[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27313]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 4, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 23

 

Resolutions, Agenda Items, and Species Changes Proposed by the 
United States for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision on U.S. submissions to the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species.

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

SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES or Convention) regulates international 
trade in certain animals and plants. Species for which trade is 
controlled are listed in Appendices I, II, and III to CITES. The United 
States as a Party to the Convention may (1) propose amendments to the 
appendices for consideration by the other Parties at the biennial 
meetings of the Conference of the Parties, (2) submit topics for 
inclusion in the agenda of these meetings, and (3) submit resolutions 
to improve the implementation of the Convention for consideration at 
these meetings.
    In this notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
announces the species proposals to amend Appendices I and II, agenda 
items, and resolutions submitted by the United States for consideration 
at the ninth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES 
(COP9) scheduled for November 7-18, 1994, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

ADDRESSES: Requests for information concerning species proposals 
discussed in this notice may be directed to Chief, Office of Scientific 
Authority; Mail Stop: ARLSQ Room 725; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 
Washington, DC 20240. The fax number is 703-358-2276. Express and 
messenger-delivered mail should be addressed to the Office of 
Scientific Authority; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, room 750; Arlington, 
Virginia. Information relative to agenda items and proposed resolutions 
should be submitted to Chief, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, room 420C, Arlington, 
Virginia 22203. The fax number is 703-358-2280. Any information 
received is available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8 
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Arlington, Virginia 
address.
    Copies of resolutions and species proposals submitted by the United 
States are available on request by contacting the Office of Scientific 
Authority or Office of Management Authority, as appropriate, at the 
above addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of 
Scientific Authority, at the above address, telephone 703-358-1708, or 
Marshall Jones, Chief, Office of Management Authority, telephone 703-
358-2095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the Convention, is 
an international treaty designed to control and regulate international 
trade in certain animal and plant species which are or may become 
threatened with extinction, and are listed in Appendices to the 
Convention. Currently, 122 countries, including the United States, are 
CITES Parties. The Convention calls for biennial meetings of the 
Conference of the Parties that review its implementation, make 
provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out 
its functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices 
I and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make 
recommendations for the improved effectiveness of the Convention. COP9 
will be held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, November 7-18, 1994.
    This is part of a series of notices that, together with public 
meetings, encourage the public to participate in the development of the 
U.S. positions for COP9. A Federal Register notice published on July 
15, 1993 (58 FR 38112), requested information and comments from the 
public on animal or plant species the United States might consider as 
possible amendments to the Appendices. A Federal Register notice 
published on November 18, 1993 (58 FR 60873), requested public comments 
on possible revisions to the criteria for listing species in the CITES 
Appendices. A Federal Register notice published on January 27, 1994 (59 
FR 3832) requested additional comments from the public on animal or 
plant species that the United States was considering submitting as 
proposed amendments to the Appendices. A Federal Register notice 
published on January 28, 1994 (59 FR 4096): (1) Published the time and 
place for COP9; (2) announced a public meeting for February 22, 1994, 
to discuss the 31st meeting of the CITES Standing Committee; (3) 
detailed the provisional agenda for COP9; and (4) requested information 
and comments from the public on possible COP9 agenda items and 
resolutions that the United States might submit. The Service's 
regulations governing this public process are found in Title 50 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations Secs. 23.31-23.39.
    After review of public comments and all available information, the 
proposals, agenda items, and draft resolutions announced in this notice 
were submitted by the Service and received by the Convention's 
Secretariat on June 10, 1994, the deadline for consideration at COP9.
    Any proposed amendments to the Appendices adopted by the Parties 
will become effective on February 16, 1995, unless the United States 
enters a reservation before that time. The Service will publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to implement such amendments.

Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Species Proposals

    Decisions about suggested U.S. proposals discussed in the previous 
notice of January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3832) are as follows:

