[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35942-35957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12824]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI02


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Retention of 
Threatened Status for Argali in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), retain 
threatened status for the argali (Ovis ammon), the largest species of 
wild sheep, in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (the Act), as amended. The special rule 
allowing importation of sport-hunted trophies from those countries also 
is retained. We will not proceed with reclassifying the argali as 
endangered in these three countries, as proposed on April 27, 1993. 
That proposal is hereby withdrawn. The withdrawal is based on two 
factors. First, the two lawsuits challenging the original listing and 
special rule were defeated or dismissed, thereby eliminating our strong 
concern over the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms related to 
import of sport-hunted trophies from Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and 
Tajikistan. Second, a review of information compiled over the past 
eight years (i.e., since the proposed rule was published) in relation 
to the five listing factors under the Act, indicates that the argali is 
properly classified as threatened in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and 
Tajikistan.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this action is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, in room 750, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 
22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert R. Gabel, Chief, Division of 
Scientific Authority; Mail Stop: Arlington Square, Room 750; U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service; Washington, DC 20240 (phone 703-358-1708; fax 
number 703-358-2276).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The argali (Ovis ammon) is the largest species of wild sheep. Its 
historic range includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, 
southern Siberia in the Russian Federation, Mongolia, north-central and 
western China, Bhutan, Nepal, and the Himalayan portions of 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. In a final rule published pursuant to 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) in the Federal Register of 
June 23, 1992 (57 FR 28014), and becoming effective on January 1, 1993, 
the Service classified the argali as endangered throughout its range, 
except in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan, where it was designated 
as threatened. A special rule, promulgated under Section 4(d) of the 
Act, provided for issuance of permits pursuant to section17.32 of title 
50 of the CFR for certain activities for argali from Kyrgyzstan, 
Mongolia, and Tajikistan. This rule also provided for importation of 
sport-hunted argali trophies without

[[Page 35943]]

a threatened species permit once we had received from the governments 
of these same countries properly documented and verifiable information 
that: (1) Argali populations are sufficiently large to sustain sport 
hunting; (2) regulating authorities have the capability to obtain sound 
data on these populations; (3) regulating authorities recognize these 
populations as a valuable resource and have the legal and practical 
means to manage them as such; (4) the habitat of these populations is 
secure; (5) regulating authorities can ensure that the involved 
trophies have in fact been legally taken from the specified 
populations; and (6) funds derived from the involved sport hunting are 
applied primarily to argali conservation. (For threatened species, 
Section 4(d) of the Act authorizes the Secretary to promulgate ``such 
regulations as he deems necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of such species'.)
    In connection with the final rule of June 23, 1992, we noted that, 
with the exception of the subspecies O. a. hodgsoni, the argali was 
listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and thus, until the 
effective date of the regulation, could be imported into the U.S. upon 
presentation of a proper CITES export permit from the country of origin 
in accordance with Section 9(c)(2) of the Act (which provides that the 
otherwise lawful, noncommercial importation of wildlife that is not an 
endangered species, but that is on Appendix II of CITES and meets CITES 
requirements, shall be presumed to be in compliance with provisions of 
the Act and implementing regulations). There had previously been some 
question as to whether Section 9(c)(2) of the Act might automatically 
require us to allow the importation of a species that is both listed as 
threatened and on Appendix II, and preclude the issuance of more 
restrictive special rules covering importation. However, in a detailed 
discussion in the background to the final rule, we concluded that such 
special rules may be issued to provide for the conservation of the 
involved species. We emphasized that this interpretation of Section 
9(c)(2) was one of the key factors in assigning threatened status to 
the argali in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan. Had we been unable 
to issue a special rule restricting importation of trophies from those 
countries, importation could have proceeded without assurances of 
adequate population status and management in those countries. Such a 
situation may have been sufficient to warrant endangered classification 
of the involved populations under listing factor ``D'' of Section 
4(a)(1) of the Act, ``inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.''
    In promulgating the final rule and special rule, we recognized that 
there was a reasonable argument for the proposition that controlled 
sport hunting may provide economic incentives contributing to the 
conservation of certain wildlife populations. During the periods of 
review and comment prior to publication of the final rule, various 
interested groups and individuals had argued that sport hunting 
programs, with consequent exportation of trophies, might encourage and 
provide necessary funds for conservation of the argali. Consideration 
of such interests, and allowance for their development and submission 
of information supporting their position, was a factor in the unusual 
length of the argali rulemaking process (almost 3 years). Throughout 
this process we emphasized that the importation of sport-hunted argali 
trophies was feasible, provided that substantive data showed that such 
activity was beneficial to the conservation of the species.
    Despite the above considerations, the final rule was challenged in 
two separate lawsuits on January 4, 1993. The plaintiffs included a 
number of hunting organizations and businesses. They contended, among 
other things, that we failed to give adequate notification of the 
argali rulemaking process, and that Section 9(c)(2) of the Act requires 
that argali trophies be allowed to enter the United States simply upon 
presentation of a CITES export permit from the country of origin. 
Although we believed that our interpretation of Section 9(c)(2) was 
valid, we were also concerned that this interpretation and the special 
rule could be set aside in the course of legal proceedings. We might 
then be placed in the situation for which we had expressed concern in 
the final rule-not being able to adequately regulate argali 
importation. The strong potential for such a situation and its 
implications vis-a-vis listing factor ``D'' of Section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act (``the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms''), together 
with the hunting community's unwillingness to accept the intent of the 
new argali regulations, and the other problems we perceived with the 
status of the species, as described in the final rule of June 23, 1992, 
were deemed sufficient to warrant a proposal to reclassify the argali 
in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan from threatened to endangered. 
A proposed rule to such effect was published in the Federal Register of 
April 27, 1993 (58 FR 25595).
    In August 1993, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 
Texas, ruling on the suit brought by Safari Club International and 
several supporting plaintiffs, upheld all substantive aspects of the 
regulations, including our interpretation of Section 9(c)(2) of the 
Act. Later that same month, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia dismissed a suit brought primarily by a group known as Putting 
People First. The Service's successful defense in the two lawsuits 
moderated the immediate concern that led to the proposed rule of April 
27, 1993, and was the principal factor in the Service's decision to 
withdraw the proposed reclassification. A notice of withdrawal, which 
addressed the lawsuits and assessed the threats confronting the argali 
populations of Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan as described in the 
1993 proposed rule was prepared in 1995 for Federal Register 
publication, but not finalized. The court decisions had diminished the 
management concerns for the species, and, with the special rule in 
place, priorities other than argali emerged and redirected the 
Service's focus.
    An analysis of information on argali in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and 
Tajikistan generated over the last eight years, including two reports 
prepared under contract to the Service (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994 
and Fedosenko 1999), has lead us to conclude that the Kyrgyzstan, 
Mongolia, and Tajikistan distinct population segments of argali are 
properly classified as threatened, and that the special rule for argali 
(50 CFR 17.40(j)) is adequate to provide for the conservation of the 
species. In addition, the Service is continuing its ongoing efforts to 
encourage range countries to develop and submit the information 
necessary to ``certify'' the country under the special rule, thereby 
eliminating the need for issuance of threatened species permits for 
sport-hunted trophies. Our analysis of the Act's five listing factors 
is summarized in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' 
below. As part of our analysis, we have taken into account efforts made 
by foreign governments to protect the species (as required by section 
4(b)(1) of the Act).

Summary of Comments

    In the proposed rule of April 27, 1993, and in associated 
notifications and the subsequent reopening of the comment period, all 
interested parties were requested to submit information that

[[Page 35944]]

might contribute to development of a final rule. Cables were sent to 
United States embassies in the involved countries, requesting any new 
data the embassies could provide and asking them to obtain official 
comments from the governments of those countries. Twenty-eight (28) 
parties commented on the proposal, some of them several times. Of 
these, 5 provided information but did not specifically state an opinion 
on the proposal, 3 expressed support, and the remainder did not support 
the proposal (most of these expressed a point of view of hunting 
interests).
    A common theme in statements by opponents of the proposed rule was 
that the argali was not of conservation concern and should be 
completely removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 
Such an action was not under consideration in the proposed rule, and 
was at odds with the available information and listing status at that 
time. The Service still believes that the argali is appropriately 
listed under the Endangered Species Act.
    Likewise, many of the negative comments claimed that the special 
rule for argali was unworkable and should be eliminated or revised to 
make importation easier. Although the proposed rule did state that 
modifications to the special rule were under consideration, there is no 
scientific or commercial data that support eliminating or substantively 
moderating the restrictiveness of the special rule. The only 
supportable options were to keep the existing threatened classification 
and special rule, finalize the proposed endangered status with 
elimination of the special rule, or keep the threatened classification, 
at least in part, and add more restrictions to the special rule. The 
Service has chosen, based on the best available scientific and 
commercial information, to retain the existing threatened 
classification and special rule.
    A number of comments dealt with the question of whether the 
criteria of the special rule may have been met, thereby allowing 
importation of sport-hunted trophies without a threatened species 
permit. This question is associated with some of the matters involved 
in the argali proposed rule. Indeed, the proposed rule stated that 
receipt of data demonstrating that the criteria had been met could be a 
reason for withdrawal of the proposal. And the reason for reopening the 
comment period on March 21, 1994, was receipt of a report of the 
Service's own survey to gather information that might have helped meet 
the criteria. We do not believe, based on information currently 
available to us, that any of the three countries has fully satisfied 
the criteria of the special rule. That is why threatened species 
permits continue to be issued on a country-by-country and year-by-year 
basis.
    Remaining major issues brought out by commentors are discussed 
below.
    Issue 1.-- Based on numbers, distribution, regulation, and other 
listing factors, the argali is or is not endangered in Kyrgyzstan, 
Mongolia, and/or Tajikistan.
    Service response.-- Different commentors argued either for or 
against endangered status, based on various listing factors. The 
relevant question is whether new information or assessment indicates 
that the status of the argali in the three involved countries is 
substantively worse or better than at the time of the original final 
rule, when the threatened classification was assigned. This issue is at 
the core of the analysis in the following section ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species.'' Basically, available scientific evidence 
indicates that habitat conditions and population status has remained 
stable or improved over the past eight years, and that regulatory 
mechanisms are at least as adequate as determined at the time of the 
original final rule. Thus, retention of threatened status is warranted.
    Issue 2.-- The Service has not demonstrated that sport hunting is a 
detrimental factor to the argali.
    Service response.-- The various published notices on the argali 
have repeatedly recognized the principle that carefully managed sport 
hunting programs are not necessarily detrimental to overall wildlife 
populations, and even have the potential to provide benefits under 
certain conditions. We do not find legal sport hunting to be a factor 
that currently threatens argali populations in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, or 
Tajikistan; we believe it provides benefits.
    Issue 3.-- The Service did not consult with appropriate officials 
in the involved countries.
    Service response.-- The Service followed all standard procedures, 
by which the State Department is requested to send telegrams to 
appropriate U.S. embassies, which in turn are asked to contact 
government officials and other knowledgeable authorities.
    Issue 4.-- The lawsuits on the argali were not a proper basis for 
the proposal, and, in any case, the defeat of the lawsuits should have 
resulted in withdrawal of the proposal.
    Service response.-- As explained in detail in the proposal and in 
the above ``Background,'' the lawsuits posed a threat to the Service's 
ability to appropriately regulate importation of argali and therefore 
brought into play factor ``D'' of Section 4(a)(1) of the Act, 
``Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.'' This problem has been 
resolved by the legal decisions.
    Issue 5.-- The issuance of permits for importation of argali 
trophies is a violation of the special rule of June 23, 1992, or, in 
any case, shows that current regulation is inadequate.
    Service response.-- Issuance of threatened species permits is 
consistent with section 17.40(j)(1) of the special rule. We do not find 
legal sport hunting to be a factor that currently threatens argali 
populations in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, or Tajikistan; we believe it 
provides benefits. Therefore, issuance of permits does not show that 
current regulation is inadequate.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
its Habitat or Range

