Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47011

and in the Clark County Multiple checkerspot butterflies since 2003, as Author Species Habitat Conservation Plan) in claimed by the petition. The primary authors of this notice are the Spring Mountains were evident in Drought is listed as a threat in the the staff members of the Nevada Fish 2005 and that decreases in the numbers petition, but the petition does not and Wildlife Office and the Pacific of Morand’s checkerspot butterfly at provide any specific information that Southwest Regional Office. some locations were identified by 2003 drought has negatively impacted the Authority (Boyd 2011, p. 2). Specifically, the Morand’s checkerspot butterfly, or is petition states that at one location, 104 likely to impact the subspecies in the The authority for this action is the individuals were recorded on a single future. In addition, we have no Endangered Species Act of 1973, as survey day in 2001, whereas 65 were information in our files related to amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). recorded in 2002, and 19 were recorded drought as it relates to the effects of Dated: July 27, 2012. in 2003. The petition states that they climate change for this subspecies. In Rowan W. Gould, believe the highest number recorded in summary, we find that the information Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010 was 11, but the petition states that this number is not verified (Boyd 2011, provided in the petition, as well as other [FR Doc. 2012–19332 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] p. 2). At another location in 2002, many information in our files, does not BILLING CODE 4310–55–P hundreds were seen on each of two present substantial scientific or visits, whereas none were found in 2007 commercial information indicating that DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR during a single day survey. In addition, the petitioned action may be warranted due to other natural or manmade factors no pre-diapause larvae were found and Fish and Wildlife Service no earlier post-diapause larval feeding affecting its continued existence. on the host plants was seen during that Finding 50 CFR Part 17 same survey day (Boyd 2011, p. 2). At a third location in 2002, the petition Based on our review of the [Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2011– states that 46 Morand’s checkerspot information in the petition and readily 0003;FXES111309F2130D2–123– FF09E22000] butterflies were seen during a protocol available in our files, we find that the survey and an additional 200–300 petition does not present substantial RIN 1018–AY42 individuals were seen outside of the scientific or commercial information to transect area, whereas the petition indicate that listing the Morand’s Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the Straight- claims that only 1–3 individuals were checkerspot butterfly under the Act as Horned Markhor With Special Rule recorded on a given day in 2010 in the endangered or threatened may be same two areas (Boyd 2011, p. 2). warranted at this time. We base this AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The petition lists drought as a threat conclusion on finding no specific Interior. to the Morand’s checkerspot butterfly information on threats to the subspecies. ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month (Boyd 2011, p. 4). Additionally, we have more recent finding. Evaluation of Information Provided in information in our files that does not support the petitioner’s claim that SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and the Petition and Available in Service Wildlife Service (Service), propose to Files Morand’s checkerspot butterfly has experienced a decrease in its numbers reclassify the straight-horned markhor The petition claims that declines of since 2003. The information does not (Capra falconeri jerdoni) from Morand’s checkerspot butterfly have suggest that threats are acting on the endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as occurred since 2003 as evidenced by Morand’s checkerspot butterfly such amended. This proposed action is based declines in survey numbers at three that the species may be endangered or on a review of the best available unspecified locations (Boyd 2011, p. 2). become endangered now or in the scientific and commercial data which Information in our files leads us to foreseeable future. We make this finding believe that two of these unspecified indicates that the endangered under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and designation no longer correctly reflects locations are Griffith Peak and Lee 50 CFR 424.14(b) of our regulations. Canyon based on similarity of results the status of the straight-horned Although we will not review the reported in Dewberry et al. (2002, markhor. This proposal constitutes our status of the species at this time, we Appendix 1). Information in our files 12-month finding on the petition to encourage interested parties to continue reveals that Morand’s checkerspot reclassify this subspecies, serves as our butterfly surveys found 129 in 2010, and to gather data that will assist with the 5-year review, and fulfills our 1,040 in 2011 (Pinyon 2011, p. 22). In conservation of the Morand’s obligations under a settlement addition, Pinyon (2011, p. 23) states that checkerspot butterfly. If you wish to agreement. We are also proposing a Morand’s checkerspot butterflies were provide information regarding the special rule concurrently. The effects of observed throughout the survey period Morand’s checkerspot butterfly, you these regulations are to correctly reflect in all three areas surveyed in 2010 and may submit your information or the status of the subspecies and 2011. The most observed in a single day materials to the Field Supervisor/Listing encourage conservation of additional in 2010 was 76, and the most observed Coordinator, Nevada Fish and Wildlife populations of the straight-horned in a single day in 2011 was 343 (Pinyon Office (see ADDRESSES), at any time. markhor. 2011, p. 23). Given that butterfly References Cited DATES: We will consider comments and populations are highly dynamic, and information received or postmarked on butterfly distributions can be highly A complete list of references cited is or before October 9, 2012. variable from year to year (Weiss et al. available on the Internet at http:// ADDRESSES: You may submit 1997, p. 2), the widely varying www.regulations.gov and upon request information by one of the following information in the petition and in our from the Nevada Fish and Wildlife methods: files does not provide evidence to show Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal a declining trend in Morand’s CONTACT). eRulemaking Portal: http://

