Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the Golden Conure From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule, 45073-45087 [2018-19153]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45073-45087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019; 4500090024]
RIN 1018-BC78


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the 
Golden Conure From Endangered to Threatened With a Section 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to delist or downlist the golden conure 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The golden 
conure is a psittacine bird (parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatoos, and 
others) endemic to the south Amazon Basin in Brazil. After review of 
the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that 
listing the golden conure as a threatened species is warranted. 
Accordingly, we propose to list it as a threatened species with a rule 
issued under section 4(d) of the Act. If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, it would reclassify the golden conure from endangered to 
threatened on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (List). 
Additionally, we are proposing to update the List to reflect the latest 
scientifically accepted taxonomy and nomenclature for the species as 
Guaruba guarouba, golden conure.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
November 5, 2018. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for 
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by October 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel on the left 
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment 
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Morgan, Chief, Branch of Delisting 
and Foreign Species, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; 
telephone, 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device

[[Page 45074]]

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments and information from other concerned governmental agencies, 
the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) Reasons why we should or should not reclassify the golden 
conure from an endangered species to a threatened species under the Act 
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
    (2) The golden conure's biology, range, and population trends, 
including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat, or both.
    (3) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include:
    (a) Habitat modification or destruction (e.g., information 
regarding future rates of deforestation or other forms of habitat loss 
or degradation within the known range of the golden conure);
    (b) Overutilization, including information regarding illegal 
collection and trade;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' 
continued existence.
    (4) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (5) Information on the locations of any additional or newly 
discovered populations of this species. See Appendix B in the species 
status assessment report (SSA) for a list of known localities used by 
the golden conure (available under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 on 
https://www.regulations.gov.
    (6) Information on the number of captive-bred golden conures in 
Brazil.
    (7) Information regarding current or future rates of deforestation 
in the Brazilian Amazon as they may correlate to current or projected 
gross domestic product (GDP) in that country.
    (8) The appropriateness of the conservation measures proposed under 
section 4(d) of the Act, including those that would allow the import 
and export of certain golden conures into and from the United States 
and certain acts in interstate commerce without a permit under the Act.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
electronic copies of scientific journal articles or other publications, 
preferably in English) to allow us to verify any scientific or 
commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Headquarters Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested within 45 days of the date of publication of 
this proposed rule. Requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and received by the date specified in 
DATES.

Peer Review

    The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our reclassification 
determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analyses. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published 
in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 
22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of five 
appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report that informed this 
proposed rule. The peer reviewers have expertise in (1) the life 
history of the golden conure, (2) birds of the Amazon, and (3) the 
effects of habitat degradation and deforestation on Amazonian birds. We 
received responses from four of the five peer reviewers, which we took 
into account in our SSA and this proposed rule. Their comments and 
suggestions can be found online at https://www.fws.gov/endangered/improving_ESA/peer_review_process.html. We invite any additional 
comments from the peer reviewers on the proposed rule during the public 
comment period on this proposed rule (see DATES, above); all comments 
received from peer reviewers will be available, along with other public 
comments, in the docket for this proposed rule at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019.

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 22, 1975, the Fund for Animals, Inc., petitioned us to list 
216 taxa of plants and animals, including the ``golden parakeet,'' as 
an endangered species pursuant to the Act. On September 26, 1975, we 
proposed to list the ``golden parakeet (Aratinga guaruba)'' as 
endangered (40 FR 44329). On June 14, 1976 (41 FR 24062), we finalized 
the listing as endangered.
    On August 21, 2014, we received a petition from the American 
Federation of Aviculture, Inc. (AFA), requesting that the golden conure 
be removed from the List or reclassified as a threatened species. The 
AFA also requested that if we determined that downlisting to threatened 
status was warranted, we develop a rule under section 4(d) of the Act 
(also called a 4(d) rule) that would allow for import and export of 
certain golden conures into and from the United States, and interstate 
commerce of the species under certain circumstances.
    On April 10, 2015, we published in the Federal Register (80 FR 
19259), a

[[Page 45075]]

90-day finding for the 2014 petition, concluding that the petition 
provided substantial information indicating the petitioned action may 
be warranted, and we initiated a status review for this species.
    On July 29, 2017, the AFA filed a complaint under the Act to compel 
the Service to issue a 12-month finding regarding the AFA's petition, 
pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B). On November 6, 2017, the AFA and 
the Service entered into a settlement agreement whereby the Service 
agreed to submit a 12-month finding for the golden conure to the 
Federal Register for publication no later than September 1, 2018. This 
proposed rule constitutes the 12-month finding and our 5-year status 
review for the golden conure.

Background

Species Status Assessment (SSA) Report for the Golden Conure

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and 
overall viability of the golden conure is presented in the SSA Report 
(Service 2018; available at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019 on https://www.regulations.gov). The following discussion is a summary of the 
information and analyses from the SSA Report.

Current Conservation Status

    The golden conure is currently listed as endangered under the Act 
(41 FR 24062; June 14, 1976) and the species is considered 
``Vulnerable'' at the national level in Brazil (MMA 2014, p. 122). The 
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recently 
reclassified the species from endangered to vulnerable because its 
population is estimated to be larger than previously thought (Bird Life 
International (BLI) 2017, unpaginated). IUCN's ``vulnerable'' listing 
acknowledges that the species nevertheless has a small estimated 
population that is expected to experience a rapid decline over the next 
three generations due to habitat loss and limited pressure from 
poaching (BLI 2017, unpaginated). The species is also included in 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES) Appendix I (CITES 2018a, unpaginated). CITES is an 
international treaty for the conservation of wild fauna and flora 
subject to trade; species on CITES Appendix I are considered threatened 
with extinction and international trade is permitted only under 
exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade 
(CITES 2016, unpaginated).

Species Description

    The golden conure is a large, 34-centimeter (13-inch), macaw-like 
bird with striking yellow plumage and green flight feathers 
(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Parr and Juniper 2010, p. 436). The 
sexes are similar in appearance, but in first-year juveniles the yellow 
color is variably streaked with green--most often on the back of the 
head, nape and chest (Forshaw 2017, p. 223; Laranjeiras 2011a, 
unpaginated; Reynolds 2003, p. 10).

Taxonomy

    The golden conure was first documented in 1788 (ITIS 2017, 
unpaginated) and was later noted in the manuscripts of European 
explorers to Brazil in the 18th and 19th centuries (Yamashita 2003, p. 
38). It was originally placed in its own (monotypic) genus Guaruba, 
then subsequently placed in the genus Aratinga by some authors (Peters 
1937; Pinto 1978; Forshaw 1989, as cited in Tavares et al. 2004, p. 
239), while others placed it in the genus Conurus (Salvadori 1891; 
Miranda Ribeiro 1920, as cited in Tavares et al. 2004, p. 239).
    Researchers have since noted that its behaviors, including 
reproduction and vocalization, differ markedly from those of Aratinga 
species and have recommended that the golden conure's scientific name 
be returned to the monotypic genus Guaruba (Laranjeiras 2011a, 
unpaginated; Sick 1990, p. 112). Additionally, recent genetic analyses 
indicate that the golden conure is more closely related to the red-
shouldered macaw (Diopsittaca nobilis) and the blue-crowned parakeet 
(Thectocercus acuticaudatus) (Urant[oacute]wka and Mackiewicz 2017, 
entire), than to the Aratinga parakeets (Tavares et al. 2004, pp. 230, 
236-237, 239). Therefore, the golden conure is recognized as Guaruba 
guarouba by (1) the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS 2017, 
unpaginated); (2) the Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee 
(Piacentini et al. 2015, p. 163); (3) Taxonomy of Birds of the World 
(Clements et al. 2017, unpaginated); and (4) Birdlife International 
(BLI 2017, unpaginated). Based upon our review of the best available 
information, we recognize the golden conure as a valid full species in 
the monotypic genus Guaruba and we are proposing to correct its 
scientific name to Guaruba guarouba on the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife (see Proposed Technical Correction, below).

