[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47011-47027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19071]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0003;FXES111309F2130D2-123-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-AY42


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the 
Straight-Horned Markhor With Special Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
reclassify the straight-horned markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni) from 
endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. This proposed action is based on a review of the best 
available scientific and commercial data which indicates that the 
endangered designation no longer correctly reflects the status of the 
straight-horned markhor. This proposal constitutes our 12-month finding 
on the petition to reclassify this subspecies, serves as our 5-year 
review, and fulfills our obligations under a settlement agreement. We 
are also proposing a special rule concurrently. The effects of these 
regulations are to correctly reflect the status of the subspecies and 
encourage conservation of additional populations of the straight-horned 
markhor.

DATES: We will consider comments and information received or postmarked 
on or before October 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

[[Page 47012]]

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS-R9-ES-2011-0003, which is the 
docket number for this rulemaking. On the search results page, under 
the Comment Period heading in the menu on the left side of your screen, 
check the box next to ``Open'' to locate this document. Please ensure 
you have found the correct document before submitting your comments. If 
your comments will fit in the provided comment box, please use this 
feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with 
our comment review procedures. If you attach your comments as a 
separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you 
attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format 
is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-ES-2011-0003; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more 
information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203; 
telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    We are proposing to reclassify the straight-horned markhor from 
endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) due to recovery actions in the Torghar Hills of Pakistan. 
Conservation actions involving implementation of a trophy hunting 
conservation plan in 1985 have eliminated impacts from poaching in this 
population. Since 1985, the population has been steadily increasing and 
is considered the stronghold of the subspecies. In light of this 
substantial population growth in the Torghar Hills, we have determined 
that the subspecies no longer meets the definition of an ``endangered 
species'' under the Act; therefore, we find that reclassifying the 
subspecies in its entirety from endangered to threatened is warranted. 
Thus, in this action, we are issuing a proposed rule to reclassify the 
subspecies (C. f. jerdoni) as threatened under the Act.
    We are also proposing a special rule that would allow for the 
import of sport-hunted straight-horned markhor trophies under certain 
conditions. This regulation would support and encourage conservation 
actions of the straight-horned markhor.

II. Major Provision of the Regulatory Action

    If adopted as proposed, this action would reclassify the straight-
horned markhor from endangered to threatened in the List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h), and would allow the import 
of sport-hunted straight-horned markhor trophies under certain 
conditions at 50 CFR 17.40. This action is authorized by the Act.

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) requires that, for any petition to revise the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that contains 
substantial scientific or commercial information that listing the 
species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the 
date of receipt of the petition (``12-month finding''). In this 
finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not 
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a 
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other 
pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or 
threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove 
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.
    In this document, we announce that reclassifying the straight-
horned markhor as threatened is warranted, and we propose to reclassify 
this subspecies as threatened in the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife. Additionally, we are proposing a special rule 
under section 4(d) of the Act that, if adopted as proposed, would allow 
the import of straight-horned markhor trophies from conservation 
programs that meet certain criteria.
    Prior to issuing a final rule on this proposed action, we will take 
into consideration all comments and any additional information we 
receive. Such information may lead to a final rule that differs from 
this proposal. All comments and recommendations, including names and 
addresses of commenters, will become part of the administrative record.

Petition History

    On August 18, 2010, we received a petition dated August 17, 2010, 
from Conservation Force, on behalf Dallas Safari Club, Houston Safari 
Club, African Safari Club of Florida, The Conklin Foundation, Grand 
Slam Club/Ovis, Wild Sheep Foundation, Jerry Brenner, Steve Hornaday, 
Alan Sackman, and Barbara Lee Sackman, requesting the Service downlist 
the Torghar Hills population of the Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri 
jerdoni or C. f. megaceros), in the Balochistan Province of Pakistan, 
from endangered to threatened under the Act. The petition clearly 
identified itself as such and included the requisite identification 
information for the petitioners, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a 
September 15, 2010, letter to Conservation Force, we acknowledged 
receipt of the petition.

Previous Federal Actions

    On June 14, 1976, we published in the Federal Register a rule 
listing the straight-horned markhor, or the Suleiman markhor (Capra 
falconeri jerdoni), and the Kabul markhor (C. f. megaceros), as well as 
157 other U.S. and foreign vertebrates and invertebrates, as endangered 
under the Act (41 FR 24062). All species were found to have declining 
numbers due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of their habitats or ranges; overutilization for 
commercial, sporting, scientific, or educational purposes; the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or some combination of 
the three. However, the main concerns were the high commercial 
importance and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to 
control international trade.
    Later, the Suleiman markhor and the Kabul markhor were considered 
by some authorities to be the single subspecies C. f. megaceros 
(straight-horned markhor). These subspecies currently remain listed as 
separate entities under the Act.
    On March 4, 1999, we received a petition from Sardar Naseer A. 
Tareen,

[[Page 47013]]

on behalf of the Society for Torghar Environmental Protection and the 
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Central Asia 
Sustainable Use Specialist Group, requesting that the Suleiman markhor 
(Capra falconeri jerdoni or C. f. megaceros) population of the Torghar 
Hills region of the Balochistan Province, Pakistan, be reclassified 
from endangered to threatened under the Act. On September 23, 1999 (64 
FR 51499), we published in the Federal Register a finding, in 
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, that the petition had 
presented substantial information indicating that the requested 
reclassification may be warranted, and we initiated a status review. We 
opened a comment period, which closed January 21, 2000, to allow all 
interested parties to submit comments and information. A 12-month 
finding was never completed.
    On June 2, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a finding 
that the petition received on August 18, 2010, from Conservation Force 
(discussed above under ``Petition History''), had presented substantial 
information indicating that the requested reclassification may be 
warranted, and we initiated a status review (76 FR 31903). We opened a 
comment period, which closed August 1, 2011.
    On February 1, 2012, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, and 
other organizations and individuals filed suit against the Service for 
failure to conduct a 5-year status review pursuant to section 
4(c)(2)(A) under the Act (Conservation Force, et al. v. Salazar, Case 
No. 11 CV 02008 D. D. C.). On March 30, 2012, a settlement agreement 
was approved by the Court (11-CV-02008, D. D. C.), in which the Service 
agreed to submit to the Federal Register by July 31, 2012, a 12-month 
finding on the August 2010 petition. This 12-month finding also 
constitutes our 5-year review of the straight-horned markhor.

5-Year Review

    Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires that we conduct a review of 
listed species at least once every 5 years. A 5-year review is a 
periodic process conducted to ensure that the classification of a 
listed species is appropriate. Section 4(c)(2)(B) requires that we 
determine: (1) Whether a species no longer meets the definition of 
endangered or threatened and should be removed from the List 
(delisted); (2) whether a species more properly meets the definition of 
threatened and should be reclassified from endangered to threatened; or 
(3) whether a species more properly meets the definition of endangered 
and should be reclassified from threatened to endangered. Our 
determination is based on the best scientific and commercial data 
available at the time of the review. This 12-month finding serves as 
our 5-year review of this species.

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned 
governmental agencies, the scientific community, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
clarifying information concerning:
    (1) Taxonomy. Specifically, we are interested in information 
relating to the correct classification of the Capra falconeri 
subspecies.
    (2) Distribution, habitat selection, diet, and population abundance 
and trends of this subspecies.
    (3) The effects of habitat loss and changing land uses on the 
distribution and abundance of this subspecies.
    (4) The factors that are the basis for making a listing/delisting/
downlisting determination for a species under section 4(a) of the Act, 
which are:
    (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 manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (5) Information on management programs for straight-horned markhor 
conservation, including mitigation measures related to conservation 
programs, and any other private, nongovernmental, or governmental 
conservation programs that benefit this species.
    (6) Information on whether changing climatic conditions are 
affecting the subspecies or its habitat.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
full references) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial 
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''

Public Hearing

    At this time, we do not have a public hearing scheduled for this 
proposed rule. The main purpose of most public hearings is to obtain 
public testimony or comment. In most cases, it is sufficient to submit 
comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, described above in the 
ADDRESSES section. If you would like to request a public hearing for 
this proposed rule, you must submit your request, in writing, to the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by 
September 21, 2012.

Species Information and Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing 
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened 
based on any of the following five 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 manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.

    In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of 
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential 
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate 
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that 
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that 
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a 
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include 
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly 
or in aggregation, affects the status of the species. Threats are 
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of 
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or 
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
    The focus of this status review is the straight-horned markhor 
(Capra falconeri jerdoni). For most of the populations, there is no 
detailed information on distribution, population

[[Page 47014]]

estimates, or threats to the subspecies; information that is available 
is over 30 years old. However, the Torghar Hills population of the 
straight-horned markhor has been extensively studied since the mid-
1980s due to the implementation of a conservation plan in this area. 
Therefore, this status review mainly consists of information related to 
this population. When possible, we have included general information on 
the status of the populations outside of the Torghar Hills. For these 
particular populations, which we lack information, we request 
additional information from the public during this proposed rule's 
comment period (see Information Requested, above).

