[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 2, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14543-14547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7979]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 23
RIN 1018-AD63
Export of River Otters Taken in Missouri in the 1996-97 and
Subsequent Seasons
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in certain
animal and plant species. Exports of animals and plants listed on
Appendix II of CITES require an export permit from the country of
origin. As a general rule, export permits are only issued after two
conditions are met. First, the exporting country's CITES Scientific
Authority must advise the permit-issuing CITES Management Authority
that such exports will not be detrimental to the survival of the
species. This advice is known as a ``no-detriment'' finding. Second,
the Management Authority must make a determination that the animals or
plants were not obtained in violation of laws for their protection. If
live specimens are being exported, the Management Authority must also
determine that the specimens are being shipped in a humane manner with
minimal risk of injury or damage to health.
The purpose of this proposed rule-making is to announce proposed
findings by the Scientific and Management Authorities of the United
States on the export of river otters harvested in the State of
Missouri, and to add Missouri to the list of States and Indian Nations
for which the export of river otters is approved. The Service intends
to apply these findings to harvests in Missouri during the 1996-97
season and subsequent seasons, subject to the conditions applying to
approved States.
DATES: The Service will consider comments received on or before June 3,
1996 in making its final determination on this proposal.
ADDRESSES: Please send correspondence concerning this proposed rule to
the Office of Scientific Authority; Room 725 (Room 750 for express and
messenger-delivered mail), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North
Fairfax Drive; Arlington, Virginia 22203. Comments and materials
received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Arlington Square
Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scientific Authority Finding--Dr.
Marshall A. Howe, Office of Scientific Authority; phone 703-358-1708;
FAX 703-358-2276.
Management Authority Findings/State Export Programs--Ms. Carol
Carson, Office of Management Authority; Mail Stop: Arlington Square,
Room 420c; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington, DC 20240 (phone
703-358-2095; FAX 703-358-2280).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 5, 1984 (49 FR 590), the Service
published a rule granting export approval for river otters and certain
other CITES-listed species of furbearing mammals from specified States
and Indian Nations and Tribes for the 1983-84 and subsequent harvest
seasons. In succeeding years, approval for export of one or more
species of furbearers has been granted to other States and Indian
Nations, Tribes, or Reservations through the rule-making process. These
approvals were and continue to be subject to certain population
monitoring and export requirements. The purpose of this notice is to
announce proposed findings by the Scientific and Management Authorities
of the United States on the proposed export of river otters, Lontra
canadensis, harvested in the State of Missouri, and to add Missouri to
the list of States and Indian Nations for which the export of river
otters is approved. The Service proposes these findings for the export
of specimens harvested in the State of Missouri during the 1996-97
season and subsequent seasons, subject to the conditions applying to
other approved entities.
CITES regulates import, export, re-export, and introduction from
the sea of certain animal and plant species. Species for which the
trade is controlled are included in three appendices. Appendix I
includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected
by trade. Appendix II includes species that, although not necessarily
now threatened with extinction, may become so unless trade in them is
strictly controlled. It also lists species that must be subject to
regulation in order that trade in other currently or potentially
threatened species may be brought under effective control (e.g.,
because of difficulty in distinguishing specimens of currently or
potentially threatened species from those of other species). Appendix
III includes species that any Party identifies as being subject to
regulation within its jurisdiction for purposes of preventing or
restricting exploitation, and for which it needs the cooperation of
other Parties to control trade.
In the January 5, 1984, Federal Register (49 FR 590), the Service
announced the results of a review of listed species at the Fourth
Conference of the CITES Parties that certain species of furbearing
mammals, including the river otter, should be regarded as listed in
Appendix II of CITES because of similarity in appearance to other
listed species or geographically separate populations. The January 5,
1984, document described how the Service, as Scientific Authority,
planned to monitor
[[Page 14544]]
annually the population and trade status of each of these species and
to institute restrictive export controls if prevailing export levels
appeared to be contributing to a trend of long-term population decline.
The document also described how the Service, as Management Authority,
would require States to assure that specimens entering trade are marked
with approved, serially unique tags as evidence that they had been
legally acquired.
