81 FR 85488 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Hyacinth Macaw

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 228 (November 28, 2016)

Page Range		85488-85507
FR Document		2016-28318

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, notify the public that we are making changes to our July 6, 2012, proposed rule to list the hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on new information, we now propose to list the hyacinth macaw as a threatened species under the Act. We also propose a concurrent rule under section 4(d) of the Act for this species. We are reopening the comment period to allow comments on the new information presented in this document relevant to the changes described below. Comments previously submitted will be considered and do not need to be resubmitted. However, we encourage those who may have commented previously to submit additional comments, if appropriate, in light of this new information.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85488-85507]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2012-0013; 4500030115]
RIN 1018-AY38

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Hyacinth Macaw

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, notify the public that
we are making changes to our July 6, 2012, proposed rule to list the
hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) as an endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on
new information, we now propose to list the hyacinth macaw as a
threatened species under the Act. We also propose a concurrent rule
under section 4(d) of the Act for this species. We are reopening the
comment period to allow comments on the new information presented in
this document relevant to the changes described below. Comments
previously submitted will be considered and do not need to be
resubmitted. However, we encourage those who may have commented
previously to submit additional comments, if appropriate, in light of
this new information.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published July 6, 2012
(77 FR 39965) is reopened. We will accept comments received on or
before January 27, 2017. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Requests for a public
hearing must be received by January 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R9- ES-2012-
0013.
(2) U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
[FWS-R9-

[[Page 85489]]

ES-2012-0013]; Division of Policy, Performance, and Management
Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone
703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

Before a plant or animal species can receive the protection
provided by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), it must first be added to the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Plants, found in title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) in part 17. A species may warrant protection through
listing if it is found to be an endangered or threatened species
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Under the Act, if
a species is determined to be endangered or threatened we are required
to publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule to list the species.
We are proposing to list the hyacinth macaw as a threatened species
under the Act. We are also proposing a rule under section 4(d) of the
Act that defines the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to hyacinth
macaws.

II. Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

If adopted as proposed, this action will list the hyacinth macaw as
a threatened species in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
at 50 CFR 17.11(h), and will allow the import and export of certain
hyacinth macaws into and from the United States and certain acts in
interstate commerce without a permit under the Act. This action is
authorized by the Act.

Information Requested

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to
whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. Therefore, we request comments or information from other
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry,
and any other interested parties concerning this revised proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) New or expanding populations; and
(b) Estimates for new and expanding populations.
(2) Deforestation rates in areas where the hyacinth macaw occurs.
(3) Conservation actions or plans that address either the hyacinth
macaw or deforestation in areas where the hyacinth occurs; as well as
the status of those actions and plans (level of implementation,
success, challenges, etc.).
(4) Availability of nesting cavities.
(5) The factors that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species or subspecies under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(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.
(6) The potential effects of climate change on the subspecies and
its habitat.
(7) The proposed rule under section 4(d) of the Act that will allow
the import and export of certain hyacinth macaws into and from the
United States and certain acts in interstate commerce without a permit
under the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination.

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act requires the Service to hold a public
hearing on this proposal, if requested within 45 days of publication of
the notice. At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for
this revised proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is
to obtain public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient
to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described
above in ADDRESSES. If you would like to request a public hearing for
this proposed rule, you must submit your request, in writing, to the
person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the date specified
in DATES.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited peer review on our July 6, 2012, proposed rule. In
accordance with our August 22, 2016 memorandum updating and clarifying
the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we will
solicit the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and
independent specialists for peer review of this proposed rule. The
purpose of such review is to ensure that decisions are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis. We will send peer
reviewers copies of this revised proposed rule immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions
and conclusions regarding the proposed listing status for the hyacinth
macaw. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the final
decision document, and we will consider their input and any additional
information we receive, as part of our process of making a final
decision on the revised proposal.

Previous Federal Actions

On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January
29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental
Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting that
we list 14 parrot species, including the hyacinth macaw, under the Act.
The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the
requisite information required in the Code of Federal Regulations (50
CFR 424.14(a)). On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day
finding in which we determined that the petition presented substantial
scientific and commercial information to indicate that listing may be
warranted for 12 of the 14 parrot species, including the hyacinth
macaw. We initiated the status review to determine if listing each of
the 12 species as a threatened species or endangered species under the
Act is warranted, and initiated an information collection period to
allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide information on
the status of these 12 species of parrots.
On October 24 and December 2, 2009, the Service received 60-day
notices of intent to sue from Friends of Animals

[[Page 85490]]

and WildEarth Guardians, respectively, for failure to make
determinations on whether the petitioned action is warranted, not
warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing actions within
12 months after receiving a petition presenting substantial information
indicating listing may be warranted (``12-month findings''). On March
2, 2010, Friends of Animals and WildEarth Guardians filed suit against
the Service for failure to make 12-month findings on the petition to
list the 14 species within the statutory deadline of the Act (Friends
of Animals, et al. v. Salazar, Case No. 1:10-CV-00357-RPM (D.D.C.)).
On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court,
in which the Service agreed to submit to the Federal Register by July
29, 2011, September 30, 2011, and November 30, 2011, 12-month findings
for no fewer than four of the petitioned species on each date. On
August 9, 2011, the Service published in the Federal Register a 12-
month finding and proposed rule for the following four parrot species:
Crimson shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and
yellow-crested cockatoo (76 FR 49202). On October 6, 2011, a 12-month
finding was published for the red-crowned parrot (76 FR 62016). On
October 11, 2011, a 12-month finding and proposed rule was published
for the yellow-billed parrot (76 FR 62740), and on October 12, 2011, a
12-month finding was published for the blue-headed macaw and grey-
cheeked parakeet (76 FR 63480).
On September 16, 2011, the Court granted a request to extend the
November 30, 2011, deadline allowing the Service to submit 12-month
findings for the four remaining species, including hyacinth macaw, to
the Federal Register by June 30, 2012. On July 6, 2012, the Service
published in the Federal Register a 12-month finding and proposed rule
to list the hyacinth macaw as an endangered species under the Act (77
FR 39965). On February 21, 2013, the Service reopened the public
comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to
provide additional comments on the proposed rule and to submit
information on the status of the species (78 FR 12011).

Background

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

The hyacinth macaw (hyacinth) is 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 407.5 millimeters (mm) (1.3 ft), respectively.
Average tail lengths for females and males are 492.4 mm (1.6 ft) and
509.4 mm (1.7 ft), respectively (Forshaw 1973, p. 364). 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 grey-black bills, dark-brown irises. Their legs, which
are dark grey in most birds but lighter grey 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 1973, p. 364).
The hyacinth macaw experiences late maturity, not reaching first
reproduction until 8 or 9 years old (Guedes 2009, p. 117). Hyacinths
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
48.4 mm (1.9 inches (in)) long and 36.4 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 28-30 days. The male
remains near the nest to protect it from invaders, but may leave 4-6
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 105-110 days old; however, separation 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 hyacinths 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, hyacinths breed only every 2 years (Faria et al.

[[Page 85491]]

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, the largest
population of hyacinth macaws, it was suggested that only 15-30 percent
of adults attempt to breed; it may be that as small or an even smaller
percentage in Par[aacute] and Gerais attempt to breed (Munn et al.
1998, p. 409).

Range and Population

At one time, hyacinths 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 km\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 areas have experienced less pressure from trapping, hunting, and
agriculture (Birdlife International (BLI) 2014a, unpaginated; Snyder et
al. 2000, p. 119; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 416; Abramson et al. 1995,
p. 14; Munn et al. 1989, p. 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 suggests 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 for the pet trade and a
further reduction in numbers due to habitat loss and hunting. Although
population estimates prior to 1986 are lacking, a very rapid population
decline is suspected to have taken place over the last 31 years (three
generations) (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 2014a,
unpaginated; Guedes 2009, p. 11; Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; WWF 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 is available. Locals
report the species increasing in Bolivia; between 140 and 160 hyacinths
are estimated to occur in the Bolivian Pantanal, with estimates as high
as 300 for the entire country (Guedes 2012, p. 1; Pinto-Ledezma 2011,
p. 19).
Although the 2003 estimate indicates a substantial increase in the
Pantanal population, the methods or techniques used to estimate the
population are not described; therefore, the reliability of the
estimation techniques, as well as the accuracy of the estimated
increase, are 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 2014a,
unpaginated; Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p.
30). However, the overall population trend for the hyacinth macaw is
reported as decreasing (BLI 2014a, unpaginated), although there are no
extreme fluctuations reported in the number of individuals (BLI 2014a,
unpaginated).

Essential Needs of the Species

Hyacinths 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,
hyacinths 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).
Hyacinths have a specialized diet consisting of the fruits of
various palm species, which are inside an extremely hard nut that only
the hyacinth can easily break (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 400; Collar
et al. 1992, p. 254). Hyacinths 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. Hyacinths 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 hyacinths occur, they use only a
few specific palm species. In Par[aacute], hyacinths 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, hyacinths feed on Attalea
funifera (piacava), Syagrus coronata (catol[eacute]), and Mauritia
vinifera (buriti). In the Pantanal region, hyacinths feed exclusively
on Scheelea phalerata (acuri) and Acrocromia 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. 1987, pp. 407-408). Although hyacinths 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).
Hyacinths also 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 (94
percent) 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

[[Page 85492]]

(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), 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. 1987,
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 is listed as in danger of extinction (Secretar[iacute]a del
Ambiente n.d., p. 4; Bauer 2012, pers. comm.).
From 2000 to 2013, this species was classified as ``endangered'' by
the IUCN. However, in 2014, the hyacinth 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 (BLI 2014a, unpaginated). The hyacinth macaw is
also listed as Appendix I on the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (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

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 predispose them to extinction
(Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Guedes 2004a, p. 280; Wright
et al. 2001, p. 711; Munn et al. 1998, p. 409). Additionally, feeding
and habitat specializations are good predictors of a bird species' risk
of extinction. The hyacinth scores high in both food and nest site
specialization (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, hyacinths 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. 1998, pp. 404, 409;
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). As stated above, hyacinths naturally have
a low reproductive rate; not all hyacinth nests fledge young, and, due
to the long period of chick dependence, hyacinths breed only every 2
years. Only 15-30 percent of adults in the Pantanal attempt to breed;
it may be that as small or an even smaller percentage in Par[aacute]
and Gerais attempt to breed. 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,
hunting that removes individuals from already small populations, and
other factors that further reduce naturally low reproductive rates,
recruitment, and the population.

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). Additionally, 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 south of Brazil, and
rainfall is more evenly distributed throughout the year, increasing
pasture productivity and reducing the risk of fire. In Par[aacute],
incidence of disease, such as hoof-and-mouth disease and brucellosis,
and ectoparasites are lower than in central and south Brazil.
Additionally, the price of land in Par[aacute] has been lower than in
central and south Brazil, resulting in ranchers selling farms in those
areas and establishing larger farms in Par[aacute] to compete in the
national market (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
further north into parts of Par[aacute] 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

[[Page 85493]]

the Brazilian Amazonia cattle herd (Arima and Uhl 1997, p. 343), with a
sizable portion of the state classified as 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 (Portal Brasil
2010, unpaginated). From 1988 to 2015, the state lost 139,824 km\2\
(53,986 mi\2\), with annual rates varying between 3,780-8,870 km\2\
(1,460-3,424 mi\2\) (Brazil's National Institute for Space Research
(INPE) 2015, unpaginated; Butler 2010, unpaginated). Since 2004,
deforestation rates in Par[aacute] have generally decreased; however,
rates rose 35 percent in 2013 before decreasing again (INPE 2015,
unpaginated) (Table 1).

Table 1--Deforestation in Par[aacute] (2004-2015)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual change
Accumulated Annual in
Year deforested deforested deforestation
area (km\2\) area (km\2\) rate (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004............................................................ * 98,257 8,870 24
2005............................................................ 104,156 5,899 -33
2006............................................................ 109,815 5,659 -4
2007............................................................ 115,341 5,526 -2
2008............................................................ 120,948 5,607 1
2009............................................................ 125,229 4,281 -24
2010............................................................ 128,999 3,770 -12
2011............................................................ 132,007 3,008 -20
2012............................................................ 133,748 1,741 -42
2013............................................................ 136,094 2,346 35
2014............................................................ 137,981 1,887 -20
2015............................................................ 139,862 1,881 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 (BBC 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,
hyacinths 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 percent of the original Cerrado vegetation has
been lost due to conversion to agriculture and pasture, although
estimates range up to 80 percent, 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\)
(Minist[eacute]rio do Meio Ambiente (MMA) 2015, p. 9; WWF-UK 2011b, p.
2). 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,
since that time, 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). Between 2009 and 2010, the deforestation in the
Cerrado decreased 16 percent. Compared to the deforestation rates of
the early 2000s, deforestation has decreased about 40 percent (Critical
Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2016, p. 145).
Since 2008, annual monitoring of deforestation in the Cerrado has
taken place through a government program that monitors each of the
Brazilian biomes. Although the annual rate of deforestation is
generally decreasing, satellite monitoring of the area indicates a slow
and steady increase in deforested area (MMA 2015, p. 9) (Table 2).

