[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37695-37723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE04


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification 
of Certain Vicu[ntilde]a Populations From Endangered to Threatened With 
a Special Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are 
reclassifying the vicu[ntilde]a Vicugna vicugna) in Argentina, Bolivia, 
Chile, and Peru from endangered to threatened under the U.S. Endangered 
Species Act (Act or ESA) of 1973, as amended. The recently introduced 
population of Ecuador,

[[Page 37696]]

treated as a distinct population segment under the Act in accordance 
with the Service's Policy on Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 
(61 FR 4722), will remain listed as endangered.
    We also establish a special rule (under Section 4(d) of the Act) 
allowing the importation into the United States of legal fiber and 
legal products produced with fiber from vicu[ntilde]a populations 
listed as threatened under the Act and in Appendix II of the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), if certain conditions are satisfied by the exporting (i.e., 
range country) or re-exporting country. Importation into the United 
States of legal fiber and legal products made from fiber that 
originated from threatened, Appendix II vicu[ntilde]a populations will 
require valid CITES export permits from the country of origin and also 
the country of re-export, when applicable. We are aligning U.S. 
importation practices with those approved by the CITES Parties, in 
order to facilitate effective conservation of the vicu[ntilde]a in 
range countries, and the enforcement and management efforts of those 
countries.
    This rule requests range countries to submit a country-wide 
Management Plan prior to exporting to the United States. The special 
rule requires range countries exporting specimens of vicu[ntilde]a to 
the United States for commercial purposes to provide the Service with 
an annual report. The Service will conduct a review every two years, 
using information in the annual reports and other available 
information, to determine whether range country management programs are 
effectively achieving conservation benefits for the vicu[ntilde]a. 
Failure to submit an annual report could result in a restriction or 
suspension of trade. Based on the results of its review, the Service 
may administratively restrict or suspend trade from a range country if 
it determines that the conservation or management status of the 
threatened vicu[ntilde]a population in that range country has changed, 
such that continued recovery of that population may be compromised.
    If, at any time after the effective date of the special rule, the 
conservation or management status of threatened vicu[ntilde]a 
populations changes in one or more range countries such that those 
vicu[ntilde]a populations are not continuing to recover, the potential 
exists to administratively suspend the approval of imports under the 
special rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 1, 2002. The 
special rule in 50 CFR 17.40(m) is effective on July 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Kurt A. Johnson, Division of 
Scientific Authority, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mail Stop ARLSQ-
750, Washington, DC 20240 [phone: 703-358-1708; fax: 703-358-2276; e-
mail: [email protected]].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Note: Portions of the original proposed rule and proposed 
special rule were re-written to conform to the new Federal policy on 
the use of ``plain English'' in Federal documents. However, the 
original intent of the text remains the same. Some text in the 
proposed rule has also been amended in this final rule in response 
to comments submitted by the public (see ``Comments Received'' 
below), and additional technical information that we have gathered 
since publication of the proposed rule.

Background

    The vicu[ntilde]a (Vicugna vicugna) was listed as endangered under 
the U.S. Endangered Species Act on June 2, 1970. Among other things, 
that listing prohibited U.S. interstate and international commerce in 
vicu[ntilde]a products. The vicu[ntilde]a was included in Appendix I of 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES) on July 1, 1975 (the date of entry into force 
of CITES), which thereby prohibited all primarily commercial, 
international trade in vicu[ntilde]a products. Certain populations of 
vicu[ntilde]a in Chile and Peru were transferred to CITES Appendix II 
at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP6) 
in 1987. The remaining vicu[ntilde]a populations of Peru were 
transferred to Appendix II in 1994 at the ninth meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties (COP9), and certain populations in Argentina 
and Bolivia were transferred to Appendix II in 1997 at the tenth 
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10). These transfers to 
Appendix II, reflecting improved conservation status for the specified 
vicu[ntilde]a populations, allowed the resumption of commercial, 
international trade--under carefully controlled conditions--of 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber and products manufactured from vicu[ntilde]a fiber. 
This international trade, however, is still excluded from the United 
States, because of the species' listing as endangered under the ESA, a 
stricter domestic measure than CITES. The United States supported the 
above transfers of the specified vicu[ntilde]a populations to Appendix 
II, based on information contained in the supporting statements for the 
various CITES amendment proposals. The relevant CITES amendment 
proposals and their supporting statements are available on request from 
the Division of Scientific Authority (see ADDRESSES Section).
    The vicu[ntilde]a produces a fiber of very fine texture (about 12 
microns in diameter) that can be woven into luxury garments. Raw fiber 
from vicu[ntilde]a has been legally auctioned at up to US $500 per kg 
(US $200 per lb) and an average vicu[ntilde]a fleece provides about 0.2 
kg (0.5 lbs) of fiber. Individual vicu[ntilde]a thus have a fleece that 
is worth many times that of a sheep and several times that of other 
species in the family Camelidae, such as alpacas and llamas. This high 
value, in a resource-poor area, can represent both a threat to the 
species and an opportunity for economic development and sustainable 
management. The threat comes from illegal hunting if protection and 
incentives for management are poor. The opportunity exists if proceeds 
from the sale of vicu[ntilde]a fiber from live-shorn animals are 
substantially used to conserve and protect vicu[ntilde]a by enhancing 
the economic well-being of native people in the Andean highlands, and 
by linking that improved economic status directly to conservation and 
sustainable use of the vicu[ntilde]a, and recovery of vicu[ntilde]a 
populations.
    We received a petition on October 5, 1995, from the President of 
the International Vicu[ntilde]a Consortium, an association of companies 
in the fiber industry, requesting that the vicu[ntilde]a be removed 
from the U.S. list of endangered and threatened wildlife, or 
reclassified with a special rule that would allow for commercial trade 
that would benefit the conservation of the species. The petitioners 
cited the following reasons for the requested action: (1) Improved 
management of vicu[ntilde]a populations, (2) improved enforcement and 
trade controls, and (3) recognition that regulated commerce could be 
beneficial to both rural communities that share landscapes with 
vicu[ntilde]as and the vicu[ntilde]as themselves. The petitioners 
provided limited supporting documentation.
    Our 90-day finding on whether the petition presents substantial 
information and our 12-month finding on whether the petitioned action 
is warranted were subsumed within the proposed rule, which was 
published in the Federal Register on September 8, 1999 (64 FR 48743). 
In the proposed

[[Page 37697]]

rule we found that: (1) Reclassification of the vicu[ntilde]a from 
endangered to threatened was warranted for all range countries except 
Ecuador; and (2) that a special rule (also referred to as a 4(d) rule) 
was warranted for all threatened, Appendix II populations, with the 
exception of the Appendix II ``semi-captive'' populations of Catamarca, 
Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, and San Juan Provinces in Argentina, which were 
specifically excluded until such time as their conservation benefit for 
wild vicu[ntilde]a was demonstrated adequately.
    We based our findings and the proposed rule on information provided 
in the petition, the supporting statements for the aforementioned CITES 
amendment proposals, other published literature and articles, and the 
Service's status review of the vicu[ntilde]a. This status review 
included interviews with knowledgeable persons from the vicu[ntilde]a 
range countries, responses to questions asked of authorities in each 
range country, and a 1997 on-site assessment of vicu[ntilde]a 
populations and management in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru, which 
was prepared by a contractor (Dr. Henry L. Short) working for the 
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The Service contracted 
with NFWF to evaluate the conservation and management status of 
vicu[ntilde]a populations, and to make recommendations about the 
species' status. All personal communications and question responses 
cited in the text of the final rule were received by Dr. Short, unless 
otherwise noted (see ``References Cited'' section).
    Through information obtained during the public comment period, we 
have learned that the ``semi-captive'' populations of Argentina are 
actually populations of semi-domestic vicu[ntilde]a that are maintained 
in fully-fenced enclosures of a few hectares (ha). Peru also has 
``semi-captive'' populations, but they differ from those of Argentina 
in being populations of wild vicu[ntilde]a maintained in fully-fenced 
enclosures of up to 1,000 ha. Chile may soon begin establishing ``semi-
captive'' populations similar to those in Argentina, but perhaps in 
slightly larger enclosures. Hereafter in this document we refer to all 
of these fenced populations as ``captive'' populations or ``captive'' 
herds, and to this type of management as a ``captive'' management 
system, operation, or program. This will distinguish them from ``wild, 
free-ranging'' populations or herds, and ``wild, free-ranging'' 
management systems, operations, or programs.

Comments Received

    The formal public comment period on the proposed rule closed on 
December 7, 1999. Much additional information was contained in the 85 
comments we received during the public comment period. Comments 
pertaining exclusively or primarily to vicu[ntilde]a in a single range 
country are summarized below under each country. Comments of a more 
general nature or pertaining to vicu[ntilde]a in more than one range 
country are summarized immediately below.
    Comment: The Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute (Mr. 
Karl Spilhaus), Loro Piana, N.Y. (Mr. Pier L. Guerci), Northern Textile 
Association (Mr. Karl Spilhaus), and Warren Corporation (Mr. Roberto 
Modica), wrote in support of reclassification of the vicu[ntilde]a 
populations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru from endangered to 
threatened. Their principal argument is that opening of the U.S. market 
will create a powerful economic incentive for sustainable management 
and conservation of vicu[ntilde]a populations in the areas covered by 
the proposed reclassification.
    Response: While we agree that opening of the U.S. market may create 
an economic incentive, we are also aware that such incentive can be 
either a positive force or a negative force for conservation of 
vicu[ntilde]a in the wild. The ESA requires that we ensure, to the best 
of our ability, that it be a positive force for conservation. We agree 
that the vicu[ntilde]a can and should be used sustainably. Any decision 
on downlisting a species from endangered to threatened must be 
primarily based on the biological status of the species in the wild, 
and the five listing factors in the Act.
    Comment: Dr. Henry L. Short and Mr. Joseph Ramos provided specific 
comments on various aspects of the proposed rule and proposed special 
rule. Dr. Short stated that the Service erred in considering 
vicu[ntilde]a populations in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru to be 
threatened until they are fully recovered, because we did not define 
``fully recovered population'' and any range state should have the 
right to determine the population level that they wish to achieve and 
sustain. Dr. Short also objected to excluding the captive populations 
of Argentina from the special rule; he believes that the captive 
management operations are advantageous to wild vicu[ntilde]a 
populations. Finally, Dr. Short felt that the Service should exercise 
restraint when demanding information from and making management 
recommendations to range countries. The Service should only request 
information that is necessary for making a determination under the ESA. 
Most of Mr. Ramos's comments were similar to those of Dr. Short, but he 
also commented on protection and management of the vicu[ntilde]a, and 
about possible disease transmission.
    Response: We agree with Dr. Short and Mr. Ramos that we did not 
define ``fully recovered population.'' However, if any of the range 
countries have set recovery goals for vicu[ntilde]a populations, we are 
not aware of it, nor were any such recovery goals provided to us during 
the comment period. Our use of the term ``fully recovered'' was meant 
in the context of ESA standards for determining if a species is 
threatened or endangered, not in the context of its recovery to 
historical population levels or its satisfying range country recovery 
goals. Although any range state has the right to determine the 
population level they wish to achieve and sustain, we have an 
obligation under the ESA to determine if that population qualifies for 
threatened or endangered status in terms of the five ESA listing 
factors.
    Section 4(d) of the Act requires that a prohibited activity, such 
as the import of fiber or fiber products from a threatened 
vicu[ntilde]a population, have a demonstrable conservation benefit 
before it is allowed under a special rule. When we published the 
proposed rule (reclassification) and proposed special rule, we felt 
that available information was inadequate to determine that the captive 
vicu[ntilde]a populations in Argentina were contributing to 
conservation of wild vicu[ntilde]a populations. Therefore, these 
populations were excluded from the proposed special rule, but with an 
appeal for additional information that would assist us in making our 
final determination. Likewise, we are always trying to obtain the best 
information available in regard to the five listing factors specified 
in the Act. That is why the proposed rule included a request for any 
additional information that range countries could provide on habitat, 
vicu[ntilde]a population numbers and utilization, disease and 
predation, existing regulatory mechanisms, and other factors. We base 
our decision here on the best available scientific information. We note 
that detailed information has been received from South American 
biologists with extensive expertise on this species. Based on this 
additional information, captive populations in Argentina have been 
included in the final rule.
    Comment: Dr. Paul J. Taylor supported the proposed 
reclassification, but had a number of specific comments. Dr. Taylor 
agreed with the previous two

[[Page 37698]]

commenters in stating that the Service had erred in excluding the 
captive vicu[ntilde]a populations of Argentina. He believes the Service 
has adopted unreasonable criteria in judging Argentina's vicu[ntilde]a 
policies. He also believes it is unreasonable to expect that the 
conservation benefits of Argentina's management system must be proved. 
Dr. Taylor feels that vicu[ntilde]a are ``not as wild as most wild 
species,'' and believes that the time is coming when commercial 
vicu[ntilde]a ranching in many countries of the world will co-exist 
with effective continuing conservation of wild vicu[ntilde]a 
populations in their historic range. Finally, Dr. Taylor discussed the 
possibilities of embryo transfer from vicu[ntilde]a into llamas as a 
tool that could dramatically increase the number of vicu[ntilde]a in 
managed populations. He feels that frozen vicu[ntilde]a embryos can and 
should provide a safe way of creating vicu[ntilde]a herds in parts of 
the world where they have never existed.
    Response: We believe that we have adopted reasonable criteria in 
evaluating the status of vicu[ntilde]a populations. We are not 
endorsing range countries' policies, but, rather, we are evaluating the 
status of populations in those countries. The ESA requires that a 
special rule be promulgated only if it is ``necessary and advisable for 
the conservation of the species.'' Thus, a special rule that allows 
international commercial trade must have demonstrated conservation 
benefits; it is not sufficient for a special rule to be neutral in 
terms of its impact on conservation or to only have potential benefits. 
We consider the vicu[ntilde]a to be a wild species in every sense. We 
are aware that the species was domesticated in the past, resulting in 
the domestic alpaca (Jane Wheeler, IVITA, Facultad de Medicina 
Veterinaria, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru, 
pers. comm. with K. Johnson, Division of Scientific Authority (DSA), 
2000), and does not need to be domesticated again. We do not support or 
advocate the development of commercial ranching operations for 
vicu[ntilde]a, especially ranching operations outside the species' 
natural range. We find that such operations would undermine the 
conservation efforts of range countries to sustainably utilize this 
species. Likewise, the special rule does not provide for the 
importation without an ESA permit of live vicu[ntilde]a, or of embryos, 
gametes, or tissue samples of vicu[ntilde]a. We do not intend to 
encourage such imports as a means for establishing populations outside 
the species' natural range, because of our concern that such 
populations could undermine range country conservation efforts and 
preclude any benefits to local indigenous communities. For those 
reasons, and the fact that they are still in Appendix I of CITES, the 
special rule precludes imports without a threatened species permit for 
live vicu[ntilde]a, and for embryos, gametes, and tissue samples of 
vicu[ntilde]a.
    Comment: Dr. Bill Jordan of Care for the Wild wrote that trying to 
farm vicu[ntilde]a cannot succeed because they do not thrive at a lower 
altitude.
    Response: Dr. Jordan's comment is duly noted.

Comments Related to Argentina

    Approximately 60 comments received in response to the proposed rule 
pertained exclusively or primarily to vicu[ntilde]a in Argentina.
    Comment: The Government of Argentina (Victoria Lichtschein, 
Directora de Fauna y Flora Silvestres, Secretaria de Recursos Naturales 
y Desarrollo Sustentable) expressed the view that the draft proposed 
rule goes beyond the provisions of CITES for species included in 
Appendix I. It is not a presently accepted condition for the transfer 
of a species from Appendix I to II to demonstrate that such transfer 
will benefit the wild populations of that species. Rather, it must be 
demonstrated that the proposed use will not harm the wild species. 
Argentina noted that it would be practically impossible to demonstrate 
that breeding operations in Europe or the United States have any 
benefit for the wild populations of the species. Argentina also 
expressed the opinion that it would be virtually impossible, due to 
cost and complexity of the task, to determine if decreases in grazing 
by domestic livestock were having a beneficial effect on wild 
vicu[ntilde]a populations. Argentina is also implementing an Action 
Plan for the Fight Against Desertification, and these activities should 
be kept in mind when evaluating Argentina's efforts to improve the 
habitat of the vicu[ntilde]a. Argentina stated that, in general terms, 
the utilization of the species and the high value of the products that 
may be obtained from it no doubt constitute an incentive for the 
species' conservation. This concept, which is the basis of sustainable 
utilization, may be demonstrated reliably only through monitoring the 
wild populations, which are plainly on the increase.
    Response: We appreciate Argentina's detailed commentary on our 
proposed rule, but we must emphasize that the proposal involves the 
vicu[ntilde]a's listing under the ESA and not CITES. An endangered 
listing under the ESA is not equivalent to an Appendix I listing under 
CITES, nor is a threatened listing under the ESA equivalent to a CITES 
Appendix II listing. The U.S. List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife is not equivalent to CITES Appendices I and II. CITES is an 
international convention, while the ESA is domestic legislation. Each 
has its own set of implementing regulations within the United States, 
as well as criteria for listing. The ESA has many provisions that are 
stricter than CITES, thus it is considered a ``stricter domestic 
measure'' allowable under provisions of Article XIV of CITES. 
Threatened species are generally covered by all prohibitions applicable 
to endangered species under section 4(d) of the Act (see discussion in 
``Available Conservation Measures'' section). We may promulgate special 
rules if the activities allowed therein are deemed necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the species. Furthermore, 
under CITES, the criteria for transferring species from Appendix I to 
II require far more information than a finding of non-detriment. The 
non-detriment finding is required for export of CITES Appendix II 
species; the listing criteria are more detailed (and can be found in 
CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24).
    We do not believe that the information we requested to address 
conservation is too difficult or too costly to obtain. In the proposed 
rule and other correspondence, we have specifically mentioned a number 
of possible indicators of conservation benefit, including: (a) A 
reduction in poaching of wild vicu[ntilde]a in areas with captive 
vicu[ntilde]a populations; (b) improvement in habitat conditions as a 
result of decreased domestic livestock numbers in areas with captive 
populations; (c) documented decreases in the number of domestic 
livestock in the immediate vicinity of captive populations; and (d) 
whether some of the funds generated by the sale of fiber from captive 
vicu[ntilde]as are allocated to conservation programs for wild 
vicu[ntilde]as. Any of these indicators could be useful in 
demonstrating consistency with the conservation purposes of the ESA. 
Some of the indicators we have mentioned are basic, and the relevant 
information could be obtained with minimal effort.
    We have considered Argentina's anti-desertification efforts in 
development of the final rule.
    Comment: The Comision Regional de las Provincias Vicuneras provided 
five specific comments on the proposed rule and proposed special rule. 
First, the Comision stated, captive management diminishes poaching 
pressure for fiber, and could meet the demand for fiber for craft use 
for an important sector of the

[[Page 37699]]

population of the vicu[ntilde]a provinces. The vicu[ntilde]a provinces, 
which have a great craft tradition, see captive management as an 
important alternative for obtaining fiber that can later be exported to 
a country where demand is high, such as the United States. Captive 
management allows the majority of the wild vicu[ntilde]a population to 
remain in a wild state, constituting a large genetic pool and 
permitting normal evolution of the species. Second, most wild 
vicu[ntilde]a populations exist in protected areas or in areas of low 
human population density. The implementation of the relevant 
regulations is accomplished by provincial wildlife authorities, 
provincial and national protected areas agencies, and the security 
forces of the National Gendarmes. Although, in the 1997 CITES proposal 
the national population of vicu[ntilde]s was estimated to be 32,000, 
the latest census has estimated a population of 50,000 wild 
vicu[ntilde]s. Third, the intent of the management system is to get 
local residents to change from introduced domestic ruminants to 
vicu[ntilde]a. Fourth, the faunal legislation of each province assures 
the protection of the vicu[ntilde]a, and generates special funds in 
order to achieve the objectives of conserving fauna in general and the 
vicu[ntilde]a in particular. Among the national and provincial 
protected areas for vicu[ntilde]a, there are three Biosphere Reserves 
in three separate provinces.
    Response: We appreciate the comments from the Regional Commission 
of Vicu[ntilde]a Provinces. We do not understand how captive herds can 
meet the demand for vicu[ntilde]a fiber for local craft use. We 
understand that the fiber produced by captive vicu[ntilde]a populations 
in Argentina is sold to a single company based in Buenos Aires; the 
fiber is not retained locally and does not satisfy local craft demand. 
Thus, local demand for fiber apparently still exists.
    We appreciate that local authorities are implementing laws and 
regulations to the best of their ability, and that the National 
Gendarmes have succeeded in reducing poaching of wild vicu[ntilde]a. We 
question the accuracy of the total population estimate of 50,000, 
considering that certain vicu[ntilde]a populations have reportedly 
declined substantially in the last few years due to drought (Dr. A. 
Canedi in litt. to FWS 1999). We have not seen any reports that would 
corroborate this population estimate on the basis of a scientifically-
sound survey. We believe it unlikely that captive vicu[ntilde]a 
management will replace domestic livestock management on the Puna, at 
least in the near future. We understand that, at present, only about 20 
individual ranchers have captive herds established with vicu[ntilde]a 
from CEA INTA at Abra Pampa (see below). Apparently there are not 
enough captive vicu[ntilde]a at Abra Pampa to establish many more 
captive herds at the present time.
    Comment: Dr. Gustavo Rebuffi, Director of the Campo Experimental de 
Altura (CEA) of the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria 
(INTA) (High-Elevation Experiment Station of the National Institute of 
Agricultural Technology) located at Abra Pampa in Jujuy Province, wrote 
in support of the captive management system developed and implemented 
by the CEA (hereafter referred to as the INTA captive management 
system, program, or model; this program is described in greater detail 
in the ``Argentina: Population Utilization'' section). Dr. Rebuffi 
provided specific comments on the proposal, and attached a summary of 
his doctoral dissertation ``Characterization of Vicu[ntilde]a Wool 
Production in the Argentine High Plateau.'' According to Dr. Rebuffi, 
there are no demonstrated adverse effects associated with captive 
management. Rather, the benefits of captive management are enormous for 
the conservation of wild vicu[ntilde]as, among many reasons, because 
the market prefers to be supplied with legal wool. Dr Rebuffi stated 
that poaching in Argentina has almost disappeared since the captive 
management program was initiated, and the wild population now numbers 
close to 50,000. The National Gendarmes has entered into an agreement 
to cooperate in the implementation of INTA's captive management 
program, and the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention recognizes captive management 
as a valid option for the species. Dr. Rebuffi said that there are no 
genetic or disease problems associated with captive management, and 
that vicu[ntilde]as in captivity have their health guaranteed by good 
veterinary care. Dr. Rebuffi also cited economic benefits of the 
captive management program for those persons with captive herds. He 
believes that the INTA captive management program is not more 
widespread because there are not enough vicu[ntilde]a in captivity, 
otherwise it would displace the domestic livestock alternative over 
time.
    We also received comments in support of the INTA captive management 
program from a number of individuals, including: 14 current or former 
employees of CEA INTA; 6 other employees of INTA; 12 agronomists, 
animal production agents, economists, rural extension agents, or 
veterinarians in northwestern Argentina (Salta and Jujuy Provinces) 
some of whom are possibly INTA employees; 8 individuals who have 
captive vicu[ntilde]a populations provided by CEA INTA; one rancher; 
one former director of natural resources of Salta Province; one zoo 
director; one professor at Catholic University of Argentina; one 
reproductive technologist; one agricultural engineer; one ``advisor''; 
and one foundation representative. These commenters primarily 
emphasized the economic benefits that would accrue to poor residents of 
the Argentine Puna from allowing the import of vicu[ntilde]a fiber into 
the United States. Many commenters mentioned that captive vicu[ntilde]a 
were maintained in healthy condition, and that there was little if any 
mortality associated with fiber harvest. Many commenters also noted 
that captive management operations reduce poaching pressure on wild 
populations, and that this alternative could lower the numbers of 
domestic livestock on the Puna rangelands.
    Response: Clearly, a tremendous amount of work has gone into 
development of the INTA program. While we appreciate and support the 
need to address the socioeconomic plight of poor residents of the 
Argentine Puna, the ESA is principally concerned with the conservation 
of threatened and endangered species in the wild. We understand that 
the INTA captive management system has been developed primarily in the 
context of a rural development program for small producers in the Puna 
of Salta and Jujuy, and, therefore, places great emphasis on the 
economic betterment of the local people. This is a vital concern. 
However, in relation to listings under the ESA, economic arguments are 
only important in the context of providing direct or indirect 
conservation benefits for listed species.
    We note that the INTA captive management model (i.e., the 
development of individual captive herds) is based on the socio-economic 
system of the Argentine Puna. However, we also understand that only 
around 20 individual ranchers have captive herds, so the number of 
people benefitting from this program is small in comparison to the 
total number of local Puna residents. The number of captive herds is 
not likely to increase substantially in the near future. We believe 
that one cornerstone of successful sustainable use programs is 
sustainable economic benefits for a broad spectrum of local indigenous 
people, not just a few.
    We recognize that the majority of captive populations are probably 
well maintained and in good health, and that mortality associated with 
shearing is