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47012 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– subspecies in its entirety from trophies from conservation programs R9–ES–2011–0003, which is the docket endangered to threatened is warranted. that meet certain criteria. number for this rulemaking. On the Thus, in this action, we are issuing a Prior to issuing a final rule on this search results page, under the Comment proposed rule to reclassify the proposed action, we will take into Period heading in the menu on the left subspecies (C. f. jerdoni) as threatened consideration all comments and any side of your screen, check the box next under the Act. additional information we receive. Such to ‘‘Open’’ to locate this document. We are also proposing a special rule information may lead to a final rule that Please ensure you have found the that would allow for the import of sport- differs from this proposal. All comments correct document before submitting hunted straight-horned markhor and recommendations, including names your comments. If your comments will trophies under certain conditions. This and addresses of commenters, will fit in the provided comment box, please regulation would support and encourage become part of the administrative use this feature of http:// conservation actions of the straight- record. www.regulations.gov, as it is most horned markhor. Petition History compatible with our comment review procedures. If you attach your II. Major Provision of the Regulatory On August 18, 2010, we received a comments as a separate document, our Action petition dated August 17, 2010, from Conservation Force, on behalf Dallas preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If adopted as proposed, this action Safari Club, Houston Safari Club, If you attach multiple comments (such would reclassify the straight-horned African Safari Club of Florida, The as form letters), our preferred format is markhor from endangered to threatened Conklin Foundation, Grand Slam Club/ a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. in the List of Endangered and Ovis, Wild Sheep Foundation, Jerry (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h), Brenner, Steve Hornaday, Alan or hand-delivery to: Public Comments and would allow the import of sport- Sackman, and Barbara Lee Sackman, Processing, Attn: FWS–R9–ES–2011– hunted straight-horned markhor requesting the Service downlist the 0003; Division of Policy and Directives trophies under certain conditions at 50 Torghar Hills population of the Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife CFR 17.40. This action is authorized by Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS the Act. 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. jerdoni or C. f. megaceros), in the We will post all comments on Background Balochistan Province of Pakistan, from http://www.regulations.gov. This endangered to threatened under the Act. Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered generally means that we will post any The petition clearly identified itself as Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et personal information you provide us such and included the requisite seq.) requires that, for any petition to (see Information Requested under identification information for the revise the Federal Lists of Endangered SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more petitioners, as required by 50 CFR and Threatened Wildlife and Plants that information). 424.14(a). In a September 15, 2010, contains substantial scientific or letter to Conservation Force, we FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: commercial information that listing the acknowledged receipt of the petition. Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of species may be warranted, we make a Foreign Species, Endangered Species finding within 12 months of the date of Previous Federal Actions Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, receipt of the petition (‘‘12-month On June 14, 1976, we published in the 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 420, finding’’). In this finding, we determine Federal Register a rule listing the Arlington, VA 22203; telephone 703– whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not straight-horned markhor, or the 358–2171; facsimile 703–358–1735. If warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri you use a telecommunications device warranted, but immediate proposal of a jerdoni), and the Kabul markhor (C. f. for the deaf (TDD), please call the regulation implementing the petitioned megaceros), as well as 157 other U.S. Federal Information Relay Service action is precluded by other pending and foreign vertebrates and (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. proposals to determine whether species invertebrates, as endangered under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: are endangered or threatened, and Act (41 FR 24062). All species were Executive Summary expeditious progress is being made to found to have declining numbers due to add or remove qualified species from the present or threatened destruction, I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action the Federal Lists of Endangered and modification, or curtailment of their We are proposing to reclassify the Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section habitats or ranges; overutilization for straight-horned markhor from 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we commercial, sporting, scientific, or endangered to threatened under the treat a petition for which the requested educational purposes; the inadequacy of Endangered Species Act of 1973, as action is found to be warranted but existing regulatory mechanisms; or amended (Act) due to recovery actions precluded as though resubmitted on the some combination of the three. in the Torghar Hills of Pakistan. date of such finding, that is, requiring a However, the main concerns were the Conservation actions involving subsequent finding to be made within high commercial importance and the implementation of a trophy hunting 12 months. We must publish these 12- inadequacy of existing regulatory conservation plan in 1985 have month findings in the Federal Register. mechanisms to control international eliminated impacts from poaching in In this document, we announce that trade. this population. Since 1985, the reclassifying the straight-horned Later, the Suleiman markhor and the population has been steadily increasing markhor as threatened is warranted, and Kabul markhor were considered by and is considered the stronghold of the we propose to reclassify this subspecies some authorities to be the single subspecies. In light of this substantial as threatened in the Federal List of subspecies C. f. megaceros (straight- population growth in the Torghar Hills, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. horned markhor). These subspecies we have determined that the subspecies Additionally, we are proposing a special currently remain listed as separate no longer meets the definition of an rule under section 4(d) of the Act that, entities under the Act. ‘‘endangered species’’ under the Act; if adopted as proposed, would allow the On March 4, 1999, we received a therefore, we find that reclassifying the import of straight-horned markhor petition from Sardar Naseer A. Tareen,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47013

on behalf of the Society for Torghar endangered and should be reclassified ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific Environmental Protection and the from threatened to endangered. Our and commercial data available.’’ International Union for Conservation of determination is based on the best Public Hearing Nature (IUCN) Central Asia Sustainable scientific and commercial data available Use Specialist Group, requesting that at the time of the review. This 12-month At this time, we do not have a public the Suleiman markhor (Capra falconeri finding serves as our 5-year review of hearing scheduled for this proposed jerdoni or C. f. megaceros) population of this species. rule. The main purpose of most public the Torghar Hills region of the hearings is to obtain public testimony or Balochistan Province, Pakistan, be Information Requested comment. In most cases, it is sufficient reclassified from endangered to We intend that any final action to submit comments through the Federal threatened under the Act. On September resulting from this proposed rule will be eRulemaking Portal, described above in 23, 1999 (64 FR 51499), we published in based on the best scientific and the ADDRESSES section. If you would like the Federal Register a finding, in commercial data available. Therefore, to request a public hearing for this accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of we request comments or information proposed rule, you must submit your the Act, that the petition had presented from other concerned governmental request, in writing, to the person listed substantial information indicating that agencies, the scientific community, or in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION the requested reclassification may be any other interested parties concerning CONTACT section by September 21, 2012. warranted, and we initiated a status this proposed rule. We particularly seek Species Information and Factors review. We opened a comment period, clarifying information concerning: Affecting the Species which closed January 21, 2000, to allow (1) Taxonomy. Specifically, we are all interested parties to submit interested in information relating to the Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) comments and information. A 12-month correct classification of the Capra and implementing regulations (50 CFR finding was never completed. falconeri subspecies. part 424) set forth procedures for adding On June 2, 2011, we published in the (2) Distribution, habitat selection, species to, removing species from, or Federal Register a finding that the diet, and population abundance and reclassifying species on the Federal petition received on August 18, 2010, trends of this subspecies. Lists of Endangered and Threatened from Conservation Force (discussed (3) The effects of habitat loss and Wildlife and Plants. Under section above under ‘‘Petition History’’), had changing land uses on the distribution 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be presented substantial information and abundance of this subspecies. determined to be endangered or indicating that the requested (4) The factors that are the basis for threatened based on any of the reclassification may be warranted, and making a listing/delisting/downlisting following five factors: we initiated a status review (76 FR determination for a species under A. The present or threatened destruction, 31903). We opened a comment period, section 4(a) of the Act, which are: modification, or curtailment of its habitat or which closed August 1, 2011. (a) The present or threatened range; On February 1, 2012, Conservation destruction, modification, or B. Overutilization for commercial, Force, Dallas Safari Club, and other recreational, scientific, or educational curtailment of its habitat or range; organizations and individuals filed suit purposes; against the Service for failure to conduct (b) Overutilization for commercial, C. Disease or predation; a 5-year status review pursuant to recreational, scientific, or educational D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory section 4(c)(2)(A) under the Act purposes; mechanisms; or (Conservation Force, et al. v. Salazar, (c) Disease or predation; E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Case No. 11 CV 02008 D. D. C.). On (d) The inadequacy of existing March 30, 2012, a settlement agreement regulatory mechanisms; or In considering whether a species may was approved by the Court (11–CV– (e) Other natural or manmade factors warrant listing under any of the five 02008, D. D. C.), in which the Service affecting its continued existence. factors, we look beyond the species’ agreed to submit to the Federal Register (5) Information on management exposure to a potential threat or by July 31, 2012, a 12-month finding on programs for straight-horned markhor aggregation of threats under any of the the August 2010 petition. This 12- conservation, including mitigation factors, and evaluate whether the month finding also constitutes our 5- measures related to conservation species responds to those potential year review of the straight-horned programs, and any other private, threats in a way that causes actual markhor. nongovernmental, or governmental impact to the species. The identification conservation programs that benefit this of threats that might impact a species 5-Year Review species. negatively may not be sufficient to Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires (6) Information on whether changing compel a finding that the species that we conduct a review of listed climatic conditions are affecting the warrants listing. The information must species at least once every 5 years. A 5- subspecies or its habitat. include evidence indicating that the year review is a periodic process Please include sufficient information threats are operative and, either singly conducted to ensure that the with your submission (such as full or in aggregation, affects the status of classification of a listed species is references) to allow us to verify any the species. Threats are significant if appropriate. Section 4(c)(2)(B) requires scientific or commercial information they drive, or contribute to, the risk of that we determine: (1) Whether a you include. Submissions merely stating extinction of the species, such that the species no longer meets the definition of support for or opposition to the action species warrants listing as endangered endangered or threatened and should be under consideration without providing or threatened, as those terms are defined removed from the List (delisted); (2) supporting information, although noted, in the Act. whether a species more properly meets will not be considered in making a The focus of this status review is the the definition of threatened and should determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the straight-horned markhor (Capra be reclassified from endangered to Act directs that determinations as to falconeri jerdoni). For most of the threatened; or (3) whether a species whether any species is an endangered or populations, there is no detailed more properly meets the definition of threatened species must be made information on distribution, population