Species Proposals Not Submitted

    1. Narwhal (Monodon monoceros). The Environmental Investigation 
Agency (EIA) proposed that the narwhal be transferred from Appendix II 
to Appendix I of CITES. The range of the narwhal is circumpolar in 
Arctic waters, mostly north of 65 degrees North Latitude, although it 
occurs in greater densities in waters north of the Atlantic than in 
waters north of the Pacific Ocean. There is some north-south seasonal 
movement in response to climate and ice development. Between Canada and 
Greenland, narwhals summer in high densities in the eastern Canadian 
Arctic and off northwest Greenland, with smaller summering groups 
occurring in many other locations. Narwhals also occur in some 
concentration along the east coast of Greenland. There is evidence 
suggesting that the populations on the east and west coasts of 
Greenland belong to separate stocks.
    Three populations of narwhals were reviewed in 1992 by the Small 
Cetacean Sub-Committee of the Scientific Committee of the International 
Whaling Commission (IWC): (1) Hudson Bay, including northern Hudson Bay 
and western Hudson Strait; (2) Baffin Bay, including the eastern 
Canadian Arctic Archipelago and western Greenland; and (3) East 
Greenland and the Barents Sea. The Hudson Bay stock has been 
conservatively estimated at 1300 animals. The Small Cetacean Sub-
Committee estimated the Baffin Bay stock at 27,580 to 42,520. No good 
estimates are available for the East Greenland/Barents Sea population, 
although it is considerably smaller than the other stocks. Relatively 
small numbers of narwhals are reported from other parts of the species' 
range. Because of the difficulty in surveying narwhals, most abundance 
estimates for the species have large variances and require careful 
interpretation.
    Narwhals are hunted for maktag (blubber/skin), meat, and their 
tusks. Maktag is consumed by the Inuit, and meat is (or has been in the 
past) used as dog food, although both commodities are also sold on a 
limited basis. The tusks are utilized domestically for carving, and are 
sold as souvenirs, either as carved products or as intact tusks. 
(Females only occasionally develop tusks.) The majority of tusks taken 
in Canadian waters apparently remain in the country, while the bulk of 
narwhal ivory taken in Greenland is shipped to Denmark (perhaps as much 
as 90 percent annually) where much is exported to other countries in 
the European Union (EU).
    In 1976, Canada imposed quotas on the take of narwhals, which it 
regulates by issuing tags to be affixed to each animal taken. Tusks 
from these animals that enter trade must have the tag attached to show 
that the animal from which it was removed was legally taken under the 
quota system. The Greenland Home Rule Government sets no quotas for 
narwhals and no tracking except for those animals that enter 
international trade, and, therefore, require CITES permits. Since 1985 
Greenland has not been a member of the EU, therefore a no detriment 
finding is necessary for the issuance of CITES export permits by the 
Greenland Home Rule Government, and for import permits by EU countries 
under EU regulations, even though the narwhal is an Appendix II 
species. However, Greenland sets restrictions on who is allowed to hunt 
and the manner in which hunts are conducted.
    Eight comments were received during the comment period, five 
favoring amending the listing of narwhal from Appendix II to Appendix 
I, and three opposed to this change.
    The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL), The Humane 
Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Humane Association 
(AHA), the Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders), and EIA all expressed 
support for an Appendix I listing of the narwhal.
    The HSUS indicated that Canada and Greenland continue to hunt 
narwhals and export tusks in large numbers (Greenland being the largest 
exporter), and that the annual net trade in tusks nearly doubled from 
1985-1990. (Prior to 1985 when Greenland began issuing its own CITES 
export permits, the movement of tusks from Greenland to Denmark was not 
considered international trade, therefore pre- and post-1985 trade 
figures cannot be compared equally). They also state that trade figures 
do not reflect the total numbers of narwhals taken because for each 
actual take there are three to four injured or killed animals lost. 
Even though information is limited, HSUS believe that reproductive 
rates among narwhals is low, and that in 1981 the world population was 
estimated at approximately 20,000 animals and declining. HSUS asserted 
that narwhals should be listed in Appendix I as a precautionary measure 
because status information is limited, information on reproduction and 
natural mortality is lacking, and information on actual numbers hunted 
is unavailable.
    The AHA indicated that new export markets have caused narwhal ivory 
prices to increase in Canada following a price decline in the mid-
1980's, which has returned ivory prices to about the same prices as 
existed in the early 1980's. This increase in the price of narwhal 
ivory prices has suggested that ivory rather than maktag and meat has 
become the basis of modern hunting in eastern Canada. AHA noted that 
take quotas have not been imposed by Greenland, and that there are no 
controls on trade in ivory. However, as previously mentioned, since 
1985 a no detriment finding is necessary for the issuance of CITES 
export permits by Greenland and for an import permit by Denmark.
    Defenders also asserted that the prime motivation for the take of 
narwhal in recent years has been the ivory, stimulated by new export 
markets and a resurgence in the price of ivory since the mid-1980's, 
which has biased take to the adult males. They feel that this could 
jeopardize narwhal population structure by the removal of a larger 
number of males. They contended that the current CITES listing of the 
narwhal in Appendix II does not provide adequate monitoring of take 
because there is not a substantial domestic market for narwhal tusks in 
Canada, and yet export permits were issued for fewer than half the 
tusks obtained in Canadian narwhal hunts between 1975 and 1990. From 
this, Defenders concluded that a large number of tusks must have been 
exported without CITES permits, but presented no evidence for this 
conclusion. Therefore, due to the uncertainty and concern surrounding 
the catch levels of narwhals for the ivory market, Defenders supported 
an Appendix I listing.
    The EIA submitted comments that supported their original proposal 
that the narwhal be included in Appendix I. They provided an estimate 
of 28,000 narwhal in the combined Canada-Greenland High Arctic 
population. They discussed the utilization of maktag and meat, the 
demand for narwhal ivory in Canada, and the export of Greenland ivory 
to Denmark and on into the EU. The decline in ivory prices of the early 
1980's has, according to EIA, now returned to about those same levels. 
EIA pointed out the absence of quotas on take of narwhal in Greenland, 
suggested that the application of quotas in Canada is inadequate, and 
that the number of narwhal taken does not reflect actual take numbers 
because of the loss of wounded or killed animals before they are 
landed. They also pointed out the difficulty of assessing the 
relationship between the market demand for ivory and hunting intensity. 
EIA believed that additional information on life history, distribution, 
abundance, and hunting loss rates was needed to assess the stocks and 
the impacts of trade in the various parts derived from narwhal in order 
to properly manage the stocks.
    The Greenland Home Rule Government and the Fisheries Agency of 
Japan (FAJ) objected to transferring the narwhal to Appendix I. 
Greenland did not agree that narwhals should be placed in Appendix I 
due to unsustainable hunting pressures caused by the international 
trade in narwhal ivory. They argued that recent population estimates 
did not adequately take into account submerged whales, which would give 
corrected estimates sufficient to sustain hunting pressures greater 
than current harvest levels. They also maintained that low levels of 
ivory export reported for Greenland before 1985 are partially an 
artifact of the change in their political designation at that time, 
prior to which the shipment of ivory to Denmark was not considered as 
an export. They noted that, even though there are no catch quotas for 
Greenland, there are strict regulations on catch reporting, vessel 
sizes, etc., and that there are two reserve areas in Greenland waters 
where narwhal are protected. Generally, the FAJ felt that a listing in 
Appendix I should be based only on scientific evidence that there is a 
threat to extinction and that trade control is necessary for the 
protection of the species. Furthermore, the FAJ noted that the narwhal 
is already in Appendix II, providing some control of trade and a 
mechanism for collecting trade data, and that in the absence of new 
information indicating a deterioration in the status of the species 
there is no need for consideration of a change to Appendix I.
    The Government of Canada also does not agree with an Appendix I 
proposal for the narwhal. They feel that recent estimates of the 
Canadian High Arctic stocks are low by as much as 50 percent due to an 
underestimation of the time narwhals spend under water (as indicated in 
the 1992 Report of the Sub- Committee on Small Cetaceans of the 
International Whaling Commission), and that this larger population size 
can sustain current catch levels. They also feel that their catch 
quotas are adequate.
    The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) does not support an 
Appendix I listing for the narwhal at this time, but noted that Canada 
and Greenland should be encouraged to obtain additional and better 
information on the status and trends of narwhal stocks, and on harvest 
levels (particularly regarding animals that are struck and lost during 
hunting).
    In developing its position, the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) took note of the continuing question about the sustainability of 
the take of narwhal, particularly noting the difficulties in obtaining 
data, such as population levels, catch levels and loss rates, and in 
obtaining trade data for narwhals. Because of this uncertainty, NMFS 
decided not to recommend that the United States propose this species 
for Appendix I. The Service assessed all information available and 
concluded that there was no sufficient information to support listing 
this species in Appendix I. The United States will continue to monitor 
information on this species as it becomes available in order to better 
assess possible recommendations at a later date.
    2. Musk deer (Moschus species). The EIA requested that the Service 
propose including all species in the genus Moschus in Appendix I. There 
are at least four species in the genus, which is widely distributed 
across eastern and central Asia. Currently all Moschus species are 
included in Appendix II except those populations in Afghanistan, 
Bhutan, Burma, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, which are included in 
Appendix I. Musk deer were listed in the Appendices due to the trade in 
musk, a substance taken from the musk gland of the male and used in 
traditional medicines in Asia and in the manufacture of perfumes.
    Five comments were received in response to the January 27, 1994, 
Federal Register notice. Four commenters (including SAPL) favored the 
transfer of all Appendix II populations of musk deer to Appendix I. 
TRAFFIC USA, while neither supporting nor opposing an Appendix I 
listing, relayed information from TRAFFIC France that the French 
perfume industry is using a synthetic musk in some cases, but that 
France continues to import 5 to 15 kilograms of musk per year, 
primarily from the Russian Federation. The AHA suggested that musk deer 
``farming'' operations in China are inadequate to satisfy demands for 
musk, and that the existence of a legal musk trade creates a loophole 
for illegal trade. Defenders and HSUS reiterated this claim. The AHA 
stated that current levels of exploitation of musk deer in Russia, 
China and the Himalayas are reported to be unsustainable. Defenders 
reported that the price of musk in Hong Kong can be as high as 
US$84,000 to US$119,000 per kilogram. They also indicated that there is 
not much information available on population numbers of musk deer, but 
that it is known that illegal and undocumented trade in musk is 
occurring. They state that, ``Estimates indicate that some populations 
have been halved during the past five years due to uncontrolled 
hunting,'' but no specific information or documented reports were 
provided. The HSUS noted the high cost of musk, and stated that this 
has led to wide-scale poaching of musk deer. They also reported that an 
80 percent decline has occurred in one population of musk deer in 
Russia. The HSUS claimed that in China musk deer populations are 
declining rapidly due to over-exploitation.
    Comments received provided little additional or substantive 
information on the distribution and status of musk deer, or on 
international trade in musk, aside from anecdotal reports of increased 
poaching and the high cost of musk. The People's Republic of China 
claims that there are 500,000 to 1 million musk deer in China, and 
plans a comprehensive survey. Russia indicated there are about 150,000 
musk deer in Russia, and harvests are not allowed in areas where 
populations are decreasing. In Russia, musk deer are protected in 18 
reserves and other federal and local preserves, and the Sakhalin musk 
deer is listed in the Red Data Book. Based on these protective 
measures, the Russian Management Authority felt that it is premature to 
amend the listing of the musk deer to Appendix I. Mongolia provided 
conflicting remarks; they indicated support for an Appendix I listing 
of the musk deer in their cover letter, but in their attached 
discussion of the species they stated that the Mongolian musk deer 
should be kept in Appendix II.
    The Service does not believe that population or trend data are 
sufficient to support a proposal to transfer the Appendix II 
populations of musk deer to Appendix I, and did not submit such a 
proposal.
    3. Copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster). The Service has 
proposed to list the northern subspecies of the copperbelly water 
snake, N. e. neglecta, as a threatened species under the Endangered 
Species Act, 58 FR 43860 (August 18, 1993). The species is restricted 
to the lower Ohio River Valley and the lower Wabash River Valley in 
Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky, and in southern Michigan, Indiana, and 
Ohio. There have been recent population declines and it now exists in 
isolated pockets of suitable habitat.
    Only the HSUS provided comments, and supported the listing of the 
species in Appendix II. Although the proposed rule suggested that 
removal from the wild by amateur collectors posed some threat to this 
species, no additional information on trade in the species was 
received, and existing reports of international trade are several years 
old. Therefore, on the basis of this record the Service is not 
persuaded that the available information on trade would warrant a 
proposal to include this species in Appendix II.
    4. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). The Service received a draft 
