Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18559

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 23

Species Changes Proposed by the

United States for the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision on U.S.

submissions to amend the appendices to

the Convention on International Trade

in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora.

SUMMARY: The Convention on

International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES) regulates international trade in

certain animal and plant species, which

are listed in the appendices of this

treaty. The United States, as a Party to

CITES, may propose amendments to the

appendices for consideration by the

other Parties.

In this notice, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) announces

the proposals to amend the CITES

appendices that it has submitted to the

CITES Secretariat on behalf of the

United States and which will be

considered for adoption by the Parties at

the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of

the Parties (COP10) in Zimbabwe, June

9–20, 1997. The reasoning for selecting

these proposals and rejecting others

under consideration is provided below.

In a related notice on March 27, 1997,

the Service announced provisional

agenda topics, draft resolutions, and

other documents that the United States

has submitted for consideration by the

Parties at COP10 (62 FR 14689).

DATES: Proposals adopted by the Parties

will effective on September 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for information

about species proposals should be

directed to Chief, Office of Scientific

Authority; U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room

750; Arlington, VA 22203. Fax: 703–

358–2276. Phone: 703–358–1708.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Marshall A. Howe (for animal species)

or Dr. Bruce MacBryde (for plant

species), Office of Scientific Authority,

at the above address, telephone 703–

358–1708.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to

as ‘‘CITES’’ or ‘‘the Convention’’,

regulates import, export, re-export, and

introduction from the sea of certain

animal and plant species. Species for

which trade is controlled are included

in one of three appendices. Appendix I

includes species threatened with

extinction that are or may be affected by

international trade. Appendix II

includes species that, although not

necessarily now threatened with

extinction, may become so unless the

trade is strictly controlled. Appendix II

also lists species that must be subject to

regulation in order that trade in other

currently or potentially threatened

species may be brought under effective

control (e.g., because of difficulty in

distinguishing specimens of currently or

potentially threatened species from

those of other species). Appendix III

includes species that any Party country

identifies as being subject to regulation

within its jurisdiction for purposes of

preventing or restricting exploitation,

and for which it needs the cooperation

of other Parties to control trade.

In a March 1, 1996 Federal Register

notice (61 FR 8019), the Service

requested public recommendations or

draft proposals to amend Appendix I or

II that the Service might consider

proposing on behalf of the United States

at COP10. That notice described the

provisions of CITES for listing species

in the appendices and set forth

information requirements for proposals,

based on new listing criteria adopted by

the Parties at COP9. An August 28, 1996

Federal Register notice (61 FR 44324)

requested additional comments from the

public on species proposals still being

considered after review of materials

received in response to the March 1

notice. On the basis of a thorough

review of comments received in

response to the August 28 notice, the

Service identified those proposals that

met the listing criteria and presented the

most compelling cases. These proposals

to amend the appendices were

submitted to the CITES Secretariat on

January 10, 1997, to be considered and

voted upon by the Parties at COP10. The

rationale for selecting the proposals the

United States submitted and rejecting

the proposals it did not is presented

below, along with a summary of the

substantive public comments that aided

in those decisions. Any proposed

amendments to the appendices adopted

by the Parties will become effective on

September 18, 1997, unless the United

States enters a reservation before that

time. The Service will publish a

rulemaking that would implement such

amendments.

Public Comments and Decisions on

Possible Species Proposals

The biological bases for proposals still

being considered for submission by the

United States were described in the

Federal Register notice of August 28,

1996 (61 FR 44324) and are not repeated

here in detail in most cases. Decisions

and their respective rationales are as

follows:

Species Proposals Not Submitted

1. Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus).

Although the Service’s August 28,

1996 notice said nothing about a

possible proposal related to walruses,

the Service received a letter from

Friends of Animals expressing concern

about illegal taking of walruses in

Alaska (in particular the discovery of

160 carcasses between Shishmaref and

Kotzebue in 1996) and recommending

that the United States prepare a

proposal to include the walrus in CITES

Appendix II. Walruses are presently on

Appendix III of CITES (included by

Canada) and receive extensive

protection in the United States under

the Marine Mammal Protection Act

(MMPA). The MMPA permits limited

take of walruses by Alaskan Natives but

limits legal international trade of walrus

products for the most part to handicraft

items. Such uses are guided by a

detailed ‘‘Conservation Plan for the

Pacific Walrus in Alaska.’’ Population

surveys are conducted jointly with

Russia at 5-year intervals. Current

populations appear to be healthy and

have persisted well above the ‘‘optimum

sustainable population’’ measure used

by marine mammal specialists. There is

no evidence of dramatic change in

walrus populations in recent years, and

the legal take has remained stable.

The Service has reviewed the 1996

incident cited by Friends of Animals

and concluded that it was one of a small

number of unfortunate and

reprehensible poaching incidents that

have resulted in mortality that, while

locally dramatic in some cases, does not

represent a significant impact on the

walrus population of Alaska. Although

there is a possibility that some of the

poached ivory finds its way into illegal

international trade, there is no evidence

to suggest that the volume warrants

additional CITES controls. Both on

biological and trade grounds, the walrus

in the United States does not meet the

criteria for inclusion in CITES

Appendix II. Therefore no proposal for

taking such action was submitted.

2. Urial (Ovis vignei).

The Service had requested public

comment in its August 28, 1996 notice
18560 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

on possible co-sponsorship by the

United States of a proposal drafted by

Germany to include all subspecies of the

urial, a species of sheep popular among

sport trophy hunters, in Appendix I.

There have been varying interpretations

of what precise taxonomic entity was

intended by the original listing of this

species in Appendix I. As reported in

the Federal Register of December 20,

1996 (61 FR 67293), a review of this

problem was undertaken by the CITES

Nomenclature Committee at the meeting

of the CITES Animals Committee in

September 1996, in Prague. The

Nomenclature Committee concluded

that the taxonomic entity intended for

protection by the original listing could

not be determined with certainty. It was,

therefore, recommended that the current

listing be interpreted as being

equivalent to that in the CITES-adopted

taxonomic reference for mammals,

resulting in the entire species being

included in Appendix I. The Animals

Committee endorsed this interpretation.

In light of this recommendation, the

draft proposal for listing in Appendix I

became redundant and Germany did not

submit the proposal.

The Service stated its position in the

December 20, 1996 notice that the

United States should accept this

recommendation of the CITES

Nomenclature and Animals Committees

and propose a corresponding change in

its interpretation of the listing of Ovis

vignei in 50 CFR part 23. This

interpretation will become effective 90

days after the conclusion of COP10, if

the Parties adopt the report of the

Nomenclature Committee. Under this

interpretation, all urial specimens will

be considered to be in Appendix I, and

imports will be subject to the normal

permitting requirements applicable to

species included in Appendix I. Public

comment on this recommended position

was solicited and is presently being

reviewed. Irrespective of the final

United States position, the proposal by

Germany is no longer extant and

potential co-sponsorship by the United

States is moot. [The Service cautions

that the interpretation of Ovis vignei

likely to be adopted by the CITES

Parties, in addition to moving certain

sheep populations from unregulated

status to Appendix I from the

perspective of the United States, is a

potential source of confusion with

respect to interpretation of taxa listed

under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

(ESA). It is important to note that

changes in CITES nomenclature have no

effect whatever on taxa listed under

ESA. For example, even though the

sheep subspecies severtzovi is

considered now by CITES to belong to

Ovis vignei (only one subspecies of

which, O. v. vignei, is listed under ESA),

the ESA continues to consider

severtzovi to be a subspecies of the

argali, Ovis ammon. It therefore

continues to have endangered status

under ESA as a consequence of the Ovis

ammon listing as endangered].

3. Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus)

The North American Falconry

Association (NAFA) recommended that

the Service propose transferring the

North American population of the

gyrfalcon from Appendix I to Appendix

II and prepared a proposal in support of

this recommendation. NAFA submitted

an identical proposal to Canada.

Populations of this species have been

stable except for natural fluctuations

typical of high arctic breeders.

Utilization is almost entirely by

falconers and use is slight compared

with the total population. Today, with

the development of effective husbandry

techniques, it appears that most demand

for gyrfalcons could be met by captivebred specimens.

The Humane Society of the United

States (HSUS) and the International

Wildlife Coalition (IWC) opposed the

proposal, citing illegal trade concerns

and failure to meet the downlisting

criteria of CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24,

Annex 4, paragraph B. Eight falconry

interests favored the downlisting.

Reasons included a price structure for

captive birds under $5,000 (some under

$2,000); favoring of hybrid falcons over

pure gyrfalcons by Middle Eastern

falconry interests; and absence of

evidence that the wild population is in

any difficulty. Sutton Avian Research

Center likened their abundance within

their range to that of the red-tailed hawk

(Buteo jamaicensis) and supported the

proposal. The North American Raptor

Breeders’ Association supported a

downlisting but indicated that the

species is at the peak of its popularity

and that breeders are gearing up to

‘‘meet the demand.’’ Sweden and

Denmark, in response to range state

consultations for other populations,

objected to the proposed downlisting of

the North American population and

consequent split-listing of the species,

because of the possibility that

enforcement of trade restrictions on

Appendix I populations of gyrfalcons

would be undermined.

The United States indicated in its

August 28, 1996 notice that Canada, the

primary range state for the North

American population, would be

consulted before a final decision was

reached. Citing Resolution Conf. 9.24,

Annex 4, paragraph B, cautioning

Parties against a downlisting to

Appendix II when enforcement

problems for other species may ensue,

Canada opted not to submit this

proposal until after a working group of

the Animals Committee has thoroughly

evaluated the status of the species and

the potential enforcement impacts of a

downlisting. The United States agrees

that, given the positions still held by

some European Parties, the chances for

adoption of a downlisting by the CITES

Parties are minimal until there has been

further review by the Animals

Committee. The Service looks forward

to working with interested organizations

and Parties in the Animals Committee’s

working group and will proactively seek

consensus on the appropriateness of an

Appendix II listing for the species.

4. Yellow-headed Parrot (Amazona

oratrix) and Lilac-crowned Parrot

(Amazona finschi)

The Environmental Investigation

Agency (EIA), World Wildlife Fund

(WWF), IWC, New York Turtle and

Tortoise Society (NYTTS), and

Defenders of Wildlife (DOW)

recommended that the Service propose

the yellow-headed parrot, endemic to

Mexico and Belize, for transfer from

Appendix II to Appendix I. In addition,

WWF recommended the lilac-crowned

parrot, another Mexican endemic, for

transfer from Appendix II to I. The

yellow-headed parrot is restricted to the

Atlantic and Pacific lowlands of Mexico

and Belize and has suffered precipitous

population declines (particularly in

Mexico) because of habitat loss and

collection for the pet trade. It has long

been one of the most popular parrots in

international trade. The United States

believes this species clearly qualifies for

inclusion in Appendix I under the new

listing criteria. The status of the lilaccrowned parrot, a Mexican endemic, is

not as clear. More information is needed

on its status to clarify whether an

Appendix I listing is warranted.

