[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 85488-85507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28318]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the 
Hyacinth Macaw

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 85489]]

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

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

II. Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

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

Information Requested

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

Public Hearing

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

Peer Review

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

[[Page 85490]]

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

Background

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines 
``endangered species'' as any species that is in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 
1532(6)), and ``threatened species'' as any species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Under 
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be an 
endangered or a threatened species based on any of the following five 
factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    We fully considered the comments and information we received from 
the public and peer reviewers. We also conducted a search for 
information that became available since our 2012 proposed rule. We made 
some technical corrections and included additional information on the 
work being done by the Hyacinth Macaw Project. Based on new 
information, we also reevaluated impacts to the species from 
deforestation and predation. Based on our evaluation of this new 
information, we are proposing to list the hyacinth macaw as a 
threatened species under the Act. We summarize below the information on 
which we based our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. We are also proposing a rule under section 4(d) of 
the Act that defines the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to 
hyacinth macaws.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

    The hyacinth macaw (hyacinth) is the largest bird of the parrot 
family, Family Psittacidae, (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395; Munn et 
al. 1989, p. 405). It measures approximately 1 meter (m) (3.3 feet 
(ft)) in length. Average female and male wing lengths measure 
approximately 400 to 407.5 millimeters (mm) (1.3 ft), respectively. 
Average tail lengths for females and males are 492.4 mm (1.6 ft) and 
509.4 mm (1.7 ft), respectively (Forshaw 1973, p. 364). Hyacinth macaws 
are characterized by a predominately cobalt-blue plumage, black 
underside of wing and tail, and unlike other macaws, have feathered 
faces and lores (areas of a bird's face from the base of the bill to 
the front of the eyes). In addition, they have bare yellow eye rings, 
bare yellow patches surrounding the base of their lower mandibles, 
large and hooked grey-black bills, dark-brown irises. Their legs, which 
are dark grey in most birds but lighter grey to white in older adults, 
are short and sturdy to allow the bird to hang sideways or upside down 
while foraging. Immature birds are similar to adults, but with shorter 
tails and paler yellow bare facial skin (Juniper and Parr 1998, pp. 
416-417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 405; 
Forshaw 1973, p. 364).
    The hyacinth macaw experiences late maturity, not reaching first 
reproduction until 8 or 9 years old (Guedes 2009, p. 117). Hyacinths 
are monogamous and faithful to nesting sites; a couple may reproduce 
for more than a decade in the same nest. They nest from July to January 
in tree cavities and, in some parts of its range, cliff cavities 
(Tortato and Bonanomi 2012, p. 22; Guedes 2009, pp. 4, 5, 12; Pizo et 
al. 2008, p. 792; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 35; Abramson et al. 1995, 
p. 2). The hyacinth macaw lays two smooth, white eggs approximately 
48.4 mm (1.9 inches (in)) long and 36.4 mm (1.4 in) wide. Eggs are 
usually found in the nest from August until December (Guedes 2009, p. 
4; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 406). The 
female alone incubates the eggs for approximately 28-30 days. The male 
remains near the nest to protect it from invaders, but may leave 4-6 
times a day to forage and collect food for the female (Schneider et al. 
2006, pp. 72, 79; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 406). Chicks are mostly 
naked, with sparse white down feathers at hatching. Young are fed 
regurgitated, chopped palm nuts (Munn et al. 1989, p. 405). Most chicks 
fledge at 105-110 days old; however, separation is a slow process. 
Fledglings will continue to be fed by the parents for 6 months, when 
they begin to break hard palm nuts themselves, and may remain with the 
adults for 16 months, after which they will join groups of other young 
birds (Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71-72; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 
407-411).
    Hyacinth macaws naturally have a low reproductive rate, a 
characteristic common to all parrots, due, in part, to asynchronous 
hatching. Although hyacinths lay two eggs, usually only one chick 
survives (Guedes 2009, p. 31; Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Kuniy et al. 
2006, p. 381; Guedes, 2004b, p. 6; Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). Not all 
hyacinth nests fledge young, and, due to the long period of chick 
dependence, hyacinths breed only every 2 years (Faria et al.

[[Page 85491]]

2008, p. 766; Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71-72; Guedes 2004b, p. 7; 
Pinho and Nigueira 2003, p. 30; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 407-411; 
Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). In a study of the Pantanal, the largest 
population of hyacinth macaws, it was suggested that only 15-30 percent 
of adults attempt to breed; it may be that as small or an even smaller 
percentage in Par[aacute] and Gerais attempt to breed (Munn et al. 
1998, p. 409).

Range and Population

    At one time, hyacinths were widely distributed, occupying large 
areas of Central Brazil into the Bolivian and Paraguayan Pantanal 
(Guedes 2009, pp. xiii, 11; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Whittingham 
et al. 1998, p. 66; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395). Today, the species 
is limited to three areas totaling approximately 537,000 km\2\, almost 
exclusively within Brazil: (1) Eastern Amazonia in Par[aacute], Brazil, 
south of the Amazon River along the Tocantins, Xingu, and 
Tapaj[oacute]s rivers; (2) the Gerais region of northeastern Brazil, 
including the states of Maranh[atilde]o, Piau[iacute], Goi[aacute]s, 
Tocantins, Bahia, and Minas Gerais; and (3) the Pantanal of Mato Grosso 
and Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil and marginally in Bolivia and Paraguay. 
These areas have experienced less pressure from trapping, hunting, and 
agriculture (Birdlife International (BLI) 2014a, unpaginated; Snyder et 
al. 2000, p. 119; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 416; Abramson et al. 1995, 
p. 14; Munn et al. 1989, p. 407).
    Prior to the arrival of Indians and Europeans to South America, 
there may have been between 100,000 and 3 million hyacinth macaws (Munn 
et al. 1989, p. 412); however, due to the species' large but patchy 
range, an estimate of the original population size when the species was 
first described (1790) is unattainable (Collar et al. 1992, p. 253). 
Although some evidence suggests that the hyacinth macaw was abundant 
before the mid-1980s (Guedes 2009, p. 11; Collar et al. 1992, p. 253), 
the species significantly declined throughout the 1980s due to an 
estimated 10,000 birds illegally captured for the pet trade and a 
further reduction in numbers due to habitat loss and hunting. Although 
population estimates prior to 1986 are lacking, a very rapid population 
decline is suspected to have taken place over the last 31 years (three 
generations) (BLI 2014a, unpaginated). In 1986, the total population of 
hyacinth macaws was estimated to be 3,000, with a range between 2,500 
and 5,000 individuals; 750 occurred in Par[aacute], 1,000 in Gerais, 
and 1,500 in Pantanal (Guedes 2004b, p. 2; Collar et al. 1992, p. 253; 
Munn et al. 1989, p. 413). In 2003, the population was estimated at 
6,500 individuals; 5,000 of which were located in the Pantanal region, 
and 1,000-1,500 in Par[aacute] and Gerais, combined (BLI 2014a, 
unpaginated; Guedes 2009, p. 11; Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; WWF 2004, 
unpaginated). Observations of hyacinth macaws in the wild have 
increased in Paraguay, especially in the northern region (Espinola 
2013, pers. comm.), but no quantitative data is available. Locals 
report the species increasing in Bolivia; between 140 and 160 hyacinths 
are estimated to occur in the Bolivian Pantanal, with estimates as high 
as 300 for the entire country (Guedes 2012, p. 1; Pinto-Ledezma 2011, 
p. 19).
    Although the 2003 estimate indicates a substantial increase in the 
Pantanal population, the methods or techniques used to estimate the 
population are not described; therefore, the reliability of the 
estimation techniques, as well as the accuracy of the estimated 
increase, are not known (Santos, Jr. 2013, pers. comm.). Despite the 
uncertainty in the estimated population increase, the Pantanal is the 
stronghold for the species and has shown signs of recovery since 1990, 
most likely as a response to conservation projects (BLI 2014a, 
unpaginated; Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 
30). However, the overall population trend for the hyacinth macaw is 
reported as decreasing (BLI 2014a, unpaginated), although there are no 
extreme fluctuations reported in the number of individuals (BLI 2014a, 
unpaginated).

Essential Needs of the Species

    Hyacinths use a variety of habitats in the Par[aacute], Gerais, and 
Pantanal regions. Each region features a dry season that prevents the 
growth of extensive closed-canopy tropical forests and maintains the 
more open habitat preferred by this species. In Par[aacute], the 
species prefers palm-rich v[aacute]rzea (flooded forests), seasonally 
moist forests with clearings, and savannas. In the Gerais region, 
hyacinths are located within the Cerrado biome, where they inhabit dry 
open forests in rocky, steep-sided valleys and plateaus, gallery 
forests (a stretch of forest along a river in an area of otherwise open 
country), and Mauritia palm swamps. In the Pantanal region, hyacinth 
macaws frequent gallery forests and palm groves with wet grassy areas 
(Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395; Munn et 
al. 1989, p. 407).
    Hyacinths have a specialized diet consisting of the fruits of 
various palm species, which are inside an extremely hard nut that only 
the hyacinth can easily break (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 400; Collar 
et al. 1992, p. 254). Hyacinths are highly selective in choice of palm 
nut; they have to be the right size and shape, as well as have an 
extractable kernel with the right lignin pattern (Brightsmith 1999, p. 
2; Pittman 1993, unpaginated). They forage for palm nuts and water on 
the ground, but may also forage directly from the palm tree and drink 
fluid from unripe palm fruits. Hyacinths also feed on the large 
quantities of nuts eliminated by cattle in the fields and have been 
observed in close proximity to cattle ranches where waste piles are 
concentrated (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Yamashita 1997, pp. 177, 
179; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 400-401; Collar et al. 1992, p. 254).
    In each of the three regions where hyacinths occur, they use only a 
few specific palm species. In Par[aacute], hyacinths have been reported 
to feed on Maximiliana regia (inaj[aacute]), Orbignya martiana 
(babassu), Orbignya phalerata (babac[uacute]) and Astrocaryum sp. 
(tucum[aacute]n). In the Gerais region, hyacinths feed on Attalea 
funifera (piacava), Syagrus coronata (catol[eacute]), and Mauritia 
vinifera (buriti). In the Pantanal region, hyacinths feed exclusively 
on Scheelea phalerata (acuri) and Acrocromia totai (bocai[uacute]va) 
(Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Schneider et al. 2006, p. 74; Juniper and 
Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 401; Collar et al. 1992, 
p. 254; Munn et al. 1987, pp. 407-408). Although hyacinths prefer 
bocai[uacute]va palm nuts over acuri, bocai[uacute]va is only readily 
available from September to December, which coincides with the peak of 
chick hatching; however, the acuri is available throughout the year and 
constitutes the majority of this species' diet in the Pantanal (Guedes 
and Harper 1995, p. 400).
    Hyacinths also have specialized nesting requirements. As a 
secondary tree nester, they require large, mature trees with 
preexisting tree holes to provide nesting cavities large enough to 
accommodate them (Tortato and Bonanomi 2012, p. 22; Guedes 2009, pp. 4, 
5, 12; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 2). In 
Par[aacute], the species nests in holes of Bertholettia excelsa (Brazil 
nut). In the Gerais region, nesting may occur in large dead Mauritia 
vinifera (buriti), but is most commonly found in natural rock crevices. 
In the Pantanal region, the species nests almost exclusively (94 
percent) in Sterculia striata (manduvi) as it is one of the few tree 
species that grows large enough to supply cavities that can accommodate 
the hyacinth's large size. Manduvi trees must be at least 60 years old, 
and on average 80 years old, to provide adequate cavities

[[Page 85492]]

(Guedes 2009, pp. 59-60; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et al. 
2006, p. 185). Nesting has also been reported in Pithecellobium edwalii 
(angio branco), Enterolobium contortisiliquum (ximbuva), Vitex sp. 
(tarum[aacute]), and the cliff face of mountains on the border of the 
Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, p. 24; Guedes 2004b, p. 6; Kuniy et al. 
2006, p. 381; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 180; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, 
pp. 30, 33; Guedes 2002, p. 4; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes 
and Harper 1995, p. 402; Collar et al. 1992, p. 255; Munn et al. 1987, 
p. 408).

