addition, they have bare yellow eye rings, bare yellow patches
surrounding the base of their lower mandibles, large and hooked gray-
black bills, and dark-brown irises. Their legs, which are dark gray in
most birds but lighter gray to white in older adults, are short and
sturdy to allow the bird to hang sideways or upside down while
foraging. Immature birds are similar to adults, but with shorter tails
and paler yellow bare facial skin (Juniper and Parr 1998, pp. 416-417;
Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 405; Forshaw 1989,
p. 388).
The hyacinth macaw experiences late maturity, not reaching first
reproduction until 8 or 9 years old (Guedes 2009, p. 117). Hyacinth
macaws are monogamous and faithful to nesting sites; a couple may
reproduce for more than a decade in the same nest. They nest from July
to January in tree cavities and, in some parts of its range, cliff
cavities (Tortato and Bonanomi 2012, p. 22; Guedes 2009, pp. 4, 5, 12;
Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 35; Abramson et
al. 1995, p. 2). The hyacinth macaw lays two smooth, white eggs
approximately 48 mm (1.9 inches (in)) long and 36 mm (1.4 in) wide.
Eggs are usually found in the nest from August until December (Guedes
2009, p. 4; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p.
406). The female alone incubates the eggs for approximately 28 to 30
days. The male remains near the nest to protect it from invaders, but
may leave 4 to 6 times a day to forage and collect food for the female
(Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 72, 79; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 406).
Chicks are mostly naked, with sparse white down feathers at hatching.
Young are fed regurgitated, chopped palm nuts (Munn et al. 1989, p.
405). Most chicks fledge at 105 to 110 days old; however, separation
from the parents is a slow process. Fledglings will continue to be fed
by the parents for 6 months, when they begin to break hard palm nuts
themselves, and may remain with the adults for 16 months, after which
they will join groups of other young birds (Schneider et al. 2006, pp.
71-72; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 407-411).
Hyacinth macaws naturally have a low reproductive rate, a
characteristic common to all parrots, due, in part, to asynchronous
hatching. Although hyacinth macaws lay two eggs, usually only one chick
survives (Guedes 2009, p. 31; Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Kuniy et al.
2006, p. 381; Guedes, 2004b, p. 6; Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). Not all
hyacinth nests fledge young, and due to the long period of chick
dependence, hyacinth macaws breed only every 2 years (Faria et al.
2008, p. 766; Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71-72; Guedes 2004b, p. 7;
Pinho and Nigueira 2003, p. 30; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 407-411;
Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). In a study of the Pantanal, which contains
the largest population of hyacinth macaws, it was suggested that only
15-30 percent of adults attempt to breed; it may be that the same or an
even smaller percentage in Par[aacute] and Gerais attempt to breed
(Munn et al. 1989, p. 409).

[[Page 39900]]

Range and Population

At one time, hyacinth macaws were widely distributed, occupying
large areas of Central Brazil into the Bolivian and Paraguayan Pantanal
(Guedes 2009, pp. xiii, 11; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Whittingham
et al. 1998, p. 66; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395). Today, the species
is limited to three areas totaling approximately 537,000 square
kilometers (km\2\), (207,337 square miles (mi\2\)) almost exclusively
within Brazil: (1) Eastern Amazonia in Par[aacute], Brazil, south of
the Amazon River along the Tocantins, Xingu, and Tapaj[oacute]s rivers;
(2) the Gerais region of northeastern Brazil, including the states of
Maranh[atilde]o, Piau[iacute], Goi[aacute]s, Tocantins, Bahia, and
Minas Gerais; and (3) the Pantanal of Mato Grosso and Mato Grosso do
Sul, Brazil, and marginally in Bolivia and Paraguay. These populations
of hyacinth macaws inhabit those portions of the species' original
range that experienced the least pressure from bird catchers, meat and
feather hunters, and agricultural developers (Munn et al. 1989, pp.
406-407).
Prior to the arrival of Indians and Europeans to South America,
there may have been between 100,000 and 3 million hyacinth macaws (Munn
et al. 1989, p. 412); however, due to the species' large but patchy
range, an estimate of the original population size when the species was
first described (1790) is unattainable (Collar et al. 1992, p. 253).
Although some evidence indicates that the hyacinth macaw was abundant
before the mid-1980s (Guedes 2009, p. 11; Collar et al. 1992, p. 253),
the species significantly declined throughout the 1980s due to an
estimated 10,000 birds illegally captured during the 1980s for the pet
trade and a further reduction in numbers due to habitat loss and
hunting. Population estimates prior to 1986 are lacking, but a very
rapid population decline is suspected to have taken place over the last
31 years (three generations) (Birdlife International (BLI) 2014a,
unpaginated). In 1986, the total population of hyacinth macaws was
estimated to be 3,000, with a range between 2,500 and 5,000
individuals; 750 occurred in Par[aacute], 1,000 in Gerais, and 1,500 in
Pantanal (Guedes 2004b, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 253; Munn et al.
1989, p. 413). In 2003, the population was estimated at 6,500
individuals; 5,000 of which were located in the Pantanal region, and
1,000-1,500 in Par[aacute] and Gerais, combined (BLI 2017, unpaginated;
Guedes 2009, p. 11; Brouwer 2004, unpaginated). Observations of
hyacinth macaws in the wild have increased in Paraguay, especially in
the northern region (Espinola 2013, pers. comm.), but no quantitative
data are available. Locals report the species increasing in Bolivia;
between 100 and 200 hyacinth macaws are estimated to occur in the
Bolivian Pantanal, with estimates up to 300 for the country (Guedes
2012, p. 1; Pinto-Ledezma 2011, p. 19; BLI 2017, unpaginated; BLI 1992,
p. 4).
The 2003 estimate indicates a substantial increase in the Pantanal
population, although the methods or techniques used to estimate the
population is not described. Therefore, the reliability of the
estimation techniques, as well as the accuracy of the estimated
increase, is not known (Santos, Jr. 2013, pers. comm.). Despite the
uncertainty in the estimated population increase, the Pantanal is the
stronghold for the species and has shown signs of recovery since 1990,
most likely as a response to conservation projects (BLI 2017,
unpaginated; Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p.
30). The overall population trend for the hyacinth macaw throughout its
range is reported as decreasing (BLI 2016, unpaginated), although there
are no extreme fluctuations reported in the number of individuals (BLI
2016, unpaginated).

Essential Needs of the Species

Hyacinth macaws use a variety of habitats in the Par[aacute],
Gerais, and Pantanal regions. Each region features a dry season that
prevents the growth of extensive closed-canopy tropical forests and
maintains the more open habitat preferred by this species. In
Par[aacute], the species prefers palm-rich v[aacute]rzea (flooded
forests), seasonally moist forests with clearings, and savannas. In the
Gerais region, hyacinth macaws are located within the Cerrado biome,
where they inhabit dry open forests in rocky, steep-sided valleys and
plateaus, gallery forests (a stretch of forest along a river in an area
of otherwise open country), and Mauritia palm swamps. In the Pantanal
region, hyacinth macaws frequent gallery forests and palm groves with
wet grassy areas (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper
1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 407).
Hyacinth macaws have a specialized diet consisting of the fruits of
various palm species, which are inside an extremely hard nut that only
the hyacinth macaw can easily break (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 400;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 254). Hyacinth macaws are highly selective in
choice of palm nut; they have to be the right size and shape, as well
as have an extractable kernel with the right lignin pattern
(Brightsmith 1999, p. 2; Pittman 1993, unpaginated). They forage for
palm nuts and water on the ground, but may also forage directly from
the palm tree and drink fluid from unripe palm fruits. Hyacinth macaws
also feed on the large quantities of nuts eliminated by cattle in the
fields and have been observed in close proximity to cattle ranches
where waste piles are concentrated (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417;
Yamashita 1997, pp. 177, 179; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 400-401;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 254).
In each of the three regions where hyacinth macaws occur, they use
only a few specific palm species. In Par[aacute], hyacinth macaws have
been reported to feed on Maximiliana regia (inaj[aacute]), Orbignya
martiana (babassu), Orbignya phalerata (babac[uacute]) and Astrocaryum
sp. (tucum[aacute]n). In the Gerais region, hyacinth macaws feed on
Attalea funifera (piacava), Syagrus coronata (catol[eacute]), and
Mauritia vinifera (buriti). In the Pantanal region, hyacinth macaws
feed exclusively on Scheelea phalerata (acuri) and Acrocomia totai
(bocai[uacute]va) (Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Schneider et al. 2006, p.
74; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 401;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 254; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 407-408). Although
hyacinth macaws prefer bocai[uacute]va palm nuts over acuri,
bocai[uacute]va is only readily available from September to December,
which coincides with the peak of chick hatching; however, the acuri is
available throughout the year and constitutes the majority of this
species' diet in the Pantanal (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 400).
Hyacinth macaws have specialized nesting requirements. As a
secondary tree nester, they require large, mature trees with
preexisting tree holes to provide nesting cavities large enough to
accommodate them (Tortato and Bonanomi 2012, p. 22; Guedes 2009, pp. 4-
5, 12; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 2). In
Par[aacute], the species nests in holes of Bertholettia excelsa (Brazil
nut). In the Gerais region, nesting may occur in large dead Mauritia
vinifera (buriti), but is most commonly found in natural rock crevices.
In the Pantanal region, the species nests almost exclusively in
Sterculia striata (manduvi) as it is one of the few tree species that
grows large enough to supply cavities that can accommodate the
hyacinth's large size. Manduvi trees must be at least 60 years old, and
on average 80 years old, to provide adequate cavities (Guedes 2009, pp.
59-60; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 185).
Nesting has also been reported in Pithecellobium edwalii (angio
branco),

[[Page 39901]]

Enterolobium contortisiliquum (ximbuva), Vitex sp. (tarum[aacute]), and
the cliff face of mountains on the border of the Pantanal (van der Meer
2013, p. 24; Guedes 2004b, p. 6; Kuniy et al. 2006, p. 381; Santos Jr.
et al. 2006, p. 180; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, pp. 30, 33; Guedes 2002,
p. 4; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 402;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 255; Munn et al. 1989, p. 408).

Conservation Status

In 1989, the hyacinth was listed on the Official List of Brazilian
Fauna Threatened with Extinction by the Brazilian Institute of
Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA), the government agency that
controls the country's natural resources (Lunardi et al. 2003, p. 283;
IBAMA Ordinance No. 1522, of December 19, 1989). Due to actions to
combat trafficking of animals, the hyacinth macaw was removed from the
list in 2014 (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conserva[ccedil][atilde]o da
Bioversidade 2016, unpaginated). It is listed as ``critically
endangered'' by the State of Minas Gerais and ``vulnerable'' by the
State of Par[aacute] (Garcia and Marini 2006, p. 153). In Paraguay, the
hyacinth macaw is listed as in danger of extinction (Bauer 2012, pers.
comm.).
From 2000 to 2013, this species was classified as ``endangered'' by
the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However, in
2014, the hyacinth macaw was downlisted to ``vulnerable'' because
evidence suggested that it had not declined as rapidly as previously
thought. A ``vulnerable'' taxon is considered to be facing a high risk
of extinction in the wild, whereas an ``endangered'' taxon is
considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild
(IUCN 2012, unpaginated). The hyacinth macaw is also listed as Appendix
I on the CITES list. Species included in CITES Appendix I are
considered threatened with extinction, and international trade is
permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally
precludes commercial trade.

Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section
4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a species based on (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.
Most of the information on the hyacinth macaw is from the Pantanal
region, as this is the largest and most studied population. The species
occurs only marginally within Bolivia and Paraguay as extensions from
the Brazilian Pantanal population, and there is little information on
the species in those countries. We found little information on the
status of the Par[aacute] and Gerais populations; therefore, we
evaluated impacts to these populations by a broader region (e.g., the
Amazon biome for Par[aacute] and the Cerrado biome for Gerais).
Parrots in general have traits that increase their vulnerability of
extinction (Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Guedes 2004a, p.
280; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 407-409). The
specialized nature and reproductive biology of the hyacinth macaw
contribute to low recruitment of juveniles and decrease the ability to
recover from reductions in population size caused by anthropogenic
disturbances (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711).
This species' vulnerability to extinction is further impacted by
deforestation that negatively affects the availability of essential
food and nesting resources; hunting that removes individuals from
already small populations; and other factors that further reduce
naturally low reproductive rates, recruitment, and the population.
Additionally, the hyacinth macaw has highly specialized food and nest-
site requirements (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795;
Munn et al. 1998, p. 409; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186; Guedes and
Harper 1995, p. 400), as they feed on and nest in very limited number
of tree species. Therefore, hyacinth macaws are particularly vulnerable
to extinction due to the loss of food sources and nesting sites (Faria
et al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo 2008, p. 795; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 407-409;
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186).