proposal from ICCAT Watch, a coalition consisting of the National 
Audubon Society (NAS), the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), and 
the World Wildlife Fund- US (WWF-US), to list the bluefin tuna 
throughout the Atlantic Ocean on Appendix II and additionally, the 
western Atlantic population on Appendix I. Later, ICCAT Watch withdrew 
its request to list the western Atlantic population in Appendix I.
    The January 27, 1994, Federal Register notice gave current 
information about the Atlantic bluefin tuna including management by the 
International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), 
recent stock assessments for the western and eastern stocks, recent 
estimates of fishing mortality rates, reductions in harvest quotas 
recommended at the 1993 Regular Meeting of ICCAT for the years 1994 and 
1995, and plans for the implementation of a Bluefin Statistical 
Document to be required for the import of bluefin tuna by ICCAT 
countries. The next Regular Meeting of ICCAT will be held in December 
1994.
    It was noted in the FR notice that according to the Standing 
Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT (SCRS) and NMFS 
scientists there is uncertainty about an appropriate boundary between 
the western and eastern populations of bluefin tuna. At the request of 
the Department of Commerce, the National Academy of Sciences has 
conducted an independent review on the ``Scientific Basis of Management 
of the Fisheries for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna,'' which evaluated 
information on stock structure as well as recent population 
assessments. The report was presented to the Department of Commerce on 
August 31, 1994. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) has named a team of experts to evaluate the findings and make 
recommendations about policy and management issues.
    Within the comment period, the Service received a total of 83 
comments on the possible CITES listing of this species from the general 
public, commercial and recreational fishers and fishing organizations, 
conservation organizations, and foreign governments. Of these, 73 
supported a listing of the Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix II, 8 
opposed any listing under CITES, and 2 did not specifically oppose or 
support a listing. (Comments from the Russian Government were received 
after the comment period closed.)
    The Executive Secretary of ICCAT conveyed the comments of the 
Chairman of ICCAT. While not commenting on the appropriateness of a 
CITES listing, the Chairman drew attention to steps that ICCAT had 
recently taken to improve the conservation of Atlantic bluefin tuna, 
including:
    1. Drastically reducing the allowable catch for western Atlantic 
bluefin tuna;
    2. Introducing an effective measure for monitoring international 
trade through the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Program;
    3. Undertaking or developing other methods to improve data 
collection;
    4. Encouraging expansion of research and analysis with a goal of 
having the basis to develop a program at the Commission meeting in 1995 
aimed at achieving a 50 percent increase from current levels in the 
spawning stock biomass of the western stock by the year 2008; and
    5. Adopting an amendment to ICCAT that would allow the European 
Union to be a Contracting Party to ICCAT and hence expand the number of 
countries adhering to the ICCAT recommendations.
    Commenters opposed to an Appendix II listing for Atlantic bluefin 
tuna (including the Global Guardian Trust, the National Fisheries 
Institute, Inc., and the International Coalition of Fisheries 
Associations) generally believed that measures recommended by ICCAT are 
being implemented according to schedule, and that the steps taken by 
ICCAT represent significant progress in improving reporting 
requirements and management measures. Therefore, they felt that it is 
not necessary or appropriate to consider a CITES listing until the 
effectiveness of these steps can be evaluated.
    The Japan Fisheries Association contended that international 
organizations for the management of living resources, such as ICCAT, 
are designed to conserve and manage resources that are at higher stock 
levels than are resources that would be listed under CITES, and that 
species listed under CITES are being protected from possible 
``extinction.'' Therefore, they believe that listing species such as 
the Atlantic bluefin tuna under CITES would require a digression from 
the objectives of CITES, and would also go against ``the principle of 
sustainable development.''
    The Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations 
felt that a CITES listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna would not ensure its 
conservation because CITES does not have authority to limit harvest. 
They suggested that no conclusions should be drawn concerning the 
status of the species until a peer review of information about the 
existence of two stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna is completed. The 
Federation also contends that the species is not currently threatened 
with extinction, nor is it likely to become so, therefore it does not 
meet criteria for listing under CITES.
    The East Coast Tuna Association maintained that recent assessments 
and future projections concerning the western stock of Atlantic bluefin 
tuna are ``extraordinarily controversial,'' to the extent that the NMFS 
has requested the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a peer review 
of data and information supporting these assessments as well as the 
two-stock hypothesis. They believed that a CITES listing would be 
redundant and would likely penalize only those fishermen who now 
participate in the ICCAT program.
    The FAJ felt that it is essential that any CITES listing be based 
on scientific evidence that there is a threat of extinction to a 
species and that trade control is necessary for the protection of the 
species. They contended that a species should not be listed only for 
the purpose of collecting trade data, especially if an international 
organization is already collecting such data. They believed that an 
Appendix II listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna would impose undue burdens 
on the enforcement capabilities of many countries. They also state that 
protection of wildlife cannot be accomplished through regulation of 
trade alone, but harvesting should be regulated, and that CITES is not 
capable of harvest regulation. Also, they believed that the interests 
of range states should be considered based on consultations, and range 
states have not been contacted. The First Secretary (Fisheries), 
Embassy of Japan, essentially supported these contentions.
    As an ICCAT member, the Russian Ministry of Protection of the 
Environment and Natural Resources felt that ICCAT's regulation of take 
by annual quota and the Statistical Documentation Program provide 
strict controls for use of the Atlantic bluefin tuna. They also did not 
think that the species is threatened with extinction and therefore was 
not eligible for a CITES listing.
    TRAFFIC USA submitted a detailed analysis of international trade in 
all species of bluefin tuna, including species not recommended in the 
proposal for listing. The data indicated that a large quantity of 
bluefin tuna is traded by countries that are not parties to ICCAT, 
although not all the bluefin tuna analyzed by the document are caught 
in the Atlantic. However, the basis for this analysis was import data 
from three countries that report customs data in a uniform way, Japan, 
New Zealand, and the United States. Although Japan is identified in the 
report as importing the majority of bluefin tuna (perhaps two-thirds), 
statistics for other major consuming nations, including some non-ICCAT 
countries, are not available.
    The NAS felt that adding Atlantic bluefin tuna to Appendix II would 
help provide information needed for population assessment models and 
effective management, but would not alter or reduce current traffic in 
tuna. Although they were encouraged by ICCAT's catch-quota 
recommendations, they were discouraged by the lack of data from non-
ICCAT countries, such as Italy and Mexico. They believe that a CITES 
listing would elicit data from non-ICCAT countries, which would 
facilitate assessment of fishing by non-ICCAT countries, particularly 
in spawning areas. The Wisconsin Audubon Council, the Audubon Council 
of New York State, the Napa-Solano Audubon Society, the Cape Arago 
Audubon Society, the New York Sportfishing Federation, ICCAT Watch, the 
New York Zoological Society, Environment Liaison Centre International, 
the Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association, the HSUS, Defenders, 
the CMC, and the EIA all reiterated these sentiments. The Animal 
Protection Institute indicated a lack of faith in ICCAT's ability to 
manage the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and felt that a CITES listing would 
provide a better opportunity to monitor the effects of trade, 
especially because it would include all non-ICCAT countries.
    NMFS does not believe that Atlantic bluefin tuna should be proposed 
for inclusion in Appendix II of CITES at this time, and has concluded 
that ICCAT members should be given adequate time to implement 
appropriate fishery controls, to implement fully the Bluefin 
Statistical Document Program, and to develop procedures for the use of 
enforcement-enhancing trade measures with respect to ICCAT's 
conservation program. After that time the incremental benefits of a 
CITES listing could be assessed. NMFS feels that preliminary analysis 
of data collected through the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document will 
allow evaluation of the effectiveness of this program in calculating 
and monitoring trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna.
    Given the possibility of ecological extinction, and/or the 
vulnerability to significant population losses due to trade or 
overexploitation, the Atlantic bluefin tuna would qualify biologically 
for listing in Appendix II of CITES. However, based on available 
information on management measures to conserve the species, the Service 
believes that a listing should not be proposed at this time. 
Significant quota reductions have occurred in 1994 and additional 
reductions are planned for 1995. The eastern Atlantic population of 
bluefin tuna appears to be more productive than its western 
counterpart. Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna mature at about age 5 while 
western Atlantic bluefin tuna reach maturity at about age 8, and 
recruitment is relatively much higher in the eastern Atlantic. However, 
fishing mortality rates on immature fish in the eastern Atlantic are 
exceedingly high, with 30-60 percent of the landings in recent years 
comprising fish less than the minimum size of 6.4 kg. recommended by 
ICCAT in 1975. The most recent estimate of a overall fishing mortality 
is 4-6 times the levels that would be expected to produce the maximum 
sustainable yield. An assessment of the eastern Atlantic and 
Mediterranean stocks is scheduled by the SCRS in preparation for 
discussions at the 1994 Regular Meeting of ICCAT.
    Implementation of the Statistical Document Program now required for 
all imports into ICCAT countries will provide more information on 
Atlantic bluefin tuna harvests than would CITES certificates or export 
permits, although ICCAT has not yet required the collection of such 
information for imports/landings in non-ICCAT countries. Harvest 
information would be further enhanced if non-ICCAT countries, and the 
European Union, became members.
    The decision of the Service to forgo proposing a CITES listing is 
significantly influenced by the Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation 
measures adopted at the 1993 annual ICCAT meeting in Madrid. In 
opposing the listing of the Atlantic bluefin tuna at the 1992 CITES 
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) in Kyoto, Japan, 
representatives for ICCAT argued that ICCAT, not CITES, was the 
appropriate international vehicle for implementing necessary 
conservation measures for Atlantic bluefin tuna. In response to this 
approach, the United States delegation to the 1993 ICCAT meeting 
proposed and secured significant quota reductions for the western 
population of Atlantic bluefin tuna.
    Another factor supporting the decision of the Service is the 
progress made by the Permanent Working Group of ICCAT in April 1994 in 
fashioning a proposal (to be discussed further at the ICCAT plenary 
meeting in late 1994) for trade measures to be used as an ICCAT 
enforcement tool.
    From the point of view of NMFS, the adoption of quota reductions 
for 1994 and 1995 demonstrated ICCAT's resolve to maintain the 
leadership role in the conservation of the bluefin tuna. However, in 
the event that appropriate conservation measures are not adopted by 
ICCAT or prove to be inadequate, the Service will reconsider proposing 
this species for listing in a CITES Appendix, through a postal 
procedure if listing is thought to be necessary prior to the next 
Conference of the Parties.
    5. Requiem (Carcharhinidae) and hammerhead (Sphyrnidae) sharks. 
Requiem and hammerhead shark species occur in pelagic and/or coastal 
waters worldwide, mostly in tropical to temperate regions. Sizes range 
from the white, mako, and great hammerhead at over 3 m, to smaller 
coastal species as the sandbar and scalloped hammerhead sharks. They 
are predators of various types. Fertilization and development of young 
is, in most species, internal, and young are born as active, fully 
developed, and relatively large individuals. The number of young in a 
brood is usually small (about 2 to 25), but the relative maturity at 
birth usually results in high survival rates. Often gestation periods 
are long (up to 1 year). There are no population size estimates over 
large areas for sharks.
    Eight responses concerning these sharks were received within the 
comment period; four favored their listing in Appendix II, and four 
were opposed to a listing.
    The CMC, NAS, and HSUS, along with other commenters, stated that 
because large sharks are slow to reach sexual maturity and reproduce at 
long intervals, they must be managed more conservatively than other 
commercial fisheries. They cite the demand for shark fins as probably 
the largest factor in the presumed global decline of sharks, although 
meat is also in demand, and a new market for shark cartilage as a 
cancer treatment has developed. The NAS pointed out that most shark 
experts question whether sustainable exploitation of sharks is even 
possible and that over 90 percent of the shark fisheries in this 
century have failed.
    TRAFFIC USA submitted an unpublished paper from the World 
Conservation Monitoring Centre on shark fin trade, entitled, 
``International Trade in Shark Fins.'' The study was undertaken to 
quantify the volume and value of shark fins in international trade, and 
to identify the main producer and consumer nations. However, due to the 
limited availability of trade data, statistics from only nine countries 
were analyzed. The paper calls for closer attention to studies of 
trends in shark populations, in order to protect sharks from 
overexploitation.
    In opposition to a CITES listing, the International Coalition of 