[[Page 85494]]

Table 2--Deforestation in the Cerrado (2002-2011)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining
Accumulated Percent (%) of Annual Annual areas of
Years assessed deforested Cerrado deforested deforestation natural
area (km\2\) deforested area (km\2\) rate (%) vegetation
(km\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 2002...................... 890,636 43 - - 1,148,750
2002-2008....................... 975,710 47.8 14,179 0.69 1,063,676
2008-2009....................... 983,347 48.2 7,637 0.37 1,056,039
2009-2010....................... 989,816 48.5 6,469 0.32 1,049,570
2010-2011....................... 997,063 48.9 7,247 0.35 1,042,323
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2011c, p. 21; WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2;
Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 1393; BLI 2008, unpaginated). About six in
every 10 hectares 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).
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\-
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 (98.8 million ac) of
``environmental surplus'' that could be legally deforested (See
discussion of Brazil's Forest Code, 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; Mettermeier 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). Much 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).

Table 3--Deforestation in the Pantanal (2002-2014)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accumulated Percent (%) of Annual Annual
Years assessed deforested Pantanal deforested deforestation Citation
area (km\2\) deforested area (km\2\) rate (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002-2008............................ 20,265 13.4 612 0.41 CI et al. 2009, pp. 30-32.
2008-2010............................ 20,851 13.8 605 0.40 CI et al. 2011, pp. 3-4.
2010-2012............................ 20,833 13.8 389 0.26 CI et al. 2013, pp. 4-5.
2012-2014............................ 22,439 14.9 394 0.26 CI et al. 2015, pp. 2-4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, hyacinths 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).

[[Page 85495]]

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 destroyed by
pecking. Furthermore, 3 years after deforestation, the nesting trees
that were left were lost due to isolation and damage from storms and
wind.
Other activities associated with cattle ranching, such as the
introduction of exotic foraging grasses, grazing, burning, compaction,
and fragmentation, can negatively impact the nesting trees of the
hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2013, unpaginated; 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 are known to
enter the 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 can
also prevent trees from surviving to a size capable of providing
suitable cavities, and can cause a high rate of nesting tree loss
(Guedes 1993 in Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187). Guedes (Guedes and
Vicente 2012, p. 157; 1995 in Santos Jr. et al. 2006, pp. 184-185)
noted that 5 percent of manduvi trees are lost each year to
deforestation, fire, and storms.
In addition to the direct removal of trees and the impact of fire
on recruitment of manduvi trees, cattle themselves have impacted the
density of manduvi seedlings in the Pantanal. Cattle forage on and
trample manduvi seedlings, affecting the recruitment of this species to
a size large enough to accommodate hyacinths (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793;
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187; Mettermeier et al. 1990, p. 107). Only
those manduvi trees 60 years old or older 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 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 10.7 percent in southern Pantanal
(van der Meer 2013, p. 16), contain suitable cavities for hyacinth
macaws. This finding indicates that 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 is highly specialized in both diet and nesting
sites, it is particularly vulnerable to the loss of these resources and
extinction (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo 2008, p. 795; Munn et al.
1998, pp. 404, 409; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). The loss of tree
species used by hyacinths 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 hyacinth macaws 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 fruit availability are known to decrease
reproduction in hyacinths (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,
licuri palm stands (Syagrus sp.), to cattle grazing (Collar et al.
1992, p. 257).
Hyacinths 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, which
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 shock of 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). Given the land-use trends
across the range of the hyacinth macaw, the continued availability of
food and nesting resources is of great concern.
In response to the loss of its nesting tree, hyacinths in the
Gerais region now use rock crevices for nesting. Hyacinths have been
reported in various trees species and even on cliffs on the border of
the Pantanal; however, the majority of their nests are in Brazil nut
(in Par[aacute]) and manduvi (in the Pantanal) (see Essential Needs of
the Species). We do not know if the hyacinths 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, hyacinths may adapt to using cavities of other trees
(Van der Meer 2013, p. 3) or perhaps even cliff faces. However, to
accommodate their large size, hyacinth macaws require older trees with
large cavities. 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.
Regulatory Protections
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; Official List of Brazilian Endangered Animal Species
(Order No. 1.522/1989); Brazilian Constitution (Title VIII, Chapter VI,
1988); Law No. 5197/1967; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated). Additionally, 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).

[[Page 85496]]

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 environmentalists. 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). In 2012, a new Forest Code was
passed; 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).
Environmentalists oppose 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.
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 (123.5
million ac) to approximately 21 million ha (51.8 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 (217.4 million ac) on private properties deemed to
constitute an ``environmental surplus.'' ``Environmental surplus''
areas are those that are not conserved by the Legal Reserve and
Riparian Preservation Area conservation requirements. The Cerrado alone
contains approximately 40 million ha (98.8 million ac) of environmental
surplus that could be legally deforested (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p.
364).
Although the Forest Code reduces restoration requirements, it
introduces new mechanisms to address fire management, forest carbon,
and payments for ecosystem services, which could reduce deforestation
and result in environmental benefits. 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 Rural
Environmental Registry System, 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 Rural
Environmental Registry 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 hectares and represents 52% 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

[[Page 85497]]

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 a sense of
exemption from 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 non-existent in Brazil
as IBAMA is underfunded and understaffed. Only 1 percent of the fines
IBAMA imposed on individuals and corporations for illegal deforestation
is actually collected (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). In Para, 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).
Additionally, State laws designed to protect the habitat of the
hyacinth macaw are in place. 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
hyacinths to nest in (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 135; Santos Jr. et al. 2006,
p. 186).
Although laws are in place to protect the forests of Brazil, lack
of supervision and lack of resources prevent these laws from being
properly implemented (Guedes 2012, p. 3). Ongoing deforestation in the
Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal are evidence that existing laws are not
being adequately enforced. Without greater enforcement of laws,
deforestation will continue to impact the hyacinth macaw and its food
and nesting resources.
Habitat loss for the hyacinth macaw continues despite regulatory
mechanisms intended to protect Brazil's forests. As described above,
the hyacinth's food and nesting trees are removed for agriculture and
cattle ranching and fire is used to clear land and maintain pastures.
The original Forest Code was not properly enforced and, thus was not
adequately protective. It is questionable whether the new Forest Code
will be effectively enforced. Regardless of enforcement, given the
provisions of the new Forest Code, some level of deforestation is
highly likely to continue and will continue to compromise the status of
the species.

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 [deg]C (3.06 to 12.06[emsp14][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 simulating varying amounts
of global warming 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

[[Page 85498]]

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 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 hyacinths 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 reproduction due to impacts on the fruit and foraging for the
hyacinth macaw and competition with other bird and mammal species for
limited resources (See Other Factors Affecting Reproductive Rates).

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).
Hyacinths 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 is the largest species of macaw, it
may be targeted by subsistence hunters, especially by settlers along
roadways (Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). Additionally, increased
commercial sale of feather art by Kayapo Indians of Gorotire may be of
concern given that 10 hyacinths are required to make a single headdress
(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).
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 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 is 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); Brazilian Constitution (Title VIII, Chapter VI, 1988); 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.

Low Reproductive Rates

As described above, 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. In the Pantanal, competition, predation, disease,
destruction or flooding of nests, and climatic conditions and
variations are major 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 nests almost exclusively in manduvi trees; however, there are
17 other bird species, small mammals, and honey bees (Apis melifera)
that 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, and, as
discussed above, 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
hyacinths and other macaw species (Lee 2010, p. 2). Black vultures
(Coragyps atratus), collared forest falcons (Micrastur semitorquatus),
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

[[Page 85499]]

partially or totally, during the egg phase. Predation accounted for 52
percent of lost eggs (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 74). Of 582 eggs monitored
over 6 years in the Nhecol[acirc]ndia region of the Pantanal,
approximately 24 percent (138 eggs) were lost to predators (Pizo et al.
2008, pp. 794, 795). Researchers have identified several predators of
hyacinth eggs, including toco toucans (Ramphastos toco), 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 are able to 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).
The remaining eggs that were considered 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).
Guedes (2009, pp. 66, 79) also found in the 10-year study of the
Miranda region that, of the nests that successfully produced chicks, 49
percent experienced a total or partial loss of chicks. Of these, 62
percent were lost due to starvation, low temperature, disease or
infestation by ectoparasites, flooding of nests, and breaking of
branches. Thirty-eight percent were lost due to predation of chicks by
carnivorous ants (Solenopis spp.), other insects, collared forest
falcon, and spectacled owl (Pulsatrix perspicillata). The toco toucan
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).
Variations in temperature and rainfall were also found to be
factors affecting reproduction of the hyacinth in the Pantanal (Guedes
2009, p. 42). Years with higher temperatures and lower rainfall can
affect the production of fruits and foraging and, therefore, lead to a
decrease in reproduction of hyacinths the following year (Guedes 2009,
pp. 42-43, 44). This outcome 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
these 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, 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

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 the
protection of lands and govern the formal establishment and management
of protected areas to promote conservation of the country's natural
resources (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 states where the hyacinth macaw occurs contain 53 protected
areas (Parks.it nd, unpaginated); however, the species occurs in only 3
of those areas (BLI 2014b, unpaginated; Collar et al. 1992, p. 257).
The Amazon contains a balance of strictly prohibited protected areas
(49 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 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.
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).
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 2001, unpaginated; Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 446; Ratter et al.
1997, pp. 227-228). However, the risk of intense wild

[[Page 85500]]

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 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).
Of 53 designated protected areas within the states in which the
hyacinth macaw occurs, it is found in only 3 National Parks; none of
which are effectively protected (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.
In addition to national and state laws, the Brazilian Government
and nongovernmental organizations have developed plans for protecting
the forests of Brazil. In 2009, Brazil announced a plan to cut
deforestation rates by 80 percent by 2020 with the help of
international funding; Brazil's plan calls on foreign countries to fund
$20 billion U.S. dollars (USD) (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 8; Moukaddem
2011, unpaginated; Painter 2008, unpaginated). If Brazil's plan is
implemented and the goal is met, deforestation in Brazil would be
significantly reduced. Between 2005 and 2010, Brazil reduced
deforestation rates by more than three-quarters. Most of the decrease
took place within the Amazon Basin. However, deforestation increased
slightly in 2013, then doubled in 6 months in 2014-2015 (Schiffman
2015, unpaginated).
Brazil's Ministry of Environment and The Nature Conservancy have
worked together to implement the Farmland Environmental Registry to
curb illegal deforestation in the Amazon. 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. 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 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).
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).
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 were especially
intense and damaging (Klink and 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.
The Brazilian Government, under its Action Plan for the Prevention
and Control of Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado--Conservation
and Development (2010), committed to recuperating at least 8 million ha
(20 million ac) of degraded pasture by the year 2020, reducing
deforestation by 40 percent, 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). However, we do not have details on the success of the action plan
or the progress on expanding protected areas.
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

[[Page 85501]]

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.
Hyacinths 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. Hyacinths 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 hyacinths 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 it 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. Although active management has contributed to the
increase in the hyacinth population, and farmers have begun to protect
hyacinth macaws on their property, land conversion for cattle ranching
continues to occur in the Pantanal. The recruitment of the manduvi tree
has been severely reduced, and is expected to become increasingly rare
in the future, due to ongoing damage caused by cattle grazing and
trampling of manduvi saplings, as well as the burning of pastures for
maintenance. If this activity 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 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.

Pet Trade

The hyacinth macaw is protected under the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(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 is currently listed in Appendix I of CITES. 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) (16 U.S.C. 4901 et
seq.), which was enacted on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA
is to promote the conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all
imports 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 has not been
approved for importation of wild-caught birds.
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

[[Page 85502]]

hyacinth trapping included one trapper who worked an area for 3 years
removing 200-300 wild hyacinths a month during certain seasons and
another trapper who caught 1,000 hyacinths 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 hyacinths 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).
Based on CITES trade data obtained from United Nations Environment
Programme--World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade
Database, from the time the hyacinth macaw was uplisted to CITES
Appendix I in October 1987 through 2011, and taking into account that
several records appear to be overcounts due to slight differences in
the manner in which the importing and exporting countries reported
their trade, international trade involved 2,030 specimens, including
1,804 live birds. Of the 2,030 specimens, 106 (4.6 percent) were
exported from Bolivia, Brazil, or Paraguay (the range countries of the
species). With the information given in the UNEP-WCMC database, from
1987 through 2011, only 24 of the 1,804 live hyacinth macaws reported
in trade were reported as wild-sourced, 1,671 were reported as captive
bred or captive born, 35 were reported as pre-Convention, and 74 were
reported with the source as unknown.
Since our 2012 proposed rule published, CITES trade data from the
UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database for the years 2012 through 2014 has
become available. From 2012 through 2014 (the most recent year for
which data is available from the WCMC-UNEP database), a total of 250
hyacinth macaw specimens, including 193 live birds, is reported in
international trade in the WCMC-UNEP database. Except for five
scientific samples imported by Switzerland in 2012, none of the other
specimens were reported as being wild caught; all were either recorded
as captive bred or captive born. Twenty live wild-caught hyacinth
macaws are recorded as having been imported by Turkey from Cameroon in
2012; at the time of writing, we are still waiting for information from
Turkey as to whether this data is accurate, and if so, whether this was
lawful or unlawful trade.
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 hyacinths 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, 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 hyacinths
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 hyacinths 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 EU 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. It is possible, given the high price of
hyacinth macaws, that illegal domestic trade is occurring; however, we
have no information to suggest that illegal trapping for the pet trade
is currently occurring at levels that are affecting the populations of
the hyacinth macaw in its three regions.