Conservation Status

    In 1989, the hyacinth was listed on the Official List of Brazilian 
Fauna Threatened with Extinction by the Brazilian Institute of 
Environment and Natural Resources (IBAMA), the government agency that 
controls the country's natural resources (Lunardi et al. 2003, p. 283; 
IBAMA Ordinance No. 1522, of December 19, 1989). Due to actions to 
combat trafficking of animals, the hyacinth macaw was removed from the 
list in 2014 (Instituto Chico Mendes de Conserva[ccedil][atilde]o da 
Bioversidade 2016, unpaginated). It is listed as ``critically 
endangered'' by the State of Minas Gerais and ``vulnerable'' by the 
State of Par[aacute] (Garcia and Marini 2006, p. 153). In Paraguay, the 
hyacinth is listed as in danger of extinction (Secretar[iacute]a del 
Ambiente n.d., p. 4; Bauer 2012, pers. comm.).
    From 2000 to 2013, this species was classified as ``endangered'' by 
the IUCN. However, in 2014, the hyacinth was downlisted to 
``vulnerable'' because evidence suggested that it had not declined as 
rapidly as previously thought. A ``vulnerable'' taxon is considered to 
be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild, whereas an 
``endangered taxon is considered to be facing a very high risk of 
extinction in the wild (BLI 2014a, unpaginated). The hyacinth macaw is 
also listed as Appendix I on the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) list. Species 
included in CITES Appendix I are considered threatened with extinction, 
and international trade is permitted only under exceptional 
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade.

Factors Affecting the Species

    Most of the information on the hyacinth macaw is from the Pantanal 
region, as this is the largest and most studied population. The species 
occurs only marginally within Bolivia and Paraguay as extensions from 
the Brazilian Pantanal population, and there is little information on 
the species in those countries. We found little information on the 
status of the Par[aacute] and Gerais populations; therefore, we 
evaluated impacts to these populations by a broader region (e.g., the 
Amazon biome for Par[aacute] and the Cerrado biome for Gerais).
    Parrots in general have traits that predispose them to extinction 
(Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; Guedes 2004a, p. 280; Wright 
et al. 2001, p. 711; Munn et al. 1998, p. 409). Additionally, feeding 
and habitat specializations are good predictors of a bird species' risk 
of extinction. The hyacinth scores high in both food and nest site 
specialization (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795; 
Munn et al. 1998, p. 409; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186; Guedes and 
Harper 1995, p. 400) as they feed on and nest in very limited number of 
tree species. Therefore, hyacinths are particularly vulnerable to 
extinction due to the loss of food sources and nesting sites (Faria et 
al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo 2008, p. 795; Munn et al. 1998, pp. 404, 409; 
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). As stated above, hyacinths naturally have 
a low reproductive rate; not all hyacinth nests fledge young, and, due 
to the long period of chick dependence, hyacinths breed only every 2 
years. Only 15-30 percent of adults in the Pantanal attempt to breed; 
it may be that as small or an even smaller percentage in Par[aacute] 
and Gerais attempt to breed. The specialized nature and reproductive 
biology of the hyacinth macaw contribute to low recruitment of 
juveniles and decrease the ability to recover from reductions in 
population size caused by anthropogenic disturbances (Faria et al. 
2008, p. 766; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). This species' vulnerability 
to extinction is further heightened by deforestation that negatively 
affects the availability of essential food and nesting resources, 
hunting that removes individuals from already small populations, and 
other factors that further reduce naturally low reproductive rates, 
recruitment, and the population.

Deforestation

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

[[Page 85493]]

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

                                Table 1--Deforestation in Par[aacute] (2004-2015)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Annual change
                                                                    Accumulated       Annual            in
                              Year                                  deforested      deforested     deforestation
                                                                   area (km\2\)    area (km\2\)      rate  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004............................................................        * 98,257           8,870              24
2005............................................................         104,156           5,899             -33
2006............................................................         109,815           5,659              -4
2007............................................................         115,341           5,526              -2
2008............................................................         120,948           5,607               1
2009............................................................         125,229           4,281             -24
2010............................................................         128,999           3,770             -12
2011............................................................         132,007           3,008             -20
2012............................................................         133,748           1,741             -42
2013............................................................         136,094           2,346              35
2014............................................................         137,981           1,887             -20
2015............................................................         139,862           1,881               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Accumulation since 1988.

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

[[Page 85494]]



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

    The remaining natural vegetation of the Cerrado is highly 
fragmented (only 20 percent of the original biome is considered intact) 
and continues to be pressured by conversion for soy plantations and 
extensive cattle ranching (WWF-UK 2011c, p. 21; WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2; 
Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 1393; BLI 2008, unpaginated). About six in 
every 10 hectares of the Cerrado are suitable for mechanized 
agriculture (WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2). Maranh[atilde]o, Tocantins, 
Piau[iacute], and Bahia, states where hyacinth macaws occur, are 
undergoing rapid conversion, mostly to soy crops (CEPF 2016, p. 151). 
Soy production will continue to grow as the beans have many uses for 
food, feed, and industry in Brazil and abroad (CEPF 2016, p. 152). 
Furthermore, the Brazilian government has proposed a 731,735 km\2\-
agricultural development, of which 91 percent occurs in the Cerrado, 
with little regard for the environment, at least as of 2015 (Clark 2015 
and Miranda 2015 In CEPF 2016, p. 95). Additionally, the conversion of 
land for biofuel production is likely imminent, creating a market for 
the expansion and establishment of new areas for soy, castor beans, 
other oil-bearing plants, and sugar cane (Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 
1400).
    Given that the Cerrado is the most desirable biome for agribusiness 
expansion and contains approximately 40 million ha (98.8 million ac) of 
``environmental surplus'' that could be legally deforested (See 
discussion of Brazil's Forest Code, below) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, 
p. 364), this region will likely continue to suffer high deforestation 
rates. Projections for coming decades show the largest increase in 
agricultural production occurring in the Cerrado (CEPF 2016, p. 145).
Pantanal
    The Pantanal is a 140,000-km\2\ (54,054-mi\2\) seasonally flooded 
wetland interspersed with higher areas not subject to inundation 
(cordilleras), covered with cerrado or seasonal forests (Santos Jr. 
2008, p. 133; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 127; Harris et al. 2005, p. 
715; Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 103). Transitions during the 1990s to 
more intensive cattle ranching methods led to the conversion of more 
forests to pasture and the introduction of nonnative grasses. Ninety-
five percent of the Pantanal is privately owned; 80 percent of the 
privately owned land is used for cattle ranches, making cattle ranching 
the predominant economic activity in this region and the greatest cause 
of habitat loss in the Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, p. 5; Guedes and 
Vicente 2012, pp. 146-147, 148; Guedes 2009, p. 12; Pizo et al. 2008, 
p. 793; Harris et al. 2006, pp. 165, 175-176; Harris et al. 2005, pp. 
715-716, 718; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Seidl et al. 2001, p. 
414; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 396; Mettermeier 1990, pp. 103, 107-
108).
    Manduvi, the tree that hyacinth macaws almost exclusively use for 
nesting in this region, grow in cordilleras, which constitute only 6 
percent of the vegetative area of the Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, p. 
6; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). Much of 
these patches and corridors are surrounded by seasonally flooded 
grasslands used as rangeland for cattle during the dry season (Johnson 
et al. 1997, p. 186). During the flooding season (January to June), up 
to 80 percent of the Pantanal is flooded and ranchers move cattle to 
cordilleras, increasing cattle pressure on upland forests (van der Meer 
2013, p. 3; Guedes 2002, p. 3). These upland forests are often removed 
and converted to cultivated pastures with exotic grasses (van der Meer 
2013, p. 6; Santos Jr. 2008, p. 136; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 127; 
Harris et al. 2006, p. 165; Harris et al. 2005, p. 716; Pinho and 
Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Seidl et al. 2001, p. 414; Johnson et al. 1997, 
p. 186). Clearing land to establish pasture is perceived as the 
economically optimal land use, while land not producing beef is often 
perceived as unproductive (Seidl et al. 2001, pp. 414-415).
    Since 2002, regular monitoring of land use and vegetative cover in 
the Upper Paraguay Basin, which includes the Pantanal, has taken place. 
While the annual rate of deforestation is decreasing, satellite 
monitoring of the area indicates a slow and steady increase in 
deforested area (Table 3).

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

    When clearing land for pastures, palm trees are often left, as the 
cattle will feed on the palm nuts (Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 36). In 
fact, hyacinths occur near cattle ranches and feed off the palm nuts 
eliminated by the cattle (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Yamashita 
1997, pp. 177, 179; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 400-401; Collar et al. 
1992, p. 254).