In its August 28, 1996 notice, the

Service noted its understanding that

Mexico was reviewing the status of

these species and might develop

proposals. The Service also indicated its

potential willingness to co-sponsor such

proposals, if submitted by Mexico.

Since that time, Mexican authorities

have concluded that there is insufficient

information available at this time to

warrant proposing the lilac-crowned

parrot for inclusion in Appendix I.

Although Mexico informed the United

States that it was seriously considering

proposing the yellow-headed parrot for

Appendix I, no proposal was submitted

to the Secretariat by the January 10,

1997, deadline. Therefore there are no
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18561

proposals on either of these species that

will be considered by the Parties at

COP10. The Service intends to continue

working with Mexico on these issues

between now and COP11.

5. North American Softshell Turtles

(Apalone spp.)

The HSUS submitted a proposal to

include the softshell turtle genus

Apalone in Appendix II. This genus

consists of three species of freshwater

turtles inhabiting both riverine and

stillwater habitats: A. spinifera, ranging

across most of the eastern and central

United States and northeastern Mexico,

with scattered populations farther west;

A. mutica, inhabiting the Missouri,

Ohio, and Mississippi River drainages

south to the Gulf of Mexico and

extending to western Florida and central

Texas, with an isolated population in

New Mexico; and A. ferox, ranging

through southern South Carolina,

Georgia, Florida, and the coastal plain of

Alabama. Although there is little

information on the population status of

any of these species, none is considered

potentially threatened at present. Some

studies suggest population declines.

They are more prolific than many turtles

species, laying up to 40 eggs in a clutch.

They can be multiple-brooded, with up

to six clutches per year in A. ferox. All

species are vulnerable to damming of

rivers and to loss of preferred habitats

in general.

Although some animals are taken for

the pet trade, softshell turtles are

primarily exploited for food. We

understand that the major domestic and

foreign markets are Asian communities.

Service data suggest that as many as

60,000 live animals may have been

exported in 1994 and over 16,000 lbs. of

meat exported in 1993. Apalone ferox

appears to be the species most heavily

exploited. Many of the animals exported

are produced in turtle farms in Florida

and other southeastern states, but the

impact of such farms on wild

populations is poorly understood.

Several public comments were

received. A large commercial dealer in

Florida stated that he obtains young

animals from a wide area, raises them to

the 1–3 lb. stage in enclosed ponds, and

sells them to New York Asian markets.

He also believed very large numbers of

eggs are collected in Lake Okeechobee,

hatched, and exported as hatchlings.

WWF and the Florida Game and

Freshwater Fish Commission stated that

large numbers of adults (presumably

breeding-age) are taken from Lake

Okeechobee illegally and sold for meat.

P. Meylan (Eckard College) indicated

such take results in local depletion of

populations. The Pet Industry Joint

Advisory Council (PIJAC) stated that

hatchling softshell turtles are exported

from Louisiana turtle farms after being

tested for Salmonella infection. David

Cook, a Florida biologist, stated the

species is not in immediate danger of

extinction and, although there is

probably some successful propagation,

it is probably not happening without

supplementation from the wild. P.

Pritchard said A. ferox is still abundant

in Florida. Two biology graduate

students from Florida (J. Roman and B.

Bowen) also said that A. ferox is

abundant throughout peninsular

Florida. The Wildlife Conservation

Society (WCS) felt the biological

information was not adequate to justify

a proposal, but that there is enough

evidence of high-volume trade to list in

order that monitoring efforts would be

better.

Despite high and apparently

increasing levels of trade, the Service

believes that the evidence presented

does not at this time suggest that wild

populations are being negatively

affected or are particularly vulnerable to

existing pressures. These species

(especially A. ferox) have substantial

recruitment potential compared with

many other turtle species and may well

be able to sustain current levels of take

and trade. Therefore it appears that they

may not meet the criteria for inclusion

in Appendix II. Nonetheless, the Service

intends to explore the relationships

between softshell turtle exports and

turtle farming practices before COP11,

in order to obtain a better assessment of

the impact of international trade on

wild populations. The Service will also

consult State agencies and turtle

biologists, in an effort to better

understand the degree to which wild

animals are taken directly for export and

the status and potential vulnerability of

wild populations subject to commercial

take.

6. Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum)

and Beaded Lizard (Heloderma

horridum)

The HSUS submitted a proposal to

transfer the Gila monster and the beaded

lizard from Appendix II to Appendix I

and requested the Service to consider

submitting it to COP10. The partly

arboreal beaded lizard is patchily

distributed in tropical dry forests of

Mexico from Sonora to northern

Chiapas, with one isolated race in

eastern Guatemala. In consultation with

Mexican authorities, the Service was

told that the beaded lizard is fairly

common within its Mexican range and

is not taken for the pet trade to a

significant degree. Mexico does not

believe the beaded lizard meets the

criteria for inclusion in Appendix I. In

the absence of compelling information

to the contrary, the United States

accepts this position and has not

proposed transfer of this species to

Appendix I.

The Gila monster occurs in arid and

semi-arid gravelly and sandy habitats

with some shrubs from southwestern

Utah and southern Nevada and

California south through Arizona,

southwestern New Mexico, and into

northern Mexico. Populations are

believed by some to have suffered from

habitat degradation, killing, and

collection for roadside zoos (mainly

historically) and the pet trade. But there

are no estimates of population size or

trend. The species is biologically

vulnerable, because it has a clutch size

of only 2–12 and it reproduces only

every other year. The Gila monster is

legally protected from commercial use

throughout its range by State and

Mexican legislation. Very small

numbers appear in legal international

trade records (40 were reported

exported from the United States in

1994). Illegal trade is considered

substantial by some, but total annual

confiscations in the United States are

typically fewer than 100 animals. The

HSUS proposal argued that poaching

has reached epidemic levels,

individuals cost up to $3,600 in Japan,

and an Appendix I listing would

eliminate the opportunity for wildcaught animals to be traded falsely as

captive-bred.

There was very limited comment from

the public on potential transfer of the

Gila monster to Appendix I. The EIA,

Sedgwick County Zoo, and an

unaffiliated biologist supported the

transfer. Transfer to Appendix I was

opposed by PIJAC, Reptile Masters, two

private breeders, and the National

Herpetological Alliance (NHA),

representing reptile breeders. PIJAC

stated that the levels of reported legal

trade are consistent with present

captive-breeding capability, and that

uplisting will drive prices up. The NHA

claimed a transfer would discourage

captive-breeding efforts and would not

reduce the volume of illegal trade. One

of the major breeders of Heloderma (S.

and K. Osborne) disputed the alleged

likelihood of much laundering of wild

animals through captive-breeding

operations and pointed out that there

have been significant improvements in

husbandry and breeding success since

1992. They indicated that at least 176

were hatched in the U.S. in the past two

years. The State of Arizona opposed a

transfer to Appendix I, stating that the

species was not rare there, was no

longer affected by collection for
18562 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

roadside zoos, and did not meet the

criteria for either Appendix I or

Appendix II.

The Service has concluded that there

is little evidence to suggest that this

species meets the criteria for inclusion

in Appendix I. There is no evidence for

population declines beyond that which

can be deduced from development near

urban areas of the arid Southwest.

Recorded legal trade is very small, and

evidence of an illegal trade of sufficient

magnitude to cause serious population

concerns has not been provided.

International trade controls afforded by

the Appendix II listing, in combination

with additional protections afforded by

State and Mexican legislation, appear to

be sufficient at the present time.

Therefore, no proposal was submitted

for this species.

7. Sail-fin Lizards (Hydrosaurus spp.,

Hypsilurus spp., and Physignathus

lesueurii).

Gregory Watkins-Colwell, a biologist

and expert on the genus Hydrosaurus,

submitted a proposal for the inclusion

of the two species in this genus (H.

amboinensis = weberi and H.

pustulatus) in Appendix II under

provisions of Article II(2)(a), and the

genus Hypsilurus (incorporating 11

species) and the species Physignathus

lesueurii in Appendix II under

provisions of Article II(2)(b) (similarity

of appearance), and asked the Service to

consider submitting the proposal to

COP10. These species, also commonly

known as sail lizards, sail-tail dragons,

and water dragons, are native to the

southwestern Pacific region, including

Australia. Hydrosaurus lizards are

endemic to the Philippines and eastern

Indonesia, including western Irian Jaya.

Hypsilurus are found primarily in New

Guinea, with some ranging to Fiji,

Oceania, and New South Wales and

Queensland in Australia. Physignathus

lesueurii appears to be confined to

eastern Australia.

Virtually nothing is known about

current sizes or trends of populations.

Clutch size ranges from 5 to 9 eggs and

reproduction occurs on an annual cycle.

In addition to habitat loss, collection for

the pet trade, a practice facilitated by

the loss of natural habitat, is perceived

to be a potential threat to at least some

populations. Service wildlife

enforcement records indicate total

imports of 1,700 animals reported as H.

pustulatus from 1993 to 1996.

Of the substantive comments

received, eight were opposed to the

listing and none were in support. The

World Conservation Union (IUCN, R.W.

Jenkins) pointed out that wild examples

of the mentioned species that occur in

Australia and Papua New Guinea are

protected by law, that there is not a

similarity-of-appearance problem

between Hydrosaurus and

Physignathus, and that the species

Hydrosaurus amboinensis is common to

moderately abundant in Indonesia. The

latter comment was supported by P.

Harlow (University of Sydney), an

expert on some of the species. He, along

with PIJAC and California Zoological

Supply, stated that the proposal was

based too much on absence of evidence

that Appendix II criteria are not met,

rather than on evidence that they are.

In the absence of new information in

support of the arguments for an

Appendix II listing, the Service is not

convinced, by either the biological or

trade information, that the criteria for

Appendix II are met. Although some of

the species proposed, or isolated

populations of some species, may face

potential threats from international

trade, the preponderance of evidence

points to species that are fairly common

and resilient. More species-specific

information, more field evidence of

population status, and evidence of

higher trade volume would strengthen

the proposal. The Service has, therefore,

not submitted a proposal on this group

of species at this time. However, the

Service will make an effort to monitor

more closely the imports of

Hydrosaurus species in particular, and

will urge other importing Parties to do

the same, in an effort to improve our

understanding of the magnitude of

trade.

8. Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake

(Crotalus adamanteus) and Western

Diamondback Rattlesnake (C. atrox)

EIA submitted a proposal for

including the eastern diamondback

rattlesnake in Appendix II and

recommended that the Service consider

submitting it to COP10. In considering

this proposal, the Service suggested, in

its August 28, 1996 notice, that the

western diamondback should also be

included, because of its similarity of

appearance and its occurrence in high

volumes in trade. Eastern diamondbacks

range mainly through lowland pine

forests from North Carolina to extreme

eastern Louisiana. Because of extensive

loss of those natural habitats, these

snakes now survive in reduced numbers

in other natural and human-altered

habitats. Reproduction is limited by

delayed sexual maturity (2–3 years) and

long inter-birth intervals (2–3 years).

Populations have declined significantly

enough to result in their classification as

a species of special concern in both

South Carolina and Alabama. Using a

scoring system for vulnerability, the

Florida Game and Freshwater Fish

Commission ranked it near the median

score for ‘‘species of special concern,’’

but has not included the species in that

list. Because rattlesnakes represent a

potential threat to human health and

life, this species, like many other

rattlesnakes, has historically been killed

intentionally in large numbers.

Although commercial utilization for the

pet trade, and for meat, skins, and

novelty jewelry is noteworthy, records

of export are not high. Service wildlife

enforcement data show exports of 1,510

and 1,475 whole animals in 1992 and

1993 respectively. In 1992, 1993, and

1994, 26.7, 119.8, and 2,419.7 pounds of

eastern diamondback meat were also

recorded as being exported.

The proposal to include the eastern

diamondback rattlesnake in Appendix II

was supported by the HSUS and WWF.

WWF pointed out, however, that 90% of

the international trade is in C. atrox.

Comments from eight biologists or

biological organizations (including the

Virginia Herpetological Society and the

Herpetologists’’ League) were

supportive. J.Butler (University of North

Florida) said not enough is known about

population status. B. Herrington

(Georgia Southwestern University) and

R. Mount (Auburn University) said there

have been declines in populations, the

latter saying it has been precipitous in

Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. A large

commercial dealer in the Southeast

(Campbell’s Farm) said the species is

increasing in the Southeast, and 96% of

the snakes he handles (domestic

transactions) had been found dead. The

Wildlife Conservation Society

questioned whether, given the

apparently low level of international

trade, a listing on Appendix II would

confer a significant conservation benefit.

Louisiana (where the species is very

rare) and Florida opposed listing.

Florida advised caution in interpreting

their own data on domestic trade, as

they have drawn no conclusions

themselves. Arizona opposed listing of

the western diamondback for reasons of

similarity of appearance, stating that the

eastern diamondback is more easily

confused with some other species of

Crotalus.

Based upon population and trade data

made available to the Service, the

Service does not find a convincing case

for proposing either of these species for

Appendix II at this time. Although there

are no quantitative data, population

decline speculations for the eastern

diamondback are undoubtedly correct.

However, the declines appear to be

related mainly to factors other than

international trade. And there appears

to be no basis for concluding (as for the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18563

timber rattlesnake, discussed below)

that populations are in such poor

condition that even low levels of

international trade could be detrimental.

However, the Service acknowledges the

existence of a significant level of

international trade overall in rattlesnake

products originating in the United

States. Most of this trade is recorded as

being in the western diamondback, a

species considered biologically more

resilient to exploitation than its eastern

relative. But the potential for

mislabelling eastern diamondbacks as

western diamondbacks exists. The

Service has not submitted a proposal

but will continue to monitor trade in

both of these species and reassess before

COP11 whether either or both warrant

Appendix II status at that time.

9. Western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

Populations of Requiem Sharks

(Carcharhinidae spp.) and Spiny

Dogfish (Squalus acanthias)

The Ocean Wildlife Campaign (OWC)

initially recommended that the Service

propose listing in Appendix II

populations of all shark species in the

Carcharhinidae family that occur in the

western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. A

complete proposal on the dusky shark

(C. obscurus) was subsequently received

by the Service.

The dusky shark is a cosmopolitan,

warm-water species, one of over 50

species in the Carcharhinidae family.

The northwest Atlantic population has

declined to only a small fraction of

1970’s population levels. There is no

strong evidence that the population is

recovering. It, along with 38 other shark

species, is managed in the United States

under the National Fisheries Service’s

(NMFS) Fishery Management Plan for

Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (large

coastal shark category). The species is

subjected to a targeted long-line and

inshore gill net fishery and is one of

only several species of requiem sharks

targeted by fisheries. It is a very

desirable species for its fins, which are

exported to Asian markets. Because

requiem sharks are long-lived, slowgrowing animals with limited

reproductive potential, they are

particularly vulnerable to overfishing.

Additionally, the OWC proposed that

the spiny dogfish population in western

Atlantic waters be listed in Appendix II.

The western Atlantic population ranges

from Greenland to Florida. Like the

dusky shark, the spiny dogfish is an

elasmobranch or cartilaginous fish. It

shares with other elasmobranchs life

history characteristics that render it

more vulnerable to exploitation than

many bony fishes. The spiny dogfish

occurs in discrete populations in warm

temperate and boreal waters. Currently

it appears to be common in northwest

Atlantic waters, but it is considered

fully utilized by the fishery. Recent

stock assessments indicate a rapid

increase in landings and a possibly

unsustainable take of adult females.

Between 1987 and 1993, spiny dogfish

landings appear to have increased

seven-fold. Dogfish are vulnerable to

overharvest, as evidenced by the

collapse of the Scottish-Norwegian stock

of spiny dogfish. Discards from other

fisheries, especially from vessels

targeting groundfish, contribute an

unknown but substantial fraction to

current mortality levels. Spiny dogfish

meat is increasingly popular as a

substitute for more traditional

commercial fish in such products as fish

and chips in Europe. The primary

commercial markets are Europe, for

meat, and Asia, for fins and skin. There

is no management plan in the U.S.

waters for spiny dogfish, although the

mid-Atlantic Fishery Management

Council has begun the scoping process

for such a plan.

Proposing the dusky shark and spiny

dogfish for inclusion in Appendix II was

opposed by all commercial interests and

supported by all conservation

organizations that responded to the

August 28, 1996 notice. It was opposed

by the National Fisheries Institute (a

U.S. non-government organization),

Fisheries Agency of Japan, Japan

Fisheries Association, Global Guardian

Trust (a Japanese non-government

organization), International Wildlife

Management Consortium, the European

Bureau for Conservation and

Development, the New Hampshire

Commercial Fishermen’s Association,

Massachusetts Netters Association, and

Seatrade (a commercial dealer in

dogfish meat). It was supported by the

National Coalition for Marine

Conservation, National Audubon

Society, WCS, OWC, American Society

of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists,

American Elasmobranch Society, and a

petition from 21 scientists in the IUCN

Shark Specialist Group.

The main arguments of supporters of

the dusky shark proposal were the

severely depleted populations, heavy

targeted take for fins, lack of data on

export from the United States, and the

vulnerable biological characteristics of

sharks. The main arguments of

opponents were lack of adequate

population information, existence of

other multilateral fisheries management

bodies, the need to complete the

implementation of CITES Resolution

Conf. 9.17, ‘‘Status of International

Trade in Shark Species’’, before any

listings are considered, the existence of

a management plan under NMFS, abuse

of the precautionary principle (cf.

Resolution Conf. 9.24), and the

unfairness of the implications for

commercial take of the other similar

species worldwide.

The main arguments of supporters of

the spiny dogfish being listed were the

very heavy and increasing fishing

pressure, decrease in the catch-per-uniteffort in the past few years, the targeting

of adult females, the decrease in the size

of fish now available and corresponding

changes in the types of nets used to

catch them, a history of other

populations of elasmobranchs

collapsing from over-fishing, biological

vulnerability, and the absence of a

management plan. The main arguments

of those opposed to the listing were the

large current populations, the

importance in the commercial catch of

New England fishermen, the prediction

of a management plan being developed,

existence of other multilateral fisheries

management bodies, the need for better

population information, and damage to

the process for implementation of

Resolution Conf. 9.17.

Although the United States believes

both of these species meet the criteria

for inclusion in Appendix II, for several

reasons we have chosen not to propose

them at this time. Foremost among these

is the fact that management of landings,

import, and export of marine fish will

be complex and will take time to

implement effectively. New

mechanisms of interagency and

international cooperation, new funding,

additional personnel, training, and new

permitting procedures will likely be

required. Second, there is a serious

similarity-of-appearance problem within

the requiem shark group that will

further complicate implementation and

enforcement. Finally, more effective

mechanisms of coordination and

cooperation between CITES and

international commercial fishery

management bodies are desirable with

respect to regulation of trade in CITESlisted marine fishes. For these reasons

the United States has submitted a draft

resolution to COP10 proposing

establishment of a Marine Fishes

Working Group (described in more

detail in a notice in the Federal Register

published on March 27, 1997 (62 FR

14689), under the auspices of the CITES

Standing Committee and analogous to

the CITES Timber Working Group, to

address implementation issues

associated with inclusion of sharks or

other marine fishes in Appendix II, and

to provide a forum for the completion of

the implementation of Resolution Conf.

9.17. Given the anticipated substantial

progress by this working group, the
18564 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

United States will be prepared to submit

appropriate shark species proposals for

consideration by the Parties at COP11.

10. Edible Pearlymussel (Cyprogenia

aberti)

In the August 28, 1996 notice, the

Service was considering proposing

removal of four species of freshwater

mussels (Cyprogenia aberti, Fusconaia

subrotunda, Lampsilis brevicula [=

Lampsilis reeviana brevicula], and

Lexingtonia dolabelloides) from

Appendix II. These were among several

species recommended for removal from

Appendix II by the Periodic Review

Working Group of the CITES Animals

Committee. This working group

examines historical and recent trade

levels in species included in Appendix

II to determine whether their listing

continues to be warranted. There is no

evidence that any of the four species

listed above have been involved in

trade. In reviewing the status of these

four species, the United States has

concluded that only the edible pearly

mussel (= western fanshell) warrants

retention in Appendix II as a

precautionary measure pending further

review, as it is considered endangered

by the IUCN. The United States has

submitted a proposal, discussed below,

to remove the other three species of

freshwater mussels from Appendix II.

No public comments were received on

mussels.

11. Pacific Yew (Taxus brevifolia)

The Oregon Natural Resources

Council (ONRC) recommended that the

United States propose the Pacific yew

for inclusion in Appendix II. This

species occurs in a limited range on

public and private lands in the western

United States and Canada. An effective

anti-cancer compound (paclitaxel or

Taxol) is obtained especially from its

bark, as well as to an increasing but

unknown extent from other species of

Taxus, and similar Taxus compounds

are being investigated. Some companies

are working on methods of obtaining

paclitaxel from Taxus needles and

branches (which avoids loss of the

whole plant). Laboratory substitutes for

the natural compound are either not

available or not available in adequate

commercial quantity, and there is some

semi-synthetic production. This species

is not grown commercially in large

quantity for medicinal use, but there is

some ornamental cultivation. Pacific

yew has minor value as a timber

species. There is some export of Pacific

yew biomass for manufacture of

paclitaxel in other countries. The

Himalayan yew (Taxus wallichiana) was

listed in Appendix II at COP9 in 1994,

excluding the finished pharmaceutical

products (i.e., the end-product

medicine).