Scientific Authority Findings
Article IV of CITES requires that, before a permit to export a
specimen of a species included in Appendix II can be granted by the
Management Authority of an exporting country, the Scientific Authority
must advise ``that such export will not be detrimental to the survival
of that species.'' The Scientific Authority for the United States must
develop such advice, known as a no-detriment finding, for the export of
Appendix II animals in accordance with Section 8A(c)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (the Act). The Act states
that the Secretary of the Interior is required to base export
determinations and advice ``upon the best available biological
information derived from professionally accepted wildlife management
practices; but is not required to make, or require any State to make,
estimates of population size in making such determinations or giving
such advice.''
The river otter is managed by the wildlife agencies of individual
States or Indian Nations. Most States and Indian Nations from which the
Service has approved the export of river otters in 1983-84 and
subsequent seasons were identified in the January 5, 1984, Federal
Register (49 FR 590) and listed in 50 CFR 23.53. The State of Tennessee
was approved administratively for the 1994-95 season and through a
rulemaking for 1995-96 and subsequent seasons (61 FR 2454, January 26,
1996). Each export-approved State or Indian Nation in which this animal
is harvested has a program to regulate the harvest. Based on
information received from the State of Missouri, the Service proposes
adding that State to the list of States and Indian Nations approved for
export of river otters.
Given that the river otter is listed on Appendix II of CITES
primarily because of similarity of appearance to other listed species
in need of rigorous trade controls, an important component of the no-
detriment finding by the Scientific Authority is consideration of the
impact of river otter trade on the status of these other species. The
Scientific Authority has determined that the dual practice of (1)
issuing export permits naming the species being traded and (2) marking
pelts with tags bearing the name of the species, country and State of
origin, year of harvest, and a unique serial number, is sufficient to
eliminate potential problems of confusion with, and therefore risk to,
other listed species (see Management Authority Findings for tag
specifications).
In addition to considering the effect of trade on species or
populations other than those being exported from the United States, the
Service will regularly examine information on river otters in the State
of Missouri to determine if there is a population decline that might
warrant more restrictive export controls. This monitoring and
assessment will follow the same procedures adopted for other States and
Indian Nations. As part of this monitoring program, the States and
Indian Nations that have been approved for export of river otters are
requested annually to certify that the best available biological
information derived from professionally accepted wildlife management
practices indicates that harvest of river otters during the forthcoming
season will not be detrimental to the survival of the species.
Whenever available information from the States or other sources
indicates a possible problem in a particular State, the Scientific
Authority will conduct a comprehensive review of accumulated
information to determine whether conclusions about the treatment of
these species as listed for similarity of appearance need to be
adjusted in the State.
Originally a common resident of Missouri, river otters were nearly
extirpated from the State between 1860 and 1910. Seventy animals were
estimated to survive in the southeastern part of Missouri by the mid-
1930's. Because most significant habitat change has occurred more
recently, it is believed that this early population decline was a
consequence of unregulated harvest. Although legal protection for the
species was established in 1937, the species did not begin to stage a
recovery until a reintroduction program was initiated in 1982. Between
1982 and 1993, 845 river otters obtained from Louisiana, Arkansas, and
Ontario were released in 13 of 14 major watersheds in Missouri. All
otters were marked with ear and web tags to maximize reporting rate of
encounters and to facilitate monitoring of reproductive success.
During the experimental release program, the following management
procedures were implemented: (a) restrictive beaver-trapping
regulations to reduce incidental catch of otters in the vicinity of
release sites, (b) routine examination of carcasses recovered, (c)
winter aerial surveys for otter sign (tracks, slides), (d) distribution
of forms for reporting incidental sightings of otters for use
statewide, and (e) a radiotelemetry study to monitor movements and
survival of released animals.
In the population of 31 radio-tagged animals released at two sites
between 1982 and 1984, annual survival rate was determined to be 81
percent. Since 1987, 255 (96 percent) of 266 otters reported trapped
incidental to other trapping operations were untagged, suggesting that
animals tagged and released were also reproducing successfully.
