Resolutions, Agenda Items, and Species Changes Proposed by the United States for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 23

Resolutions, Agenda Items, and Species Changes Proposed by the

United States for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision on U.S. submissions to the Convention on

International Trade in Endangered Species.

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

SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES or Convention) regulates international

trade in certain animals and plants. Species for which trade is

controlled are listed in Appendices I, II, and III to CITES. The United

States as a Party to the Convention may (1) propose amendments to the

appendices for consideration by the other Parties at the biennial

meetings of the Conference of the Parties, (2) submit topics for

inclusion in the agenda of these meetings, and (3) submit resolutions

to improve the implementation of the Convention for consideration at

these meetings.

In this notice, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

announces the species proposals to amend Appendices I and II, agenda

items, and resolutions submitted by the United States for consideration

at the ninth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES

(COP9) scheduled for November 7-18, 1994, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

ADDRESSES: Requests for information concerning species proposals

discussed in this notice may be directed to Chief, Office of Scientific

Authority; Mail Stop: ARLSQ Room 725; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

Washington, DC 20240. The fax number is 703-358-2276. Express and

messenger-delivered mail should be addressed to the Office of

Scientific Authority; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, room 750; Arlington,

Virginia. Information relative to agenda items and proposed resolutions

should be submitted to Chief, Office of Management Authority, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, room 420C, Arlington,

Virginia 22203. The fax number is 703-358-2280. Any information

received is available for public inspection, by appointment, from 8

a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Arlington, Virginia

address.

Copies of resolutions and species proposals submitted by the United

States are available on request by contacting the Office of Scientific

Authority or Office of Management Authority, as appropriate, at the

above addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Charles W. Dane, Chief, Office of

Scientific Authority, at the above address, telephone 703-358-1708, or

Marshall Jones, Chief, Office of Management Authority, telephone 703-

358-2095.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as CITES or the Convention, is

an international treaty designed to control and regulate international

trade in certain animal and plant species which are or may become

threatened with extinction, and are listed in Appendices to the

Convention. Currently, 122 countries, including the United States, are

CITES Parties. The Convention calls for biennial meetings of the

Conference of the Parties that review its implementation, make

provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat in Switzerland to carry out

its functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices

I and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make

recommendations for the improved effectiveness of the Convention. COP9

will be held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, November 7-18, 1994.

This is part of a series of notices that, together with public

meetings, encourage the public to participate in the development of the

U.S. positions for COP9. A Federal Register notice published on July

15, 1993 (58 FR 38112), requested information and comments from the

public on animal or plant species the United States might consider as

possible amendments to the Appendices. A Federal Register notice

published on November 18, 1993 (58 FR 60873), requested public comments

on possible revisions to the criteria for listing species in the CITES

Appendices. A Federal Register notice published on January 27, 1994 (59

FR 3832) requested additional comments from the public on animal or

plant species that the United States was considering submitting as

proposed amendments to the Appendices. A Federal Register notice

published on January 28, 1994 (59 FR 4096): (1) Published the time and

place for COP9; (2) announced a public meeting for February 22, 1994,

to discuss the 31st meeting of the CITES Standing Committee; (3)

detailed the provisional agenda for COP9; and (4) requested information

and comments from the public on possible COP9 agenda items and

resolutions that the United States might submit. The Service's

regulations governing this public process are found in Title 50 of the

Code of Federal Regulations Secs. 23.31-23.39.

After review of public comments and all available information, the

proposals, agenda items, and draft resolutions announced in this notice

were submitted by the Service and received by the Convention's

Secretariat on June 10, 1994, the deadline for consideration at COP9.

Any proposed amendments to the Appendices adopted by the Parties

will become effective on February 16, 1995, unless the United States

enters a reservation before that time. The Service will publish a

notice of proposed rulemaking to implement such amendments.

Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Species Proposals

Decisions about suggested U.S. proposals discussed in the previous

notice of January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3832) are as follows:

Species Proposals Not Submitted

1. Narwhal (Monodon monoceros). The Environmental Investigation

Agency (EIA) proposed that the narwhal be transferred from Appendix II

to Appendix I of CITES. The range of the narwhal is circumpolar in

Arctic waters, mostly north of 65 degrees North Latitude, although it

occurs in greater densities in waters north of the Atlantic than in

waters north of the Pacific Ocean. There is some north-south seasonal

movement in response to climate and ice development. Between Canada and

Greenland, narwhals summer in high densities in the eastern Canadian

Arctic and off northwest Greenland, with smaller summering groups

occurring in many other locations. Narwhals also occur in some

concentration along the east coast of Greenland. There is evidence

suggesting that the populations on the east and west coasts of

Greenland belong to separate stocks.

Three populations of narwhals were reviewed in 1992 by the Small

Cetacean Sub-Committee of the Scientific Committee of the International

Whaling Commission (IWC): (1) Hudson Bay, including northern Hudson Bay

and western Hudson Strait; (2) Baffin Bay, including the eastern

Canadian Arctic Archipelago and western Greenland; and (3) East

Greenland and the Barents Sea. The Hudson Bay stock has been

conservatively estimated at 1300 animals. The Small Cetacean Sub-

Committee estimated the Baffin Bay stock at 27,580 to 42,520. No good

estimates are available for the East Greenland/Barents Sea population,

although it is considerably smaller than the other stocks. Relatively

small numbers of narwhals are reported from other parts of the species'

range. Because of the difficulty in surveying narwhals, most abundance

estimates for the species have large variances and require careful

interpretation.

Narwhals are hunted for maktag (blubber/skin), meat, and their

tusks. Maktag is consumed by the Inuit, and meat is (or has been in the

past) used as dog food, although both commodities are also sold on a

limited basis. The tusks are utilized domestically for carving, and are

sold as souvenirs, either as carved products or as intact tusks.

(Females only occasionally develop tusks.) The majority of tusks taken

in Canadian waters apparently remain in the country, while the bulk of

narwhal ivory taken in Greenland is shipped to Denmark (perhaps as much

as 90 percent annually) where much is exported to other countries in

the European Union (EU).

In 1976, Canada imposed quotas on the take of narwhals, which it

regulates by issuing tags to be affixed to each animal taken. Tusks

from these animals that enter trade must have the tag attached to show

that the animal from which it was removed was legally taken under the

quota system. The Greenland Home Rule Government sets no quotas for

narwhals and no tracking except for those animals that enter

international trade, and, therefore, require CITES permits. Since 1985

Greenland has not been a member of the EU, therefore a no detriment

finding is necessary for the issuance of CITES export permits by the

Greenland Home Rule Government, and for import permits by EU countries

under EU regulations, even though the narwhal is an Appendix II

species. However, Greenland sets restrictions on who is allowed to hunt

and the manner in which hunts are conducted.

Eight comments were received during the comment period, five

favoring amending the listing of narwhal from Appendix II to Appendix

I, and three opposed to this change.

The Society for Animal Protective Legislation (SAPL), The Humane

Society of the United States (HSUS), the American Humane Association

(AHA), the Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders), and EIA all expressed

support for an Appendix I listing of the narwhal.

The HSUS indicated that Canada and Greenland continue to hunt

narwhals and export tusks in large numbers (Greenland being the largest

exporter), and that the annual net trade in tusks nearly doubled from

1985-1990. (Prior to 1985 when Greenland began issuing its own CITES

export permits, the movement of tusks from Greenland to Denmark was not

considered international trade, therefore pre- and post-1985 trade

figures cannot be compared equally). They also state that trade figures

do not reflect the total numbers of narwhals taken because for each

actual take there are three to four injured or killed animals lost.

Even though information is limited, HSUS believe that reproductive

rates among narwhals is low, and that in 1981 the world population was

estimated at approximately 20,000 animals and declining. HSUS asserted

that narwhals should be listed in Appendix I as a precautionary measure

because status information is limited, information on reproduction and

natural mortality is lacking, and information on actual numbers hunted

is unavailable.

The AHA indicated that new export markets have caused narwhal ivory

prices to increase in Canada following a price decline in the mid-

1980's, which has returned ivory prices to about the same prices as

existed in the early 1980's. This increase in the price of narwhal

ivory prices has suggested that ivory rather than maktag and meat has

become the basis of modern hunting in eastern Canada. AHA noted that

take quotas have not been imposed by Greenland, and that there are no

controls on trade in ivory. However, as previously mentioned, since

1985 a no detriment finding is necessary for the issuance of CITES

export permits by Greenland and for an import permit by Denmark.

Defenders also asserted that the prime motivation for the take of

narwhal in recent years has been the ivory, stimulated by new export

markets and a resurgence in the price of ivory since the mid-1980's,

which has biased take to the adult males. They feel that this could

jeopardize narwhal population structure by the removal of a larger

number of males. They contended that the current CITES listing of the

narwhal in Appendix II does not provide adequate monitoring of take

because there is not a substantial domestic market for narwhal tusks in

Canada, and yet export permits were issued for fewer than half the

tusks obtained in Canadian narwhal hunts between 1975 and 1990. From

this, Defenders concluded that a large number of tusks must have been

exported without CITES permits, but presented no evidence for this

conclusion. Therefore, due to the uncertainty and concern surrounding

the catch levels of narwhals for the ivory market, Defenders supported

an Appendix I listing.

The EIA submitted comments that supported their original proposal

that the narwhal be included in Appendix I. They provided an estimate

of 28,000 narwhal in the combined Canada-Greenland High Arctic

population. They discussed the utilization of maktag and meat, the

demand for narwhal ivory in Canada, and the export of Greenland ivory

to Denmark and on into the EU. The decline in ivory prices of the early

1980's has, according to EIA, now returned to about those same levels.

EIA pointed out the absence of quotas on take of narwhal in Greenland,

suggested that the application of quotas in Canada is inadequate, and

that the number of narwhal taken does not reflect actual take numbers

because of the loss of wounded or killed animals before they are

landed. They also pointed out the difficulty of assessing the

relationship between the market demand for ivory and hunting intensity.

EIA believed that additional information on life history, distribution,

abundance, and hunting loss rates was needed to assess the stocks and

the impacts of trade in the various parts derived from narwhal in order

to properly manage the stocks.