Kyrgyzstan
Range and Distribution
    The argali in Kyrgyzstan occurs in two populations comprising two 
subspecies, the Marco Polo argali (O. a. polii) and the Tien Shan 
argali (O. a. karelini). A third subspecies, O. a. severtzovi, is not 
considered to occur in Kyrgyzstan. The Tien Shan argali is distributed 
across approximately the northern half of Kyrgyzstan in the Tien Shan 
Range west of Lake Issyk-Kul, whereas the Marco Polo argali (also 
called the Pamir argali) is distributed across the Pamir Plateau of 
southeastern Kyrgyzstan, along the border with China (see map on page 
190 of Weinberg et al. 1997). The ranges of the two subspecies 
apparently overlap--or are not clearly delineated--in the Uzengikush 
River basin in the north-eastern portion of the Kokshalatau Range, 
between the city of Kara Say and the Chinese border.
    Only very general information is available regarding the historical 
and current habitat area actually occupied by the Tien Shan argali in 
Kyrgyzstan. Weinberg et al. (1997) discuss the taxon's general 
distribution in Kyrgyzstan, but do not give any figures for the total 
habitat area occupied, either historically or currently. They state 
that in many places this argali has ``disappeared completely,'' 
although no details are given.
    Few data are available on the habitat area occupied by Pamir argali 
in Kyrgyzstan prior to the 1970s. Much of the older information is 
summarized in a report entitled ``The Status of Argali

[[Page 35945]]

in Kirgizstan, Tadjikistan and Mongolia,'' completed in January 1994 by 
Dr. Anna Luschekina of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Dr. A. K. 
Fedosenko under contract to the Service (Luschekina and Fedosenko 
1994). The report is a compilation of information derived from direct 
field observations, interviews, existing literature, and hunting data 
and other data from government archives. According to the report, 
Andrienkov (1983) reported that, in the 1940s, the Pamir argali 
occupied an area of 3 million hectares (ha). Argali lived in the 
valleys of such rivers as Aksai and Arpa (Luschekina and Fedosenko 
1994). Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994), after examining data collected 
in the late 1970s by Andrienkov (1983), in the early 1990s by the 
Kyrgyz Institute of Biology, and 1993 by themselves, concluded that the 
Kyrgyz population of Pamir argali had ``undergone considerable 
changes'' over that period of time. In most locations subject to 
substantial human influence (grazing, poaching, etc.), numbers had 
``notably declined'', while at the same time high numbers persisted in 
remote locations with difficult access, areas with limited livestock 
grazing, and areas with rigid border controls (Luschekina and Fedosenko 
1994).
Protected Areas
    Small numbers of argali are found in the Naryn (24,200 ha) and 
Besh-Aralsk (45,000 ha) Nature Reserves in Kyrgyzstan, according to 
Weinberg et al. (1997).
    Although few argali occur in designated protected areas in 
Kyrgyzstan, a large percentage of the Kyrgyz population has been 
protected, at least until recently, in a ``de facto'' protected area 
beyond the line of ``engineering works'' along the border with China 
(Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994). These ``engineering works,'' 
essentially a continuous barrier consisting of razor wire fences, were 
erected along the border with China during the late 1980s. The ``border 
zone'' (i.e., the area between the fences and the border) varies in 
width from approximately 1 kilometer (km) to several km, and extends 
the entire length of the Kyrgyz border with China (a distance of 858 km 
according to the CIA World Factbook 2000). We do not know the total 
land area within the border zone. However, if we make some conservative 
assumptions about this zone, we can calculate an approximate area. If 
we assume that the average width of the zone is 1 km, and the actual 
length of the fence is 650 km (meaning that various bends and curves in 
the border have been ``straightened'' by the fence), then the zone 
encompasses about 650,000 ha. We understand that the border barriers 
have not been well maintained in recent years, and may be broken down 
in places. It is believed that these border areas, which have become 
more accessible in recent times, may now be subject to greater human 
pressures including poaching, although Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) 
also indicated that the mobility of local peoples is hampered by the 
expense and scarcity of fuel for vehicles.
Livestock Competition
    According to Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994), collective and state 
farms in Kyrgyzstan had over 8 million sheep and goats in the mid-
1960s. Intensive grazing of mountain rangelands led to a reduction in 
the number of argali, since argali use the same ranges as domestic 
livestock. Particularly intensely utilized by livestock grazers were 
the Altai and Aksay valleys and the upper reaches of the Saryjaz; these 
areas experienced severe declines in argali numbers and in some 
locations argali disappeared (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994). However, 
with the change of government in Kyrgyzstan, many collective and state 
farms were eliminated and livestock turned over to individual herdsmen. 
Many of these herders did not have the resources necessary to utilize 
distant or hard-to-access ranges; livestock use of those areas 
decreased sharply and some ranges (e.g., Kurumduku) were abandoned 
altogether by domestic grazers (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994). 
Presumably argali populations began to recover in those areas.
Mongolia
Range and Distribution
    Two subspecies of argali occur in Mongolia: Altai argali (O. a. 
ammon) and Gobi argali (O. a. darwini) (see map on page 199 of Mallon 
et al. 1997). Altai argali inhabit the high Altai Mountain region of 
western and southwestern Mongolia; along the main ridge of the Hangai 
Mountains in central Mongolia; and in the mountains of north and 
northwest Mongolia (Mallon et al. 1997). Gobi argali occur in the 
hills, rocky outcrops, and mountains across the whole of the Transaltai 
Gobi (the desert and semi-desert zones south of the Altai Range), 
portions of the Gobi Altai Mountains east almost to 112o E longitude, 
and also in several isolated ranges of hills in the steppe zone of 
central Mongolia (Mallon et al. 1997). According to Mallon et al. 
(1997), the division between ranges of the two subspecies of argali in 
Mongolia is poorly known.
Protected Areas
    The existence of reserves and hunting restrictions in the modern 
Mongolian People's Republic can be traced to the 1920s. Sokolov et al. 
(1991) documented at least 14 protected areas and 20 hunting preserves 
situated throughout the country. In 1994, Mongolia adopted a ``Law on 
Special Protected Areas'' that designated four categories of protected 
areas: (1) Strictly Protected Area (SPA), National Conservation Park 
(NP), Nature Reserve (NR), and Monument (M). Mallon et al. (1997) 
listed 12 protected areas with Caprinae in Mongolia, as of late 1995. 
As of July 2000, Mongolia had established 48 ``State Special Protected 
Areas'' covering 20.1 million hectares or almost 13 percent of 
Mongolia's territory, according to S. Banzragch, Director General of 
Mongolia's Environmental Protection Agency (in litt. to Teiko Saito, 
DMA, August 1, 2000). According to the protected area law, strictly 
protected areas are divided into three zones: pristine zone, 
conservation zone, and limited use zone. In 1997, Mongolian Parliament 
passed a ``Law on Buffer Zones of Special Protected Areas'' which 
created a buffer zone council for each special protected area 
responsible for coordinating activities that could be carried out in 
the area's buffer zone. As of May 2001, argali occurred in 11 protected 
areas, according to A. Bolat, Vice Minister of the Mongolian Ministry 
of Nature and Environment (MNE) (in litt. to Tim Van Norman, Branch of 
Permits, DMA, May 9, 2001).
Livestock Competition
    According to Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994), large-scale 
privatization of domestic livestock in 1991-1994 led to extensive, 
uncontrolled use of rangelands in Mongolia, resulting in competitive 
displacement of argali to poorer quality habitats, and increased 
poaching of argali by herdsmen. Argali populations were thought to have 
declined as a result. Reading et al. (1997) cited a number of recent 
references (e.g., Shagdarsuren et al. 1987) indicating widespread 
degradation of argali habitats by domestic livestock.
Tajikistan
Range and Distribution
    The argali in Tajikistan consists of only one subspecies, the Marco 
Polo argali (also known as Pamir argali or Pamir arkar) (O. a. polii), 
which occurs in the eastern Pamir Plateau, along the

[[Page 35946]]

border with China (see map on page 190 of Mallon et al. 1997). This 
subspecies also occurs on the Pamir Plateau of Kyrgyzstan, the eastern 
portion of the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan, northernmost Pakistan, 
and the Pamir region of China.
Protected Areas
    According to a recent report ``Current Population Status of the 
Pamir Arhar in Tajikistan,'' completed in 1999 by Dr. A. K. Fedosenko 
of the Department of Conservation and Rational Use of Game Resources of 
the Russian Federation, under contract to the Service (Fedosenko 1999), 
there were three protected areas under administration of the Regional 
Department of Forestry within the range of argali in the Pamir: 
Pamirskii zakaznik (50,000 ha), Muzkol'skii zakaznik (66,900 ha), and 
Zorkul'skii zakaznik (16,500 ha). In 1992, the Pamir National Park was 
declared, based on the Pamirskii zakaznik, but lack of funding 
precluded its functioning as a legitimate protected area. Likewise, 
according to Fedosenko (1999), the other two zakazniks also do not 
function as real protected areas. More recently (1999), the Tajik 
National Park was declared in place of the Pamir National Park, and 
staff have been appointed (Fedosenko 1999).
    As in Kyrgyzstan, a large portion of the Tajik argali population 
has been protected, at least until recently, in a ``de facto'' 
protected area beyond the line of ``engineering works'' along the 
border with China. These ``engineering works,'' were constructed along 
the 414-km border with China during the late 1980s. The ``border zone'' 
in Tajikistan encompasses about 300,000 ha (assuming the average width 
is 1 km and the length is 300 km). As in Kyrgyzstan, the border 
barriers have not been well maintained in recent years, and may have 
broken down in places.
Livestock Competition
    Fedosenko (1999) surveyed argali in several parts of the Eastern 
Pamir in 1999, and compared his results with data from the mid-1990s. 
He concluded that the abundance of argali in the central and northern 
parts of the Eastern Pamir had not changed or had decreased to some 
extent in recent years, while in the southeastern and especially the 
southern part of the Pamir, argali abundance had increased by more than 
three times. Dr. Fedosenko attributed argali population growth in the 
south to the removal of large numbers of domestic livestock from local 
pastures during the last several years; he also attributed the lack of 
population growth or slight decline in the central and northern parts 
of the Eastern Pamirs to the concentration of domestic livestock in 
those areas (Fedosenko 1999).
Findings for Factor A
    Habitat conditions for argali in Kyrgyzstan appear to have improved 
over the last decade, largely as a consequence of the change of 
government. Livestock numbers have increased in some areas (with, 
presumably, a concomitant decrease in habitat quality for argali as a 
result of overgrazing), but have been substantially reduced in other, 
more extensive areas (with, presumably, a concomitant increase in 
habitat quality for argali as a result of decreased grazing pressure). 
The ``de facto'' protected area in the border zone with China has 
probably improved habitat conditions. While habitat loss and 
degradation does not endanger the argali throughout all or a 
significant part of Kyrgyzstan, it remains a factor that threatens 
certain argali populations in a significant portion of the country.
    In Mongolia, argali habitats appear to have degraded over a wide 
area since the early 1990s as a result of overgrazing by domestic 
livestock. This may have been offset by the designation of a 
substantial number of ``State Special Protected Areas'' covering almost 
13 percent of Mongolia's territory, and a new law on buffer zone 
management in special protected areas. We do not believe that habitat 
loss and degradation is of sufficient magnitude and extent to endanger 
the argali throughout all or a significant part of Mogolia, however, 
habitat degradation and loss continues to threaten certain argali 
populations in a significant portion of Mongolia.
    In Tajikistan, as in Kyrgyzstan, argali habitats have improved in 
many areas due to removal of large numbers of domestic livestock, but 
have degraded in other, less extensive areas, due to concentration of 
domestic livestock there. The ``de facto'' protected area in the border 
zone with China has probably improved habitat conditions. As with 
Kyrgyzstan, it appears that overall habitat conditions for argali have 
improved in Tajikistan. Thus, while habitat loss and degradation does 
not endanger the argali throughout all or a significant part of 
Tajikistan, it remains a factor that threatens certain argali 
populations in a significant portion of the country.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

Kyrgyzstan
Population Status
    On the basis of their own field surveys in the Kokshalatau Range in 
1993 and surveys conducted by the Kyrgyz Institute of Biology in 1991, 
Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) estimated a minimum population of 7,800 
Marco Polo (or Pamir) argali for Kyrgyzstan in 1994, distributed as 
follows: 2,500-3,100 in the Aksai River basin (right-hand tributaries); 
500-900 in the Myurduryum area; 1,300 in the Uzengikush area; 700 in 
the Akshiiryak area; 1,000 in the Sarydzhaz basin; and 1,800 in the 
Arpa valley. We note that this does not appear to cover the entire 
range of Marco Polo argali within Kyrgyzstan.
    In response to our annual request for information, Mr. C. 
Omurakunov of the Kyrgyz Central Administrative Board of Hunting and 
Hunting Supervision (in litt. to Michael Carpenter, DMA, June 30, 1998) 
told us that, in 1997, the total argali population of Kyrgyzstan was 
estimated to be 20,000-21,000 animals, based on aerial and ground 
surveys. Of that total, more than 13,000 were estimated to be Marco 
Polo argali, the subspecies targeted for sport hunting in Kyrgyzstan. 
Mr. Omurakunov provided some details about survey methods used and 
results obtained. Ground and aerial surveys were used to cover 
extensive areas, with helicopters being used in areas that are remote 
and difficult to access. Population estimates for specific areas with 
high concentrations of argali were as follows: 6,600 in right-hand 
tributaries of the Aksai River; 2,400 in the Arpa Valley; 2,900 in 
Jety-Oguz. These estimates are substantially higher than those made in 
earlier years (i.e., 1991-1993), and we suspect that the survey methods 
used may have resulted in slight overestimation, particularly in the 
Aksai River area. Although some error in counting and/or differences in 
survey methods may partially account for differences between earlier 
population estimates and the 1997 estimate, Mr. Omurakunov asserted 
that the number of argali in Kyrgyzstan had actually increased between 
years, which he linked directly to sport hunting (although other 
factors may also be involved).
    In a 1999 fax to us, Mr. Omurakunov (in litt. to the Service, 
January 26, 1999) repeated the previous population estimates--a total 
argali population of 20,000-21,000 and a Marco Polo argali population 
of 13,000. In 2000, Mr. T.

