[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18559-18572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9857]
[[Page 18559]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 23
Species Changes Proposed by the United States for the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of decision on U.S. submissions to amend the appendices
to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in certain
animal and plant species, which are listed in the appendices of this
treaty. The United States, as a Party to CITES, may propose amendments
to the appendices for consideration by the other Parties.
In this notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
announces the proposals to amend the CITES appendices that it has
submitted to the CITES Secretariat on behalf of the United States and
which will be considered for adoption by the Parties at the Tenth
Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) in Zimbabwe, June 9-
20, 1997. The reasoning for selecting these proposals and rejecting
others under consideration is provided below.
In a related notice on March 27, 1997, the Service announced
provisional agenda topics, draft resolutions, and other documents that
the United States has submitted for consideration by the Parties at
COP10 (62 FR 14689).
DATES: Proposals adopted by the Parties will effective on September 18,
1997.
ADDRESSES: Requests for information about species proposals should be
directed to Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750; Arlington, VA
22203. Fax: 703-358-2276. Phone: 703-358-1708.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Marshall A. Howe (for animal
species) or Dr. Bruce MacBryde (for plant species), Office of
Scientific Authority, at the above address, telephone 703-358-1708.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as ``CITES'' or ``the
Convention'', regulates import, export, re-export, and introduction
from the sea of certain animal and plant species. Species for which
trade is controlled are included in one of three appendices. Appendix I
includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected
by international trade. Appendix II includes species that, although not
necessarily now threatened with extinction, may become so unless the
trade is strictly controlled. Appendix II also lists species that must
be subject to regulation in order that trade in other currently or
potentially threatened species may be brought under effective control
(e.g., because of difficulty in distinguishing specimens of currently
or potentially threatened species from those of other species).
Appendix III includes species that any Party country identifies as
being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for purposes of
preventing or restricting exploitation, and for which it needs the
cooperation of other Parties to control trade.
In a March 1, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR 8019), the
Service requested public recommendations or draft proposals to amend
Appendix I or II that the Service might consider proposing on behalf of
the United States at COP10. That notice described the provisions of
CITES for listing species in the appendices and set forth information
requirements for proposals, based on new listing criteria adopted by
the Parties at COP9. An August 28, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR
44324) requested additional comments from the public on species
proposals still being considered after review of materials received in
response to the March 1 notice. On the basis of a thorough review of
comments received in response to the August 28 notice, the Service
identified those proposals that met the listing criteria and presented
the most compelling cases. These proposals to amend the appendices were
submitted to the CITES Secretariat on January 10, 1997, to be
considered and voted upon by the Parties at COP10. The rationale for
selecting the proposals the United States submitted and rejecting the
proposals it did not is presented below, along with a summary of the
substantive public comments that aided in those decisions. Any proposed
amendments to the appendices adopted by the Parties will become
effective on September 18, 1997, unless the United States enters a
reservation before that time. The Service will publish a rulemaking
that would implement such amendments.
Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Species Proposals
The biological bases for proposals still being considered for
submission by the United States were described in the Federal Register
notice of August 28, 1996 (61 FR 44324) and are not repeated here in
detail in most cases. Decisions and their respective rationales are as
follows:
Species Proposals Not Submitted
1. Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus).
Although the Service's August 28, 1996 notice said nothing about a
possible proposal related to walruses, the Service received a letter
from Friends of Animals expressing concern about illegal taking of
walruses in Alaska (in particular the discovery of 160 carcasses
between Shishmaref and Kotzebue in 1996) and recommending that the
United States prepare a proposal to include the walrus in CITES
Appendix II. Walruses are presently on Appendix III of CITES (included
by Canada) and receive extensive protection in the United States under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA permits limited take
of walruses by Alaskan Natives but limits legal international trade of
walrus products for the most part to handicraft items. Such uses are
guided by a detailed ``Conservation Plan for the Pacific Walrus in
Alaska.'' Population surveys are conducted jointly with Russia at 5-
year intervals. Current populations appear to be healthy and have
persisted well above the ``optimum sustainable population'' measure
used by marine mammal specialists. There is no evidence of dramatic
change in walrus populations in recent years, and the legal take has
remained stable.
The Service has reviewed the 1996 incident cited by Friends of
Animals and concluded that it was one of a small number of unfortunate
and reprehensible poaching incidents that have resulted in mortality
that, while locally dramatic in some cases, does not represent a
significant impact on the walrus population of Alaska. Although there
is a possibility that some of the poached ivory finds its way into
illegal international trade, there is no evidence to suggest that the
volume warrants additional CITES controls. Both on biological and trade
grounds, the walrus in the United States does not meet the criteria for
inclusion in CITES Appendix II. Therefore no proposal for taking such
action was submitted.
2. Urial (Ovis vignei).
The Service had requested public comment in its August 28, 1996
notice
[[Page 18560]]
on possible co-sponsorship by the United States of a proposal drafted
by Germany to include all subspecies of the urial, a species of sheep
popular among sport trophy hunters, in Appendix I. There have been
varying interpretations of what precise taxonomic entity was intended
by the original listing of this species in Appendix I. As reported in
the Federal Register of December 20, 1996 (61 FR 67293), a review of
this problem was undertaken by the CITES Nomenclature Committee at the
meeting of the CITES Animals Committee in September 1996, in Prague.
The Nomenclature Committee concluded that the taxonomic entity intended
for protection by the original listing could not be determined with
certainty. It was, therefore, recommended that the current listing be
interpreted as being equivalent to that in the CITES-adopted taxonomic
reference for mammals, resulting in the entire species being included
in Appendix I. The Animals Committee endorsed this interpretation. In
light of this recommendation, the draft proposal for listing in
Appendix I became redundant and Germany did not submit the proposal.
The Service stated its position in the December 20, 1996 notice
that the United States should accept this recommendation of the CITES
Nomenclature and Animals Committees and propose a corresponding change
in its interpretation of the listing of Ovis vignei in 50 CFR part 23.
This interpretation will become effective 90 days after the conclusion
of COP10, if the Parties adopt the report of the Nomenclature
Committee. Under this interpretation, all urial specimens will be
considered to be in Appendix I, and imports will be subject to the
normal permitting requirements applicable to species included in
Appendix I. Public comment on this recommended position was solicited
and is presently being reviewed. Irrespective of the final United
States position, the proposal by Germany is no longer extant and
potential co-sponsorship by the United States is moot. [The Service
cautions that the interpretation of Ovis vignei likely to be adopted by
the CITES Parties, in addition to moving certain sheep populations from
unregulated status to Appendix I from the perspective of the United
States, is a potential source of confusion with respect to
interpretation of taxa listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
(ESA). It is important to note that changes in CITES nomenclature have
no effect whatever on taxa listed under ESA. For example, even though
the sheep subspecies severtzovi is considered now by CITES to belong to
Ovis vignei (only one subspecies of which, O. v. vignei, is listed
under ESA), the ESA continues to consider severtzovi to be a subspecies
of the argali, Ovis ammon. It therefore continues to have endangered
status under ESA as a consequence of the Ovis ammon listing as
endangered].
3. Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus)
The North American Falconry Association (NAFA) recommended that the
Service propose transferring the North American population of the
gyrfalcon from Appendix I to Appendix II and prepared a proposal in
support of this recommendation. NAFA submitted an identical proposal to
Canada. Populations of this species have been stable except for natural
fluctuations typical of high arctic breeders. Utilization is almost
entirely by falconers and use is slight compared with the total
population. Today, with the development of effective husbandry
techniques, it appears that most demand for gyrfalcons could be met by
captive-bred specimens.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the
International Wildlife Coalition (IWC) opposed the proposal, citing
illegal trade concerns and failure to meet the downlisting criteria of
CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4, paragraph B. Eight falconry
interests favored the downlisting. Reasons included a price structure
for captive birds under $5,000 (some under $2,000); favoring of hybrid
falcons over pure gyrfalcons by Middle Eastern falconry interests; and
absence of evidence that the wild population is in any difficulty.
Sutton Avian Research Center likened their abundance within their range
to that of the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and supported the
proposal. The North American Raptor Breeders' Association supported a
downlisting but indicated that the species is at the peak of its
popularity and that breeders are gearing up to ``meet the demand.''
Sweden and Denmark, in response to range state consultations for other
populations, objected to the proposed downlisting of the North American
population and consequent split-listing of the species, because of the
possibility that enforcement of trade restrictions on Appendix I
populations of gyrfalcons would be undermined.
The United States indicated in its August 28, 1996 notice that
Canada, the primary range state for the North American population,
would be consulted before a final decision was reached. Citing
Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4, paragraph B, cautioning Parties against
a downlisting to Appendix II when enforcement problems for other
species may ensue, Canada opted not to submit this proposal until after
a working group of the Animals Committee has thoroughly evaluated the
status of the species and the potential enforcement impacts of a
downlisting. The United States agrees that, given the positions still
held by some European Parties, the chances for adoption of a
downlisting by the CITES Parties are minimal until there has been
further review by the Animals Committee. The Service looks forward to
working with interested organizations and Parties in the Animals
Committee's working group and will proactively seek consensus on the
appropriateness of an Appendix II listing for the species.
4. Yellow-headed Parrot (Amazona oratrix) and Lilac-crowned Parrot
(Amazona finschi)
The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), World Wildlife Fund
(WWF), IWC, New York Turtle and Tortoise Society (NYTTS), and Defenders
of Wildlife (DOW) recommended that the Service propose the yellow-
headed parrot, endemic to Mexico and Belize, for transfer from Appendix
II to Appendix I. In addition, WWF recommended the lilac-crowned
parrot, another Mexican endemic, for transfer from Appendix II to I.