The Greenland Home Rule Government and the Fisheries Agency of

Japan (FAJ) objected to transferring the narwhal to Appendix I.

Greenland did not agree that narwhals should be placed in Appendix I

due to unsustainable hunting pressures caused by the international

trade in narwhal ivory. They argued that recent population estimates

did not adequately take into account submerged whales, which would give

corrected estimates sufficient to sustain hunting pressures greater

than current harvest levels. They also maintained that low levels of

ivory export reported for Greenland before 1985 are partially an

artifact of the change in their political designation at that time,

prior to which the shipment of ivory to Denmark was not considered as

an export. They noted that, even though there are no catch quotas for

Greenland, there are strict regulations on catch reporting, vessel

sizes, etc., and that there are two reserve areas in Greenland waters

where narwhal are protected. Generally, the FAJ felt that a listing in

Appendix I should be based only on scientific evidence that there is a

threat to extinction and that trade control is necessary for the

protection of the species. Furthermore, the FAJ noted that the narwhal

is already in Appendix II, providing some control of trade and a

mechanism for collecting trade data, and that in the absence of new

information indicating a deterioration in the status of the species

there is no need for consideration of a change to Appendix I.

The Government of Canada also does not agree with an Appendix I

proposal for the narwhal. They feel that recent estimates of the

Canadian High Arctic stocks are low by as much as 50 percent due to an

underestimation of the time narwhals spend under water (as indicated in

the 1992 Report of the Sub- Committee on Small Cetaceans of the

International Whaling Commission), and that this larger population size

can sustain current catch levels. They also feel that their catch

quotas are adequate.

The U.S. Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) does not support an

Appendix I listing for the narwhal at this time, but noted that Canada

and Greenland should be encouraged to obtain additional and better

information on the status and trends of narwhal stocks, and on harvest

levels (particularly regarding animals that are struck and lost during

hunting).

In developing its position, the National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) took note of the continuing question about the sustainability of

the take of narwhal, particularly noting the difficulties in obtaining

data, such as population levels, catch levels and loss rates, and in

obtaining trade data for narwhals. Because of this uncertainty, NMFS

decided not to recommend that the United States propose this species

for Appendix I. The Service assessed all information available and

concluded that there was no sufficient information to support listing

this species in Appendix I. The United States will continue to monitor

information on this species as it becomes available in order to better

assess possible recommendations at a later date.

2. Musk deer (Moschus species). The EIA requested that the Service

propose including all species in the genus Moschus in Appendix I. There

are at least four species in the genus, which is widely distributed

across eastern and central Asia. Currently all Moschus species are

included in Appendix II except those populations in Afghanistan,

Bhutan, Burma, India, Nepal, and Pakistan, which are included in

Appendix I. Musk deer were listed in the Appendices due to the trade in

musk, a substance taken from the musk gland of the male and used in

traditional medicines in Asia and in the manufacture of perfumes.

Five comments were received in response to the January 27, 1994,

Federal Register notice. Four commenters (including SAPL) favored the

transfer of all Appendix II populations of musk deer to Appendix I.

TRAFFIC USA, while neither supporting nor opposing an Appendix I

listing, relayed information from TRAFFIC France that the French

perfume industry is using a synthetic musk in some cases, but that

France continues to import 5 to 15 kilograms of musk per year,

primarily from the Russian Federation. The AHA suggested that musk deer

``farming'' operations in China are inadequate to satisfy demands for

musk, and that the existence of a legal musk trade creates a loophole

for illegal trade. Defenders and HSUS reiterated this claim. The AHA

stated that current levels of exploitation of musk deer in Russia,

China and the Himalayas are reported to be unsustainable. Defenders

reported that the price of musk in Hong Kong can be as high as

US$84,000 to US$119,000 per kilogram. They also indicated that there is

not much information available on population numbers of musk deer, but

that it is known that illegal and undocumented trade in musk is

occurring. They state that, ``Estimates indicate that some populations

have been halved during the past five years due to uncontrolled

hunting,'' but no specific information or documented reports were

provided. The HSUS noted the high cost of musk, and stated that this

has led to wide-scale poaching of musk deer. They also reported that an

80 percent decline has occurred in one population of musk deer in

Russia. The HSUS claimed that in China musk deer populations are

declining rapidly due to over-exploitation.

Comments received provided little additional or substantive

information on the distribution and status of musk deer, or on

international trade in musk, aside from anecdotal reports of increased

poaching and the high cost of musk. The People's Republic of China

claims that there are 500,000 to 1 million musk deer in China, and

plans a comprehensive survey. Russia indicated there are about 150,000

musk deer in Russia, and harvests are not allowed in areas where

populations are decreasing. In Russia, musk deer are protected in 18

reserves and other federal and local preserves, and the Sakhalin musk

deer is listed in the Red Data Book. Based on these protective

measures, the Russian Management Authority felt that it is premature to

amend the listing of the musk deer to Appendix I. Mongolia provided

conflicting remarks; they indicated support for an Appendix I listing

of the musk deer in their cover letter, but in their attached

discussion of the species they stated that the Mongolian musk deer

should be kept in Appendix II.

The Service does not believe that population or trend data are

sufficient to support a proposal to transfer the Appendix II

populations of musk deer to Appendix I, and did not submit such a

proposal.

3. Copperbelly water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster). The Service has

proposed to list the northern subspecies of the copperbelly water

snake, N. e. neglecta, as a threatened species under the Endangered

Species Act, 58 FR 43860 (August 18, 1993). The species is restricted

to the lower Ohio River Valley and the lower Wabash River Valley in

Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky, and in southern Michigan, Indiana, and

Ohio. There have been recent population declines and it now exists in

isolated pockets of suitable habitat.

Only the HSUS provided comments, and supported the listing of the

species in Appendix II. Although the proposed rule suggested that

removal from the wild by amateur collectors posed some threat to this

species, no additional information on trade in the species was

received, and existing reports of international trade are several years

old. Therefore, on the basis of this record the Service is not

persuaded that the available information on trade would warrant a

proposal to include this species in Appendix II.

4. Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). The Service received a draft

proposal from ICCAT Watch, a coalition consisting of the National

Audubon Society (NAS), the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), and

the World Wildlife Fund- US (WWF-US), to list the bluefin tuna

throughout the Atlantic Ocean on Appendix II and additionally, the

western Atlantic population on Appendix I. Later, ICCAT Watch withdrew

its request to list the western Atlantic population in Appendix I.

The January 27, 1994, Federal Register notice gave current

information about the Atlantic bluefin tuna including management by the

International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT),

recent stock assessments for the western and eastern stocks, recent

estimates of fishing mortality rates, reductions in harvest quotas

recommended at the 1993 Regular Meeting of ICCAT for the years 1994 and

1995, and plans for the implementation of a Bluefin Statistical

Document to be required for the import of bluefin tuna by ICCAT

countries. The next Regular Meeting of ICCAT will be held in December

1994.

It was noted in the FR notice that according to the Standing

Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT (SCRS) and NMFS

scientists there is uncertainty about an appropriate boundary between

the western and eastern populations of bluefin tuna. At the request of

the Department of Commerce, the National Academy of Sciences has

conducted an independent review on the ``Scientific Basis of Management

of the Fisheries for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna,'' which evaluated

information on stock structure as well as recent population

assessments. The report was presented to the Department of Commerce on

August 31, 1994. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) has named a team of experts to evaluate the findings and make

recommendations about policy and management issues.

Within the comment period, the Service received a total of 83

comments on the possible CITES listing of this species from the general

public, commercial and recreational fishers and fishing organizations,

conservation organizations, and foreign governments. Of these, 73

supported a listing of the Atlantic bluefin tuna in Appendix II, 8

opposed any listing under CITES, and 2 did not specifically oppose or

support a listing. (Comments from the Russian Government were received

after the comment period closed.)

The Executive Secretary of ICCAT conveyed the comments of the

Chairman of ICCAT. While not commenting on the appropriateness of a

CITES listing, the Chairman drew attention to steps that ICCAT had

recently taken to improve the conservation of Atlantic bluefin tuna,

including:

1. Drastically reducing the allowable catch for western Atlantic

bluefin tuna;

2. Introducing an effective measure for monitoring international

trade through the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Program;

3. Undertaking or developing other methods to improve data

collection;

4. Encouraging expansion of research and analysis with a goal of

having the basis to develop a program at the Commission meeting in 1995

aimed at achieving a 50 percent increase from current levels in the

spawning stock biomass of the western stock by the year 2008; and

5. Adopting an amendment to ICCAT that would allow the European

Union to be a Contracting Party to ICCAT and hence expand the number of

countries adhering to the ICCAT recommendations.

Commenters opposed to an Appendix II listing for Atlantic bluefin

tuna (including the Global Guardian Trust, the National Fisheries

Institute, Inc., and the International Coalition of Fisheries

Associations) generally believed that measures recommended by ICCAT are

being implemented according to schedule, and that the steps taken by

ICCAT represent significant progress in improving reporting

requirements and management measures. Therefore, they felt that it is

not necessary or appropriate to consider a CITES listing until the

effectiveness of these steps can be evaluated.

The Japan Fisheries Association contended that international

organizations for the management of living resources, such as ICCAT,

are designed to conserve and manage resources that are at higher stock

levels than are resources that would be listed under CITES, and that

species listed under CITES are being protected from possible

``extinction.'' Therefore, they believe that listing species such as

the Atlantic bluefin tuna under CITES would require a digression from

the objectives of CITES, and would also go against ``the principle of

sustainable development.''

The Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations

felt that a CITES listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna would not ensure its

conservation because CITES does not have authority to limit harvest.

They suggested that no conclusions should be drawn concerning the

status of the species until a peer review of information about the

existence of two stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna is completed. The

Federation also contends that the species is not currently threatened

with extinction, nor is it likely to become so, therefore it does not

meet criteria for listing under CITES.

The East Coast Tuna Association maintained that recent assessments

and future projections concerning the western stock of Atlantic bluefin

tuna are ``extraordinarily controversial,'' to the extent that the NMFS

has requested the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a peer review

of data and information supporting these assessments as well as the

two-stock hypothesis. They believed that a CITES listing would be

redundant and would likely penalize only those fishermen who now

participate in the ICCAT program.