[[Page 37700]]

probably low. However, we are aware of one instance where most of the 
animals in a captive population died because the animals were sheared 
in winter and developed pneumonia soon thereafter. We continue to 
welcome documentation that captive populations reduce poaching pressure 
on wild populations.
    Comment: Dr. Arturo Canedi of the Centro de Estudios & 
Investigaciones de Uso Sustentable of the Universidad Nacional de Jujuy 
wrote to support the captive management of vicu[ntilde]a in Argentina. 
He stated that the vicu[ntilde]a population of Olaroz-Cauchari Reserve 
in Jujuy Province has exhibited a logistic growth curve since 
monitoring began in 1987, and now exceeds the carrying capacity of the 
environment. That, added to a drought in 1996-1998, has produced a 
grave decline of the population (from 6,500 in 1995 to 4,800 in 1998). 
This situation has been repeated in other provinces. Drought is the 
environmental variable that has the greatest impact on recovering 
vicu[ntilde]a populations. Dr. Canedi stated that rational utilization 
of the species requires establishment of a culling process whereby live 
animals can be captured to repopulate other potential areas, and 
implementation of systems of captive management. These require creation 
of an infrastructure adequate to provide drinking water and increase 
the carrying capacity of the corrals in order to mitigate the effects 
of drought.
    Response: We appreciate Dr. Canedi's new information on population 
declines in the Olaroz-Cauchari Reserve in Jujuy Province resulting 
from drought. Although we agree that management in a sustainable 
utilization program may involve the translocation of vicu[ntilde]a from 
one location to another, we believe that translocations should be based 
on previously-developed protocols that consider the possible 
population, genetic, and disease consequences of translocation. We are 
not aware that Argentina, or any other vicu[ntilde]a range country, has 
developed such protocols. The provision of drinking water and 
improvement of range conditions within corrals would entail extra 
costs, and takes management one step further away from natural 
conditions.
    Comment: Pelama Chubut (Mr. Carlos Leers), an Argentine company 
dedicated to commercialization of fiber from South American camelids, 
wrote in support of including the INTA captive management program in 
the special rule. The company has invested significant funds to finance 
``Productores Minifundistas'' who do not have funds to invest and who 
cannot get credit from a bank or financial institution. The company has 
decided to have a stake in this undertaking, associating itself with 
producers to obtain the fiber, and guaranteeing the producers a 
competitive price at the international level.
    Response: We understand that this company has invested in the 
captive management operations in northwest Argentina (by providing 
loans to individual ranchers to purchase fencing material for the 
vicu[ntilde]a corrals), and therefore has an economic interest in the 
success of this program. We also understand that the loans are repaid 
through fiber sales to the company. Although such an arrangement may 
assure a competitive price to the ranchers, it may also put them at a 
disadvantage by preventing them from seeking or obtaining the highest 
possible economic return from their vicu[ntilde]a fiber. It does not 
appear that the company contributes any proceeds from sales of 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber or fiber products to conservation programs for wild 
vicu[ntilde]a.
    Comment: Dr. Bibiana Vila of Profauna, Conicet, Universidad 
Nacional de Lujan, provided a number of specific comments regarding 
vicu[ntilde]a populations and conservation in Argentina. She expressed 
opposition to the captive management system of Argentina, principally 
because it alters the process of natural selection in vicu[ntilde]a, 
and because it does not provide the claimed social and economic 
benefits to campesino (peasant) communities. She provided a paper she 
presented at a camelid conference in Cuzco, Peru (Vila 1999) arguing 
that ``wildness'' in vicu[ntilde]a is a characteristic essential to the 
species' conservation and management. Lilian Villalba, a Bolivian 
member of the Grupo Especialista en Camelidos Sudamericanos (GECS--
South American Camelid Specialist Group) of the World Conservation 
Union/Species Survival Commission (IUCN/SSC) expressed concern over the 
captive management system in Argentina for biological and socioeconomic 
reasons. She stated that, on a biological basis, captive management 
does not guarantee vicu[ntilde]a conservation, and may result in 
changes to captive populations through artificial selection and 
intensive management. Also, from a socioeconomic standpoint, captive 
populations require a major investment that communities cannot afford, 
and benefits a reduced number of people. Finally, she opined that 
captive management focuses more on economic gain than on conservation 
of the species in the wild, and allows private companies to become 
involved to the detriment of local communities. In this way captive 
management may foster increased poaching rather than reduce it.
    Response: We appreciate these comments from South American 
scientists with significant expertise in this species. We agree that it 
is not desirable to re-domesticate the vicu[ntilde]a through artificial 
selection in captive management systems. We do not have enough 
information to determine the exact financial return realized by 
individual ranchers participating in the INTA captive management 
program, but it appears that most or all individual ranchers have taken 
loans from, and, therefore, are indebted to the company that also 
purchases their fiber. We understand that only around 20 individual 
ranchers are participating in the INTA program, so the number of people 
realizing a benefit from this program is very small in comparison to 
the total number of Puna residents. The number of captive herds is not 
likely to increase substantially in the near future. However, there is 
another captive management program--the Criadero Coquena--El Refugio de 
las Vicu[ntilde]as of the Asociacion Civil de Artesanos y Productores 
``San Pedro Nolasco de los Molinos''--that appears to be benefitting an 
entire campesino community. This program is discussed immediately 
below, and in the ``Argentina: Population Utilization'' section. We 
believe that management of wild vicu[ntilde]a populations is the best 
approach to ensure ecological and equitable socioeconomic 
sustainability.
    Comment: Dr. Silvia Puig, writing on behalf of the Grupo 
Especialista en Camelidos Sudamericanos (GECS), stated that GECS 
regards management of wild, free-ranging vicu[ntilde]a populations 
(where wild vicu[ntilde]a are herded, shorn, and released in their 
natural habitats) as more advisable than captive management, because it 
implies a minor modification in natural conditions of both the species 
and environment, and gives greater guarantee of both sustainability and 
local reinvestment of revenues for social and ecological betterment. 
However, captive management could be compatible with conservation of 
vicu[ntilde]a populations and natural habitats if four conditions are 
met (see ``Argentina: Population Utilization'' section). According to 
Dr. Puig, technical evaluations to determine whether these four 
conditions have been met are still pending for most of the captive 
management operations in Argentina. Dr. Puig stated that there is one 
captive management operation that appears to have begun fulfilling 
these criteria--the Asociacion Civil de Artesanos y Productores ``San 
Pedro

[[Page 37701]]

Nolasco de los Molinos'' (Los Molinos). Dr. Puig noted that, among 
other things, Los Molinos has a structure wherein its participants 
share tasks and benefits of using the vicu[ntilde]a, has established a 
captive management operation (Criadero Coquena--El Refugio de las 
Vicu[ntilde]as) in an area not immediately within occupied 
vicu[ntilde]a habitat, has conducted a vicu[ntilde]a population survey 
in the Molinos Department of Salta Province, and is interested in 
further developing and implementing a conservation program for the wild 
vicu[ntilde]a.
    Response: We appreciate the comments from Dr. Puig on behalf of 
GECS, the leading organization of South American camelid specialists. 
We agree that programs satisfying the conditions mentioned by Dr. Puig 
are more likely to have a demonstrable conservation benefit, and a 
direct link between conservation and equitable economic benefits to 
local human populations, which, in our opinion, is a requisite of 
sustainable utilization. We agree that sustainable management of wild 
vicu[ntilde]a populations offers the best prospects for conservation 
and socioeconomic benefit to local populations.
    Comment: The Asociacion Civil de Artesanos y Productores ``San 
Pedro Nolasco de los Molinos'' (Los Molinos) provided additional 
information on its history and its captive management operation 
(Criadero Coquena--El Refugio de las Vicu[ntilde]as). Significant 
points include: Los Molinos obtained its vicu[ntilde]a from CEA INTA in 
1994, but does not rely on CEA INTA for technical support. Los Molinos 
has not accepted any financial support for developing its operation, 
and does not sell the raw fiber but uses the fiber to produce a 
finished product on site. Los Molinos has multiple participants; and is 
based on conservation of wild populations.
    Response: Los Molinos' captive management program is based on a 
different model than the INTA program. The Los Molinos model includes: 
a component of research and conservation of wild vicu[ntilde]as; an 
effort to ``add value'' to the raw fiber by producing traditional 
crafts, thereby increasing the financial return to the local community; 
and economic benefits that accrue to multiple persons rather than an 
individual rancher. As such, this program appears to have a 
demonstrable conservation benefit, and a direct link between 
conservation and equitable economic benefit to local peoples.
    Comment: The Asociacion Criadores de Camelidos de Argentina (ACCA--
Argentine Association of Camelid Raisers), the Programa Regional de 
Apoyo al Desarrollo de Camelidos Sudamericanos (Regional Program to 
Support the Development of South American Camelids), and the Fondo 
Internacional Desarrollo Agricola (FIDA--International Fund for 
Agricultural Development) all wrote in support of Los Molinos and its 
captive management operation.
    Response: These responses indicate that Los Molinos' program has 
financial and technical support of a number of regional organizations.

Comments Related to Bolivia

    Two comments pertained exclusively to vicu[ntilde]a in Bolivia.
    Comment: The Government of Bolivia (Mario Baudoin Weeks, Director 
General de Biodiversidad, Ministerio de Desarrolo Sostenible y 
Planificacion) agreed with the proposal to reclassify all populations 
listed as endangered (Appendix I) to threatened (Appendix II) under the 
ESA. Bolivia noted that they intend to manage their vicu[ntilde]a as 
wild populations.
    Response: We appreciate Bolivia's comments, and agree that 
Bolivia's population should be classified as threatened. We support the 
Government of Bolivia's intention to manage its vicu[ntilde]a as wild, 
free-ranging populations.

Comments Related to Chile

    Three comments pertained exclusively or primarily to vicu[ntilde]a 
in Chile.
    Comment: The Director de Medio Ambiente of Ministerio de Relaciones 
Exteriores de Chile (Rolando Stein Brygin) commented on several aspects 
of the proposed rule and proposed special rule. He stated that 
prohibiting the entry of products from animals maintained in semi-
captivity will restrict management and commercialization which can be 
carried out autonomously by the countries affected by the proposal. The 
signatory countries of the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention have already stated 
and re-affirmed that semi-captive management is a valid option for 
managing the species. The Director further stated that Chile has a 
solid and substantial system for control and protection of wild fauna, 
and that the present Hunting Law provides the Government with necessary 
tools and mechanisms for control and administration of sustainable 
management programs for the species and/or the establishment of 
breeding operations, so long as hunting the vicu[ntilde]a is prohibited 
and its capture is strictly regulated. He also noted that about 81 
percent of vicu[ntilde]a in Chile are found within protected areas, and 
that only about 3 percent of the vicu[ntilde]a in the First Region of 
Chile will be included in the present project on sustainable use. He 
does not believe that Chile, either now or in the future, will have the 
problem of overusing the species, since utilization will not be 
centered exclusively on wild specimens, but also on specimens 
maintained in captivity. He noted that there have been a number of 
chromosomal and DNA studies on the taxonomic differences between the 
two subspecies.
    Response: We appreciate Chile's comments. We continue to have 
concerns about captive management systems for vicu[ntilde]a, because 
the conservation value and socioeconomic benefits of captive management 
have yet to be demonstrated over the long term. These concerns are 
discussed in greater detail in the ``Chile: Population Utilization'' 
and ``Description of the Special Rule'' sections that follow. With 
regard to the threats posed by overutilization and inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms, we recognize that Chile has established 
significant protected areas and put in place substantial regulatory 
mechanisms to manage the species and to control illegal harvest. For 
that reason we do not believe that these factors endanger vicu[ntilde]a 
populations in Chile. However, we believe that regulatory mechanisms 
for harvest and commercialization as part of a sustainable use program 
must be tested and demonstrated to be adequate before this factor can 
be discounted as a potential threat to the species.
    Since publication of the proposed rule, we have received and 
reviewed additional information regarding the issue of subspecies of 
the vicu[ntilde]a. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the 
introductory paragraphs of the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section that follows.
    Comment: Cristian Bonacic, a Chilean veterinarian and wildlife 
biologist at Oxford University who has many years of experience working 
on vicu[ntilde]a conservation and sustainable use, questioned the 
conservation value and economic benefits of captive vicu[ntilde]a 
management systems. He suggested that a free-ranging management system 
where wild vicu[ntilde]a are herded, shorn, and released would be the 
best alternative to sustainably utilize this species.
    Response: We continue to have concerns over the conservation value 
and socioeconomic benefits of captive management systems for 
vicu[ntilde]a. These concerns are discussed in greater detail in the 
``Chile: Population Utilization'' and ``Description of the Special 
Rule'' sections that follow. We agree that sustainable management of 
wild vicu[ntilde]a

[[Page 37702]]

populations offers the best prospects for long-term conservation and 
equitable socioeconomic benefit to local populations.

Comments Related to Ecuador

    Two comments pertaining exclusively to vicu[ntilde]a in Ecuador 
were received, both from the Government of Ecuador.
    Comment: According to the submission from the Executive Director of 
Ecuador's Ministerio del Ambiente (Danilo Silva Chiriboga), the 
vicu[ntilde]a was first introduced in Ecuador in July 1988 (not 1993 as 
stated in the proposed rule), and the population had increased to 1,104 
individuals as of 1999. He stated that Ecuador's goal is to have a 
vicu[ntilde]a population of 3,000 after 5 years, at which time it 
intends to propose that its population be downlisted to Appendix II of 
CITES in order to commercialize fiber production. However, according to 
the submission from the Wildlife Department within that Ministerio del 
Ambiente (Sergio Lasso B.), Ecuador will require at least 10 years to 
obtain a population sufficiently large to harvest fiber. The Executive 
Director stated that retention of the vicu[ntilde]a population of 
Ecuador as endangered under the ESA would prevent its reclassification 
under CITES. He further stated that the status of vicu[ntilde]a in 
Ecuador is no longer in the ``experimental stage.'' Ecuador provided us 
with a copy of its report to the 19th Meeting of the Technical 
Committee of the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention, entitled ``Report of the 
Vicu[ntilde]a Reintroduction Project in Ecuador'' (hereafter referenced 
as Government of Ecuador 1999) which discusses the current status of 
its vicu[ntilde]a population.
    Response: We appreciate Ecuador's comments. We continue to believe 
that downlisting the vicu[ntilde]a population of Ecuador is not 
warranted because of its small population size (only 1,100 animals) and 
its relatively recent history as an introduced population. Our 
rationale is discussed in greater detail in the ``Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segment'' section. However, we also note that continued 
retention of this population as endangered under the ESA has no bearing 
on its listing under CITES, because CITES and the ESA have different 
implementing regulations and listing criteria. If the population of 
Ecuador is proposed for downlisting to Appendix II at a future meeting 
of the Conference of the Parties to CITES, Parties may vote to adopt 
that proposal. Adoption of a CITES downlisting proposal would not 
affect the species' status under the ESA. We would evaluate any such 
proposal based on the CITES listing criteria (Resolution Conf. 9.24), 
and not the ESA criteria.
    Comment: The Vicu[ntilde]a Convention Resolution No. 207/99, 
submitted as a comment, states that the proposed rule excludes the 
vicu[ntilde]a populations of Ecuador without establishing the bases and 
considerations to support such restriction, demonstrating a lack of 
information on the status of the species in this country.
    Response: We have reviewed information provided by the Government 
of Ecuador, including its report to the 19th Meeting of the Technical 
Committee of the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention, entitled ``Report of the 
Vicu[ntilde]a Reintroduction Project in Ecuador'' (Government of 
Ecuador 1999). We continue to believe that the vicu[ntilde]a population 
of Ecuador is properly classified as endangered, and that 
reclassification to threatened status is not warranted at this time 
(see ``Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment'' section).

Comments Related to Peru

    Several comments pertaining exclusively or primarily to 
vicu[ntilde]a in Peru were received, including comments from the 
Government of Peru (Consejo Nacional de Camelidos Sudamericanos--
CONACS).
    Comment: CONACS (Domingo Hoces Roque) stated that vicu[ntilde]a 
must be fully and effectively used in any of the options for legal 
management that have been adopted by range countries, or vicu[ntilde]a 
will continue to be seen as troublesome pests that interfere with 
economic development. This would discourage interest in exploiting 
vicu[ntilde]a and, finally, in protecting it. Vicu[ntilde]a populations 
in ``semi-captivity'' in Argentina (approximately 1,000 animals) and 
Peru (21,301 animals in Sustainable Use Modules in 1999) represent a 
relatively unimportant proportion of the general vicu[ntilde]a 
population in each country (2% and 15% respectively). CONACS said that 
research on and changes in profitability of management options in 
relation to social and economic development needs may cause current 
management options to change over time. Therefore, the adoption of 
commercial restrictions is not recommended if they are based solely on 
one management option. In Peru, stated CONACS, the commercial 
exploitation of vicu[ntilde]a fiber, whether it comes from wild, free-
ranging populations or captive populations (called Sustainable Use 
Modules, or SUMs, in Peru), not only generates economic income for poor 
rural populations, but also protects the species itself since a large 
part of the income goes to financing protection systems in the field 
through payments to community park guards, and the purchase of radio 
equipment, binoculars, and firearms. With an increase in fiber value, 
the sustainable use of the species will be assured.
    In consideration of the above, CONACS made the following 
recommendations. First, commerce in fiber, cloth or garments containing 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber from range countries to the United States should 
have no more requirements and/or restrictions than those contained in 
the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention and CITES. Whatever legal management 
methods that have been independently adopted by range countries should 
be acceptable to the United States, provided that they are in line with 
the principles and agreements of the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention and 
CITES. Second, each range country should be subject to the same 
treatment in regard to trade of vicu[ntilde]a products with the United 
States. Treating Ecuador and Argentina differently would put them at a 
disadvantage in relation to other Vicu[ntilde]a Convention countries, 
and would promote the resurgence of poaching and the illegal market. 
And, third, that vicu[ntilde]a fiber, textiles and/or garments entering 
the United States should only have to meet the following general 
requirements: (1) That they come from vicu[ntilde]a populations in 
Appendix II of CITES; (2) that they are of fiber sheared from live 
animals, or in exceptional and technically justified cases, from 
animals taken legally and by authorization; (3) that they bear the 
brand, logo, and/or weave adopted and authorized by the countries of 
the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention and CITES; and (4) that they bear the 
official control certificates of the countries of origin, of CITES, and 
of others who adopt safeguarding the species by mutual agreement.
    Response: We appreciate the comments of the Government of Peru. The 
CONACS recommendations imply that the vicu[ntilde]a should be delisted 
from the ESA, thus removing all ESA protections and limiting 
restrictions to only those contained in the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention 
and CITES. Although vicu[ntilde]a populations are growing throughout 
the species' range, we believe that some populations have not recovered 
to the point that they are no longer threatened by one or more of the 
five ESA-listing factors (see ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section). Consequently, we continue to believe that 
reclassification to threatened status under the ESA is the most 
appropriate course of action at present (except for the population of

[[Page 37703]]