The yellow-headed parrot is restricted to the Atlantic and Pacific
lowlands of Mexico and Belize and has suffered precipitous population
declines (particularly in Mexico) because of habitat loss and
collection for the pet trade. It has long been one of the most popular
parrots in international trade. The United States believes this species
clearly qualifies for inclusion in Appendix I under the new listing
criteria. The status of the lilac-crowned parrot, a Mexican endemic, is
not as clear. More information is needed on its status to clarify
whether an Appendix I listing is warranted.
In its August 28, 1996 notice, the Service noted its understanding
that Mexico was reviewing the status of these species and might develop
proposals. The Service also indicated its potential willingness to co-
sponsor such proposals, if submitted by Mexico. Since that time,
Mexican authorities have concluded that there is insufficient
information available at this time to warrant proposing the lilac-
crowned parrot for inclusion in Appendix I. Although Mexico informed
the United States that it was seriously considering proposing the
yellow-headed parrot for Appendix I, no proposal was submitted to the
Secretariat by the January 10, 1997, deadline. Therefore there are no
[[Page 18561]]
proposals on either of these species that will be considered by the
Parties at COP10. The Service intends to continue working with Mexico
on these issues between now and COP11.
5. North American Softshell Turtles (Apalone spp.)
The HSUS submitted a proposal to include the softshell turtle genus
Apalone in Appendix II. This genus consists of three species of
freshwater turtles inhabiting both riverine and stillwater habitats: A.
spinifera, ranging across most of the eastern and central United States
and northeastern Mexico, with scattered populations farther west; A.
mutica, inhabiting the Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi River drainages
south to the Gulf of Mexico and extending to western Florida and
central Texas, with an isolated population in New Mexico; and A. ferox,
ranging through southern South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and the
coastal plain of Alabama. Although there is little information on the
population status of any of these species, none is considered
potentially threatened at present. Some studies suggest population
declines. They are more prolific than many turtles species, laying up
to 40 eggs in a clutch. They can be multiple-brooded, with up to six
clutches per year in A. ferox. All species are vulnerable to damming of
rivers and to loss of preferred habitats in general.
Although some animals are taken for the pet trade, softshell
turtles are primarily exploited for food. We understand that the major
domestic and foreign markets are Asian communities. Service data
suggest that as many as 60,000 live animals may have been exported in
1994 and over 16,000 lbs. of meat exported in 1993. Apalone ferox
appears to be the species most heavily exploited. Many of the animals
exported are produced in turtle farms in Florida and other southeastern
states, but the impact of such farms on wild populations is poorly
understood.
Several public comments were received. A large commercial dealer in
Florida stated that he obtains young animals from a wide area, raises
them to the 1-3 lb. stage in enclosed ponds, and sells them to New York
Asian markets. He also believed very large numbers of eggs are
collected in Lake Okeechobee, hatched, and exported as hatchlings. WWF
and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission stated that large
numbers of adults (presumably breeding-age) are taken from Lake
Okeechobee illegally and sold for meat. P. Meylan (Eckard College)
indicated such take results in local depletion of populations. The Pet
Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) stated that hatchling softshell
turtles are exported from Louisiana turtle farms after being tested for
Salmonella infection. David Cook, a Florida biologist, stated the
species is not in immediate danger of extinction and, although there is
probably some successful propagation, it is probably not happening
without supplementation from the wild. P. Pritchard said A. ferox is
still abundant in Florida. Two biology graduate students from Florida
(J. Roman and B. Bowen) also said that A. ferox is abundant throughout
peninsular Florida. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) felt the
biological information was not adequate to justify a proposal, but that
there is enough evidence of high-volume trade to list in order that
monitoring efforts would be better.
Despite high and apparently increasing levels of trade, the Service
believes that the evidence presented does not at this time suggest that
wild populations are being negatively affected or are particularly
vulnerable to existing pressures. These species (especially A. ferox)
have substantial recruitment potential compared with many other turtle
species and may well be able to sustain current levels of take and
trade. Therefore it appears that they may not meet the criteria for
inclusion in Appendix II. Nonetheless, the Service intends to explore
the relationships between softshell turtle exports and turtle farming
practices before COP11, in order to obtain a better assessment of the
impact of international trade on wild populations. The Service will
also consult State agencies and turtle biologists, in an effort to
better understand the degree to which wild animals are taken directly
for export and the status and potential vulnerability of wild
populations subject to commercial take.
6. Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum) and Beaded Lizard (Heloderma
horridum)
The HSUS submitted a proposal to transfer the Gila monster and the
beaded lizard from Appendix II to Appendix I and requested the Service
to consider submitting it to COP10. The partly arboreal beaded lizard
is patchily distributed in tropical dry forests of Mexico from Sonora
to northern Chiapas, with one isolated race in eastern Guatemala. In
consultation with Mexican authorities, the Service was told that the
beaded lizard is fairly common within its Mexican range and is not
taken for the pet trade to a significant degree. Mexico does not
believe the beaded lizard meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix
I. In the absence of compelling information to the contrary, the United
States accepts this position and has not proposed transfer of this
species to Appendix I.
The Gila monster occurs in arid and semi-arid gravelly and sandy
habitats with some shrubs from southwestern Utah and southern Nevada
and California south through Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and into
northern Mexico. Populations are believed by some to have suffered from
habitat degradation, killing, and collection for roadside zoos (mainly
historically) and the pet trade. But there are no estimates of
population size or trend. The species is biologically vulnerable,
because it has a clutch size of only 2-12 and it reproduces only every
other year. The Gila monster is legally protected from commercial use
throughout its range by State and Mexican legislation. Very small
numbers appear in legal international trade records (40 were reported
exported from the United States in 1994). Illegal trade is considered
substantial by some, but total annual confiscations in the United
States are typically fewer than 100 animals. The HSUS proposal argued
that poaching has reached epidemic levels, individuals cost up to
$3,600 in Japan, and an Appendix I listing would eliminate the
opportunity for wild-caught animals to be traded falsely as captive-
bred.
There was very limited comment from the public on potential
transfer of the Gila monster to Appendix I. The EIA, Sedgwick County
Zoo, and an unaffiliated biologist supported the transfer. Transfer to
Appendix I was opposed by PIJAC, Reptile Masters, two private breeders,
and the National Herpetological Alliance (NHA), representing reptile
breeders. PIJAC stated that the levels of reported legal trade are
consistent with present captive-breeding capability, and that uplisting
will drive prices up. The NHA claimed a transfer would discourage
captive-breeding efforts and would not reduce the volume of illegal
trade. One of the major breeders of Heloderma (S. and K. Osborne)
disputed the alleged likelihood of much laundering of wild animals
through captive-breeding operations and pointed out that there have
been significant improvements in husbandry and breeding success since
1992. They indicated that at least 176 were hatched in the U.S. in the
past two years. The State of Arizona opposed a transfer to Appendix I,
stating that the species was not rare there, was no longer affected by
collection for
[[Page 18562]]
roadside zoos, and did not meet the criteria for either Appendix I or
Appendix II.
The Service has concluded that there is little evidence to suggest
that this species meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I. There
is no evidence for population declines beyond that which can be deduced
from development near urban areas of the arid Southwest. Recorded legal
trade is very small, and evidence of an illegal trade of sufficient
magnitude to cause serious population concerns has not been provided.
International trade controls afforded by the Appendix II listing, in
combination with additional protections afforded by State and Mexican
legislation, appear to be sufficient at the present time. Therefore, no
proposal was submitted for this species.
7. Sail-fin Lizards (Hydrosaurus spp., Hypsilurus spp., and
Physignathus lesueurii).
Gregory Watkins-Colwell, a biologist and expert on the genus
Hydrosaurus, submitted a proposal for the inclusion of the two species
in this genus (H. amboinensis = weberi and H. pustulatus) in Appendix
II under provisions of Article II(2)(a), and the genus Hypsilurus
(incorporating 11 species) and the species Physignathus lesueurii in
Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b) (similarity of
appearance), and asked the Service to consider submitting the proposal
to COP10. These species, also commonly known as sail lizards, sail-tail
dragons, and water dragons, are native to the southwestern Pacific
region, including Australia. Hydrosaurus lizards are endemic to the
Philippines and eastern Indonesia, including western Irian Jaya.
Hypsilurus are found primarily in New Guinea, with some ranging to
Fiji, Oceania, and New South Wales and Queensland in Australia.
Physignathus lesueurii appears to be confined to eastern Australia.
Virtually nothing is known about current sizes or trends of
populations. Clutch size ranges from 5 to 9 eggs and reproduction
occurs on an annual cycle. In addition to habitat loss, collection for
the pet trade, a practice facilitated by the loss of natural habitat,
is perceived to be a potential threat to at least some populations.
Service wildlife enforcement records indicate total imports of 1,700
animals reported as H. pustulatus from 1993 to 1996.
Of the substantive comments received, eight were opposed to the
listing and none were in support. The World Conservation Union (IUCN,
R.W. Jenkins) pointed out that wild examples of the mentioned species
that occur in Australia and Papua New Guinea are protected by law, that
there is not a similarity-of-appearance problem between Hydrosaurus and
Physignathus, and that the species Hydrosaurus amboinensis is common to
moderately abundant in Indonesia. The latter comment was supported by
P. Harlow (University of Sydney), an expert on some of the species. He,
along with PIJAC and California Zoological Supply, stated that the
proposal was based too much on absence of evidence that Appendix II
criteria are not met, rather than on evidence that they are.