The Service sought information

regarding: (1) the intensity and purposes

of removal of the several parts of this

species from the wild in various areas,

the characteristics of the populations

impacted by these extractions, and the

trends in those populations; (2) the

location, characteristics, and safety of

populations that will not be available

for extraction; (3) the extent to which

biomass from the wild (i.e., materials

other than the end-point medicine) is

exported from either country; and (4)

the degree to which the medicinal trade

involves other wild Taxus species, and/

or non-wild sources of the compound

(e.g., from cultivated Pacific yew or

other species, or from laboratory

synthesis).

Comments were received from eleven

organizations or individuals. The

California Department of Forestry and

Fire Protection stated they were ‘‘not

opposed’’ to the potential listing in

Appendix II, and comments in support

of a proposal were received from the

Oregon Department of Forestry, ONRC

Action and ONRC, and the Humane

Society of the United States.

Weyerhaeuser Company stated that they

were neutral with regard to inclusion of

the wild population in Appendix II, and

opposed to inclusion of specimens of

cultivated origin. Comments in

opposition to a proposal were received

from the Province of British Columbia,

the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Region 1 (which

includes the Pacific Northwest region),

the American Forest & Paper

Association, and a private individual.

The threat (i.e., harvest pressure) on

the Pacific yew and other yew (Taxus)

species may presently be increasing,

because of the interest of various

companies in obtaining medicinal

compounds from yews, and the limited

capability of most companies to

synthesize the effective medicine.

Nevertheless, substantial populations of

Taxus brevifolia are effectively

protected in Federal and State parks and

similar natural areas throughout its

range in the United States and similarly

in British Columbia. In addition, tree

species in riparian areas (usually within

100 feet of streams) receive protection

on some U.S. Federal lands (e.g., public

lands administered by the U.S. Forest

Service and the Bureau of Land

Management). Furthermore, the U.S.

Forest Service has developed thorough

detailed management plans for

harvesting and conserving Pacific yew,

and the Pacific yew also has some direct

legal protection in Oregon and British

Columbia. Also, efforts are continuing to

produce the medicinal compounds in

commercial quantity by chemical

synthesis, and to cultivate several Taxus

species in quantity.

Given these several circumstances,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

concluded that sufficient wild and

managed populations of Taxus

brevifolia are or can be sufficiently

conserved under existing authorities

and management systems or plans, so

that inclusion of the species in

Appendix II was not warranted.

Reconsideration of this species for

CITES might only become appropriate

if, with an increasing interest in harvest

from the wild, such authorities and

directives in the United States or

Canada were to significantly weaken or

the management systems and plans

were found to be inadequate in practice.

12. Aloe Vera (Aloe vera var. vera) (Wild

Population)

At its meeting in June 1995, the CITES

Plants Committee recognized that this

taxon may be endangered rather than

extinct within its native range, which is

increasingly considered to be on the

Arabian Peninsula (or possibly the

adjacent horn of Africa). At COP9, the

wild population was delisted along with

the artificially propagated population.

All other aloes are listed in Appendix II

or Appendix I, but the cultivated

specimens of Aloe vera var. vera and

products derived from them are very

common in international trade. A

specialist in succulents recommended

that the United States submit a proposal

to return this wild population to

Appendix II. Because the focus would

be on protecting the plants of this taxon

in its isolated native range, such a

listing would not interfere with the

unregulated trade in the very common

artificially propagated specimens and

the derivatives of them.

Comments were received from: (1) the

Humane Society of the United States

recommending that a proposal be

submitted to include the taxon in

Appendix II or preferably Appendix I;

(2) a succulent specialist, supporting a

proposal; (3) the California Cactus

Growers Association against submitting

a proposal; and (4) the World Wildlife

Fund-U.S., which provided some

comments toward obtaining fuller

information on the topic.

The United States considered this

subject in coordination with the North

Africa representative to the CITES

Plants Committee (as agreed at the 1995

meeting of the Plants Committee), and

with the IUCN Species Survival

Commission Arabian Plant Specialist

Group. Results were discussed at the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18565

November 1996 meeting of the Plants

Committee. The conclusion there was to

agree to a collaborative effort involving

especially Morocco, Italy, and the

United Kingdom, for field work on the

Arabian Peninsula and analysis of

genetic variability to ascertain whether

populations known there are truly

native wild populations or only

naturalized (perhaps from ancient

introduction). The results are expected

to be ready in time to make decisions for

COP11.

Species Proposals Submitted

1. Green-cheeked (Red-crowned) Parrot

(Amazona viridigenalis)

The EIA, WWF, IWC, NYTTS, and

DOW recommended that the Service

propose the green-cheeked (redcrowned) parrot, a Mexican endemic,

for transfer from Appendix II to

Appendix I. This species is endemic to

riparian forests and deciduous

woodlands of Tamaulipas and San Luis

Potosı ́ in northeast Mexico. Feral

populations have been established in

several locations in both Mexico and the

United States, including Texas. Recent

population estimates of only 3,000 to

6,500 birds in the wild represent a

severe decline from populations several

decades ago. Habitat loss, control as an

agricultural pest, and extensive

exploitation for the pet trade have all

contributed to the decline. Although

protected from capture and trade in

Mexico since 1982, the level of illegal

trade suggested by confiscations is

highly significant relative to the

estimated population of the species. The

level of known, illegal international

trade relative to its population status

indicates that trade is a significant

contributor to the precarious status of its

populations. The Service indicated in

its August 28, 1996 notice that it

believes this species qualifies for

Appendix I under the new listing

criteria and that Appendix I trade

controls would further discourage

illegal trade, because of the more

stringent permitting requirements and

the rigorous criteria that captivebreeding facilities for Appendix I

species must meet.

Proposing the green-cheeked parrot

for inclusion in Appendix I was

supported by the HSUS, DOW, and the

Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). It was

opposed by the American Federation of

Aviculture (AFA), Hill Country

Aviaries, PIJAC, and C. Roscher.

Arguments against uplisting any of the

Amazon parrots then being considered

included: insufficient data on the status

of wild populations; low likelihood that

a complete prohibition on trade would

decrease the incidence of illegal trade

(because the species is presently

protected in both range states); and

discouragement of captive-breeding,

which is viewed as a hedge against loss

of species in the wild for reasons

unrelated to international trade.

In its August 28, 1996 notice, the

Service noted that it expected Mexico to

prepare a proposal to include this

species in Appendix I. Mexico did

prepare and submit such a proposal to

the CITES Secretariat. The United States

continues to believe that this species

clearly meets Appendix I criteria and

will gain a measure of additional

security from an Appendix I listing. The

United States appreciates that the

country to which it is endemic has

similarly recognized this need. In

response to concerns expressed by

avicultural interests about the impact of

an Appendix I listing on trade in

captive-bred birds, the Service notes

that specimens of Appendix I species

bred in captivity in accordance with

CITES standards (and in facilities

registered by the CITES Secretariat, if

bred for commercial purposes) can be

traded with CITES Appendix II

documents. The Service believes that

such a listing will encourage captivebreeding operations that are virtually

self-sustaining and represent no direct

or indirect threat to wild populations.

Having received Mexico’s concurrence,

the United States is now a co-proponent

of their proposal. Independently,

Germany also submitted a proposal to

include the green-cheeked parrot in

Appendix I.

2. Straw-Headed Bulbul (Pycnonotus

zeylanicus)

WWF proposed that ‘‘southeast Asian

songbirds’’ involved extensively in the

pet trade be considered for CITES

protection, but did not provide a draft

proposal. The Service examined the

information contained in the TRAFFIC

Southeast Asia report ‘‘Sold for a Song’’

provided by WWF, and indicated its

interest in proposing one of the species

that clearly meets the criteria for

inclusion in Appendix II, the strawheaded bulbul of Indonesia (Sumatra,

Kalimantan, Java) and Malaysia. This

species has declined or been extirpated

from all but the remotest parts of its

range in Indonesia by a combination of

excessive trapping for the pet trade and

habitat destruction. The remainder of its

natural range, in Peninsular Malaysia, is

smaller than its former range in

Indonesia.

Subsequent to its initial consideration

of developing a proposal, the United

States learned that the Netherlands had

already drafted a proposal to include the

straw-headed bulbul in Appendix II and

conducted range-state consultations. In

its August 28, 1996 notice, the Service

indicated its potential interest in cosponsoring this proposal with the

Netherlands. No public comments were

received on this possibility. The

Service, therefore, with the approval of

the Netherlands, indicated its coproponency on the proposal submitted

to the CITES Secretariat by the

Netherlands to include the strawheaded bulbul in Appendix II.

3. Map Turtles (Graptemys spp.)

HSUS, supported by DOW, EIA, IWC,

and NYTTS, submitted a proposal to

include the twelve species of map

turtles, genus Graptemys, in Appendix

II and requested the Service to consider

proposing it to COP10. This genus

includes the following species:

Graptemys geographica, barbouri,

pulchra, ernsti, gibbonsi, caglei,

pseudogeographica (includes kohnii),

ouachitensis, versa, oculifera,

flavimaculata, and nigrinoda.

Graptemys geographica occurs

throughout most of the eastern half of

the United States and southeastern

Canada; G. pseudogeographica ranges

through the Missouri and Mississippi

River drainages; G. ouachitensis

overlaps extensively with the latter but

extends farther east and west. These

three species are the most common and

widely distributed members of the

genus. Graptemys flavimaculata and G.

oculifera are the most geographically

restricted species, occurring only in

limited river systems in Mississippi

(and Louisiana—G. oculifera only). Both

are listed as threatened under the ESA.

Graptemys nigrinoda is classified as

endangered under Mississippi State law

and G. barbouri is considered

vulnerable to extirpation in Florida.

As with most turtle species,

population data are limited, except for

those species already considered

endangered or threatened. Biologists

who have studied seven of the species

believe that populations have generally

declined. Data from the Service’s

wildlife enforcement records show that

international trade is substantial and

may be increasing significantly.

Although Service export records

identified to genus or species totaled

27,720 for 1991 and 111,674 for 1994,

discussions with turtle farmers and the

State of Louisiana (see below) indicate

that actual numbers are much higher.

The bulk of this trade appears to consist

of hatchlings produced in captivity on

turtle farms in the Southeast. Although

some turtle farmers in Louisiana are

beginning to recruit some of their own

breeding stock from captive-hatched
18566 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

animals, it is still necessary to draw

upon wild populations to varying

degrees for establishing and maintaining

a breeding population.