Fisheries Associations and the National Fisheries Institute commented 
that the lack of available information on population structure, 
distribution, abundance, and population trends for these species limit 
the presentation of scientific evidence to support a proposal for 
listing. They expressed concern that an Appendix II listing might 
encourage unilateral actions, such as the U.S. Atlantic coast shark 
fishery management plan, that could provide a basis for CITES nations 
to determine that their shark production was non-detrimental, rather 
than participating in regional cooperative management programs.
    The Japan Fisheries Association and the FAJ indicated that 
available scientific information does not support listing these shark 
species, and that a listing would impose an excessive burden on the 
management and scientific authorities of concerned parties to CITES.
    NMFS took note of the lack of specific information in many comments 
received, and based on this limitation, combined with the lack of 
research cross-referencing trade statistics with population trends, 
NMFS decided that they would not recommend proposing any shark species 
for listing in the CITES Appendices. The Service agrees with this view, 
and also feels that the data available on the status of shark species 
worldwide are not sufficient to support the listing of all species in 
these two families at this time.
    6. Whale shark (Rhincodon typus). The whale shark is the only 
species in the genus Rhincodon, and occurs worldwide mainly in tropical 
and subtropical waters (except in the Mediterranean). It is a large (8-
10 m, and up to 4.5 metric tons), slow, mainly surface dwelling, 
plankton-feeder. Historically it appears to have been infrequent in 
occurrence; no reliable population estimates seem to exist, and they 
are nowhere abundant. The meat is eaten, but it is soft and apparently 
brings a low price in most markets. Whale sharks are taken commercially 
in a few places around the world (mostly in Asia), especially during 
seasons when other more valuable fish species are not available. 
Although fins are removed for the shark fin soup trade, some are 
considered second grade.
    The EIA proposed to the Service that the whale shark be considered 
for inclusion in Appendix II of CITES. The Service received nine 
comments on the whale shark within the comment period; five supported a 
listing and four were opposed. (Most comments were directed to all 
sharks, not specifically to the whale shark.)
    TRAFFIC USA indicated that TRAFFIC Oceania has undertaken the 
collection and analysis of shark species in trade globally, and 
enclosed a TRAFFIC USA Newsletter on sharks as well as an unpublished 
report entitled, ``International Trade in Shark Fins.'' The CMC noted 
that commercial shark fishing is increasing worldwide as the demand for 
shark meat and fins continues to expand, and invoked the slow growth 
rates, late maturation, and small number of young produced as being 
characteristics of sharks in general that also apply to whale sharks 
and increase their vulnerability. They indicated that there are 
commercial fisheries for whale sharks in waters off India, Pakistan, 
China, Senegal, and the Philippines that appear to be expanding, and 
noted that the generally coastal habitat of whale sharks and their slow 
movements make them vulnerable to boat collisions and harpooning. The 
AHA and the NAS reiterated these comments, adding that, as a 
precautionary principle, the species should be listed rather than 
waiting until additional data and information is accumulated. The HSUS 
noted that shark populations in general are considered overexploited, 
at least in parts of their range, and, although data are lacking, they 
believed that trade in whale shark fins is probably increasing. They 
supported a listing in order that data on trade and exploitation might 
be collected for the species.
    In opposition to the listing of the whale shark, the International 
Coalition of Fisheries Associations and the National Fisheries 
Institute, Inc. suggested that an Appendix II listing would probably 
not affect the limited subsistence fisheries in parts of Asia, but that 
it might limit or undermine a more coordinated international approach 
that could effectively control mortality. They repeated the comments 
from others that there is little or no information on the whale shark's 
population structure, distribution, abundance, population trends, or 
trade. The Japan Fisheries Association stated that available scientific 
information on sharks does not warrant listing these species in any 
CITES Appendix. The FAJ essentially agreed with this assessment, adding 
that a listing would add an excessive burden to the Management and 
Scientific Authorities of the CITES Parties concerned.
    NMFS took note of the lack of specific information in many of the 
comments received, and, based on this limitation, combined with the 
lack of research cross-referencing trade statistics with population 
trends, NMFS decided that they would not recommend proposing the whale 
shark for listing in a CITES Appendix. NMFS will continue to monitor 
work being done in this area in order to better assess possible 
recommendations at a later date.
    At this time the Service feels that there is insufficient 
information on status and international trade to support a proposal to 
list the whale shark in Appendix II of CITES. A better understanding of 
the possible threats to this species is needed before such a proposal 
could be considered. There does not appear to be firm evidence 
suggesting that the whale shark has ever been other than infrequent in 
occurrence, or that there has been a significant increase in the catch 
of this species by the traditional fisheries in Asia.
    In lieu of proposals to list the whale shark, requiem sharks, and 
hammerhead sharks in the Appendices of CITES, the United States has 
submitted an agenda item on trade in shark products for COP9, which is 
discussed later in this notice.
    7. Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla). American mahogany is 
the genus Swietenia, which is native to the neotropics. Two of the 
three species are in CITES Appendix II: Swietenia humilis (Pacific 
Coast mahogany) including its parts and derivatives, which occurs in 
Mexico and Central America; and Swietenia mahagoni (Caribbean mahogany) 
including only its logs, sawn wood and veneer, which occurs on some 
Caribbean islands and extends to southern Florida. The unlisted 
species, Swietenia macrophylla (bigleaf mahogany), occurs from South 
America to Mexico; in Costa Rica it evidently forms hybrids naturally 
with S. humilis. The United States has become the main importer of wood 
from bigleaf mahogany.
    During the comment period the Service received 22 responses 
relating to the January 27, 1994, Federal Register notice; 17 
organizations or individuals favored the United States submitting a 
proposal to include Swietenia macrophylla, including only logs, sawn 
wood, veneer sheets, and plywood, in Appendix II, and 2 organizations 
were opposed.
    The favorable responses, sometimes in detail or with substantial 
enclosures, were from the company A & M Wood Specialty (Cambridge, 
Ontario, Canada); on behalf of the architects of the American Institute 
of Architects (AIA) from the Rainforest and Natural Resources Task 
Group of the AIA Committee on the Environment; the Fauna and Flora 
Preservation Society (London, U.K.); Greenpeace USA; the Natural 
Resources Defense Council of Washington, D.C. (NRDC); the Woodworkers 
Alliance for Rainforest Protection; some students and staff of Los 
Altos High School (Los Altos, California); and the general public (six 
letters). In addition, the following persons with particular research 
or conservation experience with the species individually supported the 
submission of a proposal: Mr. J. Beavers (Schaghticoke, New York); Sr. 
L. Quevedo-H. (Santa Cruz, Bolivia); Dr. L.K. Snook (Westport, 
Connecticut); and Sr. A. Szwagrzak (La Paz, Bolivia). Moreover, Dr. 
J.O. Browder, an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban Affairs 
and Planning of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 
provided a copy of his recent study on the feasibility of small-holder 
mahogany-planting in Rondonia, Brazil; and TRAFFIC USA advised the 
Service that it was collaborating with a graduate student of public 
policy at Harvard University who was studying the relative importance 
of illegal trade in the total trade in the species and the potential 
effectiveness of a CITES listing in achieving sustainable harvest and 
trade. Subsequently, TRAFFIC USA advised the Service that instead the 
study had evolved into hypothetical policy ramifications, and 
consequently they did not have such new data and information to 
provide.
    The responses opposed to the submission of a proposal were from the 
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the International Wood Products 
Association (IHPA). At the Service's public meeting held on February 
22, 1994, the IHPA inquired concerning the responsibilities and process 
used by the CITES Plants Committee (CPC) in recommending that proposals 
be considered, and the intention of the Service with regard to 
circulating potential proposals to the range States for comments, and 
whether those comments would be reflected in final positions of the 
United States on the species. The Service representatives responded 
that the CPC had advisory and technical roles, that the Service 
intended to communicate with the range States, and that the views of 
range States would be seriously considered. In comments submitted March 
14, 1994, IHPA stated that they share a belief that the species does 
not qualify for Appendix II. They provided a broad and detailed 
commentary of opposition (with enclosures), which covered the three 
potential proposals for the several mahoganies. The Service has noted 
the particular comments on the genera of African mahoganies in the 
section on those genera below.
    At COP8, during an informal meeting on whether to include Swietenia 
macrophylla in Appendix II, most range States favored the Costa Rica or 
U.S. proposals--except Bolivia, Peru, and Honduras. Ultimately the 
preferred U.S. proposal was withdrawn because of continuing 
disagreement. In keeping with Resolution Conf. 8.21, the Service 
provided a draft of the new proposal to the range States in mid-April 
1994 and solicited their comments. Prior to the June 10, 1994, deadline 
for submission of proposals for COP9, Brazil, Bolivia, and Peru 
expressed opposition to the potential proposal, whereas Colombia and El 
Salvador expressed support.
    The Service has been discussing this topic with the USFS, 
particularly regarding concerns about ecological extinction of the 
species, and with the U.S. Department of State, regarding the positions 
of range States and the effective role of CITES. The Service recognizes 
that some have argued that the purchase of CITES-approved mahogany wood 
could support sustainable use of this species, since listing requires 
the countries where a species is native to find that its export would 
not be detrimental to the survival of the species before they issue 
export permits.
    On June 9, 1994, the Service became aware that The Netherlands had 
submitted a proposal for inclusion of this species in Appendix II. The 
United States decided not to submit another proposal and to address 
unresolved issues, in an effort to reach a consensus on the proposal 
that The Netherlands had already submitted for this species. The 
Service is now seeking comments on that proposal; see the September 6, 
1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR 46023).
    8. African mahoganies (Entandrophragma and Khaya). The genera 
Entandrophragma (about 11 species) and Khaya (about 6 species) are 
native to the tropics of Africa, with Khaya extending to the Comoros 
Islands and Madagascar. All the species have been declining from 
habitat conversion and selectively varied commercial exploitation, and 
nearly all have been reported to be threatened in various countries and 
significant portions of their ranges. The majority of the 17 species 
have some legal protection in one or more countries, generally with 
respect to their export. Within the comment period the Service received 
six comments, with three in favor of submitting proposals for the 
species and two against.
    The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (London, U.K.) supported 
the inclusion of all species of both genera in Appendix II. They stated 
that ``Due to the nature of the mahogany trade, it is important to 
appreciate that equal and parallel attention and protection must be 
afforded to Khaya spp. and Entandrophragma spp. as to Swietenia 
macrophylla * * *. There are only a few areas of Africa where * * * 
African mahoganies have [not] already suffered massive decline * * *.'' 
The NRDC also expressed support for including both genera in Appendix 
II and concern about the inter-relationships of trade in wood of the 
three genera. The AIA chair of its Rainforest and Natural Resources 
Task Group, who is also a member of the Steering Group of the AIA 
Committee on the Environment, wrote, on behalf of the architects of the 
AIA, in favor of the inclusion of the genera. He stated that he 
understood Appendix II listing would not constitute a trade ban, and 
that inclusion of the species would help architects and designers to 
make responsible and objective decisions concerning their use [since 
they could purchase from the CITES-approved exports].
    At the Service's public meeting held on February 22, 1994, an 
individual representing IHPA inquired concerning the responsibilities 
and process used by the CPC in recommending that proposals be 
considered, and the intention of the Service with regard to circulating 
potential proposals to the range States for comments, and whether those 
comments would be reflected in final positions of the United States on 
the species. Service representatives responded that the CPC had 
advisory and technical roles, that Germany had the lead with African 
mahoganies and was communicating with the range States, and that the 
views of range States would be seriously considered.
    In early May 1994, the Service received copies of the replies 
Germany had received by April 26, from 13 of the 31 range States; 6 
supported inclusion of the genera in Appendix II, 3 were against 
proposals, and 4 were neutral.
    In its comments submitted March 14, 1994, IHPA stated that they do 
not believe that these genera qualify for Appendix II. They provided a 
broad and detailed commentary of opposition (with enclosures), which 
covered the three potential proposals for the several mahoganies. 
Regarding in particular the African mahoganies, the IHPA stated that 
the volumes of traded wood listed in the proposals are not clearly 
linked to total reductions in standing volumes of the species across 
their ranges. They also stated that much is in protected areas and gave 
as an example that 20 percent of rainforest in Ghana is in totally 
protected reserves. In addition, IHPA enclosed a letter of February 18, 
1994, to them from the Planning Branch of the Ghana Forestry 
Department, which stated that listing under CITES is not necessary for 
the protection of these species in Ghana, and provided details on Ghana 
forest management and these species; see the similar statement below, 
from the Ghana Timber Export Development Board.