In the absence of new information in support of the arguments for
an Appendix II listing, the Service is not convinced, by either the
biological or trade information, that the criteria for Appendix II are
met. Although some of the species proposed, or isolated populations of
some species, may face potential threats from international trade, the
preponderance of evidence points to species that are fairly common and
resilient. More species-specific information, more field evidence of
population status, and evidence of higher trade volume would strengthen
the proposal. The Service has, therefore, not submitted a proposal on
this group of species at this time. However, the Service will make an
effort to monitor more closely the imports of Hydrosaurus species in
particular, and will urge other importing Parties to do the same, in an
effort to improve our understanding of the magnitude of trade.
8. Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) and Western
Diamondback Rattlesnake (C. atrox)
EIA submitted a proposal for including the eastern diamondback
rattlesnake in Appendix II and recommended that the Service consider
submitting it to COP10. In considering this proposal, the Service
suggested, in its August 28, 1996 notice, that the western diamondback
should also be included, because of its similarity of appearance and
its occurrence in high volumes in trade. Eastern diamondbacks range
mainly through lowland pine forests from North Carolina to extreme
eastern Louisiana. Because of extensive loss of those natural habitats,
these snakes now survive in reduced numbers in other natural and human-
altered habitats. Reproduction is limited by delayed sexual maturity
(2-3 years) and long inter-birth intervals (2-3 years). Populations
have declined significantly enough to result in their classification as
a species of special concern in both South Carolina and Alabama. Using
a scoring system for vulnerability, the Florida Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission ranked it near the median score for ``species of
special concern,'' but has not included the species in that list.
Because rattlesnakes represent a potential threat to human health and
life, this species, like many other rattlesnakes, has historically been
killed intentionally in large numbers. Although commercial utilization
for the pet trade, and for meat, skins, and novelty jewelry is
noteworthy, records of export are not high. Service wildlife
enforcement data show exports of 1,510 and 1,475 whole animals in 1992
and 1993 respectively. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, 26.7, 119.8, and
2,419.7 pounds of eastern diamondback meat were also recorded as being
exported.
The proposal to include the eastern diamondback rattlesnake in
Appendix II was supported by the HSUS and WWF. WWF pointed out,
however, that 90% of the international trade is in C. atrox. Comments
from eight biologists or biological organizations (including the
Virginia Herpetological Society and the Herpetologists'' League) were
supportive. J.Butler (University of North Florida) said not enough is
known about population status. B. Herrington (Georgia Southwestern
University) and R. Mount (Auburn University) said there have been
declines in populations, the latter saying it has been precipitous in
Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. A large commercial dealer in the
Southeast (Campbell's Farm) said the species is increasing in the
Southeast, and 96% of the snakes he handles (domestic transactions) had
been found dead. The Wildlife Conservation Society questioned whether,
given the apparently low level of international trade, a listing on
Appendix II would confer a significant conservation benefit. Louisiana
(where the species is very rare) and Florida opposed listing. Florida
advised caution in interpreting their own data on domestic trade, as
they have drawn no conclusions themselves. Arizona opposed listing of
the western diamondback for reasons of similarity of appearance,
stating that the eastern diamondback is more easily confused with some
other species of Crotalus.
Based upon population and trade data made available to the Service,
the Service does not find a convincing case for proposing either of
these species for Appendix II at this time. Although there are no
quantitative data, population decline speculations for the eastern
diamondback are undoubtedly correct. However, the declines appear to be
related mainly to factors other than international trade. And there
appears to be no basis for concluding (as for the
[[Page 18563]]
timber rattlesnake, discussed below) that populations are in such poor
condition that even low levels of international trade could be
detrimental. However, the Service acknowledges the existence of a
significant level of international trade overall in rattlesnake
products originating in the United States. Most of this trade is
recorded as being in the western diamondback, a species considered
biologically more resilient to exploitation than its eastern relative.
But the potential for mislabelling eastern diamondbacks as western
diamondbacks exists. The Service has not submitted a proposal but will
continue to monitor trade in both of these species and reassess before
COP11 whether either or both warrant Appendix II status at that time.
9. Western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Populations of Requiem Sharks
(Carcharhinidae spp.) and Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias)
The Ocean Wildlife Campaign (OWC) initially recommended that the
Service propose listing in Appendix II populations of all shark species
in the Carcharhinidae family that occur in the western Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico. A complete proposal on the dusky shark (C. obscurus)
was subsequently received by the Service.
The dusky shark is a cosmopolitan, warm-water species, one of over
50 species in the Carcharhinidae family. The northwest Atlantic
population has declined to only a small fraction of 1970's population
levels. There is no strong evidence that the population is recovering.
It, along with 38 other shark species, is managed in the United States
under the National Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Fishery Management Plan
for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (large coastal shark category). The
species is subjected to a targeted long-line and inshore gill net
fishery and is one of only several species of requiem sharks targeted
by fisheries. It is a very desirable species for its fins, which are
exported to Asian markets. Because requiem sharks are long-lived, slow-
growing animals with limited reproductive potential, they are
particularly vulnerable to overfishing.
Additionally, the OWC proposed that the spiny dogfish population in
western Atlantic waters be listed in Appendix II. The western Atlantic
population ranges from Greenland to Florida. Like the dusky shark, the
spiny dogfish is an elasmobranch or cartilaginous fish. It shares with
other elasmobranchs life history characteristics that render it more
vulnerable to exploitation than many bony fishes. The spiny dogfish
occurs in discrete populations in warm temperate and boreal waters.
Currently it appears to be common in northwest Atlantic waters, but it
is considered fully utilized by the fishery. Recent stock assessments
indicate a rapid increase in landings and a possibly unsustainable take
of adult females. Between 1987 and 1993, spiny dogfish landings appear
to have increased seven-fold. Dogfish are vulnerable to overharvest, as
evidenced by the collapse of the Scottish-Norwegian stock of spiny
dogfish. Discards from other fisheries, especially from vessels
targeting groundfish, contribute an unknown but substantial fraction to
current mortality levels. Spiny dogfish meat is increasingly popular as
a substitute for more traditional commercial fish in such products as
fish and chips in Europe. The primary commercial markets are Europe,
for meat, and Asia, for fins and skin. There is no management plan in
the U.S. waters for spiny dogfish, although the mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council has begun the scoping process for such a plan.
Proposing the dusky shark and spiny dogfish for inclusion in
Appendix II was opposed by all commercial interests and supported by
all conservation organizations that responded to the August 28, 1996
notice. It was opposed by the National Fisheries Institute (a U.S. non-
government organization), Fisheries Agency of Japan, Japan Fisheries
Association, Global Guardian Trust (a Japanese non-government
organization), International Wildlife Management Consortium, the
European Bureau for Conservation and Development, the New Hampshire
Commercial Fishermen's Association, Massachusetts Netters Association,
and Seatrade (a commercial dealer in dogfish meat). It was supported by
the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, National Audubon
Society, WCS, OWC, American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists, American Elasmobranch Society, and a petition from 21
scientists in the IUCN Shark Specialist Group.
The main arguments of supporters of the dusky shark proposal were
the severely depleted populations, heavy targeted take for fins, lack
of data on export from the United States, and the vulnerable biological
characteristics of sharks. The main arguments of opponents were lack of
adequate population information, existence of other multilateral
fisheries management bodies, the need to complete the implementation of
CITES Resolution Conf. 9.17, ``Status of International Trade in Shark
Species'', before any listings are considered, the existence of a
management plan under NMFS, abuse of the precautionary principle (cf.
Resolution Conf. 9.24), and the unfairness of the implications for
commercial take of the other similar species worldwide.
The main arguments of supporters of the spiny dogfish being listed
were the very heavy and increasing fishing pressure, decrease in the
catch-per-unit-effort in the past few years, the targeting of adult
females, the decrease in the size of fish now available and
corresponding changes in the types of nets used to catch them, a
history of other populations of elasmobranchs collapsing from over-
fishing, biological vulnerability, and the absence of a management
plan. The main arguments of those opposed to the listing were the large
current populations, the importance in the commercial catch of New
England fishermen, the prediction of a management plan being developed,
existence of other multilateral fisheries management bodies, the need
for better population information, and damage to the process for
implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17.
Although the United States believes both of these species meet the
criteria for inclusion in Appendix II, for several reasons we have
chosen not to propose them at this time. Foremost among these is the
fact that management of landings, import, and export of marine fish
will be complex and will take time to implement effectively. New
mechanisms of interagency and international cooperation, new funding,
additional personnel, training, and new permitting procedures will
likely be required. Second, there is a serious similarity-of-appearance
problem within the requiem shark group that will further complicate
implementation and enforcement. Finally, more effective mechanisms of
coordination and cooperation between CITES and international commercial
fishery management bodies are desirable with respect to regulation of
trade in CITES-listed marine fishes. For these reasons the United
States has submitted a draft resolution to COP10 proposing
establishment of a Marine Fishes Working Group (described in more
detail in a notice in the Federal Register published on March 27, 1997
(62 FR 14689), under the auspices of the CITES Standing Committee and
analogous to the CITES Timber Working Group, to address implementation
issues associated with inclusion of sharks or other marine fishes in
Appendix II, and to provide a forum for the completion of the
implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17. Given the anticipated
substantial progress by this working group, the
[[Page 18564]]
United States will be prepared to submit appropriate shark species
proposals for consideration by the Parties at COP11.