Ecuador). We do not agree that all management systems or all countries 
must be treated the same in regard to trade of vicu[ntilde]a products 
with the United States, because each vicu[ntilde]a range country has 
chosen to pursue a slightly different management system, which can 
impact in different ways on the recovery of the species. We continue to 
believe that the conservation value and economic benefit of specific 
vicu[ntilde]a management systems must be tested and demonstrated over 
the long term before they can be approved without restriction. We agree 
that imports to the United States must satisfy the four points 
specified by CONACS; each of these points is contained in the special 
rule, although they are not the only requirements contained in the 
special rule (see ``Description of the Special Rule'' section).
    Comment: Dr. Edgar Sanchez of La Molina University mentioned a 
number of potential problems with the captive management system being 
implemented for Peruvian vicu[ntilde]a populations. First, fencing 
populations could prevent the movement of vicu[ntilde]a between 
metapopulations, interfering with metapopulation dynamics. Second, 
disease problems, ectoparasites in particular, could increase. Third, 
there is potential for overgrazing within the enclosures (corrals) if 
the carrying capacity is exceeded. Fourth, there are potential genetic 
problems if the initial population within each enclosure is small, and 
if animals are translocated from one area to another without 
consideration of genetic consequences. Sanchez nevertheless felt that 
even if all proposed enclosures (SUMs) were actually constructed, they 
would constitute a very small percentage (less than 5%) of the total 
area with vicu[ntilde]a in Peru, so that any problems would be limited 
to a small area. Thus, Sanchez felt the main problem is demonstrating 
the biological and economic viability of the captive management system. 
These two goals could be achieved with an effective monitoring program 
for each enclosure (SUM). Sanchez believes that the most effective 
results, both for conservation and production of economic benefits, 
would be achieved with management of wild, free-ranging populations. 
The most successful experiences with vicu[ntilde]a population 
management (Lucanas and San Cristobal) have involved wild, free-ranging 
populations. Sanchez also emphasized that Peru needs to pay special 
attention to the vicu[ntilde]as in protected areas, to ensure that 
there are some places where wild populations can exist without human 
interference with behavior and natural selection.
    Response: Dr. Sanchez has identified a number of factors of concern 
with captive management systems. We agree that the main problem is 
demonstrating the biological and economic viability of captive 
management over the long term, and that the necessary information will 
only be obtained through an effective monitoring program for each SUM. 
We also agree that the most effective results, both for conservation 
and economic benefits, are likely to be achieved with management of 
wild, free-ranging populations. We agree that close attention should be 
paid to vicu[ntilde]as in protected areas, and that vicu[ntilde]a would 
benefit from expansion of the size and number of protected areas 
throughout their range, and reduction of the level of competition with 
domestic livestock. See additional discussion in the ``Peru: Population 
Utilization'' and ``Description of the Special Rule'' sections.
    Comment: Dr.Gabriela Lichtenstein of the Instituto Internacional de 
Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo--America Latina (IIED-AL) provided two 
reports summarizing her research on the two vicu[ntilde]a management 
systems currently being utilized in Peru (Lichtenstein et al. 1999a, 
Lichtenstein et al. 1999b). Her research team assessed and compared the 
captive management system (SUMs) with the wild, free-ranging management 
system from ecological, social, and economic perspectives, and 
conducted a feasibility analysis of both systems. Their findings 
strongly suggest that management of wild, free-ranging vicu[ntilde]a 
populations is a better alternative than captive management from all 
three perspectives--ecological, economic, and social. They suggested 
that the SUM project would greatly benefit if it were accompanied by 
solid research on ecological carrying capacities, and on the genetic, 
behavioral, and population impacts of enclosures on vicu[ntilde]as. The 
captive management program includes an effort to translocate 
vicu[ntilde]a from areas with many animals to areas with few or none in 
order to encourage communities with few or no vicu[ntilde]as to 
participate in the program; this program has potential negative genetic 
and disease consequences.
    Response: Dr. Lichtenstein's research is the first to 
systematically examine and compare the costs and benefits of captive 
management versus wild, free-ranging management systems from 
ecological, social, and economic perspectives. Therefore, we attach 
great importance to her conclusions that, in Peru, management of wild, 
free-ranging vicu[ntilde]a populations is likely a better alternative 
than captive management (although we recognize that these conclusions 
would benefit from additional research). We agree that corrals can 
generate a conflict between ecological and economic interests. Corrals 
have a very fine line between economic viability and negative 
ecological impact. Additional research and monitoring of SUMs is needed 
to assess the ecological, economic, and social viability of the 
program. As mentioned above, we believe that translocations should be 
based on a previously-developed protocol which considers the possible 
genetic and disease consequences of those translocations. We are not 
aware of such protocols in Peru.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 (a)(1) of the Act and regulations implementing the 
listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth the 
procedures for adding species to or deleting species from the list of 
endangered and threatened wildlife or changing the status of any listed 
species. A species shall be listed or reclassified if we determine, on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, that 
the species is endangered or threatened because of any one or a 
combination of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or human-made 
factors affecting its continued existence.
    We base this final rule on an assessment of the five listing 
factors in the Act, utilizing the best scientific and commercial data 
available including information provided in the original petition, 
supporting statements for the various CITES amendment proposals related 
to vicu[ntilde]a, other published literature and articles, unpublished 
reports, the Service's status review of vicu[ntilde]a, and comments 
received during the formal public comment period. The assessment 
considered the present biological status of the vicu[ntilde]a within 
the range countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. The small 
population that has recently been introduced into Ecuador is treated 
separately under the ``Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment'' section 
below. We do not propose to change that population's endangered 
classification under the Act.

[[Page 37704]]

    There is no scientific consensus on the number of valid 
vicu[ntilde]a subspecies. Two subspecies have been described--V. v. 
mensalis (Molina 1782 cited in Wheeler 1995) in the northern portion of 
the range and V. v. vicugna (Thomas 1917 cited in Wheeler 1995) to the 
south. These putative subspecies have been described on the basis of 
slight differences in size and color, and the lack of a prominent chest 
fringe in V. v. vicugna (Canedi and Pasini 1996). However, many authors 
do not accept this division, because no clearly defined geographic 
separation exists between the two supposed subspecies, and because they 
feel that genetic and phenotypic evidence does not support 
differentiation. Other authors feel that available genetic and 
phenotypic information supports the existence of two subspecies or two 
geographic races of vicu[ntilde]a. Dr. Eduardo Palma (Departamento de 
Ecologia, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile) studied a sequence 
of the cytochrome b gene of the vicu[ntilde]a, and concluded that the 
subspecific separation is valid (Jane Wheeler, pers. comm. with K. 
Johnson, DSA, 2000). He concluded that V. v. vicugna is the more 
primitive form, and V. v. mensalis is closely associated with the 
domestic alpaca. In contrast, Dr. Jane C. Wheeler (pers. comm. with K. 
Johnson, DSA, 2000) studied a different sequence of the cytochrome b 
gene and did not identify any unique genetic markers differentiating 
the two supposed subspecies in the animals she sampled from Argentina, 
Chile, and Peru. Sarno et al. (submitted) likewise did not find 
molecular genetic distinctions between both subspecies in the 
vicu[ntilde]a they sampled from Chile and Bolivia.
    Because the vicu[ntilde]a's distribution is more or less continuous 
from north to south, without any distinct geographic or genetic 
barriers defining the supposed subspecies (Sarno et al. submitted), it 
would be inappropriate and arbitrary to draw a boundary between the two 
supposed subspecies for purposes of management or listing under the 
Act. Both Sarno et al. (submitted) and Wheeler (pers. comm. with K. 
Johnson, DSA, 2000) emphasize the need to manage vicu[ntilde]a at the 
population level. Therefore, the supposed subspecies are not 
differentiated in this rule and the term vicu[ntilde]a, used herein, 
refers to all populations of the species throughout its total range.

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

    Vicu[ntilde]a are estimated to occur at varying densities on 
approximately 20.5 million ha of Andean highlands extending in a rather 
narrow strip from central Peru through Bolivia, and into northwest 
Argentina (between 8 and 30 degrees South latitude). The historical 
range of the vicu[ntilde]a may have been twice the present 
distributional area. A small, disjunct, recently-introduced population 
also occurs in Ecuador.
    Vicu[ntilde]a habitats occur in the high Andean plateau region from 
3,000 to 4,800 m above sea level (Hoces 1992, Torres 1992). The 
habitats vary climatically on both elevational and latitudinal scales 
but are generally arid and cold, resulting in limited vegetation cover. 
Principal vegetation types are halophytic vegetation associated with 
salt pans, grassy steppes, shrub-steppes, and wet meadow areas (vegas) 
(Cajal 1992). This highland habitat has been somewhat degraded by 
humans and their domesticated livestock, but still represents an 
extensive habitat for vicu[ntilde]a. The average vicu[ntilde]a 
population density is very low, reflecting the limited carrying 
capacity of the high Andean habitats as well as the fact that many 
vicu[ntilde]a habitats are understocked. The carrying capacity of 
vicu[ntilde]a habitats varies widely, consequently vicu[ntilde]a tend 
to be patchily distributed throughout their range. Protected areas, 
including national reserves, national parks, and provincial reserves, 
are scattered throughout vicu[ntilde]a habitat in each of the four 
countries considered in this final rule.
Argentina
    Vicu[ntilde]a distribution in Argentina includes portions of the 
northwestern provinces of Jujuy, Salta, Catamarca, La Rioja, and San 
Juan at approximately 3,200 to 4,600 m elevation (Cajal 1992). 
Vicu[ntilde]a habitats in Argentina cover a surface area of about 9 to 
10 million ha (Cajal 1992, Canedi 1997, pers. comm.). During the 1800's 
the vicu[ntilde]a's distribution covered over 12 million ha of 
Argentina (Cajal 1992).
    Vicu[ntilde]a in Argentina occur in three ecoregions or 
biogeographical provinces: Prepuna, Puna, and Altoandina (S. Puig, in 
litt. to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 1999). The Prepuna 
Ecoregion comprises high Andean foothills, escarpments and 
outcroppings; the Puna Ecoregion represents higher-elevation areas of 
plains or tablelands between mountain ranges; and the Altoandina 
Ecoregion is the highest mountains. The general area of the 
vicu[ntilde]a's distribution in Argentina is characterized by uplifted 
mountains surrounding extensive valleys featuring alkaline or saline 
flats and a rolling topography. The area is generally arid and cold 
(frost can occur year-round). Principal vegetation types are halophytic 
vegetation associated with salt pans, grassy steppes, shrub-steppes, 
and wet meadows (many water courses are temporary but there are 
occasional areas of damp ground where surface water and green 
vegetation in the form of rushes, grasses and a variety of succulent 
plants occur). Much of the thin vegetation cover over most of the Puna 
consists of grasses and xerophilous half-shrubs (Comisi[oacute]n 
Regional de la Vicu[ntilde]a 1994).
    The Vicu[ntilde]a Provinces (Jujuy, Salta, Catamarca, La Rioja, and 
San Juan) have created six provincial reserves for vicu[ntilde]a: 
Laguna de los Pozuelos, Olar[oacute]z-Cauchari, Los Andes, Laguna 
Blanca, Laguna Brava, and San Guillermo. In Jujuy Province, Los 
Pozuelos Reserve was created in 1980 and consists of 308,000 ha. About 
15,000 ha of this Reserve have been incorporated into the UNESCO Man 
and Biosphere (MAB) program as a natural area of international 
significance. The vicu[ntilde]a population in the Reserve was estimated 
to be 2,000 in 1992 (Cajal 1992), and 2,750 in 1997 (CITES 1997a). The 
Olar[oacute]z-Cauchari Flora and Fauna Reserve was created in 1981 to 
enhance vicu[ntilde]a populations and consists of 543,300 ha. The 
vicu[ntilde]a population in the Reserve in 1994 was estimated to be 
6,500 and growing (Canedi 1995, CITES 1997a). Dr. A. Canedi (in litt. 
to FWS 1999) commented that a drought in 1996-1998 produced a 
substantial decline in the vicu[ntilde]a population of the 
Olar[oacute]z-Cauchari Reserve, from 6,500 in 1995 to 4,800 in 1998.
    In Salta Province, the Los Andes Wildlife Reserve of 1.44 million 
ha was created in 1980. The rigorous climate restricts the human 
population to very low densities. Agriculture does not exist in this 
area, and the ranching of cattle, sheep, goats and llamas is 
rudimentary. A partial census in the Reserve in 1993 counted 2,000 
vicu[ntilde]a (CITES 1997a).
    In Catamarca Province, the Laguna Blanca Wildlife Reserve was 
created in 1979 and enlarged in 1982 to 973,270 ha at which time it 
became recognized by the UNESCO MAB program as a natural area of 
international significance. The human population is very sparse and 
scattered in the Reserve. The 1993 vicu[ntilde]a population in Laguna 
Blanca Reserve was estimated to be 3,505 (CITES 1997a). Rabinovich et 
al. (1991) studied potential biological and

[[Page 37705]]

economic consequences of vicu[ntilde]a use in Laguna Blanca Reserve.
    In La Rioja Province, the Laguna Brava Reserve for Vicu[ntilde]as 
and the Protection of Ecosystems was created in 1980 and consists of 
405,000 ha. Human habitations do not exist in the Reserve, which is 
contiguous with the San Guillermo Faunal Reserve in San Juan Province. 
The 1996 vicu[ntilde]a population in the Reserve was estimated to be 
2,187 (CITES 1997a).
    In San Juan Province, San Guillermo Faunal Reserve was created in 
1972 and consists of 880,260 ha. In 1982 it became part of the UNESCO 
MAB program as a natural area of international significance. This was 
the first Provincial Reserve dedicated primarily to the protection of 
the vicu[ntilde]a. The area is devoid of human and domestic animal 
populations. In 1992, the vicu[ntilde]a population in the Reserve was 
estimated to be 7,100 (CITES 1997a).
    In Jujuy Province, several areas have been designated as ``centers 
of protection'' for vicu[ntilde]a, including Vilama (97,000 ha), Santa 
Victoria (54,600 ha), Palca de Aparzo (55,800 ha), Caballo Muerte 
(18,500 ha), Casa Colorado (31,000 ha), Abra de Zenta (69,000 ha) and 
Serranias del Chani (158,900 ha) (CITES 1997a; V. Lichtschein, CITES 
Management Authority of Argentina, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 
1999). We understand that these areas are not provincial reserves at 
the present moment (S. Puig, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 2000), 
although Vilama is within the project area for a proposed, bi-national 
Biosphere Reserve ``Lagos del Cielo de America'' which has been 
presented to the MAB committee but not yet approved (B. Vila, pers. 
comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 2000). These areas do not have any 
protection staff at present (B. Vila, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 
2000).
    The high-altitude experimental station (Campo Experimental de 
Altura or CEA) of the Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia Agropecuaria 
(INTA) is located at Abra Pampa in Jujuy Province. This experimental 
station of 3,000 ha is dedicated to the development of management 
procedures to enhance fiber production of vicu[ntilde]a, assure the 
survival of the species, and to enhance the economic well-being of 
certain Puna ranchers (Rebuffi 1995).
    We have little quantitative information on the extent or condition 
of vicu[ntilde]a habitats outside of protected areas in Argentina. 
Anecdotal information suggests that overgrazing by domestic livestock 
(leading to soil compaction and desertification), and direct 
competition for forage with domestic livestock may be important factors 
limiting the growth of vicu[ntilde]a populations outside protected 
areas (CITES 1997a). Other information indicates that some competition 
with domestic herbivores occurs in the arid Puna where precipitation is 
less than 300 mm per year but that competition is not as much of a 
problem in the humid Puna where precipitation may exceed 500 mm per 
year. The Argentine Government has implemented a program to combat 
desertification (el Programa de Acci[oacute]n Nacional de Lucha contra 
la Desertificaci[oacute]n), which has included projects within the 
vicu[ntilde]a's distribution in Jujuy and Salta Provinces (V. 
Lichtschein, CITES Management Authority of Argentina, in litt. to FWS, 
1999).
    Information presently available to the Service indicates that 
vicu[ntilde]a populations throughout Argentina are not endangered by 
the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range. However, vicu[ntilde]a populations remain threatened 
by this factor throughout Argentina because of ongoing problems related 
to overgrazing and desertification and direct competition with domestic 
livestock.
Bolivia
    Vicu[ntilde]a occur in western and southwestern Bolivia in the 
Departments of Cochabamba, La Paz, Oruro, Potosi, and Terija (CITES 
2000a). It has been suggested (DNCB 1997, pers. comm.) that 
vicu[ntilde]a may once have ranged over 13 to 16.7 million ha in the 
Puna and high Andean region of Bolivia before European colonization.
    Vicu[ntilde]a are found in a number of protected areas in Bolivia. 
Within the National System of Protected Areas (Sistema Nacional de 
Areas Protegidas, or SNAP), vicu[ntilde]a occur in the Ulla Ulla 
National Fauna Reserve (240,000 ha), Eduardo Avaroa National Andean 
Fauna Reserve (714,745 ha), and Sajama National Park (120,000 ha) 
(CITES 2000a). Other protected areas with vicu[ntilde]a are the 
Huancaroma Wildlife Refuge (8,000 ha), Llica National Park (13,100 ha), 
Yura National Fauna Reserve (10,000 ha), and the Incakasani-Altamachi 
Andean Fauna Reserve (23,300 ha) (CITES 2000a).
    The Bolivian Government has established Vicu[ntilde]a Conservation 
Units (VCU) for administrative and management purposes (CNVB 1996). 
Eight VCUs were originally established by the Instituto Nacional de 
Fomento Lanero (INFOL 1985); a ninth unit was subsequently added as a 
result of the National Vicu[ntilde]a Census of 1996 (CNVB 1996). These 
nine VCUs encompass all of the vicu[ntilde]a's geographic range within 
Bolivia, an area of 10.1 million ha (CNVB 1996). The National 
Vicu[ntilde]a Census of 1996 recorded vicu[ntilde]a populations in 76 
``registered census areas'' totaling 3,428,356 ha within the nine VCUs 
(CNVB 1996). These registered census areas are distributed throughout 
the Bolivian highlands at an elevation range between 3,600 and 4,800 m. 
Thirty of these registered census areas did not have any vicu[ntilde]a 
in the previous national census (1986), indicating a significant 
increase in the vicu[ntilde]a's distribution within Bolivia over a 10-
year period. Sixty-nine percent of the vicu[ntilde]a counted in 1996 
(23,393 of 33,844) occurred in the Conservation Units of Lipez-Chichas, 
Mauri-Desaguadero and Ulla Ulla.
    The present distribution of vicu[ntilde]a in Bolivia is expanding, 
but will likely never equal the former distribution range because of 
habitat changes caused by overgrazing by sheep and other domestic 
livestock, and human developments such as roads, villages, and cities. 
Vicu[ntilde]a generally occur on communal property lands in Bolivia. In 
the northern highlands vicu[ntilde]a share habitats mainly with 
alpacas; in the central highlands, with cattle, sheep, llamas, alpacas 
and agriculture; and in the southern highlands, with llamas (CITES 
1997b). Overgrazing, especially by sheep, has reduced range carrying 
capacity in many areas. Bolivia's Programa Nacional de Conservacion de 
la Vicu[ntilde]a (National Program for Conservation of the 
Vicu[ntilde]a) includes several measures intended to conserve and 
improve vicu[ntilde]a habitats, including the development of 
vicu[ntilde]a management plans in communal management areas and the 
development of Planes de Uso del Suelo (Soil Use Plans) (CITES 2000a). 
Bolivia also has a program to combat desertification on the altiplano, 
the Programa Nacional de Lucha contra la Desertificacion y la Sequia 
(PRONALDES) (CITES 2000a). We have no specific information on projects 
included in this program.
    Information presently available to us indicates that vicu[ntilde]a 
populations throughout Bolivia are not endangered by the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range. However, vicu[ntilde]a populations throughout Bolivia remain 
threatened by this factor due to overgrazing by domestic livestock and 
direct competition for forage with domestic livestock.
Chile
    The vicu[ntilde]a occurs in extreme northeastern Chile in the 
Regions of

[[Page 37706]]

Tarapaca, Antofagasta, and Atacama. Most vicu[ntilde]a in Chile are 
found within protected areas. National protected areas within the 
Sistema Nacional de Areas Silvestres Protegidas del Estado (SNASPE) 
include Lauca National Park (137,883 ha), Vicu[ntilde]a National 
Reserve (209,131 ha), and Salar de Surire Natural Monument (11,298 ha) 
within Parinacota Province of Tarapaca Region, and Isluga Volcano 
National Park (174,744 ha) in Iquique Province, Tarapaca Region. 
Caquena Management Zone (90,146 ha) is a special management area on 
private lands (Bonacic 2000b). Over 96 percent of the vicu[ntilde]a in 
Chile are found within the Caquena Management Zone, Lauca National 
Park, and the Vicu[ntilde]a National Reserve within Parinacota Province 
(Galaz 1997, pers. comm.). These areas have typical vicu[ntilde]a 
habitats and limited human populations.
    Information presently available to the Service indicates that 
vicu[ntilde]a populations in Chile are not endangered by the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range, but they remain threatened by this factor due to competition for 
forage and space with domestic livestock.
Peru
    Vicu[ntilde]a in Peru in 1997 were estimated to occur on about 6.4 
million ha throughout the 15 to 17 million ha of suitable habitat in 
the Peruvian highlands. Factors that could impact areas of 
vicu[ntilde]a habitat in the future include increased urbanization, 
successful re-introductions of vicu[ntilde]a into present areas of 
suitable but unoccupied habitat, the replacement of domestic livestock 
by vicu[ntilde]a, and large-scale watershed reclamation schemes. 
Vicu[ntilde]a are better adapted to the rigorous climatic and 
ecological conditions of the Puna, than are many species of domestic 
livestock. Overgrazing by domestic livestock remains the greatest 
threat to habitat conditions in the Puna (and all other ecoregions 
where vicu[ntilde]a occur).
    Vicu[ntilde]a occur in 782,186 ha of Peruvian protected areas, 
including Huascaran National Park (340,000 ha), Pampa Galeras National 
Reserve (75,250 ha) and the Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve 
(366,936 ha) (Hoces 1997, pers. comm.).
    The Peruvian Government has embarked on a large-scale watershed 
reclamation and soil conservation project, the Proyecto Nacional de 
Manejo de Cuencas Hidrograficas y Conservation de Suelos (PRONAMACHCS), 
that has already negatively impacted vicu[ntilde]a habitats in certain 
areas, and has potential to impact habitats over a much wider 
geographic area. PRONAMACHCS's ``Sierra Verde''project impacted 
approximately 20,000 ha of high-elevation rangelands used by 
vicu[ntilde]a within the Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve 
through the contour terracing of natural slopes, and planting of 
grasses and shrubs. The contour terracing created large ditches that 
vicu[ntilde]a would have difficulty crossing (see PRONAMACHCS Web Site 
http://www.pronamachcs.gob.pe), and conservationists are concerned that 
the disturbance may cause vicu[ntilde]a to leave the area.
    Information presently available to the Service indicates that 
vicu[ntilde]a populations in Peru are not endangered by the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range. However, vicu[ntilde]a populations in Peru remain threatened by 
this factor as a consequence of overgrazing by domestic livestock, 
direct competition for forage and space with domestic livestock, and 
large-scale watershed reclamation schemes.

