39894 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart U—Maine 

■ 2. Section 52.1020(e) is amended by 

adding an entry titled ‘‘Interstate 

Transport SIP to meet Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2

NAAQS’’ at the end of the table to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) Nonregulatory. 

MAINE NON REGULATORY

Name of non regulatory SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approved date 3 Explanations 

*******

Interstate Transport SIP to meet Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

Statewide ............ 2/21/2018 8/13/2018, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

This approval addresses Prongs 1 

and 2 of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) only. 

3 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17248 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2012–0013; 

4500030115] 

RIN 1018–BC79 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Listing the Hyacinth 

Macaw 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, determine threatened 

species status under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, 

for the hyacinth macaw 

(Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), a 

species that occurs almost exclusively 

in Brazil and marginally in Bolivia and 

Paraguay. This rule adds this species to 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife. We are also establishing a rule 

pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act to 

further provide for the conservation of 

the hyacinth macaw. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

12, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this rule, are available for public 

inspection at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R9–ES–2012–0013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Morgan, Chief, Division of Delisting and 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES, Falls 

Church, VA 22041; telephone 703–358– 

2444. If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. Under 

the Endangered Species Act (Act), a 

species may warrant protection through 

listing if it is found to be an endangered 

or threatened species. Listing a species 

as an endangered or threatened species 

can only be completed by issuing a rule. 

On July 6, 2012, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) published in 

the Federal Register (FR) a 12-month 

finding and proposed rule to list the 

hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus 

hyacinthinus) as an endangered species 

under the Act (77 FR 39965). On 

November 28, 2016, the Service 

published a revised proposed rule to list 

the hyacinth macaw as a threatened 

species (81 FR 85488), which included 

a proposed rule under section 4(d) of 

the Act that defined the prohibitions we 

are extending to the hyacinth macaw 

and the exceptions to those 

prohibitions, as well as provisions that 

are necessary and advisable for the 

species’ conservation. This rule finalizes 

the listing of the hyacinth macaw as a 

threatened species under the Act, and 

establishes a 4(d) rule to further provide 

for the species’ conservation. 

The basis for our action. Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we determine 

that a species is an endangered or 

threatened species based on any of five 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. The primary causes attributed 

to the decline of the hyacinth macaw 

include habitat loss and degradation 

(Factor A), hunting (Factor B), predation 

(Factor C), competition and low 

reproduction rate (Factor E), and climate 

change (Factor E). 

Section 4(d) of the Act authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to 

extend to threatened species the 

prohibitions provided for endangered 

species under section 9 of the Act. Our 

implementing regulations for threatened 

wildlife, found at title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at § 17.31 (50 

CFR 17.31), incorporate the section 9 

prohibitions for endangered wildlife, 

except when a species-specific rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act is 

promulgated. For threatened species, 

section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service 

discretion to specify the prohibitions 

and any exceptions to those 

prohibitions that are appropriate for the 

species, as well as include provisions 

that are necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of the 

species. A rule issued under section 4(d) 

of the Act allows us to include 

provisions that are tailored to the 

specific conservation needs of that 

threatened species and which may be 

more or less restrictive than the general 

provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. 

Peer review and public comment. We 

sought comments from independent 

specialists to ensure that our analysis is 

based on scientifically sound data, 

assumptions, and analyses. We invited 

peer reviewers and the public to 

comment on our listing proposals. All 

substantive information from peer 

review and public comments was fully 

considered and incorporated into this 

final rule, where appropriate. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39895 

Previous Federal Actions 

Please refer to the proposed listing 

rule, published in the Federal Register 

on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39965), for 

previous Federal actions for this species 

prior to that date. The publication of the 

proposed listing rule opened a 60-day 

public comment period, which closed 

on September 4, 2012. Based on new 

information, on November 28, 2016, we 

published a revised proposed rule (81 

FR 85488) to list the hyacinth macaw as 

a threatened species, which included a 

proposed rule under section 4(d) of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) that defines 

the conservation measures that apply to 

the hyacinth macaw (50 CFR 17.41(c)). 

That revised proposed rule also opened 

a 60-day public comment period, which 

closed on January 27, 2017. 

Summary of Changes From the Revised 

Proposed Rule 

We included additional information 

regarding action plans in Brazil that aim 

to reduce deforestation. 

Brazil has implemented actions plans 

that aim to reduce deforestation rates in 

the Amazon and Cerrado, referred to as 

the Plan of Action for Prevention and 

Control of Deforestation in the Legal 

Amazon (PPCDAm) and the Action Plan 

for the Prevention and Control of 

Deforestation and Burning in the 

Cerrado (PPCerrado), respectively. In 

the proposed rule we stated that we did 

not have any details regarding the 

success or progress of these plans. 

However, in this final rule we included 

the most recent information available 

and results achieved by these plans (see 

Factor D discussion, below). 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

We reviewed all comments we 

received from peer reviewers and the 

public for substantive issues and new 

information. All substantive information 

from peer review and public comments 

has been fully considered and is 

incorporated into this final rule, where 

appropriate. 

We received 104 public comments 

combined on the proposed and revised 

proposed rules to list the hyacinth 

macaw under the Act during their 

respective comment periods. Many 

commenters supported listing the 

hyacinth macaw as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act. 

However, many commenters also 

recommended that we issue a rule 

under section 4(d) of the Act that would 

allow interstate commerce of hyacinth 

macaws to occur without needing a 

permit. The following discussion 

summarizes issues and substantive 

information from public comments and 

provides our responses. 

Comment (1): Many commenters 

opined that the Act was meant to 

protect species native to the United 

States, and the hyacinth macaw should 

not be listed since it is a foreign species. 

Our Response: The Act does not 

differentiate between domestic and 

foreign species as it applies to our 

responsibilities to determine whether 

species are endangered or threatened, 

and sections 4(b)(1)(A) and 4(b)(1)(B)(i) 

expressly require the Service to consider 

efforts by a foreign nation prior to 

making a listing determination. The 

broad definitions of ‘‘species,’’ ‘‘fish or 

wildlife,’’ and ‘‘plants’’ in section 3 of 

the Act do not differentiate between 

species native to the United States, 

species native to both the United States 

and one or more other countries, and 

species not native to the United States. 

Further, the findings and purposes at 

sections 2(a)(4), 2(a)(5), and 2(b) of the 

Act also speak to the application of the 

Act to foreign species and numerous 

provisions of the Act and the 

implementing regulations refer to 

foreign jurisdictions (e.g., sections 8 and 

8A, 50 CFR 424.11(e)). 

Comment (2): Some commenters 

believed that there is no demonstrable 

benefit to listing the hyacinth macaw 

under the Act because it is already 

protected by CITES and the Wild Bird 

Conservation Act (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 

4901–4916). 

Our Response: The decision to list a 

species under the Act is based on 

whether the species meets the definition 

of an endangered or threatened species 

as defined under section 3 of the Act 

and is made solely on the basis of the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available. Conservation measures 

provided to species listed as endangered 

or threatened under the Act include 

recognition, requirements for Federal 

protection, and prohibitions against 

certain practices. Recognition through 

listing results in public awareness, and 

may encourage and result in 

conservation actions by foreign 

governments, Federal and State 

governments, private agencies and 

interest groups, and individuals. The 

purpose of the WBCA is to ensure that 

exotic bird species are not harmed by 

international trade and encourages wild 

bird conservation programs in countries 

of origin. The purpose of CITES is to 

ensure that international trade in plants 

and animals does not threaten their 

survival in the wild. Protection 

provided by other laws, such as CITES 

and WBCA, is taken into consideration 

when determining the status of the 

species. However, simply being 

protected by these other laws does not 

preclude the need to list if the species 

still meets the definition of an 

endangered or threatened species. 

Listing under the Act can help ensure 

that the United States and its citizens do 

not contribute to the further decline of 

the species. That said, we considered 

the conservation role that CITES and 

WBCA provide when developing the 

4(d) rule for the species. The 4(d) rule 

that we are putting in place streamlines 

the permitting process by deferring to 

existing laws that are protective of 

hyacinth macaws in the course of 

import and export and not requiring 

permits under the Act for certain types 

of activities. Additionally, we are not 

prohibiting interstate commerce of 

hyacinth macaw within the United 

States (see 4(d) Rule, below). 

Comment (3): Several commenters 

stated that the information used in the 

proposed rule was outdated; one also 

expressed concern that the information 

was from English-only sources. 

Our Response: The Service is required 

by the Act to make determinations 

solely on the basis of the best scientific 

and commercial data available. We 

based the proposed rule on all the 

information we received following the 

initiation of the status review for the 

hyacinth macaw, as well as all of the 

information we found during our own 

research. The information we use is not 

always current, as it depends on 

research being conducted in the field 

and the availability of information. At 

that time, the information we compiled 

was considered the best available 

information. After we published the 

proposed rule in 2012, additional 

information became available or was 

submitted by the public, including more 

recent information and studies from a 

species expert and conservation 

organizations within the hyacinth 

macaw’s range countries. Literature that 

was not in English was professionally 

translated and then reviewed, to the best 

of our ability. The information we 

received has been incorporated into this 

final rule and helped serve as the basis 

for our determination that the hyacinth 

macaw is threatened, not endangered. 

Comment (4): Two commenters stated 

that significant additional wild 

populations have been recently 

discovered and were not included in the 

data cited for the proposed listings. 

Our Response: The commenters did 

not provide any information or citations 

to support their claims. The information 

that we have indicates that hyacinth 

macaws may be expanding into new 

areas or areas previously abandoned; 

however, we found no support for 

significant additional populations 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39896 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

having been established. The overall 

population estimate for the hyacinth 

macaw remains 6,500 individuals. 

Comment (5): Many commenters 

raised concerns about the listing of the 

hyacinth macaw due to economic 

impacts on small businesses because of 

the restriction on commercial trade 

within the United States. 

Our Response: Determinations on 

whether a species should be added to 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants are 

based on whether the species meets the 

definition of ‘‘endangered species’’ or of 

‘‘threatened species’’ in section 3 of the 

Act. The Act directs the Service to make 

these determinations solely on the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data available. Furthermore, the Act 

directs the Service to consider economic 

impacts only when designating critical 

habitat. Therefore, we may not consider 

economic impacts when determining 

the status of a species. We understand 

that the regulations imposed by the 

listing of the hyacinth macaw will have 

an effect on those involved in the pet 

bird industry, especially bird breeders. 

The 4(d) rule that we are putting in 

place streamlines the permitting process 

by deferring to existing laws that are 

protective of hyacinth macaws in the 

course of import and export and not 

requiring permits under the Act for 

certain types of activities. Additionally, 

we are not prohibiting interstate 

commerce of hyacinth macaw within 

the United States (see 4(d) Rule, below). 

Comment (6): Some commenters 

requested that captive birds in the 

United States be considered a separate 

and self-sustaining population from the 

wild population because the wild 

populations are in need of immediate 

help and should be managed and listed 

independently under the Act. 

Our Response: We have determined 

that the Act does not allow for captive 

wildlife to be assigned separate legal 

status from their wild counterparts on 

the basis of their captive state, including 

through designation as a separate 

distinct population segment (DPS) (80 

FR 34500; June 16, 2015). 

Comment (7): One commenter stated 

that the proposed rule does not address 

the many positive steps that have been 

taken to conserve the hyacinth macaw 

in the wild. The commenter referenced 

the work of the Hyacinth Macaw Project 

specifically. 

Our Response: We included a detailed 

description of the work being done by 

the Hyacinth Macaw Project under 

Conservation Measures in the November 

28, 2016, revised proposed rule (81 FR 

85488, November 28, 2016 see pp. 

85499–85501) and ‘‘Conservation 

Actions’’ in the July 6, 2012, proposed 

rule (77 FR 39965, see pp. 39971– 

39972). Our final rule considers and 

incorporates additional information we 

subsequently received from the 

President of the Hyacinth Macaw 

Institute and Coordinator for the 

Hyacinth Macaw Project, Neiva Guedes. 

Comment (8): Two commenters 

pointed to a recent increase in 

deforestation within the hyacinth 

macaw’s range as a reason why the 

species should be listed as endangered 

rather than threatened. 

Our Response: The deforestation rate 

is generally decreasing from historical 

levels (see Factor A discussion, below), 

although we recognize that the rates of 

deforestation may fluctuate annually, 

with some years having a higher rate 

than other years. If the deforestation 

rates are maintained or further reduced, 

the loss of all native habitat from these 

areas, including the species of trees 

needed by the hyacinth macaw for food 

and nesting, and the hyacinth macaw’s 

risk of extinction, is not as imminent as 

predicted. Additionally, Brazil has 

implemented plans to reduce 

deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAm) 

and Cerrado (PPCerrado) and has 

obtained significant reduction of the 

deforestation rate after 12 years of the 

PPCDAm and 6 years of PPCerrado (see 

Factor D discussion, below). Therefore, 

we do not find that the hyacinth macaw 

is currently in danger of extinction. 

Comment (9): One commenter stated 

that deforestation stabilization does not 

equate with regeneration and does not 

account for negative impacts of 

historical habitat disturbance, which 

effects manduvi in the Pantanal, upon 

which the hyacinth macaw relies almost 

exclusively for nesting. 

Our Response: Although the 

recruitment of the manduvi tree has 

been severely reduced and is expected 

to become increasingly rare in the 

future, active management has 

contributed to the increase in the 

hyacinth macaw population in the 

Pantanal, and farmers have begun to 

protect hyacinth macaws on their 

property. Additionally, hyacinth 

macaws have been reported in various 

trees species and even on cliffs on the 

border of the Pantanal (see Essential 

Needs of the Species, above), although 

the majority of their nests are in Brazil 

nut (Bertholettia excels) (in Para ́) and 

manduvi (in the Pantanal). Further, 

hyacinth macaws in the Gerais region 

now use rock crevices for nesting. While 

we do not know if the hyacinth macaws 

in this region will respond in the same 

way to the loss of nesting trees as those 

in the Gerais region, it is possible that 

if these primary nesting trees become 

scarcer, hyacinth macaws may adapt to 

using cavities of other trees (van der 

Meer 2013, p. 3) or perhaps even cliff 

faces. 

Comment (10): One commenter stated 

that we provide conflicting data on 

annual deforestation rates in the Gerais 

region because we stated that annual 

deforestation rates were more than 

14,200 km2 (5,483 mi2) each year from 

2002 to 2008, an estimated 12,949 km2

(4,999 mi2) per year from 2000 to 2005, 

and 11,812 km2 (4,560 mi2) per year 

from 2005 to 2010. 

Our Response: We cited the best 

available data from research that used 

time frames that overlap or vary; 

therefore, it is difficult to make 

comparisons between studies and across 

years to provide a linear estimate of the 

annual deforestation rates within the 

species’ range. Estimates of the 

deforestation rate from 2002 to 2008 of 

14,200 km2 (5,483 mi2) each year are 

based on data from the PROBIO program 

(Projeto de Conservac ̧a ̃o e Utilizac ̧a ̃o 

Sustenta ́vel da Diversidade Biolo ́gica) 

using imagery from 2002 (Beuchle et al. 

2015, p. 117). The Project to Monitor 

Deforestation of Brazilian Biomes by 

Satellite (PMDBBS) used this baseline 

data to estimate deforestation rates from 

2002 through 2008 in the Cerrado (see 

Table 2, below), and to map cleared 

areas from 2008 to 2009, 2009 to 2010, 

and 2010 to 2011; these data are also 

cited by Brazilian Ministry of the 

Environment (Ministe ́rio do Meio 

Ambiente) (MMA) (2015, p. 9) and 

World Wildlife Fund—United Kingdom 

(WWF–UK) (2011b, p. 2). The PMDBBS 

is one of the official national biome 

scale estimates for the Brazilian biomes. 

Estimates of the deforestation rate we 

cited from 2000 to 2005 of 12,949 km2

(4,999 mi2) per year and from 2005 to 

2010 of 11,812 km2 (4,560 mi2) per year 

are from Beuchle et al. (2015, pp. 124– 

125), who were comparing their results 

to PMDBBS (see Factor A discussion, 

below). 

Comment (11): Some commenters, 

while not opposed to the listing of the 

species, requested a rule under section 

4(d) of the Act, which would allow 

ownership and interstate trade of the 

species to occur without obtaining a 

permit under the Act. 

Our Response: Ownership of a listed 

species is not prohibited by the Act and, 

therefore, does not require a permit. 

Section 4(d) of the Act allows the 

Service to apply the prohibitions of 

section 9 or to provide measures that are 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of threatened species. 

Therefore, whenever we list a species as 

a threatened species, we may issue 

regulations as we deem necessary and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39897 

advisable to conserve the species under 

a 4(d) rule. We determined that listing 

the hyacinth macaw as threatened under 

the Act is appropriate, and as part of our 

determination, this final listing includes 

a 4(d) rule for the species articulating 

the measures that we deemed is 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the species. See 4(d) 

Rule, below, for more discussion. 

Comment (12): Two commenters 

stated that the proposed 4(d) rule is not 

adequate because it does not stem 

demand for illegally obtained hyacinth 

macaws and makes wild-sourced supply 

of hyacinth macaws more accessible to 

breeders. 

Our Response: The 4(d) rule generally 

adopts the existing conservation 

regulatory requirements of CITES and 

the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory 

provisions for the import and export of 

certain hyacinth macaws. CITES is an 

international agreement between 

governments and ensures that the 

international trade of CITES-listed 

plants and animals does not threaten the 

survival of the species in the wild. 

Trade must be authorized through a 

system of permits and certificates that 

are provided by the designated CITES 

Scientific and Management Authorities 

of each CITES Party. The hyacinth 

macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES. 