    The Trade and Investment Office of the Embassy of Ghana in the 
United States expressed opposition to including Entandrophragma and 
Khaya in Appendix II. However the basic differences in controls between 
Appendix II and Appendix I may not have been fully understood by them 
or the Ghana Forestry Department, as the Embassy included a statement 
from the Ghana Timber Export Development Board (Takoradi, Ghana), 
similar to the letter of the Forestry Department, both of which 
expressed the view that ``A ban [sic] on exploitation of these species 
in the case of Ghana is rather likely to undermine current efforts to 
protect them * * *'' The Embassy stated that the timber industry is a 
very important contributor to foreign-exchange earnings, those two 
genera constitute about 50 percent of their production and exports, and 
the country has made great strides (giving details) towards sustainable 
management of Ghana forests. They stated that forest management in 
Ghana now is recognized as being the best in sub-Saharan Africa.
    The Embassy included a detailed statement from the Timber Export 
Development Board which stated that Ghana has made forest-management 
reforms and has conservative forest-exploitation controls and 
protective strategies that provide adequate regulatory measures to 
ensure sustainable utilization, which are being enforced. The Board 
provided details about the four Entandrophragma species and three Khaya 
species that are native, indicating that four of the seven species are 
quite widely distributed and some of the species occur nationally at 
very low densities, and giving thorough estimated inventories of the 
seven species (for the high-forest region of southern Ghana). The Board 
noted that there are few remaining large trees for exploitation, but 
that ``* * * this implies commercial extinction of the species only, as 
there is plenty of regeneration and the present management system has 
been designed to protect the species.''
    The Service was advised that Germany would submit proposals to 
include the two genera in Appendix II, and decided that the United 
States would evaluate the German proposal objectively without being a 
co-proponent.
    9. Non-native Aloes (Aloe spp.). All species of Aloe are in the 
CITES appendices, with nearly all in Appendix II, including Aloe vera 
(synonym Aloe barbadensis). The genus is essentially African. Plants 
regarded as Aloe vera have been used by people for millennia and the 
yellow-flowered species may be extinct in its native range--it may have 
been native to the southern Arabian Peninsula or northeastern Africa 
(e.g., Ethiopia) where similar species occur (but perhaps instead was 
native to the Canary Islands).
    The parts and derivatives of artificially propagated Aloe vera are 
unregulated. The whole plants commonly in trade as aloe vera are of 
artificially propagated (or also naturalized) origin, and they have 
become an enforcement burden. On January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3832), the 
Service announced that it was considering submission of a proposal to 
remove the non-native population of Aloe that is geographically 
distinct from the general African area. All species of Aloe where they 
may be native thus would have continued to be regulated by CITES, 
including those on the Arabian Peninsula and the islands neighboring 
Africa, such as the Canary Islands, Socotra, and Madagascar.
    Although no written comments were received during the comment 
period, Mr. Gary W. Lyons (of Gary Lyons Garden & Horticultural 
Consultant & Design), a member of the IUCN/SSC Cactus and Succulent 
Specialist Group and past chair of the Conservation Committee of the 
Cactus and Succulent Society of America, renewed (by telephone within 
the comment period) the concerns in his written commentary provided to 
the Service for the September 1993 CPC Meeting, and in August 1994 
provided a copy of his analysis written for consideration during the 
23rd Congress of the International Organization for Succulent Plant 
Study. On April 12, 1994, the United States discussed the subject at 
the 17th CITES North American Region Meeting near Ottawa, Canada. That 
group recommended that a proposal not be submitted, because of the risk 
it would create for illegal import of rare Aloe taxa, possibly 
including native wild Aloe vera.
    The Service considered whether exclusion of the plants from the 
non- native (non-African) population of Aloe would significantly 
increase risk to the survival in its native range of any Aloe (i.e., 
species, subspecies, botanical variety, or significant population). The 
United States decided not to submit a proposal. The subject was 
discussed at the CPC meeting in May 1994; Switzerland has since 
submitted a proposal for the removal of Aloe barbadensis [sic] [i.e., 
Aloe vera] from Appendix II.
    The Service is now seeking comments on that proposal; see the 
September 6, 1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR 46023). The Service 
is considering whether the artificially propagated whole plants of Aloe 
vera can be dealt with in a different way, without putting wild Aloe 
taxa at increased risk.
    10. Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). Port-Orford-cedar 
(POC) is endemic to southwestern Oregon as well as northwestern 
California, in an area that is generally coastal, mostly from about 
Coos Bay to Arcata. The species has been significantly reduced in 
natural standing volume, and is now logged almost entirely for export 
(primarily to Japan). An introduced pathogen (Phytophthora lateralis) 
has been spreading particularly as a side effect of soil transport by 
vehicles and logging equipment. Within the comment period the Service 
received 28 comments, 17 in favor of submitting a proposal to include 
this species in CITES Appendix II, and 11 against.
    Dr. D.B. Zobel, a plant ecologist and professor at Oregon State 
University, who has studied and/or observed the species and its 
situation since 1972 and is senior author of the monograph Ecology, 
Pathology, and Management of Port-Orford-Cedar (1985), considered that 
an attempt to control POC harvest through CITES would not be 
appropriate or effective, and could be counterproductive. He provided a 
detailed review that sometimes questioned whether assertions of threat, 
management, or protection were unproven belief or fact.
    Dr. T.T. Lawson, a forest pathologist of Lawson-Rasor Associates, 
who has spent several years monitoring research and control efforts on 
the POC disease, submitted a detailed evaluation and concluded that 
listing POC in Appendix II is appropriate and needed to reduce spread 
of the root pathogen. Dr. E.M. Hansen, Professor of Forest Pathology at 
Oregon State University, has worked with POC and Phytophthora lateralis 
for 22 years. He submitted detailed information and data about research 
on the root-rot disease and assessments of its present status and 
potential effects. While continuing to be seriously concerned about the 
impact of the disease on POC, he opposed listing because he believed 
that [even] halting log exports would not slow the spread of the 
disease, and might indirectly lead to a reduction in the management 
efforts to protect POC.
    The Oregon Natural Resources Council provided additional 
information on POC and its situation, including the report (In press) 
by T.T. Lawson, Port-Orford-Cedar: A Species Under Siege.
    The Siskiyou Regional Education Project and Siskiyou Audubon 
Society supported proposed inclusion of the species in Appendix II, 
providing a detailed analytical report. They stated that POC has been 
found to be a keystone species in riparian forests, enhancing their 
biodiversity (including fisheries), and that this species also is 
sometimes a critical riparian colonizer. They questioned various 
relatively recent regional and local USFS administrative plans, 
decisions, and activities. They detailed concerns and evidence about 
spread of the disease, even into areas designated as wilderness, wild-
and-scenic rivers, and botanical areas, consequent to salvage-logging 
and new logging operations as well as travel on back-country roads 
inadequately restricted or not closed. They included and endorsed a 
statement also sent separately by Mr. J. Rogers, a professional 
forester of Rogers & Associates who since 1968 has been familiar with 
the species and consequences of the root-rot disease from logging. He 
stated that unless export is halted, most of what remains of the 
species will be logged and/or infected, including the largest known 
individual of the species.
    The NRDC expressed support for inclusion of this species in 
Appendix II, and supplied detailed additional information and data on 
its situation. They stated that this species is the only Pacific 
Northwest conifer that can still be exported from Federal lands in log 
form legally since it had been designated a surplus commodity, and 
because of high foreign demand for logs--almost exclusively from old-
growth trees. They noted concerns about genetic erosion, and provided 
details regarding the water mold and its potential and likelihood of 
spreading. The NRDC believes that a halt to logging has become 
necessary.
    Greenpeace USA supported the proposal to include the species in 
Appendix II, stating among other concerns that continued logging of the 
best POC stocks could further reduce the genetic reserves of the 
species and the possibility of finding potential genotypes that could 
resist or overcome the disease.
    The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (London, U.K.) indicated 
that the export appeared to clearly warrant inclusion of the species in 
Appendix II. The chair of the AIA Rainforest and Natural Resources Task 
Group, who is also a member of the Steering Group of the AIA Committee 
on the Environment, wrote on behalf of the architects of the AIA, in 
favor of inclusion of this species. He stated that he understood CITES 
Appendix II listing would not constitute a trade ban, and that 
inclusion of the species could help architects and designers to make 
more responsible and objective decisions concerning its use [since they 
could purchase from the CITES-approved supplies]. During the comment 
period eight letters from the general public supported submission of a 
proposal to include POC in Appendix II.
    Fletchcraft Mfg. and Stahl's Traditional Archery supported 
restriction or stopping of export of the species. Both companies 
advocate an ecologically sustainable supply of POC wood for arrow 
manufacturing.
    Other letters of opposition to the potential CITES proposal were 
received within the comment period from Arcata Redwood Company, Douglas 
Timber Operators, Reservation Ranch, Weyerhaeuser Company, Woodland 
Management Professional Foresters, and the Association of Consulting 
Foresters of America. Also, Mr. D. Brattain of Reservation Ranch 
coordinated and led a POC Alliance mostly comprised of about 20 timber, 
lumber, and/or exporting companies and also the Oregon International 
Port of Coos Bay, Coos Chapter of the Society of American Foresters, 
and Coos County Forestry Department, which submitted an extensive 
document including a detailed response against the potential proposal 
to list the POC in Appendix II, with supplementary materials on POC and 
its situation, including additional usually detailed letters of 
opposition from the Coos County Forestry Department, the Coos-Curry 
Electric Cooperative, the [Coos] Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, a 
private POC landowner who also is a State Director for the Oregon Small 
Woodlands Association, The Agnew Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 
Moore Mill & Lumber Company, Rough & Ready Lumber Company, South Coast 
Lumber Company, Spalding & Son Lumber Manufacturers and Wholesalers, 
Westbrook Land and Timber, Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry, a USFS 
silviculturist--acting in a private capacity--with 15 years of 
responsibility for POC management to minimize spread and impact of the 
root-rot disease in a major National Forest Ranger District, the Oregon 
Chapter of the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, the 
Oregon Society of American Foresters, and the Natural Resource Group 
(Birmingham, Alabama).
    The Oregon Department of Forestry expressed opposition to inclusion 
of this species in Appendix II. They stated that virtually all of the 
commercially valuable timber of the species is on Federal lands, that 
there is ample protection due to the extensive acreage of land set 
aside for various conservation purposes, and that there is a program in 
place that will limit damage caused by the root disease on Federal 
lands and it is adequate to protect the species. They also found that 
the ecosystem-based direction of management taken by Federal land-
management agencies under the President's ``Option 9'' plan is 
sufficient to protect this species in its ecosystems, and they expect 
that the volume of the type of material demanded in the export market 
will be reduced because of implementation of this plan.
    The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection stated 
that they advise private landowners on precautions to be taken to 
prevent spread of the root rot, and that they generally have as a 
mitigation requirement of timber harvesting that the landowner follow 
the USFS policies and procedures. They asked that the decision for or 
against a proposal to list under CITES be made to protect or prolong 
the biological and ecological viability of the species in its natural 
range.
    The USFS recommended that the species not be added to Appendix II. 
The USFS provided detailed information (with detailed maps) about the 
species, its utilization, the water mold that infects POC and causes a 
virulent root disease, and the interagency program for Port-Orford-
cedar conservation and management [through the Interregional POC 
Coordinating Committee], which the USFS chairs. The USFS stated that 
over 40 percent of the tree species' range is in reserves protected 
from harvesting, that harvests have substantially declined and growth 
now exceeds harvest and mortality, and that they have an active range-
wide interagency effort underway [and the Interregional Port-Orford 
Cedar Action Plan] to manage the species and the infectious fungus.
    The Service carefully evaluated whether Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 
qualified for CITES Appendix II, and could benefit from export 
regulation by means of an Appendix II listing, which included a 
discussion of its situation at the CITES Plants Committee meeting held 
in Mexico in May 1994. The Service recognized that a significant 
portion of POC is in reserves that for various reasons are protected 
from harvesting (in some cases except for thinning and salvage 
cutting), that most of the species is on public lands under Federal 
management, and that there are meaningful efforts to harvest 
sustainably and to curtail the Phytophthora disease. The Service 
concluded that Federal and State regulatory mechanisms, governmental 
and private conservation actions, and endeavors particularly through 
the U.S. Forest Service to understand and to control the introduced 
disease now affecting some populations, were able to cope with this 
endemic species' present circumstances without the need for additional 
regulatory authority through use of this international treaty.