Taxonomy

    The markhor (Capra falconeri) is a species of wild goat belonging 
to the Family Bovidae and Subfamily Caprinae (sheep and goats) (Valdez 
2008, unpaginated). When the markhor was first listed under the Act in 
1975, seven subspecies of markhor were generally recognized: Capra 
falconeri jerdoni (straight-horned or Suleiman markhor), C. f. 
megaceros (Kabul markhor), C. f. cashmirensis (Kashmir markhor), C. f. 
falconeri (Aston markhor), C. f. ognevi (Uzbek markhor), C. f. heptneri 
(Tajik markhor), and C. f. chialtanensis (Chiltan markhor) (64 FR 
51499, September 23, 1999; Roberts 1977, p. 196). In 1975, Schaller and 
Khan (1975, pp. 188, 191) recognized 3 subspecies of markhor based on 
horn shape and body characteristics: C. f. jerdoni and C. f. megaceros 
were combined into C. f. megaceros (straight-horned markhor); C. f. 
cashmirensis and C. f. falconeri were combined into C. f. falconeri 
(flare-horned markhor); and C. f. ognevi and C. f. heptneri were 
combined into C. f. heptneri (Heptner's markhor). Many authorities 
consider C. f. chialtanensis to be Capra aegagrus chialtanensis 
(Chiltan wild goat) (64 FR 51500, September 23, 1999).
    In our June 2, 2011, 90-day petition finding, we requested 
information on the taxonomy of C. f. jerdoni and C. f. megaceros to 
determine if these constitute a single subspecies. We did not receive 
any information regarding the correct nomenclature that should be 
followed. During our status review, we did not find consistency in the 
use of C. f. jerdoni or C. f. megaceros. We found that papers published 
around the same time as each other often used both classifications to 
describe subspecies of markhor. Therefore, until it is clear, we will 
continue to recognize the distinct subspecies of C. f. jerdoni and C. 
f. megaceros, as they are currently listed under the Act, with the 
straight-horned markhor (C. f. jerdoni) being the focus of our status 
review. We are again requesting from the public additional information 
on the taxonomy of Capra falconeri to determine the proper nomenclature 
that should be followed (see Information Requested for details).

Species Description

    Markhor are sturdy animals with strong, relatively short, thick 
legs and broad hooves. They are a reddish-grey color, with more buff 
tones in the summer and grey in the winter. The legs and belly are a 
cream color with a conspicuous dark brown pattern on the forepart of 
the shank interrupted by a white carpal patch. They also have a dark 
brown mid-dorsal stripe that extends from the shoulders to the base of 
the tail. The tail is short, is sparsely covered with long black hairs, 
but is naked underneath. Adult males have an extensive black beard 
followed by a shaggy mane of long hairs extending down the chest and 
from the fore part of the neck. There is also a crest of long black and 
dark brown hairs that hang like a mane down either side of the spine 
from the shoulders to the croup (Roberts 1977, p. 197). Horns are 
straight with an open, tight spiral resembling a corkscrew (Schaller 
and Khan 1975, p. 189).

Distribution

    Historically, the straight-horned markhor inhabited the mountains 
of Pakistan and Afghanistan, just inside the Afghanistan border. Today, 
the straight-horned markhor is only found in the mountains of 
Balochistan Province, Pakistan; no markhor occur in Afghanistan. 
Although it is considered widely distributed, the straight-horned 
markhor has been reduced to small, scattered populations on all the 
mountain ranges immediately to the north and east of Quetta, including 
Murdar, Takhatu, Zarghun, Kaliphat, Phil Garh, and Suleiman. It is 
reported that the straight-horned markhor still survives in the Shingar 
Range on the border of Balochistan and South Waziristan. The greatest 
concentration is in the Torghar Hills of the Toba Kakar Range on the 
border with Afghanistan, within a community-based management program, 
the Torghar Conservation Project. This project area covers 
approximately 1,000 km\2\ (386 mi\2\) within the Torghar Hills (Frisina 
and Tareen 2009, pp. 142-143; Johnson 1994b, p. 16; Roberts 1977, p. 
198; Schaller and Khan 1975, p. 196).
    Limited information is available for populations throughout most of 
the straight-horned markhor's range. Many historical populations were 
extirpated due to over-hunting (Johnson 1994b, p. 5; Johnson 1994, p. 
10). Schaller and Khan (1975, p. 196) estimated 150 in Takhatu, 20 to 
30 in Kalifat, 20 in Zarghum, and 20 in Shinghar. Few were estimated to 
survive in the Murdar Range, and a remnant population may have existed 
near Loralei in the Gadabar Range. Roberts (1969 in Valdez, 2008, 
unpaginated) believed the number of markhor in the Toba Kakar range was 
fewer than 500. In 1984, Tareen estimated fewer than 200 remained in 
the Torghar Hills (Mitchell, 1989, p. 9). Overall, Schaller and Khan 
(1975, p. 196) estimated as few as 1,000 straight-horned markhor 
survived throughout the subspecies' range.
    In general, markhor populations are reported as declining (Valdez 
2008, unpaginated). Hess et al. (1997, p. 255), based on the general 
status of wildlife in Pakistan, concluded that the straight-horned 
markhor had likely not increased in recent years. Current estimates for 
populations of straight-horned markhor are lacking, with the exception 
of the population in the Torghar Hills of the Toba Kakar Range. This 
population has been extensively studied due to the implementation of a 
community-based management program. In addition, as part of the use of 
annual export quotas for markhor sport-hunted trophies granted to 
Pakistan at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora, Pakistan submits annual surveys of markor populations, 
including populations within the Torghar Conservation Area (Resolution 
Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14); See discussion below under Overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes). 
Based on surveys conducted from 1985-1988, Mitchell (1989, p. 9) 
estimated 450 to 600 markhor inhabited the Torghar Hills. Regular 
surveys of the managed area have taken place since 1994, when Johnson 
(1994b, p. 12) estimated the population of markhor to be 695. Later 
surveys estimated the population to be 1,296 in 1997; 1,684 in 1999; 
2,541 in 2005; and 3,158 in 2008 (Arshad and Khan 2009, p. 9; Shafique 
2006, p. 6; Frisina 2000, p. 8; Frisina et al. 1998, p. 6). Although 
most of the mountain ranges in Balochistan have not been formally 
surveyed, Johnson (1994b, p. 16) concluded that Torghar was one of the 
last remaining strongholds for the subspecies.

[[Page 47015]]

Habitat

    Straight-horned markhor are associated with extremely rugged 
terrain with precipitous cliffs, rocky caves, and bare rock surfaces 
interspersed with patches of arid, steppe vegetation. They can be found 
from 600 meters (m) (1,969 feet (ft)) up to 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in 
elevation (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181; Mitchell 1989, p. 8; Johnson 
1994b, p. 5).
    The Torghar Hills, a chain of rugged sandstone ridges located 
within the Toba Kakar Range, lies in the Balochistan juniper and 
pistachio scrub forest and dry sub-tropical semi-evergreen forest 
(Woodford et al. 2004, pp. 178-179; Frisina 2000, p. 3). The higher 
elevations (2,000-3,300 m; 6,562-9,843 ft) have some Chilgoza pine 
(Pinus gerardiana) and juniper (Juniperus macropoda or excelsa). Rugged 
upland slopes have not experienced as much grazing pressure and still 
have bunchgrasses, forbs, wild almond trees (Amygdalus brahnica), 
Ephedra sp., Artemisia sp., and other shrubs, while lower slopes 
(1,000-2,000 m; 3,281-6,562 ft) have been denuded of trees. Widely 
scattered olive (Olea cuspidate), wild pistachio (Pistacia khinjuk), 
juniper, and ash (Fraxinus xanthoxyloides) are all that remain on the 
lower slope. Tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) and Cargana sp. occur along stream 
beds and drainage lines where water is available. Overgrazing has 
resulted in xerophytic scrub vegetation consisting of Acacia, 
Artemisia, Haloxylon, and Rosa (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 179; Ahmed et 
al. 2001, p. 3; Johnson 1994b, p. 3; Tareen 1990, p. 2; Mitchell 1989, 
p. 5).
    The climate in Torghar varies considerably in temperature and 
precipitation by season. Summers are hot, with a mean temperature of 26 
[deg]C (79[emsp14][deg]F), but temperatures often rise to 50 [deg]C 
(122[emsp14][deg]F). Winters are cold, with a mean temperature of 4 
[deg]C (39.2[emsp14][deg]F), but temperatures sometimes fall to -15 
[deg]C (5[emsp14][deg]F). Day and night temperatures also vary 
considerably. Annual precipitation is around 200 to 250 millimeters 
(mm) (7.9 to 9.8 inches (in)), which mainly falls in March and April. 
In winter, most precipitation occurs as snow. Violent thunderstorms and 
dust storms occur in summer, with rain occurring in July and August 
(Arshad and Khan 2009, p. 2; Woodford et al. 2004, p. 179; Ahmed et al. 
2001, p. 2; Frisina et al. 1998, p. 3; Mitchell 1989, p. 4). Periodic 
droughts are common and may last for several years at a time (Frisina 
and Tareen 2009, p. 143).

Life History

    Markhor are diurnal in feeding activity. They are most active in 
the early morning and late evening (Mitchell 1989, p. 8). Wild 
pistachios are a preferred food for straight-horned markhor (Johnson 
1994, p. 12; Roberts 1977, p. 198), although in general they are known 
to feed on grasses and leaves, and twigs of bushes. Markhor seek water 
in the late afternoon; however, they may need to descend to valley 
bottoms for water, but only after darkness (Roberts 1977, p. 198). 
Markhor in the Torghar Hills are mostly sedentary, although extensive 
local movements may occur due to deteriorating grazing conditions or 
disturbance (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181).
    Markhor are gregarious, with females, their young, and immature 
males associating in small herds, but competition with domestic goat 
flocks may drive markhor populations to higher terrain and result in 
larger herds. Adult males live solitary lives, taking shelter under 
rock overhangs or natural caves. They only join the females and young 
during the rut, which for the straight-horned markhor peaks around mid-
November and lasts about 2 weeks. Males may attach themselves to one 
particular territory or herd. Fighting between rival males also occurs 
during this time. Markhor reach sexual maturity around 3 years of age. 
Gestation lasts from 162 to 170 days. Females usually give birth to one 
young, but twins are not uncommon. For the first few days, the newborn 
will remain in a sheltered hollow. Mothers have been observed making a 
special characteristic call when approaching their young. A young 
markhor will remain with its mother until the rutting season or until 
the next young is born. After this, the female will drive the older 
young away if it approaches too closely. In the wild, it is possible 
that markhor can live up to 18 years of age, but perhaps few males live 
beyond 11 or 12 years (Ali 2008, p. 16; Mitchell 1989, p. 9; Roberts 
1977, pp. 198-199).

Conservation Status

    The markhor (Capra falconeri) is currently classified as 
``endangered'' by the International Union for Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN) due to a low number of mature individuals (estimated at fewer 
than 2,500), a continuing rate of decline, and severely fragmented 
subpopulations all with fewer than 250 individuals (Valdez 2008, 
unpaginated). However, we note that this IUCN assessment is at the 
species level and appears to consider the combined status of 3 
subspecies, as recognized by Schaller and Khan in 1975. Furthermore, 
given the basis of the ``endangered'' classification stated above, it 
appears that the status of the Torghar Hills population is not 
considered. Although the increasing population estimates of Torghar 
Hills are briefly referenced, the assessment does not appear to 
recognize the biological significance of these individuals in this 
portion of the range in relation to the subspecies. In a subspecies 
discussion on the population of straight-horned markhor (C. f. 
megaceros), the population status is listed as declining. Thus, it 
appears that the increasing Torghar Hills population is masked by the 
assumed decline of the remaining populations of the whole subspecies.
    The straight-horned markhor is also listed in Appendix I of the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES). Species included in CITES' Appendix I are considered 
threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade, and 
international trade is permitted only under exceptional circumstances. 
Commercial trade in Appendix I specimens is generally precluded (see 
Factor D discussion, below). The straight-horned markhor is also listed 
on the Third Schedule of the 1974 Balochistan Wildlife Protection Act 
(Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 145; Ahmed et al. 2001, p.5). The Third 
Schedule of this law is a list of protected animals that cannot be 
hunted, killed, or captured (BWPA 1977, p. 15).
A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 
Habitat or Range
    Across the range of the straight-horned markhor, populations have 
declined partly due to habitat modification, and habitat continues to 
be threatened due to drought and overgrazing of domestic livestock, 
deforestation from logging (which has occurred over hundreds of years), 
and collection of wood for building materials, fuel, charcoal, and food 
(WWF 2011, unpaginated; Valdez 2008, unpaginated; WWF 2008, 
unpaginated; Hess et al. 1997, p. 255; CITES 1997, p. 895).
    Much of the land where straight-horned markhor occur is owned by 
local tribes whose subsistence is largely dependent on keeping large 
herds of primarily sheep and goats. Rangelands often support livestock 
beyond their carrying capacity, leading to overgrazing, a halt to 
natural regeneration, and subsequent desertification of native 
vegetation.

[[Page 47016]]

Overgrazing by domestic livestock is known to have resulted in the 
decline of wild ungulates and pushed their occurrence to range edges 
(WWF 2011, unpaginated; Frisina and Tareen 2009, pp. 145, 154; Valdez 
2008, unpaginated; WWF 2008, unpaginated; Woodford et al. 2004, p. 180; 
Tareen 1990, p. 4; Mitchell 1989, pp. 4-5; Schaller and Khan 1975, p. 
197).
    On the tribal lands of the Torghar Hills, livestock grazing is a 
dominant land use. Lower slopes and valleys have been denuded of trees 
and continue to be degraded by the collection of fuel wood and heavy 
grazing (Ahmed et al. 2001, pp. 3, 8; Frisina et al. 1998, pp. 9-10). 
The demand on wood and forage resources along valley bottoms and lower 
slopes increases during a bi-annual migration of local and nearby 
tribes and their herds through the Torghar Hills (Woodford et al. 2004, 
p. 180; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4). Although markhor concentrate in the 
upland slopes, the lower slopes are utilized as foraging ground and may 
be important in supporting an increasing population of markhor.
    The steeper, upland slopes and higher elevation areas of the 
Torghar Hills are key areas for this population of markhor. These areas 
are not easily accessible, and because they are so steep and rocky, 
there is little human settlement or grazing pressure. As a result, 
there is good quality habitat for markhor spread over large upland 
areas (Ahmed et al. 2001, pp. 3, 8; Frisina et al. 1998, p 10). 
However, grazing pressure may increase in these upland areas due to a 
combination of drought conditions and the tradition of keeping large 
herds of domestic livestock. Drought is more the norm than the 
exception in the Torghar Hills (Frisina et al. 2002, p. 15). As forage 
becomes limited in lower slopes and valleys, due to drought conditions 
and/or significant grazing pressure, domestic herds may move to higher 
elevations in search of forage (Frisina et al. 2002, p. 13).
    In the Torghar Hills, locals have implemented a wildlife management 
plan, the Torghar Conservation Project (TCP), and created financial 
incentives for community-based conservation to combat years of drought, 
habitat loss, and substantial losses in their livestock herds. 
Specifically, the Torghar Hills tribal council recognized that 
protecting markhor and its habitat can generate greater income for the 
community, rather than relying solely on traditional livestock 
production.
    The TCP began in 1985, and originally focused on the development of 
a game guard system to protect the markhor from poaching (see Factor B 
discussion, below) (Frisina and Tareen 2009, pp. 141-142; Woodford et 
al. 2004, p. 178; Frisina 2000, p. 1; Frisina et al. 1998, p. 1; 
Johnson 1994b, p. 2; Tareen 1990, p. 3). However, in 2000, tribesmen 
requested that the Society for Torghar Environmental Protection (STEP), 
the community-based, nongovernmental organization established to 
administer the TCP, integrate habitat management measures to protect 
markhor and create better habitat for both markhor and their domestic 
animals. A habitat management plan for both wildlife and domestic 
livestock was developed in 2001. The plan emphasizes range management, 
improved agriculture, and water storage projects to improve habitat 
conditions, reduce grazing pressure, eliminate the need for domestic 
herds to utilize upper slope areas, and, therefore, reduce interactions 
between domestic livestock and markhor around forage and water 
resources (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 152; Woodford et al. 2004, pp. 
180, 184; Frisina et al. 2002, pp. 3, 8, 16; Ahmed et al. 2001, pp. 7, 
11).
    In addition to livestock management, STEP plans to plant woodlots 
of indigenous trees to meet the fuel wood and timber requirements of 
the local tribes and develop orchards and croplands. Agriculture is 
seen as an alternative to raising livestock and reducing grazing 
pressure (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 152; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 11). 
STEP will also train locals in livestock management and agricultural 
practices (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 152).
    Although we do not know the current status of the management plans 
described above, if implemented, natural resources would be managed for 
sustainable use, which would improve the condition of the habitat, and 
remove the risk of large domestic livestock herds moving into the 
higher elevation areas in search of forage. Improved management of 
livestock and improved agricultural practices would reduce grazing 
pressure and deforestation in the lower slopes and valleys of the 
Torghar Hills. Without implementation of the management plans, the 
habitat of the Torghar Hills will continue to be impacted by grazing 
pressure and deforestation.
Summary of Factor A
    Habitat modification is thought to have partially contributed to 
the decline of the straight-horned markhor. We do not have information 
on the current extent of habitat modification or effects on the 
straight-horned markhor in much of its range. In general, habitat 
throughout the range of the straight-horned markhor is threatened by 
deforestation for logging, fuel, charcoal, and building materials and 
by overgrazing of domestic livestock. In the Torghar Hills, however, 
the topography of the upland slopes and high-elevation areas has 
minimized human influence and grazing pressure. The habitat in these 
areas is in good condition; however, in drought conditions, or if the 
number and size of domestic herds are not controlled, these areas may 
experience increased grazing pressure from domestic sheep and goats in 
search of additional forage. The lower slopes and valleys, which are 
utilized by markhor and may become more important in supporting an 
increasing population, have experienced heavy grazing pressure and 
deforestation for building materials and fuel.
    Plans are in place by STEP to address habitat management and 
protection in the Torghar Hills. If implemented, these plans would 
reduce grazing pressure and deforestation in the lower slopes and 
valleys of the Torghar Hills, eliminate the need for herds to graze in 
upland slopes, and manage the natural resources for sustainable use. As 
part of this proposed rule, we are requesting information from the 
public about the efficacy of these plans and the effect they are having 
on improving markhor habitat.
    Although we have minimum information on habitat modification in 
much of the range of the straight-horned markhor, habitat modification 
is thought to have partially contributed to the decline of the 
subspecies across its range and has been identified as a current threat 
to the straight-horned markhor. In the Torghar Hills, habitat 
modification is not currently a threat to the straight-horned markhor 
in the upland slopes, but may become a threat in the future if herds 
and rangelands are not properly managed. The lower slopes and valleys 
have been subject to heavy grazing pressure and deforestation. Without 
information to indicate whether the condition of the habitat in the 
rest of the range of the straight-horned markhor has improved or is 
being managed, we conclude that habitat modification remains a threat 
to the subspecies. Therefore, we find that habitat modification is a 
threat to the straight-horned markhor.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    Tribes that live within the range of the straight-horned markhor 
have a long tradition of hunting on their land (Frisina and Tareen 
2009, p. 146; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 2). Prior to the beginning of the 
Soviet-Afghan War in

[[Page 47017]]

1979, few animals were hunted, as weapons were primitive and ammunition 
scarce and expensive (Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 2). However, after the 
beginning of the war, there was an influx of more sophisticated 
weapons, such as semi- and fully-automatic rifles, and cheap ammunition 
was more accessible. This, along with millions of refugees moving into 
the area, led to indiscriminate killing of wildlife throughout Pakistan 
and critically low populations of straight-horned markhor (Frisina and 
Tareen 2009, p. 145; Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181; Ahmed et al. 2001, 
pp. 2, 4; Johnson 1994b, p. 1).
    In an effort to manage the diminishing wildlife populations, the 
National Council for Conservation of Wildlife (the Scientific and 
Management Authorities for CITES in Pakistan) implemented a 3-year ban 
on hunting of all big game species in Pakistan, including markhor, in 
1988. In 1991, the ban was extended for another 3 years. However, the 
ban had little impact on the recovery of wildlife populations (Ahmed et 
al. 2001, p. 5). In 1999, the Federal Cabinet decided to reinstate the 
ban for the 2000-2001 hunting season. In 2000, community trophy hunting 
programs were exempted from this ban (Shackleton 2001, p. 14). We did 
not find information on whether a ban on hunting of big game species is 
currently in place.
    The straight-horned markhor has been extirpated from much of its 
former range due to over-hunting (Johnson 1994b, p. 5; Johnson 1994, p. 
10). There is no current information on the extent of poaching taking 
place in most of the subspecies' range. However, markhor populations 
significantly increased only in conservation areas managed for trophy 
hunting, and the only conservation plan being implemented for the 
straight-horned markhor is in the Torghar Hills (Government of Pakistan 
2009, p. viii).
    In the early 1980s, local tribal leaders became alarmed at the 
significant decline in the markhor population in the Torghar Hills 
(Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 145; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4; Johnson 
1994b, p. 1). At this time, the population had reached a critical 
level, estimated at fewer than 200 (Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4; Johnson 
1994b, p. 14; Mitchell, 1989, p. 9). The tribal leaders attributed the 
decline to an increase in poaching due to the significant increase in 
weapons in the area during the Afghan War (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 
145; Johnson 1994b, p. 1). After unsuccessful attempts to receive 
assistance from the Balochistan Forest Department, they turned to 
wildlife biologists in the United States, including the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. Together, they developed the TCP, an innovative, 
community-based conservation program that allows for limited trophy 
hunting to conserve local populations of markhor, improve habitat for 
both markhor and domestic livestock, and improve the economic 
conditions for local tribes in Torghar (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 
146; Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4 Johnson 
1994b, pp. 1-2).
    In 1985, the TCP was launched and covered most of the Torghar area 
(approximately 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles)). First, 
tribal leaders implemented a ban on all hunting activities by tribesmen 
in the Torghar Hills. Then, local tribesmen were hired as game guards 
to assist in population surveys and prevent poachers from entering the 
Torghar Hills. Guards were placed at points of entry into the protected 
area to inform migrating tribesmen of the hunting ban, who, in turn, 
agreed to the ban so as not to jeopardize their passage through the 
Torghar Hills. Support for the program, including salaries for the game 
guards, is raised through fees for limited trophy hunting of markhor 
within the TCP, mostly by foreign game hunters. Currently, markhor fees 
are $35,000 U.S. dollars, 80 percent of which goes to the TCP and the 
other 20 percent goes to the Pakistani government. In the beginning, 7 
game guards were hired; currently, 82 game guards are employed. The 
number of markhor allowed to be hunted each year is based on surveys 
conducted by game guards and wildlife biologists (Frisina and Tareen 
2009, pp. 142, 146-147; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 5; Johnson 1994b, p. 3). 
Numbers of animals taken have ranged from 1 to 5 animals per hunting 
season, or less than the 1 or 2 percent of the total male population 
recommended by Harris (1993 in Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182) annually 
for trophy hunting (Frisina and Tareen 2009, pp. 146-147, 149; Ali 
2008, p. 20; Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182; Johnson 1997, pp. 403-404). 
Because markhor have a polygynous mating system, reproduction rates 
have not been affected by the removal of a limited number of adult 
males (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182), as evidenced by the continuing 
increase in the Torghar Hills population.
    As a result of the TCP, poaching has essentially been eliminated in 
the Torghar Hills (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182; Johnson 1994b, p. 3). 
Johnson (1994b, p. 15) attributed the markhor population growth 
(estimated to be fewer than 200 animals in the mid-1980s and is now 
(2012) estimated to be more than 3,000 animals) to the substantial 
reduction in mortality when uncontrolled hunting was stopped. The TCP 
is the oldest community-controlled program in Pakistan and has been so 
successful that tribal groups in other mountain ranges of Balochistan 
have expressed interest in setting up similar programs (Frisina and 
Tareen 2009, p. 147; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 11).
    Straight-horned markhor in the Torghar Hills, and other subspecies 
of markhor within community-managed conservation areas in Pakistan, may 
be legally hunted and exported. In 1997, at the 10th meeting of the 
Conference of the Parties to CITES, the Government of Pakistan 
submitted a proposal for approval of an annual export quota for sport-
hunted markhor trophies to act as an incentive to communities to 
conserve markhor. During that same meeting, the Conference of the 
Parties approved an annual export quota of 6 sport-hunted markhor 
trophies for Pakistan (Resolution Conf. 10.15). Due to the success of 
conservation programs in Pakistan, CITES increased the annual export 
quota to 12 markhor in 2002, to further encourage community-based 
conservation (Ali 2008, p. 24; Resolution Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14)).
    Data obtained from the United Nations Environment Programme--World 
Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database show 
that, from July 1975, when the straight-horned markhor was listed in 
Appendix I, through 2010, a total of 47 specimens of this subspecies 
were reported to UNEP-WCMC as (gross) exports. Of those 47 specimens, 
34 were trophies, and 13 were live animals. In analyzing these data, it 
appears that one record may be an over-count due to a slight difference 
in the manner in which the importing and exporting countries reported 
their trade. It is likely that the actual number of straight-horned 
markhor specimens in international trade during this period was 45, 
including 34 trophies and 11 live animals. Thirty-three of the trophies 
were reported as wild, and 1 was reported with the source unknown. 
Exports from range countries included: 33 trophies from Pakistan and 1 
trophy from Afghanistan.
    Because the straight-horned markhor is listed as an Appendix-I 
species under CITES, legal international trade is very limited. Because 
there has been very limited trade in straight-horned markhor, totaling 
45 specimens over 36 years, we believe that international trade 
controlled via valid CITES permits is not a threat to the subspecies.

[[Page 47018]]

Summary of Factor B
    Over-hunting is known to have devastated populations of straight-
horned markhor to critically low populations throughout Pakistan. In 
conservation areas managed for trophy hunting, populations of ungulates 
have significantly increased. Due to the formation of the TCP, the 
subsequent ending of uncontrolled poaching, and the hunting of only a 
limited number of trophies in the Torghar Hills, the population has 
increased substantially since 1985. Consequently, we find that poaching 
and hunting are not threats to the straight-horned markhor population 
in the Torghar Hills. There are no other populations of straight-horned 
markhor under management plans. Although the Torghar Hills population 
is increasing, the other populations of straight-horned markhor are 
reported as declining. Given that the cessation of poaching in the 
Torghar Hills was a direct result of the TCP, and the other populations 
are not under a management plan, it seems likely that poaching remains 
a threat to the straight-horned markhor outside of the Torghar Hills. 
Based on the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database, few straight-horned 
markhor have been reported in trade from 1975 to 2010. Therefore, we 
believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is 
not a threat to this subspecies. Overall, we find that overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a 
threat to the straight-horned markhor, with the exception of the 
Torghar Hills population.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease
    Information on diseases that occur in straight-horned markhor or 
the risk of disease transmission to straight-horned markhor is very 
limited. The information we obtained comes from studies and 
observations in the Torghar Hills. In this population, the potential 
for disease transmission comes from livestock-wildlife interactions due 
to overgrazing of large herds of livestock, drought conditions, and the 
migration of flocks through the Torghar Hills. Habitat management 
plans, if implemented, could reduce this risk. See discussion under 
Present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range.
    Overlap between domestic livestock and markhor appears to be 
minimal (Frisina et al. 2002, p. 8; Mitchell 1989, p. 11), and 
currently, there is no evidence of disease transmission between 
livestock and markhor (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 184; Frisina et al. 
2002, p. 13). However, Woodford et al. (2004, p. 183) identified 
disease transmission from domestic livestock as a future threat to the 
markhor of Torghar Hills. It appears that the risk of disease 
transmission is linked to future and continued habitat and livestock 
management. The risk of disease transmission is particularly severe 
with uncontrolled numbers of domestic livestock or during periods of 
drought. During these circumstances, resources are limited, 
interactions are more frequent around available water sources, and 
domestic herds may be forced to utilize upper slopes. Additionally, 
incidents of interaction may increase with larger domestic livestock 
herds and the expanding markhor population (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 
183).
    STEP has discussed the establishment of a community-based Animal 
Health Service, and the herdsmen within the TCP have agreed to this 
measure. As it is not feasible to vaccinate markhor in mountainous 
terrain, STEP will train and equip tribesmen to act as ``barefoot 
vets'' with the responsibility of traveling through the TCP vaccinating 
domestic sheep and goats, and administering appropriate anthelmintics 
(drugs that expel parasitic worms). However, veterinary care will only 
be effective if range and livestock management plans are implemented, 
resulting in smaller, healthier domestic livestock herds (Woodford et 
al. 2004, p. 185).
    Although there is currently no evidence of disease transmission 
between livestock and markhor (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 184; Frisina et 
al. 2002, p. 13), if implemented, the plans developed by STEP to 
improve habitat for markhor will also improve livestock management and 
agriculture practices, will minimize interaction between domestic 
livestock and wildlife, and will therefore lower the risk of disease 
transmission. Coupled with the planned Animal Health Service, the risk 
of diseases being transferred from domestic livestock to markhor will 
be significantly reduced. However, at this time, we do not know the 
status of the habitat management plans or the Animal Health Service, or 
the effect that the actions have had on reducing the risk of disease to 
the straight-horned markhor.
    In the rest of the straight-horned markhor's range, we have no 
information on the occurrence of disease or the risk of disease 
transmission from domestic sheep and goats. Over-grazing of domestic 
livestock has contributed to habitat loss in other mountain ranges, 
suggesting large livestock herds have also been maintained in these 
areas, but we do not have information on herd size or the likelihood of 
livestock-wildlife interactions. Given the extremely small population 
estimates of straight-horned markhor outside of the Torghar Hills, it 
may be that interactions are rare.
Predation
    The main predators of all subspecies of markhor are Himalayan lynx 
(Felis lynx), snow leopards (Uncia uncia), wolves (Canis lupus), and 
Asian black bears (Ursus tibetanus). Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) 
are also reported to prey on young markhor (Ali 2008, pp. 20-21). 
Although once abundant in the mountains of northern Balochistan, many 
big game species, like leopards and black bears, suffered severe 
declines due to overhunting. In the Torghar Hills, these species were 
extirpated or near extirpation by the mid-1980s. Today, the only 
potential predators that remain in the Torghar Hills are small 
populations of wolves (Canis lupus) and hyaenas (Hyaena hyaena) 
(Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181). We found no reports on predation of 
straight-horned markhor specifically or information indicating 
predation is a threat to this subspecies.
Summary of Factor C
    Although livestock-wildlife interactions are minimal in the Torghar 
Hills, and currently there is no evidence of disease transmission 
between livestock and markhor, if habitat and livestock management are 
not implemented, the risk of disease transmission to markhor will 
increase. STEP has developed plans to address range management and 
reduce the risk of disease transmission, and has developed an Animal 
Health Service, which would further reduce the risk of disease in 
straight-horned markhor; however, we do not know the status of these 
plans and the effect they may have on reducing the risk of disease to 
straight-horned markhor. Therefore, we find that disease is a threat to 
the straight-horned markhor in the Torghar Hills. In the other 
mountains of the straight-horned markhor's range, we do not have 
information on the occurrence of disease, the size of domestic herds, 
the likelihood of livestock-wildlife interactions, or, therefore, the 
risk of disease transmission. We also found no information suggesting 
that disease is a threat to these populations of straight-horned 
markhor. However, the scattered populations of straight-horned markhor 
outside of Torghar Hills occur at low densities such that interactions 
with livestock are likely to be minimal. As a result, we find that 
disease is not a threat to the straight-horned markhor in the rest of 
its range.

[[Page 47019]]

    Although predators of markhor have been identified, and some 
potential predators remain in the Torghar Hills, we do not have any 
information suggesting that predation is affecting the status of the 
straight-horned markhor; therefore we find that predation is not a 
threat to the straight-horned markhor.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal Laws
    Both the federal and provincial governments of Pakistan are allowed 
to legislate on matters governing resources; however, the federal 
government does not legislate on natural resource conservation and use, 
except in cases of international trade and national security (Ahmed and 
Kazi 2008, pp. 13, 24). There is no federal law that establishes 
principles of wildlife conservation and use to be applied in all 
provinces. Additionally, there is no federal legislation that provides 
a framework for managing forests as ecosystems, to conserve them as 
habitat for wildlife, or to protect rare or threatened species (Ahmed 
and Kazi 2008, pp. 14, 36, 38). Federal laws do exist to govern the 
process of those institutions that affect natural resources to ensure 
orderly conduct and achievement of commercial objectives or the 
prospecting and exploitation of those resources for continued 
availability for future exploitation (Ahmed and Kazi 2008, pp. 13-14, 
32, 36).
    The British Glanders and Farcy Act of 1899, enacted when the area 
that is now modern-day Pakistan was under British rule, addresses 
communicable diseases within domestic livestock. This federal law 
allows steps to be taken to control the spread of disease among 
domestic animals. Specified precautionary measures also prevent the 
spread of disease to wild animals. However, the provisions apply to 
horses, camels, and mules, but not to sheep and goats (Aurangzaib and 
Pastakia 2008, pp. 57, 64).
    In general, federal laws do not apply in Federally Administered 
Tribal Areas (FATAs), Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATAs), 
or the Northern Areas (Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 13, 24). Balochistan 
does not have any FATAs, but has several PATAs. According to the 
Pakistan Constitution, PATAs in Balochistan include the Zhob District, 
where the Torghar Hills is located, and the Laralai District 
(Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 23). However, even in areas where 
federal laws are applicable, laws related to natural resources do not 
address conservation or use, but focus on commercial objectives and 
future exploitation. Additionally, the federal law addressing the 
spread of communicable diseases within domestic livestock and to wild 
animals is not applicable to sheep and goats, and therefore, does not 
provide any protections to the straight-horned markhor. Therefore, 
there are no federal laws that provide protections adequate to 
ameliorate threats to the straight-horned markhor from habitat loss, 
poaching, or disease.
Provincial Laws
    Legislating for natural resource protection, including the 
protection of wildlife and forests, is left primarily to provincial 
governments (Ahmed and Kazi 2008, p. 13; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, 
pp. 6-8, 24). Balochistan has one wildlife act, the Balochistan 
Wildlife Protection Act of 1974 (BWPA) (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, 
p. 28). Under this law, the straight-horned markhor is listed as a 
protected animal under the Third Schedule (BWPA 1977, p. 15). Species 
listed under this Schedule shall not be hunted, killed, or captured 
(Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 58). Penalties for violations include 
a maximum of 2 years in prison and/or a fine of 1,000 rupees ($18.27 
U.S. dollars). All second and subsequent violations are punishable with 
a 1-year prison term and/or a fine of 1,000 rupees ($18.27 U.S. 
dollars), plus confiscation of weapons, vehicles, and equipment used in 
the violation. The violator's hunting license is also revoked, and the 
violator is barred from obtaining a new hunting license for 10 years 
(Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 60). Under the Second Schedule, 
possession, transfer, or export of markhor horns requires a certificate 
of lawful possession (BWPA 1977, p. 14). The First Schedule lists game 
animals that may only be hunted, killed, or captured by license (BWPA 
1977, p. 11).
    The BWPA does not provide specifically for conservation of 
wildlife, and the protections are weak due to broad exemptions. For 
example, the government retains the right to allow the killing or 
hunting of animals for scientific or public purposes (Frisina and 
Tareen 2009, p. 145; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 28, 58; Ahmed et 
al. 2001, p. 5; Johnson 1997, p. 397).
    The BWPA also allows for the designation of protected areas, such 
as national parks, sanctuaries, and game reserves, and prohibits 
certain activities within these areas (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 
65). Sanctuaries are to serve as undisturbed breeding grounds for the 
protection of wildlife, but the purposes of national parks and game 
reserves are not specified. Although this law allows for the 
designation of protected areas, it does not specify criteria for 
designation (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 65-66).
    Within a sanctuary, or within 500 yards (1,500 ft) of its 
perimeter, hunting, killing, or capture of wild animals is prohibited. 
In those areas, it is also illegal to take up residence, cultivate 
land, damage vegetation, light fires, pollute water, or introduce 
livestock or allow domestic animals to graze (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 
2008, pp. 65-66). Within a national park, or within a half-mile of its 
boundary, it is unlawful to hunt, kill, or capture wildlife. In those 
areas, clearing or breaking up of land for cultivation, mining, or 
other purposes; felling, tapping, damaging, or destroying plants and 
trees; and collecting or removing plants or trees is prohibited. The 
BWPA also prohibits acts like discharging a weapon, which may disturb 
an animal or interfere with breeding (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 
58, 67). These prohibitions, however, are subject to broad exemptions. 
Within a national park, exemptions may be granted for scientific 
purposes, betterment of the national park, or any other purpose. 
Vegetation may be destroyed in wildlife sanctuaries and game reserves 
for scientific purposes, aesthetic enjoyment, or the betterment of the 
sanctuary or reserve. Additionally, the government may allow the 
exploitation of forest produce (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 45, 
59).
    In Balochistan, there are 2 national parks and over 20 wildlife 
sanctuaries and game reserves (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 65). 
The straight-horned markhor has been recorded in the Hazarganji Chiltan 
National Park (Wildlife of Pakistan 2002, unpaginated). We do not have 
information on the location of the wildlife sanctuaries or game 
reserves or if the straight-horned markhor occurs within any of these 
areas.
    The Land Preservation Act of 1900 is a Punjab law that, by default, 
was applied to the newly created Balochistan province in 1970. This law 
allows the government to provide for the prevention of soil erosion and 
the conservation of sub-soil water. Activities such as clearing, 
breaking up, or cultivating land not ordinarily under cultivation; 
quarrying stone or burning lime; cutting trees or removing forest 
produce; setting fire to trees, timber, or forest produce; and herding 
or pasturing goats and sheep are prohibited. However, the government 
may permit inhabitants to carry out such activities (Aurangzaib and 
Pastakia 2008, p. 39).

[[Page 47020]]

    In Balochistan, the forest sector is governed by the Forest Act of 
1927, a federal statute that operates as provincial law. Other forest 
laws exist, but none covers all aspects of forest management 
(Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 42). The Forest Act of 1927 allows 
for the creation of various classes of forests, the reservation of 
state-owned forest land, and for the provincial government to assume 
control of privately owned forest land and declare government-owned 
land to be a protected area. It also prohibits grazing, hunting, 
quarrying, or clearing for cultivation; removal of forest produce; or 
the felling or lopping of trees and branches in reserved or protected 
forests (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 46). In protected forests, 
cutting or damaging trees, quarrying, cultivation, and setting fires is 
punishable by up to 6 months in prison and or a fine of 500 rupees 
($9.13 U.S. dollars) (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 46).
    Special provisions are in place for juniper forests. It is illegal 
to fell or girdle a juniper tree, or to lop, tap, burn, damage, or 
strip bark from a juniper tree, regardless of whether the tree is 
standing, felled, or fallen. It is also illegal to remove a felled or 
fallen juniper tree or its parts for sale. Offenses related to juniper 
trees are punishable by imprisonment for 1 year and/or a fine of 5,000 
rupees ($91.33 U.S. dollars). The Forest Act also allows the government 
to regulate privately owned forests under certain circumstances. In 
these cases, the government may prohibit grazing, setting fires, and 
clearing land for cultivation (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 46).
    The Forest Act of 1927 does not provide for sustainable use, 
conservation, or the protection of endangered wildlife within forests. 
Legislation related to forests restricts subsistence use, but focuses 
on maximizing commercial exploitation. This may be because current laws 
date back to the early 20th century and reflect priorities of that 
time. Provincial amendments have done little to alter the focus of 
these laws. Enforcement of forest laws is lacking, and where 
enforcement is possible, penalties are not severe enough to serve as a 
deterrent to violators. Furthermore, these laws may be overridden by 
other laws in favor of development and commercial uses (Aurangzaib and 
Pastakia 2008, pp. 42-43).
    There are some laws that provide protection to trees rather than 
forests. As described above, the BWPA prohibits the clearing of trees, 
although this protection only applies within protected areas. The Land 
Preservation Act restricts the felling of trees to prevent soil erosion 
(Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 42).
    Despite provincial laws, Pakistani authorities have not been able 
to slow the decline of important wildlife species, such as the markhor 
(Johnson 1997, p. 394). Enforcement is very difficult to achieve due to 
the remoteness of many areas, the political situation in remote areas, 
conflicting policies, lack of understanding of the need and importance 
of conservation, and economic constraints (Hess et al. 1997, p. 243). 
Additionally, like federal laws, provincial laws do not apply in FATAs, 
PATAs, or the Northern Areas (Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 13, 24). 
According to the Pakistan Constitution, PATAs in Balochistan include 
the Zhob and Laralai districts (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 23). 
For a federal or provincial law to apply, the provincial governor must, 
with the approval of the president, issue a directive to that effect 
(Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 24). The BWPA states specifically in 
section 1(2) that the law extends to all of Balochistan except for the 
tribal areas. Although we do not have specific information on whether 
the other laws described above were directed to tribal areas, it 
appears that many of the areas where the straight-horned markhor occur 
are not subject to these laws as they are located in the PATAs of the 
Zhob and Laralai districts. In areas where the laws may be applicable, 
it does not appear that provincial laws have provided adequate 
protection given the severe declines in straight-horned markhor caused 
by habitat loss and poaching, and given the threats the markhor 
continues to face from habitat loss, poaching, and disease.
International Laws
    In 1975, the straight-horned markhor was listed in Appendix I of 
CITES. CITES is an international agreement between governments to 
protect plant and animal species listed in its Appendices from over-
exploitation through international trade. There are currently 175 CITES 
Parties (member countries or signatories to the Convention). CITES 
Parties regulate the import, export, and reexport of live or dead 
plants or animals as well as parts and products of Appendix-listed 
plant and animal species, through a system of permits and certificates 
administered by the designated CITES Scientific and Management 
Authorities of each Party.
    An Appendix-I listing includes species threatened with extinction 
which are or may be affected by trade; trade of these species is 
permitted only under exceptional circumstances. Commercial trade in 
Appendix-I specimens is generally precluded. Trade in Appendix-I 
species requires the issuance of both import and export permits. Import 
permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are made 
that the import would be for purposes that are not detrimental to the 
survival of the species, the proposed recipient of a live specimen is 
suitably equipped to house and care for it, and that the specimen will 
not be used for primarily commercial purposes (CITES Article III(3)). 
Export permits for Appendix-I species are issued only if findings are 
made that the specimen was legally acquired; the trade is not 
detrimental to the survival of the species; any specimen will be 
prepared and shipped to minimize the risk of injury, damage to health 
or cruel treatment; and if the issuing authority is satisfied that an 
import permit has been granted for the specimen (CITES Article III(2)).
    In the United States, CITES is implemented through the U.S. 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Act designates 
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) as having the lead 
responsibility to implement CITES for the United States, with the 
functions of the Management and Scientific Authorities to be carried 
out by the Service.
    Hunting and export of markhor trophies is allowed from community-
managed conservation areas in Pakistan. See discussion above under 
Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes. To encourage communities to conserve populations 
of markhor, the Conference of the Parties to CITES approved an annual 
export quota of 12 sport-hunted trophies of markhor to be taken through 
trophy-hunting programs. As discussed above under Factor B, due to the 
limited number of specimens reported in trade, we do not consider 
international trade to be a threat impacting this subspecies.
    In addition to CITES, Pakistan is Party to other major multilateral 
treaties that address natural resource conservation and management 
(Ahmed and Khazi 2008, p. 31). Among these are the Convention on 
Biological Diversity, World Heritage Convention, and the Convention on 
Combating Desertification (Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 14, 31). In 
becoming a Party to these treaties, Pakistan assumed obligations to 
implement the treaties' provisions, which in many cases requires 
legislation. However, Pakistan has no federal law to implement these 
obligations (Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 14, 31; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 
2008, p.

[[Page 47021]]

65). Provincial governments are responsible for legislating natural 
resources. Balochistan's single wildlife law, the BWPA, does not meet 
the country's obligations regarding conservation of biodiversity or 
trade in endangered species (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 58). 
Therefore, these treaties, in and of themselves, do not provide 
adequate protections to ameliorate threats faced by the straight-horned 
markhor.
Conservation Plans
    Populations of ungulates in Pakistan have significantly increased 
under trophy hunting programs (Government of Pakistan 2009, p. viii). 
The only conservation program of any type for the straight-horned 
markhor is the TCP, which covers the Torghar Hills population. The 
population here has been under this conservation program since 1985. As 
previously described, the TCP began after local tribal leaders were 
concerned over the diminished markhor population.
    The main cause of declines in markhor populations was thought to be 
uncontrolled poaching. The TCP effectively eliminated this threat and 
has allowed the straight-horned markhor population in the Torghar Hills 
to steadily increase. The TCP not only addresses the threat of hunting, 
but agriculture and range management plans have been recently developed 
to address habitat loss and disease (see discussions under Factors A 
and C, above). Therefore, we find that the TCP provides adequate 
protection to the markhor from poaching, but we do not yet have 
information indicating that it provides adequate protection against 
habitat loss and disease.
Summary of Factor D
    Although the federal government of Pakistan could legislate on 
matters relating to natural resources, this matter is left to 
provincial governments. There are several provincial laws in place 
meant to give some protection to natural resources; however, they are 
subject to broad exemptions, allowing for overriding laws favoring 
development and commercial use. Given the threats faced by the 
straight-horned markhor from habitat loss, poaching, and disease, it 
appears that these regulatory mechanisms do not provide adequate 
protections to the subspecies. In the Torghar Hills, effective 
implementation and enforcement of the TCP has led to the cessation of 
poaching of markhor and a persistent growth in the markhor population; 
therefore, the TCP has provided adequate protection against poaching. 
Habitat modification and disease remain current and potential threats 
to the straight-horned markhor of the Torghar Hills. Management plans 
are being developed to address habitat loss and disease prevention; 
however, we do not know the status or effectiveness of these plans. 
Therefore, we find that, overall, inadequate regulatory mechanisms are 
a threat to the straight-horned markhor.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued 
Existence
    Consideration of ongoing and projected climate change is a 
component of our analyses to determine the appropriate status of the 
markhor under the Act. Described in general terms, ``climate change'' 
refers to a change in the state of the climate (whether due to natural 
variability, human activity, or both) that can be identified by changes 
in the mean or variability of its properties (e.g., temperature, 
precipitation) and that persists for an extended period, typically 
decades or longer (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
2007, p. 30). Various types of changes in climate can have direct or 
indirect effects on species, and these may be positive or negative 
depending on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the 
effects of interactions with non-climate conditions (e.g., habitat 
fragmentation). We use our expert judgment to weigh relevant 
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various 
aspects of climate change that are relevant to the straight-horned 
markhor.
    Since the beginning of the 20th century, Pakistan has experienced a 
consistent rising trend in mean surface temperatures (Farooqi et al. 
2005, p. 13). Ahmed et al. (2010, pp. 17, 21) found that temperatures 
in January, a core winter month in Pakistan, increased over a 46-year 
time period (1961-2006) across Pakistan and especially in northwestern 
Balochistan. Projections through 2050 for Pakistan include increasing 
surface temperatures, increasing magnitude and frequency of extreme 
rainfall events, and strengthening monsoon circulation. Additionally, 
arid and semi-arid regions could experience severe droughts (Farooqi et 
al. 2005, pp. 16-18).
    Drought is a common occurrence in Balochistan; as such, we do not 
know if climate change will affect markhor and their habitat. STEP has 
developed habitat and range management plans, which could help minimize 
effects of climate change by reducing the number of domestic livestock, 
decreasing habitat loss, and increasing water availability through 
water storage projects. Although we do not know the effectiveness of 
these plans under changing climatic conditions, we did not find any 
information that rising temperatures have had an effect on the status 
of the markhor such that climate change rises to the level of a threat, 
nor did we find any information indicating that climate change may 
become a threat to the straight-horned markhor.
Summary of Factor E
    To date, Pakistan has experienced a warming trend, yet there is no 
information to indicate that the straight-horned markhor has been 
negatively affected. Although information indicates changes in the 
climate of Balochistan could affect mountain habitat, we do not have 
information on the extent of these changes or the projected response of 
straight-horned markhor. Drought is a common occurrence in Balochistan, 
and it is reasonable to assume that the markhor has evolved with 
varying degrees of drought.
    We are not aware of any other scientific or commercial information 
that indicates other natural or manmade factors pose a threat to this 
subspecies. We also do not find that climate change is or may become a 
threat to the straight-horned markhor. As a result, we find that other 
natural or manmade factors are not threats to the straight-horned 
markhor.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the 
straight-horned markhor is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the straight-horned markhor. We reviewed the 
1999 petition submitted by Tareen, the 2010 petition submitted by 
Jackson, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information.
    The straight-horned markhor occurs in small, scattered populations 
in extremely rugged terrain of the mountains of Balochistan, including 
the Murdar, Takhatu, Zarghun, Kaliphat, Phil Garh, Suleiman, Shingar, 
and Toba Kakar ranges. In 1975, as few as 1,000 straight-horned markhor 
were estimated to survive throughout the subspecies' range. It is 
unlikely that the number of straight-horned markhor has increased in 
much of its range, and, in general, markhor populations are reported as

[[Page 47022]]

declining, but there is one exception, the Torghar Hills population in 
the Toba Kakar Range. Due to the implementation of a conservation plan, 
the Torghar Hills population has increased from fewer than 200 in the 
mid-1980s to 3,158 currently.
    Throughout the range of the straight-horned markhor, deforestation 
for logging, livestock grazing, and collection for building materials, 
fuel, charcoal, and food threaten straight-horned markhor habitat.
    Due to the formation of the TCP, the cessation of uncontrolled 
poaching, and the hunting of only a limited number of trophies in the 
Torghar Hills, the population has increased substantially since TCP's 
inception in 1985. We are not aware of other populations of straight-
horned markhor under the same level of management. Given that the 
cessation of poaching in the Torghar Hills was a direct result of the 
TCP and we are unaware of any other portions of the subspecies' range 
that are subject to a management program that protects against 
uncontrolled hunting, we find that poaching remains a threat in the 
rest of the straight-horned markhor's range.
    Disease has been identified as a future threat to the Torghar Hills 
population. The risk of disease transmission comes from forced 
interactions between livestock and markhor around limited forage and 
water resources, due either to drought conditions and/or overgrazing of 
large domestic herds of sheep and goats.
    There are several provincial laws in place meant to give some 
protection to natural resources, but they are subject to broad 
exemptions, allowing for overriding laws favoring development and 
commercial use, and enforcement is lacking. However, in the Torghar 
Hills, the population of straight-horned markhor has been effectively 
managed by the TCP such that poaching is no longer a threat to this 
population and the population has increased. Given the success of the 
TCP in ameliorating threats faced by the straight-horned markhor from 
poaching, it appears that this regulatory mechanism for the Torghar 
Hills population of straight-horned markhor is providing adequate 
protection to the subspecies from poaching, which was once the 
markhor's greatest threat.
    Lastly, Pakistan has experienced warming trends that are projected 
to continue, and could lead to more frequent and severe droughts. 
However, markhor have evolved within habitat that experiences frequent 
and sustained drought events. We do not have enough information to 
determine that climate change is a threat to the straight-horned 
markhor.
    Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any 
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as 
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within 
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range.'' Some of the straight-horned markhor populations are small and 
declining. Threats to this subspecies from habitat loss, poaching, and 
disease still exist and will likely continue into the foreseeable 
future. At the same time, regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to 
ameliorate the negative effects of these threats on the subspecies. 
However, in the Torghar Hills, the greatest cause of the significant 
declines in markhor populations, poaching, has been virtually 
eliminated due to the implementation of the TCP. The population here 
has been increasing since the inception of the TCP and, today, is the 
stronghold of the subspecies. Due to the conservation measures and the 
incentives of the TCP, the straight-horned markhor has increased from 
approximately 1,000 markhor across its range to at least 3,158 
individuals, which are represented by the Torghar Hills population. The 
success of this program has contributed greatly to the conservation of 
the subspecies by recovering the straight-horned markhor from the brink 
of extinction. This increase in abundance has contributed to the 
subspecies' overall resiliency such that it is less susceptible to the 
threats that we have identified. Additionally, information suggests 
that intermountain exchange or movement is occurring between the 
Torghar Hills and other mountain range areas, thereby providing a 
margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. See 
discussion under Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment. Thus, we find 
that threats identified under Factors A, B, C, and D, when combined 
with the increase in the straight-horned markhor population and the 
protective measures provided to the Torghar Hills population by the 
TCP, are not of sufficient imminence, intensity, or magnitude to 
indicate that the straight-horned markhor is presently in danger of 
extinction, and, therefore, the straight-horned markhor does not meet 
the definition of endangered under the Act. On the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial information, we find that the straight-horned 
markhor meets the definition of a ``threatened species'' under the Act, 
and we are proposing to list the straight-horned markhor as threatened 
throughout its range.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

    Section 3(16) of the Act defines ``species'' to include any species 
or subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, and any distinct 
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under the Service's 
``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996), three elements are considered in the decision concerning the 
establishment and classification of a possible distinct population 
segment (DPS). These elements, which are applied similarly for 
additions to or removals from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife, include:
    (1) The discreteness of a population 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, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is 
the population segment endangered or threatened?).
Discreteness
    Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon 
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following 
conditions:
    (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same 
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within 
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
    We reviewed available information to determine whether any 
population, including the Torghar Hills population, of the straight-
horned markhor meets the first discreteness condition of our 1996 DPS 
policy. We found no evidence that any population was markedly separated 
from other markhor populations as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Additionally, we are 
not aware of measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity that 
provide evidence of marked separation.

[[Page 47023]]

With respect to Torghar Hills, the boundaries are unclear and appear to 
grade into other ranges within the Toba Kakar Mountains. Additionally, 
Johnson (1994b, p. 15) noted that if the Torghar Hills population 
reaches carrying capacity, it could become a source of emigrants for 
other mountain ranges in the area and that intermountain movement is 
probably already taking place. Since that publication, the Torghar 
Hills population has increased from 695 markhor to 3,158, indicating a 
greater likelihood that intermountain movement of markhor is taking 
place. We currently do not know the extent, if any, that markhor are 
moving from the Torghar Hills into other mountain ranges; however, it 
appears that they could. Movement may require markhor to cross 
unsuitable habitat (e.g., the TCP is surrounded by less severe 
topography and valleys typically not preferred by markhor), but there 
is no reason that they could not cross, especially if carrying capacity 
is met and there is a need to emigrate to other suitable areas in 
adjacent ranges. Therefore, without evidence of marked separation, we 
determine that none of the populations of the straight-horned markhor 
meet the first discreteness condition of the 1996 DPS policy.
    We next evaluate whether any of the straight-horned markhor 
populations meet the second discreteness condition of our 1996 DPS 
policy. A population segment may be considered discrete if it is 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Straight-horned 
markhor are only found in Pakistan and do not cross international 
boundaries; therefore, none of the populations of the straight-horned 
markhor meet the second discreteness condition of the 1996 DPS policy.
    We determine, based on a review of the best available information, 
that none of the populations of the straight-horned markhor, including 
the Torghar Hills population, meet the discreteness conditions of the 
1996 DPS policy. Because we found that the straight-horned markhor 
populations do not meet the discreteness element under the Service's 
DPS policy, we need not conduct an evaluation of significance under 
that policy. We conclude that none of the straight-horned markhor 
populations qualify as a DPS under the Act.

Significant Portion of the Range

    Having determined that the straight-horned markhor meets the 
definition of threatened throughout its range, we must next consider 
whether the straight-horned markhor is in danger of extinction within a 
significant portion of its range.
    The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The phrase ``significant 
portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and we have 
never addressed in our regulations either: (1) The consequences of a 
determination that a species is either endangered or likely to become 
so throughout a significant portion of its range, but not throughout 
all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a range as 
``significant.''
    For the purposes of this finding, we interpret the phrase 
``significant portion of its range'' in the Act's definitions of 
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' to provide an 
independent basis for listing; thus there are two situations (or 
factual bases) under which a species would qualify for listing: a 
species may be endangered or threatened throughout all of its range; or 
a species may be endangered or threatened in only a significant portion 
of its range. If a species is in danger of extinction throughout an 
SPR, then that species is an ``endangered species.'' The same analysis 
applies to ``threatened species.'' Based on this interpretation and 
supported by existing case law, the consequence of finding that a 
species is endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of 
its range is that the entire species will be listed as endangered or 
threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections will be applied 
across the species' entire range.
    We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting 
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the 
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the 
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it 
does not conflict with established past agency practice, as no 
consistent, long-term agency practice has been established; and it is 
consistent with the judicial opinions that have most closely examined 
this issue. Having concluded that the phrase ``significant portion of 
its range'' provides an independent basis for listing and protecting 
the entire species, we next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to 
determine the threshold for when such an independent basis for listing 
exists.
    Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a 
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the 
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the 
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the 
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold 
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction 
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of 
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation. 
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below, 
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that 
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
    We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of 
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species 
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. 
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the 
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species 
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of 
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive 
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation 
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species 
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a 
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it 
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to 
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire 
species), and the likelihood that some habitat types are less 
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability 
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is 
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range 
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under 
any one or more of these concepts.
    For the purposes of this finding, we determine whether a portion 
qualifies as ``significant'' by asking whether without that portion, 
the representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be 
so impaired that the species

[[Page 47024]]

would have an increased vulnerability to threats to the point that the 
overall species would be in danger of extinction (i.e., would be 
``endangered''). Conversely, we would not consider the portion of the 
range at issue to be ``significant'' if there is sufficient resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation elsewhere in the species' range that the 
species would not be in danger of extinction throughout its range if 
the population in that portion of the range in question became 
extirpated (extinct locally).
    We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of 
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the 
viability of the species is so important that without that portion, the 
species would be in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that 
is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of 
finding a species to be endangered or threatened in an SPR would be 
listing the species throughout its entire range, it is important to use 
a threshold for ``significant'' that is robust. It would not be 
meaningful or appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a 
portion of the range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a 
negligible increase in extinction risk would result from its loss. 
Because nearly any portion of a species' range can be said to 
contribute some increment to a species' viability, use of such a low 
threshold would require us to impose restrictions and expend 
conservation resources disproportionately to conservation benefit: 
Listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the range of 
minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On the other 
hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for 
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the 
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be 
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in 
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a 
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the 
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 
(9th Cir. 2001).
    The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully 
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we 
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources 
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation. 
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a 
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning. 
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the 
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation. 
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so 
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species 
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of 
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not 
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance. 
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises 
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that 
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that 
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.) 
Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species would be 
endangered everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were 
completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need 
not be so important that even the species being in danger of extinction 
in that portion would be sufficient to cause the species in the 
remainder of the range to be endangered; rather, the complete 
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the species in that portion 
would be required to cause the species in the remainder of the range to 
be endangered.
    The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions 
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to 
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be 
significant or to analyzing portions of the range in which there is no 
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To 
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we 
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1) 
The portions may be ``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in 
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the 
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range, 
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address 
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if 
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do 
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened 
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened 
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion 
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a 
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its 
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some 
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout 
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration. 
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in 
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the 
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will 
not warrant further consideration.
    After reviewing the potential threats throughout the range of the 
straight-horned markhor, we find that threats appear to be affecting 
the subspecies in the portion of the range outside of the Torghar Hills 
more severely, particularly with respect to poaching. Applying the 
process described above for determining whether this subspecies is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range, we consider 
significance first to determine if this portion of the straight-horned 
markhor's range warrants further consideration.
    As stated above, a portion of the range of a species is 
``significant'' if its contribution to the viability of the species is 
so important that without that portion, the species would be in danger 
of extinction rangewide. We find that if there was a loss of the 
straight-horned markhor populations outside of the Torghar Hills, the 
remaining population in the Torghar Hills would not be in danger of 
extinction. The Torghar Hills population, under the management of the 
TCP, has been steadily increasing since the inception of the TCP in 
1985. Poaching, the greatest cause of substantial markhor declines, has 
been virtually eliminated in the Torghar Hills. Given the level of the 
abundance within Torghar Hills as a result of management under the TCP, 
we find that this population would be large enough to persist in the 
face of threats associated with habitat destruction, disease, and 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, despite the hypothetical loss of the 
range outside of Torghar Hills. In contrast, based on the information 
available, the populations outside of Torghar Hills are small and 
fragmented. We have no information to suggest that habitat for 
populations outside of Torghar Hills is optimal, and, instead, the 
information suggests that these populations likely exist on tribal 
lands that are subject to overgrazing by domestic livestock, which is 
the dominant land use and the primary means of subsistence for local 
tribes. Therefore, the portion of the range outside of the Torghar 
Hills does not meet the definition of ``significant'' and does not 
warrant further consideration.

[[Page 47025]]

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal 
protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition 
through listing results in public awareness, and encourages and results 
in conservation actions by Federal and State governments, 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 within the United States or on the high seas with respect 
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened 
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated. 
However, given that the straight-horned markhor is not native to the 
United States, we are not designating critical habitat for this species 
under section 4 of the Act.
    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 and threatened 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.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and 
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in 
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to ``take'' (take includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt any of these) 
within the United States or upon the high seas; import or export; 
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign 
commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for 
sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered or threatened 
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, 
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation 
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State 
conservation agencies.
    Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species and 17.32 for threatened species. For 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes, to 
enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental 
take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened 
species, a permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as 
zoological exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with 
the Act.

Special Rule

    Section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may, by 
regulation, extend to threatened species prohibitions provided for 
endangered species under section 9 of the Act. Our implementing 
regulations for threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.31) incorporate the 
section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except when a special 
rule is promulgated. For threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act 
gives the Secretary discretion to specify the prohibitions and any 
exceptions to those prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, 
and provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the species. A special rule allows us to include 
provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the 
threatened species and which may be more or less restrictive than the 
general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
    The Service recognizes that there is a reasonable argument for the 
proposition that controlled sport hunting (i.e., noncommercial) may 
provide economic incentives that contribute to the conservation of 
certain wildlife populations. These incentives may be direct, such as 
generating funding for essential conservation measures through 
licensing fees. They may also be indirect, such as focusing 
governmental attention on the need to protect species of economic 
value.
    Well-managed conservation programs, including those that 
incorporate sport hunting, can significantly contribute to the 
conservation of wildlife, improve wildlife populations, and greatly 
enhance the livelihoods of the local people. The primary objective of a 
well-managed trophy-hunting program is not hunting, but the 
conservation of large mammals (Shackleton 2001, p. 7). The key lies in 
ensuring a sufficient number of mature males remain in the population 
to maintain normal reproduction rates. For species with polygynous 
mating systems, removing some of the males from a population does not 
necessarily affect the growth rate of the population. If a fraction of 
the mature males (approximately 2 percent) are removed, normal 
reproduction can be maintained and any long-term genetic impacts from 
removing ``genetically superior'' individuals from a population can be 
minimized (Shackleton 2001, p. 10).
    Many hunters are willing to pay relatively large fees for the 
privilege to hunt. If the money is used to conserve the species that is 
the focus of the conservation program, the program may be sustainable. 
Additionally, habitat restoration may also be achieved. Incorporating 
the needs of the local people creates an incentive to conserve wildlife 
and ensures the success of the program (Shackleton 2001, pp. 7, 10).
    In recognizing the potential of conservation programs, including 
those based on sport hunting, we are proposing a special rule to allow 
the import of sport-hunted markhor trophies taken from established 
conservation programs without a threatened species permit issued under 
50 CFR 17.32, provided that certain criteria are met. Importation of a 
personal sport-hunted straight-horned markhor may be authorized by the 
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Director) without a 
threatened species permit if the trophy is taken from a conservation 
program that meets the following criteria: (1) Populations of straight-
horned markhor within the conservation program's areas can be shown to 
be sufficiently large to sustain sport-hunting and the populations are 
stable or increasing; (2) regulating authorities have the capacity to 
obtain sound data on populations; (3) the conservation program can 
demonstrate a benefit to both the communities surrounding or within the 
area managed by the conservation program and the species, and the funds 
derived from sport hunting are applied toward benefits to the community 
and the species; (4) regulating authorities have the legal and 
practical capacity to provide for the long-term survival of the 
populations; (5) regulating authorities can determine that the trophies 
have in fact been legally taken from the populations under an 
established conservation program. The Director may, consistent with the 
purposes of the Act, authorize by publication of a notice in the 
Federal Register the importation of personal sport-hunted straight-
horned markhor, taken legally from the established conservation program 
after the date of such notice, without a threatened species permit, 
provided that the applicable provisions of 50 CFR part 23 have been 
met.
    As discussed above under Factors B and D, hunting of markhor is 
allowed

[[Page 47026]]

through a Pakistani government exemption, and export of markhor in 
Pakistan is allowed only from community-managed conservation areas in 
accordance with CITES provisions. To encourage communities to conserve 
populations of markhor, the Conference of the Parties to CITES granted 
Pakistan an annual export quota of 12 markhor sport-hunted trophies 
taken through community-based programs. CITES Resolution Conf. 10.15 
(Rev. CoP 14) recommends that CITES Authorities in the State of import 
approve permits of sport-hunted markhor trophies from Pakistan if they 
meet the terms of the Resolution. This proposed special rule, if made 
final, would similarly facilitate support for these conservation 
programs. Therefore, we find this special rule would provide necessary 
and advisable conservation measures that are needed for this 
subspecies.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative 
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was 
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinion of at least three appropriate independent specialists regarding 
this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure listing 
decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and 
analysis. We will send copies of this proposed rule to the peer 
reviewers immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We 
will invite these peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment 
period, on the specific assumptions and the data that are the basis for 
our conclusions regarding the proposal to reclassify the straight-
horned markhor as threatened under the Act and to promulgate the 
proposed special rule.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Required Determinations

Clarity of Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
    (a) Be logically organized;
    (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental 
assessment, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations 
adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining 
our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new information collections or 
recordkeeping requirements for which Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

References Cited

    A list of all references cited in this document is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0003, or upon 
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species 
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the 
Branch of Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend 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. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Markhor, 
straight-horned'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 
read as follows:


Sec.  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               ....................  ....................  ....................  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Markhor, straight-horned.........  Capra falconeri       Afghanistan,          Entire..............  T                      15           NA     17.40(r)
                                    jerdoni.              Pakistan.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Sec.  17.40 by adding a new paragraph (r) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.40  Special rules--mammals.

* * * * *
    (r) Straight-horned Markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni).

[[Page 47027]]

    (1) General requirements. Except as noted in paragraph (r)(2) of 
this section, all prohibitions of Sec.  17.31 of this part and 
exemptions of Sec.  17.32 of this part apply to this subspecies.
    (2) What are the criteria under which a personal sport-hunted 
trophy may qualify for import without a permit under Sec.  17.32 of 
this part? If, upon receiving information on an established 
conservation program for straight-horned markhor:
    (i) Populations of straight-horned markhor within the conservation 
program's areas can be shown to be sufficiently large to sustain sport 
hunting and are stable or increasing;
    (ii) Regulating authorities have the capacity to obtain sound data 
on populations;
    (iii) The conservation program can demonstrate a benefit to both 
the communities surrounding or within the area managed by the 
conservation program and the species; and the funds derived from sport 
hunting are applied toward benefits to the community and the species;
    (iv) Regulating authorities have the legal and practical capacity 
to provide for the long-term survival of the populations; and
    (v) Regulating authorities can determine that the sport-hunted 
trophies have in fact been legally taken from the populations under an 
established conservation program, the Director may, consistent with the 
purposes of the Act, authorize by publication of a notice in the 
Federal Register the importation of personal sport-hunted straight-
horned markhor, taken legally from the established program after the 
date of such notice, without a Threatened Species permit pursuant to 
Sec.  17.32 of this part, provided that the applicable provisions of 50 
CFR part 23 have been met.
* * * * *

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Thomas O. Melius,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-19071 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P