For species included in CITES 

Appendix I, international trade is 

permitted only under exceptional 

circumstances, which generally 

precludes commercial trade. The United 

States implements CITES through the 

Act and our implementing regulations at 

50 CFR part 23. It is unlawful for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to engage in any trade in 

any specimens contrary to the 

provisions of CITES, or to possess any 

specimens traded contrary to the 

provisions of CITES, the Act, or part 23. 

Protections for CITES-listed species are 

provided independently of whether a 

species is an endangered species or a 

threatened species under the Act. 

Based on trade data obtained from the 

CITES Trade Database (accessed on 

January 12, 2018), from the time the 

hyacinth macaw was uplisted to CITES 

Appendix I in October 1987 through 

2015, less than 3 percent of the live 

hyacinth macaws reported in trade were 

wild-sourced (see Factor B discussion 

and Table 4, below). 

Two other laws in the United States 

apart from the Act provide protection 

from the illegal import of wild-caught 

birds into the United States: The WBCA 

and the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42–43; 16 

U.S.C. 3371–3378). The WBCA ensures 

that exotic bird species are not harmed 

by international trade and encourages 

wild bird conservation programs in 

countries of origin. Under the WBCA 

and our implementing regulations (50 

CFR 15.11), it is unlawful to import into 

the United States any exotic bird species 

listed under CITES except under certain 

circumstances. The Service may issue 

permits to allow import of listed birds 

for scientific research, zoological 

breeding or display, cooperative 

breeding, or personal pet purposes 

when the applicant meets certain 

criteria (50 CFR 15.22–15.25). Under the 

Lacey Act, in part, it is unlawful: (1) To 

import, export, transport, sell, receive, 

acquire, or purchase any fish, or wildlife 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law, treaty, or 

regulation of the United States or in 

violation of any Indian tribal law, or (2) 

to import, export, transport, sell, 

receive, acquire, or purchase in 

interstate or foreign commerce any fish 

or wildlife taken, possessed, 

transported, or sold in violation of any 

law or regulation of any State or in 

violation of any foreign law. For 

example, because the take of wildcaught hyacinth macaws would be in 

violation of Brazil’s Environmental 

Crimes Law, the subsequent import of 

hyacinth macaws would violate the 

Lacey Act. Similarly, under the Lacey 

Act it is unlawful to import, export, 

transport, sell, receive, acquire, or 

purchase specimens of this species 

traded contrary to CITES. 

Based in large part on the protection 

from illegal and legal trade afforded to 

the hyacinth macaw by CITES, the 

WBCA, and the Lacey Act, the best 

available data indicate that legal and 

illegal trade of hyacinth macaws is not 

currently occurring at levels that are 

affecting the population of the species 

in the wild or would negatively affect 

any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild 

populations of the species. Although 

illegal trapping for the pet trade 

occurred at high levels during the 

1980s, it has decreased significantly and 

we found no information suggesting that 

illegal trapping and trade of wild 

hyacinth macaws are current threats to 

the species. Therefore, we find that our 

4(d) rule contains all the prohibitions 

and authorizations necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of the 

hyacinth macaw. 

Comment (13): One commenter stated 

that interstate and international 

transport of hyacinth macaws seems to 

be a generally accepted practice of the 

exotic pet trade, and one that is 

expressly endorsed by the 4(d) rule, yet 

it is extremely dangerous and often 

detrimental to the animal’s health and 

well-being. 

Our Response: International transport 

is guided by part 50 CFR part 14, 

subpart J—Standards for the Humane 

and Healthful Transport of Wild 

Mammals and Birds to the United 

States. As mentioned earlier, importers/ 

exporters must meet the requirement of 

this and other requirements in order to 

import their birds into the United 

States. These regulations are enforced 

by the Service. Interstate transport is 

guided by the Animal Welfare Act 

(AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), which is 

the Federal law in the United States that 

regulates the treatment of animals in 

research, exhibition, transport, and by 

dealers (United States Department of 

Agriculture 2017, unpaginated). While 

other laws, policies, and guidelines may 

include additional species coverage or 

specifications for animal care and use, 

all refer to the AWA as the minimum 

acceptable standard. The AWA is 

enforced by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. Therefore, we 

determine that these laws and 

regulations adequately promote the 

humane treatment and transport of 

hyacinth macaws. 

Comment (14): One commenter 

recommended there be an exception for 

legitimate parrot owners and opined 

that the United States should not 

confiscate private property (i.e., 

legitimately purchased pets) because of 

a problem occurring in Brazil, especially 

when there are already laws to protect 

wild parrots. 

Our Response: There is no prohibition 

for ownership of lawfully acquired 

hyacinth macaws. With regards to 

import/export, we proposed exceptions 

for personal pet parrot owners in the 

4(d) rule to allow a person to import or 

export either: (1) A specimen that was 

held in captivity prior to the date this 

species is listed under the Act; or (2) a 

captive-bred specimen, without a permit 

issued under the Act, provided the 

export is authorized under CITES and 

the import is authorized under CITES 

and the WBCA. A person may deliver, 

receive, carry, transport, or ship a 

hyacinth macaw in interstate commerce 

in the course of a commercial activity, 

or sell or offer to sell in interstate 

commerce a hyacinth macaw without a 

permit under the Act. However, the 

import and export of birds into and from 

the United States, taken from the wild 

after the date this species is listed under 

the Act; conducting an activity that 

could take or incidentally take hyacinth 

macaws; and foreign commerce will 

need to meet the requirements of 50 

CFR 17.31 and 17.32, including 

obtaining a permit under the Act. See 

4(d) Rule, below, for more discussion. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39898 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment (15): One commenter 

believed that we should have listed the 

species as endangered because they 

believed that it is in danger of extinction 

in a significant portion of its range. 

Our Response: Under the Act and our 

implementing regulations, a species 

may warrant listing if it is an 

endangered or threatened species. The 

Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

any species that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), 

and ‘‘threatened species’’ as any species 

that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Because 

we have determined that the hyacinth 

macaw is threatened throughout all of 

its range, under the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

(SPR Policy), if a species warrants 

listing throughout all of its range, no 

portion of the species’ range can be a 

‘‘significant’’ portion of its range. 

While it is the Service’s position 

under the SPR Policy that no further 

analysis of ‘‘significant portion of its 

range’’ in this circumstance is consistent 

with the language of the Act, we 

recognize that the SPR Policy is 

currently under judicial review, so we 

also took the additional step of 

considering whether there could be any 

significant portions of the species’ range 

where the species is in danger of 

extinction. We evaluated whether there 

is substantial information indicating 

that there are any portions of the 

hyacinth macaw’s range: (1) That may 

be ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) where the 

species may be in danger of extinction. 

In practice, a key part of identifying 

portions appropriate for further analysis 

is whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated. The hyacinth macaw’s 

primary driver of its status is habitat 

destruction. This threat is affecting the 

species throughout its entire range and 

is of similar magnitude throughout its 

range; therefore, there is not a 

meaningful geographical concentration 

of threats to the hyacinth macaw. As a 

result, even if we were to undertake a 

detailed SPR analysis, there would not 

be any portions of the species’ range 

where the threats are harming the 

species to a greater degree such that the 

species is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. 

Comment (16): One commenter stated 

that the Service was obligated to issue 

a final regulation based on the proposal 

to list the hyacinth macaw as 

endangered in 2012, or issue a notice of 

withdrawal. They asserted the Service 

should have to go through the same 

requirements and procedures as for a 

downlisting by making a full scientific 

finding of why listing the hyacinth 

macaw as endangered is no longer 

warranted before it can repropose to list 

the species as threatened. 

Our Response: We are obligated to 

make listing determinations under the 

Act based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information. In our 

2012 proposed rule (77 FR 39965; July 

6, 2012), we found that the hyacinth 

macaw was in danger of extinction (an 

endangered species) based on 

information estimating the original 

vegetation of the Amazon, Cerrado, and 

Pantanal, including the hyacinth 

macaw’s habitat, would be lost between 

the years 2030 and 2050 due to 

deforestation, combined with the 

species’ naturally low reproductive rate, 

highly specialized nature, hunting, 

competition, and effects of climate 

change. However, subsequent to 

publishing that proposal, we received 

new information from the public and 

peer review. As a result of this 

information, we reevaluated impacts to 

the species, made technical corrections, 

and assessed additional information 

regarding conservation efforts. 

Subsequently, we revised our 

determination in consideration of the 

new information and public comments 

we received to conclude that the 

hyacinth macaw’s risk of extinction is 

not as imminent as previously 

predicted, and we published a revised 

proposed rule that opened a new 

comment period to allow the public the 

opportunity to submit additional 

comments in light of this new 

information (81 FR 85488; November 

28, 2016). 

Comment (17): One commenter stated 

that, while the proposed 4(d) rule is an 

amendment of an existing 4(d) rule for 

several other species of parrots at 50 

CFR 17.41(c), it leaves out two 

provisions of that existing rule: (1) The 

exception for import and export of 

captive-bred specimens, and (2) 

interstate commerce. They assert that 

because the Service includes these 

provisions in the preamble of the 

proposed 4(d) rule but does not include 

the actual text in the draft rule, the 

Service did not provide sufficient notice 

and opportunity for public comment. 

Our Response: In the revised 

proposed rule, under Proposed 

Regulation Promulgation (81 FR 85488, 

November 28, 2016, see pp. 81 FR 

85506–85507), we proposed to amend 

50 CFR 17.41 by revising paragraph (c) 

introductory text, paragraphs (c)(1), 

(c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(ii) 

introductory text, and (c)(2)(ii)(E). The 

amendatory instruction and regulatory 

text were formatted in accordance with 

Office of the Federal Register standards 

and only include those provisions of the 

existing text that are being revised. The 

proposed regulatory text for 50 CFR 

17.41(c), together with the text we were 

not proposing to amend in that 

paragraph of the CFR, encompasses the 

whole of the proposed 4(d) rule for the 

hyacinth macaw. As the commenter 

notes, we explain the proposed 4(d) rule 

for the hyacinth macaw in the preamble 

of the revised proposed rule (81 FR 

85488, November 28, 2016, see pp. 

85505–85506). We accepted public 

comments on the revised proposed rule 

to list the hyacinth macaw as a 

threatened species, including the 

proposed 4(d) rule (81 FR 85488; 

November 28, 2016), for 60 days, ending 

January 27, 2017. We have complied 

with the notice-and-comment 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) and 

the Act. 

Comment (18): One commenter stated 

that neither CITES nor the WBCA 

provide for public notice and comment, 

which is required for permits for 

endangered species under the Act. They 

indicated the public would receive no 

notice about import/export or interstate 

movement of these parrots, which 

makes it difficult to track and protect 

these species from the pet trade. 

Our Response: It is true that neither 

CITES nor the WBCA provide for public 

notice and comment for interstate 

movement of species. It is also true that 

there is required notice and comment 

for permits for endangered species 

under the Act. However, there is no 

notice-and-comment requirement for 

permits for threatened species. We 

found the hyacinth macaw to be a 

threatened species; therefore, the noticeand-comment provision for permits 

under the Act does not apply in this 

case. Additionally, we found it was not 

necessary or advisable for the 

conservation of the hyacinth macaw to 

extend the permit requirements to 

certain import/export and interstate 

transport because we did not find the 

pet trade to be a threat to the species. 

Further, interstate commerce within the 

United States was not found to threaten 

the hyacinth macaw, and the best 

available data indicate that legal and 

illegal trade of hyacinth macaws is not 

currently occurring at levels that are 

affecting the population of the species 

in the wild or would negatively affect 

any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild 

populations of the species. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39899 

Comment (19): One commenter stated 

that the Service provides no logical 

basis for the proposed 4(d) rule’s 

assumption that ‘‘generally accepted 

animal husbandry practices’’ or 

breeding procedures do not result in 

harm and harassment as covered under 

the Act’s prohibition on take. 

Our Response: While the Act does not 

define ‘‘harm’’ or ‘‘harassment,’’ the 

Service’s regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 

provide definitions for those terms. 

‘‘Harm’’ is defined as an act which 

actually kills or injures wildlife and 

‘‘harassment,’’ when applied to captive 

wildlife, does not include generally 

accepted animal husbandry practices or 

breeding procedures as defined by the 

Service’s regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. 

Consequently, such actions would not 

be prohibited or require a permit under 

the Act. 

Comment (20): One commenter stated 

that wildlife-trade management 

authorities have shown that fraudulent 

permitting has been a frequent 

occurrence in many illicitly traded 

species across the globe (United Nations 

Office on Drugs and Crime 2016) and 

this impacts the hyacinth macaw. 

Our Response: Although we recognize 

that fraudulent permitting may occur as 

part of the global wildlife trade, we have 

no information indicating that 

fraudulent permitting practices are 

impacting the hyacinth macaw. 

Furthermore, the commenter did not 

provide any information regarding 

fraudulent permitting specific to 

hyacinth macaws. 

Comment (21): One commenter 

suggested an alternative 4(d) rule for the 

hyacinth macaw, which they say would 

better further the conservation of the 

species. The commenter suggested that 

any trade in captive-bred specimens 

must be limited to specimens 

legitimately designated as source code D 

instead of codes C, D, or F under CITES, 

and that commercial interstate 

commerce should not be exempted. 

(Note: Source codes indicate the source 

of the specimen used on CITES permits 

and certificates. See 4(d) Rule, below, 

for more discussion.) 

Our Response: We considered the 

commenter’s alternative approach to the 

4(d) rule, and ultimately we determined 

that the import and export requirements 

of 50 CFR 17.41(c) provide the 

necessary and advisable conservation 

measures needed for this species. 

Interstate commerce within the United 

States was not found to threaten the 

hyacinth macaw, and the best available 

data indicate that legal and illegal trade 

of hyacinth macaws is not currently 

occurring at levels that are affecting the 

population of the species in the wild or 

would negatively affect any efforts 

aimed at the recovery of wild 

populations of the species. 

Background 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. The Act defines 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). 

We summarize below the information 

on which we based our final 

determination and evaluation of the five 

factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act. We are also including hyacinth 

macaws under a rule authorized under 

section 4(d) of the Act. This 4(d) rule 

contains the prohibitions and 

authorizations necessary and advisable 

for the conservation of the hyacinth 

macaw. 

Species Information 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

The hyacinth macaw is one of three 

species of the Anodorhynchus genus 

and the largest bird of the parrot family, 

Family Psittacidae, (Guedes and Harper 

1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 405). 

It measures approximately 1 meter (m) 

(3.3 feet (ft)) in length. Average female 

and male wing lengths measure 

approximately 400 to 408 millimeters 

(mm) (1.3 ft), respectively. Average tail 

lengths for females and males are 

approximately 492 mm (1.6 ft) and 509 

mm (1.7 ft), respectively (Forshaw 1989, 

p. 388). Hyacinth macaws are 

characterized by a predominately 

cobalt-blue plumage, black underside of 

wing and tail, and unlike other macaws, 

have feathered faces and lores (areas of 

a bird’s face from the base of the bill to 

the front of the eyes). In addition, they 

have bare yellow eye rings, bare yellow 

patches surrounding the base of their 

lower mandibles, large and hooked grayblack bills, and dark-brown irises. Their 

legs, which are dark gray in most birds 

but lighter gray to white in older adults, 

are short and sturdy to allow the bird to 

hang sideways or upside down while 

foraging. Immature birds are similar to 

adults, but with shorter tails and paler 

yellow bare facial skin (Juniper and Parr 

1998, pp. 416–417; Guedes and Harper 

1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 405; 

Forshaw 1989, p. 388). 

The hyacinth macaw experiences late 

maturity, not reaching first reproduction 

until 8 or 9 years old (Guedes 2009, p. 

117). Hyacinth macaws are 

monogamous and faithful to nesting 

sites; a couple may reproduce for more 

than a decade in the same nest. They 

nest from July to January in tree cavities 

and, in some parts of its range, cliff 

cavities (Tortato and Bonanomi 2012, p. 

22; Guedes 2009, pp. 4, 5, 12; Pizo et al. 

2008, p. 792; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, 

p. 35; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 2). The 

hyacinth macaw lays two smooth, white 

eggs approximately 48 mm (1.9 inches 

(in)) long and 36 mm (1.4 in) wide. Eggs 

are usually found in the nest from 

August until December (Guedes 2009, p. 

4; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes 

and Harper 1995, p. 406). The female 

alone incubates the eggs for 

approximately 28 to 30 days. The male 

remains near the nest to protect it from 

invaders, but may leave 4 to 6 times a 

day to forage and collect food for the 

female (Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 72, 

79; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 406). 

Chicks are mostly naked, with sparse 

white down feathers at hatching. Young 

are fed regurgitated, chopped palm nuts 

(Munn et al. 1989, p. 405). Most chicks 

fledge at 105 to 110 days old; however, 

separation from the parents is a slow 

process. Fledglings will continue to be 

fed by the parents for 6 months, when 

they begin to break hard palm nuts 

themselves, and may remain with the 

adults for 16 months, after which they 

will join groups of other young birds 

(Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71–72; 

Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 407–411). 

Hyacinth macaws naturally have a 

low reproductive rate, a characteristic 

common to all parrots, due, in part, to 

asynchronous hatching. Although 

hyacinth macaws lay two eggs, usually 

only one chick survives (Guedes 2009, 

p. 31; Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Kuniy 

et al. 2006, p. 381; Guedes, 2004b, p. 6; 

Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). Not all 

hyacinth nests fledge young, and due to 

the long period of chick dependence, 

hyacinth macaws breed only every 2 

years (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; 

Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71–72; 

Guedes 2004b, p. 7; Pinho and Nigueira 

2003, p. 30; Guedes and Harper 1995, 

pp. 407–411; Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). 