Abundance and Distribution

    In general, the golden conure is relatively poorly studied and 
information on local abundance and distribution of populations 
throughout the range is limited (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 303). An earlier 
global population estimate (i.e., from 2010 and earlier) indicated 
fewer than 2,500 individuals remained, but a 2011 estimate signaled the 
global population contained 10,875 individuals within 174,000 square 
kilometers (km\2\) (67,182 square miles (mi\2\)) of suitable habitat 
(Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311). This estimate was derived using: (1) 
Occurrence data obtained after 1987, that extended the species' known 
range considerably to the southwest; (2) a density estimate calculated 
from a conure survey in western Par[aacute] in 2007 (Laranjeiras 2011b, 
p. 311); and (3) estimates of suitable habitat within the known area of 
occurrence from a habitat modeling study in 2009 (Laranjeiras and Cohn-
Haft 2009). However, because the golden conure has a patchy 
distribution and is poorly studied, more survey work would be required 
to produce better estimates.
    The species' current known range includes portions of the following 
four states in Brazil (noted from east to west): (1) The western part 
of Maranh[atilde]o; (2) the central region of Par[aacute]; (3) the 
extreme southeast of Amazonas; and (4) the northeastern portion of 
Rond[ocirc]nia (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). Additionally, the 
species was recorded in a fifth state, the northern portion of Mato 
Grosso, in the 1990s (Lo 1995, entire), but there have been no recent 
sightings in that area (Moura in litt. 2018; BLI 2016, p. 2; 
Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 3; 
Albertani et al. 1997, p. 135).
    The species' historical range once extended farther eastward (to 
more eastern portions of the states of Par[aacute] and 
Maranh[atilde]o), but the habitat there was mostly deforested in the 
1970s and 1980s (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 5). The golden 
conure is believed to be extirpated from these regions (BLI 2017, 
unpaginated; BLI 2016, p. 3; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 5), 
which represented approximately 30 to 35 percent of the historical 
range (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, 
p. 8).
    The species is limited to regions where extensive stands of tall 
Amazonian rainforest are still present (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 331). 
Although the species can tolerate some disturbance in the forest, the 
golden conure is absent from landscapes with advanced deforestation; 
flocks

[[Page 45076]]

disappear seasonally from the fragmented landscapes, indicating that 
they require intact forest (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated).
    The best estimate of the geographic distribution of the golden 
conure is based on recent records and habitat modeling (see Service 
2018, Figures 5 and 6, pp. 19-20; Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; 
Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, entire). The total current range of the 
golden conure is estimated to be no more than 340,000 km\2\ (131,275 
mi\2\) (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 3). The species' 
distribution within this range is not continuous and is described as 
patchy--possibly associated with the distribution of specific nesting 
or food resources (Laranjeiras 2008, as cited in Laranjeiras and Cohn-
Haft 2009, p. 6). The estimated suitable habitat for the golden conure 
within this range is 174,000 km\2\ (67,182 mi\2\) (Laranjeiras 2011b, 
p. 311). However, parrots can cross great gaps and are capable of 
flying long distances (Lees and Peres 2009, pp. 284, 286); thus, it is 
possible that some of the recent records of the golden conure that 
extended the range represent vagrant groups (Moura in litt. 2018). 
Because the species has a patchy distribution within its range, 
extrapolation of densities to estimate the global population is 
problematic, and population estimates throughout the range are needed 
(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated).

Habitat

    The golden conure lives in in Brazil's lower Amazon basin, in an 
area south of the Amazon River, east of the Madeira River, and north of 
the Brazilian Shield (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 9). The 
Brazilian Shield is a region formed of Precambrian crystalline rocks 
that may be exposed or covered by layers of sedimentary rocks (Buckup 
2011, p. 203). The species occupies primary (old growth) terra firme 
(unflooded) rainforest on undulating landscapes in the lowlands at 
elevation at or under 300 meters (984 feet) (Sick 1997, as cited by 
Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). However, the species has also has been 
recorded in the regrowth of secondary forests and in igap[oacute] 
(seasonally flooded) forests while feeding (Laranjeiras 2011a, 
unpaginated, citing several sources; Laranjeiras 2011b, pp. 308-309; 
Oren and Noveas 1986, p. 332; Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in 
Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). The majority of golden conure groups 
appear to be resident (i.e., non-migratory), even in the post-
reproductive period (Laranjeiras 2008, as cited in Forshaw 2017, p. 
226; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38).
    The golden conure uses large, old growth, hardwood trees (Yamashita 
2003, p. 38) for cavity nesting (Oren and Novaes 1986, pp. 333-334). In 
most cases, the species uses the same tree for nesting and roosting 
(BLI 2016, p. 4; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 
38). Most known nest and roost cavities have been found high in tall, 
standing, dead trees within a small, disturbed (cleared) area adjacent 
to continuous forest. The golden conure seems to prefer using isolated 
trees (i.e., some distance from a neighboring tree) for nesting likely 
because isolated trees provide better protection against terrestrial or 
arboreal predators (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Kyle 2005, p. 3). 
To date, we are aware of 7 different species of hardwood trees used for 
nesting (Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 308; Silveira and Belmonte in press, 
unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333; Lima et al. 2014, p. 323) 
and more than 28 species of fruiting trees used for feeding (Service 
2018, pp. 10, 60-61).

Biology

    The golden conure is frugivorous (fruit-eating), and its diet 
varies throughout the year and across its distribution (Laranjeiras 
2011a, unpaginated). The species eats whole fruit, seeds, pulp, buds 
and flowers, nectar, and peels; it will also feed on cultivated plants 
such as corn (Zea mays) and mangoes (Mangifera indica) (Laranjeiras 
2011b, pp. 308-309; Oren and Noveas 1986, p. 332).
    Breeding and nesting take place during the wet months, generally 
from November or December through April (Forshaw 2017, p. 227; 
Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 332). The 
social structure and breeding behavior of the golden conure appear to 
be unique from that of other members of the parrot family in that the 
species engages in communal brood-rearing. The golden conure remains in 
flocks made up of family groups or clans (averaging 10 individuals) 
(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated), and individuals in the group 
(referred to as ``reproductive helpers'') assist in rearing the young. 
Most other large parrots are believed to incubate and rear young in 
pairs (Albertani et al. 1997, pp. 135-136).
    The golden conure's communal brood-rearing includes the use of one 
or two uncommon reproductive strategies where the flock is either made 
up of (1) multiple related nesting pairs with reproductive helpers 
(Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333), or (2) a single leading pair with 
juveniles from different generations acting as helpers (Reynolds 2003, 
p. 12; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333). Nest protection seems to be an 
important part of communal brood-rearing, and a group will vigorously 
defend the nest in response to potential competitors or predators 
(Forshaw 2017, p. 228; Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in Laranjeiras 
2011a, unpaginated).
    Most of the information regarding development of the young is from 
captive birds. Eggs hatch within 28 to 30 days (Arndt 1996, as cited by 
Forshaw 2017, p. 227; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Oren and Novaes 
1986, p. 333). Nestlings reach adult size in about 60 days (Laranjeiras 
2011a, unpaginated) and fledge at approximately 55-60 days post hatch 
(Arndt 1996, as cited by Forshaw 2017, p. 227). The post-reproductive 
period, when first year juveniles can be seen in the flocks at feeding 
sites in the wild, is from March or April to July or August 
(Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 304; Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 332).
    First-year juveniles always stay with the family group and can be 
easily identified by their green-streaked plumage (Yamashita 2003, p. 
38). Juveniles attain adult plumage in a molt when they are about 1 
year old (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). Fledged chicks and juveniles 
will beg for food from foraging adults (Kyle 2005, p. 4). Annual 
survival information is limited, but first-year juveniles represent no 
more than 13 percent of the individuals in flocks (Laranjeiras 2008a, 
as cited in Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated). In some areas (e.g., in 
eastern Par[aacute], where trapping for the illegal pet trade has 
occurred), the percentage of observed first-year juveniles in the 
flocks was zero (Reynolds 2003 as cited by Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 309).
    In captivity, adults reach sexual maturity at about 3 years of age 
(Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 333), with the average age for successful 
breeding occurring between 6 and 8 years (Reynolds, 2003, p. 12). 
Lifespan for the golden conure in the wild is not known, although the 
generation length was estimated as 7.4 years (BLI 2016, unpaginated) 
and the maximum age recorded for the species in captivity was 60 years 
with a median age of 14 years (calculated using adults >=4 years; n = 
190) (Young et al. 2011, p. 35). Information is lacking on the species' 
carrying capacity, birth rates, nesting success, and home range 
(broadly defined as confined areas where individuals conduct their day-
to-day activities (Boitani and Fuller 2000, p. 65).