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

    Estimates suggest there may have been 1.0 to 1.5 million 
vicu[ntilde]as in the Andean region during the Incan period. 
Vicu[ntilde]a fiber was valued by the Incas, and although utilized by 
the Incas, there is no evidence that the species was exploited at 
unsustainable levels. After the downfall of the Inca Empire, 
vicu[ntilde]as were slaughtered in large numbers for both meat and 
fiber. In the 1950's populations may still have totaled 400,000, but 
hunting pressures and livestock competition may have reduced the total 
population to around 7,000 to 12,000 individuals by 1965 (Jungius 
1971). Vicu[ntilde]a populations have begun recovering throughout the 
species' range during the last 30 years (Wheeler 1995). Approximately 
200,000 vicu[ntilde]a are now estimated to occur throughout the 
species' Andean highland distribution (CITES 2000a). However, this 
recovery has not been without setbacks due to political, economic, and 
environmental fluctuations. For example, vicu[ntilde]a numbers in Peru 
were at a low point in 1965, grew steadily until a prolonged drought in 
1978-1979 caused numbers in Pampa Galeras to decline substantially, 
gradually built to high levels in 1990, were significantly reduced by 
illegal hunting from 1991 to 1994, while there was civil unrest in the 
region, and have since recovered to and even exceeded 1990 levels.
    The vicu[ntilde]a remains a potentially easily exploited resource. 
It has great economic value and is a highly visible, diurnal occupant 
of open landscape. Some poaching for skins or subsistence hunting for 
meat still occurs, as does killing of vicu[ntilde]as because of 
perceived competition with domestic livestock. These sources of 
mortality could have a potentially serious impact on vicu[ntilde]a 
numbers, as they have done in the past.
    All signatory countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, and 
Peru) to the Conve[ntilde]o para la Conservaci[oacute]n y Manejo de la 
Vicu[ntilde]a (Convention for the Conservation and Management of the 
Vicu[ntilde]a, or the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention), have agreed not to 
export fertile specimens of vicu[ntilde]a. The sole exception has been 
exports to the Republic of Ecuador to aid in their vicu[ntilde]a 
establishment efforts. This was accomplished within the multilateral 
frameworks of both the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention and the CITES 
Convention. We believe it would be desirable if this prohibition were 
to be extended to embryos, gametes, and tissue samples not intended for 
bona fide scientific research related to conservation of the species in 
the wild, and not in support of range country programs. This would help 
prevent establishment of captive vicu[ntilde]a herds outside the 
natural range of the species, which would undermine the conservation 
efforts of the range countries.
Argentina
    Population Status. In 1997, the vicu[ntilde]a population of 
Argentina was estimated to be approximately 32,000 animals, based on 
censuses completed in various protected areas between 1992 and 1996 
(CITES 1997a). The most complete data were from Jujuy Province, where 
the Olar[oacute]z-Cauchari Reserve has been surveyed regularly since 
1973-74. Estimates from protected areas in other provinces were 
somewhat dated and incomplete (CITES 1997a).
    The vicu[ntilde]a population of Argentina is believed to have 
increased over the past 10 to 25 years. Data from the Olar[oacute]z-
Cauchari Reserve showed a steady increase from about 330 individuals in 
1973 to about 6,500 in 1994 (Canedi 1995). Laguna Brava Reserve also 
showed substantial population increases (CITES 1997a). Possible factors 
contributing to the population increases include the newly developed 
support for vicu[ntilde]a by some campesino communities of the Puna, 
the creation of protected areas, and the control of illegal hunting 
(Canedi 1997, pers. comm.). Dr. A. Canedi anticipates that some 
transplanting will occur from certain areas if populations grow to 
exceed carrying capacity.

[[Page 37707]]

    In response to the proposed rule, two commenters stated that the 
vicu[ntilde]a population of Argentina is currently estimated to be 
50,000 animals, however, we have not seen any reports that would 
corroborate this population estimate on the basis of scientifically-
sound survey methodology. Vicu[ntilde]a populations may have actually 
declined during the later 1990's as a result of a prolonged drought. 
Dr. A. Canedi (in litt. to FWS 1999) stated that a drought in 1996 to 
1998 contributed to a substantial decline in the vicu[ntilde]a 
population of the Olar[oacute]z-Cauchari Reserve (from 6,500 in 1995 to 
4,800 in 1998). He said that similar declines had occurred in other 
provinces. Thus, the current population estimate for Argentina is 
uncertain.
    Population Utilization. Poaching is not considered by national 
authorities to be a major problem at present (V. Lichtschein, CITES 
Management Authority of Argentina, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 
1999; E. Hoffman, journalist, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 1999), 
although instances of poaching have been observed. Sport hunting of 
vicu[ntilde]a is not permitted in Argentina, and no permits have been 
issued for the capture of wild vicu[ntilde]as for scientific or 
educational purposes.
    Vicu[ntilde]a utilization in Argentina consists of a developing 
effort to sustainably use wild populations in Jujuy Province, and 
efforts to develop captive management programs in the provinces of 
Catamarca, Jujuy, La Rioja, Salta, and San Juan. Two different captive 
management systems are in operation in Argentina. The first has been 
developed by personnel of the National Institute of Agriculture and 
Cattle Technology (INTA) at their High Altitude Experiment Station 
(CEA) at Abra Pampa (Rebuffi 1995). A second captive management 
operation has been implemented by the Asociacion Civil de Artesanos y 
Productores ``San Pedro Nolasco de los Molinos'' (Los Molinos) in the 
Molinos Department of Salta Province.
    The CEA INTA captive management model consists of maintaining a 
variable number (20 to 36) of semi-domestic vicu[ntilde]a in fully-
fenced enclosures of a few hectares. The vicu[ntilde]a are on loan from 
the CEA INTA semi-domestic herd at Abra Pampa; vicu[ntilde]a family 
groups are placed into the enclosures. The fenced enclosures are 
constructed on private lands with fencing material provided through 
loans from a private company. Individual ranchers who have been trained 
in vicu[ntilde]a management are responsible for protecting and caring 
for the vicu[ntilde]a. This model has been developed to be relevant to 
the conditions of the Argentine Puna where lands are owned by 
individual ranchers, human populations are very sparse, and vast areas 
of potential habitat with limited vicu[ntilde]a populations exist 
(CITES 1997a). The model is based on almost 30 years of study and 
experimentation with captive vicu[ntilde]a (Rebuffi 1995). Studies have 
emphasized efficient fences to contain vicu[ntilde]a, the determination 
of the carrying capacity of different range types, and the capturing 
and shearing of vicu[ntilde]a and fiber processing procedures.
    Young vicu[ntilde]a, produced under these captive conditions, are 
either used as replacement stock or are returned to CEA INTA as 
compensation for the initial vicu[ntilde]a loan. The captive herds are 
sheared at two year intervals using the techniques developed at CEA. At 
the time of shearing, representatives of INTA, the Provincial 
Department of Renewable Natural Resources, the National Gendarmes 
(military police), a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine, and the fiber buyer 
are present to observe and/or supervise the operation. The fiber buyer 
in 1997 was an Argentine fiber processing company that provided the 
fencing materials through loans. The fiber purchase is used to retire 
the debt on the fencing materials, and to provide immediate payment to 
the individual rancher. The fiber, at the time of shearing, is weighed, 
bagged, marked, sealed, recorded and stored in a sealed warehouse until 
all commercial authorizations have been completed.
    We understand that, to date, about 20 individual ranchers have 
captive herds established with vicu[ntilde]a from the captive herd at 
CEA INTA Abra Pampa. Apparently there are not enough captive 
vicu[ntilde]a at Abra Pampa to establish many more captive herds at the 
present time. Most of the captive herds have been established in Jujuy 
and Salta Provinces. We believe that the majority of captive 
populations are probably well maintained and in good health, and that 
mortality associated with shearing is probably low. However, we are 
aware of one instance where most of the animals in a captive population 
died because the animals (20 of 36 vicu[ntilde]as) were sheared in 
winter and died of pneumonia soon thereafter (``Las Esquilaron en Pleno 
Invierno: Denuncian Muerte de Vicu[ntilde]as,'' PREGON, San Salvador de 
Jujuy, Wednesday, July 28, 1999).
    The production of vicu[ntilde]a fiber under captive conditions is 
said to benefit the individual campesino rancher, and is said to be 
growing in popularity. Proponents claim that this program benefits the 
status of vicu[ntilde]a in the wild, because the ranchers support the 
program and, therefore, tolerate the presence of non-captive 
vicu[ntilde]a in the provinces. The program also is claimed to have 
enhanced the relationship between ranchers and the National Gendarmes, 
which has improved protective measures for vicu[ntilde]a. The National 
Gendarmes have apparently succeeded in reducing poaching of wild 
vicu[ntilde]a, although we have not been able to obtain any 
quantitative information that demonstrates a clear link between 
establishment of captive vicu[ntilde]a populations and improved 
conservation status of wild vicu[ntilde]a populations. Growth of wild 
vicu[ntilde]a populations is not necessarily an indicator of the 
success of the captive management program, because some populations 
have increased in areas without captive populations, and because growth 
of wild populations began in some areas long before captive populations 
were established.
    Based on information available to us, we continue to have concerns 
over the effectiveness of this captive management model as a 
conservation tool for wild populations of vicu[ntilde]a. The captive 
population at Abra Pampa has been developed from a limited number of 
founder animals (16 females and 6 males). Some scientists have 
expressed concerns over the genetic fitness of animals in this 
population. In the proposed rule, we expressed concern about possible 
genetic and disease consequences if vicu[ntilde]a from the Abra Pampa 
population were translocated to different provinces and subsequently 
escape to mingle with the wild population. We no longer believe that 
these are major threats, primarily because of the very small number of 
animals involved and the level of veterinary care the captive animals 
receive. In the proposed rule, we expressed concern that captive 
populations might be established in the most favorable vicu[ntilde]a 
habitat areas, thus potentially depriving wild vicu[ntilde]a 
populations of important resources such as water or forage; we no 
longer believe that this is a major threat, primarily because of the 
very small amount of land involved. We are concerned, however, that 
economic gains realized from sales of vicu[ntilde]a fiber may be used 
by individual ranchers to increase the size of their domestic livestock 
herds, thus increasing grazing pressure on vicu[ntilde]a habitats 
outside enclosures. Such a result was predicted in a study of campesino 
communities and vicu[ntilde]a utilization in Catamarca Province, 
conducted by Rabinovich et al. (1991), although Rabinovich cautioned 
that those results were site-specific.
    We are not yet convinced that the INTA captive management program 
will

[[Page 37708]]

be able to provide socioeconomic benefits to a large number of people 
over the long term, thereby reducing pressure on wild vicu[ntilde]a 
populations, for the following reasons. We understand that only about 
20 individual ranchers have captive herds, so the number of people 
realizing a benefit from this program is very small in comparison to 
the total number of Puna residents. The number of captive herds is not 
likely to increase substantially in the near future. We do not have 
enough information to determine the exact financial return realized by 
individual ranchers participating in the captive management program, 
because it varies based on the price of the fiber and the amount 
obtained per shearing, but average annual income appears to be in the 
range of US $750 to $1,100 per year per rancher. This may or may not 
constitute a substantial return, depending on the individual ranchers 
involved. However, it appears that all or most individual ranchers are 
indebted (for the fencing materials) to the same company that purchases 
their fiber. This may put the ranchers at a disadvantage in obtaining 
the highest price possible for their fiber. Last, it does not appear 
that any of the proceeds from sales of vicu[ntilde]a fiber or fiber 
products are channeled into conservation programs for wild 
vicu[ntilde]a, thus there is no direct or even indirect financial link 
between these programs.
    The Grupo Especialista en Camelidos Sudamericanos (GECS) of the 
IUCN/SSC believes that captive management could be compatible with 
conservation of wild vicu[ntilde]a populations and natural habitats if 
the following conditions are met: (1) That habitat and food 
availability for free populations is not threatened by captive 
operations; (2) that the risk of mingling captive and wild, free-
ranging vicu[ntilde]as is minimized with efficient fencing and 
continued monitoring; (3) that local human communities have an active 
participation in tasks and also in revenues emerging from vicu[ntilde]a 
use; and (4) that part of these revenues be reinvested in the 
conservation goal. One captive management operation in Argentina 
appears to have begun fulfilling the criteria outlined by GECS. The 
Asociacion Civil de Artesanos y Productores ``San Pedro Nolasco de los 
Molinos'' (Los Molinos) has a structure wherein its 25 participating 
families (120 individuals) share tasks and benefits of using the 
vicu[ntilde]a, has established a captive management operation (Criadero 
Coquena-El Refugio de las Vicu[ntilde]as) in an area not immediately 
within occupied vicu[ntilde]a habitat, has conducted a vicu[ntilde]a 
population survey in the Molinos Department of Salta Province, and is 
interested in further developing and implementing a conservation 
program for wild vicu[ntilde]a. Los Molinos obtained its vicu[ntilde]a 
on loan from CEA INTA in 1994, but does not rely on CEA INTA for 
technical support. It has not accepted any financial support for 
developing its operation, but has accepted a variety of technical 
support from different regional agencies. Los Molinos does not sell the 
raw fiber but uses it to produce a finished product on site.
    Los Molinos' model of captive vicu[ntilde]a management differs from 
the CEA INTA management model in that it includes a component of 
research and conservation of wild vicu[ntilde]as, attempts to ``add 
value'' to the raw fiber by producing traditional crafts, thereby 
increasing the financial return to the local community, and provides 
economic benefits to multiple persons rather than to an individual 
rancher. The Los Molinos program appears to have a demonstrable 
conservation benefit for wild vicu[ntilde]a populations, and a link 
between conservation activities and economic benefits to members of the 
cooperative.
    Vicu[ntilde]a population trends throughout Argentina are positive, 
and populations have increased to the extent that we no longer consider 
them to be endangered by previous or current overutilization. We do, 
however, consider the vicu[ntilde]a to be threatened by overutilization 
throughout Argentina because appropriate conservation mechanisms are 
not yet fully implemented, and populations have not yet recovered to 
the extent practicable, based on successful conservation and 
management.
Bolivia
    Population Status. A country-wide census in 1996 recorded 33,844 
vicu[ntilde]a in Bolivia (CNVB 1996). In 1997, the total population was 
estimated at about 35,500 (DNCB 1997, pers. comm.), while in 1999, the 
total population was estimated at 45,000 animals (CITES 2000a). 
Population data determined by direct and total counts of individuals on 
selected habitat areas are best for the three experimental pilot areas-
-Ulla Ulla, Mauri-Desaguadero and Lipez Chichas--whose populations were 
transferred to CITES Appendix II in 1997. Periodic censuses have 
occurred over a 30-year period for Ulla Ulla, and over a 15-year period 
for the other two pilot areas. Populations have been growing steadily 
in each area during the period that censuses have been conducted (CITES 
2000b).
    The Bolivian vicu[ntilde]a population is believed to be increasing, 
and perhaps has reached carrying capacity in a few areas. Population 
growth has been accomplished by increases in vicu[ntilde]a population 
density in known habitat areas, and population expansion into 
heretofore unoccupied habitat areas. It is believed that the principal 
reason for the growth in the general vicu[ntilde]a population is the 
protection provided by the campesino communities, especially those that 
have government supported game wardens.
    Population Utilization. Some campesino communities in Bolivia 
remain hostile to vicu[ntilde]as because of crop depredation or 
perceived competition with domestic livestock, and the fact that few 
economic benefits are presently realized from vicu[ntilde]a. Some 
vicu[ntilde]a may be killed as a consequence. In addition, 
vicu[ntilde]a are known to be poached in Bolivia (CITES 1997b). 
Poaching levels may be high enough to warrant concern. For examples, 
one person was arrested outside La Paz with 324 vicu[ntilde]a skins in 
his possession, and tour operators in remote areas claim to encounter 
skinned vicu[ntilde]a carcasses on a regular basis (E. Hoffman, pers. 
comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 1999). Game wardens report isolated cases 
of poaching of 3 to 20 animals (CITES 2000a). Vicu[ntilde]a products, 
including rugs made from many skins, can be seen for sale in the San 
Francisco Plaza in La Paz (E. Hoffman, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, 
DSA, 1999). Local authorities use vicu[ntilde]a ponchos, scarves, and 
blankets, especially at traditional celebrations (CITES 1997b). The 
fiber used in these products comes from animals killed illegally (CITES 
1997b). The granting of custodianship to local communities, and the 
delegation of monitoring responsibilities to the provincial governments 
is expected to provide a mechanism to address this issue.
    Vicu[ntilde]a are not captured in Bolivia for educational or 
scientific purposes. There is no intent to have commercial meat 
operations as the only authorized commerce will be in fiber and fiber 
products from live-shorn vicu[ntilde]as from wild populations.
    Bolivia's National Program for the Conservation of Vicu[ntilde]a is 
in the early stages of implementation. Bolivia is developing a program 
for harvesting and marketing fiber shorn from wild, free-ranging 
vicu[ntilde]a; this program borrows significantly from the successful 
program of wild population management and utilization in Peru. The 
initial step of the National Program was to transfer three substantial 
vicu[ntilde]a populations in areas where campesino commitment was high 
(Ulla Ulla, Mauri-Desaguadero, Lipez Chichas) from

[[Page 37709]]

CITES Appendix I to II, with a zero quota for export. This proposal was 
adopted by the CITES Parties at COP 10 in 1997. The transfer allowed 
the development and refinement of pilot management and shearing 
programs that would eventually be expanded to other vicu[ntilde]a 
habitats. The second step was the conclusion of an agreement between 
the Programma Quinua Potosi (PROQUIPO) and the DNCB (Direcci[otilde]n 
Nacional de Conservaci[oacute]n de la Biodiversidad Unidad de Vida 
Silvestre) to operate the Pilot Center of Sud Lipez to actually develop 
and demonstrate those management and shearing programs. The pilot 
project involves the capture and shearing of live vicu[ntilde]as, and 
the manufacture of fabric and eventually the sale of vicu[ntilde]a 
fiber for the manufacture of textiles to demonstrate the potential 
economic benefit to campesino communities. The third step was the 
removal of the zero quota for export at COP 11 in 2000; this would help 
provide the basis for implementing the program on a more widespread 
basis. Bolivia subsequently reported an export quota of 1.975 kilograms 
for 2000 with the CITES Secretariat. A fourth step, a proposal to 
transfer all remaining populations in Bolivia to Appendix II (CITES 
2000a), was presented at COP 11 but withdrawn because of opposition by 
the other Vicu[ntilde]a Convention countries. That proposal is likely 
to be re-submitted at a future COP, perhaps COP 12. With approval of 
such a program the live-shearing program could be expanded country-
wide.
    Vicu[ntilde]a population trends throughout Bolivia are positive, 
and populations have increased to the extent that we no longer consider 
them to be endangered by previous or current overutilization. We do, 
however, consider the vicu[ntilde]a to be threatened by overutilization 
throughout Bolivia because appropriate conservation mechanisms are not 
yet fully implemented, and populations have not yet recovered to the 
extent practicable, based on successful conservation and management. 
Vicu[ntilde]a currently occur on approximately 3.4 million ha in 
Bolivia, whereas their potential range in Bolivia has been estimated at 
approximately 10 million ha (INFOL 1985 cited in CITES 2000a). Although 
vicu[ntilde]a will never occupy that range fully, due to habitat 
changes, grazing by domestic livestock, and human developments, there 
still appears to be considerable room for continued vicu[ntilde]a 
population recovery in Bolivia.
Chile
    Population Status. Over 96 percent of the vicu[ntilde]a (19,200 of 
an estimated 19,850) in Chile occur in Parinacota Province in the 
extreme northeastern portion of the country. The populations in the 
Caquena Management Zone (estimated to be 3,700 vicu[ntilde]a) and in 
the National Vicu[ntilde]a Reserve (estimated to be 8,050 
vicu[ntilde]a) in this Province were transferred to CITES Appendix II 
in 1987; these would be the only populations utilized commercially 
should a program to capture and shear live vicu[ntilde]a be initiated 
(Galaz 1997, pers. comm.). The adjacent population in Lauca National 
Park (estimated to be 7,410 vicu[ntilde]a) was retained on Appendix I 
to provide further control over vicu[ntilde]a in this protected natural 
area. The remaining four percent of Chile's vicu[ntilde]as occur 
elsewhere in the upper Andean tablelands in northeastern Chile. About 
650 vicu[ntilde]a are believed to occur in small scattered groups over 
about 215,000 ha elsewhere in the Tarapaca Region and in the 
neighboring Antofagasta and Atacama Regions.
    The vicu[ntilde]a population of Chile has grown steadily since 1975 
(Bonacic 2000). The vicu[ntilde]a population in Parinacota Province is 
believed to be near carrying capacity in typical vicu[ntilde]a habitat.
    Population Utilization. The hunting, capture, and sale of 
vicu[ntilde]a and vicu[ntilde]a products is unlawful in Chile without 
the authorization of the Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG-Agriculture 
and Livestock Service) of the Chilean government as specified in the 
new hunting law of 1996 (Ley No. 19.473) (Iriarte 2000). At present, 
there is no national or international trade in vicu[ntilde]a fiber, no 
exports of living vicu[ntilde]a and no known illegal trade in 
vicu[ntilde]a products. Poaching is not considered to be a problem in 
Chile (E. Hoffman, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, DSA, 1999).
    For more than 10 years, the Chilean government investigated the 
development of a sustainable use program based on capture, live-
shearing, and release of wild vicu[ntilde]a (Bonacic 2000a). Now, we 
understand that Chile is planning to develop a captive management 
program that may take up to 3,000 vicu[ntilde]a from the wild and 
maintain them in captivity in the altiplano (Galaz, pers. comm., cited 
in Bonacic 2000a). We do not know if, to date, Chile has actually 
authorized the capture of wild vicu[ntilde]as to develop the program. 
The new 1996 law gives SAG the authority to authorize sustainable use 
of the vicu[ntilde]a when certain conditions have been met (Iriarte 
2000). The only exports of raw fiber, as of 1997, were in order to 
obtain analyses of the fiber's physical properties (SAG 1997, pers. 
comm.).
    Vicu[ntilde]a population trends in Chile are positive or stable, 
and populations have increased to the extent that we no longer consider 
them to be endangered by previous or current overutilization. However, 
because a vicu[ntilde]a fiber industry could potentially be approved in 
Chile, this factor is still considered to threaten the Chilean 
population until such time as control mechanisms for harvest and 
commercialization are demonstrated to be adequate to control 
overutilization.
Peru
    Population Status. The 1997 census in Peru estimated a population 
of 103,650 vicu[ntilde]a on 6,361,000 ha of habitat (Hoces 1997, pers. 
comm.) in the high Andean tablelands of the departments of Ancash, 
Apurimac, Arequipa, Ayacucho, Cajamarca, Cusco, Huancavelica, Huanuco, 
Junin, La Libertad, Lima, Moquegua, Pasco, Puno and Tacna. More recent 
estimates suggest a total population of around 142,000 vicu[ntilde]a 
(Bonacic 2000a), however, we have not seen any reports that would 
corroborate this population estimate on the basis of scientifically-
sound survey methodology.
    The recovery of vicu[ntilde]a populations in Peru has not been 
steady, a consequence of political, economic, and environmental 
fluctuations over the past 35 years. Vicu[ntilde]a numbers were at a 
low point in 1965, grew steadily until a prolonged drought in 1978 
to1979 caused numbers in Pampa Galeras to decline substantially, 
gradually built to high levels in 1990, but were significantly reduced 
by illegal hunting from 1991 to 1994, while there was civil unrest in 
the region (Wheeler and Hoces 1997). Vicu[ntilde]a populations have 
been increasing since 1994. This is believed to be due to a combination 
of factors--the decrease in civil unrest in the high Andean region, 
increased efforts to control vicu[ntilde]a poaching, and the 
development of a vicu[ntilde]a fiber utilization program. Several 
campesino communities now participate in the protection, management and 
utilization of vicu[ntilde]a in cooperation with the National Council 
of South American Camelids (CONACS) and the National Institute of 
Natural Resources (INRENA), which is the designated CITES Management 
Authority for Peru.
    Population Utilization. At present, legislation in Peru permits the 
taking of vicu[ntilde]a if properly authorized and technically 
supported. Some culling of vicu[ntilde]as (about 1,000 per year) did 
occur from 1977 to 1983 but no quotas have