The FAJ felt that it is essential that any CITES listing be based

on scientific evidence that there is a threat of extinction to a

species and that trade control is necessary for the protection of the

species. They contended that a species should not be listed only for

the purpose of collecting trade data, especially if an international

organization is already collecting such data. They believed that an

Appendix II listing of Atlantic bluefin tuna would impose undue burdens

on the enforcement capabilities of many countries. They also state that

protection of wildlife cannot be accomplished through regulation of

trade alone, but harvesting should be regulated, and that CITES is not

capable of harvest regulation. Also, they believed that the interests

of range states should be considered based on consultations, and range

states have not been contacted. The First Secretary (Fisheries),

Embassy of Japan, essentially supported these contentions.

As an ICCAT member, the Russian Ministry of Protection of the

Environment and Natural Resources felt that ICCAT's regulation of take

by annual quota and the Statistical Documentation Program provide

strict controls for use of the Atlantic bluefin tuna. They also did not

think that the species is threatened with extinction and therefore was

not eligible for a CITES listing.

TRAFFIC USA submitted a detailed analysis of international trade in

all species of bluefin tuna, including species not recommended in the

proposal for listing. The data indicated that a large quantity of

bluefin tuna is traded by countries that are not parties to ICCAT,

although not all the bluefin tuna analyzed by the document are caught

in the Atlantic. However, the basis for this analysis was import data

from three countries that report customs data in a uniform way, Japan,

New Zealand, and the United States. Although Japan is identified in the

report as importing the majority of bluefin tuna (perhaps two-thirds),

statistics for other major consuming nations, including some non-ICCAT

countries, are not available.

The NAS felt that adding Atlantic bluefin tuna to Appendix II would

help provide information needed for population assessment models and

effective management, but would not alter or reduce current traffic in

tuna. Although they were encouraged by ICCAT's catch-quota

recommendations, they were discouraged by the lack of data from non-

ICCAT countries, such as Italy and Mexico. They believe that a CITES

listing would elicit data from non-ICCAT countries, which would

facilitate assessment of fishing by non-ICCAT countries, particularly

in spawning areas. The Wisconsin Audubon Council, the Audubon Council

of New York State, the Napa-Solano Audubon Society, the Cape Arago

Audubon Society, the New York Sportfishing Federation, ICCAT Watch, the

New York Zoological Society, Environment Liaison Centre International,

the Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association, the HSUS, Defenders,

the CMC, and the EIA all reiterated these sentiments. The Animal

Protection Institute indicated a lack of faith in ICCAT's ability to

manage the Atlantic bluefin tuna, and felt that a CITES listing would

provide a better opportunity to monitor the effects of trade,

especially because it would include all non-ICCAT countries.

NMFS does not believe that Atlantic bluefin tuna should be proposed

for inclusion in Appendix II of CITES at this time, and has concluded

that ICCAT members should be given adequate time to implement

appropriate fishery controls, to implement fully the Bluefin

Statistical Document Program, and to develop procedures for the use of

enforcement-enhancing trade measures with respect to ICCAT's

conservation program. After that time the incremental benefits of a

CITES listing could be assessed. NMFS feels that preliminary analysis

of data collected through the Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document will

allow evaluation of the effectiveness of this program in calculating

and monitoring trade in Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Given the possibility of ecological extinction, and/or the

vulnerability to significant population losses due to trade or

overexploitation, the Atlantic bluefin tuna would qualify biologically

for listing in Appendix II of CITES. However, based on available

information on management measures to conserve the species, the Service

believes that a listing should not be proposed at this time.

Significant quota reductions have occurred in 1994 and additional

reductions are planned for 1995. The eastern Atlantic population of

bluefin tuna appears to be more productive than its western

counterpart. Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna mature at about age 5 while

western Atlantic bluefin tuna reach maturity at about age 8, and

recruitment is relatively much higher in the eastern Atlantic. However,

fishing mortality rates on immature fish in the eastern Atlantic are

exceedingly high, with 30-60 percent of the landings in recent years

comprising fish less than the minimum size of 6.4 kg. recommended by

ICCAT in 1975. The most recent estimate of a overall fishing mortality

is 4-6 times the levels that would be expected to produce the maximum

sustainable yield. An assessment of the eastern Atlantic and

Mediterranean stocks is scheduled by the SCRS in preparation for

discussions at the 1994 Regular Meeting of ICCAT.

Implementation of the Statistical Document Program now required for

all imports into ICCAT countries will provide more information on

Atlantic bluefin tuna harvests than would CITES certificates or export

permits, although ICCAT has not yet required the collection of such

information for imports/landings in non-ICCAT countries. Harvest

information would be further enhanced if non-ICCAT countries, and the

European Union, became members.

The decision of the Service to forgo proposing a CITES listing is

significantly influenced by the Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation

measures adopted at the 1993 annual ICCAT meeting in Madrid. In

opposing the listing of the Atlantic bluefin tuna at the 1992 CITES

meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) in Kyoto, Japan,

representatives for ICCAT argued that ICCAT, not CITES, was the

appropriate international vehicle for implementing necessary

conservation measures for Atlantic bluefin tuna. In response to this

approach, the United States delegation to the 1993 ICCAT meeting

proposed and secured significant quota reductions for the western

population of Atlantic bluefin tuna.

Another factor supporting the decision of the Service is the

progress made by the Permanent Working Group of ICCAT in April 1994 in

fashioning a proposal (to be discussed further at the ICCAT plenary

meeting in late 1994) for trade measures to be used as an ICCAT

enforcement tool.

From the point of view of NMFS, the adoption of quota reductions

for 1994 and 1995 demonstrated ICCAT's resolve to maintain the

leadership role in the conservation of the bluefin tuna. However, in

the event that appropriate conservation measures are not adopted by

ICCAT or prove to be inadequate, the Service will reconsider proposing

this species for listing in a CITES Appendix, through a postal

procedure if listing is thought to be necessary prior to the next

Conference of the Parties.

5. Requiem (Carcharhinidae) and hammerhead (Sphyrnidae) sharks.

Requiem and hammerhead shark species occur in pelagic and/or coastal

waters worldwide, mostly in tropical to temperate regions. Sizes range

from the white, mako, and great hammerhead at over 3 m, to smaller

coastal species as the sandbar and scalloped hammerhead sharks. They

are predators of various types. Fertilization and development of young

is, in most species, internal, and young are born as active, fully

developed, and relatively large individuals. The number of young in a

brood is usually small (about 2 to 25), but the relative maturity at

birth usually results in high survival rates. Often gestation periods

are long (up to 1 year). There are no population size estimates over

large areas for sharks.

Eight responses concerning these sharks were received within the

comment period; four favored their listing in Appendix II, and four

were opposed to a listing.

The CMC, NAS, and HSUS, along with other commenters, stated that

because large sharks are slow to reach sexual maturity and reproduce at

long intervals, they must be managed more conservatively than other

commercial fisheries. They cite the demand for shark fins as probably

the largest factor in the presumed global decline of sharks, although

meat is also in demand, and a new market for shark cartilage as a

cancer treatment has developed. The NAS pointed out that most shark

experts question whether sustainable exploitation of sharks is even

possible and that over 90 percent of the shark fisheries in this

century have failed.

TRAFFIC USA submitted an unpublished paper from the World

Conservation Monitoring Centre on shark fin trade, entitled,

``International Trade in Shark Fins.'' The study was undertaken to

quantify the volume and value of shark fins in international trade, and

to identify the main producer and consumer nations. However, due to the

limited availability of trade data, statistics from only nine countries

were analyzed. The paper calls for closer attention to studies of

trends in shark populations, in order to protect sharks from

overexploitation.

In opposition to a CITES listing, the International Coalition of

Fisheries Associations and the National Fisheries Institute commented

that the lack of available information on population structure,

distribution, abundance, and population trends for these species limit

the presentation of scientific evidence to support a proposal for

listing. They expressed concern that an Appendix II listing might

encourage unilateral actions, such as the U.S. Atlantic coast shark

fishery management plan, that could provide a basis for CITES nations

to determine that their shark production was non-detrimental, rather

than participating in regional cooperative management programs.

The Japan Fisheries Association and the FAJ indicated that

available scientific information does not support listing these shark

species, and that a listing would impose an excessive burden on the

management and scientific authorities of concerned parties to CITES.

NMFS took note of the lack of specific information in many comments

received, and based on this limitation, combined with the lack of

research cross-referencing trade statistics with population trends,

NMFS decided that they would not recommend proposing any shark species

for listing in the CITES Appendices. The Service agrees with this view,

and also feels that the data available on the status of shark species

worldwide are not sufficient to support the listing of all species in

these two families at this time.

6. Whale shark (Rhincodon typus). The whale shark is the only

species in the genus Rhincodon, and occurs worldwide mainly in tropical

and subtropical waters (except in the Mediterranean). It is a large (8-

10 m, and up to 4.5 metric tons), slow, mainly surface dwelling,

plankton-feeder. Historically it appears to have been infrequent in

occurrence; no reliable population estimates seem to exist, and they

are nowhere abundant. The meat is eaten, but it is soft and apparently

brings a low price in most markets. Whale sharks are taken commercially

in a few places around the world (mostly in Asia), especially during

seasons when other more valuable fish species are not available.

Although fins are removed for the shark fin soup trade, some are

considered second grade.

The EIA proposed to the Service that the whale shark be considered

for inclusion in Appendix II of CITES. The Service received nine

comments on the whale shark within the comment period; five supported a

listing and four were opposed. (Most comments were directed to all

sharks, not specifically to the whale shark.)

TRAFFIC USA indicated that TRAFFIC Oceania has undertaken the

collection and analysis of shark species in trade globally, and

enclosed a TRAFFIC USA Newsletter on sharks as well as an unpublished

report entitled, ``International Trade in Shark Fins.'' The CMC noted

that commercial shark fishing is increasing worldwide as the demand for

shark meat and fins continues to expand, and invoked the slow growth

rates, late maturation, and small number of young produced as being

characteristics of sharks in general that also apply to whale sharks

and increase their vulnerability. They indicated that there are

commercial fisheries for whale sharks in waters off India, Pakistan,

China, Senegal, and the Philippines that appear to be expanding, and

noted that the generally coastal habitat of whale sharks and their slow

movements make them vulnerable to boat collisions and harpooning. The

AHA and the NAS reiterated these comments, adding that, as a

precautionary principle, the species should be listed rather than

waiting until additional data and information is accumulated. The HSUS

noted that shark populations in general are considered overexploited,

at least in parts of their range, and, although data are lacking, they

believed that trade in whale shark fins is probably increasing. They

supported a listing in order that data on trade and exploitation might

be collected for the species.