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

Deforestation
Natural ecosystems across Latin America are being transformed due
to economic development, international market demands, and government
policies. In Brazil, demand for soybean oil and soybean meal has
increased, causing land conversion to significantly increase to meet
this demand (Barona et al. 2010, pp. 1-2). Much of the recent surge in
cropland area expansion is taking place in the Brazilian Amazon and
Cerrado regions (Nepstad et al. 2008, p. 1738). Brazil has also become
the world's largest exporter of beef. Over the past decade, more than
10 million hectares (ha) (24.7 million acres (ac)) were cleared for
cattle ranching, and the government is aiming to double the country's
share of the beef export market to 60 percent by 2018 (Butler 2009,
unpaginated).
Par[aacute]: Par[aacute] is one of the Brazilian states that
constitute the Amazon biome (Greenpeace 2009, p. 2). This biome
contains more than just the well-known tropical rainforests; it also
encompasses other ecosystems, including floodplain forests and
savannas. Between 1995 and 2009, conversion of floodplain forests in
the Amazon region to cattle ranching expanded significantly and was the
greatest cause of deforestation (da Silva 2009, p. 3; Lucas 2009, p. 1;
Collar et al. 1992, p. 257).
Cattle ranching has been present in the v[aacute]rzea (floodplain
forests) of the Amazon for centuries (Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 433).
However, since the late 1970s, state subsidies and massive
infrastructure development have facilitated large-scale forest
conversion and colonization for cattle ranching (Barona et al. 2010, p.
1). Certain factors have led to a significant expansion of this land
use. The climate of the Brazilian Amazon is favorable for cattle
ranching; frosts do not occur in the north of Brazil; and rainfall is
more evenly distributed throughout the year, increasing pasture
productivity and reducing the risk of fire. Additionally, the price of
land in Par[aacute] has been lower than in central and south Brazil,
resulting in ranchers establishing larger farms in Par[aacute] (Arima
and Uhl, 1997, p. 446).
Although the immediate cause of deforestation in the Amazon was
predominantly the expansion of pasture between 2000 and 2006 (Barona et
al. 2010, p. 8), the underlying cause may be the expansion of soy
cultivation in other areas, leading to a displacement of pastures
farther north into parts of Par[aacute] and causing additional
deforestation (Barona et al. 2010, pp. 6, 8).
In the Brazilian North region, including Par[aacute], cattle occupy
84 percent of the total area under agricultural and livestock uses.
This area, on average, expanded 9 percent per year over 10 years,
causing 70-80 percent of deforestation (Nepstad et al. 2008, p. 1739).
Par[aacute] itself contains two-thirds of the Brazilian Amazonia cattle
herd (Arima and Uhl 1997, p. 343), with a sizable portion of the state
classified as

[[Page 39902]]

cattle-producing area (Walker et al. 2009, p. 69). For 7 months of the
year, cattle are grazed in the v[aacute]rzea, but are moved to the
upper terra firma the other 5 months (Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 440).
Intense livestock activity can affect seedling recruitment via
trampling and grazing. Cattle also compact the soil such that
regeneration of forest species is severely reduced (Lucas 2009, pp. 1-
2). This type of repeated disturbance can lead to an ecosystem
dominated by invasive trees, grasses, bamboo, and ferns (Nepstad et al.
2008, p. 1740).
Par[aacute] has long been known as the epicenter of illegal
deforestation (Dias and Ramos 2012, unpaginated) and has one of the
highest deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon (Butler 2016,
unpaginated). From 1988 to 2016, the state lost 143,159 km\2\ (55,274
mi\2\), with annual rates varying between 1,741 and 8,870 km\2\ (672
and 3,425 mi\2\) (Brazil's National Institute for Space Research (INPE)
2016, unpaginated; Butler 2016, unpaginated) (Table 1). Since 2004,
deforestation rates in Par[aacute] have generally decreased. However,
rates rose 35 percent in 2013, decreased in 2014, and increased in 2015
and 2016 (INPE 2016, unpaginated) (Table 1). The impacts to and loss of
biodiversity within the two large regions of the Brazilian Amazon
located in the state of Par[aacute] are due to not only deforestation
across the landscape but also within-forest disturbance, such as
wildfire and selective logging, resulting in a loss of biodiversity
beyond what is expected based on deforestation alone. Within-forest
disturbance can increase even as deforestation rates fall (Barlow et
al. 2016, p. 144).

Table 1--Deforestation in Par[aacute] (2004-2016) (INPE 2016)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accumulated Annual
Year deforested deforested
area (km2) area (km2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004....................................... * 98,257 8,870
2005....................................... 104,156 5,899
2006....................................... 109,815 5,659
2007....................................... 115,341 5,526
2008....................................... 120,948 5,607
2009....................................... 125,229 4,281
2010....................................... 128,999 3,770
2011....................................... 132,007 3,008
2012....................................... 133,748 1,741
2013....................................... 136,094 2,346
2014....................................... 137,981 1,887
2015....................................... 140,134 2,153
2016....................................... 143,159 3,025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Accumulation since 1988.

Given the role cattle ranching plays in national and international
markets and the profitability of ranching, significant expansion of
cattle herds in the Brazilian Amazon has continued (Walker et al. 2009,
p. 68). The remaining forested areas of Par[aacute] are at risk of
being cleared; Par[aacute] is one of the states where most of Brazil's
agriculture expansion is taking place (British Broadcasting Company
News 2014, unpaginated). Furthermore, modeled future deforestation is
concentrated in eastern Amazonia, which includes Par[aacute], where the
density of paved highways (existing and planned) will continue to be
highest for several decades (Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 522).
Gerais: The Gerais region is within the Cerrado biome, a 2-million-
km\2\ (772,204-mi\2\) area consisting of plateaus and depressions with
vegetation that varies from dense grasslands with sparse shrubs and
small trees to almost closed woodland (Pinto et al. 2007, p. 14; da
Silva 1997, p. 437; Ratter et al. 1997, p. 223). In the Cerrado,
hyacinth macaws now mostly nest in rock crevices, most likely a
response to the destruction of nesting trees (Collar et al. 1992, p.
255). These crevices will likely remain constant and are not a limiting
factor. However, deforestation for agriculture, primarily soy crops,
and cattle ranching threaten the remaining native cerrado vegetation,
including palm species the hyacinth macaw relies on as a food source.
Approximately 50 to 80 percent of the original Cerrado vegetation
has been lost due to conversion to agriculture and pasture, and the
area continues to suffer high rates of habitat loss (Grecchi et al.
2015, p. 2865; Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 121; WWF 2015, p. 2; Soares-
Filho et al. 2014, p. 364; Pearce 2011, unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011b, p.
2; Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 1393; BLI 2008, unpaginated; Pinto et al.
2007, p. 14; Klink and Machado 2005, p. 708; Marini and Garcia 2005, p.
667; WWF 2001, unpaginated; da Silva 1997, p. 446; da Silva 1995, p.
298). From 2002 to 2008, the demand for land conversion in the Cerrado
resulted in an annual deforestation rate of more than 14,200 km\2\
(5,483 mi\2\) (PROBIO program (Projeto de Conserva[ccedil][atilde]o e
Utiliza[ccedil][atilde]o Sustent[aacute]vel da Diversidade
Biol[oacute]gica); Minist[eacute]rio do Meio Ambiente (MMA) 2015, p. 9;
WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2; Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 117). At this rate, the
vegetation of the Cerrado region was disappearing faster than the
Amazon rainforest (Pearce 2011, unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011c, p. 19;
Pennington et al. 2006, in Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 117; Klink and
Machado 2005, p. 708; Ratter et al. 1997, p. 228). However, the annual
deforestation rate from 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010 in the Cerrado
slowed by 46 percent and 16 percent respectively (MMA 2015, p. 9;
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2016, p. 145) (Table 2). In
a comparison study, the loss of natural vegetation decreased to an
estimated 12,949 km\2\ (4,999 mi\2\) per year from 2000 to 2005, and
11,812 km\2\ (4,560 mi\2\) per year from 2005 to 2010 (Beuchle et al.
2015, pp. 124-125).
Since 2008, annual monitoring of deforestation in the Cerrado has
taken place through a government program that monitors each of the
Brazilian biomes. Compared to the deforestation rates of the early
2000s, deforestation has decreased about 40 percent (CEPF 2016, p.
145). Although the annual rate of deforestation is generally
decreasing, the total amount of forested habitat continues to
experience a slow and steady decline (MMA 2015, p. 9) (Table 2).

[[Page 39903]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AU18.032

The remaining natural vegetation of the Cerrado is highly
fragmented (only 20 percent of the original biome is considered intact)
and continues to be pressured by conversion for soy plantations and
extensive cattle ranching (WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2; WWF-UK 2011c, p. 21;
Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 1393; BLI 2008, unpaginated). About 6 in every
10 ha (15 of 25 ac) of the Cerrado are suitable for mechanized
agriculture (WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2). Maranh[atilde]o, Tocantins,
Piau[iacute], and Bahia, states where hyacinth macaws occur, are
undergoing rapid conversion, mostly to soy crops (CEPF 2016, p. 151).
In two of these states, deforestation increased by 40 percent in
Toncantins (INPE 2016, unpaginated) and by 25 percent in
Maranh[atilde]o (Butler 2016, unpaginated) in 2016 compared to the
deforestation rate in 2015. Soy production will continue to grow as the
beans have many uses for food, feed, and industry in Brazil and abroad
(CEPF 2016, p. 152). Furthermore, the Brazilian government has proposed
a 731,735-km\2\ (282,524-mi\2\) agricultural development, of which 91
percent occurs in the Cerrado, with little regard for the environment,
at least as of 2015 (Clark 2015 and Miranda 2015, in CEPF 2016, p. 95).
Additionally, the conversion of land for biofuel production is likely
imminent, creating a market for the expansion and establishment of new
areas for soy, castor beans, other oil-bearing plants, and sugar cane
(Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 1400).
Given that the Cerrado is the most desirable biome for agribusiness
expansion and contains approximately 40 million ha (99 million ac) of
environmental surplus, which is land that exceeds the conservation
requirements of the forest code and that could be legally deforested
(see Factor D discussion, below) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 364),
this region will likely continue to suffer high deforestation rates.
Projections for coming decades show the largest increase in
agricultural production occurring in the Cerrado (CEPF 2016, p. 145).
Pantanal: The Pantanal is a 140,000-km\2\ (54,054-mi\2\) seasonally
flooded wetland interspersed with higher areas not subject to
inundation (cordilleras), covered with cerrado or seasonal forests
(Santos Jr. 2008, p. 133; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 127; Harris et al.
2005, p. 715; Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 103). Transitions during the
1990s to more intensive cattle ranching methods led to the conversion
of more forests to pasture and the introduction of nonnative grasses.
Ninety-five percent of the Pantanal is privately owned; 80 percent of
the privately owned land is used for cattle ranches, making cattle
ranching the predominant economic activity in this region and the
greatest cause of habitat loss in the Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, p.
5; Guedes and Vicente 2012, pp. 146-147, 148; Guedes 2009, p. 12; Pizo
et al. 2008, p. 793; Harris et al. 2006, pp. 165, 175-176; Harris et
al. 2005, pp. 715-716, 718; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Seidl et
al. 2001, p. 414; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 396; Mittermeier 1990, pp.
103, 107-108).
Manduvi, the tree that hyacinth macaws almost exclusively use for
nesting in this region, grow in cordilleras, which constitute only 6
percent of the vegetative area of the Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, p.
6; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). Many of
these patches and corridors are surrounded by seasonally flooded
grasslands used as rangeland for cattle during the dry season (Johnson
et al. 1997, p. 186). During the flooding season (January to June), up
to 80 percent of the Pantanal is flooded and ranchers move cattle to
cordilleras, increasing cattle pressure on upland forests (van der Meer
2013, p. 3; Guedes 2002, p. 3). These upland forests are often removed
and converted to cultivated pastures with exotic grasses (van der Meer
2013, p. 6; Santos Jr. 2008, p. 136; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 127;
Harris et al. 2006, p. 165; Harris et al. 2005, p. 716; Pinho and
Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Seidl et al. 2001, p. 414; Johnson et al. 1997,
p. 186). Clearing land to establish pasture is perceived as the
economically optimal land use, while land not producing beef is often
perceived as unproductive (Seidl et al. 2001, pp. 414-415).
Since 2002, regular monitoring of land use and vegetative cover in
the Upper Paraguay Basin, which includes the Pantanal, has taken place.
While the annual rate of deforestation is decreasing, satellite
monitoring of the area indicates a slow and steady increase in
deforested area (Table 3, below).