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, 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.
Hyacinth macaws have a naturally low reproductive rate. Not all
hyacinth chicks fledge young and, due to the long period of chick
dependence, hyacinths breed only every 2 years. In the Pantanal
population, 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. Additionally, feeding and habitat specializations are good
predictors of a bird species' risk of extinction; because the hyacinth
macaw has specialized food and nest site needs, it is at higher risk of
extinction from the anthropogenic stressors described above.
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 has accelerated due to
state subsidies, infrastructure development, favorable climate in
Par[aacute], lower prices for land, and expansion of soy cultivation in
other areas that has led to displacement of pastures into parts of
Par[aacute]. Although deforestation rates decreased between 2009 and
2012, Amazon deforestation increased between 2012 and 2013 with the
greatest increase occurring in Par[aacute].
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, there is a slow and
steady increase in the amount of deforested area. Remaining Cerrado
vegetation continues to be lost to conversion for soy plantations and
extensive cattle ranching. Projections for coming decades show the
largest

[[Page 85503]]

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 hyacinths for food are usually left, as cattle
also feed on the palm nuts. While deforestation rates between 2002 and
2014 indicate a decrease in the annual deforestation rate, there
continues to be a slow and steady increase in the area deforested. Fire
is also a common method for renewing pastures, controlling weeds, and
controlling pests in the Pantanal. Fires become uncontrolled and 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 nests, are
already limited in the Pantanal; only 5 percent of the existing adult
manduvi trees in south-central Pantanal and 10.7 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 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.
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, which 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 nests almost
exclusively in manduvi trees. The number of manduvi old and large
enough to provide suitable cavities is already limited. Additionally,
there are 17 other bird species, small mammals, and honey bees that
also use manduvi cavities. Competition has been so fierce that
hyacinths were unable to reproduce as 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. Although it
is possible that hyacinths could use alternative nesting sites 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.
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 reproduction due to impacts on the fruit
and foraging for the hyacinth macaw and competition with other bird and
mammal species for limited 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. Information indicates that
hyacinths 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 deforested areas continue to
increase each year. 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.
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), competition (Factor

[[Page 85504]]

E), and effects of climate change (Factor E). Furthermore, despite laws
to protect the hyacinth macaw and the forests it depends on,
deforestation and hunting continue (Factor D).
In total, there are approximately 6,500 hyacinth macaws left in the
wild, dispersed among 3 populations. Two of the populations,
Par[aacute] and Gerais, contain just 1,000-1,500 individuals, combined.
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 population has grown in the
Pantanal; however, the growth is not sufficient to counter the
continued and predicted future anthropogenic disturbances on the
hyacinth macaw. Because the hyacinth macaw has specialized food and
nest site needs, it is at higher risk of extinction from anthropogenic
stressors described above. Additionally, the hyacinth macaw has
relatively low recruitment of juveniles, which decreases the ability of
a population to recover from reductions caused by anthropogenic
disturbances. Hyacinths may not have a high enough reproduction rate
and may not survive in areas where nest sites and food sources are
destroyed.
In our 2012 proposed rule, 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'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. Deforestation rates in Par[aacute]
decreased between 2013 and 2014 by 20 percent, and rates remained
stable in 2015. More recent estimates of deforestation indicate annual
deforestation rates in the Cerrado and Pantanal have decreased by
approximately 40 and 37 percent, respectively. If these rates are
maintained or are further reduced, the loss of all native habitat from
these areas, including the species of trees needed by the hyacinth for
food and nesting, and the hyacinth's risk of extinction is not as
imminent as predicted. Therefore, we do not find that the hyacinth
macaw is currently in danger of extinction. However, the hyacinth macaw
remains a species particularly vulnerable to extinction due to the
interaction between continued habitat loss and its highly specialized
needs for food and nest trees. Given land-use trends, lack of
enforcement of laws, and predicted landscape changes under climate
change scenarios, the persistence of essential food and nesting
resources and, therefore the hyacinth macaw, is of concern.
Threats to the hyacinth macaw and remaining habitat, and declines
in the population are expected to continue throughout its range in the
foreseeable future. What habitat remains is at risk of being lost due
to ongoing deforestation. 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 (98.8 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.
Furthermore, potential nesting sites are rare and will become
increasingly rare in the future. Continued loss of remaining habitat
may lead to long-term effects on the viability of the hyacinth macaw,
as hyacinth macaws may not have a high enough reproductive rate to
survive where nest sites are destroyed. 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. 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 may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The term ``species'' includes ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' We published a final policy interpreting the
phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1,
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range,
the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively,
and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species
wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is
``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution
to the viability of the species is so important that, without the
members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction,
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time
the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any
particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is
endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
We found the hyacinth macaw likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout its range. Therefore, no portions of the
species' range are ``significant'' as defined in our SPR policy, and no
additional SPR analysis is required.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal and State governments, private
agencies and interest groups, and individuals.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to ``take'' (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the
United States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in
the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any endangered wildlife species. It also
is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain
exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation
agencies.

[[Page 85505]]

Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species. With regard to endangered wildlife, a
permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.

Proposed 4(d) Rule

The purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend
may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such
endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as
may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and
conventions set forth in the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). 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. Exercising this
discretion, the Service has developed general prohibitions in the Act's
regulations (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR
17.32) that apply to most threatened species. Under 50 CFR 17.32,
permits may be issued to allow persons to engage in otherwise
prohibited acts for certain purposes.
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary, who has delegated
this authority to the Service, may also develop specific prohibitions
and exceptions tailored to the particular conservation needs of a
threatened species. In such cases, the Service issues a 4(d) rule that
may include some or all of the prohibitions and authorizations set out
in 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, but which also may be more or less
restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. For
the hyacinth macaw, the Service is using our discretion to propose a
4(d) rule.
If the proposed 4(d) rule is adopted, we will incorporate 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 will be allowed without
a permit under the Act, as explained below.

Import and Export

The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and
noncommercial international shipments of live and dead hyacinth macaws
and parts and products, including the import and export of personal
pets and research samples. In most instances, the proposed 4(d) rule
will adopt the existing conservation regulatory requirements of CITES
and the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import
and export of certain 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 will
need to meet the requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including
obtaining a permit under the Act. However, the 4(d) rule proposes to
allow a person to import or export either: (1) A specimen held in
captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act; or
(2) a captive-bred specimen, without a permit issued under the Act,
provided the export is authorized under CITES and the import is
authorized under CITES and the WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the
wild and held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed
under the Act, the importer or exporter will need to provide
documentation to support that status, such as a copy of the original
CITES permit indicating when the bird was removed from the wild or
museum specimen reports. For captive-bred birds, the importer would
need to provide either a valid CITES export/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.'' For exporters of captive-bred birds, a signed
and dated statement from the breeder of the bird, along with
documentation on the source of their breeding stock, would document the
captive-bred status of U.S. birds.
The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to birds captive-bred in the
United States and abroad. The terms ``captive-bred'' and ``captivity''
used in the proposed 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 proposed 4(d) rule
requires a permit under the Act to ``take'' (including harm and harass)
a hyacinth macaw, ``take'' does not include generally accepted animal
husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions of veterinary
care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when such
practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury
to the wildlife when applied to captive wildlife.
We assessed the conservation needs of the 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). The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of
exotic birds and to ensure that imports of exotic birds into the United
States do not harm them (See Factor D). The best available commercial
data indicate that 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 proposed 4(d) rule provide the
necessary and advisable conservation measures that are needed for this
species. This proposed 4(d) rule, if finalized, would streamline the
permitting process for these types of activities by deferring to
existing laws that are protective of hyacinths in the course of import
and export.

Interstate Commerce

Under the proposed 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 would apply under
this proposed 4(d) rule, and any interstate commerce activities that
could

[[Page 85506]]

incidentally take hyacinth macaws or otherwise prohibited acts in
foreign commerce would 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 one body 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, because acts in interstate
commerce within the United States have not been found to threaten the
hyacinth macaw, 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 this proposed 4(d)
rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and
advisable for the conservation of the hyacinth macaw.

Required Determinations

Clarity of Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us page numbers and the names of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)

This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rulemaking will
not impose new recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may
not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

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
section).

Author

The primary authors of this notice 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.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended on July 6, 2012, at 77 FR 39965 and on April 7, 2016, at 81
FR 20302, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Birds

* * * * * * *
Macaw, hyacinth.................. Anodorhynchus Bolivia, Brazil, Entire............. T NA NA 17.41(c)
hyacinthinus. Paraguay.

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

* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 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) 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), scarlet macaw (Ara macao
macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses (Ara macao macao and Ara
macao cyanoptera)), and

[[Page 85507]]

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) Import and export. You may import or export a specimen from the
southern DPS of Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses
without a permit issued under Sec. 17.52 of this part, and you may
import or export all other specimens without a permit issued under
Sec. 17.32 of this part only when the provisions of parts 13, 14, 15,
and 23 of this chapter have been met and you meet the following
requirements:
* * * * *
(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), (D), or (E) 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.
* * * * *
(E) For hyacinth macaws: [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] (the
date this species was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
* * * * *

Dated: November 19, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-28318 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85489

ES–2012–0013]; Division of Policy, parties concerning this revised proposed a public hearing for this proposed rule,
Performance, and Management rule. We particularly seek comments you must submit your request, in
Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife concerning: writing, to the person listed in FOR
Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls (1) The species’ biology, range, and FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the
Church, VA 22041. population trends, including: date specified in DATES.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (a) New or expanding populations;
Peer Review
Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of and
Foreign Species, Endangered Species (b) Estimates for new and expanding In accordance with our policy
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, populations. published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls (2) Deforestation rates in areas where 34270), we solicited peer review on our
Church, VA 22041; telephone 703–358– the hyacinth macaw occurs. July 6, 2012, proposed rule. In
2171. If you use a telecommunications (3) Conservation actions or plans that accordance with our August 22, 2016
device for the deaf (TDD), call the address either the hyacinth macaw or memorandum updating and clarifying
Federal Information Relay Service deforestation in areas where the the role of peer review of listing actions
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. hyacinth occurs; as well as the status of under the Act, we will solicit the expert
those actions and plans (level of opinions of at least three appropriate
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
implementation, success, challenges, and independent specialists for peer
Executive Summary etc.). review of this proposed rule. The
(4) Availability of nesting cavities. purpose of such review is to ensure that
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action (5) The factors that are the basis for decisions are based on scientifically
Before a plant or animal species can making a listing determination for a sound data, assumptions, and analysis.
receive the protection provided by the species or subspecies under section We will send peer reviewers copies of
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et this revised proposed rule immediately
amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), seq.), which are: following publication in the Federal
it must first be added to the Federal List (A) The present or threatened Register. We will invite peer reviewers
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife destruction, modification, or to comment, during the public comment
or the Federal List of Endangered and curtailment of its habitat or range; period, on the specific assumptions and
Threatened Plants, found in title 50 of (B) Overutilization for commercial, conclusions regarding the proposed
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) recreational, scientific, or educational listing status for the hyacinth macaw.
in part 17. A species may warrant purposes; We will summarize the opinions of
protection through listing if it is found (C) Disease or predation; these reviewers in the final decision
to be an endangered or threatened (D) The inadequacy of existing document, and we will consider their
species throughout all or a significant regulatory mechanisms; or input and any additional information
portion of its range. Under the Act, if a (E) Other natural or manmade factors we receive, as part of our process of
species is determined to be endangered affecting its continued existence. making a final decision on the revised
or threatened we are required to publish (6) The potential effects of climate proposal.
in the Federal Register a proposed rule change on the subspecies and its
Previous Federal Actions
to list the species. We are proposing to habitat.
list the hyacinth macaw as a threatened (7) The proposed rule under section On January 31, 2008, the Service
species under the Act. We are also 4(d) of the Act that will allow the received a petition dated January 29,
proposing a rule under section 4(d) of import and export of certain hyacinth 2008, from Friends of Animals, as
the Act that defines the prohibitions and macaws into and from the United States represented by the Environmental Law
exceptions that apply to hyacinth and certain acts in interstate commerce Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm
macaws. without a permit under the Act. College of Law, requesting that we list
Please include sufficient information 14 parrot species, including the
II. Major Provisions of the Regulatory with your submission (such as scientific hyacinth macaw, under the Act. The
Action journal articles or other publications) to petition clearly identified itself as a
If adopted as proposed, this action allow us to verify any scientific or petition and included the requisite
will list the hyacinth macaw as a commercial information you include. information required in the Code of
threatened species in the List of Submissions merely stating support for Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)).
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at or opposition to the action under On July 14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we
50 CFR 17.11(h), and will allow the consideration without providing published a 90-day finding in which we
import and export of certain hyacinth supporting information, although noted, determined that the petition presented
macaws into and from the United States will not be considered in making a substantial scientific and commercial
and certain acts in interstate commerce determination. information to indicate that listing may
without a permit under the Act. This be warranted for 12 of the 14 parrot
Public Hearing species, including the hyacinth macaw.
action is authorized by the Act.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act requires the We initiated the status review to
Information Requested Service to hold a public hearing on this determine if listing each of the 12
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs proposal, if requested within 45 days of species as a threatened species or
that determinations as to whether any publication of the notice. At this time, endangered species under the Act is
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

species is an endangered or threatened we do not have a public hearing warranted, and initiated an information
species must be made solely on the scheduled for this revised proposed collection period to allow all interested
basis of the best scientific and rule. The main purpose of most public parties an opportunity to provide
commercial data available. Therefore, hearings is to obtain public testimony or information on the status of these 12
we request comments or information comment. In most cases, it is sufficient species of parrots.
from other concerned governmental to submit comments through the Federal On October 24 and December 2, 2009,
agencies, the scientific community, eRulemaking Portal, described above in the Service received 60-day notices of
industry, and any other interested ADDRESSES. If you would like to request intent to sue from Friends of Animals