In a study of the Pantanal, which 

contains the largest population of 

hyacinth macaws, it was suggested that 

only 15–30 percent of adults attempt to 

breed; it may be that the same or an 

even smaller percentage in Para ́ and 

Gerais attempt to breed (Munn et al. 

1989, p. 409). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39900 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Range and Population 

At one time, hyacinth macaws were 

widely distributed, occupying large 

areas of Central Brazil into the Bolivian 

and Paraguayan Pantanal (Guedes 2009, 

pp. xiii, 11; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, 

p. 30; Whittingham et al. 1998, p. 66; 

Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395). 

Today, the species is limited to three 

areas totaling approximately 537,000 

square kilometers (km2), (207,337 

square miles (mi2)) almost exclusively 

within Brazil: (1) Eastern Amazonia in 

Para ́, Brazil, south of the Amazon River 

along the Tocantins, Xingu, and Tapajo ́ s 

rivers; (2) the Gerais region of 

northeastern Brazil, including the states 

of Maranha ̃o, Piauı ́, Goia ́s, Tocantins, 

Bahia, and Minas Gerais; and (3) the 

Pantanal of Mato Grosso and Mato 

Grosso do Sul, Brazil, and marginally in 

Bolivia and Paraguay. These 

populations of hyacinth macaws inhabit 

those portions of the species’ original 

range that experienced the least 

pressure from bird catchers, meat and 

feather hunters, and agricultural 

developers (Munn et al. 1989, pp. 406– 

407). 

Prior to the arrival of Indians and 

Europeans to South America, there may 

have been between 100,000 and 3 

million hyacinth macaws (Munn et al. 

1989, p. 412); however, due to the 

species’ large but patchy range, an 

estimate of the original population size 

when the species was first described 

(1790) is unattainable (Collar et al. 1992, 

p. 253). Although some evidence 

indicates that the hyacinth macaw was 

abundant before the mid-1980s (Guedes 

2009, p. 11; Collar et al. 1992, p. 253), 

the species significantly declined 

throughout the 1980s due to an 

estimated 10,000 birds illegally 

captured during the 1980s for the pet 

trade and a further reduction in 

numbers due to habitat loss and 

hunting. Population estimates prior to 

1986 are lacking, but a very rapid 

population decline is suspected to have 

taken place over the last 31 years (three 

generations) (Birdlife International (BLI) 

2014a, unpaginated). In 1986, the total 

population of hyacinth macaws was 

estimated to be 3,000, with a range 

between 2,500 and 5,000 individuals; 

750 occurred in Para ́, 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 

Para ́ and Gerais, combined (BLI 2017, 

unpaginated; Guedes 2009, p. 11; 

Brouwer 2004, unpaginated). 

Observations of hyacinth macaws in the 

wild have increased in Paraguay, 

especially in the northern region 

(Espinola 2013, pers. comm.), but no 

quantitative data are available. Locals 

report the species increasing in Bolivia; 

between 100 and 200 hyacinth macaws 

are estimated to occur in the Bolivian 

Pantanal, with estimates up to 300 for 

the country (Guedes 2012, p. 1; PintoLedezma 2011, p. 19; BLI 2017, 

unpaginated; BLI 1992, p. 4). 

The 2003 estimate indicates a 

substantial increase in the Pantanal 

population, although the methods or 

techniques used to estimate the 

population is not described. Therefore, 

the reliability of the estimation 

techniques, as well as the accuracy of 

the estimated increase, is not known 

(Santos, Jr. 2013, pers. comm.). Despite 

the uncertainty in the estimated 

population increase, the Pantanal is the 

stronghold for the species and has 

shown signs of recovery since 1990, 

most likely as a response to 

conservation projects (BLI 2017, 

unpaginated; Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; 

Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 30). The 

overall population trend for the 

hyacinth macaw throughout its range is 

reported as decreasing (BLI 2016, 

unpaginated), although there are no 

extreme fluctuations reported in the 

number of individuals (BLI 2016, 

unpaginated). 

Essential Needs of the Species 

Hyacinth macaws use a variety of 

habitats in the Para ́, 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 Para ́, the 

species prefers palm-rich va ́rzea 

(flooded forests), seasonally moist 

forests with clearings, and savannas. In 

the Gerais region, hyacinth macaws are 

located within the Cerrado biome, 

where they inhabit dry open forests in 

rocky, steep-sided valleys and plateaus, 

gallery forests (a stretch of forest along 

a river in an area of otherwise open 

country), and Mauritia palm swamps. In 

the Pantanal region, hyacinth macaws 

frequent gallery forests and palm groves 

with wet grassy areas (Juniper and Parr 

1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, 

p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 407). 

Hyacinth macaws have a specialized 

diet consisting of the fruits of various 

palm species, which are inside an 

extremely hard nut that only the 

hyacinth macaw can easily break 

(Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 400; Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 254). Hyacinth macaws 

are highly selective in choice of palm 

nut; they have to be the right size and 

shape, as well as have an extractable 

kernel with the right lignin pattern 

(Brightsmith 1999, p. 2; Pittman 1993, 

unpaginated). They forage for palm nuts 

and water on the ground, but may also 

forage directly from the palm tree and 

drink fluid from unripe palm fruits. 

Hyacinth macaws also feed on the large 

quantities of nuts eliminated by cattle in 

the fields and have been observed in 

close proximity to cattle ranches where 

waste piles are concentrated (Juniper 

and Parr 1998, p. 417; Yamashita 1997, 

pp. 177, 179; Guedes and Harper 1995, 

pp. 400–401; Collar et al. 1992, p. 254). 

In each of the three regions where 

hyacinth macaws occur, they use only a 

few specific palm species. In Para ́, 

hyacinth macaws have been reported to 

feed on Maximiliana regia (inaja ́), 

Orbignya martiana (babassu), Orbignya 

phalerata (babacu ́) and Astrocaryum sp. 

(tucuma ́n). In the Gerais region, 

hyacinth macaws feed on Attalea 

funifera (piacava), Syagrus coronata 

(catole ́), and Mauritia vinifera (buriti). 

In the Pantanal region, hyacinth macaws 

feed exclusively on Scheelea phalerata 

(acuri) and Acrocomia totai (bocaiu ́ va) 

(Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Schneider et 

al. 2006, p. 74; Juniper and Parr 1998, 

p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 401; 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 254; Munn et al. 

1989, pp. 407–408). Although hyacinth 

macaws prefer bocaiu ́ va palm nuts over 

acuri, bocaiu ́ va is only readily available 

from September to December, which 

coincides with the peak of chick 

hatching; however, the acuri is available 

throughout the year and constitutes the 

majority of this species’ diet in the 

Pantanal (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 

400). 

Hyacinth macaws have specialized 

nesting requirements. As a secondary 

tree nester, they require large, mature 

trees with preexisting tree holes to 

provide nesting cavities large enough to 

accommodate them (Tortato and 

Bonanomi 2012, p. 22; Guedes 2009, pp. 

4–5, 12; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; 

Abramson et al. 1995, p. 2). In Para ́, the 

species nests in holes of Bertholettia 

excelsa (Brazil nut). In the Gerais region, 

nesting may occur in large dead 

Mauritia vinifera (buriti), but is most 

commonly found in natural rock 

crevices. In the Pantanal region, the 

species nests almost exclusively in 

Sterculia striata (manduvi) as it is one 

of the few tree species that grows large 

enough to supply cavities that can 

accommodate the hyacinth’s large size. 

Manduvi trees must be at least 60 years 

old, and on average 80 years old, to 

provide adequate cavities (Guedes 2009, 

pp. 59–60; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; 

Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 185). Nesting 

has also been reported in 

Pithecellobium edwalii (angio branco), 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39901 

Enterolobium contortisiliquum 

(ximbuva), Vitex sp. (taruma ́), and the 

cliff face of mountains on the border of 

the Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, p. 24; 

Guedes 2004b, p. 6; Kuniy et al. 2006, 

p. 381; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 180; 

Pinho and Nogueira 2003, pp. 30, 33; 

Guedes 2002, p. 4; Juniper and Parr 

1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, 

p. 402; Collar et al. 1992, p. 255; Munn 

et al. 1989, p. 408). 

Conservation Status 

In 1989, the hyacinth was listed on 

the Official List of Brazilian Fauna 

Threatened with Extinction by the 

Brazilian Institute of Environment and 

Natural Resources (IBAMA), the 

government agency that controls the 

country’s natural resources (Lunardi et 

al. 2003, p. 283; IBAMA Ordinance No. 

1522, of December 19, 1989). Due to 

actions to combat trafficking of animals, 

the hyacinth macaw was removed from 

the list in 2014 (Instituto Chico Mendes 

de Conservac ̧a ̃o da Bioversidade 2016, 

unpaginated). It is listed as ‘‘critically 

endangered’’ by the State of Minas 

Gerais and ‘‘vulnerable’’ by the State of 

Para ́ (Garcia and Marini 2006, p. 153). 

In Paraguay, the hyacinth macaw is 

listed as in danger of extinction (Bauer 

2012, pers. comm.). 

From 2000 to 2013, this species was 

classified as ‘‘endangered’’ by the 

International Union for Conservation of 

Nature (IUCN). However, in 2014, the 

hyacinth macaw was downlisted to 

‘‘vulnerable’’ because evidence 

suggested that it had not declined as 

rapidly as previously thought. A 

‘‘vulnerable’’ taxon is considered to be 

facing a high risk of extinction in the 

wild, whereas an ‘‘endangered’’ taxon is 

considered to be facing a very high risk 

of extinction in the wild (IUCN 2012, 

unpaginated). The hyacinth macaw is 

also listed as Appendix I on the CITES 

list. Species included in CITES 

Appendix I are considered threatened 

with extinction, and international trade 

is permitted only under exceptional 

circumstances, which generally 

precludes commercial trade. 

Factors Affecting the Species 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), 

and its implementing regulations in title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 

50 CFR part 424, set forth the 

procedures for adding species to the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a 

species based on (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Most of the information on the 

hyacinth macaw is from the Pantanal 

region, as this is the largest and most 

studied population. The species occurs 

only marginally within Bolivia and 

Paraguay as extensions from the 

Brazilian Pantanal population, and there 

is little information on the species in 

those countries. We found little 

information on the status of the Para ́

and Gerais populations; therefore, we 

evaluated impacts to these populations 

by a broader region (e.g., the Amazon 

biome for Para ́ and the Cerrado biome 

for Gerais). 

Parrots in general have traits that 

increase their vulnerability of extinction 

(Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121; 

Guedes 2004a, p. 280; Wright et al. 

2001, p. 711; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 407– 

409). The specialized nature and 

reproductive biology of the hyacinth 

macaw contribute to low recruitment of 

juveniles and decrease the ability to 

recover from reductions in population 

size caused by anthropogenic 

disturbances (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; 

Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). This species’ 

vulnerability to extinction is further 

impacted by deforestation that 

negatively affects the availability of 

essential food and nesting resources; 

hunting that removes individuals from 

already small populations; and other 

factors that further reduce naturally low 

reproductive rates, recruitment, and the 

population. Additionally, the hyacinth 

macaw has highly specialized food and 

nest-site requirements (Faria et al. 2008, 

p. 766; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795; Munn 

et al. 1998, p. 409; Johnson et al. 1997, 

p. 186; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 

400), as they feed on and nest in very 

limited number of tree species. 

Therefore, hyacinth macaws are 

particularly vulnerable to extinction due 

to the loss of food sources and nesting 

sites (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo 

2008, p. 795; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 407– 

409; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). 

Factor A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Deforestation 

Natural ecosystems across Latin 

America are being transformed due to 

economic development, international 

market demands, and government 

policies. In Brazil, demand for soybean 

oil and soybean meal has increased, 

causing land conversion to significantly 

increase to meet this demand (Barona et 

al. 2010, pp. 1–2). Much of the recent 

surge in cropland area expansion is 

taking place in the Brazilian Amazon 

and Cerrado regions (Nepstad et al. 

2008, p. 1738). Brazil has also become 

the world’s largest exporter of beef. Over 

the past decade, more than 10 million 

hectares (ha) (24.7 million acres (ac)) 

were cleared for cattle ranching, and the 

government is aiming to double the 

country’s share of the beef export 

market to 60 percent by 2018 (Butler 

2009, unpaginated). 

Para ́: Para ́ 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 va ́rzea (floodplain forests) of the 

Amazon for centuries (Arima and Uhl, 

1997, p. 433). However, since the late 

1970s, state subsidies and massive 

infrastructure development have 

facilitated large-scale forest conversion 

and colonization for cattle ranching 

(Barona et al. 2010, p. 1). Certain factors 

have led to a significant expansion of 

this land use. The climate of the 

Brazilian Amazon is favorable for cattle 

ranching; frosts do not occur in the 

north of Brazil; and rainfall is more 

evenly distributed throughout the year, 

increasing pasture productivity and 

reducing the risk of fire. Additionally, 

the price of land in Para ́ has been lower 

than in central and south Brazil, 

resulting in ranchers establishing larger 

farms in Para ́ (Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 

446). 

Although the immediate cause of 

deforestation in the Amazon was 

predominantly the expansion of pasture 

between 2000 and 2006 (Barona et al. 

2010, p. 8), the underlying cause may be 

the expansion of soy cultivation in other 

areas, leading to a displacement of 

pastures farther north into parts of Para ́

and causing additional deforestation 

(Barona et al. 2010, pp. 6, 8). 

In the Brazilian North region, 

including Para ́, 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). Para ́ itself contains two-thirds of 

the Brazilian Amazonia cattle herd 

(Arima and Uhl 1997, p. 343), with a 

sizable portion of the state classified as 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39902 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

cattle-producing area (Walker et al. 

2009, p. 69). For 7 months of the year, 

cattle are grazed in the va ́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). 

Para ́ has long been known as the 

epicenter of illegal deforestation (Dias 

and Ramos 2012, unpaginated) and has 

one of the highest deforestation rates in 

the Brazilian Amazon (Butler 2016, 

unpaginated). From 1988 to 2016, the 

state lost 143,159 km2 (55,274 mi2), with 

annual rates varying between 1,741 and 

8,870 km2 (672 and 3,425 mi2) (Brazil’s 

National Institute for Space Research 

(INPE) 2016, unpaginated; Butler 2016, 

unpaginated) (Table 1). Since 2004, 

deforestation rates in Para ́ have 

generally decreased. However, rates rose 

35 percent in 2013, decreased in 2014, 

and increased in 2015 and 2016 (INPE 

2016, unpaginated) (Table 1). The 

impacts to and loss of biodiversity 

within the two large regions of the 

Brazilian Amazon located in the state of 

Para ́ are due to not only deforestation 

across the landscape but also withinforest disturbance, such as wildfire and 

selective logging, resulting in a loss of 

biodiversity beyond what is expected 

based on deforestation alone. Withinforest disturbance can increase even as 

deforestation rates fall (Barlow et al. 

2016, p. 144). 

TABLE 1—DEFORESTATION IN PARA ́

(2004–2016) (INPE 2016) 

Year 

Accumulated 

deforested 

area (km2) 

Annual 

deforested 

area (km2) 

2004 .............. * 98,257 8,870 

2005 .............. 104,156 5,899 

2006 .............. 109,815 5,659 

2007 .............. 115,341 5,526 

2008 .............. 120,948 5,607 

TABLE 1—DEFORESTATION IN PARA ́

(2004–2016) (INPE 2016)—Continued 

Year 

Accumulated 

deforested 

area (km2) 

Annual 

deforested 

area (km2) 

2009 .............. 125,229 4,281 

2010 .............. 128,999 3,770 

2011 .............. 132,007 3,008 

2012 .............. 133,748 1,741 

2013 .............. 136,094 2,346 

2014 .............. 137,981 1,887 

2015 .............. 140,134 2,153 

2016 .............. 143,159 3,025 

* Accumulation since 1988. 

Given the role cattle ranching plays in 

national and international markets and 

the profitability of ranching, significant 

expansion of cattle herds in the 

Brazilian Amazon has continued 

(Walker et al. 2009, p. 68). The 

remaining forested areas of Para ́ are at 

risk of being cleared; Para ́ is one of the 

states where most of Brazil’s agriculture 

expansion is taking place (British 

Broadcasting Company News 2014, 

unpaginated). Furthermore, modeled 

future deforestation is concentrated in 

eastern Amazonia, which includes Para ́, 

where the density of paved highways 

(existing and planned) will continue to 

be highest for several decades (SoaresFilho et al. 2006, p. 522). 

Gerais: The Gerais region is within the 

Cerrado biome, a 2-million-km2

(772,204-mi2) area consisting of plateaus 

and depressions with vegetation that 

varies from dense grasslands with 

sparse shrubs and small trees to almost 

closed woodland (Pinto et al. 2007, p. 

14; da Silva 1997, p. 437; Ratter et al. 

1997, p. 223). In the Cerrado, hyacinth 

macaws now mostly nest in rock 

crevices, most likely a response to the 

destruction of nesting trees (Collar et al. 

1992, p. 255). These crevices will likely 

remain constant and are not a limiting 

factor. However, deforestation for 

agriculture, primarily soy crops, and 

cattle ranching threaten the remaining 

native cerrado vegetation, including 

palm species the hyacinth macaw relies 

on as a food source. 

Approximately 50 to 80 percent of the 

original Cerrado vegetation has been lost 

due to conversion to agriculture and 

pasture, and the area continues to suffer 

high rates of habitat loss (Grecchi et al. 

2015, p. 2865; Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 

121; WWF 2015, p. 2; Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, p. 364; Pearce 2011, unpaginated; 

WWF–UK 2011b, p. 2; Carvalho et al. 

