[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39965-39983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16461]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R9-ES-2012-0013; 4500030115]
RIN 1018-AY38
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Hyacinth Macaw
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list as
endangered the hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are taking this
action in response to a petition to list this species as endangered or
threatened under the Act. This document, which also serves as the
completion of the status review and as the 12-month finding on the
petition, announces our finding that listing is warranted for the
hyacinth macaw. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend
the Act's protections to this species. We seek information from the
public on this proposed rule and status review for this species.
DATES: Comments: We will consider comments and information received or
postmarked on or before September 4, 2012.
Public hearing: We must receive requests for a public hearing by
August 20, 2012 addressed to the contact specified in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R9-
ES-2012-0013.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2012-0013, Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept comments by email or fax. We will post all
comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information
Requested section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
telephone 703-358-2171. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
We were petitioned to list the hyacinth macaw, and 13 other parrot
species, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act). During our
status review, we found threats operating in aggregation and
contributing to the risk of extinction of the species. Therefore, in
this 12-month finding, we announce that listing the hyacinth macaw is
warranted and are publishing a proposed rule to list this species as
endangered under the Act. We are undertaking this action pursuant to a
settlement agreement, and publication of this 12-month finding and
proposed rule will fulfill our obligations under that agreement.
This action is authorized by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. It affects Part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. The Act and its implementing regulations
set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to
all endangered and threatened wildlife. These prohibitions make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to ``take'' (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the United States or
upon the high seas; import or export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any endangered wildlife species. It also is illegal to
possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain exceptions apply
to agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance
the propagation or survival of the species and for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities.
This regulatory action is not economically significant.
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(3)(B)) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the
date of receipt of the petition (``12-month finding''). In this
finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add qualified
species to or remove species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires
that we treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though
[[Page 39966]]
resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within 12 months. We must publish these
12-month findings in the Federal Register.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) publishes an annual
notice of resubmitted petition findings (annual notice) for all foreign
species for which listings were previously found to be warranted but
precluded.
In this document, we announce that listing the hyacinth macaw as
endangered is warranted, and we are issuing a proposed rule to add that
species as endangered under the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take
into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and
addresses of commenters, will become part of the administrative record.
Previous Federal Actions
Petition History
On January 31, 2008, the Service received a petition dated January
29, 2008, from Friends of Animals, as represented by the Environmental
Law Clinic, University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, requesting that
we list 14 parrot species under the Act. The petition clearly
identified itself as a petition and included the requisite information
required in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 424.14(a)). On July
14, 2009 (74 FR 33957), we published a 90-day finding in which we
determined that the petition presented substantial scientific and
commercial information to indicate that listing may be warranted for 12
of the 14 parrot species. In our 90-day finding on this petition, we
announced the initiation of a status review to list as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
the following 12 parrot species: blue-headed macaw (Primolius couloni),
crimson shining parrot (Prosopeia splendens), great green macaw (Ara
ambiguus), grey-cheeked parakeet (Brotogeris pyrrhoptera), hyacinth
macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), military macaw (Ara militaris),
Philippine cockatoo (Cacatua haematuropygia), red-crowned parrot
(Amazona viridigenalis), scarlet macaw (Ara macao), white cockatoo (C.
alba), yellow-billed parrot (Amazona collaria), and yellow-crested
cockatoo (C. sulphurea). We initiated this status review to determine
if listing each of the 12 species is warranted, and initiated a 60-day
information collection period to allow all interested parties an
opportunity to provide information on the status of these 12 species of
parrots. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2009.
On October 24, 2009, and December 2, 2009, the Service received a
60-day notice of intent to sue from Friends of Animals and WildEarth
Guardians, for failure to issue 12-month findings on the petition. On
March 2, 2010, Friends of Animals and WildEarth Guardians filed suit
against the Service for failure to make timely 12-month findings within
the statutory deadline of the Act on the petition to list the 14
species (Friends of Animals, et al . v. Salazar, Case No. 10 CV 00357
D.D.C.).
On July 21, 2010, a settlement agreement was approved by the Court
(CV-10-357, D. DC), in which the Service agreed to submit to the
Federal Register by July 29, 2011, September 30, 2011, and November 30,
2011, determinations whether the petitioned action is warranted, not
warranted, or warranted but precluded by other listing actions for no
less than 4 of the petitioned species on each date. On August 9, 2011,
the Service published in the Federal Register a 12-month status review
finding and proposed rule for the following four parrot species:
Crimson shining parrot, Philippine cockatoo, white cockatoo, and
yellow-crested cockatoo (76 FR 49202). On October 6, 2011, a 12-month
status review finding was published for the red-crowned parrot (76 FR
62016). On October 11, 2011, a 12-month status review and proposed rule
was published for the yellow-billed parrot (76 FR 62740), and on
October 12, 2011, a 12-month status review was published for the blue-
headed macaw and grey-cheeked parakeet (76 FR 63480).
On September 16, 2011, an extension to the settlement agreement was
approved by the Court (CV-10-357, D. DC), in which the Service agreed
to submit a determination for the remaining four petitioned species to
the Federal Register by June 30, 2012.
In this status review we make a determination whether the
petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but
precluded by other listing actions for one of the remaining species,
the hyacinth macaw. This Federal Register document complies, in part,
with the last deadline in the court-ordered settlement agreement.
Information Requested
We intend that any final actions resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
clarifying information concerning:
(1) Information on taxonomy, distribution, habitat selection and
trends (especially breeding and foraging habitats), diet, and
population abundance and trends (especially current recruitment data)
of this species.
(2) Information on the effects of habitat loss and changing land
uses on the distribution and abundance of this species.
(3) Information on the effects of other potential threat factors,
including live capture and hunting, domestic and international trade,
predation by other animals, and any diseases that are known to affect
this species or its principal food sources.
(4) Information on management programs for parrot conservation,
including mitigation measures related to conservation programs, and any
other private, nongovernmental, or governmental conservation programs
that benefit this species.
(5) The potential effects of climate change on this species and its
habitat.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or
opposition to the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.''
Public Hearing
At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for this
proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain
public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient to submit
comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described above in the
ADDRESSES section. If you would like to request a public hearing for
this proposed rule, you must submit your request, in writing, to the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by the
date specified in DATES.
[[Page 39967]]
Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing 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. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly
or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
Species Description
The hyacinth macaw is the largest bird of the parrot family, Family
Psittacidae, (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p.
405). It measures approximately 100 centimeters (cm) (3.3 feet (ft)) in
length. Average female and male wing lengths measure approximately 400
to 407.5 millimeters (mm) (1.3 ft), respectively. Average tail lengths
for females and males are 492.4 mm (1.6 ft) and 509.4 mm (1.7 ft),
respectively (Forshaw 1973, p. 364). Hyacinth macaws are characterized
by a predominately cobalt-blue plumage, black underside of wing and
tail, and unlike other macaws, have feathered faces and lores (areas of
a bird's face from the base of the bill to the front of the eyes). In
addition, they have bare yellow eye rings, bare yellow patches
surrounding the base of their lower mandibles, large and hooked grey-
black bills, dark-brown irises, and dark-grey legs. However, older
adults have lighter grey or white legs, which are short and sturdy to
allow the bird to hang sideways or upside down while foraging. Immature
birds are similar to adults but with shorter tails and paler yellow
bare facial skin (Juniper and Parr 1998, pp. 416-417; Guedes and Harper
1995, p. 395; Munn et al. 1989, p. 405; Forshaw 1973, p. 364).
At one time, hyacinth macaws were widely distributed throughout
Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay (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 separate areas, almost exclusively
within Brazil, that have experienced less pressure from trapping,
hunting, and agriculture: Eastern Amazonia in Par[aacute], Brazil,
south of the Amazon River along the Tocantins, Xingu, and
Tapaj[oacute]s rivers; the Gerais region of northeastern Brazil,
including the states of Maranh[atilde]o, Piau[iacute], Goi[aacute]s,
Tocantins, Bahia, and Minas Gerais; and the Pantanal of Mato Grosso and
Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil and marginally in Bolivia and Paraguay
(Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 416; Abramson et
al. 1995, p. 14; Munn et al. 1989, p. 407).
The hyacinth macaw exploits a variety of habitats in the
Par[aacute], Gerais, and Pantanal regions, although the climate within
these three regions features a dry season that prevents the growth of
extensive closed-canopy tropical forests. In Par[aacute], the species
prefers palm-rich v[aacute]rzea (flooded forests), seasonally moist
forests with clearings, and savannas. In the Gerais region, it is
located within the Cerrado biome, where it inhabits 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 forest 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).
Although there is evidence that suggests this species was abundant
before the mid-1980's (Collar et al. 1992, p. 4), a very rapid
population decline is suspected to have taken place over the last 45
years (three generations) based on large-scale illegal trade, habitat
loss, and hunting (BLI 2011, unpaginated). In 1986, Munn et al. (1989,
p. 413) estimated the total population of hyacinth macaws to be 3,000,
with a range between 2,500 and 5,000 individuals; 750 occurred in
Par[aacute], 1,000 in Gerais, and 1,500 in Pantanal (Collar et al.
1992, p. 4). In 2003, the population was estimated at 6,500
individuals; 5,000 of which were located in the Pantanal region (BLI
2011, unpaginated; Brouwer 2004, unpaginated). This population is the
stronghold for the species and has shown signs of recovery since 1990,
most likely as a response to conservation projects (BLI 2011,
unpaginated; Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p.
30).
The hyacinth macaw has 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. 5). In each of the three regions where it
occurs, this species utilizes only a few specific palm species. In
Par[aacute], hyacinth macaws (hyacinths) have been reported to feed on
Maximiliana regia (inaj[aacute]), Orbignya martiana (babassu), Orbignya
phalerata (babac[uacute]) and Astrocaryum sp. (tucum[aacute]n). In the
Gerais region, hyacinths feed on Attalea funifera (piacava), Syagrus
coronata (catol[eacute]), and Mauritia vinifera (buriti). In the
Pantanal region, hyacinths feed exclusively on Scheelea phalerata
(acuri) and Acrocromia totai (bocai[uacute]va) (Antas et al. 2006, p.
128; Schneider et al. 2006, p. 74; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417;
Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 401; Collar et al. 1992, p. 5; Munn et al.
1987, pp. 407-408). Although the hyacinth macaw prefers bocai[uacute]va
palm nuts over acuri, bocai[uacute]va is only readily available from
September to December, which coincides with the peak of chick hatching;
however, the acuri is available throughout the year and constitutes the
majority of this species' diet in the Pantanal (Guedes and Harper 1995,
p. 400).
Hyacinths forage for palm nuts and water on the ground. They 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. They may also forage directly from the palm
tree and drink fluid from unripe palm fruits (Juniper and Parr 1998, p.
417; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 400-401; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 5,
7). Birds often occur in small family groups except at feeding and
roosting sites when large flocks of 10-100 have been observed (Abramson
et al. 1995, p. 2). Single birds rotate responsibility for serving as a
lookout. Birds are most active during the cooler parts of the day,
foraging in the morning and late afternoon. Foraging generally lasts
about 30 minutes followed by a 10-20 minute break before feeding
[[Page 39968]]
again. Foraging may be within a few meters to several kilometers from
the roost or nest tree (Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 400-401; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 5).
Hyacinths nest from July to December in tree cavities and, in some
parts of its range, cliff cavities. As a secondary tree nester,
hyacinth macaws require large, preexisting tree holes for nesting (Pizo
et al. 2008, p. 792; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 2). In Par[aacute], the
species nests in holes of Bertholettia excelsa (Brazil nut). In the
Gerais region, nesting may occur in large dead Mauritia vinifera
(buriti), but is most commonly found in natural rock crevices. In
studies conducted in the Pantanal region, the species was found to nest
almost exclusively (94 percent of nests) in Sterculia striata
(manduvi); although nesting has been reported in Pithecellobium edwalii
(angio branco), Enterolobium contortisiliquum (ximbuva), and Vitex sp.