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85493

the Brazilian Amazonia cattle herd is severely reduced (Lucas 2009, pp. 1– with annual rates varying between
(Arima and Uhl 1997, p. 343), with a 2). This type of repeated disturbance 3,780–8,870 km2 (1,460–3,424 mi2)
sizable portion of the state classified as can lead to an ecosystem dominated by (Brazil’s National Institute for Space
cattle-producing area (Walker et al. invasive trees, grasses, bamboo, and Research (INPE) 2015, unpaginated;
2009, p. 69). For 7 months of the year, ferns (Nepstad et al. 2008, p. 1740). Butler 2010, unpaginated). Since 2004,
cattle are grazed in the várzea, but are Pará has long been known as the deforestation rates in Pará have
moved to the upper terra firma the other epicenter of illegal deforestation (Dias generally decreased; however, rates rose
5 months (Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 440). and Ramos 2012, unpaginated) and has 35 percent in 2013 before decreasing
Intense livestock activity can affect one of the highest deforestation rates in again (INPE 2015, unpaginated) (Table
seedling recruitment via trampling and the Brazilian Amazon (Portal Brasil
1).
grazing. Cattle also compact the soil 2010, unpaginated). From 1988 to 2015,
such that regeneration of forest species the state lost 139,824 km2 (53,986 mi2),

TABLE 1—DEFORESTATION IN PARÁ (2004–2015)
Annual change
Accumulated Annual in deforest-
Year deforested deforested ation rate
area (km2) area (km2) (%)

2004 ............................................................................................................................................. * 98,257 8,870 24
2005 ............................................................................................................................................. 104,156 5,899 ¥33
2006 ............................................................................................................................................. 109,815 5,659 ¥4
2007 ............................................................................................................................................. 115,341 5,526 ¥2
2008 ............................................................................................................................................. 120,948 5,607 1
2009 ............................................................................................................................................. 125,229 4,281 ¥24
2010 ............................................................................................................................................. 128,999 3,770 ¥12
2011 ............................................................................................................................................. 132,007 3,008 ¥20
2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 133,748 1,741 ¥42
2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 136,094 2,346 35
2014 ............................................................................................................................................. 137,981 1,887 ¥20
2015 ............................................................................................................................................. 139,862 1,881 0
* Accumulation since 1988.

Given the role cattle ranching plays in likely a response to the destruction of Ambiente (MMA) 2015, p. 9; WWF–UK
national and international markets and nesting trees (Collar et al. 1992, p. 255). 2011b, p. 2). At this rate, the vegetation
the profitability of ranching, significant These crevices will likely remain of the Cerrado region was disappearing
expansion of cattle herds in the constant and are not a limiting factor. faster than the Amazon rainforest
Brazilian Amazon has continued However, deforestation for agriculture, (Pearce 2011, unpaginated; WWF–UK
(Walker et al. 2009, p. 68). The primarily soy crops, and cattle ranching 2011c, p. 19; Pennington et al. 2006 In
remaining forested areas of Pará are at threaten the remaining native cerrado Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 117; Klink and
risk of being cleared; Pará is one of the vegetation, including palm species the Machado 2005, p. 708; Ratter et al. 1997,
states where most of Brazil’s agriculture hyacinth macaw relies on as a food p. 228). However, since that time, the
expansion is taking place (BBC News source. loss of natural vegetation decreased to
2014, unpaginated). Furthermore, Approximately 50 percent of the an estimated 12,949 km2 (4,999 mi2) per
modeled future deforestation is original Cerrado vegetation has been lost year from 2000 to 2005 and 11,812 km2
concentrated in eastern Amazonia, due to conversion to agriculture and (4,560 mi2) per year from 2005 to 2010
which includes Pará, where the density pasture, although estimates range up to (Beuchle et al. 2015, pp. 124, 125).
of paved highways (existing and 80 percent, and the area continues to Between 2009 and 2010, the
planned) will continue to be highest for suffer high rates of habitat loss (Grecchi deforestation in the Cerrado decreased
several decades (Soares-Filho et al. et al. 2015, p. 2865; Beuchle et al. 2015, 16 percent. Compared to the
2006, p. 522). p. 121; WWF 2015, p. 2; Soares-Filho et deforestation rates of the early 2000s,
al. 2014, p. 364; Pearce 2011, deforestation has decreased about 40
Gerais
unpaginated; WWF–UK 2011b, p. 2; percent (Critical Ecosystem Partnership
The Gerais region is within the Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 1393; BLI 2008, Fund (CEPF) 2016, p. 145).
Cerrado biome, a 2-million-km2 unpaginated; Pinto et al. 2007, p. 14; Since 2008, annual monitoring of
(772,204-mi2) area consisting of plateaus Klink and Machado 2005, p. 708; Marini deforestation in the Cerrado has taken
and depressions with vegetation that and Garcia 2005, p. 667; WWF 2001, place through a government program
varies from dense grasslands with unpaginated; da Silva 1997, p. 446, da that monitors each of the Brazilian
sparse shrubs and small trees to almost Silva 1995, p. 298). From 2002 to 2008, biomes. Although the annual rate of
closed woodland (Pinto et al. 2007, p. the demand for land conversion in the deforestation is generally decreasing,
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

14; da Silva 1997, p. 437; Ratter et al. Cerrado resulted in an annual satellite monitoring of the area indicates
1997, p. 223). In the Cerrado, hyacinths deforestation rate of more than 14,200 a slow and steady increase in deforested
now mostly nest in rock crevices, most km2 (5,483 mi2) (Ministério do Meio area (MMA 2015, p. 9) (Table 2).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85495

However, other trees, including in) DBH (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128). et al. 1997, p. 188; Guedes and Harper
potential nesting trees, are often Only 5 percent of the existing adult 1995, p. 405; Newton 1994, p. 265). This
removed (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119). manduvi trees (trees with a DBH greater reduction may lead to long-term effects
Even in areas where known nesting than 50 cm (20 in)) in south-central on the viability of the hyacinth macaw
trees were left and the surrounding area Pantanal (Guedes 1993 in Johnson et al. population, especially in Pará and the
was cleared, competition with each 1997, p. 186), and 10.7 percent in Pantanal where persistence of nesting
other and other macaw species became southern Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, trees is compromised (Santos Jr. et al.
so fierce that hyacinth macaws were p. 16), contain suitable cavities for 2007, p. 128; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p.
unable to reproduce; both eggs and hyacinth macaws. This finding indicates 181).
chicks were destroyed by pecking. that potential nesting sites are rare and Although a species may survive the
Furthermore, 3 years after deforestation, will become increasingly rare in the initial shock of deforestation, the
the nesting trees that were left were lost future (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128). resulting lack of food resources and
due to isolation and damage from breeding sites may reduce the viability
Impacts of Deforestation of the population and make the species
storms and wind.
Other activities associated with cattle Because the hyacinth is highly vulnerable to extinction (Sodhi et al.
ranching, such as the introduction of specialized in both diet and nesting 2009, p. 517). Given the land-use trends
exotic foraging grasses, grazing, burning, sites, it is particularly vulnerable to the across the range of the hyacinth macaw,
compaction, and fragmentation, can loss of these resources and extinction the continued availability of food and
negatively impact the nesting trees of (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo 2008, p. nesting resources is of great concern.
the hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2013, 795; Munn et al. 1998, pp. 404, 409; In response to the loss of its nesting
unpaginated; Guedes and Vicente 2012, Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). The loss of tree, hyacinths in the Gerais region now
pp. 149–150; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. tree species used by hyacinths use rock crevices for nesting. Hyacinths
128; Harris et al. 2006, p. 175; Snyder negatively impacts the species by have been reported in various trees
et al. 2000, p. 119). For example, fire is reducing availability of food resources, species and even on cliffs on the border
a common method for renewing creating a shortage of suitable nesting of the Pantanal; however, the majority of
pastures, controlling weeds, and sites, increasing competition, and their nests are in Brazil nut (in Pará) and
controlling pests (e.g., ticks); however, resulting in lowered recruitment and a manduvi (in the Pantanal) (see Essential
fires frequently become uncontrolled reduction in population size (Lee 2010, Needs of the Species). We do not know
and are known to enter the patches and pp. 2, 6, 12; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; if the hyacinths in this region will
corridors of manduvi trees during the Johnson et al. 1997, p. 188). respond in the same way to the loss of
dry season (Harris et al. 2005, p. 716; Its specialized diet makes hyacinth nesting trees as those in the Gerais
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). Although macaws vulnerable to changes in food region. It is possible that if these
fire can promote cavity formation in availability. Inadequate nutrition can primary nesting trees become scarcer,
manduvi trees, frequent fires can also contribute to poor health and reduced hyacinths may adapt to using cavities of
prevent trees from surviving to a size reproduction in parrots generally other trees (Van der Meer 2013, p. 3) or
capable of providing suitable cavities, (McDonald 2003 In Lee 2010, p. 6). perhaps even cliff faces. However, to
and can cause a high rate of nesting tree Changes in fruit availability are known accommodate their large size, hyacinth
loss (Guedes 1993 in Johnson et al. to decrease reproduction in hyacinths macaws require older trees with large
1997, p. 187). Guedes (Guedes and (Guedes 2009, pp. 42–43, 44). In Pará cavities. Deforestation in these regions
Vicente 2012, p. 157; 1995 in Santos Jr. and the Gerais region, where food would likely impact any alternative
et al. 2006, pp. 184–185) noted that 5 sources are threatened, persistence of nesting trees and food sources, resulting
percent of manduvi trees are lost each the species is a concern given that one in the same negative effect on the
year to deforestation, fire, and storms. of the major factors thought to have hyacinth macaw. Furthermore,
In addition to the direct removal of contributed to the critically endangered competition for limited nesting sites and
trees and the impact of fire on status of the Lear’s macaw food would continue.
recruitment of manduvi trees, cattle (Anodorhynchus leari) is the loss of its
Regulatory Protections
themselves have impacted the density of specialized food source, licuri palm
manduvi seedlings in the Pantanal. stands (Syagrus sp.), to cattle grazing In general, wildlife species and their
Cattle forage on and trample manduvi (Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). nests, shelters, and breeding grounds are
seedlings, affecting the recruitment of Hyacinths can tolerate a certain subject to Brazilian laws designed to
this species to a size large enough to degree of human disturbance at their provide protection (Clayton 2011, p. 4;
accommodate hyacinths (Pizo et al. breeding sites (Pinho and Noguiera Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119;
2008, p. 793; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187; 2003, p. 36); however, the number of Environmental Crimes Law (Law No.
Mettermeier et al. 1990, p. 107). Only usable cavities increases with the age of 9605/98); Stattersfield and Capper 1992,
those manduvi trees 60 years old or the trees in the forest (Newton 1994, p. p. 257; Official List of Brazilian
older are capable of providing these 266), and clearing land for agriculture Endangered Animal Species (Order No.
cavities (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos and cattle ranching, cattle trampling and 1.522/1989); Brazilian Constitution
Jr. et al. 2006, p. 185). The minimum foraging, and burning of forest habitat (Title VIII, Chapter VI, 1988); Law No.
diameter at breast height (DBH) for trees result in the loss of mature trees with 5197/1967; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated).
to potentially contain a cavity suitable natural cavities of sufficient size and a Additionally, the forests of Brazil are
for hyacinth macaws is 50 cm (20 in), reduction in recruitment of native specifically subject to several Brazilian
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

while all manduvi trees greater than 100 species, which could eventually provide laws designed to protect them.
cm (39 in) DBH contain suitable nest nesting cavities. Destruction and damaging of forest
cavities. However, there is low A shortage of nest sites can jeopardize reserves, cutting trees in forest reserves,
recruitment of manduvi trees in classes the persistence of the hyacinth macaw and causing fire in forests, among other
greater than 5 cm (2 in) DBH, a strong by constraining breeding density, actions, without authorization are
reduction in the occurrence of trees resulting in lower recruitment and a prohibited (Clayton 2011, p. 5;
greater than 50 cm (20 in) DBH, and gradual reduction in population size Environmental Crimes Law (Law No.
very few trees greater than 110 cm (43 (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Johnson 9605/98); UNEP, n.d., unpaginated).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