2009, p. 1393; BLI 2008, unpaginated; 

Pinto et al. 2007, p. 14; Klink and 

Machado 2005, p. 708; Marini and 

Garcia 2005, p. 667; WWF 2001, 

unpaginated; da Silva 1997, p. 446; da 

Silva 1995, p. 298). From 2002 to 2008, 

the demand for land conversion in the 

Cerrado resulted in an annual 

deforestation rate of more than 14,200 

km2 (5,483 mi2) (PROBIO program 

(Projeto de Conservac ̧a ̃o e Utilizac ̧a ̃o 

Sustenta ́vel da Diversidade Biolo ́gica); 

Ministe ́rio do Meio Ambiente (MMA) 

2015, p. 9; WWF–UK 2011b, p. 2; 

Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 117). At this rate, 

the vegetation of the Cerrado region was 

disappearing faster than the Amazon 

rainforest (Pearce 2011, unpaginated; 

WWF–UK 2011c, p. 19; Pennington et 

al. 2006, in Beuchle et al. 2015, p. 117; 

Klink and Machado 2005, p. 708; Ratter 

et al. 1997, p. 228). However, the annual 

deforestation rate from 2008 to 2009 and 

2009 to 2010 in the Cerrado slowed by 

46 percent and 16 percent respectively 

(MMA 2015, p. 9; Critical Ecosystem 

Partnership Fund (CEPF) 2016, p. 145) 

(Table 2). In a comparison study, the 

loss of natural vegetation decreased to 

an estimated 12,949 km2 (4,999 mi2) per 

year from 2000 to 2005, and 11,812 km2

(4,560 mi2) per year from 2005 to 2010 

(Beuchle et al. 2015, pp. 124–125). 

Since 2008, annual monitoring of 

deforestation in the Cerrado has taken 

place through a government program 

that monitors each of the Brazilian 

biomes. Compared to the deforestation 

rates of the early 2000s, deforestation 

has decreased about 40 percent (CEPF 

2016, p. 145). Although the annual rate 

of deforestation is generally decreasing, 

the total amount of forested habitat 

continues to experience a slow and 

steady decline (MMA 2015, p. 9) (Table 

2). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39903 

The remaining natural vegetation of 

the Cerrado is highly fragmented (only 

20 percent of the original biome is 

considered intact) and continues to be 

pressured by conversion for soy 

plantations and extensive cattle 

ranching (WWF–UK 2011b, p. 2; WWF– 

UK 2011c, p. 21; Carvalho et al. 2009, 

p. 1393; BLI 2008, unpaginated). About 

6 in every 10 ha (15 of 25 ac) of the 

Cerrado are suitable for mechanized 

agriculture (WWF–UK 2011b, p. 2). 

Maranha ̃o, Tocantins, Piauı ́, and Bahia, 

states where hyacinth macaws occur, 

are undergoing rapid conversion, mostly 

to soy crops (CEPF 2016, p. 151). In two 

of these states, deforestation increased 

by 40 percent in Toncantins (INPE 2016, 

unpaginated) and by 25 percent in 

Maranha ̃o (Butler 2016, unpaginated) in 

2016 compared to the deforestation rate 

in 2015. Soy production will continue 

to grow as the beans have many uses for 

food, feed, and industry in Brazil and 

abroad (CEPF 2016, p. 152). 

Furthermore, the Brazilian government 

has proposed a 731,735-km2 (282,524- 

mi2) agricultural development, of which 

91 percent occurs in the Cerrado, with 

little regard for the environment, at least 

as of 2015 (Clark 2015 and Miranda 

2015, in CEPF 2016, p. 95). 

Additionally, the conversion of land for 

biofuel production is likely imminent, 

creating a market for the expansion and 

establishment of new areas for soy, 

castor beans, other oil-bearing plants, 

and sugar cane (Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 

1400). 

Given that the Cerrado is the most 

desirable biome for agribusiness 

expansion and contains approximately 

40 million ha (99 million ac) of 

environmental surplus, which is land 

that exceeds the conservation 

requirements of the forest code and that 

could be legally deforested (see Factor D 

discussion, below) (Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, p. 364), this region will likely 

continue to suffer high deforestation 

rates. Projections for coming decades 

show the largest increase in agricultural 

production occurring in the Cerrado 

(CEPF 2016, p. 145). 

Pantanal: The Pantanal is a 140,000- 

km2 (54,054-mi2) seasonally flooded 

wetland interspersed with higher areas 

not subject to inundation (cordilleras), 

covered with cerrado or seasonal forests 

(Santos Jr. 2008, p. 133; Santos Jr. et al. 

2007, p. 127; Harris et al. 2005, p. 715; 

Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 103). 

Transitions during the 1990s to more 

intensive cattle ranching methods led to 

the conversion of more forests to pasture 

and the introduction of nonnative 

grasses. Ninety-five percent of the 

Pantanal is privately owned; 80 percent 

of the privately owned land is used for 

cattle ranches, making cattle ranching 

the predominant economic activity in 

this region and the greatest cause of 

habitat loss in the Pantanal (van der 

Meer 2013, p. 5; Guedes and Vicente 

2012, pp. 146–147, 148; Guedes 2009, p. 

12; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793; Harris et al. 

2006, pp. 165, 175–176; Harris et al. 

2005, pp. 715–716, 718; Pinho and 

Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Seidl et al. 2001, 

p. 414; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 396; 

Mittermeier 1990, pp. 103, 107–108). 

Manduvi, the tree that hyacinth 

macaws almost exclusively use for 

nesting in this region, grow in 

cordilleras, which constitute only 6 

percent of the vegetative area of the 

Pantanal (van der Meer 2013, p. 6; Pizo 

et al. 2008, p. 793; Johnson et al. 1997, 

p. 186). Many of these patches and 

corridors are surrounded by seasonally 

flooded grasslands used as rangeland for 

cattle during the dry season (Johnson et 

al. 1997, p. 186). During the flooding 

season (January to June), up to 80 

percent of the Pantanal is flooded and 

ranchers move cattle to cordilleras, 

increasing cattle pressure on upland 

forests (van der Meer 2013, p. 3; Guedes 

2002, p. 3). These upland forests are 

often removed and converted to 

cultivated pastures with exotic grasses 

(van der Meer 2013, p. 6; Santos Jr. 

2008, p. 136; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 

127; Harris et al. 2006, p. 165; Harris et 

al. 2005, p. 716; Pinho and Nogueira 

2003, p. 30; Seidl et al. 2001, p. 414; 

Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). Clearing 

land to establish pasture is perceived as 

the economically optimal land use, 

while land not producing beef is often 

perceived as unproductive (Seidl et al. 

2001, pp. 414–415). 

Since 2002, regular monitoring of 

land use and vegetative cover in the 

Upper Paraguay Basin, which includes 

the Pantanal, has taken place. While the 

annual rate of deforestation is 

decreasing, satellite monitoring of the 

area indicates a slow and steady 

increase in deforested area (Table 3, 

below). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULESER13AU18.032</GPH>
39904 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

When clearing land for pastures, palm 

trees are often left, as the cattle will feed 

on the palm nuts (Pinho and Nogueira 

2003, p. 36). In fact, hyacinth macaws 

occur near cattle ranches and feed off 

the palm nuts eliminated by the cattle 

(Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; 

Yamashita 1997, pp. 177, 179; Guedes 

and Harper 1995, pp. 400–401; Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 254). However, other trees, 

including potential nesting trees, are 

often removed (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 

119). Even in areas where known 

nesting trees were left and the 

surrounding area was cleared, 

competition with each other and other 

macaw species became so fierce that 

hyacinth macaws were unable to 

reproduce; both eggs and chicks were 

killed by competitors (see Factor C 

discussion, below). 

Other activities associated with cattle 

ranching, such as grazing, burning, 

compaction, the introduction of exotic 

grasses, and fragmentation, negatively 

impacts the nesting trees of the hyacinth 

macaw (Guedes 2013, pers. comm.; 

Guedes and Vicente 2012, pp. 149–150; 

Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Harris et 

al. 2006, p. 175; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 

119). For example, fire is a common 

method for renewing pastures, 

controlling weeds, and controlling pests 

(e.g., ticks); however, fires frequently 

become uncontrolled and burn patches 

and corridors of manduvi trees during 

the dry season (Harris et al. 2005, p. 

716; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). 

Although fire can promote cavity 

formation in manduvi trees, frequent 

fires prevent trees from surviving to a 

size capable of providing suitable 

cavities, and cause a high rate of 

nesting-tree loss (Guedes 1993 in 

Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187). Five 

percent of manduvi trees are lost each 

year to deforestation, fire, and storms 

(Guedes 1995, in Santos Jr. et al. 2006, 

pp. 184–185; Guedes and Vicente 2012, 

p. 157). 

In addition to the impact of fire on 

recruitment of manduvi trees, cattle 

directly impact the density of manduvi 

seedlings in the Pantanal. Cattle forage 

on and trample manduvi seedlings, 

affecting the recruitment of this species 

to be able to reach a size large enough 

to accommodate hyacinth macaws (Pizo 

et al. 2008, p. 793; Johnson et al. 1997, 

p. 187; Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 107). 

Only those manduvi trees at least 60 

years old are capable of providing these 

cavities (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Santos 

Jr. et al. 2006, p. 185). The minimum 

diameter at breast height (DBH) for trees 

to potentially contain a cavity suitable 

for hyacinth macaws is 50 centimeters 

(cm) (20 in), while all manduvi trees 

greater than 100 cm (39 in) DBH contain 

suitable nest cavities. However, there is 

low recruitment of manduvi trees in 

classes greater than 5 cm (2 in) DBH, a 

strong reduction in the occurrence of 

trees greater than 50 cm (20 in) DBH, 

and very few trees greater than 110 cm 

(43 in) DBH (Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 

128). Only 5 percent of the existing 

adult manduvi trees (trees with a DBH 

greater than 50 cm (20 in)) in southcentral Pantanal (Guedes 1993, in 

Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186) and 11 

percent in southern Pantanal (van der 

Meer 2013, p. 16) contain suitable 

cavities for hyacinth macaws. Thus, 

potential nesting sites are rare and will 

become increasingly rare in the future 

(Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128). 

Impacts of Deforestation: Because the 

hyacinth macaw has highly specialized 

diet and nesting requirements, it is 

particularly vulnerable to the loss of 

these resources (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; 

Pizo 2008, p. 795; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 

407–409; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). 

The loss of tree species used by 

hyacinth macaws negatively impacts the 

species by reducing availability of food 

resources, creating a shortage of suitable 

nesting sites, increasing competition, 

and resulting in lowered recruitment 

and a reduction in population size (Lee 

2010, pp. 2, 6, 12; Santos Jr. et al. 2007, 

p. 128; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 188). 

Its specialized diet makes the 

hyacinth macaw vulnerable to changes 

in food availability. Inadequate 

nutrition can contribute to poor health 

and reduced reproduction in parrots 

generally (McDonald 2003, in Lee 2010, 

p. 6). Changes in palm fruit availability 

decreases reproduction in hyacinth 

macaws (Guedes 2009, pp. 42–43, 44). 

In Para ́ and the Gerais region, where 

food sources are threatened, persistence 

of the species is a concern given that 

one of the major factors thought to have 

contributed to the critically endangered 

status of the Lear’s macaw 

(Anodorhynchus leari) is the loss of its 

specialized food source, Syagrus sp. 

(licuri palm) stands, to cattle grazing 

(Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). 

Hyacinth macaws can tolerate a 

certain degree of human disturbance at 

their breeding sites (Pinho and Noguiera 

2003, p. 36). However, the number of 

usable cavities increases with the age of 

the trees in the forest (Newton 1994, p. 

266), and clearing land for agriculture 

and cattle ranching, cattle trampling and 

foraging, and burning of forest habitat 

result in the loss of mature trees with 

natural cavities of sufficient size and a 

reduction in recruitment of native 

species that could eventually provide 

nesting cavities. 

A shortage of nest sites can jeopardize 

the persistence of the hyacinth macaw 

by constraining breeding density, 

resulting in lower recruitment and a 

gradual reduction in population size 

(Santos Jr. et al. 2007, p. 128; Johnson 

et al. 1997, p. 188; Guedes and Harper 

1995, p. 405; Newton 1994, p. 265). This 

reduction may lead to long-term effects 

on the viability of the hyacinth macaw 

population, especially in Para ́ and the 

Pantanal where persistence of nesting 

trees is compromised (Santos Jr. et al. 

2007, p. 128; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 

181). Although a species may survive 

the initial deforestation, the resulting 

lack of food resources and breeding sites 

may reduce the viability of the 

population and make the species 

vulnerable to extinction (Sodhi et al. 

2009, p. 517). 

In response to the loss of its nesting 

tree in the Gerais region, hyacinth 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULESER13AU18.033</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39905 

macaws now use rock crevices for 

nesting. Hyacinth macaws have been 

reported in various trees species and 

even on cliffs on the border of the 

Pantanal, although the majority of their 

nests are in Brazil nut (in Para ́) and 

manduvi (in the Pantanal) (see Essential 

Needs of the Species, above). We do not 

know if the hyacinth macaws in the 

Pantanal will respond in the same way 

to the loss of nesting trees as those in 

the Gerais region; however, it is possible 

that if these primary nesting trees 

become scarcer, hyacinth macaws may 

adapt to using cliff faces or cavities of 

other trees (van der Meer 2013, p. 3). 

Deforestation in these regions would 

likely impact any alternative nesting 

trees and food sources, resulting in the 

same negative effect on the hyacinth 

macaw. Furthermore, competition for 

limited nesting sites and food would 

continue. 

Factor B. Overutilization for 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Hunting 

In Para ́ and the Gerais region, hunting 

removes individual hyacinth macaws 

vital to the already small populations 

(Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Collar et 

al. 1992, p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 

414). Hyacinth macaws in Para ́ are 

hunted for subsistence and the feather 

trade by some Indian groups (Brouwer 

2004, unpaginated; Munn et al. 1989, p. 

414). Because the hyacinth macaw is the 

largest species of macaw, it may be 

targeted by subsistence hunters, 

especially by settlers along roadways 

(Collar et al. 1992, p. 257). The Gerais 

region is poor, and animal protein is not 

as abundant as in other regions; 

therefore, meat of any kind, including 

the large hyacinth macaw, is sought as 

a protein source (Collar et al. 1992, p. 

257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 414). 

Additionally, increased commercial sale 

of feather art by Kayapo Indians of 

Gorotire may be of concern given that 10 

hyacinth macaws are required to make 

a single headdress (Collar et al. 1992, p. 

257). 

Because the hyacinth macaw 

populations in Para ́ and the Gerais 

region are estimated at only 1,000–1,500 

individuals combined, the removal of 

any individuals from these small 

populations has a negative effect on 

reproduction and the ability of the 

species to recover. Any continued 

hunting for either meat or for the sale of 

feather art is likely to contribute to the 

decline of the hyacinth macaw in these 

regions, particularly when habitat 

conversion is also taking place. 

Hunting, capture, and trade of animal 

species are prohibited without 

authorization throughout the range of 

the hyacinth macaw (Clayton 2011, p. 4; 

Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119; 

Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 

9605/98); Stattersfield and Capper 1992, 

p. 257; Munn et al. 1989, p. 415; Official 

List of Brazilian Endangered Animal 

Species (Order No. 1.522/1989) (IBAMA 

1989); Brazilian Constitution (title VIII, 

chapter VI, 1988); Brazilian Law No. 

5197/1967; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated). 

However, continued hunting in some 

parts of its range is evidence that 

existing laws are not being adequately 

enforced. Without greater enforcement 

of laws, hunting will continue to impact 

the hyacinth macaw (see Factor D 

discussion, below). 

Pet Trade 

In the 1970s and 1980s, substantial 

trade in hyacinth macaws was reported, 

but actual trade was likely significantly 

greater given the amount of smuggling, 

routing of birds through countries not 

parties to CITES, and internal 

consumption in South America (Collar 

et al. 1992, p. 256; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 

412–413). Trade in parrots in the 1980s 

was particularly high due to a huge 

demand from developed countries, 

including the United States, which was 

the main consumer of parrot species at 

that time (Rosales et al. 2007, pp. 85, 94; 

Best et al. 1995, p. 234). In the late 

1980s and early 1990s, reports of 

hyacinth macaw trapping included one 

trapper who worked an area for 3 years 

removing 200–300 wild hyacinth 

macaws a month during certain seasons 

and another trapper who caught 1,000 

hyacinth macaws in 1 year and knew of 

other teams operating at similar levels 

(Silva (1989a) and Smith (1991c) in 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 256). More than 

10,000 hyacinth macaws are estimated 

to have been taken from the wild in the 

1980s (Smith 1991c, in Collar et al. 

1992, p. 256; Munn et al. 1987, in 

Guedes 2009, p. 12). In the years 

following the enactment of the WBCA, 

studies found lower poaching levels 

than in prior years, suggesting that 

import bans in developed countries 

reduced poaching levels in exporting 

countries (Wright et al. 2001, pp. 715, 

718). 