Species Proposals Submitted

    1. Saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica). The EIA sent the Service a 
proposal to list both subspecies of the saiga antelope in Appendix I. 
The horns of the saiga antelope have been used in Asian traditional 
medicines. Saiga have also been utilized as a food source at varying 
levels of intensity depending on location and availability. The 
Mongolian Ministry of Nature and Environment provided a rather detailed 
account of the status and biology of S. t. mongolica, which now exists 
in two small disjunct populations in Mongolia, one estimated at about 
1400 individuals in 1993 and the other estimated at 125 animals in 
1983. They recommended that this subspecies be listed in Appendix I.
    Saiga tatarica tatarica occurs in two major populations, one in 
Kazakhstan and a second south of the Volga River and northwest of the 
Caspian Sea in the Kalmykian Republic, Russian Federation. By the end 
of World War I this subspecies was near extinction, but began to 
recover in the 1920's so that by the late 1950's the population in 
Kazakhstan was reported to have reached nearly 2,000,000, and in 
Kalmykia saiga had reportedly increased to about 800,000. In the last 
two decades these numbers have been reduced again, fluctuating around 
150,000 in Kalmykia and down to about 450,000 in Kazakhstan in the last 
few years. These reductions are reportedly the result of a combination 
of factors including weather, land-use changes, and poaching for horns.
    Four comments were received within the comment period. Three 
comments favored listing saiga antelope in Appendix I, while the fourth 
supported only an Appendix II listing.
    The AHA was in favor of an Appendix I listing ``until trade in the 
species can be shown to be non-detrimental to the survival of the 
species.'' They stated that researchers indicate that saiga hunting in 
Russia has been nearly out of control over the last 3-4 years, implying 
that this increase is due to poaching for horns.
    Defenders supported an Appendix I listing, suggesting that saiga, 
like the rhino, are being threatened by poaching and overhunting for 
the horn trade, and that saiga horn is the most expensive fever-
reducing substance used in traditional medicines after rhino horn. They 
stated that saiga are also hunted for their meat, fat, and hides. They 
admitted that status and trade data are extremely limited, but that 
recent aerial surveys indicated a rapid rate of decline of saiga 
populations. They also pointed out the dramatic population reductions 
that can occur among saiga due to extreme weather conditions or food 
shortages.
    The HSUS favored an Appendix I listing for the saiga, also 
indicating the similarity between the use and demand for rhino and 
saiga horn. From an estimated 2 million animals in the 1960's, S. t. 
tatarica has plummeted to about 800,000 individuals according to HSUS, 
due apparently to uncontrolled hunting in Russia and Kazakhstan for the 
horns. The HSUS noted that the use of saiga horn as a substitute for 
rhino horn in traditional Chinese medicine has been and is likely to 
increase as pressures to control the trade in rhino horn intensify.
    The World Conservation Union's (IUCN) Sustainable Use of Wildlife 
Programme questioned the long-term benefits to saiga to be derived from 
an Appendix I listing. Such a listing for the Russian subspecies would 
technically prohibit commercial trade in the species, thus eliminating 
its value. Local and regional authorities currently would find it 
nearly impossible to implement the controls necessary to sustain saiga 
populations in the absence of obvious and immediate value to the local 
economy. They suggested that the local rural population would probably 
increase livestock numbers in saiga habitat to supplement and replace 
the value lost from saiga as a result of an Appendix I listing, 
eventually resulting in extirpation of the saiga. An Appendix II 
listing would require the Governments of Russia (for the Kalmykia 
population), Kazakhstan, and Mongolia to implement administrative and 
management procedures that, if adequate, could be beneficial to the 
species. The IUCN group was concerned about the demand for saiga horn 
and possible illegal trade.
    Comments received from the Russian Ministry of Protection of the 
Environment and Natural Resources described the existence of the two 
major populations of S. t. tatarica, one in Kalmykia of about 150,000 
animals and one in Kazakhstan consisting of ``several tens of 
thousands.'' Hunting of saiga has been increasingly reduced since about 
1984, with only limited sport-hunting now allowed in Kalmykia, and 
protected reserves have been established. The diminished status of the 
saiga is due to habitat modifications, changes in land use, and illegal 
hunting. The Ministry favored a listing of saiga antelope in Appendix 
II of CITES. Also, by personal communication, the Chinese Ministry of 
Forestry indicated that they could support an Appendix II listing.
    In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funded a visit in 
the Spring of 1994 to Moscow and Kalmykia by Dr. James Teer, Welder 
Wildlife Foundation, Sinton, Texas, and Dr. Fred Lindzey, Wyoming 
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, 
Laramie, Wyoming, to report on the status of the saiga. Teer and 
Lindzey opined that the Kalmykian saiga population can no longer 
sustain itself when harvests for horns, meat, and hides are permitted 
for export, but that it can sustain a small offtake from hunting. Even 
so, they were concerned about poaching and the ease of movement of 
saiga parts across borders. They also felt that the Kalmykian 
population might rebound due to the great fecundity of saiga, along 
with a reduction in livestock, habitat improvement, and the control of 
poaching, all factors the Kalmykian authorities claim they are 
implementing. While realizing that an Appendix II listing would not 
prohibit exports, Teer and Lindzey suggested that the United States 
might delay proposing a CITES listing to allow time for current 
management measures and the population status in Kalmykia to be 
evaluated, and to give Kazakhstan time to become a Party to CITES.
    As a result of comments and information received concerning the 
amount of poaching of saiga antelope and the illegal trade in saiga 
horns, the use of saiga horns in combination with or as a substitute 
for rhinoceros horns in traditional medicines in conjunction with 
intensified pressures to stop the trade in rhinoceros horn, and the 
evidence of considerable declines in populations of S. t. tatarica over 
the last two decades for various reasons, the Service has proposed that 
populations of S. t. tatarica be included in Appendix II of CITES. The 
numbers of S. t. mongolica are so low in the wild that the full 
protective potential of CITES seems warranted, therefore the Service 
has proposed that the Mongolian population be included in Appendix I of 
CITES.
    2. Urial (Ovis vignei). The Service requested information and 
comments to help clarify which populations of the urial should be 
included in Appendix I as a result of the 1973 listing of Ovis vignei 
by India. Confusion regarding the intended inclusiveness of the 
original listing of 1973 arose as a result of (1) actions considered at 
COP2 in 1979; (2) range information presented in the CITES-adopted 
check list for mammals, Mammal Species of the World, 1982, edited by 
Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl; and, (3) distribution and synonymy given 
in Mammal Species of the World, 2nd Edition, 1993, edited by Wilson and 
Reeder. The issue was whether the original listing implies a 
conservative application of the name, thereby restricting the listing 
to only populations in the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir, or there 
was a broader intent, as presented in Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl, 
1982?
    Five comments were received within the comment period on this 
problem. TRAFFIC USA passed on information from TRAFFIC India attesting 
to the endangered status of the urial sheep in India, and from TRAFFIC 
France indicating that urial hunting trips in central Asia are being 
organized by French companies. Dr. Steve Edwards, IUCN, supported the 
submission of a proposal to clarify which populations of O. vignei are 
to be included in Appendix I.
    The three remaining comments were from Safari Club International, 
Dr. Richard Mitchell, and Mr. Ron Young of Expeditions by Ron. The 
first two commenters argued that the intent of the original listing was 
to include only the population in the Ladakh region of Jammu and 
Kashmir, while the latter noted that, according to his observation, the 
Transcaspian urial, the Afghan urial, the Blandford urial, and the 
Punjab urial are all abundant in the wild.
    The Government of Pakistan indicated that the shapu (O. orientalis 
vignei (= O. v. vignei)), the gad (O. o. blanfordi (= O. v. 
blanfordi)), and the Punjab urial (O. o. punjabiensis (= O. v. 
punjabiensis)) are in fair numbers in Pakistan and that there is no 
need to list them under CITES.
    Also, Mr. Earl Baysinger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who 
attended the Convention's Plenipotentiary Meeting and COP2, provided a 
detailed account of the discussions that took place at that meeting of 
the Parties concerning the proposal and ultimate listing of the urial, 
and claimed that the Parties intended to include only O. vignei vignei 
in Appendix I.
    The Service is, therefore, proposing that only O. vignei vignei of 
the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir be retained in Appendix I, and 
that all other populations of O. vignei be included in Appendix II for 
biological and similarity of appearance purposes.
    3. Box turtles (Terrapene spp.). Prior to COP8, the New York 
Zoological Society recommended listing box turtles in Appendix II. 
However, the Service did not have sufficient information on trade in 
these species, and did not submit a proposal for consideration at COP8. 
Since then the Service has accumulated data in its Law Enforcement 
Management Information System (LEMIS) on exports and imports of box 
turtles in an effort to obtain appropriate trade information.
    The genus Terrapene includes the four species (T. carolina, T. 
coahuila, T. nelsoni, and T. ornata), with 11 subspecies recognized 
among them. Terrapene coahuila is currently listed in Appendix I of 
CITES. Terrapene nelsoni occurs in a small fragmented range on the west 
coast of Mexico, while T. ornata is found over a large area of the 
midwestern United States. Terrapene carolina has the largest range, 
occurring from Canada to Mexico as far as Yucatan, and from the 
Atlantic coast west into approximately the eastern edge of the prairie 
in the Midwest.
    Box turtles are long-lived, sexual maturity is late, and annual 
reproduction is low. They exhibit high site fidelity, which tends to 
amplify the impacts of habitat fragmentation. The removal of adult 
turtles from the wild can have a significant impact on the status of 
populations.
    A large number of comments were received in response to the January 
27, 1994, notice. Twenty-two States responded, in 16 of which box 
turtles are protected by State law. None of these responses objected to 
a proposal to list the box turtle in Appendix II. Comments from the 
States noted the continued loss of habitat, illegal collecting, 
negative impacts of the pet trade in box turtles, some indications of 
international trade, and suggestions of declines in some populations. 
Of the 298 comments received from individuals, only one did not support 
the proposal to list box turtles under CITES, and this one negative 
comment was made pending the collection of more data. Many of these 
comments included anecdotal accounts and observations of population 
declines, and the occurrence of box turtles for sale in pet stores in 
the United States and abroad. Supporting comments were also received on 
behalf of 23 non-governmental organizations, although 2 of these 
supported the listing of box turtles conditioned on proper treatment of 
pet-trade turtles, and more rapid processing of permit applications. 
Most of these responses focused on the impacts of the pet trade and 
poor shipping conditions.
    Based on (1) the large number of box turtles exported from the 
United States since 1988; (2) an apparent increase in the demand for 
box turtles in the international pet trade, particularly since 1984 
when the EU banned trade in Mediterranean land tortoises (Testudo 
spp.); (3) the reported decline in numbers throughout the range of T. 
ornata and T. carolina; (4) an increase in fragmentation of box turtle 
habitat; (5) the difficulties of implementing State protective laws, 
especially when similar protection is not provided in other States; and 
(6) the increased negative impact of these factors on species 
exhibiting low reproductive rates and high site fidelity; the Service 
has proposed to include all the populations of box turtles in the genus 
Terrapene in Appendix II of CITES, except T. coahuila, which will 
remain in Appendix I.
    4. Tarantulas (Brachypelma species). The Service received a 
proposal from Dr. Robert Wolff of Trinity Christian College, Palos 
Heights, Illinois to list all the species in the genus Brachypelma 
(also known as Euathlus) in Appendix II. There are about nine species 
in the genus, and one, B. smithi the red-kneed tarantula, is presently 
included in Appendix II. Members of this genus are usually colorful and 
among the most sought after tarantulas for the pet trade. The taxonomy 
of the genus is not well known and identification of species is often 
difficult.
    Four responses to the possible listing of Brachypelma species were 
received. Although one commenter only supported the inclusion of the 
genus in Appendix II by implication, the other three commenters 
specifically supported this action. The HSUS noted the popularity of 
Brachypelma species in the pet trade and the enhanced support of 
enforcement efforts that this action would provide. TRAFFIC USA claimed 
that there is increasing evidence for widespread trade in several 
species of the genus. TRAFFIC France reported to TRAFFIC USA increased 
trade in tarantula species throughout western Europe involving at least 
four other species in addition to B. smithi. The Mexican Government 
supported the addition of all species of Brachypelma in Appendix II. 
The Service has therefore proposed the inclusion of all taxa in the 
genus Brachypelma in Appendix II, including but not limited to the 
following species: B. albopilosum, B. angustum, B. auratum, B. boehmei, 
B. emilia, B. fossorium, B. pallidum, B. sabulosum, B. vagans. Any taxa 
discovered subsequent to this listing and included in the genus 
Brachypelma would also be automatically included in Appendix II under 
this proposed listing action.
    5. Freshwater mussels (family Unionidae). Members of this family 
occur in their greatest variety throughout the Southeast and the 
Midwest of the United States in major river drainage systems including 
the upper Mississippi River.
    Many species in the family have become extinct or reduced to very 
low numbers largely as a result of habitat destruction and/or 
degradation. A few species have been collected commercially, initially 
as a source of raw material for the button industry, but, since the 
advent of synthetic button materials and the artificial pearl industry 
in Japan, as a source of spherical blanks around which nacre is 
deposited by living bivalves during the production of pearls. These 
species, which are sought commercially, are generally characterized by 
their thick, white shells, and they occur most often in large rivers 
and reservoirs. Most states where they are harvested regulate their 
collection, usually with prohibitions on collection in waters known to 
contain populations of endangered or threatened unionid species. 
Although endangered and threatened unionids may occasionally be taken 
incidentally along with the commercial forms, there does not appear to 
be compelling evidence indicating any significant export of endangered 
mussels with commercial shipments for the pearl industry.
    Other species are harvested, although in smaller numbers, for the 
natural freshwater pearls used in jewelry. Still others, those with 
colorful nacre, are utilized directly in the production of jewelry. 
Shell collecting alone is believed to be a threat to some species, 
especially those that are rare or unique. Trade in these products and/
or shells may constitute a threat to many species, especially those 
most endangered.
    Three comments were received during the comment period concerning a 
possible proposal to list unionids in the Appendices of CITES; one from 
the Fisheries Agency of Japan, one from the State of Missouri, and one 
from the Tennessee Shell Company, Inc.
    The FAJ voiced a general concern about listing species in the 
absence of sufficient scientific evidence to show that there is a 
threat to extinction for an Appendix I listing, or that they may become 
threatened with extinction unless such species are subject to strict 
regulation for an Appendix II listing. Specifically, they felt that no 
scientific data have been presented demonstrating the degree of 
extinction and the presence of threats from trading for each of the 
more than 200 species of freshwater mussels. Furthermore, they stated 
that listing all the species of this taxon because some are potentially 
threatened by collectors could also be similarly applied to all other 
groups of species, which would pose a serious obstacle to the effective 
use of living resources. They indicated that it would be inappropriate 
to enforce such regulations without justifiable reasons.
    The Tennessee Shell Company, Inc. expressed concern for the plight 
of freshwater mussels in general, citing such threats as water 
pollution, cold or hot water discharges into mussel habitat, sediment 
deposition, dredging, bridge construction, natural die-offs, etc. They 
offered support of efforts directed at the protection and conservation 
of freshwater mussels from habitat destruction resulting from these 
kinds of hazards.
    The Missouri Department of Conservation generally supported the 
listing of Unionid mussels in CITES Appendices, with the exception of 
four species that are of commercial value.
    After considering comments received, and the level of trade 
information available, along with the difficulties of species 
identification and the separation of look-alikes, the Service has 
proposed that the Appendices to CITES be revised by:
    1. Transferring Epioblasma sulcata (=obliquata) perobliqua, and 
Lampsilis satura from Appendix I to Appendix II;
    2. Labeling Epioblasma sampsoni (now in Appendix I) as pe (probably 
extinct);
    3. Deleting all the species now included in Appendix II, since they 
will be included in the following broader listing; and
    4. Including all other North American populations of mussels in the 
family Unionidae in Appendix II, with the exception of the shells and 
the artificial pearls presumed to contain blanks from the taxa listed 
below.