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47014 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

estimates, or threats to the subspecies; under the Act, with the straight-horned historical populations were extirpated information that is available is over 30 markhor (C. f. jerdoni) being the focus due to over-hunting (Johnson 1994b, p. years old. However, the Torghar Hills of our status review. We are again 5; Johnson 1994, p. 10). Schaller and population of the straight-horned requesting from the public additional Khan (1975, p. 196) estimated 150 in markhor has been extensively studied information on the taxonomy of Capra Takhatu, 20 to 30 in Kalifat, 20 in since the mid-1980s due to the falconeri to determine the proper Zarghum, and 20 in Shinghar. Few were implementation of a conservation plan nomenclature that should be followed estimated to survive in the Murdar in this area. Therefore, this status (see Information Requested for details). Range, and a remnant population may review mainly consists of information Species Description have existed near Loralei in the Gadabar related to this population. When Range. Roberts (1969 in Valdez, 2008, possible, we have included general Markhor are sturdy animals with strong, relatively short, thick legs and unpaginated) believed the number of information on the status of the markhor in the Toba Kakar range was populations outside of the Torghar broad hooves. They are a reddish-grey fewer than 500. In 1984, Tareen Hills. For these particular populations, color, with more buff tones in the estimated fewer than 200 remained in which we lack information, we request summer and grey in the winter. The legs additional information from the public and belly are a cream color with a the Torghar Hills (Mitchell, 1989, p. 9). during this proposed rule’s comment conspicuous dark brown pattern on the Overall, Schaller and Khan (1975, p. period (see Information Requested, forepart of the shank interrupted by a 196) estimated as few as 1,000 straight- above). white carpal patch. They also have a horned markhor survived throughout dark brown mid-dorsal stripe that the subspecies’ range. Taxonomy extends from the shoulders to the base In general, markhor populations are The markhor (Capra falconeri) is a of the tail. The tail is short, is sparsely reported as declining (Valdez 2008, species of wild goat belonging to the covered with long black hairs, but is unpaginated). Hess et al. (1997, p. 255), Family Bovidae and Subfamily Caprinae naked underneath. Adult males have an based on the general status of wildlife (sheep and goats) (Valdez 2008, extensive black beard followed by a in Pakistan, concluded that the straight- unpaginated). When the markhor was shaggy mane of long hairs extending horned markhor had likely not first listed under the Act in 1975, seven down the chest and from the fore part increased in recent years. Current subspecies of markhor were generally of the neck. There is also a crest of long estimates for populations of straight- recognized: Capra falconeri jerdoni black and dark brown hairs that hang horned markhor are lacking, with the (straight-horned or Suleiman markhor), like a mane down either side of the C. f. megaceros (Kabul markhor), C. f. spine from the shoulders to the croup exception of the population in the cashmirensis (Kashmir markhor), C. f. (Roberts 1977, p. 197). Horns are Torghar Hills of the Toba Kakar Range. falconeri (Aston markhor), C. f. ognevi straight with an open, tight spiral This population has been extensively (Uzbek markhor), C. f. heptneri (Tajik resembling a corkscrew (Schaller and studied due to the implementation of a markhor), and C. f. chialtanensis Khan 1975, p. 189). community-based management (Chiltan markhor) (64 FR 51499, program. In addition, as part of the use Distribution September 23, 1999; Roberts 1977, p. of annual export quotas for markhor 196). In 1975, Schaller and Khan (1975, Historically, the straight-horned sport-hunted trophies granted to pp. 188, 191) recognized 3 subspecies of markhor inhabited the mountains of Pakistan at the 10th meeting of the markhor based on horn shape and body Pakistan and Afghanistan, just inside Conference of the Parties to the characteristics: C. f. jerdoni and C. f. the Afghanistan border. Today, the Convention on International Trade in megaceros were combined into C. f. straight-horned markhor is only found Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and megaceros (straight-horned markhor); C. in the mountains of Balochistan Flora, Pakistan submits annual surveys f. cashmirensis and C. f. falconeri were Province, Pakistan; no markhor occur in of markor populations, including combined into C. f. falconeri (flare- Afghanistan. Although it is considered populations within the Torghar horned markhor); and C. f. ognevi and widely distributed, the straight-horned Conservation Area (Resolution Conf. C. f. heptneri were combined into C. f. markhor has been reduced to small, 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14); See discussion heptneri (Heptner’s markhor). Many scattered populations on all the below under Overutilization for authorities consider C. f. chialtanensis mountain ranges immediately to the commercial, recreational, scientific, or to be Capra aegagrus chialtanensis north and east of Quetta, including educational purposes). Based on (Chiltan wild goat) (64 FR 51500, Murdar, Takhatu, Zarghun, Kaliphat, surveys conducted from 1985–1988, Phil Garh, and Suleiman. It is reported September 23, 1999). Mitchell (1989, p. 9) estimated 450 to In our June 2, 2011, 90-day petition that the straight-horned markhor still 600 markhor inhabited the Torghar finding, we requested information on survives in the Shingar Range on the Hills. Regular surveys of the managed the taxonomy of C. f. jerdoni and C. f. border of Balochistan and South megaceros to determine if these Waziristan. The greatest concentration area have taken place since 1994, when constitute a single subspecies. We did is in the Torghar Hills of the Toba Kakar Johnson (1994b, p. 12) estimated the not receive any information regarding Range on the border with Afghanistan, population of markhor to be 695. Later the correct nomenclature that should be within a community-based management surveys estimated the population to be followed. During our status review, we program, the Torghar Conservation 1,296 in 1997; 1,684 in 1999; 2,541 in did not find consistency in the use of C. Project. This project area covers 2005; and 3,158 in 2008 (Arshad and f. jerdoni or C. f. megaceros. We found approximately 1,000 km2 (386 mi2) Khan 2009, p. 9; Shafique 2006, p. 6; that papers published around the same within the Torghar Hills (Frisina and Frisina 2000, p. 8; Frisina et al. 1998, p. time as each other often used both Tareen 2009, pp. 142–143; Johnson 6). Although most of the mountain classifications to describe subspecies of 1994b, p. 16; Roberts 1977, p. 198; ranges in Balochistan have not been markhor. Therefore, until it is clear, we Schaller and Khan 1975, p. 196). formally surveyed, Johnson (1994b, p. will continue to recognize the distinct Limited information is available for 16) concluded that Torghar was one of subspecies of C. f. jerdoni and C. f. populations throughout most of the the last remaining strongholds for the megaceros, as they are currently listed straight-horned markhor’s range. Many subspecies.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47015