(tarum[aacute]) (Kuniy et al. 2006, p. 381; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p.
30; Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 402;
Collar et al. 1992, pp. 5-6; Munn et al. 1987, p. 408).
Hyacinth pairs will defend a nest using loud vocalizations and
flights around the nest tree when a potential threat, such as humans,
dogs, some birds, and mammals, approach. Often one or two other pairs
will join in these nest defense behaviors. However, when displacing
other macaw species, hyacinths engage in silent behaviors; the male and
female will cover the nest opening using their bodies, hook their bill
on the upper rim of the nest opening, and extend their wings. The male
may fly to displace the intruding bird while the female remains at the
nest opening (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 405).
In captivity, hyacinths reach reproductive maturity between 4 and 5
years old (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 2). The hyacinth macaw lays two
smooth, white eggs approximately 48.4 mm (1.9 inches (in)) long and
36.4 mm (1.4 in) wide. Eggs are usually found in the nest from August
until December (Juniper and Parr 1998, p. 417; Guedes and Harper 1995,
p. 406). The female alone incubates the eggs for approximately 28-30
days. The male remains near the nest to protect it from invaders, but
may leave 4-6 times a day to forage and collect food for the female
(Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 72, 79; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 406).
Chicks are mostly naked with sparse white down feathers at hatching.
Young are fed regurgitated, chopped palm nuts (Munn et al. 1989, p.
405). Most chicks fledge at 105-110 days old; however, separation is a
slow process. Fledglings will continue to be fed by the parents for 6
months, when they begin to break hard palm nuts themselves, and may
remain with the adults for 16 months, after which they will join groups
of other young birds (Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71-72; Guedes and
Harper 1995, pp. 407-411). Although hyacinths lay two eggs, observers
have reported that they rarely fledge more than one bird (Munn et al.
1989, p. 409). Given the long period of chick dependence, hyacinths may
not breed every year (Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71-72; Guedes and
Harper 1995, pp. 407-411).
Conservation Status
In 1989, the hyacinth macaw was listed as a species at risk for
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). It is also listed as
``critically endangered'' by the State of Minas Gerais and
``vulnerable'' by the State of Par[aacute] (Garcia and Marini 2006, p.
153). This species is also currently classified as ``endangered'' by
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and is listed as
Appendix I on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) list. Species included in CITES Appendix I are the most
endangered CITES-listed species. They are considered threatened with
extinction, and international trade is permitted only under exceptional
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Hyacinth Macaw
This status review focuses primarily on the hyacinth macaw
populations in Brazil. 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. Most of the information on the hyacinth macaw is from the
Pantanal region, as this is the largest and most studied population. We
found little information on the status of the Par[aacute] and Gerais
populations; therefore, we evaluated factors for these populations by a
broader region (e.g., the Amazon biome for Par[aacute] and the Cerrado
biome for Gerais). For particular areas in which we lack information
about the species, we request additional information from the public
during the proposed rule comment period.
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Habitat or Range
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 meal has increased,
causing cultivations to significantly increase (Barona et al. 2010, pp.
1-2). Brazil has also risen to 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 (Mongabay 2009, unpaginated). 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).
However, in all of the regions where the hyacinth macaw occurs, the
natural vegetation, including food and nesting resources, is threatened
by expansion of agriculture and cattle ranching.
Par[aacute]
Par[aacute] is one of the Brazilian states that constitute the
Amazon biome (Greenpeace 2009, p. 2). This biome contains more than
just the well-known tropical rainforests; it also encompasses other
ecosystems, including floodplain forests and savannas. Par[aacute] has
long been known as the epicenter of illegal deforestation in the
Brazilian Amazon (Dias and Ramos 2012, unpaginated). Here, the most
important cause of deforestation is the conversion of floodplain
forests to cattle-ranching, which has expanded significantly over the
last 15 years (da Silva 2009, p. 3; Lucas 2009, p. 1; Collar et al.
1992a, p. 7). Although the hyacinth macaw's food and nesting habitat
are reasonably intact, the continuing rapid expansion of cattle
ranching may affect nesting trees and food resources (Munn et al. 1989,
p. 415).
Cattle ranching has been present in the v[aacute]rzea (floodplain
forests) of the Amazon for centuries (Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 433).
However, state subsidies and massive infrastructure development have
facilitated large-scale forest conversion and colonization for cattle
ranching (Barona et al. 2010, p. 1). Additionally, certain factors have
led to a significant expansion of this land use. The climate of the
Brazilian Amazon is favorable for cattle ranching; frosts do not occur
like in the south of Brazil and rainfall is more evenly distributed
throughout the year, increasing pasture productivity and reducing the
risk of
[[Page 39969]]
fire. In Par[aacute], there is a lower incidence of disease, such as
hoof-and-mouth disease, brucellosis, and ectoparasites than in central
and south Brazil. Additionally, the price of land in Par[aacute] has
been lower than in central and south Brazil, resulting in ranchers
selling farms, establishing larger farms in Par[aacute], and competing
in the national market (Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 446).
In the Brazilian North region, including Par[aacute], cattle occupy
84 percent of the total area under agricultural and livestock uses.
This area, on average, has expanded 9 percent per year over the last 10
years causing 70-80 percent of deforestation (Nepstad et al. 2008, p.
1739). Par[aacute] itself contains two-thirds of the Brazilian Amazonia
cattle herd (Arima and Uhl 1997, p. 343). For 7 months of the year,
cattle are grazed in the v[aacute]rzea, but are moved to the upper
terra firme 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).
Although the immediate cause of deforestation in the Amazon was
predominantly the expansion of pasture during the period 2000-2006
(Barona et al. 2010, p. 8), the underlying cause may be the expansion
of soy cultivation in other areas, leading to a displacement of
pastures further north into parts of Par[aacute] causing additional
deforestation (Barona et al. 2010, pp. 6, 8). Par[aacute] has one of
the highest deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon (Portal Brasil
2010, unpaginated). During 1988-2009, the state lost 123,527 km\2\
(47,694 mi\2\), with annual rates varying between 3,780-8,870 km\2\
(1,460-3,424 mi\2\) (Butler 2010, unpaginated). Modeled future
deforestation is concentrated in eastern Amazonia. If current trends in
agricultural expansion continue, the southeastern tributaries of the
Amazon River (Tapaj[oacute]s and Xingu) will lose at least two-thirds
of their forest cover by 2050 (Soares-Filho et al. 2006, p. 522).
Cerrado
The Cerrado is a 2 million km\2\ (772,204 mi\2\) biome consisting
of plateaus and depressions with vegetation that varies from dense
grasslands with sparse shrubs and small trees to an almost closed
woodland (Pinto et al. 2007, p. 14; da Silva 1997, p. 437; Ratter et
al. 1997, p. 223). In the Cerrado, hyacinths now mostly nest in rock
crevices, most likely a response to the destruction of nesting trees
(Collar et al. 1992, p. 5). 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 resource.
Settlement of the Cerrado region by nonindigenous people began in
the 18th Century with the quest for gold and precious stones. Later,
cattle ranching became the dominant activity until the 1950's (WWF-UK
2011b, p. 2). However, during this time the Cerrado was sparsely
populated and inhabitants practiced little more than subsistence
agriculture (Pinto et al. 2007, p. 14; Ratter et al. 1997, p. 227).
Most of the settlement and drastic anthropogenic modification to the
Cerrado region began in the 1950's with the mechanization of
agriculture, new fertilization techniques, and the low cost of land
(Pinto et al. 2007, p. 14; WWF 2001, unpaginated; da Silva 1997, p.
446). With the construction of the new Brazilian capital,
Bras[iacute]lia, in 1960, several highways and railways were built, and
during the 1970's and 1980's, investment programs along with generous
government subsidies, tax incentives, and low-interest loans
transformed the region to a new agricultural frontier (WWF-UK 2011b, p.
2; WWF 2001, unpaginated; Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 227-228).
In the last 15 years, soy production has doubled due to an
increasing demand related to an increase in the consumption of meat
(soy is used in the manufacturing of livestock feed), use in food, and
biofuel (WWF 2011, unpaginated). In 1980, cattle in the Cerrado region
numbered 48 million, and have certainly grown since then. In 1994, 3.9
million ha (9.6 million ac) of soy were planted, and far more were
planted with exotic grasses for pasture (Ratter et al. 1997, p. 228).
Today, the Cerrado produces 70 percent of Brazil's farm output and
constitutes 40 percent of the national cattle herd (Pearce 2011,
unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2). The remaining Cerrado continues to be
pressured by conversion for soy plantations and extensive cattle
ranching. Additionally, the conversion to biofuel production is
imminent, creating a market for the expansion and establishment of new
areas for soy, caster beans, other oil-bearing plants, and sugar cane
(WWF-UK 2011a, unpaginated; Carvalho et al. 2009, p. 1393; BLI 2008,
unpaginated).
Fire is frequently used to clear land or stimulate new growth in
pastures. Farmers often burn at the end of the dry season when fuel is
high and humidity low, resulting in extremely hot fires (Klink and
Machado 2005, p. 708). Cerrado vegetation is resistant to fires, but
frequent burnings cause destruction, affecting tree and shrub
establishment, and resulting in a more herbaceous landscape (Klink and
Machado 2005, pp. 709-710; Ratter et al. 1997, p. 224). It was
estimated that in 2000, 67 percent of the area burned in Brazil
occurred within the Cerrado (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 709). From May
to September 2010, there were 60,000 fire outbreaks, a 350 percent
increase over the same time period in 2009. Although some of this
increase is likely due to the drought at that time, more can be
attributed to deliberate burning to create farmland, aggravated by a
legislative challenge to Brazil's Forest Code (See Factor D) (WWF 2010,
unpaginated).
More than 50 percent of the original Cerrado vegetation has been
lost due to conversion to agriculture and pasture, although estimates
range up to 80 percent, and the area currently continues to suffer high
rates of habitat loss (Pearce 2011, unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011b, pp. 1-2;
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). During 2002-2008, the demand for land to be put into production
resulted in an annual deforestation rate of more than 14,200 km\2\
(5,483 mi\2\) (WWF-UK 2011b, p. 2). At this rate, the vegetation of the
Cerrado region is disappearing faster than the Amazon rainforest
(Pearce 2011, unpaginated; WWF-UK 2001, unpaginated; Klink and Machado
2005, p. 708; Ratter et al. 1997, p. 228). If current rates continue,
the remaining native habitat may be lost by 2030 (Marini and Garcia
2005, p. 667).
Pantanal
The Pantanal is a 140,000-km\2\ (54,054-mi\2\) seasonally flooded
wetland interspersed with higher areas, not subject to inundation,
covered with cerrado or seasonal forests (J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 133;
J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p. 127; Harris et al. 2005, p. 715;
Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 103). Since the 1700's, the Pantanal region
has been subject to various economic activities, including mining,
sugar plantations, agriculture, and cattle ranching (Harris et al.
2006, p. 165). Although cattle ranching has occurred in this region for
more than a century, transitions during the 1990's to more intense
ranching methods led to the conversion of more forests to pasture and
the introduction of nonnative grasses. Today, cattle ranching is the
[[Page 39970]]
predominant economic activity in this region and is the greatest threat
to habitat loss in the Pantanal (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793; Harris et
al. 2006, pp. 165, 175-176; Harris et al. 2005, pp. 715-716, 718; Pinho
and Nogueira 2003, p. 30; Seidl et al. 2001, p. 414; Guedes and Harper
1995, p. 396; Mettermeier 1990, pp. 103, 107-108).
Eighty percent of the land in the Pantanal is owned by large-ranch
owners, some whose tracts exceed 1,000 km\2\ (386 mi\2\) (Seidl et al.
2001, p. 414; Mettermeier et al. 1990, p. 103). Cattle ranchers use
naturally occurring grasslands for grazing cattle, but these areas are
subject to seasonal flooding. During the flooding season (January to
June), the upland forests experience increased pressure from cattle.