85496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Brazil’s Forest Code, passed in 1965, 2012, unpaginated; Greenpeace 2012, surplus that could be legally deforested
is a central component of the nation’s unpaginated). (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 364).
environmental legislation; it dictates the Environmentalists oppose the new Although the Forest Code reduces
minimum percentage and type of law due to the complexity of the rule, restoration requirements, it introduces
woodland that farmers, timber challenges in implementation, and a new mechanisms to address fire
companies, and others must leave intact lack of adequate protection of Brazil’s management, forest carbon, and
on their properties (Barrionuevo 2012, forests. The new Forest Code carries payments for ecosystem services, which
unpaginated; Boadle 2012, over conservation requirements for could reduce deforestation and result in
unpaginated). Since 2001, the Forest Legal Reserves and Riparian environmental benefits. The most
Code has required landowners to Preservation Areas. However, changes important mechanism may be the
conserve native vegetation on their rural in the definition of Hilltop Preservation Environmental Reserve Quota (ERQ).
properties. This requirement includes Areas reduced their total area by 87 The ERQ is a tradable legal title to areas
setting aside a Legal Reserve that percent. Additionally, due to more with intact or regenerating native
comprises 80 percent of the property if flexible protections and differentiation vegetation exceeding the Forest Code
it is located in the Amazon and 20 between conservation and restoration requirements. It provides the
percent in other biomes. The Forest requirements, Brazil’s environmental opportunity for landowners who, as of
Code also designated environmentally debt (areas of Legal Reserve and July 2008 did not meet the area-based
sensitive areas as Areas of Permanent Riparian Preservation Areas deforested conservation requirements of the law, to
Preservation (APPs) to conserve water illegally before 2008 that, under the instead ‘‘compensate’’ for their legal
resources and prevent soil erosion. previous Forest Code, would have reserve shortages by purchasing surplus
APPs include Riparian Preservation required restoration at the landowner’s compliance obligations from properties
Areas, to protect riverside forest buffers, expense) was reduced by 58 percent that would then maintain native
and Hilltop Preservation Areas to (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). The vegetation in excess of the minimum
protect hilltops, high elevations, and legal reserve debt was forgiven for legal reserve requirements. This
steep slopes (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. ‘‘small properties,’’ which ranged from mechanism could provide forested
363). 20 ha (49 ac) in southern Brazil to 440 lands with monetary value, creating a
For years this law was widely ignored ha (1,087 ac) in the Amazon; this trading market. The ERQ could
by landowners and not enforced by the provision has resulted in approximately potentially reduce 56 percent of the
90 percent of Brazilian rural properties Legal Reserve debt (Soares-Filho et al.
government, as evidenced by the high
qualifying for amnesty. 2014, p. 364).
deforestation rates (Leahy 2011,
Further reductions in the The new Forest Code requires
unpaginated; Pearce 2011, unpaginated; environmental debt resulted from: (1) landowners to take part in a Rural
Ratter et al. 1997, p. 228). However, as Reducing the Legal Reserve restoration Environmental Registry System, a
deforestation rates increased in the early requirement from 80 percent to 50 mapping and registration system for
2000s, Brazil began cracking down on percent in Amazonian municipalities rural properties that serves as a means
illegal deforesters and used satellite that are predominately occupied by for landowners to report their
imagery to track deforestation, resulting protected areas; (2) including Riparian compliance with the code in order to
in decreased deforestation rates (Soares- Preservation Areas in the calculation of remain eligible for state credit and other
Filho et al. 2014, p. 363; Barrionuevo the Legal Reserve area (total area they government support. On May 6, 2014,
2012, unpaginated; Boadle 2012, are required to preserve); and (3) the Ministry for the Environment
unpaginated; Darlington 2012, relaxing Riparian Preservation Area published a regulation formally
unpaginated). Efforts to strengthen restoration requirements on small implementing the Rural Environmental
enforcement of the Forest Code properties. These new provisions Registry and requiring all rural
increased pressure on the farming effectively reduced the total amount of properties be enrolled by May 2015.
sector, which resulted in a backlash land farmers are required to preserve However, on May 5, 2015, the deadline
against the Forest Code and industry’s and municipalities and landowners are was extended to May 4, 2016. According
proposal of a new Forest Code (Soares- required to restore. Reductions were to information provided by the Ministry
Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). uneven across states and biomes, with for the Environment, at that time
In 2011, reforms to Brazil’s Forest the Amazon and Cerrado biomes being 1,407,206 rural properties had been
Code were debated in the Brazilian two of the three biomes most affected registered since the New Code became
Senate. The reforms were favored by the and vulnerable to deforestation. effective. This number covers an area of
agricultural industry but were greatly Altogether, provisions of the new 196,767,410 hectares and represents
opposed by environmentalists. At that Forest Code have reduced the total area 52% of all rural areas in Brazil for
time, the expectation of the bill being to be restored from approximately 50 which registration is mandatory (Filho
passed resulted in a spike in million ha (123.5 million ac) to et al. 2015, unpaginated). This system
deforestation (Darlington 2012, approximately 21 million ha (51.8 could facilitate the market for ERQs and
unpaginated; Moukaddem 2011, million ac) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. payments for ecosystem services.
unpaginated; WWF–UK 2011a, 363; Boadle 2012, unpaginated). It is unclear whether the Brazilian
unpaginated). In 2012, a new Forest Furthermore, the old and new Forest Government will be able to effectively
Code was passed; although the new Codes allow legal deforestation of an enforce the new law (Barrionuevo 2012,
reforms were an attempt at a additional 88 million ha (217.4 million unpaginated; Boadle 2012, unpaginated;
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

compromise between farmers and ac) on private properties deemed to Greenpeace 2012, unpaginated). The
environmentalists, many claim the new constitute an ‘‘environmental surplus.’’ original code was largely ignored by
bill reduces the total amount of land ‘‘Environmental surplus’’ areas are those landowners and not enforced, leading to
required to be maintained as forest and that are not conserved by the Legal Brazil’s high rates of deforestation
will increase deforestation, especially in Reserve and Riparian Preservation Area (Boadle 2012, unpaginated). Although
the Cerrado (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. conservation requirements. The Cerrado Brazil’s deforestation rates declined
364; Boadle 2012, unpaginated; alone contains approximately 40 million between 2005 and 2010, 2011 marked
Darlington 2012, unpaginated; do Valle ha (98.8 million ac) of environmental the beginning of an increase in rates due

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85497

to the expectation of the new Forest It is questionable whether the new (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 16).
Code being passed. Another slight Forest Code will be effectively enforced. Additionally, drought increases the
increase occurred in 2013, then doubled Regardless of enforcement, given the vulnerability of seasonal forests of the
over 6 months (Schiffman 2015, provisions of the new Forest Code, some Amazon, such as those found in eastern
unpaginated). Corruption in the level of deforestation is highly likely to Amazonia, to wildfires during droughts
government, land fraud, and a sense of continue and will continue to (Laurance et al. 2001, p. 782).
exemption from penalties for compromise the status of the species. Previous work has indicated that,
infractions, have contributed to under increasing temperature and
Climate Change decreasing rainfall conditions, the
increases in illegal deforestation
(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). Changes in Brazil’s climate and rainforest of the Amazon could be
Additionally, amnesty afforded by the associated changes to the landscape may replaced with different vegetation. Some
new Forest Code has led to the result in additional habitat loss for the models have predicted a change from
perception that illegal deforesters are hyacinth macaw. Across Brazil, forests to savanna-type vegetation over
unlikely to be prosecuted or could be temperatures are projected to increase parts of, or perhaps the entire, Amazon
exonerated in future law reforms and precipitation to decrease (Carabine in the next several decades (Magrin et
(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated; Soares- and Lemma 2014, p. 11; Siqueira and al. 2014, p. 1523; Marengo et al. 2011,
Filho et al. 2014, p. 364). Enforcement Peterson 2003, p. 2). The latest pp. 11, 18, 29, 43; Magrin et al. 2007,
is often non-existent in Brazil as IBAMA Intergovernmental Panel on Climate pp. 583, 596). In the regions where the
is underfunded and understaffed. Only Change assessment estimates hyacinth macaw occurs, the climate
1 percent of the fines IBAMA imposed temperature changes in South America features a dry season, which prevents
on individuals and corporations for by 2100 to range from 1.7 to 6.7 °C (3.06 the growth of an extensive closed-
illegal deforestation is actually collected to 12.06 °F) under medium and high canopy tropical forest. Therefore, the
(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). In Para, emission scenarios and 1 to 1.5 °C (1.8 transition of the Amazon rainforests
one of two states where most of the to 2.7 °F) under a low emissions could provide additional suitable
clearing is occurring, 78 percent of scenario (Magrin et al. 2014, p. 1502; habitat for the hyacinth macaw.
logging between August 2011 and July Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 10). However, we do not know how the
2012 was illegal (Schiffman 2015, Projected changes in rainfall in South specific food and nesting resources the
unpaginated). Furthermore, while much America vary by region. Reductions are hyacinth macaw uses will be impacted
logging is being conducted illegally, estimated for northeast Brazil and the if there is an increase in the dry season.
there is concern that even if regulations Amazon (Magrin et al. 2014, p. 1502; Furthermore, there are uncertainties in
are strictly adhered to, the development Carabine and Lemma 2014, pp. 10, 11). this modeling, and the projections are
is not sustainable (Schiffman 2015, At a national level, climate change may not definitive outcomes. In fact, some
unpaginated). induce significant reductions in models indicate that conditions are
Additionally, State laws designed to forestland in all Brazilian regions (Féres likely to get wetter in Amazonia in the
protect the habitat of the hyacinth et al. 2009, pp. 12, 15). future (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 28–29).
macaw are in place. To protect the main Temperature increases in Brazil are These uncertainties make it challenging
breeding habitat of the hyacinth macaw, expected to be greatest over the Amazon to predict the likely effects of continued
Mato Grosso State Senate passed State rainforest, where Pará is located, with climate change on the hyacinth macaw.
Act 8.317 in 2005, which prohibits the models indicating a strong warming and Temperatures in the Cerrado, which
cutting of manduvi trees, but not others. drying of this region during the 21st covers the Gerais region, are also
Although this law protects nesting trees, Century, particularly after 2040 predicted to increase; the maximum
other trees around nesting trees are cut, (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, temperature in the hottest month may
exposing the manduvi tree to winds and 48; Féres et al. 2009, p. 2). Estimates of increase by 4 °C (7.2 °F) and by 2100
storms. Manduvi trees end up falling or temperature changes in Amazonia are may increase to approximately 40 °C
breaking, rendering them useless for the 2.2 °C (4 °F) under a low greenhouse gas (104 °F) (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1563).
hyacinths to nest in (Santos Jr. 2008, p. emission scenario and 4.5 °C (8 °F) Along with changes in temperature,
135; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 186). under a high-emission scenario by the other models have predicted a decrease
Although laws are in place to protect end of the 21st Century (2090–2099) in tree diversity and range sizes for
the forests of Brazil, lack of supervision (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). Several birds in the Cerrado.
and lack of resources prevent these laws models simulating varying amounts of Projections based on a 30-year average
from being properly implemented global warming indicate Amazonia is at (2040–2069) indicate serious effects to
(Guedes 2012, p. 3). Ongoing a high risk of forest loss and more Cerrado tree diversity in coming
deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado, frequent wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. decades (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1559;
and Pantanal are evidence that existing 596). Some leading global circulation Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p. 4). In a
laws are not being adequately enforced. models suggest extreme weather events, study of 162 broad-range tree species,
Without greater enforcement of laws, such as droughts, will increase in the potential distributional area of most
deforestation will continue to impact frequency or severity due to global trees was projected to decline by more
the hyacinth macaw and its food and warming. As a result, droughts in than 50 percent. Using two climate
nesting resources. Amazonian forests could become more change scenarios, 18–56 species were
Habitat loss for the hyacinth macaw severe in the future (Marengo et al. predicted to go extinct in the Cerrado,
continues despite regulatory 2011, p. 48; Laurance et al. 2001, p. while 91–123 species were predicted to
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

mechanisms intended to protect Brazil’s 782). For example, the 2005 drought in decline by more than 90 percent in the
forests. As described above, the Amazonia was a 1-in-20-year event; potential distributional area (Siqueira
hyacinth’s food and nesting trees are however, those conditions may become and Peterson 2003, p. 4).
removed for agriculture and cattle a 1-in-2-year event by 2025 and a 9-in- Of the potential impacts of predicted
ranching and fire is used to clear land 10-year event by 2060 (Marengo et al. climate-driven changes on bird
and maintain pastures. The original 2011, p. 28). Impacts of deforestation are distribution, extreme temperatures
Forest Code was not properly enforced greater under drought conditions as fires seemed to be the most important factor
and, thus was not adequately protective. set for forest clearances burn larger areas limiting distribution, revealing their