Habitat Life History recognized by Schaller and Khan in Markhor are diurnal in feeding 1975. Furthermore, given the basis of Straight-horned markhor are the ‘‘endangered’’ classification stated associated with extremely rugged terrain activity. They are most active in the early morning and late evening above, it appears that the status of the with precipitous cliffs, rocky caves, and Torghar Hills population is not bare rock surfaces interspersed with (Mitchell 1989, p. 8). Wild pistachios are a preferred food for straight-horned considered. Although the increasing patches of arid, steppe vegetation. They markhor (Johnson 1994, p. 12; Roberts population estimates of Torghar Hills can be found from 600 meters (m) (1,969 1977, p. 198), although in general they are briefly referenced, the assessment feet (ft)) up to 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in are known to feed on grasses and leaves, does not appear to recognize the elevation (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181; biological significance of these and twigs of bushes. Markhor seek water Mitchell 1989, p. 8; Johnson 1994b, p. individuals in this portion of the range in the late afternoon; however, they may in relation to the subspecies. In a 5). need to descend to valley bottoms for subspecies discussion on the population The Torghar Hills, a chain of rugged water, but only after darkness (Roberts of straight-horned markhor (C. f. sandstone ridges located within the 1977, p. 198). Markhor in the Torghar megaceros), the population status is Toba Kakar Range, lies in the Hills are mostly sedentary, although listed as declining. Thus, it appears that Balochistan juniper and pistachio scrub extensive local movements may occur the increasing Torghar Hills population forest and dry sub-tropical semi- due to deteriorating grazing conditions is masked by the assumed decline of the evergreen forest (Woodford et al. 2004, or disturbance (Woodford et al. 2004, p. remaining populations of the whole pp. 178–179; Frisina 2000, p. 3). The 181). subspecies. higher elevations (2,000–3,300 m; Markhor are gregarious, with females, The straight-horned markhor is also 6,562–9,843 ft) have some Chilgoza pine their young, and immature males listed in Appendix I of the Convention (Pinus gerardiana) and juniper associating in small herds, but on International Trade in Endangered (Juniperus macropoda or excelsa). competition with domestic goat flocks Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Rugged upland slopes have not may drive markhor populations to (CITES). Species included in CITES’ experienced as much grazing pressure higher terrain and result in larger herds. Appendix I are considered threatened and still have bunchgrasses, forbs, wild Adult males live solitary lives, taking with extinction which are or may be almond trees (Amygdalus brahnica), shelter under rock overhangs or natural affected by trade, and international Ephedra sp., Artemisia sp., and other caves. They only join the females and trade is permitted only under shrubs, while lower slopes (1,000–2,000 young during the rut, which for the exceptional circumstances. Commercial m; 3,281–6,562 ft) have been denuded of straight-horned markhor peaks around trade in Appendix I specimens is trees. Widely scattered olive (Olea mid-November and lasts about 2 weeks. generally precluded (see Factor D cuspidate), wild pistachio (Pistacia Males may attach themselves to one discussion, below). The straight-horned khinjuk), juniper, and ash (Fraxinus particular territory or herd. Fighting markhor is also listed on the Third xanthoxyloides) are all that remain on between rival males also occurs during Schedule of the 1974 Balochistan the lower slope. Tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) this time. Markhor reach sexual Wildlife Protection Act (Frisina and and Cargana sp. occur along stream maturity around 3 years of age. Tareen 2009, p. 145; Ahmed et al. 2001, beds and drainage lines where water is Gestation lasts from 162 to 170 days. p.5). The Third Schedule of this law is available. Overgrazing has resulted in Females usually give birth to one young, a list of protected animals that cannot be xerophytic scrub vegetation consisting but twins are not uncommon. For the hunted, killed, or captured (BWPA of Acacia, Artemisia, Haloxylon, and first few days, the newborn will remain 1977, p. 15). in a sheltered hollow. Mothers have Rosa (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 179; A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 3; Johnson 1994b, been observed making a special characteristic call when approaching Modification, or Curtailment of Habitat p. 3; Tareen 1990, p. 2; Mitchell 1989, or Range p. 5). their young. A young markhor will remain with its mother until the rutting Across the range of the straight- The climate in Torghar varies season or until the next young is born. horned markhor, populations have considerably in temperature and After this, the female will drive the declined partly due to habitat precipitation by season. Summers are older young away if it approaches too modification, and habitat continues to ° hot, with a mean temperature of 26 C closely. In the wild, it is possible that be threatened due to drought and ° (79 F), but temperatures often rise to 50 markhor can live up to 18 years of age, overgrazing of domestic livestock, ° ° C (122 F). Winters are cold, with a but perhaps few males live beyond 11 deforestation from logging (which has ° ° mean temperature of 4 C (39.2 F), but or 12 years (Ali 2008, p. 16; Mitchell occurred over hundreds of years), and ° temperatures sometimes fall to -15 C 1989, p. 9; Roberts 1977, pp. 198–199). collection of wood for building (5 °F). Day and night temperatures also materials, fuel, charcoal, and food vary considerably. Annual precipitation Conservation Status (WWF 2011, unpaginated; Valdez 2008, is around 200 to 250 millimeters (mm) The markhor (Capra falconeri) is unpaginated; WWF 2008, unpaginated; (7.9 to 9.8 inches (in)), which mainly currently classified as ‘‘endangered’’ by Hess et al. 1997, p. 255; CITES 1997, p. falls in March and April. In winter, most the International Union for 895). precipitation occurs as snow. Violent Conservation of Nature (IUCN) due to a Much of the land where straight- thunderstorms and dust storms occur in low number of mature individuals horned markhor occur is owned by local summer, with rain occurring in July and (estimated at fewer than 2,500), a tribes whose subsistence is largely August (Arshad and Khan 2009, p. 2; continuing rate of decline, and severely dependent on keeping large herds of Woodford et al. 2004, p. 179; Ahmed et fragmented subpopulations all with primarily sheep and goats. Rangelands al. 2001, p. 2; Frisina et al. 1998, p. 3; fewer than 250 individuals (Valdez often support livestock beyond their Mitchell 1989, p. 4). Periodic droughts 2008, unpaginated). However, we note carrying capacity, leading to are common and may last for several that this IUCN assessment is at the overgrazing, a halt to natural years at a time (Frisina and Tareen 2009, species level and appears to consider regeneration, and subsequent p. 143). the combined status of 3 subspecies, as desertification of native vegetation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47016 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47017