There was considerable public

reaction to the proposal. The WCS

recommended listing for monitoring

purposes and recommended that States

collect species-specific data on age

classes, because of the sensitivity of

populations to collection of breeding

adults. M. Ewert (Indiana University)

felt the genus should be listed because

nine of the twelve species are so

restricted in distribution. K. Dodd (U.S.

Geological Survey, Biological Resources

Division) believes some of the unlisted

species are vulnerable to international

trade, although some species are

abundant. S. Santhuff (University of

Florida) supported the proposal and

believes G. nigrinoda should be listed

under the ESA. He expressed concern

over the vulnerability of the genus to

collection and referred to a collector in

Georgia who set 3,000 as a goal for a

single night’s collection.

PIJAC and various commercial

interests expressed opposition to the

proposal. PIJAC questioned assertions

about the popularity of map turtles as

pets in the United States, and pointed

out that the majority of exporters listed

in the proposal are regulated turtle

farms. PIJAC recommended that export

figures be broken down by ‘‘captiveraised’’ and ‘‘wild-caught’’ in order to

judge potential impacts. The proposal

from the HSUS did not reflect the

significant portion of the trade

attributable to captive-hatched animals.

C. Sullivan (a shipper of turtles) stated

that there are at least 40 licensed turtle

farms in the Southeast and that all

exports are of hatchlings from eggs laid

in turtle farms. He indicated that

Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and

Louisiana, unlike Mississippi, permit

take of map turtles from the wild. This

situation was also reflected in

comments from several turtle farmers.

Sullivan also stated that farmers have

recently learned that these species

reproduce well in captivity after an

adjustment period of about three years.

A turtle farmer (Belzoni Turtle Farms)

from Mississippi claimed to produce

10,000 hatchlings/year. Another

Mississippi farmer (P. Alleman,

Sunshine Turtle Farms) said the farms

are not currently managed for

perpetuity, i.e., young are not raised to

replace breeders.

Of States responding to the notice,

Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and

Mississippi supported the proposal.

Wisconsin supported listing of the nine

more restricted species, but was neutral

on the other three. Louisiana opposed

the proposal. Louisiana stated that

hatchlings sold from Louisiana are from

farms, which restock with fewer than

1,000 wild-caught adults per year total.

They estimated that 128,000 to 150,000

hatchlings from Louisiana are exported

per year. There is no State management

plan in Louisiana, but the State

Department of Agriculture and Forestry

requires that each farm return at least

200 turtles to the wild annually.

Given the large numbers exported and

the restricted distributions and

apparently diminished (in some cases)

populations of nine Graptemys species,

the Service is concerned about the

potential impact of present levels of

international trade on wild populations.

The Service believes all species except

G. geographica, G. pseudogeographica,

and G. ouachitensis qualify for

inclusion in Appendix II under

provisions of Article II(2)(a). For

effective enforcement of regulations

applicable to trade in these nine species,

it is also necessary to include the

remaining three similar-appearing

species in Appendix II pursuant to

Article II(2)(b). Therefore the Service

has submitted a proposal to include G.

barbouri, pulchra, ernsti, gibbonsi,

caglei, versa, oculifera, flavimaculata,

and nigrinoda in Appendix II under

provisions of Article II(2)(a), and G.

geographica, pseudogeographica, and

ouachitensis in Appendix II under

provisions of Article II(2)(b).

Fortunately, it appears from preliminary

information made available to the

Service, that G. pseudogeographica

(including kohnii) and G. ouachitensis,

two of the species proposed under 2(b)

provisions, are the dominant species in

trade. Scientific Authority findings for

species so listed will be based only

upon the potential impact of their

export on any of the other nine species.

4. Alligator Snapping Turtle

(Macroclemys temminckii).

The HSUS, supported by DOW, EIA,

IWC, and NYTTS, submitted a proposal

to include the alligator snapping turtle

in Appendix II and requested the

Service to consider proposing it to

COP10. The alligator snapping turtle,

the largest freshwater turtle in North

America, inhabits most river systems

emptying into the Gulf of Mexico,

including the Mississippi River as far

north as Illinois. It also makes use of

bodies of still water associated with

river systems. In these habitats, females

of about 12 years and older produce one

clutch of 9 to 52 eggs annually, with a

mean of 25. From mostly anecdotal

evidence, especially from turtle

trappers, it is evident that this species

has declined severely throughout much

of its range. The primary agents of

population decline appear to be

degradation and damming of river

systems and (largely historical)

widespread commercial take for its

meat, which has been marketed both

domestically and internationally.

Collection appears to have severely

depleted some local populations and

altered demographic structure in others.

The species is classified as vulnerable

by the IUCN and listed as rare,

threatened, or endangered in many of

the States on the periphery of the range

and in Georgia. Most southeastern States

afford this species a greater level of

protection than that afforded most other

turtles. It is considered a species of

special concern in Florida and

‘‘questionable’’ as a possible addition to

Louisiana’s list of species of special

concern. Louisiana appears to be the

only State that has not prohibited

commercial take. Hatchlings, almost

entirely produced in turtle-farming

operations, are exported for the pet

trade. Service wildlife enforcement

records show an increase in the export

of live turtles from 290 in 1989 to 9,639

in 1994, primarily to markets in Japan,

Hong Kong, and Western Europe. Most

of these exports probably represent such

farm-raised hatchlings.

Inclusion of the alligator snapping

turtle in Appendix II was strongly

supported by WCS, which cited the

well-documented population decline

and a need to monitor trade more

effectively. The NHA, which opposed

listing of other turtles being considered,

supported this proposal, if there are data

independent of the proposal that

support the arguments advanced. NHA

also insisted that permits for captivereared or sustainably wild-taken

specimens be issued. P. Meylan (Eckard

College) pointed out that this species is

threatened by both habitat specificity

(like map turtles) and commercial

demand for meat (like softshell turtles).

M. Ewert (Indiana University) also

pointed out the sometimes severe effect

that raccoons and fire ants can have as

predators on alligator snapper nests.

According to a member of the Louisiana

Reptile and Amphibian Task Force, in

the late 1970’s trappers in southern

Louisiana had to go to northern part of

the State to find significant numbers of

this species. Sixty-one percent of the

respondents to a questionnaire from the

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and

Fisheries to trappers on the population

status of alligator snappers reported a

decrease, especially in the past 10 years.

Two graduate students (J. Roman and B.

Bowen, University of Florida) who were

collecting meat from dealers around the

Southeast for mitochondrial DNA
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18567

analysis, said that trappers in southern

Louisiana reported the area being

‘‘trapped out.’’ One turtle farmer (P.

Alleman) in Mississippi stated that the

species has become very rare in

Mississippi.

Three States responded to the notice:

Mississippi strongly supported the

proposal; Oklahoma had no opinion;

and Louisiana opposed it. A consensus

of Louisiana turtle farmers was that

virtually all exports of alligator snappers

were of farm-raised hatchlings and that

few animals are taken from the wild.

This was supported by the Louisiana

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,

which stated that fewer than 100 are

sold commercially for meat each year

and probably fewer than 100 are

collected from the wild annually for any

commercial purpose, including

supplementation or expansion of farm

breeding stock (presently about 1,000

adults in Louisiana). The proposal was

opposed by PIJAC on the grounds that

the commercial farms in Mississippi

and Louisiana are the source of most of

the exported animals.

The Service continues to be

concerned about the contribution of past

commercial take to the current

precarious status of alligator snapping

turtles in many parts of their range and

believes the species clearly meets

criteria for inclusion in Appendix II.

Although the increasing levels of export

appear to be related largely to

expanding markets for farm-raised

hatchlings, the direct or indirect impact

of these practices on wild populations

are not well known or monitored.

Therefore the Service believes inclusion

in Appendix II will provide a needed

measure of protection for the species

and has submitted an Appendix II

proposal.

5. Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus

horridus)

The EIA, supported by HSUS and

IWC, submitted proposals for including

the timber rattlesnake in Appendix II

and recommended that the Service

consider submitting it to COP10. The

timber rattlesnake occurs in 27 States,

from New Hampshire and Minnesota

south to Texas and Florida, having been

extirpated from Maine and Rhode

Island, and Canada (Ontario). It

occupies a variety of habitats,

particularly rugged, rocky outcroppings.

Southern forms (‘‘canebrake’’

rattlesnakes) use a variety of lowland

sites such as pine flatwoods,

floodplains, and bottomland

hardwoods.

Populations have declined severely in

northeastern states, primarily from

human encroachment and development

and hunting. The species is now known

from only 23 localities in New England,

contrasted with 90 localities twenty

years ago. A 1991 biological symposium

concluded that serious declines have

taken place in Connecticut,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New York,

New Jersey, and Vermont. It is

considered endangered in Connecticut,

Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio,

Massachusetts, and New Jersey and

threatened in New York, Texas, Illinois,

and Indiana. It is believed to be

approaching extinction in Pennsylvania,

where large specimens are extremely

rare today. It is particularly vulnerable

in the northern part of its range, because

females mature at age 7–11 years and

produce young only every 3–4 years.

The habit of congregating in hibernacula

during winter months makes them

vulnerable to being killed in large

numbers.

Trade is relatively limited compared

with some of the larger species of

Crotalus. Only Florida appears to have

collected information on domestic trade:

between 1990 and 1992, 109 were taken

for the pet trade and dealers handled

366 dead animals obtained in Florida

and an additional 4,346 obtained from

other southeastern states. Service

records for international trade show an

average of 50–75 live/year and 200–750

leather pieces/year. Most of the trade in

parts probably represents the commoner

and less vulnerable southeastern

‘‘canebrake’’ rattlesnakes.

The proposal was supported by the

HSUS. Seven of eight biologists

responding to the notice supported the

proposal, with one offering no position.

One supported mainly due to lack of

information and another added

parenthetically that the species may

actually be increasing in Georgia (where

it seems to be more of a habitat

generalist than the eastern

diamondback). The proposal was

opposed by the WCS on the basis of the

apparent paucity of trade, and there

were no comments from commercial

interests. Listing was supported by West

Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois,

Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and

opposed by Florida and Louisiana,

where it is being considered for the

status of ‘‘species of special concern.’’

Louisiana also commented that a listing

would have little impact and would

hinder legitimate commercial interests.

Despite low volumes of international

trade, the population status of northern

forms of the timber rattlesnake is so

poor that even a small demand for

international trade could be detrimental

to the survival of some populations.

Therefore the Service has submitted a

proposal to include this species in

Appendix II and, if the proposal is

adopted, will consider the geographic

variation in population status of this

species when making export findings.