[[Page 45077]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    A species is an ``endangered species'' for purposes of the Act if 
it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range and is a ``threatened species'' if it is likely to become 
an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Section 4 of the Act and its 
implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for 
listing species, reclassifying species, or removing species from listed 
status. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five listing factors described in 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (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. A species may be removed from listed 
status (i.e., ``delisted'') or reclassified on the same basis. Our 
analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently 
facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect 
the species in the foreseeable future without the Act's protections.
    In our analysis, we considered conservation measures (primarily the 
use of protected areas) as part of the current condition and projected 
future scenarios to evaluate viability of the species (Service 2018, 
pp. 42-47). We generally define viability as the ability the golden 
conure to sustain populations in natural ecosystems and disturbed 
habitats over time. Using the SSA framework, we considered what the 
species needs to maintain viability by evaluating the species in terms 
of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Wolf et al. 2015, 
entire). For further information on viability, see the SSA Report 
(https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0019).
    When we listed the golden conure as endangered in 1976, the species 
was perceived to be declining in numbers due to any one the following 
factors, or a combination of all three factors: The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range (Factor A); overutilization of the species for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B); or the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D) (41 FR 24062; 
June 14, 1976).
    The golden conure presently faces the most risk from loss and 
degradation of its habitat from deforestation originating from multiple 
anthropogenic activities (Factor A) (BLI 2016, p. 4; IBAMA 2003 and 
SEMA 2007, as cited by Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Collar 1992, p. 
5). Habitat loss and degradation is likely to be intensified by 
synergistic effects associated with the consequences of climate change 
(Staal et al. 2015, p. 2) (Factor E). Climate projections include 
increased temperatures, dryer conditions, and more extreme weather 
(including droughts), which have the potential to stress trees and 
cause tree mortality (Fearnside 2009, pp. 1003, 1005). These conditions 
also increase the unintentional spread of fires, further contributing 
to deforestation (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005). Additionally, the golden 
conure is still being illegally collected and traded within Brazil, at 
some unknown level, for the live pet bird trade (Factor B). These 
threats and other potential stressors are discussed in detail in the 
SSA Report and are summarized below.

Habitat Loss--Deforestation

    Large-scale deforestation in the Amazon has occurred since the 
1970s and 1980s concurrent with the growth of Brazil's economy (GFA 
2017, unpaginated). The Brazilian Amazon is approximately the size of 
Western Europe, and as of 2016, an area the size of France has been 
lost to deforestation (Fearnside 2017a, pp. 1, 3). Approximately 30 to 
35 percent of the golden conure's range has already been lost to 
deforestation, primarily in the eastern states of Par[aacute] and 
Maranh[atilde]o (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-
Haft 2009, p. 8), and another 23 to 30 percent of the golden conure's 
habitat is predicted to be lost within 22 years or three generations 
(Bird et al. 2011 Appendix S1),
    The golden conure's range partially overlaps what is known as the 
``arc of deforestation,'' an area in the southeastern Amazon where 
rates of deforestation and forest fragmentation have been the highest 
(Prioste et al. 2012, p. 701; Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; 
Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8). After a long period of 
deforestation in the Amazon, rates dropped dramatically during the 
years from 2005 to 2011 (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76; Fearnside 2017b, p. 
1; Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 759)). 
Deforestation declined from an annual average of about 21,000 km\2\ 
(8,108 mi\2\) per year for the 5-year period between 2000 to 2004--to 
7,000 km\2\ (2,703 mi\2\) in 2009 (Petherick 2013, p. 8; Hochstetler 
and Viola 2012, p. 759).
    Despite these declines, the total area deforested in Brazil's 
Amazon has risen steadily since deforestation rates were first measured 
in 1988 (IPAM 2017, p. 7 using PRODES 2017 data). More recently, 
deforestation rates are increasing again (Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; IPAM 
2017, p. 15; Biderman and Nogueron 2016, unpaginated), as global demand 
for agricultural commodities continues to rise (Brando et al. 2016, 
abstract), and the ``arc of deforestation'' could continue to be a 
hotspot (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76).
    An area does not have to be mostly deforested to lose value as 
suitable habitat for forest-dependent species such as the golden 
conure. Deforestation itself creates isolation of remnant forest 
patches and forest edge effects (Barlow et al. 2016, p. 144; Ewers and 
Didham 2006, pp. 123-124). Edge effects decrease habitat quality within 
remaining patches and the functional connectivity between them (Zurita 
et al. 2012, p. 504, citing many sources). Additionally, disturbance 
within the forest remnant, such as selective logging and increased 
fires, changes forest structure and species composition, generally 
reducing biodiversity (Barlow et al. 2016, p. 144).
    Forest habitat degradation and fragmentation typically begin with 
road construction and subsequent human settlement. Activities resulting 
from human settlement include: (1) An increased network of unofficial 
roads; (2) logging; (3) crop production and cattle ranching; (4) 
increased fires; and (4) further infrastructure development, including 
more roads, dams and hydroelectric projects, and mining (GFA 2018a, b, 
c, and d, unpaginated; GFA 2017, unpaginated; Sonter et al. 2017, 
entire; Barber et al. 2014, entire; BLI 2016, unpaginated; Yamashita 
2003, p. 38).
    Roads have a major effect on Amazon deforestation. Deforestation is 
much higher near roads (including unofficial roads) and rivers (Barber 
et al. 2014, entire). Nearly 95 percent of all deforestation occurred 
within 5.5 km (3.4 mi) of roads or 1 km (0.6 mi) of rivers (Barber et 
al. 2014, pp. 203, 205, 208). Unofficial roads are rapidly 
expanding in the region and contribute to further degradation, 
including logging, new colonization, forest fragmentation, and 
increased fire risk (Barber et al. 2014, p. 203).
    Logging in the Amazon was once restricted to areas bordering major 
rivers but the construction of highways and

[[Page 45078]]

strategic access roads, coupled with the depletion of hardwood stocks 
in the south of Brazil, made logging an important, growing industry 
(Ver[iacute]ssimo et al. 1992, p. 170). Logging operations typically 
occur on private lands claimed by ranchers, land speculators, and 
squatters who sell extraction rights to logging companies (GFA 2018a 
and b, unpaginated). After logging, the land may be clear-cut and 
burned, in preparation for crops (Reynolds 2003, p. 10). Burning makes 
nutrient-deficient land temporarily nutrient-rich, but it will only 
yield crops for a few years, creating a cycle of more land clearing 
(Reynolds 2003, p. 10). Revenues from timber sales are also used to 
finance conversion of the land to cattle ranching (GFA 2018a, 
unpaginated). Although the Brazilian forest code requires private 
landowners in the Amazon to maintain 80 percent of their land as 
forest, the code has been poorly enforced (GFA 2018b, unpaginated), and 
full compliance has not been achieved (Azevedo et al. 2017, entire; see 
Conservation Measures and Regulatory Mechanisms, below).
    Logging on public lands is allowed via concessions where logging 
companies are granted logging rights for a fee (GFA 2018a, 
unpaginated). The concession system typically requires practices that 
minimize effects to the forest (e.g., rotation of harvest, minimum-
tree-size standards, and targets for long-term sustainable yield) (GFA 
2018a, unpaginated). However, the concession system is not currently 
working as intended and illegal logging in public protected areas 
remains a serious threat, particularly logging of mahogany (Swietenia 
macrophylla) (BLI 2016, p. 5), a CITES Appendix II species (CITES 
2018b). CITES Appendix II includes species that are not necessarily 
threatened with extinction, but for which trade must be controlled to 
avoid uses that are incompatible with their survival (CITES 2016, 
unpaginated). An example of illegal logging is that which occurs in 
Jamari National Forest, an area that is poorly protected and faces 
pressures from loggers, squatters, and poachers (Forshaw 2017, p. 224, 
F. Olmos in litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5).
    Also, as of 2010, Brazil had only leased a small amount of private 
concession forest, and instead, had announced plans to sell large 
forest tracts (GFA 2018a, unpaginated). If these lands were to become 
privately owned, they would be subject to Brazil's forest code and up 
to 20 percent could be legally deforested. Additionally, although 
selective logging and requirements for minimum tree sizes are intended 
to minimize effects to the forest, logging of larger trees is likely to 
have a greater effect on the golden conure because the species uses 
larger, older trees for its nesting and roosting (Yamashita 2003, p. 
38).
    Expanding crop production and ranching are also major drivers of 
deforestation in the Amazon basin. Soy beans only grew in temperate 
climates until agricultural research generated new varieties that grow 
in the tropics. These innovations, coupled with the application of 
fertilizer, allowed for the expansion of soy farming into the Amazon 
beginning in the 1970s (GFA 2018c, unpaginated). Soy beans are 
primarily used for cattle feed, and in 1990s and early 2000s, high 
demand for beef created a ``soy-cattle pasture deforestation dynamic,'' 
where soy production replaced existing cattle pasture, and forced new 
deforestation into the Amazon for cattle ranching (GFA 2018c, 
unpaginated). In 2006, the soy industry, in response to pressure from 
consumers, retailers, and nongovernment organizations, instituted a soy 
moratorium in Brazil's Amazon. The agreement curbs forest clearing for 
soy by blocking farms that violate the agreement from selling to 
companies that signed the soy moratorium (Gibbs et al. 2015, p. 377). 
In the 2 years preceding the moratorium, approximately 30 percent of 
soy expansion occurred through deforestation rather than by replacement 
of pasture or other previously cleared lands; by 2014, just 1 percent 
of soy expansion was responsible for deforestation in Brazil's Amazon 
(Gibbs et al. 2015, p. 377). The soy moratorium was renewed 
indefinitely in 2016, or until it is no longer needed (Pati[ntilde]o 
2016, unpaginated).
    Cattle ranching is the largest cause of deforestation in every 
Amazon country and is responsible for about 80 percent of current 
deforestation rates (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). Brazil is the largest 
beef exporter in the world, supplying about one quarter of the world 
market (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). Brazil's Amazon supports about 200 
million head of cattle on approximately 450,000 km\2\ (173,746 mi\2\) 
of deforested land (GFA 2018d, unpaginated). Cattle from the Amazon are 
mostly sold in the domestic markets because some of the Amazon states 
have not been cleared for the presence of foot-and-mouth disease 
(Fearnside 2017b, p. 14). Beginning in 1998, states in the south (non-
Amazonian) were certified as free of foot-and-mouth disease (Kaimowitz 
et al. 2004, as cited by Fearnside 2017b, p. 14). The growing export 
market for beef from these southern states has indirectly increased the 
demand for Amazon beef for the domestic market (Fearnside 2017b, p. 
14). In 2015 and 2016, new markets for Brazilian beef were opened up 
via agreements with Russia, the United States, and China (Fearnside 
2017b, p. 14). The Chinese market, in particular, has significant 
potential demand for both beef and leather, with China being the 
world's largest manufacturer of shoes (Fearnside 2017b, p. 16).
    Conversion of native forest for the cultivation of palm plantations 
for the production of palm oil is an emerging agricultural use in the 
region that is likely to further reduce the amount of habitat available 
to golden conure. Palm oil is in high demand and the industry is highly 
profitable (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). Increased palm oil production has 
the potential to create thousands of new jobs and raise regional 
standards of living in Brazil (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). The Brazilian 
government plans to increase biofuel production in the next decade, 
driven primarily by demands for fuel (ethanol and biodiesel) (Villela 
et al. 2014, p. 273). Palm oil production has been touted as a ``green 
fuel'' from both a biodiversity and a climate change perspective 
because degraded lands (e.g., abandoned cattle pastures and mining 
areas) can be used for plantations (Lees et al. 2015, p. 2). However, a 
recent study of regional avian biodiversity in palm oil plantations 
concluded that they are as detrimental to avian biodiversity as other 
forms of agriculture such as cattle pasture (Lees et al. 2015, entire). 
Therefore, any native forest converted to palm plantations will result 
in habitat loss for the golden conure, and any degraded land that is 
planted for palm oil will not have the opportunity to regenerate or be 
restored to suitable habitat for the species.
    Increased fire risk results from human settlement and the 
activities noted above (Barber et al. 2014, p. 203) (see Projected 
Effects from Climate Change, below). Although use of fire for land 
management is now common in rural Amazonia (Malhi et al. 2008, p. 171), 
wildfires in the tropical forests of the Amazon were rare over the past 
millennia, and the trees are not adapted for fire (Fearnside 2009, p. 
1005). Amazonian trees have thin bark, and fire heats the cambium under 
the bark at the base of the trunk, causing the tree to die (Fearnside 
2009, p. 1005) and further contributing to deforestation.
    Hydroelectric dams are also a major contributor to deforestation in 
the Amazon. Areas affected by dams include both the area flooded by the 
dam and effects from the increased