In opposition to the listing of the whale shark, the International

Coalition of Fisheries Associations and the National Fisheries

Institute, Inc. suggested that an Appendix II listing would probably

not affect the limited subsistence fisheries in parts of Asia, but that

it might limit or undermine a more coordinated international approach

that could effectively control mortality. They repeated the comments

from others that there is little or no information on the whale shark's

population structure, distribution, abundance, population trends, or

trade. The Japan Fisheries Association stated that available scientific

information on sharks does not warrant listing these species in any

CITES Appendix. The FAJ essentially agreed with this assessment, adding

that a listing would add an excessive burden to the Management and

Scientific Authorities of the CITES Parties concerned.

NMFS took note of the lack of specific information in many of the

comments received, and, based on this limitation, combined with the

lack of research cross-referencing trade statistics with population

trends, NMFS decided that they would not recommend proposing the whale

shark for listing in a CITES Appendix. NMFS will continue to monitor

work being done in this area in order to better assess possible

recommendations at a later date.

At this time the Service feels that there is insufficient

information on status and international trade to support a proposal to

list the whale shark in Appendix II of CITES. A better understanding of

the possible threats to this species is needed before such a proposal

could be considered. There does not appear to be firm evidence

suggesting that the whale shark has ever been other than infrequent in

occurrence, or that there has been a significant increase in the catch

of this species by the traditional fisheries in Asia.

In lieu of proposals to list the whale shark, requiem sharks, and

hammerhead sharks in the Appendices of CITES, the United States has

submitted an agenda item on trade in shark products for COP9, which is

discussed later in this notice.

7. Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla). American mahogany is

the genus Swietenia, which is native to the neotropics. Two of the

three species are in CITES Appendix II: Swietenia humilis (Pacific

Coast mahogany) including its parts and derivatives, which occurs in

Mexico and Central America; and Swietenia mahagoni (Caribbean mahogany)

including only its logs, sawn wood and veneer, which occurs on some

Caribbean islands and extends to southern Florida. The unlisted

species, Swietenia macrophylla (bigleaf mahogany), occurs from South

America to Mexico; in Costa Rica it evidently forms hybrids naturally

with S. humilis. The United States has become the main importer of wood

from bigleaf mahogany.

During the comment period the Service received 22 responses

relating to the January 27, 1994, Federal Register notice; 17

organizations or individuals favored the United States submitting a

proposal to include Swietenia macrophylla, including only logs, sawn

wood, veneer sheets, and plywood, in Appendix II, and 2 organizations

were opposed.

The favorable responses, sometimes in detail or with substantial

enclosures, were from the company A & M Wood Specialty (Cambridge,

Ontario, Canada); on behalf of the architects of the American Institute

of Architects (AIA) from the Rainforest and Natural Resources Task

Group of the AIA Committee on the Environment; the Fauna and Flora

Preservation Society (London, U.K.); Greenpeace USA; the Natural

Resources Defense Council of Washington, D.C. (NRDC); the Woodworkers

Alliance for Rainforest Protection; some students and staff of Los

Altos High School (Los Altos, California); and the general public (six

letters). In addition, the following persons with particular research

or conservation experience with the species individually supported the

submission of a proposal: Mr. J. Beavers (Schaghticoke, New York); Sr.

L. Quevedo-H. (Santa Cruz, Bolivia); Dr. L.K. Snook (Westport,

Connecticut); and Sr. A. Szwagrzak (La Paz, Bolivia). Moreover, Dr.

J.O. Browder, an Associate Professor in the Department of Urban Affairs

and Planning of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

provided a copy of his recent study on the feasibility of small-holder

mahogany-planting in Rondonia, Brazil; and TRAFFIC USA advised the

Service that it was collaborating with a graduate student of public

policy at Harvard University who was studying the relative importance

of illegal trade in the total trade in the species and the potential

effectiveness of a CITES listing in achieving sustainable harvest and

trade. Subsequently, TRAFFIC USA advised the Service that instead the

study had evolved into hypothetical policy ramifications, and

consequently they did not have such new data and information to

provide.

The responses opposed to the submission of a proposal were from the

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the International Wood Products

Association (IHPA). At the Service's public meeting held on February

22, 1994, the IHPA inquired concerning the responsibilities and process

used by the CITES Plants Committee (CPC) in recommending that proposals

be considered, and the intention of the Service with regard to

circulating potential proposals to the range States for comments, and

whether those comments would be reflected in final positions of the

United States on the species. The Service representatives responded

that the CPC had advisory and technical roles, that the Service

intended to communicate with the range States, and that the views of

range States would be seriously considered. In comments submitted March

14, 1994, IHPA stated that they share a belief that the species does

not qualify for Appendix II. They provided a broad and detailed

commentary of opposition (with enclosures), which covered the three

potential proposals for the several mahoganies. The Service has noted

the particular comments on the genera of African mahoganies in the

section on those genera below.

At COP8, during an informal meeting on whether to include Swietenia

macrophylla in Appendix II, most range States favored the Costa Rica or

U.S. proposals--except Bolivia, Peru, and Honduras. Ultimately the

preferred U.S. proposal was withdrawn because of continuing

disagreement. In keeping with Resolution Conf. 8.21, the Service

provided a draft of the new proposal to the range States in mid-April

1994 and solicited their comments. Prior to the June 10, 1994, deadline

for submission of proposals for COP9, Brazil, Bolivia, and Peru

expressed opposition to the potential proposal, whereas Colombia and El

Salvador expressed support.

The Service has been discussing this topic with the USFS,

particularly regarding concerns about ecological extinction of the

species, and with the U.S. Department of State, regarding the positions

of range States and the effective role of CITES. The Service recognizes

that some have argued that the purchase of CITES-approved mahogany wood

could support sustainable use of this species, since listing requires

the countries where a species is native to find that its export would

not be detrimental to the survival of the species before they issue

export permits.

On June 9, 1994, the Service became aware that The Netherlands had

submitted a proposal for inclusion of this species in Appendix II. The

United States decided not to submit another proposal and to address

unresolved issues, in an effort to reach a consensus on the proposal

that The Netherlands had already submitted for this species. The

Service is now seeking comments on that proposal; see the September 6,

1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR 46023).

8. African mahoganies (Entandrophragma and Khaya). The genera

Entandrophragma (about 11 species) and Khaya (about 6 species) are

native to the tropics of Africa, with Khaya extending to the Comoros

Islands and Madagascar. All the species have been declining from

habitat conversion and selectively varied commercial exploitation, and

nearly all have been reported to be threatened in various countries and

significant portions of their ranges. The majority of the 17 species

have some legal protection in one or more countries, generally with

respect to their export. Within the comment period the Service received

six comments, with three in favor of submitting proposals for the

species and two against.

The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (London, U.K.) supported

the inclusion of all species of both genera in Appendix II. They stated

that ``Due to the nature of the mahogany trade, it is important to

appreciate that equal and parallel attention and protection must be

afforded to Khaya spp. and Entandrophragma spp. as to Swietenia

macrophylla * * *. There are only a few areas of Africa where * * *

African mahoganies have [not] already suffered massive decline * * *.''

The NRDC also expressed support for including both genera in Appendix

II and concern about the inter-relationships of trade in wood of the

three genera. The AIA chair of its Rainforest and Natural Resources

Task Group, who is also a member of the Steering Group of the AIA

Committee on the Environment, wrote, on behalf of the architects of the

AIA, in favor of the inclusion of the genera. He stated that he

understood Appendix II listing would not constitute a trade ban, and

that inclusion of the species would help architects and designers to

make responsible and objective decisions concerning their use [since

they could purchase from the CITES-approved exports].

At the Service's public meeting held on February 22, 1994, an

individual representing IHPA inquired concerning the responsibilities

and process used by the CPC in recommending that proposals be

considered, and the intention of the Service with regard to circulating

potential proposals to the range States for comments, and whether those

comments would be reflected in final positions of the United States on

the species. Service representatives responded that the CPC had

advisory and technical roles, that Germany had the lead with African

mahoganies and was communicating with the range States, and that the

views of range States would be seriously considered.

In early May 1994, the Service received copies of the replies

Germany had received by April 26, from 13 of the 31 range States; 6

supported inclusion of the genera in Appendix II, 3 were against

proposals, and 4 were neutral.

In its comments submitted March 14, 1994, IHPA stated that they do

not believe that these genera qualify for Appendix II. They provided a

broad and detailed commentary of opposition (with enclosures), which

covered the three potential proposals for the several mahoganies.

Regarding in particular the African mahoganies, the IHPA stated that

the volumes of traded wood listed in the proposals are not clearly

linked to total reductions in standing volumes of the species across

their ranges. They also stated that much is in protected areas and gave

as an example that 20 percent of rainforest in Ghana is in totally

protected reserves. In addition, IHPA enclosed a letter of February 18,

1994, to them from the Planning Branch of the Ghana Forestry

Department, which stated that listing under CITES is not necessary for

the protection of these species in Ghana, and provided details on Ghana

forest management and these species; see the similar statement below,

from the Ghana Timber Export Development Board.

The Trade and Investment Office of the Embassy of Ghana in the

United States expressed opposition to including Entandrophragma and

Khaya in Appendix II. However the basic differences in controls between

Appendix II and Appendix I may not have been fully understood by them

or the Ghana Forestry Department, as the Embassy included a statement

from the Ghana Timber Export Development Board (Takoradi, Ghana),

similar to the letter of the Forestry Department, both of which

expressed the view that ``A ban [sic] on exploitation of these species

in the case of Ghana is rather likely to undermine current efforts to

protect them * * *'' The Embassy stated that the timber industry is a

very important contributor to foreign-exchange earnings, those two

genera constitute about 50 percent of their production and exports, and

the country has made great strides (giving details) towards sustainable

management of Ghana forests. They stated that forest management in

Ghana now is recognized as being the best in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Embassy included a detailed statement from the Timber Export

Development Board which stated that Ghana has made forest-management

reforms and has conservative forest-exploitation controls and

protective strategies that provide adequate regulatory measures to

ensure sustainable utilization, which are being enforced. The Board

provided details about the four Entandrophragma species and three Khaya

species that are native, indicating that four of the seven species are

quite widely distributed and some of the species occur nationally at

very low densities, and giving thorough estimated inventories of the

seven species (for the high-forest region of southern Ghana). The Board

noted that there are few remaining large trees for exploitation, but

that ``* * * this implies commercial extinction of the species only, as

there is plenty of regeneration and the present management system has

been designed to protect the species.''