[[Page 35947]]

Alykulov, Minister of Environmental Protection of Kyrgyzstan (in litt. 
to Teiko Saito, Chief, DMA, July 7, 2000) told us that the total 
population estimate for the country in 1999 was 16,600, and 14,000 
``live in areas where hunting is conducted,'' implying that these were 
Marco Polo argali, because only Marco Polo argali are hunted. These 
recent survey data suggest that argali numbers in Kyrgyzstan have 
remained relatively stable in the past few years, with some 
fluctuation, although a comprehensive survey does not appear to have 
been undertaken since 1997.
Sport Hunting
    Sport hunting of argali by international trophy hunters has been 
taking place in Kyrgyzstan since at least 1990 (Luschekina and 
Fedosenko 1994).
    Hunting Companies. The number of hunting organizations (companies) 
leading ``hunting tours'' for Marco Polo argali in Kyrgyzstan has grown 
in recent years. The hunting industry was formerly run by one 
organization--Glavokhota. However, in 2000, six or seven organizations 
were involved in hunting (including the Society for Hunting and Fishing 
of the Kyrghyz Republic, the State Enterprise ``Kyrghyz Too'', and 
others).
    Hunting Locations. In previous years we believe that the entire 
hunting quota was assigned to the Naryn region, which appears to 
contain one of the largest concentrations of Marco Polo argali in 
Kyrgyzstan, and which also does not appear to include any of the Tien 
Shan argali (DSA 1995). Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) indicated that 
there were two hunting camps, one named Atabash, which is in the Aksai 
River Valley, and one named Przhevalsk, which is in the basin of the 
Uzengikush River. Subsequently, we received information about a hunting 
area in what appears to be the Alai Valley in the Osh region. The Alai 
Valley is an area that contained a concentration of argali estimated at 
1,890 animals in the 1996 surveys, and therefore should be able to 
sustain some offtake of trophy animals. During the 1999-2000 hunting 
season, hunting areas were in the Narynskaya Oblast and in the 
mountains systems from the southern portion of Issyk-Kul'skaya Oblast 
to Borkoldoi-Too and Boz-Dzhalpaka, according to T. Alykulov, Minister 
of Environmental Protection for Kyrgyzstan (in litt. to Teiko Saito, 
Chief, DMA July 7, 2000).
    Harvest Quotas. Harvest quotas for sport-hunted trophies of Marco 
Polo argali have steadily increased in Kyrgyzstan. The 1995 quota for 
Marco Polo argali was 15 according to Mr. C. Omurakunov of the Kyrgyz 
Committee of Nature Protection (in litt. to Safari Club International, 
January 24, 1995). The 1996 quota was 20 (Mr. T. Kulumbaev, Kyrgyz 
Committee of Nature Conservation in litt. to the Service, February 21, 
1996), the 1997 quota was 24 (Mr. Omurakunov in litt. to DMA, 1997), 
and the 1998 quota was 25. For 1999, Mr. Omurakunov (in litt. to 
Michael Carpenter, DMA, June 30, 1998) stated that the quota was 
increased to 40, which, he said, was based on an increasing population 
trend and expansion of the range of the species within Kyrgyzstan in 
recent years (although the population appears to have remained 
relatively stable during that time frame). For 2000, Mr. Alykulov 
stated that the quota was set at 60.
    Based on information provided by the Kyrgyz Government, harvest 
quotas in previous years appear to have been adhered to, and may not 
have been met in some years. Only 18 argali were hunted under a quota 
of 20 in 1996. Mr. Omurakunov stated in his 1998 letter that, based on 
several years' data, only 70-80% of the annual quota was being used on 
average.
    Biological Impact of Harvest. Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) 
stated ``we believe that the size of the argali populations is adequate 
in both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to sustain the pressure of sporting 
(trophy) hunting within the limits it is currently conducted.'' At that 
time, the Marco Polo population of Kyrgyzstan was estimated at 7,800 
animals, while the hunting quota was 18.
    In our 2000 biological opinion on argali sport hunting in 
Kyrgyzstan we assessed the biological impact of the harvest quotas for 
that year (DSA 2001a). We based our assessment on the harvest 
recommendations of Wegge (1997) and Harris (1993). Wegge (1997) 
considers that harvesting males within a limit of 10 to 20 percent of 
the replacement rate for the trophy-sized segment of the population is 
a safe, conservative level for stable or increasing wild sheep and goat 
populations. In most cases this is equivalent to less than 4 percent of 
the total pre-hunting season population (Wegge 1997). Harris (1993) 
states that a healthy population should be able to sustain an annual 
``trophy harvest of males, in numbers equivalent to 1-2 percent of the 
total population size,'' without negative consequences to the 
population. For 2000, the harvest quota of 60 argali represented 0.46% 
of the estimated total Marco Polo argali population of 13,000. 
Comparing this figure to the harvest recommendations of Wegge (1997) 
and Harris (1993), and noting that the Marco Polo argali population in 
Kyrgyzstan appears to be stable or increasing based on recent survey 
results, we concluded that the total harvest quota of 60 was 
conservative and sustainable. We further note that as long as Marco 
Polo argali population estimates for Kyrgyzstan were correct within q 
50% (i.e., the population is at least 6,000), this quota is below 1 
percent of the population.
Poaching
    Local harvest of argali for sport and/or consumption is prohibited. 
In previous years illegal hunting was acknowledged to be a persistent 
problem, especially in remote areas where enforcement is difficult. 
However, efforts were being made to control poaching, which resulted in 
poachers being detained and fined. We have been told that the head of 
the local game management unit accompanies foreign hunters; thus we 
presume that trophy specimens are legally taken and exported. Some 
argali populations may suffer locally in areas of military activity or 
``expeditions,'' although these seem to be intermittent and isolated 
events. In previous years we also noted that the Government of 
Kyrgyzstan had agreed to strengthen and augment reserve areas. Indeed, 
Mr. Omurakunov indicated in his May 1997 letter that new reserves had 
been established. Levels of poaching described by Mr. Omurakunov in 
1998 appeared to be relatively low. The level of illegal offtake 
(poaching) appears to be low enough that total harvest mortality (i.e., 
illegal harvest and legal sport-hunting harvest) has not exceeded 
sustainable levels and has not caused the Marco Polo argali population 
to decline.
Mongolia
Population Status
    Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) estimated there to be ``no more 
than 20,000'' argali of both subspecies in all of Mongolia, although 
they also stated that ``there are no systematic data on the argali 
population in Mongolia.'' Mallon et al. (1997) concurred that reliable, 
country-wide population estimates for each subspecies were not 
available, although both Mallon et al. (1997) and Reading et al. (1997) 
felt that Altai argali were less abundant than Gobi argali.
    No comprehensive, rangewide population surveys of Altai argali have 
been undertaken in Mongolia. Mallon et al. (1997) felt that Altai 
argali were less abundant than Gobi argali, and that

[[Page 35948]]