[[Page 37710]]

been declared and little if any legal take has occurred since that 
date. Any take for scientific studies is rare and, when authorized, is 
tightly controlled. There is no legal utilization of vicu[ntilde]a for 
meat or parts.
    Commercialization of vicu[ntilde]a fiber products in Peru is under 
a system of controls that include monitoring fiber collections, 
governmental supervision by CONACS and INRENA, and the involvement of 
local campesino communities. CONACS and INRENA are responsible for 
protecting and monitoring vicu[ntilde]as within protected areas such as 
Huascaran National Park, Pampa Galeras National Reserve, and the 
Salinas and Aguada Blanca National Reserve. The protection and 
monitoring of vicu[ntilde]as in the rural communities is a major 
responsibility of participating campesino communities in coordination 
with CONACS and INRENA.
    Two models of vicu[ntilde]a utilization are being pursued in Peru 
at the present time. The first model is based on the management of wild 
populations, utilizing capture methods based on the traditional 
``chaku,'' a surround technique used by the Incas to capture and shear 
vicu[ntilde]as and release them back to the wild (Wheeler and Hoces 
1997). The second model is based on captive management of 
vicu[ntilde]a. Since 1996, CONACS has been promoting the establishment 
of Sustainable Use Modules (SUMs) which are fully fenced enclosures of 
approximately 500 to 1,000 ha, each with about 250 vicu[ntilde]a.
    The ``chaku'' model was the initial approach to wild vicu[ntilde]a 
population management undertaken in Peru after populations began to 
recover. The most successful experiences with wild vicu[ntilde]a 
population management have been in the campesino communities of Lucanas 
and San Cristobal around Pampa Galeras. CONACS developed the ``chaku'' 
technique for capturing and harvesting fiber from living wild 
vicu[ntilde]a at Pampa Galeras, and has taught and supervised campesino 
communities in this technique and other aspects of vicu[ntilde]a 
management. The process used to capture and shear vicu[ntilde]as was 
observed in August 1997 by Dr. H. Short (on behalf of the National Fish 
and Wildlife Foundation) and described in the proposed rule. That 
description will not be repeated here, but readers are referred to the 
proposed rule (64 FR 48743, September 8, 1999).
    At Pampa Galeras and in other areas of the Peruvian Puna, 
vicu[ntilde]as occur on communal lands and campesinos represent a 
plentiful and important work force. As described in the proposed rule, 
vicu[ntilde]a management essentially provides full-time employment for 
many members of the Lucanas community-building fences, obtaining and 
cleaning fleeces, providing protection to vicu[ntilde]a and providing 
instruction to other communities wishing to establish a vicu[ntilde]a 
industry. It was reported that as part of the arrangement between the 
Lucanas community and the government, 500 vicu[ntilde]as were used to 
restock vicu[ntilde]a habitats in neighboring communities, in exchange 
for both a hydro-electric project and other economic assistance. The 
Pampa Galeras experience has been the model for other campesino 
communities in Peru, and is the model for similar efforts in Bolivia.
    Efforts are underway in Peru to implement a large-scale captive 
management program for vicu[ntilde]a (Lichtenstein et al. 1999b, Sahley 
1999, Sahley et al. submitted). Since 1996, CONACS has been promoting 
the establishment of Sustainable Use Modules (SUMs), which are fully 
fenced enclosures (corrals) of approximately 500 to 1,000 ha, each with 
about 250 vicu[ntilde]a. We understand that long-range plans were to 
establish SUMs in 600 campesino communities by the year 2000 according 
to the Sociedad Nacional de Criadores de la Vicu[ntilde]a (SNV-National 
Society of Vicu[ntilde]a Breeders) (SNV 1997, cited in Sahley 1999). We 
do not know if this goal was achieved, but by 1999 approximately 21,000 
vicu[ntilde]a (D. Hoces, Technical Director, CONACS, in litt. to FWS, 
1999) were being held in approximately 250 Sustainable Use Modules in 
Peru (Lichtenstein et al. 1999b). Translocation of animals is involved 
in this management model; vicu[ntilde]a are relocated from areas where 
they are abundant to establish captive populations in new areas.
    Dr. Gabriela Lichtenstein of the Instituto Internacional de Medio 
Ambiente y Desarrollo-America Latina (IIED-AL) and her research team 
assessed and compared the two vicu[ntilde]a management systems in Peru 
(i.e., captive management versus wild, free-ranging management) from 
ecological, social, and economic perspectives, and conducted a 
feasibility analysis of both systems (Lichtenstein et al. 1999b). Two 
projects in the Department of Ayacucho-Proyecto Barbara D'Achille, 
Lucanas and Proyecto de San Cristobal y aleda[ntilde]as-were evaluated 
as case studies. Their findings strongly indicate that management of 
wild, free-ranging vicu[ntilde]a populations is a better alternative 
than captive management from all three perspectives--ecological, 
economic, and social. They concluded that the economic viability of 
enclosures (corrals) for campesino communities is questionable, 
especially when the enclosures have fewer than 250 vicu[ntilde]as. They 
characterized captive management as a high risk venture with low profit 
potential. Conversely, wild management was characterized as a medium to 
high risk investment with potential high profits. After considering the 
low carrying capacity of the habitat, they determined that placing more 
than 333 vicu[ntilde]as per corral would have a negative impact on the 
environment and increase desertification. They noted that genetic 
interchange and dispersal were limited by enclosures, and expressed 
concern about translocating animals without paying proper attention to 
health and genetic concerns. They suggested that the SUM project would 
greatly benefit if it were accompanied by solid research on ecological 
carrying capacities, and on the genetic, behavioral, and population 
impacts of enclosures on vicu[ntilde]as.
    Sahley (1999) and associates (Sahley et al. submitted) have also 
compared the two management systems in Peru, and evaluated two projects 
as case studies--Tambo Ca[ntilde]ahuas and Toccra in Arequipa. Their 
results are similar to those of the Lichtenstein group--that the wild, 
free-ranging management model (i.e., capture, shearing, and release of 
wild vicu[ntilde]as) is biologically sustainable in the short- and 
long-terms, and is economically more viable that the captive (corral) 
management model.
    These two projects are the only research efforts we are aware of 
that have systematically examined and compared the costs and benefits 
of both captive and wild, free-ranging vicu[ntilde]a management systems 
from ecological, social, and economic perspectives. Therefore, we 
attach great importance to their conclusions, although we recognize 
that these conclusions would benefit from additional research. 
Certainly additional research and monitoring of SUMs is needed to 
assess the ecological, economic, and social viability of that program. 
We are concerned about the genetic and population dynamics implications 
of captive management, as well as habitat implications (i.e., how are 
carrying capacities of corrals determined, and what happens when that 
capacity is reached?). We are also concerned about possible disease and 
genetic implications of vicu[ntilde]a translocations to start new 
populations, and believe that such translocations should be based on a 
previously-developed protocols that consider the possible genetic and 
disease consequences. We are not aware that Peru has developed such 
protocols. Wheeler et al. (2000) have identified

[[Page 37711]]

four genetically distinct groups of vicu[ntilde]as in Peru. They urge 
caution with regard to repopulation efforts, and suggest that 
translocations occur within the four distinct groups rather than among 
the groups.
    Vicu[ntilde]a population trends throughout Peru are positive, and 
populations have increased to the extent that we no longer consider 
them to be endangered by previous or current overutilization. We do, 
however, consider the vicu[ntilde]a to be threatened by overutilization 
throughout Peru because appropriate conservation mechanisms are not yet 
fully implemented, and populations have not yet recovered to the extent 
practicable, based on successful conservation and management. 
Vicu[ntilde]a in Peru in 1997 were estimated to occur on about 6.4 
million ha throughout the 15 to 17 million ha of suitable habitat in 
the Peruvian highlands Although vicu[ntilde]a will never occupy that 
range fully, due to habitat changes, competition with domestic 
livestock, and human developments, there still appears to be 
considerable room for continued vicu[ntilde]a population recovery in 
Peru.

C. Disease or Predation

    Vicu[ntilde]as, like most mammals, suffer from a variety of endo- 
and ecto-parasites. Mange caused by parasitic mites can result in skin 
lesions and loss of hair, especially in those populations that coexist 
with domestic livestock, and during drought conditions. Major predators 
on vicu[ntilde]a include the puma (Felis concolor), the Andean fox or 
zorro (Dusicyon culpaeus) and perhaps the Andean condor (Vultur 
gryphus), which may kill newborn and sick animals.
    Vicu[ntilde]a populations in the four range countries are not 
believed to be endangered or threatened by the impacts of disease or 
predation, because populations are increasing or stable and there is no 
evidence of widespread disease outbreaks as an actual or potential 
mortality factor. We remain concerned about the potential for disease 
transmission from vicu[ntilde]a that are translocated for the 
development of new captive populations or for release to the wild to 
supplement wild populations.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The regulatory mechanisms in place vary among the four range 
countries under consideration. However, all four countries are 
signatories to both CITES and the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention.
Argentina
    In Argentina, the First Interprovincial Technical Conference on the 
Conservation of the Vicu[ntilde]a met in 1972, and agreed to develop 
methods to capture and transport vicu[ntilde]a to recolonize 
vicu[ntilde]a habitats, and to develop a plan for the management, 
shearing, and the manufacture of handicrafts from vicu[ntilde]a fiber. 
Additional meetings integrated the provincial vicu[ntilde]a programs, 
established a national program, and established the ``Vicu[ntilde]a 
Regional Commission'' as a mechanism to attain national coordination on 
the vicu[ntilde]a management program (Comisi[oacute]n Regional de la 
Vicu[ntilde]a 1994).
    In 1988, Argentina signed the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention, and has 
since carried out its programs within the context of this agreement. 
Argentine National Law for the Conservation of Wildlife 22.421 and its 
Regulatory Decree No. 691, provides for vicu[ntilde]a protection. The 
Constitution of Argentina, reformed in 1994, assures the rights of the 
provinces over their respective natural resources, assures the rights 
of indigenous people to use these natural resources in traditional 
ways, and embraces the conservation of biological diversity and the 
sustainable development of natural resources.
    Several laws and decrees within the Vicu[ntilde]a Provinces (Jujuy, 
Salta, Catamarca and La Rioja) list the vicu[ntilde]a as a protected 
species, establish protected areas for the species, prohibit hunting, 
and prohibit commercialization, transportation, or manufacturing of 
parts or products from hunted animals, regardless of origin. Laws and 
decrees also allow the installation of captive breeding operations, and 
the commercialization and industrialization of products from captive-
bred animals (Canedi 1997, pers. comm.).
    The Departments of Renewable Natural Resources for Jujuy, Salta, 
Catamarca and La Rioja Provinces have signed agreements with the 
Secretariat of Natural Resources and Human Environment and the National 
Gendarmes, a Federal Law Enforcement group, to enforce provisions of 
Provincial and National laws that prohibit illegal hunting and 
smuggling. The Gendarmes conduct extensive patrols in rural areas and 
on the borders, and have officers at the ports, airports, and borders. 
They are charged with conducting inspections and investigations 
involving the illegal trafficking of vicu[ntilde]a fiber. Their 
environmental division meets with campesinos and tries to promote the 
vicu[ntilde]a program. Although the Department of Renewable Natural 
Resources and the National Gendarmes may not have sufficient resources 
at their disposal, they are thought to be working effectively with the 
campesino communities of the Puna as evinced in the increase of 
vicu[ntilde]a populations of the Puna (Canedi 1997, pers. comm).
    At present, the only legal vicu[ntilde]a fiber in Argentina is that 
obtained from the shearing of live vicu[ntilde]a from officially-
authorized captive populations. We understand that a registry of 
authorized captive populations is maintained by the national CITES 
Management Authority, the Direccion de Fauna y Flora Silvestres (V. 
Lichtschein, pers. comm. with K. Johnson, OSA, 1999). Shorn fiber is 
bagged, tagged, weighed, sealed, recorded, and the government agency 
that supervised the shearing is identified on the bag. Fiber from an 
officially-authorized rancher can be directly auctioned for export, or 
the rancher, if an artisan, can retain the fiber, and make and sell 
cloth. Either the fiber buyer or the rancher-artisan would need a 
transport permit, and that transport permit would need to be presented 
when the CITES export permit is requested.
    Fabric or products manufactured by rancher-artisans need to be 
marked with the official seals or stamps. Such fabrics or products, 
expected to be limited in numbers, can only be sold to licensed outlets 
recognized and approved by the government. The check on whether fabrics 
or products are made from legal vicu[ntilde]a fiber will be made by 
comparing weights of raw fiber harvested under supervised shearing 
operations against the combined weight of raw fiber retained by the 
authorized rancher-artisan and the weights of fiber products produced 
by that rancher-artisan. From information available to us, it appears 
that provincial natural resource departments are responsible for 
supervising shearing. However, at present, it is not clear to us which 
government agency approves licensed outlets for vicu[ntilde]a products, 
and which agency conducts checks of producers to ensure that only legal 
fiber is used in artisan products. There is apparently no national 
legislation that covers all aspects relating to the trade in 
vicu[ntilde]a or the administrative aspects relating to this trade 
(CITES 1997a).
    Argentina acceded to CITES in 1981. Wild vicu[ntilde]a populations 
in Jujuy Province , and so-called ``semi-captive populations'' of 
vicu[ntilde]a in Jujuy, Salta, Catamarca, La Rioja and San Juan 
Provinces were transferred from CITES Appendix I to II at COP10, 
effective September 18, 1997. Exports are limited to fiber shorn from 
live animals, cloth

[[Page 37712]]

and articles made from that cloth, luxury handicrafts and knitted 
articles. The reverse side of cloth and cloth products must bear the 
logo adopted by countries signatory to the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention and 
the words ``VICU[Ntilde]A-ARGENTINA.'' All specimens not meeting the 
above conditions are considered to be included in Appendix I and 
subject to the prohibition against primarily commercial trade, and 
other CITES Appendix I requirements.
    Articles bought by a foreign tourist at a government-authorized 
store are legal to export as personal accompanying baggage only after a 
CITES export permit containing all required information has been 
obtained. The only apparent control of artisan goods sold to residents 
of Argentina and later resold to foreign tourists is the requirement 
that the tourist have a CITES export permit upon return to his/her 
country of origin. This is also a requirement for importation of any 
personal effects or personal accompanying baggage by U.S. residents, 
under the conditions of the special rule accompanying this rule. If the 
fiber from an authorized captive breeder is sold at auction, the buyer, 
presumably a fiber-processing company, would get a permit from the 
Provincial Natural Resources Department. The buyer would present that 
permit to the National Secretary for Natural Resources and Human 
Environment to obtain the required CITES permit for export.
    The National Gendarmes are expected to aid provincial authorities 
in the control of poaching, illegal trade, and transport of 
unauthorized products within the country and the routine inspection of 
products of legal origin to certify their origin. Collaboration will 
also be provided by the National Aeronautical Police at the country's 
airports to intensify inspections of commercial products and 
passengers.
    We do not consider the vicu[ntilde]a to be endangered by inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms in Argentina. We do, however, consider the 
species to be threatened by this factor because many of the regulatory 
mechanisms are in early stages of implementation, we are still unclear 
about several aspects related to the control of trade in raw 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber and artisan products, and there appears to be no 
national legislation that covers all aspects relating to the trade in 
vicu[ntilde]a or the administrative aspects relating to this trade.
Bolivia
    Bolivia's Programa Nacional de Conservaci[oacute]n de la 
Vicu[ntilde]a (National Program for Vicu[ntilde]a Conservation, or 
National Program) is in the early stages of implementation. The 
Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente (MDSMA-Ministry of 
Sustainable Development and the Environment) is the agency responsible 
for managing all renewable natural resources. The Direction General de 
Biodiversidad (formerly the Direcci[oacute]n Nacional de 
Conservaci[oacute]n de la Biodiversidad--DNCB) is located within this 
Ministry and is responsible for policies dealing with conservation of 
biological diversity. This agency is responsible for executing the 
National Program for Vicu[ntilde]a Conservation.
    Several laws and decrees are relevant to vicu[ntilde]a management 
in Bolivia. Bolivia and Peru signed the Treaty of La Paz in 1969 to 
provide a measure of international protection for vicu[ntilde]a (this 
treaty was a precursor of the current Vicu[ntilde]a Convention). The 
Agrarian Reform Act of 1953 enabled some rural communities to have 
private lands and other rural communities to have unfenced communal 
lands which are advantageous to free-roaming vicu[ntilde]as. Law 12301 
(Ley de Vida Silvestre, Parques Nacionales, Caza Y Pesca) passed 
in1975, describes the government's obligation to regulate and 
administer the use of wildlife resources. Law 1333 (Ley del Medio 
Ambiente), passed in 1992, provides for sustainable use of authorized 
species, based on technical, scientific, and economic information. Law 
1715, passed in 1996, created the National Institute for Agrarian 
Reform and promoted the sustainable use of land, the promotion of 
practices favoring conservation and the protection of biodiversity, and 
the concept that lands where conservation is practiced would not be 
subject to expropriation.
    Decreto Supremo (Supreme Decree) No. 22641 declared a complete and 
indefinite ban on the killing of all wildlife species, and states that 
the ban can only be lifted through legislation indicating the species 
and conditions that have lead to the lifting of the ban (CITES 1999). 
Supreme Decree No. 25458 of July 1999 ratified the general and 
indefinite ban established by Supreme Decree No. 22641, and modifies 
Articles 4 and 5 of that decree, related to lifting of the ban.
    Supreme Decree No. 24529, passed in March 1997, authorized 
regulations for the protection and management of vicu[ntilde]as in 
Bolivia. These regulations grant custodianship of vicu[ntilde]a 
populations to the rural communities (although the national government 
maintains ownership of the vicu[ntilde]a), give the rural communities 
the exclusive rights to use vicu[ntilde]a fibers, subject to the listed 
regulations, defines the conditions under which use of vicu[ntilde]a 
fiber is carried out, and establishes the Sistema de Vigilancia de 
Vicu[ntilde]a (SVV-System for the Protection of the Vicu[ntilde]a). We 
understand that the government has begun implementation of regulations 
by holding workshops in campesino communities to explain the 
regulations, by publishing print media guides describing the 
regulations and by helping campesino communities begin their compliance 
with the regulations (DNCB 1997, pers. comm.). We also understand that 
the government has begun coordinating with the National Police and 
military to help curb illegal activities dealing with vicu[ntilde]a and 
their products.
    Under the regulations, all existing vicu[ntilde]a fiber products, 
including those in the domestic market, are to be inventoried and 
registered and all new products or fibers will also be registered. In 
the future, any non-registered vicu[ntilde]a products will be 
considered illegal. The only fiber that will be allowed for commercial 
purposes will be that obtained from live-shorn vicu[ntilde]a that have 
been captured according to regulations. Only raw fiber for the 
manufacture of cloth will be exported. Bolivia does not have a textile 
industry with the capability to manufacture vicu[ntilde]a fiber cloth 
(DNCB 1997, pers. comm.).
    The overall management of vicu[ntilde]a in Bolivia is based on 
National Program for Vicu[ntilde]a Conservation. The National Program 
emphasizes the management and use of wild free-ranging populations of 
vicu[ntilde]a, population monitoring, and the improvement of habitat 
quality. Under the regulations, the harvesting of vicu[ntilde]a fiber 
will only be allowed in organized campesino communities that (1) have 
the rights to capture and shear vicu[ntilde]a and utilize vicu[ntilde]a 
fiber, and (2) have delegated authority to work with government 
authorities in the management and conservation of the vicu[ntilde]a. 
These campesino communities are the only legal benefactors of the sale 
of vicu[ntilde]a fiber. The National Program will be carried out in 
these communities. Management will be based on Planes de Manejo de la 
Vicu[ntilde]a (PMV) (Vicu[ntilde]a Management Plans) prepared by and 
for each Area de Manejo Communal (AMC) (Communal Management Area). 
Management plans will include population monitoring and habitat 
management and improvement measures. This information will be basic to 
decisions to conduct vicu[ntilde]a drives, and in the conduct of 
capture and shearing operations. Monitoring information will be 
provided by game guards and recommendations for management actions will 
be produced

