Species Changes Proposed by the United States for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 23

Species Changes Proposed by the United States for the Convention

on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora.

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

SUMMARY: The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) regulates international trade in certain

animal and plant species, which are listed in the appendices of this

treaty. The United States, as a Party to CITES, may propose amendments

to the appendices for consideration by the other Parties.

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

announces the proposals to amend the CITES appendices that it has

submitted to the CITES Secretariat on behalf of the United States and

which will be considered for adoption by the Parties at the Tenth

Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP10) in Zimbabwe, June 9-

20, 1997. The reasoning for selecting these proposals and rejecting

others under consideration is provided below.

In a related notice on March 27, 1997, the Service announced

provisional agenda topics, draft resolutions, and other documents that

the United States has submitted for consideration by the Parties at

COP10 (62 FR 14689).

DATES: Proposals adopted by the Parties will effective on September 18,

1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for information about species proposals should be

directed to Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750; Arlington, VA

22203. Fax: 703-358-2276. Phone: 703-358-1708.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Marshall A. Howe (for animal

species) or Dr. Bruce MacBryde (for plant species), Office of

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

roposals should be

directed to Chief, Office of Scientific Authority; U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 750; Arlington, VA

22203. Fax: 703-358-2276. Phone: 703-358-1708.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Marshall A. Howe (for animal

species) or Dr. Bruce MacBryde (for plant species), Office of

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora, hereinafter referred to as ``CITES'' or ``the

Convention'', regulates import, export, re-export, and introduction

from the sea of certain animal and plant species. Species for which

trade is controlled are included in one of three appendices. Appendix I

includes species threatened with extinction that are or may be affected

by international trade. Appendix II includes species that, although not

necessarily now threatened with extinction, may become so unless the

trade is strictly controlled. Appendix II also lists species that must

be subject to regulation in order that trade in other currently or

potentially threatened species may be brought under effective control

(e.g., because of difficulty in distinguishing specimens of currently

or potentially threatened species from those of other species).

Appendix III includes species that any Party country identifies as

being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for purposes of

preventing or restricting exploitation, and for which it needs the

cooperation of other Parties to control trade.

In a March 1, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR 8019), the

Service requested public recommendations or draft proposals to amend

Appendix I or II that the Service might consider proposing on behalf of

the United States at COP10. That notice described the provisions of

CITES for listing species in the appendices and set forth information

requirements for proposals, based on new listing criteria adopted by

the Parties at COP9

r notice (61 FR 8019), the

Service requested public recommendations or draft proposals to amend

Appendix I or II that the Service might consider proposing on behalf of

the United States at COP10. That notice described the provisions of

CITES for listing species in the appendices and set forth information

requirements for proposals, based on new listing criteria adopted by

the Parties at COP9. An August 28, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR

44324) requested additional comments from the public on species

proposals still being considered after review of materials received in

response to the March 1 notice. On the basis of a thorough review of

comments received in response to the August 28 notice, the Service

identified those proposals that met the listing criteria and presented

the most compelling cases. These proposals to amend the appendices were

submitted to the CITES Secretariat on January 10, 1997, to be

considered and voted upon by the Parties at COP10. The rationale for

selecting the proposals the United States submitted and rejecting the

proposals it did not is presented below, along with a summary of the

substantive public comments that aided in those decisions. Any proposed

amendments to the appendices adopted by the Parties will become

effective on September 18, 1997, unless the United States enters a

reservation before that time. The Service will publish a rulemaking

that would implement such amendments.

Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Species Proposals

The biological bases for proposals still being considered for

submission by the United States were described in the Federal Register

notice of August 28, 1996 (61 FR 44324) and are not repeated here in

detail in most cases. Decisions and their respective rationales are as

follows:

Species Proposals Not Submitted

t such amendments.

Public Comments and Decisions on Possible Species Proposals

The biological bases for proposals still being considered for

submission by the United States were described in the Federal Register

notice of August 28, 1996 (61 FR 44324) and are not repeated here in

detail in most cases. Decisions and their respective rationales are as

follows:

Species Proposals Not Submitted

1. Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus).

Although the Service's August 28, 1996 notice said nothing about a

possible proposal related to walruses, the Service received a letter

from Friends of Animals expressing concern about illegal taking of

walruses in Alaska (in particular the discovery of 160 carcasses

between Shishmaref and Kotzebue in 1996) and recommending that the

United States prepare a proposal to include the walrus in CITES

Appendix II. Walruses are presently on Appendix III of CITES (included

by Canada) and receive extensive protection in the United States under

the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA permits limited take

of walruses by Alaskan Natives but limits legal international trade of

walrus products for the most part to handicraft items. Such uses are

guided by a detailed ``Conservation Plan for the Pacific Walrus in

Alaska.'' Population surveys are conducted jointly with Russia at 5-

year intervals. Current populations appear to be healthy and have

persisted well above the ``optimum sustainable population'' measure

used by marine mammal specialists. There is no evidence of dramatic

change in walrus populations in recent years, and the legal take has

remained stable.

The Service has reviewed the 1996 incident cited by Friends of

Animals and concluded that it was one of a small number of unfortunate

and reprehensible poaching incidents that have resulted in mortality

that, while locally dramatic in some cases, does not represent a

significant impact on the walrus population of Alaska

rus populations in recent years, and the legal take has

remained stable.

The Service has reviewed the 1996 incident cited by Friends of

Animals and concluded that it was one of a small number of unfortunate

and reprehensible poaching incidents that have resulted in mortality

that, while locally dramatic in some cases, does not represent a

significant impact on the walrus population of Alaska. Although there

is a possibility that some of the poached ivory finds its way into

illegal international trade, there is no evidence to suggest that the

volume warrants additional CITES controls. Both on biological and trade

grounds, the walrus in the United States does not meet the criteria for

inclusion in CITES Appendix II. Therefore no proposal for taking such

action was submitted.

2. Urial (Ovis vignei).

The Service had requested public comment in its August 28, 1996

notice

on possible co-sponsorship by the United States of a proposal drafted

by Germany to include all subspecies of the urial, a species of sheep

popular among sport trophy hunters, in Appendix I. There have been

varying interpretations of what precise taxonomic entity was intended

by the original listing of this species in Appendix I. As reported in

the Federal Register of December 20, 1996 (61 FR 67293), a review of

this problem was undertaken by the CITES Nomenclature Committee at the

meeting of the CITES Animals Committee in September 1996, in Prague.

The Nomenclature Committee concluded that the taxonomic entity intended

for protection by the original listing could not be determined with

certainty. It was, therefore, recommended that the current listing be

interpreted as being equivalent to that in the CITES-adopted taxonomic

reference for mammals, resulting in the entire species being included

in Appendix I. The Animals Committee endorsed this interpretation. In

light of this recommendation, the draft proposal for listing in

Appendix I became redundant and Germany did not submit the proposal

, therefore, recommended that the current listing be

interpreted as being equivalent to that in the CITES-adopted taxonomic

reference for mammals, resulting in the entire species being included

in Appendix I. The Animals Committee endorsed this interpretation. In

light of this recommendation, the draft proposal for listing in

Appendix I became redundant and Germany did not submit the proposal.

The Service stated its position in the December 20, 1996 notice

that the United States should accept this recommendation of the CITES

Nomenclature and Animals Committees and propose a corresponding change

in its interpretation of the listing of Ovis vignei in 50 CFR part 23.

This interpretation will become effective 90 days after the conclusion

of COP10, if the Parties adopt the report of the Nomenclature

Committee. Under this interpretation, all urial specimens will be

considered to be in Appendix I, and imports will be subject to the

normal permitting requirements applicable to species included in

Appendix I. Public comment on this recommended position was solicited

and is presently being reviewed. Irrespective of the final United

States position, the proposal by Germany is no longer extant and

potential co-sponsorship by the United States is moot. [The Service

cautions that the interpretation of Ovis vignei likely to be adopted by

the CITES Parties, in addition to moving certain sheep populations from

unregulated status to Appendix I from the perspective of the United

States, is a potential source of confusion with respect to

interpretation of taxa listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

(ESA). It is important to note that changes in CITES nomenclature have

no effect whatever on taxa listed under ESA. For example, even though

the sheep subspecies severtzovi is considered now by CITES to belong to

Ovis vignei (only one subspecies of which, O. v. vignei, is listed

under ESA), the ESA continues to consider severtzovi to be a subspecies

of the argali, Ovis ammon

ered Species Act

(ESA). It is important to note that changes in CITES nomenclature have

no effect whatever on taxa listed under ESA. For example, even though

the sheep subspecies severtzovi is considered now by CITES to belong to

Ovis vignei (only one subspecies of which, O. v. vignei, is listed

under ESA), the ESA continues to consider severtzovi to be a subspecies

of the argali, Ovis ammon. It therefore continues to have endangered

status under ESA as a consequence of the Ovis ammon listing as

endangered].

3. Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus)

The North American Falconry Association (NAFA) recommended that the

Service propose transferring the North American population of the

gyrfalcon from Appendix I to Appendix II and prepared a proposal in

support of this recommendation. NAFA submitted an identical proposal to

Canada. Populations of this species have been stable except for natural

fluctuations typical of high arctic breeders. Utilization is almost

entirely by falconers and use is slight compared with the total

population. Today, with the development of effective husbandry

techniques, it appears that most demand for gyrfalcons could be met by

captive-bred specimens.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the

International Wildlife Coalition (IWC) opposed the proposal, citing

illegal trade concerns and failure to meet the downlisting criteria of

CITES Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4, paragraph B. Eight falconry

interests favored the downlisting. Reasons included a price structure

for captive birds under $5,000 (some under $2,000); favoring of hybrid

falcons over pure gyrfalcons by Middle Eastern falconry interests; and

absence of evidence that the wild population is in any difficulty.

Sutton Avian Research Center likened their abundance within their range

to that of the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and supported the

proposal

Reasons included a price structure

for captive birds under $5,000 (some under $2,000); favoring of hybrid

falcons over pure gyrfalcons by Middle Eastern falconry interests; and

absence of evidence that the wild population is in any difficulty.

Sutton Avian Research Center likened their abundance within their range

to that of the red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and supported the

proposal. The North American Raptor Breeders' Association supported a

downlisting but indicated that the species is at the peak of its

popularity and that breeders are gearing up to ``meet the demand.''

Sweden and Denmark, in response to range state consultations for other

populations, objected to the proposed downlisting of the North American

population and consequent split-listing of the species, because of the

possibility that enforcement of trade restrictions on Appendix I

populations of gyrfalcons would be undermined.

The United States indicated in its August 28, 1996 notice that

Canada, the primary range state for the North American population,

would be consulted before a final decision was reached. Citing

Resolution Conf. 9.24, Annex 4, paragraph B, cautioning Parties against

a downlisting to Appendix II when enforcement problems for other

species may ensue, Canada opted not to submit this proposal until after

a working group of the Animals Committee has thoroughly evaluated the

status of the species and the potential enforcement impacts of a

downlisting. The United States agrees that, given the positions still

held by some European Parties, the chances for adoption of a

downlisting by the CITES Parties are minimal until there has been

further review by the Animals Committee. The Service looks forward to

working with interested organizations and Parties in the Animals

Committee's working group and will proactively seek consensus on the

appropriateness of an Appendix II listing for the species.

4

ll

held by some European Parties, the chances for adoption of a

downlisting by the CITES Parties are minimal until there has been

further review by the Animals Committee. The Service looks forward to

working with interested organizations and Parties in the Animals

Committee's working group and will proactively seek consensus on the

appropriateness of an Appendix II listing for the species.

4. Yellow-headed Parrot (Amazona oratrix) and Lilac-crowned Parrot

(Amazona finschi)

The Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), World Wildlife Fund

(WWF), IWC, New York Turtle and Tortoise Society (NYTTS), and Defenders

of Wildlife (DOW) recommended that the Service propose the yellow-

headed parrot, endemic to Mexico and Belize, for transfer from Appendix

II to Appendix I. In addition, WWF recommended the lilac-crowned

parrot, another Mexican endemic, for transfer from Appendix II to I.