[[Page 39904]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AU18.033

When clearing land for pastures, palm trees are often left, as the
cattle will feed on the palm nuts (Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 36). In
fact, hyacinth macaws occur near cattle ranches and feed off the palm
nuts eliminated by the cattle (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Yamashita
1997, pp. 177, 179; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 400-401; Collar et al.
1992, p. 254). However, other trees, including potential nesting trees,
are often removed (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119). Even in areas where
known nesting trees were left and the surrounding area was cleared,
competition with each other and other macaw species became so fierce
that hyacinth macaws were unable to reproduce; both eggs and chicks
were killed by competitors (see Factor C discussion, below).
Other activities associated with cattle ranching, such as grazing,
burning, compaction, the introduction of exotic grasses, and
fragmentation, negatively impacts the nesting trees of the hyacinth
macaw (Guedes 2013, pers. comm.; Guedes and Vicente 2012, pp. 149-150;
Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Harris et al. 2006, p. 175; Snyder et
al. 2000, p. 119). For example, fire is a common method for renewing
pastures, controlling weeds, and controlling pests (e.g., ticks);
however, fires frequently become uncontrolled and burn patches and
corridors of manduvi trees during the dry season (Harris et al. 2005,
p. 716; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). Although fire can promote cavity
formation in manduvi trees, frequent fires prevent trees from surviving
to a size capable of providing suitable cavities, and cause a high rate
of nesting-tree loss (Guedes 1993 in Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187). Five
percent of manduvi trees are lost each year to deforestation, fire, and
storms (Guedes 1995, in Santos Jr. et al. 2006, pp. 184-185; Guedes and
Vicente 2012, p. 157).
In addition to the impact of fire on recruitment of manduvi trees,
cattle directly impact the density of manduvi seedlings in the
Pantanal. Cattle forage on and trample manduvi seedlings, affecting the
recruitment of this species to be able to reach a size large enough to
accommodate hyacinth macaws (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793; Johnson et al.
1997, p. 187; Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 107). Only those manduvi
trees at least 60 years old are capable of providing these cavities
(Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 185). The minimum
diameter at breast height (DBH) for trees to potentially contain a
cavity suitable for hyacinth macaws is 50 centimeters (cm) (20 in),
while all manduvi trees greater than 100 cm (39 in) DBH contain
suitable nest cavities. However, there is low recruitment of manduvi
trees in classes greater than 5 cm (2 in) DBH, a strong reduction in
the occurrence of trees greater than 50 cm (20 in) DBH, and very few
trees greater than 110 cm (43 in) DBH (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128).
Only 5 percent of the existing adult manduvi trees (trees with a DBH
greater than 50 cm (20 in)) in south-central Pantanal (Guedes 1993, in
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186) and 11 percent in southern Pantanal (van
der Meer 2013, p. 16) contain suitable cavities for hyacinth macaws.
Thus, potential nesting sites are rare and will become increasingly
rare in the future (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128).
Impacts of Deforestation: Because the hyacinth macaw has highly
specialized diet and nesting requirements, it is particularly
vulnerable to the loss of these resources (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766;
Pizo 2008, p. 795; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 407-409; Johnson et al. 1997,
p. 186). The loss of tree species used by hyacinth macaws negatively
impacts the species by reducing availability of food resources,
creating a shortage of suitable nesting sites, increasing competition,
and resulting in lowered recruitment and a reduction in population size
(Lee 2010, pp. 2, 6, 12; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Johnson et al.
1997, p. 188).
Its specialized diet makes the hyacinth macaw vulnerable to changes
in food availability. Inadequate nutrition can contribute to poor
health and reduced reproduction in parrots generally (McDonald 2003, in
Lee 2010, p. 6). Changes in palm fruit availability decreases
reproduction in hyacinth macaws (Guedes 2009, pp. 42-43, 44). In
Par[aacute] and the Gerais region, where food sources are threatened,
persistence of the species is a concern given that one of the major
factors thought to have contributed to the critically endangered status
of the Lear's macaw (Anodorhynchus leari) is the loss of its
specialized food source, Syagrus sp. (licuri palm) stands, to cattle
grazing (Collar et al. 1992, p. 257).
Hyacinth macaws can tolerate a certain degree of human disturbance
at their breeding sites (Pinho and Noguiera 2003, p. 36). However, the
number of usable cavities increases with the age of the trees in the
forest (Newton 1994, p. 266), and clearing land for agriculture and
cattle ranching, cattle trampling and foraging, and burning of forest
habitat result in the loss of mature trees with natural cavities of
sufficient size and a reduction in recruitment of native species that
could eventually provide nesting cavities.
A shortage of nest sites can jeopardize the persistence of the
hyacinth macaw by constraining breeding density, resulting in lower
recruitment and a gradual reduction in population size (Santos Jr. et
al. 2007, p. 128; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 188; Guedes and Harper 1995,
p. 405; Newton 1994, p. 265). This reduction may lead to long-term
effects on the viability of the hyacinth macaw population, especially
in Par[aacute] and the Pantanal where persistence of nesting trees is
compromised (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p.
181). Although a species may survive the initial deforestation, the
resulting lack of food resources and breeding sites may reduce the
viability of the population and make the species vulnerable to
extinction (Sodhi et al. 2009, p. 517).
In response to the loss of its nesting tree in the Gerais region,
hyacinth

[[Page 39905]]

macaws now use rock crevices for nesting. Hyacinth macaws have been
reported in various trees species and even on cliffs on the border of
the Pantanal, although the majority of their nests are in Brazil nut
(in Par[aacute]) and manduvi (in the Pantanal) (see Essential Needs of
the Species, above). We do not know if the hyacinth macaws in the
Pantanal will respond in the same way to the loss of nesting trees as
those in the Gerais region; however, it is possible that if these
primary nesting trees become scarcer, hyacinth macaws may adapt to
using cliff faces or cavities of other trees (van der Meer 2013, p. 3).
Deforestation in these regions would likely impact any alternative
nesting trees and food sources, resulting in the same negative effect
on the hyacinth macaw. Furthermore, competition for limited nesting
sites and food would continue.

Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes

Hunting
In Par[aacute] and the Gerais region, hunting removes individual
hyacinth macaws vital to the already small populations (Brouwer 2004,
unpaginated; Collar et al. 1992, p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 414).
Hyacinth macaws in Par[aacute] are hunted for subsistence and the
feather trade by some Indian groups (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Munn et
al. 1989, p. 414). Because the hyacinth macaw is the largest species of
macaw, it may be targeted by subsistence hunters, especially by
settlers along roadways (Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). The Gerais region
is poor, and animal protein is not as abundant as in other regions;
therefore, meat of any kind, including the large hyacinth macaw, is
sought as a protein source (Collar et al. 1992, p. 257; Munn et al.
1989, p. 414). Additionally, increased commercial sale of feather art
by Kayapo Indians of Gorotire may be of concern given that 10 hyacinth
macaws are required to make a single headdress (Collar et al. 1992, p.
257).
Because the hyacinth macaw populations in Par[aacute] and the
Gerais region are estimated at only 1,000-1,500 individuals combined,
the removal of any individuals from these small populations has a
negative effect on reproduction and the ability of the species to
recover. Any continued hunting for either meat or for the sale of
feather art is likely to contribute to the decline of the hyacinth
macaw in these regions, particularly when habitat conversion is also
taking place.
Hunting, capture, and trade of animal species are prohibited
without authorization throughout the range of the hyacinth macaw
(Clayton 2011, p. 4; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119; Environmental Crimes
Law (Law No. 9605/98); Stattersfield and Capper 1992, p. 257; Munn et
al. 1989, p. 415; Official List of Brazilian Endangered Animal Species
(Order No. 1.522/1989) (IBAMA 1989); Brazilian Constitution (title
VIII, chapter VI, 1988); Brazilian Law No. 5197/1967; UNEP, n.d.,
unpaginated). However, continued hunting in some parts of its range is
evidence that existing laws are not being adequately enforced. Without
greater enforcement of laws, hunting will continue to impact the
hyacinth macaw (see Factor D discussion, below).
Pet Trade
In the 1970s and 1980s, substantial trade in hyacinth macaws was
reported, but actual trade was likely significantly greater given the
amount of smuggling, routing of birds through countries not parties to
CITES, and internal consumption in South America (Collar et al. 1992,
p. 256; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 412-413). Trade in parrots in the 1980s
was particularly high due to a huge demand from developed countries,
including the United States, which was the main consumer of parrot
species at that time (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best et al.
1995, p. 234). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, reports of hyacinth
macaw trapping included one trapper who worked an area for 3 years
removing 200-300 wild hyacinth macaws a month during certain seasons
and another trapper who caught 1,000 hyacinth macaws in 1 year and knew
of other teams operating at similar levels (Silva (1989a) and Smith
(1991c) in Collar et al. 1992, p. 256). More than 10,000 hyacinth
macaws are estimated to have been taken from the wild in the 1980s
(Smith 1991c, in Collar et al. 1992, p. 256; Munn et al. 1987, in
Guedes 2009, p. 12). In the years following the enactment of the WBCA,
studies found lower poaching levels than in prior years, suggesting
that import bans in developed countries reduced poaching levels in
exporting countries (Wright et al. 2001, pp. 715, 718).

Table 4--CITES Trade Database: Approximate Number of Imports/Exports of Hyacinth Macaw With Identified Sources
and Purposes of Trade
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate number of Approximate number of
birds birds
-------------------------- -------------------------
Source Importer Exporter Purpose Importer Exporter
reported reported reported reported
quantity quantity quantity quantity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Total.......................... 1,488 1,435 Breeding in Captivity 688 827
or Artificial
Propagation.
Live/Captive Source................. 1,342 1,356 Educational........... 29 25
Live/Wild Source.................... 37 14 Hunting Trophy........ 1 0
Live/Pre-Convention................. 20 22 Law Enforcement, 0 3
Judicial, Forensic.
Live/Unknown Source................. 13 7 Medical............... 1 31
Live/Confiscated.................... 32 3 Reintroduction into 4 0
Wild.
Live/No Source Identified........... 44 33 Personal.............. 361 123
--------------------------
Total Specimens................. 1,661 1,756 Circus or Travelling 3 7
Exhibition.
--------------------------
Scientific............ 35 244
Commercial............ 336 348
Zoo................... 138 49
Not Reported.......... 65 99
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total Specimens..... 1,661 1,756
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39906]]

The data in Table 4 are based on CITES trade data obtained from the
CITES Trade Database (accessed on January 12, 2018), from 1987 through
2015. Because there may be a lag time in the data reported relative to
when the hyacinth macaw was uplisted to Appendix I in CITES (October
22, 1987), a few entries in the database between 1987 and 2015
categorize the hyacinth macaw as Appendix II. There are differences in
the manner in which the importing and exporting countries report their
trade, and some data may be contradictory or incorrectly reported.
We found little additional information on illegal trade of this
species in international markets. One study found that illegal pet
trade in Bolivia continues to involve CITES-listed species; the authors
speculated that similar problems exist in Peru and Brazil (Herrera and
Hennessey 2007, p. 298). In that same study, 11 hyacinth macaws were
found for sale in a Santa Cruz market from 2004 to 2007 (10 in 2004,
and 1 in 2006) (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, pp. 233-234). Larger
species, like the hyacinth macaw, were frequently sold for transport
outside of the country, mostly to Peru, Chile, and Brazil (Herrera and
Hennessey 2009, pp. 233-234). During a study conducted from 2007 to
2008, no hyacinth macaws were recorded in 20 surveyed Peruvian wildlife
markets (Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, pp. 2, 9-10). We found no other
data on the presence of hyacinth macaws in illegal trade.
Although illegal trapping for the pet trade occurred at high levels
during the 1980s, trade has decreased significantly from those levels.
International trade of parrots was significantly reduced during the
1990s as a result of tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, stricter
measures under European Union legislation, and adoption of the WBCA,
along with adoption of national legislation in various countries
(Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99) (see Factor D discussion, below). We found
no information indicating trade is currently impacting the hyacinth
macaw.