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47018 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47019

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47020 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47021

65). Provincial governments are disease remain current and potential loss, and increasing water availability responsible for legislating natural threats to the straight-horned markhor of through water storage projects. resources. Balochistan’s single wildlife the Torghar Hills. Management plans Although we do not know the law, the BWPA, does not meet the are being developed to address habitat effectiveness of these plans under country’s obligations regarding loss and disease prevention; however, changing climatic conditions, we did conservation of biodiversity or trade in we do not know the status or not find any information that rising endangered species (Aurangzaib and effectiveness of these plans. Therefore, temperatures have had an effect on the Pastakia 2008, p. 58). Therefore, these we find that, overall, inadequate status of the markhor such that climate treaties, in and of themselves, do not regulatory mechanisms are a threat to change rises to the level of a threat, nor provide adequate protections to the straight-horned markhor. did we find any information indicating ameliorate threats faced by the straight- that climate change may become a threat E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors horned markhor. to the straight-horned markhor. Affecting the Species’ Continued Conservation Plans Existence Summary of Factor E Populations of ungulates in Pakistan Consideration of ongoing and To date, Pakistan has experienced a have significantly increased under projected climate change is a warming trend, yet there is no trophy hunting programs (Government component of our analyses to determine information to indicate that the straight- of Pakistan 2009, p. viii). The only the appropriate status of the markhor horned markhor has been negatively conservation program of any type for the under the Act. Described in general affected. Although information indicates straight-horned markhor is the TCP, terms, ‘‘climate change’’ refers to a changes in the climate of Balochistan which covers the Torghar Hills change in the state of the climate could affect mountain habitat, we do not population. The population here has (whether due to natural variability, have information on the extent of these been under this conservation program human activity, or both) that can be changes or the projected response of since 1985. As previously described, the identified by changes in the mean or straight-horned markhor. Drought is a TCP began after local tribal leaders were variability of its properties (e.g., common occurrence in Balochistan, and concerned over the diminished markhor temperature, precipitation) and that it is reasonable to assume that the population. persists for an extended period, markhor has evolved with varying The main cause of declines in typically decades or longer degrees of drought. markhor populations was thought to be (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate We are not aware of any other uncontrolled poaching. The TCP Change (IPCC) 2007, p. 30). Various scientific or commercial information effectively eliminated this threat and types of changes in climate can have that indicates other natural or manmade has allowed the straight-horned direct or indirect effects on species, and factors pose a threat to this subspecies. markhor population in the Torghar Hills these may be positive or negative We also do not find that climate change to steadily increase. The TCP not only depending on the species and other is or may become a threat to the straight- addresses the threat of hunting, but relevant considerations, such as the horned markhor. As a result, we find agriculture and range management plans effects of interactions with non-climate that other natural or manmade factors have been recently developed to address conditions (e.g., habitat fragmentation). are not threats to the straight-horned habitat loss and disease (see discussions We use our expert judgment to weigh markhor. under Factors A and C, above). relevant information, including Finding Therefore, we find that the TCP uncertainty, in our consideration of provides adequate protection to the various aspects of climate change that As required by the Act, we conducted markhor from poaching, but we do not are relevant to the straight-horned a review of the status of the species and yet have information indicating that it markhor. considered the five factors in assessing provides adequate protection against Since the beginning of the 20th whether the straight-horned markhor is habitat loss and disease. century, Pakistan has experienced a endangered or threatened throughout all consistent rising trend in mean surface or a significant portion of its range. We Summary of Factor D temperatures (Farooqi et al. 2005, p. 13). examined the best scientific and Although the federal government of Ahmed et al. (2010, pp. 17, 21) found commercial information available Pakistan could legislate on matters that temperatures in January, a core regarding the past, present, and future relating to natural resources, this matter winter month in Pakistan, increased threats faced by the straight-horned is left to provincial governments. There over a 46-year time period (1961–2006) markhor. We reviewed the 1999 petition are several provincial laws in place across Pakistan and especially in submitted by Tareen, the 2010 petition meant to give some protection to natural northwestern Balochistan. Projections submitted by Jackson, information resources; however, they are subject to through 2050 for Pakistan include available in our files, and other broad exemptions, allowing for increasing surface temperatures, available published and unpublished overriding laws favoring development increasing magnitude and frequency of information. and commercial use. Given the threats extreme rainfall events, and The straight-horned markhor occurs faced by the straight-horned markhor strengthening monsoon circulation. in small, scattered populations in from habitat loss, poaching, and disease, Additionally, arid and semi-arid regions extremely rugged terrain of the it appears that these regulatory could experience severe droughts mountains of Balochistan, including the mechanisms do not provide adequate (Farooqi et al. 2005, pp. 16–18). Murdar, Takhatu, Zarghun, Kaliphat, protections to the subspecies. In the Drought is a common occurrence in Phil Garh, Suleiman, Shingar, and Toba Torghar Hills, effective implementation Balochistan; as such, we do not know if Kakar ranges. In 1975, as few as 1,000 and enforcement of the TCP has led to climate change will affect markhor and straight-horned markhor were estimated the cessation of poaching of markhor their habitat. STEP has developed to survive throughout the subspecies’ and a persistent growth in the markhor habitat and range management plans, range. It is unlikely that the number of population; therefore, the TCP has which could help minimize effects of straight-horned markhor has increased provided adequate protection against climate change by reducing the number in much of its range, and, in general, poaching. Habitat modification and of domestic livestock, decreasing habitat markhor populations are reported as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