Examination of female carcasses recovered during this program indicated
an average litter size of 2.5, comparable to average litter sizes in
other studies. Using this information, supplemented by estimates of
age-specific pregnancy rates based on studies of other populations, a
population modelling exercise was conducted for each watershed in which
otters were released. Application of the model yielded a statewide
population estimate of 2,500 river otters in watersheds where releases
were made (3,000 to 3,200 for the entire State, including the
southeastern sector) in the spring of 1995. Using the same model and
assuming a harvest rate of 10 percent and a constant rate of population
growth, populations in the release areas in year 2000 were projected
based on two competing scenarios: (a) That all trapping mortality is
offset by declines in other mortality sources (compensatory mortality)
and (b) that all trapping mortality is additive to other mortality
sources (additive mortality). In scenario (a) the population increases
from 2,500 to 5,900 by the year 2000 and in scenario (b), after a brief
decline, it increases from 2,500 to 3,300. The true population
trajectory is likely to lie between these two model projections.
Except for the immediate vicinities of the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers, and the largely cleared bottomland hardwood forest habitats of
the southeastern sector, there appears to be adequate aquatic habitat
in Missouri to support a growing river otter population. There are
15,700 miles of smaller permanent streams and an additional 39,600
miles of intermittent streams. There are also hundreds of thousands of
acres of natural and impounded wetlands of various sizes.
When harvest is legalized, all otters taken by trappers in Missouri
will be subject to mandatory pelt registration,
[[Page 14545]]
and the Department of Conservation will tag all commercial pelts with
CITES export tags. Skulls and carcasses will be obtained from willing
fur buyers and dealers and cooperating trappers. These procedures will
allow the size, demography, and geographic sources of the river otter
harvest to be monitored. The State also intends to continue winter
aerial surveys and compare results of population modelling with
population indices derived from the surveys and from harvest patterns
and sighting reports. Analysis of these data should detect population
declines symptomatic of either an unhealthy population or overharvest
in time to take corrective action through regulatory adjustments or
other means.
Based upon (a) the above biological information provided by the
Missouri Department of Conservation, (b) the existence of a harvest
management infrastructure for managing and enforcing harvest
regulations, and (c) the determination that permitting and tagging
requirements will eliminate the possibility that other similar-
appearing, CITES-listed species in trade will be misrepresented as
river otters, the Service proposes to issue Scientific Authority advice
in favor of export of river otters harvested in 1996-97 and subsequent
seasons from Missouri.
Management Authority Findings
Exports of Appendix II species are allowed under CITES only if the
Management Authority is satisfied that the specimens were not obtained
in contravention of laws for the protection of the involved species.
The Service, therefore, must be satisfied that the river otter pelts,
hides, or products being exported were not obtained in violation of
State, Indian Nation, Tribal, Reservation, or Federal law in order to
allow export. Evidence of legal taking for Alaskan gray wolf, Alaskan
brown or grizzly bear, American alligator, bobcat, lynx, and river
otter is provided by State or tribal tagging programs. The Service
annually contracts for the manufacture and delivery of special CITES
animal-hide tags for export-qualified States and Indian Nations,
Tribes, and Reservations. The Service has adopted the following export
requirements for the 1983-84 and subsequent seasons:
(1) Current State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or Reservation hunting,
trapping, and tagging regulations and sample tags must be on file with
the Office of Management Authority;
(2) The tags must be durable and permanently locking and must show
U.S.-CITES logo, State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or Reservation of
origin, year of take, species, and a unique serial number;
(3) The tag must be attached to all pelts taken within a minimum
time after take, as specified by the State and Indian regulation, and
such time should be as short as possible to minimize movement of
untagged pelts;
(4) The tag must be permanently attached as authorized and
prescribed by the State or Indian regulation;
(5) Takers/dealers who are licensed/registered by States or Indian
Nations, Tribes, or Reservations must account for tags received and
must return unused tags to the State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or
Reservation within a specified time after the taking season closes;
and,
(6) Fully manufactured fur (or hide) products may be exported from
the United States only when the CITES export tags, removed from the
hides used to make the product being exported, are surrendered to the
Service prior to export.
Proposed Export Decision
The Service proposes to approve exports of Missouri river otters
harvested during the 1996-97 or subsequent harvest seasons on the
grounds that both Scientific Authority and Management Authority
criteria have been satisfied.
Comments Solicited
The Service requests comments on these proposed findings and the
proposed rulemaking adding Missouri to the list of States approved for
export of river otters. The final decision on this proposed rule will
take into account comments received and any additional information
received. Such consideration may lead to findings different from those
presented in this proposal.