These upland forests are often removed and converted to cultivated
pastures (J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p. 127; Harris et al. 2006, p.
165; 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).
Little of the vegetation in this region remains undisturbed due to
cattle ranching and the associated burning of pastures for maintenance
(Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 103). Between 1990 and 2000, the annual
deforestation rate was estimated at 0.46 percent. During the period
2000-2004, the rate increased to 2.3 percent per year, an increase of
five times compared to the previous 10-year period. If this rate is
maintained, the original vegetation area of the Pantanal, including
nesting trees for the hyacinth macaw, will be completely destroyed by
approximately 2050 (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 169, 177).
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 are known to occur near cattle ranches and feed
off the palm nuts eliminated by the cattle (Juniper and Parr 1998, p.
417; Guedes and Harper 1995, pp. 400-401; Collar et al. 1992, pp. 5,
7). However, other trees, including potential nesting trees, are often
removed (Snyder et al. 2000, p. 119). In addition to the direct removal
of trees, other activities associated with cattle ranching, such as the
introduction of exotic foraging grasses, grazing, and burning, are
serious threats to the nesting trees of the hyacinth macaw
(J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p. 128; Harris et al. 2006, p. 175; Snyder
et al. 2000, p. 119).
As stated above, hyacinths in the Pantanal nest almost exclusively
in cavities of the manduvi tree, as it is one of the few tree species
that grow large enough to supply cavities that can accommodate the
hyacinth's large size. Manduvis occur in forest patches and corridors
that cover only 6 percent of the vegetative area of the Pantanal (Pizo
et al. 2008, p. 793). Much of these patches and corridors are
surrounded by seasonally flooded grasslands used as rangeland for
cattle (Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). When forests are cleared, the
natural vegetation is replaced with exotic grasses (J[uacute]nior 2008,
p. 136; Harris et al. 2005, p. 716). More than 40 percent of the
forests and savanna habitats have already been altered by the
introduction of exotic grasses (Harris et al. 2005, p. 716; Johnson et
al. 1997, p. 187). Fire is a common method for renewing pastures,
controlling weeds, and controlling pests (e.g., ticks); however, fires
frequently become uncontrolled and are known to enter the patches and
corridors of manduvi trees during the dry season (Harris et al. 2005,
p. 716; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). Although fire can promote cavity
formation in manduvi trees, frequent fires can also prevent trees from
surviving to a size capable of providing suitable cavities and can
cause a high rate of nesting tree loss (Guedes 1993 in Johnson et al.
1997, p. 187). Guedes (1995 in J[uacute]nior et al. 2006, p. 185) noted
that 5 percent of hyacinth macaw nests are lost each year to
deforestation, fire, and storms.
In addition to the direct removal of trees and the impact of fire
on recruitment of manduvi trees, cattle themselves have impacted the
density of manduvi seedlings in the Pantanal. Cattle forage on and
trample manduvi seedlings, affecting the recruitment of this species to
a size large enough to accommodate hyacinths (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793;
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 187; Mettermeier et al. 1990, p. 107). Only
those manduvi trees 60 years old or older are capable of providing
these cavities (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; J[uacute]nior et al. 2006, p.
185). The minimum diameter at breast height (DBH) for trees to
potentially contain a cavity suitable for hyacinth macaws is 50 cm (20
in), while all manduvi trees greater than 100 cm (39 in) DBH contain
suitable nest cavities. Data indicate a low recruitment in classes
greater than 5 cm (2 in) DBH, a strong reduction in the occurrence of
individuals greater than 50 cm (20 in) DBH, and very few individuals
greater than 110 cm (43 in) DBH (J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p. 128).
Only 5 percent of the existing adult manduvi trees in south-central
Pantanal contain suitable cavities for hyacinth macaws (Guedes 1993 in
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). This suggests that potential nesting
sites are rare and will become increasingly rare in the future
(J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p. 128).
Effects of Deforestation on the Hyacinth Macaw
The hyacinth macaw is highly specialized in its diet and nest sites
(Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 400; Collar et
al. 1992, p. 5). The loss of these tree species may pose a threat by
creating a shortage of suitable nesting sites and increasing
competition, and result in lowered recruitment and a reduction in
population size (Lee 2010, pp. 2, 12; J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p.
128; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 188).
The hyacinth macaw has an extremely strong and chiseled beak which
allows it to feed on extremely hard palm nuts that few, if any, other
species can eat (Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 400; Collar et al. 1992, p.
5). Loss of these palm species, especially in Par[aacute] and the
Cerrado region where food sources are threatened, could lead to reduced
fitness, reduced reproduction, and extinction. For example, 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
food source, licuri palm stands (Syagrus), to cattle grazing (Collar et
al. 1992, p. 257).
Lack of breeding cavities can be a limiting factor for cavity-
nesting parrot species (Pinho and Noguiera 2003, p. 30). Hyacinths can
tolerate a certain degree of human disturbance at their breeding sites
(Pinho and Noguiera 2003, p. 36); however, the number of usable
cavities increases with the age of the trees in the forest (Newton
1994, p. 266), and clearing land for agriculture and cattle ranching,
cattle trampling and foraging, and burning of forest habitat result in
the loss of mature trees with natural cavities of sufficient size and a
reduction in recruitment of native species, which could eventually
provide nesting cavities. A shortage of nest sites can threaten the
persistence of the hyacinth macaw by constraining breeding density,
resulting in lower recruitment and a gradual reduction in population
size (J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p. 128; Johnson et al. 1997, p. 188;
Guedes and Harper 1995, p. 405; Newton 1994, p. 265). This may lead to
long-term effects on the viability of the hyacinth macaw population,
especially in Par[aacute] and the Pantanal where persistence of nesting
trees is threatened (J[uacute]nior et al. 2007, p. 128; J[uacute]nior
et al. 2006, p. 181).
Habitat and feeding specializations are good predictors of the risk
of
[[Page 39971]]
extinction of birds. The hyacinth macaw scores high in both feeding and
nest site specialization (Pizo et al. 2008, pp. 794-795). Although a
species may withstand the initial shock of deforestation, factors such
as the lack of food resources and breeding sites may reduce the
viability of the population and make them vulnerable to extinction
(Sodhi et al. 2009, p. 517). Given the land-use trends across the range
of the hyacinth macaw, the continued existence of food and nesting
resources is a great concern.
Conservation Actions
Brazil announced in 2009 a plan to cut deforestation rates by 80
percent by 2020 with the help of international funding; Brazil's plan
calls on foreign countries to find $20 billion U.S. dollars (USD)
(Marengo et al. 2011, p. 8; Moukaddem 2011, unpaginated; Painter 2008,
unpaginated). If Brazil's plan is implemented and the goal is met,
deforestation in Brazil would be significantly reduced. Despite
obstacles to overcome to reach this goal, including annual funding,
deforestation fell by 80 percent in the past 6 years due to police
raids and other tactics used to crack down on illegal deforesters
(Barrionuevo 2012, unpaginated). However, the Brazilian Senate is
currently debating reform to Brazil's Forest Code. We do not know the
current status of the bill, but if the reform is passed, it would
reduce the percentage of land a private landowner would be required to
maintain as forest (See Factor D). The expectation of the bill being
passed has already resulted in a spike in deforestation. If the bill is
passed, it would undermine Brazil's commitment to reduce deforestation
(Moukaddem 2011, unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011a, unpaginated).
In Brazil, the Ministry of Environment and The Nature Conservancy
have worked together to implement the Farmland Environmental Registry
to curb illegal deforestation in the Amazon. Once all of the country's
rural properties are registered in the system, Brazil will be able to
more easily identify and track illegal deforestation through satellite
monitoring and develop land use plans to create alternatives for
farmers and ranchers, guaranteeing the protection of Amazon land. This
plan helped Paragominas, a municipality in Par[aacute], be the first in
Brazil to come off the government's blacklist of top Amazon
deforesters. After 1 year, 92 percent of rural properties in
Paragominas had been entered into the registry, and deforestation was
cut by 90 percent. In response to this success, Par[aacute] launched
its Green Municipalities Program in 2010. The purpose of this project
is to eliminate illegal deforestation by 2014 across more than 77
municipalities. 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). If these two programs continue to be implemented and show
success like that experienced in Paragominas, it would contribute
significantly to the reduction of deforestation not only in the Amazon,
but throughout Brazil.
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. Additionally, nongovernmental
organizations such as Funda[ccedil]o Pr[oacute]-Natureza, Instituto
Sociedade Popula[ccedil][atilde]o e Natureza, and World Wildlife Fund
have provided valuable assessments and are pioneering work in
establishing extractive reserves (Ratter et al. 1997, pp. 228-229).
Other organizations are working to increase the area of Federal
Conservation Units; currently they represent only 1.5 percent of the
biome (Ratter et al. 1997, p. 229). Teams from the University of
Brasilia, Center for Agriculture Research in the Cerrado, and the Royal
Botanic Garden Edinburgh have combined to form the Conservation and
Management of the Biodiversity of the Cerrado Biome initiative. The aim
is to survey floristic patterns to determine representative and
biodiversity hot spots (Ratter et al. 1997, p. 229).
A network of nongovernmental organizations, Rede Cerrado, has been
established to promote local sustainable-use practices for natural
resources (Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). Rede Cerrado provided the
Brazilian Ministry of the Environment recommendations for urgent
actions for the conservation of the Cerrado. As a result, a
conservation program, Program Cerrado Sustentavel, was established to
integrate actions for conservation in regions where agropastoral
activities were especially intense and damaging (Klink and Machado
2005, p. 710). Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, and
World Wildlife Fund have worked to promote alternative economic
activities, such as ecotourism, sustainable use of fauna and flora, and
medicinal plants, to support the livelihoods of local communities
(Klink and Machado 2005, p. 710). Although these programs demonstrate
an urgency and effort in protecting the Cerrado, we have no details on
the specific work or accomplishments of these programs, or how they
would affect, or have affected, the hyacinth macaw and its habitat.
The Brazilian Government, under its Action Plan for the Prevention
and Control of Deforestation and Burning in the Cerrado--Conservation
and Development (2010), committed to recuperating at least 8 million ha
(20 million ac) of degraded pasture by the year 2010. It also plans to
expand the areas under protection in the Cerrado to 2.1 million ha (5
million ac) (WWF-UK 2011b, p. 4). However, we do not have details on
the success of the action plan or the progress on expanding protected
areas.
In 1990, the Hyacinth Macaw Project (Projecto Arara Azul) began
with support from the University for the Development of the State (Mato
Grosso do Sul) and the Pantanal Region (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated;
Guedes 2004, 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 their protection in the Pantanal
(J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 135; Harris et al. 2005, p. 719; Brouwer 2004,
unpaginated; Guedes 2004, 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 2004, 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 (Guedes 2004, p. 281). Additionally, wood boards are used to
make cavity openings too small for predators, while still allowing
hyacinths to enter (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated).
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 began to increase the
number of chicks that survived and fledged each year (Brouwer 2004,
unpaginated; Guedes 2004, p. 281). Awareness has also been raised with
[[Page 39972]]
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 2004, p. 282). This shift in
attitude has also diminished the threat of illegal trade in the
Hyacinth Macaw Project area (See Factor B) (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated).
The activities of the Hyacinth Macaw Project have certainly
contributed to the increase of the hyacinth population in the Pantanal
since the 1990's (Harris et al. 2005, p. 719). Nest boxes can have a
marked effect on breeding numbers of many species on a local scale
(Newton 1994, p. 274), and having local cattle ranchers appreciate the
presence of the hyacinth macaw on their land helps diminish the effects
of habitat destruction and illegal trade. However, the Hyacinth Macaw
Project area does not encompass the entire Pantanal region. Although
active management (installation of artificial nest boxes and chick
management) has contributed to the increase in the hyacinth population,
and farmers have begun to protect hyacinth macaws on their property,
the Pantanal is still threatened with the expansion of cattle-ranching.