10. Edible Pearlymussel (Cyprogenia aberti)
In the August 28, 1996 notice, the Service was considering
proposing removal of four species of freshwater mussels (Cyprogenia
aberti, Fusconaia subrotunda, Lampsilis brevicula [= Lampsilis reeviana
brevicula], and Lexingtonia dolabelloides) from Appendix II. These were
among several species recommended for removal from Appendix II by the
Periodic Review Working Group of the CITES Animals Committee. This
working group examines historical and recent trade levels in species
included in Appendix II to determine whether their listing continues to
be warranted. There is no evidence that any of the four species listed
above have been involved in trade. In reviewing the status of these
four species, the United States has concluded that only the edible
pearly mussel (= western fanshell) warrants retention in Appendix II as
a precautionary measure pending further review, as it is considered
endangered by the IUCN. The United States has submitted a proposal,
discussed below, to remove the other three species of freshwater
mussels from Appendix II. No public comments were received on mussels.
11. Pacific Yew (Taxus brevifolia)
The Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) recommended that the
United States propose the Pacific yew for inclusion in Appendix II.
This species occurs in a limited range on public and private lands in
the western United States and Canada. An effective anti-cancer compound
(paclitaxel or Taxol) is obtained especially from its bark, as well as
to an increasing but unknown extent from other species of Taxus, and
similar Taxus compounds are being investigated. Some companies are
working on methods of obtaining paclitaxel from Taxus needles and
branches (which avoids loss of the whole plant). Laboratory substitutes
for the natural compound are either not available or not available in
adequate commercial quantity, and there is some semi-synthetic
production. This species is not grown commercially in large quantity
for medicinal use, but there is some ornamental cultivation. Pacific
yew has minor value as a timber species. There is some export of
Pacific yew biomass for manufacture of paclitaxel in other countries.
The Himalayan yew (Taxus wallichiana) was listed in Appendix II at COP9
in 1994, excluding the finished pharmaceutical products (i.e., the end-
product medicine).
The Service sought information regarding: (1) the intensity and
purposes of removal of the several parts of this species from the wild
in various areas, the characteristics of the populations impacted by
these extractions, and the trends in those populations; (2) the
location, characteristics, and safety of populations that will not be
available for extraction; (3) the extent to which biomass from the wild
(i.e., materials other than the end-point medicine) is exported from
either country; and (4) the degree to which the medicinal trade
involves other wild Taxus species, and/or non-wild sources of the
compound (e.g., from cultivated Pacific yew or other species, or from
laboratory synthesis).
Comments were received from eleven organizations or individuals.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection stated they
were ``not opposed'' to the potential listing in Appendix II, and
comments in support of a proposal were received from the Oregon
Department of Forestry, ONRC Action and ONRC, and the Humane Society of
the United States. Weyerhaeuser Company stated that they were neutral
with regard to inclusion of the wild population in Appendix II, and
opposed to inclusion of specimens of cultivated origin. Comments in
opposition to a proposal were received from the Province of British
Columbia, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 1 (which includes the Pacific Northwest region), the American
Forest & Paper Association, and a private individual.
The threat (i.e., harvest pressure) on the Pacific yew and other
yew (Taxus) species may presently be increasing, because of the
interest of various companies in obtaining medicinal compounds from
yews, and the limited capability of most companies to synthesize the
effective medicine. Nevertheless, substantial populations of Taxus
brevifolia are effectively protected in Federal and State parks and
similar natural areas throughout its range in the United States and
similarly in British Columbia. In addition, tree species in riparian
areas (usually within 100 feet of streams) receive protection on some
U.S. Federal lands (e.g., public lands administered by the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management). Furthermore, the U.S.
Forest Service has developed thorough detailed management plans for
harvesting and conserving Pacific yew, and the Pacific yew also has
some direct legal protection in Oregon and British Columbia. Also,
efforts are continuing to produce the medicinal compounds in commercial
quantity by chemical synthesis, and to cultivate several Taxus species
in quantity.
Given these several circumstances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service concluded that sufficient wild and managed populations of Taxus
brevifolia are or can be sufficiently conserved under existing
authorities and management systems or plans, so that inclusion of the
species in Appendix II was not warranted. Reconsideration of this
species for CITES might only become appropriate if, with an increasing
interest in harvest from the wild, such authorities and directives in
the United States or Canada were to significantly weaken or the
management systems and plans were found to be inadequate in practice.
12. Aloe Vera (Aloe vera var. vera) (Wild Population)
At its meeting in June 1995, the CITES Plants Committee recognized
that this taxon may be endangered rather than extinct within its native
range, which is increasingly considered to be on the Arabian Peninsula
(or possibly the adjacent horn of Africa). At COP9, the wild population
was delisted along with the artificially propagated population. All
other aloes are listed in Appendix II or Appendix I, but the cultivated
specimens of Aloe vera var. vera and products derived from them are
very common in international trade. A specialist in succulents
recommended that the United States submit a proposal to return this
wild population to Appendix II. Because the focus would be on
protecting the plants of this taxon in its isolated native range, such
a listing would not interfere with the unregulated trade in the very
common artificially propagated specimens and the derivatives of them.
Comments were received from: (1) the Humane Society of the United
States recommending that a proposal be submitted to include the taxon
in Appendix II or preferably Appendix I; (2) a succulent specialist,
supporting a proposal; (3) the California Cactus Growers Association
against submitting a proposal; and (4) the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.,
which provided some comments toward obtaining fuller information on the
topic.
The United States considered this subject in coordination with the
North Africa representative to the CITES Plants Committee (as agreed at
the 1995 meeting of the Plants Committee), and with the IUCN Species
Survival Commission Arabian Plant Specialist Group. Results were
discussed at the
[[Page 18565]]
November 1996 meeting of the Plants Committee. The conclusion there was
to agree to a collaborative effort involving especially Morocco, Italy,
and the United Kingdom, for field work on the Arabian Peninsula and
analysis of genetic variability to ascertain whether populations known
there are truly native wild populations or only naturalized (perhaps
from ancient introduction). The results are expected to be ready in
time to make decisions for COP11.
Species Proposals Submitted
1. Green-cheeked (Red-crowned) Parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)
The EIA, WWF, IWC, NYTTS, and DOW recommended that the Service
propose the green-cheeked (red-crowned) parrot, a Mexican endemic, for
transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I. This species is endemic to
riparian forests and deciduous woodlands of Tamaulipas and San Luis
Potosi in northeast Mexico. Feral populations have been established in
several locations in both Mexico and the United States, including
Texas. Recent population estimates of only 3,000 to 6,500 birds in the
wild represent a severe decline from populations several decades ago.
Habitat loss, control as an agricultural pest, and extensive
exploitation for the pet trade have all contributed to the decline.
Although protected from capture and trade in Mexico since 1982, the
level of illegal trade suggested by confiscations is highly significant
relative to the estimated population of the species. The level of
known, illegal international trade relative to its population status
indicates that trade is a significant contributor to the precarious
status of its populations. The Service indicated in its August 28, 1996
notice that it believes this species qualifies for Appendix I under the
new listing criteria and that Appendix I trade controls would further
discourage illegal trade, because of the more stringent permitting
requirements and the rigorous criteria that captive-breeding facilities
for Appendix I species must meet.
Proposing the green-cheeked parrot for inclusion in Appendix I was
supported by the HSUS, DOW, and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). It
was opposed by the American Federation of Aviculture (AFA), Hill
Country Aviaries, PIJAC, and C. Roscher. Arguments against uplisting
any of the Amazon parrots then being considered included: insufficient
data on the status of wild populations; low likelihood that a complete
prohibition on trade would decrease the incidence of illegal trade
(because the species is presently protected in both range states); and
discouragement of captive-breeding, which is viewed as a hedge against
loss of species in the wild for reasons unrelated to international
trade.
In its August 28, 1996 notice, the Service noted that it expected
Mexico to prepare a proposal to include this species in Appendix I.
Mexico did prepare and submit such a proposal to the CITES Secretariat.
The United States continues to believe that this species clearly meets
Appendix I criteria and will gain a measure of additional security from
an Appendix I listing. The United States appreciates that the country
to which it is endemic has similarly recognized this need. In response
to concerns expressed by avicultural interests about the impact of an
Appendix I listing on trade in captive-bred birds, the Service notes
that specimens of Appendix I species bred in captivity in accordance
with CITES standards (and in facilities registered by the CITES
Secretariat, if bred for commercial purposes) can be traded with CITES
Appendix II documents. The Service believes that such a listing will
encourage captive-breeding operations that are virtually self-
sustaining and represent no direct or indirect threat to wild
populations. Having received Mexico's concurrence, the United States is
now a co-proponent of their proposal. Independently, Germany also
submitted a proposal to include the green-cheeked parrot in Appendix I.
2. Straw-Headed Bulbul (Pycnonotus zeylanicus)
WWF proposed that ``southeast Asian songbirds'' involved
extensively in the pet trade be considered for CITES protection, but
did not provide a draft proposal. The Service examined the information
contained in the TRAFFIC Southeast Asia report ``Sold for a Song''
provided by WWF, and indicated its interest in proposing one of the
species that clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II,
the straw-headed bulbul of Indonesia (Sumatra, Kalimantan, Java) and
Malaysia. This species has declined or been extirpated from all but the
remotest parts of its range in Indonesia by a combination of excessive
trapping for the pet trade and habitat destruction. The remainder of
its natural range, in Peninsular Malaysia, is smaller than its former
range in Indonesia.
Subsequent to its initial consideration of developing a proposal,
the United States learned that the Netherlands had already drafted a
proposal to include the straw-headed bulbul in Appendix II and
conducted range-state consultations. In its August 28, 1996 notice, the
Service indicated its potential interest in co-sponsoring this proposal
with the Netherlands. No public comments were received on this
possibility. The Service, therefore, with the approval of the
Netherlands, indicated its co-proponency on the proposal submitted to
the CITES Secretariat by the Netherlands to include the straw-headed
bulbul in Appendix II.