TABLE 4—CITES TRADE DATABASE: APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF IMPORTS/EXPORTS OF HYACINTH MACAW WITH

IDENTIFIED SOURCES AND PURPOSES OF TRADE

Source 

Approximate 

number of birds 

Purpose 

Approximate 

number of birds 

Importer 

reported 

quantity 

Exporter 

reported 

quantity 

Importer 

reported 

quantity 

Exporter 

reported 

quantity 

Live Total .................................................. 1,488 1,435 Breeding in Captivity or Artificial Propagation.688 827 

Live/Captive Source .................................. 1,342 1,356 Educational ............................................... 29 25 

Live/Wild Source ....................................... 37 14 Hunting Trophy ......................................... 1 0 

Live/Pre-Convention .................................. 20 22 Law Enforcement, Judicial, Forensic ....... 0 3 

Live/Unknown Source ............................... 13 7 Medical ..................................................... 1 31 

Live/Confiscated ........................................ 32 3 Reintroduction into Wild ........................... 4 0 

Live/No Source Identified .......................... 44 33 Personal ................................................... 361 123 

Total Specimens ................................ 1,661 1,756 Circus or Travelling Exhibition ................. 3 7 

Scientific ................................................... 35 244 

Commercial .............................................. 336 348 

Zoo ........................................................... 138 49 

Not Reported ............................................ 65 99 

Total Specimens ................................... 1,661 1,756 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39906 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

The data in Table 4 are based on 

CITES trade data obtained from the 

CITES Trade Database (accessed on 

January 12, 2018), from 1987 through 

2015. Because there may be a lag time 

in the data reported relative to when the 

hyacinth macaw was uplisted to 

Appendix I in CITES (October 22, 1987), 

a few entries in the database between 

1987 and 2015 categorize the hyacinth 

macaw as Appendix II. There are 

differences in the manner in which the 

importing and exporting countries 

report their trade, and some data may be 

contradictory or incorrectly reported. 

We found little additional information 

on illegal trade of this species in 

international markets. One study found 

that illegal pet trade in Bolivia 

continues to involve CITES-listed 

species; the authors speculated that 

similar problems exist in Peru and 

Brazil (Herrera and Hennessey 2007, p. 

298). In that same study, 11 hyacinth 

macaws were found for sale in a Santa 

Cruz market from 2004 to 2007 (10 in 

2004, and 1 in 2006) (Herrera and 

Hennessey 2009, pp. 233–234). Larger 

species, like the hyacinth macaw, were 

frequently sold for transport outside of 

the country, mostly to Peru, Chile, and 

Brazil (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, pp. 

233–234). During a study conducted 

from 2007 to 2008, no hyacinth macaws 

were recorded in 20 surveyed Peruvian 

wildlife markets (Gastan ̃ aga et al. 2010, 

pp. 2, 9–10). We found no other data on 

the presence of hyacinth macaws in 

illegal trade. 

Although illegal trapping for the pet 

trade occurred at high levels during the 

1980s, trade has decreased significantly 

from those levels. International trade of 

parrots was significantly reduced during 

the 1990s as a result of tighter 

enforcement of CITES regulations, 

stricter measures under European Union 

legislation, and adoption of the WBCA, 

along with adoption of national 

legislation in various countries (Snyder 

et al. 2000, p. 99) (see Factor D 

discussion, below). We found no 

information indicating trade is currently 

impacting the hyacinth macaw. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

In the Pantanal, predation and disease 

are factors affecting reproductive 

success of the hyacinth macaw (Guedes 

2009, pp. 5, 8, 42; Guedes 2004b, p. 7). 

Predation accounted for 52 percent of 

lost eggs during the incubation period in 

a 10-year study in the Miranda region of 

the Pantanal (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 74). 

Of the nests that produced chicks, 38 

percent of chicks were lost due to 

predation by species such as 

carnivorous ants (Solenopsis sp.), other 

insects, collared forest falcon (Micrastur 

semitorquatus), and spectacled owl 

(Pulsatrix perspicillata). The toco 

toucan (Ramphastos toco) and great 

horned owl (Bubo virginianus) are also 

suspected of chick predation, but this 

has not yet been confirmed (Guedes 

2009, pp. 6, 79–81; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 

795). Of 582 eggs monitored over 6 years 

in the Nhecolaˆndia region of the 

Pantanal, approximately 24 percent (n = 

138 eggs) were lost to predators (Pizo et 

al. 2008, pp. 794, 795). Several species 

preyed upon hyacinth macaw eggs, 

including toco toucans, purplish jays 

(Cyanocorax cyanomelas), white-eared 

opossums (Didelphis albiventris), and 

coatis (Nasua nasua) (Guedes 2009, pp. 

5, 23, 46, 58, 74–75; Pizo et al. 2008, p. 

795). The toco toucan was the main 

predator, responsible for 12.4 percent of 

the total eggs lost and 53.5 percent of 

the eggs lost annually in the 

Nhecolaˆndia region (Pizo et al. 2008, 

pp. 794, 795). Most predators leave 

some sort of evidence behind; however, 

toco toucans swallow hyacinth macaw 

eggs whole, leaving no evidence behind. 

This ability may lead to an 

underestimate of nest predation by 

toucans (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793). 

Incidence of disease, such as hoofand-mouth disease and brucellosis, and 

of ectoparasites, has been observed in 

hyacinth macaws (Arima and Uhl, 1997, 

p. 446; Allgayer et al. 2009, p. 974). Para ́

ranchers and technicians concurred that 

there’s a lower incidence of disease 

(e.g., hoof-and-mouth disease, 

brucellosis) and ectoparasites in Para ́

than in central and south Brazil (Arima 

and Uhl, 1997, p. 446). A study of freeliving nestlings from the Pantanal 

detected ectoparasites in 3 percent and 

scars in 6 percent of birds, suggesting 

the occurrence of parasitism. The 

ectoparasites were identified as 

Philornis sp. (Diptera: Muscidae). 

However, the absence of blood and 

intestinal parasites in samples collected 

for 4 consecutive years indicates that 

there is a low prevalence of parasitism 

in hyacinth macaw nestlings (Allgayer 

et al. 2009, pp. 974, 977). 

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Brazil 

Hunting, capture, and trade of animal 

species are prohibited without 

authorization (Environmental Crimes 

Law (Law No. 9605/98)). In general, 

wildlife species and their nests, shelters, 

and breeding grounds are subject to 

Brazilian laws designed to provide 

protection (Clayton 2011, p. 4; Snyder et 

al. 2000, p. 119; Environmental Crimes 

Law (Law No. 9605/98); Stattersfield 

and Capper 1992, p. 257; IBAMA 1989; 

Brazilian Constitution (title VIII, chapter 

VI, 1988); Brazilian Law No. 5197/1967; 

United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP), n.d., unpaginated). 

The forests of Brazil are specifically 

subject to several Brazilian laws 

designed to protect them. Destruction 

and damaging of forest reserves, cutting 

trees in forest reserves, and causing fire 

in forests, among other actions, without 

authorization are prohibited (Clayton 

2011, p. 5; Environmental Crimes Law 

(Law No. 9605/98); UNEP, n.d., 

unpaginated). 

Protected Areas: The main 

biodiversity protection strategy in Brazil 

is the creation of Protected Areas 

(National Protected Areas System) 

(Federal Act 9.985/00) (Santos Jr. 2008, 

p. 134). Various regulatory mechanisms 

(Law No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree 

No. 78, Order No. 1, and Act No. 6.938) 

in Brazil direct Federal and State 

agencies to promote conservation of the 

country’s natural resources through 

protection of lands and the 

establishment and management of 

protected areas (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5–7). 

These mechanisms generally aim to 

protect endangered wildlife and plant 

species, genetic resources, overall 

biodiversity, and native ecosystems on 

Federal, State, and privately owned 

lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law No. 

11.132, Resolution No. 4, and Decree 

No. 1.922). Brazil’s Protected Areas 

were established in 2000, and may be 

categorized as ‘‘strictly protected’’ or 

‘‘sustainable use’’ based on their overall 

management objectives. Strictly 

protected areas include national parks, 

biological reserves, ecological stations, 

natural monuments, and wildlife 

refuges protected for educational and 

recreational purposes and scientific 

research. Protected areas of sustainable 

use (national forests, environmental 

protection areas, areas of relevant 

ecological interest, extractive reserves, 

fauna reserves, sustainable development 

reserves, and private natural heritage 

reserves) allow for different types and 

levels of human use with conservation 

of biodiversity as a secondary objective. 

As of 2005, Federal and State 

governments strictly protected 478 areas 

totaling 37,019,697 ha (14,981,340 ac) in 

Brazil (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 

615–616). Other types of areas 

contribute to the Brazilian Protected 

Areas System, including indigenous 

reserves and areas managed and owned 

by municipal governments, 

nongovernmental organizations, 

academic institutions, and private 

sectors (Rylands and Brandon 2005, p. 

616). 

The Amazon contains a balance of 

strictly prohibited protected areas (49 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39907 

percent of protected areas) and 

sustainable use areas (51 percent) 

(Rylands and Brandon 2005, p. 616). We 

found no information on the occurrence 

of the hyacinth macaw in any protected 

areas in Para ́. 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 Goia ́s and the Parnaı ́ba River 

Headwaters National Park (BLI 2014b; 

Ridgely 1981, p. 238). In 2000, the 

Pantanal was designated as a Biosphere 

Reserve by the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO) (Santos Jr. 

2008, p. 134). Only 4.5 percent of the 

Pantanal is categorized as protected 

areas (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 166–167), 

including strictly protected areas and 

indigenous areas (Klink and Machado 

2005, p. 709). Within these, the 

hyacinth macaw occurs only within the 

Pantanal National Park (Collar et al 

1992; Ridgely 1981, p. 238). The 

distribution of Federal and State 

protected areas are uneven across 

biomes, yet all biomes need 

substantially more area to be protected 

to meet the recommendations 

established in priority-setting 

workshops held by Brazil’s Ministry of 

the Environment. These workshops 

identified 900 areas for conservation of 

biodiversity and all biomes, including 

the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal 

(Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 615– 

616). 

The Ministry of Environment is 

working to increase the amount of 

protected areas in the Pantanal and 

Cerrado regions; however, the Ministry 

of Agriculture is looking at using an 

additional 1 million km2 (386,102 mi2) 

for agricultural expansion, which will 

speed up deforestation (Harris et al. 

2006, p. 175). These competing 

priorities make it difficult to enact and 

enforce regulations that protect the 

habitat of this species. Additionally, 

after the creation of protected areas, a 

delay in implementation or a lack of 

local management commitment often 

occurs, staff limitations make it difficult 

to monitor actions, and a lack of 

acceptance by society or a lack of 

funding make administration and 

management of the area difficult (Santos 

Jr. 2008, p. 135; Harris et al. 2006, p. 

175). Furthermore, ambiguity in land 

titles allows illegal occupation and 

clearing of forests in protected areas, 

such as federal forest reserves 

(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). The 

designation of the Pantanal as a 

Biosphere Reserve is almost entirely 

without merit because of a lack of 

commitment by public officials (Santos 

Jr. 2008, p. 134). 

Awareness of the urgency in 

protecting the biodiversity of the 

Cerrado biome is increasing (Klink and 

Machado 2005, p. 710). The Brazilian 

Ministry of the Environment’s National 

Biodiversity Program and other 

government-financed institutes, such as 

the Brazilian Environmental Institute, 

Center for Agriculture Research in the 

Cerrado, and the National Center for 

Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, 

are working together to safeguard the 

existence and viability of the Cerrado. 

Additionally, nongovernmental 

organizations such as Fundac ̧o Pro ́- 

Natureza, Instituto Sociedade Populac ̧a ̃o 

e Natureza, and World Wildlife Fund 

have provided valuable assessments and 

are pioneering work in establishing 

extractive reserves (Ratter et al. 1997, 

pp. 228–229). Other organizations are 

working to increase the area of federal 

Conservation Units, a type of protected 

area, that currently represent only 1.5 

percent of the biome (Ratter et al. 1997, 

p. 229). 

The Brazilian government, under its 

Action Plan for the Prevention and 

Control of Deforestation and Burning in 

the Cerrado—Conservation and 

Development (PPCerrado) (2010), 

committed to recuperating at least 8 

million ha (20 million ac) of degraded 

pasture by the year 2020, reducing 

deforestation by 40 percent in relation 

to the average recorded between 1999 

and 2008, decreasing forest fires, 

expanding sustainable practices, and 

monitoring remaining natural 

vegetation. It also planned to expand the 

areas under protection in the Cerrado to 

2.1 million ha (5 million ac) (Ribeiro et 

al. 2012, p. 11; WWF–UK 2011b, p. 4). 

This plan is based off the success of the 

Plan of Action for Prevention and 

Control of Deforestation in the Legal 

Amazon (PPCDAm), which has reduced 

the deforestation rate by approximately 

80 percent in relation to the 2004 rate 

(Department of Policies to Combat 

Deforestation 2016, p. 6). 

Both plans since their inception have 

achieved important results. The 

PPCDAm started in 2004 and PPCerrado 

in 2010. Results achieved for the 

PPCDAm include, but are not limited to: 

50 million ha (124 million ac) of 

protected areas; sustainable 

agriculture—low carbon agriculture; 

improvements of the monitoring 

systems; strengthening inspection with 

integrated actions between IBAMA, 

Federal Police, Army and National 

Force of Public Security; and a 

moratorium of soybean production in 

illegally deforested areas in the Amazon 

(Department of Policies to Combat 

Deforestation 2016, pp. 11–12). Results 

achieved by the PPCerrado include: 

Development (in progress) of land-cover 

monitoring systems to guide the 

preparation of public policies and 

support enforcement actions for this 

biome; development of a rural 

environmental registry; integrated fire 

management in conservation units; 

development of monitoring systems for 

burned areas and deforestation; 

sustainable agriculture—low carbon 

agriculture; environmental inspection, 

with 20,000 embargoed areas and $75 

million of fines, including 287 

inspection operations in protected areas, 

indigenous lands, highways, and steel 

industries; and training of 2,400 families 

for forest and community management 

(Department of Policies to Combat 

Deforestation 2016, pp. 8–9). Moreover, 

the plan has influenced and guides a 

series of public policies, programs, and 

projects implemented in the Cerrado, 

including international cooperation 

projects in line with the objectives of 

the PPCerrado. In 2015, the third phase 

of the PPCDAm (2012–2015) and the 

second phase of the PPCerrado (2014– 

2015) was completed. The next phase of 

the PPCerrado will guide federal actions 

in the period 2016–2020, with the main 

indicator as the annual deforestation 

rate in the Cerrado biome (Department 

of Policies to Combat Deforestation 

2016, p. 16). 

We do not have information on the 

deforestation rate in the Cerrado biome 

in relation to the implementation of the 

PPCerrado. However, Brazil has 

obtained significant reduction of the 

deforestation rate after 12 years of the 

PPCDAm and 6 years of PPCerrado, 

with most of the reduction occurring 

within the Amazon basin. Challenges 

persist, along with the need for 

strengthened and innovative actions 

(Department of Policies to Combat 

Deforestation 2016, p. 7). 

Many challenges limit the 

effectiveness of the protected areas 

system. Brazil is faced with competing 

priorities of encouraging development 

for economic growth and resource 

protection. In the past, the Brazilian 

government, through various 

regulations, policies, incentives, and 

subsidies, has actively encouraged 

settlement of previously undeveloped 

lands, which facilitated the large-scale 

habitat conversions for agriculture and 

cattle-ranching that occurred throughout 

the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal 

biomes (WWF–UK 2011b, p. 2; WWF 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

2001, unpaginated; Arima and Uhl, 

1997, p. 446; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227– 

228). The risk of intense wild fires may 

increase in areas, such as protected 

areas, where cattle are removed and the 

resulting accumulation of plant biomass 

serves as fuel (Santos Jr. 2013, pers. 

comm.; Tomas et al. 2011, p. 579). 

The states where the hyacinth macaw 

occurs contain 53 protected areas 

(Parks.it, n.d., unpaginated). However, 

the species occurs in only three 

National Parks within those protected 

areas; none of these areas is effectively 

protected (BLI 2014b, unpaginated; 

Collar et al. 1992, p. 257; Rogers 2006, 

unpaginated; Ridgely 1981, p. 238). The 

hyacinth macaw continues to be hunted 

in Para ́ and the Gerais region, and 

habitat loss due to agricultural 

expansion and cattle ranching is 

occurring in all three regions. Therefore, 

it appears that Brazil’s protected areas 

system does not adequately protect the 

hyacinth macaw or its habitat, either 

because the species is found outside the 

protected areas or not adequately 

protected within them. 

Farmland Environmental Registry: 

The Ministry of Environment and The 

Nature Conservancy have worked 

together to implement the Farmland 

Environmental Registry to curb illegal 

deforestation in the Amazon, which in 

turn would reduce impacts to species 

such as the hyacinth macaw that are 

negatively affected by deforestation. 

This program was launched in the states 

of Mato Grosso and Para ́; it later became 

the model for the Rural Environmental 

Registry that monitors all of Brazil for 

compliance with the Forest Code (see 

discussion below). This plan helped 

Paragominas, a municipality in Para ́, 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, Para ́ launched its Green 

Municipalities Program in 2011. The 

purpose of this project is to reduce 

deforestation in Para ́ by 80 percent by 

2020, and strengthen sustainable rural 

production. To accomplish this goal, the 

program seeks to create partnerships 

between local communities, 

municipalities, private initiatives, 

IBAMA, and the Federal Public 

Prosecution Service and to focus on 

local pacts, deforestation monitoring, 

implementation of the Rural 

Environmental Registry, and structuring 

municipal management (Verı ́ssimo et al. 

2013, pp. 3, 6, 12–13). The program 

aims to show how it is possible to 

develop a new model for an activity 

identified as a major cause of 

deforestation (Dias and Ramos 2012, 

unpaginated; Vale 2010, unpaginated). 

Forest Code: Brazil’s Forest Code, 

passed in 1965, is a central component 

of the nation’s environmental 

legislation; it dictates the minimum 

percentage and type of woodland that 

farmers, timber companies, and others 

must leave intact on their properties 

(Barrionuevo 2012, unpaginated; Boadle 

2012, unpaginated). Since 2001, the 

Forest Code has required landowners to 

conserve native vegetation on their rural 

properties. This requirement includes 

setting aside a Legal Reserve that 

comprises 80 percent of the property if 

it is located in the Amazon and 20 

percent in other biomes. The Forest 

Code also designated environmentally 

sensitive areas as Areas of Permanent 

Preservation (APPs) to conserve water 

resources and prevent soil erosion; 

APPs include Riparian Preservation 

Areas to protect riverside forest buffers 

and Hilltop Preservation Areas to 

protect hilltops, high elevations, and 

steep slopes (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 

363). 