The recruitment (entry of new trees into a population) of the manduvi
tree is severely reduced and is expected to become increasingly rare in
the future, due to ongoing damage caused by grazing and trampling of
cattle as well as the burning of pastures for maintenance. If this
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.
Summary of Factor A
Although the hyacinth macaw is found is three different biomes of
Brazil, they are all threatened with the expansion of agriculture,
mainly soy and cattle ranching. Par[aacute] has long been known as the
epicenter of illegal deforestation and has one of the highest
deforestation rates of the Amazon. Rapid expansion of cattle ranching
is leading to the conversion of floodplain forests, threatening the
food and nesting resources of the hyacinth macaw. If current trends in
agricultural expansion continue, the southeastern tributaries of the
Amazon River (Tapaj[oacute]s and Xingu) will lose at least two-thirds
of their forest cover by 2050. The Cerrado region is disappearing
faster than the Amazon forest due to soy cultivation and cattle
ranching. If current rates continue, the remaining native vegetation
could be lost by 2030. Although the hyacinth mainly nests in rock
crevices in this region, the palm species the hyacinth macaw utilizes
as food sources are threatened by direct clearing of land and the
reduced recruitment of native forests by the grazing and trampling of
cattle and the burning of pastures for maintenance.
The greatest threat to the habitat of the Pantanal is the expansion
of cattle ranching. If current rates of deforestation continue, the
original vegetation could be lost by approximately 2050. In this
region, the palm species that the hyacinths utilize as food sources are
usually left as cattle also feed on the palm nuts. However, the manduvi
trees, which contain the majority of hyacinth nests, are already
limited. Cattle affect the recruitment of native seedlings through
grazing and trampling. Fire, for pasture maintenance or clearing, has
been known to enter stands of manduvi trees during the dry season. Five
percent of hyacinth macaw nests are lost each year to deforestation,
fire, and storms, and there is evidence of severely reduced recruitment
of manduvi trees, suggesting that not only are these nesting trees
scarce now, but they are likely to become increasingly scarce in the
future.
As discussed above, the regions where the hyacinth macaw occurs
have suffered high rates of deforestation. The growing demand for soy
and Brazil's plan to increase their export of beef suggest that the
current trends are likely to continue and may even increase. There are
conservation programs that aim to curb the deforestation rate. If these
programs are implemented and goals are reached, deforestation in Brazil
could be significantly reduced; however, the effects of these programs
are yet to be seen. The Hyacinth Macaw Project has contributed much to
the knowledge of the biology of the hyacinth macaw. Management, such as
the installation of artificial nests and chick management have
contributed to the increased hyacinth population in the Pantanal.
However, the Pantanal population, as well as the Par[aacute] and
Cerrado populations, continues to be threatened by the loss of
essential food and nesting resources. Given the specialized nature of
the hyacinth macaw, the loss of these resources could have a
particularly devastating effect on the viability of the population.
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range is a threat to the
hyacinth macaw now and in the future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
For centuries, parrots and macaws have been trapped for the pet
bird trade and captured for use of their feathers in local handicrafts
(Guedes 2004, p. 279; Snyder et al. 2000, pp. 98-99). Additionally,
hunting of parrots is widespread and large species of macaws have been
known to be targeted by hunters as a food source (Tobias or Brightsmith
2007, p. 134). It is likely that hunting and habitat destruction were
the main causes of the hyacinth macaw's decline until the 1960's and
early 1970's. At that time, a major increase in international trade in
live macaws may have had a greater effect on the decline of the species
than either habitat loss or hunting (Munn et al. 1989, p. 412).
Trade can have a particularly devastating effect on parrot species
given their long life span, low reproductive rate, and slow recovery
from harvesting pressures (Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p. 1121;
Wright et al. 2001, p. 711; Munn et al. 1989, p. 410). Because of the
difficulty in keeping young birds alive, adults are often the main
target for trade; as this practice removes reproductive individuals,
the population is depleted more rapidly (Collar et al. 1992a, p. 6).
Certain trapping methods can also lead to rapid extirpation of
extremely site-faithful species, like the hyacinth macaw (Collar et al.
1992a, p. 7). Additionally, once a species becomes rare in the wild,
demand and price often increase, creating a greater demand for the
species and increasing harvesting pressure (Herrera and Hennessey 2009,
p. 234; Wright et al. 2001, p. 717). Species priced above $500 USD are
more likely to be imported illegally, and higher prices often drive
poaching rates (Wright et al. 2001, p. 718). The hyacinth macaw is a
larger and more expensive species; prices may reach over $12,000 USD
(Basile 2009, p. 4). Harvesting pressure can cause smaller populations
than habitat degradation where some level of reproduction could be
supported (Wright et al. 2001, p. 718).
In 1981, the hyacinth macaw was listed in Appendix II of the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES). CITES is 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. There are currently 175 CITES Parties (member countries or
signatories
[[Page 39973]]
to the Convention). Under this treaty, CITES Parties regulate the
import, export, and reexport 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 Scientific and Management Authorities of each CITES
Party.
In October 1987, the hyacinth macaw was uplisted to Appendix I of
CITES. An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with
extinction whose trade is permitted only under exceptional
circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade. The import
of an Appendix-I species generally requires the issuance of both an
import and export permit. Import permits for Appendix-I species are
issued only if findings are made that the import would be for purposes
that are not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild 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 in the
wild, and if the issuing authority is satisfied that an import permit
has been granted for the specimen (CITES Article III(2)).
Based on CITES trade data obtained from United Nations Environment
Programme--World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade
Database, from October 1987 through 2010, the time the hyacinth macaw
was uplisted to CITES Appendix I, 2,092 specimens of this species were
reported in international trade: 1,887 live birds, 116 feathers, 82
scientific specimens, 2 bodies, 1 skin piece, and 4 unspecified
specimens, plus an additional 124 milliliters, 2 grams, and 49 flasks
of scientific specimens. In analyzing these reported data, several
records appear to be overcounts due to slight differences in the manner
in which the importing and exporting countries reported their trade,
and it is likely that the actual number of specimens of hyacinth macaws
reported in international trade to UNEP-WCMC from 1987 through 2010 was
1,873, including 1,669 live birds, 115 feathers, 82 scientific
specimens, 2 bodies, 1 skin piece, and 4 unspecified specimens, plus an
additional 124 milliliters, 2 grams, and 49 flasks of scientific
specimens. Of these specimens, 86 (4.6 percent) were exported from
Bolivia, Brazil, or Paraguay (the range countries of the species). With
the information given in the UNEP-WCMC database, from 1987 through
2010, only 24 of the 1,669 live hyacinth macaws reported in trade were
reported as wild-sourced, 1,537 were reported as captive bred or
captive born, 35 were reported as pre-Convention, and 73 were reported
with the source as unknown.
Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties to CITES
adopted a process, termed the National Legislation Project, to evaluate
whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully
implement the Treaty (CITES 2010b, pp. 1-5). In reviewing a country's
national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates factors such as
whether a Party's domestic laws designate the responsible Scientific
and Management Authorities, prohibit trade contrary to the requirements
of the Convention, have penalty provisions in place for illegal trade,
and provide for seizure of specimens that are illegally traded or
possessed. The Brazilian Government was determined to be in Category 1,
which means they meet all the requirements to implement CITES. Bolivia
and Paraguay were determined to be in Category 2, meaning legislation
meets some but not all the requirements to implement CITES; however,
both countries have submitted a CITES Legislation Plan, and Bolivia has
also submitted draft legislation to the Secretariat for comments
(www.cites.org, SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1). Generally this means
that Bolivia and Paraguay have not completed all the requirements to
effectively implement CITES. However, since the hyacinth macaw is
listed as an Appendix-I species under CITES, legal commercial
international trade is very limited. Because very few of the 1,669 live
hyacinth macaws reported in trade are wild-sourced (less than 2
percent), we believe that international trade controlled via valid
CITES permits is not a threat to the species. In addition, Bolivia and
Paraguay's Category 2 status under the National Legislation Project
does not appear to be impacting the hyacinth macaw.
The capture of hyacinth macaws is illegal in Brazil, Bolivia, and
Paraguay (Munn et al. 1989, p. 415) (See Factor D); however, despite
this and CITES protection, bird catchers are known to have illegally
harvested entire populations of hyacinths for both national and
international trade (Munn et al. 1989, pp. 412-413), devastating many
large populations and proving to be the cause of substantial declines
in hyacinth macaws in parts of Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay (Munn et
al. 1989, p. 410). In the 1970's and 1980's, 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. 1992a, p. 6; Munn et al. 1989, pp. 412-413). One
report stated that 2,500 hyacinths were flown out of Bah[iacute]a
Negra, Paraguay from 1983 through 1984, (BLI 2011 unpaginated). From
1987 through 1988, 700 hyacinths were reportedly trapped and traded
(Munn et al. 1989, p. 416). In the late 1980's and early 1990's,
reports of hyacinth trapping included one trapper that worked an area
for 3 years removing 200-300 wild hyacinths a month during certain
seasons and another trapper who caught 1,000 hyacinths in 1 year and
knew of other teams operating at similar levels (Silva (1989a) and
Smith (1991c) in Collar et al. 1992a, p. 6). Smith (1991c, in Collar et
al. 1992a, p. 6) estimated a minimum of 10,000 hyacinths were taken
from the wild in the 1980's.
Trade in parrots was particularly high in the 1980's 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 years following the
enactment of the Wild Bird Conservation Act in 1992 (WBCA; see Factor
D), 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). Although
illegal trapping for the pet trade occurred at high levels during the
1980's, there is no information to suggest that illegal trapping for
the pet trade is currently occurring at levels that are affecting the
populations of the hyacinth macaw in its 3 regions.
In Par[aacute], Indians aggressively defend their land and macaws
from outsiders, preventing traders from operating successfully
(Zimmerman et al. 2001, p. 18; Munn et al. 1989, p. 415). Munn et al.
(1989, p. 414) noted that a well-organized professional bird-trading
ring was a threat to the species in the Gerais region; however, the
attitudes of the ranchers in this region were beginning to shift in
favor of the macaw and against trappers on their property (Collar et
al. 1992a, p. 8; Munn et al. 1989, p. 415). Thousands of hyacinths were
trapped in the Pantanal for the pet trade during the 1980's, stripping
many areas of this species (Antas et al. 2006, pp. 128-129; Munn et al.
1989, p. 414). However, ranch owners in the Pantanal were unhappy with
the decline of hyacinth macaws on their land and began to deny bird
catchers access to their land (Collar et al. 1992a, p. 8;
[[Page 39974]]
Munn et al. 1989, p. 415). The population of hyacinths in this region
has continued to increase since the 1990's (BLI 2011, unpaginated;
Antas et al. 2006, p. 128; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 30).
We found little information on illegal trade of this species in
international markets. One study found that illegal pet trade in
Bolivia continues to involve CITES-listed species; the authors
speculated that similar problems exist in Peru and Brazil (Herrera and
Hennessey 2007, p. 298). In that same study, 11 hyacinths were found
for sale in a Santa Cruz market from 2004 to 2007 (10 in 2004 and 1 in
2006) (Herrera and Hennessey 2009, pp. 233-234). Larger species, like
the hyacinth, were frequently sold for transport outside of the
country, mostly to Peru, Chile, and Brazil (Herrera and Hennessey 2009,
pp. 233-234). We found no other data on the presence of hyacinths in
illegal trade. During a study conducted from 2007 to 2008, no hyacinth
macaws were recorded in 20 surveyed Peruvian wildlife markets,
(Gasta[ntilde]aga et al. 2010, pp. 2, 9-10).
It is possible, given the high price of hyacinth macaws that
illegal domestic trade is occurring; however, we found no information
to support this. Certainly, trapping for trade has decreased
significantly from levels reported in the 1980's. Additionally, we
found no information identifying trade as a current threat to the
hyacinth macaw. In the absence of data indicating otherwise, we find
that illegal domestic and international trade is not a threat to the
hyacinth macaw.