3. Map Turtles (Graptemys spp.)
HSUS, supported by DOW, EIA, IWC, and NYTTS, submitted a proposal
to include the twelve species of map turtles, genus Graptemys, in
Appendix II and requested the Service to consider proposing it to
COP10. This genus includes the following species: Graptemys
geographica, barbouri, pulchra, ernsti, gibbonsi, caglei,
pseudogeographica (includes kohnii), ouachitensis, versa, oculifera,
flavimaculata, and nigrinoda. Graptemys geographica occurs throughout
most of the eastern half of the United States and southeastern Canada;
G. pseudogeographica ranges through the Missouri and Mississippi River
drainages; G. ouachitensis overlaps extensively with the latter but
extends farther east and west. These three species are the most common
and widely distributed members of the genus. Graptemys flavimaculata
and G. oculifera are the most geographically restricted species,
occurring only in limited river systems in Mississippi (and Louisiana--
G. oculifera only). Both are listed as threatened under the ESA.
Graptemys nigrinoda is classified as endangered under Mississippi State
law and G. barbouri is considered vulnerable to extirpation in Florida.
As with most turtle species, population data are limited, except
for those species already considered endangered or threatened.
Biologists who have studied seven of the species believe that
populations have generally declined. Data from the Service's wildlife
enforcement records show that international trade is substantial and
may be increasing significantly. Although Service export records
identified to genus or species totaled 27,720 for 1991 and 111,674 for
1994, discussions with turtle farmers and the State of Louisiana (see
below) indicate that actual numbers are much higher. The bulk of this
trade appears to consist of hatchlings produced in captivity on turtle
farms in the Southeast. Although some turtle farmers in Louisiana are
beginning to recruit some of their own breeding stock from captive-
hatched
[[Page 18566]]
animals, it is still necessary to draw upon wild populations to varying
degrees for establishing and maintaining a breeding population.
There was considerable public reaction to the proposal. The WCS
recommended listing for monitoring purposes and recommended that States
collect species-specific data on age classes, because of the
sensitivity of populations to collection of breeding adults. M. Ewert
(Indiana University) felt the genus should be listed because nine of
the twelve species are so restricted in distribution. K. Dodd (U.S.
Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division) believes some of the
unlisted species are vulnerable to international trade, although some
species are abundant. S. Santhuff (University of Florida) supported the
proposal and believes G. nigrinoda should be listed under the ESA. He
expressed concern over the vulnerability of the genus to collection and
referred to a collector in Georgia who set 3,000 as a goal for a single
night's collection.
PIJAC and various commercial interests expressed opposition to the
proposal. PIJAC questioned assertions about the popularity of map
turtles as pets in the United States, and pointed out that the majority
of exporters listed in the proposal are regulated turtle farms. PIJAC
recommended that export figures be broken down by ``captive-raised''
and ``wild-caught'' in order to judge potential impacts. The proposal
from the HSUS did not reflect the significant portion of the trade
attributable to captive-hatched animals. C. Sullivan (a shipper of
turtles) stated that there are at least 40 licensed turtle farms in the
Southeast and that all exports are of hatchlings from eggs laid in
turtle farms. He indicated that Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and
Louisiana, unlike Mississippi, permit take of map turtles from the
wild. This situation was also reflected in comments from several turtle
farmers. Sullivan also stated that farmers have recently learned that
these species reproduce well in captivity after an adjustment period of
about three years. A turtle farmer (Belzoni Turtle Farms) from
Mississippi claimed to produce 10,000 hatchlings/year. Another
Mississippi farmer (P. Alleman, Sunshine Turtle Farms) said the farms
are not currently managed for perpetuity, i.e., young are not raised to
replace breeders.
Of States responding to the notice, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
and Mississippi supported the proposal. Wisconsin supported listing of
the nine more restricted species, but was neutral on the other three.
Louisiana opposed the proposal. Louisiana stated that hatchlings sold
from Louisiana are from farms, which restock with fewer than 1,000
wild-caught adults per year total. They estimated that 128,000 to
150,000 hatchlings from Louisiana are exported per year. There is no
State management plan in Louisiana, but the State Department of
Agriculture and Forestry requires that each farm return at least 200
turtles to the wild annually.
Given the large numbers exported and the restricted distributions
and apparently diminished (in some cases) populations of nine Graptemys
species, the Service is concerned about the potential impact of present
levels of international trade on wild populations. The Service believes
all species except G. geographica, G. pseudogeographica, and G.
ouachitensis qualify for inclusion in Appendix II under provisions of
Article II(2)(a). For effective enforcement of regulations applicable
to trade in these nine species, it is also necessary to include the
remaining three similar-appearing species in Appendix II pursuant to
Article II(2)(b). Therefore the Service has submitted a proposal to
include G. barbouri, pulchra, ernsti, gibbonsi, caglei, versa,
oculifera, flavimaculata, and nigrinoda in Appendix II under provisions
of Article II(2)(a), and G. geographica, pseudogeographica, and
ouachitensis in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b).
Fortunately, it appears from preliminary information made available to
the Service, that G. pseudogeographica (including kohnii) and G.
ouachitensis, two of the species proposed under 2(b) provisions, are
the dominant species in trade. Scientific Authority findings for
species so listed will be based only upon the potential impact of their
export on any of the other nine species.
4. Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii).
The HSUS, supported by DOW, EIA, IWC, and NYTTS, submitted a
proposal to include the alligator snapping turtle in Appendix II and
requested the Service to consider proposing it to COP10. The alligator
snapping turtle, the largest freshwater turtle in North America,
inhabits most river systems emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, including
the Mississippi River as far north as Illinois. It also makes use of
bodies of still water associated with river systems. In these habitats,
females of about 12 years and older produce one clutch of 9 to 52 eggs
annually, with a mean of 25. From mostly anecdotal evidence, especially
from turtle trappers, it is evident that this species has declined
severely throughout much of its range. The primary agents of population
decline appear to be degradation and damming of river systems and
(largely historical) widespread commercial take for its meat, which has
been marketed both domestically and internationally. Collection appears
to have severely depleted some local populations and altered
demographic structure in others.
The species is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN and listed as
rare, threatened, or endangered in many of the States on the periphery
of the range and in Georgia. Most southeastern States afford this
species a greater level of protection than that afforded most other
turtles. It is considered a species of special concern in Florida and
``questionable'' as a possible addition to Louisiana's list of species
of special concern. Louisiana appears to be the only State that has not
prohibited commercial take. Hatchlings, almost entirely produced in
turtle-farming operations, are exported for the pet trade. Service
wildlife enforcement records show an increase in the export of live
turtles from 290 in 1989 to 9,639 in 1994, primarily to markets in
Japan, Hong Kong, and Western Europe. Most of these exports probably
represent such farm-raised hatchlings.
Inclusion of the alligator snapping turtle in Appendix II was
strongly supported by WCS, which cited the well-documented population
decline and a need to monitor trade more effectively. The NHA, which
opposed listing of other turtles being considered, supported this
proposal, if there are data independent of the proposal that support
the arguments advanced. NHA also insisted that permits for captive-
reared or sustainably wild-taken specimens be issued. P. Meylan (Eckard
College) pointed out that this species is threatened by both habitat
specificity (like map turtles) and commercial demand for meat (like
softshell turtles). M. Ewert (Indiana University) also pointed out the
sometimes severe effect that raccoons and fire ants can have as
predators on alligator snapper nests. According to a member of the
Louisiana Reptile and Amphibian Task Force, in the late 1970's trappers
in southern Louisiana had to go to northern part of the State to find
significant numbers of this species. Sixty-one percent of the
respondents to a questionnaire from the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries to trappers on the population status of
alligator snappers reported a decrease, especially in the past 10
years. Two graduate students (J. Roman and B. Bowen, University of
Florida) who were collecting meat from dealers around the Southeast for
mitochondrial DNA
[[Page 18567]]
analysis, said that trappers in southern Louisiana reported the area
being ``trapped out.'' One turtle farmer (P. Alleman) in Mississippi
stated that the species has become very rare in Mississippi.
Three States responded to the notice: Mississippi strongly
supported the proposal; Oklahoma had no opinion; and Louisiana opposed
it. A consensus of Louisiana turtle farmers was that virtually all
exports of alligator snappers were of farm-raised hatchlings and that
few animals are taken from the wild. This was supported by the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, which stated that fewer
than 100 are sold commercially for meat each year and probably fewer
than 100 are collected from the wild annually for any commercial
purpose, including supplementation or expansion of farm breeding stock
(presently about 1,000 adults in Louisiana). The proposal was opposed
by PIJAC on the grounds that the commercial farms in Mississippi and
Louisiana are the source of most of the exported animals.
The Service continues to be concerned about the contribution of
past commercial take to the current precarious status of alligator
snapping turtles in many parts of their range and believes the species
clearly meets criteria for inclusion in Appendix II. Although the
increasing levels of export appear to be related largely to expanding
markets for farm-raised hatchlings, the direct or indirect impact of
these practices on wild populations are not well known or monitored.
Therefore the Service believes inclusion in Appendix II will provide a
needed measure of protection for the species and has submitted an
Appendix II proposal.
5. Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)
The EIA, supported by HSUS and IWC, submitted proposals for
including the timber rattlesnake in Appendix II and recommended that
the Service consider submitting it to COP10. The timber rattlesnake
occurs in 27 States, from New Hampshire and Minnesota south to Texas
and Florida, having been extirpated from Maine and Rhode Island, and
Canada (Ontario). It occupies a variety of habitats, particularly
rugged, rocky outcroppings. Southern forms (``canebrake'' rattlesnakes)
use a variety of lowland sites such as pine flatwoods, floodplains, and
bottomland hardwoods.