Effects of the Rule and Required Determinations
The Department has previously determined (48 FR 37494, August 18,
1983) that the export of river otters of various States and Indian
Tribes or Nations, taken in the 1983-84 and subsequent harvest seasons,
is not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment under the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). This action is covered under an
existing Departmental categorical exclusion for amendments to approved
actions when such changes have no potential for causing substantial
environmental impact.
This proposed rule was not subject to Office of Management and
Budget review under Executive Order 12866 and will not have significant
economic effects on a substantial number of small entities as outlined
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
the existing rule treats exports on a State-by-State and Indian Nation-
by-Indian Nation basis and proposes to approve export in accordance
with a State or Indian Nation, Tribe, or Reservation management
program, the proposed rule will have little effect on small entities in
and of itself. The proposed rule will allow continued international
trade in river otters from the United States in accordance with CITES,
and it does not contain any Federalism impacts as described in
Executive Order 12612.
This proposed rule has been examined under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 and has been found to contain no information collection
requirements.
This proposed rule is issued under authority of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The authors
are Marshall A. Howe, Office of Scientific Authority, and Carol Carson,
Office of Management Authority.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.
PART 23--ENDANGERED SPECIES CONVENTION
Accordingly, the Service proposes to amend Part 23 of Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for Part 23 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 27 U.S.T. 1087; and Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
2. In Subpart F--Export of Certain Species, revise Sec. 23.53 to
read as follows:
Sec. 23.53 River otter (Lontra canadensis).
States for which the export of the indicated season's harvest may
be permitted under Sec. 23.15 of this part:
(a) States and Harvest Seasons Approved for Export of River Otter
From the United States.
[[Page 14546]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983-84 and 1995-96 and 1996-97 and
1977-78 \1\ 1978-79 \2\ 1979-80 \3\ 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 future future future
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Alaska............................................................ + + + + + + + + +
Arkansas.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Connecticut....................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Delaware.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Florida........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Georgia........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Louisiana......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Maine............................................................. Q + + + + + + + +
Maryland.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Massachusetts..................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Michigan.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Minnesota......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Mississippi....................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Missouri.......................................................... - - - - - - - - +
Montana........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
New Hampshire..................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
New Jersey........................................................ - - - - - + + + +
New York.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
North Carolina.................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Oregon............................................................ Q + + + + + + + +
Penobscot Nation.................................................. - - - - - - + + +
Rhode Island...................................................... Q + - - - - - - -
South Carolina.................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Tennessee......................................................... - - - - - - - + * +
Vermont........................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Virginia.......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
Washington........................................................ Q + + + + + + + +
Wisconsin......................................................... Q + + + + + + + +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For further information see 42 FR 43729, Aug. 30, 1977; 43 FR 11081, Mar. 16, 1978; and 43 FR 29469, July 7, 1978.
\2\ For further information see 43 FR 11096, Mar. 16, 1978; 43 FR 13913, Apr. 3, 1978; 43 FR 15097, Apr. 10, 1978; 43 FR 29469, July 7, 1978; 43 FR 35013, Aug. 7, 1978; 43 FR 36293, Aug. 16,
1978; and 43 FR 39305, Sept. 1, 1978.
\3\ For further information see 44 FR 25383, Apr. 30, 1979; 44 FR 31583, May 31, 1979; 44 FR 40842, July 12, 1979; 44 FR 52289, Sept. 7, 1979; and 44 FR 55540, Sept. 26, 1979.
Q Export approved with quota.
+ Export approved.
- Export not approved.
* Export for 1994-95 approved administratively.
[[Page 14547]]
(b) Condition on export: Each pelt must be clearly identified as to
species, State of origin and season of taking by a permanently
attached, serially numbered tag of a type approved by the Service and
attached under conditions established by the Service. Exception to
tagging requirement: finished furs and fully manufactured fur products
may be exported from the U.S. when the State export tags, removed from
the pelts used to manufacture the product being exported, are
surrendered to the Service before export. Such tags must be removed by
cutting the tag straps on the female side next to the locking socket of
the tag, so that the locking socket and locking tip remain joined.
Dated: February 21, 1996.
Geroge T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-7979 Filed 4-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P