6. Sawfishes (Pristiformes spp.)

Sid F. Cook and Madeline Oetinger, of

Argus-Mariner Consulting Scientists,

submitted a proposal to include all

species of the order Pristiformes

(sawfishes) in Appendix I. Sawfishes are

a very small group of cartilaginous

fishes related to sharks, rays and

chimeras (class Chondrichthyes). The

order consists of only one family,

Pristidae, incorporating seven species

(although the taxonomy of the group is

debated). As generally accepted, these

are: Pristis pectinata (smallmouth

sawfish), P. clavata (dwarf or

Queensland sawfish), P. zijsron (green

sawfish), P. pristis (common sawfish), P.

microdon (freshwater, Leichhardt’s,

great-tooth, largetooth sawfish), P.

perotteti (largetooth sawfish), and

Anoxypristis cuspidata (knifetooth,

pointed or narrow sawfish).

Cumulatively, sawfish species are

distributed worldwide in tropical and

temperate marine waters, and in some

cases in freshwater habitats. Speciesspecific distributions are described in

detail in the August 28, 1996 notice.

Pristis perotteti and P. pectinata are the

only species that occur in waters of the

United States.

Sawfishes share with their shark

relatives several life history

characteristics (e.g., slow growth, low

fecundity, late sexual maturity, long

life-span, and long gestational period)

that render them more vulnerable to

overfishing than many bony fishes.

Other factors increasing the

vulnerability of these species are

restriction to a narrow depth range,

disjunct distribution patterns, and

habitat degradation. Most species have

exhibited either severe population

declines or have an extremely localized

distribution. Four species (P. pristis,

pectinata, perotteti, and microdon) are

considered endangered by IUCN (other

species have not been evaluated).

Although data on international trade

and other forms of exploitation of

sawfishes are sketchy, localized effects

can be seen in individual populations.

Quantitative trade data are very limited

but sawfish are known to be targeted

commercially in artisanal fisheries,

taken as live specimens for public

aquaria, for the curio trade (rostral

saws), for traditional Asian medicines

(rostral saws of Anoxypristis cuspidata),

and for fine leather (hides).

The proposal was opposed by the

Japanese Fisheries Agency, Japanese

Fisheries Association, International

Wildlife Management Consortium, and
18568 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

European Bureau for Conservation and

Development. It was supported by the

National Audubon Society, Center for

Marine Conservation (CMC), OWC,

American Elasmobranch Society,

American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists, and by a petition from

21 members of the IUCN Shark

Specialist Group. Arguments against

were based on the need to follow

through on the Resolution Conf. 9.17

process before taking any listing action

for sharks; the need for more data on

population status to justify listing

(abuse of precautionary principle); and

lack of evidence that trade has had any

impact on populations. Arguments in

favor of the proposal were mainly based

on the intrinsic vulnerability resulting

from the biological attributes described

above, the population declines

evidenced by declines in by-catch, and

also the existence of much more

evidence of past and present trade

(including provision of biological

supply houses with rostral saws) than

suggested by those opposed. The CMC

also pointed out that evidence of trade

is not necessarily a prerequisite to

inclusion of taxa in Appendix I (the

Service strongly agrees that the criteria

in Resolution Conf. 9.24 are

unequivocal in this regard).

Of 72 range states to which an earlier

draft of the proposal was sent for

comment, six responded. The

Government of the Philippines

supported the proposal. The

Government of the Dominican Republic

took no position but provided anecdotal

information that indicated similar

declines there as reported in the

proposal. The Government of Mexico

considered existing information from

that country to be insufficient to enable

a determination of eligibility for

Appendix I. The Government of

Colombia felt that more convincing

documentation of historical declines in

landings needs to be presented before

Colombia could support an Appendix I

listing. The Government of Japan

opposed the proposal on the grounds

that there are not enough data to show

convincingly that the sawfish are

eligible for Appendix I. The

Government of Cyprus indicated that no

species in this group occurred in its

waters.

Notwithstanding the absence of strong

quantitative information on population

status, the United States believes that

the obvious rarity of these species, and

the consistency of anecdotal evidence of

population declines wherever data are

available, are clear indicators of their

vulnerability to any form of use,

including international trade. On this

basis, the Pristiformes meet the criteria

for inclusion in Appendix I, and the

United States has submitted a proposal

to this effect.

7. Sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes)

In a December 20, 1996 Federal

Register notice (61 FR 67293), the

Service announced that the United

States was considering offering to cosponsor a proposal by Germany to

include all species of sturgeons not

presently listed in the appendices in

Appendix II. The Acipenseriformes are

a primitive group of approximately 27

species of fish, whose biological

attributes make them vulnerable to

intensive fishing pressure or other

agents of elevated adult mortality. Many

species of sturgeons, the primary source

of commercial caviar, have experienced

severe population declines worldwide

because of both habitat destruction and

excessive take for international trade.

Some are at serious risk of extinction.

Three species in the United States

(shortnosed sturgeon [Acipenser

brevirostrum], pallid sturgeon

[Scaphirhynchus albus], and the

Kootenai River population of white

sturgeon [A. transmontanus]) are listed

as endangered under the ESA, and a

subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon (the

Gulf sturgeon, A. oxyrhynchus desotoi)

is listed as threatened. CITES presently

includes two species, the shortnosed

sturgeon and Baltic sturgeon (A. sturio),

in Appendix I and one species, the

Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrhynchus) in

Appendix II. The American paddlefish,

Polyodon spathula, has also been

included in Appendix II since 1992.

Sturgeons of the Caspian Sea produce

the highest quality caviar and are the

source of more than 90 percent of the

world caviar trade. Since the mid-1970’s

very marked declines in the populations

of all six of the Caspian Sea’s sturgeon

species have been noted, especially

populations of the most heavily

exploited species: Beluga (Huso huso),

Russian (A. gueldenstaedtii), and

stellate (A. stellatus) sturgeons. Five of

the six species of Caspian sturgeons are

considered endangered by IUCN. The

problem has become exacerbated in

recent years due to deteriorating fishery

management and enforcement

capabilities in the region, resulting in

significant levels of poaching and illegal

trade. The total present take is believed

to far exceed sustainable levels.

The final proposal from Germany

proposes five species for inclusion in

Appendix II under provisions of Article

II(2)(a), i.e., because of their population

status and trade levels: Beluga (Huso

huso), Russian (A. gueldenstaedtii),

stellate (A. stellatus), Siberian (A.

baerii), and ship or spiny (A.

nudiventris) sturgeons. All other species

of sturgeons not already listed are

proposed for inclusion in Appendix II

under provisions of Article II(2)(b), i.e.,

because of the similarity of appearance

of their caviar to that of the Caspian

species. The native species of sturgeons

not listed under the ESA that would be

included in the II(2)(b) category are the

following: lake sturgeon (A. fulvescens),

green sturgeon (A. medirostris), nonKootenai-River populations of white

sturgeon (A. transmontanus),

shovelnose sturgeon (S. platorynchus),

and Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi).

The Service participated in a meeting

in November 1996 in Moscow involving

the Russian Federation and several

former Soviet Republics, including

several that participate in the Caspian

Sea sturgeon fishery: Azerbaijan,

Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. The

meeting, hosted by the Russian

Federation State Committee for

Environmental Protection and the

German Scientific and Management

Authorities, yielded an overwhelming

acknowledgment of the severity of the

threat to sturgeon populations in the

Caspian Sea. The existence of a

substantial illegal trade in caviar

(estimated to constitute up to 80 percent

of the trade), which has resulted in a

decrease in both the quality and price of

caviar in international markets, also was

recognized.

Inclusion of the sturgeons in

Appendix II as proposed would enable:

(1) implementation of management

controls necessary to stabilize sturgeon

populations in the Caspian Sea and

elsewhere in the world; and (2) better

regulation of trade by importing

countries, especially through an

improved capability for distinguishing

legal from illegal caviar. The United

States is not only a range State for some

of the most endangered sturgeon

populations, but it is also a major

importer of caviar products (between 50

and 60 metric tons per year from 1992

through 1995), mainly from Caspian Sea

sturgeon populations. Given these facts,

and recognizing the dire situation facing

the Caspian Sea sturgeon fishery, the

United States has agreed to co-sponsor

the proposal of Germany to include five

presently unlisted species of sturgeons

in Appendix II under provisions of

Article II(2)(a) and the remainder in

Appendix II under provisions of Article

II(2)(b). As with other species proposed

for listing under the provisions of

Article II(2)(b), findings related to

export of sturgeon products from the

United States will be based only upon

potential impacts of export on those

species listed under provisions of

Article II(2)(a), or on those included in
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18569

Appendix I. Only one public comment

on the December 20, 1996 notice was

received: the HSUS indicated their

support for United States cosponsorship of the German proposal and

stressed the importance of addressing

the considerable management and

enforcement concerns associated with

the potential listing.

8. Freshwater Mussels: Long solid

mussel (Fusconaia subrotunda), Ozark

lamp pearlymussel (Lampsilis brevicula

[= L. reeviana brevicula]), and Slabside

pearlymussel (Lexingtonia

dolabelloides)

The Service indicated its intent in the

August 28, 1996 notice to develop a

proposal to remove the above three

species of freshwater mussels, and the

edible pearlymussel (Cyprogenia aberti),

from Appendix II. These were among

several species endemic to the United

States that were recommended for

removal from Appendix II by the CITES

Animals Committee’s Periodic Review

Working Group, which examines

historical and recent trade levels in

species included in Appendix II to

determine whether their listing

continues to be warranted. We have no

indication of trade in any of these

species in recent years.

Recognizing that as many as 20

percent of the approximately 300

species and subspecies of freshwater

mussels may be threatened or

endangered, the Service has been

reluctant in the past to propose that any

of these species be delisted, at least

until enforcement difficulties were

overcome. Effective August 1, 1996 (61

FR 31850), however, the Service’s

regulations on importation, exportation,

and transportation of wildlife were

revised to require that wildlife exports,

including freshwater mussels, be made

available for inspection and cleared for

export prior to being exported from the

United States. This provision will

enable the Service to better ensure that

endangered mussels are not exported,

and therefore reduce the need for the

application of CITES for nonendangered mussels, especially for

those that do not appear to be traded.

The Service received no public

comments about its intent to prepare a

mussel de-listing proposal. The Service

has proposed removal of Fusconaia

subrotunda, Lampsilis brevicula (= L.

reeviana brevicula), and Lexingtonia

dolabelloides from Appendix II. The

Service has not, however, proposed any

change in the other species of mussels

considered by the Periodic Review

Working Group: Epioblasma torulosa

rangiana and Pleurobema clava, which

are listed as endangered under the ESA,

or Cyprogenia aberti, which is

considered endangered by the IUCN, as

discussed above.