The Service was advised that Germany would submit proposals to

include the two genera in Appendix II, and decided that the United

States would evaluate the German proposal objectively without being a

co-proponent.

9. Non-native Aloes (Aloe spp.). All species of Aloe are in the

CITES appendices, with nearly all in Appendix II, including Aloe vera

(synonym Aloe barbadensis). The genus is essentially African. Plants

regarded as Aloe vera have been used by people for millennia and the

yellow-flowered species may be extinct in its native range--it may have

been native to the southern Arabian Peninsula or northeastern Africa

(e.g., Ethiopia) where similar species occur (but perhaps instead was

native to the Canary Islands).

The parts and derivatives of artificially propagated Aloe vera are

unregulated. The whole plants commonly in trade as aloe vera are of

artificially propagated (or also naturalized) origin, and they have

become an enforcement burden. On January 27, 1994 (59 FR 3832), the

Service announced that it was considering submission of a proposal to

remove the non-native population of Aloe that is geographically

distinct from the general African area. All species of Aloe where they

may be native thus would have continued to be regulated by CITES,

including those on the Arabian Peninsula and the islands neighboring

Africa, such as the Canary Islands, Socotra, and Madagascar.

Although no written comments were received during the comment

period, Mr. Gary W. Lyons (of Gary Lyons Garden & Horticultural

Consultant & Design), a member of the IUCN/SSC Cactus and Succulent

Specialist Group and past chair of the Conservation Committee of the

Cactus and Succulent Society of America, renewed (by telephone within

the comment period) the concerns in his written commentary provided to

the Service for the September 1993 CPC Meeting, and in August 1994

provided a copy of his analysis written for consideration during the

23rd Congress of the International Organization for Succulent Plant

Study. On April 12, 1994, the United States discussed the subject at

the 17th CITES North American Region Meeting near Ottawa, Canada. That

group recommended that a proposal not be submitted, because of the risk

it would create for illegal import of rare Aloe taxa, possibly

including native wild Aloe vera.

The Service considered whether exclusion of the plants from the

non- native (non-African) population of Aloe would significantly

increase risk to the survival in its native range of any Aloe (i.e.,

species, subspecies, botanical variety, or significant population). The

United States decided not to submit a proposal. The subject was

discussed at the CPC meeting in May 1994; Switzerland has since

submitted a proposal for the removal of Aloe barbadensis [sic] [i.e.,

Aloe vera] from Appendix II.

The Service is now seeking comments on that proposal; see the

September 6, 1994, Federal Register notice (59 FR 46023). The Service

is considering whether the artificially propagated whole plants of Aloe

vera can be dealt with in a different way, without putting wild Aloe

taxa at increased risk.

10. Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana). Port-Orford-cedar

(POC) is endemic to southwestern Oregon as well as northwestern

California, in an area that is generally coastal, mostly from about

Coos Bay to Arcata. The species has been significantly reduced in

natural standing volume, and is now logged almost entirely for export

(primarily to Japan). An introduced pathogen (Phytophthora lateralis)

has been spreading particularly as a side effect of soil transport by

vehicles and logging equipment. Within the comment period the Service

received 28 comments, 17 in favor of submitting a proposal to include

this species in CITES Appendix II, and 11 against.

Dr. D.B. Zobel, a plant ecologist and professor at Oregon State

University, who has studied and/or observed the species and its

situation since 1972 and is senior author of the monograph Ecology,

Pathology, and Management of Port-Orford-Cedar (1985), considered that

an attempt to control POC harvest through CITES would not be

appropriate or effective, and could be counterproductive. He provided a

detailed review that sometimes questioned whether assertions of threat,

management, or protection were unproven belief or fact.

Dr. T.T. Lawson, a forest pathologist of Lawson-Rasor Associates,

who has spent several years monitoring research and control efforts on

the POC disease, submitted a detailed evaluation and concluded that

listing POC in Appendix II is appropriate and needed to reduce spread

of the root pathogen. Dr. E.M. Hansen, Professor of Forest Pathology at

Oregon State University, has worked with POC and Phytophthora lateralis

for 22 years. He submitted detailed information and data about research

on the root-rot disease and assessments of its present status and

potential effects. While continuing to be seriously concerned about the

impact of the disease on POC, he opposed listing because he believed

that [even] halting log exports would not slow the spread of the

disease, and might indirectly lead to a reduction in the management

efforts to protect POC.

The Oregon Natural Resources Council provided additional

information on POC and its situation, including the report (In press)

by T.T. Lawson, Port-Orford-Cedar: A Species Under Siege.

The Siskiyou Regional Education Project and Siskiyou Audubon

Society supported proposed inclusion of the species in Appendix II,

providing a detailed analytical report. They stated that POC has been

found to be a keystone species in riparian forests, enhancing their

biodiversity (including fisheries), and that this species also is

sometimes a critical riparian colonizer. They questioned various

relatively recent regional and local USFS administrative plans,

decisions, and activities. They detailed concerns and evidence about

spread of the disease, even into areas designated as wilderness, wild-

and-scenic rivers, and botanical areas, consequent to salvage-logging

and new logging operations as well as travel on back-country roads

inadequately restricted or not closed. They included and endorsed a

statement also sent separately by Mr. J. Rogers, a professional

forester of Rogers & Associates who since 1968 has been familiar with

the species and consequences of the root-rot disease from logging. He

stated that unless export is halted, most of what remains of the

species will be logged and/or infected, including the largest known

individual of the species.

The NRDC expressed support for inclusion of this species in

Appendix II, and supplied detailed additional information and data on

its situation. They stated that this species is the only Pacific

Northwest conifer that can still be exported from Federal lands in log

form legally since it had been designated a surplus commodity, and

because of high foreign demand for logs--almost exclusively from old-

growth trees. They noted concerns about genetic erosion, and provided

details regarding the water mold and its potential and likelihood of

spreading. The NRDC believes that a halt to logging has become

necessary.

Greenpeace USA supported the proposal to include the species in

Appendix II, stating among other concerns that continued logging of the

best POC stocks could further reduce the genetic reserves of the

species and the possibility of finding potential genotypes that could

resist or overcome the disease.

The Fauna and Flora Preservation Society (London, U.K.) indicated

that the export appeared to clearly warrant inclusion of the species in

Appendix II. The chair of the AIA Rainforest and Natural Resources Task

Group, who is also a member of the Steering Group of the AIA Committee

on the Environment, wrote on behalf of the architects of the AIA, in

favor of inclusion of this species. He stated that he understood CITES

Appendix II listing would not constitute a trade ban, and that

inclusion of the species could help architects and designers to make

more responsible and objective decisions concerning its use [since they

could purchase from the CITES-approved supplies]. During the comment

period eight letters from the general public supported submission of a

proposal to include POC in Appendix II.

Fletchcraft Mfg. and Stahl's Traditional Archery supported

restriction or stopping of export of the species. Both companies

advocate an ecologically sustainable supply of POC wood for arrow

manufacturing.

Other letters of opposition to the potential CITES proposal were

received within the comment period from Arcata Redwood Company, Douglas

Timber Operators, Reservation Ranch, Weyerhaeuser Company, Woodland

Management Professional Foresters, and the Association of Consulting

Foresters of America. Also, Mr. D. Brattain of Reservation Ranch

coordinated and led a POC Alliance mostly comprised of about 20 timber,

lumber, and/or exporting companies and also the Oregon International

Port of Coos Bay, Coos Chapter of the Society of American Foresters,

and Coos County Forestry Department, which submitted an extensive

document including a detailed response against the potential proposal

to list the POC in Appendix II, with supplementary materials on POC and

its situation, including additional usually detailed letters of

opposition from the Coos County Forestry Department, the Coos-Curry

Electric Cooperative, the [Coos] Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, a

private POC landowner who also is a State Director for the Oregon Small

Woodlands Association, The Agnew Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation,

Moore Mill & Lumber Company, Rough & Ready Lumber Company, South Coast

Lumber Company, Spalding & Son Lumber Manufacturers and Wholesalers,

Westbrook Land and Timber, Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry, a USFS

silviculturist--acting in a private capacity--with 15 years of

responsibility for POC management to minimize spread and impact of the

root-rot disease in a major National Forest Ranger District, the Oregon

Chapter of the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, the

Oregon Society of American Foresters, and the Natural Resource Group

(Birmingham, Alabama).

The Oregon Department of Forestry expressed opposition to inclusion

of this species in Appendix II. They stated that virtually all of the

commercially valuable timber of the species is on Federal lands, that

there is ample protection due to the extensive acreage of land set

aside for various conservation purposes, and that there is a program in

place that will limit damage caused by the root disease on Federal

lands and it is adequate to protect the species. They also found that

the ecosystem-based direction of management taken by Federal land-

management agencies under the President's ``Option 9'' plan is

sufficient to protect this species in its ecosystems, and they expect

that the volume of the type of material demanded in the export market

will be reduced because of implementation of this plan.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection stated

that they advise private landowners on precautions to be taken to

prevent spread of the root rot, and that they generally have as a

mitigation requirement of timber harvesting that the landowner follow

the USFS policies and procedures. They asked that the decision for or

against a proposal to list under CITES be made to protect or prolong

the biological and ecological viability of the species in its natural

range.

The USFS recommended that the species not be added to Appendix II.