Amblema plicata, Ellipsaria lineolata, Fusconaia ebena, F. flava, 
Ligumia recta, Megalonaias nervosa, Obliquaria reflexa, Pleurobema 
cordatum, Quadrula apiculata, Q. metanevra, Q. nodulata, Q. pustulosa, 
Q. quadrula, and Tritogonia verrucosa.

The Service believes that these species are easily distinguishable from 
the species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act.

Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Resolutions

    In response to the November 18, 1993, and the January 28, 1994, 
Federal Register notices (58 FR 60973 and 56 FR 4096) comments were 
received from numerous organizations regarding a resolution to amend 
the criteria for listing species in the CITES Appendices (see 
discussion of listing criteria resolution below).
    In addition, several non-governmental organizations, in writing and 
at the public meeting on February 22, 1994, requested that the Service 
submit a resolution for consideration at COP9 establishing a Law 
Enforcement Network. The Service supported the establishment of a Law 
Enforcement Network, both at the Standing Committee meeting of March, 
1994, and in writing to the CITES Secretariat. The Service remains 
strongly supportive of increasing the role of law enforcement in the 
CITES context, both through networks among the Parties and through 
increased training of appropriate enforcement officials. It is the 
Service's understanding that the item is already on the agenda for 
COP9, and that one or more Parties may have already submitted 
resolutions on the subject.
    Comments on the possible resolutions that the Service may consider 
submitting were also received from the Center for International 
Environmental Law (CIEL), the Hawthorn Corporation, and one private 
individual. The CIEL requested that the United States submit a 
resolution that clarifies the relationship between CITES and other 
international agreements related to the management of species. The 
CIEL's suggestions can be considered to be incorporated into the 
resolution discussed below, regarding the implementation of Article XIV 
of the Convention, which deals with the relationship between CITES and 
treaties regulating the management of marine species. The Hawthorn 
Corporation provided comments on the issue of trade in tiger parts and 
products, and requested that trade in captive-bred tigers for circuses 
and other live animal exhibitions be differentiated from concerns about 
trade in tiger parts and products and related poaching of wild tigers. 
The Service agrees that tigers that are part of a U.S. traveling circus 
are not part of the trade problem related to the poaching of wild 
specimens. Circus tigers, born in the United States, are certified as 
captive-bred under CITES by the Service and are eligible for a 
certificate from the Service's Office of Management Authority. The 
private individual provided comments on various issues related to trade 
in artificially propagated plants, which the Service will take into 
consideration when reviewing resolutions pertaining to that trade, upon 
their receipt from the CITES Secretariat. In addition, the Service's 
Office of Scientific Authority has been working with the CITES 
Nomenclature Committee to consolidate and update the previous 
resolutions dealing with nomenclatural issues.
    The following presents the background and sense of the three 
resolutions submitted by the United States for consideration at COP9. 
(The Service's tentative positions on resolutions and agenda items, 
including those discussed in this notice as well as on the 
establishment of a Law Enforcement Network, were presented in a Federal 
Register notice of October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50609)).