populations were fragmented and disjunct. Amgalanbaatar and his 
colleagues surveyed several sites in western Mongolia in 1991-1992 and 
estimated a total population of 3,000 Altai argali for the four 
westernmost aimags (provinces) (Amgalanbaatar 1993, Amgalanbaatar et 
al. 1993 cited in Reading 1996). In 1995, Amgalanbaatar and Reading 
revisited several of the earlier survey sites. They did not observe 
argali in several of the areas and counted a total of only 52 argali 
(Amgalanbaatar 1995 cited in Reading 1996). However, according to 
Mallon et al. (1997), these recent surveys have not been comprehensive 
enough to permit estimation of the total population of Altai argali.
    Additional surveys have been conducted since the studies cited in 
Mallon et al. (1997) and Reading (1996). Michael Frisina, Wildlife 
Biologist-Range Coordinator for the Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife & Parks, and his Mongolian colleagues, surveyed argali in 
Mongolia during 1997, 1998, and 1999 under the auspices of a 
cooperative project between Argali Conservation International and the 
Mongolian Ministry for Nature and the Environment (MNE) (Frisina and 
Boldbaatar 1998, Frisina and Ulziimaa 1999, 2000). Survey areas have 
included the western Altay Mountains in Bayan Olgiy and Hovd Aimags 
(Provinces) and the eastern Hangay Mountains (at Oshgog Mountain in 
Ovorkhangay Aimag-an area where government-regulated trophy hunting has 
occurred for several years (Frisina and Boldbaatar 1998). The eastern 
Hangay Mountains appear to be a zone where the two subspecies in 
Mongolia come together; thus, it is uncertain which subspecies occurs 
at Oshgog Mountain.
    Frisina and colleagues conducted surveys for Altai argali in the 
western Altay Mountains in 1997 and 1999. In August 1997, Frisina and 
Boldbaatar conducted ground surveys in three areas in the western Altay 
Mountains (in Bayan Olgiy and Hovd Provinces) (Frisina and Boldbaatar 
1998). They counted 244 argali, 234 of which were rams. This skewed sex 
ratio reflects the fact that their survey areas were remote alpine 
valleys, habitats dominated by rams in August. Older rams (Class III 
and IV) comprised 49% of the rams counted. In July 1999, Frisina and 
Ulziimaa conducted a less-intense reconnaissance survey of the sites in 
Bayan Olgiy and Hovd Provinces that had been surveyed in 1997 (Frisina 
and Ulziimaa 2000). They counted only 65 argali--15 ewes, 5 lambs, 35 
rams, and 10 unclassified animals. They suggested that this decrease 
may have been due to the shorter period of observation in 1999, or the 
hot and dry daytime conditions in 1999, which may have made the sheep 
less visible because they were bedded down or in shady areas.
    Frisina and colleagues conducted more intensive argali surveys at 
Oshgog Mountain in the Hangay Mountains (in Ovorkhangay Aimag) in 1997, 
1998, and 1999. In August 1997, Frisina and Boldbaatar counted 305 
argali at Oshgog, 135 of which were rams, 120 of which were ewes, and 
50 of which were lambs (Frisina and Boldbaatar 1998). The observed 
lamb-to-ewe ratio was 41.7 lambs per 100 ewes. In addition, 63.7% of 
classified rams were in older age classes (Class III or IV). The 
relatively high proportion of older rams was interpreted as indicating 
that ``natural mortality is not excessive and poaching of rams is 
limited.'' The authors concluded that ``argali populations in the areas 
surveyed are healthy and productive'' (Frisina and Boldbaatar 1998).
    In October 1998, Frisina and Ulziimaa conducted a second ground 
survey of the Oshgog Mountain area, and counted 862 argali, including 
252 ewes, 159 lambs, 241 rams, and 210 unclassified animals (Frisina 
and Ulziimaa 1999). They estimated the total argali population for 
Oshgog Mountain (an area 91,500 ha) to be 901, and considered that to 
be a conservative estimate. They reported a good lamb-to-ewe ratio (63 
lambs per 100 ewes) and high percentages of older age-class males 
(75.9% of classified rams were Class III or IV), and concluded that 
trophy hunting of argali at Oshgog Mountain was within sustainable 
limits (Frisina and Ulziimaa 1999).
    In July 1999, Frisina and Ulziimaa conducted a third ground survey 
of the Oshgog Mountain area (Frisina and Ulziimaa 2000). They counted 
339 argali, including 161 ewes, 77 lambs, 69 rams, and 32 unclassified 
animals. The lamb-to-ewe ratio was 47.8 lambs per 100 ewes, but there 
was a lower percentage of older age-class males than in previous years 
(39.1% of classified rams were Class III or IV). Rams made up a smaller 
percentage of the observed population in 1999 than in either 1997 or 
1998, and the percentage of old rams (Class IV) was lower in 1999 than 
in 1997 or 1998. The authors implied that data comparisons among years 
should be made cautiously because 1998 data were collected during the 
rut, when older males would be expected to be more visible, whereas 
1999 data were collected during extremely hot and dry conditions, and 
older males were difficult to see as most were bedded down in shady 
areas to avoid the heat (Frisina and Ulziimaa 2000).
    No comprehensive, rangewide population surveys of Gobi argali have 
been undertaken in Mongolia. Mallon et al. (1997) felt that argali in 
the Gobi region, particularly in South Gobi Province, are apparently 
relatively abundant although the distribution is highly fragmented and 
local populations are often quite small. Recent surveys have been 
conducted by Frisina and colleagues, and by Reading and colleagues.
    Valdez and Frisina (1993) conducted ground surveys for Gobi argali 
at Ih Nartiin in Dornogobi Aimag (East Gobi) in 1993, while Frisina and 
Ulziimaa (1999) conducted a second ground survey of Ih Nartiin in 1998. 
In 1993, 162 argali were counted in the 60,700-ha survey area (Frisina 
and Ulziimaa 1999). The observed lamb-to-ewe ratio was 44 lambs per 100 
ewes, and the percentage of older males in the population was high 
(61.5% of classified rams were Class III or IV). In 1998, 131 argali 
were counted in the survey area (Frisina and Ulziimaa 1999). They 
estimated the total argali population for Ih Nartiin (60,700 ha) to be 
632, and considered that to be a conservative estimate. The observed 
lamb-to-ewe ratio was 40 lambs per 100 ewes, and the percentage of 
older males in the population was high (60.6% of classified rams were 
Class III or IV). Frisina and Ulziimaa (1999) concluded that the argali 
population at Ih Nartiin had remained stable from 1993 through 1998.
    Schaller (1994 cited in Mallon et al. 1997) surveyed Gobi argali in 
a 15 million-ha area in the eastern part of South Gobi and the western 
part of East Gobi in 1994. He estimated that 3,500 to 4,000 Gobi argali 
occurred in small, fragmented populations throughout the survey area 
(Mallon et al. 1997).
    Reading et al. (1997) conducted ground and aerial surveys of Gobi 
argali in a 20.9 million-ha region in Dundgobi, Omnogobi, and Dornogobi 
aimags in the South Gobi region in 1994 (the same general region that 
Schaller surveyed). They estimated the overall population size to be 
3,900 q a standard error of 1,130, resulting in a 95% confidence 
interval of 2,190 to 6,960 animals (Reading et al. 1997). Populations 
were small and fragmented.
    Reading et al. (1999) surveyed argali populations in Three Beauties 
of the Gobi National Conservation Park, an area of 21,700 sq. km., in 
1995 (ground survey), 1996 (ground survey), and 1997 (aerial survey). 
They observed 265 argali in 38 groups in Fall 1995, 233 argali in 46 
groups in Spring 1996, and 113 argali

[[Page 35949]]

in 20 groups in Winter 1997. Extrapolating results of the ground 
surveys, they derived populations estimates of 2,977 argali in Fall 
1995, and 3,333 argali (including young) in Spring 1996. Extrapolating 
aerial survey results, they derived a population estimate of 3,257 q 
1,071 argali in the aerial survey area (the eastern half of the park).
Sport Hunting
    Sport hunting of argali by international trophy hunters has been 
taking place in Mongolia since at least 1967 (Luschekina and Fedosenko 
1994).
    Hunting Companies. In1994, only 3 companies were authorized by the 
Government of Mongolia to conduct sport hunts with foreign clients--
Juulchin, Mongol An, and Sondor. In 1998, 6 companies were authorized 
by the Mongolian Government to conduct sport hunts with foreign 
clients. In 1999, the number of authorized companies jumped to 17 
(Juulchin, Mongol Safari, Mongol Tour and Genesis, Mat Outdoor Safaris, 
Adiya & Altai, Mongol Altai Travel, Mongolyn Zug, Jim Trade, Zereglee, 
Tsagaan Shonmkhor, Derentsnat, Badan, Power Energy-Environment, Tovshin 
Tour, New Tour International, Karakorum) according to S. Banzragch, 
Director General of Mongolia's Environmental Protection Agency (in 
litt. to T. Van Norman, DMA, June 28, 1999). For the 2000 hunting 
season, 18 companies were authorized to conduct sport hunts with 
foreign clients; most were the same companies authorized in 1999, but a 
few new companies appeared and a few old ones disappeared (S. 
Banzragch, Director General, Environmental Protection Agency, Mongolia 
in litt. to Teiko Saito, August 1, 2000).
    Hunting Locations. Since 1971, hunting concessions (otogs) operated 
by the tourism/hunting companies have been established in various areas 
for hunting of argali by foreign hunters. Luschekina and Fedosenko 
(1994) listed these as: Yamaatyn am (Bukhmuren somon of UvsNuur Aimag), 
Myangan-Ugalzat (Must somon of Kobdo Aimag), Khukh Serkh (Khovd somon 
of Kobdo Aimag), Akhuunt (Dellum somon of Bayan Ulgi Aimag), Mogoin gol 
(Tonkhil somon of Gobi-Altai Aimag), Biger (Biger somon of Gobi Altai 
Aimag), Gobi Altai-Zhinst (Zhinst somon of Bayan-Khongor Aimag), and 
Ikh-Baga Nomgon (Nomgon somon of Southern Gobi Aimag). Information 
received in support of permit applications in subsequent years 
indicated that these general locations remained unchanged (e.g., DSA 
1995). The Government of Mongolia previously informed us that, for 3 
years beginning in 1998, there was to be a complete ban on hunting in 
certain areas of Hovd aimag, which lies in the range of the Altai 
argali in western Mongolia. According to information contained in one 
hunter report submitted in 1999, these areas may include White Rock 
Mountain, Mountain of 1,000 Rams, and Bluger Mountain, although we have 
no corroboration of these locations. This closure was reiterated in the 
information received from the Government of Mongolia prior to the 1999 
hunting season (Director General, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Mongolia in litt. to T. Van Norman, June 28, 1999). We do not know if 
these closures remain in effect.
    According to information in Frisina and Ulziimaa (2000), there has 
been considerable hunting of argali in the Oshgog Mountain area (in the 
Hangay Mountains of Ovorkhangay Aimag) in recent years. This area was 
not previously highlighted as a principal argali hunting area. Since 
1994, the trophy ram harvest at Oshgog Mountain has ranged from 
approximately 1 to 18 (pers. comm. with Jantzen and Luya of Mongol 
Tours, cited in Frisina and Ulziimaa 2000). In 1998, about 18 trophies 
were harvested by foreign hunters from three different hunting camps at 
Oshgog. In 1999, 14 rams were harvested.
    Harvest Quotas. The Council of Ministers of Mongolia establishes a 
quota for argali to be sport-hunted by foreign hunters. Before 1992, 
annual quotas of up to 100 argali were issued. The 1994 quota for 
argali was 15, of which 10 were designated for the High Altai and 5 for 
the Gobi region. The quota was increased to 20 for 1995 and 1996, and 
to 30 for 1997. For 1998, the quota was increased to 35 animals, with 
two-thirds of the quota being in the Gobi region and one-third in the 
Altai region. For 1999, the quota was again increased to 45; 
approximately two-thirds of the quota is assigned to the Gobi area and 
one-third in the Altai (Director General, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Mongolia in litt. to T. Van Norman, June 28, 1999). For 2000, 
the quota was decreased to 40; no mention was made of the distribution 
of permits between the two subspecies (Director General, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mongolia in litt. to Teiko Saito, August 1, 2000).
    Biological Impacts of Harvest. According to Juulchin, a tourist 
hunting company, 1,630 argali were taken by sport hunters in Mongolia 
from 1967-1989, an average of 71 per year (Luschekina and Fedosenko 
1994). Over 200 argali were harvested in Kobdo Aimag from 1978 through 
1992 (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994).
    In our 1999 and 2000 biological opinions on argali sport hunting in 
Mongolia we assessed the biological impacts of the harvest quotas for 
those years (DSA 1999, DSA 2000). As in our analysis for Kyrgyzstan, we 
based our assessment on the harvest recommendations of Wegge (1997) and 
Harris (1993). The total sport-hunting quota of 45 represented about 
0.45% of the estimated total population of 10,000. The quota of 30 Gobi 
argali represented about 0.5% of that subspecies' estimated total 
population, while the quota of 15 Altai argali represented 0.375% of 
that subspecies' estimated total population. Comparing these figure to 
the harvest recommendations of Wegge (1997) and Harris (1993), we 
concluded that the total harvest quota of 45 and the subspecies quotas 
of 30 and 15, were conservative and sustainable. We further note that 
as long as Marco Polo argali population estimates for Mongolia were 
correct within q 50% (i.e., the population is at least 5,000), this 
quota is at 1 percent of the population. Giving further consideration 
to the ``trophy'' segment of the population (i.e, mature, older males), 
we believe that recent sport-hunting data indicate that the number of 
animals in older age-classes are not being adversely affected by sport 
hunting.
Poaching
    There is little quantitative information on former or current 
levels of argali poaching in Mongolia. Mallon et al. (1997) states that 
poaching is a major threat but cites little recent literature other 
than Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994), although these authors only 
provide anecdotal information. In a recent communication with us, Mr. 
A. Bolat, the Vice-Minister of MNE (in litt. to Tim Van Norman, DMA, 
May 9, 2001) indicated that ``there is a vague estimate that at least 
70-80 argalis are hunted each year by Mongolian citizens illegally for 
food and medical purposes . . . therefore, measures have been taken to 
prevent illegal hunting of argali.'' This could have a substantial 
impact on argali in Mongolia, especially if poaching is concentrated in 
certain areas.
Tajikistan
Population Status
    Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) state that the Marco Polo argali 
population in Tajikistan has undergone considerable changes in recent 
years. In areas subject to substantial anthropogenic effects (grazing,