The USFS provided detailed information (with detailed maps) about the

species, its utilization, the water mold that infects POC and causes a

virulent root disease, and the interagency program for Port-Orford-

cedar conservation and management [through the Interregional POC

Coordinating Committee], which the USFS chairs. The USFS stated that

over 40 percent of the tree species' range is in reserves protected

from harvesting, that harvests have substantially declined and growth

now exceeds harvest and mortality, and that they have an active range-

wide interagency effort underway [and the Interregional Port-Orford

Cedar Action Plan] to manage the species and the infectious fungus.

The Service carefully evaluated whether Chamaecyparis lawsoniana

qualified for CITES Appendix II, and could benefit from export

regulation by means of an Appendix II listing, which included a

discussion of its situation at the CITES Plants Committee meeting held

in Mexico in May 1994. The Service recognized that a significant

portion of POC is in reserves that for various reasons are protected

from harvesting (in some cases except for thinning and salvage

cutting), that most of the species is on public lands under Federal

management, and that there are meaningful efforts to harvest

sustainably and to curtail the Phytophthora disease. The Service

concluded that Federal and State regulatory mechanisms, governmental

and private conservation actions, and endeavors particularly through

the U.S. Forest Service to understand and to control the introduced

disease now affecting some populations, were able to cope with this

endemic species' present circumstances without the need for additional

regulatory authority through use of this international treaty.

Species Proposals Submitted

1. Saiga antelope (Saiga tatarica). The EIA sent the Service a

proposal to list both subspecies of the saiga antelope in Appendix I.

The horns of the saiga antelope have been used in Asian traditional

medicines. Saiga have also been utilized as a food source at varying

levels of intensity depending on location and availability. The

Mongolian Ministry of Nature and Environment provided a rather detailed

account of the status and biology of S. t. mongolica, which now exists

in two small disjunct populations in Mongolia, one estimated at about

1400 individuals in 1993 and the other estimated at 125 animals in

1983. They recommended that this subspecies be listed in Appendix I.

Saiga tatarica tatarica occurs in two major populations, one in

Kazakhstan and a second south of the Volga River and northwest of the

Caspian Sea in the Kalmykian Republic, Russian Federation. By the end

of World War I this subspecies was near extinction, but began to

recover in the 1920's so that by the late 1950's the population in

Kazakhstan was reported to have reached nearly 2,000,000, and in

Kalmykia saiga had reportedly increased to about 800,000. In the last

two decades these numbers have been reduced again, fluctuating around

150,000 in Kalmykia and down to about 450,000 in Kazakhstan in the last

few years. These reductions are reportedly the result of a combination

of factors including weather, land-use changes, and poaching for horns.

Four comments were received within the comment period. Three

comments favored listing saiga antelope in Appendix I, while the fourth

supported only an Appendix II listing.

The AHA was in favor of an Appendix I listing ``until trade in the

species can be shown to be non-detrimental to the survival of the

species.'' They stated that researchers indicate that saiga hunting in

Russia has been nearly out of control over the last 3-4 years, implying

that this increase is due to poaching for horns.

Defenders supported an Appendix I listing, suggesting that saiga,

like the rhino, are being threatened by poaching and overhunting for

the horn trade, and that saiga horn is the most expensive fever-

reducing substance used in traditional medicines after rhino horn. They

stated that saiga are also hunted for their meat, fat, and hides. They

admitted that status and trade data are extremely limited, but that

recent aerial surveys indicated a rapid rate of decline of saiga

populations. They also pointed out the dramatic population reductions

that can occur among saiga due to extreme weather conditions or food

shortages.

The HSUS favored an Appendix I listing for the saiga, also

indicating the similarity between the use and demand for rhino and

saiga horn. From an estimated 2 million animals in the 1960's, S. t.

tatarica has plummeted to about 800,000 individuals according to HSUS,

due apparently to uncontrolled hunting in Russia and Kazakhstan for the

horns. The HSUS noted that the use of saiga horn as a substitute for

rhino horn in traditional Chinese medicine has been and is likely to

increase as pressures to control the trade in rhino horn intensify.

The World Conservation Union's (IUCN) Sustainable Use of Wildlife

Programme questioned the long-term benefits to saiga to be derived from

an Appendix I listing. Such a listing for the Russian subspecies would

technically prohibit commercial trade in the species, thus eliminating

its value. Local and regional authorities currently would find it

nearly impossible to implement the controls necessary to sustain saiga

populations in the absence of obvious and immediate value to the local

economy. They suggested that the local rural population would probably

increase livestock numbers in saiga habitat to supplement and replace

the value lost from saiga as a result of an Appendix I listing,

eventually resulting in extirpation of the saiga. An Appendix II

listing would require the Governments of Russia (for the Kalmykia

population), Kazakhstan, and Mongolia to implement administrative and

management procedures that, if adequate, could be beneficial to the

species. The IUCN group was concerned about the demand for saiga horn

and possible illegal trade.

Comments received from the Russian Ministry of Protection of the

Environment and Natural Resources described the existence of the two

major populations of S. t. tatarica, one in Kalmykia of about 150,000

animals and one in Kazakhstan consisting of ``several tens of

thousands.'' Hunting of saiga has been increasingly reduced since about

1984, with only limited sport-hunting now allowed in Kalmykia, and

protected reserves have been established. The diminished status of the

saiga is due to habitat modifications, changes in land use, and illegal

hunting. The Ministry favored a listing of saiga antelope in Appendix

II of CITES. Also, by personal communication, the Chinese Ministry of

Forestry indicated that they could support an Appendix II listing.

In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funded a visit in

the Spring of 1994 to Moscow and Kalmykia by Dr. James Teer, Welder

Wildlife Foundation, Sinton, Texas, and Dr. Fred Lindzey, Wyoming

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming,

Laramie, Wyoming, to report on the status of the saiga. Teer and

Lindzey opined that the Kalmykian saiga population can no longer

sustain itself when harvests for horns, meat, and hides are permitted

for export, but that it can sustain a small offtake from hunting. Even

so, they were concerned about poaching and the ease of movement of

saiga parts across borders. They also felt that the Kalmykian

population might rebound due to the great fecundity of saiga, along

with a reduction in livestock, habitat improvement, and the control of

poaching, all factors the Kalmykian authorities claim they are

implementing. While realizing that an Appendix II listing would not

prohibit exports, Teer and Lindzey suggested that the United States

might delay proposing a CITES listing to allow time for current

management measures and the population status in Kalmykia to be

evaluated, and to give Kazakhstan time to become a Party to CITES.

As a result of comments and information received concerning the

amount of poaching of saiga antelope and the illegal trade in saiga

horns, the use of saiga horns in combination with or as a substitute

for rhinoceros horns in traditional medicines in conjunction with

intensified pressures to stop the trade in rhinoceros horn, and the

evidence of considerable declines in populations of S. t. tatarica over

the last two decades for various reasons, the Service has proposed that

populations of S. t. tatarica be included in Appendix II of CITES. The

numbers of S. t. mongolica are so low in the wild that the full

protective potential of CITES seems warranted, therefore the Service

has proposed that the Mongolian population be included in Appendix I of

CITES.

2. Urial (Ovis vignei). The Service requested information and

comments to help clarify which populations of the urial should be

included in Appendix I as a result of the 1973 listing of Ovis vignei

by India. Confusion regarding the intended inclusiveness of the

original listing of 1973 arose as a result of (1) actions considered at

COP2 in 1979; (2) range information presented in the CITES-adopted

check list for mammals, Mammal Species of the World, 1982, edited by

Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl; and, (3) distribution and synonymy given

in Mammal Species of the World, 2nd Edition, 1993, edited by Wilson and

Reeder. The issue was whether the original listing implies a

conservative application of the name, thereby restricting the listing

to only populations in the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir, or there

was a broader intent, as presented in Honacki, Kinman, and Koeppl,

1982?

Five comments were received within the comment period on this

problem. TRAFFIC USA passed on information from TRAFFIC India attesting

to the endangered status of the urial sheep in India, and from TRAFFIC

France indicating that urial hunting trips in central Asia are being

organized by French companies. Dr. Steve Edwards, IUCN, supported the

submission of a proposal to clarify which populations of O. vignei are

to be included in Appendix I.

The three remaining comments were from Safari Club International,

Dr. Richard Mitchell, and Mr. Ron Young of Expeditions by Ron. The

first two commenters argued that the intent of the original listing was

to include only the population in the Ladakh region of Jammu and

Kashmir, while the latter noted that, according to his observation, the

Transcaspian urial, the Afghan urial, the Blandford urial, and the

Punjab urial are all abundant in the wild.

The Government of Pakistan indicated that the shapu (O. orientalis

vignei (= O. v. vignei)), the gad (O. o. blanfordi (= O. v.

blanfordi)), and the Punjab urial (O. o. punjabiensis (= O. v.

punjabiensis)) are in fair numbers in Pakistan and that there is no

need to list them under CITES.

Also, Mr. Earl Baysinger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who

attended the Convention's Plenipotentiary Meeting and COP2, provided a

detailed account of the discussions that took place at that meeting of

the Parties concerning the proposal and ultimate listing of the urial,

and claimed that the Parties intended to include only O. vignei vignei

in Appendix I.

The Service is, therefore, proposing that only O. vignei vignei of

the Ladakh region of Jammu and Kashmir be retained in Appendix I, and

that all other populations of O. vignei be included in Appendix II for

biological and similarity of appearance purposes.

3. Box turtles (Terrapene spp.). Prior to COP8, the New York

Zoological Society recommended listing box turtles in Appendix II.

However, the Service did not have sufficient information on trade in

these species, and did not submit a proposal for consideration at COP8.

Since then the Service has accumulated data in its Law Enforcement

Management Information System (LEMIS) on exports and imports of box

turtles in an effort to obtain appropriate trade information.

The genus Terrapene includes the four species (T. carolina, T.

coahuila, T. nelsoni, and T. ornata), with 11 subspecies recognized

among them. Terrapene coahuila is currently listed in Appendix I of

CITES. Terrapene nelsoni occurs in a small fragmented range on the west

coast of Mexico, while T. ornata is found over a large area of the

midwestern United States. Terrapene carolina has the largest range,

occurring from Canada to Mexico as far as Yucatan, and from the

Atlantic coast west into approximately the eastern edge of the prairie

in the Midwest.