Hunting of hyacinths is illegal in Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay
(Munn et al. 1989, p. 415) (See Factor D); however, hyacinths in
Par[aacute] are most threatened by subsistence hunters and the feather
trade by some Indian groups (Brouwer 2004, unpaginated; Munn et al.
1989, p. 414). Because the hyacinth is the largest species of macaw, it
may be targeted by subsistence hunters, especially by settlers along
roadways (Collar et al. 1992a, p. 7). Additionally, increased
commercial sale of feather art by Kayapo Indians of Gorotire may be of
concern given that 10 hyacinths are required to make a single headdress
(Collar et al. 1992a, p. 7). The Gerais region is poor and animal
protein, such as cattle, is not as abundant as in other regions;
therefore, meat of any kind, including macaws, is sought as a protein
source (Collar et al. 1992a, p. 7; Munn et al. 1989, p. 414).
Because the populations of hyacinth macaws that occur in
Par[aacute] and the Gerais region are small, the removal of any
individuals from the population would have a negative effect on
reproduction and the ability of the species to recover. Hunting, for
either meat or the sale of feather art, combined with habitat
conversion, will continue to contribute to the decline of the hyacinth
macaw in these regions. Hyacinths in the Pantanal are not hunted for
meat or feathers (Munn et al. 1989, p. 413); therefore, these
activities do not pose a threat to hyacinths in this region.
Summary of Factor B
Although trapping for the pet bird trade may have occurred in large
numbers, especially in the 1980's, and was the cause of a drastic
decline in hyacinth macaws, we have no information that trade is a
current threat to the hyacinth macaw. Based on the WCMC Trade Database,
less than 2 percent of the live hyacinth macaws reported in trade from
1987 to 2010 were wild-sourced. Therefore, we believe that
international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is not a threat
to this species. We found no information suggesting that illegal
trapping and trade are current threats to the hyacinth macaw. In each
of the regions of its range, the hyacinths are defended by the owners
of the land (e.g., Indians in Par[aacute] and cattle ranchers in Gerais
and Pantanal). Recent studies of wildlife markets in Bolivia and Peru
found a very limited number of hyacinths for sale; the largest
occurrence was in 2004 and consisted of only 10 hyacinth macaws.
Furthermore, the population in the Pantanal has been increasing since
the 1990's, suggesting that trapping is either no longer occurring or
is not occurring such that it is impacting the hyacinth macaw at the
population level in the wild.
Population and threats data is lacking for the hyacinth in the
Par[aacute] and Gerais regions. We did not find any information
indicating that trapping for the pet trade was a threat in these
regions, but we found some information indicating that the hunting of
hyacinths as a source of protein and for feathers to be used in local
handicrafts may remain as threats. 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 the
populations to increase. Therefore, we find that hunting is a threat to
the hyacinth macaw in the Par[aacute] and Gerais regions. In addition,
we are not aware of any information currently available that indicates
the use of this species for any scientific or educational purpose.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we
find that overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes is a threat to the hyacinth macaw in the
Par[aacute] and Gerais regions now and in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
Infectious diseases can pose many direct threats to individual
birds, as well as entire flocks (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 287). Most of
the available research on diseases in psittacines, however, addresses
captive-held birds, while information on the health of psittacines,
including the hyacinth macaw, in the wild is scarce (Allgayer et al.
2009, pp. 972-973; Raso et al. 2006, p. 236). Captive-held birds may
have a higher incidence of disease than wild birds due to their
exposure to sick birds, unsanitary conditions, and improper husbandry
methods; therefore, it is not always clear how prevalent diseases may
be in the wild and how they affect wild populations of birds. Some of
the common diseases known in macaws are discussed below.
Pacheco's Parrot Disease
Pacheco's parrot disease is a systemic disease caused by a
psittacid herpesvirus (PsHV-1) (Tomaszewski et al. 2006, p. 536;
Abramson et al. 1995, p. 293; Panigrahy and Grumbles 1984, pp. 808,
811). It is an acute, rapidly fatal disease of parrots, and sudden
death is sometimes the only sign of the disease; however, in some cases
birds may show symptoms and may recover to become carriers (Tomaszewski
et al. 2006, p. 536; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 293; Panigrahy and
Grumbles 1984, p. 811). The outcome of the infection depends upon which
of the four genotypes of PsHV-1 the individual is infected with, the
species infected, and other unknown factors. For example, only genotype
4 is known to cause mortality in macaws (Tomaszewski et al. 2006, p.
536).
If clinical signs of Pacheco's disease are exhibited, they may
include anorexia, depression, regurgitation, diarrhea, nasal discharge,
central nervous system signs, and conjunctivitis (Abramson et al. 1995,
p. 293; Panigrahy and Grumbles 1984, pp. 809-810). Death may occur 8
hours to 6 days after the onset of signs (Panigrahy and Grumbles 1984,
p. 810). Potential sources may be an unapparent carrier or a recovered
bird that is shedding the virus in its droppings (Tomaszewski et al.
2006, p. 536; Panigrahy and Grumbles 1984, p. 811).
Outbreaks of Pacheco's disease have resulted in massive die offs of
captive parrots and is known to have caused
[[Page 39975]]
high mortality in endangered species of parrots in the United States
(Tomaszewski et al. 2006, p. 536; Panigrahy and Grumbles 1984, p. 808).
This disease and the presence of PsHV-1 have been known in captive and
wild-caught hyacinth macaws (Tomaszewski et al. 2006, pp. 538, 540,
543; Panigrahy and Grumbles 1984, p. 809); however, we found no
information indicating that this disease is impacting the hyacinth
macaw at the population level in the wild.
Psittacosis
Psittacosis (Chlamydiosis), also known as parrot fever, is an
infectious disease caused by the bacteria Chlamydophila psittaci. An
estimated 1 percent of all birds in the wild are infected and act as
carriers (Jones 2007, unpaginated). C. psittaci is transmitted through
carriers who often show no signs of the disease. It is often spread
through the inhaling of the organism from dried feces (Michigan
Department of Agriculture 2002, p. 1), but may also pass orally from
adults to nestlings when feeding via regurgitation or from the adult
male to the adult female when feeding during incubation (Raso et al.
2006, p. 239). Clinical signs of psittacosis may include ruffled
feathers, depression, anorexia, respiratory problems, dehydration,
diarrhea, weight loss, conjunctivitis, rhinitis, sinusitis, and even
death (Raso et al. 2006, pp. 235-236; Michigan Department of
Agriculture 2002, p. 1). This disease can be treated with a
tetracycline antibiotic (Michigan Department of Agriculture 2002, p.
1).
Wild birds living in a stable environment appear to have few
complications from this disease and may not show clinical signs. This
may be explained by a naturally occurring balanced host-parasite
relationship (Jones 2007, unpaginated; Raso et al. 2006, pp. 236, 239-
240). However, stress, including removal from its natural habitat or
disturbance to its natural habitat or population, may disturb the host-
parasite balance and the latency of C. psittaci may be changed,
invoking the disease (Jones 2007, unpaginated; Raso et al. 2006, pp.
236, 239-240). There are few reports of mortality from C. psittaci in
natural habitats, but recently captured wild birds may experience high
mortality rates due to stress stemming from inadequate hygiene
conditions, feeding, and overpopulation. In captivity, birds are more
susceptible to infection, and latent infections become more apparent
(Raso et al. 2006, pp. 239-240).
Hyacinth macaw nestlings stay in the nest longer than other parrot
species and are, therefore, more susceptible to the disease due to
transmission of the disease during feeding and through dried feces
(Raso et al. 2006, p. 239). In a study conducted on wild hyacinth
nestlings in the Pantanal of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil, C. psittaci
was detected in some nestlings; however, no evidence of clinical
disease or death due to psittacosis was found. We found no information
indicating this disease is impacting the hyacinth macaw at the
population level in the wild.
Papillomatosis
Papillomas are pink to white fleshy or granular growths, or
lesions, commonly encountered in macaw species (Abramson et al. 1995,
pp. 297-298). The cause of this disease is thought to be an infectious
agent; however, this theory has not been confirmed. The onset of this
disease may occur following major stressors, such as transporting,
Pacheco's disease, or psittacosis (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 297).
Most of the birds with papillomas exhibit no clinical signs,
however, cloacal lesions may cause straining, malodorous droppings,
reduced fertility, secondary bacterial infections, bloody droppings, or
anemia. Oral lesions may cause wheezing, secondary bacterial
infections, sinusitis, excessive salivation, and difficulty swallowing.
Lesions in the esophagus, crop, or proventriculus (the gizzard) may
experience vomiting and weight loss (Abramson et al. 1995, pp. 297-
298). Although this disease is common in macaw species, it has not been
documented in the hyacinth macaw (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 297).
Proventricular Dilatation Disease
Proventricular dilatation disease (PDD), also known as avian
bornavirus (ABV) or macaw wasting disease, is a serious disease
reported to infect psittacines. Macaws are among those commonly
affected by PPD (Abramson et al. 1995, p. 288), although it is a fatal
disease that poses a serious threat to all domesticated and wild
parrots worldwide, particularly those with very small populations
(Kistler et al. 2008, p. 1; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 288). This
contagious disease causes damage to the nerves of the upper digestive
tract, so that food digestion and absorption are negatively affected.
The disease has a 100-percent mortality rate in affected birds,
although the exact manner of transmission between birds is unclear. In
2008, researchers discovered a genetically diverse set of novel ABVs
that are thought to be the cause (Kistler et al. 2008, p. 1). The
researchers developed diagnostic tests, methods of treating or
preventing bornavirus infection, and methods for screening for the
anti-bornaviral compounds (Kistler et al. 2008, pp. 1-15). We found no
information on this disease in hyacinth macaws.
Psittacine Beak and Feather Disease
Psittacine beak and feather disease (PBFD) is a common viral
disease that has been documented in more than 60 psittacine species,
but all psittacines should be regarded as potentially susceptible
(Rahaus et al. 2008, p. 53; Abramson et al. 1995, p. 296). The
causative agent is a virus belonging to the genus Circovirus (Rahaus et
al. 2008, p. 53). This viral disease, which originated in Australia,
affects both wild and captive birds, causing chronic infections
resulting in either feather loss or deformities of the beak and
feathers (Rahaus et al. 2008, p. 53; Cameron 2007, p. 82). PBFD causes
immunodeficiency and affects organs such as the liver and brain, and
the immune system. Suppression of the immune system can result in
secondary infections due to other viruses, bacteria, or fungi. The
disease can occur without obvious signs (de Kloet and de Kloet 2004, p.
2,394). Birds usually become infected in the nest by ingesting or
inhaling viral particles. Infected birds develop immunity, die within a
couple of weeks, or become chronically infected. No vaccine exists to
immunize populations (Cameron 2007, p. 82). We found no information on
this disease in hyacinth macaws.
Although there are many diseases that could negatively affect
macaws, including the hyacinth macaw, in captivity and in the wild, we
are unaware of any information indicating that any of those diseases
are impacting the hyacinth macaw at a level that may affect the status
of the species as a whole and to the extent that it is considered a
threat to the species.
Predation
In a study conducted in the Brazilian Pantanal from 2002 through
2005, researchers identified several predators of hyacinth macaw eggs.
These predators included toco toucans (Ramphastos toco), purplish jays
(Cyanocorax cyanomelas), white-eared opossums (Didelphis albiventris),
and coatis (Nasua nasua). Of 582 eggs monitored over 3 years, 23.7
percent (approximately 138) were lost to predators. The toco toucan was
the main predator, responsible for 12.4 percent of the eggs lost and
53.5 percent of the eggs lost annually (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795).
Although most predators leave some
[[Page 39976]]
sort of evidence behind, toco toucans are able to swallow hyacinth
macaw eggs whole, leaving no evidence behind. This may lead to an
underestimate of nest predation by toucans (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 793).
Toco toucans may also take over nest holes occupied by hyacinth macaws,
killing nestlings.