[[Page 45079]]

human settlement around the dam (GFA 2018e, unpaginated). Brazil is the 
second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world (after China), 
and hydropower supplies about 75 percent of Brazil's electricity (GFA 
2018e, unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c, unpaginated). Numerous dams are 
under construction or planned in the Amazon basin. For example, the 
Belo Monte ``mega dam'' on the Xingu River, flooded 673 km\2\ (260 
mi\2\) of lowlands and forest, and blocked 1,609 km (1,000 mi) of the 
Xingu River (Fearnside 2017c, unpaginated). Recently the Brazilian 
Government announced an end to the construction of mega dams in the 
Amazon (Branford 2018, unpaginated), but smaller dams within the golden 
conure's range are still under construction or planned (GFA 2018e, 
unpaginated; Fearnside 2017c, unpaginated; Nobre et al. 2016, p. 
10763).
    Mining for minerals also contributes to deforestation of the 
Amazon. In Brazil, mining has grown from 1.6 percent of GDP in 2000, to 
4.1 percent in 2011, and is projected to increase by a factor of 3 to 5 
by 2030 (Brasil Minist[eacute]rio de Minas e Energia 2010, as cited by 
Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706). In Brazil's Amazon, mining leases, 
exploration permits, and concessions collectively encompass 1.65 
million km\2\ (0.64 million mi\2\) of land, with about 60 percent 
located in the Amazon forest (Departamento Nacional de 
Produ[ccedil][atilde]o Mineral 2012, as cited in Sonter et al. p. 1). 
Although mining is rapidly expanding in the region, to date, the 
environmental approval process for new mines or the expansion of 
existing projects does not consistently evaluate for off-lease effects 
of these projects, including the indirect or cumulative impacts to the 
surrounding forest (Sonter et al. 2017, p. 1). The total off-lease 
effects of mining-induced deforestation can be 12 times greater than 
that from the leases alone (Sonter et al. 2017, p. 2).

Deforestation Rates and Gross Domestic Product

    Annual deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon have always 
varied, but have generally been correlated with national economic 
growth as measured by GDP (Petherick 2013 p.7; Hochstetler and Viola 
2012, p. 759). However, beginning in 2005, measures of deforestation 
and GDP have separated or ``decoupled'' (Lapola et al. 2014, p. 27; 
Petherick 2013 p.7). The Amazon experienced dramatic reductions in 
annual average rates of deforestation from almost 21,000 km\2\ (8,108 
mi\2\) between 2000 and 2004--to about 7,000 km\2\ (2,703 mi\2\) in 
2009 and 2010 (Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Petherick 2013, p. 8; 
Hochstetler and Viola 2012, p. 759) and 6,418 km\2\ (2,478 mi\2\) in 
2011 (Prodes 2017, unpaginated). During this same period, Brazil's GDP 
rose steadily, indicating strong, sustained growth from an export 
commodity boom (Petherick 2013 p.7; Hochstetler and Viola 2012, pp. 
759-760).
    The decoupling has been attributed to a number of factors with no 
clear consensus on which factor has been the most effective (Moutinho 
2015, p. 2). Contributing factors include government strategies and 
policies for forest conservation (Assun[ccedil][atilde]o et al. 2012, 
p. 697) such as: (1) The expansion of protected areas, which reduced 
the supply of unclaimed forest land (Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 1118); (2) 
an effort that began in 2007 to blacklist the worst deforesters; and 
(3) efforts to monitor and control municipalities with high levels of 
illegal deforestation through sanctions and restricted access to credit 
(Moutinho 2015, p. 3; Assun[ccedil][atilde]o et al. 2012, p. 698).
    Reductions in deforestation have also been attributed to market and 
social forces, such as decreases in the price of agricultural 
commodities (including soy and beef) in 2005 (Fearnside 2017b, p. 1; 
Assun[ccedil][atilde]o et al. 2012, entire) and the 2006 soy moratorium 
(Gibbs et al. 2015, pp. 377-378). Importantly, increased soy production 
from 2006 to 2010 was due to agricultural intensification practices 
(Lapola et al. 2014, p. 28) and expansion into previously cleared land 
in the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 2014, p. 1121). Eventually cleared land 
that is suitable for soy production will become scarce, likely 
increasing deforestation pressure on the Amazon (Nepstad et al. 2014, 
p. 1121). Although GDP is not presently a good predictor of Amazon 
deforestation (Fearnside 2017b, p. 14), as global population and food 
demands continue to rise (Beckman et al. 2017, p. i; Brando et al. 
2016, abstract), it is possible that these measures could more closely 
correlate in the future.
    Brazil is one of the countries that currently has comparatively low 
productivity levels and is projected to grow faster as it catches up 
with more developed countries (Guardian 2012, unpaginated). Brazil is 
expected to remain among the top ten economies as rated by GDP based on 
purchasing power parity (GDP PPP) by 2050 (PWC Global 2016). GDP PPP 
measures the relative purchasing power of different countries' 
currencies over the same types of goods and services, allowing for more 
accurate comparison of living standards (Euromonitor International 
2013, unpaginated). Forecasts vary for Brazil's GDP PPP, with one 
forecast predicting that GDP PPP will rise steadily through 2050 (PWC 
Global 2016, unpaginated), while a more recent forecast predicts that 
GDP PPP will stagnate then drop after about 2050 (Knoema 2018, 
unpaginated). Therefore, if deforestation rates were to correlate more 
closely with GDP PPP in the future, in one scenario deforestation rates 
would steadily rise, and in the other scenario, deforestation rates 
would stabilize and then decline after about 2050.