Box turtles are long-lived, sexual maturity is late, and annual

reproduction is low. They exhibit high site fidelity, which tends to

amplify the impacts of habitat fragmentation. The removal of adult

turtles from the wild can have a significant impact on the status of

populations.

A large number of comments were received in response to the January

27, 1994, notice. Twenty-two States responded, in 16 of which box

turtles are protected by State law. None of these responses objected to

a proposal to list the box turtle in Appendix II. Comments from the

States noted the continued loss of habitat, illegal collecting,

negative impacts of the pet trade in box turtles, some indications of

international trade, and suggestions of declines in some populations.

Of the 298 comments received from individuals, only one did not support

the proposal to list box turtles under CITES, and this one negative

comment was made pending the collection of more data. Many of these

comments included anecdotal accounts and observations of population

declines, and the occurrence of box turtles for sale in pet stores in

the United States and abroad. Supporting comments were also received on

behalf of 23 non-governmental organizations, although 2 of these

supported the listing of box turtles conditioned on proper treatment of

pet-trade turtles, and more rapid processing of permit applications.

Most of these responses focused on the impacts of the pet trade and

poor shipping conditions.

Based on (1) the large number of box turtles exported from the

United States since 1988; (2) an apparent increase in the demand for

box turtles in the international pet trade, particularly since 1984

when the EU banned trade in Mediterranean land tortoises (Testudo

spp.); (3) the reported decline in numbers throughout the range of T.

ornata and T. carolina; (4) an increase in fragmentation of box turtle

habitat; (5) the difficulties of implementing State protective laws,

especially when similar protection is not provided in other States; and

(6) the increased negative impact of these factors on species

exhibiting low reproductive rates and high site fidelity; the Service

has proposed to include all the populations of box turtles in the genus

Terrapene in Appendix II of CITES, except T. coahuila, which will

remain in Appendix I.

4. Tarantulas (Brachypelma species). The Service received a

proposal from Dr. Robert Wolff of Trinity Christian College, Palos

Heights, Illinois to list all the species in the genus Brachypelma

(also known as Euathlus) in Appendix II. There are about nine species

in the genus, and one, B. smithi the red-kneed tarantula, is presently

included in Appendix II. Members of this genus are usually colorful and

among the most sought after tarantulas for the pet trade. The taxonomy

of the genus is not well known and identification of species is often

difficult.

Four responses to the possible listing of Brachypelma species were

received. Although one commenter only supported the inclusion of the

genus in Appendix II by implication, the other three commenters

specifically supported this action. The HSUS noted the popularity of

Brachypelma species in the pet trade and the enhanced support of

enforcement efforts that this action would provide. TRAFFIC USA claimed

that there is increasing evidence for widespread trade in several

species of the genus. TRAFFIC France reported to TRAFFIC USA increased

trade in tarantula species throughout western Europe involving at least

four other species in addition to B. smithi. The Mexican Government

supported the addition of all species of Brachypelma in Appendix II.

The Service has therefore proposed the inclusion of all taxa in the

genus Brachypelma in Appendix II, including but not limited to the

following species: B. albopilosum, B. angustum, B. auratum, B. boehmei,

B. emilia, B. fossorium, B. pallidum, B. sabulosum, B. vagans. Any taxa

discovered subsequent to this listing and included in the genus

Brachypelma would also be automatically included in Appendix II under

this proposed listing action.

5. Freshwater mussels (family Unionidae). Members of this family

occur in their greatest variety throughout the Southeast and the

Midwest of the United States in major river drainage systems including

the upper Mississippi River.

Many species in the family have become extinct or reduced to very

low numbers largely as a result of habitat destruction and/or

degradation. A few species have been collected commercially, initially

as a source of raw material for the button industry, but, since the

advent of synthetic button materials and the artificial pearl industry

in Japan, as a source of spherical blanks around which nacre is

deposited by living bivalves during the production of pearls. These

species, which are sought commercially, are generally characterized by

their thick, white shells, and they occur most often in large rivers

and reservoirs. Most states where they are harvested regulate their

collection, usually with prohibitions on collection in waters known to

contain populations of endangered or threatened unionid species.

Although endangered and threatened unionids may occasionally be taken

incidentally along with the commercial forms, there does not appear to

be compelling evidence indicating any significant export of endangered

mussels with commercial shipments for the pearl industry.

Other species are harvested, although in smaller numbers, for the

natural freshwater pearls used in jewelry. Still others, those with

colorful nacre, are utilized directly in the production of jewelry.

Shell collecting alone is believed to be a threat to some species,

especially those that are rare or unique. Trade in these products and/

or shells may constitute a threat to many species, especially those

most endangered.

Three comments were received during the comment period concerning a

possible proposal to list unionids in the Appendices of CITES; one from

the Fisheries Agency of Japan, one from the State of Missouri, and one

from the Tennessee Shell Company, Inc.

The FAJ voiced a general concern about listing species in the

absence of sufficient scientific evidence to show that there is a

threat to extinction for an Appendix I listing, or that they may become

threatened with extinction unless such species are subject to strict

regulation for an Appendix II listing. Specifically, they felt that no

scientific data have been presented demonstrating the degree of

extinction and the presence of threats from trading for each of the

more than 200 species of freshwater mussels. Furthermore, they stated

that listing all the species of this taxon because some are potentially

threatened by collectors could also be similarly applied to all other

groups of species, which would pose a serious obstacle to the effective

use of living resources. They indicated that it would be inappropriate

to enforce such regulations without justifiable reasons.

The Tennessee Shell Company, Inc. expressed concern for the plight

of freshwater mussels in general, citing such threats as water

pollution, cold or hot water discharges into mussel habitat, sediment

deposition, dredging, bridge construction, natural die-offs, etc. They

offered support of efforts directed at the protection and conservation

of freshwater mussels from habitat destruction resulting from these

kinds of hazards.

The Missouri Department of Conservation generally supported the

listing of Unionid mussels in CITES Appendices, with the exception of

four species that are of commercial value.

After considering comments received, and the level of trade

information available, along with the difficulties of species

identification and the separation of look-alikes, the Service has

proposed that the Appendices to CITES be revised by:

1. Transferring Epioblasma sulcata (=obliquata) perobliqua, and

Lampsilis satura from Appendix I to Appendix II;

2. Labeling Epioblasma sampsoni (now in Appendix I) as pe (probably

extinct);

3. Deleting all the species now included in Appendix II, since they

will be included in the following broader listing; and

4. Including all other North American populations of mussels in the

family Unionidae in Appendix II, with the exception of the shells and

the artificial pearls presumed to contain blanks from the taxa listed

below.

Amblema plicata, Ellipsaria lineolata, Fusconaia ebena, F. flava,

Ligumia recta, Megalonaias nervosa, Obliquaria reflexa, Pleurobema

cordatum, Quadrula apiculata, Q. metanevra, Q. nodulata, Q. pustulosa,

Q. quadrula, and Tritogonia verrucosa.

The Service believes that these species are easily distinguishable from

the species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered

Species Act.

Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Resolutions

In response to the November 18, 1993, and the January 28, 1994,

Federal Register notices (58 FR 60973 and 56 FR 4096) comments were

received from numerous organizations regarding a resolution to amend

the criteria for listing species in the CITES Appendices (see

discussion of listing criteria resolution below).

In addition, several non-governmental organizations, in writing and

at the public meeting on February 22, 1994, requested that the Service

submit a resolution for consideration at COP9 establishing a Law

Enforcement Network. The Service supported the establishment of a Law

Enforcement Network, both at the Standing Committee meeting of March,

1994, and in writing to the CITES Secretariat. The Service remains

strongly supportive of increasing the role of law enforcement in the

CITES context, both through networks among the Parties and through

increased training of appropriate enforcement officials. It is the

Service's understanding that the item is already on the agenda for

COP9, and that one or more Parties may have already submitted

resolutions on the subject.

Comments on the possible resolutions that the Service may consider

submitting were also received from the Center for International

Environmental Law (CIEL), the Hawthorn Corporation, and one private

individual. The CIEL requested that the United States submit a

resolution that clarifies the relationship between CITES and other

international agreements related to the management of species. The

CIEL's suggestions can be considered to be incorporated into the

resolution discussed below, regarding the implementation of Article XIV

of the Convention, which deals with the relationship between CITES and

treaties regulating the management of marine species. The Hawthorn

Corporation provided comments on the issue of trade in tiger parts and

products, and requested that trade in captive-bred tigers for circuses

and other live animal exhibitions be differentiated from concerns about

trade in tiger parts and products and related poaching of wild tigers.

The Service agrees that tigers that are part of a U.S. traveling circus

are not part of the trade problem related to the poaching of wild

specimens. Circus tigers, born in the United States, are certified as

captive-bred under CITES by the Service and are eligible for a

certificate from the Service's Office of Management Authority. The

private individual provided comments on various issues related to trade

in artificially propagated plants, which the Service will take into

consideration when reviewing resolutions pertaining to that trade, upon

their receipt from the CITES Secretariat. In addition, the Service's

Office of Scientific Authority has been working with the CITES

Nomenclature Committee to consolidate and update the previous

resolutions dealing with nomenclatural issues.

The following presents the background and sense of the three

resolutions submitted by the United States for consideration at COP9.

(The Service's tentative positions on resolutions and agenda items,

including those discussed in this notice as well as on the

establishment of a Law Enforcement Network, were presented in a Federal

Register notice of October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50609)).

Resolutions Submitted

1. Article XIV Implementation. The provisions of CITES apply to all

species of wild fauna and flora, including marine species. The

management of many marine species comes under the jurisdiction or

competence of another international treaty, convention, or agreement.

International trade in any species of marine fauna or flora is also

within the purview and competence of CITES. Therefore, even if a marine

species is subject to management under another international treaty,

convention, or agreement, and if it is listed in any CITES Appendix,

then international trade and introduction from the sea in the species

is also regulated by CITES. CITES made special provisions for Appendix

II marine species that are regulated under another treaty extant when

CITES came into force.

Article XIV, paragraph 4, of the Convention provides that a State

party to CITES, which is also a party to any other treaty, convention,

or international agreement which was in force at the time of the coming

into force of CITES, and under the provisions of which protection is

afforded to marine species included in Appendix II, is relieved of the

obligations imposed on it under CITES with respect to trade in

specimens included in Appendix II that are taken by ships registered in

that State and in accordance with the provisions of such other treaty,

convention, or international agreement.