declining, but there is one exception, change is a threat to the straight-horned we are proposing to list the straight- the Torghar Hills population in the Toba markhor. horned markhor as threatened Kakar Range. Due to the implementation Section 3 of the Act defines an throughout its range. of a conservation plan, the Torghar Hills ‘‘endangered species’’ as ‘‘any species Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment population has increased from fewer which is in danger of extinction than 200 in the mid-1980s to 3,158 throughout all or a significant portion of Section 3(16) of the Act defines currently. its range,’’ and a ‘‘threatened species’’ as ‘‘species’’ to include any species or Throughout the range of the straight- ‘‘any species which is likely to become subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, horned markhor, deforestation for an endangered species within the and any distinct population segment of logging, livestock grazing, and foreseeable future throughout all or a any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife collection for building materials, fuel, significant portion of its range.’’ Some of which interbreeds when mature (16 charcoal, and food threaten straight- the straight-horned markhor U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under the Service’s horned markhor habitat. populations are small and declining. ‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition of Due to the formation of the TCP, the Threats to this subspecies from habitat Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments cessation of uncontrolled poaching, and loss, poaching, and disease still exist Under the Endangered Species Act’’ (61 the hunting of only a limited number of and will likely continue into the FR 4722, February 7, 1996), three trophies in the Torghar Hills, the foreseeable future. At the same time, elements are considered in the decision population has increased substantially regulatory mechanisms are inadequate concerning the establishment and since TCP’s inception in 1985. We are to ameliorate the negative effects of classification of a possible distinct not aware of other populations of these threats on the subspecies. population segment (DPS). These straight-horned markhor under the same However, in the Torghar Hills, the elements, which are applied similarly level of management. Given that the greatest cause of the significant declines for additions to or removals from the cessation of poaching in the Torghar Federal List of Endangered and Hills was a direct result of the TCP and in markhor populations, poaching, has been virtually eliminated due to the Threatened Wildlife, include: we are unaware of any other portions of (1) The discreteness of a population in implementation of the TCP. The the subspecies’ range that are subject to relation to the remainder of the species population here has been increasing a management program that protects to which it belongs; since the inception of the TCP and, against uncontrolled hunting, we find (2) The significance of the population today, is the stronghold of the that poaching remains a threat in the segment to the species to which it subspecies. Due to the conservation rest of the straight-horned markhor’s belongs; and range. measures and the incentives of the TCP, (3) The population segment’s Disease has been identified as a future the straight-horned markhor has conservation status in relation to the threat to the Torghar Hills population. increased from approximately 1,000 Act’s standards for listing, delisting, or The risk of disease transmission comes markhor across its range to at least 3,158 reclassification (i.e., is the population from forced interactions between individuals, which are represented by segment endangered or threatened?). livestock and markhor around limited the Torghar Hills population. The forage and water resources, due either to success of this program has contributed Discreteness drought conditions and/or overgrazing greatly to the conservation of the Under the DPS policy, a population of large domestic herds of sheep and subspecies by recovering the straight- segment of a vertebrate taxon may be goats. horned markhor from the brink of considered discrete if it satisfies either There are several provincial laws in extinction. This increase in abundance one of the following conditions: place meant to give some protection to has contributed to the subspecies’ (1) It is markedly separated from other natural resources, but they are subject to overall resiliency such that it is less populations of the same taxon as a broad exemptions, allowing for susceptible to the threats that we have consequence of physical, physiological, overriding laws favoring development identified. Additionally, information ecological, or behavioral factors. and commercial use, and enforcement is suggests that intermountain exchange or Quantitative measures of genetic or lacking. However, in the Torghar Hills, movement is occurring between the morphological discontinuity may the population of straight-horned Torghar Hills and other mountain range provide evidence of this separation. markhor has been effectively managed areas, thereby providing a margin of (2) It is delimited by international by the TCP such that poaching is no safety for the species to withstand governmental boundaries within which longer a threat to this population and catastrophic events. See discussion differences in control of exploitation, the population has increased. Given the under Distinct Vertebrate Population management of habitat, conservation success of the TCP in ameliorating Segment. Thus, we find that threats status, or regulatory mechanisms exist threats faced by the straight-horned identified under Factors A, B, C, and D, that are significant in light of section markhor from poaching, it appears that when combined with the increase in the 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. this regulatory mechanism for the straight-horned markhor population and We reviewed available information to Torghar Hills population of straight- the protective measures provided to the determine whether any population, horned markhor is providing adequate Torghar Hills population by the TCP, including the Torghar Hills population, protection to the subspecies from are not of sufficient imminence, of the straight-horned markhor meets poaching, which was once the intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the first discreteness condition of our markhor’s greatest threat. the straight-horned markhor is presently 1996 DPS policy. We found no evidence Lastly, Pakistan has experienced in danger of extinction, and, therefore, that any population was markedly warming trends that are projected to the straight-horned markhor does not separated from other markhor continue, and could lead to more meet the definition of endangered under populations as a consequence of frequent and severe droughts. However, the Act. On the basis of the best physical, physiological, ecological, or markhor have evolved within habitat scientific and commercial information, behavioral factors. Additionally, we are that experiences frequent and sustained we find that the straight-horned not aware of measures of genetic or drought events. We do not have enough markhor meets the definition of a morphological discontinuity that information to determine that climate ‘‘threatened species’’ under the Act, and provide evidence of marked separation.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47023