[[Page 37713]]

in the campesino communities. Government authorities will be present 
when vicu[ntilde]a capturing and shearing occurs. The authorities will 
register the number of vicu[ntilde]a captured, the number shorn, the 
weights of fleeces, etc., and supervise the bagging, weighing, marking 
and sealing of vicu[ntilde]a fiber. This information will be provided 
to the CITES authorities for reference purposes and information later 
provided in support of export permit applications must correspond to 
the on-site records. The Netherlands government has provided financial 
support to underwrite initial efforts to implement the National 
Program.
    The regulations also establish the SVV, which provides for the 
development of an inter-community network for the management and 
protection of the species. This network will have direct control over 
activities such as fiber sales, and will also have responsibilities for 
determining status and trends in vicu[ntilde]a populations. The SVV 
will be composed of game guards made up of local vicu[ntilde]a 
protection officers and Park Rangers who are the enforcement officers 
within protected areas such as National Parks. The game guards will be 
responsible for the protection and control of vicu[ntilde]a in each 
conservation unit. Protection and control efforts will also be 
supported by special units of the National Police. The DGB will 
regulate and coordinate the activities and participants within the SVV.
    Bolivia has been a CITES Party since 1979. The vicu[ntilde]a 
populations of the Mauri-Desaguadero, Ulla Ulla and Lipez-Chichas 
Conservation Units were transferred from CITES Appendix I to II, with a 
zero annual export quota, at COP10, effective September 18, 1997. The 
zero quota was removed at COP11; Bolivia subsequently reported an 
export quota of 1.975 kilograms for 2000 to the CITES Secretariat. 
Exports will be limited to fiber shorn from live animals, and to cloth 
and articles made from such cloth, including luxury handicrafts and 
knitted articles. The reverse side of cloth and cloth products must 
bear the logo adopted by countries signatory to the Vicu[ntilde]a 
Convention and the words ``VICU[Ntilde]A-BOLIVIA.'' All specimens not 
meeting the above conditions are considered to be included in Appendix 
I and subject to the prohibition against primarily commercial trade, 
and other CITES Appendix I requirements.
    The military will assist in patrols, inspections and the seizures 
of illegal products. Customs will assist in the control of the export 
and import of fiber at the ports of entry, border posts and airports to 
assure that CITES requirements are fulfilled.
    We do not consider the vicu[ntilde]a to be endangered by inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms in Bolivia. We do, however, consider the species 
to be threatened by this factor because many of the regulatory 
mechanisms are in early stages of implementation, and because poaching 
continues to be a threat in Bolivia.
Chile
    The existing regulatory mechanisms in Chile are dedicated to the 
protection of vicu[ntilde]a. Law No. 4.601 passed in 1929, modified by 
Law No. 19.473 passed in 1996, indefinitely closed the hunting season 
for vicu[ntilde]a throughout the Republic of Chile. The hunting, 
capturing and selling of vicu[ntilde]a (and vicu[ntilde]a parts) is 
outlawed. Persons possessing, transporting or involved in commercial 
operations with vicu[ntilde]a products need to prove their actions are 
authorized by these laws. The Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG) of the 
Ministry of Agriculture is the CITES Management Authority, and has a 
Department for the Protection of Renewable Natural Resources and a 
Wildlife Division. Authorized customs officers (uniformed police), 
accredited officials from SAG, and representatives of the National 
Forest Corporation (CONAF) provide protection to vicu[ntilde]as within 
the national protected areas system (SAG 1997, pers. comm.).
    As of 1997, it was illegal to possess vicu[ntilde]a parts and 
products in Chile, and the only exports of raw fiber were in order to 
obtain analyses of the fiber's physical properties (SAG 1997, pers. 
comm.). Because it was illegal to possess vicu[ntilde]a parts and 
products, no mechanisms had been developed for registering or 
identifying raw fiber, or for establishing warehouses for storing fiber 
(SAG 1997, pers. comm.). At that time (1997), preliminary plans for a 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber industry, should it become authorized, indicated 
that the responsible party would need to provide an application to SAG 
indicating, among other things, the likely number of animals to be 
captured and sheared, the expected yield of the fiber harvest, the 
logistics of the capture and shearing operation, where and how the 
fiber would be stored and its eventual destination (SAG 1997, pers. 
comm.). SAG, should they approve the application, would oversee the 
capture process, register the quantity of harvested fiber, and seal the 
warehouse where the fiber was being stored. SAG would also provide the 
necessary export permits, after determining that the quantities for 
export correspond to quantities authorized and actually harvested. 
Preliminary plans also suggested that a mechanism would be established 
to deal with the production and sale of luxury handicrafts and knitted 
articles. That organization would be responsible for receiving the 
fiber, registering and offering the fiber products for sale, for 
recording the sale of registered craft items and providing an 
accounting of the sale of registered craft items (SAG 1997, pers. 
comm.).
    We are aware that plans are currently underway to develop a captive 
management program in Chile, and that it is expected that vicu[ntilde]a 
will be captured from the wild and kept in captivity in the altiplano 
(Galaz, pers. comm., cited in Bonacic 2000a). We do not know if Chile 
has thus far authorized the capture of any vicu[ntilde]as to develop 
the program. Bonacic (2000a) states that, at present, the legal, 
social, and ecological framework for vicu[ntilde]a captive management 
in Chile is complex and unresolved. However, the Government of Chile, 
in its comments to our proposed rule, stated that the present Hunting 
Law (Ley No. 19.473) provides Chile with the necessary tools and 
mechanisms for control and administration for sustainable management of 
the vicu[ntilde]a, and/or the establishment of captive breeding 
operations, so long as hunting is prohibited and its capture is 
strictly regulated.
    Chile acceded to CITES in 1975. The vicu[ntilde]a populations of 
Paranicota Province, Region of Tarapaca (specifically, the populations 
in the Caquena Management Zone and the Vicu[ntilde]a National Reserve) 
were transferred from CITES Appendix I to II in 1987 at COP6. Any 
future export of vicu[ntilde]a products would be limited to fiber 
sheared from live animals in Appendix II populations and to cloth and 
items made from that cloth including luxury handicrafts, and knitted 
articles. The reverse side of cloth and cloth products would need to 
bear the logo adopted by countries signatory to the Vicu[ntilde]a 
Convention and the words ``VICU[Ntilde]A-CHILE.'' All specimens not 
meeting any of the above conditions are considered to be included in 
Appendix I and subject to the prohibition against primarily commercial 
trade, and other CITES Appendix I requirements.
    We do not consider the vicu[ntilde]a to be endangered by inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms in Chile. However, because a vicu[ntilde]a fiber 
industry is likely to be approved in Chile but the adequacy of the 
specific regulatory mechanisms for harvest and commercialization have 
not yet been demonstrated, we consider that

[[Page 37714]]

the vicu[ntilde]a is still threatened by this factor in Chile.
Peru
    The major breakthroughs in the management of vicu[ntilde]a in Peru 
were new laws transferring the custodianship of vicu[ntilde]as to 
campesinos and campesino communities, giving the campesinos the 
responsibility to protect vicu[ntilde]as, the implementation of 
protective measures, the determination that it was not necessary to 
kill vicu[ntilde]a in order to obtain fiber from their hides, and the 
development of management techniques to herd, capture, and shear living 
vicu[ntilde]as (Wheeler and Hoces 1997). The key factor has been 
allowing the benefits of vicu[ntilde]a management and utilization to 
accrue collectively to campesino communities (rather than to middlemen 
or other individuals) (Wheeler and Hoces 1997).
    The Peruvian infrastructure promoting vicu[ntilde]a management and 
commerce in vicu[ntilde]a fiber products includes the Consejo Nacional 
de Camelidos Sudamericanos (CONACS--Council of South American Camelids) 
which is a public, decentralized organization of the Ministry of 
Agriculture in charge of the promotion, standardization, and control of 
activities with the South American camelids. CONACS has offices in Lima 
and throughout the vicu[ntilde]a range, and is the proprietor of the 
trademarks ``VICU[Ntilde]A-PERU'' and ``VICU[Ntilde]A-PERU-ARTESANIA.'' 
The Institute of Natural Resources (INRENA) is also a public, 
decentralized organization of the Ministry of Agriculture, and is in 
control of all renewable natural resources in Peru, and is the CITES 
Management Authority for Peru. The National Society of Vicu[ntilde]a 
Breeders (SNV) is a private organization which represents approximately 
780 campesino communities, and coordinates vicu[ntilde]a management 
within and between campesino communities (``Communal Committees of the 
Vicu[ntilde]a'') and with CONACS at both regional and national levels 
(Hoces 1997, pers comm.).
    Several national laws protect vicu[ntilde]a and regulate its 
management. Law 26496, passed in 1995, has been especially important as 
it promotes protection and provides penalties for the illegal hunting 
of vicu[ntilde]a, gives the custodianship of vicu[ntilde]a herds that 
occupy campesino community lands to those campesino communities, and 
allows the campesinos to be responsible for the conservation, 
management and the utilization of the species. The law also establishes 
the Official Registry of the Vicu[ntilde]a which provides a record-
keeping process that controls and tracks volumes of fiber from the time 
the vicu[ntilde]a are sheared in the field to the time that fiber is 
sold as cloth or merchandise on the international market. Pertinent 
laws are implemented through the ``Communal Committees of the 
Vicu[ntilde]a'' which form the basis for the national conservation and 
management of the vicu[ntilde]a. There is a system of park rangers 
shared by groups of communities and these park rangers can access the 
National Ecological Police and Peruvian Army units to help control the 
illegal killing of vicu[ntilde]a.
    CONACS and INRENA authorize and control management activities, 
including vicu[ntilde]a capture. The shearing, collecting, processing 
and commercialization of vicu[ntilde]a fiber from wild vicu[ntilde]as 
or from groups contained within permanent enclosures, is controlled by 
CONACS and INRENA. The processing and commercialization of the fiber is 
done by a single company that obtained that right through a competitive 
bidding process at a supervised auction. A cooperative agreement exists 
between the SNV, and the company winning the competitive bid, 
apparently to ensure that campesino communities will be correctly 
represented in the distribution of monies from the sale of 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber and fiber products. There is an authorized shearing 
season, and shearing is supervised by personnel representing CONACS, 
SNV and INRENA. Pertinent information is gathered at the time of 
shearing, and a report describing the shearing operation (numbers of 
animals, fiber weights per animal, etc.) and signed by a representative 
of the Communal Committee and CONACS, becomes part of the record at the 
Official Registry of the Vicu[ntilde]a.
    After vicu[ntilde]a populations in Peru began to recover, 
management was initially based on wild, free-ranging populations, 
utilizing capture methods based on the traditional ``chaku,'' a 
surround technique used by the Incas to capture and shear 
vicu[ntilde]as and release them back to the wild (Wheeler and Hoces 
1997). Since 1996 CONACS has promoted a captive management program 
where up to 250 or more vicu[ntilde]as are maintained in enclosures of 
approximately 500 to 1,000 ha (Lichtenstein et al. 1999b, Sahley 1999, 
Sahley et al. submitted). Described in a Ministry of Agriculture 
project entitled ``Programa de fortalecimiento de la competitividad 
communal en la crianza le vicu[ntilde]as,'' this program significantly 
changed the management orientation in Peru from wild, free-ranging 
populations to captive populations. This approach has detracted from 
the management of wild vicu[ntilde]a populations, and has cost 
campesino communities more than $2 million to build fences--incurring a 
substantial debt in the process--while little has been spent 
strengthening anti-poaching efforts (Sahley et al. submitted).
    In September 2000, then-President Fujimori issued a Supreme Decree 
(Decreto Supremo No. 053-2000-AG, titled ``Facultan al Ministerio a 
traves del CONACS, entregar en custodia y usufructo hatos de 
vicu[ntilde]a y/o guanaco a personas naturales y juridicas, distintas 
de comunidades campesinas'') that, among other things, extended 
custodianship of vicu[ntilde]a to all persons having vicu[ntilde]a on 
their lands, and not just campesino communities as specified in Law 
26496. This Decree appears to undermine the very basis for recent 
vicu[ntilde]a management in Peru--management by campesino communities, 
with benefits accruing to those communities--by allowing other 
individuals or companies with land holdings to commercialize fiber from 
vicu[ntilde]a on their lands. The SNV adamantly opposes this Decree, 
and is working to get the new government to drop or reverse it.
    A second source of legal fiber is from vicu[ntilde]a that die from 
natural causes or are found or obtained by campesinos or park rangers, 
or from skins that are seized in successful anti-poaching operations. 
Such specimens, to become legal, must be declared to SNV and CONACS, 
and entered into the vicu[ntilde]a registry. Legal fiber is gathered 
and stored in private warehouses belonging to the campesino 
communities, registered in the vicu[ntilde]a registry, and is under the 
control of CONACS. Illegal fiber is prevented from entering commerce 
because it is not registered with the vicu[ntilde]a registry, and 
consequently not included in the fiber stores represented in the single 
legal auction. The vicu[ntilde]a registry records weights of fiber 
sheared or collected, carded or cleaned, and these weights are used by 
CONACS and SNV throughout the processing and commercialization process 
to indicate whether final products likely only contain legal fiber. The 
CITES Management Authority controls commerce by requiring records of 
fiber weights and opinions from CONACS before any products (fiber, 
cloth or articles) can be legally either imported or exported from 
Peru.
    The processing of vicu[ntilde]a fiber and the commercialization of 
vicu[ntilde]a products involves a joint venture ``Association in 
Participation'' between SNV and the consortium that won the right to 
commercialize the vicu[ntilde]a fiber. We

[[Page 37715]]

understand that the consortium has the unilateral right to acquire 
fiber at least through 2002 (Lichtenstein et al. 1999b). The SNV 
provides the fiber to the consortium which includes a Peruvian company 
that fabricates cloth from the vicu[ntilde]a fibers, which is then sent 
to an Italian manufacturing plant where luxury clothing items are 
produced. A second Italian firm then handles the promotion and 
marketing of the finished vicu[ntilde]a products (Hoces 1997, pers. 
comm.). CONACS supervises production to guarantee that all articles 
will contain 100 percent vicu[ntilde]a fiber. This process is designed 
to maximize the financial returns from the vicu[ntilde]a fibers; the 
profits from the final sales are distributed, under the supervision of 
CONACS and INRENA, to the campesino participants. Additionally, a 
percentage of the final sale price on the completed product goes to the 
campesino communities. As of 1997, raw vicu[ntilde]a fiber was selling 
for approximately $500 per kilogram in Peru; current prices are around 
$300 per kilogram (Lichtenstein et al. 1999b, Sahley et al. submitted).
    The vicu[ntilde]a populations of Pampa Galeras National Reserve and 
Nuclear Zone, Pedregal, Oscconta and Sawacocha (Province of Lucanas), 
Sais Picotani (Province of Azangaro), Sais Tupac Amaru (Province of 
Junin), and Salinas Aguada Blanca National Reserve (Provinces of 
Arequipa and Cailloma) were transferred from CITES Appendix I to II in 
1987 at COP6. All remaining Peruvian vicu[ntilde]a populations were 
transferred to Appendix II in 1994 at COP9, effective February 16, 
1995. All exports are limited to cloth fabricated from the 3,294 kg 
(7,260 lbs) of stored fiber present in November 1994 or from the fiber 
stores obtained from the recent authorized shearing of live animals or 
from dead animals listed in the vicu[ntilde]a registry, and items made 
from that cloth and to certain luxury handicrafts and knitted articles 
produced in Peru. The reverse side of cloth and cloth products must 
bear the logo adopted by countries signatory to the Vicu[ntilde]a 
Convention and the words ``VICU[Ntilde]A-PERU-ARTESANIA.'' This 
trademark will also occur on all luxury artisan products and knitted 
articles of vicu[ntilde]a fiber. Peru also plans to add to the produced 
articles, a seal or identification tag with codes indicating the origin 
of the product, the assigned trademark or label and the CITES permit 
number. All specimens not meeting any of the above conditions are 
considered to be included in Appendix I and subject to the prohibition 
against primarily commercial trade, and other CITES Appendix I 
requirements.
    The vicu[ntilde]a is not considered to be endangered by inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms in Peru. The species is, however, considered to 
be threatened by this factor, especially in light of the potential 
threats posed by Supreme Decree No. 053-2000-AG.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Vicu[ntilde]a are susceptible to extended periods of drought. 
Vicu[ntilde]a populations in Argentina may have actually declined 
during the later 1990's as a result of a prolonged drought. Drought 
conditions or extremely degraded ranges adversely impact vicu[ntilde]a 
by causing them to seek new habitats with the possible dissolution of 
some family groups, reductions in reproductive success, and perhaps 
increased mortality.
    The great potential threat to the vicu[ntilde]a is that pelts can 
be easily obtained from poached animals and that the fiber industry may 
actually prefer the longer fibers that can be obtained by soaking and 
pulling hairs from pelts, rather than the clipped hairs from legal 
fleeces (Canedi 1997, pers. comm). The vulnerability of the 
vicu[ntilde]a to political instability is well documented. For example, 
vicu[ntilde]a populations in Peru were estimated at about 80,000 in 
1988, but were reduced to low levels from 1989 to 1993 when 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber from poached animals was used to help finance 
guerilla activities.
    The vicu[ntilde]a represents one of the most significant natural 
economic resources available in many Andean highlands that have limited 
human populations with limited economic opportunities at their 
disposal. Indigenous people fully realize that a poached vicu[ntilde]a 
can be used once but that the managed, live-sheared vicu[ntilde]a can 
be used repeatedly (Wheeler and Hoces 1997). Assigning the 
responsibility of vicu[ntilde]a management to campesino ranchers and/or 
campesino communities and granting those people the opportunity to 
legally realize economic gains from their management and protection 
efforts represents a significant bio-political decision.

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 (DVPS) (61 FR 4722). For a 
population to be listed under the Act as a distinct vertebrate 
population segment, 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?). International borders may be used to 
delineate discrete population segments where there are significant 
differences in: (1) The control of exploitation; (2) management of 
habitat; (3) conservation status; or (4) regulatory mechanisms on each 
side of the border (61 FR 4722). Discrete population segments can also 
be defined by marked physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral 
separation from other populations of the same taxon.
    We recognize the vicu[ntilde]a population of Ecuador as a distinct 
vertebrate population segment for purposes of listing under the ESA. 
The vicu[ntilde]a population of Ecuador was established only recently, 
beginning in 1988, through the introduction of animals translocated 
from Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. This introduction was accomplished 
within the multilateral frameworks of both the Vicu[ntilde]a Convention 
and the CITES Convention (Ecuador is a Party to both). To date, we are 
unaware of any verified palaeontological, archaeological, 
anthropological, or historical evidence that the vicu[ntilde]a ever 
occurred in Ecuador prior to this introduction. According to Wheeler 
(1995), vicu[ntilde]a remains have not been found in either 
palaeontological deposits (Hoffstetter 1986 cited in Wheeler 1995) or 
archaeological sites (Miller and Gill 1990 cited in Wheeler 1995) in 
Ecuador. There may be some vague references in Spanish colonial 
documents, but these are not verified. Despite the recent origin of its 
population, for purposes of consideration under the Act, we consider 
Ecuador to be part of the range of the species.
    The vicu[ntilde]a population of Ecuador is geographically isolated 
(disjunct) and separate from other vicu[ntilde]a in Argentina, Bolivia, 
Chile, and Peru. Ecuador's population remains listed in CITES Appendix 
I, and plans to commercially utilize the species in the future appear 
to be uncertain. Furthermore, the Parties to the Vicu[ntilde]a 
Convention view this as a separate population, worthy of special 
recovery efforts. Although the countries of the region that are Parties 
to the

[[Page 37716]]

Vicu[ntilde]a Convention view this as an ``experimental''population, 
that should not be seen in the domestic U.S. context of experimental 
populations under the Act, where criteria and definitions differ. For 
these reasons, the Ecuadoran population of vicu[ntilde]a satisfies the 
discreteness and significance criteria of the DVPS Policy, and, 
therefore, merits treatment as a distinct population segment under the 
ESA. Furthermore, because of its small size, recent origin, and 
uncertain management and protective status, we continue to believe that 
this population warrants a classification of endangered under the Act.
    In contrast to the rather strict requirements for listing entities 
(species, subspecies, or distinct vertebrate population segments) under 
the ESA, CITES has retained a degree of flexibility in the listing 
process through the use of annotations. There is no specific 
requirement that populations be delimited by national borders or marked 
biological differences. CITES Article I defines a species as ``any 
species, subspecies, or geographically separate population thereof'', 
and different populations of a species can be listed in different CITES 
Appendices (although it is generally discouraged). Thus, it has been 
possible to transfer sub-national populations of vicu[ntilde]a in 
Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile from Appendix I to Appendix II. This 
accounts for the lack of perfect symmetry between populations 
determined to be threatened and those currently listed in Appendix II 
of CITES.