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

85498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

physiological tolerances (Marini et al. Hunting This species’ vulnerability to extinction
2009, p. 1563). In a study on changes in In Pará and the Gerais region, hunting is further heightened by deforestation
range sizes for 26 broad-range birds in removes individual hyacinth macaws that negatively affects the availability of
the Cerrado, range sizes are expected to vital to the already small populations essential food and nesting resources. In
decrease over time, and significantly so (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Collar et addition to direct impacts on food and
as soon as 2030 (Marini et al. 2009, p. al. 1992, p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. nesting resources and hyacinth macaws
1564). Changes ranged from a 5 percent 414). Hyacinths in Pará are hunted for themselves, several other factors affect
increase to an 80 percent decrease under subsistence and the feather trade by the reproductive success of the
two dispersal scenarios for 2011–2030, hyacinth. In the Pantanal, competition,
some Indian groups (Brouwer 2004,
2046–2065, and 2080–2099 (Marini et predation, disease, destruction or
unpaginated; Munn et al. 1989, p. 414).
al. 2009, p. 1561). The largest potential flooding of nests, and climatic
Because the hyacinth is the largest
conditions and variations are major
loss in range size is predicted to occur species of macaw, it may be targeted by
factors affecting reproductive success of
among grassland and forest-dependent subsistence hunters, especially by
the hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2009, pp.
species in all timeframes (Marini et al. settlers along roadways (Collar et al.
5, 8, 42; Guedes 2004b, p. 7).
2009, p. 1564). These species will likely 1992, p. 257). Additionally, increased In the Pantanal, competition for
have the most dire future conservation commercial sale of feather art by Kayapo nesting sites is intense. The hyacinth
scenarios because these habitat types are Indians of Gorotire may be of concern nests almost exclusively in manduvi
the least common (Marini et al. 2009, p. given that 10 hyacinths are required to trees; however, there are 17 other bird
1559). Although this study focused on make a single headdress (Collar et al. species, small mammals, and honey
broad-range bird species, geographically 1992, p. 257). The Gerais region is poor bees (Apis melifera) that also use
restricted birds, such as hyacinth and animal protein is not as abundant manduvi cavities (Guedes and Vicente
macaw, are predicted to become rarer as in other regions; therefore, meat of 2012, pp. 148, 157; Guedes 2009, p. 60;
(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1564). any kind, including the large hyacinth Pizo et al 2008, p. 792; Pinho and
macaw, is sought as a protein source Nogueira 2003, p. 36). Bees are even
Whether species will or will not adapt (Collar et al. 1992, p. 257; Munn et al.
to new conditions is difficult to predict; known to occupy artificial nests that
1989, p. 414). could be used by hyacinth macaws
synergistic effects of climate change and Because the hyacinth macaw
habitat fragmentation, or other factors, (Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 33; Snyder
populations in Pará and the Gerais et al. 2000, p. 120). Manduvi is a key
such as biotic interactions, may hasten region are estimated at only 1,000–1,500 species for the hyacinth, and, as
the need for conservation even more individuals, combined, the removal of discussed above, these cavities are
(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1565). Although any individuals from these small already limited and there is evidence of
there are uncertainties in the climate populations has a negative effect on decreased recruitment of this species of
change modeling discussed above, the reproduction and the ability of the tree (Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 181).
overall trajectory is one of increased species to recover. Any continued Competition for nesting cavities is
warming under all scenarios. Species, hunting for either meat or the sale of exacerbated because manduvi trees
like the hyacinth macaw, whose habitat feather art is likely to contribute to the must be at least 60 years old, and on
is limited, population is reduced, are decline of the hyacinth macaw in these average 80 years old, to produce cavities
large in physical size, and are highly regions, particularly when habitat large enough to be used by the hyacinth
specialized, are more vulnerable to conversion is also taking place. macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 59–60; Pizo et
climatic variations and at a greater risk Hunting, capture, and trade of animal al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et al. 2006,
of extinction (Guedes 2009, p. 44). species is prohibited without p. 185). Given that there is currently a
We do not know how the habitat of authorization throughout the range of limited number of manduvi trees in the
the hyacinth macaw may change under the hyacinth macaw (Clayton 2011, p. 4; Pantanal of adequate size capable of
these conditions, but we can assume Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119; accommodating the hyacinth macaw,
Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. evidence of reduced recruitment of
some change will occur. The hyacinth
9605/98); Stattersfield and Capper 1992, these sized manduvi, and numerous
macaw is experiencing habitat loss due
p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 415; Official species that also use this tree,
to widespread expansion of agriculture
List of Brazilian Endangered Animal competition will certainly increase as
and cattle ranching. Climate change has
Species (Order No. 1.522/1989); the number of manduvi decreases,
the potential to further decrease the
Brazilian Constitution (Title VIII, further affecting reproduction by
specialized habitat needed by the Chapter VI, 1988); Law No. 5197/1967; limiting tree cavities available to the
hyacinth macaw; the ability of the UNEP, n.d., unpaginated). However, hyacinth macaw for nesting (Guedes
hyacinth macaw to cope with landscape continued hunting in some parts of its 2009, p. 60). Furthermore, a shortage of
changes due to climate change is range is evidence that existing laws are suitable nesting sites could lead to
questionable given the specialized not being adequately enforced. Without increased competition resulting in an
needs of the species. Furthermore, one greater enforcement of laws, hunting increase in infanticide and egg
of the factors that affected reproductive will continue to impact the hyacinth destruction by other hyacinths and
rates of hyacinths in the Pantanal was macaw. other macaw species (Lee 2010, p. 2).
variations in temperature and rainfall Black vultures (Coragyps atratus),
(Guedes 2009, p. 42). Hotter, drier years, Low Reproductive Rates
collared forest falcons (Micrastur
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

as predicted under different climate As described above, the specialized semitorquatus), and red-and-green
change scenarios, could result in greater nature and reproductive biology of the macaws (Ara chloropterus) break
impacts to hyacinth reproduction due to hyacinth macaw contribute to low hyacinth macaw eggs when seeking
impacts on the fruit and foraging for the recruitment of juveniles and decrease nesting cavities (Guedes 2009, p. 75).
hyacinth macaw and competition with the ability to recover from reductions in A 10-year study conducted in the
other bird and mammal species for population size caused by Miranda region of the Pantanal
limited resources (See Other Factors anthropogenic disturbances (Faria et al. concluded that the majority of hyacinth
Affecting Reproductive Rates). 2008, p. 766; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). macaw nests (63 percent) failed, either

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85499

partially or totally, during the egg phase. as a source of food. Competition with nongovernmental organizations,
Predation accounted for 52 percent of other bird and mammal species may academic institutions, and private
lost eggs (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 74). Of also increase during these years. Acuri sectors (Rylands and Brandon 2005, p.
582 eggs monitored over 6 years in the are available year round, even during 616).
Nhecolândia region of the Pantanal, times of fruit scarcity, making it a The states where the hyacinth macaw
approximately 24 percent (138 eggs) resource many other species also occurs contain 53 protected areas
were lost to predators (Pizo et al. 2008, depend on during unfavorable periods (Parks.it nd, unpaginated); however, the
pp. 794, 795). Researchers have (Guedes 2009, p. 44). Additionally, the species occurs in only 3 of those areas
identified several predators of hyacinth El Niño event during the 1997–98 (BLI 2014b, unpaginated; Collar et al.
eggs, including toco toucans breeding season caused hotter, wetter 1992, p. 257). The Amazon contains a
(Ramphastos toco), purplish jays conditions favoring breeding, but balance of strictly prohibited protected
(Cyanocorax cyanomelas), white-eared survival of the chicks was reduced. In areas (49 percent of protected areas) and
opossums (Didelphis albiventris), and 1999, a longer breeding period was sustainable use areas (51 percent)
coatis (Nasua nasua) (Guedes 2009, pp. observed following drier, colder (Rylands and Brandon 2005, p. 616). We
5, 23, 46, 58, 74–75; Pizo et al. 2008, p. conditions caused by the La Niña that found no information on the occurrence
795). The toco toucan was the main same year; however, 54 percent of the of the hyacinth macaw in any protected
predator, responsible for 12.4 percent of eggs were lost that year (Guedes 2009, areas in Pará. The Cerrado biome is one
the total eggs lost and 53.5 percent of p. 43). of the most threatened biomes and is
the eggs lost annually in the underrepresented among Brazilian
Conservation Measures protected areas; only 2.25 percent of the
Nhecolândia region (Pizo et al. 2008,
pp. 794, 795). Most predators leave The main biodiversity protection original extent of the Cerrado is
some sort of evidence behind; however, strategy in Brazil is the creation of protected (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1559;
toco toucans are able to swallow Protected Areas (National Protected Klink and Machado 2005, p. 709;
hyacinth macaw eggs whole, leaving no Areas System) (Federal Act 9.985/00) Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p. 11).
evidence behind. This ability may lead (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 134). Various Within the Cerrado, the hyacinth macaw
to an underestimate of nest predation by regulatory mechanisms (Law No. is found within the Araguaia National
toucans (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793). 11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, Park in Goiás and the Parnaı́ba River
The remaining eggs that were Order No. 1, and Act No. 6.938) in Headwaters National Park (BLI 2014b;
considered lost during the 10-year study Brazil direct Federal and State agencies Ridgely 1981, p. 238). In 2000, the
of the Miranda region did not hatch due to promote the protection of lands and Pantanal was designated as a Biosphere
to infertility, complications during govern the formal establishment and Reserve by UNESCO (Santos Jr. 2008, p.
embryo development, inexperience of management of protected areas to 134). Only 4.5 percent of the Pantanal
young couples that accidentally smash promote conservation of the country’s is categorized as protected areas (Harris
their own eggs while entering and natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5– et al. 2006, pp. 166–167), including
exiting the nest, breaking by other bird 7). These mechanisms generally aim to strictly protected areas and indigenous
and mammal species wanting to occupy protect endangered wildlife and plant areas (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 709).
the nesting cavity, and broken trees and species, genetic resources, overall Within these, the hyacinth macaw
flooding of nests (Guedes 2009, p. 75). biodiversity, and native ecosystems on occurs only within the Pantanal
Guedes (2009, pp. 66, 79) also found Federal, State, and privately owned National Park (Collar et al 1992; Ridgely
in the 10-year study of the Miranda lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 1981, p. 238). The distribution of
region that, of the nests that successfully 11.132, Resolution No. 4, and Decree Federal and State protected areas are
produced chicks, 49 percent No. 1.922). Brazil’s Protected Areas uneven across biomes, yet all biomes
experienced a total or partial loss of were established in 2000 and may be need substantially more area to be
chicks. Of these, 62 percent were lost categorized as ‘‘strictly protected’’ or protected to meet the recommendations
due to starvation, low temperature, ‘‘sustainable use’’ based on their overall established in priority-setting
disease or infestation by ectoparasites, management objectives. Strictly workshops. These workshops identified
flooding of nests, and breaking of protected areas include national parks, 900 areas for conservation of
branches. Thirty-eight percent were lost biological reserves, ecological stations, biodiversity and all biomes, including
due to predation of chicks by natural monuments, and wildlife the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal
carnivorous ants (Solenopis spp.), other refuges protected for educational and (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 615–
insects, collared forest falcon, and recreational purposes and scientific 616).
spectacled owl (Pulsatrix perspicillata). research. Protected areas of sustainable Many challenges limit the
The toco toucan and great horned owl use (national forests, environmental effectiveness of the protected areas
(Bubo virginianus) are also suspected of protection areas, areas of relevant system. Brazil is faced with competing
chick predation, but this has not yet ecological interest, extractive reserves, priorities of encouraging development
been confirmed (Guedes 2009, pp. 6, fauna reserves, sustainable development for economic growth and resource
79–81; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795). reserves, and private natural heritage protection. In the past, the Brazilian
Variations in temperature and rainfall reserves) allow for different types and Government, through various
were also found to be factors affecting levels of human use with conservation regulations, policies, incentives, and
reproduction of the hyacinth in the of biodiversity as a secondary objective. subsidies, has actively encouraged
Pantanal (Guedes 2009, p. 42). Years As of 2005, Federal and State settlement of previously undeveloped
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

with higher temperatures and lower governments strictly protected 478 areas lands, which facilitated the large-scale
rainfall can affect the production of totaling 37,019,697 ha (14,981,340 ac) in habitat conversions for agriculture and
fruits and foraging and, therefore, lead Brazil (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. cattle-ranching that occurred throughout
to a decrease in reproduction of 615–616). Other types of areas the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal
hyacinths the following year (Guedes contribute to the Brazilian Protected biomes (WWF–UK 2011b, p. 2; WWF
2009, pp. 42–43, 44). This outcome is Areas System, including indigenous 2001, unpaginated; Arima and Uhl,
especially problematic for a species that reserves and areas managed and owned 1997, p. 446; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227–
relies on only two species of palm nuts by municipal governments, 228). However, the risk of intense wild