Projected Effects From Climate Change

    Changes in Brazil's climate and associated changes to the landscape 
are likely to result in additional habitat loss for the golden conure. 
Across Brazil, temperatures are projected to increase and precipitation 
to decrease (Barros and Albernaz 2014, p. 811; Carabine and Lemma 2014, 
p. 11). The 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
predicted that by 2100, South America will experience temperature 
increases ranging from 1.7 to 6.7 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (3.06 to 
12.06 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)) under the medium and high emission 
scenarios and 1.0 to 1.5 [deg]C (1.8 to 2.7[emsp14][deg]F) under a low 
emissions scenario (Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 10; Magrin et al. 2014, 
p. 1502). Projected changes in precipitation in South America vary by 
region, with rainfall reductions in the Amazon estimated with medium 
confidence (about a 5 out of 10 chance) (IPCC 2018, unpaginated; 
Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 11; Magrin et al. 2014, p. 1502).
    Downscaled models, based, in part, on the earlier (2007) IPCC data, 
predict more severe changes, with the greatest warming and drying 
occurring over the Amazon rainforest, 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 the Amazon by the end of the 21st 
century (2090-2099) 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 (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). Increased 
temperatures of these amounts put the Amazon region at a high risk of 
forest loss and more frequent wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 596). 
Some leading global circulation models indicate that 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 frequent in the future (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 48). For example, 
the 2005 drought in Amazonia was a 1-in-20-year

[[Page 45080]]

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). 
Deforestation is greater under drought conditions due to more risk of 
fires (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 16).
    A number of large-scale drivers of environmental change (i.e., 
land-use change from deforestation and climate changes due to global 
warming) are operating simultaneously and interacting nonlinearly in 
the Amazon (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759). Thus, the risks to golden 
conure from deforestation will likely be intensified by synergistic 
effects associated with climate change (Staal et al. 2015, p. 2). The 
Amazon's rainforest may have two ``tipping points'': (1) A temperature 
increase of 4.0 [deg]C (7.2 14;[deg]F); or (2) deforestation exceeding 
40 percent (Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759). Once exceeded, these tipping 
points could cause large-scale shifts in the vegetation to a savanna 
(i.e., ``savannization'') mostly in the southern and eastern Amazon 
(Nobre et al. 2016, p. 10759) within the golden conure's range.
    Similarly, a recent study that considered only the effects from 
global warming (i.e., absent deforestation) predicted that by the end 
of this century, some areas of rainforest will be replaced by deciduous 
forest and grassland in a moderate emissions scenario (RCP 4.5) and by 
all grassland in the high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5) (Lyra et al. 
2016, entire). Although the projected outcomes of models are not 
definitive, any terra firme forest habitat that shifts from rainforest 
to other habitat types (e.g., savanna) would result in loss of habitat 
for the golden conure.

Illegal Collection and Trade

    The golden conure is highly prized as an aviary bird and has been 
extensively trapped for both the domestic and international pet trade 
in the past (BLI 2016, p. 5; Alves et al. 2013, p. 60; Laranjeiras 
2011a, unpaginated; Yamashita 2003, p. 38; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 132; 
Collar 1992, p. 304; Oren and Novaes 1986, pp. 329, 334-335). The 
international trade of wild neotropical parrots was significantly 
reduced during the 1990s due to (1) tighter enforcement of CITES 
regulations, (2) stricter measures under European Union legislation, 
(3) adoption of the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901 et 
seq.) in the United States, and (4) adoption of national legislation in 
various other countries (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Although an 
illegal international trade of the golden conure for the pet trade 
occurred in the past, there is little evidence that this practice is 
continuing (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte 2005 
in press, unpaginated). In contrast, the illegal domestic market for 
the species is still occurring at some level (Silveira and Belmonte in 
press, unpaginated).
    Historically, keeping birds was an important part of local 
indigenous tradition and culture (Carvalho 1951 and Cascudo 1973, as 
cited by Alves et al. 2013, p. 54). Young golden conures were taken 
from the wild to raise as pets and for feathers, but now they are also 
sold to bird traders (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 335). Much of the area 
occupied by the golden conure is poor, and selling the birds for the 
domestic pet trade provides an extra source of income (Yamashita 2003, 
p. 39).
    There are mixed reports regarding the degree to which illegal 
capture of golden conures from the wild (``poaching'') is still 
occurring. The Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural 
Resources (IBAMA) has licensed and regulated bird breeding in an effort 
to reduce poaching (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). As a result, several 
sources believe poaching is no longer a major concern for the species 
because trade is thought to mostly be from the substantial captive 
population, and thus does not significantly affect the wild population 
(Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). 
Additional captive populations exist outside Brazil. There are CITES-
registered captive-breeding operations for golden conures in the United 
Kingdom and the Philippines.
    However, some level of illegal capture and trade of the species is 
still occurring. For example, in 2016, approximately 57 golden conures 
were seized in Brazil (IBAMA 2017 as cited by Lima in litt. 2018). We 
have no seizure data from any other years, and this number may 
represent a year where seizures were high, but it demonstrates that 
domestic trafficking is occurring (Lima in litt. 2018). Captive rearing 
may not be a practical alternative to illegal trade, particularly in 
low-income areas because the price of commercially bred birds is 
approximately 10 times higher than wild-caught individuals (Renctas 
2001, as cited in Alves et al. 2013, p. 61; Machado 2002, as cited in 
Alves et al. 2010, p. 155).
    Additionally, oversight of domestic wildlife-breeding facilities in 
Brazil is limited (Alves et al. 2010, entire), and many wild bird 
species declared to be captive-bred are actually born in the wild and 
traded under fraudulent documentation (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). 
Although each Brazilian state has a wildlife center responsible for 
managing, licensing, and inspecting all categories of breeders, 
traders, and zoos (Kuhnen and Kanaan 2014, p. 125), most centers lack 
resources and funding (Padrone 2004, as cited in Kuhnen and Kanaan 
2014, p. 125). Also, there are not enough inspections at market places 
and commercial breeding facilities to fight illegal domestic trade 
(Alves et al. 2010, pp. 154-155).
    The United States is a major importer of pet birds, yet relatively 
little trade in the golden conure has been observed. We reviewed all 
records of legal and intercepted illegal trade in the CITES annual 
trade records submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 1981 
to 2016. During this 35-year period, 54 live golden conures were 
imported into the United States and 26 were exported (UNEP-WCMC 2018, 
unpaginated). One record of illegal trade was reported in 1981, and 
involved the unlawful importation of a single animal from Brazil. 
Overall, the U.S. trade in the golden conure has been relatively low 
compared with other pet birds.

Other Potential Stressors

    Other potential stressors to the golden conure include hunting and 
persecution (Factor B), and predation or disease (Factor C). The 
species is likely still hunted at low levels as a food source, and for 
feathers, and birds that raid crops may be shot by farmers (Oren and 
Novaes 1986, p. 335). However, we have no information about the rate 
that these activities may be occurring or the extent to which they may 
be affecting populations. Similarly, we have no information regarding 
diseases that may affect golden conures in the wild.
    Golden conures, including eggs and nestlings, are prey to a variety 
of native predators, including toucans (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 334; 
Forshaw 2017, p. 228), raptors (Laranjeiras 2008a, as cited in 
Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte in press, 
unpaginated), monkeys, snakes, and the tayra (Eira barbara), an 
omnivorous weasel (Oren and Novaes 1986, p. 334). However, we have no 
information regarding the rates predation on the golden conure from 
these predators and how that may be affecting the conure.

Conservation Measures and Regulatory Mechanisms

    The golden conure is considered ``Vulnerable'' at the national 
level in Brazil (MMA 2014, p. 122). Like other wildlife species, 
conures and their nests, shelters, and breeding grounds are protected 
by Brazilian environmental laws (Clayton 2011, p. 4; Environmental 
Crimes law of Brazil (1999) as cited in

[[Page 45081]]