Factor C. Disease or Predation

In the Pantanal, predation and disease are factors affecting
reproductive success of the hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 8, 42;
Guedes 2004b, p. 7). Predation accounted for 52 percent of lost eggs
during the incubation period in a 10-year study in the Miranda region
of the Pantanal (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 74). Of the nests that produced
chicks, 38 percent of chicks were lost due to predation by species such
as carnivorous ants (Solenopsis sp.), other insects, collared forest
falcon (Micrastur semitorquatus), and spectacled owl (Pulsatrix
perspicillata). The toco toucan (Ramphastos toco) and great horned owl
(Bubo virginianus) are also suspected of chick predation, but this has
not yet been confirmed (Guedes 2009, pp. 6, 79-81; Pizo et al. 2008, p.
795). Of 582 eggs monitored over 6 years in the Nhecol[acirc]ndia
region of the Pantanal, approximately 24 percent (n = 138 eggs) were
lost to predators (Pizo et al. 2008, pp. 794, 795). Several species
preyed upon hyacinth macaw eggs, including toco toucans, purplish jays
(Cyanocorax cyanomelas), white-eared opossums (Didelphis albiventris),
and coatis (Nasua nasua) (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 23, 46, 58, 74-75; Pizo
et al. 2008, p. 795). The toco toucan was the main predator,
responsible for 12.4 percent of the total eggs lost and 53.5 percent of
the eggs lost annually in the Nhecol[acirc]ndia region (Pizo et al.
2008, pp. 794, 795). Most predators leave some sort of evidence behind;
however, toco toucans swallow hyacinth macaw eggs whole, leaving no
evidence behind. This ability may lead to an underestimate of nest
predation by toucans (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793).
Incidence of disease, such as hoof-and-mouth disease and
brucellosis, and of ectoparasites, has been observed in hyacinth macaws
(Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 446; Allgayer et al. 2009, p. 974).
Par[aacute] ranchers and technicians concurred that there's a lower
incidence of disease (e.g., hoof-and-mouth disease, brucellosis) and
ectoparasites in Par[aacute] than in central and south Brazil (Arima
and Uhl, 1997, p. 446). A study of free-living nestlings from the
Pantanal detected ectoparasites in 3 percent and scars in 6 percent of
birds, suggesting the occurrence of parasitism. The ectoparasites were
identified as Philornis sp. (Diptera: Muscidae). However, the absence
of blood and intestinal parasites in samples collected for 4
consecutive years indicates that there is a low prevalence of
parasitism in hyacinth macaw nestlings (Allgayer et al. 2009, pp. 974,
977).

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Brazil
Hunting, capture, and trade of animal species are prohibited
without authorization (Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9605/98)). In
general, wildlife species and their nests, shelters, and breeding
grounds are subject to Brazilian laws designed to provide protection
(Clayton 2011, p. 4; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119; Environmental Crimes
Law (Law No. 9605/98); Stattersfield and Capper 1992, p. 257; IBAMA
1989; Brazilian Constitution (title VIII, chapter VI, 1988); Brazilian
Law No. 5197/1967; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), n.d.,
unpaginated). The forests of Brazil are specifically subject to several
Brazilian laws designed to protect them. Destruction and damaging of
forest reserves, cutting trees in forest reserves, and causing fire in
forests, among other actions, without authorization are prohibited
(Clayton 2011, p. 5; Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9605/98); UNEP,
n.d., unpaginated).
Protected Areas: The main biodiversity protection strategy in
Brazil is the creation of Protected Areas (National Protected Areas
System) (Federal Act 9.985/00) (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 134). Various
regulatory mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78,
Order No. 1, and Act No. 6.938) in Brazil direct Federal and State
agencies to promote conservation of the country's natural resources
through protection of lands and the establishment and management of
protected areas (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5-7). These mechanisms generally aim
to protect endangered wildlife and plant species, genetic resources,
overall biodiversity, and native ecosystems on Federal, State, and
privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution
No. 4, and Decree No. 1.922). Brazil's Protected Areas were established
in 2000, and may be categorized as ``strictly protected'' or
``sustainable use'' based on their overall management objectives.
Strictly protected areas include national parks, biological reserves,
ecological stations, natural monuments, and wildlife refuges protected
for educational and recreational purposes and scientific research.
Protected areas of sustainable use (national forests, environmental
protection areas, areas of relevant ecological interest, extractive
reserves, fauna reserves, sustainable development reserves, and private
natural heritage reserves) allow for different types and levels of
human use with conservation of biodiversity as a secondary objective.
As of 2005, Federal and State governments strictly protected 478 areas
totaling 37,019,697 ha (14,981,340 ac) in Brazil (Rylands and Brandon
2005, pp. 615-616). Other types of areas contribute to the Brazilian
Protected Areas System, including indigenous reserves and areas managed
and owned by municipal governments, nongovernmental organizations,
academic institutions, and private sectors (Rylands and Brandon 2005,
p. 616).
The Amazon contains a balance of strictly prohibited protected
areas (49

[[Page 39907]]

percent of protected areas) and sustainable use areas (51 percent)
(Rylands and Brandon 2005, p. 616). We found no information on the
occurrence of the hyacinth macaw in any protected areas in Par[aacute].
The Cerrado biome is one of the most threatened biomes and is
underrepresented among Brazilian protected areas; only 2.25 percent of
the original extent of the Cerrado is protected (Marini et al. 2009, p.
1559; Klink and Machado 2005, p. 709; Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p.
11). Within the Cerrado, the hyacinth macaw is found within the
Araguaia National Park in Goi[aacute]s and the Parna[iacute]ba River
Headwaters National Park (BLI 2014b; Ridgely 1981, p. 238). In 2000,
the Pantanal was designated as a Biosphere Reserve by the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
(Santos Jr. 2008, p. 134). Only 4.5 percent of the Pantanal is
categorized as protected areas (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 166-167),
including strictly protected areas and indigenous areas (Klink and
Machado 2005, p. 709). Within these, the hyacinth macaw occurs only
within the Pantanal National Park (Collar et al 1992; Ridgely 1981, p.
238). The distribution of Federal and State protected areas are uneven
across biomes, yet all biomes need substantially more area to be
protected to meet the recommendations established in priority-setting
workshops held by Brazil's Ministry of the Environment. These workshops
identified 900 areas for conservation of biodiversity and all biomes,
including the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal (Rylands and Brandon 2005,
pp. 615-616).
The Ministry of Environment is working to increase the amount of
protected areas in the Pantanal and Cerrado regions; however, the
Ministry of Agriculture is looking at using an additional 1 million
km\2\ (386,102 mi\2\) for agricultural expansion, which will speed up
deforestation (Harris et al. 2006, p. 175). These competing priorities
make it difficult to enact and enforce regulations that protect the
habitat of this species. Additionally, after the creation of protected
areas, a delay in implementation or a lack of local management
commitment often occurs, staff limitations make it difficult to monitor
actions, and a lack of acceptance by society or a lack of funding make
administration and management of the area difficult (Santos Jr. 2008,
p. 135; Harris et al. 2006, p. 175). Furthermore, ambiguity in land
titles allows illegal occupation and clearing of forests in protected
areas, such as federal forest reserves (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated).
The designation of the Pantanal as a Biosphere Reserve is almost
entirely without merit because of a lack of commitment by public
officials (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 134).
Awareness of the urgency in protecting the biodiversity of the
Cerrado biome is increasing (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). The
Brazilian Ministry of the Environment's National Biodiversity Program
and other government-financed institutes, such as the Brazilian
Environmental Institute, Center for Agriculture Research in the
Cerrado, and the National Center for Genetic Resources and
Biotechnology, are working together to safeguard the existence and
viability of the Cerrado. Additionally, nongovernmental organizations
such as Funda[ccedil]o Pr[oacute]-Natureza, Instituto Sociedade
Popula[ccedil][atilde]o e Natureza, and World Wildlife Fund have
provided valuable assessments and are pioneering work in establishing
extractive reserves (Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 228-229). Other
organizations are working to increase the area of federal Conservation
Units, a type of protected area, that currently represent only 1.5
percent of the biome (Ratter et al. 1997, p. 229).
The Brazilian government, under its Action Plan for the Prevention
and Control of Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado--Conservation
and Development (PPCerrado) (2010), committed to recuperating at least
8 million ha (20 million ac) of degraded pasture by the year 2020,
reducing deforestation by 40 percent in relation to the average
recorded between 1999 and 2008, decreasing forest fires, expanding
sustainable practices, and monitoring remaining natural vegetation. It
also planned to expand the areas under protection in the Cerrado to 2.1
million ha (5 million ac) (Ribeiro et al. 2012, p. 11; WWF-UK 2011b, p.
4). This plan is based off the success of the Plan of Action for
Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon (PPCDAm),
which has reduced the deforestation rate by approximately 80 percent in
relation to the 2004 rate (Department of Policies to Combat
Deforestation 2016, p. 6).
Both plans since their inception have achieved important results.
The PPCDAm started in 2004 and PPCerrado in 2010. Results achieved for
the PPCDAm include, but are not limited to: 50 million ha (124 million
ac) of protected areas; sustainable agriculture--low carbon
agriculture; improvements of the monitoring systems; strengthening
inspection with integrated actions between IBAMA, Federal Police, Army
and National Force of Public Security; and a moratorium of soybean
production in illegally deforested areas in the Amazon (Department of
Policies to Combat Deforestation 2016, pp. 11-12). Results achieved by
the PPCerrado include: Development (in progress) of land-cover
monitoring systems to guide the preparation of public policies and
support enforcement actions for this biome; development of a rural
environmental registry; integrated fire management in conservation
units; development of monitoring systems for burned areas and
deforestation; sustainable agriculture--low carbon agriculture;
environmental inspection, with 20,000 embargoed areas and $75 million
of fines, including 287 inspection operations in protected areas,
indigenous lands, highways, and steel industries; and training of 2,400
families for forest and community management (Department of Policies to
Combat Deforestation 2016, pp. 8-9). Moreover, the plan has influenced
and guides a series of public policies, programs, and projects
implemented in the Cerrado, including international cooperation
projects in line with the objectives of the PPCerrado. In 2015, the
third phase of the PPCDAm (2012-2015) and the second phase of the
PPCerrado (2014-2015) was completed. The next phase of the PPCerrado
will guide federal actions in the period 2016-2020, with the main
indicator as the annual deforestation rate in the Cerrado biome
(Department of Policies to Combat Deforestation 2016, p. 16).
We do not have information on the deforestation rate in the Cerrado
biome in relation to the implementation of the PPCerrado. However,
Brazil has obtained significant reduction of the deforestation rate
after 12 years of the PPCDAm and 6 years of PPCerrado, with most of the
reduction occurring within the Amazon basin. Challenges persist, along
with the need for strengthened and innovative actions (Department of
Policies to Combat Deforestation 2016, p. 7).
Many challenges limit the effectiveness of the protected areas
system. Brazil is faced with competing priorities of encouraging
development for economic growth and resource protection. In the past,
the Brazilian government, through various regulations, policies,
incentives, and subsidies, has actively encouraged settlement of
previously undeveloped lands, which facilitated the large-scale habitat
conversions for agriculture and cattle-ranching that occurred
throughout the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal biomes (WWF-UK 2011b, p.
2; WWF

[[Page 39908]]