[[Page 35950]]

poaching, harassment), numbers have declined, and in some areas the 
species has disappeared altogether. The authors also stated that an 
estimated 72% of the Tajik argali population were inhabiting protected 
areas in the Sarykol Mountains along the Chinese border, and especially 
dense populations occurred within the border barrier zone (Luschekina 
and Fedosenko 1994).
    During the 1960s, argali were considered abundant in Tajikistan, 
with estimates as high as 70,000-80,000 sheep in the Eastern Pamirs, 
although such figures are considered an overestimate by some 
investigators (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994). Based on estimates of 
population densities, the northeastern Pamirs were estimated by Sokov 
to contain about 20,000 argali in the mid-1970s, and this number was 
further revised by Sokov and Odinashoyev to 10,000-12,000 by the late 
1980s (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994). A decline in the population was 
attributed to increased access to areas inhabited by argali due to 
development of roads as well as the increase in domestic stock 
competing for pasture. Available habitat became fragmented and argali 
numbers declined (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994).
    In 1991, various governmental, quasi-governmental, and private 
organizations, including scientists from the Institute of Zoology and 
Parasitology of the Tajik Academy of Sciences, cooperated in aerial 
surveys of argali in Tajikistan (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994). The 
surveys encompassed 90-95% of suitable argali habitat, and 9,415 
animals were counted. The total population was estimated to be 9,900-
10,300 animals (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994).
    The report ``The Pamirs Argali in Tadjikistan Population State,'' 
completed in 1996 by Dr. A.K. Fedosenko (Fedosenko 1996), includes much 
of the same information as the report by Luschekina and Fedosenko 
(1994) (i.e., population estimates for the 1960s through 1991). 
However, Dr. Fedosenko included specific information on field studies 
of argali conducted by himself in the hunting concession area of MAK, 
one of the Tajik hunting firms, described as located in the area of the 
Akbura ridge and the area between the Saluistyk and Aksu Rivers in 
eastern Tajikistan (Fedosenko 1996). Dr. Fedosenko confirmed that, at 
the time of his report, about 60 % of the argali in Gorno-Badakhshan 
Province existed in the border zone (i.e., between the barrier fences 
and the international boundary with China), where densities were about 
four times higher than ``outside'' the barriers on the Tajik side. 
Outside the barriers, argali numbers were highest in the Saluistyk-Aksu 
interfluve and Akbura mountains (MAK hunting areas), the Yushno-
Alichursky ridge (Tadjik-international hunting area), the Sever-
Alichursky ridge, and the Bilyand-Kiik area (part of the area, along 
with areas around western Lake Karakul, controlled by Badakhshan 
hunting firm) (Fedosenko 1996).
    In response to our annual request for information, Dr. N. Safarov, 
First Deputy Minister of the Tajik Ministry of Nature Protection (in 
litt. to the Service, October 26, 1998) told us that surveys conducted 
in February-March 1998 showed a continued increase in the numbers of 
argali. On six survey plots totaling 2.72 million acres, 6,560 argali 
were counted. For the entire country, the population was estimated at 
10,000-13,000, mostly concentrated in the Murgab Region. Dr. Safarov 
stated that the population increase may have been due to political 
instability, civil unrest, and a reduction in the human population 
(emigration) in the Murgab Region due to the shortage of food and fuel, 
apparently because of disruption of supplies. According to Dr. Safarov, 
as the human population decreased, threats to argali (primarily 
livestock grazing and poaching) also decreased. However, during 
meetings with Service representatives held October 28-31, 1998, A. 
Luschekina and A. Fedosenko of the Russian Academy of Science indicated 
that they thought that the argali population of Tajikistan was in 
decline, although they still believed there were about 10,000 animals.
    In mid-1999, Dr. A. Latifi, First Deputy Minister, Ministry of 
Nature Protection/ Conservation (in a written summary titled 
``Information on Marco Polo's Sheep Hunting Conducted with 
Participation of Foreign Tourists During the Hunting Season of 1998-
1999''), told us that the Marco Polo argali population in the Pamirs in 
1999 was estimated at 10,000-13,000 animals (the same as in the 
previous year). Dr. Latifi stated that ground counting conducted by 
hunting firms during the hunting season supported these estimates. The 
summary document he provided includes a table with wildlife population 
figures for 10 ``hunting entities'' for 1999, but the table also has a 
caveat that the data are considered to be approximate ``because the 
task of counting them accurately has never been undertaken.''
    More recently, Fedosenko (1999) surveyed a number of areas in the 
Eastern Pamir and counted 5,990 argali. Although Fedosenko did not 
extrapolate these results to a total population estimate for the 
country, he did state that ``Taking into account significant 
underestimation of arhar (argali) population in the central and in the 
northern parts of the Eastern Pamirs, we must conclude that the total 
number of these animals has increased in comparison with mid-90s 
(1990s). While in the central and northern parts of the Eastern Pamir 
the abundance of arhars has not changed or has decreased to some 
extent, in the southeastern and especially the southern part it has 
increased by more than three times.'' Dr. Fedosenko attributed argali 
population growth in the south to the removal of large numbers of 
domestic livestock from local pastures during the last several years; 
however, argali numbers remained steady or declined slightly in the 
central and northern parts of the Eastern Pamirs, because domestic 
livestock numbers did not decline significantly in those areas 
(Fedosenko 1999).
Sport Hunting
    Luschekina et al. (1994) and Fedosenko (1999) state that, until the 
mid-1980s, about 100-120 permits were issued annually to local people 
for shooting argali. Actual legal hunting of argali was terminated in 
1987 (Fedosenko 1999). Information received from the Ministry of Nature 
Conservation and from Safari Outfitters indicates that the hunting of 
argali is now primarily limited to trophy hunting by foreign nationals 
only, about 70% of whom are American.
    Hunting Companies. In earlier years, we understood that trophy 
hunting was conducted by three hunting firms in Gorno-Badakhshan: MAK, 
Tadjikinternational, and Badakhshan (DSA 1998). According to Fedosenko 
(1996), the area controlled by Tadjikinternational was estimated to 
contain about 640-760 specimens based on 1992-1993 data, with several 
males taken annually. The hunting lands of Badakhshan were estimated to 
contain about 554 argali in 1991 (actual aerial counts), and although 
43 males were taken during 1987-1990, Fedosenko indicated that they are 
now limited to taking five to seven animals annually. The MAK hunting 
lands were estimated to contain 1,500 argali, which had remained stable 
from 1990 to 1995. In the years 1992-1995, the number of argali taken 
each year on MAK lands was 15, 4, 6, and 6. It has been our 
understanding that none of the hunting concessions includes areas 
within the border barriers, so the majority of argali in Tajikistan 
(about 65%) is not subject to sport-hunting pressure, but this also 
means that sport-hunting pressure is

[[Page 35951]]

concentrated on a smaller portion of the population.
    The number of hunting enterprises apparently increased dramatically 
in 1998-1999, to around 40. However, by mid-1999, the number apparently 
dropped back to around 10 hunting companies functioning in the Pamir. 
According to information provided by Dr. Latifi (in litt. to the 
Service, October 18, 2000), 8 hunting companies had been registered, 
but only 7 of them hosted sport hunters. Dr. Fedosenko's 1999 report 
corroborates this number (Fedosenko 1999). He stated that, at present, 
8 firms organizing or willing to organize hunting are registered in 
Eastern Pamir. They are ``MAK'' (``Asia-Span''), ``Obi-Safed'', 
``Badakhshan'', ``Pamir-Eco'', ``Pamir'', ``Mergen'', ``Turvest'' 
(former ``Tajik International''), ``Issyk-Bullak''. In addition, the 
forestry-game farm of the Ministry of Forestry was organized in 1998 
with the purpose of conducting trophy hunts in its area.
    Hunting Locations. Dr. Fedosenko described the hunting areas 
allocated to each of the 8 firms, but stated that hunting lands and 
their boundaries are known only to the staffs of the hunting companies 
and the registering organization, and local people are not well aware 
of the locations (Fedosenko 1999; pages 20-21).
    Harvest Quotas. When Luschekina and Fedosenko prepared their report 
in 1993, hunting firms were annually allocated 20-25 licenses to shoot 
argali (Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994). According to Dr. Safarov (in 
litt. to the Service, October 26, 1998), the 1998-1999 quota was 40 
argali per season, with two seasons per year: September 1 to December 
31 and February 15 to April 1. However, any part of the quota not used 
during the September-December season could be added to the quota for 
the February-April season. According to Dr. Latifi's mid-1999 
communication with us, the Fall 1999/Spring 2000 quota was set at 70 
(no breakdown was given for the individual seasons). In 2000, Dr. 
Latifi told us that the Fall 2000/Spring 2001 quota has been set at 70, 
with no breakdown given for the individual seasons. Based on recent 
hunting information, it appears that the quota has not been reached in 
recent years, but the number of re-exports (from the Russian 
Federation) of argali taken in Tajikistan has increased from 10 in 1995 
to 63 in 1997.
    Biological Impacts of Harvest. Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) 
stated ``we believe that the size of the argali populations is adequate 
in both Kirgizia and Tajikistan to sustain the pressure of sporting 
(trophy) hunting within the limits it is currently conducted.'' At that 
time, the Marco Polo population of Tajikistan was estimated at 9,900-
10,300 animals, while the hunting quota was 20-25.
    In our biological opinion on sport-hunted argali trophies taken in 
the Fall 2000/Spring 2001 season in Tajikistan (DSA 2001b), we assessed 
the biological impacts of the harvest quota for that season. We based 
our assessment on the published recommendations of Wegge (1997) and 
Harris (1993) (see background discussion of these papers under 
Kyrgyzstan). The total sport-hunting quota of 70 represented about 
0.70% of the total estimated population of 10,000, and about 1.55% of 
the ``huntable'' population (that portion of the total population on 
the Tajik side of the border barriers and therefore subject to sport 
hunting). Comparing these figure to the harvest recommendations of 
Wegge (1997) and Harris (1993), we concluded that the quota is 
conservative and sustainable when compared to the total population of 
10,000, but that it is close to the upper limit of 2% mentioned by 
Harris (1993) when compared to the ``huntable'' population. This is 
still conservative, since the border barriers are not absolute and some 
movement of animals does occur.
Poaching
    Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) and Fedosenko (1999) state that, 
until the mid-1980s, about 100-120 permits were issued annually to 
local people for shooting argali. Legal hunting of argali by local 
people was terminated in 1987 (Fedosenko 1999). According to Luschekina 
and Fedosenko (1994) and Fedosenko (1999), herdsmen, various 
expeditions, and military personnel shot upwards of 1,000 argali per 
year until the late 1980s. Illegal harvest increased in the early 1990s 
as a result of civil unrest and human population re-location into the 
Gorno-Badakhshan region, but then began to subside because of a 
reduction in the number of military personnel, increasing fuel costs, 
and a local government effort to confiscate weapons (Luschekina and 
Fedosenko 1994, Fedosenko 1996). More recently, Fedosenko (1999) has 
implied that poaching continues and may be on the increase. The 
majority of argali remains (89%) he found were shot by poachers, and 
many argali skulls were found near herders camps (Fedosenko 1999).
    According to N. Safarov, Deputy Minister of the Tajik Ministry of 
Nature Conservation, and A. Lailibekov, Deputy Chairman of the Nature 
Conservation Committee of Gorno-Bakakhshan (in litt. to the Service, 
February 16, 1996) sport hunting of argali by foreign hunters prevents 
poaching of argali due to the contribution of sport hunting to the 
local economy and the value that the local population then places on 
argali. In addition to providing a disincentive to poaching, the income 
generated from sport hunting of argali reduces reliance of local people 
on domestic livestock, especially sheep, so there are fewer sheep to 
compete with argali for pasture and water. These arguments were 
restated in Mr. Safarov's letter to the Service of October 26, 1998.
Findings for Factor B
    Argali populations in Kyrgyzstan appear to have remained stable or 
increased slightly in recent years, although the lack of a 
comprehensive population survey since 1991 limits interpretation of 
population trend. Legal sport hunting has not had a detrimental impact 
on Kyrgyz argali populations in recent years, but poaching is 
acknowledged to have been a persistent problem until recently. Although 
overutilization is not a factor that endangers the argali throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range in Kyrgyzstan, the lingering 
impact of past poaching continues to be a factor that threatens argali 
populations in certain parts of Kyrgyzstan.
    Argali populations in Mongolia appear to be much reduced from 
previous years, but the lack of a recent, countrywide population survey 
inhibits interpretation of population trends. In addition, there is 
little quantitative information on former or current levels of 
poaching. Legal sport hunting has impacted argali populations in some 
areas, resulting in their closure. Because of these factors, 
overutilization continues to be a factor that threaten argali 
populations in Mongolia. However, the overutilization is not of 
sufficient magnitude or extent to endanger the argali throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range in Mongolia.
    Recent population surveys in Tajikistan indicate that the argali 
population in the Eastern Pamirs has increased since the early 1990s. 
Legal sport hunting has not had a detrimental impact on Tajik argali 
populations in recent years, but local experts indicate that poaching 
has been and continues to be a problem. Thus, we conclude that former 
and current overutilization in the form of poaching threatens argali 
population in Tajikistan, but, as with Mongolia, the magnitude and 
extent of overutilization is not at a level that endangers the argali 
in all or a significant portion of its range in Tajikistan.