The yellow-headed parrot is restricted to the Atlantic and Pacific

lowlands of Mexico and Belize and has suffered precipitous population

declines (particularly in Mexico) because of habitat loss and

collection for the pet trade. It has long been one of the most popular

parrots in international trade. The United States believes this species

clearly qualifies for inclusion in Appendix I under the new listing

criteria. The status of the lilac-crowned parrot, a Mexican endemic, is

not as clear. More information is needed on its status to clarify

whether an Appendix I listing is warranted.

In its August 28, 1996 notice, the Service noted its understanding

that Mexico was reviewing the status of these species and might develop

proposals. The Service also indicated its potential willingness to co-

sponsor such proposals, if submitted by Mexico. Since that time,

Mexican authorities have concluded that there is insufficient

information available at this time to warrant proposing the lilac-

crowned parrot for inclusion in Appendix I

ts understanding

that Mexico was reviewing the status of these species and might develop

proposals. The Service also indicated its potential willingness to co-

sponsor such proposals, if submitted by Mexico. Since that time,

Mexican authorities have concluded that there is insufficient

information available at this time to warrant proposing the lilac-

crowned parrot for inclusion in Appendix I. Although Mexico informed

the United States that it was seriously considering proposing the

yellow-headed parrot for Appendix I, no proposal was submitted to the

Secretariat by the January 10, 1997, deadline. Therefore there are no

proposals on either of these species that will be considered by the

Parties at COP10. The Service intends to continue working with Mexico

on these issues between now and COP11.

5. North American Softshell Turtles (Apalone spp.)

The HSUS submitted a proposal to include the softshell turtle genus

Apalone in Appendix II. This genus consists of three species of

freshwater turtles inhabiting both riverine and stillwater habitats: A.

spinifera, ranging across most of the eastern and central United States

and northeastern Mexico, with scattered populations farther west; A.

mutica, inhabiting the Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi River drainages

south to the Gulf of Mexico and extending to western Florida and

central Texas, with an isolated population in New Mexico; and A. ferox,

ranging through southern South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and the

coastal plain of Alabama. Although there is little information on the

population status of any of these species, none is considered

potentially threatened at present. Some studies suggest population

declines. They are more prolific than many turtles species, laying up

to 40 eggs in a clutch. They can be multiple-brooded, with up to six

clutches per year in A. ferox. All species are vulnerable to damming of

rivers and to loss of preferred habitats in general

he

population status of any of these species, none is considered

potentially threatened at present. Some studies suggest population

declines. They are more prolific than many turtles species, laying up

to 40 eggs in a clutch. They can be multiple-brooded, with up to six

clutches per year in A. ferox. All species are vulnerable to damming of

rivers and to loss of preferred habitats in general.

Although some animals are taken for the pet trade, softshell

turtles are primarily exploited for food. We understand that the major

domestic and foreign markets are Asian communities. Service data

suggest that as many as 60,000 live animals may have been exported in

1994 and over 16,000 lbs. of meat exported in 1993. Apalone ferox

appears to be the species most heavily exploited. Many of the animals

exported are produced in turtle farms in Florida and other southeastern

states, but the impact of such farms on wild populations is poorly

understood.

Several public comments were received. A large commercial dealer in

Florida stated that he obtains young animals from a wide area, raises

them to the 1-3 lb. stage in enclosed ponds, and sells them to New York

Asian markets. He also believed very large numbers of eggs are

collected in Lake Okeechobee, hatched, and exported as hatchlings. WWF

and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission stated that large

numbers of adults (presumably breeding-age) are taken from Lake

Okeechobee illegally and sold for meat. P. Meylan (Eckard College)

indicated such take results in local depletion of populations. The Pet

Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) stated that hatchling softshell

turtles are exported from Louisiana turtle farms after being tested for

Salmonella infection. David Cook, a Florida biologist, stated the

species is not in immediate danger of extinction and, although there is

probably some successful propagation, it is probably not happening

without supplementation from the wild. P. Pritchard said A. ferox is

still abundant in Florida

at hatchling softshell

turtles are exported from Louisiana turtle farms after being tested for

Salmonella infection. David Cook, a Florida biologist, stated the

species is not in immediate danger of extinction and, although there is

probably some successful propagation, it is probably not happening

without supplementation from the wild. P. Pritchard said A. ferox is

still abundant in Florida. Two biology graduate students from Florida

(J. Roman and B. Bowen) also said that A. ferox is abundant throughout

peninsular Florida. The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) felt the

biological information was not adequate to justify a proposal, but that

there is enough evidence of high-volume trade to list in order that

monitoring efforts would be better.

Despite high and apparently increasing levels of trade, the Service

believes that the evidence presented does not at this time suggest that

wild populations are being negatively affected or are particularly

vulnerable to existing pressures. These species (especially A. ferox)

have substantial recruitment potential compared with many other turtle

species and may well be able to sustain current levels of take and

trade. Therefore it appears that they may not meet the criteria for

inclusion in Appendix II. Nonetheless, the Service intends to explore

the relationships between softshell turtle exports and turtle farming

practices before COP11, in order to obtain a better assessment of the

impact of international trade on wild populations. The Service will

also consult State agencies and turtle biologists, in an effort to

better understand the degree to which wild animals are taken directly

for export and the status and potential vulnerability of wild

populations subject to commercial take.

6. Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum) and Beaded Lizard (Heloderma

horridum)

The HSUS submitted a proposal to transfer the Gila monster and the

beaded lizard from Appendix II to Appendix I and requested the Service

to consider submitting it to COP10

e to which wild animals are taken directly

for export and the status and potential vulnerability of wild

populations subject to commercial take.

6. Gila Monster (Heloderma suspectum) and Beaded Lizard (Heloderma

horridum)

The HSUS submitted a proposal to transfer the Gila monster and the

beaded lizard from Appendix II to Appendix I and requested the Service

to consider submitting it to COP10. The partly arboreal beaded lizard

is patchily distributed in tropical dry forests of Mexico from Sonora

to northern Chiapas, with one isolated race in eastern Guatemala. In

consultation with Mexican authorities, the Service was told that the

beaded lizard is fairly common within its Mexican range and is not

taken for the pet trade to a significant degree. Mexico does not

believe the beaded lizard meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix

I. In the absence of compelling information to the contrary, the United

States accepts this position and has not proposed transfer of this

species to Appendix I.

The Gila monster occurs in arid and semi-arid gravelly and sandy

habitats with some shrubs from southwestern Utah and southern Nevada

and California south through Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and into

northern Mexico. Populations are believed by some to have suffered from

habitat degradation, killing, and collection for roadside zoos (mainly

historically) and the pet trade. But there are no estimates of

population size or trend. The species is biologically vulnerable,

because it has a clutch size of only 2-12 and it reproduces only every

other year. The Gila monster is legally protected from commercial use

throughout its range by State and Mexican legislation. Very small

numbers appear in legal international trade records (40 were reported

exported from the United States in 1994). Illegal trade is considered

substantial by some, but total annual confiscations in the United

States are typically fewer than 100 animals

ly every

other year. The Gila monster is legally protected from commercial use

throughout its range by State and Mexican legislation. Very small

numbers appear in legal international trade records (40 were reported

exported from the United States in 1994). Illegal trade is considered

substantial by some, but total annual confiscations in the United

States are typically fewer than 100 animals. The HSUS proposal argued

that poaching has reached epidemic levels, individuals cost up to

$3,600 in Japan, and an Appendix I listing would eliminate the

opportunity for wild-caught animals to be traded falsely as captive-

bred.

There was very limited comment from the public on potential

transfer of the Gila monster to Appendix I. The EIA, Sedgwick County

Zoo, and an unaffiliated biologist supported the transfer. Transfer to

Appendix I was opposed by PIJAC, Reptile Masters, two private breeders,

and the National Herpetological Alliance (NHA), representing reptile

breeders. PIJAC stated that the levels of reported legal trade are

consistent with present captive-breeding capability, and that uplisting

will drive prices up. The NHA claimed a transfer would discourage

captive-breeding efforts and would not reduce the volume of illegal

trade. One of the major breeders of Heloderma (S. and K. Osborne)

disputed the alleged likelihood of much laundering of wild animals

through captive-breeding operations and pointed out that there have

been significant improvements in husbandry and breeding success since

1992. They indicated that at least 176 were hatched in the U.S. in the

past two years. The State of Arizona opposed a transfer to Appendix I,

stating that the species was not rare there, was no longer affected by

collection for

h laundering of wild animals

through captive-breeding operations and pointed out that there have

been significant improvements in husbandry and breeding success since

1992. They indicated that at least 176 were hatched in the U.S. in the

past two years. The State of Arizona opposed a transfer to Appendix I,

stating that the species was not rare there, was no longer affected by

collection for

roadside zoos, and did not meet the criteria for either Appendix I or

Appendix II.

The Service has concluded that there is little evidence to suggest

that this species meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I. There

is no evidence for population declines beyond that which can be deduced

from development near urban areas of the arid Southwest. Recorded legal

trade is very small, and evidence of an illegal trade of sufficient

magnitude to cause serious population concerns has not been provided.

International trade controls afforded by the Appendix II listing, in

combination with additional protections afforded by State and Mexican

legislation, appear to be sufficient at the present time. Therefore, no

proposal was submitted for this species.

7. Sail-fin Lizards (Hydrosaurus spp., Hypsilurus spp., and

Physignathus lesueurii).

Gregory Watkins-Colwell, a biologist and expert on the genus

Hydrosaurus, submitted a proposal for the inclusion of the two species

in this genus (H. amboinensis = weberi and H. pustulatus) in Appendix

II under provisions of Article II(2)(a), and the genus Hypsilurus

(incorporating 11 species) and the species Physignathus lesueurii in

Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b) (similarity of

appearance), and asked the Service to consider submitting the proposal

to COP10. These species, also commonly known as sail lizards, sail-tail

dragons, and water dragons, are native to the southwestern Pacific

region, including Australia. Hydrosaurus lizards are endemic to the

Philippines and eastern Indonesia, including western Irian Jaya

I under provisions of Article II(2)(b) (similarity of

appearance), and asked the Service to consider submitting the proposal

to COP10. These species, also commonly known as sail lizards, sail-tail

dragons, and water dragons, are native to the southwestern Pacific

region, including Australia. Hydrosaurus lizards are endemic to the

Philippines and eastern Indonesia, including western Irian Jaya.

Hypsilurus are found primarily in New Guinea, with some ranging to

Fiji, Oceania, and New South Wales and Queensland in Australia.

Physignathus lesueurii appears to be confined to eastern Australia.

Virtually nothing is known about current sizes or trends of

populations. Clutch size ranges from 5 to 9 eggs and reproduction

occurs on an annual cycle. In addition to habitat loss, collection for

the pet trade, a practice facilitated by the loss of natural habitat,

is perceived to be a potential threat to at least some populations.

Service wildlife enforcement records indicate total imports of 1,700

animals reported as H. pustulatus from 1993 to 1996.

Of the substantive comments received, eight were opposed to the

listing and none were in support. The World Conservation Union (IUCN,

R.W. Jenkins) pointed out that wild examples of the mentioned species

that occur in Australia and Papua New Guinea are protected by law, that

there is not a similarity-of-appearance problem between Hydrosaurus and

Physignathus, and that the species Hydrosaurus amboinensis is common to

moderately abundant in Indonesia. The latter comment was supported by

P. Harlow (University of Sydney), an expert on some of the species. He,

along with PIJAC and California Zoological Supply, stated that the

proposal was based too much on absence of evidence that Appendix II

criteria are not met, rather than on evidence that they are

and that the species Hydrosaurus amboinensis is common to

moderately abundant in Indonesia. The latter comment was supported by

P. Harlow (University of Sydney), an expert on some of the species. He,

along with PIJAC and California Zoological Supply, stated that the

proposal was based too much on absence of evidence that Appendix II

criteria are not met, rather than on evidence that they are.