2001, unpaginated; Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 446; Ratter et al. 1997, pp.
227-228). The risk of intense wild fires may increase in areas, such as
protected areas, where cattle are removed and the resulting
accumulation of plant biomass serves as fuel (Santos Jr. 2013, pers.
comm.; Tomas et al. 2011, p. 579).
The states where the hyacinth macaw occurs contain 53 protected
areas (Parks.it, n.d., unpaginated). However, the species occurs in
only three National Parks within those protected areas; none of these
areas is effectively protected (BLI 2014b, unpaginated; Collar et al.
1992, p. 257; Rogers 2006, unpaginated; Ridgely 1981, p. 238). The
hyacinth macaw continues to be hunted in Par[aacute] and the Gerais
region, and habitat loss due to agricultural expansion and cattle
ranching is occurring in all three regions. Therefore, it appears that
Brazil's protected areas system does not adequately protect the
hyacinth macaw or its habitat, either because the species is found
outside the protected areas or not adequately protected within them.
Farmland Environmental Registry: The Ministry of Environment and
The Nature Conservancy have worked together to implement the Farmland
Environmental Registry to curb illegal deforestation in the Amazon,
which in turn would reduce impacts to species such as the hyacinth
macaw that are negatively affected by deforestation. This program was
launched in the states of Mato Grosso and Par[aacute]; it later became
the model for the Rural Environmental Registry that monitors all of
Brazil for compliance with the Forest Code (see discussion below). This
plan helped Paragominas, a municipality in Par[aacute], be the first in
Brazil to come off the government's blacklist of top Amazon
deforesters. After 1 year, 92 percent of rural properties in
Paragominas had been entered into the registry, and deforestation was
cut by 90 percent (Dias and Ramos 2012, unpaginated; Vale 2010,
unpaginated). In response to this success, Par[aacute] launched its
Green Municipalities Program in 2011. The purpose of this project is to
reduce deforestation in Par[aacute] by 80 percent by 2020, and
strengthen sustainable rural production. To accomplish this goal, the
program seeks to create partnerships between local communities,
municipalities, private initiatives, IBAMA, and the Federal Public
Prosecution Service and to focus on local pacts, deforestation
monitoring, implementation of the Rural Environmental Registry, and
structuring municipal management (Ver[iacute]ssimo et al. 2013, pp. 3,
6, 12-13). The program aims to show how it is possible to develop a new
model for an activity identified as a major cause of deforestation
(Dias and Ramos 2012, unpaginated; Vale 2010, unpaginated).
Forest Code: Brazil's Forest Code, passed in 1965, is a central
component of the nation's environmental legislation; it dictates the
minimum percentage and type of woodland that farmers, timber companies,
and others must leave intact on their properties (Barrionuevo 2012,
unpaginated; Boadle 2012, unpaginated). Since 2001, the Forest Code has
required landowners to conserve native vegetation on their rural
properties. This requirement includes setting aside a Legal Reserve
that comprises 80 percent of the property if it is located in the
Amazon and 20 percent in other biomes. The Forest Code also designated
environmentally sensitive areas as Areas of Permanent Preservation
(APPs) to conserve water resources and prevent soil erosion; APPs
include Riparian Preservation Areas to protect riverside forest buffers
and Hilltop Preservation Areas to protect hilltops, high elevations,
and steep slopes (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
For years, this law was widely ignored by landowners and not
enforced by the government, as evidenced by the high deforestation
rates (Leahy 2011, unpaginated; Pearce 2011, unpaginated; Ratter et al.
1997, p. 228). However, as deforestation rates increased in the early
2000s, Brazil began cracking down on illegal deforesters and used
satellite imagery to track deforestation, resulting in decreased
deforestation rates (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363; Barrionuevo
2012, unpaginated; Boadle 2012, unpaginated; Darlington 2012,
unpaginated). Efforts to strengthen enforcement of the Forest Code
increased pressure on the farming sector, which resulted in a backlash
against the Forest Code and industry's proposal of a new Forest Code
(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
In 2011, reforms to Brazil's Forest Code were debated in the
Brazilian Senate. The reforms were favored by the agricultural industry
but were greatly opposed by conservationists. At that time, the
expectation of the bill being passed resulted in a spike in
deforestation (Darlington 2012, unpaginated; Moukaddem 2011,
unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011a, unpaginated). A new Forest Code was passed
in 2012, and although the new reforms were an attempt at a compromise
between farmers and environmentalists, many claim the new bill reduces
the total amount of land required to be maintained as forest and will
increase deforestation, especially in the Cerrado (Soares-Filho et al.
2014, p. 364; Boadle 2012, unpaginated; Darlington 2012, unpaginated;
Do Valle 2012, unpaginated; Greenpeace 2012, unpaginated).
Stakeholders in favor of stronger conservation opposed the new law
due to the complexity of the rule, challenges in implementation, and a
lack of adequate protection of Brazil's forests. The new Forest Code
carries over conservation requirements for Legal Reserves and Riparian
Preservation Areas. However, changes in the definition of Hilltop
Preservation Areas reduced their total area by 87 percent.
Additionally, due to more flexible protections and differentiation
between conservation and restoration requirements, Brazil's
environmental debt (areas of Legal Reserve and Riparian Preservation
Areas deforested illegally before 2008 that, under the previous Forest
Code, would have required restoration at the landowner's expense) was
reduced by 58 percent (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). The legal
reserve debt was forgiven for ``small properties,'' which ranged from
20 ha (49 ac) in southern Brazil to 440 ha (1,087 ac) in the Amazon;
this provision has resulted in approximately 90 percent of Brazilian
rural properties qualifying for amnesty from the restoration
requirement.
Further reductions in the environmental debt resulted from: (1)
Reducing the Legal Reserve restoration requirement from 80 percent to
50 percent in Amazonian municipalities that are predominately occupied
by protected areas; (2) including Riparian Preservation Areas in the
calculation of the Legal Reserve area (total area they are required to
preserve); and (3) relaxing Riparian Preservation Area restoration
requirements on small properties. These new provisions effectively
reduced the total amount of land farmers are required to preserve and
municipalities and landowners are required to restore. Reductions were
uneven across states and biomes, with the Amazon and Cerrado biomes
being two of the three biomes most affected and vulnerable to
deforestation.
Altogether, provisions of the new Forest Code have reduced the
total area to be restored from approximately 50 million ha (124 million
ac) to approximately 21 million ha (52 million ac) (Soares-Filho et al.
2014, p. 363; Boadle 2012, unpaginated). Furthermore, the old and new
Forest Codes allow legal deforestation of an additional 88 million ha
(217 million ac) on private properties deemed to constitute an
``environmental surplus,'' which are areas that are not conserved

[[Page 39909]]

by the Legal Reserve and Riparian Preservation Area conservation
requirements. The Cerrado alone contains approximately 40 million ha
(99 million ac) of habitat designated as environmental surplus that
could be legally deforested (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 364).
Although the Forest Code reduces restoration and preservation
requirements, which in turn increases the threat to the hyacinth macaw,
it introduces new mechanisms to address fire management, forest carbon,
and payments for ecosystem services, which could reduce deforestation
and result in environmental benefits to the hyacinth macaw. The most
important mechanism may be the Environmental Reserve Quota (ERQ). The
ERQ is a tradable legal title to areas with intact or regenerating
native vegetation exceeding the Forest Code requirements. It provides
the opportunity for landowners who, as of July 2008, did not meet the
area-based conservation requirements of the law, to instead
``compensate'' for their legal reserve shortages by purchasing surplus
compliance obligations from properties that would then maintain native
vegetation in excess of the minimum legal reserve requirements. This
mechanism could provide forested lands with monetary value, creating a
trading market. The ERQ could potentially reduce 56 percent of the
Legal Reserve debt (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 364).
The new Forest Code requires landowners to take part in a mapping
and registration system for rural properties that serves as a means for
landowners to report their compliance with the code in order to remain
eligible for state credit and other government support. On May 6, 2014,
the Ministry for the Environment published a regulation formally
implementing the mapping system and requiring all rural properties be
enrolled by May 2015. However, on May 5, 2015, the deadline was
extended to May 4, 2016. According to information provided by the
Ministry for the Environment, at that time 1,407,206 rural properties
had been registered since the new code became effective. This number
covers an area of 196,767,410 ha (486,222,859 ac) and represents 52
percent of all rural areas in Brazil for which registration is
mandatory (Filho et al. 2015, unpaginated). This system could
facilitate the market for ERQs and payments for ecosystem services.
It is unclear whether the Brazilian Government will be able to
effectively enforce the new law (Barrionuevo 2012, unpaginated; Boadle
2012, unpaginated; Greenpeace 2012, unpaginated). The original code was
largely ignored by landowners and not enforced, leading to Brazil's
high rates of deforestation (Boadle 2012, unpaginated). Although
Brazil's deforestation rates declined between 2005 and 2010, 2011
marked the beginning of an increase in rates due to the expectation of
the new Forest Code being passed. Another slight increase occurred in
2013, then doubled over 6 months (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated).
Corruption in the government, land fraud, and lack of penalties for
infractions have contributed to increases in illegal deforestation
(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). Additionally, amnesty afforded by the
new Forest Code has led to the perception that illegal deforesters are
unlikely to be prosecuted or could be exonerated in future law reforms
(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated; Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 364).
Enforcement is often nonexistent in Brazil as IBAMA is underfunded and
understaffed. Only 1 percent of the fines imposed on individuals and
corporations for illegal deforestation is actually collected (Schiffman
2015, unpaginated). In Par[aacute], one of two states where most of the
clearing is occurring, 78 percent of logging between August 2011 and
July 2012 was illegal (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). Furthermore, while
much logging is being conducted illegally, there is concern that even
if regulations are strictly adhered to, the development is not
sustainable (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). Some level of deforestation
is highly likely to continue and will continue to compromise the status
of the species.
Additional Regulatory Mechanisms: To protect the main breeding
habitat of the hyacinth macaw, Mato Grosso State Senate passed State
Act 8.317 in 2005, which prohibits the cutting of manduvi trees, but
not others. Although this law protects nesting trees, other trees
around nesting trees are cut, exposing the manduvi tree to winds and
storms. Manduvi trees end up falling or breaking, rendering them
useless for the hyacinth macaws to nest in (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 135;
Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 186).
International Laws
The hyacinth macaw is protected under CITES, an international
agreement between governments to ensure that the international trade of
CITES-listed plant and animal species does not threaten species'
survival in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES Parties (member
countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, and re-export of
specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant and animal
species. Trade must be authorized through a system of permits and
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Management
Authority of each CITES Party. Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay are
Parties to CITES.
The hyacinth macaw was listed in Appendix I of CITES on October 22,
1987. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with extinction
whose trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which
generally precludes commercial trade. The import of an Appendix-I
species generally requires the issuance of both an import and export
permit. Import permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if
findings are made that the import would be for purposes that are not
detrimental to the survival of the species and that the specimen will
not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)).
Export permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are
made that the specimen was legally acquired and trade is not
detrimental to the survival of the species, and if the issuing
authority is satisfied that an import permit has been granted for the
specimen (CITES Article III(2)).
The import of hyacinth macaws into the United States is also
regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA), which was enacted
on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the
conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all imports of exotic
birds to the United States are biologically sustainable and not
detrimental to the species in the wild. The WBCA generally restricts
the importation of most CITES-listed live or dead exotic birds. Import
of dead specimens is allowed for scientific purposes and museum
specimens. Permits may be issued to allow import of listed birds for
various purposes, such as scientific research, zoological breeding or
display, or personal pets, when certain criteria are met. The Service
may approve cooperative breeding programs and subsequently issue import
permits under such programs. Wild-caught birds may be imported into the
United States if certain standards are met and they are subject to a
management plan that provides for sustainable use. At this time, the
hyacinth macaw is not part of a Service-approved cooperative breeding
program, and wild-caught birds have not been approved for importation.
The Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900, and was the first
Federal law protecting wildlife. Today, it provides

[[Page 39910]]

civil and criminal penalties for the illegal trade of animals and
plants. Under the Lacey Act, in part, it is unlawful to import, export,
transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife
taken, possessed, transported, or sold: (1) In violation of any law,
treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any
Indian tribal law; or (2) in interstate or foreign commerce, any fish
or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any
law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law.
Therefore, for example, because the take of wild-caught hyacinth macaws
would be in violation of Brazil's Environmental Crimes Law (9605/98),
the subsequent import of hyacinth macaws into the United States would
be in violation of the Lacey Act. Similarly, under the Lacey Act it is
unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or
purchase specimens of these species traded contrary to CITES.
Although illegal trapping for the pet trade occurred at high levels
during the 1980s, trade has decreased significantly from those levels.
International trade of parrots was significantly reduced during the
1990s as a result of tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, stricter
measures under European Union legislation, and adoption of the WBCA,
along with adoption of national legislation in various countries
(Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). We found no information indicating trade
is currently impacting the hyacinth macaw population.
Habitat loss for the hyacinth macaw continues despite regulatory
mechanisms intended to protect Brazil's forests. The lack of
supervision and resources prevent these laws from being properly
implemented (Guedes 2012, p. 3), as evidenced by ongoing deforestation
in the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal. As described above, the hyacinth
macaw's food and nesting trees are removed for agriculture and cattle
ranching, and fire is used to clear land and maintain pastures.
Therefore, without greater enforcement of laws, deforestation will
continue to impact the hyacinth macaw and its food and nesting
resources.