[[Page 35952]]

C. Disease or Predation

Kyrgyzstan
    Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) report that the wolf (Canis lupus) 
is a major predator of Pamir argali in Kyrgyzstan. Predation appears to 
be more substantial in fall and winter, the time of year when the 
principal prey--the Altai marmot--is hibernating.
    In recent years' communication with officials of the Kyrgyz 
government, we have received information indicating that Kyrgyzstan has 
embarked on an apparently widespread program of wolf control in an 
attempt to reduce predation on argali (see, for example, the letter 
from T. Alykulov, Minister of Environmental Protection of Kyrgyzstan to 
Teiko Saito, Chief, DMA, July 7, 2000). While selective predator 
control might help with survival of juvenile and yearling argali in 
some areas, the Service does not endorse widespread predator control as 
an acceptable management method for argali.
    Diseases transmitted from domestic sheep can be a significant 
mortality factor for wild sheep, and as long as argali occur in 
proximity to domestic sheep, there is the possibility of disease 
transmission. However, we do not consider that this threat is of 
sufficient magnitude to threaten or endanger argali populations 
throughout all or a significant portion of the species' range in 
Kyrgyzstan.
Mongolia
    Wolves do not appear to be a major predator of argali in Mongolia 
(Luschekina and Fedosenko 1994).
    We do not consider that the threat of disease is of sufficient 
magnitude to threaten or endanger argali populations throughout all or 
a significant portion of the species' range in Mongolia.
Tajikistan
    Fedosenko (1999) indicated that wolf predation is a major mortality 
factor for argali in Tajikistan. We understand that the Tajik 
Government has embarked on wolf control, but, in his most recent 
communication, A. Latifi (in litt. to Teiko Saito, DMA, October 18, 
2000) expressed the opinion that the situation with predators is not 
alarming. As previously stated for Kyrgyzstan, the Service does not 
endorse widespread predator control as an acceptable management method 
for argali.
    We do not consider that the threat of disease is of sufficient 
magnitude to threaten or endanger argali populations throughout all or 
a significant portion of the species' range in Tajikistan.
Findings for Factor C
    Although wolf predation appears to impact argali populations in 
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, we do not consider predation to be a factor 
that threatens or endangers argali throughout all or a significant 
portion of the species' range in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, or Tajikistan. 
Diseases transmitted from domestic sheep can be a significant mortality 
factor for wild sheep, and as long as argali occur in proximity to 
domestic sheep, there is the possibility of disease transmission. 
However, we do not consider that this threat is of sufficient magnitude 
to threaten or endanger argali populations throughout all or a 
significant portion of the species' range in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, or 
Tajikistan.

D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

Kyrgyzstan
Legal Protection
    The Tien Shan argali is listed in the Kyrghyz Red Data Book as 
endangered, however we do not know if this status carries any legal 
authority under Kyrgyz law. In 1999, the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan 
adopted laws ``On Environmental Protection'' and ``On Wildlife'' that 
regulate resource protection and use (T. Alykulov, Minister of 
Environmental Protection of Kyrgyzstan in litt. to Teiko Saito, Chief, 
DMA, July 7, 2000).
Trophy Fees and Their Distribution
    In previous years' communications to the Service, Mr. C. Omurakunov 
of the Kyrgyz Central Administrative Board of Hunting and Hunting 
Supervision stated that implementation of an argali management program 
depended on revenues generated by sport hunting, and he provided a 
rough accounting of the total amount of revenue generated by sport 
hunting and amounts devoted to wildlife conservation and management 
(which includes activities for argali), for the years 1994-1997. Based 
on Mr. Omurakunov's comments, we concluded that population monitoring 
(surveys) and other activities would continue on an annual basis, 
largely as a result of funding derived from sport hunting. In 1999, Mr. 
Omurakunov (in litt. to the Service, January 26, 1999) indicated again 
that about 60% of hunting revenues are used for ``hunting management, 
conservation and reproduction of wild aninals,'' but provided no 
detail. In 2000, Mr. Alykulov (in litt. to the Service, July 7, 2000) 
stated that: ``According to hunting guides conducting tours for foreign 
hunters, the greatest part of the funds received from hunters in 1999 
was spent on protection of hunting areas, biotechnical and propagation 
activities, and development of the hunting industry; 25% of the revenue 
from trophies is earmarked for a general fund of protection of nature 
and is spent on nature preservation measures and financial help for 
local residents; 10% of the revenue is transferred to organs of the 
Ministry of Environmental Protection of the Kyrgyz Republic to organize 
and carry out work on scientific/economic topics, selective censusing, 
and protection and reproduction of wild animals in the territory of the 
Kyrgyz Republic.''
Argali Conservation Activities
    Until recently, we had little information on specific information 
on specific uses of argali hunting fees for argali conservation 
activities in Kyrgyzstan. According to T. Alykulov, Minister of 
Environmental Protection of Kyrgyzstan (in litt. to Teiko Saito, Chief, 
DMA, July 7, 2000), ongoing management activities include: (1) year-
round protection of Marco Polo argali habitat; (2) anti-poaching 
(ranger stations are equipped with radios and vehicles); and (3) wolf 
control.
Export Control
    The exports of sport-hunted argali trophies from Kyrgyzstan are 
subject to multiple controls. Hunting licenses are issued, consistent 
with the quota, by the central government. Because Kyrgyzstan has not 
yet acceded to CITES, the CITES Management Authority of the Russian 
Federation serves as its Management Authority. This system has been 
verified with the CITES Secretariat as the currently accepted procedure 
for CITES-listed species originating from the former Soviet Republics 
that have not yet acceded to CITES on their own. A CITES re-export 
certificate is issued by the Russian CITES authorities. U.S. hunters 
must obtain an endangered species import permit, and must declare their 
trophy to wildlife inspectors upon entry to the United States. U.S. 
hunters are required to submit a report with details of their hunting 
experience, including location where the argali was hunted and length 
of horns, to the U.S. CITES Management Authority.
Mongolia
Legal Protection
    The argali has been ``state-protected'' in Mongolia since 1953, and 
hunting has been banned since 1975, except for the hunting of a certain 
number of species ``according to social need,'' which requires the 
approval of both the Ministry of Nature and Environment (MNE) and 
adopting of a government

[[Page 35953]]

resolution by the Council of Ministers (A. Bolat, Vice-Minister, MNE in 
litt. to Tim Van Norman, DMA, May 9, 2001). In recent years, the ``Law 
of Hunting'' of 1995 served as the basis for argali sheep conservation 
and hunting in Mongolia. The hunting law was amended in 2000 (A. Bolat, 
Vice-Minister, MNE in litt. to Tim Van Norman, DMA, May 9,2001). 
Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the hunting law authorizes the Government 
to establish the number of animals that may be hunted for ``special 
purposes'' based on proposals from the State Administrative Central 
Organizations. The law specifies various penalties for violating its 
provisions. A new ``Law of Fauna'' was also adopted in 2000. The Fauna 
Law lists argali as a ``rare species'' (however, we do not know the 
definition of ``rare species'' in the law).
    Since 1971, hunting concessions operated by the tourism/hunting 
companies have been established in various areas for hunting of argali 
by foreign hunters. It appears the argali in government-sanctioned 
hunting areas are afforded greater protection than argali in other 
areas. For example, we understand that hunting concessionaires are 
responsible for enforcing the ban on hunting by locals. Also, the MNE 
informed us that, for 3 years beginning in 1998, there was to be a 
complete ban on hunting in certain areas of Hovd aimag, which lies in 
the range of the Altai argali in western Mongolia. This closure was 
reiterated in information received from the Government of Mongolia 
prior to the 1999 hunting season (Director General, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Mongolia in litt. to T. Van Norman, June 28, 1999), 
and in information received in May 2001 (A. Bolat, Vice-Minister, MNE 
in litt. to Tim Van Norman, DMA, May 9, 2001). In 1997, the MNE banned 
the export of ``picked-up'' horns (i.e., salvaged horns from sheep that 
died of causes other than sport hunting).
Trophy Fees and Their Distribution
    In response to previous years' requests for information, the 
Mongolian Government has told us that revenues generated by sport 
hunting of argali are divided among the Government of Mongolia (70%), 
the province where the hunt occurs (20%), and the hunting organization 
(10%) (Director General, Environmental Protection Agency, Mongolia in 
litt. to T. Van Norman, DMA, June 28, 1999). The Government of Mongolia 
reportedly invests most of its funds into conservation and research 
programs for argali and other wildlife, however, until recently, the 
Government has not provided us with a detailed breakdown of how sport-
hunting funds are used specifically for argali conservation. In May 
2001, Mr. A. Bolat, Vice-Minister, MNE (in litt. to Tim Van Norman, 
DMA, May 9,2001) provided a table with some detail on how argali 
hunting fees have been used since 1993 (see following section).
Argali Conservation Activities
    Until recently, we had little information on specific uses of 
argali hunting fees for argali conservation activities in Mongolia. We 
were aware that a portion of the revenue generated from one previous 
permit was specifically earmarked for a Gobi waterhole project for the 
benefit of argali (Frisina and Ulziima 1998), but other activities were 
mentioned in generalities. In May 2001, Mr. A. Bolat, Vice-Minister, 
MNE (in litt. to Tim Van Norman, DMA) provided a table indicating 
generally how argali hunting fees have been used since 1993 (see 
following section). Six activity categories are mentioned in the table: 
(1) Argali habitat and resource surveys; (2) survey of other rare 
animals; (3) anti-poaching and environmental protection activities; (4) 
argali habitat management activities (fire prevention, anti-
desertification measures, fodder provision, etc.); (5) establishment, 
management, and protection of strictly protected areas; and (6) 
administration of the hunting program. By far the greatest percentage 
of funds went to establishment of the protected areas, followed by 
anti-poaching activities. According to Mr. A. Bolat, Vice-Minister, MNE 
(in litt. to Tim Van Norman, DMA, May 9, 2001), at present Mongolia has 
607 state inspectors, 454 rangers, and 752 volunteer rangers for the 
purpose of stopping argali poaching.
Export Control
    Exports of sport-hunted argali trophies from Mongolia are subject 
to multiple controls. The Council of Ministers of Mongolia establishes 
a quota for argali to be sport-hunted by foreign hunters. Hunting 
licenses are issued, consistent with the quota, by the Mongolian 
government, and hunting is limited to specific seasons. Mongolia 
acceded to CITES in 1996. To export a sport-hunted argali trophy from 
Mongolia, the hunter must obtain a CITES export permit. U.S. hunters 
must obtain an endangered species import permit, and must declare their 
trophy to wildlife inspectors upon entry to the United States. U.S. 
hunters are required to submit a report with details of their hunting 
experience, including location where the argali was hunted and length 
of horns, to the U.S. CITES Management Authority.
Tajikistan
Legal Protection
    In mid-1999, Dr. A. Latifi, First Deputy Minister, Ministry of 
Nature Protection/ Conservation (in a written summary titled 
``Information on Marco Polo's Sheep Hunting Conducted with 
Participation of Foreign Tourists During the Hunting Season of 1998-
1999''), told us that his Ministry is responsible for wildlife 
protection and use through the national law entitled ``On Preservation 
of Wildlife'' (Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of 
Tajikistan  905a of December 27, 1993), the national law 
entitled ``On Protection and Utilization of Wildlife'' (Decree of the 
Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Tajikistan  990 of July 20, 
1994), and ``Regulation of Hunting and Hunting Management in the 
Territory of the Republic of Tajikistan'' (Decree of the Government of 
the Republic of Tajikistan 324 of July 16, 1997).
Trophy Fees and Their Distribution
    Regarding trophy fees and their distribution within Tajikistan, 
Luschekina et al. (1994) stated that foreign hunters spent about 
US$25,000 for an argali hunt in Tajikistan: $16,000 for the hunting 
license, $4,000 to firms in Moscow, Russia, who apparently assist in 
arranging the hunts, and $5,000 to the local hunting outfitters. Of the 
$16,000 license fee, 70% was allocated to the Executive Committee of 
the Murgab District Council and 30% to the local hunting firm, 
supposedly to be used for conducting surveys and for activities 
directly benefitting argali, such as supplemental feeding, maintenance 
of salt licks, predator control, and other measures. A portion of the 
Executive Committee funds (15%) went to the ``local nature conservation 
committee in Khorog'' (this appears to refer to the Regional Committee 
for Nature Protection under the Ministry of Nature Conservation).
    In an undated letter (probably 1996), Dr. N. Safarov of the 
Ministry of Nature Conservation stated that agreements between the 
hunting firms and local authorities specify that 50-70% of hunting 
proceeds are allocated to the local budget, which is then distributed 
according to Decision 220-2s (December 26, 1992) of the 
Executive Committee of Gorno-Badakhshan. This Decision states that 
hunting fees should be distributed as follows: 50% to be used for game 
conservation activities, which would include anti-poaching efforts and 
other activities directed toward argali; 10% to be placed in a nature 
conservation fund; 15% to be allocated to the general treasury of