For years, this law was widely 

ignored by landowners and not enforced 

by the government, as evidenced by the 

high deforestation rates (Leahy 2011, 

unpaginated; Pearce 2011, unpaginated; 

Ratter et al. 1997, p. 228). However, as 

deforestation rates increased in the early 

2000s, Brazil began cracking down on 

illegal deforesters and used satellite 

imagery to track deforestation, resulting 

in decreased deforestation rates (SoaresFilho 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 (SoaresFilho et al. 2014, p. 363). 

In 2011, reforms to Brazil’s Forest 

Code were debated in the Brazilian 

Senate. The reforms were favored by the 

agricultural industry but were greatly 

opposed by conservationists. At that 

time, the expectation of the bill being 

passed resulted in a spike in 

deforestation (Darlington 2012, 

unpaginated; Moukaddem 2011, 

unpaginated; WWF–UK 2011a, 

unpaginated). A new Forest Code was 

passed in 2012, and although the new 

reforms were an attempt at a 

compromise between farmers and 

environmentalists, many claim the new 

bill reduces the total amount of land 

required to be maintained as forest and 

will increase deforestation, especially in 

the Cerrado (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 

364; Boadle 2012, unpaginated; 

Darlington 2012, unpaginated; Do Valle 

2012, unpaginated; Greenpeace 2012, 

unpaginated). 

Stakeholders in favor of stronger 

conservation opposed the new law due 

to the complexity of the rule, challenges 

in implementation, and a lack of 

adequate protection of Brazil’s forests. 

The new Forest Code carries over 

conservation requirements for Legal 

Reserves and Riparian Preservation 

Areas. However, changes in the 

definition of Hilltop Preservation Areas 

reduced their total area by 87 percent. 

Additionally, due to more flexible 

protections and differentiation between 

conservation and restoration 

requirements, Brazil’s environmental 

debt (areas of Legal Reserve and 

Riparian Preservation Areas deforested 

illegally before 2008 that, under the 

previous Forest Code, would have 

required restoration at the landowner’s 

expense) was reduced by 58 percent 

(Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363). The 

legal reserve debt was forgiven for 

‘‘small properties,’’ which ranged from 

20 ha (49 ac) in southern Brazil to 440 

ha (1,087 ac) in the Amazon; this 

provision has resulted in approximately 

90 percent of Brazilian rural properties 

qualifying for amnesty from the 

restoration requirement. 

Further reductions in the 

environmental debt resulted from: (1) 

Reducing the Legal Reserve restoration 

requirement from 80 percent to 50 

percent in Amazonian municipalities 

that are predominately occupied by 

protected areas; (2) including Riparian 

Preservation Areas in the calculation of 

the Legal Reserve area (total area they 

are required to preserve); and (3) 

relaxing Riparian Preservation Area 

restoration requirements on small 

properties. These new provisions 

effectively reduced the total amount of 

land farmers are required to preserve 

and municipalities and landowners are 

required to restore. Reductions were 

uneven across states and biomes, with 

the Amazon and Cerrado biomes being 

two of the three biomes most affected 

and vulnerable to deforestation. 

Altogether, provisions of the new 

Forest Code have reduced the total area 

to be restored from approximately 50 

million ha (124 million ac) to 

approximately 21 million ha (52 million 

ac) (Soares-Filho et al. 2014, p. 363; 

Boadle 2012, unpaginated). 

Furthermore, the old and new Forest 

Codes allow legal deforestation of an 

additional 88 million ha (217 million 

ac) on private properties deemed to 

constitute an ‘‘environmental surplus,’’ 

which are areas that are not conserved 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39909 

by the Legal Reserve and Riparian 

Preservation Area conservation 

requirements. The Cerrado alone 

contains approximately 40 million ha 

(99 million ac) of habitat designated as 

environmental surplus that could be 

legally deforested (Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, p. 364). 

Although the Forest Code reduces 

restoration and preservation 

requirements, which in turn increases 

the threat to the hyacinth macaw, it 

introduces new mechanisms to address 

fire management, forest carbon, and 

payments for ecosystem services, which 

could reduce deforestation and result in 

environmental benefits to the hyacinth 

macaw. The most important mechanism 

may be the Environmental Reserve 

Quota (ERQ). The ERQ is a tradable 

legal title to areas with intact or 

regenerating native vegetation exceeding 

the Forest Code requirements. It 

provides the opportunity for 

landowners who, as of July 2008, did 

not meet the area-based conservation 

requirements of the law, to instead 

‘‘compensate’’ for their legal reserve 

shortages by purchasing surplus 

compliance obligations from properties 

that would then maintain native 

vegetation in excess of the minimum 

legal reserve requirements. This 

mechanism could provide forested 

lands with monetary value, creating a 

trading market. The ERQ could 

potentially reduce 56 percent of the 

Legal Reserve debt (Soares-Filho et al. 

2014, p. 364). 

The new Forest Code requires 

landowners to take part in a mapping 

and registration system for rural 

properties that serves as a means for 

landowners to report their compliance 

with the code in order to remain eligible 

for state credit and other government 

support. On May 6, 2014, the Ministry 

for the Environment published a 

regulation formally implementing the 

mapping system and requiring all rural 

properties be enrolled by May 2015. 

However, on May 5, 2015, the deadline 

was extended to May 4, 2016. According 

to information provided by the Ministry 

for the Environment, at that time 

1,407,206 rural properties had been 

registered since the new code became 

effective. This number covers an area of 

196,767,410 ha (486,222,859 ac) and 

represents 52 percent of all rural areas 

in Brazil for which registration is 

mandatory (Filho et al. 2015, 

unpaginated). This system could 

facilitate the market for ERQs and 

payments for ecosystem services. 

It is unclear whether the Brazilian 

Government will be able to effectively 

enforce the new law (Barrionuevo 2012, 

unpaginated; Boadle 2012, unpaginated; 

Greenpeace 2012, unpaginated). The 

original code was largely ignored by 

landowners and not enforced, leading to 

Brazil’s high rates of deforestation 

(Boadle 2012, unpaginated). Although 

Brazil’s deforestation rates declined 

between 2005 and 2010, 2011 marked 

the beginning of an increase in rates due 

to the expectation of the new Forest 

Code being passed. Another slight 

increase occurred in 2013, then doubled 

over 6 months (Schiffman 2015, 

unpaginated). Corruption in the 

government, land fraud, and lack of 

penalties for infractions have 

contributed to increases in illegal 

deforestation (Schiffman 2015, 

unpaginated). Additionally, amnesty 

afforded by the new Forest Code has led 

to the perception that illegal deforesters 

are unlikely to be prosecuted or could 

be exonerated in future law reforms 

(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated; SoaresFilho et al. 2014, p. 364). Enforcement 

is often nonexistent in Brazil as IBAMA 

is underfunded and understaffed. Only 

1 percent of the fines imposed on 

individuals and corporations for illegal 

deforestation is actually collected 

(Schiffman 2015, unpaginated). In 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). Some level of 

deforestation is highly likely to continue 

and will continue to compromise the 

status of the species. 

Additional Regulatory Mechanisms: 

To protect the main breeding habitat of 

the hyacinth macaw, Mato Grosso State 

Senate passed State Act 8.317 in 2005, 

which prohibits the cutting of manduvi 

trees, but not others. Although this law 

protects nesting trees, other trees around 

nesting trees are cut, exposing the 

manduvi tree to winds and storms. 

Manduvi trees end up falling or 

breaking, rendering them useless for the 

hyacinth macaws to nest in (Santos Jr. 

2008, p. 135; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 

186). 

International Laws 

The hyacinth macaw is protected 

under CITES, an international 

agreement between governments to 

ensure that the international trade of 

CITES-listed plant and animal species 

does not threaten species’ survival in 

the wild. Under this treaty, CITES 

Parties (member countries or 

signatories) regulate the import, export, 

and re-export of specimens, parts, and 

products of CITES-listed plant and 

animal species. Trade must be 

authorized through a system of permits 

and certificates that are provided by the 

designated CITES Management 

Authority of each CITES Party. Brazil, 

Bolivia, and Paraguay are Parties to 

CITES. 

The hyacinth macaw was listed in 

Appendix I of CITES on October 22, 

1987. An Appendix-I listing includes 

species threatened with extinction 

whose trade is permitted only under 

exceptional circumstances, which 

generally precludes commercial trade. 

The import of an Appendix-I species 

generally requires the issuance of both 

an import and export permit. Import 

permits for Appendix-I species are 

issued only if findings are made that the 

import would be for purposes that are 

not detrimental to the survival of the 

species and that the specimen will not 

be used for primarily commercial 

purposes (CITES Article III(3)). Export 

permits for Appendix-I species are 

issued only if findings are made that the 

specimen was legally acquired and trade 

is not detrimental to the survival of the 

species, and if the issuing authority is 

satisfied that an import permit has been 

granted for the specimen (CITES Article 

III(2)). 

The import of hyacinth macaws into 

the United States is also regulated by 

the Wild Bird Conservation Act 

(WBCA), which was enacted on October 

23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA is 

to promote the conservation of exotic 

birds by ensuring that all imports of 

exotic birds to the United States are 

biologically sustainable and not 

detrimental to the species in the wild. 

The WBCA generally restricts the 

importation of most CITES-listed live or 

dead exotic birds. Import of dead 

specimens is allowed for scientific 

purposes and museum specimens. 

Permits may be issued to allow import 

of listed birds for various purposes, 

such as scientific research, zoological 

breeding or display, or personal pets, 

when certain criteria are met. The 

Service may approve cooperative 

breeding programs and subsequently 

issue import permits under such 

programs. Wild-caught birds may be 

imported into the United States if 

certain standards are met and they are 

subject to a management plan that 

provides for sustainable use. At this 

time, the hyacinth macaw is not part of 

a Service-approved cooperative 

breeding program, and wild-caught 

birds have not been approved for 

importation. 

The Lacey Act was originally passed 

in 1900, and was the first Federal law 

protecting wildlife. Today, it provides 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39910 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

civil and criminal penalties for the 

illegal trade of animals and plants. 

Under the Lacey Act, in part, it is 

unlawful to import, export, transport, 

sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any 

fish, or wildlife taken, possessed, 

transported, or sold: (1) In violation of 

any law, treaty, or regulation of the 

United States or in violation of any 

Indian tribal law; or (2) in interstate or 

foreign commerce, any fish or wildlife 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of any law or regulation of any 

State or in violation of any foreign law. 

Therefore, for example, because the take 

of wild-caught hyacinth macaws would 

be in violation of Brazil’s Environmental 

Crimes Law (9605/98), the subsequent 

import of hyacinth macaws into the 

United States would be in violation of 

the Lacey Act. Similarly, under the 

Lacey Act it is unlawful to import, 

export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, 

or purchase specimens of these species 

traded contrary to CITES. 

Although illegal trapping for the pet 

trade occurred at high levels during the 

1980s, trade has decreased significantly 

from those levels. International trade of 

parrots was significantly reduced during 

the 1990s as a result of tighter 

enforcement of CITES regulations, 

stricter measures under European Union 

legislation, and adoption of the WBCA, 

along with adoption of national 

legislation in various countries (Snyder 

et al. 2000, p. 99). We found no 

information indicating trade is currently 

impacting the hyacinth macaw 

population. 

Habitat loss for the hyacinth macaw 

continues despite regulatory 

mechanisms intended to protect Brazil’s 

forests. The lack of supervision and 

resources prevent these laws from being 

properly implemented (Guedes 2012, p. 

3), as evidenced by ongoing 

deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado, 

and Pantanal. As described above, the 

hyacinth macaw’s food and nesting trees 

are removed for agriculture and cattle 

ranching, and fire is used to clear land 

and maintain pastures. Therefore, 

without greater enforcement of laws, 

deforestation will continue to impact 

the hyacinth macaw and its food and 

nesting resources. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting Its Continued 

Existence 

Climate Change 

Changes in Brazil’s climate and 

associated changes to the landscape may 

result in additional habitat loss for the 

hyacinth macaw. Across Brazil, 

temperatures are projected to increase 

and precipitation to decrease (Carabine 

and Lemma 2014, p. 11; Siqueira and 

Peterson 2003, p. 2). The latest 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change assessment estimates 

temperature changes in South America 

by 2100 to range from 1.7 to 6.7 degrees 

Celsius (°C) (3.06 to 12.06 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) under medium and 

high emission scenarios and 1 to 1.5 °C 

(1.8 to 2.7 °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 (Fe ́res 

et al. 2009, pp. 12, 15). 

Temperature increases in Brazil are 

expected to be greatest over the Amazon 

rainforest, where Para ́ 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; Fe ́res et al. 2009, p. 2). Estimates of 

temperature changes in Amazonia are 

2.2 °C (4 °F) under a low greenhouse gas 

emission scenario and 4.5 °C (8 °F) 

under a high-emission scenario by the 

end of the 21st century (2090–2099) 

(Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27). Several 

models indicate Amazonia is at a high 

risk of forest loss and more frequent 

wildfires (Magrin et al. 2007, p. 596). 

Some leading global circulation models 

suggest extreme weather events, such as 

droughts, will increase in frequency or 

severity due to global warming. As a 

result, droughts in Amazonian forests 

could become more severe in the future 

(Marengo et al. 2011, p. 48; Laurance et 

al. 2001, p. 782). For example, the 2005 

drought in Amazonia was a 1-in-20-year 

event; however, those conditions may 

become a 1-in-2-year event by 2025, and 

a 9-in-10-year event by 2060 (Marengo 

et al. 2011, p. 28). Impacts of 

deforestation are greater under drought 

conditions as fires set for forest 

clearances burn larger areas (Marengo et 

al. 2011, p. 16). Additionally, drought 

increases the vulnerability of seasonal 

forests of the Amazon, such as those 

found in eastern Amazonia, to wildfires 

during droughts (Laurance et al. 2001, 

p. 782). 

Previous work has indicated that, 

under increasing temperature and 

decreasing rainfall conditions, the 

rainforest of the Amazon could be 

replaced with different vegetation. Some 

models have predicted a change from 

forests to savanna-type vegetation over 

parts of, or perhaps the entire, Amazon 

in the next several decades (Magrin et 

al. 2014, p. 1523; Marengo et al. 2011, 

pp. 11, 18, 29, 43; Magrin et al. 2007, 

pp. 583, 596). In the regions where the 

hyacinth macaw occurs, the climate 

features a dry season, which prevents 

the growth of an extensive closedcanopy 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 °C (7.2 °F) and by 2100 

may increase to approximately 40 °C 

(104 °F) (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1563). 

Along with changes in temperature, 

other models have predicted a decrease 

in tree diversity and range sizes for 

birds in the Cerrado. 

Projections based on a 30-year average 

(2040–2069) indicate serious effects to 

Cerrado tree diversity in coming 

decades (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1559; 

Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p. 4). In a 

study of 162 broad-range tree species, 

the potential distributional area of most 

trees was projected to decline by more 

than 50 percent. Using two climate 

change scenarios, 18–56 species were 

predicted to go extinct in the Cerrado, 

while 91–123 species were predicted to 

decline by more than 90 percent in the 

potential distributional area (Siqueira 

and Peterson 2003, p. 4). 

Of the potential impacts of predicted 

climate-driven changes on bird 

distribution, extreme temperatures 

seemed to be the most important factor 

limiting distribution, revealing their 

physiological tolerances (Marini et al. 

2009, p. 1563). In a study on changes in 

range sizes for 26 broad-range birds in 

the Cerrado, range sizes are expected to 

decrease over time, and significantly so 

as soon as 2030 (Marini et al. 2009, p. 

1564). Changes ranged from a 5-percent 

increase to an 80-percent decrease 

under two dispersal scenarios for 2011– 

2030, 2046–2065, and 2080–2099 

(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1561). The largest 

potential loss in range size is predicted 

to occur among grassland and forestdependent species in all timeframes 

(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1564). These 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39911 

species will likely have the most dire 

future conservation scenarios because 

these habitat types are the least common 

(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1559). Although 

this study focused on broad-range bird 

species, geographically restricted birds, 

such as hyacinth macaw, are predicted 

to become rarer (Marini et al. 2009, p. 

1564). 

Whether species will or will not adapt 

to new conditions is difficult to predict; 

synergistic effects of climate change and 

habitat fragmentation, or other factors, 

such as biotic interactions, may hasten 

the need for conservation even more 

(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1565). Although 

there are uncertainties in the climatechange modeling discussed above, the 

overall trajectory is one of increased 

warming under all scenarios. Species 

like the hyacinth macaw, whose habitat 

is limited, population is reduced, are 

large in physical size, and are highly 

specialized are more vulnerable to 

climatic variations and at a greater risk 

of extinction (Guedes 2009, p. 44). 

We do not know how the habitat of 

the hyacinth macaw may change under 

these conditions, but we can assume 

some change will occur. The hyacinth 

macaw is experiencing habitat loss due 

to widespread expansion of agriculture 

and cattle ranching. Climate change has 

the potential to further decrease the 

specialized habitat needed by the 

hyacinth macaw; the ability of the 

hyacinth macaw to cope with landscape 

changes due to climate change is 

questionable given the specialized 

needs of the species. Furthermore, one 

of the factors that affected reproductive 

rates of hyacinth macaws in the 

Pantanal was variations in temperature 

and rainfall (Guedes 2009, p. 42). 

Hotter, drier years, as predicted under 

different climate change scenarios, 

could result in greater impacts to 

hyacinth macaw reproduction due to 

impacts on palm fruit and thereby 

foraging success, and could increase 

competition with other bird and 

mammal species for limited resources. 