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued
Existence

Climate Change
Changes in Brazil's climate and associated changes to the landscape
may result in additional habitat loss for the hyacinth macaw. Across
Brazil, temperatures are projected to increase and precipitation to
decrease (Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 11; Siqueira and Peterson 2003,
p. 2). The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment
estimates temperature changes in South America by 2100 to range from
1.7 to 6.7 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.06 to 12.06 degrees Fahrenheit
([deg]F)) under medium and high emission scenarios and 1 to 1.5 [deg]C
(1.8 to 2.7[emsp14][deg]F) under a low emissions scenario (Magrin et
al. 2014, p. 1502; Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 10). Projected changes
in rainfall in South America vary by region. Reductions are estimated
for northeast Brazil and the Amazon (Magrin et al. 2014, p. 1502;
Carabine and Lemma 2014, pp. 10-11). At a national level, climate
change may induce significant reductions in forestland in all Brazilian
regions (F[eacute]res et al. 2009, pp. 12, 15).
Temperature increases in Brazil are expected to be greatest over
the Amazon rainforest, where Par[aacute] is located, with models
indicating a strong warming and drying of this region during the 21st
century, particularly after 2040 (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27,
39, 48; F[eacute]res et al. 2009, p. 2). Estimates of temperature
changes in Amazonia are 2.2 [deg]C (4[emsp14][deg]F) under a low
greenhouse gas emission scenario and 4.5 [deg]C (8[emsp14][deg]F) under
a high-emission scenario by the end of the 21st century (2090-2099)
(Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). Several models indicate Amazonia is at a
high risk of forest loss and more frequent wildfires (Magrin et al.
2007, p. 596). Some leading global circulation models suggest extreme
weather events, such as droughts, will increase in frequency or
severity due to global warming. As a result, droughts in Amazonian
forests could become more severe in the future (Marengo et al. 2011, p.
48; Laurance et al. 2001, p. 782). For example, the 2005 drought in
Amazonia was a 1-in-20-year event; however, those conditions may become
a 1-in-2-year event by 2025, and a 9-in-10-year event by 2060 (Marengo
et al. 2011, p. 28). Impacts of deforestation are greater under drought
conditions as fires set for forest clearances burn larger areas
(Marengo et al. 2011, p. 16). Additionally, drought increases the
vulnerability of seasonal forests of the Amazon, such as those found in
eastern Amazonia, to wildfires during droughts (Laurance et al. 2001,
p. 782).
Previous work has indicated that, under increasing temperature and
decreasing rainfall conditions, the rainforest of the Amazon could be
replaced with different vegetation. Some models have predicted a change
from forests to savanna-type vegetation over parts of, or perhaps the
entire, Amazon in the next several decades (Magrin et al. 2014, p.
1523; Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 11, 18, 29, 43; Magrin et al. 2007, pp.
583, 596). In the regions where the hyacinth macaw occurs, the climate
features a dry season, which prevents the growth of an extensive
closed-canopy tropical forest. Therefore, the transition of the Amazon
rainforests could provide additional suitable habitat for the hyacinth
macaw. However, we do not know how the specific food and nesting
resources the hyacinth macaw uses will be impacted if there is an
increase in the dry season. Furthermore, there are uncertainties in
this modeling, and the projections are not definitive outcomes. In
fact, some models indicate that conditions are likely to get wetter in
Amazonia in the future (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 28-29). These
uncertainties make it challenging to predict the likely effects of
continued climate change on the hyacinth macaw.
Temperatures in the Cerrado, which covers the Gerais region, are
also predicted to increase; the maximum temperature in the hottest
month may increase by 4 [deg]C (7.2[emsp14][deg]F) and by 2100 may
increase to approximately 40 [deg]C (104[emsp14][deg]F) (Marini et al.
2009, p. 1563). Along with changes in temperature, other models have
predicted a decrease in tree diversity and range sizes for birds in the
Cerrado.
Projections based on a 30-year average (2040-2069) indicate serious
effects to Cerrado tree diversity in coming decades (Marini et al.
2009, p. 1559; Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p. 4). In a study of 162
broad-range tree species, the potential distributional area of most
trees was projected to decline by more than 50 percent. Using two
climate change scenarios, 18-56 species were predicted to go extinct in
the Cerrado, while 91-123 species were predicted to decline by more
than 90 percent in the potential distributional area (Siqueira and
Peterson 2003, p. 4).
Of the potential impacts of predicted climate-driven changes on
bird distribution, extreme temperatures seemed to be the most important
factor limiting distribution, revealing their physiological tolerances
(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1563). In a study on changes in range sizes for
26 broad-range birds in the Cerrado, range sizes are expected to
decrease over time, and significantly so as soon as 2030 (Marini et al.
2009, p. 1564). Changes ranged from a 5-percent increase to an 80-
percent decrease under two dispersal scenarios for 2011-2030, 2046-
2065, and 2080-2099 (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1561). The largest
potential loss in range size is predicted to occur among grassland and
forest-dependent species in all timeframes (Marini et al. 2009, p.
1564). These

[[Page 39911]]

species will likely have the most dire future conservation scenarios
because these habitat types are the least common (Marini et al. 2009,
p. 1559). Although this study focused on broad-range bird species,
geographically restricted birds, such as hyacinth macaw, are predicted
to become rarer (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1564).
Whether species will or will not adapt to new conditions is
difficult to predict; synergistic effects of climate change and habitat
fragmentation, or other factors, such as biotic interactions, may
hasten the need for conservation even more (Marini et al. 2009, p.
1565). Although there are uncertainties in the climate-change modeling
discussed above, the overall trajectory is one of increased warming
under all scenarios. Species like the hyacinth macaw, whose habitat is
limited, population is reduced, are large in physical size, and are
highly specialized are more vulnerable to climatic variations and at a
greater risk of extinction (Guedes 2009, p. 44).
We do not know how the habitat of the hyacinth macaw may change
under these conditions, but we can assume some change will occur. The
hyacinth macaw is experiencing habitat loss due to widespread expansion
of agriculture and cattle ranching. Climate change has the potential to
further decrease the specialized habitat needed by the hyacinth macaw;
the ability of the hyacinth macaw to cope with landscape changes due to
climate change is questionable given the specialized needs of the
species. Furthermore, one of the factors that affected reproductive
rates of hyacinth macaws in the Pantanal was variations in temperature
and rainfall (Guedes 2009, p. 42). Hotter, drier years, as predicted
under different climate change scenarios, could result in greater
impacts to hyacinth macaw reproduction due to impacts on palm fruit and
thereby foraging success, and could increase competition with other
bird and mammal species for limited resources.
Low Reproductive Rates and Competition
The specialized nature and reproductive biology of the hyacinth
macaw contribute to low recruitment of juveniles and decrease the
ability to recover from reductions in population size caused by
anthropogenic disturbances (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Wright et al.
2001, p. 711). This species' vulnerability to extinction is further
heightened by deforestation that negatively affects the availability of
essential food and nesting resources. In addition to direct impacts on
food and nesting resources and hyacinth macaws themselves, several
other factors affect the reproductive success of the hyacinth macaw. In
the Pantanal, competition, predation, disease, destruction or flooding
of nests, and climatic conditions and variations are factors affecting
reproductive success of the hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 8, 42;
Guedes 2004b, p. 7).
In the Pantanal, competition for nesting sites is intense. The
hyacinth macaw nests almost exclusively in manduvi trees; however, 17
other bird species, small mammals, and honey bees (Apis mellifera) also
use manduvi cavities (Guedes and Vicente 2012, pp. 148, 157; Guedes
2009, p. 60; Pizo et al 2008, p. 792; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 36).
Bees are even known to occupy artificial nests that could be used by
hyacinth macaws (Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 33; Snyder et al. 2000, p.
120). Manduvi is a key species for the hyacinth macaw; these cavities
are already limited and there is evidence of decreased recruitment of
this species of tree (Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 181). Competition for
nesting cavities is exacerbated because manduvi trees must be at least
60 years old, and on average 80 years old, to produce cavities large
enough to be used by the hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 59-60; Pizo
et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 185). Given that there
is currently a limited number of manduvi trees in the Pantanal of
adequate size capable of accommodating the hyacinth macaw, evidence of
reduced recruitment of these sized manduvi, and numerous species that
also use this tree, competition will certainly increase as the number
of manduvi decreases, further affecting reproduction by limiting tree
cavities available to the hyacinth macaw for nesting (Guedes 2009, p.
60). Furthermore, a shortage of suitable nesting sites could lead to
increased competition resulting in an increase in infanticide and egg
destruction by other hyacinth macaws and other macaw species (Lee 2010,
p. 2). Black vultures (Coragyps atratus), collared forest falcons, and
red-and-green macaws (Ara chloropterus) break hyacinth macaw eggs when
seeking nesting cavities (Guedes 2009, p. 75).
A 10-year study conducted in the Miranda region of the Pantanal
concluded that the majority of hyacinth macaw nests (63 percent)
failed, either partially or totally, during the egg phase. While
predation accounted for 52 percent of lost eggs during incubation (see
Factor C discussion, above), the remaining eggs lost during the 10-year
study of the Miranda region did not hatch due to infertility,
complications during embryo development, inexperience of young couples
that accidentally smash their own eggs while entering and exiting the
nest, breaking by other bird and mammal species wanting to occupy the
nesting cavity, and broken trees and flooding of nests (Guedes 2009, p.
75). Of the 320 nests that saw eggs hatch and chicks born, 49 percent
experienced a total or partial loss of chicks (Guedes 2009, pp. 68).
From the chicks that were born, on average 37 percent (n=183) failed
before leaving the nest because of mortality or predation (Guedes 2009,
pp. 66, 78). Of these chicks that did not survive, 62 percent (n=114)
were lost due to starvation, low temperature, disease or infestation by
ectoparasites, flooding of nests, and breaking of branches; the other
38 percent (n=69) were lost to predation (Guedes 2009, pp. 79).
Variations in temperature and rainfall may also affect reproduction
of the hyacinth macaw in the Pantanal (Guedes 2009, p. 42). Years with
higher temperatures and lower rainfall experience decreased production
of fruits and foraging, leading to a decrease in reproduction of
hyacinth macaws the following year (Guedes 2009, pp. 42-44). This
decrease is especially problematic for a species that relies on only
two species of palm nuts as a source of food. Competition with other
bird and mammal species may also increase during low food years. Acuri
are available year round, even during times of fruit scarcity, making
it a resource many other species also depend on during unfavorable
periods (Guedes 2009, p. 44). Additionally, the El Ni[ntilde]o event
during the 1997-98 breeding season caused hotter, wetter conditions
favoring breeding pairs, but survival of the chicks was reduced. In
1999, a longer breeding period was observed following drier, colder
conditions caused by the La Ni[ntilde]a that same year; however, 54
percent of the eggs were lost that year (Guedes 2009, p. 43).

