Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Hyacinth Macaw, 39894-39916 [2018-17319]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the 
Hyacinth Macaw

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective September 12, 2018.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

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

[[Page 39895]]

Previous Federal Actions

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

Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

[[Page 39896]]

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

[[Page 39897]]

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

[[Page 39898]]

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

[[Page 39899]]

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

Background

    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. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 
1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)).
    We summarize below the information on which we based our final 
determination and evaluation of the five factors provided in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. We are also including hyacinth macaws under a rule 
authorized under section 4(d) of the Act. This 4(d) rule contains the 
prohibitions and authorizations necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of the hyacinth macaw.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

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

[[Page 39900]]

Range and Population

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

Essential Needs of the Species

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

[[Page 39901]]

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

Conservation Status

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

Factors Affecting the Species

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

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

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

[[Page 39902]]

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

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

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

[[Page 39903]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AU18.032

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

[[Page 39904]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13AU18.033

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

[[Page 39905]]

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

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

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

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


[[Page 39906]]

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

Factor C. Disease or Predation

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

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 39907]]

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

[[Page 39908]]

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

[[Page 39909]]

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

[[Page 39910]]

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

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

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

[[Page 39911]]

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

Conservation Measures

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

[[Page 39912]]

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

Finding

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

[[Page 39913]]

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

[[Page 39914]]

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

Significant Portion of its Range

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

[[Page 39915]]

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

4(d) Rule

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

Import and Export

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

[[Page 39916]]

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

Interstate Commerce

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

Required Determinations

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

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

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

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


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name                Scientific name        Where listed         Status       and  applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
              BIRDS
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Macaw, hyacinth..................  Anodorhynchus         Wherever found......  T...........  83 FR [insert
                                    hyacinthinus.                                             Federal Register
                                                                                              page where the
                                                                                              document begins],
                                                                                              8/13/2018; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.41(c) \4d\.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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


Sec.  17.41  Special rules--birds.

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

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