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85501

survival, chick mortality, behavior, survive and are added to the population. circumstances, which generally
nests, predation, movement, and threats Additionally, hyacinth macaws have precludes commercial trade. The import
contributing to the reduction in the wild expanded to areas where it previously of an Appendix-I species generally
population (Guedes 2009, p. xiii; disappeared, as well as new areas requires the issuance of both an import
Guedes 2004a, p. 281). Because there are (Guedes 2012, p. 1; Guedes 2009, pp. 4– and export permit. Import permits for
not enough natural nesting sites in this 5, 8, 35–36, 39, 82). Appendix-I species are issued only if
region, the Hyacinth Macaw Project Nest boxes can have a marked effect findings are made that the import would
began installing artificial nest boxes; on breeding numbers of many species be for purposes that are not detrimental
more than 180 have been installed. on a local scale (Newton 1994, p. 274), to the survival of the species and that
Hyacinths have adapted to using the and having local cattle ranchers the specimen will not be used for
artificial nests, leading to more appreciate the presence of the hyacinth primarily commercial purposes (CITES
reproducing couples and successful macaw on their land helps diminish the Article III(3)). Export permits for
fledging of chicks. Species that would effects of habitat destruction and illegal Appendix-I species are issued only if
otherwise compete with hyacinth trade. However, the Hyacinth Macaw findings are made that the specimen
macaws for nesting sites have also Project area does not encompass the was legally acquired and trade is not
benefitted from the artificial nests as a entire Pantanal region. Although active detrimental to the survival of the
result of reduced competition for management has contributed to the species, and if the issuing authority is
natural nesting sites. Hyacinths reuse increase in the hyacinth population, and satisfied that an import permit has been
the same nest for many years; eventually farmers have begun to protect hyacinth granted for the specimen (CITES Article
the nests start to decay or become macaws on their property, land III(2)).
unviable. The Hyacinth Macaw Project conversion for cattle ranching continues The import of hyacinth macaws into
also repairs these nests (natural and to occur in the Pantanal. The the United States is also regulated by
artificial) so they are not lost. In areas recruitment of the manduvi tree has the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA)
where suitable cavities are scarce, the been severely reduced, and is expected (16 U.S.C. 4901 et seq.), which was
loss of even one nest could have to become increasingly rare in the enacted on October 23, 1992. The
substantial impacts on the population. future, due to ongoing damage caused purpose of the WBCA is to promote the
Additionally, wood boards are used to by cattle grazing and trampling of conservation of exotic birds by ensuring
make cavity openings too small for manduvi saplings, as well as the that all imports of exotic birds to the
predators, while still allowing hyacinths burning of pastures for maintenance. If United States are biologically
to enter (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; this activity continues, the hyacinth’s sustainable and not detrimental to the
Guedes 2004a, p. 281; Guedes 2004b, p. preferred natural cavities will be species in the wild. The WBCA
8). severely limited and the species will generally restricts the importation of
In nests with a history of unsuccessful completely rely on the installation of most CITES-listed live or dead exotic
breeding, the Hyacinth Macaw Project artificial nest boxes, which is currently birds. Import of dead specimens is
has also implemented chick limited to the Hyacinth Macaw Project allowed for scientific purposes and
management, with the approval of the area. Furthermore, survival of hyacinth museum specimens. Permits may be
Committee for Hyacinth Macaw eggs and chicks are being impacted by issued to allow import of listed birds for
Conservation coordinated by IBAMA. predation, competition, climate various purposes, such as scientific
Hyacinth macaw eggs are replaced with variations, and other natural factors. research, zoological breeding or display,
chicken eggs, and the hyacinth eggs are Even with the assistance of the Hyacinth or personal pets, when certain criteria
incubated in a field laboratory. After Macaw Project, only 35 percent of eggs are met. The Service may approve
hatching, chicks are fed for a few days, survive to the juvenile stage. cooperative breeding programs and
and then reintroduced to the original subsequently issue import permits
Pet Trade
nest or to another nest with a chick of under such programs. Wild-caught birds
the same age. This process began to The hyacinth macaw is protected may be imported into the United States
increase the number of chicks that under the Convention on International if certain standards are met and they are
survived and fledged each year Trade in Endangered Species of Wild subject to a management plan that
(Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Guedes Fauna and Flora (CITES), an provides for sustainable use. At this
2004a, p. 281; Guedes 2004b, p. 9). international agreement between time, the hyacinth macaw is not part of
Awareness has also been raised with governments to ensure that the a Service-approved cooperative
local cattle ranchers. Attitudes have international trade of CITES-listed plant breeding program, and has not been
begun to shift, and ranchers are proud and animal species does not threaten approved for importation of wild-caught
of having macaw nests on the property. species’ survival in the wild. Under this birds.
Local inhabitants also served as project treaty, CITES Parties (member countries In the 1970s and 1980s, substantial
collaborators (Guedes 2004a, p. 282; or signatories) regulate the import, trade in hyacinth macaws was reported,
Guedes 2004b, p. 10). This shift in export, and re-export of specimens, but actual trade was likely significantly
attitude has also diminished the threat parts, and products of CITES-listed greater given the amount of smuggling,
of illegal trade in the Hyacinth Macaw plant and animal species. Trade must be routing of birds through countries not
Project area (Brouwer 2004, authorized through a system of permits parties to CITES, and internal
unpaginated). and certificates that are provided by the consumption in South America (Collar
The Hyacinth Macaw Project has designated CITES Management et al. 1992, p. 256; Munn et al. 1989, pp.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

contributed to the increase of the Authority of each CITES Party. Brazil, 412–413). Trade in parrots in the 1980s
hyacinth population in the Pantanal Bolivia, and Paraguay are Parties to was particularly high due to a huge
since the 1990s (Harris et al. 2005, p. CITES. demand from developed countries,
719). Nest and chick management The hyacinth macaw is currently including the United States, which was
implemented by the Hyacinth Macaw listed in Appendix I of CITES. An the main consumer of parrot species at
Project has led to an increase in the Appendix-I listing includes species that time (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94;
Pantanal population; for every 100 threatened with extinction whose trade Best et al. 1995, p. 234). In the late
couples that reproduce, 4 juveniles is permitted only under exceptional 1980s and early 1990s, reports of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

85502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

hyacinth trapping included one trapper We found little additional information available in our files, and other
who worked an area for 3 years on illegal trade of this species in available published and unpublished
removing 200–300 wild hyacinths a international markets. One study found information.
month during certain seasons and that illegal pet trade in Bolivia In considering what factors may
another trapper who caught 1,000 continues to involve CITES-listed constitute threats, we must look beyond
hyacinths in 1 year and knew of other species; the authors speculated that the mere exposure of the species to the
teams operating at similar levels (Silva similar problems exist in Peru and factor to determine whether the species
(1989a) and Smith (1991c) in Collar et Brazil (Herrera and Hennessey 2007, p. responds to the factor in a way that
al. 1992, p. 256). More than 10,000 298). In that same study, 11 hyacinths causes actual impacts to the species. If
hyacinths are estimated to have been were found for sale in a Santa Cruz there is exposure to the factor, but no
taken from the wild in the 1980s (Smith market from 2004 to 2007 (10 in 2004 response, or only a positive response,
1991c, in Collar et al. 1992, p. 256; and 1 in 2006) (Herrera and Hennessey that factor is not a threat. If there is
Munn et al. 1987, in Guedes 2009, p. 2009, pp. 233–234). Larger species, like exposure and the species responds
12). In the years following the the hyacinth, were frequently sold for negatively, the factor may be a threat
enactment of the WBCA, studies found transport outside of the country, mostly and we then attempt to determine if it
lower poaching levels than in prior to Peru, Chile, and Brazil (Herrera and may drive or contribute to the risk of
years, suggesting that import bans in Hennessey 2009, pp. 233–234). During a extinction of the species such that the
developed countries reduced poaching study conducted from 2007 to 2008, no species warrants listing as an
levels in exporting countries (Wright et hyacinths were recorded in 20 surveyed endangered or threatened species as
al. 2001, pp. 715, 718). Peruvian wildlife markets (Gastañaga et those terms are defined by the Act.
Based on CITES trade data obtained al. 2010, pp. 2, 9–10). We found no Hyacinth macaws have a naturally
from United Nations Environment other data on the presence of hyacinths low reproductive rate. Not all hyacinth
Programme—World Conservation in illegal trade. chicks fledge young and, due to the long
Monitoring Center (UNEP–WCMC) Although illegal trapping for the pet period of chick dependence, hyacinths
CITES Trade Database, from the time the trade occurred at high levels during the breed only every 2 years. In the Pantanal
hyacinth macaw was uplisted to CITES 1980s, trade has decreased significantly population, the largest population of
Appendix I in October 1987 through from those levels. International trade of hyacinth macaws, only 15–30 percent of
2011, and taking into account that parrots was significantly reduced during adults attempt to breed each year; it may
several records appear to be overcounts the 1990s as a result of tighter be that as small or an even smaller
due to slight differences in the manner enforcement of CITES regulations, percentage in Pará and Gerais attempt to
in which the importing and exporting stricter measures under EU legislation, breed. Additionally, feeding and habitat
countries reported their trade, and adoption of the WBCA, along with specializations are good predictors of a
international trade involved 2,030 adoption of national legislation in bird species’ risk of extinction; because
specimens, including 1,804 live birds. various countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. the hyacinth macaw has specialized
Of the 2,030 specimens, 106 (4.6 99). We found no information indicating food and nest site needs, it is at higher
percent) were exported from Bolivia, trade is currently impacting the risk of extinction from the
Brazil, or Paraguay (the range countries hyacinth macaw. It is possible, given the anthropogenic stressors described
of the species). With the information high price of hyacinth macaws, that above.
given in the UNEP–WCMC database, illegal domestic trade is occurring; Across its range, the hyacinth macaw
from 1987 through 2011, only 24 of the however, we have no information to is losing habitat, including those
1,804 live hyacinth macaws reported in suggest that illegal trapping for the pet essential food and nesting resources, to
trade were reported as wild-sourced, trade is currently occurring at levels that expanding agriculture and cattle
1,671 were reported as captive bred or are affecting the populations of the ranching. Pará has long been the
captive born, 35 were reported as pre- hyacinth macaw in its three regions. epicenter of illegal deforestation
Convention, and 74 were reported with primarily caused by cattle-ranching.
Finding Large-scale forest conversion for
the source as unknown.
Since our 2012 proposed rule Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) colonization and cattle ranching has
published, CITES trade data from the and the implementing regulations in accelerated due to state subsidies,
UNEP–WCMC CITES Trade Database for part 424 of title 50 of the Code of infrastructure development, favorable
the years 2012 through 2014 has become Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) climate in Pará, lower prices for land,
available. From 2012 through 2014 (the set forth procedures for adding species and expansion of soy cultivation in
most recent year for which data is to, removing species from, or other areas that has led to displacement
available from the WCMC–UNEP reclassifying species on the Federal of pastures into parts of Pará. Although
database), a total of 250 hyacinth macaw Lists of Endangered and Threatened deforestation rates decreased between
specimens, including 193 live birds, is Wildlife and Plants. As required by the 2009 and 2012, Amazon deforestation
reported in international trade in the Act, we conducted a review of the status increased between 2012 and 2013 with
WCMC–UNEP database. Except for five of the species and considered the five the greatest increase occurring in Pará.
scientific samples imported by factors in assessing whether the In the Gerais region, more than 50
Switzerland in 2012, none of the other hyacinth macaw is in danger of percent of the original Cerrado
specimens were reported as being wild extinction throughout all or a significant vegetation has been lost due to
caught; all were either recorded as portion of its range (endangered) or conversion to agriculture and pasture.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

captive bred or captive born. Twenty likely to become endangered within the Although annual deforestation rates
live wild-caught hyacinth macaws are foreseeable future throughout all or a have decreased, there is a slow and
recorded as having been imported by significant portion of its range steady increase in the amount of
Turkey from Cameroon in 2012; at the (threatened). We examined the best deforested area. Remaining Cerrado
time of writing, we are still waiting for scientific and commercial information vegetation continues to be lost to
information from Turkey as to whether available regarding factors affecting the conversion for soy plantations and
this data is accurate, and if so, whether status of the hyacinth macaw. We extensive cattle ranching. Projections for
this was lawful or unlawful trade. reviewed the petition, information coming decades show the largest

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

85504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

E), and effects of climate change (Factor land-use trends, lack of enforcement of portion of its range, the entire species is
E). Furthermore, despite laws to protect laws, and predicted landscape changes listed as endangered or threatened,
the hyacinth macaw and the forests it under climate change scenarios, the respectively, and the Act’s protections
depends on, deforestation and hunting persistence of essential food and nesting apply to all individuals of the species
continue (Factor D). resources and, therefore the hyacinth wherever found; (2) a portion of the
In total, there are approximately 6,500 macaw, is of concern. range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if the
hyacinth macaws left in the wild, Threats to the hyacinth macaw and species is not currently endangered or
dispersed among 3 populations. Two of remaining habitat, and declines in the threatened throughout all of its range,
the populations, Pará and Gerais, population are expected to continue but the portion’s contribution to the
contain just 1,000–1,500 individuals, throughout its range in the foreseeable viability of the species is so important
combined. The current overall future. What habitat remains is at risk of that, without the members in that
population trend for the hyacinth being lost due to ongoing deforestation. portion, the species would be in danger
macaw is reported as decreasing, Pará is one of the states where most of of extinction, or likely to become so in
although there are no reports of extreme Brazil’s agriculture expansion is taking the foreseeable future, throughout all of
fluctuations in the number of place. Modeled future deforestation is its range; (3) the range of a species is
individuals. The hyacinth population concentrated in this area. The Cerrado is considered to be the general
has grown in the Pantanal; however, the the most desirable biome for geographical area within which that
growth is not sufficient to counter the agribusiness expansion and contains species can be found at the time the
continued and predicted future approximately 40 million ha (98.8 Service or the National Marine Fisheries
anthropogenic disturbances on the million ac) of ‘‘environmental surplus’’ Service makes any particular status
hyacinth macaw. Because the hyacinth that could be legally deforested, determination; and (4) if a vertebrate
macaw has specialized food and nest therefore, this region will likely species is endangered or threatened
site needs, it is at higher risk of continue to suffer deforestation. Ninety- throughout an SPR, and the population
extinction from anthropogenic stressors five percent of the Pantanal is privately in that significant portion is a valid
described above. Additionally, the owned, 80 percent of which is used for DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the
hyacinth macaw has relatively low cattle ranches. Clearing land to establish entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
recruitment of juveniles, which pasture is perceived as the economically We found the hyacinth macaw likely
decreases the ability of a population to optimal land use while land not to become endangered within the
recover from reductions caused by producing beef is often perceived as foreseeable future throughout its range.
anthropogenic disturbances. Hyacinths unproductive. Furthermore, potential Therefore, no portions of the species’
may not have a high enough nesting sites are rare and will become range are ‘‘significant’’ as defined in our
reproduction rate and may not survive increasingly rare in the future. SPR policy, and no additional SPR
in areas where nest sites and food Continued loss of remaining habitat may analysis is required.
sources are destroyed. lead to long-term effects on the viability
In our 2012 proposed rule, we found Available Conservation Measures
of the hyacinth macaw, as hyacinth
that the hyacinth macaw was in danger macaws may not have a high enough Conservation measures provided to
of extinction (an endangered species) reproductive rate to survive where nest species listed as endangered or
based on estimates indicating the sites are destroyed. Additionally, any threatened under the Act include
original vegetation of the Amazon, factors that contribute to the loss of eggs recognition, requirements for Federal
Cerrado, and Pantanal, including the and chicks ultimately reduce protection, and prohibitions against
hyacinth’s habitat, would be lost reproduction and recruitment of certain practices. Recognition through
between the years 2030 and 2050 due to juveniles into the population and the listing results in public awareness, and
deforestation, combined with its ability of those populations to recover. encourages and results in conservation
naturally low reproductive rate, highly Therefore, long-term survival of this actions by Federal and State
specialized nature, hunting, species is a concern. On the basis of the governments, private agencies and
competition, and effects of climate best scientific and commercial interest groups, and individuals.
change. Deforestation rates in Pará information, we find that the hyacinth The Act and its implementing
decreased between 2013 and 2014 by 20 macaw meets the definition of a regulations set forth a series of general
percent, and rates remained stable in ‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act, and prohibitions and exceptions that apply
2015. More recent estimates of we are listing the hyacinth macaw as to all endangered and threatened
deforestation indicate annual threatened throughout its range. wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR
deforestation rates in the Cerrado and 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal
Pantanal have decreased by Significant Portion of Its Range for any person subject to the jurisdiction
approximately 40 and 37 percent, Under the Act and our implementing of the United States to ‘‘take’’ (includes
respectively. If these rates are regulations, a species may warrant harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
maintained or are further reduced, the listing if it is endangered or threatened wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt
loss of all native habitat from these throughout all or a significant portion of any of these) within the United States or
areas, including the species of trees its range. The term ‘‘species’’ includes upon the high seas; import or export;
needed by the hyacinth for food and ‘‘any subspecies of fish or wildlife or deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship
nesting, and the hyacinth’s risk of plants, and any distinct population in interstate or foreign commerce in the
extinction is not as imminent as segment [DPS] of any species of course of commercial activity; or sell or
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