Conservation Measures

A network of nongovernmental organizations, Rede Cerrado, has been
established to promote local sustainable-use practices for natural
resources (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). Rede Cerrado provided the
Brazilian Ministry of the Environment recommendations for urgent
actions for the conservation of the Cerrado. As a result, a
conservation program was established to integrate actions for
conservation in regions where agropastoral activities, which is
agriculture practice of growing crops and raising livestock, were
especially intense and damaging (Klink and

[[Page 39912]]

Machado 2005, p. 710). Conservation International, The Nature
Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund have worked to promote alternative
economic activities, such as ecotourism, sustainable use of fauna and
flora, and medicinal plants, to support the livelihoods of local
communities (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). Although these programs
demonstrate awareness of the need for protection and efforts in
protecting the Cerrado, we have no details on the specific work or
accomplishments of these programs, or how they would affect, or have
affected, the hyacinth macaw and its habitat.
In 1990, the Hyacinth Macaw Project (Projecto Arara Azul) began
with support from the University for the Development of the State (Mato
Grosso do Sul) and the Pantanal Region (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated;
Guedes 2004b, p. 28; Pittman 1999, p. 39). This program works with
local landowners, communities, and tourists to monitor the hyacinth
macaw, study the biology of this species, manage the population, and
promote its conservation and ensure its protection in the Pantanal
(Santos Jr. 2008, p. 135; Harris et al. 2005, p. 719; Brouwer 2004,
unpaginated; Guedes 2004a, p. 281). Studies have addressed feeding,
reproduction, competition, habitat survival, chick mortality, behavior,
nests, predation, movement, and threats contributing to the reduction
in the wild population (Guedes 2009, p. xiii; Guedes 2004a, p. 281).
Because there are not enough natural nesting sites in this region, the
Hyacinth Macaw Project began installing artificial nest boxes; more
than 180 have been installed. Hyacinth macaws have adapted to using the
artificial nests, leading to more reproducing couples and successful
fledging of chicks. Species that would otherwise compete with hyacinth
macaws for nesting sites have also benefitted from the artificial nests
as a result of reduced competition for natural nesting sites. Hyacinth
macaws reuse the same nest for many years; eventually the nests start
to decay or become unviable. The Hyacinth Macaw Project also repairs
these nests (natural and artificial) so they are not lost. In areas
where suitable cavities are scarce, the loss of even one nest could
have substantial impacts on the population. Additionally, wood boards
are used to make cavity openings too small for predators, while still
allowing hyacinth macaws to enter (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Guedes
2004a, p. 281; Guedes 2004b, p. 8).
In nests with a history of unsuccessful breeding, the Hyacinth
Macaw Project has also implemented chick management, with the approval
of the Committee for Hyacinth Macaw Conservation coordinated by IBAMA.
Hyacinth macaw eggs are replaced with chicken eggs, and the hyacinth
eggs are incubated in a field laboratory. After hatching, chicks are
fed for a few days, and then reintroduced to the original nest or to
another nest with a chick of the same age. This process began to
increase the number of chicks that survived and fledged each year
(Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Guedes 2004a, p. 281; Guedes 2004b, p. 9).
Awareness has also been raised with local cattle ranchers.
Attitudes have begun to shift, and ranchers are proud of having macaw
nests on the property. Local inhabitants also served as project
collaborators (Guedes 2004a, p. 282; Guedes 2004b, p. 10). This shift
in attitude has also diminished the threat of illegal trade in the
Hyacinth Macaw Project area (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated).
The Hyacinth Macaw Project has contributed to the increase of the
hyacinth population in the Pantanal since the 1990s (Harris et al.
2005, p. 719). Nest and chick management implemented by the Hyacinth
Macaw Project has led to an increase in the Pantanal population; for
every 100 couples that reproduce, 4 juveniles survive and are added to
the population. Additionally, hyacinth macaws have expanded to areas
where the species previously disappeared, as well as new areas (Guedes
2012, p. 1; Guedes 2009, pp. 4-5, 8, 35-36, 39, 82).
Nest boxes can have a marked effect on breeding numbers of many
species on a local scale (Newton 1994, p. 274), and having local cattle
ranchers appreciate the presence of the hyacinth macaw on their land
helps diminish the effects of habitat destruction and illegal trade.
However, the Hyacinth Macaw Project area does not encompass the entire
Pantanal region. Active management has contributed to the increase in
the hyacinth population, and farmers have begun to protect hyacinth
macaws on their property, but land conversion for cattle ranching
continues to occur in the Pantanal. If cattle grazing and trampling of
manduvi saplings, as well as the burning of pastures for maintenance
continues, the hyacinth's preferred natural cavities will be severely
limited and the species will completely rely on the installation of
artificial nest boxes, which is currently limited to the Hyacinth Macaw
Project area. Furthermore, survival of hyacinth macaw eggs and chicks
are being impacted by predation, competition, climate variations, and
other natural factors. Even with the assistance of the Hyacinth Macaw
Project, only 35 percent of eggs survive to the juvenile stage.

Finding

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal 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. As required by the Act,
we conducted a review of the status of the species and considered the
five factors in assessing whether the hyacinth macaw is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(endangered) or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range
(threatened). We examined the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding factors affecting the status of the
hyacinth macaw. We reviewed the petition, information available in our
files, information provided by peer review and public comments, and
other available published and unpublished information.
In considering what factors may constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to the factor, but no
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may
be a threat and we then attempt to determine if it may drive or
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as
those terms are defined by the Act.
Across its range, the hyacinth macaw is losing habitat, including
those essential food and nesting resources, to expanding agriculture
and cattle ranching. Par[aacute] has long been the epicenter of illegal
deforestation primarily caused by cattle ranching. Large-scale forest
conversion for colonization and cattle ranching due to state subsidies,
infrastructure development, favorable climate in Par[aacute], lower
prices for land, and expansion of soy cultivation in other areas has
led to displacement of pastures into parts of Par[aacute]. Although
deforestation rates decreased between 2005 and 2012, Amazon
deforestation rates increased in 2013, 2015, and 2016 (see Table 1,
above).

[[Page 39913]]

In the Gerais region, more than 50 percent of the original Cerrado
vegetation has been lost due to conversion to agriculture and pasture.
Although annual deforestation rates have decreased, the amount of
remaining hyacinth macaw habitat continues its slow and steady
decrease. Remaining Cerrado vegetation continues to be lost to
conversion for soy plantations and extensive cattle ranching.
Projections for coming decades show the largest increase in
agricultural production occurring in the Cerrado.
The greatest cause of habitat loss in the Pantanal is the expansion
of cattle ranching. Only 6 percent of the Pantanal landscape is
cordilleras, higher areas where the manduvi occur. These upland
forests, including potential nesting trees, are often removed and
converted to pastures for grazing during the flooding season; however,
palm species used by hyacinth macaws for food are usually left because
cattle also feed on the palm nuts. Fire is a common method for renewing
pastures, controlling weeds, and controlling pests in the Pantanal,
although uncontrolled fires are known to impact patches of manduvi.
Fires can help in the formation of cavities, but too frequent fires can
prevent trees from surviving to a size capable of providing suitable
cavities and can cause a high rate of tree loss. Five percent of
manduvi trees are lost each year due to deforestation, fires, and
storms.
In addition to the direct removal of trees and the impact of fire
on forest establishment, cattle impact forest recruitment. Intense
livestock activity can affect seedling recruitment via trampling and
grazing. Cattle also compact the soil such that regeneration of forest
species is severely reduced. This type of repeated disturbance can lead
to an ecosystem dominated by invasive trees, grasses, bamboo, and
ferns. Manduvi, which contain the majority of hyacinth macaw nests, are
already limited in the Pantanal; only 5 percent of the existing adult
manduvi trees in south-central Pantanal and 11 percent in the southern
Pantanal contain suitable cavities for hyacinth macaws. Evidence of
severely reduced recruitment of manduvi trees suggests that this
species of tree, of adequate size to accommodate the hyacinth macaw, is
not only scarce now but likely to become increasingly scarce in the
future.
Deforestation for agriculture and cattle ranching, cattle trampling
and foraging, and burning of forest habitat result in the loss of
mature trees with natural cavities of sufficient size and a reduction
in recruitment of native species that could eventually provide nesting
cavities. A shortage of nest sites can jeopardize the persistence of
the hyacinth macaw by constraining breeding density, resulting in lower
recruitment and a gradual reduction in population size. This situation
may lead to long-term effects on the viability of the hyacinth macaw
population, especially in Par[aacute] and the Pantanal where
persistence of nesting trees is compromised. While the Hyacinth Macaw
Project provides artificial nest alternatives, such nests are only
found within the project area.
Loss of essential tree species also negatively impacts the hyacinth
macaw by increasing competition for what is already a shortage of
suitable nest sites. In the Pantanal, the hyacinth macaw nests almost
exclusively in manduvi trees. The number of manduvi large enough to
provide suitable cavities is already limited. Additionally, 17 other
bird species, small mammals, and honey bees also use manduvi cavities.
Competition has been so fierce that hyacinth macaws were unable to
reproduce, and it resulted in an increase in egg destruction and
infanticide. As the number of suitable trees is further limited,
competition for adequate cavities to accommodate the hyacinth macaw
will certainly increase, reducing the potential for hyacinth macaws to
reproduce. In the Gerais region, hyacinth macaws mostly nest in rock
crevices, most likely a response to the destruction of nesting trees;
we do not know if the hyacinth macaws in the Pantanal will respond in
the same way to the loss of nesting trees. Although it is possible that
hyacinth macaws could use alternative nesting trees in Par[aacute] and
the Pantanal, deforestation in these regions would impact alternative
nesting trees, as well as food sources, resulting in the same negative
effect on the hyacinth macaw. Furthermore, competition for limited
nesting and food resources would continue.
Deforestation also reduces the availability of food resources. The
species' specialized diet makes it vulnerable to changes in food
availability. Another Anodorhynchus species, the Lear's macaw, is
critically endangered due, in part, to the loss of its specialized food
source (licuri palm stands). Inadequate nutrition can contribute to
poor health and is known to have reduced reproduction in hyacinth
macaws. In Par[aacute] and the Gerais region, where food sources are
being removed, persistence of the species is a concern.
In addition to direct impacts on food and nesting resources and
hyacinth macaws themselves, several other factors affect the
reproductive success of the hyacinth macaw. Information indicates that
hyacinth macaws in Par[aacute] and Gerais are hunted as a source of
protein and for feathers to be used in local handicrafts. Although we
do not have information on the numbers of macaws taken for these
purposes, given the small populations in these two regions, any loss of
potentially reproducing individuals could have a devastating effect on
the ability of those populations to increase. Additionally, in the
Pantanal, predation, variations in temperature and rainfall, and
ectoparasites all contribute to loss of eggs and chicks, directly
affecting the reproductive rate of hyacinth macaws.
Brazil has various laws to protect its natural resources. Despite
these laws and plans to significantly reduce deforestation, expanding
agriculture and cattle ranching has contributed to increases in
deforestation rates in some years, and the total deforested area
continues to increase each year. However, Brazil has obtained
significant reduction of the deforestation rate after 12 years of the
PPCDAm and 6 years of PPCerrado, with most of the reduction occurring
within the Amazon basin. Additionally, hunting continues in some parts
of the hyacinth macaw's range despite laws prohibiting this activity.
Without effective implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
deforestation and hunting will continue to the detriment of hyacinth
macaws.
Climate change models have predicted increasing temperatures and
decreasing rainfall throughout most of Brazil. There are uncertainties
in this modeling, and the projections are not definitive outcomes. How
a species may adapt to changing conditions is difficult to predict. We
do not know how the habitat of the hyacinth macaw may vary under these
conditions, but we can assume some change will occur. The hyacinth
macaw is experiencing habitat loss due to widespread expansion of
agriculture and cattle ranching. Effects of climate change have the
potential to further decrease the specialized habitat needed by the
hyacinth macaw; the ability of the hyacinth macaw to cope with
landscape changes due to climate change is questionable given the
specialized needs of the species. Furthermore, hotter, drier years, as
predicted under different climate change scenarios, could result in
greater impacts to hyacinth macaw reproduction due to impacts on palm
fruit and thereby foraging success, and could increase competition with
other