With respect to Torghar Hills, the Significant Portion of the Range ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold boundaries are unclear and appear to Having determined that the straight- for when such an independent basis for grade into other ranges within the Toba horned markhor meets the definition of listing exists. Although there are potentially many Kakar Mountains. Additionally, Johnson threatened throughout its range, we ways to determine whether a portion of (1994b, p. 15) noted that if the Torghar must next consider whether the straight- a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we Hills population reaches carrying horned markhor is in danger of conclude, for the purposes of this capacity, it could become a source of extinction within a significant portion finding, that the significance of the emigrants for other mountain ranges in of its range. portion of the range should be the area and that intermountain The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ determined based on its biological movement is probably already taking as any species which is ‘‘in danger of contribution to the conservation of the place. Since that publication, the extinction throughout all or a significant species. For this reason, we describe the Torghar Hills population has increased portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely from 695 markhor to 3,158, indicating a an increase in the risk of extinction for to become an endangered species within greater likelihood that intermountain the species. We conclude that a the foreseeable future throughout all or movement of markhor is taking place. biologically based definition of a significant portion of its range.’’ The We currently do not know the extent, if ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ any, that markhor are moving from the purposes of the Act, is consistent with Torghar Hills into other mountain (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and judicial interpretations, and best ranges; however, it appears that they we have never addressed in our ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for could. Movement may require markhor regulations either: (1) The consequences the purposes of this finding, and as to cross unsuitable habitat (e.g., the TCP of a determination that a species is explained further below, a portion of the is surrounded by less severe topography either endangered or likely to become so range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if its and valleys typically not preferred by throughout a significant portion of its contribution to the viability of the markhor), but there is no reason that range, but not throughout all of its species is so important that without that they could not cross, especially if range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of portion, the species would be in danger a range as ‘‘significant.’’ carrying capacity is met and there is a of extinction. For the purposes of this finding, we need to emigrate to other suitable areas We evaluate biological significance interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion based on the principles of conservation in adjacent ranges. Therefore, without of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of evidence of marked separation, we biology using the concepts of ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened redundancy, resiliency, and determine that none of the populations species’’ to provide an independent of the straight-horned markhor meet the representation. Resiliency describes the basis for listing; thus there are two characteristics of a species and its first discreteness condition of the 1996 situations (or factual bases) under which DPS policy. habitat that allow it to recover from a species would qualify for listing: a periodic disturbance. Redundancy We next evaluate whether any of the species may be endangered or (having multiple populations straight-horned markhor populations threatened throughout all of its range; or distributed across the landscape) may be meet the second discreteness condition a species may be endangered or needed to provide a margin of safety for of our 1996 DPS policy. A population threatened in only a significant portion the species to withstand catastrophic segment may be considered discrete if it of its range. If a species is in danger of events. Representation (the range of is delimited by international extinction throughout an SPR, then that variation found in a species) ensures governmental boundaries within which species is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ The that the species’ adaptive capabilities differences in control of exploitation, same analysis applies to ‘‘threatened are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, management of habitat, conservation species.’’ Based on this interpretation and representation are not independent status, or regulatory mechanisms exist and supported by existing case law, the of each other, and some characteristic of that are significant in light of section consequence of finding that a species is a species or area may contribute to all 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Straight-horned endangered or threatened in only a three. For example, distribution across a markhor are only found in Pakistan and significant portion of its range is that the wide variety of habitat types is an do not cross international boundaries; entire species will be listed as indicator of representation, but it may therefore, none of the populations of the endangered or threatened, respectively, also indicate a broad geographic straight-horned markhor meet the and the Act’s protections will be distribution contributing to redundancy second discreteness condition of the applied across the species’ entire range. (decreasing the chance that any one 1996 DPS policy. We conclude, for the purposes of this event affects the entire species), and the finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase likelihood that some habitat types are We determine, based on a review of as providing an independent basis for less susceptible to certain threats, the best available information, that none listing is the best interpretation of the contributing to resiliency (the ability of of the populations of the straight-horned Act because it is consistent with the the species to recover from disturbance). markhor, including the Torghar Hills purposes and the plain meaning of the None of these concepts is intended to be population, meet the discreteness key definitions of the Act; it does not mutually exclusive, and a portion of a conditions of the 1996 DPS policy. conflict with established past agency species’ range may be determined to be Because we found that the straight- practice, as no consistent, long-term ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions horned markhor populations do not agency practice has been established; under any one or more of these meet the discreteness element under the and it is consistent with the judicial concepts. Service’s DPS policy, we need not opinions that have most closely For the purposes of this finding, we conduct an evaluation of significance examined this issue. Having concluded determine whether a portion qualifies as under that policy. We conclude that that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of ‘‘significant’’ by asking whether without none of the straight-horned markhor its range’’ provides an independent that portion, the representation, populations qualify as a DPS under the basis for listing and protecting the entire redundancy, or resiliency of the species Act. species, we next turn to the meaning of would be so impaired that the species

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47025

Available Conservation Measures permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for mature males (approximately 2 percent) Conservation measures provided to endangered species and 17.32 for are removed, normal reproduction can species listed as endangered or threatened species. For endangered be maintained and any long-term threatened under the Act include wildlife, a permit may be issued for genetic impacts from removing recognition, requirements for Federal scientific purposes, to enhance the ‘‘genetically superior’’ individuals from protection, and prohibitions against propagation or survival of the species, a population can be minimized certain practices. Recognition through and for incidental take in connection (Shackleton 2001, p. 10). Many hunters are willing to pay listing results in public awareness, and with otherwise lawful activities. For relatively large fees for the privilege to encourages and results in conservation threatened species, a permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as hunt. If the money is used to conserve actions by Federal and State zoological exhibition, education, and the species that is the focus of the governments, private agencies and special purposes consistent with the conservation program, the program may groups, and individuals. be sustainable. Additionally, habitat Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, Act. restoration may also be achieved. and as implemented by regulations at 50 Special Rule Incorporating the needs of the local CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies Section 4(d) of the Act states that the people creates an incentive to conserve to evaluate their actions within the Secretary may, by regulation, extend to wildlife and ensures the success of the United States or on the high seas with threatened species prohibitions program (Shackleton 2001, pp. 7, 10). respect to any species that is proposed provided for endangered species under In recognizing the potential of or listed as endangered or threatened section 9 of the Act. Our implementing conservation programs, including those and with respect to its critical habitat, regulations for threatened wildlife (50 based on sport hunting, we are if any is being designated. However, CFR 17.31) incorporate the section 9 proposing a special rule to allow the given that the straight-horned markhor prohibitions for endangered wildlife, import of sport-hunted markhor is not native to the United States, we are except when a special rule is trophies taken from established not designating critical habitat for this promulgated. For threatened species, conservation programs without a species under section 4 of the Act. section 4(d) of the Act gives the threatened species permit issued under Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the Secretary discretion to specify the 50 CFR 17.32, provided that certain provision of limited financial assistance prohibitions and any exceptions to criteria are met. Importation of a for the development and management of those prohibitions that are appropriate personal sport-hunted straight-horned programs that the Secretary of the for the species, and provisions that are markhor may be authorized by the Interior determines to be necessary or necessary and advisable to provide for Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife useful for the conservation of the conservation of the species. A Service (Director) without a threatened endangered and threatened species in special rule allows us to include species permit if the trophy is taken foreign countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) provisions that are tailored to the from a conservation program that meets of the Act authorize the Secretary to specific conservation needs of the the following criteria: (1) Populations of encourage conservation programs for threatened species and which may be straight-horned markhor within the foreign endangered species and to more or less restrictive than the general conservation program’s areas can be provide assistance for such programs in provisions at 50 CFR 17.31. shown to be sufficiently large to sustain the form of personnel and the training The Service recognizes that there is a sport-hunting and the populations are of personnel. reasonable argument for the proposition stable or increasing; (2) regulating The Act and its implementing that controlled sport hunting (i.e., authorities have the capacity to obtain regulations set forth a series of general noncommercial) may provide economic sound data on populations; (3) the prohibitions and exceptions that apply incentives that contribute to the conservation program can demonstrate a to all endangered and threatened conservation of certain wildlife benefit to both the communities wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR populations. These incentives may be surrounding or within the area managed 17.21 and 17.31, in part, make it illegal direct, such as generating funding for by the conservation program and the for any person subject to the jurisdiction essential conservation measures through species, and the funds derived from of the United States to ‘‘take’’ (take licensing fees. They may also be sport hunting are applied toward includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, indirect, such as focusing governmental benefits to the community and the shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, attention on the need to protect species species; (4) regulating authorities have or to attempt any of these) within the of economic value. the legal and practical capacity to United States or upon the high seas; Well-managed conservation programs, provide for the long-term survival of the import or export; deliver, receive, carry, including those that incorporate sport populations; (5) regulating authorities transport, or ship in interstate or foreign hunting, can significantly contribute to can determine that the trophies have in commerce in the course of commercial the conservation of wildlife, improve fact been legally taken from the activity; or sell or offer for sale in wildlife populations, and greatly populations under an established interstate or foreign commerce any enhance the livelihoods of the local conservation program. The Director endangered or threatened wildlife people. The primary objective of a well- may, consistent with the purposes of the species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, managed trophy-hunting program is not Act, authorize by publication of a notice deliver, carry, transport, or ship any hunting, but the conservation of large in the Federal Register the importation such wildlife that has been taken in mammals (Shackleton 2001, p. 7). The of personal sport-hunted straight-horned violation of the Act. Certain exceptions key lies in ensuring a sufficient number markhor, taken legally from the apply to agents of the Service and State of mature males remain in the established conservation program after conservation agencies. population to maintain normal the date of such notice, without a Permits may be issued to carry out reproduction rates. For species with threatened species permit, provided that otherwise prohibited activities polygynous mating systems, removing the applicable provisions of 50 CFR part involving endangered and threatened some of the males from a population 23 have been met. wildlife species under certain does not necessarily affect the growth As discussed above under Factors B circumstances. Regulations governing rate of the population. If a fraction of the and D, hunting of markhor is allowed