However, Article XIV, paragraph 5 requires that Parties exempted

from the usual CITES obligations under Article XIV, paragraph 4, must

nevertheless issue certificates stipulating that the specimen was taken

in accordance with the provisions of the other treaty, convention, or

international agreement in question. This provision of the Convention

has never been used, and standards for its implementation have not been

developed. Currently no marine species whose management is under the

competence of another treaty, convention, or agreement is listed in

Appendix II (this relief from CITES obligations does not apply to

specimens of species included in Appendix I).

The Service has determined that it would be wise to plan for the

need to implement Article XIV, by specifying requirements for

certificates issued pursuant to Article XIV, paragraph 5, of the

Convention, even if its use is not necessary at this time. The Service

notes that Appendix II allows for international commercial trade. The

draft resolution was written in consultation with NMFS. The Service's

goal in submitting this resolution is to clarify how an Appendix II

listing could be implemented expeditiously for a marine species whose

management was under the competency of a pre-CITES treaty. The draft

resolution would provide for the utilization, as a valid certificate

under Article XIV, paragraph 5, of a certificate of origin or

statistical document issued on the authority of the other treaty,

convention, or international agreement, with certain stipulations of

minimum information and validation as required by CITES. Such

certificates would only be an option for CITES Parties that are also

parties to the other treaty, convention, or agreement, and if the

specimens are taken by ships registered by the Party country. Export

permits or introduction from the sea certificates are required in all

other situations.

2. Criteria for Amendments of Appendix I and II. The existing CITES

listing criteria, known as the ``Berne Criteria,'' were developed at

the first CITES Conference in 1976 in Berne, Switzerland. The move to

revise them originated at COP8 in Japan. At COP8 the Parties agreed to

start a process, coordinated by the Standing Committee, to develop a

scientifically sound revision for consideration at COP9. The World

Conservation Union (IUCN) was asked to do a first draft, which would be

revised at a joint meeting of the CITES Standing, Animals, and Plants

Committees, and put into CITES resolution form. The United States

participated in the joint meeting in Brussels in September 1993, which

reviewed the IUCN draft and produced a draft resolution that was

circulated to the Parties.

Prior to the September 1993 joint committee meeting, the Service

received comments from 46 organizations and private individuals

regarding the proposed revised listing criteria. After the September

1993 Standing Committee meeting, in response to the Federal Register

notice of November 18, 1993, the Service received comments from 18

organizations. The Service carefully reviewed and analyzed all comments

received. Five organizations basically supported the new criteria. The

Service received comments from 13 organizations that either opposed the

new criteria, opposed parts of the new criteria, or recommended that

the United States submit an alternative to the joint committee draft

resolution. All comments were taken into consideration by the Service

in formulating comments to the draft resolution.

The Service submitted comments for the United States to the

Standing Committee, after consultation with other Federal agencies and

after reviewing the extensive public comments received. Comments

received by the CITES Secretariat from other governments were also

reviewed. The U.S. comments maintained that much of the draft

resolution was not valid scientifically, and was not acceptable from

conservation, management or practical perspectives. The United States

believed that the criteria as proposed met neither the CITES treaty's

requirements for the conservation of species in their ecosystems, nor

the diverse needs of the CITES Parties. The U.S. comments and those of

other Parties were discussed at the 31st meeting of the Standing

Committee, in Geneva in March 1994. Some of the U.S. comments were

taken into consideration in developing the final Standing Committee

draft resolution. The final Standing Committee resolution was not

available to the United States or other CITES Parties until after the

June 10, 1994, deadline for submission of resolutions and proposals to

the CITES Secretariat.

The Standing Committee resolution contains six annexes, several of

which the United States looks forward to discussing further with the

CITES Parties at COP9. In particular, the United States believes the

Standing Committee draft is an improvement on the Berne Criteria as

regards precautionary measures. However, the United States believes

that Annex 1 (Biological criteria for Appendix I) and Annex 2 (Criteria

for inclusion of species in Appendix II) are in need of revision,

particularly from a scientific perspective. The United States is

particularly concerned about the utility and scientific validity of

arbitrary numerical cutoffs for decision-making regarding the appendix

within which a species should be included. After detailed review of the

scientific literature and consultations with NMFS and other Federal

agencies, the Service has submitted alternatives to these Annexes to

the Secretariat, along with some additional material for inclusion in

the resolution. With regard to the five comments referred to previously

as supporting the joint committee's draft resolution, there was nothing

in these comments that was inconsistent with the revised Annexes 1 and

2 submitted by the Service.

The United States could have waited to present these alternative

Annexes 1 and 2 at COP9. However, the United States preferred to

provide ample time for this review by the CITES Parties.

The proposed Annex 1 lists a series of interdependent factors to be

included in an assessment of the status of a species, and thereby the

determination that it is threatened with extinction. The criteria for

inclusion of species in Annex 2 (in accordance with Article II

paragraph 2(a)), involve a determination of whether a species may

become threatened with extinction, and in order to avoid utilization

incompatible with its survival.

3. Standard nomenclature. This resolution was submitted at the

request of the CITES Nomenclature Committee, and deals with

nomenclature and taxonomy of CITES species. The resolution submitted

was discussed and agreed upon by the Nomenclature Committee at its May

1994 meeting in Beijing, China. The Service is aware that the names of

genera and species in several families are in need of standardization,

and that the current lack of standard references with adequate

information decreases the effectiveness of the implementation of CITES

in conserving the many species that are listed in the Appendices. The

Service also recognizes that the taxonomy used in the appendices to the

Convention will be most useful to the Parties if standardized by

nomenclatural references.

This resolution consolidates recommendations from several previous

resolutions and clarifies or updates previous recommendations. The

resolution discusses inclusion of subspecies in the Appendices, use of

references in proposals, synonyms, other naming conventions, and the

role of the Scientific Authorities in nomenclatural issues. The

resolution also recommends several standard references for species

listed in the CITES Appendices, i.e., for mammals, birds, amphibians,

cacti, cycads, ferns, and other plants.

Agenda Items Submitted by the United States

The Service submitted the following two items for inclusion in the

COP9 agenda, but did not submit a resolution or discussion paper. The

Service intends to submit a discussion paper on both items to the

Secretariat, for transmission to the Parties, prior to the COP.

Items Submitted

1. Shark trade. There is information about a recent increase in

international trade in shark parts and products, particularly in fins

for the food market. However, there are insufficient biological and

trade data on which to base a listing proposal at this time. Data on

these species are difficult to obtain and will require the cooperation

of all Parties and organizations interested in conserving these

species. The Service believes that this is an important issue for the

Parties to discuss. The Service is considering requesting that the

Animals Committee assess methods for obtaining information on the

biological and trade status of shark species in international trade,

and providing advice to the Parties on possible approaches toward

conservation efforts for these taxa. No international body is currently

responsible for the management of shark species, including

recommendations of catch quotas, minimum sizes, time and area closures,

gear restriction, etc. By placing this item on the agenda for COP9, it

is not the intent of the United States to propose that CITES take on

this responsibility. However, because CITES is the international treaty

responsible for trade in wildlife, it provides an ideal forum for the

discussion of collection of data on this trade. The Service, in

consultation with NMFS, will develop a background paper on this agenda

item for submission before COP9.

2. Illegal trade in whale meat. There was extensive discussion at

the May, 1994 meeting of the IWC regarding illegal international trade

in whale meat, including involvement by CITES Parties. All whales

subject to the IWC moratorium on commercial harvest are listed in CITES

Appendix I. A resolution on this topic was introduced by the United

States and other Parties, and was adopted by IWC at its 1994 meeting.

The issue is discussed in the IWC Infractions Report. The Service

submitted the information in the IWC Infractions Report on

international trade in whale meat to the CITES Secretariat. The Service

in consultation with NMFS, will develop a background paper on this

agenda item for submission to the Parties before COP9.

Continuing Actions

In mid July, the Service received proposals made by other CITES

Parties to amend the appendices. Resolutions and a list of other agenda

items that were submitted by other Parties are expected to be received

at intervals in September and October. The Service's tentative

negotiating position on the species proposals was announced in the

Federal Register on September 6, 1994, (59 FR 46023) and a comment

period initiated. The Service also held two public meetings on

September 14 and 16, 1994, as announced in September 1 and 7, 1994

Federal Register (59 FR 45307 and 59 FR 46023). These meetings provided

an opportunity for the public to comment on the species proposals

submitted by other countries and on any resolution or agenda item. In

the October 4, 1994, Federal Register (59 FR 50609), the Service

presented information and tentative negotiating positions on

resolutions and agenda items, especially those for which official

documents have been received.

The Service will consider all information presented at the public

meetings and in writing during the comment period, as well as all other

available information, in developing a negotiating position on each

species proposal, resolution, and agenda item. These positions will be

announced in the Federal Register(s) in late October or early November

just prior to COP9. Also in this pre-COP notice the Service plans to

request comments on any reservations that should be taken on any

species amendments, i.e., species changes to the CITES Appendices,

should any of the proposed amendments be adopted by the Parties.

Immediately after COP9, the Service will announce the species

amendments to the appendices adopted by the Parties; under CITES, these

changes will become effective on February 16, 1995.

Reservations

Article XV of CITES enables any party to exempt itself from

implementing CITES for any particular species if it enters a

reservation with respect to that species in accordance with the terms

and limitations of the treaty. In the case of a country that is a Party

at the time an amendment is adopted, a reservation may be entered only

during the period of 90 days following the meeting at which the Parties

voted to place the species in Appendix I or II. Just before COP9, the

Service will solicit comments with regard to entering reservations. If

the United States enters any reservation, such action would be

announced in the same Federal Register notice that incorporates the

listing decisions of the Parties into the Code of Federal Regulations

(50 CFR part 23).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.

This document is issued under authority of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat. 884, as amended). It was

prepared by Drs. Charles W. Dane, Wayne L. Milstead, and Bruce

MacBryde, Office of Scientific Authority, and Dr. Susan Lieberman,

Office of Management Authority.

Dated: September 27, 1994.

Bruce Blanchard,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 94-27313 Filed 11-3-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P