[[Page 39914]]

bird and mammal species for limited resources.
Based on the long-term trends of continued loss of habitat and
associated loss of essential resources (nest sites and food sources)
throughout the hyacinth macaws range, declines in the species remaining
habitat and in its population are expected to continue into the
foreseeable future. Par[aacute] is one of the states where most of
Brazil's agriculture expansion is taking place. Modeled future
deforestation is concentrated in this area. The Cerrado is the most
desirable biome for agribusiness expansion and contains approximately
40 million ha (99 million ac) of ``environmental surplus'' that could
be legally deforested; therefore, this region will likely continue to
suffer deforestation. Ninety-five percent of the Pantanal is privately
owned, 80 percent of which is used for cattle ranches. Clearing land to
establish pasture is perceived as the economically optimal land use,
while land not producing beef is often perceived as unproductive.
Continued loss of remaining habitat will lead to long-term effects on
the viability of the hyacinth macaw. Additionally, any factors that
contribute to the loss of eggs and chicks ultimately reduce
reproduction and recruitment of juveniles into the population and the
ability of those populations to recover. Therefore, long-term survival
of this species is a concern.
In total, there are approximately 6,500 hyacinth macaws left in the
wild, dispersed among three populations. Two of the populations,
Par[aacute] and Gerais, contain 1,000-1,500 individuals combined; the
Pantanal population contains 5,000 individuals. The current overall
population trend for the hyacinth macaw is reported as decreasing,
although there are no reports of extreme fluctuations in the number of
individuals. The hyacinth macaw population has grown in the Pantanal;
however, the growth is not sufficient to counter the continued and
predicted future anthropogenic disturbances. Hyacinth macaws have a
naturally low reproductive rate; not all hyacinth macaw chicks fledge;
and due to the long period of chick dependence, hyacinth macaws breed
only every 2 years. In the Pantanal population, which is the largest
population of hyacinth macaws, only 15-30 percent of adults attempt to
breed each year; it may be that as small or an even smaller percentage
in Par[aacute] and Gerais attempt to breed. This relatively low
recruitment of juveniles decreases the ability of a population to
recover from reductions caused by anthropogenic disturbances. Thus,
hyacinth macaws may not have a high enough reproduction rate and may
not survive in areas where nest sites and food sources are destroyed.
Because the hyacinth macaw has specialized food and nest site needs, it
is at higher risk of extinction from the anthropogenic stressors
described above.
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' After analyzing the species' status in light of the five
factors discussed above, we find the hyacinth macaw is a ``threatened
species'' as a result of the following: Continued deforestation and
reduced recruitment of forests (Factor A), hunting (Factor B),
predation and disease (Factor C), low reproduction rate and competition
(Factor E), and effects of climate change (Factor E). Furthermore,
despite regulatory mechanisms to protect the hyacinth macaw and the
forests it depends on, deforestation and hunting for sustenance
continues.
In our 2012 proposed rule (77 FR 39965; July 6, 2012), we found
that the hyacinth macaw was in danger of extinction (an endangered
species) based on estimates indicating the original vegetation of the
Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal, including the hyacinth macaw's habitat,
would be lost between the years 2030 and 2050 due to deforestation,
combined with its naturally low reproductive rate, highly specialized
nature, hunting, competition, and effects of climate change. While
deforestation rates between 2002 and 2014 indicate a decrease in the
annual deforestation rate, and there has been a decrease in
deforestation compared to historical rates, there continues to be a
slow and steady increase in the total area deforested. Deforestation
rates in Par[aacute] decreased by 20 percent between 2013 and 2014,
increased by 14 percent in 2015, and increased by 41 percent in 2016.
However, the PPCDAm has reduced the deforestation rate by approximately
80 percent in relation to the 2004 rate in the Legal Amazon. Recent
estimates of deforestation indicate annual deforestation rates in the
Cerrado and Pantanal have decreased by approximately 40 and 37 percent,
respectively, although within two states in the Cerrado, Tocantins and
Maranh[atilde]o, deforestation increased in 2016 by 40 and 25 percent,
respectively. We recognize that deforestation rates may fluctuate
annually, with some years having a higher rate than other years.
However, because the annual rate of deforestation is decreasing over
the long term, the loss of all native habitat from these areas,
including the species of trees needed by the hyacinth macaw for food
and nesting, is not as immediate as initially predicted. Therefore,
even with the additional habitat loss that is imminent, we do not find
that the hyacinth macaw is currently in danger of extinction.
The hyacinth macaw remains a species particularly vulnerable to
extinction due to the interaction between continued habitat loss within
the foreseeable future and its highly specialized needs for food and
nest trees. The term ``foreseeable future'' describes the extent to
which we can reasonably rely on the predictions about the future in
making determinations about the future conservation status of the
species. Based on the best available scientific studies and information
assessing land-use trends, lack of enforcement of laws, predicted
landscape changes under climate-change scenarios, the persistence of
essential food and nesting resources, and predictions about how those
threats may impact the hyacinth macaw or similar species, we conclude
that the species is likely to be in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. On the basis of the
best scientific and commercial information, we find that the hyacinth
macaw meets the definition of a ``threatened species'' under the Act,
and we are listing the hyacinth macaw as threatened throughout its
range.

Significant Portion of its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species warrants
listing if it is endangered or threatened. The Act defines ``endangered
species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and
``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Because we have
determined that the hyacinth macaw is threatened throughout all of its
range, under the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase
``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's
Definitions of ``Endangered Species and ``Threatened Species'' (79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014) (SPR Policy), if a species warrants listing
throughout all of its range, no portion of the species' range can be a
``significant'' portion of its range. The SPR policy is applied to all
status

[[Page 39915]]

determinations, including analyses for the purposes of making listing,
delisting, and reclassification determinations. The procedure for
analyzing whether any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the
type of status determination we are making.
While under the SPR Policy no further analysis of ``significant
portion of its range'' in this circumstance is required, we recognize
that the SPR Policy is currently under judicial review, so we also took
the additional step of considering whether there could be any
significant portions of the species' range where the species is in
danger of extinction. We evaluated whether there is substantial
information indicating that there are any portions of the species'
range: (1) That may be ``significant,'' and (2) where the species may
be in danger of extinction. In practice, a key part of identifying
portions appropriate for further analysis is whether the threats are
geographically concentrated. For the hyacinth macaw, the primary driver
of its status is habitat destruction. This threat is affecting the
species throughout its entire range and is of similar magnitude
throughout its range; therefore, there is not a meaningful geographical
concentration of threats to the hyacinth macaw. As a result, even if we
were to undertake a detailed SPR analysis, there would not be any
portions of the species' range where the threats are harming the
species to a greater degree such that it is in danger of extinction in
that portion.

4(d) Rule

When a species is listed as endangered, certain actions are
prohibited under section 9 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR
17.21. These include, among others, prohibitions on take within the
United States, within the territorial seas of the United States, or
upon the high seas; import; export; and shipment in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity. Exceptions to
the prohibitions for endangered species may be granted in accordance
with section 10 of the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.22.
The Act does not specify particular prohibitions and exceptions to
those prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d)
of the Act, the Secretary, as well as the Secretary of Commerce
depending on the species, was given the discretion to issue such
regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to
prohibit by regulation with respect to any threatened species any act
prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. For the hyacinth macaw,
the Service is exercising our discretion to issue a 4(d) rule. By
adopting the 4(d) rule, we are incorporating all prohibitions and
provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, except that import and export of
certain hyacinth macaws into and from the United States and certain
acts in interstate commerce are allowed without a permit under the Act,
as explained below.

Import and Export

The 4(d) rule imposes a prohibition on imports and exports (by
incorporating 50 CFR 17.31), but creates exceptions for certain
hyacinth macaws. The 4(d) rule largely adopts the existing conservation
regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate
regulatory provisions for the import and export of certain hyacinth
macaws. The import and export of birds into and from the United States,
taken from the wild after the date this species is listed under the
Act; conducting an activity that could take or incidentally take
hyacinth macaws; and foreign commerce must meet the requirements of 50
CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including obtaining a permit under the Act.
However, the 4(d) rule allows a person to import or export without a
permit issued under the Act if the specimen either: (1) Was held in
captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act; or
(2) is a captive-bred specimen, provided the export under either of
these scenarios is authorized under CITES and the import is authorized
under CITES and the WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the wild and
held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the
Act, the importer or exporter must provide documentation to support
that status, such as a copy of the original CITES permit indicating
when the bird was removed from the wild or museum specimen reports. For
captive-bred birds, the importer must provide either a valid CITES
export/re-export document issued by a foreign Management Authority that
indicates that the specimen was captive bred by using a source code on
the face of the permit of either ``C,'' ``D,'' or ``F.'' Exporters of
captive-bred birds must provide a signed and dated statement from the
breeder of the bird confirming its captive-bred status, and
documentation on the source of the breeder's breeding stock. The source
codes of C, D, and F for CITES permits and certificates are as follows:
(C) Animals bred in captivity in accordance with Resolution Conf.
10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof, exported under
the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 5 of the Convention.
(D) Appendix-I animals bred in captivity for commercial purposes in
operations included in the Secretariat's Register, in accordance with
Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and Appendix-I plants artificially
propagated for commercial purposes, as well as parts and derivatives
thereof, exported under the provisions of Article VII, paragraph 4, of
the Convention.
(F) Animals born in captivity (F1 or subsequent generations) that
do not fulfill the definition of ``bred in captivity'' in Resolution
Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives thereof.
The 4(d) rule's provisions regarding captive-bred birds apply to
birds bred in the United States and abroad. The terms ``captive-bred''
and ``captivity'' used in the 4(d) rule are defined in the regulations
at 50 CFR 17.3 and refer to wildlife produced in a controlled
environment that is intensively manipulated by man from parents that
mated or otherwise transferred gametes in captivity. Although the 4(d)
rule requires a permit under the Act to ``take'' (including harm and
harass) a hyacinth macaw, our regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 establish that
``take,'' when applied to captive wildlife, does not include generally
accepted animal husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions
of veterinary care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when
such practices are not likely to result in injury to the wildlife.
We assessed the conservation needs of the hyacinth macaw in light
of the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the
WBCA. The hyacinth macaw is listed in Appendix I under CITES, a treaty
which contributes to the conservation of the species by monitoring
international trade and ensuring that trade in Appendix I species is
not detrimental to the survival of the species (see Conservation
Status, above). The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation
of exotic birds and to ensure that imports of exotic birds into the
United States do not harm them (see Factor D discussion, above). The
best available commercial data indicate that legal and illegal trade of
hyacinth macaws is not currently occurring at levels that are affecting
the populations of the hyacinth macaw in its three regions.
Accordingly, we find that the import and export requirements of the
4(d) rule provide the necessary and advisable conservation measures
that are needed for this species. This 4(d) rule streamlines the
permitting

[[Page 39916]]

process by deferring to existing laws that are protective of hyacinth
macaws in the course of import and export and not requiring permits
under the Act for certain types of activities.

Interstate Commerce

Under the 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship a hyacinth macaw in interstate commerce in the
course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate
commerce a hyacinth macaw without a permit under the Act. At the same
time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.21 as extended to
threatened species under 50 CFR 17.31 will apply under this 4(d) rule,
and any interstate commerce activities that could incidentally take
hyacinth macaws or otherwise prohibited acts in foreign commerce will
require a permit under 50 CFR 17.32.
Persons in the United States have imported and exported captive-
bred hyacinth macaws for commercial purposes and for scientific
purposes, but trade has been very limited (UNEP-WCMC 2011,
unpaginated). We have no information to suggest that interstate
commerce activities are associated with threats to the hyacinth macaw
or would negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild
populations of the species; therefore, we are not placing into effect
any prohibitions on interstate commerce of hyacinth macaw within the
United States. Because the species is otherwise protected in the course
of interstate commercial activities under the take provisions and
foreign commerce provisions contained in 50 CFR 17.31, and
international trade of this species is regulated under CITES, we find
that this 4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the hyacinth macaw.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations
adopted under Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A list of all references cited in this document is available at
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0013, or upon
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,
Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Branch of Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Macaw, hyacinth'' in
alphabetical order under BIRDS to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
BIRDS

* * * * * * *
Macaw, hyacinth.................. Anodorhynchus Wherever found...... T........... 83 FR [insert
hyacinthinus. Federal Register
page where the
document begins],
8/13/2018; 50 CFR
17.41(c) \4d\.

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.41 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text,
paragraph (c)(1), and paragraph (c)(2)(ii) introductory text, and by
adding paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.41 Special rules--birds.

* * * * *
(c) The following species in the parrot family: Salmon-crested
cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona
collaria), white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), and hyacinth macaw
(Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus).
(1) Except as noted in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this
section, all prohibitions and provisions of Sec. Sec. 17.31 and 17.32
of this part apply to these species.
(2) * * *
(ii) Specimens held in captivity prior to certain dates: You must
provide documentation to demonstrate that the specimen was held in
captivity prior to the dates specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A),
(B), (C), or (D) of this section. Such documentation may include copies
of receipts, accession or veterinary records, CITES documents, or
wildlife declaration forms, which must be dated prior to the specified
dates.
* * * * *
(D) For hyacinth macaws: September 12, 2018 (the date this species
was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act)
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
* * * * *

Dated: July 2, 2018.
James W. Kurth,
Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Exercising the
Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-17319 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P