MSU 2018, unpaginated; Official List of Brazilian Endangered Animal 
Species Order No. 1.522/1989 as cited in ECOLEX 2018; CFRB 2010, p. 
150; Law No. 5.197/1967 as cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated). 
Additionally, several Brazilian laws are designed to protect forests. 
Destruction and damage of forest reserves, cutting trees in forest 
reserves, and causing fire in forests, among other actions, without 
authorization are prohibited (Clayton 2011, p. 5; Law No. 9.605/1998 as 
cited in LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated).
    Protected areas have been emphasized as the best hope for the 
golden conure's survival (e.g., in the Tapajos River region and the 
Gurupi Biological Preserve) (Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 8; 
Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated). The species occurs in 
nine areas recently designated as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Brazil 
(BLI 2018a-h, unpaginated; Lima et al. 2014, p. 318; Laranjeiras 2011a, 
unpaginated; Devenish et al. 2009, pp. 104-106). IBAs are places of 
international significance for the conservation of birds and other 
biodiversity (BLI 2018i, unpaginated). Levels of protection at IBAs 
vary from fully protected to no protections (BLI 2018i, unpaginated). 
For example, the Gurupi IBA has partial protection while the 
Caxiuan[atilde]/Portel IBA has none (Service 2018, pp. 68-70; BLI 
2018b, unpaginated; Devenish et al. 2009, pp. 104-106). Additionally, 
the species' predicted range overlaps with numerous other protected 
areas, also having various levels of protection (Service 2018, pp. 68-
70; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, p. 8).
    Various regulatory mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, and 
Decree No. 78, as cited in ECOLEX 2018, unpaginated) and Law 6.938/1981 
(LatinLawyer 2018, unpaginated) direct Brazil's federal and state 
agencies to promote the protection of lands and govern the formal 
establishment and management of protected areas to promote conservation 
of the country's natural resources. These mechanisms generally aim to 
protect imperiled 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, as cited in ECOLEX 2018, unpaginated).
    Protected Areas: Protected areas have traditionally formed the 
backbone of forest conservation in the Amazon Basin, and they still 
remain a vital conservation strategy (GFA 2018f, unpaginated). Brazil 
has the largest protected area network in the world. The National 
Protected Areas System (Federal Act 9.985/2000, as cited in LatinLawyer 
2018, unpaginated) was established in 2000, and covers nearly 2.2 
million km\2\ (0.8 million mi\2\) or 12.4 percent of the global total 
(WDPA, 2012 as cited by Ferreira et al. 2014, p. 706). This extensive 
network of protected areas is intended to (1) preserve priority 
biodiversity conservation areas, (2) establish biodiversity corridors, 
and (3) protect portions of the 23 Amazonian ecoregions identified by 
World Wildlife Fund (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 612, 615; Silva, 
2005, entire). Brazil's Protected Areas 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.
    By 2006, 1.8 million km\2\ (0.7 million mi\2\), or approximately 45 
percent of Brazil's Amazonian tropical forest, was under some level of 
protection as federal or state managed land, or designated as 
indigenous reserve (managed by indigenous communities) (Barber et al. 
2014, p. 204). Of this, 19.2 percent was strictly protected areas, and 
30.6 percent was comprised of federal and state sustainable use area, 
with indigenous reserves making up the remainder (Barber et al. 2014, 
p. 204).
    Indigenous lands are legally recognized areas where indigenous 
peoples have perpetual rights of access, use, withdrawal, management, 
and exclusion over the land and associated resources (GFW 2018, 
unpaginated). Indigenous communities sustainably use their forest land, 
and large-scale deforestation is prohibited (Barber et al. 2014, p. 
204). Indigenous communities practice shifting cultivation, trade non-
timber forest products, and occasionally allow selective logging (GFA 
2018g, unpaginated; Schwartzman and Zimmerman 2005, p. 721).
    To date, the golden conure has been found in numerous protected 
areas or IBAs, with a total area of approximately 154,673 km\2\ (51,719 
mi\2\) (Service 2018, pp 68-70). However, not all of the area 
represented contains suitable habitat for the species and several of 
the IBAs (39 percent) presently have no protection (61,864 km\2\ 
(23,866 mi\2\). An additional 26 percent of IBAs presently have just 
partial protection (40,582 km\2\ (15,669 mi\2\) (Service 2018, pp 68-
70).
    Despite significant efforts to designate and establish protected 
areas, funding and resources are limited and adequate enforcement of 
these areas is challenging. For example, the conure occurs in Jamari 
National Forest, which is poorly protected and faces pressures from 
loggers, squatters, and poachers (Forshaw 2017, p. 224, F. Olmos in 
litt. 1999 as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5).
    Forest Code: Brazil's forest code was created in 1965, and was 
subsequently changed in the 1990s via a series of presidential decrees 
(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). As of 2001, the forest code 
required landowners in the Amazon to conserve native vegetation on 
their rural properties by setting aside what is called a ``legal 
reserve'' of 80 percent of their property (i.e., with 20 percent 
available to be harvested) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). The 
forest code severely restricted deforestation on private properties but 
proved challenging to enforce, and full compliance has not been 
achieved (GFA 2018b, unpaginated; Azevedo et al. 2017, entire; Soares-
Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). For instance, the lack of registered 
property boundaries made it difficult to link deforestation to 
particular land owners, and the majority of deforestation from 2002 to 
2009 (about 69 percent) occurred on properties whose boundaries were 
not publicly registered (Azevedo et al. 2017, p. 7653).
    In late 2012, a new forest code was approved that reduces 
restoration requirements by providing amnesty for previous illegal 
deforestation by smaller property holders (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 
363). Under the older forest code, legal reserves that were illegally 
deforested were required to be restored at the landowner's expense. The 
new forest code forgives the legal reserve debt of small properties (up 
to 440 hectares (1,087 acres)) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). 
Although the 2012 forest code reduced the restoration requirements, it 
also introduced measures that strengthen conservation including 
addressing (1) fire management, (2) forest carbon, and (3) payments for 
ecosystem services (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
    Additionally, the new forest code created an Environmental Reserve 
Quota where quota surplus on one property may be used to offset a legal 
reserve debt on another property within the same biome; this could 
create a market for forested lands, adding monetary value to native 
vegetation and

[[Page 45082]]

potentially abating up to 56 percent of legal reserve debt (Soares-
Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). Proponents of the new forest code believe 
that it will act as an effective barrier to agricultural development, 
while others believe that amnesty will lead to the perception that 
illegal deforesters are unlikely to be prosecuted or could be forgiven 
in future land reforms (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, pp. 363-364).
    Legal Captive Rearing and Trade: IBAMA has licensed and regulated 
breeding of native bird species, including golden conure, in an effort 
to reduce poaching (Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). The captive population 
of golden conures in Brazil is believed to be about 600 birds (Prioste 
et al. 2013, p. 146), and one breeder reported that in 8 years she 
reared nearly 600 birds (Weinzettl, in litt. 2015). Therefore, there is 
reason to believe that the captive population of golden conures in 
Brazil is at least 600 birds or larger. Additional captive populations 
of golden conures exist as CITES-registered captive-breeding operations 
in the United Kingdom and the Philippines. Although we have no further 
information on these programs, the captive rearing of golden conures in 
Brazil is believed to have reduced the incidence of poaching of young 
golden conures from the wild (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 
2013, as cited in BLI 2016, p. 5).
    Reintroduction: Captive rearing and reintroduction efforts have 
contributed to the recovery of other parrots in Central and South 
America but we know of only one attempt to reintroduce the golden 
conure to an area where it had been extirpated. The species was 
extirpated from the Bel[eacute]m region of Par[aacute] in 1848 (Moura 
et al. 2014, p. 5). In 2017, researchers reintroduced the golden conure 
to this area (at Utinga State Park in Bel[eacute]m) (globo.com 2018, 
unpaginated). The project includes a post-release monitoring component 
(Moura in litt. 2018), but it is too soon to know whether or not the 
reintroduction has been successful.
    Additional Regulatory Mechanisms: ``Reducing Emissions from 
Deforestation and Forest Degradation'' (REDD) is a ``payment for 
ecological services'' initiative that creates a financial value for the 
carbon stored in forests (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). The program offers 
incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from forested 
lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development (GFA 
2018h, unpaginated). REDD plus (REDD+) goes one step further by 
including objectives for (1) biodiversity conservation, (2) sustainable 
management of forests, and (3) improvements to forest governance and 
local livelihoods (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). Brazil is one of the most 
advanced countries in the world in REDD+ planning and maintains an 
``Amazon Fund,'' which receives compensation for reductions in 
deforestation. To date, the Norwegian government is the major donor and 
lesser donors include the government of Germany and the Brazilian oil 
company Petrobras (GFA 2018h, unpaginated). The successful funding and 
implementation of REDD+ is expected to reduce rates of deforestation in 
Brazil's Amazon rainforest and would likely benefit the golden conure 
and its habitat. However, the initiative is in its early stages and is 
being hampered by numerous issues, particularly unresolved land-tenure 
problems (May et al. 2018, p. 44).
    The golden conure is protected under CITES, an international 
agreement between member governments to ensure that the international 
trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species is legal and does not 
threaten species' survival. 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. Brazil is a Party to CITES. Trade in CITES-listed plants and 
animals must be authorized through a licensing system of permits and 
certificates that are provided by the designated CITES Management 
Authority of each CITES Party. CITES includes three Appendices that 
list species meeting specific criteria. Depending on the Appendix in 
which they are listed, species are subject to various permitting 
requirements.
    The golden conure is listed in CITES Appendix I and receives the 
highest degree of protection. Species listed in this Appendix are those 
that are threatened with extinction and which are, or may be, affected 
by trade. Commercial trade in Appendix I wildlife species is strictly 
prohibited, except in limited circumstances provided by the treaty. 
However, commercial international trade may be allowed in certain 
circumstances where animals have been produced by CITES-registered 
captive-breeding operations. Trade in specimens from registered 
operations may be treated as if they were listed in CITES Appendix II, 
although they remain Appendix I listed specimens. Each shipment 
requires the issuance of both CITES export and import documents. There 
are two CITES-registered captive-breeding operations for the golden 
conure: one in the United Kingdom and the other in the Philippines. The 
United States may also allow non-commercial trade in this species on a 
case-by-case basis for approved purposes such as scientific, 
zoological, and educational activities.
    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 Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) and the Lacey Act (18 
U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.). The WBCA was enacted in 1992, to 
ensure that exotic bird species are not harmed by international trade 
and to encourage 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. We 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).
    The Lacey Act was originally passed in 1900, and was the first 
Federal law protecting wildlife. Today, it provides civil and criminal 
penalties for the illegal trade of animals and plants. Under the Lacey 
Act, in part, it is unlawful to (1) 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) 
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. Therefore, for example, because the 
take of wild-caught golden conures would be in violation of Brazil's 
wildlife law, the subsequent import of the species 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.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The best scientific and commercial information available indicates 
that the golden conure is more widespread and abundant than believed at 
the time of listing as endangered (BLI 2017, unpaginated; Bird et al. 
2011, Appendix S1; Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 
2009, pp. 1, 3) and that the threat from poaching for the pet trade 
(Factor B) has diminished (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013,