Populations have declined severely in northeastern states,
primarily from human encroachment and development and hunting. The
species is now known from only 23 localities in New England, contrasted
with 90 localities twenty years ago. A 1991 biological symposium
concluded that serious declines have taken place in Connecticut,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Vermont. It is
considered endangered in Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Massachusetts, and New Jersey and threatened in New York, Texas,
Illinois, and Indiana. It is believed to be approaching extinction in
Pennsylvania, where large specimens are extremely rare today. It is
particularly vulnerable in the northern part of its range, because
females mature at age 7-11 years and produce young only every 3-4
years. The habit of congregating in hibernacula during winter months
makes them vulnerable to being killed in large numbers.
Trade is relatively limited compared with some of the larger
species of Crotalus. Only Florida appears to have collected information
on domestic trade: between 1990 and 1992, 109 were taken for the pet
trade and dealers handled 366 dead animals obtained in Florida and an
additional 4,346 obtained from other southeastern states. Service
records for international trade show an average of 50-75 live/year and
200-750 leather pieces/year. Most of the trade in parts probably
represents the commoner and less vulnerable southeastern ``canebrake''
rattlesnakes.
The proposal was supported by the HSUS. Seven of eight biologists
responding to the notice supported the proposal, with one offering no
position. One supported mainly due to lack of information and another
added parenthetically that the species may actually be increasing in
Georgia (where it seems to be more of a habitat generalist than the
eastern diamondback). The proposal was opposed by the WCS on the basis
of the apparent paucity of trade, and there were no comments from
commercial interests. Listing was supported by West Virginia,
Connecticut, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and opposed by
Florida and Louisiana, where it is being considered for the status of
``species of special concern.'' Louisiana also commented that a listing
would have little impact and would hinder legitimate commercial
interests.
Despite low volumes of international trade, the population status
of northern forms of the timber rattlesnake is so poor that even a
small demand for international trade could be detrimental to the
survival of some populations. Therefore the Service has submitted a
proposal to include this species in Appendix II and, if the proposal is
adopted, will consider the geographic variation in population status of
this species when making export findings.
6. Sawfishes (Pristiformes spp.)
Sid F. Cook and Madeline Oetinger, of Argus-Mariner Consulting
Scientists, submitted a proposal to include all species of the order
Pristiformes (sawfishes) in Appendix I. Sawfishes are a very small
group of cartilaginous fishes related to sharks, rays and chimeras
(class Chondrichthyes). The order consists of only one family,
Pristidae, incorporating seven species (although the taxonomy of the
group is debated). As generally accepted, these are: Pristis pectinata
(smallmouth sawfish), P. clavata (dwarf or Queensland sawfish), P.
zijsron (green sawfish), P. pristis (common sawfish), P. microdon
(freshwater, Leichhardt's, great-tooth, largetooth sawfish), P.
perotteti (largetooth sawfish), and Anoxypristis cuspidata (knifetooth,
pointed or narrow sawfish). Cumulatively, sawfish species are
distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate marine waters, and in
some cases in freshwater habitats. Species-specific distributions are
described in detail in the August 28, 1996 notice. Pristis perotteti
and P. pectinata are the only species that occur in waters of the
United States.
Sawfishes share with their shark relatives several life history
characteristics (e.g., slow growth, low fecundity, late sexual
maturity, long life-span, and long gestational period) that render them
more vulnerable to overfishing than many bony fishes. Other factors
increasing the vulnerability of these species are restriction to a
narrow depth range, disjunct distribution patterns, and habitat
degradation. Most species have exhibited either severe population
declines or have an extremely localized distribution. Four species (P.
pristis, pectinata, perotteti, and microdon) are considered endangered
by IUCN (other species have not been evaluated). Although data on
international trade and other forms of exploitation of sawfishes are
sketchy, localized effects can be seen in individual populations.
Quantitative trade data are very limited but sawfish are known to be
targeted commercially in artisanal fisheries, taken as live specimens
for public aquaria, for the curio trade (rostral saws), for traditional
Asian medicines (rostral saws of Anoxypristis cuspidata), and for fine
leather (hides).
The proposal was opposed by the Japanese Fisheries Agency, Japanese
Fisheries Association, International Wildlife Management Consortium,
and
[[Page 18568]]
European Bureau for Conservation and Development. It was supported by
the National Audubon Society, Center for Marine Conservation (CMC),
OWC, American Elasmobranch Society, American Society of Ichthyologists
and Herpetologists, and by a petition from 21 members of the IUCN Shark
Specialist Group. Arguments against were based on the need to follow
through on the Resolution Conf. 9.17 process before taking any listing
action for sharks; the need for more data on population status to
justify listing (abuse of precautionary principle); and lack of
evidence that trade has had any impact on populations. Arguments in
favor of the proposal were mainly based on the intrinsic vulnerability
resulting from the biological attributes described above, the
population declines evidenced by declines in by-catch, and also the
existence of much more evidence of past and present trade (including
provision of biological supply houses with rostral saws) than suggested
by those opposed. The CMC also pointed out that evidence of trade is
not necessarily a prerequisite to inclusion of taxa in Appendix I (the
Service strongly agrees that the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 are
unequivocal in this regard).
Of 72 range states to which an earlier draft of the proposal was
sent for comment, six responded. The Government of the Philippines
supported the proposal. The Government of the Dominican Republic took
no position but provided anecdotal information that indicated similar
declines there as reported in the proposal. The Government of Mexico
considered existing information from that country to be insufficient to
enable a determination of eligibility for Appendix I. The Government of
Colombia felt that more convincing documentation of historical declines
in landings needs to be presented before Colombia could support an
Appendix I listing. The Government of Japan opposed the proposal on the
grounds that there are not enough data to show convincingly that the
sawfish are eligible for Appendix I. The Government of Cyprus indicated
that no species in this group occurred in its waters.
Notwithstanding the absence of strong quantitative information on
population status, the United States believes that the obvious rarity
of these species, and the consistency of anecdotal evidence of
population declines wherever data are available, are clear indicators
of their vulnerability to any form of use, including international
trade. On this basis, the Pristiformes meet the criteria for inclusion
in Appendix I, and the United States has submitted a proposal to this
effect.
7. Sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes)
In a December 20, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR 67293), the
Service announced that the United States was considering offering to
co-sponsor a proposal by Germany to include all species of sturgeons
not presently listed in the appendices in Appendix II. The
Acipenseriformes are a primitive group of approximately 27 species of
fish, whose biological attributes make them vulnerable to intensive
fishing pressure or other agents of elevated adult mortality. Many
species of sturgeons, the primary source of commercial caviar, have
experienced severe population declines worldwide because of both
habitat destruction and excessive take for international trade. Some
are at serious risk of extinction. Three species in the United States
(shortnosed sturgeon [Acipenser brevirostrum], pallid sturgeon
[Scaphirhynchus albus], and the Kootenai River population of white
sturgeon [A. transmontanus]) are listed as endangered under the ESA,
and a subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon (the Gulf sturgeon, A.
oxyrhynchus desotoi) is listed as threatened. CITES presently includes
two species, the shortnosed sturgeon and Baltic sturgeon (A. sturio),
in Appendix I and one species, the Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrhynchus)
in Appendix II. The American paddlefish, Polyodon spathula, has also
been included in Appendix II since 1992.
Sturgeons of the Caspian Sea produce the highest quality caviar and
are the source of more than 90 percent of the world caviar trade. Since
the mid-1970's very marked declines in the populations of all six of
the Caspian Sea's sturgeon species have been noted, especially
populations of the most heavily exploited species: Beluga (Huso huso),
Russian (A. gueldenstaedtii), and stellate (A. stellatus) sturgeons.
Five of the six species of Caspian sturgeons are considered endangered
by IUCN. The problem has become exacerbated in recent years due to
deteriorating fishery management and enforcement capabilities in the
region, resulting in significant levels of poaching and illegal trade.
The total present take is believed to far exceed sustainable levels.
The final proposal from Germany proposes five species for inclusion
in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(a), i.e., because of
their population status and trade levels: Beluga (Huso huso), Russian
(A. gueldenstaedtii), stellate (A. stellatus), Siberian (A. baerii),
and ship or spiny (A. nudiventris) sturgeons. All other species of
sturgeons not already listed are proposed for inclusion in Appendix II
under provisions of Article II(2)(b), i.e., because of the similarity
of appearance of their caviar to that of the Caspian species. The
native species of sturgeons not listed under the ESA that would be
included in the II(2)(b) category are the following: lake sturgeon (A.
fulvescens), green sturgeon (A. medirostris), non-Kootenai-River
populations of white sturgeon (A. transmontanus), shovelnose sturgeon
(S. platorynchus), and Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi).
The Service participated in a meeting in November 1996 in Moscow
involving the Russian Federation and several former Soviet Republics,
including several that participate in the Caspian Sea sturgeon fishery:
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. The meeting, hosted by the
Russian Federation State Committee for Environmental Protection and the
German Scientific and Management Authorities, yielded an overwhelming
acknowledgment of the severity of the threat to sturgeon populations in
the Caspian Sea. The existence of a substantial illegal trade in caviar
(estimated to constitute up to 80 percent of the trade), which has
resulted in a decrease in both the quality and price of caviar in
international markets, also was recognized.