The loss of eggs, nestlings, and adults can have a direct impact on
the recruitment of hyacinth macaws and the ability of a population to
increase. Despite the information on lost eggs in the Pantanal due to
predation, most notably by the toco toucan, this population has been
increasing, suggesting that predation is not occurring at a level that
is affecting the status of the population. We found no information on
potential predators or information indicating that predation may be a
threat in the other parts of the hyacinth macaw's range. Therefore, we
find that predation is not impacting the hyacinth macaw at a level that
may affect the status of the species as a whole and to the extent that
it is considered a threat to the species.
Summary of Factor C
Although there are many diseases that could affect the hyacinth
macaw, we found no evidence of adverse impacts to the species such that
it rises to the level of a threat. Predation is a normal occurrence in
wild populations, and there is information indicating that hyacinth
eggs are lost due to predation by toco toucans as well as other
predators; however, we found no information indicating that this is
occurring such that it rises to the level of a threat to the hyacinth
macaw. As a result, we find that disease and predation are not threats
to the hyacinth macaw in any portion of its range now or in the future.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
National Laws
The hyacinth macaw is protected under Brazilian law (Snyder et al.
2000, p. 119; Stattersfield and Capper 1992, p. 257). Article 225 of
the Brazilian Constitution (Title VIII, Chapter VI, 1988) states the
right to an ecologically balanced environment for all people, including
future generations, and gives the federal, state, and municipality
governments the responsibility of protecting the environment and the
fauna and flora of Brazil (Michigan State University, College of Law
2012, unpaginated). Wildlife species and their nests, shelters, and
breeding grounds are protected according to Law No. 5197/1967. This law
prohibits the hunting and trade of animal species without
authorization. Hunting and trade are punishable by imprisonment of 2-5
years. Article 35 of this law also requires that textbooks include text
on the protection of wildlife, primary and middle school educational
programs include 2 hours per year on the matter, and radio and
television programs include 5 minutes per week on wildlife protection.
The hyacinth macaw is also listed under the Official List of Brazilian
Endangered Animal Species (Order No. 1.522/1989). As described under
Factor B, hunting and trade of hyacinth macaws has decreased
significantly since the 1980's. Brazil's campaigns to protect wildlife
and other outreach programs, which have contributed to the shift in
attitudes, have contributed to this decline. The hyacinth is still
threatened with some hunting in parts of its range, but given the
drastic declines in both trade and hunting since the 1980's, these laws
may be contributing to the protection of the hyacinth macaw. However,
as discussed under Factor A, the food and nesting resources of the
hyacinth macaw are threatened by deforestation for agriculture and
cattle ranching. Deforestation and programs that encourage the
expansion of economic activities, and the subsequent conversion of
land, conflicts with the stated priority for protection (Seidl et al.
2001, p. 414); therefore, these laws do not appear to provide adequate
protection to the habitat of the hyacinth macaw.
In 1998, Brazil passed the Environmental Crimes Law (Law No. 9605/
98). Section I of this law details crimes against wild fauna, which
include: The killing, harassment, hunting, capturing, or use of any
fauna species without authorization (Clayton 2011, p. 4; UNEP, n.d.,
unpaginated). Additionally, except for the State of Rio Grande do Sul,
commercial, sport, and recreational hunting are prohibited in Brazil.
Penalties include a jail sentence of 6 months to 1 year, and/or a fine;
the penalty is increased by half if the crime is committed under
certain circumstances, including against rare species or those
considered endangered, or within a protected area. However, it is not
considered a crime to kill an animal when it is to satisfy hunger; to
protect agriculture, orchards, and herds if authorized; or if the
animal has been characterized as dangerous. This law also protects
against other crimes involving the fauna species of Brazil. With
respect to bird species, this law prohibits inhibiting reproduction
without authorization; modifying or destroying nests or shelters;
selling, offering, exporting, purchasing, keeping, utilizing, or
transporting eggs, as well as products derived from fauna species
without authorization; and introducing species into the country without
license. Although this law provides protection to the fauna species of
Brazil, it is more permissive than the prior law, the Fauna Protection
Act (Law No. 5.197/1967), which provided more severe punishments
(Clayton 2011, p. 4). We found that the loss of nesting trees in
Par[aacute] and the Pantanal and hunting in the Par[aacute] and Cerrado
regions were threats to the hyacinth macaw (Factors A and B);
therefore, it appears that this regulation does not adequately protect
this species or its nests.
Section II of the Environmental Crimes Law details the crimes
against flora, which include the destruction and damaging of forest
reserves; cutting trees in forest reserves, causing fire in forests;
extracting minerals from public forests or reserves without
authorization; receipt of wood or vegetable products for commercial or
industrial purposes without requesting a copy of the supplier's
license; polluting the environment at levels that may cause damage to
the health of human beings, or death of animals or significant
destruction of plants; and research or extraction of mineral resources
without authorization. Penalties vary according to the crime and may be
increased under certain circumstances; for example, the penalty may be
increased by one sixth to one third if the crime results in a decrease
of natural waters, soil erosion, or modification of climatic regime
(Clayton 2011, p. 5; UNEP, n.d., unpaginated). As described under
Factor A, we found forest destruction and the use of fire to clear land
and maintain pastures were threats to the habitat of the hyacinth
macaw; therefore, it appears that this regulation does not adequately
protect native habitat.
Brazil's Forest Code, passed in 1965, is a central piece in the
nation's environmental legislation (Barrionuevo 2012, unpaginated). It
requires landowners in the Amazon to maintain 80 percent of their land
in a natural state as a legal reserve; in the rest of Brazil, including
the Cerrado and Pantanal, only 20 percent is required to be maintained
in a natural state (Pearce 2011, unpaginated; Klink and Machado 2005,
p. 708; Ratter et al. 1997, p. 228). This law was widely ignored by
landowners and not enforced by the government, as evidenced by the high
deforestation rates (Financial Times 2011, unpaginated; Pearce 2011,
unpaginated; Ratter et al. 1997, p. 228).
[[Page 39977]]
However, in the last 6 years, Brazil began cracking down on illegal
deforesters, and deforestation rates began to fall (Barrionuevo 2012,
unpaginated).
Changes to the Forest Code are now being debated. In May 2011,
Brazil's House of Representatives voted in favor of relaxing this
Forest Code. Some of the proposed changes include: (1) Exemption of
owners with plots under 405 ha (1,000 ac) from having to restore
illegally deforested land; (2) amnesty for those who illegally
deforested land prior to July 2008, meaning they would not have to
restore lands or pay fines; and (3) cancellation of outstanding fines
for environmental crimes if the violator joins a government-run
program, however, strict timeframes for complying with the program were
not included. In December 2011, Brazil's Senate approved a revised
version (Barrionuevo 2012, unpaginated). This version would require 24
million ha (59 million ac) to be reforested, although 55 million ha
(136 million ac) would have been required under the original code.
Additionally, those who illegally deforested before July 2008 would be
required to replant areas that should have vegetation in order to avoid
fines. The House is expected to debate this version in March 2012,
after which it goes to the President who has veto power (Barrionuevo
2012, unpaginated; Financial Times 2011, unpaginated; WWF-UK 2011a,
unpaginated).
If this latest version is passed, it would be the greatest
reforestation program in the world (Financial Times 2011, unpaginated).
However, it will only be effective if it is properly enforced and
adequately financed, which is questionable (Barrionuevo 2012,
unpaginated). The original code was largely ignored by landowners and
not enforced, leading to Brazil's high rates of deforestation. Although
rates began to decrease, deforestation has spiked again in anticipation
of the new reform (WWF-UK 2011a, unpaginated; WWF 2010, unpaginated).
Given the ongoing and increasing deforestation rates in the Amazon,
Cerrado, and Pantanal (See Factor A), it appears that this regulation
does not adequately protect the forest resources of Brazil.
State Laws
The Mato Grosso do Sul State Senate passed State Act 3.348 in 2006,
which forbids deforestation in the Pantanal's floodplains. However, it
only prohibited deforestation for 1 year (2007), and licenses
previously granted for cutting trees were allowed to be executed
(J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 136). This law also set a limit for what
constituted the flooding area; however, since the Pantanal is a plain
that is subject to annual variation, much of the area remained outside
of the realm of the law (J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 136). Therefore, this
legislation did not contribute to hyacinth macaw conservation
(J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 136).
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 protects
nesting trees, other trees around it are cut, exposing the manduvi tree
to winds and storms that otherwise provide shelter. Manduvi trees end
up falling or breaking, rendering them useless for the hyacinths to
nest in (J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 135; J[uacute]nior et al. 2006, p.
186). Five percent of hyacinth macaw nests in manduvi trees are lost
each year to deforestation, fire, and storms in the Pantanal. Given the
continuing deforestation in the Pantanal and the evidence of reduced
recruitment of manduvi trees, it appears this legislation does not
provide adequate protection to the nesting trees of the hyacinth macaw
in the Pantanal.
Protected Areas
The main biodiversity protection strategy in Brazil is the creation
of Protected Areas (National Protected Areas System (Federal Act 9.985/
00) (J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 134). There are various regulatory
mechanisms (Law No. 11.516, Act No. 7.735, Decree No. 78, Order No. 1,
and Act No. 6.938) in Brazil that direct Federal and State agencies to
promote the protection of lands and that govern the formal
establishment and management of protected areas to promote conservation
of the country's natural resources (ECOLEX 2007, pp. 5-7). These
mechanisms generally aim to protect endangered wildlife and plant
species, genetic resources, overall biodiversity, and native ecosystems
on Federal, State, and privately owned lands (e.g., Law No. 9.985, Law
No. 11.132, Resolution No. 4, and Decree No. 1.922). Brazil's formally
established protection areas were developed in 2000, after a series of
priority-setting workshops, and are categorized based on their overall
management objectives. These include strictly protected areas (national
parks, biological reserves, ecological stations, natural monuments, and
wildlife refuges) for educational and recreational purposes and
scientific research. There are also 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) that allow
for different types and levels of human use with conservation of
biodiversity as a secondary objective. As of 2005, there were 478
Federal and State strictly protected areas totaling 37,019,697 ha
(14,981,340 ac) in Brazil (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 615-616).
There are other types of areas that 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).
Within the states where the hyacinth macaw occurs, there are a
total of 53 protected areas; however, it only occurs in two (Collar et
al. 1992a, p. 7). In the Amazon, there is a balance of strictly
prohibited protected areas (49 percent of protected areas) and
sustainable use areas (51 percent) (Rylands and Brandon 2005, p. 616).
We found no information on the occurrence of the hyacinth macaw in any
protected areas in Par[aacute]. The Cerrado biome is one of the most
threatened biomes and is underrepresented among Brazilian protected
areas. Only 2.25 percent of the original extent of the Cerrado is
protected, (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1559; Klink and Machado 2005, p.
709; Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p. 11). Within the Cerrado, the
hyacinth macaw is found only within the Araguaia National Park in
Goi[aacute]s (Collar et al 1992a, p. 7). In 2000, the Pantanal was
designated as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO (J[uacute]nior 2008, p.
134). According to the State Department of Environment of Mato Grosso
do Sul and IBAMA, 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).
This includes the Taiam[atilde] Ecological Station and the Pantanal
National Park (Mittermeier et al. 1990, p. 104), but the hyacinth macaw
occurs only within the Pantanal National Park (Collar et al 1992a, p.
7). 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 the priority-
setting workshops (Rylands and Brandon 2005, pp. 615-616).
There are many challenges and limitations to 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,
[[Page 39978]]
and subsidies, has actively encouraged settlement of previously
undeveloped lands, which helped facilitate the large-scale habitat
conversions for agriculture and cattle-ranching that have occurred
throughout the Amazon, Cerrado, and Pantanal biomes (WWF-UK 2011b, p.
2; WWF 2001, unpaginated; Arima and Uhl, 1997, p. 446; Ratter et al.
1997, pp. 227-228). Although conservation strategies in the Amazon
basin have focused on protected areas, they are insufficient for
conservation (Soares-Filho et al. 2006, pp. 520, 522).