[[Page 85495]]

However, other trees, including potential nesting trees, are often 
removed (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119). Even in areas where known nesting 
trees were left and the surrounding area was cleared, competition with 
each other and other macaw species became so fierce that hyacinth 
macaws were unable to reproduce; both eggs and chicks were destroyed by 
pecking. Furthermore, 3 years after deforestation, the nesting trees 
that were left were lost due to isolation and damage from storms and 
wind.
    Other activities associated with cattle ranching, such as the 
introduction of exotic foraging grasses, grazing, burning, compaction, 
and fragmentation, can negatively impact the nesting trees of the 
hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2013, unpaginated; Guedes and Vicente 2012, pp. 
149-150; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Harris et al. 2006, p. 175; 
Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119). For example, fire is a common method for 
renewing pastures, controlling weeds, and controlling pests (e.g., 
ticks); however, fires frequently become uncontrolled and are known to 
enter the patches and corridors of manduvi trees during the dry season 
(Harris et al. 2005, p. 716; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). Although 
fire can promote cavity formation in manduvi trees, frequent fires can 
also prevent trees from surviving to a size capable of providing 
suitable cavities, and can cause a high rate of nesting tree loss 
(Guedes 1993 in Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187). Guedes (Guedes and 
Vicente 2012, p. 157; 1995 in Santos Jr. et al. 2006, pp. 184-185) 
noted that 5 percent of manduvi trees are lost each year to 
deforestation, fire, and storms.
    In addition to the direct removal of trees and the impact of fire 
on recruitment of manduvi trees, cattle themselves have impacted the 
density of manduvi seedlings in the Pantanal. Cattle forage on and 
trample manduvi seedlings, affecting the recruitment of this species to 
a size large enough to accommodate hyacinths (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793; 
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187; Mettermeier et al. 1990, p. 107). Only 
those manduvi trees 60 years old or older are capable of providing 
these cavities (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 
185). The minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) for trees to 
potentially contain a cavity suitable for hyacinth macaws is 50 cm (20 
in), while all manduvi trees greater than 100 cm (39 in) DBH contain 
suitable nest cavities. However, there is low recruitment of manduvi 
trees in classes greater than 5 cm (2 in) DBH, a strong reduction in 
the occurrence of trees greater than 50 cm (20 in) DBH, and very few 
trees greater than 110 cm (43 in) DBH (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128). 
Only 5 percent of the existing adult manduvi trees (trees with a DBH 
greater than 50 cm (20 in)) in south-central Pantanal (Guedes 1993 in 
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186), and 10.7 percent in southern Pantanal 
(van der Meer 2013, p. 16), contain suitable cavities for hyacinth 
macaws. This finding indicates that potential nesting sites are rare 
and will become increasingly rare in the future (Santos Jr. et al. 
2007, p. 128).
Impacts of Deforestation
    Because the hyacinth is highly specialized in both diet and nesting 
sites, it is particularly vulnerable to the loss of these resources and 
extinction (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo 2008, p. 795; Munn et al. 
1998, pp. 404, 409; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). The loss of tree 
species used by hyacinths negatively impacts the species by reducing 
availability of food resources, creating a shortage of suitable nesting 
sites, increasing competition, and resulting in lowered recruitment and 
a reduction in population size (Lee 2010, pp. 2, 6, 12; Santos Jr. et 
al. 2007, p. 128; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 188).
    Its specialized diet makes hyacinth macaws vulnerable to changes in 
food availability. Inadequate nutrition can contribute to poor health 
and reduced reproduction in parrots generally (McDonald 2003 In Lee 
2010, p. 6). Changes in fruit availability are known to decrease 
reproduction in hyacinths (Guedes 2009, pp. 42-43, 44). In Par[aacute] 
and the Gerais region, where food sources are threatened, persistence 
of the species is a concern given that one of the major factors thought 
to have contributed to the critically endangered status of the Lear's 
macaw (Anodorhynchus leari) is the loss of its specialized food source, 
licuri palm stands (Syagrus sp.), to cattle grazing (Collar et al. 
1992, p. 257).
    Hyacinths can tolerate a certain degree of human disturbance at 
their breeding sites (Pinho and Noguiera 2003, p. 36); however, the 
number of usable cavities increases with the age of the trees in the 
forest (Newton 1994, p. 266), and clearing land for agriculture and 
cattle ranching, cattle trampling and foraging, and burning of forest 
habitat result in the loss of mature trees with natural cavities of 
sufficient size and a reduction in recruitment of native species, which 
could eventually provide nesting cavities.
    A shortage of nest sites can jeopardize the persistence of the 
hyacinth macaw by constraining breeding density, resulting in lower 
recruitment and a gradual reduction in population size (Santos Jr. et 
al. 2007, p. 128; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 188; Guedes and Harper 1995, 
p. 405; Newton 1994, p. 265). This reduction may lead to long-term 
effects on the viability of the hyacinth macaw population, especially 
in Par[aacute] and the Pantanal where persistence of nesting trees is 
compromised (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 
181).
    Although a species may survive the initial shock of deforestation, 
the resulting lack of food resources and breeding sites may reduce the 
viability of the population and make the species vulnerable to 
extinction (Sodhi et al. 2009, p. 517). Given the land-use trends 
across the range of the hyacinth macaw, the continued availability of 
food and nesting resources is of great concern.
    In response to the loss of its nesting tree, hyacinths in the 
Gerais region now use rock crevices for nesting. Hyacinths have been 
reported in various trees species and even on cliffs on the border of 
the Pantanal; however, the majority of their nests are in Brazil nut 
(in Par[aacute]) and manduvi (in the Pantanal) (see Essential Needs of 
the Species). We do not know if the hyacinths in this region will 
respond in the same way to the loss of nesting trees as those in the 
Gerais region. It is possible that if these primary nesting trees 
become scarcer, hyacinths may adapt to using cavities of other trees 
(Van der Meer 2013, p. 3) or perhaps even cliff faces. However, to 
accommodate their large size, hyacinth macaws require older trees with 
large cavities. Deforestation in these regions would likely impact any 
alternative nesting trees and food sources, resulting in the same 
negative effect on the hyacinth macaw. Furthermore, competition for 
limited nesting sites and food would continue.
Regulatory Protections
    In general, wildlife species and their nests, shelters, and 
breeding grounds are subject to Brazilian laws designed to provide 
protection (Clayton 2011, p. 4; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119; 
Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9605/98); Stattersfield and Capper 
1992, p. 257; Official List of Brazilian Endangered Animal Species 
(Order No. 1.522/1989); Brazilian Constitution (Title VIII, Chapter VI, 
1988); Law No. 5197/1967; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated). Additionally, the 
forests of Brazil are specifically subject to several Brazilian laws 
designed to protect them. Destruction and damaging of forest reserves, 
cutting trees in forest reserves, and causing fire in forests, among 
other actions, without authorization are prohibited (Clayton 2011, p. 
5; Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9605/98); UNEP, n.d., 
unpaginated).

[[Page 85496]]

    Brazil's Forest Code, passed in 1965, is a central component of the 
nation's environmental legislation; it dictates the minimum percentage 
and type of woodland that farmers, timber companies, and others must 
leave intact on their properties (Barrionuevo 2012, unpaginated; Boadle 
2012, unpaginated). Since 2001, the Forest Code has required landowners 
to conserve native vegetation on their rural properties. This 
requirement includes setting aside a Legal Reserve that comprises 80 
percent of the property if it is located in the Amazon and 20 percent 
in other biomes. The Forest Code also designated environmentally 
sensitive areas as Areas of Permanent Preservation (APPs) to conserve 
water resources and prevent soil erosion. APPs include Riparian 
Preservation Areas, to protect riverside forest buffers, and Hilltop 
Preservation Areas to protect hilltops, high elevations, and steep 
slopes (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
    For years this law was widely ignored by landowners and not 
enforced by the government, as evidenced by the high deforestation 
rates (Leahy 2011, unpaginated; Pearce 2011, unpaginated; Ratter et al. 
1997, p. 228). However, as deforestation rates increased in the early 
2000s, Brazil began cracking down on illegal deforesters and used 
satellite imagery to track deforestation, resulting in decreased 
deforestation rates (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363; Barrionuevo 
2012, unpaginated; Boadle 2012, unpaginated; Darlington 2012, 
unpaginated). Efforts to strengthen enforcement of the Forest Code 
increased pressure on the farming sector, which resulted in a backlash 
against the Forest Code and industry's proposal of a new Forest Code 
(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363).
    In 2011, reforms to Brazil's Forest Code were debated in the 
Brazilian Senate. The reforms were favored by the agricultural industry 
but were greatly opposed by environmentalists. At that time, the 
expectation of the bill being passed resulted in a spike in 
deforestation (Darlington 2012, unpaginated; Moukaddem 2011, 
unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011a, unpaginated). In 2012, a new Forest Code was 
passed; although the new reforms were an attempt at a compromise 
between farmers and environmentalists, many claim the new bill reduces 
the total amount of land required to be maintained as forest and will 
increase deforestation, especially in the Cerrado (Soares-Filho et al. 
2014, p. 364; Boadle 2012, unpaginated; Darlington 2012, unpaginated; 
do Valle 2012, unpaginated; Greenpeace 2012, unpaginated).
    Environmentalists oppose the new law due to the complexity of the 
rule, challenges in implementation, and a lack of adequate protection 
of Brazil's forests. The new Forest Code carries over conservation 
requirements for Legal Reserves and Riparian Preservation Areas. 
However, changes in the definition of Hilltop Preservation Areas 
reduced their total area by 87 percent. Additionally, due to more 
flexible protections and differentiation between conservation and 
restoration requirements, Brazil's environmental debt (areas of Legal 
Reserve and Riparian Preservation Areas deforested illegally before 
2008 that, under the previous Forest Code, would have required 
restoration at the landowner's expense) was reduced by 58 percent 
(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). The legal reserve debt was forgiven 
for ``small properties,'' which ranged from 20 ha (49 ac) in southern 
Brazil to 440 ha (1,087 ac) in the Amazon; this provision has resulted 
in approximately 90 percent of Brazilian rural properties qualifying 
for amnesty.
    Further reductions in the environmental debt resulted from: (1) 
Reducing the Legal Reserve restoration requirement from 80 percent to 
50 percent in Amazonian municipalities that are predominately occupied 
by protected areas; (2) including Riparian Preservation Areas in the 
calculation of the Legal Reserve area (total area they are required to 
preserve); and (3) relaxing Riparian Preservation Area restoration 
requirements on small properties. These new provisions effectively 
reduced the total amount of land farmers are required to preserve and 
municipalities and landowners are required to restore. Reductions were 
uneven across states and biomes, with the Amazon and Cerrado biomes 
being two of the three biomes most affected and vulnerable to 
deforestation.
    Altogether, provisions of the new Forest Code have reduced the 
total area to be restored from approximately 50 million ha (123.5 
million ac) to approximately 21 million ha (51.8 million ac) (Soares-
Filho et al. 2014, p. 363; Boadle 2012, unpaginated). Furthermore, the 
old and new Forest Codes allow legal deforestation of an additional 88 
million ha (217.4 million ac) on private properties deemed to 
constitute an ``environmental surplus.'' ``Environmental surplus'' 
areas are those that are not conserved by the Legal Reserve and 
Riparian Preservation Area conservation requirements. The Cerrado alone 
contains approximately 40 million ha (98.8 million ac) of environmental 
surplus that could be legally deforested (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 
364).
    Although the Forest Code reduces restoration requirements, it 
introduces new mechanisms to address fire management, forest carbon, 
and payments for ecosystem services, which could reduce deforestation 
and result in environmental benefits. The most important mechanism may 
be the Environmental Reserve Quota (ERQ). The ERQ is a tradable legal 
title to areas with intact or regenerating native vegetation exceeding 
the Forest Code requirements. It provides the opportunity for 
landowners who, as of July 2008 did not meet the area-based 
conservation requirements of the law, to instead ``compensate'' for 
their legal reserve shortages by purchasing surplus compliance 
obligations from properties that would then maintain native vegetation 
in excess of the minimum legal reserve requirements. This mechanism 
could provide forested lands with monetary value, creating a trading 
market. The ERQ could potentially reduce 56 percent of the Legal 
Reserve debt (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 364).
    The new Forest Code requires landowners to take part in a Rural 
Environmental Registry System, a mapping and registration system for 
rural properties that serves as a means for landowners to report their 
compliance with the code in order to remain eligible for state credit 
and other government support. On May 6, 2014, the Ministry for the 
Environment published a regulation formally implementing the Rural 
Environmental Registry and requiring all rural properties be enrolled 
by May 2015. However, on May 5, 2015, the deadline was extended to May 
4, 2016. According to information provided by the Ministry for the 
Environment, at that time 1,407,206 rural properties had been 
registered since the New Code became effective. This number covers an 
area of 196,767,410 hectares and represents 52% of all rural areas in 
Brazil for which registration is mandatory (Filho et al. 2015, 
unpaginated). This system could facilitate the market for ERQs and 
payments for ecosystem services.
    It is unclear whether the Brazilian Government will be able to 
effectively enforce the new law (Barrionuevo 2012, unpaginated; Boadle 
2012, unpaginated; Greenpeace 2012, unpaginated). The original code was 
largely ignored by landowners and not enforced, leading to Brazil's 
high rates of deforestation (Boadle 2012, unpaginated). Although 
Brazil's deforestation rates declined between 2005 and 2010, 2011 
marked the beginning of an increase in rates due