Summary of Findings

    The Service finds that the vicu[ntilde]a is a highly vulnerable 
species whose populations are generally increasing over a large area of 
the high Andean tablelands of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru. The 
current status of the vicu[ntilde]a appears attributable to decisions 
made in the range countries to protect and, more recently, to 
sustainably use this species with direct involvement of local people 
and communities. Laws, decrees, and infrastructures have been or are 
being developed to help local people manage and protect the species. In 
return the local people are beginning to receive, or appear likely to 
receive, socio-economic benefits from that management that will benefit 
both individuals and their communities. The management and protection 
accorded to the vicu[ntilde]as, by local people in cooperation with 
governmental entities, provides the best opportunity for the 
vicu[ntilde]a to survive as a species and as a very important part of 
the Puna and Altoandina ecosystems.
    In developing this rule, we have carefully assessed the best 
available biological and conservation status information regarding the 
past, present, and future threats faced by vicu[ntilde]a. Criteria for 
reclassification of a threatened or endangered species, found in 50 CFR 
part 424.11(d), include extinction, recovery of the species, or error 
in the original data for classification. Available information 
indicates that the vicu[ntilde]a is not endangered (in danger of 
extinction) in all or a significant portion of its range. The 
population of Ecuador, a distinct population segment under the Act in 
accordance with the Service's Policy on Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments, remains endangered. Available information further indicates 
that the vicu[ntilde]a remains threatened throughout its range by: (1) 
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
its habitat or range; (2) previous or current overutilization; and (3) 
the possibility of inadequately controlled harvest pressures, including 
poaching, in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru. A reclassification of 
the vicu[ntilde]a from endangered to threatened under the Act will, 
with the attendant special rule, allow carefully regulated commerce of 
vicu[ntilde]a products into the United States. Funds generated in range 
countries by opening the United States market should help provide the 
resources necessary to enhance the conservation and management of the 
species.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition of conservation status, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages and results in 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and private agencies and 
groups, and individuals.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate 
their actions that are to be conducted within the United States or on 
the high seas, with respect to any species that is proposed to be 
listed or is listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its 
proposed or designated critical habitat, if any is being designated. 
However, because the vicu[ntilde]a is not native to the United States, 
no critical habitat is being proposed for designation with this rule. 
Currently, with respect to vicu[ntilde]a, no Federal activities, other 
than the issuance of CITES re-export certificates, are known that would 
require conferral or consultation. According to the CITES Convention, 
Appendix-II species need only a CITES export permit issued by the 
exporting country for their importation into another country. However, 
because of its listing as endangered under the Act, the importation and 
exportation of specimens of Vicugna vicugna presently require an 
Endangered Species Act permit issued by the Division of Management 
Authority. Consequently, a consultation with the Division of Scientific 
Authority is currently required before the Division of Management 
Authority can issue any import or export permit for vicu[ntilde]a.
    Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited 
financial assistance for the development and management of programs 
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful 
for the conservation of endangered species in foreign countries. 
Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to encourage 
conservation programs for foreign endangered species, and to provide 
assistance for such programs, in the form of personnel and the training 
of personnel.
    Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, and implementing regulations found 
at 50 CFR part 17.31, (which incorporate certain provisions of 50 CFR 
part 17.21), set forth a series of prohibitions and exceptions that 
generally apply to all threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to take (within U.S. territory or on the high seas), 
import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of a 
commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been 
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees or agents of the 
Service, other Federal land management agencies, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, and State conservation agencies (50 CFR part 
17.21(c)(3) and part 17.31(b)).
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances. 
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR part 17.32. With 
regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following 
purposes: scientific research, enhancement of propagation or survival, 
zoological exhibition or education, incidental taking, or special 
purposes consistent with the Act. All such permits must also be 
consistent with the

[[Page 37717]]

purposes and policy of the Act as required by section 10(d). Such a 
permit will be governed by the provisions of [sect] 17.32 unless a 
special rule applicable to the wildlife (appearing in [sect] 17.40 to 
[sect] 17.48) provides otherwise. Because a special rule is being 
promulgated concurrently with this reclassification, permits will be 
issued under section 10 only for bona fide scientific research 
contributing to conservation of the species in the wild (e.g., blood 
samples for genetic analyses or tissue samples for disease diagnosis). 
No additional permits are required as a result of this rule; rather, 
this rule removes restrictions.
    Threatened species are generally covered by all prohibitions 
applicable to endangered species, under 50 CFR part 17.31. We may, 
however, develop special rules if deemed necessary and advisable to 
provide for the conservation of the species. The special rule described 
here for [sect] 17.40 allows commercial importation to and re-
exportation from the United States of certain specimens from threatened 
populations of vicu[ntilde]a which are also listed in CITES Appendix 
II. Importation could be restricted in the future from a particular 
country of origin or re-export if that country has been identified as a 
subject to a recommended suspension of trade by the CITES Standing 
Committee or at a CITES Conference of the Parties. Interstate commerce 
within the United States and re-export of legally imported 
vicu[ntilde]a parts will not require U.S. threatened species permits.

Effects of This Rule

    This rule revises [sect] 17.11(h) to reclassify Vicugna vicugna 
from endangered to threatened in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Peru to 
reflect more accurately the present status of this species.

Description of the Special Rule

    The intent of the special rule is to enhance the conservation of 
the vicu[ntilde]a through support for properly designed and implemented 
programs for vicu[ntilde]a conservation throughout their native range. 
The special rule is intended to support appropriate conservation 
efforts of the four range states of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and 
Peru, by encouraging certain of their management programs that allow 
utilization of vicu[ntilde]a fiber from live-sheared animals, with 
benefits accruing to local communities.
    We believe that the most effective results, both for conservation 
of vicu[ntilde]a and production of economic benefits for local people, 
are likely to be achieved with management of wild, free-ranging 
populations, such as the systems being undertaken in certain parts of 
Peru and in Bolivia. We continue to have concerns about captive 
management systems for vicu[ntilde]a, especially the extensive captive 
management program being undertaken in much of Peru, because the 
conservation value and socioeconomic benefits of captive management 
have yet to be demonstrated as sustainable over the long term 
(Lichtenstein 1999, Sahley 1999). Our conservation concerns relate to 
issues of disease transmission, genetic effects, impacts on population 
dynamics and social organization, and habitat impacts. We believe that 
the best opportunity for captive management is provided by the 
management recommendations of the South American Camelid Specialist 
Group, and we believe that demonstration of the long-term biological 
and economic viability of captive management will require (1) further 
research by trained ecologists, geneticists, sociologists, and 
economists, and (2) an effective monitoring program for the captive 
management systems.
    These concerns notwithstanding, we believe that progress has been 
and is being made, and that range countries should be allowed time to 
demonstrate the conservation value and related socioeconomic benefits 
of the management system or systems they have adopted. From a law 
enforcement perspective, it would be difficult if not impossible for 
the United States to allow importation of fiber only from wild 
management systems and exclude fiber from captive management systems, 
especially if both wild and captive management occur in a single 
country. Thus, the special rule pertains to all threatened, Appendix II 
populations. The special rule has provisions that are intended to 
encourage range countries to demonstrate the conservation value of the 
management system or systems they have adopted. The special rule: (1) 
Requests range countries wishing to export to the United States to 
submit a country-wide Management Plan for vicu[ntilde]a; (2) requires 
range countries to submit an annual report documenting the status of 
vicu[ntilde]a populations and implementation of management programs in 
each country; (3) calls for the Service to conduct a biennial review of 
range country management programs to determine if those programs are 
effectively achieving conservation benefits for the vicu[ntilde]a; and 
(4) can be administratively suspended if the conservation or management 
status of threatened vicu[ntilde]a populations change in one or more 
range countries such that continued recovery of vicu[ntilde]a 
populations is compromised.
    The special rule allows commercial importation and re-exportation 
into/from the United States of certain products (raw, unprocessed 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber or cloth, or items made from that fiber, including 
luxury handicrafts and knitted articles) that are properly identified, 
and have accompanying valid, legal CITES Appendix II export permits or 
re-export certificates. Under the special rule, a threatened species 
permit for individual shipments would not be required under 50 CFR part 
17 for these products only. To be imported, vicu[ntilde]a products must 
originate in populations that are listed both as threatened under the 
Act and in Appendix II of CITES. Vicu[ntilde]a fiber and products from 
Appendix I populations, as well as any live vicu[ntilde]a, embryos, 
gametes, and tissue samples, are not covered. Their importation would 
still require a threatened species permit, a CITES Appendix I import 
permit (issued by the U.S.), and an Appendix I export permit.
    We are aware that there have been poaching and illegal trade 
problems with this highly valuable species in the past, and any loss of 
control would seriously undermine the conservation programs of the 
range countries, thereby potentially jeopardizing vicu[ntilde]a 
populations. Therefore, we will not allow the import of vicu[ntilde]a 
products from threatened, Appendix II vicu[ntilde]a populations from 
countries of origin or countries of manufacture or re-export that have 
been determined by the CITES Conference of the Parties or the CITES 
Standing Committee not to be effectively implementing the Convention. 
Specifically, the special rule prohibits importation from countries of 
export or re-export that have either (1) failed to designate a 
Management Authority or Scientific Authority, or (2) have been 
identified by the CITES Conference of the Parties, the CITES Standing 
Committee, or in a Notification from the Secretariat as a country from 
which Parties should not accept CITES permits. Trade restrictions or a 
suspension of trade can be placed on a range country if the Service 
administratively determines that the conservation or management status 
of vicu[ntilde]a in that country has changed such that continued 
recovery of vicu[ntilde]a populations is compromised as a result of one 
or more of the following factors:
    (A) A change in range country laws or regulations that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;
    (B) A change in range country management programs that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;

[[Page 37718]]

    (C) A documented decline in wild vicu[ntilde]a population numbers;
    (D) A documented increase in poaching of vicu[ntilde]a;
    (E) A documented decline in vicu[ntilde]a habitat quality or 
quantity; or
    (F) Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' 
recovery.
The decision will be made by the Service's Division of Scientific 
Authority, and the Service will inform range countries and re-exporting 
countries if a suspension goes into effect, and will post the decision 
on our web site.
    For vicu[ntilde]a and vicu[ntilde]a products, there is no personal 
effects exemption in the special rule, since the CITES listings (and 
associated annotations) specifically do not allow for a personal 
effects exemption. The specific removal of the personal effects 
exemption for Appendix II populations was adopted by the CITES Parties 
at the request of range countries, to assist their enforcement efforts. 
Therefore, items purchased by travelers overseas or personal items 
owned by people moving to the United States will require appropriate 
CITES export documents (permits or re-export certificates) from 
countries of export or re-export, to be imported legally into the 
United States. This is based on analysis of the annotation for the 
vicu[ntilde]a in the official CITES Secretariat list of the CITES 
Appendices, and dialogue with the CITES Secretariat in Geneva. It is 
also based on domestic law of the four range countries, which all 
require CITES export documents, even for items purchased by tourists. 
The vicu[ntilde]a annotations in the CITES Appendices are unique, and 
require that only certain products be exported from the range 
countries, under very strict conditions. In Argentina, articles bought 
by a foreign tourist at a government-authorized store can be exported 
as personal accompanying baggage only after a CITES export permit has 
been obtained. In countries of re-export as well, very strict controls 
are required. The items manufactured from vicu[ntilde]a fiber are very 
expensive luxury articles, and illegal trade poses a serious risk to 
the species and the conservation programs of the range states. 
Furthermore, all range countries require CITES permits for export of 
vicu[ntilde]a products, and do not recognize any personal effects 
exemption. It would be inappropriate and unfair to require export 
documents from range countries but not from countries of manufacture 
(re-export). Therefore, all tourist souvenirs or other personal items 
require a CITES export document from the country of export or re-export 
in order to be legally imported into the United States. We have 
clarified this in the final special rule, which may have been unclear 
in the proposed rule.
    All vicu[ntilde]a products must comply with all product annotations 
as described in the CITES Secretariat's official annotated list of the 
CITES Appendices (available at http://www.cites.org). If those product 
annotations change at a future meeting of the Conference of the Parties 
(COP) to CITES, the Service will have to re-evaluate its 4(d) rule. The 
criteria for determining if a vicu[ntilde]a product is properly 
identified are drawn directly from the CITES Appendices, and the 
product annotations for vicu[ntilde]a contained therein. For cloth and 
cloth products, the only products that can be imported are those where 
the reverse side of cloth and cloth products bear the logo adopted by 
countries signatory to the Conve[ntilde]o para la Conservaci[oacute]n y 
Manejo de la Vicu[ntilde]a (Vicu[ntilde]a Convention), and the words 
``VICU[Ntilde]A-(Country of Origin)'' (country of origin of the 
vicu[ntilde]a fiber in the products--Argentina, Bolivia, or Chile) or 
``VICU[Ntilde]A-PERU-ARTESANIA'' (for Peru only). For finished 
vicu[ntilde]a products (including luxury handicrafts and knitted 
articles) and any bulk shipments of raw fiber, the product or shipment 
must have a seal or identification tag with codes describing the origin 
of the vicu[ntilde]a product, the trademark or label (``VICU[Ntilde]A--
(Country of Origin)'' or ``VICU[Ntilde]-PERU-ARTESANIA'') and the CITES 
export permit number. These criteria for properly identified 
vicu[ntilde]a products are contained in the CITES Appendices 
themselves. The product annotations were proposed by the range 
countries and adopted by the CITES Conference of the Parties. 
Therefore, we are aligning U.S. importation practices with those 
approved by the CITES Parties, in order to facilitate effective 
conservation of the vicu[ntilde]a in range countries, and the 
enforcement and management efforts of those countries.
The Monitoring of Vicu[ntilde]a
    Requirements of the Act for the monitoring of species also apply to 
foreign species (see final rule ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
and Plants; Removal of Three Kangaroos From the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife'' published in the Federal Register on March 9, 
1995; 60 FR 12887). Monitoring programs are conducted to ensure that 
species continue to fare well after delisting or downlisting occurs. 
These monitoring programs frequently include population and species 
distribution surveys, assessment of the condition of important habitats 
for the species, and assessment of threats identified as relevant to 
the species. We depend on range countries to monitor their 
vicu[ntilde]a populations. To assist in our efforts to monitor 
vicu[ntilde]a populations, we will ask range countries to submit a 
Management Plan (voluntary), and will require range countries to submit 
annual reports (mandatory).
    Management Plan. Governments of range countries wishing to export 
specimens of vicu[ntilde]a to the United States for commercial purposes 
(Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru) will be requested to provide the 
Service with a Management Plan that specifies how vicu[ntilde]a are 
currently being managed and will be managed in that country during the 
period after this rule takes effect. The voluntary submission of a 
Management Plan will help the Service in its biennial review of country 
management programs (discussed in the section immediately below). For 
each range country, the following information should be provided in its 
Management Plan:
    (A) Recent data on vicu[ntilde]a distribution, populations numbers, 
and population trends for the entire country, and for specific 
protected areas, and a detailed description of the methodology used to 
obtain such estimates;
    (B) A description of research projects currently being conducted 
related to the biology of vicu[ntilde]a in the wild, particularly its 
population biology, habitat use, and genetics;
    (C) A description of national and/or provincial laws and programs 
relating to vicu[ntilde]a conservation, in particular those laws and 
regulations related to harvest and use of the vicu[ntilde]a, and export 
of vicu[ntilde]a parts and products;
    (D) A description, including approximate acreage, of land set aside 
as natural reserves or national parks that provide protected habitat 
for the vicu[ntilde]a;
    (E) A description of programs to prevent poaching, smuggling, and 
illegal commercialization of the vicu[ntilde]a;
    (F) A description of current management and harvest (or 
``sustainable use'') programs for wild populations of the 
vicu[ntilde]a, including: the location and population size of all wild 
populations being managed for sustainable use; the harvest management 
practices being used for each population; current harvest quotas for 
wild populations, if any; protocols for vicu[ntilde]a translocations 
undertaken as part of the use program; the specific financial costs of 
and anticipated revenues to be generated by the sustainable use 
program; and the anticipated conservation benefits that

[[Page 37719]]

will result from the sustainable use program;
    (G) A description of current management and harvest (or 
``sustainable use'') programs for captive and so-called ``semi-
captive'' populations of the vicu[ntilde]a, including: the number and 
location of all captive and ``semi-captive'' populations; the size in 
hectares of each captive enclosure and the number of vicu[ntilde]a 
maintained therein; protocols for vicu[ntilde]a translocations 
undertaken as part of the use program; the anticipated financial costs 
of and revenues to be generated by the sustainable use program; and the 
anticipated conservation benefits that will result from the sustainable 
use program (information on management of captive and ``semi-captive'' 
populations must be separate from that provided for management of wild 
populations).
    Annual Report. Governments of range countries wishing to export 
specimens of vicu[ntilde]a to the United States for commercial purposes 
(Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru) will be required to provide the 
Service with an annual report that includes the most recent information 
available on the conservation and management status of the species, 
gathered by the respective range countries to fulfill their CITES 
scientific and management requirements. Failure to submit an annual 
report could result in a restriction on trade or a total suspension of 
trade in specimens of vicu[ntilde]a from the range country concerned. 
For each range country, the following information should be provided in 
the annual report:
    (A) A description of any revisions to the management program, 
especially any changes in management approaches or emphasis;
    (B) New information obtained in the last year on vicu[ntilde]a 
distribution, population status, or population trends, for the country 
as a whole or for specific protected areas, and a detailed description 
of the methodology used to obtain such estimates;
    (C) Results of any research projects concluded in the last year on 
the biology of vicu[ntilde]a in the wild, particularly its population 
biology, habitat use, and genetics, and a description of any new 
research projects undertaken on the biology of vicu[ntilde]a in the 
wild, particularly its population biology, habitat use, and genetics;
    (D) A description of any changes to national and/or provincial laws 
and programs relating to vicu[ntilde]a conservation, in particular 
those laws and regulations related to harvest and use of the 
vicu[ntilde]a, and export of vicu[ntilde]a parts and products;
    (E) A description of any changes in the number or size of natural 
reserves or national parks that provide protected habitat for the 
vicu[ntilde]a;
    (F) A summary of law enforcement activities undertaken in the last 
year, and a description of any changes in programs to prevent poaching, 
smuggling, and illegal commercialization of the vicu[ntilde]a;
    (G) A description of the current management and harvest (or 
``sustainable use'') programs for wild populations of the 
vicu[ntilde]a, including: any changes in the location and population 
size of wild populations being managed for sustainable use; any changes 
in the harvest management practices being used for each population; any 
changes in current harvest quotas for wild populations, if any; any 
changes in protocols for translocations undertaken as part of the use 
program; a summary of the specific financial costs of and revenues 
generated by the sustainable use program over the last year; and a 
summary of documented conservation benefits resulting from the 
sustainable use program over the last year (e.g., revenues returned to 
conservation activities as a result of the program, demonstrated 
reductions in poaching as a result of the program, or improved habitat 
conditions as a result of the program);
    (H) A description of current management and harvest (or 
``sustainable use'') programs for captive and so-called ``semi-
captive'' populations of the vicu[ntilde]a, including: any changes in 
the number and location of all captive and ``semi-captive'' 
populations; any changes in the size (ha) of each captive enclosure and 
the number of vicu[ntilde]a maintained therein; any changes in 
protocols for translocations undertaken as part of the use program; a 
summary of the financial costs of and revenues generated by the 
sustainable use program over the last year; and documented conservation 
benefits resulting from the sustainable use program over the last year 
(e.g., revenues returned to conservation activities as a result of the 
program, demonstrated reductions in poaching as a result of the 
program, or improved habitat conditions as a result of the program). 
Information provided for captive and ``semi-captive'' populations must 
be clearly separate in the report from information related to wild 
populations;
    (I) Export data for the last year.
    The first annual report will be due one year after the special rule 
goes into effect, with subsequent reports due every year on the 
anniversary of that date. All information provided by the range 
countries will be available for public review.
    The Service will conduct a review every two years, using 
information in the annual reports and any other pertinent information 
it has available, to determine whether range country management 
programs are effectively achieving conservation benefits for wild 
vicu[ntilde]a populations. Based on information contained in the annual 
reports, the Service may administratively restrict or suspend trade 
from a range country if it determines that the conservation or 
management status of threatened vicu[ntilde]a populations in a range 
country has changed, such that continued recovery of the vicu[ntilde]a 
population in that country may be compromised. Trade restrictions or 
suspension may result from one or more of the following factors:
    (A) A change in range country laws or regulations that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;
    (B) A change in range country management programs that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;
    (C) A documented decline in wild vicu[ntilde]a population numbers;
    (D) A documented increase in poaching of vicu[ntilde]a;
    (E) A documented decline in vicu[ntilde]a habitat quality or 
quantity; or
    (F) Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' 
recovery.