[[Page 35954]]

Tajikistan; and 25% to be used for ``social development needs,'' which 
have been described as providing essential commodities such as coal, 
kerosene, and wheat flour.
    In his October 26, 1998, letter to us, Dr. Safarov described the 
distribution of funds as follows: 50-70% of hunting proceeds are 
allocated to the local budget, of which 10% goes to the Fund of Nature 
Protection of the Republic, 40% is used for social development of the 
region, and 50% of the money is spent on patrolling the territory of 
hunting, salaries for inspectors, repair and purchase of vehicles, 
communication, fuel, inventory work, and wolf predator control. In his 
mid-1999 communication with us, Dr. A. Latifi repeated Safarov's 
description of funds distribution: 50-70% of the hunting proceeds are 
given to local authorities by the hunting firms, and those funds are 
distributed as follows: 10% to the ``Republican Fund of Wildlife 
Preservation'; 40% for the social development of the region; and 50% 
spent exclusively for the protection of the territory of the entity 
(presumably meaning the hunting concession).
Argali Conservation Activities
    Regarding argali conservation activities, both Luschekina et al. 
(1994) and Fedosenko (1996) stated that argali conservation activities 
were largely the responsibility of the hunting firms, since funding and 
other support (e.g., transportation) were lacking to support a 
government game management staff. Prior to 1995, under the supervision 
of the local Nature Conservation Committee, annual land leases to 
hunting firms required that the firms provide supplemental feedings to 
argali, conduct surveys, and control predators and poaching, but 
inspections revealed that these obligations were not met. However, in 
1995, supervision of the hunting firms was transferred to the Regional 
Nature Conservation Committee (RNCC) by the Gorno-Badakhshan Regional 
Executive Committee, and there may be stricter control over the hunting 
firms to conclude their lease obligations, including the transfer of 
hunting proceeds to the Committee.
    In his mid-1999 communication with us, Dr. A. Latifi stated that 
local authorities enter into agreements (contracts) with hunting firms, 
to which are allocated certain sectors where international hunting is 
conducted. The hunting firm is responsible for conducting various 
activities including conducting an annual accounting of the game 
population, fighting poaching, and conducting management activities. No 
details were provided on specific conservation activities undertaken by 
the hunting firms, or how their compliance is monitored. In this same 
communication Dr. Latifi stated that a portion of funds allocated for 
regional social development is used primarily to support the 
functioning of ``important objects,'' thus ensuring the interest of the 
local population and administration in the preservation of Marco Polo's 
sheep. Dr. Latifi further stated that funds spent on ``protection of 
the territory'' are used for salaries of inspection personnel, purchase 
and repair of vehicles, communications equipment, and predator control. 
Dr. Latifi also stated that in recent years, due to the difficult 
economic situation, no budget funds have been allocated for conducting 
wildlife protection activities; the money received from foreign hunters 
is the only source of financing wildlife protection in the Murgab 
region.
    In his 1999 report, Dr. Fedosenko said that, according to 
unofficial sources, a foreign hunter spends about $23,000 on an argali 
trophy hunt in Tajikistan: $5,000 goes to a company in Moscow for 
arranging the reception in Moscow, providing transportation to the 
hunting area, and providing an interpreter, while $18,000 is spent in 
Tajikistan. Of that $18,000, $10,000 goes to local authorities 
(referred to as the Regional Committee on Nature Conservation) and 
$8,000 to the firm that organizes the hunting. From the $10,000 given 
to local authorities, 10% goes to the republican budget, 30% to the 
regional budget, and 60% to the district budget (that is, directly to 
the local administration of the Murgab district where most of the 
hunting takes place). Fedosenko claimed that none of this money 
actually goes to argali conservation, except to pay the salaries of the 
Chairman of the Committee and his one employee (Fedosenko 1999; page 
21).
    As for illegal take (poaching), the Ministry of Nature Protection/
Conservation has provided information on prohibitions and fines for 
illegal take, which for argali has now been increased to 4,000 times 
the minimum monthly wage (about US$2.00). Based on previous 
documentation, we understand that fines increase (double or triple) if 
animals are taken in protected areas, and are even higher (tenfold) if 
protected species are illegally taken for commercial purposes. At least 
within the hunting concession lands, the hunting firms are responsible 
for enforcement of anti-poaching laws. According to Fedosenko (1996), 
MAK admitted that they did not impose fines because the poachers lacked 
the means to pay, but they would confiscate a poacher's firearm. More 
recently, Fedosenko (1999) stated that, although firms are responsible 
for protecting their lands and carrying out surveys, in practice the 
lands for most of the firms are protected only during the period of 
trophy hunting, while workers only occasionally visit the areas during 
the rest of the year.
Civil Unrest
    One of our concerns about the management and effective control of 
sport hunting and exports of argali trophies was related to the civil 
unrest in Tajikistan following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 
Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) indicated that, in 1993-1994, when 
their report was being written, opportunities for sport hunting by 
foreign hunters in Tajikistan were tenuous due to an unstable political 
environment and the threat of military activity in the Gorno-Badakhshan 
region. They also indicated that, at the time (and up until 1995), the 
bulk of hunting fees were directed to purchase of transportation, 
weapons, and equipment, with little directed to conservation activities 
in support of argali.
    While reports of conflict between the central Tajik government and 
Muslim insurgents in Gorno-Badakhshan continued through 1996 (at least 
until the time we issued our Section 7 consultation on September 23, 
1996), a United Nations-sponsored cease-fire was in effect. In early 
1996, N. Safarov, Deputy Minister of the Tajik Ministry of Nature 
Conservation, and A. Lailibekov, Deputy Chairman of the Nature 
Conservation Committee of Gorno-Bakakhshan (in litt. to the Service, 
February 16, 1996), reported to the Service that ``the situation in 
Tajikistan has stabilized,'' but that it was ``impossible to finance 
the conservation agencies and protect the wildlife without 
international hunting.'' Dr. Safarov (in litt. to the Service, October 
26, 1998), stated that sport hunting continues to be a major source of 
funds for nature conservation in Tajikistan and again acknowledged the 
difficulties caused by the civil war in that country.
    Despite these earlier events, U.S. and other hunters have continued 
to visit Tajikistan for argali sport hunting. The export of argali 
trophies has always remained under the control of the central 
government in Dushanbe and, ultimately, the Russian CITES Management 
Authority, since the argali is listed in Appendix II of CITES and 
Tajikistan is not yet a CITES Party with its own Management Authority.

[[Page 35955]]

Export Control
    The exports of sport-hunted argali trophies from Tajikistan are 
subject to multiple controls. Hunting licenses are issued, consistent 
with the quota, by the central government in Dushanbe based on 
recommendations of the local nature conservation authorities. Hunting 
is limited to specific seasons, based on recommendations of the Tajik 
Academy of Sciences. To export a sport-hunted argali trophy from 
Tajikistan, the hunter must have his license marked by local 
authorities to verify that a trophy was legally taken. This validated 
license must then be submitted to the Tajik Ministry of Nature 
Conservation for the issuance of an export license and a Certificate of 
Authenticity, which is then submitted to the Russian CITES Management 
Authority in Moscow for a re-export certificate. Because Tajikistan has 
not yet acceded to CITES, the CITES Management Authority of the Russian 
Federation serves as its Management Authority. This system has been 
verified with the CITES Secretariat as the currently accepted procedure 
for CITES-listed species originating from the former Soviet Republics 
that have not yet acceded to CITES on their own. A CITES re-export 
certificate is issued by the Russian CITES authorities. U.S. hunters 
must obtain an endangered species import permit, and must declare their 
trophy to wildlife inspectors upon entry to the United States. U.S. 
hunters are required to submit a report with details of their hunting 
experience, including location where the argali was hunted and length 
of horns, to the U.S. CITES Management Authority.
Findings for Factor D
    Existing regulatory mechanisms in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and 
Tajikistan are adequate to ensure that illegally-hunted trophies cannot 
be readily exported to other countries, while existing regulatory 
mechanisms in the United States are adequate to ensure that illegally-
hunted trophies cannot be readily imported. We do not consider this 
factor to threaten or endanger argali populations throughout all or a 
significant portion of the species' range in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, or 
Tajikistan.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Kyrgyzstan
Winter Weather
    Luschekina and Fedosenko (1994) noted that a harsh winter (1992-
1993) and cold Spring (1993) likely affected the survival of newborn 
argali lambs in their Kurumduk valley study area.
Border Barriers
    We previously mentioned this issue under Factor A. Although the 
border barriers may have been beneficial to argali in the ``border 
zone'' (i.e., between the fences and the border), the barriers also may 
have had detrimental effects on argali populations by cutting off long-
established seasonal migration routes and access to winter or summer 
pastures, and by affecting genetic exchange among local sub-
populations. These effects may no longer be occurring in places where 
the border barriers have broken down.
Mongolia
Winter Weather
    Harsh winter weather periodically takes a severe toll on argali 
populations in Mongolia. For example, according to Luschekina and 
Fedosenko (1994), a heavy snowfall killed most of the argali at a place 
called Khentei in 1831-1832. Hundreds of argali died in the winter of 
1983-1984 in Kobdo Aimag, while another disastrous snowfall occurred in 
the Mongolian Altai in the winter of 1992-1993 (Luschekina and 
Fedosenko 1994).
Tajikistan
Winter Weather
    Especially snowy and cold winters in 1985-1986 and 1987-1988 
resulted in high mortality among argali in certain portions of 
Tajikistan (Fedosenko 1999).
Border Barriers
    As in Kyrgyzstan, the border barriers may have had detrimental 
effects on argali populations of Tajikistan by cutting off long-
established seasonal migration routes and access to winter or summer 
pastures, and by affecting genetic exchange among local sub-
populations. These effects may no longer be occurring in places where 
the border barriers have broken down.
Findings for Factor E
    Although severe weather can be a significant mortality factor for 
argali, we do not believe that this factor threatens or endangers 
argali populations throughout all or a significant portion of the 
species' range in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, or Tajikistan. We do not 
consider the border barriers to be a factor that threatens or endangers 
argali populations in those two countries.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

    The definition of ``species'' in section 3(15) of the Act includes 
``. . . any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate 
fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' Distinct vertebrate 
population segments for purposes of listing under the Act are defined 
in the Service's February 7, 1996, Policy Regarding the Recognition of 
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (61 FR 4722). For a population 
to be listed under the Act as a distinct vertebrate population segment 
(DPS), three elements are considered: (1) The discreteness of the 
population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which 
it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to the 
species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's 
conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing 
(i.e., is the population segment, when treated as if it were a species, 
endangered or threatened?).
    In accordance with the DPS Policy, a population segment may be 
considered discrete if it satisfies one of the following conditions: 
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon 
as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
factors; (2) it is delimited by international boundaries within which 
differences in the control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms are significant. In 
accordance with the DPS Policy, a population segment may be considered 
significant if, among other possibilities: (1) It is important to the 
persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting 
unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) there is evidence that loss of the 
discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the 
range of a taxon; (3) there is evidence that the discrete population 
segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 
that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside 
its historic range, or (4) there is evidence that the discrete 
population segment differs markedly from other populations of the 
species in its genetic characteristics.
    All three countries, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan, satisfy 
the discreteness criterion because they are sovereign nations with 
defined international boundaries that have implemented national laws to 
control exploitation and conserve habitats. (Although the genetic 
distinctiveness of the several argali subspecies remains to be fully 
elucidated, the existing scientific literature generally recognizes 
morphological and geographic differences that define approximately 
eight subspecies. However, because the exact geographic boundaries of 
the subspecies cannot be delineated precisely, these boundaries are not