[[Page 85497]]

to the expectation of the new Forest Code being passed. Another slight 
increase occurred in 2013, then doubled over 6 months (Schiffman 2015, 
unpaginated). Corruption in the government, land fraud, and a sense of 
exemption from penalties for infractions, have contributed to increases 
in illegal deforestation (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). Additionally, 
amnesty afforded by the new Forest Code has led to the perception that 
illegal deforesters are unlikely to be prosecuted or could be 
exonerated in future law reforms (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated; Soares-
Filho et al. 2014, p. 364). Enforcement is often non-existent in Brazil 
as IBAMA is underfunded and understaffed. Only 1 percent of the fines 
IBAMA imposed on individuals and corporations for illegal deforestation 
is actually collected (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). In Para, one of 
two states where most of the clearing is occurring, 78 percent of 
logging between August 2011 and July 2012 was illegal (Schiffman 2015, 
unpaginated). Furthermore, while much logging is being conducted 
illegally, there is concern that even if regulations are strictly 
adhered to, the development is not sustainable (Schiffman 2015, 
unpaginated).
    Additionally, State laws designed to protect the habitat of the 
hyacinth macaw are in place. To protect the main breeding habitat of 
the hyacinth macaw, Mato Grosso State Senate passed State Act 8.317 in 
2005, which prohibits the cutting of manduvi trees, but not others. 
Although this law protects nesting trees, other trees around nesting 
trees are cut, exposing the manduvi tree to winds and storms. Manduvi 
trees end up falling or breaking, rendering them useless for the 
hyacinths to nest in (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 135; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, 
p. 186).
    Although laws are in place to protect the forests of Brazil, lack 
of supervision and lack of resources prevent these laws from being 
properly implemented (Guedes 2012, p. 3). Ongoing deforestation in the 
Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal are evidence that existing laws are not 
being adequately enforced. Without greater enforcement of laws, 
deforestation will continue to impact the hyacinth macaw and its food 
and nesting resources.
    Habitat loss for the hyacinth macaw continues despite regulatory 
mechanisms intended to protect Brazil's forests. As described above, 
the hyacinth's food and nesting trees are removed for agriculture and 
cattle ranching and fire is used to clear land and maintain pastures. 
The original Forest Code was not properly enforced and, thus was not 
adequately protective. It is questionable whether the new Forest Code 
will be effectively enforced. Regardless of enforcement, given the 
provisions of the new Forest Code, some level of deforestation is 
highly likely to continue and will continue to compromise the status of 
the species.

Climate Change

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

[[Page 85498]]

physiological tolerances (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1563). In a study on 
changes in range sizes for 26 broad-range birds in the Cerrado, range 
sizes are expected to decrease over time, and significantly so as soon 
as 2030 (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1564). Changes ranged from a 5 percent 
increase to an 80 percent decrease under two dispersal scenarios for 
2011-2030, 2046-2065, and 2080-2099 (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1561). The 
largest potential loss in range size is predicted to occur among 
grassland and forest-dependent species in all timeframes (Marini et al. 
2009, p. 1564). These species will likely have the most dire future 
conservation scenarios because these habitat types are the least common 
(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1559). Although this study focused on broad-
range bird species, geographically restricted birds, such as hyacinth 
macaw, are predicted to become rarer (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1564).
    Whether species will or will not adapt to new conditions is 
difficult to predict; synergistic effects of climate change and habitat 
fragmentation, or other factors, such as biotic interactions, may 
hasten the need for conservation even more (Marini et al. 2009, p. 
1565). Although there are uncertainties in the climate change modeling 
discussed above, the overall trajectory is one of increased warming 
under all scenarios. Species, like the hyacinth macaw, whose habitat is 
limited, population is reduced, are large in physical size, and are 
highly specialized, are more vulnerable to climatic variations and at a 
greater risk of extinction (Guedes 2009, p. 44).
    We do not know how the habitat of the hyacinth macaw may change 
under these conditions, but we can assume some change will occur. The 
hyacinth macaw is experiencing habitat loss due to widespread expansion 
of agriculture and cattle ranching. Climate change has the potential to 
further decrease the specialized habitat needed by the hyacinth macaw; 
the ability of the hyacinth macaw to cope with landscape changes due to 
climate change is questionable given the specialized needs of the 
species. Furthermore, one of the factors that affected reproductive 
rates of hyacinths in the Pantanal was variations in temperature and 
rainfall (Guedes 2009, p. 42). Hotter, drier years, as predicted under 
different climate change scenarios, could result in greater impacts to 
hyacinth reproduction due to impacts on the fruit and foraging for the 
hyacinth macaw and competition with other bird and mammal species for 
limited resources (See Other Factors Affecting Reproductive Rates).

Hunting

    In Par[aacute] and the Gerais region, hunting removes individual 
hyacinth macaws vital to the already small populations (Brouwer 2004, 
unpaginated; Collar et al. 1992, p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 414). 
Hyacinths in Par[aacute] are hunted for subsistence and the feather 
trade by some Indian groups (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Munn et al. 
1989, p. 414). Because the hyacinth is the largest species of macaw, it 
may be targeted by subsistence hunters, especially by settlers along 
roadways (Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). Additionally, increased 
commercial sale of feather art by Kayapo Indians of Gorotire may be of 
concern given that 10 hyacinths are required to make a single headdress 
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). The Gerais region is poor and animal 
protein is not as abundant as in other regions; therefore, meat of any 
kind, including the large hyacinth macaw, is sought as a protein source 
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 414).
    Because the hyacinth macaw populations in Par[aacute] and the 
Gerais region are estimated at only 1,000-1,500 individuals, combined, 
the removal of any individuals from these small populations has a 
negative effect on reproduction and the ability of the species to 
recover. Any continued hunting for either meat or the sale of feather 
art is likely to contribute to the decline of the hyacinth macaw in 
these regions, particularly when habitat conversion is also taking 
place.
    Hunting, capture, and trade of animal species is prohibited without 
authorization throughout the range of the hyacinth macaw (Clayton 2011, 
p. 4; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119; Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 
9605/98); Stattersfield and Capper 1992, p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 
415; Official List of Brazilian Endangered Animal Species (Order No. 
1.522/1989); Brazilian Constitution (Title VIII, Chapter VI, 1988); Law 
No. 5197/1967; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated). However, continued hunting in 
some parts of its range is evidence that existing laws are not being 
adequately enforced. Without greater enforcement of laws, hunting will 
continue to impact the hyacinth macaw.

Low Reproductive Rates

    As described above, the specialized nature and reproductive biology 
of the hyacinth macaw contribute to low recruitment of juveniles and 
decrease the ability to recover from reductions in population size 
caused by anthropogenic disturbances (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Wright 
et al. 2001, p. 711). This species' vulnerability to extinction is 
further heightened by deforestation that negatively affects the 
availability of essential food and nesting resources. In addition to 
direct impacts on food and nesting resources and hyacinth macaws 
themselves, several other factors affect the reproductive success of 
the hyacinth. In the Pantanal, competition, predation, disease, 
destruction or flooding of nests, and climatic conditions and 
variations are major factors affecting reproductive success of the 
hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 8, 42; Guedes 2004b, p. 7).
    In the Pantanal, competition for nesting sites is intense. The 
hyacinth nests almost exclusively in manduvi trees; however, there are 
17 other bird species, small mammals, and honey bees (Apis melifera) 
that also use manduvi cavities (Guedes and Vicente 2012, pp. 148, 157; 
Guedes 2009, p. 60; Pizo et al 2008, p. 792; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, 
p. 36). Bees are even known to occupy artificial nests that could be 
used by hyacinth macaws (Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 33; Snyder et al. 
2000, p. 120). Manduvi is a key species for the hyacinth, and, as 
discussed above, these cavities are already limited and there is 
evidence of decreased recruitment of this species of tree (Santos Jr. 
et al. 2006, p. 181). Competition for nesting cavities is exacerbated 
because manduvi trees must be at least 60 years old, and on average 80 
years old, to produce cavities large enough to be used by the hyacinth 
macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 59-60; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et 
al. 2006, p. 185). Given that there is currently a limited number of 
manduvi trees in the Pantanal of adequate size capable of accommodating 
the hyacinth macaw, evidence of reduced recruitment of these sized 
manduvi, and numerous species that also use this tree, competition will 
certainly increase as the number of manduvi decreases, further 
affecting reproduction by limiting tree cavities available to the 
hyacinth macaw for nesting (Guedes 2009, p. 60). Furthermore, a 
shortage of suitable nesting sites could lead to increased competition 
resulting in an increase in infanticide and egg destruction by other 
hyacinths and other macaw species (Lee 2010, p. 2). Black vultures 
(Coragyps atratus), collared forest falcons (Micrastur semitorquatus), 
and red-and-green macaws (Ara chloropterus) break hyacinth macaw eggs 
when seeking nesting cavities (Guedes 2009, p. 75).
    A 10-year study conducted in the Miranda region of the Pantanal 
concluded that the majority of hyacinth macaw nests (63 percent) 
failed, either