Low Reproductive Rates and 

Competition 

The specialized nature and 

reproductive biology of the hyacinth 

macaw contribute to low recruitment of 

juveniles and decrease the ability to 

recover from reductions in population 

size caused by anthropogenic 

disturbances (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; 

Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). This species’ 

vulnerability to extinction is further 

heightened by deforestation that 

negatively affects the availability of 

essential food and nesting resources. In 

addition to direct impacts on food and 

nesting resources and hyacinth macaws 

themselves, several other factors affect 

the reproductive success of the hyacinth 

macaw. In the Pantanal, competition, 

predation, disease, destruction or 

flooding of nests, and climatic 

conditions and variations are factors 

affecting reproductive success of the 

hyacinth macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 5, 8, 

42; Guedes 2004b, p. 7). 

In the Pantanal, competition for 

nesting sites is intense. The hyacinth 

macaw nests almost exclusively in 

manduvi trees; however, 17 other bird 

species, small mammals, and honey 

bees (Apis mellifera) also use manduvi 

cavities (Guedes and Vicente 2012, pp. 

148, 157; Guedes 2009, p. 60; Pizo et al 

2008, p. 792; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, 

p. 36). Bees are even known to occupy 

artificial nests that could be used by 

hyacinth macaws (Pinho and Nogueira 

2003, p. 33; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 120). 

Manduvi is a key species for the 

hyacinth macaw; these cavities are 

already limited and there is evidence of 

decreased recruitment of this species of 

tree (Santos Jr. et al. 2006, p. 181). 

Competition for nesting cavities is 

exacerbated because manduvi trees 

must be at least 60 years old, and on 

average 80 years old, to produce cavities 

large enough to be used by the hyacinth 

macaw (Guedes 2009, pp. 59–60; Pizo et 

al. 2008, p. 792; Santos Jr. et al. 2006, 

p. 185). Given that there is currently a 

limited number of manduvi trees in the 

Pantanal of adequate size capable of 

accommodating the hyacinth macaw, 

evidence of reduced recruitment of 

these sized manduvi, and numerous 

species that also use this tree, 

competition will certainly increase as 

the number of manduvi decreases, 

further affecting reproduction by 

limiting tree cavities available to the 

hyacinth macaw for nesting (Guedes 

2009, p. 60). Furthermore, a shortage of 

suitable nesting sites could lead to 

increased competition resulting in an 

increase in infanticide and egg 

destruction by other hyacinth macaws 

and other macaw species (Lee 2010, p. 

2). Black vultures (Coragyps atratus), 

collared forest falcons, and red-andgreen macaws (Ara chloropterus) break 

hyacinth macaw eggs when seeking 

nesting cavities (Guedes 2009, p. 75). 

A 10-year study conducted in the 

Miranda region of the Pantanal 

concluded that the majority of hyacinth 

macaw nests (63 percent) failed, either 

partially or totally, during the egg phase. 

While predation accounted for 52 

percent of lost eggs during incubation 

(see Factor C discussion, above), the 

remaining eggs lost during the 10-year 

study of the Miranda region did not 

hatch due to infertility, complications 

during embryo development, 

inexperience of young couples that 

accidentally smash their own eggs while 

entering and exiting the nest, breaking 

by other bird and mammal species 

wanting to occupy the nesting cavity, 

and broken trees and flooding of nests 

(Guedes 2009, p. 75). Of the 320 nests 

that saw eggs hatch and chicks born, 49 

percent experienced a total or partial 

loss of chicks (Guedes 2009, pp. 68). 

From the chicks that were born, on 

average 37 percent (n=183) failed before 

leaving the nest because of mortality or 

predation (Guedes 2009, pp. 66, 78). Of 

these chicks that did not survive, 62 

percent (n=114) were lost due to 

starvation, low temperature, disease or 

infestation by ectoparasites, flooding of 

nests, and breaking of branches; the 

other 38 percent (n=69) were lost to 

predation (Guedes 2009, pp. 79). 

Variations in temperature and rainfall 

may also affect reproduction of the 

hyacinth macaw in the Pantanal 

(Guedes 2009, p. 42). Years with higher 

temperatures and lower rainfall 

experience decreased production of 

fruits and foraging, leading to a decrease 

in reproduction of hyacinth macaws the 

following year (Guedes 2009, pp. 42– 

44). This decrease is especially 

problematic for a species that relies on 

only two species of palm nuts as a 

source of food. Competition with other 

bird and mammal species may also 

increase during low food years. Acuri 

are available year round, even during 

times of fruit scarcity, making it a 

resource many other species also 

depend on during unfavorable periods 

(Guedes 2009, p. 44). Additionally, the 

El Nin ̃ o event during the 1997–98 

breeding season caused hotter, wetter 

conditions favoring breeding pairs, but 

survival of the chicks was reduced. In 

1999, a longer breeding period was 

observed following drier, colder 

conditions caused by the La Nin ̃ a that 

same year; however, 54 percent of the 

eggs were lost that year (Guedes 2009, 

p. 43). 

Conservation Measures 

A network of nongovernmental 

organizations, Rede Cerrado, has been 

established to promote local 

sustainable-use practices for natural 

resources (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 

710). Rede Cerrado provided the 

Brazilian Ministry of the Environment 

recommendations for urgent actions for 

the conservation of the Cerrado. As a 

result, a conservation program was 

established to integrate actions for 

conservation in regions where 

agropastoral activities, which is 

agriculture practice of growing crops 

and raising livestock, were especially 

intense and damaging (Klink and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39912 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Machado 2005, p. 710). Conservation 

International, The Nature Conservancy, 

and World Wildlife Fund have worked 

to promote alternative economic 

activities, such as ecotourism, 

sustainable use of fauna and flora, and 

medicinal plants, to support the 

livelihoods of local communities (Klink 

and Machado 2005, p. 710). Although 

these programs demonstrate awareness 

of the need for protection and efforts in 

protecting the Cerrado, we have no 

details on the specific work or 

accomplishments of these programs, or 

how they would affect, or have affected, 

the hyacinth macaw and its habitat. 

In 1990, the Hyacinth Macaw Project 

(Projecto Arara Azul) began with 

support from the University for the 

Development of the State (Mato Grosso 

do Sul) and the Pantanal Region 

(Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Guedes 

2004b, p. 28; Pittman 1999, p. 39). This 

program works with local landowners, 

communities, and tourists to monitor 

the hyacinth macaw, study the biology 

of this species, manage the population, 

and promote its conservation and 

ensure its protection in the Pantanal 

(Santos Jr. 2008, p. 135; Harris et al. 

2005, p. 719; Brouwer 2004, 

unpaginated; Guedes 2004a, p. 281). 

Studies have addressed feeding, 

reproduction, competition, habitat 

survival, chick mortality, behavior, 

nests, predation, movement, and threats 

contributing to the reduction in the wild 

population (Guedes 2009, p. xiii; 

Guedes 2004a, p. 281). Because there are 

not enough natural nesting sites in this 

region, the Hyacinth Macaw Project 

began installing artificial nest boxes; 

more than 180 have been installed. 

Hyacinth macaws have adapted to using 

the artificial nests, leading to more 

reproducing couples and successful 

fledging of chicks. Species that would 

otherwise compete with hyacinth 

macaws for nesting sites have also 

benefitted from the artificial nests as a 

result of reduced competition for 

natural nesting sites. Hyacinth macaws 

reuse the same nest for many years; 

eventually the nests start to decay or 

become unviable. The Hyacinth Macaw 

Project also repairs these nests (natural 

and artificial) so they are not lost. In 

areas where suitable cavities are scarce, 

the loss of even one nest could have 

substantial impacts on the population. 

Additionally, wood boards are used to 

make cavity openings too small for 

predators, while still allowing hyacinth 

macaws to enter (Brouwer 2004, 

unpaginated; Guedes 2004a, p. 281; 

Guedes 2004b, p. 8). 

In nests with a history of unsuccessful 

breeding, the Hyacinth Macaw Project 

has also implemented chick 

management, with the approval of the 

Committee for Hyacinth Macaw 

Conservation coordinated by IBAMA. 

Hyacinth macaw eggs are replaced with 

chicken eggs, and the hyacinth eggs are 

incubated in a field laboratory. After 

hatching, chicks are fed for a few days, 

and then reintroduced to the original 

nest or to another nest with a chick of 

the same age. This process began to 

increase the number of chicks that 

survived and fledged each year 

(Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Guedes 

2004a, p. 281; Guedes 2004b, p. 9). 

Awareness has also been raised with 

local cattle ranchers. Attitudes have 

begun to shift, and ranchers are proud 

of having macaw nests on the property. 

Local inhabitants also served as project 

collaborators (Guedes 2004a, p. 282; 

Guedes 2004b, p. 10). This shift in 

attitude has also diminished the threat 

of illegal trade in the Hyacinth Macaw 

Project area (Brouwer 2004, 

unpaginated). 

The Hyacinth Macaw Project has 

contributed to the increase of the 

hyacinth population in the Pantanal 

since the 1990s (Harris et al. 2005, p. 

719). Nest and chick management 

implemented by the Hyacinth Macaw 

Project has led to an increase in the 

Pantanal population; for every 100 

couples that reproduce, 4 juveniles 

survive and are added to the population. 

Additionally, hyacinth macaws have 

expanded to areas where the species 

previously disappeared, as well as new 

areas (Guedes 2012, p. 1; Guedes 2009, 

pp. 4–5, 8, 35–36, 39, 82). 

Nest boxes can have a marked effect 

on breeding numbers of many species 

on a local scale (Newton 1994, p. 274), 

and having local cattle ranchers 

appreciate the presence of the hyacinth 

macaw on their land helps diminish the 

effects of habitat destruction and illegal 

trade. However, the Hyacinth Macaw 

Project area does not encompass the 

entire Pantanal region. Active 

management has contributed to the 

increase in the hyacinth population, and 

farmers have begun to protect hyacinth 

macaws on their property, but land 

conversion for cattle ranching continues 

to occur in the Pantanal. If cattle grazing 

and trampling of manduvi saplings, as 

well as the burning of pastures for 

maintenance continues, the hyacinth’s 

preferred natural cavities will be 

severely limited and the species will 

completely rely on the installation of 

artificial nest boxes, which is currently 

limited to the Hyacinth Macaw Project 

area. Furthermore, survival of hyacinth 

macaw eggs and chicks are being 

impacted by predation, competition, 

climate variations, and other natural 

factors. Even with the assistance of the 

Hyacinth Macaw Project, only 35 

percent of eggs survive to the juvenile 

stage. 

Finding 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

part 424 of title 50 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth procedures for adding species 

to, removing species from, or 

reclassifying species on the Federal 

Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. As required by the 

Act, we conducted a review of the status 

of the species and considered the five 

factors in assessing whether the 

hyacinth macaw is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (endangered) or 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range 

(threatened). We examined the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding factors affecting the 

status of the hyacinth macaw. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, information 

provided by peer review and public 

comments, and other available 

published and unpublished 

information. 

In considering what factors may 

constitute threats, we must look beyond 

the mere exposure of the species to the 

factor to determine whether the species 

responds to the factor in a way that 

causes actual impacts to the species. If 

there is exposure to the factor, but no 

response, or only a positive response, 

that factor is not a threat. If there is 

exposure and the species responds 

negatively, the factor may be a threat 

and we then attempt to determine if it 

may drive or contribute to the risk of 

extinction of the species such that the 

species warrants listing as an 

endangered or threatened species as 

those terms are defined by the Act. 

Across its range, the hyacinth macaw 

is losing habitat, including those 

essential food and nesting resources, to 

expanding agriculture and cattle 

ranching. Para ́ has long been the 

epicenter of illegal deforestation 

primarily caused by cattle ranching. 

Large-scale forest conversion for 

colonization and cattle ranching due to 

state subsidies, infrastructure 

development, favorable climate in Para ́, 

lower prices for land, and expansion of 

soy cultivation in other areas has led to 

displacement of pastures into parts of 

Para ́. Although deforestation rates 

decreased between 2005 and 2012, 

Amazon deforestation rates increased in 

2013, 2015, and 2016 (see Table 1, 

above). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39913 

In the Gerais region, more than 50 

percent of the original Cerrado 

vegetation has been lost due to 

conversion to agriculture and pasture. 

Although annual deforestation rates 

have decreased, the amount of 

remaining hyacinth macaw habitat 

continues its slow and steady decrease. 

Remaining Cerrado vegetation continues 

to be lost to conversion for soy 

plantations and extensive cattle 

ranching. Projections for coming 

decades show the largest increase in 

agricultural production occurring in the 

Cerrado. 

The greatest cause of habitat loss in 

the Pantanal is the expansion of cattle 

ranching. Only 6 percent of the Pantanal 

landscape is cordilleras, higher areas 

where the manduvi occur. These upland 

forests, including potential nesting 

trees, are often removed and converted 

to pastures for grazing during the 

flooding season; however, palm species 

used by hyacinth macaws for food are 

usually left because cattle also feed on 

the palm nuts. Fire is a common method 

for renewing pastures, controlling 

weeds, and controlling pests in the 

Pantanal, although uncontrolled fires 

are known to impact patches of 

manduvi. Fires can help in the 

formation of cavities, but too frequent 

fires can prevent trees from surviving to 

a size capable of providing suitable 

cavities and can cause a high rate of tree 

loss. Five percent of manduvi trees are 

lost each year due to deforestation, fires, 

and storms. 

In addition to the direct removal of 

trees and the impact of fire on forest 

establishment, cattle impact forest 

recruitment. Intense livestock activity 

can affect seedling recruitment via 

trampling and grazing. Cattle also 

compact the soil such that regeneration 

of forest species is severely reduced. 

This type of repeated disturbance can 

lead to an ecosystem dominated by 

invasive trees, grasses, bamboo, and 

ferns. Manduvi, which contain the 

majority of hyacinth macaw nests, are 

already limited in the Pantanal; only 5 

percent of the existing adult manduvi 

trees in south-central Pantanal and 11 

percent in the southern Pantanal 

contain suitable cavities for hyacinth 

macaws. Evidence of severely reduced 

recruitment of manduvi trees suggests 

that this species of tree, of adequate size 

to accommodate the hyacinth macaw, is 

not only scarce now but likely to 

become increasingly scarce in the 

future. 

Deforestation for agriculture and 

cattle ranching, cattle trampling and 

foraging, and burning of forest habitat 

result in the loss of mature trees with 

natural cavities of sufficient size and a 

reduction in recruitment of native 

species that could eventually provide 

nesting cavities. A shortage of nest sites 

can jeopardize the persistence of the 

hyacinth macaw by constraining 

breeding density, resulting in lower 

recruitment and a gradual reduction in 

population size. This situation may lead 

to long-term effects on the viability of 

the hyacinth macaw population, 

especially in Para ́ and the Pantanal 

where persistence of nesting trees is 

compromised. While the Hyacinth 

Macaw Project provides artificial nest 

alternatives, such nests are only found 

within the project area. 

Loss of essential tree species also 

negatively impacts the hyacinth macaw 

by increasing competition for what is 

already a shortage of suitable nest sites. 

In the Pantanal, the hyacinth macaw 

nests almost exclusively in manduvi 

trees. The number of manduvi large 

enough to provide suitable cavities is 

already limited. Additionally, 17 other 

bird species, small mammals, and honey 

bees also use manduvi cavities. 

Competition has been so fierce that 

hyacinth macaws were unable to 

reproduce, and it resulted in an increase 

in egg destruction and infanticide. As 

the number of suitable trees is further 

limited, competition for adequate 

cavities to accommodate the hyacinth 

macaw will certainly increase, reducing 

the potential for hyacinth macaws to 

reproduce. In the Gerais region, 

hyacinth macaws mostly nest in rock 

crevices, most likely a response to the 

destruction of nesting trees; we do not 

know if the hyacinth macaws in the 

Pantanal will respond in the same way 

to the loss of nesting trees. Although it 

is possible that hyacinth macaws could 

use alternative nesting trees in Para ́ and 

the Pantanal, deforestation in these 

regions would impact alternative 

nesting trees, as well as food sources, 

resulting in the same negative effect on 

the hyacinth macaw. Furthermore, 

competition for limited nesting and food 

resources would continue. 

Deforestation also reduces the 

availability of food resources. The 

species’ specialized diet makes it 

vulnerable to changes in food 

availability. Another Anodorhynchus 

species, the Lear’s macaw, is critically 

endangered due, in part, to the loss of 

its specialized food source (licuri palm 

stands). Inadequate nutrition can 

contribute to poor health and is known 

to have reduced reproduction in 

hyacinth macaws. In Para ́ and the Gerais 

region, where food sources are being 

removed, persistence of the species is a 

concern. 

In addition to direct impacts on food 

and nesting resources and hyacinth 

macaws themselves, several other 

factors affect the reproductive success of 

the hyacinth macaw. Information 

indicates that hyacinth macaws in Para ́

and Gerais are hunted as a source of 

protein and for feathers to be used in 

local handicrafts. Although we do not 

have information on the numbers of 

macaws taken for these purposes, given 

the small populations in these two 

regions, any loss of potentially 

reproducing individuals could have a 

devastating effect on the ability of those 

populations to increase. Additionally, in 

the Pantanal, predation, variations in 

temperature and rainfall, and 

ectoparasites all contribute to loss of 

eggs and chicks, directly affecting the 

reproductive rate of hyacinth macaws. 

Brazil has various laws to protect its 

natural resources. Despite these laws 

and plans to significantly reduce 

deforestation, expanding agriculture and 

cattle ranching has contributed to 

increases in deforestation rates in some 

years, and the total deforested area 

continues to increase each year. 