In the absence of new information in support of the arguments for

an Appendix II listing, the Service is not convinced, by either the

biological or trade information, that the criteria for Appendix II are

met. Although some of the species proposed, or isolated populations of

some species, may face potential threats from international trade, the

preponderance of evidence points to species that are fairly common and

resilient. More species-specific information, more field evidence of

population status, and evidence of higher trade volume would strengthen

the proposal. The Service has, therefore, not submitted a proposal on

this group of species at this time. However, the Service will make an

effort to monitor more closely the imports of Hydrosaurus species in

particular, and will urge other importing Parties to do the same, in an

effort to improve our understanding of the magnitude of trade.

8. Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) and Western

Diamondback Rattlesnake (C. atrox)

EIA submitted a proposal for including the eastern diamondback

rattlesnake in Appendix II and recommended that the Service consider

submitting it to COP10. In considering this proposal, the Service

suggested, in its August 28, 1996 notice, that the western diamondback

should also be included, because of its similarity of appearance and

its occurrence in high volumes in trade. Eastern diamondbacks range

mainly through lowland pine forests from North Carolina to extreme

eastern Louisiana

commended that the Service consider

submitting it to COP10. In considering this proposal, the Service

suggested, in its August 28, 1996 notice, that the western diamondback

should also be included, because of its similarity of appearance and

its occurrence in high volumes in trade. Eastern diamondbacks range

mainly through lowland pine forests from North Carolina to extreme

eastern Louisiana. Because of extensive loss of those natural habitats,

these snakes now survive in reduced numbers in other natural and human-

altered habitats. Reproduction is limited by delayed sexual maturity

(2-3 years) and long inter-birth intervals (2-3 years). Populations

have declined significantly enough to result in their classification as

a species of special concern in both South Carolina and Alabama. Using

a scoring system for vulnerability, the Florida Game and Freshwater

Fish Commission ranked it near the median score for ``species of

special concern,'' but has not included the species in that list.

Because rattlesnakes represent a potential threat to human health and

life, this species, like many other rattlesnakes, has historically been

killed intentionally in large numbers. Although commercial utilization

for the pet trade, and for meat, skins, and novelty jewelry is

noteworthy, records of export are not high. Service wildlife

enforcement data show exports of 1,510 and 1,475 whole animals in 1992

and 1993 respectively. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, 26.7, 119.8, and

2,419.7 pounds of eastern diamondback meat were also recorded as being

exported.

The proposal to include the eastern diamondback rattlesnake in

Appendix II was supported by the HSUS and WWF. WWF pointed out,

however, that 90% of the international trade is in C. atrox. Comments

from eight biologists or biological organizations (including the

Virginia Herpetological Society and the Herpetologists'' League) were

supportive. J.Butler (University of North Florida) said not enough is

known about population status. B

ondback rattlesnake in

Appendix II was supported by the HSUS and WWF. WWF pointed out,

however, that 90% of the international trade is in C. atrox. Comments

from eight biologists or biological organizations (including the

Virginia Herpetological Society and the Herpetologists'' League) were

supportive. J.Butler (University of North Florida) said not enough is

known about population status. B. Herrington (Georgia Southwestern

University) and R. Mount (Auburn University) said there have been

declines in populations, the latter saying it has been precipitous in

Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. A large commercial dealer in the

Southeast (Campbell's Farm) said the species is increasing in the

Southeast, and 96% of the snakes he handles (domestic transactions) had

been found dead. The Wildlife Conservation Society questioned whether,

given the apparently low level of international trade, a listing on

Appendix II would confer a significant conservation benefit. Louisiana

(where the species is very rare) and Florida opposed listing. Florida

advised caution in interpreting their own data on domestic trade, as

they have drawn no conclusions themselves. Arizona opposed listing of

the western diamondback for reasons of similarity of appearance,

stating that the eastern diamondback is more easily confused with some

other species of Crotalus.

Based upon population and trade data made available to the Service,

the Service does not find a convincing case for proposing either of

these species for Appendix II at this time. Although there are no

quantitative data, population decline speculations for the eastern

diamondback are undoubtedly correct. However, the declines appear to be

related mainly to factors other than international trade. And there

appears to be no basis for concluding (as for the

ce,

the Service does not find a convincing case for proposing either of

these species for Appendix II at this time. Although there are no

quantitative data, population decline speculations for the eastern

diamondback are undoubtedly correct. However, the declines appear to be

related mainly to factors other than international trade. And there

appears to be no basis for concluding (as for the

timber rattlesnake, discussed below) that populations are in such poor

condition that even low levels of international trade could be

detrimental. However, the Service acknowledges the existence of a

significant level of international trade overall in rattlesnake

products originating in the United States. Most of this trade is

recorded as being in the western diamondback, a species considered

biologically more resilient to exploitation than its eastern relative.

But the potential for mislabelling eastern diamondbacks as western

diamondbacks exists. The Service has not submitted a proposal but will

continue to monitor trade in both of these species and reassess before

COP11 whether either or both warrant Appendix II status at that time.

9. Western Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Populations of Requiem Sharks

(Carcharhinidae spp.) and Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias)

The Ocean Wildlife Campaign (OWC) initially recommended that the

Service propose listing in Appendix II populations of all shark species

in the Carcharhinidae family that occur in the western Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico. A complete proposal on the dusky shark (C. obscurus)

was subsequently received by the Service.

The dusky shark is a cosmopolitan, warm-water species, one of over

50 species in the Carcharhinidae family. The northwest Atlantic

population has declined to only a small fraction of 1970's population

levels. There is no strong evidence that the population is recovering

Atlantic and

Gulf of Mexico. A complete proposal on the dusky shark (C. obscurus)

was subsequently received by the Service.

The dusky shark is a cosmopolitan, warm-water species, one of over

50 species in the Carcharhinidae family. The northwest Atlantic

population has declined to only a small fraction of 1970's population

levels. There is no strong evidence that the population is recovering.

It, along with 38 other shark species, is managed in the United States

under the National Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Fishery Management Plan

for Sharks of the Atlantic Ocean (large coastal shark category). The

species is subjected to a targeted long-line and inshore gill net

fishery and is one of only several species of requiem sharks targeted

by fisheries. It is a very desirable species for its fins, which are

exported to Asian markets. Because requiem sharks are long-lived, slow-

growing animals with limited reproductive potential, they are

particularly vulnerable to overfishing.

Additionally, the OWC proposed that the spiny dogfish population in

western Atlantic waters be listed in Appendix II. The western Atlantic

population ranges from Greenland to Florida. Like the dusky shark, the

spiny dogfish is an elasmobranch or cartilaginous fish. It shares with

other elasmobranchs life history characteristics that render it more

vulnerable to exploitation than many bony fishes. The spiny dogfish

occurs in discrete populations in warm temperate and boreal waters.

Currently it appears to be common in northwest Atlantic waters, but it

is considered fully utilized by the fishery. Recent stock assessments

indicate a rapid increase in landings and a possibly unsustainable take

of adult females. Between 1987 and 1993, spiny dogfish landings appear

to have increased seven-fold. Dogfish are vulnerable to overharvest, as

evidenced by the collapse of the Scottish-Norwegian stock of spiny

dogfish

northwest Atlantic waters, but it

is considered fully utilized by the fishery. Recent stock assessments

indicate a rapid increase in landings and a possibly unsustainable take

of adult females. Between 1987 and 1993, spiny dogfish landings appear

to have increased seven-fold. Dogfish are vulnerable to overharvest, as

evidenced by the collapse of the Scottish-Norwegian stock of spiny

dogfish. Discards from other fisheries, especially from vessels

targeting groundfish, contribute an unknown but substantial fraction to

current mortality levels. Spiny dogfish meat is increasingly popular as

a substitute for more traditional commercial fish in such products as

fish and chips in Europe. The primary commercial markets are Europe,

for meat, and Asia, for fins and skin. There is no management plan in

the U.S. waters for spiny dogfish, although the mid-Atlantic Fishery

Management Council has begun the scoping process for such a plan.

Proposing the dusky shark and spiny dogfish for inclusion in

Appendix II was opposed by all commercial interests and supported by

all conservation organizations that responded to the August 28, 1996

notice. It was opposed by the National Fisheries Institute (a U.S. non-

government organization), Fisheries Agency of Japan, Japan Fisheries

Association, Global Guardian Trust (a Japanese non-government

organization), International Wildlife Management Consortium, the

European Bureau for Conservation and Development, the New Hampshire

Commercial Fishermen's Association, Massachusetts Netters Association,

and Seatrade (a commercial dealer in dogfish meat). It was supported by

the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, National Audubon

Society, WCS, OWC, American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists, American Elasmobranch Society, and a petition from 21

scientists in the IUCN Shark Specialist Group

ew Hampshire

Commercial Fishermen's Association, Massachusetts Netters Association,

and Seatrade (a commercial dealer in dogfish meat). It was supported by

the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, National Audubon

Society, WCS, OWC, American Society of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists, American Elasmobranch Society, and a petition from 21

scientists in the IUCN Shark Specialist Group.

The main arguments of supporters of the dusky shark proposal were

the severely depleted populations, heavy targeted take for fins, lack

of data on export from the United States, and the vulnerable biological

characteristics of sharks. The main arguments of opponents were lack of

adequate population information, existence of other multilateral

fisheries management bodies, the need to complete the implementation of

CITES Resolution Conf. 9.17, ``Status of International Trade in Shark

Species'', before any listings are considered, the existence of a

management plan under NMFS, abuse of the precautionary principle (cf.

Resolution Conf. 9.24), and the unfairness of the implications for

commercial take of the other similar species worldwide.

The main arguments of supporters of the spiny dogfish being listed

were the very heavy and increasing fishing pressure, decrease in the

catch-per-unit-effort in the past few years, the targeting of adult

females, the decrease in the size of fish now available and

corresponding changes in the types of nets used to catch them, a

history of other populations of elasmobranchs collapsing from over-

fishing, biological vulnerability, and the absence of a management

plan. The main arguments of those opposed to the listing were the large

current populations, the importance in the commercial catch of New

England fishermen, the prediction of a management plan being developed,

existence of other multilateral fisheries management bodies, the need

for better population information, and damage to the process for

implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17

nagement

plan. The main arguments of those opposed to the listing were the large

current populations, the importance in the commercial catch of New

England fishermen, the prediction of a management plan being developed,

existence of other multilateral fisheries management bodies, the need

for better population information, and damage to the process for

implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17.

Although the United States believes both of these species meet the

criteria for inclusion in Appendix II, for several reasons we have

chosen not to propose them at this time. Foremost among these is the

fact that management of landings, import, and export of marine fish

will be complex and will take time to implement effectively. New

mechanisms of interagency and international cooperation, new funding,

additional personnel, training, and new permitting procedures will

likely be required. Second, there is a serious similarity-of-appearance

problem within the requiem shark group that will further complicate

implementation and enforcement. Finally, more effective mechanisms of

coordination and cooperation between CITES and international commercial

fishery management bodies are desirable with respect to regulation of

trade in CITES-listed marine fishes. For these reasons the United

States has submitted a draft resolution to COP10 proposing

establishment of a Marine Fishes Working Group (described in more

detail in a notice in the Federal Register published on March 27, 1997

(62 FR 14689), under the auspices of the CITES Standing Committee and

analogous to the CITES Timber Working Group, to address implementation

issues associated with inclusion of sharks or other marine fishes in

Appendix II, and to provide a forum for the completion of the

implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17. Given the anticipated

substantial progress by this working group, the

ch 27, 1997

(62 FR 14689), under the auspices of the CITES Standing Committee and

analogous to the CITES Timber Working Group, to address implementation

issues associated with inclusion of sharks or other marine fishes in

Appendix II, and to provide a forum for the completion of the

implementation of Resolution Conf. 9.17. Given the anticipated

substantial progress by this working group, the

United States will be prepared to submit appropriate shark species

proposals for consideration by the Parties at COP11.