Effects of the Special Rule

    Consistent with sections 3(3) and 4(d) of the Act, this rule also 
contains a special rule that amends 50 CFR 17.40 to allow commercial 
importation and re-exportation, under certain conditions, of raw 
(unprocessed) vicu[ntilde]a fiber or cloth, or items made from that 
fiber, including luxury handicrafts and knitted articles, without a 
threatened species import permit otherwise required by 50 CFR part 17, 
if all requirements of the special rule and 50 CFR part 13 (General 
Permit Procedures), part 14 (Importation, Exportation, and 
Transportation of Wildlife), and part 23 (Endangered Species 
Convention--CITES) are met.
    The reclassification of vicu[ntilde]a to ``threatened'' and the 
accompanying special rule allowing commercial trade into the United 
States for certain products without a threatened species import permit 
does not end protection for the species. To be imported, vicu[ntilde]a 
products must originate in populations that are listed both as 
threatened under the Act and in Appendix II of CITES, and be 
accompanied by valid, legal CITES Appendix II export permits or re-
export certificates that are consistent with all requirements of both 
CITES and

[[Page 37720]]

the laws and regulations of the exporting country concerned.
    Commerce with the United States in vicu[ntilde]a products will only 
be allowed with countries that have designated both a CITES Management 
Authority and Scientific Authority, and have not been identified by the 
CITES Conference of the Parties, the CITES Standing Committee, or in a 
Notification from the CITES Secretariat, whereby Parties are asked not 
to accept shipments of specimens of any CITES-listed species from the 
country in question. This restriction will also apply to intermediary 
countries, when vicu[ntilde]a products are exported for manufacturing 
and other purposes, and the finished products are re-exported from 
intermediary countries to the United States. The U.S. Management 
Authority will provide on request a list of those countries that have 
not designated both a Management Authority and Scientific Authority, or 
that have been identified as a country from which Parties are asked not 
to accept shipments of specimens of any CITES-listed species. The list 
will be published on our web site (http://international.fws.gov).
    This special rule does not cover the importation of live 
vicu[ntilde]a, vicu[ntilde]a embryos, gametes, or tissue samples, 
because these specimens remain in Appendix I. Furthermore, we 
discourage most such imports, which could be used to establish 
populations outside the species' natural range, because we believe that 
such operations would undermine the conservation efforts of range 
countries to manage and sustainably utilize this species. Imports of 
blood or tissue samples for bona fide scientific research contributing 
to the conservation of the species in the wild could be allowed with 
the necessary CITES Appendix I import and export permits and a 
threatened species permit issued under section 10.
    Trade restrictions or a trade suspension can be placed on a range 
country if the Service's Division of Scientific Authority 
administratively determines that the conservation or management status 
of vicu[ntilde]a in that country has changed, such that continued 
recovery of vicu[ntilde]a populations is compromised, as a result of 
one or more of the six factors listed in the preceding section (e.g., a 
change in range country laws or regulations that lessens protection for 
vicu[ntilde]a). This provision gives the Service ability to react 
effectively to potential conservation concerns that may emerge, such as 
dramatic increases in poaching in some areas, or changes in laws or 
regulations that appear to be detrimental to the species in the wild, 
or the lack of submission of the required annual report.
    The Service's Division of Scientific Authority will conduct a 
review every two years, using information in the annual reports, to 
determine whether range country management programs are effectively 
achieving conservation benefits for wild vicu[ntilde]a populations. 
Based on information contained in the annual reports, the Service may 
restrict or suspend trade from a range country if it determines that 
the conservation or management status of threatened vicu[ntilde]a 
populations in a range country has changed, such that continued 
recovery of the vicu[ntilde]a population in that country may be 
compromised. Trade restrictions or suspension may result from one or 
more of the six factors listed in the preceding section (e.g., a change 
in range country laws or regulations that lessens protection for 
vicu[ntilde]a).
    In our judgment the protective regulations set out in the final 
special rule contain all of the measures that are necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of the vicu[ntilde]a in 
Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, and Peru.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental 
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. A notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination was published in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

Bonacic, C. 2000a. Sustainable use of the vicu[ntilde]a (Vicugna 
vicugna) in Chile. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Camelid 
Medicine, Surgery, and Reproductive Conference. Ohio State 
University, Columbus, Ohio. March 22-25, 2000.
Bonacic, C. 2000b. Dinamica poblacional de la vicu[ntilde]a (Vicugna 
vicugna) y determinacion de la capacidad de carga en la Provincia de 
Parinacota-Chile. Pages 93-101 in Manejo sustentable de la 
vicu[ntilde]a y el guanaco. Edited by B. Gonzalez, F. Bas, C. Tala, 
and A. Iriarte. SAG, Pontificia Universidad Cat[oacute]lica de 
Chile, Fundaci[oacute]n para la Innovaci[oacute]n Agraria.
Cajal, J. L. 1992. Argentina: The Vicu[ntilde]a. A portion of 
Chapter 2. Argentina in: South American camelids: An Action Plan for 
their Conservation. IUCN/SSC South American Camelid Specialist 
Group.
Canedi, A. A. 1995. Evaluacion de las poblaciones de vicu[ntilde]a 
en la Reserva Olaroz-Cauchari. Pages 63-69 in Bioecologia y uso 
sustentable de las poblaciones de vicu[ntilde]as en la Provincia de 
Jujuy-Argentina. Edited by A. A. Canedi.
Canedi, A. A. and P. S. Pasini. 1996. Repoblamiento y bioecologia de 
la vicu[ntilde]a silvestre en la Provincia de Jujuy, Argentina. pp. 
7-24 in Animal Genetic Resources Information. United Nations 
Environment Programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
United Nations. Rome.
Canedi, A. A. 1997. Responses to questions regarding the status of 
vicu[ntilde]a in Argentina. Personal communication with Dr. Henry L. 
Short, NFWF contractor. August 25, 1997.
CITES. 1997a. Proposal: Transfer of the vicu[ntilde]a (Vicugna 
vicugna) population in the province of Jujuy (21 47'S--24 38'S; 64 
80'W--67 19'W) from Appendix I to Appendix II and of the populations 
in semi-captivity in the provinces of Jujuy, Salta, Catamarca, La 
Rioja, and San Juan, with the sole purpose of permitting 
international trade in fibre from live vicu[ntilde]a, in cloth and 
manufactured products, under the trademark ``VICU[Ntilde]A--
ARGENTINA.'' Submitted for consideration at CITES COP 10 by Republic 
of Argentina.
CITES. 1997b. Proposal: Transfer of the populations (Vicugna 
vicugna) of the Conservation Units: Mauri-Desaguadero (17 30'S--18 
30''S and 68 30'W--69 30''W), Ulla Ulla (14 45'S--15 25''S and 69 
00'W--69 20'W) and Lipez-Chichas (21 30'--23 00'S and 66 20'W--68 
10''W) from CITES Appendix I to Appendix II for the sole purpose of 
allowing international trade of fabrics made with fiber from the 
shearing of live animals under the trademark ``VICU[Ntilde]A--
BOLIVIA.'' Submitted for consideration at CITES COP 10 by Republic 
of Bolivia.
CITES. 2000a. Proposal: Transfer of all populations of vicu[ntilde]a 
(Vicugna vicugna) from Appendix I to Appendix II of CITES, for the 
exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in cloth made from 
wool sheared from live animals under the name ``VICU[Ntilde]A--
BOLIVIA.'' Submitted for consideration at CITES COP 11 by the 
Republic of Bolivia.
CITES. 2000b. Proposal: Deletion of the zero quota for trade in 
cloth made from wool from the shearing of live animals under the 
name Vicu[ntilde]a -Bolivia originating in populations listed in 
CITES Appendix II in accordance with a decision taken at the 10th 
meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Harare (Zimbabwe), 9 to 
20 June 1997. Submitted for consideration at CITES COP 11 by the 
Republic of Bolivia.
CNVB. 1996. Censo Nacional de la Vicu[ntilde]a en Bolivia: Gestion 
1996. Direcci[oacute]n Nacional de Conservaci[oacute]n de la 
Biodiversidad.
Comisi[oacute]n Regional de la Vicu[ntilde]a. 1994. Acciones de las 
Provincias Argentinas para su Conservaci[oacute]n y Uso Sustentable. 
Republica Argentina, Salta. 25 pp.
DNCB (Direcci[oacute]n Nacional de Conservaci[oacute]n de la 
Biodiversidad, Unidad de Vida Silvestre). 1997. Responses to 
questions regarding the status of vicu[ntilde]a in Bolivia. Personal 
communication with Dr. Henry L. Short, NFWF contractor. August 1997.
Galaz, J. 1997. Personal communication with Dr. Henry L. Short, NFWF 
contractor. August 1997.
Government of Ecuador. 1999. Report of the Vicu[ntilde]a 
Reintroduction Project in Ecuador.

[[Page 37721]]

Report to the 19th Meeting of the Technical Committee of the 
Vicu[ntilde]a Convention.
Hoces, D. 1992. Chapter 5. Peru. South American camelids: An Action 
Plan for their Conservation. IUCN/SSC South American Camelid 
Specialist Group.
Hoces, D. 1997. Responses to questions regarding the status of 
vicu[ntilde]a in Peru. Personal communication with Dr. Henry L. 
Short, NFWF contractor. September 1997.
Hoffstetter, R. 1986. High Andean mammalian faunas during the Plio-
Pleistocene. Pages 218-245 in: High altitude tropical biogeography. 
Edited by F. Vulleumier, and M. Monasterio. Oxford University Press.
INFOL. 1985. Memoria VI Reunion Ordinaria de la Comision Tecnico 
Administradora del Convenio para la Conservaci[oacute]n de la 
Vicu[ntilde]a. La Paz, Bolivia.
Iriarte, A. 2000. Normativa legal sobre conservacion y uso 
sustentable de vicu[ntilde]a y guanaco en Chile. Pages 209-221 in 
Manejo sustentable de la vicu[ntilde]a y el guanaco. Edited by B. 
Gonzalez, F. Bas, C. Tala, and A. Iriarte. SAG, Pontificia 
Universidad Cat[oacute]lica de Chile, Fundaci[oacute]n para la 
Innovaci[oacute]n Agraria.
Lichtenstein, G., E. F. Oribe, M. Grieg-Gran, and S. Mazzucchelli. 
1999a. Is community wildlife management a sustainable alternative 
for local communities in South America? Submitted to Proceedings of 
2nd International Wildlife Management Congress.
Lichtenstein, G., E. F. Oribe, M. Grieg-Gran, and S. Mazzucchelli. 
1999b. Analisis del Manejo Comunitario de Vicu[ntilde]as en el Peru. 
Evaluando el Eden: Manejo Comunitario de Vida Silvestre. Instituto 
Internacional de Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo-America Latina.
Miller, G. R., and A. R. Gill. 1990. Zooarchaeology at Pirincay, a 
Formative Period site in highland Ecuador. J. of Field Archaeology 
17: 49-68.
Molina, J. I. 1782. Saggio Sulle Storia Naturale del Chile. Bologna.
Rabinovich, J. E., A. F. Capurro, and L. L. Pessina. 1991. 
Vicu[ntilde]a use and the bionomics of an Andean peasant community 
in Catamarca, Argentina. Pages 337-358 in Neotropical wildlife use 
and conservation. Edited by J. G. Robinson and K. H. Redford. 
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Rebuffi, G. 1995. Modelo de criadero de vicu[ntilde]as con 
aprovechamiento racional de la especie. Pages 73-76 in Bioecologia y 
uso sustentable de las poblaciones de vicu[ntilde]as en la Provincia 
de Jujuy-Argentina. Edited by A. A. Canedi.
SAG (Servicio Agricola y Ganadero). 1997. Responses to questions 
regarding the status of vicu[ntilde]a in Chile. Personal 
communication with Dr. Henry L. Short, NFWF contractor. August 22, 
1997.
Sahley, C. T. 1999. Propiedad comunitaria y esquila en vivo de 
vicu[ntilde]as en el Peru: Evaluando la sostenibilidad biologica y 
economica. Pages 77-82 in: Manejo y conservacion de fauna silvestre 
en America Latina. Edited by T. G. Fang, O. L. Montenegro, and R. E. 
Bodmer.
Sahley, C. T., J. T. Vargas, and J. S. Valdivia. submitted. 
Community ownership and live shearing of vicu[ntilde]as in Peru: 
Evaluating management strategies and their sustainability. A chapter 
in: Latin American Wildlife Management. Edited by R. Bodmer, J. 
Fragoso, and K. Silvius.
Sarno, R. J., L. Villalba, C. Bonacic, B. Gonzalez, B. Zapata, S. J. 
O'Brien, and W. E. Johnson. submitted. Phylogeography and subspecies 
assessment of vicu[ntilde]as in Chile and Bolivia utilizing mtDNA 
and microsatellite markers: Implications for vicu[ntilde]a 
conservation and management. Submitted to Conservation Genetics.
Thomas, O. 1917. Preliminary diagnosis of new mammals obtained by 
the Yale National Society Peruvian expedition. Smithsonian 
Miscellaneous Collection 68.
Torres, H. 1992. Chapter 1. Background, objectives, and limitations 
of the Action Plan. South American camelids: An Action Plan for 
their Conservation. IUCN/SSC South American Camelid Specialist 
Group.
Vila, B. 1999. La silvestria de las vicu[ntilde]as, una 
caracteristica esencial para su conservacion y manejo. Presented at 
South American Camelid Conference, Cuzco, Peru.
Wheeler, J. C. 1995. Evolution and present situation of the South 
American Camelidae. Biol. J. Linnean Society 54: 271-295.
Wheeler, J. C., M. Fernandez, R. Rosadio, D. Hoces, M. Kadwell, and 
M. W. Bruford. 2000. Genetic diversity and management implications 
for vicu[ntilde]a populations in Peru: The results of Grant 
N251 of the Darwin Initiative for the Survival of Species. 
Final Report.
Wheeler, J. C., and D. Hoces. 1997. Community participation, 
sustainable use, and vicu[ntilde]a conservation in Peru. Mountain 
Research and Development 17(3): 283-287.

Author

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulations Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby amends part 17, subchapter B of 
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 
below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the entry for the 
vicu[ntilde]a, under ``Mammals'', on the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:


[sect] 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Vicu[ntilde]a....................  Vicugna vicugna.....  Argentina, Bolivia,  Entire, except       T                    3, 724           NA    17.40 (m)
                                                          Chile, Ecuador,      Ecudator.
                                                          Peru.
Do...............................  Do..................  Do.................  Ecuador............  E                    3, 724           NA           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Paragraph (m) is added to [sect] 17.40 and reads as follows:


[sect] 17.40  Special rules--mammals.

* * * * *
    (m) Vicu[ntilde]a. This paragraph (m) applies to the threatened 
vicu[ntilde]a (Vicugna vicugna).
    (1) What activities involving vicu[ntilde]a are prohibited by this 
rule? (i) Appendix I populations. All provisions of [sect] 17.31 (a) 
and (b) and [sect] 17.32 apply to vicu[ntilde]a and vicu[ntilde]a parts 
and products originating from populations currently listed in Appendix 
I of the Convention

[[Page 37722]]

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES).
    (ii) Import, export, and re-export. Except as provided in paragraph 
(m)(2) of this section, you must not import, export, or re-export, or 
present for export or re-export without valid CITES permits 
vicu[ntilde]a or vicu[ntilde]a parts and products originating from 
populations listed in Appendix II of CITES.
    (iii) Commercial activity. Except as provided in paragraph (m)(2) 
of this section, you must not sell or offer for sale, deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of a commercial activity vicu[ntilde]a or vicu[ntilde]a parts 
and products from populations listed in Appendix II of CITES.
    (iv) It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to commit, attempt to commit, solicit to commit, or 
cause to be committed any acts described in paragraphs (m)(1)(ii)-(iii) 
of this section.
    (2) What activities involving vicu[ntilde]a are allowed by this 
rule? You may import, export, or re-export, or place in interstate or 
foreign commerce, vicu[ntilde]a products, consisting of either raw 
fiber or items and cloth made, or partially made, from vicu[ntilde]a 
fiber, without a threatened species permit issued according to [sect] 
17.32 only when the provisions in parts 13, 14, and 23 of this chapter 
and the requirements of the applicable subparagraphs of this paragraph 
(m)(2) have been met:
    (i) Import, export, or re-export. You may import, export, or re-
export into or from the United States vicu[ntilde]a products, 
consisting of either raw fiber or items and cloth made, or partially 
made, from vicu[ntilde]a fiber originating in a country authorized 
under paragraph (m)(4) of this section, provided the following 
conditions are met:
    (A) The vicu[ntilde]a product must comply with all CITES product 
annotations as given in the CITES Secretariat's official list of the 
CITES Appendices, and all imports, exports, and re-exports must be 
identified as follows:
    (1) Cloth and cloth products: The reverse side of cloth and cloth 
products must bear the logo adopted by countries signatory to the 
``Conve[ntilde]o para la Conservaci[oacute]n y Manejo de la 
Vicu[ntilde]a'', and the words ``VICU[Ntilde]A-(Country of Origin)'' 
(where country of origin is the name of the original exporting country 
where the vicu[ntilde]a fiber in the products originated, either 
Argentina, Bolivia, or Chile) or ``VICU[Ntilde]A-PERU-ARTESANIA'' (for 
Peru only).
    (2) Finished vicu[ntilde]a products (including luxury handicrafts 
and knitted articles) and any bulk shipments of raw fiber: The product 
or shipment must have a seal or identification tag with codes 
describing the origin of the vicu[ntilde]a product, the trademark or 
label (``VICU[Ntilde]A-(Country of Origin)'' (where country of origin 
is the name of the original exporting country where the vicu[ntilde]a 
fiber in the products originated, either Argentina, Bolivia, or Chile) 
or ``VICU[Ntilde]A-PERU-ARTESANIA'' (for Peru only), and the CITES 
export permit number, where country of origin is the name of the 
original exporting country where the vicu[ntilde]a fiber in the 
products originated.
    (B) The shipment must be accompanied by a CITES permit or 
certificate that contains the following information:
    (1) The country of origin, its export permit number, and date of 
issuance.
    (2) If re-export, the country of re-export, its certificate number, 
and date of issuance.
    (3) If applicable, the country of last re-export, its certificate 
number, and date of issuance.
    (C) At the time of import, for each shipment covered by this 
exception, the country of origin and each country of re-export involved 
in the trade of a particular shipment must have designated both a CITES 
Management Authority and Scientific Authority, and have not been 
identified by the CITES Conference of the Parties, the CITES Standing 
Committee, or in a Notification from the CITES Secretariat as a country 
from which Parties should not accept permits. A listing of all 
countries that have not designated both a Management Authority and 
Scientific Authority, or that have been identified as a country from 
which Parties should not accept permits is available by writing: The 
Division of Management Authority, ARLSQ Room 700, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA 22203. The list is 
also on our website (http://international.fws.gov).
    (ii) Noncommercial accompanying baggage. The conditions described 
in paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section also apply to noncommercial 
personal effects in accompanying baggage or household effects from 
Appendix II populations. Such items are treated the same as Appendix II 
commercial shipments, and must comply with the same documentary 
requirements. All other noncommercial personal effects in accompanying 
baggage or household effects require both a CITES Appendix I permit and 
a permit as described in [sect] 17.32.
    (iii) Embryos, gametes, blood, other tissue samples, and live 
animals. This special rule does not apply to embryos, gametes, blood, 
or other tissue samples of vicu[ntilde]a, or to live vicu[ntilde]a. 
Import of such specimens requires an import permit as described in 
[sect] 17.32 in addition to CITES Appendix I import and export permits, 
and will be issued only for bona fide scientific research contributing 
to conservation of the species in the wild.
    (3) When and how will the Service inform the public of additional 
restrictions in trade of vicu[ntilde]a? Except in rare cases involving 
extenuating circumstances that do not adversely affect the conservation 
of the species, we will issue an information notice that identifies a 
restriction on trade in specimens of vicu[ntilde]a addressed in this 
paragraph (m) if any of the following criteria are met:
    (i) The country is listed in a Notification to the Parties by the 
CITES Secretariat as lacking a designated Management or Scientific 
Authority that issues CITES documents or their equivalent.
    (ii) The country is identified in any action adopted by the 
Conference of the Parties to the Convention, the Convention's Standing 
Committee, or in a Notification issued by the CITES Secretariat, 
whereby Parties are asked not to accept shipments of specimens of any 
CITES-listed species from the country in question.
    (iii) The Service's Division of Scientific Authority 
administratively determines that the conservation or management status 
of threatened vicu[ntilde]a populations in a range country has changed, 
such that continued recovery of the vicu[ntilde]a population in that 
country may be compromised, as a result of one or more of the following 
factors:
    (A) A change in range country laws or regulations that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;
    (B) A change in range country management programs that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;
    (C) A documented decline in wild vicu[ntilde]a population numbers;
    (D) A documented increase in poaching of vicu[ntilde]a;
    (E) A documented decline in vicu[ntilde]a habitat quality or 
quantity; or
    (F) Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' 
recovery.
    (iv) A listing of all countries that have not designated both a 
Management Authority and Scientific Authority, or that have been 
identified as a country from which Parties should not accept permits is 
available by writing: The Division of Management Authority, ARLSQ Room 
700, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, 
VA 22203. The list is also on

[[Page 37723]]

our website (http://international.fws.gov).
    (4) What must vicu[ntilde]a range countries do in order to be 
authorized under the special rule to export to the United States? (i) 
Annual Report. Range country governments (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, 
and Peru) wishing to export specimens of vicu[ntilde]a to the United 
States will need to provide an annual report containing the most recent 
information available on the status of the species, following the 
information guidelines specified below. The first submission of a 
status report will be required as of July 1, 2003, and every year 
thereafter on the anniversary of that date. For each range country, the 
following information should be provided in the annual report:
    (A) A description of any revisions to the management program, 
especially any changes in management approaches or emphasis;
    (B) New information obtained in the last year on vicu[ntilde]a 
distribution, population status, or population trends, for the country 
as a whole or for specific protected areas, and a detailed description 
of the methodology used to obtain such information;
    (C) Results of any research projects concluded in the last year on 
the biology of vicu[ntilde]a in the wild, particularly its population 
biology, habitat use, and genetics, and a description of any new 
research projects undertaken on the biology of vicu[ntilde]a in the 
wild, particularly its population biology, habitat use, and genetics;
    (D) A description of any changes to national and/or provincial laws 
and programs relating to vicu[ntilde]a conservation, in particular 
those laws and regulations related to harvest and use of the 
vicu[ntilde]a, and export of vicu[ntilde]a parts and products;
    (E) A description of any changes in the number or size of natural 
reserves or national parks that provide protected habitat for the 
vicu[ntilde]a;
    (E) A summary of law enforcement activities undertaken in the last 
year, and a description of any changes in programs to prevent poaching, 
smuggling, and illegal commercialization of the vicu[ntilde]a;
    (F) A description of the current management and harvest (or 
``sustainable use'') programs for wild populations of the 
vicu[ntilde]a, including: any changes in the location and population 
size of wild populations being managed for sustainable use; any changes 
in the harvest management practices being used for each population; any 
changes in current harvest quotas for wild populations, if any; any 
changes in protocols for translocations undertaken as part of the use 
program; a summary of the specific financial costs of and revenues 
generated by the sustainable use program over the last year; and a 
summary of documented conservation benefits resulting from the 
sustainable use program over the last year;
    (G) A description of current management and harvest (or 
``sustainable use'') programs for captive and so-called ``semi-
captive'' populations of the vicu[ntilde]a, including: any changes in 
the number and location of all captive and ``semi-captive'' 
populations; any changes in the size (ha) of each captive enclosure and 
the number of vicu[ntilde]a maintained therein; any changes in 
protocols for translocations undertaken as part of the use program; a 
summary of the financial costs of and revenues generated by the 
sustainable use program over the last year; and documented conservation 
benefits resulting from the sustainable use program over the last year 
(information on captive and ``semi-captive'' populations must be 
separate from that provided for wild populations); and
    (H) Export data for the last year.
    (ii) The Service's Division of Scientific Authority will conduct a 
review every 2 years, using information in the annual reports, to 
determine whether range country management programs are effectively 
achieving conservation benefits for the vicu[ntilde]a. Failure to 
submit an annual report could result in a restriction on trade in 
specimens of vicu[ntilde]a as addressed in paragraph (m)(3) of this 
section. Based on information contained in the annual reports and any 
other pertinent information it has available, the Service may restrict 
trade from a range country, as addressed in paragraph (m)(3) of this 
section, if it determines that the conservation or management status of 
threatened vicu[ntilde]a populations in a range country has changed, 
such that continued recovery of the vicu[ntilde]a population in that 
country may be compromised. Trade restrictions may result from one or 
more of the following factors:
    (A) A change in range country laws or regulations that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;
    (B) A change in range country management programs that lessens 
protection for vicu[ntilde]a;
    (C) A documented decline in wild vicu[ntilde]a population numbers;
    (D) A documented increase in poaching of vicu[ntilde]a;
    (E) A documented decline in vicu[ntilde]a habitat quality or 
quantity; or
    (F) Other natural or man-made factors affecting the species' 
recovery.

    Dated: May 21, 2002.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-13342 Filed 5-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P