[[Page 45083]]

in BLI 2016, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99) but is still occurring at 
some unknown level. The global population is estimated at 10,875 
individuals within 174,000 km\2\ (67,182 mi\2\) of suitable habitat 
across a range of approximately 340,000 km\2\ (131,275 mi\2\) 
(Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 3). 
Nevertheless, the population is regarded as small, and is believed to 
declining (BLI 2016, p. 1) primarily due to loss and degradation of its 
habitat from deforestation (Factor A) (BLI 2016, p. 4; IBAMA 2003 and 
SEMA 2007, as cited by Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Collar 1992, p. 
5).
    Although rates of deforestation have declined in recent decades, 
they are increasing again (Alves et al. 2017, p. 76; Fearnside 2017b, 
p. 1; IPAM 2017, p. 15;Prodes 2017, unpaginated; Biderman and Nogueron 
2016, unpaginated) and are projected to continue to increase (Bird et 
al. 2011, entire; Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 520) as the global 
demand for agricultural commodities continues to rise (Brando et al. 
2016, abstract). Risks from deforestation will likely be intensified by 
synergistic effects associated with climate change (Staal et al. 2015, 
p. 2) (Factor E). Climate projections include increased temperatures, 
dryer conditions, and more frequent extreme weather (including 
droughts), which have the potential to stress trees and cause tree 
mortality (Fearnside 2009, pp. 1003, 1005). These conditions also 
increase the unintentional spread of fires, further contributing to 
deforestation (Fearnside 2009, p. 1005). Deforestation itself can cause 
regional shifts in the climate and is likely to operate together with 
the effects of climate change to negatively alter rainforest habitat. 
Although there are uncertainties in the various models, and projected 
outcomes are not definitive, any terra firme forest habitat that shifts 
from rainforest to other habitat types (e.g., savanna) would no longer 
be available to the golden conure.
    Although an illegal international trade of the golden conure 
occurred in the past, there is little evidence that this practice is 
continuing (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte 2005 
in press, unpaginated). In contrast, the golden conure continues to 
face an unknown level of pressure from poaching and illegal trade 
within Brazil (Factor B) (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated), 
particularly in poorer areas (Silveira and Belmonte in press, 
unpaginated; Alves et al. 2013, p. 61). Captive golden conure breeding 
programs in Brazil have helped to limit poaching of wild golden conures 
(Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). 
However, poaching of young conures for the illicit domestic pet trade 
in Brazil has the potential to negatively affect golden conure 
populations, especially if individuals are being collected from small 
or fragmented populations. Population-level effects could operate 
synergistically with effects from habitat loss or degradation to the 
further detriment of the species.
    Although existing conservation efforts and regulatory mechanisms 
appear to be substantial (e.g., Brazil has the largest protected area 
network in the world), at this time they do not adequately ameliorate 
threats to the golden conure (Factor D). Despite significant efforts to 
preserve the rainforest in Brazil's Amazon basin, enforcement has 
proven to be challenging, and full compliance has not been achieved. 
Habitat loss due to deforestation is ongoing and is predicted to 
continue, resulting in global population declines of the golden conure 
(BLI 2016, p. 1; Bird et al. 2011 Appendix S1).

Proposed Determination of Species Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for 
determining whether a species is an endangered species or threatened 
species and should be included on the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (listed). The Act defines an endangered 
species as any species that is ``in danger of extinction throughout all 
or a significant portion of its range'' and a threatened species as any 
species ``that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.'' Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine whether a species is an 
endangered species or threatened species because of any one or a 
combination of the following: (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.

Determination of Status Throughout All of Its Range

    As required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we conducted a review of 
the status of the golden conure and assessed the five factors to 
evaluate whether the species is endangered or threatened throughout all 
of its range. We examined the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by the golden conure. We reviewed information presented in the 
2014 petition, information available in our files, information gathered 
through our 90-day finding in response to the petition, information 
gathered in our status review, 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.
    When we listed the golden conure as endangered in 1976, the species 
was perceived to be declining in numbers due to either Factor A, Factor 
B, or Factor D, or a combination of all three factors (41 FR 24062; 
June 14, 1976). At present, the best scientific and commercial 
information available on the range and abundance of the species 
indicates that the species is more widespread and abundant than 
previously believed and that the threat from overutilization for the 
pet trade (Factor B) has diminished (Silveira in litt. 2012, Lees in 
litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Habitat 
modeling studies have estimated that there are approximately 10,875 
individuals within 174,000 km\2\ (67,182 mi\2\) of suitable habitat 
across a range of approximately 340,000 km\2\ (131,275 mi\2\) 
(Laranjeiras 2011b, p. 311; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, pp. 1, 3).
    Tighter enforcement of CITES, stricter European Union legislation, 
adoption of the WBCA in the United States, and adoption of national 
legislation in other countries have all helped to significantly curtail 
illegal international trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). In addition, 
government-authorized captive breeding programs in Brazil are thought 
to have curtailed the illegal domestic trade (Silveira in litt. 2012, 
Lees in litt. 2013, in BLI 2016, p. 5). Thus, after assessing the best 
available information and as a result of the aforementioned 
information, we conclude the golden conure is not

[[Page 45084]]

currently in danger of extinction throughout its range.
    As described below, we next considered whether the golden conure is 
likely to become in danger of extinction throughout its range within 
the foreseeable future. The term ``foreseeable future'' describes the 
extent to which we can reasonably rely on predictions about the future 
in making determinations about the future conservation status of the 
species. The golden conure has already lost 30 to 35 of its historical 
range (Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Laranjeiras and Cohn-Haft 2009, 
p. 8). We expect both the species' global population and its habitat to 
decline an additional 23 to 30 percent in 22 years (Service 2018, pp. 
42-46; Bird et al. 2011 Appendix S1). Additionally, habitat loss and 
degradation is likely to be intensified by synergistic effects 
associated with the consequences of climate change (Service 2018, pp. 
42-46; Staal et al. 2015, p. 2). There is a strong likelihood of 
warming to at least 1.5 to 2.0 [deg]C (3.6[emsp14][deg]F) in Latin 
America by the end of the Century (Carabine and Lemma 2014, p. 8), and 
downscaled estimates for the Amazon over the same time period (i.e., by 
the end of the Century) indicate temperature increases of 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 (Marengo et al. 
2011, p. 27). Increased temperatures of these amounts put the Amazon 
region at a high risk of forest loss and more frequent wildfires 
(Magrin et al. 2007, p. 596). Downscaled models, based, in part, on the 
earlier (2007) IPCC data, predict severe changes (increased warming and 
drying) over the Amazon rainforest, particularly after 2040 (Marengo et 
al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, 48; F[eacute]res et al. 2009, p. 2). 
Additionally, some leading global-circulation models indicate that 
extreme weather events, such as droughts, will increase in frequency, 
with drought becoming a 9-in-10-year event, by 2060 (Marengo et al. 
2011, p. 28) further contributing to deforestation due to more risk 
from fires (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 16). Therefore, based on the best 
available data, we assessed foreseeable future to be 22 to 42 years (or 
approximately three to six generations of the golden conure). We based 
the lower end of this range (22 years) on the peer-reviewed work by 
Bird et al. 2011, relating to deforestation and declines in the 
population. We based the upper end of this range (42 years) on peer-
reviewed studies predicting effects from climate change (such as 
drought) on deforestation after about 2040 to 2060 (Marengo et al. 
2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 28, 39, 48; F[eacute]res et al. 2009, p. 2). We 
conclude that it is reasonable to rely on the predictions made in these 
peer-reviewed studies in making determinations about the future 
conservation status of the golden conure.
    Although the golden conure is now known to be more widespread and 
abundant than previously thought, the species remains relatively rare. 
It occurs only within the southern basin of Brazil's Amazon, and much 
of this area is in the ``arc of deforestation'' and is threatened by 
loss and degradation of its rainforest habitat from deforestation. 
Effects from deforestation are exacerbated by the projected effects 
from climate change. Additionally, even though government-authorized 
captive breeding programs in Brazil are thought to have curtailed the 
illegal domestic trade, some unknown level of illegal collection and 
trade is ongoing, particularly within Brazil (Silveira and Belmonte in 
press, unpaginated).
    Existing regulatory mechanisms and conservation efforts do not 
currently adequately ameliorate threats to the golden conure (Factor 
D). The factors identified above continue to affect the golden conure 
such that it is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. 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, and predictions about how those threats may impact 
the golden conure, we conclude that the species is likely to be in 
danger of extinction in the foreseeable future throughout all of its 
range. Accordingly, we find that the golden conure meets the definition 
of a ``threatened species'' under the Act, and we are proposing to list 
the golden conure 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 golden conure 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.