The Ministry of Environment is working to increase the amount of
protected areas in the Pantanal and Cerrado regions, however, the
Ministry of Agriculture is looking at using an additional 1 million
km\2\ (386,102 mi\2\) for agricultural expansion, which will speed up
deforestation (Harris et al. 2006, p. 175). These competing priorities
make it difficult to enforce regulations that protect the habitat of
this species. Additionally, there is often a delay in implementation or
a lack of local management commitment after the creation of protected
areas, staff limitations make it difficult to monitor actions, and the
lack of acceptance by society or the lack of funding make
administration and management of the area difficult (J[uacute]nior
2008, p. 135; Harris et al. 2006, p. 175). The designation of the
Pantanal as a Biosphere Reserve is almost worthless because of few
strong actions for its conservation from public officials
(J[uacute]nior 2008, p. 134), and neither of the national parks in
which the hyacinth macaw is found is entirely secure (Collar et al.
1992a, p. 7).
Despite the designation of numerous protected areas throughout
Brazil, these designations are not adequate enough to meet the
recommendations established in the priority-setting workshops.
Additionally, of 53 designated protected areas within the states the
hyacinth macaw occurs, it is only found in the Araguaia and Pantanal
National Parks; neither of which is secure. Additionally, the hyacinth
macaw continues to be threatened in Par[aacute] and the Gerais region
by hunting and habitat loss due to agricultural expansion and cattle
ranching in all three regions. Therefore, it appears that Brazil's
protected areas system does not adequately protect the hyacinth macaw
or its habitat.
International Laws
The hyacinth macaw is listed in Appendix I of CITES. CITES is an
international treaty among 175 nations, including Brazil, Bolivia,
Paraguay, and the United States, that entered into force in 1975. In
the United States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. The Act designates the Secretary of
the Interior as lead responsibility to implement CITES on behalf of the
United States, with the functions of the Management and Scientific
Authorities to be carried out by the Service. Under this treaty, member
countries work together to ensure that international trade in animal
and plant species is not detrimental to the survival of wild
populations by regulating the import, export, and reexport of CITES-
listed animal and plant species.
Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties to CITES
adopted a process, termed the National Legislation Project, to evaluate
whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully
implement the Treaty (CITES 2010b, pp. 1-5). In reviewing a country's
national legislation, the CITES Secretariat evaluates factors such as
whether a Party's domestic laws designate the responsible Scientific
and Management Authorities, prohibit trade contrary to the requirements
of the Convention, have penalty provisions in place for illegal trade,
and provide for seizure of specimens that are illegally traded or
possessed. As discussed under Factor B, it has been determined that the
Brazilian Government has met all the requirements to implement CITES
(www.cites.org, SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1). Bolivia and Paraguay
have not completed all the requirements to effectively implement CITES,
although both countries have submitted a CITES Legislation Plan and
Bolivia has also submitted draft legislation to the Secretariat for
comments (www.cites.org, SC59 Document 11, Annex p. 1).
As discussed under Factor B, we do not consider international trade
to be a threat impacting this species. Therefore, protection under this
treaty against unsustainable international trade is adequate to address
unlawful commercialization of the species.
The import of hyacinth macaws into the United States is also
regulated by the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) (16 U.S.C. 4901 et
seq.), which was enacted on October 23, 1992. The purpose of the WBCA
is to promote the conservation of exotic birds by ensuring that all
imports to the United States of exotic birds 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 except for certain limited purposes such as zoological
display or cooperative breeding programs. Import of dead specimens is
allowed for scientific specimens and museum specimens. 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 plans that provides for sustainable use. At this time, the
hyacinth macaw is not part of a Service-approved cooperative breeding
program and has not been approved for importation of wild-caught birds.
International trade of parrots was significantly reduced during the
1990s as a result of tighter enforcement of CITES regulations, stricter
measures under EU legislation, and adoption of the WBCA, along with
adoption of national legislation in various countries (Snyder et al.
2000, p. 99). As discussed under Factor B, we found that international
trade is not a threat to this species; therefore, we believe that
regulations are adequately protecting the species from international
trade.
Summary of Factor D
Although there are laws intended to protect the forests of Brazil
and the hyacinth macaw, deforestation for agricultural expansion and
cattle ranching and hunting continue to be threats to this species.
Conflicting priorities of encouraging development for economic growth
and resource protection make enforcement of environmental laws intended
to protect the environment and Brazil's natural resources difficult.
Deforestation has long been a problem in Brazil leading to some of the
highest deforestation rates in the world. In recent years,
deforestation rates began to decline with greater enforcement of laws;
however, deforestation rates have increased again, a result of an
anticipated reform in the Forest Code. Despite laws to protect the
environment and plans to significantly reduce deforestation, expansion
of agriculture and cattle ranching continue and are threats to the
recruitment of the food and nesting resources in which the hyacinth
macaw is specialized. Without greater enforcement of laws,
deforestation will continue to be a problem in Brazil. Trade of this
species has decreased significantly since the 1980's, but hunting
remains a threat to the small populations remaining in Par[aacute] and
the Gerais region. Therefore, we find that inadequate regulatory
mechanisms are a threat to the hyacinth macaw now and in the future.
[[Page 39979]]
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Specialization
One of the main threats to the hyacinth macaw, in combination with
human-related factors, is a low reproductive rate and the highly
specialized nature of the Anodorhynchus genus (Faria et al. 2008, p.
777). Parrots, in general, have traits that predisposed them to
extinction and make them particularly sensitive to changes in resources
and increased mortality. These traits include a large body size, low
rates of reproduction, low survival of chicks and fledglings, a late
age at first reproduction, large proportion of nonbreeding adults, and
restrictive nesting requirements (Lee 2010, p. 3; Thiollay 2005, p.
1121; Guedes 2004, p. 280; Wright et al. 2001, p. 711; Munn et al.
1998, p. 409). The low reproductive rate of the hyacinth macaw is due,
in part, to asynchronous hatching, which usually results in only one
chick surviving (Faria et al. 2008, p. 766; Kuniy et al. 2006, p. 381;
Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). Additionally, observers in Brazil have
reported that not all hyacinth nests fledge young and, due to the long
period of chick dependence, hyacinths only breed every 2 years (Faria
et al. 2008, p. 766; Schneider et al. 2006, pp. 71-72; Guedes and
Harper 1995, pp. 407-411; Munn et al. 1989, p. 409). In a study of the
Pantanal, the largest population of hyacinth macaws, it was suggested
that only 15-30 percent of adults attempt to breed; it may be that a
small or even smaller percentage in Par[aacute] and Gerais attempt to
breed (Munn et al. 1998, p. 409).
The hyacinth macaw is highly specialized in both diet and nest
sites, which makes it particularly vulnerable to extinction (Faria et
al. 2008, p. 766; Pizo 2008, p. 795; Munn et al. 1998, pp. 404, 409;
Johnson et al. 1997, p. 186). As discussed under Species Description,
the hyacinth utilizes only a few species for food and nesting in the
different regions of occurrence. Anodorhynchus 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 (Pittman 1993, unpaginated). Hyacinth macaws require large,
mature trees with preexisting holes to provide nesting cavities large
enough to accommodate them (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; Abramson et al.
1995, p. 2). For example, in the Pantanal, hyacinths nest almost
exclusively in the manduvi tree which must be at least 60 years old to
provide adequate cavities (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792; J[uacute]nior et
al. 2006, p. 185).
The reproductive biology of the hyacinth macaw can result in low
recruitment of juveniles and may decrease the ability to recover from
reductions in population size caused by anthropogenic disturbances
(Wright et al. 2001, p. 711). Hyacinths may not have a high enough
reproduction rate and may not survive in areas where nest sites are
destroyed (Munn et al. 1998, p. 409). Additionally, habitat and feeding
specializations are good predictors of a bird species' risk of
extinction, and the hyacinth macaw scores high in both food and nest
site specialization (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795). In Par[aacute] and
Gerais, food resources are threatened by land conversion. This is cause
for concern as another Anodorhynchus species, the Lear's macaw, is
nearly extinct in part due to a shortage in its specialized food source
(Guedes 2004, p. 781). In Gerais, a shortage of nesting trees has
likely led the hyacinth macaw to utilize cliff cavities. The large,
mature trees with preexisting holes that hyacinths require are often in
shortage; given the land use trends in Par[aacute] and the Pantanal and
evidence of significantly reduced recruitment of nesting trees in the
Pantanal, the continued existence of nesting trees in these regions is
a great concern. The effects of the low reproductive output of the
hyacinth macaw and its high specialization are exacerbated by the
pressure on the hyacinth macaw and its food and nesting resources due
to hunting, and land conversion, making this species particularly
vulnerable to extinction.
Competition
In the Pantanal, competition for nesting sites is intense. The
hyacinth nests almost exclusively in manduvi trees; however, there are
17 other birds species, small mammals, and honey bees that also utilize
manduvi cavities (Pizo et al 2008, p. 792; Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p.
36). Bees (Apis melifera) are even known to occupy artificial nests
(Pinho and Nogueira 2003, p. 33; Snyder et al. 2000, p. 120). Manduvi
is a key species for the hyacinth and, as discussed under Factor A,
these cavities are already limited and there is evidence of decreased
recruitment of this species of tree (J[uacute]nior et al. 2006, p.
181). Competition among breeding hyacinth macaws is exacerbated because
only trees older than 60 years produce cavities large enough to be used
by the large hyacinth macaw (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 792). With a limited
number of manduvi trees, and a further limited number of adequate size
trees capable of accommodating the hyacinth macaw, and numerous species
looking to use this tree, competition will certainly be increased and
further limit the cavities available to the hyacinth macaw for nesting.
The lack of suitable sites far enough from existing pairs may also
limit breeding pairs of birds (Newton 1994, pp. 267, 273). Removal of
manduvi seeds from the vicinity of the parent plant is necessary for
the recruitment of the manduvi tree as seeds deposited beneath adult
trees are preyed upon by peccaries (Tayassuidae) and agoutis
(Dasyprocta spp.). Spreading also avoids the clumping of adults; this
is beneficial to hyacinths as they do not nest close to one another
(Pizo et al. 2008, pp. 794-795). A study found that the best manduvi
seed disperser is the toco toucan. The toco toucan, however, is also
known to prey on hyacinth eggs, take over hyacinth cavities, and kill
nestlings (Pizo et al. 2008, p. 795; Hatfield and Leland 2003, p. 14).
Climate Change
Consideration of climate change is a component of our analyses
under the Endangered Species Act. The term ``climate change'' refers to
a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes
in the mean or variability of its properties (e.g., temperature,
precipitation) and that persists for an extended period, typically
decades or longer, whether the change occurs due to natural variability
or as a result of human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) 2007a, p. 30).
Scientific measurements taken over several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring. Examples include warming of the
global climate system over recent decades, and substantial increases in
precipitation in some regions of the world and decreases in other
regions (for these and other examples see IPCC 2007a, p. 30; Solomon et
al. 2007, pp. 35-54, 82-85).
Scientific analyses show that most of the observed increase in
global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be
explained by natural variability in climate, and is ``very likely''
(defined by the IPCC as 90 percent or higher probability) due to the
observed increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the
atmosphere as a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2007a, p. 5 and Figure SPM.3;
Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 21-35). Therefore, scientists use a variety of
climate models (which include consideration of natural processes and
variability) in conjunction with various scenarios of
[[Page 39980]]
potential levels and timing of GHG emissions in order to project future
changes in temperature and other climate conditions (e.g., Meehl et al.
2007, entire; Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 11555, 15558; Prinn et al. 2011,
pp. 527, 529).
The projected magnitude of average global warming for this century
(as well as the range of projected values, which reflects uncertainty)
is very similar under all combinations of models and emissions
scenarios until about 2030. Thereafter, despite the projections showing
greater divergence in projected magnitude, the overall trajectory is
one of increased warming under all scenarios, including those which
assume a reduction of GHG emissions (Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 760-764;
Ganguly et al. 2009, pp. 15555-15558; Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
(See IPCC 2007b, p. 8, for other global climate projections.)