Inclusion of the sturgeons in Appendix II as proposed would enable:
(1) implementation of management controls necessary to stabilize
sturgeon populations in the Caspian Sea and elsewhere in the world; and
(2) better regulation of trade by importing countries, especially
through an improved capability for distinguishing legal from illegal
caviar. The United States is not only a range State for some of the
most endangered sturgeon populations, but it is also a major importer
of caviar products (between 50 and 60 metric tons per year from 1992
through 1995), mainly from Caspian Sea sturgeon populations. Given
these facts, and recognizing the dire situation facing the Caspian Sea
sturgeon fishery, the United States has agreed to co-sponsor the
proposal of Germany to include five presently unlisted species of
sturgeons in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(a) and the
remainder in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b). As with
other species proposed for listing under the provisions of Article
II(2)(b), findings related to export of sturgeon products from the
United States will be based only upon potential impacts of export on
those species listed under provisions of Article II(2)(a), or on those
included in
[[Page 18569]]
Appendix I. Only one public comment on the December 20, 1996 notice was
received: the HSUS indicated their support for United States co-
sponsorship of the German proposal and stressed the importance of
addressing the considerable management and enforcement concerns
associated with the potential listing.
8. Freshwater Mussels: Long solid mussel (Fusconaia subrotunda),
Ozark lamp pearlymussel (Lampsilis brevicula [= L. reeviana
brevicula]), and Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides)
The Service indicated its intent in the August 28, 1996 notice to
develop a proposal to remove the above three species of freshwater
mussels, and the edible pearlymussel (Cyprogenia aberti), from Appendix
II. These were among several species endemic to the United States that
were recommended for removal from Appendix II by the CITES Animals
Committee's Periodic Review Working Group, which examines historical
and recent trade levels in species included in Appendix II to determine
whether their listing continues to be warranted. We have no indication
of trade in any of these species in recent years.
Recognizing that as many as 20 percent of the approximately 300
species and subspecies of freshwater mussels may be threatened or
endangered, the Service has been reluctant in the past to propose that
any of these species be delisted, at least until enforcement
difficulties were overcome. Effective August 1, 1996 (61 FR 31850),
however, the Service's regulations on importation, exportation, and
transportation of wildlife were revised to require that wildlife
exports, including freshwater mussels, be made available for inspection
and cleared for export prior to being exported from the United States.
This provision will enable the Service to better ensure that endangered
mussels are not exported, and therefore reduce the need for the
application of CITES for non-endangered mussels, especially for those
that do not appear to be traded.
The Service received no public comments about its intent to prepare
a mussel de-listing proposal. The Service has proposed removal of
Fusconaia subrotunda, Lampsilis brevicula (= L. reeviana brevicula),
and Lexingtonia dolabelloides from Appendix II. The Service has not,
however, proposed any change in the other species of mussels considered
by the Periodic Review Working Group: Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and
Pleurobema clava, which are listed as endangered under the ESA, or
Cyprogenia aberti, which is considered endangered by the IUCN, as
discussed above.
9. Bigleaf Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla)
This proposal was submitted by the United States with the Republic
of Bolivia as co-proponent, to include Swietenia macrophylla of the
neotropics in Appendix II of CITES, to regulate the international trade
in its logs, sawnwood, whole veneer sheets and plywood sheets. The
listing would not regulate the finished products, such as the
furniture. The United States is by far the largest importer of the wood
of this species, which occurs from Brazil and Bolivia to Mexico, and
Bolivia is the second largest mahogany exporter. The objective of the
listing is to better manage Swietenia macrophylla to help ensure its
conservation and its continued international trade and use.
Background: In response to a March 1, 1996 Federal Register notice
(61 FR 8019), the World Wildlife Fund-U.S., Defenders of Wildlife, and
individuals had requested that the United States propose this species
for inclusion in Appendix II (see the Federal Register of August 28,
1996 [61 FR 44324]). Bigleaf mahogany from the Americas was listed in
Appendix III by Costa Rica in 1995, including its saw-logs, sawn wood,
and veneer sheets only--i.e., no other parts or derivatives (see
Federal Register of February 22, 1996 [61 FR 6793]). The other two
species of the genus Swietenia, Caribbean mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni)
and Pacific Coast mahogany (Swietenia humilis) are included in Appendix
II. Species listed in Appendix II or Appendix III can be traded
commercially, whereas trade for primarily commercial purposes is
prohibited for the species included in Appendix I.
CITES Appendix II includes species for which the inclusion in
Appendix II will facilitate or encourage sustainable, non-detrimental
trade in perpetuity. To export regulated Appendix II specimens, a CITES
Party country must make a management finding that the specimens were
legally acquired (e.g., in the case of mahogany, taken from the
country's legally approved areas and logged according to accepted
national standards, such as not cutting trees smaller than a legally
approved minimum trunk diameter), and a scientific finding that the
export is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Importing
countries would become partners in this effort, through their
obligation to ensure that all the mahogany imports are accompanied by
appropriate CITES permits or certificates documenting that the exports
have met the standards required by the treaty. A basic goal of CITES is
to maintain a species in its natural systems through its range at a
level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs. By
discouraging illegal exploitation, CITES can help to avoid the loss of
wild-functioning populations in natural areas such as national parks
and similar reserves.
Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) has been proposed for
Appendix II, not for the much more restrictive Appendix I. The treaty
is founded on two bases: both to strictly protect endangered species
(cf. Appendix I), and to prevent the endangerment of species that are
at increasing risk from international trade, by Appendix II regulation
of commercial trade, so that stricter measures (such as an
international commercial trade ban) would not have to be taken in the
future. Thus consumers should have increased confidence buying products
when they include the wood of CITES Appendix II specimens that have
been approved under these international standards for export and
accepted at import.
Proposals to include Swietenia macrophylla in Appendix II were
separately submitted to the last two meetings of the Conference of the
Parties to CITES (COP9 and COP8) by three governments, the Netherlands
in 1994, and Costa Rica and the United States in 1992. At COP9 (in
Florida in November 1994), 50 of 83 Parties (among them the United
States and the European Union countries) voted in favor of including
this species and its logs, sawn wood, and veneer sheets in Appendix II,
which fell 6 votes short of the two-thirds majority of voting Parties
needed for adoption (see Federal Register notices of November 8, 1994
[59 FR 55617] and January 3, 1995 [60 FR 73]). At COP9 as well as COP8
(in Japan in March 1992), the majority of the 13 countries where the
species is native (range States) expressed support for including this
species in Appendix II.
Recent Activities: In the August 28, 1996 Federal Register (61 FR
44324), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sought new information in
particular to supplement the information summarized in the COP9 and
COP8 proposals (or otherwise available to the Parties at those
meetings), especially in relation to the CITES listing criteria as
delineated in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (cf. the Federal Register of March
1, 1996; 61 FR 8019). The Service also sought details on implementation
of the inclusion of this species in Appendix
[[Page 18570]]
III, which entered into force on November 16, 1995. The text of the
draft proposal was provided to interested organizations and
individuals. In September 1996, the Service, which functions as the
U.S. Management Authority for CITES, provided the draft proposal to the
CITES Management Authorities of the 13 range States of bigleaf mahogany
and requested their comments regarding a possible proposal to include
the species in Appendix II.
In early October 1996 in Panama the CITES Timber Working Group held
its second meeting. The Group's scope or terms of reference covered
details of implementation for timber tree species (i.e., they did not
include topics directly involving potential new listings). The Group
reviewed the experience of the CITES Parties in implementation of the
Appendix III listing of Swietenia macrophylla, and concluded that no
particular difficulties had been encountered with the implementation of
this listing.
In mid-November 1996 in Costa Rica the CITES Plants Committee held
its annual meeting. The United States earlier had requested that the
possible mahogany proposal be included as an information item on the
agenda; the U.S. representative reported that the draft potential
proposal had been sent to the 13 range States on September 25, 1996,
with a request for their comments by November 15 (which was the final
day of that Committee's meeting), and explained the U.S. review
process. An agenda item of the Netherlands at the meeting addressed
tree species in relation to the CITES listing criteria and/or IUCN
(World Conservation Union) status criteria. The United States
encouraged conceptual discussion on the scope of such findings, stating
that it would be particularly helpful in relation to considering a
possibly forthcoming proposal for Swietenia macrophylla. Although there
was no extensive discussion of the potential mahogany proposal at this
meeting, at the Committee's meeting in May 1994 in Mexico prior to
COP9, there had been lengthy discussion and a conclusion in favor of a
similar proposal for Swietenia macrophylla.
Comments and Review: International meetings on this issue were held
in February 1992 (a Mahogany Workshop in Washington, D.C., hosted by
the Tropical Forest Foundation on behalf of the International Wood
Products Association and held at the Organization of American States);
and in September 1994 (a Mahogany Symposium in London, U.K., hosted by
the Linnean Society, a world-renowned scientific organization). A
related meeting largely on the forestry aspects of Swietenia mahoganies
was held in late October 1996 (in San Juan, Puerto Rico, hosted by the
U.S. Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical Forestry).
The United States has intensively reviewed and analyzed the
pertinent available information related to a proposal and all comments
received from range States, industry, the conservation community, and
interested agencies and individuals, and the relevant information
provided has been incorporated into the final 86-page proposal to
include this species in Appendix II. A public meeting was held on
October 3, 1996, on the potential CITES COP10 topics and issues.
Decisions regarding inclusion of species in the CITES appendices are
based upon their status and qualifications in relation to the
requirements and criteria of the treaty.
Comments in support of a proposal were received by the October 11,
1996 deadline (which was established in the August 28, 1996 Federal
Register; 61 FR 44324) from ten organizations (Defenders of Wildlife,
EarthCulture, Environmental Investigation Agency, Friends of the Earth-
U.K., Humane Society of the United States, Rainforest Action Network,
Rainforest Relief, Salt Lake City Rainforest Action Group, Taiga Rescue
Network [Sweden], and World Wildlife Fund-U.S.); two businesses (A & M
Wood Specialty, Inc. [Ontario, Canada] and The Raintree Group [Texas]);
several academics; and several dozen unaffiliated individuals. After
that deadline, comments and some substantive information continued to
arrive, from many individuals and organizations and several countries.