10. Edible Pearlymussel (Cyprogenia aberti)

In the August 28, 1996 notice, the Service was considering

proposing removal of four species of freshwater mussels (Cyprogenia

aberti, Fusconaia subrotunda, Lampsilis brevicula [= Lampsilis reeviana

brevicula], and Lexingtonia dolabelloides) from Appendix II. These were

among several species recommended for removal from Appendix II by the

Periodic Review Working Group of the CITES Animals Committee. This

working group examines historical and recent trade levels in species

included in Appendix II to determine whether their listing continues to

be warranted. There is no evidence that any of the four species listed

above have been involved in trade. In reviewing the status of these

four species, the United States has concluded that only the edible

pearly mussel (= western fanshell) warrants retention in Appendix II as

a precautionary measure pending further review, as it is considered

endangered by the IUCN. The United States has submitted a proposal,

discussed below, to remove the other three species of freshwater

mussels from Appendix II. No public comments were received on mussels.

11. Pacific Yew (Taxus brevifolia)

The Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) recommended that the

United States propose the Pacific yew for inclusion in Appendix II.

This species occurs in a limited range on public and private lands in

the western United States and Canada

, to remove the other three species of freshwater

mussels from Appendix II. No public comments were received on mussels.

11. Pacific Yew (Taxus brevifolia)

The Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) recommended that the

United States propose the Pacific yew for inclusion in Appendix II.

This species occurs in a limited range on public and private lands in

the western United States and Canada. An effective anti-cancer compound

(paclitaxel or Taxol) is obtained especially from its bark, as well as

to an increasing but unknown extent from other species of Taxus, and

similar Taxus compounds are being investigated. Some companies are

working on methods of obtaining paclitaxel from Taxus needles and

branches (which avoids loss of the whole plant). Laboratory substitutes

for the natural compound are either not available or not available in

adequate commercial quantity, and there is some semi-synthetic

production. This species is not grown commercially in large quantity

for medicinal use, but there is some ornamental cultivation. Pacific

yew has minor value as a timber species. There is some export of

Pacific yew biomass for manufacture of paclitaxel in other countries.

The Himalayan yew (Taxus wallichiana) was listed in Appendix II at COP9

in 1994, excluding the finished pharmaceutical products (i.e., the end-

product medicine).

The Service sought information regarding: (1) the intensity and

purposes of removal of the several parts of this species from the wild

in various areas, the characteristics of the populations impacted by

these extractions, and the trends in those populations; (2) the

location, characteristics, and safety of populations that will not be

available for extraction; (3) the extent to which biomass from the wild

(i.e., materials other than the end-point medicine) is exported from

either country; and (4) the degree to which the medicinal trade

involves other wild Taxus species, and/or non-wild sources of the

compound (e.g., from cultivated Pacific yew or other species, or f

aracteristics, and safety of populations that will not be

available for extraction; (3) the extent to which biomass from the wild

(i.e., materials other than the end-point medicine) is exported from

either country; and (4) the degree to which the medicinal trade

involves other wild Taxus species, and/or non-wild sources of the

compound (e.g., from cultivated Pacific yew or other species, or from

laboratory synthesis).

Comments were received from eleven organizations or individuals.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection stated they

were ``not opposed'' to the potential listing in Appendix II, and

comments in support of a proposal were received from the Oregon

Department of Forestry, ONRC Action and ONRC, and the Humane Society of

the United States. Weyerhaeuser Company stated that they were neutral

with regard to inclusion of the wild population in Appendix II, and

opposed to inclusion of specimens of cultivated origin. Comments in

opposition to a proposal were received from the Province of British

Columbia, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1 (which includes the Pacific Northwest region), the American

Forest & Paper Association, and a private individual.

The threat (i.e., harvest pressure) on the Pacific yew and other

yew (Taxus) species may presently be increasing, because of the

interest of various companies in obtaining medicinal compounds from

yews, and the limited capability of most companies to synthesize the

effective medicine. Nevertheless, substantial populations of Taxus

brevifolia are effectively protected in Federal and State parks and

similar natural areas throughout its range in the United States and

similarly in British Columbia. In addition, tree species in riparian

areas (usually within 100 feet of streams) receive protection on some

U.S. Federal lands (e.g., public lands administered by the U.S. Forest

Service and the Bureau of Land Management). Furthermore, the U.S

effectively protected in Federal and State parks and

similar natural areas throughout its range in the United States and

similarly in British Columbia. In addition, tree species in riparian

areas (usually within 100 feet of streams) receive protection on some

U.S. Federal lands (e.g., public lands administered by the U.S. Forest

Service and the Bureau of Land Management). Furthermore, the U.S.

Forest Service has developed thorough detailed management plans for

harvesting and conserving Pacific yew, and the Pacific yew also has

some direct legal protection in Oregon and British Columbia. Also,

efforts are continuing to produce the medicinal compounds in commercial

quantity by chemical synthesis, and to cultivate several Taxus species

in quantity.

Given these several circumstances, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service concluded that sufficient wild and managed populations of Taxus

brevifolia are or can be sufficiently conserved under existing

authorities and management systems or plans, so that inclusion of the

species in Appendix II was not warranted. Reconsideration of this

species for CITES might only become appropriate if, with an increasing

interest in harvest from the wild, such authorities and directives in

the United States or Canada were to significantly weaken or the

management systems and plans were found to be inadequate in practice.

12. Aloe Vera (Aloe vera var. vera) (Wild Population)

species in Appendix II was not warranted. Reconsideration of this

species for CITES might only become appropriate if, with an increasing

interest in harvest from the wild, such authorities and directives in

the United States or Canada were to significantly weaken or the

management systems and plans were found to be inadequate in practice.

12. Aloe Vera (Aloe vera var. vera) (Wild Population)

At its meeting in June 1995, the CITES Plants Committee recognized

that this taxon may be endangered rather than extinct within its native

range, which is increasingly considered to be on the Arabian Peninsula

(or possibly the adjacent horn of Africa). At COP9, the wild population

was delisted along with the artificially propagated population. All

other aloes are listed in Appendix II or Appendix I, but the cultivated

specimens of Aloe vera var. vera and products derived from them are

very common in international trade. A specialist in succulents

recommended that the United States submit a proposal to return this

wild population to Appendix II. Because the focus would be on

protecting the plants of this taxon in its isolated native range, such

a listing would not interfere with the unregulated trade in the very

common artificially propagated specimens and the derivatives of them.

Comments were received from: (1) the Humane Society of the United

States recommending that a proposal be submitted to include the taxon

in Appendix II or preferably Appendix I; (2) a succulent specialist,

supporting a proposal; (3) the California Cactus Growers Association

against submitting a proposal; and (4) the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.,

which provided some comments toward obtaining fuller information on the

topic.

The United States considered this subject in coordination with the

North Africa representative to the CITES Plants Committee (as agreed at

the 1995 meeting of the Plants Committee), and with the IUCN Species

Survival Commission Arabian Plant Specialist Group. Results were

discussed at the

orld Wildlife Fund-U.S.,

which provided some comments toward obtaining fuller information on the

topic.

The United States considered this subject in coordination with the

North Africa representative to the CITES Plants Committee (as agreed at

the 1995 meeting of the Plants Committee), and with the IUCN Species

Survival Commission Arabian Plant Specialist Group. Results were

discussed at the

November 1996 meeting of the Plants Committee. The conclusion there was

to agree to a collaborative effort involving especially Morocco, Italy,

and the United Kingdom, for field work on the Arabian Peninsula and

analysis of genetic variability to ascertain whether populations known

there are truly native wild populations or only naturalized (perhaps

from ancient introduction). The results are expected to be ready in

time to make decisions for COP11.

Species Proposals Submitted

1. Green-cheeked (Red-crowned) Parrot (Amazona viridigenalis)

The EIA, WWF, IWC, NYTTS, and DOW recommended that the Service

propose the green-cheeked (red-crowned) parrot, a Mexican endemic, for

transfer from Appendix II to Appendix I. This species is endemic to

riparian forests and deciduous woodlands of Tamaulipas and San Luis

Potosi in northeast Mexico. Feral populations have been established in

several locations in both Mexico and the United States, including

Texas. Recent population estimates of only 3,000 to 6,500 birds in the

wild represent a severe decline from populations several decades ago.

Habitat loss, control as an agricultural pest, and extensive

exploitation for the pet trade have all contributed to the decline.

Although protected from capture and trade in Mexico since 1982, the

level of illegal trade suggested by confiscations is highly significant

relative to the estimated population of the species. The level of

known, illegal international trade relative to its population status

indicates that trade is a significant contributor to the precarious

status of its populations

ntributed to the decline.

Although protected from capture and trade in Mexico since 1982, the

level of illegal trade suggested by confiscations is highly significant

relative to the estimated population of the species. The level of

known, illegal international trade relative to its population status

indicates that trade is a significant contributor to the precarious

status of its populations. The Service indicated in its August 28, 1996

notice that it believes this species qualifies for Appendix I under the

new listing criteria and that Appendix I trade controls would further

discourage illegal trade, because of the more stringent permitting

requirements and the rigorous criteria that captive-breeding facilities

for Appendix I species must meet.

Proposing the green-cheeked parrot for inclusion in Appendix I was

supported by the HSUS, DOW, and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). It

was opposed by the American Federation of Aviculture (AFA), Hill

Country Aviaries, PIJAC, and C. Roscher. Arguments against uplisting

any of the Amazon parrots then being considered included: insufficient

data on the status of wild populations; low likelihood that a complete

prohibition on trade would decrease the incidence of illegal trade

(because the species is presently protected in both range states); and

discouragement of captive-breeding, which is viewed as a hedge against

loss of species in the wild for reasons unrelated to international

trade.

In its August 28, 1996 notice, the Service noted that it expected

Mexico to prepare a proposal to include this species in Appendix I.

Mexico did prepare and submit such a proposal to the CITES Secretariat.

The United States continues to believe that this species clearly meets

Appendix I criteria and will gain a measure of additional security from

an Appendix I listing. The United States appreciates that the country

to which it is endemic has similarly recognized this need

re a proposal to include this species in Appendix I.

Mexico did prepare and submit such a proposal to the CITES Secretariat.

The United States continues to believe that this species clearly meets

Appendix I criteria and will gain a measure of additional security from

an Appendix I listing. The United States appreciates that the country

to which it is endemic has similarly recognized this need. In response

to concerns expressed by avicultural interests about the impact of an

Appendix I listing on trade in captive-bred birds, the Service notes

that specimens of Appendix I species bred in captivity in accordance

with CITES standards (and in facilities registered by the CITES

Secretariat, if bred for commercial purposes) can be traded with CITES

Appendix II documents. The Service believes that such a listing will

encourage captive-breeding operations that are virtually self-

sustaining and represent no direct or indirect threat to wild

populations. Having received Mexico's concurrence, the United States is

now a co-proponent of their proposal. Independently, Germany also

submitted a proposal to include the green-cheeked parrot in Appendix I.

2. Straw-Headed Bulbul (Pycnonotus zeylanicus)

WWF proposed that ``southeast Asian songbirds'' involved

extensively in the pet trade be considered for CITES protection, but

did not provide a draft proposal. The Service examined the information

contained in the TRAFFIC Southeast Asia report ``Sold for a Song''

provided by WWF, and indicated its interest in proposing one of the

species that clearly meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix II,

the straw-headed bulbul of Indonesia (Sumatra, Kalimantan, Java) and

Malaysia. This species has declined or been extirpated from all but the

remotest parts of its range in Indonesia by a combination of excessive

trapping for the pet trade and habitat destruction. The remainder of

its natural range, in Peninsular Malaysia, is smaller than its former

range in Indonesia

nclusion in Appendix II,

the straw-headed bulbul of Indonesia (Sumatra, Kalimantan, Java) and

Malaysia. This species has declined or been extirpated from all but the

remotest parts of its range in Indonesia by a combination of excessive

trapping for the pet trade and habitat destruction. The remainder of

its natural range, in Peninsular Malaysia, is smaller than its former

range in Indonesia.