predicted. Therefore, we do not find vertebrate fish or wildlife which offer for sale in interstate or foreign
that the hyacinth macaw is currently in interbreeds when mature.’’ We commerce any endangered wildlife
danger of extinction. However, the published a final policy interpreting the species. It also is illegal to possess, sell,
hyacinth macaw remains a species phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of its deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
particularly vulnerable to extinction due Range’’ (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1, such wildlife that has been taken in
to the interaction between continued 2014). The final policy states that (1) if violation of the Act. Certain exceptions
habitat loss and its highly specialized a species is found to be endangered or apply to agents of the Service and State
needs for food and nest trees. Given threatened throughout a significant conservation agencies.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85505

Permits may be issued to carry out species. In such cases, the Service issues the source of their breeding stock,
otherwise prohibited activities a 4(d) rule that may include some or all would document the captive-bred status
involving endangered and threatened of the prohibitions and authorizations of U.S. birds.
wildlife species under certain set out in 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, but The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to
circumstances. Regulations governing which also may be more or less birds captive-bred in the United States
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for restrictive than the general provisions at and abroad. The terms ‘‘captive-bred’’
endangered species. With regard to 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. For the and ‘‘captivity’’ used in the proposed
endangered wildlife, a permit may be hyacinth macaw, the Service is using 4(d) rule are defined in the regulations
issued for the following purposes: For our discretion to propose a 4(d) rule. at 50 CFR 17.3 and refer to wildlife
scientific purposes, to enhance the If the proposed 4(d) rule is adopted, produced in a controlled environment
propagation or survival of the species, we will incorporate all prohibitions and that is intensively manipulated by man
and for incidental take in connection provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, from parents that mated or otherwise
with otherwise lawful activities. except that import and export of certain transferred gametes in captivity.
hyacinth macaws into and from the Although the proposed 4(d) rule
Proposed 4(d) Rule United States and certain acts in requires a permit under the Act to
The purposes of the Act are to provide interstate commerce will be allowed ‘‘take’’ (including harm and harass) a
a means whereby the ecosystems upon without a permit under the Act, as hyacinth macaw, ‘‘take’’ does not
which endangered species and explained below. include generally accepted animal
threatened species depend may be husbandry practices, breeding
conserved, to provide a program for the Import and Export
procedures, or provisions of veterinary
conservation of such endangered The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to care for confining, tranquilizing, or
species and threatened species, and to all commercial and noncommercial anesthetizing, when such practices,
take such steps as may be appropriate to international shipments of live and dead procedures, or provisions are not likely
achieve the purposes of the treaties and hyacinth macaws and parts and to result in injury to the wildlife when
conventions set forth in the Act (16 products, including the import and applied to captive wildlife.
U.S.C. 1531(b)). When a species is listed export of personal pets and research We assessed the conservation needs of
as endangered, certain actions are samples. In most instances, the the hyacinth macaw in light of the broad
prohibited under section 9 of the Act proposed 4(d) rule will adopt the protections provided to the species
and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. existing conservation regulatory under CITES and the WBCA. The
These include, among others, requirements of CITES and the WBCA hyacinth macaw is listed in Appendix I
prohibitions on take within the United as the appropriate regulatory provisions under CITES, a treaty which contributes
States, within the territorial seas of the for the import and export of certain to the conservation of the species by
United States, or upon the high seas; hyacinth macaws. The import and monitoring international trade and
import; export; and shipment in export of birds into and from the United ensuring that trade in Appendix I
interstate or foreign commerce in the States, taken from the wild after the date species is not detrimental to the survival
course of a commercial activity. this species is listed under the Act; of the species (see Conservation Status).
Exceptions to the prohibitions for conducting an activity that could take or The purpose of the WBCA is to promote
endangered species may be granted in incidentally take hyacinth macaws; and the conservation of exotic birds and to
accordance with section 10 of the Act foreign commerce will need to meet the ensure that imports of exotic birds into
and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.22. requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, the United States do not harm them (See
The Act does not specify particular including obtaining a permit under the Factor D). The best available
prohibitions and exceptions to those Act. However, the 4(d) rule proposes to commercial data indicate that legal and
prohibitions for threatened species. allow a person to import or export illegal trade of hyacinth macaws is not
Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, either: (1) A specimen held in captivity currently occurring at levels that are
the Secretary, as well as the Secretary of prior to the date this species is listed affecting the populations of the hyacinth
Commerce depending on the species, under the Act; or (2) a captive-bred macaw in its three regions. Accordingly
was given the discretion to issue such specimen, without a permit issued we find that the import and export
regulations as deemed necessary and under the Act, provided the export is requirements of the proposed 4(d) rule
advisable to provide for the authorized under CITES and the import provide the necessary and advisable
conservation of such species. The is authorized under CITES and the conservation measures that are needed
Secretary also has the discretion to WBCA. If a specimen was taken from for this species. This proposed 4(d) rule,
prohibit by regulation with respect to the wild and held in captivity prior to if finalized, would streamline the
any threatened species any act the date this species is listed under the permitting process for these types of
prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act, the importer or exporter will need activities by deferring to existing laws
Act. Exercising this discretion, the to provide documentation to support that are protective of hyacinths in the
Service has developed general that status, such as a copy of the original course of import and export.
prohibitions in the Act’s regulations (50 CITES permit indicating when the bird
CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those was removed from the wild or museum Interstate Commerce
prohibitions (50 CFR 17.32) that apply specimen reports. For captive-bred Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a
to most threatened species. Under 50 birds, the importer would need to person may deliver, receive, carry,
CFR 17.32, permits may be issued to provide either a valid CITES export/re- transport, or ship a hyacinth macaw in
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

allow persons to engage in otherwise export document issued by a foreign interstate commerce in the course of a
prohibited acts for certain purposes. Management Authority that indicates commercial activity, or sell or offer to
Under section 4(d) of the Act, the that the specimen was captive bred by sell in interstate commerce a hyacinth
Secretary, who has delegated this using a source code on the face of the macaw without a permit under the Act.
authority to the Service, may also permit of either ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ or ‘‘F.’’ For At the same time, the prohibitions on
develop specific prohibitions and exporters of captive-bred birds, a signed take under 50 CFR 17.21 would apply
exceptions tailored to the particular and dated statement from the breeder of under this proposed 4(d) rule, and any
conservation needs of a threatened the bird, along with documentation on interstate commerce activities that could

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

85506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules

incidentally take hyacinth macaws or (5) Use lists and tables wherever References Cited
otherwise prohibited acts in foreign possible. A list of all references cited in this
commerce would require a permit under If you feel that we have not met these document is available at http://
50 CFR 17.32. requirements, send us comments by one www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS–
Persons in the United States have of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To R9–ES–2012–0013, or upon request
imported and exported captive-bred better help us revise the rule, your from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
hyacinth macaws for commercial Ecological Services, Branch of Foreign
comments should be as specific as
purposes and one body for scientific Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
possible. For example, you should tell
purposes, but trade has been very CONTACT section).
us page numbers and the names of the
limited (UNEP–WCMC 2011,
unpaginated). We have no information sections or paragraphs that are unclearly Author
to suggest that interstate commerce written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel The primary authors of this notice are
activities are associated with threats to staff members of the Branch of Foreign
the hyacinth macaw or would lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Species, Ecological Services Program,
negatively affect any efforts aimed at the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
recovery of wild populations of the 3501, et seq.)
species. Therefore, because acts in List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
interstate commerce within the United This proposed rule does not contain Endangered and threatened species,
States have not been found to threaten any new collections of information that Exports, Imports, Reporting and
the hyacinth macaw, the species is require approval by the Office of recordkeeping requirements,
otherwise protected in the course of Management and Budget (OMB) under Transportation.
interstate commercial activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This
the take provisions and foreign Proposed Regulation Promulgation
rulemaking will not impose new
commerce provisions contained in 50 recordkeeping or reporting requirements Accordingly, we propose to further
CFR 17.31, and international trade of on State or local governments, amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
this species is regulated under CITES, individuals, businesses, or I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
we find this proposed 4(d) rule contains organizations. We may not conduct or Regulations, as proposed to be amended
all the prohibitions and authorizations sponsor, and you are not required to on July 6, 2012, at 77 FR 39965 and on
necessary and advisable for the April 7, 2016, at 81 FR 20302, as set
respond to, a collection of information
conservation of the hyacinth macaw. forth below:
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
Required Determinations control number. PART 17—[AMENDED]
Clarity of Rule National Environmental Policy Act (42
■ 1. The authority citation for part 17
We are required by Executive Orders U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) continues to read as follows:
12866 and 12988 and by the We have determined that we do not Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531–
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted.
need to prepare an environmental
1998, to write all rules in plain
assessment, as defined under the ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an
language. This means that each rule we
publish must: authority of the National Environmental entry for ‘‘Macaw, hyacinth’’ in
Policy Act of 1969, in connection with alphabetical order under Birds to the
(1) Be logically organized;
regulations adopted under section 4(a) List of Endangered and Threatened
(2) Use the active voice to address Wildlife, to read as follows:
of the Endangered Species Act. We
readers directly;
published a notice outlining our reasons
(3) Use clear language rather than § 17.11 Endangered and threatened
jargon; for this determination in the Federal wildlife.
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
(4) Be divided into short sections and * * * * *
sentences; and 49244). (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate
population where Critical Special
Historic range Status When listed
endangered or habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened

* * * * * * *
BIRDS

* * * * * * *
Macaw, hyacinth ..... Anodorhynchus Bolivia, Brazil, Para- Entire ...................... T NA NA 17.41(c)
hyacinthinus. guay.

* * * * * * *
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS

* * * * * § 17.41 Special rules—birds. parrot (Amazona collaria), white
■ 3. Amend § 17.41 by revising * * * * * cockatoo (Cacatua alba), scarlet macaw
paragraph (c) introductory text, (Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory (c) The following species in the parrot
family: Salmon-crested cockatoo subspecies crosses (Ara macao macao
text, (c)(2)(ii) introductory text and and Ara macao cyanoptera)), and
(c)(2)(ii)(E) to read as follows: (Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1

$Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 228 / Monday, November 28, 2016 / Proposed Rules 85507 hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus and 23 of this chapter have been met (E) For hyacinth macaws: hyacinthinus). and you meet the following [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL (1) Except as noted in paragraphs requirements: RULE] (the date this species was listed (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, all * * * * * under the Endangered Species Act of prohibitions and provisions of §§ 17.31 (ii) Specimens held in captivity prior 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 and 17.32 of this part apply to these to certain dates: You must provide et seq.)). species. documentation to demonstrate that the * * * * * (2) Import and export. You may specimen was held in captivity prior to import or export a specimen from the the dates specified in paragraphs Dated: November 19, 2016. southern DPS of Ara macao macao and (c)(2)(ii)(A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this Stephen Guertin, scarlet macaw subspecies crosses section. Such documentation may Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife without a permit issued under § 17.52 of include copies of receipts, accession or Service. this part, and you may import or export veterinary records, CITES documents, or [FR Doc. 2016–28318 Filed 11–25–16; 8:45 am] all other specimens without a permit wildlife declaration forms, which must BILLING CODE 4333–15–P issued under § 17.32 of this part only be dated prior to the specified dates. when the provisions of parts 13, 14, 15, * * * * * mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:30 Nov 25, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\28NOP1.SGM 28NOP1$

Document Created: 2018-02-14 08:35:44
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 08:35:44

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Revised proposed rule; reopening of public comment period.
Dates		The comment period for the proposed rule published July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39965) is reopened. We will accept comments received on or before January 27, 2017. Comments submitted electronically using the
Contact		Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877- 8339.
FR Citation		81 FR 85488
RIN Number		1018-AY38
CFR Associated		Endangered and Threatened Species; Exports; Imports; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Transportation

81 FR 85488 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Hyacinth Macaw

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORFish and Wildlife Service

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 228 (November 28, 2016)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service