Resolutions Submitted

    1. Article XIV Implementation. The provisions of CITES apply to all 
species of wild fauna and flora, including marine species. The 
management of many marine species comes under the jurisdiction or 
competence of another international treaty, convention, or agreement. 
International trade in any species of marine fauna or flora is also 
within the purview and competence of CITES. Therefore, even if a marine 
species is subject to management under another international treaty, 
convention, or agreement, and if it is listed in any CITES Appendix, 
then international trade and introduction from the sea in the species 
is also regulated by CITES. CITES made special provisions for Appendix 
II marine species that are regulated under another treaty extant when 
CITES came into force.
    Article XIV, paragraph 4, of the Convention provides that a State 
party to CITES, which is also a party to any other treaty, convention, 
or international agreement which was in force at the time of the coming 
into force of CITES, and under the provisions of which protection is 
afforded to marine species included in Appendix II, is relieved of the 
obligations imposed on it under CITES with respect to trade in 
specimens included in Appendix II that are taken by ships registered in 
that State and in accordance with the provisions of such other treaty, 
convention, or international agreement.
    However, Article XIV, paragraph 5 requires that Parties exempted 
from the usual CITES obligations under Article XIV, paragraph 4, must 
nevertheless issue certificates stipulating that the specimen was taken 
in accordance with the provisions of the other treaty, convention, or 
international agreement in question. This provision of the Convention 
has never been used, and standards for its implementation have not been 
developed. Currently no marine species whose management is under the 
competence of another treaty, convention, or agreement is listed in 
Appendix II (this relief from CITES obligations does not apply to 
specimens of species included in Appendix I).
    The Service has determined that it would be wise to plan for the 
need to implement Article XIV, by specifying requirements for 
certificates issued pursuant to Article XIV, paragraph 5, of the 
Convention, even if its use is not necessary at this time. The Service 
notes that Appendix II allows for international commercial trade. The 
draft resolution was written in consultation with NMFS. The Service's 
goal in submitting this resolution is to clarify how an Appendix II 
listing could be implemented expeditiously for a marine species whose 
management was under the competency of a pre-CITES treaty. The draft 
resolution would provide for the utilization, as a valid certificate 
under Article XIV, paragraph 5, of a certificate of origin or 
statistical document issued on the authority of the other treaty, 
convention, or international agreement, with certain stipulations of 
minimum information and validation as required by CITES. Such 
certificates would only be an option for CITES Parties that are also 
parties to the other treaty, convention, or agreement, and if the 
specimens are taken by ships registered by the Party country. Export 
permits or introduction from the sea certificates are required in all 
other situations.
    2. Criteria for Amendments of Appendix I and II. The existing CITES 
listing criteria, known as the ``Berne Criteria,'' were developed at 
the first CITES Conference in 1976 in Berne, Switzerland. The move to 
revise them originated at COP8 in Japan. At COP8 the Parties agreed to 
start a process, coordinated by the Standing Committee, to develop a 
scientifically sound revision for consideration at COP9. The World 
Conservation Union (IUCN) was asked to do a first draft, which would be 
revised at a joint meeting of the CITES Standing, Animals, and Plants 
Committees, and put into CITES resolution form. The United States 
participated in the joint meeting in Brussels in September 1993, which 
reviewed the IUCN draft and produced a draft resolution that was 
circulated to the Parties.
    Prior to the September 1993 joint committee meeting, the Service 
received comments from 46 organizations and private individuals 
regarding the proposed revised listing criteria. After the September 
1993 Standing Committee meeting, in response to the Federal Register 
notice of November 18, 1993, the Service received comments from 18 
organizations. The Service carefully reviewed and analyzed all comments 
received. Five organizations basically supported the new criteria. The 
Service received comments from 13 organizations that either opposed the 
new criteria, opposed parts of the new criteria, or recommended that 
the United States submit an alternative to the joint committee draft 
resolution. All comments were taken into consideration by the Service 
in formulating comments to the draft resolution.
    The Service submitted comments for the United States to the 
Standing Committee, after consultation with other Federal agencies and 
after reviewing the extensive public comments received. Comments 
received by the CITES Secretariat from other governments were also 
reviewed. The U.S. comments maintained that much of the draft 
resolution was not valid scientifically, and was not acceptable from 
conservation, management or practical perspectives. The United States 
believed that the criteria as proposed met neither the CITES treaty's 
requirements for the conservation of species in their ecosystems, nor 
the diverse needs of the CITES Parties. The U.S. comments and those of 
other Parties were discussed at the 31st meeting of the Standing 
Committee, in Geneva in March 1994. Some of the U.S. comments were 
taken into consideration in developing the final Standing Committee 
draft resolution. The final Standing Committee resolution was not 
available to the United States or other CITES Parties until after the 
June 10, 1994, deadline for submission of resolutions and proposals to 
the CITES Secretariat.
    The Standing Committee resolution contains six annexes, several of 
which the United States looks forward to discussing further with the 
CITES Parties at COP9. In particular, the United States believes the 
Standing Committee draft is an improvement on the Berne Criteria as 
regards precautionary measures. However, the United States believes 
that Annex 1 (Biological criteria for Appendix I) and Annex 2 (Criteria 
for inclusion of species in Appendix II) are in need of revision, 
particularly from a scientific perspective. The United States is 
particularly concerned about the utility and scientific validity of 
arbitrary numerical cutoffs for decision-making regarding the appendix 
within which a species should be included. After detailed review of the 
scientific literature and consultations with NMFS and other Federal 
agencies, the Service has submitted alternatives to these Annexes to 
the Secretariat, along with some additional material for inclusion in 
the resolution. With regard to the five comments referred to previously 
as supporting the joint committee's draft resolution, there was nothing 
in these comments that was inconsistent with the revised Annexes 1 and 
2 submitted by the Service.
    The United States could have waited to present these alternative 
Annexes 1 and 2 at COP9. However, the United States preferred to 
provide ample time for this review by the CITES Parties.
    The proposed Annex 1 lists a series of interdependent factors to be 
included in an assessment of the status of a species, and thereby the 
determination that it is threatened with extinction. The criteria for 
inclusion of species in Annex 2 (in accordance with Article II 
paragraph 2(a)), involve a determination of whether a species may 
become threatened with extinction, and in order to avoid utilization 
incompatible with its survival.
    3. Standard nomenclature. This resolution was submitted at the 
request of the CITES Nomenclature Committee, and deals with 
nomenclature and taxonomy of CITES species. The resolution submitted 
was discussed and agreed upon by the Nomenclature Committee at its May 
1994 meeting in Beijing, China. The Service is aware that the names of 
genera and species in several families are in need of standardization, 
and that the current lack of standard references with adequate 
information decreases the effectiveness of the implementation of CITES 
in conserving the many species that are listed in the Appendices. The 
Service also recognizes that the taxonomy used in the appendices to the 
Convention will be most useful to the Parties if standardized by 
nomenclatural references.
    This resolution consolidates recommendations from several previous 
resolutions and clarifies or updates previous recommendations. The 
resolution discusses inclusion of subspecies in the Appendices, use of 
references in proposals, synonyms, other naming conventions, and the 
role of the Scientific Authorities in nomenclatural issues. The 
resolution also recommends several standard references for species 
listed in the CITES Appendices, i.e., for mammals, birds, amphibians, 
cacti, cycads, ferns, and other plants.

Agenda Items Submitted by the United States

    The Service submitted the following two items for inclusion in the 
COP9 agenda, but did not submit a resolution or discussion paper. The 
Service intends to submit a discussion paper on both items to the 
Secretariat, for transmission to the Parties, prior to the COP.

Items Submitted

    1. Shark trade. There is information about a recent increase in 
international trade in shark parts and products, particularly in fins 
for the food market. However, there are insufficient biological and 
trade data on which to base a listing proposal at this time. Data on 
these species are difficult to obtain and will require the cooperation 
of all Parties and organizations interested in conserving these 
species. The Service believes that this is an important issue for the 
Parties to discuss. The Service is considering requesting that the 
Animals Committee assess methods for obtaining information on the 
biological and trade status of shark species in international trade, 
and providing advice to the Parties on possible approaches toward 
conservation efforts for these taxa. No international body is currently 
responsible for the management of shark species, including 
recommendations of catch quotas, minimum sizes, time and area closures, 
gear restriction, etc. By placing this item on the agenda for COP9, it 
is not the intent of the United States to propose that CITES take on 
this responsibility. However, because CITES is the international treaty 
responsible for trade in wildlife, it provides an ideal forum for the 
discussion of collection of data on this trade. The Service, in 
consultation with NMFS, will develop a background paper on this agenda 
item for submission before COP9.
    2. Illegal trade in whale meat. There was extensive discussion at 
the May, 1994 meeting of the IWC regarding illegal international trade 
in whale meat, including involvement by CITES Parties. All whales 
subject to the IWC moratorium on commercial harvest are listed in CITES 
Appendix I. A resolution on this topic was introduced by the United 
States and other Parties, and was adopted by IWC at its 1994 meeting. 
The issue is discussed in the IWC Infractions Report. The Service 
submitted the information in the IWC Infractions Report on 
international trade in whale meat to the CITES Secretariat. The Service 
in consultation with NMFS, will develop a background paper on this 
agenda item for submission to the Parties before COP9.

Continuing Actions

    In mid July, the Service received proposals made by other CITES 
Parties to amend the appendices. Resolutions and a list of other agenda 
items that were submitted by other Parties are expected to be received 
at intervals in September and October. The Service's tentative 
negotiating position on the species proposals was announced in the 
Federal Register on September 6, 1994, (59 FR 46023) and a comment 
period initiated. The Service also held two public meetings on 
September 14 and 16, 1994, as announced in September 1 and 7, 1994 
Federal Register (59 FR 45307 and 59 FR 46023). These meetings provided 
an opportunity for the public to comment on the species proposals 
submitted by other countries and on any resolution or agenda item. In 
the October 4, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 50609), the Service 
presented information and tentative negotiating positions on 
resolutions and agenda items, especially those for which official 
documents have been received.
    The Service will consider all information presented at the public 
meetings and in writing during the comment period, as well as all other 
available information, in developing a negotiating position on each 
species proposal, resolution, and agenda item. These positions will be 
announced in the Federal Register(s) in late October or early November 
just prior to COP9. Also in this pre-COP 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, 
should any of the proposed amendments be adopted by the Parties. 
Immediately after COP9, the Service will announce the species 
amendments to the appendices adopted by the Parties; under CITES, these 
changes will become effective on February 16, 1995.

Reservations

    Article XV of CITES enables any party to exempt itself from 
implementing CITES for any particular species if it enters a 
reservation with respect to that species in accordance with the terms 
and limitations of the treaty. In the case of a country that is a Party 
at the time an amendment is adopted, a reservation may be entered only 
during the period of 90 days following the meeting at which the Parties 
voted to place the species in Appendix I or II. Just before COP9, the 
Service will solicit comments with regard to entering reservations. If 
the United States enters any reservation, such action would be 
announced in the same Federal Register notice that incorporates the 
listing decisions of the Parties into the Code of Federal Regulations 
(50 CFR part 23).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.

    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). It was 
prepared by Drs. Charles W. Dane, Wayne L. Milstead, and Bruce 
MacBryde, Office of Scientific Authority, and Dr. Susan Lieberman, 
Office of Management Authority.

    Dated: September 27, 1994.
Bruce Blanchard,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 94-27313 Filed 11-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P