Various types of changes in climate may have direct or indirect
effects, and these may be positive or negative depending on the species
and other relevant considerations, such as interactions of climate with
nonclimate variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation). Identifying likely
effects often involves climate change vulnerability analysis.
Vulnerability refers to the degree to which a species (or system) is
susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate
change, including variability and extremes; it is a function of the
type, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a
species is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity (IPCC
2007a, p. 89; see also Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). Because exposure,
sensitivity, and adaptive capacity can vary by species and situation,
there is no single method for conducting such analyses (Glick et al.
2011, p. 3). We use our expert judgment and appropriate analytical
approaches to weigh relevant information, including uncertainty, in our
consideration of various aspects of climate change that are relevant to
the hyacinth macaw.
As is the case with all influences that we assess, if we conclude
that a species is currently affected or is likely to be affected in a
negative way by one or more climate-related impacts, this does not
necessarily mean the species meets the definition of a ``threatened
species'' or an ``endangered species'' under the Act. If a species is
listed as threatened or endangered, knowledge regarding the
vulnerability of the species to, and known or anticipated impacts from,
climate-associated changes in environmental conditions can be used to
help devise appropriate strategies for its recovery.
Factors that threaten the hyacinth macaw, such as habitat loss, may
be exacerbated by changes in Brazil's climate and associated changes to
the landscape. Climate change scenarios project significant temperature
changes for most of South America (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1559). Across
Brazil, temperatures are projected to increase and precipitation to
decrease (Siqueira and Peterson 2003, p. 2). At a national level,
simulation results suggest that climate change may induce significant
reductions in forestland in all Brazilian regions (F[eacute]res et al.
2009, pp. 12, 15).
Temperature increases in Brazil are expected to be greatest over
the Amazon rainforest with models indicating a strong warming and
drying of this region during the 21st Century, particularly after 2040
(Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 8, 15, 27, 39, 48; F[eacute]res et al. 2009,
p. 2). IPCC's best estimate of temperature changes by the end of the
21st Century (2090-2099) is 2.2 [deg]C (4[emsp14][deg]F) under a low
greenhouse gas emission scenario and 4.5 [deg]C (8[emsp14][deg]F) under
a high emission scenario (Marengo et al. 2011, p. 27).
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, the seasonal forests of the Amazon, such as those
found in eastern Amazonia, are more strongly affected by drought due to
high rates of deforestation, which increases the vulnerability of
forests to wildfires during droughts (Laurance et al. 2001, p. 782).
Direct deforestation is an immediate threat to the Amazon and could
alter climate conditions in this region. When 40 percent of the
original extent of the Amazon is lost, rainfall is expected to
significantly decrease across Amazonia and the rainforests may not
generate enough rainfall to sustain itself (Marengo et al. 2011, pp.
45, 48). This can be explained by an increase in carbon dioxide
concentrations, increased temperatures, and decreased rainfall such
that the dry season becomes longer. Previous work has suggested that,
under these conditions, the rainforest of the Amazon could die back and
be replaced with different vegetation. Although there are uncertainties
in the modeling, some models have predicted a change from forests to
savanna-type vegetation over parts, or perhaps the entire, Amazon in
the next several decades (Marengo et al. 2011, pp. 11, 18, 29, 43). In
the regions where the hyacinth macaw occurs, the climate features a dry
season, which prevents the growth of an extensive closed-canopy
tropical forest. Therefore, the transition of the Amazon rainforests
could provide additional suitable habitat for the hyacinth macaw.
However, there are uncertainties in this modeling, and 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). Furthermore, we do not know if the specific food and
nesting resources the hyacinth macaw utilizes would spread with an
increase in the dry season.
Temperatures in the Cerrado are also predicted to increase; the
maximum temperature in the hottest month may increase by 4 [deg]C
(7.2[emsp14][deg]F) and by 2100 may increase to approximately 40 [deg]C
(104[emsp14][deg]F) (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1563). Along with changes
in temperature, other models have predicted a decrease in tree
diversity and range sizes for birds in the Cerrado.
Projections based on a 30-year average (2040-2069) indicate serious
effects of 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 91-23 species were predicted to decline by more than
90 percent in potential distributional area (Siqueira and Peterson
2003, p. 4).
Extreme temperatures seemed to be the most important factor
limiting bird distribution, revealing their physiological tolerances
(Marini et al. 2009, p. 1563). In a study on changes in range sizes for
26 broad-range birds in the Cerrado, range sizes are expected to
decrease over time, and significantly so as soon as 2030 (Marini et al.
2009, p. 1564). Changes ranged from a 5 percent increase to an 80
percent decrease under two dispersal scenarios for 2011-2030, 2046-
2065, and 2080-2099 (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1561). The largest
potential loss in range size is predicted to occur among grassland and
forest-dependent
[[Page 39981]]
species in all time frames (Marini et al. 2009, p. 1564). These species
will likely have the worst 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 are predicted to become rarer (Marini et al. 2009, p.
1564).
It is difficult to predict whether species will or will not adapt
to new conditions; synergistic effects of climate change and habitat
fragmentation, or other factors, such as biotic interactions, may
hasten the need for conservation even more (Marini et al. 2009, p.
1565). Although there are uncertainties in the climate change modeling
discussed above, the overall trajectory is one of increased warming
under all scenarios. We do not know how the habitat of the hyacinth
macaw may change under these conditions, but we can assume there will
be some change. The hyacinth macaw, as discussed under Factor A, is
threatened with 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.
Furthermore, the ability of the hyacinth macaw to cope with landscape
changes due to climate change is questionable given the specialized
needs of the species.
Summary of Factor E
Traits common to parrot species, and the particularly specialized
nature of the hyacinth macaw, make it a species vulnerable to
extinction. This is further exacerbated by the pressure on the hyacinth
macaw and its food and nesting resources due to hunting and land
conversion. Competition for nesting sites in the Pantanal is intense
given the number of other species that also use the manduvi tree and
the reduced recruitment of this tree due to cattle grazing. As the
number of suitable trees is further limited, competition for adequate
cavities to accommodate the hyacinth macaw will certainly increase.
There are many uncertainties when modeling future climate change;
however, overall, the trajectory is one of increased warming. We do not
know how the habitat of the hyacinth macaw will change, but we can
assume there will be a change to which the hyacinth macaw may be
particularly vulnerable, given its specialized nature. Any loss of its
food and/or nesting resources, via either competition or climate
change, could have devastating effects on the recruitment of the
species. Therefore, based on the best available scientific and
commercial information, we find that other natural or manmade factors
are a threat to the hyacinth macaw now and in the future.
Finding
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 endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the hyacinth macaw. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information.
The hyacinth macaw is found in three populations in the
Par[aacute], Gerais, and Pantanal regions. The Par[aacute] and Gerais
populations combined, according the most recent estimate in 2003,
number 1,500 individuals. These small populations are threatened by
high deforestation rates due to expanding agriculture and cattle
ranching. In Par[aacute], deforestation threatens both the food and
nesting resources. In the Gerais region, deforestation threatens food
resources as hyacinths in this population have utilized cliff crevices
for nesting due to the loss of nesting trees. Additionally, we found
some information indicating that the hunting of hyacinths as a source
of protein and for feathers to be used in local handicrafts may remain
as threats in these regions. The Pantanal population is the stronghold
for this species and numbers 5,000 according to the most recent
estimate. This population is threatened by limited and decreasing
nesting sites due to expanding cattle ranching. Competition for nesting
sites in the Pantanal has been documented. The occurrence of the
hyacinth's nesting tree is limited by deforestation and cattle
ranching. Data indicates significantly reduced recruitment, suggesting
this species of tree, of adequate size to accommodate the hyacinth
macaw, will become increasingly rare in the future. As this resource is
limited, competition with the other 17 species known to utilize this
nesting tree will increase.
Brazil has various laws to protect its natural resources. However,
conflicting priorities of encouraging development for economic growth
and resource protection make enforcement difficult. Despite these laws
and plans to significantly reduce deforestation, expanding agriculture
and cattle ranching continue to contribute to high deforestation rates.
Although the deforestation rate began to decrease over the last 6
years, recent anticipated changes to reforestation requirements under
Brazil's Forest Code have sparked increases in deforestation once
again. Without effective implementation and enforcement of
environmental laws, deforestation will continue. Parrots in general
have traits that predispose them to extinction, but the hyacinth macaw
is highly specialized in diet and nesting requirements and the loss of
these resources makes it particularly vulnerable to extinction. Lastly,
climate change models have predicted increasing temperatures and
decreasing rainfall throughout most of Brazil, potentially causing
landscape changes and affecting the distribution of the hyacinth
macaw's food and nesting resources.
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.'' The magnitude of the threats the hyacinth macaw is facing is
high. Existing laws and regulations in Brazil are not being adequately
enforced to significantly reduce deforestation rates. If current rates
continue, two-thirds of the forest cover along the Tapaj[oacute]s and
Xingu rivers will be lost by 2050; the remaining native habitat of the
Cerrado region will be lost by 2030; and the original vegetation of the
Pantanal will be destroyed by approximately 2050. Predicted changes in
Brazil's climate may exacerbate the effects of habitat loss. Under
drought conditions, as predicted by some climate change models, the
forests of eastern Amazonia will be more vulnerable to deforestation as
fires set to clear land burn a larger area. Additionally, climate
change is predicted to significantly decrease tree distribution and
ranges of bird species in the Cerrado region.
The hyacinth macaw has a low reproductive rate and, in a study of
the Pantanal, where the largest population of hyacinth macaws is found,
it was suggested that only 15-30 percent of adults attempt to breed,
and a small or even smaller percentage in Par[aacute] and Gerais may
attempt to breed. Reproduction of hyacinth macaws may be further
reduced due to the loss of the already-limited nesting sites in the
Pantanal and an increase in the competition for this resource. Although
we do not have data on the number of hyacinths lost to hunting, because
these populations are so small, the removal of any individuals from the
population would have a negative effect on
[[Page 39982]]
reproduction and the ability of the species to recover. Long-term
survival of this species is a concern. Lastly, because the hyacinth
macaw is specialized in its food and nesting resources, the loss of
these resources makes it particularly vulnerable to extinction. Impacts
from habitat loss, hunting, competition, and climate change exacerbate
the effects of specialization. Any loss of vital food and nesting
resources or the loss of individuals from the population from current
or future threats further reduces the already-limited habitat and is
likely to affect the reproductive success of this species. We do not
find that the factors affecting the species are likely to be
sufficiently ameliorated in the foreseeable future. Therefore, on the
basis of the best scientific and commercial information, we find that
the hyacinth macaw meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
under the Act, and we are proposing to list the hyacinth macaw as
endangered throughout its range.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal and State governments, private
agencies and interest groups, and individuals.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to ``take'' (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or to attempt any of these) within the
United States or upon the high seas; import or export; deliver,
receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in
the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any endangered wildlife species. It also
is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any
such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act. Certain
exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State conservation
agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species and 17.32 for threatened species. With
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following
purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, a permit may be
issued for the same activities, as well as zoological exhibition,
education, and special purposes consistent with the Act.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding
this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and
analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We
will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment
period, on the specific assumptions and the data that are the basis for
our conclusions regarding the proposal to list as endangered the
hyacinth macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus) under the Act.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final
rulemaking. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Required Determinations
Clarity of Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the names of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful,
etc.
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, Endangered Species
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section).
Author
The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Branch
of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding a new entry for ``Macaw,
hyacinth'' in alphabetical order under Birds to the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife, as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 39983]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Birds
* * * * * * *
Macaw, hyacinth.................. Anodorhynchus Bolivia, Brazil, Entire.............. E ........... NA NA
hyacinthinus. Paraguay.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: June 26, 2012.
Gregory E. Siekaniec,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-16461 Filed 7-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P