However, Brazil has obtained significant 

reduction of the deforestation rate after 

12 years of the PPCDAm and 6 years of 

PPCerrado, with most of the reduction 

occurring within the Amazon basin. 

Additionally, hunting continues in 

some parts of the hyacinth macaw’s 

range despite laws prohibiting this 

activity. Without effective 

implementation and enforcement of 

environmental laws, deforestation and 

hunting will continue to the detriment 

of hyacinth macaws. 

Climate change models have 

predicted increasing temperatures and 

decreasing rainfall throughout most of 

Brazil. There are uncertainties in this 

modeling, and the projections are not 

definitive outcomes. How a species may 

adapt to changing conditions is difficult 

to predict. We do not know how the 

habitat of the hyacinth macaw may vary 

under these conditions, but we can 

assume some change will occur. The 

hyacinth macaw is experiencing habitat 

loss due to widespread expansion of 

agriculture and cattle ranching. Effects 

of climate change have the potential to 

further decrease the specialized habitat 

needed by the hyacinth macaw; the 

ability of the hyacinth macaw to cope 

with landscape changes due to climate 

change is questionable given the 

specialized needs of the species. 

Furthermore, hotter, drier years, as 

predicted under different climate 

change scenarios, could result in greater 

impacts to hyacinth macaw 

reproduction due to impacts on palm 

fruit and thereby foraging success, and 

could increase competition with other 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39914 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

bird and mammal species for limited 

resources. 

Based on the long-term trends of 

continued loss of habitat and associated 

loss of essential resources (nest sites and 

food sources) throughout the hyacinth 

macaws range, declines in the species 

remaining habitat and in its population 

are expected to continue into the 

foreseeable future. Para ́ is one of the 

states where most of Brazil’s agriculture 

expansion is taking place. Modeled 

future deforestation is concentrated in 

this area. The Cerrado is the most 

desirable biome for agribusiness 

expansion and contains approximately 

40 million ha (99 million ac) of 

‘‘environmental surplus’’ that could be 

legally deforested; therefore, this region 

will likely continue to suffer 

deforestation. Ninety-five percent of the 

Pantanal is privately owned, 80 percent 

of which is used for cattle ranches. 

Clearing land to establish pasture is 

perceived as the economically optimal 

land use, while land not producing beef 

is often perceived as unproductive. 

Continued loss of remaining habitat will 

lead to long-term effects on the viability 

of the hyacinth macaw. Additionally, 

any factors that contribute to the loss of 

eggs and chicks ultimately reduce 

reproduction and recruitment of 

juveniles into the population and the 

ability of those populations to recover. 

Therefore, long-term survival of this 

species is a concern. 

In total, there are approximately 6,500 

hyacinth macaws left in the wild, 

dispersed among three populations. 

Two of the populations, Para ́ and 

Gerais, contain 1,000–1,500 individuals 

combined; the Pantanal population 

contains 5,000 individuals. The current 

overall population trend for the 

hyacinth macaw is reported as 

decreasing, although there are no 

reports of extreme fluctuations in the 

number of individuals. The hyacinth 

macaw population has grown in the 

Pantanal; however, the growth is not 

sufficient to counter the continued and 

predicted future anthropogenic 

disturbances. Hyacinth macaws have a 

naturally low reproductive rate; not all 

hyacinth macaw chicks fledge; and due 

to the long period of chick dependence, 

hyacinth macaws breed only every 2 

years. In the Pantanal population, which 

is the largest population of hyacinth 

macaws, only 15–30 percent of adults 

attempt to breed each year; it may be 

that as small or an even smaller 

percentage in Para ́ and Gerais attempt to 

breed. This relatively low recruitment of 

juveniles decreases the ability of a 

population to recover from reductions 

caused by anthropogenic disturbances. 

Thus, hyacinth macaws may not have a 

high enough reproduction rate and may 

not survive in areas where nest sites and 

food sources are destroyed. Because the 

hyacinth macaw has specialized food 

and nest site needs, it is at higher risk 

of extinction from the anthropogenic 

stressors described above. 

Section 3 of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as 

‘‘any species which is likely to become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range.’’ After 

analyzing the species’ status in light of 

the five factors discussed above, we find 

the hyacinth macaw is a ‘‘threatened 

species’’ as a result of the following: 

Continued deforestation and reduced 

recruitment of forests (Factor A), 

hunting (Factor B), predation and 

disease (Factor C), low reproduction rate 

and competition (Factor E), and effects 

of climate change (Factor E). 

Furthermore, despite regulatory 

mechanisms to protect the hyacinth 

macaw and the forests it depends on, 

deforestation and hunting for 

sustenance continues. 

In our 2012 proposed rule (77 FR 

39965; July 6, 2012), we found that the 

hyacinth macaw was in danger of 

extinction (an endangered species) 

based on estimates indicating the 

original vegetation of the Amazon, 

Cerrado, and Pantanal, including the 

hyacinth macaw’s habitat, would be lost 

between the years 2030 and 2050 due to 

deforestation, combined with its 

naturally low reproductive rate, highly 

specialized nature, hunting, 

competition, and effects of climate 

change. While deforestation rates 

between 2002 and 2014 indicate a 

decrease in the annual deforestation 

rate, and there has been a decrease in 

deforestation compared to historical 

rates, there continues to be a slow and 

steady increase in the total area 

deforested. Deforestation rates in Para ́

decreased by 20 percent between 2013 

and 2014, increased by 14 percent in 

2015, and increased by 41 percent in 

2016. However, the PPCDAm has 

reduced the deforestation rate by 

approximately 80 percent in relation to 

the 2004 rate in the Legal Amazon. 

Recent estimates of deforestation 

indicate annual deforestation rates in 

the Cerrado and Pantanal have 

decreased by approximately 40 and 37 

percent, respectively, although within 

two states in the Cerrado, Tocantins and 

Maranha ̃o, deforestation increased in 

2016 by 40 and 25 percent, respectively. 

We recognize that deforestation rates 

may fluctuate annually, with some years 

having a higher rate than other years. 

However, because the annual rate of 

deforestation is decreasing over the long 

term, the loss of all native habitat from 

these areas, including the species of 

trees needed by the hyacinth macaw for 

food and nesting, is not as immediate as 

initially predicted. Therefore, even with 

the additional habitat loss that is 

imminent, we do not find that the 

hyacinth macaw is currently in danger 

of extinction. 

The hyacinth macaw remains a 

species particularly vulnerable to 

extinction due to the interaction 

between continued habitat loss within 

the foreseeable future and its highly 

specialized needs for food and nest 

trees. The term ‘‘foreseeable future’’ 

describes the extent to which we can 

reasonably rely on the predictions about 

the future in making determinations 

about the future conservation status of 

the species. Based on the best available 

scientific studies and information 

assessing land-use trends, lack of 

enforcement of laws, predicted 

landscape changes under climatechange scenarios, the persistence of 

essential food and nesting resources, 

and predictions about how those threats 

may impact the hyacinth macaw or 

similar species, we conclude that the 

species is likely to be in danger of 

extinction in the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. On the basis 

of the best scientific and commercial 

information, we find that the hyacinth 

macaw meets the definition of a 

‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act, and 

we are listing the hyacinth macaw as 

threatened throughout its range. 

Significant Portion of its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species warrants listing if 

it is endangered or threatened. The Act 

defines ‘‘endangered species’’ as any 

species that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(6)), and 

‘‘threatened species’’ as any species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range (16 U.S.C. 1532(20)). Because 

we have determined that the hyacinth 

macaw is threatened throughout all of 

its range, under the Final Policy on 

Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant 

Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered 

Species Act’s Definitions of 

‘‘Endangered Species and ‘‘Threatened 

Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) 

(SPR Policy), if a species warrants 

listing throughout all of its range, no 

portion of the species’ range can be a 

‘‘significant’’ portion of its range. The 

SPR policy is applied to all status 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39915 

determinations, including analyses for 

the purposes of making listing, 

delisting, and reclassification 

determinations. The procedure for 

analyzing whether any portion is an 

SPR is similar, regardless of the type of 

status determination we are making. 

While under the SPR Policy no 

further analysis of ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ in this circumstance is 

required, we recognize that the SPR 

Policy is currently under judicial 

review, so we also took the additional 

step of considering whether there could 

be any significant portions of the 

species’ range where the species is in 

danger of extinction. We evaluated 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that there are any portions of 

the species’ range: (1) That may be 

‘‘significant,’’ and (2) where the species 

may be in danger of extinction. In 

practice, a key part of identifying 

portions appropriate for further analysis 

is whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated. For the hyacinth macaw, 

the primary driver of its status is habitat 

destruction. This threat is affecting the 

species throughout its entire range and 

is of similar magnitude throughout its 

range; therefore, there is not a 

meaningful geographical concentration 

of threats to the hyacinth macaw. As a 

result, even if we were to undertake a 

detailed SPR analysis, there would not 

be any portions of the species’ range 

where the threats are harming the 

species to a greater degree such that it 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. 

4(d) Rule 

When a species is listed as 

endangered, certain actions are 

prohibited under section 9 of the Act 

and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.21. 

These include, among others, 

prohibitions on take within the United 

States, within the territorial seas of the 

United States, or upon the high seas; 

import; export; and shipment in 

interstate or foreign commerce in the 

course of a commercial activity. 

Exceptions to the prohibitions for 

endangered species may be granted in 

accordance with section 10 of the Act 

and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.22. 

The Act does not specify particular 

prohibitions and exceptions to those 

prohibitions for threatened species. 

Instead, under section 4(d) of the Act, 

the Secretary, as well as the Secretary of 

Commerce depending on the species, 

was given the discretion to issue such 

regulations as deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of such species. The 

Secretary also has the discretion to 

prohibit by regulation with respect to 

any threatened species any act 

prohibited under section 9(a)(1) of the 

Act. For the hyacinth macaw, the 

Service is exercising our discretion to 

issue a 4(d) rule. By adopting the 4(d) 

rule, we are incorporating all 

prohibitions and provisions of 50 CFR 

17.31 and 17.32, except that import and 

export of certain hyacinth macaws into 

and from the United States and certain 

acts in interstate commerce are allowed 

without a permit under the Act, as 

explained below. 

Import and Export 

The 4(d) rule imposes a prohibition 

on imports and exports (by 

incorporating 50 CFR 17.31), but creates 

exceptions for certain hyacinth macaws. 

The 4(d) rule largely adopts the existing 

conservation regulatory requirements of 

CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate 

regulatory provisions for the import and 

export of certain hyacinth macaws. The 

import and export of birds into and from 

the United States, taken from the wild 

after the date this species is listed under 

the Act; conducting an activity that 

could take or incidentally take hyacinth 

macaws; and foreign commerce must 

meet the requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 

and 17.32, including obtaining a permit 

under the Act. However, the 4(d) rule 

allows a person to import or export 

without a permit issued under the Act 

if the specimen either: (1) Was held in 

captivity prior to the date this species is 

listed under the Act; or (2) is a captivebred specimen, provided the export 

under either of these scenarios is 

authorized under CITES and the import 

is authorized under CITES and the 

WBCA. If a specimen was taken from 

the wild and held in captivity prior to 

the date this species is listed under the 

Act, the importer or exporter must 

provide documentation to support that 

status, such as a copy of the original 

CITES permit indicating when the bird 

was removed from the wild or museum 

specimen reports. For captive-bred 

birds, the importer must provide either 

a valid CITES export/re-export 

document issued by a foreign 

Management Authority that indicates 

that the specimen was captive bred by 

using a source code on the face of the 

permit of either ‘‘C,’’ ‘‘D,’’ or ‘‘F.’’ 

Exporters of captive-bred birds must 

provide a signed and dated statement 

from the breeder of the bird confirming 

its captive-bred status, and 

documentation on the source of the 

breeder’s breeding stock. The source 

codes of C, D, and F for CITES permits 

and certificates are as follows: 

(C) Animals bred in captivity in 

accordance with Resolution Conf. 10.16 

(Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives 

thereof, exported under the provisions 

of Article VII, paragraph 5 of the 

Convention. 

(D) Appendix-I animals bred in 

captivity for commercial purposes in 

operations included in the Secretariat’s 

Register, in accordance with Resolution 

Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), and 

Appendix-I plants artificially 

propagated for commercial purposes, as 

well as parts and derivatives thereof, 

exported under the provisions of Article 

VII, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 

(F) Animals born in captivity (F1 or 

subsequent generations) that do not 

fulfill the definition of ‘‘bred in 

captivity’’ in Resolution Conf. 10.16 

(Rev.), as well as parts and derivatives 

thereof. 

The 4(d) rule’s provisions regarding 

captive-bred birds apply to birds bred in 

the United States and abroad. The terms 

‘‘captive-bred’’ and ‘‘captivity’’ used in 

the 4(d) rule are defined in the 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 and refer to 

wildlife produced in a controlled 

environment that is intensively 

manipulated by man from parents that 

mated or otherwise transferred gametes 

in captivity. Although the 4(d) rule 

requires a permit under the Act to 

‘‘take’’ (including harm and harass) a 

hyacinth macaw, our regulations at 50 

CFR 17.3 establish that ‘‘take,’’ when 

applied to captive wildlife, does not 

include generally accepted animal 

husbandry practices, breeding 

procedures, or provisions of veterinary 

care for confining, tranquilizing, or 

anesthetizing, when such practices are 

not likely to result in injury to the 

wildlife. 

We assessed the conservation needs of 

the hyacinth macaw in light of the broad 

protections provided to the species 

under CITES and the WBCA. The 

hyacinth macaw is listed in Appendix I 

under CITES, a treaty which contributes 

to the conservation of the species by 

monitoring international trade and 

ensuring that trade in Appendix I 

species is not detrimental to the survival 

of the species (see Conservation Status, 

above). The purpose of the WBCA is to 

promote the conservation of exotic birds 

and to ensure that imports of exotic 

birds into the United States do not harm 

them (see Factor D discussion, above). 

The best available commercial data 

indicate that legal and illegal trade of 

hyacinth macaws is not currently 

occurring at levels that are affecting the 

populations of the hyacinth macaw in 

its three regions. Accordingly, we find 

that the import and export requirements 

of the 4(d) rule provide the necessary 

and advisable conservation measures 

that are needed for this species. This 

4(d) rule streamlines the permitting 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39916 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 156 / Monday, August 13, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

process by deferring to existing laws 

that are protective of hyacinth macaws 

in the course of import and export and 

not requiring permits under the Act for 

certain types of activities. 

Interstate Commerce 

Under the 4(d) rule, a person may 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

a hyacinth macaw in interstate 

commerce in the course of a commercial 

activity, or sell or offer to sell in 

interstate commerce a hyacinth macaw 

without a permit under the Act. At the 

same time, the prohibitions on take 

under 50 CFR 17.21 as extended to 

threatened species under 50 CFR 17.31 

will apply under this 4(d) rule, and any 

interstate commerce activities that could 

incidentally take hyacinth macaws or 

otherwise prohibited acts in foreign 

commerce will require a permit under 

50 CFR 17.32. 

Persons in the United States have 

imported and exported captive-bred 

hyacinth macaws for commercial 

purposes and for scientific purposes, 

but trade has been very limited (UNEP– 

WCMC 2011, unpaginated). We have no 

information to suggest that interstate 

commerce activities are associated with 

threats to the hyacinth macaw or would 

negatively affect any efforts aimed at the 

recovery of wild populations of the 

species; therefore, we are not placing 

into effect any prohibitions on interstate 

commerce of hyacinth macaw within 

the United States. Because the species is 

otherwise protected in the course of 

interstate commercial activities under 

the take provisions and foreign 

commerce provisions contained in 50 

CFR 17.31, and international trade of 

this species is regulated under CITES, 

we find that this 4(d) rule contains all 

the prohibitions and authorizations 

necessary and advisable for the 

conservation of the hyacinth macaw. 

Required Determinations 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

We have determined that we do not 

need to prepare an environmental 

assessment, as defined under the 

authority of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with 

regulations adopted under Section 4(a) 

of the Endangered Species Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). 

References Cited 

A list of all references cited in this 

document is available at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS– 

R9–ES–2012–0013, or upon request 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Ecological Services, Branch of Foreign 

Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Branch of 

Foreign Species, Ecological Services 

Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 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: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 

applicable rules 

*******

BIRDS 

*******

Macaw, hyacinth ............. Anodorhynchus 

hyacinthinus.

Wherever found .............. T ....... 83 FR [insert Federal Register page where the 

document begins], 8/13/2018; 50 CFR 

17.41(c) 4d. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.41 by revising 

paragraph (c) introductory text, 

paragraph (c)(1), and paragraph (c)(2)(ii) 

introductory text, and by adding 

paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(D) to read as follows: 

§ 17.41 Special rules—birds. 

* * * * * 

(c) The following species in the parrot 

family: Salmon-crested cockatoo 

(Cacatua moluccensis), yellow-billed 

parrot (Amazona collaria), white 

cockatoo (Cacatua alba), and hyacinth 

macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus). 

(1) Except as noted in paragraphs 

(c)(2) and (c)(3) of this section, all 

prohibitions and provisions of §§ 17.31 

and 17.32 of this part apply to these 

species. 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Specimens held in captivity prior 

to certain dates: You must provide 

documentation to demonstrate that the 

specimen was held in captivity prior to 

the dates specified in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(ii)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of this 

section. Such documentation may 

include copies of receipts, accession or 

veterinary records, CITES documents, or 

wildlife declaration forms, which must 

be dated prior to the specified dates. 

* * * * * 

(D) For hyacinth macaws: September 

12, 2018 (the date this species was listed 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.)). 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 2, 2018. 

James W. Kurth, 

Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Exercising the Authority of the 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17319 Filed 8–10–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES