[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34500-34525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14232]



[[Page 34499]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 115

June 16, 2015

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing All Chimpanzees 
as Endangered Species; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 34500]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086; 4500030115]
RIN 1018-AZ52


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing All 
Chimpanzees as Endangered Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
endangered species status for all chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) under 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This rule 
eliminates the separate classification of captive and wild chimpanzees 
under the Act. We are also amending the rule issued under section 4(d) 
of the Act for primates, which is set forth at 50 CFR 17.40(c), by 
removing chimpanzees from that rule. This final rule implements the 
Federal protections provided by the Act for all chimpanzees, whether 
found in captivity or in the wild.

DATES: This rule is effective September 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and comments and materials received, as well as 
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 
Church, VA 22041.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of 
Foreign Species, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service; telephone 703-358-2171; facsimile 703-358-1735. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    We are listing all chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in 
captivity, as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). We have determined that the Act does not allow for 
captive chimpanzees to be assigned separate legal status from their 
wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including 
through designation as a separate distinct population segment (DPS). It 
is also not possible to separate out captive chimpanzees for different 
legal status under the Act by other approaches. Therefore, we are 
eliminating the separate classification of chimpanzees held in 
captivity and listing the entire species, wherever found, as an 
endangered species under the Act.

II. Major Provision of the Regulatory Action

    This action eliminates separate classifications for wild and 
captive chimpanzees under the Act. All chimpanzees, whether in the wild 
or in captivity, will be listed as one entity that is an endangered 
species in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 
17.11(h). This action will also remove the chimpanzee and paragraph 
(c)(3) from the rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act for primates, 
which is set forth at 50 CFR 17.40(c), and extend the Act's protections 
for endangered species to all chimpanzees.

Background

    The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), is a law that was passed to prevent extinction of 
species by providing measures to help alleviate the loss of species and 
their habitats. Before an animal or plant species can receive the 
protection provided by the Act, it must first be added to the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Plants; section 4 of the Act and its 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures 
for adding species to these lists.

Previous Federal Actions

    On October 19, 1976, we published in the Federal Register a rule 
listing the chimpanzee and 25 other species of primates under the Act 
(41 FR 45990); the chimpanzee and 13 of the other primate species were 
listed as threatened species. The chimpanzee was found to be a 
threatened species based on: (1) Commercial logging and clearing of 
forests for agriculture and the use of arboricides; (2) capture and 
exportation for use in research labs and zoos; (3) diseases, such as 
malaria, hepatitis, and tuberculosis contracted from humans; and (4) 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. We simultaneously issued 
a rule under section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule'') that the general 
prohibitions provided to the threatened species would apply except for 
live animals of these species held in captivity in the United States on 
the effective date of the rulemaking (November 18, 1976; 41 FR 45990), 
progeny of such animals, or the progeny of animals legally imported 
into the United States after the effective date of the rulemaking 
(November 18, 1976).
    On November 4, 1987, we received a petition from the Humane Society 
of the United States, World Wildlife Fund, and Jane Goodall Institute, 
requesting that the chimpanzee be reclassified from a threatened 
species to an endangered species. On March 23, 1988 (53 FR 9460), 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 initiated a status review. We opened a comment period, 
which closed July 21, 1988, to allow all interested parties to submit 
comments and information.
    On December 28, 1988 (53 FR 52452), we published in the Federal 
Register a finding that the requested reclassification was warranted 
with respect to chimpanzees in the wild. This decision was based on the 
petition and subsequent supporting comments that dealt primarily with 
the status of the species in the wild and not with the circumstances of 
captive populations. We did not propose reclassification of captive 
chimpanzees. We found that the 4(d) rule exempting captive chimpanzees 
in the United States from the general prohibitions may encourage 
propagation, providing surplus animals and reducing the incentive to 
remove animals from the wild. On February 24, 1989 (54 FR 8152), we 
published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to implement such 
reclassification. With publication of the proposed rule, we opened a 
60-day comment period to allow all interested parties to submit 
comments and information.
    On March 12, 1990, we published in the Federal Register (55 FR 
9129) a final rule reclassifying the wild populations of the chimpanzee 
as endangered species. The captive chimpanzees remained classified as 
threatened species, and those within the United States continued to be 
covered by the 4(d) rule allowing activities otherwise prohibited.
    On March 16, 2010, we received a petition dated the same day, from 
Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal on behalf of The Humane Society of the 
United States, the American Association of Zoological Parks and 
Aquariums, the Jane Goodall Institute, the Wildlife Conservation 
Society, the Pan African Sanctuary Alliance, the Fund for Animals, 
Humane Society International, and the New England Anti-Vivisection 
Society

[[Page 34501]]

(hereafter referred to as ``petitioners'') requesting that captive 
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) be reclassified as endangered species 
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). The petition contained information on 
what the petitioners reported as potential threats to the species from 
habitat loss, poaching and trafficking, disease, and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms. On October 12, 2010, we received a letter from 
Anna Frostic, Staff Attorney with the Humane Society of the United 
States, on behalf of the petitioners clarifying that the March 16, 
2010, petition was a petition to list the entire species (Pan 
troglodytes) as an endangered species, whether in the wild or in 
captivity, pursuant to the Act.
    On September 1, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a 
finding that the March 16, 2010, petition presented substantial 
scientific or commercial information indicating that the requested 
action may be warranted, and we initiated a status review (76 FR 
54423).
    On November 1, 2011, we published in the Federal Register a notice 
correcting an incorrect Docket Number given under the ADDRESSES section 
of the September 1, 2011, petition finding. We also gave notice that we 
were making the large volume of supporting documents submitted with the 
petition available to the public. To allow the public adequate time to 
review the supporting documents, we extended the period of time for 
submitting information to January 30, 2012 (74 FR 67401). On June 12, 
2013, the Service published in the Federal Register a proposed rule to 
list all chimpanzees as an endangered species under the Act and remove 
chimpanzees from the 4(d) rule for primates set forth at 50 CFR 
17.40(c) (78 FR 35201).

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    We fully considered comments from the public and the peer reviewer 
on the proposed rule to determine our final listing status of 
chimpanzees. This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed rule 
based on the comments that we received that are discussed below and 
newly available scientific and commercial information. We made some 
technical corrections and incorporated additional information into our 
discussion of diseases. On the basis of an evaluation of the 
information we received or incorporated into this final rule we affirm 
our determination that listing the chimpanzee as an endangered species 
is warranted.

Evaluation of Captive Chimpanzees as a Separate Listable Entity

    Under section 3(16) of the Act, we may consider for listing any 
species, which includes subspecies of fish, wildlife, and plants, or 
any distinct population segment (DPS) of vertebrate fish or wildlife 
that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such entities are 
considered eligible for separate listing status under the Act (and, 
therefore, referred to as listable entities) should we determine that 
they meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened 
species.
    The Service was petitioned to list all chimpanzees, whether in the 
wild or in captivity, as endangered species. Essentially, this request 
is to eliminate the separate classification of captive chimpanzees from 
chimpanzees located in the wild. This petition raised questions 
regarding whether the Service has any discretion to differentiate the 
listing status of chimpanzees in captivity from those in the wild.
    The Service has not had an absolute policy or practice with respect 
to this issue, but generally has included wild and captive animals 
together when it has listed species. The example set by the separate 
chimpanzee listings was used as support for two petitions the Service 
received in 2010 to delist U.S. captive and U.S. captive-bred members 
of three antelope species in the United States. In the 2005 listing 
determination for the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx dammah), dama gazelle 
(Gazella dama), and addax (Addax nasomaculatus) (70 FR 52310, September 
2, 2005), the Service found that a differentiation in the listing 
status of captive specimens of these antelopes in the United States was 
not appropriate. The petitioners, Exotic Wildlife Association, Safari 
Club International, and Safari Club International Foundation, asserted 
that the treatment by the Service of chimpanzees in 1990 warranted 
similar treatment for these antelope species. Because the Service had 
not specifically examined whether the current statute, regulations, and 
applicable policies provide any discretion to differentiate the listing 
status of specimens in captivity from those in the wild, we reviewed 
the issues raised by these petitions to ensure the Act is implemented 
appropriately. On June 5, 2013, we found that delisting U.S. captive 
and U.S. captive-bred members of the three antelope species was not 
warranted (78 FR 33790). In addition, on August 9, 2013, the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the Service's 
decision to include U.S. captive-bred antelope in its 2005 listing of 
the three antelope species as endangered (see Safari Club Int'l v. 
Jewell, 960 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2013)).
    For similar reasons and as discussed below, we find that the Act 
does not allow for captive chimpanzees to be assigned separate legal 
status from their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive 
state, including through designation as a separate distinct population 
segment (DPS).\1\ It is also not possible to separate out captive 
chimpanzees for different legal status under the Act by other 
approaches (see Other Potential Approaches for Separate Legal Status).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As compared to populations that exist in the wild, 
``captivity'' is defined as ``living wildlife . . . held in a 
controlled environment that is intensively manipulated by man for 
the purpose of producing wildlife of the selected species, and that 
has boundaries designed to prevent animal [sic], eggs or gametes of 
the selected species from entering or leaving the controlled 
environment. General characteristics of captivity may include but 
are not limited to artificial housing, waste removal, health care, 
protection from predators, and artificially supplied food'' (50 CFR 
17.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions of the Act

    The legal mandate of section 4(a)(1) is to determine ``whether any 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species . . .'' 
(emphasis added). In the Act, a ``species'' is defined to include any 
subspecies and any DPS of a vertebrate animal, as well as taxonomic 
species. Other than a taxonomic species or subspecies, captive 
specimens (of a vertebrate animal species) would have to qualify as a 
``distinct population segment . . . which interbreeds when mature'' to 
qualify as a separate DPS.\2\ Nothing in the plain language of the 
definitions of ``endangered species,'' ``threatened species,'' or 
``species'' expressly indicates that captive chimpanzees can or cannot 
have separate status under the Act on the basis of their state of 
captivity. However, certain language in the Act is inconsistent with a 
determination of separate legal status for captive chimpanzees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The analysis in this document addresses only where it is not 
disputed that the specimens are members of a wildlife species, such 
as chimpanzees. This analysis does not address situations where 
members of a species have been held in captivity for a sufficiently 
long period that they have developed into a separate domesticated 
form of the species, including where the domesticated form is 
sufficiently distinct to be considered a separate taxonomic species 
or subspecies (e.g., domesticated donkey vs. the African wild ass).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 4(c)(1), the agency is to specify for each species 
listed ``over what portion of its range'' it is an

[[Page 34502]]

endangered or threatened species.\3\ ``Range,'' while not defined in 
the Act, consistently has been interpreted under the Act as the general 
geographical area of the species in the wild. Thus, chimpanzees held in 
captivity and analyzed as a separate listable entity have no ``range'' 
separate from that of the species to which they belong, at least as 
that term has been applied under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Even though the Service has taken the position in its 
significant portion of the range (SPR) policy (79 FR 37578) that the 
range information called for under section 4(c)(1) is for 
information purposes, this statutory language still informs the 
question of Congress' intent under the statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As demonstrated in various species' listings at 50 CFR 17.11 and 
17.12, information in the ``Historic Range'' column is the range of the 
species in the wild. For none of these species does the ``range'' 
information include countries or geographic areas on the basis of where 
specimens are held in captivity, even though the Service knows that 
specimens of many of these species have long been held in facilities 
outside their native range, including in the United States.
    Also, in analyzing the ``present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of [a species'] habitat or range'' 
(emphasis added) (see section 4(a)(1)(A) of the Act), the Service has 
traditionally analyzed habitat threats in the native range of wild 
specimens and not included other geographic areas where specimens have 
been moved to and are being held in captivity. We are not aware of any 
Service listing decision where analysis of threats to the ``range'' has 
included geographic areas outside the native range where specimens are 
held in captivity.
    In analyzing other threats to a species (see sections 4(a)(1)(B), 
4(a)(1)(C), 4(a)(1)(D), and 4(a)(1)(E) of the Act), the Service has 
also limited its analysis to threats acting upon wild specimens within 
the native range of the species, and has not included analysis of 
``threats'' to animals held in captivity except as those threats impact 
the potential for the captive population to contribute to recovery of 
the species in the geographic area where wild specimens are native.
    In addition to the use of ``range'' in sections 4(a)(1) and 
4(c)(1), the definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened 
species'' found in section 3 of the Act also discuss the role of the 
species' range in listing determinations. 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.'' The Service's 2014 Final Policy on Interpretation of the 
Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species 
Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' 
(79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) interprets ``range'' as the ``general 
geographical area within which that species can be found at the time 
[the Service] or [the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)] makes 
any particular status determination. This range includes those areas 
used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if they 
are not used regularly (e.g., seasonal habitats). Lost historical range 
is relevant to the analysis of the status of the species, but it cannot 
constitute a significant portion of a species' range.'' The ``general 
geographical area within which that species can be found'' is broad 
enough to include geographic areas where animals have been moved by 
humans and are being held in captivity. However, the Service has not 
applied the term in this manner in the past and does not intend to do 
so in the future. ``Significant portion of its range'' (SPR) analyses 
have been and will be limited to geographic areas where specimens are 
found in the wild.
    Thus, throughout the Act ``range'' has consistently been 
interpreted by the Service as being the natural range of the species in 
the wild.\4\ For all the reasons discussed above, chimpanzees held in 
captivity should not have separate legal status under the Act because 
they have no ``range'' that is separate from the range of the species 
in the wild to which they belong, as that term is used in the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also Endangered Species Act: Hearings on H.R. 37, H.R. 
470, H.R. 471, H.R. 1461, H.R. 1511, H.R. 2669, H.R. 2735, H.R. 
3310, H.R. 3696, H.R. 3795, H.R. 4755, H.R. 2169 and H.R. 4758 
Before the House Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and 
the Environment, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 93d 
Cong. 198 (1973) (hereinafter 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others) 
(Letter from S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of Smithsonian Institute, 
to Chairman, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, April 23, 
1973 (lauding H.R. 4758, the Administration's legislative proposal 
that contained a definition of ``endangered species'' substantially 
similar to the statutory definition eventually adopted by Congress 
in the 1973 Act: ``In effect the bill offers a great deal of 
flexibility by providing that a species may be placed on the list if 
the Secretary determines that it is presently threatened with 
extinction, not only in all of its natural range, but in a 
significant part thereof, as well.'') (emphasis added)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain provisions in sections 9 and 10 of the Act show that 
Congress anticipated that captive animals would have the same legal 
status as their wild counterparts by providing certain exceptions for 
animals held in captivity. Section 9(b)(1) of the Act provides an 
exemption from certain section 9(a)(1) prohibitions for listed animals 
held in captivity or in a controlled environment as of the date of the 
species' listing (or enactment of the Act), provided the holding in 
captivity and any subsequent use is not in the course of a commercial 
activity. Section 9(b)(2) of the Act provides an exemption from all 
section 9(a)(1) prohibitions for raptors held in captivity or in a 
controlled environment as of 1978 and their progeny. Section 
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act allows permits to ``enhance the propagation or 
survival'' of the species (emphasis added). This demonstrates that 
Congress recognized the value of captive-holding and propagation of 
listed specimens held in captivity, but intended that such specimens 
would be protected under the Act, with these activities generally 
regulated by permit.\5\ If captive specimens could simply be excluded 
through the listing process, none of these exceptions and permits would 
be needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1972: Hearing on 
S. 249, S. 3199 and S. 3818 Before the Senate Subcomm. on the 
Environment, Senate Comm. on Commerce, 92nd Cong. 211-12 (1972) 
(statement of Deborah Appel, Assistant to the Director for Public 
Information, National Audubon Society) (endorsing S. 3199, a bill 
considered by the Senate that contained similar language eventually 
adopted by Congress in the purpose section of the 1973 Act, but 
advising against a specific mandate requiring captive propagation 
because ``the capture of specimens for experiment in captive 
propagation may in itself endanger the chances of some rare species 
for survival in the wild.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purpose of the Act

Meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act
    The full purposes of the Act, stated in section 2(b), are ``to 
provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species 
and threatened species depend may be conserved [hereafter referred to 
as the first purpose], to provide a program for the conservation of 
such endangered species and threatened species [hereafter referred to 
as the second purpose], and to take such steps as may be appropriate to 
achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth in 
subsection (a) of this section [hereafter referred to as the third 
purpose].'' It has been stated, without explanation, that the language 
of section 2(b) of the Act supports protecting only specimens that 
occur in the wild. However, the purposes listed in section 2(b) 
indicate that the three provisions are intended to have independent 
meaning, with little to indicate that Congress' intent was to protect 
only specimens of endangered or threatened

[[Page 34503]]

species found in the wild. The treaties and conventions under the third 
purpose are expressly those listed in section 2(a)(4) of the Act, all 
of which are for the protection of wildlife and plants, and none of 
which is limited to protection of endangered or threatened specimens in 
the wild.\6\ The first purpose calls for conservation of ecosystems, 
independent of conservation of species themselves (which is separately 
listed as the second purpose). This does focus on protection of native 
habitats (those inhabited by the species in the wild in its native 
range), as it is generally the ecosystems or habitats within which a 
species has evolved that are those upon which it ``depends.'' However, 
the phrase ``upon which endangered species and threatened species 
depend'' indicates only that ecosystem (i.e., habitat) protection 
should be focused on that used by endangered and threatened species, 
and does not indicate that the sole focus of the Act is conservation of 
species within their native ecosystems. Several provisions in the Act 
provide authority to protect habitat, independent of authorities 
applicable to protection and regulation of specimens of listed species 
themselves. See, for example, section 5 (Land Acquisition), section 6 
(Cooperation With the States), section 7 (Interagency Cooperation), and 
section 8 (International Cooperation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Nor are these treaties and conventions limited to protection 
of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the second purpose under section 2(b) of the Act that speaks 
to the conservation of species themselves that are endangered or 
threatened species. However, nothing in the language of the second 
purpose indicates that conservation programs should be limited to 
specimens located in the wild. The plain language of section 2(b) 
refers to ``species,'' with no distinction between wild specimens of 
the species as compared to captive specimens of the species. Thus, 
nothing in the plain language indicates that captive specimens should 
be excluded from the Act's processes and protections that would 
contribute to recovery (i.e., ``conservation'') of the entire taxonomic 
species. It is true that the phrasing of the second purpose (``to 
provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and 
threatened species'' (emphasis added)) links the second purpose of 
species recovery to the first purpose of ecosystem (i.e., native 
habitat) protection, thus making the goal of the statute recovery of 
endangered and threatened species in their natural ecosystems. But 
there is nothing in the phrasing to indicate that the specific 
provisions of the statute for meeting this goal should be limited to 
specimens of the species located within the ecosystems upon which they 
depend.
Separate Legal Status Is Inconsistent With Section 2(b)
    The potential consequences of captive chimpanzees having separate 
legal status under the Act on the basis of their captive state, 
particularly where captive specimens could have no legal protection 
while wild specimens are listed as an endangered species,\7\ indicate 
that such separate legal status is not consistent with the section 2(b) 
purpose of conserving endangered and threatened species. Congress 
specifically recognized ``overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes'' as a potential threat that 
contributes to the risk of extinction for many species. If captive 
chimpanzees have separate legal status under the Act, particularly with 
no protections under the Act, the threat of overutilization would 
potentially increase. The United States is one of the world's largest 
markets for wildlife and wildlife products.\8\ Poachers and smugglers 
would have increased incentive to remove animals from the wild and 
smuggle them into captive-holding facilities in the United States for 
captive propagation or subsequent commercial use, because once in 
captivity there would be no Act restrictions on use of the captive 
specimens or their offspring. This would be a particular issue for 
foreign species such as chimpanzees where States regulate native 
wildlife (and therefore captive domestic endangered or threatened 
specimens would continue to be regulated under State law), but often do 
not regulate use of nonnative wildlife. This could be a particularly 
lucrative trade for poachers and smugglers because many endangered and 
threatened species (particularly foreign species such as chimpanzees) 
can be at risk of extinction because of their high commercial value in 
trade (as trophies or pets, or for their furs, horns, ivory, shells, or 
medicinal or decorative use).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ If it were determined that captive chimpanzees can have 
separate legal status on the basis of their captive state, 
proponents of separate legal status could argue that these captive 
specimens do not qualify as endangered or threatened species at all 
because they do not face ``threats'' that create a substantial risk 
of extinction to the captive specimens such as those faced by the 
wild population, in which case captive chimpanzees would have no 
protections under the Act (see Section 4: Listing Effects on Captive 
Animals).
    \8\ See USFWS Office of Law Enforcement Annual Report for FY 
2009 p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once removed from the wild, species such as chimpanzees would 
potentially be subject to increased trade in ``laundered'' wild-caught 
specimens to feed U.S. or foreign market demand because protected wild 
specimens would be generally indistinguishable from unprotected captive 
specimens. Because there would be no restriction or regulation on the 
taking, sale, import, export, or transport in the course of commercial 
activities in interstate or foreign commerce of captive specimens by 
persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction, there would be a potential legal 
U.S. market in captive specimens and their progeny operating parallel 
to any illegal U.S. market (or U.S. citizen participation in illegal 
foreign markets) in wild specimens. With the difficulty of 
distinguishing captive from wild specimens, especially if they are 
broken down into their parts and products, illegal wild specimens of 
commercial value could likely easily be passed off as legal captive 
specimens and thus be traded as legal specimens. As the court found in 
Safari Club Int'l v. Jewell, listing captive members of the species 
along with the wild members ``avoids any confusion about the source of 
the [animals]'' and therefore is consistent with the purposes of the 
Act (960 F. Supp. 2d at 67).
    Congress included the similarity-of-appearance provision in section 
4(e) to allow the Service to regulate species under the Act where one 
species so closely resembles an endangered or threatened species that 
enforcement personnel cannot distinguish between the protected and 
unprotected species and this difficulty is a threat to the species. The 
Service's only option in the situations described above would be to 
complete separate similarity-of-appearance listings for captive animals 
not regulated under the Act. A similarity-of-appearance listing under 
the Act for such captive specimens would become the only means to make 
captive specimens subject to the same restrictions as listed wild 
specimens and thereby protect the wild populations from overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

Operation of Key Provisions of the Act

    As described in the following subsections, operation of key 
provisions in sections 4 and 7 of the Act also indicate that it would 
not be consistent with Congressional intent or the purpose of the Act 
to treat captive chimpanzees as a separate listable entity on the basis 
of their captive state.

[[Page 34504]]

Section 4: Listing Effects on Captive Animals
    The section 4 listing process is not well suited to analyzing 
threats to an entirely captive group of specimens that are maintained 
under controlled, artificial conditions, and the process could be lead 
to consequences that are not consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    The majority of the section 4(a)(1) factors would be difficult to 
apply to captive specimens with a range independent of wild specimens 
because the five factors are not readily suited to evaluating specimens 
held in captivity. There may be situations where only disease threats 
(factor C) and other natural or manmade factors (factor E) would be 
applicable to consideration of purely captive groups of specimens. The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of 
habitat or range (factor A) may not be a threat for a listable entity 
consisting solely of captive specimens, because the physical 
environment under which captive specimens are held is generally readily 
controllable and, in many cases, optimized to ensure the physical 
health of the animal. Overutilization (factor B) is unlikely to be a 
factor threatening the continued existence of groups of captive 
specimens where both breeding and culling are managed to ensure the 
continuation of stock at a desired level based on ownership interest 
and market demand. Predation (factor C) may rarely be a factor for 
captive specimens because predators may be more readily controlled in 
captive situtions. In addition, human management may provide for all 
essential life functions, thereby eliminating selection or competition 
for mates, food, water resources, and shelter.
    It is unclear how the ``inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms'' (factor D) would apply to captive specimens with a range 
independent of wild specimens because this factor generally applies in 
relationship to threats identified under the other factors. Regulatory 
mechanisms applicable to wild specimens usually include measures to 
protect natural habitat and laws that regulate activities such as take, 
sale, and import and export. However, there might be no regulatory 
mechanisms applicable when the group of specimens under consideration 
is in captivity (except perhaps general humane treatment or animal 
health laws).
    That the section 4 process is not well suited to listings of 
entirely captive specimens is demonstrated by the previous listing 
action for the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee was originally listed in its 
entirety as a threatened species (41 FR 45990, October 19, 1976). On 
March 12, 1990 (55 FR 9129), the Service reclassified wild populations 
of chimpanzees as a separate endangered species, noting that wild 
populations had declined due to massive habitat destruction, excessive 
hunting and capture by people, and lack of effective national and 
international controls. But the reclassification rule never analyzed 
whether the newly designated DPS consisting of chimpanzees ``wherever 
found in captivity'' separately met the definition of a threatened 
species based on the five factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 
Instead, the rule discussed estimated numbers of animals in captivity 
and known captive-breeding programs, stating in response to a comment 
that some chimpanzee breeding groups were being managed in the United 
States with the objective of achieving self-sustainability. The five-
factor analysis in both the proposed and final listing rules considered 
only information applicable to wild populations and within the 
taxonomic species' native range.
    That the section 4 listing process is not well suited to separate 
consideration of captive specimens could result in consequences that 
would be contrary to the purposes of the Act. Because captive members 
of the species and wild members of the species would be under separate 
consideration for listing under the Act and therefore under separate 
five-factor analyses, some would argue that captive chimpanzees do not 
meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species 
under the statutory factors when the scope of the section 4 analysis 
would be the conditions under which the captive specimens are kept, not 
the conditions of the members of the species as a whole. They might 
argue that captive chimpanzees as well as captive members of other 
species do not meet the definition of an endangered species (in danger 
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range) or 
a threatened species (likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range) when the conditions for individual animals' survival are 
carefully controlled under human management and therefore not subject 
to ``threats,'' especially for species that readily breed in captivity, 
where breeding has resulted in large numbers of genetically diverse 
animals, or where there are no known uncontrollable conditions such as 
disease.
    If wild specimens and captive specimens could qualify as separate 
listable entities and it was determined that captive chimpanzees do not 
qualify as a threatened species or an endangered species under the 
section 4 analysis because they do not face ``threats,'' captive 
chimpanzees would receive no assistance or protection under the Act 
even where wild populations continue to decline, even to the point of 
the taxonomic species being extirpated from the wild with the animals 
in captivity being the only remaining members of the species and 
survival of the entire taxonomic species being dependent on the 
survival of the captive animals. Indeed, we have been petitioned at 
least once in the past to delist captive members of three species--the 
three African antelope, one of which is extirpated from the wild--where 
the petitioner argued that captive members should be removed from the 
list because the captive animals had ``recovered.'' This would not be 
consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Section 4: Listing Effects on Wild Populations
    If wild populations and captive chimpanzees could qualify as 
separate listable entities, and because the analysis for determining 
legal status of wild populations would be separate from the analysis 
for determining legal status of captive specimens, the wild population 
would likely qualify for delisting in the event that all specimens are 
extirpated from the wild (in other words, if they became extinct in the 
wild), thereby removing both incentives and protections for 
conservation of the species in the wild and the conservation of its 
ecosystem.
    Under the Service's standard section 4 process, both captive and 
wild specimens of the species are members of the listed entity and have 
legal status as endangered or threatened species. In situations where 
all specimens in the wild are gone, either because they are extirpated 
due to threats or because, as a last conservation resort, the remaining 
wild specimens are captured and moved into captivity, the species 
remains listed until specimens from captivity can be reintroduced to 
the wild and wild populations are recovered. However, if captive 
specimens and wild populations could have separate legal status, once 
all members of the wild population were gone from the wild, the wild 
population could be petitioned for and would likely qualify for 
delisting under 50 CFR 424.11(d)(1) as a ``species'' that is now 
extinct. As shown above, the separate

[[Page 34505]]

captive members of the taxonomic species might not qualify for legal 
status as endangered or threatened species, due to the lack of 
``threats.'' With no protected members of the species and therefore no 
authority to use funding or other provisions of the Act for the 
species, the Service would lose valuable tools for recovery of the 
species to the wild. This would clearly not be consistent with the 
purposes of the Act.
Section 7: Consultation
    All Federal agencies have a legal obligation to ensure that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
endangered and threatened species. This means that for separately 
listed captive endangered or threatened specimens, any Federal agency 
that is taking an action within the United States or on the high seas 
that may affect the captive listed species arguably would have a legal 
duty to consult with the Service. However, the section 7 consultation 
process is not well suited to analysis of adverse impacts posed to a 
purely captive group of specimens given that such specimens are 
maintained under controlled, artificial conditions.
Section 4: Designation of Critical Habitat
    For any listed entity located within the United States or within 
U.S. jurisdictional territories or waters, we have a section 4 duty to 
designate critical habitat unless such designation is not prudent.\9\ 
Although it is appropriate not to designate critical habitat for 
foreign species or to limit a critical habitat designation to natural 
habitats for U.S. species when a listing is focused on the species in 
the wild (even when some members of the species may be held in 
captivity within the United States), it is not clear how the Service 
would support not designating critical habitat when the listed entity 
would consist entirely of captive specimens (when the focus of 
captivity is within the United States). As with the consultation 
process, the critical habitat designation duty is not well suited for 
listings that consist entirely of captive specimens, especially given 
the anomaly of identifying the physical and biological features that 
would be essential to the conservation of a species consisting entirely 
of captive animals in a controlled environment. These complexities 
related to section 7 consultations and designation of critical habitat 
indicate that Congress did not intend the Service to treat captive 
specimens as separate listable entities on the basis of their captive 
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Making a not determinable finding is also an option under 
section 4(b)(6) of the statute, but only delays the requirement to 
designate such critical habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legislative History

    Legislative history surrounding the 1978 amendment of the 
definition of ``species'' in the Act indicates that Congress intended 
designation of a DPS to be used for wild vertebrate populations, not 
separation of captive specimens from wild members of the same taxonomic 
species. The original (1973) definition of species was ``any subspecies 
. . . and any other group of fish or wildlife of the same species or 
smaller taxa in common spatial arrangement that interbreed when 
mature'' (Pub. L. 93-205). In 1978, Congress amended the Act to the 
Act's current definition of species, substituting ``any distinct 
population segment'' for ``any other group'' and ``common spatial 
arrangement'' following testimony on the inadequacy of the original 
definition, such as the exclusion of one category of populations 
commonly recognized by biologists: Disjunct allopatric populations that 
are separated by geographic barriers from other populations of the same 
species and are consequently reproductively isolated from them 
physically (See Endangered Species Act Oversight: Hearing Before Senate 
Subcommittee on Resource Protection, Senate Committee on Environment 
and Public Works, 95th Cong. 50 (July 7, 1977) (hereafter 1977 
Oversight Hearing) (letter from Tom Cade, Program Director, The 
Peregrine Fund, to Director of the Service). Although there was 
discussion regarding population stocks and reproductive isolation 
generally, particularly in association with development of the 1973 
definition,\10\ discussions that provide additional context on the 
scope of the definition of ``species'' show that Congress thought of 
the population-based listing authority as appropriate for populations 
that are distinct for natural and evolutionary reasons. For example, 
one witness discussed ``species'' as associated with the concept of 
geographic reproductive isolation and including characteristics of a 
population's ability or inability to freely exchange genes in nature 
(See 1977 Oversight Hearing at 50 (Cade letter)). There is no evidence 
that Congress intended for the agency to use the authority to 
separately list groups of animals that have been artificially separated 
from other members of the species through human removal from the wild 
and maintenance in a controlled environment. Examples in testimony for 
which population-based listing authority would be appropriately used 
were all for wild populations (See 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others 
at 307 (statement of Stephen Seater, Defenders of Wildlife); Endangered 
Species Act of 1973: Hearings on S. 1592 and S. 1983 Before the Senate 
Subcomm. on Environment, Senate Comm. on Commerce, 93d Cong. 98 (1973) 
(statement of John Grandy, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.); 
Endangered Species Authorization: Hearings on H.R. 10883 Before the 
House Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the 
Environment, House Comm. on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 95th Cong. 
560 (1978) (statement of Michael Bean, Environmental Defense Fund)). No 
examples were given suggesting designation of captive vertebrates as a 
DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others p. 286 (statement of 
John Grandy, National Parks and Conservation Assoc.) p. 307 
(statement of Stephen Seater, Defenders of Wildlife), and pp. 299-
300 (statement of Tom Garrett, Friends of the Earth).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Potential Approaches for Separate Legal Status

    In addition to separate designation as ``species,'' there are two 
other approaches under which it could be argued that captive 
chimpanzees could be given separate legal status from their wild 
counterparts: (1) Directly excluding captive chimpanzees from the Act's 
protections, or (2) designating only wild chimpanzees as a DPS, with 
captive chimpanzees not included in the DPS. However, neither approach 
would be consistent with Congress' intent for the Act.
    One court already determined that captive specimens of a listable 
entity cannot simply be excluded when they are members of the listable 
entity and the Service agrees with the court's reasoning in this case. 
The Service cannot exclude captive animals from a listing once these 
animals are determined to be part of the species. This case--Alsea 
Valley Alliance v. Evans-- involved the listing of coho salmon by NMFS. 
NMFS's 1993 Hatchery Policy (58 FR 17573, April 5, 1993) stated that 
hatchery populations could be included in the listing of wild members 
of the same evolutionary significant unit (equivalent to a DPS), but 
only if the hatchery fish were ``essential to recovery.'' In 1998, NMFS 
listed only ``naturally spawned'' specimens when it listed an 
evolutionary significant unit (ESU) of coho salmon (63 FR 42587, August 
10, 1998). This decision was challenged in court, and the Court found 
NMFS's

[[Page 34506]]

listing decision invalid because it excluded hatchery populations 
(which are fish held in captivity) even though they were part of the 
same DPS (or ESU) (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 
(D. Or. 2001)). The Court held that ``Congress expressly limited the 
Secretary's ability to make listing distinctions below that of 
subspecies or a DPS of a species,'' which was the practical result of 
excluding all hatchery specimens. NMFS subsequently changed its 
Hatchery Policy in 2005, stating that all hatchery fish that qualify as 
members of the ESU would be considered part of the ESU, would be 
considered in determining whether the ESU should be listed as an 
endangered or threatened species, and would be included in any listing 
under the Act (70 FR 37204, June 28, 2005). NMFS's 2005 Hatchery Policy 
was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court in Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 
F. 3d 946 (2009).
    For the same reasons as discussed earlier in this document, the 
Service also cannot simply designate wild chimpanzees as a DPS, leaving 
all captive animals unlisted. Although this would avoid designating 
captive animals as a separate DPS and would not technically be 
excluding animals that otherwise have been found to be members of a DPS 
(and thereby avoid the error the court found in the Alsea Valley 
Alliance v. Evans decision), the result would be separate legal status 
and no legal protections for captive chimpanzees, and many of the same 
legal and conservation consequences discussed above would occur. For 
these reasons, we also find this outcome to be inconsistent with 
Congress' intent for the Act, primarily as inconsistent with the 
purposes of the Act.

Listing Evaluation

    Now that we have determined that all chimpanzees, including captive 
and wild animals, should be considered as a single listable entity 
under the Act, we will next assess the status of the species and 
determine if the species meets the definition of endangered or 
threatened under the Act. In 1990, we determined that chimpanzees in 
the wild are endangered. This analysis considers new information in 
light of that previous determination and includes the extent to which 
captive chimpanzees create or contribute to threats to the species or 
remove or reduce threats to the species by contributing to the 
conservation of the species.

Species Information

Taxonomy and Species Description

    In 1990, when the wild populations of chimpanzees were reclassified 
as endangered species, only three subspecies were recognized. Since 
that time, the correct taxonomic labeling for chimpanzees has been 
debated and includes the use of a two-subspecies system, a four-
subspecies system, and the use of the species level without subspecific 
designations (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Morgan et al. 2011, p. 7; 
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Ghobrial et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 
2008, unpaginated). Today, four subspecies are commonly recognized and 
include the Central African chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes), 
East African chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii), West African chimpanzee 
(P. t. verus), and Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzee (P. t. ellioti) (Morgan 
et al. 2011, p. 7; Oates et al. 2009, pp. 78-80; Gonder et al. 2006, p. 
1120; Gonder et al. 1997, p. 337).
    Characteristics of the chimpanzee include an opposable thumb and 
prominent mouth. The skin on a chimpanzee's face, ears, palms, and 
soles of the feet are bare, whereas the rest of the body is covered 
with brown to black hair. Arms extend beyond the knees. This species 
walks ``on all four'' but is able to walk on just its legs for more 
than a kilometer (0.6 miles (mi)) (WWF n.d., unpaginated). The male 
stands over 1.2 meters (m) (4 feet (ft)) tall and weighs 59 kilograms 
(kg) (130 pounds (lb)); the female is closer to 0.9 m (3 ft) tall and 
weighs less than 45 kg (100 lb) (AZA 2000, p. 1).
    Chimpanzees live in social communities that range from 5 to 150 
individuals (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated). A male dominance 
hierarchy forms the core of the community. Males work together to 
defend a home range and will occasionally attack and kill individuals 
from another community (Lonsdorf 2007, pp. 72, 74). These communities 
do not move around in a group like gorillas or monkeys, but rather 
spend most of their time in subgroups called parties (Pusey et al. 
2007, p. 626; Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 9). Members of a community may 
join, or leave, at any time and parties may change frequently in size 
and composition depending on presence of receptive females, food 
availability, and activity of the party (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Lehmann 
and Boesch 2004, p. 207; Humle 2003, p. 17; Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 
9).
    Males remain in the community in which they were born; however, 
once females become sexually mature, between the ages of 9 and 13, they 
leave the community to join a new one (Humle 2003, p. 16). Chimpanzees 
are slow breeders; females do not give birth until they are 12 years of 
age or older and only have one infant every 5 or 6 years. Infants are 
weaned around 4 years old, and stay with their mothers until they are 
about 8 to 10 years old (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Kormos 2003, p. 1; 
Plumptre et al. 2003, pp. 8, 10, 13). The relationship between the 
mother and her offspring is critical; young may not survive being 
orphaned, even after they are weaned (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72).

Essential Needs of the Species

    The chimpanzee lives in a variety of moist and dry forest habitats 
including savanna woodlands, mosaic grassland forests, and tropical 
moist forests (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et al. 2007, p. 
626; GRASP 2005a, p. 6; Butynski 2003, p. 6). In general, chimpanzees 
need large areas to provide sufficient resources for feeding, nesting, 
and shelter (Carter 2003b, p. 158). However, home ranges may vary 
depending on the quality of habitat and community size; competition for 
food and predation risk may also play a role. Home ranges average 12.5 
square kilometers (km\2\) (8 square miles (mi\2\)), but can range from 
5-400 km\2\ (3-249 mi\2\) (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Humle 2003, 
pp. 17-18).
    Chimpanzees are omnivores; half their diet is ripe fruit, but they 
also feed on leaves, bark, stems, insects, and mammals, mostly red 
colobus (Procolobus spp.), but also black-and-white colobus (Colobus 
guereza), and occasionally blue duikers (Philantomba monticola) and 
red-tailed guenons (Cercopithecus ascanius). Diets vary seasonally and 
between populations, depending on food availability and habitat type 
(Oates 2013, pers. comm.; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et al. 
2007, p. 626; Humle 2003, pp. 13-14; Watts and Mitani 2002, p. 7).
    Chimpanzees build arboreal nests in which they sleep at night and 
may rest during the day (Plumptre et al. 2003, p. 10; Humle 2003, p. 
15). Nests are constructed by preparing a foundation of solid side 
branches; bending, breaking, and interweaving side branches crosswise; 
then bending smaller twigs in a circle around the rim. Chimpanzees 
exhibit strong preferences for certain tree species for nesting, 
independent of their availability in the habitat. Choice of nesting 
sites is variable across populations and communities of chimpanzees and 
is dependent on habitat structure, resource distribution, predation 
levels, and human disturbance. Chimps can be

[[Page 34507]]

deterred from nesting in certain areas where human habitation is 
concentrated. As a result, human presence influences nesting behavior 
and can put chimpanzees at risk of predators, as habitats where they 
relocate nests to avoid humans may not provide sufficient protection 
(Humle 2003, pp. 15-16).

Range and Population

    Historically, this species may have spanned most of Equatorial 
Africa, from Senegal to southwest Tanzania, ranging over 25 countries 
(Butynski 2003, p. 6). Today, the chimpanzee is reported as extirpated 
in Benin, Togo, and Burkina Faso; however, there are a few recent 
reports of chimpanzees in eastern Togo and reports of chimpanzees 
migrating into Burkina Faso from C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire during the rainy 
season. The species now occurs in a wide but discontinuous distribution 
over 22 countries in an area approximately 2,342,000 km\2\ (904,000 
mi\2\) (Mitchell and Gonder 2013, p. 1; Oates 2013, pers. comm.; 
Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 1; Butynski 2003, pp. 6, 7; Brownell 2003a, p. 117; 
Brownell 2003b, p. 121).
    Chimpanzees are thought to have numbered in the millions at the 
beginning of the 20th century, although there are no hard data to 
support this. Chimpanzee populations are believed to have declined by 
66 percent, from 600,000 to 200,000 individuals before the 1980s 
(Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 1). Since the 1980s, estimates for the 
chimpanzee have varied, but in general have increased over the past 
three decades (see Table 1) (Oates 2006, pp. 102-104; Butynski 2003, p. 
10). Using the latest population estimates for each subspecies, the 
chimpanzee, today, totals between 294,800 and 431,100 individuals; 
although we note that this estimate does not factor in a recent 
calamitous decline in the chimpanzee population of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire 
(see below). The range countries and most recent population estimates 
for each subspecies are outlined in Table 2.

                                                 Table 1--Historical Population Estimates for Chimpanzee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Year                        Estimated population                                         Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1900........................................                1,000,000  Teleki in Butynski 2003, p. 10; Oates 2006, p. 104.
1900........................................                2,000,000  Goodall 2000 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
1960........................................               >1,000,000  Goodall 2000 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
1979........................................           20,000-200,000  Lee et al. 1988 in Oates 2006, p. 103.
1987........................................          151,000-235,000  Teleki in Butynski 2003, p. 10; Oates 2006, p. 104.
1989........................................                <=150,000  Goodall 2000 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
1989........................................          145,000-228,000  Teleki 1991 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
2000........................................          152,200-254,600  Butynski 2001 in Oates 2006, p. 104.
2003........................................          173,000-300,000  Butynski 2003, p. 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table 2--Range Countries and Population Estimates for Each Chimpanzee Subspecies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subspecies                 Range countries        Population estimate                                  Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern (P.t. schweinfurthii)...  Burundi, Central                 200,000-250,000  Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 22.
                                   African Republic,
                                   Democratic Republic of
                                   Congo, Rwanda, Sudan,
                                   Tanzania, Uganda.
Nigeria-Cameroon (P.t. ellioti).  Cameroon, Nigeria......              3,500-9,000  Morgan et al. 2011, p. 4.
Central (P.t. troglodytes)......  Angola, Cameroon,                 70,000-116,500  Butynski 2003, p. 8.
                                   Central African
                                   Republic, Congo, The
                                   Democratic Republic of
                                   Congo, Equatorial
                                   Guinea, Gabon.
Western (P.t. verus)............  Burikina Faso,                     21,300-55,600  Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 3; Butynski 2003, p. 8.
                                   C[ocirc]te d'lvoire,
                                   Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-
                                   Bissau, Liberia, Mali,
                                   Nigeria, Senegal,
                                   Sierra Leone.
                                                          -------------------------
    Total.......................  .......................          294,800-431,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the chimpanzee population has appeared to increase 
since the 1980s. However, this estimated increase is believed to be a 
result of previous difficulties in producing accurate estimates 
combined with the more recent availability of new information, rather 
than an actual increase in chimpanzee numbers (Oates 2006, p. 104). 
Some of the difficulties associated with earlier estimates include: Few 
areas being adequately surveyed; some chimpanzee populations survived 
at densities too low for accurate detection; survey methods lacked 
precision to enable extrapolation to large areas of potential habitat; 
some surveys were outdated; and in many cases estimates were simply 
best guesses (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 9; Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 5, 7, 
9, 31, 41; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 904; Oates 2006, p. 102; Tutin et 
al. 2005, p. 6; GRASP 2005a, p. 7; Butynski 2003, p. 5; Kormos and 
Bakarr 2003, p. 29). When more careful surveys of chimpanzees are made, 
higher estimates are produced, indicating that previous estimates 
underestimated the size of surviving populations (Oates 2006, p. 104). 
Therefore, the estimated increase in chimpanzees is not evidence of 
steady increase in the population, but a result of inaccurate early 
estimates to which newer estimates are compared.
    Despite the appearance of an increase in chimpanzee numbers, 
experts agree that chimpanzee populations are declining (Plumptre et 
al. 2010, p. 1; Greengrass 2009, pp. 77, 80-82; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; 
Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 903-904; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; 
Oates 2006, p. 110; Tutin 2005, p. 2; GRASP 2005a, p. 3; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 2; Butynski 2003, p. 11; Nishida et al. 2001, pp. 45-
46). Data to support a declining trend come from nationwide surveys of 
Gabon, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, and Tanzania; data from long-term 
chimpanzee research sites; a

[[Page 34508]]

questionnaire survey of great ape field researchers; and the expansion 
and increasing intensity of threats (Junker et al. 2012, p. 3; Plumptre 
et al. 2010, p. 8; Oates 2006, pp. 105-106; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 45; 
Campbell et al. 2008, pp. 903-904; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32). One of 
the greatest documented losses of chimpanzees comes from a 2007 survey 
of C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, which found a 90 percent decline in the total 
nest encounter rate since the last survey conducted in 1989-1990, 
indicating a significant loss of chimpanzees from a country once 
thought to be one of the final strongholds of the western chimpanzee 
(Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903). Many remaining populations are now 
small and isolated, and face serious threats (Oates 2006, pp. 104, 
110). Furthermore, the chimpanzee is reported to already have been 
extirpated from three countries. Due to national populations fewer than 
1,000 individuals, there is concern that the chimpanzee could soon be 
extirpated from Senegal, Ghana, and Guinea-Bissau (Carlsen et al. 2012, 
p. 5; Butynski 2003, p. 11).
    In addition to wild populations, chimpanzees are held in captivity 
in several countries around the world, including African countries and 
the United States. We do not have detailed information on the number, 
subspecies, or location of captive chimpanzees. However, we did find 
information indicating that 70 chimpanzees are living in sanctuaries in 
Cameroon and Nigeria (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 9). Approximately 171 
chimpanzees are living in sanctuaries throughout West Africa; another 
478 chimpanzees in the region are known to be held outside of 
sanctuaries (e.g., in homes or hotels) (Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4). 
Within the United States, approximately 2,000 chimpanzees are in 
captivity (ChimpCare 2013, unpaginated; Ross et al. 2008, p. 1,487).

Summary of Threats

    Threats to the chimpanzee have intensified and expanded since 1990, 
when wild populations of the chimpanzee were listed as an endangered 
species. Across its range, high deforestation rates are destroying, 
degrading, and fragmenting forests the chimpanzee needs to support 
viable populations and provide food and shelter. Widespread poaching, 
capture for the pet trade, and outbreaks of disease are removing 
individuals needed to sustain viable populations; recovery from the 
loss of individuals is more difficult given the slow reproductive rates 
of chimpanzees. These actions are exacerbated by an increasing human 
population, the expansion of settlements, and increasing pressure on 
natural resources to meet the needs of the growing population (Morgan 
et al. 2011, p. 10; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; 
Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Unti 2007a, p. 4; 
Unti 2007b, p. 5; Bennett 2006, p. 885; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 1; GRASP 
2005a, p. 3; Kormos 2003, pp. ix, 1; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4; 
Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 97; Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 611-612; Carter et 
al. 2003, p. 38).
    Deforestation, with consequent access and disturbance by humans, 
remains a major factor in the decline of chimpanzee populations across 
their range. Although some large forest blocks remain, commercial 
logging and the conversion of forests to agricultural land, especially 
for oil palm production, continue to severely reduce and fragment 
chimpanzee habitat (Morgan et al. 2011, pp. 12, 18, 19, 26, 31; 
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Unti 2007a, 
p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; CBFP 2006, p. 16; Fa et al. 2006, p. 498; Tutin 
et al. 2005, pp. 1, 2, 10, 12, 14-17, 21-23; Humle 2003, p. 150; Carter 
et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Gippoliti et al. 2003, 
p. 57; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; Herbinger et al. 2003, pp. 106, 
109; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson 
et al. 2003, p. 113; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 95, 97; Oates et al. 
2003, p. 129; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 
135). As the human population and economic development have increased, 
pressure on forest resources has also increased. This increasing 
pressure has led to uncontrolled legal and illegal forest conversion 
within and outside of protected areas (e.g., national parks and forest 
reserves), leaving them destroyed and fragmented (Greengrass 2009, pp. 
77, 80; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; CBFP 2006, pp. 16, 33; Nasi et 
al. 2006, p. 14; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; 
Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 109; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Oates et 
al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 135, 137).
    The natural protection once afforded to chimpanzees by large blocks 
of suitable habitat, isolated from human activities, is disappearing 
due to logging activity. Much of the chimpanzee's range is already 
allocated to logging concessions, and logging operations, both legal 
and illegal, are expanding (Morgan et al. 2011, pp. 12, 26; Laporte et 
al. 2007, p. 1451; Morgan and Sanz 2007, pp. 3, 5; CBFP 2006, p. 29; 
Hewitt 2006, p. 43; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Tutin 2005, pp. 2, 4, 12, 
30, 32; Kormos et al. 2003a, p. 29). Heavy pressures on timber 
resources have led to cutting cycles that occur too frequently in an 
area to allow for proper regrowth, resulting in rapid degradation of 
forests (Parren and Byler 2003, p. 135). In addition to clearing 
forests, logging operations often create a network of roads for 
transporting timber. These roads provide greater access to forests that 
were once inaccessible, facilitate the establishment of human 
settlements, and are accompanied by further deforestation from the 
conversion of forests to agriculture (Junker et al. 2012, p. 7; Morgan 
et al, 2011, p. 12; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 80; 
Laporte et al. 2007, p. 1451; Hewitt 2006, p. 44; Duvall 2003, p. 143; 
Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 133, 137-138).
    Human population growth and agricultural expansion have destroyed 
and fragmented forests across the range of the chimpanzee and are two 
of the greatest threats to chimpanzee survival. The spread of large-
scale commercial plantations, including oil palm plantations, results 
in additional land being cleared of most vegetation and planting crops 
in monocultures; plantations and farms have been established in 
suitable chimpanzee habitat, including within protected areas (Oates 
2013, pers. comm.; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 9; Greengrass 2009, p. 80; 
Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 20; Duvall 
2003, p. 143; Gippoliti et al. 2003, pp. 55, 57; Hanson-Alp et al. 
2003, p. 83; Humle 2003, p. 147; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; Magnuson 
et al. 2003, p. 113; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 138). In West Africa, 
most unreserved forests have been converted to cultivation (Parren and 
Byler 2003, p. 138). Agricultural practices are largely unsustainable 
and are encroaching into additional forested areas (Parren and Byler 
2003, p. 133).
    Chimpanzees are highly adaptive and occur in a variety of habitats, 
including primary, secondary, and regenerating forests, logged forests, 
and plantations; they have even been found living in close proximity to 
humans. However, the loss, or even the degradation, of the chimpanzee's 
traditional habitat can affect their survival by impacting the species' 
food resources, behavior, susceptibility to disease, and abundance and 
distribution (Morgan and Sanz 2007, p. 1; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; 
Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 18; Nisbett 
et al. 2003, p. 97; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 137).
    Although chimpanzees feed on a wide variety of foods, their energy 
requirements, as large primates with

[[Page 34509]]

large home ranges, predispose them to a reliance on high-energy fruits 
(Greengrass 2009, p. 81). Removal, or lowering the quality, of habitat 
through logging activity or establishment of agricultural lands 
destroys the structure and composition of the forest, eliminating 
essential food sources, which can affect sociability, condition of 
individuals, and female reproductive success, and increase 
vulnerability to diseases or parasites and infant and juvenile 
mortality (Greengrass 2009, pp. 81-82). Even in areas with lower levels 
of logging where essential food sources were unaffected, chimpanzee 
densities have declined significantly and remained low for years. 
Clear-cutting results in total habitat loss, and because of severe soil 
erosion, the potential for future forest regeneration is also lost 
(Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 137-138).
    The loss or reduction of food sources and the noise and disturbance 
from logging activity can cause chimpanzee communities to abandon their 
home range to find a new home range with sufficient resources and less 
human activity. These chimpanzees may enter another community's 
territory, which can lead to further competition for resources and 
conflict that can lead to death. As habitat is lost or fragmented and 
chimpanzee populations are forced into smaller forest fragments, lethal 
interactions with other chimpanzees may increase. Furthermore, 
chimpanzees may be cautious about reinhabiting previous home ranges 
where they were displaced by humans (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 12; 
Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36; Parren and Byler 2003, 
pp. 137-138). If the displacement of chimpanzees forces them into 
suboptimal habitat, they may not have sufficient protection from 
predators, especially at night (Humle 2003, pp. 15-16).
    The loss or reduction of food sources due to expanding logging, 
agriculture, and human settlements into chimpanzee habitat has also 
resulted in increased conflicts between humans and chimpanzees 
(Tacugama Sanctuary 2013, unpaginated; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tweheyo et al. 
2005, pp. 237-238, 244; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Humle 2003, p. 
147; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71; Naughton-Treves et al. 1998, pp. 597, 
600). Lack of sufficient wild food and an increase in farming and human 
presence have increased the occurrence of crop raiding to supplement 
the chimpanzee's diet. Crop raiding can cause substantial losses to 
farmers, reduce the tolerance of humans to chimpanzee presence, and 
increase killing chimpanzees to protect valuable crops or in 
retaliation for the destruction of crops (Tacugama Chimpanzee Sanctuary 
2013, unpaginated; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Bennett et al. 2006, 
p. 885; Tweheyo et al. 2005, p. 245; Duvall 2003, p. 144; Carter et al. 
2003, p. 36; Gippoliti et al. 2003, p. 57; Humle 2003, pp. 147, 150; 
Parren and Byler 2003, p. 138; Naughton-Treves 1998, p. 597).
    Unsustainable hunting for the bushmeat trade is one of the major 
causes of the decline in chimpanzees, and continues to be a major 
threat to the survival of chimpanzees in protected and unprotected 
areas (Ghobrial et al. 2011, pp. 1, 2, 11; Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; 
Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 1, 3, 6, 11; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; 
Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Oates et al. 2008, 
unpaginated; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tutin et al. 2005, 
pp. 1, 10-23, 27-28; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 109; Humle 2003, p. 17; 
Kormos and Boesch 2003, pp. 2, 14, 16, 19; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; 
Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson et al. 2003, pp. 111, 113; 
Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, pp. 123, 129; Nishida et 
al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 12). Growth in the human 
population in Africa has increased the demand for wild animal meat, or 
bushmeat. Expansion of logging activities, including the construction 
of logging roads, has facilitated a significant market, much of it 
illegal, for commercial bushmeat to meet this demand (Amati et al. 
2009, p. 6; Kabasawa 2009, pp. 50-51; AV Oates et al. 2008, 
unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, pp. 503, 506; Magazine 2003, p. 7; Kormos 
et al. 2003c, p. 151; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, 
p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 1, 11). Logging roads and vehicles provide 
access to the forests and a means to export meat to markets and cities. 
Logging operations are accompanied by an onslaught of workers who are 
encouraged to hunt to provide for their own needs and commercial 
hunters who operate in forests to supply the needs of forestry workers 
and to trade outside of the forested areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; 
Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Walsh et al. 
2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 1). 
Furthermore, bushmeat trade is also an important livelihood and the 
primary source of protein for humans in much of the chimpanzee's range 
(Abwe and Morgan 2008, p. 26; Fa et al. 2006, p. 507; Bennett et al. 
2006, p. 885; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 155; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, 
p. 927).
    The intensity of hunting chimpanzees varies by country and region 
(Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151-152). Religious, traditional, and 
familial taboos against the killing of chimpanzees and the consumption 
of their meat exist in many areas (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Plumptre et 
al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 81; Kabasawa 2009, p. 51; Unti 
2007a, p. 4; Carter et al. 2003, pp. 31, 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; 
Gippoliti et al. 2003, pp. 55, 57; Humle 2003, p. 18; Kormos and Boesch 
2003, pp. 10, 13; Kormos et al. 2003b, pp. 63, 71; Kormos et al. 2003c, 
pp. 152, 154; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, p. 
129;Waller and Reynolds 2001, p. 135; Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 19, 27). 
However, these areas may be hunted by people from surrounding areas 
where there is demand for chimpanzee meat (Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). 
Furthermore, these traditions and beliefs are not necessarily being 
passed down to younger generations and cannot be relied on to protect 
chimpanzees in the future (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Unti 2007a, p. 4; 
Oates et al. 2003, p. 129).
    Despite the high demand for bushmeat, primates do not represent the 
majority of animals killed for the bushmeat trade (AV Magazine 2003, p. 
7; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et 
al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 1). In fact, studies have found 
that chimpanzee meat makes up only a small fraction of the meat found 
in markets; estimates from different regions have ranged from 0.01 to 3 
percent (Kabasawa 2009, p. 38; Fa et al. 2006, p. 502; Herbinger et al. 
2003, p. 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Kormos et al 2003c, pp. 
151-152). However, because the sale of ape meat is often hidden and the 
meat may be eaten in villages and never make it to markets, the 
proportion of chimpanzee meat in bushmeat markets could be greater than 
reported (Kabasawa 2009, p. 38; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151-152; 
Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 21). Hunting pressure even at a low level is 
enough to result in the local extirpation of large chimpanzee 
populations. Low population densities and slow reproductive rates 
prevent chimpanzees from recovering easily from the loss of several 
individuals (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, p. 503; AV 
Magazine 2003, p. 7; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Herbinger et al. 2003, 
p. 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151, 
153; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Bowen-
Jones 1998, p. 13).
    Threats to the chimpanzee from habitat loss and commercial hunting 
have been exacerbated by civil unrest that has occurred in several 
chimpanzee range countries (Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 4-5; Campbell et 
al. 2008, p. 903; CBFP 2006, p. 16; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 85; 
Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 89,

[[Page 34510]]

95; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35-36). During civil 
conflict, many people, including refugees, military groups, and rebels, 
take shelter in interior forests and protected areas (Plumptre et al. 
2010, p. 4; CBFP 2006, p. 16). The presence of soldiers and displaced 
refugees increases the number of people that rely on bushmeat for 
protein. Not only do soldiers hunt, but they also supply locals with 
weapons and ammunition to hunt them (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 5; 
Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 85; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 
35-36). Civil unrest has contributed to a significant loss of wildlife, 
including chimpanzees (Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Hanson-Alp et al. 
2003, p. 85).
    Capture of live chimpanzees for the pet trade has been one of the 
major causes of the decline in chimpanzees. Today, illegal capture and 
smuggling of chimpanzees continue for the pet trade across Africa and, 
to some extent, the international market (Ghobrial et al. 2010, pp. 1, 
2, 11; Kabasawa 2009, pp. 37, 48-49; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; 
Carter 2003b, p. 157; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4; Nisbett et al. 
2003, p. 95). A recent increase in orphaned chimpanzees has been 
attributed to the growing bushmeat crisis. Killing a mother with an 
infant earns twice the income for the hunter; the mother's body is sold 
in the bushmeat trade while the infant enters the pet trade (Kabasawa 
2009, p. 50; Carter 2003b, p. 157). Furthermore, hunters have found a 
lucrative market for pet chimpanzees with military personnel, police, 
government officials, and traditional chiefs (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 8; 
Draulans and Van Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35-36). The intensity of trade 
differs among countries, but is reportedly a substantial problem in The 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Sierra Leone, 
Ghana, and Guinea (Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 3, 6, 11; Plumptre et al. 
2010, p. 2; Unit 2007, p. 5; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, 
p. 84; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72; 
Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113). It is not possible to determine how many 
wild chimpanzees are captured for the pet trade, but the number of 
chimpanzees in sanctuaries that were either confiscated from owners by 
authorities, surrendered by owners after being informed about wildlife 
laws, or voluntarily donated or abandoned by owners indicates it is a 
significant problem. Since 2000, the number of chimpanzees in African 
sanctuaries has increased 59 percent (Kabasawa 2009, pp. 37, 44-45, 
50).
    The petitioners assert that the exploitation of chimpanzees in the 
U.S. entertainment and pet industries is seen around the world and 
misleads the public into believing chimpanzees are well protected in 
the wild and make good pets, further fueling the demand for 
chimpanzees. Studies suggest a link between seeing chimpanzees 
portrayed in the media and misperceptions about the species' status in 
the wild. This misperception may also affect conservation efforts (Ross 
et al. 2011, pp. 1, 4-5; Schroepfer et al. 2011, pp. 6-7; Ross 2008a, 
pp. 25-26; Ross et al. 2008b, p. 1487). However, we did not find 
evidence that this situation was a significant driver in the status of 
the species under the Act.
    The effects of the pet trade are particularly devastating to wild 
populations because the mother and other family members may be killed 
to capture an infant. Researchers estimate that as many as 10 
chimpanzees may be killed for every infant that enters the pet trade. 
Furthermore, the infant is likely to die of malnutrition, disease, or 
injury (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 8; Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Lonsdorf 2007, 
p. 74; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 84; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 4). The loss of even just a few individuals from a 
population can have devastating effects due to the slow reproductive 
rate of chimpanzees. Because so many chimpanzees may be killed to 
secure an infant, the pet trade has a significant draining effect on 
remaining populations, and threatens the survival of wild chimpanzees 
(Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 
113).
    Historically, wild chimpanzees were captured and exported to meet a 
significant demand for chimpanzees in biomedical research in countries 
around the world, significantly impacting chimpanzee distribution and 
abundance (Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 
72). A substantial number of countries do not permit or conduct 
research on chimpanzees, and the international research community is no 
longer seeking access to wild chimpanzees (Hicks 2011, pers. comm.; 
Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5). Although some biomedical research 
on captive chimpanzees continues in the United States and Gabon, in the 
United States, there is a decreasing scientific need for chimpanzee 
studies due to the emergence of non-chimpanzee models and technologies 
(Institute of Medicine 2011, pp. 5, 66-67).
    As previously stated, chimpanzees are held in captivity in several 
countries around the world, including African countries and the United 
States. Chimpanzees in captivity are bred and sold as pets, used in the 
entertainment industry (e.g., movies, television, and advertisements), 
exhibited in hotels and roadside shows, used as party entertainment or 
animal encounters, displayed in zoos, and used for biomedical research. 
It is thought that self-sustaining breeding groups of captive 
chimpanzees provide surplus animals for research and other purposes, 
thereby reducing the demand for wild individuals. Although captive 
chimpanzees may have removed the demand for wild chimpanzees in 
biomedical research, given that threats to the chimpanzee have expanded 
and intensified, and capture for the illegal pet trade continues to be 
a major threat to remaining chimpanzee populations, it does not appear 
that the availability of captive chimpanzees has reduced any threats to 
the species.
    National laws exist within all range countries to protect 
chimpanzees. In general, hunting, capture, possession, and commercial 
trade of chimpanzees are prohibited. Laws also protect chimpanzee 
habitat, including the establishment of protected areas, in many of the 
range countries. However, as evidenced by the continuing and increasing 
habitat destruction and hunting and trading of this species (Ghobrial 
et al. 2010, pp. 1, 2, 11; Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 8-9; Kabasawa 2009, 
p. 39; Laporte et al. 2009, p. 1451; Unti 2007a, pp. 4, 6, 10-11; Unti 
2007b, p. 6, 8, 10; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; AV Magazine 2003, p. 
7; Carter 2003a, p. 52; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Carter et al. 2003, pp. 
31, 32, 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, pp. 79, 
87; Herbinger et al. 2003, pp. 100, 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 6; 
Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 64; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 155; Magnuson et 
al. 2003, p. 112; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 90, 95; Oates et al. 2003, 
p. 123), even within protected areas, these laws are not often 
enforced. A lack of resources, limited training, limited personnel, 
lack of basic logistical support, corrupt officials, and weak 
legislation prevent government agencies charged with the protection of 
wildlife and forest management from providing effective protection 
(Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Unti 2007a, pp. 4, 6, 8; Unti 2007b, p. 7-10; 
Bennett et al. 2006, p. 887; AV Magazine 2003, p. 7; Duvall et al. 
2003, p. 47; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, pp. 79, 87; Magnuson et al. 2003, 
p. 112; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, p. 125). 
Furthermore, penalties for violations are not adequate to serve as a 
deterrent (Unti 2007b, p. 8; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, pp. 79; Kormos and 
Boesch 2003, p. 6; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 155).

[[Page 34511]]

    The chimpanzee is also protected under the Convention on 
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES), an international agreement between governments to ensure that 
the international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species does 
not threaten species' survival in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES 
Parties (member countries or signatories) regulate the import, export, 
and reexport of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant 
and animal species. Trade must be authorized through a system of 
permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES 
Management Authority of each CITES Party. All chimpanzee range 
countries are Parties to CITES.
    The chimpanzee is listed in Appendix I of CITES. An Appendix-I 
listing includes species threatened with extinction whose trade is 
permitted only under exceptional circumstances, which generally 
precludes commercial trade. The import of an Appendix-I species 
generally requires the issuance of both an import and export permit. 
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 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 and trade is not detrimental to the 
survival of the species, and if the issuing authority is satisfied that 
an import permit has been granted for the specimen (CITES Article 
III(2)).
    Based on CITES trade data from 1990-2011, obtained from United 
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Center 
(UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database, there has been significant legal 
trade of chimpanzees and their parts, and products worldwide. However, 
legal trade in wild specimens, including live animals, bones, 
scientific specimens, and hair has been limited. Trade of these wild 
specimens for commercial purposes was reported for 14 live specimens, 
121 scientific specimens, and 10 skulls. From 2002-2012, exports and 
re-exports of wild specimens from the United States have numbered 8 
scientific specimens for scientific purposes. Imports of wild specimens 
into the United States have been limited and have included hairs, 
scientific specimens, a skull, and one unspecified specimen for 
personal, scientific, educational, and medical purposes.
    As human settlements expand and populations of chimpanzees and 
their habitat are reduced, the frequency of interactions between 
chimpanzees and humans or human waste increases, leading to greater 
risks of disease transmission with a similar magnitude of impact on 
wild chimpanzee populations as habitat loss and poaching. A close 
genetic relationship allows for easy transmission of infectious 
diseases between chimpanzees and humans (Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 1; 
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Lonsdorf 
2007, p. 73; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Formenty et al. 2003, p. 169; 
Huijbregts et al. 2003, p. 437). Rural communities that share the same 
habitat as chimpanzees have no access to health care and are not 
vaccinated against diseases that can spread through ape populations and 
result in high mortality rates. Additionally, exposure to humans 
through conservation and research activities, such as habituation, 
ecotourism, and reintroductions, can also increase the risk of disease 
transmission (Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 2; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; 
K[ouml]ndgen et al. 2008, p. 260; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey 
et al. 2008, p. 738; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Huijbregts et al. 2003, 
p. 437; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 48).
    As discussed below, disease transmission is a major threat to 
remaining populations of the central and eastern chimpanzees (Fausther-
Bovendo et al. 2012, p. 3; Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 2; Morgan et al. 
2011, p. 10; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Pusey et al. 2008, p. 743; 
GRASP 2005a, p. 7; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 2; Leendertz et al. 2004, p. 
451; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 612). Five subtypes of the Ebola virus have 
been identified: Zaire, Sudan, C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Bundibugyo, and 
Reston. All five are lethal to great apes. Repeated epidemics have 
resulted in dramatic declines in ape populations in C[ocirc]te 
d'Ivoire, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Republic of 
Congo. The Zaire strain alone has killed nearly one-third of the 
world's chimpanzees (Fausther-Bovendo et al. 2012, p. 1; Ryan and Walsh 
2011, p. 2; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; K[ouml]ndgen et al. 2008, p. 
261; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; 
Leendertz et al. 2004, p. 451; Huijbregts et al. 2003, pp. 437, 441; 
Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 612-613; Formenty et al. 2003, pp. 169-172).
    Chimpanzees are naturally infected with simian immunodeficiency 
viruses (SIVs), the precursor to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome 
(AIDS), but it was long thought that SIVs were non-pathogenic (not 
capable of inducing disease) and did not generally cause AIDS. However, 
testing from 2000 to 2008 found that SIV is, in fact, pathogenic in 
wild chimpanzees. Chimpanzees infected with SIV showed AIDS-like 
symptoms and had a 10- to 16-fold increased chance of death than 
uninfected chimpanzees. Additionally, females were less likely to give 
birth and had higher infant mortality (Keele et al. 2009, pp. 517-518).
    Other infectious diseases, including Marburg virus, polio, anthrax, 
pneumonia, human respiratory syncytical virus, and human 
metapneumovirus have resulted in widespread death of chimpanzees, even 
within national parks (Ryan and Walsh 2011, pp. 2, 3; Rudicell et al. 
2010, pp. 1, 10; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; K[ouml]ndgen et al. 
2008, pp. 260-262; Pusey et al. 2008, pp. 740, 741; Williams et al. 
2008, pp. 766, 768-770; Leendertz et al. 2004, pp. 451-452; Nishida et 
al. 2001, p. 48). Disease can have a particularly devastating impact to 
ape populations since they have little resilience to diseases. For 
example, recovery of a gorilla population from a single disease 
outbreak can range from 5 years for a low mortality (4 percent) 
respiratory disease outbreak to 131 years for an Ebola outbreak with 
high mortality (96 percent); this does not take into account other 
impacts to the populations such as additional disease outbreaks or 
Allee effects. Recovery for a chimpanzee population would be longer as 
they have a lower maximum population growth rate than gorillas (Ryan 
and Walsh 2011, pp. 2, 3).
    There are several strategies that can be taken to protect wild 
chimpanzees from diseases. Some ``hands off'' approaches include 
educating governments about the cost of too much tourism, stricter 
enforcement of health guidelines for approaching habituated animals, 
excluding humans from protected areas, and health programs for staff 
and local populations. However, tourism is a substantial source of 
revenue, and enforcement of guidelines is often weak, making these 
strategies difficult to implement (Ryan and Walsh 2011, pp. 5-6; Pusey 
et al. 2008, p. 742).
    A more interventionist approach is treatment and vaccination of 
wild apes via darting or oral baiting (Fausther-Bovendo et al. 2012, p. 
4; Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 5). At this time, treatment is not 
practical, as there are no licensed anti-viral drugs effective against 
Ebola and anti-viral drugs have limited effectiveness against 
respiratory viruses. Furthermore, a reactive type strategy, such as 
treatment, requires a sufficient monitoring system to detect symptoms 
and a veterinary infrastructure to effectively implement

[[Page 34512]]

treatment (Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 6). However, one of the reasons the 
Kasekela community in Gombe National Park has maintained its size 
through periodic epidemic diseases is that efforts were made to treat 
sick chimpanzee when possible. Chimpanzees were given Ivermectin during 
a mange epidemic and antibiotics during a respiratory epidemic (Pusey 
et al. 2008, p. 741).
    There have only been a few occasions in which wild apes have been 
vaccinated against diseases. Chimpanzees in the Kasekela community were 
given a polio vaccine in 1966, during a polio epidemic; gorillas were 
vaccinated during a measles outbreak in 2011; and a few gorillas were 
vaccinated against tetanus when immobilized for treatment of snare 
wounds (Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 6; Walsh 2011, p. 3; Academy of 
Achievement 2009, p. 9; Pusey et al. 2008, p. 741). There are 
approximately 16 human vaccines that could potentially be used to 
protect wild apes, including chimpanzees (Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 6). 
However, vaccines for great apes require the same standard of testing 
and ethical review as a vaccine for humans (Fausther-Bovendo et al. 
2012, p. 5). Because management authorities place a strong emphasis on 
animal welfare, it is preferable that vaccines be tested on captive 
apes. Captive chimpanzees in the United States could be used to test 
vaccines before they are given to wild populations. In 2011, for the 
first time, captive chimpanzees were used in an experiment aimed to 
help wild chimpanzees. The experiment assessed the safety of an Ebola 
vaccine and its ability to trigger an immune response. Ultimately, the 
vaccine could be given to gorillas and chimpanzees in the wild to 
protect them against Ebola (Cohen 2011, unpaginated; Walsh 2011, p. 3). 
Similar experiments on vaccines and treatments against other diseases 
known to pose a high risk to wild apes, including respiratory 
pathogens, gastrointestinal parasites, SIV, and malaria, are planned 
for the future (Walsh 2011, p. 3). At this time, these types of 
experiments have been extremely limited and have not yet contributed to 
a reduction in any threats to chimpanzees from diseases.
    Once a chimpanzee population has been reduced, whether by hunting, 
capture for the pet trade, or disease, its ability to recover is 
limited due to very slow reproductive rates and complex social behavior 
(Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 1; Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Bennett et al. 2006, 
p. 885; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32; Leroy et al. 2004, p. 389; Kormos et 
al. 2003c, pp. 151, 155; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, p. 927). Even low 
levels of hunting can have a devastating effect on the population. The 
loss of reproductive-age female chimpanzees can be particularly 
devastating, further reducing the population's ability to recover from 
the loss (Carter 2003b, p. 157; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). The 
occurrence of chimpanzees at low densities coupled with slow 
reproductive rates can lead to the rapid extinction of even large 
populations (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 
2).
    The current threats to the chimpanzee, as described above, are not 
likely to improve in the foreseeable future, resulting in a continuing 
decline of chimpanzee populations. Threats to this species are driven 
by the needs of an expanding human population. Within the range 
countries of the chimpanzee, the human population is expected to 
continue to increase and will inevitably increase the pressures on 
natural resources. Therefore, impacts to remaining populations of 
chimpanzees, as described above, from deforestation, hunting, 
commercial trade, and disease are likely to continue or even intensify 
(Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 5; Plumptre et al. 
2010, pp. 50, 71; Fitzherbert et al. 2008, pp. 538-539, 544; Oates et 
al. 2008, unpaginated; CBFP 2006, p. 33; Fa et al. 2006, p. 506; Hewitt 
2006, pp. 44, 48-49; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Carter et al. 2003, p. 
38; Duvall 2003, p. 145; Parren and Byler 2003, p. 137; Nishida et al. 
2001, p. 45; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999, pp. 927-928).
    Continuing threats acting on chimpanzee populations, coupled with 
the species' inability to recover from population reductions, will 
likely lead to the loss of additional populations. Chimpanzees could be 
lost from an additional three countries due to threats acting on 
populations that are already below what is considered the minimum for a 
viable population (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5; Butynski 2003, p. 11; 
Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 3). Many remaining populations are small and 
isolated, putting them at an increased risk of extinction (Morgan et 
al. 2011, p. 12).
    Many management plans have been developed to conserve the 
chimpanzee (e.g., Morgan et al. 2011; Plumptre et al. 2010; GRASP 
2005a; GRASP 2005b; Tutin et al. 2005; Kormos and Boesch 2003; Kormos 
et al. 2003). These plans lay out goals and research needs to address 
the threats faced by chimpanzees. Development of forest management 
plans with the goal of sustainable forestry practices has increased 
(Hewitt 2006, p. 43; Nasi et al. 2006, pp. 17-19). However, 
implementation of these management plans faces challenges, and the 
effect of these plans has yet to be determined. There is no evidence 
that management plans have reduced threats to the species. Chimpanzees 
are found in numerous protected areas. In some cases, these areas 
provide adequate protection and support substantial populations of 
chimpanzees. Unfortunately, many protected areas have weak or 
nonexistent management with poor law enforcement and are illegally 
logged, converted to agricultural lands, and hunted (Campbell et al. 
2011, p. 1). Furthermore, we have no evidence that enforcement of 
legislation to protect chimpanzees and their habitat, including 
protected areas, will improve.

Finding

    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 an endangered species or a 
threatened species 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.
    As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the 
chimpanzee is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range or likely to become endangered within the 
foreseeable future 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 
chimpanzee. We reviewed the petition, information available in our 
files, and other available published and unpublished information.
    One approach we can use to determine whether a species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species, as defined under the Act, 
is to evaluate the viability of the species. In this context, viability 
refers to the ability of a species to persist over the long term, and 
conversely, avoid

[[Page 34513]]

extinction over the long term. A species can be considered viable if it 
has a sufficient degree of resiliency, representation, and redundancy. 
However, a species that is deficient in one or more of these 
characteristics will have a lower probability of being viable and, 
therefore, a greater risk of extinction.
    Species have certain needs at the individual, population, and 
species level that are to be met in order to be viable. Using the 
concepts of resiliency, representation, and redundancy, we can evaluate 
threats to these needs, determine the effect on the species, and gauge 
the probability of viability. In evaluating threats to the needs of the 
species and 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, affect 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 an 
endangered species or a threatened species, as those terms are defined 
in the Act.
    Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species and its 
habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. Species-
level resiliency is measured through the resiliency of its collective 
populations. Healthy populations allow for recovery after stochastic 
events or periodic disturbances. Populations lacking healthy 
characteristics will be less likely to bounce back and are thus less 
resilient.
    Chimpanzee habitat is continually subjected to disturbance. 
Chimpanzees need large areas to provide sufficient resources for food, 
nesting, and shelter. However, across its range, habitat that is needed 
to support viable chimpanzee populations is being fragmented and lost 
to logging operations and conversion to agriculture. Logging operations 
often create a network of roads for transporting timber. These roads 
provide greater access to forests that were once inaccessible, 
facilitate the establishment of human settlements, and are accompanied 
by further deforestation from the conversion of forests to agriculture. 
Additionally, agricultural practices are largely unsustainable and are 
encroaching into additional forested areas. As the human population and 
economic development have increased, pressure on forest resources has 
also increased. This increasing pressure has led to uncontrolled legal 
and illegal forest conversion within and outside of protected areas 
(e.g., national parks and forest reserves), leaving them destroyed and 
fragmented. Cutting cycles that occur too frequently in an area to 
allow for proper regrowth, clear-cutting that results in total habitat 
loss, and severe soil erosion results in the loss of future forest 
regeneration and recovery of vital habitat.
    The loss, or even the degradation, of the chimpanzee's traditional 
habitat can affect their survival by impacting the species' food 
resources, behavior, susceptibility to disease, and abundance and 
distribution. Removal, or lowering the quality, of habitat through 
logging activity or establishment of agricultural lands destroys the 
structure and composition of the forest, eliminating essential food 
sources, which can affect sociability, condition of individuals, and 
female reproductive success, and increases vulnerability to diseases or 
parasites and infant and juvenile mortality. Even in areas with lower 
levels of logging where essential food sources were unaffected, 
chimpanzee densities declined significantly and were unable to recover, 
remaining low for years.
    Chimpanzee populations are also continually subjected to 
disturbance. Individuals needed to maintain viable populations are lost 
to hunting for the bushmeat trade, trade in pet chimpanzees, disease, 
and conflicts with humans. Hunting pressure even at a low level is 
enough to result in the local extirpation of large chimpanzee 
populations. The loss of reproductive-age female chimpanzees can be 
particularly devastating, further reducing the population's ability to 
recover from the loss. The pet trade has a significant draining effect 
on remaining populations, and threatens the survival of wild 
chimpanzees, because so many chimpanzees may be killed to secure one 
infant. Repeated epidemics have resulted in dramatic declines in ape 
populations in C[ocirc]te d'Ivoire, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, and the Republic of Congo. The Zaire strain of the Ebola virus 
alone has killed nearly one-third of the world's chimpanzees. Disease, 
such as SIV increase the chance of death by 10- to 16-fold, decreases 
the likelihood of females giving birth, and increases infant mortality. 
Disease can have a particularly devastating impact to ape populations 
since they have little resilience to diseases. For example, recovery of 
a gorilla population from a single disease outbreak can range from 5 
years for a low mortality (4 percent) respiratory disease outbreak to 
131 years for an Ebola outbreak with high mortality (96 percent); this 
does not take into account other impacts to the populations such as 
additional disease outbreaks or Allee effects. Recovery for a 
chimpanzee population would be longer as they have a lower maximum 
population growth rate than gorillas.
    Once a chimpanzee population has been reduced, whether by hunting, 
capture for the pet trade, or disease, its ability to recover is 
limited due to very slow reproductive rates and complex social 
behavior. Females do not give birth until 12 years of age and have only 
one infant every 5 to 6 years. Infants are weaned around 4 years old, 
and stay with their mothers until they are about 8 to 10 years old. 
Even after being weaned, young may not survive if orphaned. The 
occurrence of chimpanzees at low densities coupled with slow 
reproductive rates can lead to the rapid extinction of even large 
populations.
    Continuing threats acting on chimpanzee habitat and populations, 
coupled with the loss of future forest regeneration and recovery of 
vital habitat and the species' inability to recover from population 
reductions, will lead to the loss of additional populations and is 
evidence that neither chimpanzees, nor its habitat, are resilient.
    Representation is the species' ability to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions, whether natural or human caused. The species' 
adaptive capabilities are supported by the range in variation found 
within and between populations. Representation can be measured through 
the breadth of genetic diversity within and among populations and/or 
ecological diversity occupied by populations across the species range. 
In short, sufficient representation is having the genetic flexibility 
and/or inhabiting varying environmental conditions to allow the 
populations to respond to changing environmental conditions through 
adaptation. Species without diversity within and among populations are 
thought to be more likely to go extinct as conditions change.
    Genetic diversity in chimpanzees is evident by the four-subspecies 
taxonomic classification. Determining intraspecific variation among 
natural populations is more difficult. Given that some chimpanzee 
populations are

[[Page 34514]]

small, isolated and continue to face threats, it is reasonable to 
conclude that these particular populations may have, or will 
experience, decreased genetic diversity. However, we found no 
information to suggest that genetic exchange is particularly low for 
the species as a whole or chimpanzee populations in general.
    Chimpanzee habitats, diet, and choice of nesting sites vary across 
populations and communities. In regards to habitat, chimpanzees are 
highly adaptive, occurring in primary, secondary, and regenerating 
forests, logged forests, and plantations; they have even been found 
living in close proximity to humans. However, the loss, or even the 
degradation, of the chimpanzee's traditional habitat can affect their 
survival by impacting the species' food resources, behavior, 
susceptibility to disease, and abundance and distribution. Although 
chimpanzees feed on a wide variety of foods, their energy requirements, 
as large primates with large home ranges, predispose them to a reliance 
on high-energy fruits. Removal, or lowering the quality, of habitat 
through logging activity or establishment of agricultural lands 
destroys the structure and composition of the forest, eliminating 
essential food sources, which can affect sociability, condition of 
individuals, female reproductive success, and increase vulnerability to 
diseases or parasites and infant and juvenile mortality. Choice of 
nesting sites is variable across populations and communities of 
chimpanzees, but chimpanzees exhibit strong preferences for certain 
tree species for nesting, independent of their availability in the 
habitat. Chimps can also be deterred from nesting in certain areas 
where human habitation is concentrated. As a result, chimpanzees are at 
a greater risk of predation, as habitats where they relocate nests may 
not provide sufficient protection. Furthermore, the loss or reduction 
of food sources and the noise and disturbance from logging activity can 
cause chimpanzee communities to abandon their home range to find a new 
home range with sufficient resources and less human activity. These 
chimpanzees may enter another community's territory, which can lead to 
further competition for resources and conflict that can lead to death. 
As habitat is lost or fragmented and chimpanzee populations are forced 
into smaller forest fragments, lethal interactions with other 
chimpanzees may increase. Chimpanzees may also be cautious about 
reinhabiting previous home ranges where they were displaced by humans.
    Chimpanzees are ecologically diverse across subspecies, 
populations, and communities. However, this species faces ongoing 
threats that impact the various habitat types and result in declining 
populations across its range. As stated above, these impacts are 
particularly devastating to populations as their ability to recover 
from these ongoing disturbances is limited due to very slow 
reproductive rates and complex social behavior. Therefore, we find that 
chimpanzees do not have sufficient representation to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions.
    Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic 
events either by having populations that are unaffected or by having 
populations that can recover following such an event. Sufficient 
redundancy is having enough populations distributed across the 
landscape to provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand 
catastrophic events. This can be measured by the number of populations 
comprising the species and how they are distributed across the 
landscape. Additionally, because the species depends on its habitat, 
the ability of its habitat to withstand, or recover from, a 
catastrophic event should be considered.
    Chimpanzee populations occur across 22 African countries. Affected 
populations, owing to the lack of resiliency, would be unlikely to 
recover after a catastrophic event, leaving the species more depleted 
and fragmented than its current state. Additionally, unaffected 
populations would continue to face ongoing threats, and owing to a lack 
of resiliency, will be unlikely to sufficiently recover from these 
continuous disturbances. Similarly, the habitat types occupied by 
chimpanzees across the 22 range countries are not likely to be all be 
directly impacted by a catastrophic event, but the ability of the 
habitat to recover, given the current threats acting on chimpanzee 
habitat and the lack of forest regeneration, is unlikely. Furthermore, 
unaffected habitat will continue to face threats and will be unable to 
recover due to heavy pressures to meet the demands and needs of the 
growing human population. Therefore, we find that chimpanzee 
populations do not represent sufficient redundancy to withstand a 
catastrophic event.
    In summary, wild chimpanzees were listed as an endangered species 
in 1990 due to habitat loss, excessive hunting, capture for the pet 
trade, disease, and lack of effective national and international laws. 
Since then, threats to the chimpanzee have only expanded and 
intensified. The chimpanzee is a species whose declining and fragmented 
populations are not resilient to current ongoing disturbances. Despite 
the ecological diversity of the species, threats to the chimpanzee and 
its habitat are such that the representation is not sufficient to allow 
chimpanzees to adapt to the ongoing changes in its environment. In the 
event of a catastrophic event, the remaining populations would likely 
not recover due to ongoing threats. Due to the current, ongoing threats 
and impacts to the chimpanzee and its habitat, resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy are not sufficient to characterize the 
chimpanzee as a viable species. Laws exist throughout the range 
countries and internationally to protect the chimpanzee, but 
enforcement of national laws is lacking. Impacts to the chimpanzee and 
its habitat are expected to continue into the future as the human 
population continues to expand and pressures on natural resources to 
meet the demands of the human population increase.
    Threats and the impact of these threats to the chimpanzee and its 
habitat are at a level that compromises the viability of the species. 
We do not find that the chimpanzee is likely to become endangered 
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range. Rather, we find that the chimpanzee (including 
consideration of all members, both captive and wild) is not a viable 
species and is currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range. Therefore, we are retaining the status of the chimpanzee as an 
endangered species, but with this listing we are now including all 
members of the species in the endangered classification.
    We also examined the chimpanzee to analyze if any other listable 
entity under the definition of ``species,'' such as subspecies or 
distinct population segments, may qualify for a different status. 
Because of the magnitude and uniformity of the threats throughout its 
range, we find that there are no other listable entities that may 
warrant a different determination of status. In addition, because we 
find that the chimpanzee is in danger of extinction throughout all of 
its range, consistent with our Final Policy on Interpretation of the 
Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species 
Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' 
(79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) it is not necessary to consider whether the 
species might qualify for a different status based on some 
``significant portion of its range''

[[Page 34515]]

because if a species is endangered or threatened throughout its range, 
no portions of its range can qualify as ``significant.'' Therefore, on 
the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we have determined that the chimpanzee meets the definition of an 
endangered species under the Act. Consequently, we are revising the 
listing of chimpanzees under the Act so that all chimpanzees, wherever 
found, are listed as endangered species.
    A rule normally becomes effective 30 days after publication of a 
final rule in the Federal Register; however, our final determination to 
list all chimpanzees as endangered species under the Act will become 
effective in 90 days (see DATES, above). We are delaying the effective 
date to allow time to process applications for ongoing activities 
involving chimpanzees that would require a permit under the Act. This 
will allow persons who qualify for a permit to avoid unnecessary 
suspension of their activities, which include important ongoing medical 
and scientific research. Delaying the effective date will not adversely 
affect wild populations of chimpanzees or significantly affect captive 
chimpanzees.

4(d) Rule

    For threatened species, section 4(d) of the Act gives the Service 
discretion to specify the prohibitions and any exceptions to those 
prohibitions that are appropriate for the species, as well as include 
provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the species. A 4(d) rule allows us to develop 
regulatory 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 for threatened wildlife at 50 
CFR 17.31 and 17.32. Because captive chimpanzees in the United States 
were previously classified as threatened species, they were exempt from 
the general prohibitions for threatened wildlife at 50 CFR 17.31 under 
a 4(d) rule for primates set forth at 50 CFR 17.40(c). However, because 
4(d) rules can be applied only to threatened species, and we find that 
all chimpanzees, both wild and captive, are an endangered species, the 
4(d) rule for captive chimpanzees can no longer be applied. Therefore, 
we are removing the chimpanzee, including a provision specific to the 
chimpanzee, from the 4(d) rule found at 50 CFR 17.40(c).

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species 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 
species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being 
designated. However, given that the chimpanzee 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.
    In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the Great Ape Conservation Act to 
protect and conserve the great ape species, including the chimpanzee, 
listed under both the Endangered Species Act and CITES. The Great Ape 
Conservation Act granted the Service the authority to establish the 
Great Ape Conservation Fund to provide funding for projects that aim to 
conserve great apes through law enforcement training, community 
initiatives, and other conservation efforts. The Service's Wildlife 
Without Borders program, through the Great Ape Conservation Fund, is 
supporting efforts to fight poaching and trafficking in great apes; to 
increase habitat protection by creating national parks and protected 
areas; and to engage the community through local initiatives to 
conserve the most threatened great ape species.
    The Endangered Species Act and its implementing regulations set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
endangered wildlife and to threatened wildlife that are not regulated 
through a 4(d) rule. 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. To possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship 
any such wildlife that has been taken in violation of the Act is also 
illegal. 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 wildlife and 17.32 for threatened wildlife. 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.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We based this action on a review of the best scientific and 
commercial information available, including all information received 
during the public comment period. In the June 12, 2013, proposed rule, 
we requested that all interested parties submit information that might 
contribute to development of a final rule. We also contacted 
appropriate scientific experts and organizations and invited them to 
comment on the proposed listing. We received tens of thousands of 
comments.
    We reviewed all comments we received from the public for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the proposed listing 
of this species, and we address those comments below. Overall, most 
commenters supported the proposed listing, but did not provide 
additional scientific or commercial data for consideration. We have not 
included responses to comments that supported the listing decision but 
did not provide specific information for consideration. Most of the 
commenters that did not support the proposed listing were affiliated 
with the biomedical industry and opposed the rule due to potential 
impacts on biomedical research. Additionally, we received comments 
opposing our finding that the Act does not allow for captive 
chimpanzees to be assigned separate legal status from their

[[Page 34516]]

wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state, including 
through designation as a separate distinct population segment.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five individuals with 
scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the 
geographic region in which wild members of the species occur, and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from one of the 
peer reviewers from whom we requested comments. The peer reviewer found 
the proposed rule generally accurate and comprehensive in its 
description of the biology, habitat, population trends, and 
distribution of chimpanzees, including the factors affecting the 
species. The peer reviewer provided comments for our consideration to 
improve the accuracy of the rule. Those comments are addressed below. 
Technical corrections suggested by the peer reviewer have been 
incorporated into this final rule. In some cases, a technical 
correction is indicated in the citations by ``personal communication'' 
(pers. comm.), which could indicate either an email or telephone 
conversation; in other cases, the research citation is provided.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    (1) Comment: The peer reviewer provided technical corrections, 
including more appropriate citations, on the species' taxonomy, 
description, diet, and population estimates.
    Our Response: We reviewed the recommended citations and made minor 
changes to the Taxonomy and Species Description, Essential Needs of the 
Species, and Range and Population sections.
    (2) Comment: The Service's statement that chimpanzees have been 
lost from Benin, Togo, and Burkina Faso is too definitive, as there are 
a few recent, second-hand reports of chimpanzees in Togo, one of which 
has led a primatologist to plan a new survey to investigate.
    Our Response: The loss of chimpanzees from Togo is widely reported 
in scientific literature; therefore, in the absence of a survey 
confirming the presence of chimpanzees in this country we will continue 
to rely on the best scientific data available, which indicates that 
chimpanzees have been extirpated from Togo. However, we acknowledge 
these recent reports in our Range and Population section.
    (3) Comment: The peer reviewer disagrees that the chimpanzee could 
be extirpated from Nigeria. The current population of chimpanzees in 
just one national park in Nigeria, Gashaka-Gumti, appears to be over 
1,000 individuals and is relatively well protected.
    Our Response: In light of this information we have reevaluated our 
analysis of potential extirpation from specific countries. According to 
Carlsen et al. (2012, p. 5) and Butynski (2003, p. 11), the western 
chimpanzee is highly threatened; combined with national populations 
fewer than 1,000 chimpanzees, survival in Senegal, Guineau Bissau, and 
Ghana is a concern. Because the population in a well-protected national 
park in Nigeria is over 1,000 chimpanzees, we have revised our analysis 
under our Range and Population section. However, this did not change 
our finding that the chimpanzee meets the definition of an endangered 
species under the Act.

Public Comments

    (4) Comment: The inclusion of non-native species under the 
Endangered Species Act is a misdirection of agency resources that does 
little to protect wild habitat and merely imposes regulatory burdens on 
those who maintain these in human care domestically.
    Our Response: The Act requires the Service to determine if species 
qualify as endangered or threatened species regardless of whether a 
species is native to the United States. Benefits to the species include 
prohibitions on certain activities including import, export, take, and 
certain commercial activity in interstate or foreign commerce. By 
regulating these activities, the Act helps to ensure that people under 
the jurisdiction of the United States do not contribute to the further 
decline of listed species. Although the Act's prohibitions regarding 
listed species apply only to people subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States, the Act can generate additional conservation benefits 
such as increased awareness of listed species, research efforts to 
address conservation needs, or funding for in-situ conservation of the 
species in its range countries.
    (5) Comment: Several commenters oppose the elimination of the 
separate classification of chimpanzees held in captivity and the 
listing of the entire species, wherever found, as an endangered species 
under the Act, stating that it is unlikely to benefit chimpanzees in 
the wild and will have little effect on the major threats to 
chimpanzees.
    Our Response: Our determination that the Act does not allow for 
captive chimpanzees to be assigned separate legal status from their 
wild counterparts is based on a detailed analysis on whether the 
current statute, regulations, and applicable policies provide any 
discretion to differentiate the listing status of specimens in 
captivity from those in the wild. Therefore, benefits to the species or 
the effect of the listing decision is not relevant to what constitutes 
a listable entity and is eligible for separate listing status under the 
Act. We did, however, consider to what extent captive chimpanzees 
contribute to or create threats to the species or reduce or remove any 
threats to the species as a whole.
    (6) Comment: Commenters requested chimpanzees located in the United 
States to continue to be regulated under the existing rule issued under 
section 4(d) of the Act, or that the special rule for chimpanzees be 
revised in order to allow certain activities with chimpanzees to be 
undertaken without the administrative burden and delays associated with 
obtaining permits under the Act.
    Our Response: Because special rules under section 4(d) authority 
can only apply to threatened species, the special rule that includes 
captive chimpanzees at 50 CFR 17.40(c) will no longer be available once 
this listing action and the accompanying removal of the special rule as 
applied to chimpanzees become effective.
    (7) Comment: Several commenters oppose the listing of all 
chimpanzees as endangered species, and removal of chimpanzees from the 
4(d) rule for primates, because essential biomedical research for both 
human and chimpanzee health, including critical research needed to 
develop preventions and treatments of infectious diseases in wild 
chimpanzee populations, that uses chimpanzees could be prohibited. 
Furthermore, the utilization of research chimpanzees is currently well-
regulated under other Federal statutes, including the Animal Welfare 
Act (AWA), the Public Health Service Act, and the Chimp Act of 2000, as 
well as other Federal policies and guidelines.
    Our Response: It is not our intent to prevent any biomedical 
research. However, research involving chimpanzees that could cause harm 
to the animal (i.e., ``take'') will require a take permit under the 
Act. While take includes harassment of individual animals, our 
regulations specify that when captive animals are involved, harassment 
does not include animal husbandry practices that meet or exceed AWA 
standards, breeding procedures, or veterinary care that is not likely 
to result in injury (see the definition of harass at 50 CFR 17.3). In 
addition,

[[Page 34517]]

research that does not adversely affect chimpanzees, such as 
observations in behavioral research, are not considered take and will 
not require a permit. For activities that may result in a prohibited 
act such as a taking, permits may be issued for scientific purposes or 
to enhance the propagation or survival of the species. Enhancement may 
be direct, such as developing a vaccination to be administered to 
chimpanzees in the wild (in situ), or indirect such as contributions 
that are made to in situ conservation.
    Additionally, the comment appears to imply that additional 
regulation under the Act is not needed for captive chimpanzees in the 
United States. Whether or not additional regulation is needed is not a 
factor considered when evaluating whether a species meets the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species. Having concluded that 
we had no discretion to treat captive chimpanzees as a separate 
listable entity from wild chimpanzees, the Service properly assessed 
the status of the ``species'' to determine if it met the definition of 
a ``threatened species'' or an ``endangered species'' due to any one or 
a combination of the five factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 
We properly applied the five factors under section 4(a)(1) to the 
species, including the extent to which captive chimpanzees create or 
contribute to the threats to the species or remove or reduce threats to 
the species. Having determined that all chimpanzees qualify as an 
``endangered species,'' the Act's protections for endangered species 
are extended to all chimpanzees.
    (8) Comment: There is no causal nexus between research with 
chimpanzees in the United States and the removal of specimens from the 
wild by ``poachers and smugglers,'' and the Service has provided no 
example of illegal trafficking attributable to research.
    Our Response: In assessing whether captive chimpanzees actually 
create or contribute to the threat of overutilization to the species as 
part of its status review, the Service did not find evidence that 
captive animals used for research in the United States were 
contributing to or creating any threats to the species. In fact, the 
availability of captive chimpanzees may have removed the demand for 
wild chimpanzees in biomedical research.
    (9) Comment: Several commenters are concerned that the permitting 
process may delay time-sensitive research.
    Our Response: The Service intends to work with research 
institutions to minimize the time needed to authorize activities under 
the Act. However, it should be noted that the permitting process 
includes a 30-day comment period required by statute for permit 
applications involving endangered species. Given that it takes time to 
plan and implement any research studies, we do not believe the 
permitting process will be problematic or result in any critical delays 
in research.
    (10) Comment: The Service should amend the permitting requirements 
so that details of requests for biomedical research permits are not 
required to be published in the Federal Register.
    Our Response: We do not publish the details of permit applications 
in the Federal Register; we publish only a notice to the public that we 
have received a permit application. Information received as part of any 
application is available to the public, however, as a matter of public 
record.
    (11) Comment: How many and for which type of biomedical research 
will the Service issue permits?
    Our Response: All determinations of whether particular entities and 
particular activities qualify for permits under the Act are made on a 
case-by-case basis depending on the facts of the situation. We do not 
set a limit on the number of permits we issue; however, in the course 
of reviewing permit applications we may refer back to all applications 
we have received and issued for a particular species and activity. We 
cannot foresee what biomedical research would be authorized because up 
until the effective date of this rule (see DATES), permits for 
activities involving chimpanzees have not been required. Further, to 
list those activities prior to reviewing them during the course of the 
permitting procedure would be predecisional. We will issue permits for 
activities that meet the requirements of 50 CFR 17.22.
    (12) Comment: The Service's proposed listing rule does not consider 
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms for permitting 
biomedical research with captive chimpanzees under the Act.
    Our Response: The commenter appears to be referencing factor D and 
appears to maintain that inadequate permitting of research negatively 
impacts wild chimpanzees because such regulations impede research that 
has the potential to treat diseases that impact chimpanzees. As stated 
above, biomedical research involving chimpanzees that benefits 
chimpanzees in the wild would likely meet enhancement requirements and, 
therefore, would likely be authorized. Thus, the issue mentioned by the 
commenter is not applicable.
    (13) Comment: The impact of this rule on the biomedical community 
will endanger human populations. The Service should include biomedical 
research aimed at improving human health within the definition of 
``scientific purposes'' under the Act.
    Our Response: The purposes of the Act are to conserve species and 
the ecosystems on which they depend, and any permit issued must meet 
the standards under section 10(a) and 10(d) of the Act. While not 
intended to impact research involving human health, there are 
requirements that must be met when endangered species, such as the 
chimpanzee, are involved. We will evaluate each application for a 
permit on a case-by-case basis to determine if it qualifies under the 
Act, including for scientific purposes. We will work with institutions 
applying for a permit to minimize adverse effects to research 
activities.
    (14) Comment: An enhancement-of-survival permit for biomedical 
research on chimpanzees would require research programs to provide a 
conservation benefit to species in the wild, a huge imposition on 
research institutions' resources.
    Our Response: The Service does not believe that requiring 
biomedical institutions to obtain authorization to carry out otherwise 
prohibited activities would impose a significant imposition on their 
resources. In discussions with a number of the institutions currently 
holding chimpanzees, it appears that there are ways these institutions 
could benefit chimpanzees in the wild through currently on-going 
activities or activities that could be reasonably developed. Behavioral 
studies, the development of veterinary treatments, and support for in-
situ conservation efforts like orphan care, currently carried out by 
some institutions, all would support the issuance of an endangered 
species permit by the Service. The Service will continue to work with 
research institutions on ways to continue their current activities, 
while ensuring that the standards of the Act are met.
    (15) Comment: Additional information on diseases and the threat 
they pose to the viability of wild chimpanzees was provided.
    Our Response: We have incorporated additional information into our 
discussion of diseases, including the potential impact of disease 
outbreaks on chimpanzee populations and the potential for captive 
chimpanzees in the United States to be used to test vaccines for wild 
populations. This information did not change our finding that the 
chimpanzee meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act.

[[Page 34518]]

Rather, it provided additional support to our finding that disease is a 
threat to chimpanzees.
    (16) Comment: The Service only used literature related to wild 
chimpanzees and included very limited scientific data related to 
captive chimpanzees, especially information on the use of captive 
chimpanzees in research to advance both human and chimpanzee health.
    Our Response: Consistent with the Act, we assessed the status of 
the species to determine whether chimpanzees meet the definition of an 
endangered or threatened species and should be listed under the Act. 
This included assessing the extent to which captive chimpanzees create 
or contribute to threats to the species or remove or reduce threats to 
the species by contributing to the conservation of the species. We have 
included in our Summary of Threats section information on the potential 
for captive chimpanzees to contribute to a reduction in threats to 
chimpanzees from diseases. Because the use of captive chimpanzees in 
the advancement of human health does not impact chimpanzees, either 
positively or negatively, this information is not relevant in assessing 
the status of the species.
    (17) Comment: Some commenters claimed listing all chimpanzees as 
endangered species would hurt conservation efforts to the extent that 
the Service would set limitations on the exhibition of endangered 
chimpanzees in zoological settings.
    Our Response: The Act does not prohibit the exhibition of listed 
species. Listing all chimpanzees will not set any limitations on 
exhibition. The Service disagrees, however, that listing all 
chimpanzees as endangered would have any negative impact on 
conservation efforts. Instead, the listing will most likely promote 
greater participation in conservation efforts by zoological 
institutions and the public. Before the listing, individuals wishing to 
sell and engage in certain other commercial activities with captive 
chimpanzees could do so without providing any conservation benefits to 
the species. With this listing, otherwise prohibited activities, such 
as these commercial activities, will require authorization from the 
Service and this authorization can be issued only if the activity meets 
the requirements of the Act.
    (18) Comment: The listing petition's general arguments regarding 
exhibitors' commercial gain from their exhibition of captive 
chimpanzees should have no bearing on Service's decision regarding the 
conservation status of captive chimpanzees under the Act. Furthermore, 
the Service should clarify that commercial gains from educational and 
entertainment activities are not illegal under the Act.
    Our Response: The Service's listing determination is based upon an 
analysis of the best available scientific and commercial information 
relative to the statutory standards under the Act indicating that 
chimpanzees as a species meet the definition of an endangered species 
under the Act. Thus, the appropriate conservation status of the species 
was not based upon the issue mentioned by the commenter. Additionally, 
the Act and our implementing regulations set forth the prohibitions 
that apply to all endangered wildlife. These prohibitions make it 
illegal for any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United 
States to, among other things, sell or offer for sale an endangered 
species in interstate or foreign commerce or to deliver, receive, 
transport, carry, or ship an endangered species in interstate or 
foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity. Services 
provided by persons who own captive chimpanzees such as those provided 
by circuses and appearances in movies, television, advertisements, or 
parties are not unlawful unless the person engages in one of the 
prohibited activities.
    (19) Comment: The Service's differentiation between threatened and 
endangered species permits issued for the purpose of exhibition is 
misplaced because the Service's regulatory definition of ``enhancement 
of propagation or survival'' includes ``exhibition of living wildlife 
in a manner designed to educate the public about the ecological role 
and conservation needs of the affected species.'' Thus, in the event 
that the Service designates captive chimpanzees as endangered under the 
Act, the Service should expressly reaffirm that public exhibition 
continues to be permitted.
    Our Response: The Act does not prohibit the exhibition of listed 
species. Therefore, the Service does not issue permits for public 
exhibition or education. However, the Act does regulate, among other 
things, import; export; sale and offer for sale in interstate and 
foreign commerce; and delivery, receipt, transport, carrying, and 
shipment in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a 
commercial activity. As pointed out in the proposed rule, Section 
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for endangered species states that the Secretary 
may permit ``any act otherwise prohibited by section 9 for scientific 
purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected 
species . . .'' In addition, any permit issued under section 
10(a)(1)(A) must, among other things, be consistent with the policies 
and purposes of the Act. Therefore, when considering whether a permit 
can be issued to authorize activities that would otherwise be 
prohibited with an endangered species, the purposes of the activity 
must be for either scientific purposes or for enhancement, not solely 
for educational or exhibition purposes.
    The commenter is correct, however, in referencing that the 
definition of ``enhance the propagation or survival'' in the 
regulations (50 CFR 17.3) does identify exhibition of living wildlife 
as part of an overall approach to enhancement for captive wildlife. 
Specifically, the regulations state: Enhance the propagation or 
survival, when used in reference to wildlife in captivity, the 
following activities when it can be shown that such activities would 
not be detrimental to the survival of wild or captive populations of 
the affected species:
    (a) Provision of health care, management of populations by culling, 
contraception, euthanasia, grouping or handling of wildlife to control 
survivorship and reproduction, and similar normal practices of animal 
husbandry needed to maintain captive populations that are self-
sustaining and that possess as much genetic vitality as possible;
    (b) Accumulation and holding of living wildlife that is not 
immediately needed or suitable for propagative or scientific purposes, 
and the transfer of such wildlife between persons in order to relieve 
crowding or other problems hindering the propagation or survival of the 
captive population at the location from which the wildlife would be 
removed;
    (c) Exhibition of living wildlife in a manner designed to educate 
the public about the ecological role and conservation needs of the 
affected species.
    This definition was established primarily in relation to the 
Captive-bred Wildlife Registration program (50 CFR 17.21(g)) to 
facilitate captive breeding of listed species as part of an overall 
captive management program. Therefore, public display in a manner 
designed to education the public about the ecological role of the 
species, along with being part of a captive breeding program that 
strives for a self-sustaining captive population that ensures maximum 
genetic diversity and vitality could be permitted under the Act.
    (20) Comment: Several commenters opposed the proposed rule, and the

[[Page 34519]]

associated regulation of captive chimpanzees, stating that captive 
populations are essential for the perpetuation of global chimpanzee 
populations and repopulating African countries.
    Our Response: The status of all chimpanzees as endangered does not 
affect the ability to maintain captive populations. The Act does not 
prohibit captive breeding of listed species.
    (21) Comment: One commenter requested amending the Service's 
regulatory definition of the phrase ``industry and trade'' found in the 
Act's definition of the term ``commercial activity,'' as well as 
revising the Service's Captive-Bred Wildlife Regulations under 50 CFR 
17.21(g) to require the agency to respond in the Federal Register to 
public comments received on applications for captive-bred wildlife 
registrations.
    Our Response: The comment is outside the scope of this agency 
action to consider whether all chimpanzees should be listed as 
endangered species under the Act.
    (22) Comment: Some commenters believed that this rulemaking was not 
the appropriate vehicle for issuing new agency policy regarding whether 
captive animals, in general, may be assigned separate legal status from 
their wild counterparts on the basis of their captive state. One 
commenter explained that the Service could not use a petition-specific 
determination to promulgate a new interpretive rule, and the law 
requires such action to be done via a more direct and thorough public 
process, not as an adjunct to a species listing petition. One commenter 
maintained that the Service's actions violated section 4(h) of the Act. 
Thus, these commenters indicated promulgation of such a policy or 
interpretive rule should be subject to separate public notice and 
comment procedures pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act and the 
Endangered Species Act.
    Our Response: The Service was petitioned to list all chimpanzees, 
whether in the wild or in captivity, as an endangered species, thereby 
eliminating the separate classification of captive chimpanzees from 
chimpanzees located in the wild. As explained in the preamble of our 
proposed listing rule, we therefore examined the question raised by the 
petition as to whether the Service has discretion under the Act to 
differentiate the listing status of chimpanzees in captivity from those 
in the wild. Because the Service had not specifically examined whether 
the Act, its implementing regulations, and applicable policies provide 
such discretion prior to receiving the petitions for chimpanzees and 
the African antelope, we reviewed the issue in order to ensure that we 
addressed each petition in accordance with the Act. Nonetheless, each 
assessment is specific to the petitioned species. The rule has been 
revised to clarify that the Service's analysis is specific to the issue 
of whether captive chimpanzees should have separate legal status on the 
basis of their captivity.
    Furthermore, this listing decision does not establish new agency 
policy. In fact, this listing determination is consistent with the 
Service's general practice for captive members of a species to be 
afforded the same legal status under the Act as those members of the 
species in the wild.
    In compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the 
Administrative Procedure Act, the Service's listing determination, 
which included its evaluation of whether captive chimpanzees may have 
separate legal status under the Act, was subject to public notice and 
comment. The Service was under no legal requirement, as suggested by 
the commenter, to subject the analysis used in evaluating this petition 
to an additional and separate rulemaking process or to develop agency 
guidelines such as those identified under section 4(h) of the Act.
    (23) Comment: Commenters expressed concern that the Service's broad 
statements of policy regarding its legal authority to recognize 
exemptions from the Act for captive animals is beyond the scope of the 
petition. According to one commenter, the petition is specific to the 
listing of chimpanzees only, and the Service's proposal should be as 
well.
    Our Response: Assuming that the commenters are characterizing the 
authority to designate separate legal status under the Act for captive 
animals as an ``exemption,'' the Service disagrees that the issue of 
designating separate legal status for captive chimpanzees is beyond the 
scope of the petition. Because the petition requested, in essence, the 
elimination of the separate classification for captive chimpanzees from 
chimpanzees located in the wild, the Service appropriately considered, 
as an initial matter, whether it had any discretion to designate legal 
status under the Act to captive members separate from their wild 
counterparts. Assessing whether the petitioned action involves an 
entity eligible for legal status under the Act is part of the Service's 
standard practice in making petition-findings. See, e.g., 12-Month 
Findings on Petitions to Delist U.S. Captive Populations of the 
Scimitar-horned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax 78 FR 33790, 33791 (June 
5, 2013) (including a discussion on the ``Evaluation of Listable 
Entities''); 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List 14 Aquatic Mollusks 
as Endangered or Threatened, 77 FR 57922, 57923 (September 18, 2012) 
(including a discussion on the ``Evaluation of Listable Entities''); 
12-Month Finding on Petition to List the Wanton's Cave Meshweaver as 
Endangered or Threatened, 79 FR 47413, 47415 (August 13, 2014) 
(including a discussion on ``Evaluation of Listable Entities''); 90-Day 
Finding on a Petition to List Thermophilic Ostracod as Endangered or 
Threatened, 77 FR 9618, 9618 (February 17, 2012) (including a 
discussion on the ``Evaluation of Listable Entities''); 90-Day Finding 
on Petition to List Sphinx Date Palm, 77 FR 71757 (including a 
discussion on the ``Evaluation of Listable Entities''). Thus, the issue 
was properly part of the Service's petition-finding and determination 
to list all chimpanzees as an endangered species. In addition, as noted 
above the rule has been revised to clarify that the Service's analysis 
is specific to the issue of whether captive chimpanzees should have 
separate legal status on the basis of their captivity.
    (24) Comment: One commenter stated that for a notice of a new 
policy to be effective, particularly one that modifies, or at least 
substantially impacts, the Captive-Bred Wildlife rule, it must alert 
the public that a change in policy is being considered.
    Our Response: The commenter fails to identify any new policy or a 
change in policy being issued through this listing determination. As 
explained in the preamble of our proposed listing rule, the Service has 
not had an absolute policy or practice with respect to the designation 
of separate legal status under the Act for captive animals, but 
generally has included wild and captive animals together when it has 
listed species. Thus, this action does not involve a change in policy, 
nor does it involve any modification or impact to the Captive-Bred 
Wildlife rule. In fact, this listing action is consistent with the 
Service's general practice of listing captive and wild members of a 
species together. As part of the Service's evaluation of the petition 
to list all chimpanzees as endangered, this action included an 
examination of whether the agency has any discretion to differentiate 
the listing status of specimens in captivity from those in the wild. 
The Service's listing determination, including its analysis of whether 
captive chimpanzees may have separate legal status under the Act from

[[Page 34520]]

their wild counterparts, was subject to public notice and comment.
    (25) Comment: The Service received comments that it should base 
this listing determination on the conservation status of the captive 
specimens, focusing on an assessment of whether the five factors 
require listing of captive chimpanzees, rather than a position or 
policy that the agency lacks authority to assign a separate legal 
status to all captive species by virtue of their captive status. Other 
commenters claimed that the Service's failure to analyze whether 
captive chimpanzees are an endangered species due to the five factors 
under section 4(a)(1) constituted a violation of the Act. Some 
commenters further contended that captive chimpanzees are not in danger 
of extinction due to any of the five factors set forth under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act.
    Our Response: Having concluded that we do not have discretion to 
treat captive chimpanzees as a separate listable entity from wild 
chimpanzees, the Service properly assessed the status of the 
``species'' to determine if it met the definition of a ``threatened 
species'' or an ``endangered species'' due to any one or a combination 
of the five factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. See Trout 
Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F. 3d 946, 955-956 (9th Cir 2009) 
(distinguishing between two analytical phases of the listing process--
the ``composition phase'' involving the ``neutral'' task of defining a 
``species'' and the subsequent decision to list due to the factors 
under section 4(a)(1) of the Act). As part of the assessment of the 
status of the ``species,'' the Service examined the extent to which 
captive chimpanzees created or contributed to threats to the species or 
remove or reduce threats to the species by contributing to the 
conservation of the species. This approach of considering the 
contribution of captive members on their wild counterparts in a status 
assessment of the species has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Trout 
Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F. 3d at 961 (upholding NMFS's 2005 Hatchery 
Policy which established that the effects of hatchery fish will be 
included in assessing the status of the entire Evolutionary Significant 
Unit in the context of their contributions to conserving natural self-
sustaining populations). But having found for a number of reasons that 
the Service does not have the discretion to give captive chimpanzees 
separate legal status, it was both unnecessary and would be 
inappropriate to conduct a listing analysis on just captive 
chimpanzees.
    (26) Comment: The proposed rule states that captive populations of 
wildlife do not have their own recognizable range and that a species' 
range consists only of those portions of the species' historic range 
where the species is found in the wild. This approach ignores the 
importance that adaptation plays in species conservation. If the 
Service refuses to recognize a species' range as the habitat in which 
the population currently lives, whether in the wild or in captivity, 
then the Service will be powerless to accommodate circumstances that 
change wildlife behavior patterns.
    Our Response: It appears that the commenter may have misunderstood 
our interpretation of ``range.'' Nonetheless, we stand by our position 
noted in the proposed rule and this final rule that ``range'' has 
consistently been interpreted by the Service as being the natural range 
of the species in the wild. Furthermore, the Service's 2014 policy on 
the meaning of the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) 
(79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014) defines ``range'' as the ``general 
geographic area within which that species can be found at the time [the 
Service] or [the National Marine Fisheries Service] makes any 
particular status determination,'' which we interpret also to apply to 
the range of the species in the wild. Therefore, the Service's 
definition of range does not ignore the importance of adaptation in 
species conservation. If circumstances change wildlife behavior 
patterns, changes in areas where the species is found in the wild would 
be considered part of its range.
    (27) Comment: One commenter asserted that the Service's 
interpretation of the term ``range'' under section 4(c)(1) of the Act 
as including the general geographical area where the species is found 
in the wild would prevent the Service from complying with its statutory 
obligation to specify for each species listed over what portion of its 
range it is an endangered species or a threatened species in the event 
a species no longer exists in the wild and can only be found in 
captivity.
    Our Response: Under this hypothetical, the Service disagrees that 
its interpretation of the term ``range'' would prevent it from 
specifying ``over what portion of its range'' it is an endangered 
species or a threatened species in accordance with section 4(c)(1) of 
the Act. For a species that only exists in captivity, the Service 
indicates the range of the species in the wild that would occur but for 
the conditions that have led to extirpation from the wild in the 
``Historic Range'' column of the listing at 50 CFR 17.11 or 17.12, 
consistent with our interpretation. For example, the listing of the 
Scimitar-horned oryx at 50 CFR 17.11 indicates the historic range as 
North Africa, even though the Service acknowledged the oryx may no 
longer exist in the wild. See Final Rule to List the Scimitar-horned 
oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle as Endangered, 70 FR 52319 (September 2, 
2005).
    (28) Comment: The Service's position that the Act deprives it of 
the authority to separately classify a population made exclusively of 
captive members contradicts the Service's litigation position in Safari 
Club International v. Salazar, et al. in which the Service maintained 
that it possessed the authority to make decisions about the listing 
status of captive populations on a case-by-case basis.
    Our Response: Prior to fully analyzing the issue of designating 
separate legal status for captive animals for consistency with the 
statutory standards, an issue raised in the petitions to delist U.S. 
captive populations of Scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama gazelle 
and the petition to list all chimpanzees as an endangered species, we 
acknowledge that the Service provided the same listing status to all 
members of a species as the default, unless the facts indicated that 
there should be a different result. See Safari Club International v. 
Jewell, 960 F.Supp 2d 17, 64 (D.D.C. 2013) (upholding the Service's 
2005 final determination to list Scimitar-horned oryx, addax, and dama 
gazelle as being consistent with the agency's general policy and 
practice). Having now examined the language, purpose, operation of key 
provisions, and the legislative history of the Act in response to the 
issue raised in the above-mentioned petitions, we have concluded that 
the Service does not have the discretion to designate separate legal 
status under the Act for captive chimpanzees from wild members of the 
same species, which is consistent with our findings on the antelope 
petitions. As noted above, the rule has been revised to clarify that 
the Service's analysis is specific to the petitioned species.
    (29) Comment: The Service expresses a general concern that captive 
chimpanzees might not meet the Act's definition of ``threatened 
species'' or ``endangered species,'' leaving captive chimpanzees 
unprotected by the Act. In order to avoid this result, the Service 
proposes that captive chimpanzees must receive the same listing as wild 
chimpanzees to ensure that they receive protections, even though they 
do not qualify for listing. Such an approach is inconsistent with the 
Act's purpose to promote conservation of the species and

[[Page 34521]]

DPS which are actually endangered or threatened species.
    Our Response: It is unclear whether the commenter believes that the 
Service found that captive chimpanzees would not qualify for listing 
under the Act if the required analysis were conducted or whether the 
commenter believes that captive chimpanzees do not qualify for listing. 
To process the petition, we had to consider whether captive chimpanzees 
had appropriately been considered separate listable entities 
previously. Part of this analysis included potential conservation 
outcomes if a section 4(a) analysis were conducted solely on captive 
chimpanzees (which was not done when we designated captive chimpanzees 
as a separate threatened DPS in 1990) and whether the potential 
consequences of this approach would be consistent with Congress' intent 
for the Act. Having found for a number of reasons that the Service does 
not have the discretion to give captive animals separate legal status, 
it was both unnecessary and would be inappropriate to conduct a listing 
analysis on just captive chimpanzees. For all the reasons explained in 
this rule, we find that this decision is consistent with the purposes 
of the Act and Congress' intent.
    In fact, if the separate designation of wild chimpanzees and 
captive chimpanzees were maintained, proponents of separate legal 
status could argue that captive specimens do not qualify as endangered 
or threatened species under an analysis of the best available 
scientific information related to the five factors found under section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. Indeed, we note that this commenter appears to 
contend that captive chimpanzees do not qualify for listing. Because 
under this line of thinking captive chimpanzees might not meet the 
definitions of endangered or threatened species under the statutory 
factors, captive chimpanzees could be petitioned for, and arguably 
would qualify for, delisting. These animals would therefore lose any 
legal protections of the Act, even as wild chimpanzees face threats 
that have intensified and expanded since 1990, continue to decline, and 
have already been extirpated from some range countries. Unfortunately 
it is conceivable that all wild chimpanzees could be extirpated at some 
point in the future and therefore, under the commenter's line of 
reasoning, wild chimpanzees would qualify for delisting as extinct 
under 50 CFR 424.11(d)(1) while captive chimpanzees would still have no 
protections under the Act. Such potential consequences due to separate 
listings of chimpanzees would be inconsistent with the Act's purpose of 
protecting threatened and endangered species.
    (30) Comment: The Service should reconsider its definition of 
``captivity.'' If a species' existence outside of its historic range 
involves a lifestyle closely resembling life in the wild, then the 
Service should treat that population more like wild populations than 
captive ones. In captivity, chimpanzees do not have a lifestyle that 
even remotely mimics their existence in the wild.
    Our Response: The request to reconsider the Service's regulatory 
definition of ``captivity'' is beyond the scope of this action to 
consider whether all chimpanzees should be listed as an endangered 
species under the Act.
    (31) Comment: In its new interpretation, the Service did not 
address the fact that the Act recognizes the ``scientific'' value of 
wildlife and acknowledges ``scientific'' purposes as a separate animal 
use in addition to other possible uses, i.e., commercial, recreational, 
or educational purposes, when the potential for overutilization is 
considered.
    Our Response: In determining whether we had any discretion to 
designate separate legal status under the Act to captive chimpanzees, 
the Service specifically acknowledged that Congress recognized 
``overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
education purposes'' as a potential threat that contributes to the risk 
of extinction for many species. We found that if captive specimens 
could have separate legal status under the Act, the threat of 
overutilization could increase. Such a consequence would be 
inconsistent with section 2(b)'s purpose of conserving endangered and 
threatened species. The role of scientific use of endangered wildlife 
is also acknowledged under section 10(a)(1)(A) as one of the purposes 
for which a permit may be issued to conduct otherwise prohibited 
activities.
    (32) Comment: Although the Service noted past examples of and 
concerns about the possibility of not being able to distinguish between 
captive and wild specimens in its proposed rule, chimpanzees currently 
located at U.S. research facilities are not only few in number, but 
also individually identified and recorded.
    Our Response: The comment appears to be referring to the Service's 
conclusion that, as a general matter, separate legal status for captive 
animals would be inconsistent with the purpose of section 2(b) of the 
Act due to the potential for increased take and trade in ``laundered'' 
wild-caught specimens that would generally be indistinguishable from 
unprotected, captive specimens. In assessing whether captive 
chimpanzees actually create or contribute to the threat of 
overutilization to the species, the Service did not find evidence that 
captive specimens specifically held in U.S. research facilities were 
contributing to or creating any threats to the species. Nonetheless, 
even if captive chimpanzees in U.S. research facilities are currently 
few in number and all captive chimpanzees at these facilities are 
individually identified and recorded, this may not be the case in the 
future. In addition, it does not appear that captive chimpanzees 
generally have reduced any threats to the species, including removal of 
animals from the wild for the pet trade, as threats to the species have 
only intensified since the 1990 reclassification of the wild population 
from a threatened species to an endangered species.
    (33) Comment: Some commenters indicated their support for the 
Service's continued reliance on its policy regarding the Recognition of 
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Endangered Species 
Act to assign separate legal status under the Act for chimpanzees held 
in captivity. Other commenters noted that captive chimpanzee population 
in the U.S. qualifies as a ``distinct population segment'' under the 
plain language of the Act and the interagency policy on distinct 
population segments.
    Our Response: Based upon an examination of the language, purpose, 
operation of key provisions, and the legislative history of the Act, 
the Service has concluded that it does not have the discretion to 
assign legal status under the Act for captive specimens of chimpanzees 
separate from their wild counterparts, which includes designating 
captive chimpanzees and wild chimpanzees as separate distinct 
population segments pursuant to our 1996 policy regarding the 
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the 
Endangered Species Act. Although the Service's 1990 final 
reclassification rule for chimpanzees, issued prior to the promulgation 
of the 1996 policy, designated captive and wild chimpanzees as separate 
distinct population segments, that designation was not analyzed as to 
how it was consistent with the statutory standards.
    (34) Comment: The Service received comments indicating that the Act 
does not limit the Service's authority to assign captive animals 
separate legal status from specimens of the same species or subspecies 
that occur in the wild. Some commenters noted that

[[Page 34522]]

nothing in the plain language, purpose, or legislative history of the 
Act precludes according separate legal status to captive animals and 
their wild counterparts. Other commenters maintained that the Act 
provides broad authority to the Service to carry out animal 
conservation and protection requirements, as well as flexibility for 
the agency to take a variety of regulatory approaches.
    Our Response: We agree that nothing in the Act expressly specifies 
whether or not captive specimens can or cannot have separate legal 
status based on their captive state. However, our analysis of the 
language, purpose, operation, and legislative history of the Act, when 
considered together, indicates that Congress did not intend for captive 
specimens of wildlife to be subject to separate legal status on the 
basis of their captive state. We believe that this is a reasonable 
construction of the Act and is consistent with our general practice of 
designating the same legal status to captive and wild members of the 
same species.
    As for the authority under the Act to carry out animal conservation 
and protection programs, such programs, as well as other regulatory 
options, are only available if the entity qualifies as an endangered or 
threatened species. For the reasons explained in this final rule, as 
well as past petitions received and comments received during this 
rulemaking, it is possible that captive animals considered as separate 
listable entities would not qualify as endangered or threatened 
species.
    (35) Comment: The Service received comments that this agency action 
overturns 37 years of previous policy according separate conservation 
status of captive chimpanzees without justification. Observing that an 
agency's long-standing policies or statutory interpretations are 
entitled to deference, one commenter indicated that the agency failed 
to explain its reasoning for departing from its prior interpretation 
through this action. Another commenter noted that the Service cannot 
cite to any change in the language of the Act since it adopted the 
split-listing of captive and wild chimpanzees to support its departure 
from its 37-year-old policy.
    Our Response: Because the Service has had no absolute policy or 
practice concerning differentiating the listing status of specimens in 
captivity from those in the wild, but has generally listed captive and 
wild members together, we do not believe that this listing 
determination represents a departure from any policy on that matter. To 
the extent that the commenters maintain that this action is a departure 
from how the Service has previously treated chimpanzees listed under 
the Act, we agree that there has been no statutory change prompting the 
Service to list all chimpanzees as an endangered species. However, the 
Service's 1990 decision to reclassify wild chimpanzees from a 
threatened species to an endangered species, while maintaining the 
threatened species classification for captive chimpanzees, did not 
include a thorough analysis of whether it was appropriate under the Act 
to accord legal status for captive members separate from wild members 
of the same species. In response to a comment that there was no 
legislative history suggesting that captive populations could be 
treated as distinct species and no precedent for doing so, the 1990 
final chimpanzee rule stated only that captive animals are distinct 
from wild populations and have the potential to interbreed when mature, 
an apparent reference to the DPS provision within the Act's definition 
of ``species,'' and that some captive chimpanzees were specifically 
being managed as an interbreeding population. The 1990 final rule also 
noted one situation--the Nile crocodile--where the Service had 
previously listed captive specimens separately from wild specimens.
    In response to the issues raised in this petition, we evaluated the 
language, purposes, operation, and legislative history of the Act to 
reasonably conclude that Congress did not intend for captive 
chimpanzees to be subject to separate legal status on the basis of 
their captive state. After determining that all chimpanzees, including 
captive and wild animals, should be considered a single listable entity 
under the Act, we evaluated the status of the ``species'' to find that 
endangered is the correct conservation status for the chimpanzee. The 
Service's justification for designating all chimpanzees as an 
endangered species was thoroughly detailed in our 12-month finding and 
proposed rule and is explained again here.
    We acknowledge, however, that the Service has indicated in a 
limited number of situations that captive wildlife can have separate 
legal status from wild members of the species. In 1992, the Service 
received a petition to reclassify cotton-top tamarins held in captivity 
in North America and found that the petition presented substantial 
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (58 
FR 64927, December 10, 1993). But the notice provided no analysis of 
how the captive animals could be given separate legal status and no 
further action was taken on the petition. The taxonomic species remains 
listed as an endangered species in its entirety. In 2011, we found that 
a petition to list plains bison did not present substantial information 
indicating that listing may be warranted and in the notice stated that 
we only considered wild bison in the evaluation because the Service did 
not consider it to be within the intent of the Act to consider bison 
``in commercial herds'' for listing (76 FR 10299, February 24, 2011). 
This notice did not contain a thorough analysis like that conducted in 
response to the antelope petitions or this petition, however, and we 
likely would not reach the same conclusion today.
    Other than the chimpanzee listing decision in 1990, there is only 
one time where we have given separate legal status to captive specimens 
on the basis of their captive state. On June 17, 1987, we published a 
final rule reclassifying captive Nile crocodiles in Zimbabwe from an 
endangered species to a threatened species (52 FR 23148). The rule 
provided no explanation for how captive Nile crocodiles in Zimbabwe 
could qualify as a separate listed entity, however, and appears to have 
been based on a concurrent change in the specimens' status under CITES 
from Appendix I to Appendix II, not on any analysis under the Act. The 
differing listings statuses for captive and wild Zimbabwe Nile 
crocodiles were resolved a little more than a year later when wild Nile 
crocodiles in Zimbabwe were also reclassified from endangered to 
threatened (53 FR 38451, September 30, 1988). Importantly, both the 
chimpanzee and the Nile crocodile split listings were completed prior 
to the development of our 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996) and thus before we had fully considered the appropriateness of 
separate legal status for captive specimens under the Act.
    (36) Comment: The Service has not followed certain legal procedures 
required in publishing the proposed listing rule. Specifically, the 
Service failed to make certain documents available for review and 
comment by the public. In addition, the Service failed to have this 
regulatory action reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, as required by Executive Order 12866.
    Our Response: The Service observed all procedural requirements in 
promulgating this listing determination. Consistent with the 
Administrative Procedure Act, all information upon which this 
determination is based was identified in the Service's listing proposal 
in order to allow for meaningful public comment on this rulemaking. 
Additionally, as noted in

[[Page 34523]]

the Conference Report to the 1982 Amendments to the Act, economic 
factors cannot be considered when assessing the legal status of a 
species under the Act. Thus, this action is not subject to review by 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs pursuant to Executive 
Order 12866.
    (37) Comment: The Service contends that captive chimpanzees cannot 
qualify as a species because they have no ``habitat'' or ``range.'' 
However, the Act's definitions of ``species,'' ``habitat,'' or 
``range'' does not require the Service to list all chimpanzees as an 
endangered species. Just because the Service may interpret ``range'' as 
the ``geographical area where the species is found in the wild,'' this 
does not mean that the Act precludes a definition which would encompass 
geographic areas where animals are held in captivity.
    Our Response: We agree that nothing in the Act, including its 
definition of ``species,'' ``endangered species,'' or ``threatened 
species,'' expressly precludes designating legal status under the Act 
for captive chimpanzees based on their captive state. However, as part 
of our evaluation as to whether captive and wild chimpanzees can have 
separate legal status, we reviewed, among other things, the language of 
the Act. Although the Act does not contain a definition of the term 
``range,'' the Service has consistently interpreted that term to mean 
the geographical area where the species is found in the wild. Thus, 
given the Service's consistent interpretation of ``range,'' among other 
things, we have found that inconsistencies would exist under a 
determination of separate legal status for captive animals. Overall, we 
believe that the analysis shows that our interpretations of ``range'' 
and ``species'' are consistent with Congress' intent and the most 
appropriate approach under the Act.
    (38) Comment: Nothing in the Act's permitting provisions under 
section 10(a)(1) of the Act or any other provision addressing 
exceptions for animals in captivity precludes the Service from issuing 
a split-listing. Thus, there is no inconsistency between the listing 
procedures of the Act and those provisions that permit otherwise 
unlawful activities that would result from designating legal status to 
animals held in captivity from members of the same species or 
subspecies that occur in the wild.
    Our Response: We believe the exceptions in section 9(b)(1) and 
section 9(b)(2), as well as the availability of permits for the 
propagation of the species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act, shows 
that Congress intended that captive animals would generally have the 
same legal status as their counterparts. Otherwise, if captive 
specimens could simply be excluded through the listing process, none of 
these provisions would be needed.
    (39) Comment: The case law cited by the Service does not require 
that captive chimpanzees be listed with the same conservation status as 
wild chimpanzees.
    Our Response: We agree that there is no case law specifically 
addressing whether captive chimpanzees must be listed with the same 
conservation status as wild chimpanzees. However, the decision in Alsea 
Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D.Or. 2001), in which 
the Court found that captive specimens, in that case hatchery fish, 
cannot simply be excluded under the Act when they are members of the 
listable entity, supports our conclusion that other potential 
approaches besides separate designation as a DPS cannot be used to 
provide separate legal status under the Act for captive specimens from 
their wild counterparts.
    (40) Comment: In its factual findings promulgated in the 1990 rule 
to reclassify wild chimpanzees as endangered species, the Service 
indicated that to the extent self-sustaining breeding groups of captive 
chimpanzees provide surplus animals for research and other purposes, 
there may be reduced probability that other individuals of that species 
will be removed from the wild. The Service's failure to address or 
distinguish its 1990 finding that research with captive chimpanzees may 
conserve the wild chimpanzee population is irrational and inconsistent 
with the Act's purpose to promote conservation of the species.
    Our Response: In this listing action, we examined whether captive 
chimpanzees create or contribute to threats to the species or remove or 
reduce threats to the species. Although we stated in the 1990 rule that 
captive chimpanzees may reduce the probability that individuals of the 
species would be removed from the wild, we found that given that 
threats to wild chimpanzees have expanded and intensified since 1990, 
and capture for the illegal pet trade continues to be a major threat, 
it doesn't appear that the availability of captive chimpanzees have 
reduced any threats to the species. Therefore, we disagree that our 
analysis is irrational and inconsistent with the purposes of the Act.
    (41) Comment: Excluding captive species is consistent with the 
Act's purposes, set forth in section 2(b), because it provides a pool 
of genetic diversity and stock which can form the basis for 
repopulation in the wild, or provide important research that assists in 
wild species management and protection. As long as maintenance of a 
captive population presents no threat to the species in the wild and 
may assist in their conservation and protection, there is no barrier in 
law to their exclusion.
    Our Response: We disagree that the Act allows the Service to 
exclude captive chimpanzees as long as they provide no threat to their 
wild counterparts or may assist in their conservation and protection. 
While captive animals may provide stock for reintroduction efforts or 
provide important research for management and protection of the species 
in the wild, we reasonably concluded that Congress did not intend for 
captive chimpanzees to be subject to separate legal status under the 
Act from specimens that occur in the wild based on the language, 
purposes, operation of key provisions, and the legislative history of 
the Act. In addition, sections 9 and 10 of the Act contain provisions 
that allow the development and maintenance of genetically diverse 
captive stock for use in reintroductions or research that assists the 
species in the wild while at the same time providing these animals the 
appropriate legal protections under the Act.
    (42) Comment: The petition requests the Service for a new legal 
opinion, as well as a repeal of the current 4(d) rule that applies to 
captive chimpanzees; however, the Act does not provide the public a 
right to petition for these types of relief.
    Our Response: In making our 90-day finding, we determined that the 
petition clearly identified itself as a petition under the Endangered 
Species Act to request reclassification of captive chimpanzees from 
threatened species to endangered species and contained the requisite 
information required of petitions under our implementing regulations at 
50 CFR 424.14(a). In a subsequent October 2010 letter, the petitioners 
clarified that their petitioned action was to list the entire species 
as an endangered species, whether in the wild or in captivity. Thus, we 
found that the petition to reclassify chimpanzees was appropriate under 
the Act. The petitioners did not petition for a new legal opinion. The 
petitioners also did not specifically petition for revision of the 4(d) 
rule as applied to chimpanzees, although petitioning for such a 
rulemaking is available under the Administrative Procedure Act and our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(a).
    (43) Comment: Listing captive chimpanzees as endangered species is

[[Page 34524]]

not warranted. No scientific information, substantial or otherwise, has 
been presented suggesting that U.S. captive chimpanzees meet the 
listing criteria set forth in the law and are in danger of extinction. 
By the Service's own account, the availability of captive chimpanzees 
has had, at worst, a neutral effect on wild populations.
    Our Response: All chimpanzees, including captive and wild animals, 
are considered by the Service to be a single listable entity under the 
Act for the reasons explained in the proposed rule and this final rule. 
As such, we did not evaluate whether captive chimpanzees, alone, met 
the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species'' 
due to the five factors under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Rather, in 
our review of the status of the ``species'' pursuant to section 4(b)(1) 
of the Act, we properly applied the five factors under section 4(a)(1) 
to the species, including considering the extent to which captive 
chimpanzees create or contribute to the threats to the species or 
remove or reduce threats to the species in order to determine that all 
chimpanzees are in danger of extinction.
    (44) Comment: The Service hypothesizes that if captive and wild 
specimens have different legal status under the Act, there will be 
increased poaching, smuggling, and laundering of protected wild 
specimens, and that wild populations would decline while survival of 
the species would depend on unprotected members in captivity. However, 
these hypotheticals cannot serve as valid authority for eliminating the 
separate legal status of captive and wild chimpanzees under the Act 
because the Service recognizes that, despite the current 
classification, trade in wild chimpanzee specimens has in fact been 
limited.
    Our Response: Although we noted that legal trade in wild chimpanzee 
specimens has been limited, that finding does not affect our conclusion 
that chimpanzees, including captive and wild animals, should be treated 
as a single listable entity, which is consistent with how we have 
evaluated other species. In evaluating whether we have discretion to 
provide separate legal status for captive chimpanzees, we found that 
Congress did not intend for captive specimens to be subject to separate 
legal status on the basis of their captive state, in part because of 
the potential consequences of such designation. The Service 
appropriately considered the conservation consequences of designating 
legal status under the Act to captive members separate from wild 
members of the same species in order to determine whether such 
designation would be consistent with the purposes of the Act and 
Congress' intent. Given the potential for increased take and trade in 
``laundered'' wild-caught specimens that would generally be 
indistinguishable from unprotected and unregulated captive specimens, 
we concluded that separate legal status under the Act for captive 
animals would be inconsistent with the purpose under section 2(b) of 
the Act.

Required Determinations

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 for the listing, delisting, or 
reclassification of species. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A list of all references cited in this document is available at 
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086, 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 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.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)'' (``Wherever 
found in the wild''); and
0
b. Removing the entry for ``Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)'' (``Wherever 
found in captivity'').
    The revision reads 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              ...................  ..................  ..................  ............  .................  ...........  ...........
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Chimpanzee......................  Pan troglodytes....  Africa............  Entire............  E                  16, 376, 852           NA           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.40 by revising paragraph (c)(1) and removing 
paragraph (c)(3).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  17.40  Special rules--mammals.

    (c) * * *
    (1) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, all 
provisions of Sec.  17.31 apply to the lesser slow loris (Nycticebus 
pygmaeus); Philippine tarsier (Tarsius syrichta); white-footed tamarin 
(Saguinus leucopus); black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra); stump-tailed 
macaque (Macaca arctoides); gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada); 
Formosan rock macaque (Macaca cyclopis); Japanese macaque (Macaca 
fuscata); Toque macaque (Macaca sinica); long-tailed langur (Presbytis 
potenziani); purple-faced langur

[[Page 34525]]

(Presbytis senex); and Tonkin snub-nosed langur (Pygathrix 
[Rhinopithecus] avunculus).
* * * * *

    Dated: June 1, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-14232 Filed 6-12-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P