[[Page 85499]]

partially or totally, during the egg phase. Predation accounted for 52 
percent of lost eggs (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 74). Of 582 eggs monitored 
over 6 years in the Nhecol[acirc]ndia region of the Pantanal, 
approximately 24 percent (138 eggs) were lost to predators (Pizo et al. 
2008, pp. 794, 795). Researchers have identified several predators of 
hyacinth eggs, including toco toucans (Ramphastos toco), purplish jays 
(Cyanocorax cyanomelas), white-eared opossums (Didelphis albiventris), 
and coatis (Nasua nasua) (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 23, 46, 58, 74-75; Pizo 
et al. 2008, p. 795). The toco toucan was the main predator, 
responsible for 12.4 percent of the total eggs lost and 53.5 percent of 
the eggs lost annually in the Nhecol[acirc]ndia region (Pizo et al. 
2008, pp. 794, 795). Most predators leave some sort of evidence behind; 
however, toco toucans are able to swallow hyacinth macaw eggs whole, 
leaving no evidence behind. This ability may lead to an underestimate 
of nest predation by toucans (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793).
    The remaining eggs that were considered lost during the 10-year 
study of the Miranda region did not hatch due to infertility, 
complications during embryo development, inexperience of young couples 
that accidentally smash their own eggs while entering and exiting the 
nest, breaking by other bird and mammal species wanting to occupy the 
nesting cavity, and broken trees and flooding of nests (Guedes 2009, p. 
75).
    Guedes (2009, pp. 66, 79) also found in the 10-year study of the 
Miranda region that, of the nests that successfully produced chicks, 49 
percent experienced a total or partial loss of chicks. Of these, 62 
percent were lost due to starvation, low temperature, disease or 
infestation by ectoparasites, flooding of nests, and breaking of 
branches. Thirty-eight percent were lost due to predation of chicks by 
carnivorous ants (Solenopis spp.), other insects, collared forest 
falcon, and spectacled owl (Pulsatrix perspicillata). The toco toucan 
and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) are also suspected of chick 
predation, but this has not yet been confirmed (Guedes 2009, pp. 6, 79-
81; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795).
    Variations in temperature and rainfall were also found to be 
factors affecting reproduction of the hyacinth in the Pantanal (Guedes 
2009, p. 42). Years with higher temperatures and lower rainfall can 
affect the production of fruits and foraging and, therefore, lead to a 
decrease in reproduction of hyacinths the following year (Guedes 2009, 
pp. 42-43, 44). This outcome is especially problematic for a species 
that relies on only two species of palm nuts as a source of food. 
Competition with other bird and mammal species may also increase during 
these years. Acuri are available year round, even during times of fruit 
scarcity, making it a resource many other species also depend on during 
unfavorable periods (Guedes 2009, p. 44). Additionally, the El 
Ni[ntilde]o event during the 1997-98 breeding season caused hotter, 
wetter conditions favoring breeding, but survival of the chicks was 
reduced. In 1999, a longer breeding period was observed following 
drier, colder conditions caused by the La Ni[ntilde]a that same year; 
however, 54 percent of the eggs were lost that year (Guedes 2009, p. 
43).

Conservation Measures

    The main biodiversity protection strategy in Brazil is the creation 
of Protected Areas (National Protected Areas System) (Federal Act 
9.985/00) (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 134). Various regulatory mechanisms (Law 
No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, Order No. 1, and Act No. 
6.938) in Brazil direct Federal and State agencies to promote the 
protection of lands and govern the formal establishment and management 
of protected areas to promote conservation of the country's natural 
resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5-7). These mechanisms generally aim to 
protect endangered wildlife and plant species, genetic resources, 
overall biodiversity, and native ecosystems on Federal, State, and 
privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 11.132, Resolution 
No. 4, and Decree No. 1.922). Brazil's Protected Areas were established 
in 2000 and may be categorized as ``strictly protected'' or 
``sustainable use'' based on their overall management objectives. 
Strictly protected areas include national parks, biological reserves, 
ecological stations, natural monuments, and wildlife refuges protected 
for educational and recreational purposes and scientific research. 
Protected areas of sustainable use (national forests, environmental 
protection areas, areas of relevant ecological interest, extractive 
reserves, fauna reserves, sustainable development reserves, and private 
natural heritage reserves) allow for different types and levels of 
human use with conservation of biodiversity as a secondary objective. 
As of 2005, Federal and State governments strictly protected 478 areas 
totaling 37,019,697 ha (14,981,340 ac) in Brazil (Rylands and Brandon 
2005, pp. 615-616). Other types of areas contribute to the Brazilian 
Protected Areas System, including indigenous reserves and areas managed 
and owned by municipal governments, nongovernmental organizations, 
academic institutions, and private sectors (Rylands and Brandon 2005, 
p. 616).
    The states where the hyacinth macaw occurs contain 53 protected 
areas (Parks.it nd, unpaginated); however, the species occurs in only 3 
of those areas (BLI 2014b, unpaginated; Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). 
The Amazon contains a balance of strictly prohibited protected areas 
(49 percent of protected areas) and sustainable use areas (51 percent) 
(Rylands and Brandon 2005, p. 616). We found no information on the 
occurrence of the hyacinth macaw in any protected areas in Par[aacute]. 
The Cerrado biome is one of the most threatened biomes and is 
underrepresented among Brazilian protected areas; only 2.25 percent of 
the original extent of the Cerrado is protected (Marini et al. 2009, p. 
1559; Klink and Machado 2005, p. 709; Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p. 
11). Within the Cerrado, the hyacinth macaw is found within the 
Araguaia National Park in Goi[aacute]s and the Parna[iacute]ba River 
Headwaters National Park (BLI 2014b; Ridgely 1981, p. 238). In 2000, 
the Pantanal was designated as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO (Santos 
Jr. 2008, p. 134). Only 4.5 percent of the Pantanal is categorized as 
protected areas (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 166-167), including strictly 
protected areas and indigenous areas (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 709). 
Within these, the hyacinth macaw occurs only within the Pantanal 
National Park (Collar et al 1992; Ridgely 1981, p. 238). The 
distribution of Federal and State protected areas are uneven across 
biomes, yet all biomes need substantially more area to be protected to 
meet the recommendations established in priority-setting workshops. 
These workshops identified 900 areas for conservation of biodiversity 
and all biomes, including the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal (Rylands 
and Brandon 2005, pp. 615-616).
    Many challenges limit the effectiveness of the protected areas 
system. Brazil is faced with competing priorities of encouraging 
development for economic growth and resource protection. In the past, 
the Brazilian Government, through various regulations, policies, 
incentives, and subsidies, has actively encouraged settlement of 
previously undeveloped lands, which facilitated the large-scale habitat 
conversions for agriculture and cattle-ranching that occurred 
throughout the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal biomes (WWF-UK 2011b, p. 
2; WWF 2001, unpaginated; Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 446; Ratter et al. 
1997, pp. 227-228). However, the risk of intense wild

[[Page 85500]]

fires may increase in areas, such as protected areas, where cattle are 
removed and the resulting accumulation of plant biomass serves as fuel 
(Santos Jr. 2013, pers. comm.; Tomas et al. 2011, p. 579).
    The Ministry of Environment is working to increase the amount of 
protected areas in the Pantanal and Cerrado regions; however, the 
Ministry of Agriculture is looking at using an additional 1 million 
km\2\ (386,102 mi\2\) for agricultural expansion, which will speed up 
deforestation (Harris et al. 2006, p. 175). These competing priorities 
make it difficult to enact and enforce regulations that protect the 
habitat of this species. Additionally, after the creation of protected 
areas, a delay in implementation or a lack of local management 
commitment often occurs, staff limitations make it difficult to monitor 
actions, and a lack of acceptance by society or a lack of funding make 
administration and management of the area difficult (Santos Jr. 2008, 
p. 135; Harris et al. 2006, p. 175). Furthermore, ambiguity in land 
titles allows illegal occupation and clearing of forests in protected 
areas, such as federal forest reserves (Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). 
The designation of the Pantanal as a Biosphere Reserve is almost 
entirely without merit because of a lack of commitment by public 
officials (Santos Jr. 2008, p. 134).
    Of 53 designated protected areas within the states in which the 
hyacinth macaw occurs, it is found in only 3 National Parks; none of 
which are effectively protected (Rogers 2006, unpaginated; Ridgely 
1981, p. 238). The hyacinth macaw continues to be hunted in Par[aacute] 
and the Gerais region, and habitat loss due to agricultural expansion 
and cattle ranching is occurring in all three regions. Therefore, it 
appears that Brazil's protected areas system does not adequately 
protect the hyacinth macaw or its habitat.
    In addition to national and state laws, the Brazilian Government 
and nongovernmental organizations have developed plans for protecting 
the forests of Brazil. In 2009, Brazil announced a plan to cut 
deforestation rates by 80 percent by 2020 with the help of 
international funding; Brazil's plan calls on foreign countries to fund 
$20 billion U.S. dollars (USD) (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 8; Moukaddem 
2011, unpaginated; Painter 2008, unpaginated). If Brazil's plan is 
implemented and the goal is met, deforestation in Brazil would be 
significantly reduced. Between 2005 and 2010, Brazil reduced 
deforestation rates by more than three-quarters. Most of the decrease 
took place within the Amazon Basin. However, deforestation increased 
slightly in 2013, then doubled in 6 months in 2014-2015 (Schiffman 
2015, unpaginated).
    Brazil's Ministry of Environment and The Nature Conservancy have 
worked together to implement the Farmland Environmental Registry to 
curb illegal deforestation in the Amazon. This program was launched in 
the states of Mato Grosso and Par[aacute]; it later became the model 
for the Rural Environmental Registry that monitors all of Brazil for 
compliance with the Forest Code. This plan helped Paragominas, a 
municipality in Par[aacute], be the first in Brazil to come off the 
government's blacklist of top Amazon deforesters. After 1 year, 92 
percent of rural properties in Paragominas had been entered into the 
registry, and deforestation was cut by 90 percent (Dias and Ramos 2012, 
unpaginated; Vale 2010, unpaginated). In response to this success, 
Par[aacute] launched its Green Municipalities Program in 2011. The 
purpose of this project is to reduce deforestation in Par[aacute] by 80 
percent by 2020 and strengthen sustainable rural production. To 
accomplish this goal, the program seeks to create partnerships between 
local communities, municipalities, private initiatives, IBAMA, and the 
Federal Public Prosecution Service and focus on local pacts, 
deforestation monitoring, implementation of the Rural Environmental 
Registry, and structuring municipal management (Ver[iacute]ssimo et al. 
2013, pp. 3, 6, 12-13). The program aims to show how it is possible to 
develop a new model for an activity identified as a major cause of 
deforestation (Dias and Ramos 2012, unpaginated; Vale 2010, 
unpaginated).
    Awareness of the urgency in protecting the biodiversity of the 
Cerrado biome is increasing (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). The 
Brazilian Ministry of the Environment's National Biodiversity Program 
and other government-financed institutes such as the Brazilian 
Environmental Institute, Center for Agriculture Research in the 
Cerrado, and the National Center for Genetic Resources and 
Biotechnology, are working together to safeguard the existence and 
viability of the Cerrado. Additionally, nongovernmental organizations 
such as Funda[ccedil]o Pr[oacute]-Natureza, Instituto Sociedade 
Popula[ccedil][atilde]o e Natureza, and World Wildlife Fund have 
provided valuable assessments and are pioneering work in establishing 
extractive reserves (Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 228-229). Other 
organizations are working to increase the area of Federal Conservation 
Units, a type of protected area, that currently represent only 1.5 
percent of the biome (Ratter et al. 1997, p. 229).
    A network of nongovernmental organizations, Rede Cerrado, has been 
established to promote local sustainable-use practices for natural 
resources (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). Rede Cerrado provided the 
Brazilian Ministry of the Environment recommendations for urgent 
actions for the conservation of the Cerrado. As a result, a 
conservation program was established to integrate actions for 
conservation in regions where agropastoral activities were especially 
intense and damaging (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). Conservation 
International, The Nature Conservancy, and World Wildlife Fund have 
worked to promote alternative economic activities, such as ecotourism, 
sustainable use of fauna and flora, and medicinal plants, to support 
the livelihoods of local communities (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). 
Although these programs demonstrate awareness of the need for 
protection and efforts in protecting the Cerrado, we have no details on 
the specific work or accomplishments of these programs, or how they 
would affect, or have affected, the hyacinth macaw and its habitat.
    The Brazilian Government, under its Action Plan for the Prevention 
and Control of Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado--Conservation 
and Development (2010), committed to recuperating at least 8 million ha 
(20 million ac) of degraded pasture by the year 2020, reducing 
deforestation by 40 percent, decreasing forest fires, expanding 
sustainable practices, and monitoring remaining natural vegetation. It 
also planned to expand the areas under protection in the Cerrado to 2.1 
million ha (5 million ac) (Ribeiro et al. 2012, p. 11; WWF-UK 2011b, p. 
4). However, we do not have details on the success of the action plan 
or the progress on expanding protected areas.
    In 1990, the Hyacinth Macaw Project (Projecto Arara Azul) began 
with support from the University for the Development of the State (Mato 
Grosso do Sul) and the Pantanal Region (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; 
Guedes 2004b, p. 28; Pittman 1999, p. 39). This program works with 
local landowners, communities, and tourists to monitor the hyacinth 
macaw, study the biology of this species, manage the population, and 
promote its conservation and ensure its protection in the Pantanal 
(Santos Jr. 2008, p. 135; Harris et al. 2005, p. 719; Brouwer 2004, 
unpaginated; Guedes 2004a, p. 281). Studies have addressed feeding, 
reproduction, competition, habitat