Subsequent to its initial consideration of developing a proposal,

the United States learned that the Netherlands had already drafted a

proposal to include the straw-headed bulbul in Appendix II and

conducted range-state consultations. In its August 28, 1996 notice, the

Service indicated its potential interest in co-sponsoring this proposal

with the Netherlands. No public comments were received on this

possibility. The Service, therefore, with the approval of the

Netherlands, indicated its co-proponency on the proposal submitted to

the CITES Secretariat by the Netherlands to include the straw-headed

bulbul in Appendix II.

3. Map Turtles (Graptemys spp.)

HSUS, supported by DOW, EIA, IWC, and NYTTS, submitted a proposal

to include the twelve species of map turtles, genus Graptemys, in

Appendix II and requested the Service to consider proposing it to

COP10. This genus includes the following species: Graptemys

geographica, barbouri, pulchra, ernsti, gibbonsi, caglei,

pseudogeographica (includes kohnii), ouachitensis, versa, oculifera,

flavimaculata, and nigrinoda. Graptemys geographica occurs throughout

most of the eastern half of the United States and southeastern Canada;

G. pseudogeographica ranges through the Missouri and Mississippi River

drainages; G. ouachitensis overlaps extensively with the latter but

extends farther east and west. These three species are the most common

and widely distributed members of the genus. Graptemys flavimaculata

and G. oculifera are the most geographically restricted species,

occurring only in limited river systems in Mississippi (and Louisiana--

G

anges through the Missouri and Mississippi River

drainages; G. ouachitensis overlaps extensively with the latter but

extends farther east and west. These three species are the most common

and widely distributed members of the genus. Graptemys flavimaculata

and G. oculifera are the most geographically restricted species,

occurring only in limited river systems in Mississippi (and Louisiana--

G. oculifera only). Both are listed as threatened under the ESA.

Graptemys nigrinoda is classified as endangered under Mississippi State

law and G. barbouri is considered vulnerable to extirpation in Florida.

As with most turtle species, population data are limited, except

for those species already considered endangered or threatened.

Biologists who have studied seven of the species believe that

populations have generally declined. Data from the Service's wildlife

enforcement records show that international trade is substantial and

may be increasing significantly. Although Service export records

identified to genus or species totaled 27,720 for 1991 and 111,674 for

1994, discussions with turtle farmers and the State of Louisiana (see

below) indicate that actual numbers are much higher. The bulk of this

trade appears to consist of hatchlings produced in captivity on turtle

farms in the Southeast. Although some turtle farmers in Louisiana are

beginning to recruit some of their own breeding stock from captive-

hatched

otaled 27,720 for 1991 and 111,674 for

1994, discussions with turtle farmers and the State of Louisiana (see

below) indicate that actual numbers are much higher. The bulk of this

trade appears to consist of hatchlings produced in captivity on turtle

farms in the Southeast. Although some turtle farmers in Louisiana are

beginning to recruit some of their own breeding stock from captive-

hatched

animals, it is still necessary to draw upon wild populations to varying

degrees for establishing and maintaining a breeding population.

There was considerable public reaction to the proposal. The WCS

recommended listing for monitoring purposes and recommended that States

collect species-specific data on age classes, because of the

sensitivity of populations to collection of breeding adults. M. Ewert

(Indiana University) felt the genus should be listed because nine of

the twelve species are so restricted in distribution. K. Dodd (U.S.

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division) believes some of the

unlisted species are vulnerable to international trade, although some

species are abundant. S. Santhuff (University of Florida) supported the

proposal and believes G. nigrinoda should be listed under the ESA. He

expressed concern over the vulnerability of the genus to collection and

referred to a collector in Georgia who set 3,000 as a goal for a single

night's collection.

PIJAC and various commercial interests expressed opposition to the

proposal. PIJAC questioned assertions about the popularity of map

turtles as pets in the United States, and pointed out that the majority

of exporters listed in the proposal are regulated turtle farms. PIJAC

recommended that export figures be broken down by ``captive-raised''

and ``wild-caught'' in order to judge potential impacts. The proposal

from the HSUS did not reflect the significant portion of the trade

attributable to captive-hatched animals. C

map

turtles as pets in the United States, and pointed out that the majority

of exporters listed in the proposal are regulated turtle farms. PIJAC

recommended that export figures be broken down by ``captive-raised''

and ``wild-caught'' in order to judge potential impacts. The proposal

from the HSUS did not reflect the significant portion of the trade

attributable to captive-hatched animals. C. Sullivan (a shipper of

turtles) stated that there are at least 40 licensed turtle farms in the

Southeast and that all exports are of hatchlings from eggs laid in

turtle farms. He indicated that Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, and

Louisiana, unlike Mississippi, permit take of map turtles from the

wild. This situation was also reflected in comments from several turtle

farmers. Sullivan also stated that farmers have recently learned that

these species reproduce well in captivity after an adjustment period of

about three years. A turtle farmer (Belzoni Turtle Farms) from

Mississippi claimed to produce 10,000 hatchlings/year. Another

Mississippi farmer (P. Alleman, Sunshine Turtle Farms) said the farms

are not currently managed for perpetuity, i.e., young are not raised to

replace breeders.

Of States responding to the notice, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,

and Mississippi supported the proposal. Wisconsin supported listing of

the nine more restricted species, but was neutral on the other three.

Louisiana opposed the proposal. Louisiana stated that hatchlings sold

from Louisiana are from farms, which restock with fewer than 1,000

wild-caught adults per year total. They estimated that 128,000 to

150,000 hatchlings from Louisiana are exported per year. There is no

State management plan in Louisiana, but the State Department of

Agriculture and Forestry requires that each farm return at least 200

turtles to the wild annually

na stated that hatchlings sold

from Louisiana are from farms, which restock with fewer than 1,000

wild-caught adults per year total. They estimated that 128,000 to

150,000 hatchlings from Louisiana are exported per year. There is no

State management plan in Louisiana, but the State Department of

Agriculture and Forestry requires that each farm return at least 200

turtles to the wild annually.

Given the large numbers exported and the restricted distributions

and apparently diminished (in some cases) populations of nine Graptemys

species, the Service is concerned about the potential impact of present

levels of international trade on wild populations. The Service believes

all species except G. geographica, G. pseudogeographica, and G.

ouachitensis qualify for inclusion in Appendix II under provisions of

Article II(2)(a). For effective enforcement of regulations applicable

to trade in these nine species, it is also necessary to include the

remaining three similar-appearing species in Appendix II pursuant to

Article II(2)(b). Therefore the Service has submitted a proposal to

include G. barbouri, pulchra, ernsti, gibbonsi, caglei, versa,

oculifera, flavimaculata, and nigrinoda in Appendix II under provisions

of Article II(2)(a), and G. geographica, pseudogeographica, and

ouachitensis in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b).

Fortunately, it appears from preliminary information made available to

the Service, that G. pseudogeographica (including kohnii) and G.

ouachitensis, two of the species proposed under 2(b) provisions, are

the dominant species in trade. Scientific Authority findings for

species so listed will be based only upon the potential impact of their

export on any of the other nine species.

4. Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii).

The HSUS, supported by DOW, EIA, IWC, and NYTTS, submitted a

proposal to include the alligator snapping turtle in Appendix II and

requested the Service to consider proposing it to COP10

trade. Scientific Authority findings for

species so listed will be based only upon the potential impact of their

export on any of the other nine species.

4. Alligator Snapping Turtle (Macroclemys temminckii).

The HSUS, supported by DOW, EIA, IWC, and NYTTS, submitted a

proposal to include the alligator snapping turtle in Appendix II and

requested the Service to consider proposing it to COP10. The alligator

snapping turtle, the largest freshwater turtle in North America,

inhabits most river systems emptying into the Gulf of Mexico, including

the Mississippi River as far north as Illinois. It also makes use of

bodies of still water associated with river systems. In these habitats,

females of about 12 years and older produce one clutch of 9 to 52 eggs

annually, with a mean of 25. From mostly anecdotal evidence, especially

from turtle trappers, it is evident that this species has declined

severely throughout much of its range. The primary agents of population

decline appear to be degradation and damming of river systems and

(largely historical) widespread commercial take for its meat, which has

been marketed both domestically and internationally. Collection appears

to have severely depleted some local populations and altered

demographic structure in others.

The species is classified as vulnerable by the IUCN and listed as

rare, threatened, or endangered in many of the States on the periphery

of the range and in Georgia. Most southeastern States afford this

species a greater level of protection than that afforded most other

turtles. It is considered a species of special concern in Florida and

``questionable'' as a possible addition to Louisiana's list of species

of special concern. Louisiana appears to be the only State that has not

prohibited commercial take. Hatchlings, almost entirely produced in

turtle-farming operations, are exported for the pet trade

reater level of protection than that afforded most other

turtles. It is considered a species of special concern in Florida and

``questionable'' as a possible addition to Louisiana's list of species

of special concern. Louisiana appears to be the only State that has not

prohibited commercial take. Hatchlings, almost entirely produced in

turtle-farming operations, are exported for the pet trade. Service

wildlife enforcement records show an increase in the export of live

turtles from 290 in 1989 to 9,639 in 1994, primarily to markets in

Japan, Hong Kong, and Western Europe. Most of these exports probably

represent such farm-raised hatchlings.

Inclusion of the alligator snapping turtle in Appendix II was

strongly supported by WCS, which cited the well-documented population

decline and a need to monitor trade more effectively. The NHA, which

opposed listing of other turtles being considered, supported this

proposal, if there are data independent of the proposal that support

the arguments advanced. NHA also insisted that permits for captive-

reared or sustainably wild-taken specimens be issued. P. Meylan (Eckard

College) pointed out that this species is threatened by both habitat

specificity (like map turtles) and commercial demand for meat (like

softshell turtles). M. Ewert (Indiana University) also pointed out the

sometimes severe effect that raccoons and fire ants can have as

predators on alligator snapper nests. According to a member of the

Louisiana Reptile and Amphibian Task Force, in the late 1970's trappers

in southern Louisiana had to go to northern part of the State to find

significant numbers of this species. Sixty-one percent of the

respondents to a questionnaire from the Louisiana Department of

Wildlife and Fisheries to trappers on the population status of

alligator snappers reported a decrease, especially in the past 10

years. Two graduate students (J. Roman and B. Bowen, University of

Florida) who were collecting meat from dealers around the Southeast for

mitochondrial DNA

take to the current precarious status of alligator

snapping turtles in many parts of their range and believes the species

clearly meets criteria for inclusion in Appendix II. Although the

increasing levels of export appear to be related largely to expanding

markets for farm-raised hatchlings, the direct or indirect impact of

these practices on wild populations are not well known or monitored.

Therefore the Service believes inclusion in Appendix II will provide a

needed measure of protection for the species and has submitted an

Appendix II proposal.

5. Timber Rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus)

The EIA, supported by HSUS and IWC, submitted proposals for

including the timber rattlesnake in Appendix II and recommended that

the Service consider submitting it to COP10. The timber rattlesnake

occurs in 27 States, from New Hampshire and Minnesota south to Texas

and Florida, having been extirpated from Maine and Rhode Island, and

Canada (Ontario). It occupies a variety of habitats, particularly

rugged, rocky outcroppings. Southern forms (``canebrake'' rattlesnakes)

use a variety of lowland sites such as pine flatwoods, floodplains, and

bottomland hardwoods.