Proposed 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 of the Interior, 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 golden conure, the 
Service is exercising our discretion to propose a rule under section 
4(d) of the Act. If this proposed rule is adopted, we will incorporate 
all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, except that 
import and export of certain golden conures into and from the United 
States and certain acts in interstate commerce will be allowed without 
a permit under the Act, as explained below.

Import and Export

    The proposed 4(d) rule imposes a prohibition on imports and exports 
(by incorporating 50 CFR 17.31), but creates exceptions for certain 
golden conures. Shipments of captive specimens (i.e., not taken from 
the wild) may include live and dead golden conures and parts and 
products, including the import and export of personal pets and research 
samples. The proposed 4(d) rule would adopt the existing conservation 
regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate 
regulatory provisions for the import and export of these golden conure 
specimens.
    This 4(d) rule proposes to allow a person to import or export, into 
and

[[Page 45085]]

from the United States, captive specimens, without a permit issued 
under the Act, provided that the export is authorized under CITES and 
the import is authorized under CITES and the WBCA. The import would 
require a CITES document issued by the foreign Management Authority 
indicating a source code of ``C'', ``D'', or ``F.'' Exporters of 
captive birds would need to provide a signed and dated statement from 
the breeder of the bird, along with documentation that identifies the 
source of their breeding stock in order to obtain a CITES export permit 
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Management 
Authority. 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:
     Source Code 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.
     Source Code 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.
     Source Code 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 proposed 4(d) rule would not allow any U.S. import or export of 
golden conures that are taken from the wild; such birds must continue 
to meet the requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including obtaining 
a permit under the Act, with the following exception. This 4(d) rule 
proposes to allow a person to import or export a wild golden conure 
specimen if the specimen was held in captivity prior to the date the 
species was listed in CITES Appendix I (i.e., prior to the date that 
CITES entered into force on July 1, 1975, with ``golden parakeet'' 
(i.e., the golden conure) listed in Appendix I) and provided that it 
meets all the requirements of CITES and WBCA. If a specimen was taken 
from the wild and held in captivity prior to that date (July 1, 1975), 
the exporter would need to provide documentation as part of the 
application for a U.S. CITES preconvention certificate. Examples of 
documentation may include: (1) A copy of the original CITES permit 
indicating when the bird was removed from the wild, (2) veterinary 
records, or (3) museum specimen reports. Additionally, consistent with 
the 4(d) regulations for other species in the parrot family at 50 CFR 
17.41 (c), the prohibitions on take would apply and the 4(d) rule would 
require a permit under the Act for any activity that could take a 
golden conure. 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 golden conure in light of 
the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the WBCA. 
As noted above in Summary of Factors Affecting the Species, some level 
of poaching for illegal trade of golden conures is occurring within 
Brazil (Silveira and Belmonte in press, unpaginated) but there is 
little evidence that this practice occurs at the international level 
(Laranjeiras 2011a, unpaginated; Silveira and Belmonte 2005 in press, 
unpaginated). The best available commercial data indicate that tighter 
enforcement of CITES, stricter European Union legislation, adoption of 
the WBCA in the United States, and adoption of national legislation in 
other countries have all helped to significantly curtail illegal 
international trade (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 99). Therefore, illegal 
international trade is not likely to be occurring at levels that 
negatively affect the golden conure population. Additionally, legal 
international trade of the species is not currently occurring at levels 
that affect the golden conure population. Therefore, we find that the 
import and export requirements of the proposed 4(d) rule provide the 
necessary and advisable conservation measures that are needed for this 
species. This proposed 4(d) rule, if made final, would streamline the 
permitting process for these types of activities by deferring to 
existing laws that are protective of golden conures in the course of 
import and export.

Interstate Commerce

    Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship a golden conure in interstate commerce in the course 
of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate 
commerce a golden conure without a permit under the Act. At the same 
time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.21 would apply under 
this proposed 4(d) rule, and any interstate commerce activities that 
could incidentally take golden conure or otherwise constitute 
prohibited acts in foreign commerce would require a permit under 50 CFR 
17.32.
    Between 1981 and 2016, persons within the United States imported 54 
golden conures and exported 26; all were reported as live captive-bred 
birds except two exported birds that originated from an unknown source 
and one imported bird seized upon import (UNEP-WCMC 2018, unpaginated; 
Service 2018, p. 33). These imports and exports were made for 
commercial, captive-breeding, zoological, and personal purposes (UNEP-
WCMC 2018, unpaginated; Service 2018, p. 33). We have no information to 
indicate that interstate commerce activities in the United States are 
associated with threats to the golden conure or would negatively affect 
any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species. 
Therefore, because (1) acts in interstate commerce within the United 
States have not been found to threaten the golden conure, (2) the 
species is otherwise protected in the course of interstate and foreign 
commercial activities under the take provisions set forth at 50 CFR 
17.31, and (3) international trade of this species appears to be 
effectively regulated under CITES, we find this proposed 4(d) rule 
contains all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and 
advisable for the conservation of the golden conure.

Proposed Technical Correction

    Sections 50 CFR 17.11(c) and 17.12(b) of Title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations direct us to use the most recently accepted 
scientific name of any wildlife or plant species, respectively, that we 
have determined to be an endangered or threatened species. The golden 
conure currently appears on the List as the ``golden parakeet'' 
(Aratinga guarouba). However, in this proposed rule, we refer to the 
species by the common name ``golden conure'' and, based on the best 
available scientific information regarding the species' taxonomy, we 
use the scientific name Guaruba guarouba. Both ``golden conure'' and 
``golden parakeet'' are common names associated with Guaruba guarouba. 
We find that the best available scientific information available 
supports the designation of the

[[Page 45086]]

golden conure to its own genus (Guaruba). Therefore, we propose to 
update the List to reflect this change in the scientific name for 
golden conure.
    The basis for this taxonomic change is supported by published 
studies in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Urant[oacute]wka and 
Mackiewicz 2017, entire; Tavares et al. 2004, pp. 230, 236-237, 239; 
Sick 1990, p. 112). Accordingly, we propose to correct the scientific 
name of the species under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
by changing the name as currently listed (i.e., golden parakeet 
(Aratinga guarouba)) to the corrected species name (i.e., golden conure 
or golden parakeet (Guaruba guarouba)). We note that we are not 
required to propose such a technical correction and can generally make 
such a change in a direct final rule. We determined it more efficient, 
however, to include the technical correction in this proposal.

Effects of This Rule

    If this proposed rule is made final, it would revise 50 CFR 
17.11(h) to reclassify the golden conure from endangered to threatened 
on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Additionally, if the 
proposed 4(d) rule is adopted in a final rule, the Service will 
incorporate all prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, 
except that import and export of certain golden conures into and from 
the United States and certain acts in interstate commerce will be 
allowed without a permit under the Act. In addition, if the proposed 
taxonomic change is made final, we will revise the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife to change the species' scientific name to 
Guaruba guarouba, and its common name to golden conure (=golden 
parakeet).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

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

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 complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2015-0019 or upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 
Authors
    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Branch of Delisting and 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, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to 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; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife, by:
0
a. Removing the entry for ``Parakeet, golden'' under BIRDS; and
0
b. Adding an entry for ``Conure, golden (=golden parakeet)'' in 
alphabetical order under BIRDS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed        Status        applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
              BIRDS
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Conure, golden, (=golden          Guaruba guarouba...  Wherever found.....  T            41 FR 24062, 6/14/1976;
 parakeet).                                                                               [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation of final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR 17.41(c)
                                                                                          4d.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec.  17.41 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text 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 the golden conure 
(Guaruba guarouba).
* * * * *
    (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 applicable date 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

[[Page 45087]]

wildlife declaration forms, which must be dated prior to the specified 
dates.
* * * * *
    (D) For golden conures: July 1, 1975 (the date CITES entered into 
force with the ``golden parakeet'' (i.e., the golden conure) listed in 
Appendix I).
* * * * *

    Dated: August 3, 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. 2018-19153 Filed 9-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P