[[Page 85501]]

survival, chick mortality, behavior, nests, predation, movement, and 
threats contributing to the reduction in the wild population (Guedes 
2009, p. xiii; Guedes 2004a, p. 281). Because there are not enough 
natural nesting sites in this region, the Hyacinth Macaw Project began 
installing artificial nest boxes; more than 180 have been installed. 
Hyacinths have adapted to using the artificial nests, leading to more 
reproducing couples and successful fledging of chicks. Species that 
would otherwise compete with hyacinth macaws for nesting sites have 
also benefitted from the artificial nests as a result of reduced 
competition for natural nesting sites. Hyacinths reuse the same nest 
for many years; eventually the nests start to decay or become unviable. 
The Hyacinth Macaw Project also repairs these nests (natural and 
artificial) so they are not lost. In areas where suitable cavities are 
scarce, the loss of even one nest could have substantial impacts on the 
population. Additionally, wood boards are used to make cavity openings 
too small for predators, while still allowing hyacinths to enter 
(Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Guedes 2004a, p. 281; Guedes 2004b, p. 8).
    In nests with a history of unsuccessful breeding, the Hyacinth 
Macaw Project has also implemented chick management, with the approval 
of the Committee for Hyacinth Macaw Conservation coordinated by IBAMA. 
Hyacinth macaw eggs are replaced with chicken eggs, and the hyacinth 
eggs are incubated in a field laboratory. After hatching, chicks are 
fed for a few days, and then reintroduced to the original nest or to 
another nest with a chick of the same age. This process began to 
increase the number of chicks that survived and fledged each year 
(Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Guedes 2004a, p. 281; Guedes 2004b, p. 9).
    Awareness has also been raised with local cattle ranchers. 
Attitudes have begun to shift, and ranchers are proud of having macaw 
nests on the property. Local inhabitants also served as project 
collaborators (Guedes 2004a, p. 282; Guedes 2004b, p. 10). This shift 
in attitude has also diminished the threat of illegal trade in the 
Hyacinth Macaw Project area (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated).
    The Hyacinth Macaw Project has contributed to the increase of the 
hyacinth population in the Pantanal since the 1990s (Harris et al. 
2005, p. 719). Nest and chick management implemented by the Hyacinth 
Macaw Project has led to an increase in the Pantanal population; for 
every 100 couples that reproduce, 4 juveniles survive and are added to 
the population. Additionally, hyacinth macaws have expanded to areas 
where it previously disappeared, as well as new areas (Guedes 2012, p. 
1; Guedes 2009, pp. 4-5, 8, 35-36, 39, 82).
    Nest boxes can have a marked effect on breeding numbers of many 
species on a local scale (Newton 1994, p. 274), and having local cattle 
ranchers appreciate the presence of the hyacinth macaw on their land 
helps diminish the effects of habitat destruction and illegal trade. 
However, the Hyacinth Macaw Project area does not encompass the entire 
Pantanal region. Although active management has contributed to the 
increase in the hyacinth population, and farmers have begun to protect 
hyacinth macaws on their property, land conversion for cattle ranching 
continues to occur in the Pantanal. The recruitment of the manduvi tree 
has been severely reduced, and is expected to become increasingly rare 
in the future, due to ongoing damage caused by cattle grazing and 
trampling of manduvi saplings, as well as the burning of pastures for 
maintenance. If this activity continues, the hyacinth's preferred 
natural cavities will be severely limited and the species will 
completely rely on the installation of artificial nest boxes, which is 
currently limited to the Hyacinth Macaw Project area. Furthermore, 
survival of hyacinth eggs and chicks are being impacted by predation, 
competition, climate variations, and other natural factors. Even with 
the assistance of the Hyacinth Macaw Project, only 35 percent of eggs 
survive to the juvenile stage.

Pet Trade

    The hyacinth macaw is protected under the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), an international agreement between governments to ensure that 
the international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species does 
not threaten species' survival in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES 
Parties (member countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, 
and re-export of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant 
and animal species. Trade must be authorized through a system of 
permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES 
Management Authority of each CITES Party. Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay 
are Parties to CITES.
    The hyacinth macaw is currently listed in Appendix I of CITES. An 
Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with extinction whose 
trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which 
generally precludes commercial trade. The import of an Appendix-I 
species generally requires the issuance of both an import and export 
permit. Import permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if 
findings are made that the import would be for purposes that are not 
detrimental to the survival of the species and that the specimen will 
not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)). 
Export permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are 
made that the specimen was legally acquired and trade is not 
detrimental to the survival of the species, and if the issuing 
authority is satisfied that an import permit has been granted for the 
specimen (CITES Article III(2)).
    The import of hyacinth macaws into the United States is also 
regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901 et 
seq.), which was enacted on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA 
is to promote the conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all 
imports of exotic birds to the United States are biologically 
sustainable and not detrimental to the species in the wild. The WBCA 
generally restricts the importation of most CITES-listed live or dead 
exotic birds. Import of dead specimens is allowed for scientific 
purposes and museum specimens. Permits may be issued to allow import of 
listed birds for various purposes, such as scientific research, 
zoological breeding or display, or personal pets, when certain criteria 
are met. The Service may approve cooperative breeding programs and 
subsequently issue import permits under such programs. Wild-caught 
birds may be imported into the United States if certain standards are 
met and they are subject to a management plan that provides for 
sustainable use. At this time, the hyacinth macaw is not part of a 
Service-approved cooperative breeding program, and has not been 
approved for importation of wild-caught birds.
    In the 1970s and 1980s, substantial trade in hyacinth macaws was 
reported, but actual trade was likely significantly greater given the 
amount of smuggling, routing of birds through countries not parties to 
CITES, and internal consumption in South America (Collar et al. 1992, 
p. 256; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 412-413). Trade in parrots in the 1980s 
was particularly high due to a huge demand from developed countries, 
including the United States, which was the main consumer of parrot 
species at that time (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; Best et al. 
1995, p. 234). In the late 1980s and early 1990s, reports of

[[Page 85502]]

hyacinth trapping included one trapper who worked an area for 3 years 
removing 200-300 wild hyacinths a month during certain seasons and 
another trapper who caught 1,000 hyacinths in 1 year and knew of other 
teams operating at similar levels (Silva (1989a) and Smith (1991c) in 
Collar et al. 1992, p. 256). More than 10,000 hyacinths are estimated 
to have been taken from the wild in the 1980s (Smith 1991c, in Collar 
et al. 1992, p. 256; Munn et al. 1987, in Guedes 2009, p. 12). In the 
years following the enactment of the WBCA, studies found lower poaching 
levels than in prior years, suggesting that import bans in developed 
countries reduced poaching levels in exporting countries (Wright et al. 
2001, pp. 715, 718).
    Based on CITES trade data obtained from United Nations Environment 
Programme--World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade 
Database, from the time the hyacinth macaw was uplisted to CITES 
Appendix I in October 1987 through 2011, and taking into account that 
several records appear to be overcounts due to slight differences in 
the manner in which the importing and exporting countries reported 
their trade, international trade involved 2,030 specimens, including 
1,804 live birds. Of the 2,030 specimens, 106 (4.6 percent) were 
exported from Bolivia, Brazil, or Paraguay (the range countries of the 
species). With the information given in the UNEP-WCMC database, from 
1987 through 2011, only 24 of the 1,804 live hyacinth macaws reported 
in trade were reported as wild-sourced, 1,671 were reported as captive 
bred or captive born, 35 were reported as pre-Convention, and 74 were 
reported with the source as unknown.
    Since our 2012 proposed rule published, CITES trade data from the 
UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database for the years 2012 through 2014 has 
become available. From 2012 through 2014 (the most recent year for 
which data is available from the WCMC-UNEP database), a total of 250 
hyacinth macaw specimens, including 193 live birds, is reported in 
international trade in the WCMC-UNEP database. Except for five 
scientific samples imported by Switzerland in 2012, none of the other 
specimens were reported as being wild caught; all were either recorded 
as captive bred or captive born. Twenty live wild-caught hyacinth 
macaws are recorded as having been imported by Turkey from Cameroon in 
2012; at the time of writing, we are still waiting for information from 
Turkey as to whether this data is accurate, and if so, whether this was 
lawful or unlawful trade.
    We found little additional information on illegal trade of this 
species in international markets. One study found that illegal pet 
trade in Bolivia continues to involve CITES-listed species; the authors 
speculated that similar problems exist in Peru and Brazil (Herrera and 
Hennessey 2007, p. 298). In that same study, 11 hyacinths were found 
for sale in a Santa Cruz market from 2004 to 2007 (10 in 2004 and 1 in 
2006) (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, pp. 233-234). Larger species, like 
the hyacinth, were frequently sold for transport outside of the 
country, mostly to Peru, Chile, and Brazil (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, 
pp. 233-234). During a study conducted from 2007 to 2008, no hyacinths 
were recorded in 20 surveyed Peruvian wildlife markets 
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, pp. 2, 9-10). We found no other data on 
the presence of hyacinths in illegal trade.
    Although illegal trapping for the pet trade occurred at high levels 
during the 1980s, trade has decreased significantly from those levels. 
International trade of parrots was significantly reduced during the 
1990s as a result of tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, stricter 
measures under EU legislation, and adoption of the WBCA, along with 
adoption of national legislation in various countries (Snyder et al. 
2000, p. 99). We found no information indicating trade is currently 
impacting the hyacinth macaw. It is possible, given the high price of 
hyacinth macaws, that illegal domestic trade is occurring; however, we 
have no information to suggest that illegal trapping for the pet trade 
is currently occurring at levels that are affecting the populations of 
the hyacinth macaw in its three regions.