Populations have declined severely in northeastern states,

primarily from human encroachment and development and hunting. The

species is now known from only 23 localities in New England, contrasted

with 90 localities twenty years ago. A 1991 biological symposium

concluded that serious declines have taken place in Connecticut,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Vermont. It is

considered endangered in Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio,

Massachusetts, and New Jersey and threatened in New York, Texas,

Illinois, and Indiana. It is believed to be approaching extinction in

Pennsylvania, where large specimens are extremely rare today. It is

particularly vulnerable in the northern part of its range, because

females mature at age 7-11 years and produce young only every 3-4

years

ngered in Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio,

Massachusetts, and New Jersey and threatened in New York, Texas,

Illinois, and Indiana. It is believed to be approaching extinction in

Pennsylvania, where large specimens are extremely rare today. It is

particularly vulnerable in the northern part of its range, because

females mature at age 7-11 years and produce young only every 3-4

years. The habit of congregating in hibernacula during winter months

makes them vulnerable to being killed in large numbers.

Trade is relatively limited compared with some of the larger

species of Crotalus. Only Florida appears to have collected information

on domestic trade: between 1990 and 1992, 109 were taken for the pet

trade and dealers handled 366 dead animals obtained in Florida and an

additional 4,346 obtained from other southeastern states. Service

records for international trade show an average of 50-75 live/year and

200-750 leather pieces/year. Most of the trade in parts probably

represents the commoner and less vulnerable southeastern ``canebrake''

rattlesnakes.

The proposal was supported by the HSUS. Seven of eight biologists

responding to the notice supported the proposal, with one offering no

position. One supported mainly due to lack of information and another

added parenthetically that the species may actually be increasing in

Georgia (where it seems to be more of a habitat generalist than the

eastern diamondback). The proposal was opposed by the WCS on the basis

of the apparent paucity of trade, and there were no comments from

commercial interests. Listing was supported by West Virginia,

Connecticut, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and opposed by

Florida and Louisiana, where it is being considered for the status of

``species of special concern.'' Louisiana also commented that a listing

would have little impact and would hinder legitimate commercial

interests

paucity of trade, and there were no comments from

commercial interests. Listing was supported by West Virginia,

Connecticut, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and opposed by

Florida and Louisiana, where it is being considered for the status of

``species of special concern.'' Louisiana also commented that a listing

would have little impact and would hinder legitimate commercial

interests.

Despite low volumes of international trade, the population status

of northern forms of the timber rattlesnake is so poor that even a

small demand for international trade could be detrimental to the

survival of some populations. Therefore the Service has submitted a

proposal to include this species in Appendix II and, if the proposal is

adopted, will consider the geographic variation in population status of

this species when making export findings.

6. Sawfishes (Pristiformes spp.)

Sid F. Cook and Madeline Oetinger, of Argus-Mariner Consulting

Scientists, submitted a proposal to include all species of the order

Pristiformes (sawfishes) in Appendix I. Sawfishes are a very small

group of cartilaginous fishes related to sharks, rays and chimeras

(class Chondrichthyes). The order consists of only one family,

Pristidae, incorporating seven species (although the taxonomy of the

group is debated). As generally accepted, these are: Pristis pectinata

(smallmouth sawfish), P. clavata (dwarf or Queensland sawfish), P.

zijsron (green sawfish), P. pristis (common sawfish), P. microdon

(freshwater, Leichhardt's, great-tooth, largetooth sawfish), P.

perotteti (largetooth sawfish), and Anoxypristis cuspidata (knifetooth,

pointed or narrow sawfish). Cumulatively, sawfish species are

distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate marine waters, and in

some cases in freshwater habitats. Species-specific distributions are

described in detail in the August 28, 1996 notice. Pristis perotteti

and P. pectinata are the only species that occur in waters of the

United States

h), and Anoxypristis cuspidata (knifetooth,

pointed or narrow sawfish). Cumulatively, sawfish species are

distributed worldwide in tropical and temperate marine waters, and in

some cases in freshwater habitats. Species-specific distributions are

described in detail in the August 28, 1996 notice. Pristis perotteti

and P. pectinata are the only species that occur in waters of the

United States.

Sawfishes share with their shark relatives several life history

characteristics (e.g., slow growth, low fecundity, late sexual

maturity, long life-span, and long gestational period) that render them

more vulnerable to overfishing than many bony fishes. Other factors

increasing the vulnerability of these species are restriction to a

narrow depth range, disjunct distribution patterns, and habitat

degradation. Most species have exhibited either severe population

declines or have an extremely localized distribution. Four species (P.

pristis, pectinata, perotteti, and microdon) are considered endangered

by IUCN (other species have not been evaluated). Although data on

international trade and other forms of exploitation of sawfishes are

sketchy, localized effects can be seen in individual populations.

Quantitative trade data are very limited but sawfish are known to be

targeted commercially in artisanal fisheries, taken as live specimens

for public aquaria, for the curio trade (rostral saws), for traditional

Asian medicines (rostral saws of Anoxypristis cuspidata), and for fine

leather (hides).

The proposal was opposed by the Japanese Fisheries Agency, Japanese

Fisheries Association, International Wildlife Management Consortium,

and

awfish are known to be

targeted commercially in artisanal fisheries, taken as live specimens

for public aquaria, for the curio trade (rostral saws), for traditional

Asian medicines (rostral saws of Anoxypristis cuspidata), and for fine

leather (hides).

The proposal was opposed by the Japanese Fisheries Agency, Japanese

Fisheries Association, International Wildlife Management Consortium,

and

European Bureau for Conservation and Development. It was supported by

the National Audubon Society, Center for Marine Conservation (CMC),

OWC, American Elasmobranch Society, American Society of Ichthyologists

and Herpetologists, and by a petition from 21 members of the IUCN Shark

Specialist Group. Arguments against were based on the need to follow

through on the Resolution Conf. 9.17 process before taking any listing

action for sharks; the need for more data on population status to

justify listing (abuse of precautionary principle); and lack of

evidence that trade has had any impact on populations. Arguments in

favor of the proposal were mainly based on the intrinsic vulnerability

resulting from the biological attributes described above, the

population declines evidenced by declines in by-catch, and also the

existence of much more evidence of past and present trade (including

provision of biological supply houses with rostral saws) than suggested

by those opposed. The CMC also pointed out that evidence of trade is

not necessarily a prerequisite to inclusion of taxa in Appendix I (the

Service strongly agrees that the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 are

unequivocal in this regard).

Of 72 range states to which an earlier draft of the proposal was

sent for comment, six responded. The Government of the Philippines

supported the proposal. The Government of the Dominican Republic took

no position but provided anecdotal information that indicated similar

declines there as reported in the proposal

ees that the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 are

unequivocal in this regard).

Of 72 range states to which an earlier draft of the proposal was

sent for comment, six responded. The Government of the Philippines

supported the proposal. The Government of the Dominican Republic took

no position but provided anecdotal information that indicated similar

declines there as reported in the proposal. The Government of Mexico

considered existing information from that country to be insufficient to

enable a determination of eligibility for Appendix I. The Government of

Colombia felt that more convincing documentation of historical declines

in landings needs to be presented before Colombia could support an

Appendix I listing. The Government of Japan opposed the proposal on the

grounds that there are not enough data to show convincingly that the

sawfish are eligible for Appendix I. The Government of Cyprus indicated

that no species in this group occurred in its waters.

Notwithstanding the absence of strong quantitative information on

population status, the United States believes that the obvious rarity

of these species, and the consistency of anecdotal evidence of

population declines wherever data are available, are clear indicators

of their vulnerability to any form of use, including international

trade. On this basis, the Pristiformes meet the criteria for inclusion

in Appendix I, and the United States has submitted a proposal to this

effect.

7. Sturgeons (Order Acipenseriformes)

In a December 20, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR 67293), the

Service announced that the United States was considering offering to

co-sponsor a proposal by Germany to include all species of sturgeons

not presently listed in the appendices in Appendix II. The

Acipenseriformes are a primitive group of approximately 27 species of

fish, whose biological attributes make them vulnerable to intensive

fishing pressure or other agents of elevated adult mortality

Service announced that the United States was considering offering to

co-sponsor a proposal by Germany to include all species of sturgeons

not presently listed in the appendices in Appendix II. The

Acipenseriformes are a primitive group of approximately 27 species of

fish, whose biological attributes make them vulnerable to intensive

fishing pressure or other agents of elevated adult mortality. Many

species of sturgeons, the primary source of commercial caviar, have

experienced severe population declines worldwide because of both

habitat destruction and excessive take for international trade. Some

are at serious risk of extinction. Three species in the United States

(shortnosed sturgeon [Acipenser brevirostrum], pallid sturgeon

[Scaphirhynchus albus], and the Kootenai River population of white

sturgeon [A. transmontanus]) are listed as endangered under the ESA,

and a subspecies of the Atlantic sturgeon (the Gulf sturgeon, A.

oxyrhynchus desotoi) is listed as threatened. CITES presently includes

two species, the shortnosed sturgeon and Baltic sturgeon (A. sturio),

in Appendix I and one species, the Atlantic sturgeon (A. oxyrhynchus)

in Appendix II. The American paddlefish, Polyodon spathula, has also

been included in Appendix II since 1992.

Sturgeons of the Caspian Sea produce the highest quality caviar and

are the source of more than 90 percent of the world caviar trade. Since

the mid-1970's very marked declines in the populations of all six of

the Caspian Sea's sturgeon species have been noted, especially

populations of the most heavily exploited species: Beluga (Huso huso),

Russian (A. gueldenstaedtii), and stellate (A. stellatus) sturgeons.

Five of the six species of Caspian sturgeons are considered endangered

by IUCN. The problem has become exacerbated in recent years due to

deteriorating fishery management and enforcement capabilities in the

region, resulting in significant levels of poaching and illegal trade.

The total present take is believed to far exceed sustainable levels

staedtii), and stellate (A. stellatus) sturgeons.

Five of the six species of Caspian sturgeons are considered endangered

by IUCN. The problem has become exacerbated in recent years due to

deteriorating fishery management and enforcement capabilities in the

region, resulting in significant levels of poaching and illegal trade.

The total present take is believed to far exceed sustainable levels.

The final proposal from Germany proposes five species for inclusion

in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(a), i.e., because of

their population status and trade levels: Beluga (Huso huso), Russian

(A. gueldenstaedtii), stellate (A. stellatus), Siberian (A. baerii),

and ship or spiny (A. nudiventris) sturgeons. All other species of

sturgeons not already listed are proposed for inclusion in Appendix II

under provisions of Article II(2)(b), i.e., because of the similarity

of appearance of their caviar to that of the Caspian species. The

native species of sturgeons not listed under the ESA that would be

included in the II(2)(b) category are the following: lake sturgeon (A.

fulvescens), green sturgeon (A. medirostris), non-Kootenai-River

populations of white sturgeon (A. transmontanus), shovelnose sturgeon

(S. platorynchus), and Alabama sturgeon (S. suttkusi).

The Service participated in a meeting in November 1996 in Moscow

involving the Russian Federation and several former Soviet Republics,

including several that participate in the Caspian Sea sturgeon fishery:

Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan. The meeting, hosted by the

Russian Federation State Committee for Environmental Protection and the

German Scientific and Management Authorities, yielded an overwhelming

acknowledgment of the severity of the threat to sturgeon populations in

the Caspian Sea. The existence of a substantial illegal trade in caviar

(estimated to constitute up to 80 percent of the trade), which has

resulted in a decrease in both the quality and price of caviar in

international markets, also was recognized

the

German Scientific and Management Authorities, yielded an overwhelming

acknowledgment of the severity of the threat to sturgeon populations in

the Caspian Sea. The existence of a substantial illegal trade in caviar

(estimated to constitute up to 80 percent of the trade), which has

resulted in a decrease in both the quality and price of caviar in

international markets, also was recognized.