9. Bigleaf Mahogany (Swietenia

macrophylla)

This proposal was submitted by the

United States with the Republic of

Bolivia as co-proponent, to include

Swietenia macrophylla of the neotropics

in Appendix II of CITES, to regulate the

international trade in its logs,

sawnwood, whole veneer sheets and

plywood sheets. The listing would not

regulate the finished products, such as

the furniture. The United States is by far

the largest importer of the wood of this

species, which occurs from Brazil and

Bolivia to Mexico, and Bolivia is the

second largest mahogany exporter. The

objective of the listing is to better

manage Swietenia macrophylla to help

ensure its conservation and its

continued international trade and use.

Background: In response to a March 1,

1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR

8019), the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.,

Defenders of Wildlife, and individuals

had requested that the United States

propose this species for inclusion in

Appendix II (see the Federal Register of

August 28, 1996 [61 FR 44324]). Bigleaf

mahogany from the Americas was listed

in Appendix III by Costa Rica in 1995,

including its saw-logs, sawn wood, and

veneer sheets only—i.e., no other parts

or derivatives (see Federal Register of

February 22, 1996 [61 FR 6793]). The

other two species of the genus

Swietenia, Caribbean mahogany

(Swietenia mahagoni) and Pacific Coast

mahogany (Swietenia humilis) are

included in Appendix II. Species listed

in Appendix II or Appendix III can be

traded commercially, whereas trade for

primarily commercial purposes is

prohibited for the species included in

Appendix I.

CITES Appendix II includes species

for which the inclusion in Appendix II

will facilitate or encourage sustainable,

non-detrimental trade in perpetuity. To

export regulated Appendix II

specimens, a CITES Party country must

make a management finding that the

specimens were legally acquired (e.g., in

the case of mahogany, taken from the

country’s legally approved areas and

logged according to accepted national

standards, such as not cutting trees

smaller than a legally approved

minimum trunk diameter), and a

scientific finding that the export is not

detrimental to the survival of the

species. Importing countries would

become partners in this effort, through

their obligation to ensure that all the

mahogany imports are accompanied by

appropriate CITES permits or

certificates documenting that the

exports have met the standards required

by the treaty. A basic goal of CITES is

to maintain a species in its natural

systems through its range at a level

consistent with its role in the

ecosystems in which it occurs. By

discouraging illegal exploitation, CITES

can help to avoid the loss of wildfunctioning populations in natural areas

such as national parks and similar

reserves.

Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia

macrophylla) has been proposed for

Appendix II, not for the much more

restrictive Appendix I. The treaty is

founded on two bases: both to strictly

protect endangered species (cf.

Appendix I), and to prevent the

endangerment of species that are at

increasing risk from international trade,

by Appendix II regulation of

commercial trade, so that stricter

measures (such as an international

commercial trade ban) would not have

to be taken in the future. Thus

consumers should have increased

confidence buying products when they

include the wood of CITES Appendix II

specimens that have been approved

under these international standards for

export and accepted at import.

Proposals to include Swietenia

macrophylla in Appendix II were

separately submitted to the last two

meetings of the Conference of the

Parties to CITES (COP9 and COP8) by

three governments, the Netherlands in

1994, and Costa Rica and the United

States in 1992. At COP9 (in Florida in

November 1994), 50 of 83 Parties

(among them the United States and the

European Union countries) voted in

favor of including this species and its

logs, sawn wood, and veneer sheets in

Appendix II, which fell 6 votes short of

the two-thirds majority of voting Parties

needed for adoption (see Federal

Register notices of November 8, 1994

[59 FR 55617] and January 3, 1995 [60

FR 73]). At COP9 as well as COP8 (in

Japan in March 1992), the majority of

the 13 countries where the species is

native (range States) expressed support

for including this species in Appendix

II.

Recent Activities: In the August 28,

1996 Federal Register (61 FR 44324),

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

sought new information in particular to

supplement the information

summarized in the COP9 and COP8

proposals (or otherwise available to the

Parties at those meetings), especially in

relation to the CITES listing criteria as

delineated in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (cf.

the Federal Register of March 1, 1996;

61 FR 8019). The Service also sought

details on implementation of the

inclusion of this species in Appendix
18570 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

III, which entered into force on

November 16, 1995. The text of the draft

proposal was provided to interested

organizations and individuals. In

September 1996, the Service, which

functions as the U.S. Management

Authority for CITES, provided the draft

proposal to the CITES Management

Authorities of the 13 range States of

bigleaf mahogany and requested their

comments regarding a possible proposal

to include the species in Appendix II.

In early October 1996 in Panama the

CITES Timber Working Group held its

second meeting. The Group’s scope or

terms of reference covered details of

implementation for timber tree species

(i.e., they did not include topics directly

involving potential new listings). The

Group reviewed the experience of the

CITES Parties in implementation of the

Appendix III listing of Swietenia

macrophylla, and concluded that no

particular difficulties had been

encountered with the implementation of

this listing.

In mid-November 1996 in Costa Rica

the CITES Plants Committee held its

annual meeting. The United States

earlier had requested that the possible

mahogany proposal be included as an

information item on the agenda; the U.S.

representative reported that the draft

potential proposal had been sent to the

13 range States on September 25, 1996,

with a request for their comments by

November 15 (which was the final day

of that Committee’s meeting), and

explained the U.S. review process. An

agenda item of the Netherlands at the

meeting addressed tree species in

relation to the CITES listing criteria

and/or IUCN (World Conservation

Union) status criteria. The United States

encouraged conceptual discussion on

the scope of such findings, stating that

it would be particularly helpful in

relation to considering a possibly

forthcoming proposal for Swietenia

macrophylla. Although there was no

extensive discussion of the potential

mahogany proposal at this meeting, at

the Committee’s meeting in May 1994 in

Mexico prior to COP9, there had been

lengthy discussion and a conclusion in

favor of a similar proposal for Swietenia

macrophylla.

Comments and Review: International

meetings on this issue were held in

February 1992 (a Mahogany Workshop

in Washington, D.C., hosted by the

Tropical Forest Foundation on behalf of

the International Wood Products

Association and held at the

Organization of American States); and

in September 1994 (a Mahogany

Symposium in London, U.K., hosted by

the Linnean Society, a world-renowned

scientific organization). A related

meeting largely on the forestry aspects

of Swietenia mahoganies was held in

late October 1996 (in San Juan, Puerto

Rico, hosted by the U.S. Forest Service’s

International Institute of Tropical

Forestry).

The United States has intensively

reviewed and analyzed the pertinent

available information related to a

proposal and all comments received

from range States, industry, the

conservation community, and interested

agencies and individuals, and the

relevant information provided has been

incorporated into the final 86-page

proposal to include this species in

Appendix II. A public meeting was held

on October 3, 1996, on the potential

CITES COP10 topics and issues.

Decisions regarding inclusion of species

in the CITES appendices are based upon

their status and qualifications in

relation to the requirements and criteria

of the treaty.

Comments in support of a proposal

were received by the October 11, 1996

deadline (which was established in the

August 28, 1996 Federal Register; 61 FR

44324) from ten organizations

(Defenders of Wildlife, EarthCulture,

Environmental Investigation Agency,

Friends of the Earth-U.K., Humane

Society of the United States, Rainforest

Action Network, Rainforest Relief, Salt

Lake City Rainforest Action Group,

Taiga Rescue Network [Sweden], and

World Wildlife Fund-U.S.); two

businesses (A & M Wood Specialty, Inc.

[Ontario, Canada] and The Raintree

Group [Texas]); several academics; and

several dozen unaffiliated individuals.

After that deadline, comments and some

substantive information continued to

arrive, from many individuals and

organizations and several countries.

Included were two letters to the Vice

President and the Secretary of the

Interior from over 150 nongovernmental organizations supporting

submittal of the proposal. All comments

were reviewed, and all the substantive

data were considered.

Friends of the Earth-U.K. submitted

the transcript of a debate on this issue

held in the British Parliament on

December 4, 1996, where the U.K.

Government noted that twice before it

had favored the species’ inclusion in

Appendix II. The Fondo Mundial para

la Naturaleza-Bolivia (World Wildlife

Fund-Bolivia) and the World Wildlife

Fund-U.S. submitted copies of a

detailed study on the status of

regeneration of Swietenia macrophylla

in the Department of Santa Cruz,

Bolivia, which had recently been carried

out through the Centro Cientı ́fico

Tropical (of San Jose ́, Costa Rica).

Bolivia through MDSMA (the

Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y

Medio Ambiente, their Ministry of

Sustainable Development and

Environment) wrote the United States

on December 18, 1996, offering to copropose the species with the United

States, and similarly advised the CITES

Secretariat. Bolivia in addition provided

a review of mahogany trade data from

its implementation of Appendix III.

Ecuador on January 6, 1997, advised the

United States that they were in support

of the proposal, and Venezuela on

January 9, 1997, advised the U.S.

Embassy in Caracas that they were in

support of the proposal. Also in January

1997, the Brazilian Embassy in

Washington, D.C. emphasized Brazil’s

concerns.

Opposition to a proposal was

submitted by the U.S.-based

International Wood Products

Association (IHPA), and by Brazil

through IBAMA (the Instituto Brasileiro

do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos

Naturais Renova ́veis or Brazilian

Environment and Renewable Natural

Resources Agency), and Peru through

INRENA (the Instituto Nacional de

Recursos Naturales, their National

Natural Resources Agency). Comments

questioned the appropriateness and

adequacy of the CITES system for

regulating such a trade; the process

toward developing and considering a

proposal; the threshold at which species

should qualify for Appendix II; whether

the species was not sufficiently

protected in enough designated or

remote areas; and the adequacy of the

scientific and technical information on

biology (including ecology and

genetics), regrowth (regeneration) after

selective logging or land abandonment,

and national and international trade

(legal and illegal).

The United States has made a rigorous

analysis of the qualification of this

species for Appendix II, considering the

text of the treaty, the listing criteria of

Resolution Conf. 9.24, and the species

that have been included by the Parties

in the appendices since the Convention

was developed in 1973. The potential

proposal was subjected to an intensive

Federal interagency analysis and review

process, including departments or

agencies of State, Interior, Agriculture

(U.S. Forest Service and Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service), U.S.

Trade Representative’s Office,

Commerce, Justice, and the U.S. Agency

for International Development. The U.S.

Government concluded by consensus

that Swietenia macrophylla qualifies for

inclusion in Appendix II, and to submit

the proposal, with the Republic of

Bolivia as co-sponsor. The proposal was
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 18571

transmitted to the CITES Secretariat on

January 10, 1997, which was the

deadline for proposals to be considered

at the Tenth Meeting of the Conference

of the Parties to CITES (COP10), to be

held in Zimbabwe in mid-June 1997.