Included were two letters to the Vice President and the Secretary of
the Interior from over 150 non-governmental organizations supporting
submittal of the proposal. All comments were reviewed, and all the
substantive data were considered.
Friends of the Earth-U.K. submitted the transcript of a debate on
this issue held in the British Parliament on December 4, 1996, where
the U.K. Government noted that twice before it had favored the species'
inclusion in Appendix II. The Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza-Bolivia
(World Wildlife Fund-Bolivia) and the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.
submitted copies of a detailed study on the status of regeneration of
Swietenia macrophylla in the Department of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, which
had recently been carried out through the Centro Cientifico Tropical
(of San Jose, Costa Rica).
Bolivia through MDSMA (the Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y
Medio Ambiente, their Ministry of Sustainable Development and
Environment) wrote the United States on December 18, 1996, offering to
co-propose the species with the United States, and similarly advised
the CITES Secretariat. Bolivia in addition provided a review of
mahogany trade data from its implementation of Appendix III. Ecuador on
January 6, 1997, advised the United States that they were in support of
the proposal, and Venezuela on January 9, 1997, advised the U.S.
Embassy in Caracas that they were in support of the proposal. Also in
January 1997, the Brazilian Embassy in Washington, D.C. emphasized
Brazil's concerns.
Opposition to a proposal was submitted by the U.S.-based
International Wood Products Association (IHPA), and by Brazil through
IBAMA (the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos
Naturais Renovaveis or Brazilian Environment and Renewable Natural
Resources Agency), and Peru through INRENA (the Instituto Nacional de
Recursos Naturales, their National Natural Resources Agency). Comments
questioned the appropriateness and adequacy of the CITES system for
regulating such a trade; the process toward developing and considering
a proposal; the threshold at which species should qualify for Appendix
II; whether the species was not sufficiently protected in enough
designated or remote areas; and the adequacy of the scientific and
technical information on biology (including ecology and genetics),
regrowth (regeneration) after selective logging or land abandonment,
and national and international trade (legal and illegal).
The United States has made a rigorous analysis of the qualification
of this species for Appendix II, considering the text of the treaty,
the listing criteria of Resolution Conf. 9.24, and the species that
have been included by the Parties in the appendices since the
Convention was developed in 1973. The potential proposal was subjected
to an intensive Federal interagency analysis and review process,
including departments or agencies of State, Interior, Agriculture (U.S.
Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), U.S.
Trade Representative's Office, Commerce, Justice, and the U.S. Agency
for International Development. The U.S. Government concluded by
consensus that Swietenia macrophylla qualifies for inclusion in
Appendix II, and to submit the proposal, with the Republic of Bolivia
as co-sponsor. The proposal was
[[Page 18571]]
transmitted to the CITES Secretariat on January 10, 1997, which was the
deadline for proposals to be considered at the Tenth Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP10), to be held in Zimbabwe in
mid-June 1997.
Preparations: The final proposal has been provided to all the CITES
Parties (soon to be 135 countries), and to interested organizations and
individuals. A thorough review and analysis to prepare for the decision
of the Parties at COP10 is ongoing by range States and importing
countries, industry, the conservation community, and interested
individuals. The United States intends to continue to communicate and
work with range States and interested organizations and individuals so
that the treaty and this proposal for Swietenia macrophylla are
accurately understood and its inclusion under CITES can be effectively
implemented, which would come into force in Appendix II (if the
proposal is adopted) 90 days after the conclusion of COP10, on
September 18, 1997. The United States believes that the effective
implementation of this listing will help ensure the conservation of the
species, so that it never becomes threatened with extinction in the
wild, and the maintenance of a sustainable supply of mahogany wood and
products for the long-term future.
10. Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis)
This plant species has been proposed for inclusion in Appendix II,
without excluding any parts or derivatives such as the finished
pharmaceutical products in order to maintain the full legal option to
regulate such end-product medicinals if necessary. Further evaluation
of whether that would be necessary is ongoing, and if it is found to be
unnecessary, the proposal can be modified at COP10 by for example
excluding the finished pharmaceutical products.
This is a herbaceous species of the eastern deciduous forest of the
United States and nearby Canada (in southern Ontario). Before European
settlement and ensuing medicinal interest in this species, it was
thought to be abundant only in the central part of its range (Indiana
to West Virginia and Kentucky), and it is now considered uncommon to
critically imperilled in at least 16 of the 27 States where it is
found.
Goldenseal is a well-known medicinal in the herbal products
industry, with a wholesale price in 1995 frequently over $50 but less
than $100 per pound dry weight, mostly for rhizomes or roots (with
about 200-300 roots per pound). It has been estimated that 150,000
pounds of goldenseal root are collected annually from the wild. The
species is cultivated to a limited but unknown extent. Both the
internal U.S. trade and export are believed to be escalating, with the
international trade (primarily to Canada and Europe) considered to be
less than a fifth of the market.
The World Wildlife Fund-U.S. had recommended that the United States
propose this species for inclusion in Appendix II. The Service sought
information especially regarding: (1) the biological status and life
history of this species; (2) the extent to which it is cultivated
(i.e., artificially propagated without use of seeds or other parts from
the wild); and (3) the extent to which it is collected for trade, and
in particular, the extent to which it is exported and the forms in
which it is exported.
Comments were received from 22 organizations, and pertinent
information provided has been incorporated in the CITES proposal to
include this species in Appendix II. Comments in support of a proposal
or tending to be favorable were received from Canada, the Province of
Ontario, seven States (Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New York, and Oklahoma), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 (which
includes the Northeast region), the Institute of Conservation &
Culture, the Humane Society of the United States, and the World
Wildlife Fund-U.S. Comments in opposition or tending to be unfavorable
were received from seven States (Missouri, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), and
Ohio River Ginseng & Fur, Inc.
Five of the 15 States that are geographically more or less
peripheral or less significant in the distribution of Hydrastis
canadensis provided comments. The responses were favorable from four of
them, whereas North Carolina (where the species is considered
endangered) raised concerns about the potential regulatory burden. Nine
of the 12 States that are more geographically significant in the range
of the species commented; 3 were favorable to a proposal, and 6
opposed. In four of those six States, the species is considered
uncommon, of special concern, vulnerable or threatened; however,
Missouri considered it relatively common, and West Virginia believed it
to be increasing along with the increase of forested land in the State.
Three of those six opposing States were concerned with the potential
regulatory burden.
Panax quinquefolius (American ginseng) has been included in
Appendix II of CITES since 1973, and those 4 of the 14 commenting
States that noted particular concerns about the regulatory effects of
listing Hydrastis canadensis tended to assume that goldenseal would be
regulated by a similar Federal-State system (see 59 FR 49046). However,
this may or may not be the case, since ginseng is primarily exported,
whereas goldenseal is involved in considerably less export, being
primarily consumed within the United States. The Service intends to
work with those States that may become involved in goldenseal export
and the industry to develop efficient methods that require the minimum
system necessary to meet the CITES requirements for legal and non-
detrimental (and thus sustainable) international trade in this species.
11. Tweedy's Bitterroot (Lewisia tweedyi or Cistanthe tweedyi)
Proposed for delisting from Appendix II. The recommendation to
remove this species from Appendix II was initiated by the CITES Plants
Committee, as part of the periodic ongoing process of reviewing listed
taxa. This herbaceous mountain species is native in the State of
Washington and nearby in the Province of British Columbia, Canada.
Because it was found to be sufficiently secure within its range, this
species was removed from consideration for the U.S. Endangered Species
Act in a 1985 Federal Register notice on various taxa (50 FR 39526).
Moreover, this species is considered sufficiently easy to propagate and
available in cultivation to supply rock-garden enthusiasts.
Comments were received from the Humane Society of the United States
in opposition to submitting the proposal, and from Canada in support of
the proposal. As the biological status of the species is considered
markedly less vulnerable than when it was listed in 1983, and there
have been no applications to export it from the wild since then and
little reported export and import of artificially propagated specimens,
removal of the species from Appendix II is considered appropriate.
Continuing Actions
In early February, the Service received proposals made by other
CITES Parties to amend the appendices. A list and copies of these
proposals can be obtained from the Office of Scientific Authority (see
ADDRESSES above). The Service's tentative negotiating positions on
these proposals submitted by the other countries, along with a
solicitation for public comment, will be announced in a Federal
Register notice later this month. Further opportunity for public input
will be afforded by a public
[[Page 18572]]
meeting planned for April 25. The Service will consider all comments
received during the comment period, as well as all other available
information, in developing a negotiating position on each of the
species proposals. These positions will be announced in the Federal
Register in early June just prior to COP10. Also, in this pre-COP10
notice the Service plans to request comments on any reservations that
should be taken on any species amendments (i.e., species changes to the
CITES appendices) adopted by the Parties. Immediately after COP10, the
Service will announce the species amendments to the appendices adopted
by the Parties; in accordance with CITES, all such amendments will
become effective on September 18, 1997 (90 days after their adoption by
the Parties).
The primary authors of this notice are Dr. Marshall A. Howe,
Zoologist, Dr. Bruce MacBryde, Botanist, and Dr. Charles W. Dane,
Chief, Office of Scientific Authority.
This document is issued under authority of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884, as amended).
Lists of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.
Dated: April 8, 1997.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-9857 Filed 4-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P