[[Page 35956]]

useful for defining distinct population segments.)
    Kyrgyzstan has adopted laws ``On Environmental Protection'' and 
``On Wildlife'' that regulate resource protection and use. In Mongolia, 
the argali has been ``state-protected'' since 1953, and hunting has 
been banned since 1975, except for the hunting of a certain number of 
species ``according to social need,'' which requires the approval of 
both the Ministry of Nature and Environment and adoption of a 
government resolution by the Council of Ministers. In recent years, the 
``Law of Hunting'' of 1995 served as the basis for argali sheep 
conservation and hunting in Mongolia; the hunting law was amended in 
2000. A new ``Law of Fauna'' was also adopted in 2000. In Tajikistan, 
the Ministry of Nature Protection/Conservation is responsible for 
wildlife protection and use through the national law entitled ``On 
Preservation of Wildlife'' (Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the 
Republic of Tajikistan 905a of December 27, 1993), the 
national law entitled ``On Protection and Utilization of Wildlife'' 
(Decree of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Tajikistan 
990 of July 20, 1994), and ``Regulation of Hunting and Hunting 
Management in the Territory of the Republic of Tajikistan'' (Decree of 
the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan 324 of July 16, 
1997). Thus, all three countries have significant regulatory mechanisms 
that differ from each other, and from other countries within the range 
of the argali.
    All three countries, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan, also 
satisfy the significance criterion because there is evidence that loss 
of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in 
the range of the taxon. Kyrgyzstan is generally recognized to have two 
argali subspecies, the Marco Polo argali (O. a. polii) and the Tien 
Shan argali (O. a. karelini). The Tien Shan argali is distributed 
across approximately the northern half of Kyrgyzstan in the Tien Shan 
Range west of Lake Issyk-Kul, whereas the Marco Polo argali is 
distributed across the Pamir Plateau of southeastern Kyrgyzstan. Loss 
of Kyrgyzstan's argali population would create a significant gap in the 
distribution of both subspecies, but especially the Tien Shan argali, 
which has the greatest portion of its geographic range within 
Kyrgystan.
    Mongolia is also generally recognized to have two subspecies: Altai 
argali (O. a. ammon) and Gobi argali (O. a. darwini). Altai argali 
inhabit the high Altai Mountain region of western and southwestern 
Mongolia; along the main ridge of the Hangai Mountains in central 
Mongolia; and in the mountains of north and northwest Mongolia. Gobi 
argali occur in the hills, rocky outcrops, and mountains across the 
whole of the Transaltai Gobi (the desert and semi-desert zones south of 
the Altai Range), portions of the Gobi Altai Mountains east almost to 
112x E longitude, and also in several isolated ranges of hills in the 
steppe zone of central Mongolia. Loss of Mongolia's argali population 
would create a significant gap in the distribution of both subspecies, 
both of which have a significant portion of their range in Mongolia.
    The argali in Tajikistan consists of only one subspecies, the Marco 
Polo argali, which occurs in the eastern Pamir Plateau, along the 
border with China. Although this subspecies also occurs on the Pamir 
Plateau of Kyrgyzstan, the eastern portion of the Wakhan Corridor of 
Afghanistan, northernmost Pakistan, and the Pamir region of China, its 
most significant populations are in Tajikistan, and loss of that 
country's argali population would create a significant gap in the 
distribution of the subspecies.
    Because all three countries satisfy both the discreteness and 
significance criteria as defined above, we recognize the argali 
populations of Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan as three distinct 
vertebrate population segments for purposes of listing under the ESA. 
Accordingly, in previous sections, we have evaluated the conservation 
status of each country's argali population in relation to the Act's 
standards for listing (i.e., is the population segment, when treated as 
if it were a species, endangered or threatened?). Our conclusion is 
that all three of these distinct population segments are properly 
listed as threatened.

Summary of Findings

    In developing this notice, we carefully assessed the best available 
scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by argali in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and Tajikistan. 
After reviewing the argali populations of Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and 
Tajikistan in terms of the Service's February 7, 1996, Policy Regarding 
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments, we have 
concluded that all three populations are distinct vertebrate population 
segments for purposes of listing under the ESA. Criteria for 
reclassification of a threatened or endangered species are found in 50 
CFR 424.11(c). Available information indicates that the argali is not 
endangered under any of the five listing factors throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, or 
Tajikistan. Available information further indicates that the argali 
remains threatened in all three countries by Factor A, The present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range and Factor B, Previous or current overutilization. Based upon the 
findings documented in this notice, we are hereby withdrawing the 
proposed rule published on April 27, 1993, at 58 FR 25595, that 
proposed to reclassify the argali in Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, and 
Tajikistan from threatened to endangered.

Literature Cited

Amgalanbaatar, S. 1993. Population and ecological status of argali in 
some locations of the western Altai mountains. Unpublished report to 
the Forestry and Hunting Institute, Ministry of Nature and the 
Environment. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. [in Mongolian]
Amgalanbaatar, S., B. Battulga, and P. Tsogtsaikhan. 1993. The numbers, 
distribution, and ecological status of mountain ungulates in Uvs Aimag. 
Pages 53-54 in Kh. Terbish (ed.) Proceedings from a Conference on the 
Status of Nature and Biological Resources in Western Mongolia and 
Adjacent Areas, 13-17 April 1993. Hovd Pedagogical University, Orchlon 
Co., Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. [in Mongolian]
Amgalanbaatar, S. 1995. Report on argali project in 1995. Unpublished 
report. Mongolian Biodiversity Project. Ministry for Nature and the 
Environment. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. [in Mongolian]
Andrienkov, V. I. 1983. The problem of the conservation of mountain 
sheep of the Tien Shan. Pages 155-157 in Rare Species of Mammals of the 
USSR and their Conservation. Materials of the 3rd All-Union Conference, 
Moscow. [in Russian]
DSA (Division of Scientific Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service). 
1995a. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation, wildlife permit 
applications PRT-799044, 799230, 799746, 800414, 801012, and 802639. 
Memorandum from Chief, Office of Scientific Authority to Chief, Office 
of Management Authority. June 2, 1995.
DSA. 1995b. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation, wildlife permit 
application PRT-806617. Memorandum from Chief, Office of Scientific 
Authority to Chief, Office of Management Authority. September 29, 1995.
DSA. 1998. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation on wildlife permit 
applications for import of sport-

[[Page 35957]]

hunted trophies of argali from Tajikistan taken in 1998. Memorandum 
from Chief, Office of Scientific Authority to Chief, Office of 
Management Authority. November 18, 1998.
DSA. 1999. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation on wildlife permit 
applications for the import of sport-hunted trophies of argali (Ovis 
ammon) taken in Mongolia during the 1999 hunting season. Memorandum 
from Chief, Office of Scientific Authority to Chief, Office of 
Management Authority. August 5, 1999.
DSA. 2000. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation on wildlife permit 
applications for the import of sport-hunted trophies of argali (Ovis 
ammon) taken in Mongolia during the 2000 hunting season. Memorandum 
from Acting Chief, Division of Scientific Authority to Chief, Division 
of Management Authority. August 30, 2000.
DSA. 2001a. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation on wildlife permit 
applications for the import of sport-hunted trophies of argali (Ovis 
ammon) taken in the Kyrghyz Republic during the 2000 hunting season. 
Memorandum from Chief, Branch of Consultation and Monitoring, Division 
of Scientific Authority to Chief, Division of Management Authority. May 
8, 2001.
DSA. 2001b. Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation on wildlife permit 
applications for the import of sport-hunted trophies of argali (Ovis 
ammon) taken in Tajikistan during the Fall 2000/Spring 2001 hunting 
season. Memorandum from Chief, Branch of Consultation and Monitoring, 
Division of Scientific Authority, to Chief, Division of Management 
Authority. May 15, 2001.
Fedosenko, A. K. 1996. The Pamirs Argali in Tadjikistan Population 
State. Unpublished report. Moscow. 29 pp.
Fedosenko, A. K. 1999. Current population status of the Pamir arhar in 
Tajikistan. Unpublished report prepared under contract to the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service
Frisina, M. R., and Boldbaatar. 1998. 1997 population surveys for 
argali (Ovis ammon) in Mongolia's Altay and Hangay Mountains. A report 
to Argali Conservation International & Ministry for Nature and the 
Environment of Mongolia--August 1998. 12 pp.
Frisina, M. R., and G. Ulziima. 1998. South Gobi argali water project, 
Mongolia: 1998 field inspection and maintenance. A report to Argali 
Conservation International & Mongolia Environmental Protection Agency, 
November 1998. 9 pp.
Frisina, M. R., and G. Ulziimaa. 1999. 1998 argali (Ovis ammon) 
population surveys in Mongolia's East Gobi and Hangay Mountains. 
Progress Report No. 2. Prepared for Argali Conservation International 
and Environmental Protection Agency, Ministry for Nature and 
Environment of Mongolia. 14 pp. + appendix.
Frisina, M. R., and G. Ulziimaa. 2000. Argali (Ovis ammon) population 
surveys in Mongolia, 1997-1999. Prepared for Argali Conservation 
International and Environmental Protecton Agency, Ministry for Nature 
and Environment of Mongolia.
Harris, R. B. 1993. Wildlife conservation in Yeniugou, Qinghai China: 
Executive summary. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of 
Montana, Missoula, MT. 10 pp.
IUCN. 1996. 1996 IUCN red list of threatened animals. IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland. 228 pp.
Luschekina, A., and A. Fedosenko. 1994. The status of argali in 
Kirgizstan, Tadjikistan and Mongolia. Unpublished report to the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. 39 pp. + 3 maps.
Mallon, D.P., A. Bold, S. Dulamtseren, R.P. Reading, and S. 
Amgalanbaatar. 1997. Mongolia. Pages 193-201 in: D. S. Shackleton (ed.) 
Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: Status survey and 
conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist 
Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 390 pp.
Reading, R. P. 1996. The status of argali in Mongolia: Statement 
prepared for the Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. 7 pp.
Reading, R. P., S. Amgalanbaatar, H. Mix, and B. Lhagvasuren. 1997. 
Argali Ovis ammon surveys in Mongolia's south Gobi. Oryx 31 (4): 285-
294.
Reading, R. P., S. Amgalanbaatar, and L. Lhagvasuren. 1999. Biological 
assessment of Three Beauties of the Gobi National Conservation Park, 
Mongolia. Biodiversity and Conservation 8: 1115-1137.
Schaller, G. B. 1994. A preliminary resource survey of the eastern 
Gobi, August 1994. Unpubl. Rept. UNDP-GEF Mongolia Biodiversity Project 
and Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY.
Shagsdarsuren, O., S. Jigj, D. Tsendjav, S. Dulamtseren, A. Bold, Kh. 
Monkbayar, A. Dulmaa, G. Erdenjav, Kh. Ulziihutag, U. Ligaa, and C. 
Sanchir. 1987. Red Book of the Mongolian People's Republic. Mongolian 
State Publishing House. Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. [in Mongolian]
Sokolov, V. E., V. M. Neronov, and A. Luschekina. 1991. Modern state 
and protection of mammals in Mongolia. Pages 251-257 in J. McNeely and 
V. M. Neronov (eds.) Mammals in the Palaearctic deserts: Status and 
trends in the Sahara-Gobian region. Russian MAB Committee, Moscow.
Valdez, R. 1982. The wild sheep of the world. Wild Sheep & Goat 
International, Mesilla, New Mexico.
Valdez, R. and M. Frisina. 1993. Wild sheep surveys in eastern and 
central Gobi Desert and Altai Mountains, Mongolia. Unpublished report 
to Safari Club International. 10 pp.
Wegge, P. 1997. Appendix 1. Preliminary guidelines for sustainable use 
of wild caprins. Pages 365-372 in: D. S. Shackleton (ed.) Wild sheep 
and goats and their relatives: Status survey and conservation action 
plan for Caprinae. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland, 
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 390 pp.
Weinberg, P. I., A. K. Fedosenko, A. B. Arabuli, A. Myslenkov, A. V. 
Romashin, I. Voloshina, and N. Zheleznov. 1997. The Commonwealth of 
Independent States (former USSR). Pages 172-193 in: D. S. Shackleton 
(ed.) Wild sheep and goats and their relatives: Status survey and 
conservation action plan for Caprinae. IUCN/SSC Caprinae Specialist 
Group, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 390 pp.

Author

    The primary author of this notice is Dr. Kurt A. Johnson, Division 
of Scientific Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC 
20240 [703-358-1708].

    Dated: April 11, 2002.
Steve Williams,
Director.
[FR Doc. 02-12824 Filed 5-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P