Inclusion of the sturgeons in Appendix II as proposed would enable:

(1) implementation of management controls necessary to stabilize

sturgeon populations in the Caspian Sea and elsewhere in the world; and

(2) better regulation of trade by importing countries, especially

through an improved capability for distinguishing legal from illegal

caviar. The United States is not only a range State for some of the

most endangered sturgeon populations, but it is also a major importer

of caviar products (between 50 and 60 metric tons per year from 1992

through 1995), mainly from Caspian Sea sturgeon populations. Given

these facts, and recognizing the dire situation facing the Caspian Sea

sturgeon fishery, the United States has agreed to co-sponsor the

proposal of Germany to include five presently unlisted species of

sturgeons in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(a) and the

remainder in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b). As with

other species proposed for listing under the provisions of Article

II(2)(b), findings related to export of sturgeon products from the

United States will be based only upon potential impacts of export on

those species listed under provisions of Article II(2)(a), or on those

included in

rovisions of Article II(2)(a) and the

remainder in Appendix II under provisions of Article II(2)(b). As with

other species proposed for listing under the provisions of Article

II(2)(b), findings related to export of sturgeon products from the

United States will be based only upon potential impacts of export on

those species listed under provisions of Article II(2)(a), or on those

included in

Appendix I. Only one public comment on the December 20, 1996 notice was

received: the HSUS indicated their support for United States co-

sponsorship of the German proposal and stressed the importance of

addressing the considerable management and enforcement concerns

associated with the potential listing.

8. Freshwater Mussels: Long solid mussel (Fusconaia subrotunda),

Ozark lamp pearlymussel (Lampsilis brevicula [= L. reeviana

brevicula]), and Slabside pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides)

The Service indicated its intent in the August 28, 1996 notice to

develop a proposal to remove the above three species of freshwater

mussels, and the edible pearlymussel (Cyprogenia aberti), from Appendix

II. These were among several species endemic to the United States that

were recommended for removal from Appendix II by the CITES Animals

Committee's Periodic Review Working Group, which examines historical

and recent trade levels in species included in Appendix II to determine

whether their listing continues to be warranted. We have no indication

of trade in any of these species in recent years.

Recognizing that as many as 20 percent of the approximately 300

species and subspecies of freshwater mussels may be threatened or

endangered, the Service has been reluctant in the past to propose that

any of these species be delisted, at least until enforcement

difficulties were overcome

isting continues to be warranted. We have no indication

of trade in any of these species in recent years.

Recognizing that as many as 20 percent of the approximately 300

species and subspecies of freshwater mussels may be threatened or

endangered, the Service has been reluctant in the past to propose that

any of these species be delisted, at least until enforcement

difficulties were overcome. Effective August 1, 1996 (61 FR 31850),

however, the Service's regulations on importation, exportation, and

transportation of wildlife were revised to require that wildlife

exports, including freshwater mussels, be made available for inspection

and cleared for export prior to being exported from the United States.

This provision will enable the Service to better ensure that endangered

mussels are not exported, and therefore reduce the need for the

application of CITES for non-endangered mussels, especially for those

that do not appear to be traded.

The Service received no public comments about its intent to prepare

a mussel de-listing proposal. The Service has proposed removal of

Fusconaia subrotunda, Lampsilis brevicula (= L. reeviana brevicula),

and Lexingtonia dolabelloides from Appendix II. The Service has not,

however, proposed any change in the other species of mussels considered

by the Periodic Review Working Group: Epioblasma torulosa rangiana and

Pleurobema clava, which are listed as endangered under the ESA, or

Cyprogenia aberti, which is considered endangered by the IUCN, as

discussed above.

9. Bigleaf Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla)

This proposal was submitted by the United States with the Republic

of Bolivia as co-proponent, to include Swietenia macrophylla of the

neotropics in Appendix II of CITES, to regulate the international trade

in its logs, sawnwood, whole veneer sheets and plywood sheets. The

listing would not regulate the finished products, such as the

furniture

ove.

9. Bigleaf Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla)

This proposal was submitted by the United States with the Republic

of Bolivia as co-proponent, to include Swietenia macrophylla of the

neotropics in Appendix II of CITES, to regulate the international trade

in its logs, sawnwood, whole veneer sheets and plywood sheets. The

listing would not regulate the finished products, such as the

furniture. The United States is by far the largest importer of the wood

of this species, which occurs from Brazil and Bolivia to Mexico, and

Bolivia is the second largest mahogany exporter. The objective of the

listing is to better manage Swietenia macrophylla to help ensure its

conservation and its continued international trade and use.

Background: In response to a March 1, 1996 Federal Register notice

(61 FR 8019), the World Wildlife Fund-U.S., Defenders of Wildlife, and

individuals had requested that the United States propose this species

for inclusion in Appendix II (see the Federal Register of August 28,

1996 [61 FR 44324]). Bigleaf mahogany from the Americas was listed in

Appendix III by Costa Rica in 1995, including its saw-logs, sawn wood,

and veneer sheets only--i.e., no other parts or derivatives (see

Federal Register of February 22, 1996 [61 FR 6793]). The other two

species of the genus Swietenia, Caribbean mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni)

and Pacific Coast mahogany (Swietenia humilis) are included in Appendix

II. Species listed in Appendix II or Appendix III can be traded

commercially, whereas trade for primarily commercial purposes is

prohibited for the species included in Appendix I.

CITES Appendix II includes species for which the inclusion in

Appendix II will facilitate or encourage sustainable, non-detrimental

trade in perpetuity

ic Coast mahogany (Swietenia humilis) are included in Appendix

II. Species listed in Appendix II or Appendix III can be traded

commercially, whereas trade for primarily commercial purposes is

prohibited for the species included in Appendix I.

CITES Appendix II includes species for which the inclusion in

Appendix II will facilitate or encourage sustainable, non-detrimental

trade in perpetuity. To export regulated Appendix II specimens, a CITES

Party country must make a management finding that the specimens were

legally acquired (e.g., in the case of mahogany, taken from the

country's legally approved areas and logged according to accepted

national standards, such as not cutting trees smaller than a legally

approved minimum trunk diameter), and a scientific finding that the

export is not detrimental to the survival of the species. Importing

countries would become partners in this effort, through their

obligation to ensure that all the mahogany imports are accompanied by

appropriate CITES permits or certificates documenting that the exports

have met the standards required by the treaty. A basic goal of CITES is

to maintain a species in its natural systems through its range at a

level consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs. By

discouraging illegal exploitation, CITES can help to avoid the loss of

wild-functioning populations in natural areas such as national parks

and similar reserves.

Bigleaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) has been proposed for

Appendix II, not for the much more restrictive Appendix I. The treaty

is founded on two bases: both to strictly protect endangered species

(cf. Appendix I), and to prevent the endangerment of species that are

at increasing risk from international trade, by Appendix II regulation

of commercial trade, so that stricter measures (such as an

international commercial trade ban) would not have to be taken in the

future

the much more restrictive Appendix I. The treaty

is founded on two bases: both to strictly protect endangered species

(cf. Appendix I), and to prevent the endangerment of species that are

at increasing risk from international trade, by Appendix II regulation

of commercial trade, so that stricter measures (such as an

international commercial trade ban) would not have to be taken in the

future. Thus consumers should have increased confidence buying products

when they include the wood of CITES Appendix II specimens that have

been approved under these international standards for export and

accepted at import.

Proposals to include Swietenia macrophylla in Appendix II were

separately submitted to the last two meetings of the Conference of the

Parties to CITES (COP9 and COP8) by three governments, the Netherlands

in 1994, and Costa Rica and the United States in 1992. At COP9 (in

Florida in November 1994), 50 of 83 Parties (among them the United

States and the European Union countries) voted in favor of including

this species and its logs, sawn wood, and veneer sheets in Appendix II,

which fell 6 votes short of the two-thirds majority of voting Parties

needed for adoption (see Federal Register notices of November 8, 1994

[59 FR 55617] and January 3, 1995 [60 FR 73]). At COP9 as well as COP8

(in Japan in March 1992), the majority of the 13 countries where the

species is native (range States) expressed support for including this

species in Appendix II.

Recent Activities: In the August 28, 1996 Federal Register (61 FR

44324), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sought new information in

particular to supplement the information summarized in the COP9 and

COP8 proposals (or otherwise available to the Parties at those

meetings), especially in relation to the CITES listing criteria as

delineated in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (cf. the Federal Register of March

1, 1996; 61 FR 8019). The Service also sought details on implementation

of the inclusion of this species in Appendix

ation in

particular to supplement the information summarized in the COP9 and

COP8 proposals (or otherwise available to the Parties at those

meetings), especially in relation to the CITES listing criteria as

delineated in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (cf. the Federal Register of March

1, 1996; 61 FR 8019). The Service also sought details on implementation

of the inclusion of this species in Appendix

III, which entered into force on November 16, 1995. The text of the

draft proposal was provided to interested organizations and

individuals. In September 1996, the Service, which functions as the

U.S. Management Authority for CITES, provided the draft proposal to the

CITES Management Authorities of the 13 range States of bigleaf mahogany

and requested their comments regarding a possible proposal to include

the species in Appendix II.

In early October 1996 in Panama the CITES Timber Working Group held

its second meeting. The Group's scope or terms of reference covered

details of implementation for timber tree species (i.e., they did not

include topics directly involving potential new listings). The Group

reviewed the experience of the CITES Parties in implementation of the

Appendix III listing of Swietenia macrophylla, and concluded that no

particular difficulties had been encountered with the implementation of

this listing.

In mid-November 1996 in Costa Rica the CITES Plants Committee held

its annual meeting. The United States earlier had requested that the

possible mahogany proposal be included as an information item on the

agenda; the U.S. representative reported that the draft potential

proposal had been sent to the 13 range States on September 25, 1996,

with a request for their comments by November 15 (which was the final

day of that Committee's meeting), and explained the U.S. review

process. An agenda item of the Netherlands at the meeting addressed

tree species in relation to the CITES listing criteria and/or IUCN

(World Conservation Union) status criteria

aft potential

proposal had been sent to the 13 range States on September 25, 1996,

with a request for their comments by November 15 (which was the final

day of that Committee's meeting), and explained the U.S. review

process. An agenda item of the Netherlands at the meeting addressed

tree species in relation to the CITES listing criteria and/or IUCN

(World Conservation Union) status criteria. The United States

encouraged conceptual discussion on the scope of such findings, stating

that it would be particularly helpful in relation to considering a

possibly forthcoming proposal for Swietenia macrophylla. Although there

was no extensive discussion of the potential mahogany proposal at this

meeting, at the Committee's meeting in May 1994 in Mexico prior to

COP9, there had been lengthy discussion and a conclusion in favor of a

similar proposal for Swietenia macrophylla.

Comments and Review: International meetings on this issue were held

in February 1992 (a Mahogany Workshop in Washington, D.C., hosted by

the Tropical Forest Foundation on behalf of the International Wood

Products Association and held at the Organization of American States);

and in September 1994 (a Mahogany Symposium in London, U.K., hosted by

the Linnean Society, a world-renowned scientific organization). A

related meeting largely on the forestry aspects of Swietenia mahoganies

was held in late October 1996 (in San Juan, Puerto Rico, hosted by the

U.S. Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical Forestry).

The United States has intensively reviewed and analyzed the

pertinent available information related to a proposal and all comments

received from range States, industry, the conservation community, and

interested agencies and individuals, and the relevant information

provided has been incorporated into the final 86-page proposal to

include this species in Appendix II. A public meeting was held on

October 3, 1996, on the potential CITES COP10 topics and issues

nt available information related to a proposal and all comments

received from range States, industry, the conservation community, and

interested agencies and individuals, and the relevant information

provided has been incorporated into the final 86-page proposal to

include this species in Appendix II. A public meeting was held on

October 3, 1996, on the potential CITES COP10 topics and issues.

Decisions regarding inclusion of species in the CITES appendices are

based upon their status and qualifications in relation to the

requirements and criteria of the treaty.

Comments in support of a proposal were received by the October 11,

1996 deadline (which was established in the August 28, 1996 Federal

Register; 61 FR 44324) from ten organizations (Defenders of Wildlife,

EarthCulture, Environmental Investigation Agency, Friends of the Earth-

U.K., Humane Society of the United States, Rainforest Action Network,

Rainforest Relief, Salt Lake City Rainforest Action Group, Taiga Rescue

Network [Sweden], and World Wildlife Fund-U.S.); two businesses (A & M

Wood Specialty, Inc. [Ontario, Canada] and The Raintree Group [Texas]);

several academics; and several dozen unaffiliated individuals. After

that deadline, comments and some substantive information continued to

arrive, from many individuals and organizations and several countries.