Finding

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in part 424 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As required by the Act, 
we conducted a review of the status of the species and considered the 
five factors in assessing whether the hyacinth macaw is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(endangered) or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
(threatened). We examined the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding factors affecting the status of the 
hyacinth macaw. We reviewed the petition, information available in our 
files, and other available published and unpublished information.
    In considering what factors may constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual 
impacts to the species. If there is exposure to the factor, but no 
response, or only a positive response, that factor is not a threat. If 
there is exposure and the species responds negatively, the factor may 
be a threat and we then attempt to determine if it may drive or 
contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that the 
species warrants listing as an endangered or threatened species as 
those terms are defined by the Act.
    Hyacinth macaws have a naturally low reproductive rate. Not all 
hyacinth chicks fledge young and, due to the long period of chick 
dependence, hyacinths breed only every 2 years. In the Pantanal 
population, the largest population of hyacinth macaws, only 15-30 
percent of adults attempt to breed each year; it may be that as small 
or an even smaller percentage in Par[aacute] and Gerais attempt to 
breed. Additionally, feeding and habitat specializations are good 
predictors of a bird species' risk of extinction; because the hyacinth 
macaw has specialized food and nest site needs, it is at higher risk of 
extinction from the anthropogenic stressors described above.
    Across its range, the hyacinth macaw is losing habitat, including 
those essential food and nesting resources, to expanding agriculture 
and cattle ranching. Par[aacute] has long been the epicenter of illegal 
deforestation primarily caused by cattle-ranching. Large-scale forest 
conversion for colonization and cattle ranching has accelerated due to 
state subsidies, infrastructure development, favorable climate in 
Par[aacute], lower prices for land, and expansion of soy cultivation in 
other areas that has led to displacement of pastures into parts of 
Par[aacute]. Although deforestation rates decreased between 2009 and 
2012, Amazon deforestation increased between 2012 and 2013 with the 
greatest increase occurring in Par[aacute].
    In the Gerais region, more than 50 percent of the original Cerrado 
vegetation has been lost due to conversion to agriculture and pasture. 
Although annual deforestation rates have decreased, there is a slow and 
steady increase in the amount of deforested area. Remaining Cerrado 
vegetation continues to be lost to conversion for soy plantations and 
extensive cattle ranching. Projections for coming decades show the 
largest

[[Page 85503]]

increase in agricultural production occurring in the Cerrado.
    The greatest cause of habitat loss in the Pantanal is the expansion 
of cattle ranching. Only 6 percent of the Pantanal landscape is 
cordilleras, higher areas where the manduvi occur. These upland 
forests, including potential nesting trees, are often removed and 
converted to pastures for grazing during the flooding season; however, 
palm species used by hyacinths for food are usually left, as cattle 
also feed on the palm nuts. While deforestation rates between 2002 and 
2014 indicate a decrease in the annual deforestation rate, there 
continues to be a slow and steady increase in the area deforested. Fire 
is also a common method for renewing pastures, controlling weeds, and 
controlling pests in the Pantanal. Fires become uncontrolled and are 
known to impact patches of manduvi. Fires can help in the formation of 
cavities, but too frequent fires can prevent trees from surviving to a 
size capable of providing suitable cavities and can cause a high rate 
of tree loss. Five percent of manduvi trees are lost each year due to 
deforestation, fires, and storms.
    In addition to the direct removal of trees and the impact of fire 
on forest establishment, cattle impact forest recruitment. Intense 
livestock activity can affect seedling recruitment via trampling and 
grazing. Cattle also compact the soil such that regeneration of forest 
species is severely reduced. This type of repeated disturbance can lead 
to an ecosystem dominated by invasive trees, grasses, bamboo, and 
ferns. Manduvi, which contain the majority of hyacinth nests, are 
already limited in the Pantanal; only 5 percent of the existing adult 
manduvi trees in south-central Pantanal and 10.7 percent in the 
southern Pantanal contain suitable cavities for hyacinth macaws. 
Evidence of severely reduced recruitment of manduvi trees suggests that 
this species of tree, of adequate size to accommodate the hyacinth 
macaw, is not only scarce now, but likely to become increasingly scarce 
in the future.
    Deforestation also reduces the availability of food resources. The 
species' specialized diet makes it vulnerable to changes in food 
availability. Another Anodorhynchus species, the Lear's macaw, is 
critically endangered due, in part, to the loss of its' specialized 
food source (licuri palm stands). Inadequate nutrition can contribute 
to poor health and is known to have reduced reproduction in hyacinth 
macaws. In Par[aacute] and the Gerais region, where food sources are 
being removed, persistence of the species is a concern.
    Deforestation for agriculture and cattle ranching, cattle trampling 
and foraging, and burning of forest habitat result in the loss of 
mature trees with natural cavities of sufficient size and a reduction 
in recruitment of native species, which could eventually provide 
nesting cavities. A shortage of nest sites can jeopardize the 
persistence of the hyacinth macaw by constraining breeding density, 
resulting in lower recruitment and a gradual reduction in population 
size. This situation may lead to long-term effects on the viability of 
the hyacinth macaw population, especially in Par[aacute] and the 
Pantanal where persistence of nesting trees is compromised. While the 
Hyacinth Macaw Project provides artificial nest alternatives, such 
nests are only found within the project area.
    Loss of essential tree species also negatively impacts the hyacinth 
macaw by increasing competition for what is already a shortage of 
suitable nest sites. In the Pantanal, the hyacinth nests almost 
exclusively in manduvi trees. The number of manduvi old and large 
enough to provide suitable cavities is already limited. Additionally, 
there are 17 other bird species, small mammals, and honey bees that 
also use manduvi cavities. Competition has been so fierce that 
hyacinths were unable to reproduce as it resulted in an increase in egg 
destruction and infanticide. As the number of suitable trees is further 
limited, competition for adequate cavities to accommodate the hyacinth 
macaw will certainly increase, reducing the potential for hyacinth 
macaws to reproduce.
    In the Gerais region, hyacinth macaws mostly nest in rock crevices, 
most likely a response to the destruction of nesting trees. Although it 
is possible that hyacinths could use alternative nesting sites in 
Par[aacute] and the Pantanal, deforestation in these regions would 
impact alternative nesting trees, as well as food sources, resulting in 
the same negative effect on the hyacinth macaw. Furthermore, 
competition for limited nesting and food resources would continue.
    Climate change models have predicted increasing temperatures and 
decreasing rainfall throughout most of Brazil. There are uncertainties 
in this modeling, and the projections are not definitive outcomes. How 
a species may adapt to changing conditions is difficult to predict. We 
do not know how the habitat of the hyacinth macaw may vary under these 
conditions, but we can assume some change will occur. The hyacinth 
macaw is experiencing habitat loss due to widespread expansion of 
agriculture and cattle ranching. Effects of climate change have the 
potential to further decrease the specialized habitat needed by the 
hyacinth macaw; the ability of the hyacinth macaw to cope with 
landscape changes due to climate change is questionable given the 
specialized needs of the species. Furthermore, hotter, drier years, as 
predicted under different climate change scenarios, could result in 
greater impacts to hyacinth reproduction due to impacts on the fruit 
and foraging for the hyacinth macaw and competition with other bird and 
mammal species for limited resources.
    In addition to direct impacts on food and nesting resources and 
hyacinth macaws themselves, several other factors affect the 
reproductive success of the hyacinth. Information indicates that 
hyacinths in Par[aacute] and Gerais are hunted as a source of protein 
and for feathers to be used in local handicrafts. Although we do not 
have information on the numbers of macaws taken for these purposes, 
given the small populations in these two regions, any loss of 
potentially reproducing individuals could have a devastating effect on 
the ability of those populations to increase. Additionally, in the 
Pantanal, predation, variations in temperature and rainfall, and 
ectoparasites all contribute to loss of eggs and chicks, directly 
affecting the reproductive rate of hyacinth macaws.
    Brazil has various laws to protect its natural resources. Despite 
these laws and plans to significantly reduce deforestation, expanding 
agriculture and cattle ranching has contributed to increases in 
deforestation rates in some years and deforested areas continue to 
increase each year. Additionally, hunting continues in some parts of 
the hyacinth macaw's range despite laws prohibiting this activity. 
Without effective implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, 
deforestation and hunting will continue.
    Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' After analyzing the species' status in light of the five 
factors discussed above, we find the hyacinth macaw is a ``threatened 
species'' as a result of the following: Continued deforestation and 
reduced recruitment of forests (Factor A), hunting (Factor B), 
predation and disease (Factor C), competition (Factor

[[Page 85504]]

E), and effects of climate change (Factor E). Furthermore, despite laws 
to protect the hyacinth macaw and the forests it depends on, 
deforestation and hunting continue (Factor D).
    In total, there are approximately 6,500 hyacinth macaws left in the 
wild, dispersed among 3 populations. Two of the populations, 
Par[aacute] and Gerais, contain just 1,000-1,500 individuals, combined. 
The current overall population trend for the hyacinth macaw is reported 
as decreasing, although there are no reports of extreme fluctuations in 
the number of individuals. The hyacinth population has grown in the 
Pantanal; however, the growth is not sufficient to counter the 
continued and predicted future anthropogenic disturbances on the 
hyacinth macaw. Because the hyacinth macaw has specialized food and 
nest site needs, it is at higher risk of extinction from anthropogenic 
stressors described above. Additionally, the hyacinth macaw has 
relatively low recruitment of juveniles, which decreases the ability of 
a population to recover from reductions caused by anthropogenic 
disturbances. Hyacinths may not have a high enough reproduction rate 
and may not survive in areas where nest sites and food sources are 
destroyed.
    In our 2012 proposed rule, we found that the hyacinth macaw was in 
danger of extinction (an endangered species) based on estimates 
indicating the original vegetation of the Amazon, Cerrado, and 
Pantanal, including the hyacinth's habitat, would be lost between the 
years 2030 and 2050 due to deforestation, combined with its naturally 
low reproductive rate, highly specialized nature, hunting, competition, 
and effects of climate change. Deforestation rates in Par[aacute] 
decreased between 2013 and 2014 by 20 percent, and rates remained 
stable in 2015. More recent estimates of deforestation indicate annual 
deforestation rates in the Cerrado and Pantanal have decreased by 
approximately 40 and 37 percent, respectively. If these rates are 
maintained or are further reduced, the loss of all native habitat from 
these areas, including the species of trees needed by the hyacinth for 
food and nesting, and the hyacinth's risk of extinction is not as 
imminent as predicted. Therefore, we do not find that the hyacinth 
macaw is currently in danger of extinction. However, the hyacinth macaw 
remains a species particularly vulnerable to extinction due to the 
interaction between continued habitat loss and its highly specialized 
needs for food and nest trees. Given land-use trends, lack of 
enforcement of laws, and predicted landscape changes under climate 
change scenarios, the persistence of essential food and nesting 
resources and, therefore the hyacinth macaw, is of concern.
    Threats to the hyacinth macaw and remaining habitat, and declines 
in the population are expected to continue throughout its range in the 
foreseeable future. What habitat remains is at risk of being lost due 
to ongoing deforestation. Par[aacute] is one of the states where most 
of Brazil's agriculture expansion is taking place. Modeled future 
deforestation is concentrated in this area. The Cerrado is the most 
desirable biome for agribusiness expansion and contains approximately 
40 million ha (98.8 million ac) of ``environmental surplus'' that could 
be legally deforested, therefore, this region will likely continue to 
suffer deforestation. Ninety-five percent of the Pantanal is privately 
owned, 80 percent of which is used for cattle ranches. Clearing land to 
establish pasture is perceived as the economically optimal land use 
while land not producing beef is often perceived as unproductive. 
Furthermore, potential nesting sites are rare and will become 
increasingly rare in the future. Continued loss of remaining habitat 
may lead to long-term effects on the viability of the hyacinth macaw, 
as hyacinth macaws may not have a high enough reproductive rate to 
survive where nest sites are destroyed. Additionally, any factors that 
contribute to the loss of eggs and chicks ultimately reduce 
reproduction and recruitment of juveniles into the population and the 
ability of those populations to recover. Therefore, long-term survival 
of this species is a concern. On the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial information, we find that the hyacinth macaw meets the 
definition of a ``threatened species'' under the Act, and we are 
listing the hyacinth macaw as threatened throughout its range.

Significant Portion of Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The term ``species'' includes ``any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population 
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' We published a final policy interpreting the 
phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1, 
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be 
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, 
the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, 
and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species 
wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is 
``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered or 
threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution 
to the viability of the species is so important that, without the 
members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range; (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general 
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time 
the Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service makes any 
particular status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is 
endangered or threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that 
significant portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than 
the entire taxonomic species or subspecies.
    We found the hyacinth macaw likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout its range. Therefore, no portions of the 
species' range are ``significant'' as defined in our SPR policy, and no 
additional SPR analysis is required.

Available Conservation Measures

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

[[Page 85505]]

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

Proposed 4(d) Rule

    The purposes of the Act are to provide a means whereby the 
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend 
may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such 
endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps as 
may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and 
conventions set forth in the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531(b)). When a species is 
listed as endangered, certain actions are prohibited under section 9 of 
the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. These include, among 
others, prohibitions on take within the United States, within the 
territorial seas of the United States, or upon the high seas; import; 
export; and shipment in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of 
a commercial activity. Exceptions to the prohibitions for endangered 
species may be granted in accordance with section 10 of the Act and our 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.22.
    The Act does not specify particular prohibitions and exceptions to 
those prohibitions for threatened species. Instead, under section 4(d) 
of the Act, the Secretary, as well as the Secretary of Commerce 
depending on the species, was given the discretion to issue such 
regulations as deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of such species. The Secretary also has the discretion to 
prohibit by regulation with respect to any threatened species any act 
prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the Act. Exercising this 
discretion, the Service has developed general prohibitions in the Act's 
regulations (50 CFR 17.31) and exceptions to those prohibitions (50 CFR 
17.32) that apply to most threatened species. Under 50 CFR 17.32, 
permits may be issued to allow persons to engage in otherwise 
prohibited acts for certain purposes.
    Under section 4(d) of the Act, the Secretary, who has delegated 
this authority to the Service, may also develop specific prohibitions 
and exceptions tailored to the particular conservation needs of a 
threatened species. In such cases, the Service issues a 4(d) rule that 
may include some or all of the prohibitions and authorizations set out 
in 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, but which also may be more or less 
restrictive than the general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. For 
the hyacinth macaw, the Service is using our discretion to propose a 
4(d) rule.
    If the proposed 4(d) rule is adopted, we will incorporate all 
prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, except that 
import and export of certain hyacinth macaws into and from the United 
States and certain acts in interstate commerce will be allowed without 
a permit under the Act, as explained below.

Import and Export

    The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to all commercial and 
noncommercial international shipments of live and dead hyacinth macaws 
and parts and products, including the import and export of personal 
pets and research samples. In most instances, the proposed 4(d) rule 
will adopt the existing conservation regulatory requirements of CITES 
and the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import 
and export of certain hyacinth macaws. The import and export of birds 
into and from the United States, taken from the wild after the date 
this species is listed under the Act; conducting an activity that could 
take or incidentally take hyacinth macaws; and foreign commerce will 
need to meet the requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including 
obtaining a permit under the Act. However, the 4(d) rule proposes to 
allow a person to import or export either: (1) A specimen held in 
captivity prior to the date this species is listed under the Act; or 
(2) a captive-bred specimen, without a permit issued under the Act, 
provided the export is authorized under CITES and the import is 
authorized under CITES and the WBCA. If a specimen was taken from the 
wild and held in captivity prior to the date this species is listed 
under the Act, the importer or exporter will need to provide 
documentation to support that status, such as a copy of the original 
CITES permit indicating when the bird was removed from the wild or 
museum specimen reports. For captive-bred birds, the importer would 
need to provide either a valid CITES export/re-export document issued 
by a foreign Management Authority that indicates that the specimen was 
captive bred by using a source code on the face of the permit of either 
``C,'' ``D,'' or ``F.'' For exporters of captive-bred birds, a signed 
and dated statement from the breeder of the bird, along with 
documentation on the source of their breeding stock, would document the 
captive-bred status of U.S. birds.
    The proposed 4(d) rule will apply to birds captive-bred in the 
United States and abroad. The terms ``captive-bred'' and ``captivity'' 
used in the proposed 4(d) rule are defined in the regulations at 50 CFR 
17.3 and refer to wildlife produced in a controlled environment that is 
intensively manipulated by man from parents that mated or otherwise 
transferred gametes in captivity. Although the proposed 4(d) rule 
requires a permit under the Act to ``take'' (including harm and harass) 
a hyacinth macaw, ``take'' does not include generally accepted animal 
husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions of veterinary 
care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when such 
practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury 
to the wildlife when applied to captive wildlife.
    We assessed the conservation needs of the hyacinth macaw in light 
of the broad protections provided to the species under CITES and the 
WBCA. The hyacinth macaw is listed in Appendix I under CITES, a treaty 
which contributes to the conservation of the species by monitoring 
international trade and ensuring that trade in Appendix I species is 
not detrimental to the survival of the species (see Conservation 
Status). The purpose of the WBCA is to promote the conservation of 
exotic birds and to ensure that imports of exotic birds into the United 
States do not harm them (See Factor D). The best available commercial 
data indicate that legal and illegal trade of hyacinth macaws is not 
currently occurring at levels that are affecting the populations of the 
hyacinth macaw in its three regions. Accordingly we find that the 
import and export requirements of the proposed 4(d) rule provide the 
necessary and advisable conservation measures that are needed for this 
species. This proposed 4(d) rule, if finalized, would streamline the 
permitting process for these types of activities by deferring to 
existing laws that are protective of hyacinths in the course of import 
and export.

Interstate Commerce

    Under the proposed 4(d) rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship a hyacinth macaw in interstate commerce in the 
course of a commercial activity, or sell or offer to sell in interstate 
commerce a hyacinth macaw without a permit under the Act. At the same 
time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.21 would apply under 
this proposed 4(d) rule, and any interstate commerce activities that 
could

[[Page 85506]]

incidentally take hyacinth macaws or otherwise prohibited acts in 
foreign commerce would require a permit under 50 CFR 17.32.
    Persons in the United States have imported and exported captive-
bred hyacinth macaws for commercial purposes and one body for 
scientific purposes, but trade has been very limited (UNEP-WCMC 2011, 
unpaginated). We have no information to suggest that interstate 
commerce activities are associated with threats to the hyacinth macaw 
or would negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild 
populations of the species. Therefore, because acts in interstate 
commerce within the United States have not been found to threaten the 
hyacinth macaw, the species is otherwise protected in the course of 
interstate commercial activities under the take provisions and foreign 
commerce provisions contained in 50 CFR 17.31, and international trade 
of this species is regulated under CITES, we find this proposed 4(d) 
rule contains all the prohibitions and authorizations necessary and 
advisable for the conservation of the hyacinth macaw.

Required Determinations

Clarity of Rule

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

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

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

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

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

References Cited

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

Author

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

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


Sec.  17.11   Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
              Birds
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Macaw, hyacinth..................  Anodorhynchus         Bolivia, Brazil,     Entire.............  T                        NA           NA     17.41(c)
                                    hyacinthinus.         Paraguay.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


Sec.  17.41   Special rules--birds.

* * * * *
    (c) The following species in the parrot family: Salmon-crested 
cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona 
collaria), white cockatoo (Cacatua alba), scarlet macaw (Ara macao 
macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses (Ara macao macao and Ara 
macao cyanoptera)), and

[[Page 85507]]

hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus).
    (1) Except as noted in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this 
section, all prohibitions and provisions of Sec. Sec.  17.31 and 17.32 
of this part apply to these species.
    (2) Import and export. You may import or export a specimen from the 
southern DPS of Ara macao macao and scarlet macaw subspecies crosses 
without a permit issued under Sec.  17.52 of this part, and you may 
import or export all other specimens without a permit issued under 
Sec.  17.32 of this part only when the provisions of parts 13, 14, 15, 
and 23 of this chapter have been met and you meet the following 
requirements:
* * * * *
    (ii) Specimens held in captivity prior to certain dates: You must 
provide documentation to demonstrate that the specimen was held in 
captivity prior to the dates specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A), 
(B), (C), (D), or (E) of this section. Such documentation may include 
copies of receipts, accession or veterinary records, CITES documents, 
or wildlife declaration forms, which must be dated prior to the 
specified dates.
* * * * *
    (E) For hyacinth macaws: [EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE] (the 
date this species was listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)).
* * * * *

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