Preparations: The final proposal has

been provided to all the CITES Parties

(soon to be 135 countries), and to

interested organizations and

individuals. A thorough review and

analysis to prepare for the decision of

the Parties at COP10 is ongoing by range

States and importing countries,

industry, the conservation community,

and interested individuals. The United

States intends to continue to

communicate and work with range

States and interested organizations and

individuals so that the treaty and this

proposal for Swietenia macrophylla are

accurately understood and its inclusion

under CITES can be effectively

implemented, which would come into

force in Appendix II (if the proposal is

adopted) 90 days after the conclusion of

COP10, on September 18, 1997. The

United States believes that the effective

implementation of this listing will help

ensure the conservation of the species,

so that it never becomes threatened with

extinction in the wild, and the

maintenance of a sustainable supply of

mahogany wood and products for the

long-term future.

10. Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis)

This plant species has been proposed

for inclusion in Appendix II, without

excluding any parts or derivatives such

as the finished pharmaceutical products

in order to maintain the full legal option

to regulate such end-product medicinals

if necessary. Further evaluation of

whether that would be necessary is

ongoing, and if it is found to be

unnecessary, the proposal can be

modified at COP10 by for example

excluding the finished pharmaceutical

products.

This is a herbaceous species of the

eastern deciduous forest of the United

States and nearby Canada (in southern

Ontario). Before European settlement

and ensuing medicinal interest in this

species, it was thought to be abundant

only in the central part of its range

(Indiana to West Virginia and

Kentucky), and it is now considered

uncommon to critically imperilled in at

least 16 of the 27 States where it is

found.

Goldenseal is a well-known medicinal

in the herbal products industry, with a

wholesale price in 1995 frequently over

$50 but less than $100 per pound dry

weight, mostly for rhizomes or roots

(with about 200–300 roots per pound).

It has been estimated that 150,000

pounds of goldenseal root are collected

annually from the wild. The species is

cultivated to a limited but unknown

extent. Both the internal U.S. trade and

export are believed to be escalating,

with the international trade (primarily

to Canada and Europe) considered to be

less than a fifth of the market.

The World Wildlife Fund-U.S. had

recommended that the United States

propose this species for inclusion in

Appendix II. The Service sought

information especially regarding: (1) the

biological status and life history of this

species; (2) the extent to which it is

cultivated (i.e., artificially propagated

without use of seeds or other parts from

the wild); and (3) the extent to which it

is collected for trade, and in particular,

the extent to which it is exported and

the forms in which it is exported.

Comments were received from 22

organizations, and pertinent information

provided has been incorporated in the

CITES proposal to include this species

in Appendix II. Comments in support of

a proposal or tending to be favorable

were received from Canada, the

Province of Ontario, seven States

(Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,

and Oklahoma), the U.S. Department of

Agriculture Forest Service, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service Region 5 (which

includes the Northeast region), the

Institute of Conservation & Culture, the

Humane Society of the United States,

and the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.

Comments in opposition or tending to

be unfavorable were received from

seven States (Missouri, North Carolina,

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West

Virginia, and Wisconsin), and Ohio

River Ginseng & Fur, Inc.

Five of the 15 States that are

geographically more or less peripheral

or less significant in the distribution of

Hydrastis canadensis provided

comments. The responses were

favorable from four of them, whereas

North Carolina (where the species is

considered endangered) raised concerns

about the potential regulatory burden.

Nine of the 12 States that are more

geographically significant in the range

of the species commented; 3 were

favorable to a proposal, and 6 opposed.

In four of those six States, the species

is considered uncommon, of special

concern, vulnerable or threatened;

however, Missouri considered it

relatively common, and West Virginia

believed it to be increasing along with

the increase of forested land in the

State. Three of those six opposing States

were concerned with the potential

regulatory burden.

Panax quinquefolius (American

ginseng) has been included in Appendix

II of CITES since 1973, and those 4 of

the 14 commenting States that noted

particular concerns about the regulatory

effects of listing Hydrastis canadensis

tended to assume that goldenseal would

be regulated by a similar Federal-State

system (see 59 FR 49046). However, this

may or may not be the case, since

ginseng is primarily exported, whereas

goldenseal is involved in considerably

less export, being primarily consumed

within the United States. The Service

intends to work with those States that

may become involved in goldenseal

export and the industry to develop

efficient methods that require the

minimum system necessary to meet the

CITES requirements for legal and nondetrimental (and thus sustainable)

international trade in this species.

11. Tweedy’s Bitterroot (Lewisia tweedyi

or Cistanthe tweedyi)

Proposed for delisting from Appendix

II. The recommendation to remove this

species from Appendix II was initiated

by the CITES Plants Committee, as part

of the periodic ongoing process of

reviewing listed taxa. This herbaceous

mountain species is native in the State

of Washington and nearby in the

Province of British Columbia, Canada.

Because it was found to be sufficiently

secure within its range, this species was

removed from consideration for the U.S.

Endangered Species Act in a 1985

Federal Register notice on various taxa

(50 FR 39526). Moreover, this species is

considered sufficiently easy to

propagate and available in cultivation to

supply rock-garden enthusiasts.

Comments were received from the

Humane Society of the United States in

opposition to submitting the proposal,

and from Canada in support of the

proposal. As the biological status of the

species is considered markedly less

vulnerable than when it was listed in

1983, and there have been no

applications to export it from the wild

since then and little reported export and

import of artificially propagated

specimens, removal of the species from

Appendix II is considered appropriate.

Continuing Actions

In early February, the Service

received proposals made by other CITES

Parties to amend the appendices. A list

and copies of these proposals can be

obtained from the Office of Scientific

Authority (see ADDRESSES above). The

Service’s tentative negotiating positions

on these proposals submitted by the

other countries, along with a solicitation

for public comment, will be announced

in a Federal Register notice later this

month. Further opportunity for public

input will be afforded by a public
18572 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

meeting planned for April 25. The

Service will consider all comments

received during the comment period, as

well as all other available information,

in developing a negotiating position on

each of the species proposals. These

positions will be announced in the

Federal Register in early June just prior

to COP10. Also, in this pre-COP10

notice the Service plans to request

comments on any reservations that

should be taken on any species

amendments (i.e., species changes to the

CITES appendices) adopted by the

Parties. Immediately after COP10, the

Service will announce the species

amendments to the appendices adopted

by the Parties; in accordance with

CITES, all such amendments will

become effective on September 18, 1997

(90 days after their adoption by the

Parties).

The primary authors of this notice are

Dr. Marshall A. Howe, Zoologist, Dr.

Bruce MacBryde, Botanist, and Dr.

Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority.

This document is issued under

authority of the Endangered Species Act

of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat.

884, as amended).

Lists of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Treaties.

Dated: April 8, 1997.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–9857 Filed 4–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No. 970403076–7076–0; I.D.

030397B]

RIN 0648–AI80

Fisheries off West Coast States and in

the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast

Groundfish Fishery; Whiting Allocation

Among Nontribal Sectors

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes: Allocation

of the commercial harvest guideline of

Pacific whiting (whiting) among

nontribal sectors; a framework

procedure for annually choosing the

starting dates of the primary whiting

seasons for the nontribal sectors; and

allowing the processing of fish waste at

sea when at-sea processing of whiting is

otherwise prohibited. This rule also

proposes starting dates for the 1997

primary seasons under the proposed

framework. These actions are intended

to provide equitable allocation of the

whiting resource and to provide

flexibility in harvesting and processing

opportunities.

DATES: Comments will be accepted on or

before April 30, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

William Stelle, Jr., Administrator,

Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand

Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115.

Comments on the information collection

requirements that would be imposed by

this rule should be sent to Mr. William

Stelle at the address above, and to the

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs of the Office of Management and

Budget, Washington DC, 20503. Other

information relevant to this proposed

rule is available for public review

during business hours at the Office of

the Administrator, Northwest Region,

NMFS. Copies of the environmental

assessment/regulatory impact review

also are available from that address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William L. Robinson at 206–526–6140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is

issuing a proposed rule, based on the

agency’s authority under the Pacific

Coast Groundfish Fishery Management

Plan (PCGFMP) and the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens

Act). At the same time, NMFS is seeking

public comment on the starting dates for

the primary whiting seasons in 1997

and on several housekeeping measures.

These actions were recommended by

the Pacific Fishery Management Council

(Council) at its October 1996 meeting in

San Francisco, CA and at meetings of its

ad hoc whiting allocation subcommittee

that were held in 1996.

Background

Whiting allocation

Whiting is the largest groundfish

resource managed by the Council, and

makes up over 50 percent of the

potential annual groundfish harvest.

Until the early 1980’s, whiting off

Washington, Oregon, and California

were harvested predominantly by

foreign fisheries. Between 1982–88,

foreign fishing was displaced by joint

venture operations in which U.S.

vessels fished for whiting and delivered

it to foreign processing vessels at sea. By

1989, joint ventures were displaced by

domestic harvesting and processing

operations, as contemplated by the

Magnuson-Stevens Act. (The MagnusonStevens Act established priorities for

allocating fish in the EEZ, giving

domestic fishing and processing

operations first priority, joint ventures

second priority, and foreign fishing

lowest priority.) The shift away from

joint ventures occurred abruptly with

the introduction of domestic at-sea

processing vessels: Catcher/processors

(also called factory trawlers) that both

harvest and process fish; and

motherships that process fish delivered

from other catcher vessels.

Consequently, the joint venture catcher

vessels that had harvested and delivered

almost all of the whiting harvest

guidelines in 1989–90 to foreign

processing vessels lost their foreign

markets in 1991. The joint venture

markets were only partly replaced by

new markets with mothership and

shore-based processors. Generally, the

shore-based fishery operates at a slower

pace and has a more limited fishing

range, and catcher vessels are smaller

than catcher/processors and can take a

much smaller amount of whiting in the

same amount of time. Therefore, to

avoid extensive preemption of shorebased operations by the high-capacity

at-sea processing fleet, whiting has been

allocated among domestic sectors since

1991.

The most recent allocation, which

was in effect from 1994–96, was based

on a 3-year industry agreement to

provide 40 percent of the whiting

harvest guideline to catcher vessels

delivering to shore-based processors,

plus any additional whiting taken while

all sectors competed for the first 60

percent. In 1994 and 1995, the 40–

percent reserve was applied to the entire

whiting harvest guideline (50 CFR

663.23(b)(4), subsequently changed to

660.323(a)(4). In 1996, whiting was

allocated to the Makah treaty Indian

tribe for the first time (50 CFR 660.324).

Thereafter, any allocation among

domestic sectors was to be based on the

‘‘commercial harvest guideline,’’ the

harvest guideline minus any tribal

allocation. Provisions were made for

reapportioning the unused portion of

the shorebased reserve later in the year,

but this occurred only in 1994.

The allocations for 1997 and beyond

were derived by industry agreement in

a series of public meetings sponsored by

the Council. The proposed allocations,

which are within a few percent of the

proportions harvested in 1994–96, are:

42 percent for the shoreside sector

(catcher vessels delivering to shoreside