Included were two letters to the Vice President and the Secretary of

the Interior from over 150 non-governmental organizations supporting

submittal of the proposal. All comments were reviewed, and all the

substantive data were considered.

Friends of the Earth-U.K. submitted the transcript of a debate on

this issue held in the British Parliament on December 4, 1996, where

the U.K. Government noted that twice before it had favored the species'

inclusion in Appendix II. The Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza-Bolivia

(World Wildlife Fund-Bolivia) and the World Wildlife Fund-U.S

eviewed, and all the

substantive data were considered.

Friends of the Earth-U.K. submitted the transcript of a debate on

this issue held in the British Parliament on December 4, 1996, where

the U.K. Government noted that twice before it had favored the species'

inclusion in Appendix II. The Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza-Bolivia

(World Wildlife Fund-Bolivia) and the World Wildlife Fund-U.S.

submitted copies of a detailed study on the status of regeneration of

Swietenia macrophylla in the Department of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, which

had recently been carried out through the Centro Cientifico Tropical

(of San Jose, Costa Rica).

Bolivia through MDSMA (the Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible y

Medio Ambiente, their Ministry of Sustainable Development and

Environment) wrote the United States on December 18, 1996, offering to

co-propose the species with the United States, and similarly advised

the CITES Secretariat. Bolivia in addition provided a review of

mahogany trade data from its implementation of Appendix III. Ecuador on

January 6, 1997, advised the United States that they were in support of

the proposal, and Venezuela on January 9, 1997, advised the U.S.

Embassy in Caracas that they were in support of the proposal. Also in

January 1997, the Brazilian Embassy in Washington, D.C. emphasized

Brazil's concerns.

Opposition to a proposal was submitted by the U.S.-based

International Wood Products Association (IHPA), and by Brazil through

IBAMA (the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos

Naturais Renovaveis or Brazilian Environment and Renewable Natural

Resources Agency), and Peru through INRENA (the Instituto Nacional de

Recursos Naturales, their National Natural Resources Agency)

erns.

Opposition to a proposal was submitted by the U.S.-based

International Wood Products Association (IHPA), and by Brazil through

IBAMA (the Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos

Naturais Renovaveis or Brazilian Environment and Renewable Natural

Resources Agency), and Peru through INRENA (the Instituto Nacional de

Recursos Naturales, their National Natural Resources Agency). Comments

questioned the appropriateness and adequacy of the CITES system for

regulating such a trade; the process toward developing and considering

a proposal; the threshold at which species should qualify for Appendix

II; whether the species was not sufficiently protected in enough

designated or remote areas; and the adequacy of the scientific and

technical information on biology (including ecology and genetics),

regrowth (regeneration) after selective logging or land abandonment,

and national and international trade (legal and illegal).

The United States has made a rigorous analysis of the qualification

of this species for Appendix II, considering the text of the treaty,

the listing criteria of Resolution Conf. 9.24, and the species that

have been included by the Parties in the appendices since the

Convention was developed in 1973. The potential proposal was subjected

to an intensive Federal interagency analysis and review process,

including departments or agencies of State, Interior, Agriculture (U.S.

Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), U.S.

Trade Representative's Office, Commerce, Justice, and the U.S. Agency

for International Development. The U.S. Government concluded by

consensus that Swietenia macrophylla qualifies for inclusion in

Appendix II, and to submit the proposal, with the Republic of Bolivia

as co-sponsor. The proposal was

terior, Agriculture (U.S.

Forest Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), U.S.

Trade Representative's Office, Commerce, Justice, and the U.S. Agency

for International Development. The U.S. Government concluded by

consensus that Swietenia macrophylla qualifies for inclusion in

Appendix II, and to submit the proposal, with the Republic of Bolivia

as co-sponsor. The proposal was

transmitted to the CITES Secretariat on January 10, 1997, which was the

deadline for proposals to be considered at the Tenth Meeting of the

Conference of the Parties to CITES (COP10), to be held in Zimbabwe in

mid-June 1997.

Preparations: The final proposal has been provided to all the CITES

Parties (soon to be 135 countries), and to interested organizations and

individuals. A thorough review and analysis to prepare for the decision

of the Parties at COP10 is ongoing by range States and importing

countries, industry, the conservation community, and interested

individuals. The United States intends to continue to communicate and

work with range States and interested organizations and individuals so

that the treaty and this proposal for Swietenia macrophylla are

accurately understood and its inclusion under CITES can be effectively

implemented, which would come into force in Appendix II (if the

proposal is adopted) 90 days after the conclusion of COP10, on

September 18, 1997. The United States believes that the effective

implementation of this listing will help ensure the conservation of the

species, so that it never becomes threatened with extinction in the

wild, and the maintenance of a sustainable supply of mahogany wood and

products for the long-term future.

10. Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis)

This plant species has been proposed for inclusion in Appendix II,

without excluding any parts or derivatives such as the finished

pharmaceutical products in order to maintain the full legal option to

regulate such end-product medicinals if necessary

wild, and the maintenance of a sustainable supply of mahogany wood and

products for the long-term future.

10. Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis)

This plant species has been proposed for inclusion in Appendix II,

without excluding any parts or derivatives such as the finished

pharmaceutical products in order to maintain the full legal option to

regulate such end-product medicinals if necessary. Further evaluation

of whether that would be necessary is ongoing, and if it is found to be

unnecessary, the proposal can be modified at COP10 by for example

excluding the finished pharmaceutical products.

This is a herbaceous species of the eastern deciduous forest of the

United States and nearby Canada (in southern Ontario). Before European

settlement and ensuing medicinal interest in this species, it was

thought to be abundant only in the central part of its range (Indiana

to West Virginia and Kentucky), and it is now considered uncommon to

critically imperilled in at least 16 of the 27 States where it is

found.

Goldenseal is a well-known medicinal in the herbal products

industry, with a wholesale price in 1995 frequently over $50 but less

than $100 per pound dry weight, mostly for rhizomes or roots (with

about 200-300 roots per pound). It has been estimated that 150,000

pounds of goldenseal root are collected annually from the wild. The

species is cultivated to a limited but unknown extent. Both the

internal U.S. trade and export are believed to be escalating, with the

international trade (primarily to Canada and Europe) considered to be

less than a fifth of the market.

The World Wildlife Fund-U.S. had recommended that the United States

propose this species for inclusion in Appendix II

collected annually from the wild. The

species is cultivated to a limited but unknown extent. Both the

internal U.S. trade and export are believed to be escalating, with the

international trade (primarily to Canada and Europe) considered to be

less than a fifth of the market.

The World Wildlife Fund-U.S. had recommended that the United States

propose this species for inclusion in Appendix II. The Service sought

information especially regarding: (1) the biological status and life

history of this species; (2) the extent to which it is cultivated

(i.e., artificially propagated without use of seeds or other parts from

the wild); and (3) the extent to which it is collected for trade, and

in particular, the extent to which it is exported and the forms in

which it is exported.

Comments were received from 22 organizations, and pertinent

information provided has been incorporated in the CITES proposal to

include this species in Appendix II. Comments in support of a proposal

or tending to be favorable were received from Canada, the Province of

Ontario, seven States (Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, New York, and Oklahoma), the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5 (which

includes the Northeast region), the Institute of Conservation &

Culture, the Humane Society of the United States, and the World

Wildlife Fund-U.S. Comments in opposition or tending to be unfavorable

were received from seven States (Missouri, North Carolina,

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), and

Ohio River Ginseng & Fur, Inc.

Five of the 15 States that are geographically more or less

peripheral or less significant in the distribution of Hydrastis

canadensis provided comments. The responses were favorable from four of

them, whereas North Carolina (where the species is considered

endangered) raised concerns about the potential regulatory burden

inia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin), and

Ohio River Ginseng & Fur, Inc.

Five of the 15 States that are geographically more or less

peripheral or less significant in the distribution of Hydrastis

canadensis provided comments. The responses were favorable from four of

them, whereas North Carolina (where the species is considered

endangered) raised concerns about the potential regulatory burden. Nine

of the 12 States that are more geographically significant in the range

of the species commented; 3 were favorable to a proposal, and 6

opposed. In four of those six States, the species is considered

uncommon, of special concern, vulnerable or threatened; however,

Missouri considered it relatively common, and West Virginia believed it

to be increasing along with the increase of forested land in the State.

Three of those six opposing States were concerned with the potential

regulatory burden.

Panax quinquefolius (American ginseng) has been included in

Appendix II of CITES since 1973, and those 4 of the 14 commenting

States that noted particular concerns about the regulatory effects of

listing Hydrastis canadensis tended to assume that goldenseal would be

regulated by a similar Federal-State system (see 59 FR 49046). However,

this may or may not be the case, since ginseng is primarily exported,

whereas goldenseal is involved in considerably less export, being

primarily consumed within the United States. The Service intends to

work with those States that may become involved in goldenseal export

and the industry to develop efficient methods that require the minimum

system necessary to meet the CITES requirements for legal and non-

detrimental (and thus sustainable) international trade in this species.

11. Tweedy's Bitterroot (Lewisia tweedyi or Cistanthe tweedyi)

Proposed for delisting from Appendix II. The recommendation to

remove this species from Appendix II was initiated by the CITES Plants

Committee, as part of the periodic ongoing process of reviewing listed

taxa

y to meet the CITES requirements for legal and non-

detrimental (and thus sustainable) international trade in this species.

11. Tweedy's Bitterroot (Lewisia tweedyi or Cistanthe tweedyi)

Proposed for delisting from Appendix II. The recommendation to

remove this species from Appendix II was initiated by the CITES Plants

Committee, as part of the periodic ongoing process of reviewing listed

taxa. This herbaceous mountain species is native in the State of

Washington and nearby in the Province of British Columbia, Canada.

Because it was found to be sufficiently secure within its range, this

species was removed from consideration for the U.S. Endangered Species

Act in a 1985 Federal Register notice on various taxa (50 FR 39526).

Moreover, this species is considered sufficiently easy to propagate and

available in cultivation to supply rock-garden enthusiasts.

Comments were received from the Humane Society of the United States

in opposition to submitting the proposal, and from Canada in support of

the proposal. As the biological status of the species is considered

markedly less vulnerable than when it was listed in 1983, and there

have been no applications to export it from the wild since then and

little reported export and import of artificially propagated specimens,

removal of the species from Appendix II is considered appropriate.

Continuing Actions

In early February, the Service received proposals made by other

CITES Parties to amend the appendices. A list and copies of these

proposals can be obtained from the Office of Scientific Authority (see

ADDRESSES above). The Service's tentative negotiating positions on

these proposals submitted by the other countries, along with a

solicitation for public comment, will be announced in a Federal

Register notice later this month. Further opportunity for public input

will be afforded by a public

s. A list and copies of these

proposals can be obtained from the Office of Scientific Authority (see

ADDRESSES above). The Service's tentative negotiating positions on

these proposals submitted by the other countries, along with a

solicitation for public comment, will be announced in a Federal

Register notice later this month. Further opportunity for public input

will be afforded by a public

meeting planned for April 25. The Service will consider all comments

received during the comment period, as well as all other available

information, in developing a negotiating position on each of the

species proposals. These positions will be announced in the Federal

Register in early June just prior to COP10. Also, in this pre-COP10

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) adopted by the Parties. Immediately after COP10, the

Service will announce the species amendments to the appendices adopted

by the Parties; in accordance with CITES, all such amendments will

become effective on September 18, 1997 (90 days after their adoption by

the Parties).

The primary authors of this notice are Dr. Marshall A. Howe,

Zoologist, Dr. Bruce MacBryde, Botanist, and Dr. Charles W. Dane,

Chief, Office of Scientific Authority.

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).

Lists of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 23

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Treaties.

Dated: April 8, 1997.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 97-9857 Filed 4-15-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P