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 47026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules

through a Pakistani government rulemaking. Accordingly, our final U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not exemption, and export of markhor in decision may differ from this proposal. conduct or sponsor, and a person is not Pakistan is allowed only from required to respond to, a collection of Required Determinations community-managed conservation areas information unless it displays a in accordance with CITES provisions. Clarity of Rule currently valid OMB control number. To encourage communities to conserve We are required by Executive Orders References Cited populations of markhor, the Conference 12866 and 12988 and by the of the Parties to CITES granted Pakistan Presidential Memorandum of June 1, A list of all references cited in this an annual export quota of 12 markhor 1998, to write all rules in plain document is available at http:// sport-hunted trophies taken through language. This means that each rule we www.regulations.gov at Docket No. community-based programs. CITES publish must: FWS–R9–ES–2011–0003, or upon Resolution Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14) (a) Be logically organized; request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife recommends that CITES Authorities in (b) Use the active voice to address Service, Endangered Species Program, the State of import approve permits of readers directly; Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR sport-hunted markhor trophies from (c) Use clear language rather than FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Pakistan if they meet the terms of the jargon; Resolution. This proposed special rule, (d) Be divided into short sections and Authors if made final, would similarly facilitate sentences; and support for these conservation (e) Use lists and tables wherever The primary authors of this proposed programs. Therefore, we find this possible. rule are staff members of the Branch of special rule would provide necessary If you feel that we have not met these Foreign Species, Endangered Species and advisable conservation measures requirements, send us comments by one Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. that are needed for this subspecies. of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 better help us revise the rule, your Peer Review comments should be as specific as Endangered and threatened species, In accordance with our policy, possible. For example, you should tell Exports, Imports, Reporting and ‘‘Notice of Interagency Cooperative us the names of the sections or recordkeeping requirements, Policy for Peer Review in Endangered paragraphs that are unclearly written, Transportation. Species Act Activities,’’ that was which sections or sentences are too Proposed Regulation Promulgation published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR long, the sections where you feel lists or 34270), we will seek the expert opinion tables would be useful, etc. Accordingly, we propose to amend of at least three appropriate part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title independent specialists regarding this National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, proposed rule. The purpose of such as set forth below: review is to ensure listing decisions are We have determined that we do not based on scientifically sound data, need to prepare an environmental PART 17—[AMENDED] assumptions, and analysis. We will send assessment, as defined under the copies of this proposed rule to the peer authority of the National Environmental 1. The authority citation for part 17 reviewers immediately following Policy Act of 1969, in connection with continues to read as follows: publication in the Federal Register. We regulations adopted under section 4(a) Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. will invite these peer reviewers to of the Act. We published a notice 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– comment, during the public comment outlining our reasons for this 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. period, on the specific assumptions and determination in the Federal Register the data that are the basis for our on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the conclusions regarding the proposal to entry for ‘‘Markhor, straight-horned’’ in reclassify the straight-horned markhor Paperwork Reduction Act the List of Endangered and Threatened as threatened under the Act and to This rule does not contain any new Wildlife to read as follows: promulgate the proposed special rule. information collections or We will consider all comments and recordkeeping requirements for which § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. information we receive during the Office of Management and Budget comment period on this proposed rule (OMB) approval is required under the * * * * * during preparation of a final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 (h) * * *

Species Vertebrate population where Critical Special Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules Common name Scientific name threatened

MAMMALS ......

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

*******

3. Amend § 17.40 by adding a new § 17.40 Special rules—mammals. (r) Straight-horned Markhor (Capra paragraph (r) to read as follows: * * * * * falconeri jerdoni).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Proposed Rules 47027

(1) General requirements. Except as (iii) The conservation program can publication of a notice in the Federal noted in paragraph (r)(2) of this section, demonstrate a benefit to both the Register the importation of personal all prohibitions of § 17.31 of this part communities surrounding or within the sport-hunted straight-horned markhor, and exemptions of § 17.32 of this part area managed by the conservation taken legally from the established apply to this subspecies. program and the species; and the funds program after the date of such notice, (2) What are the criteria under which derived from sport hunting are applied without a Threatened Species permit a personal sport-hunted trophy may toward benefits to the community and pursuant to § 17.32 of this part, qualify for import without a permit the species; provided that the applicable provisions under § 17.32 of this part? If, upon (iv) Regulating authorities have the of 50 CFR part 23 have been met. receiving information on an established legal and practical capacity to provide conservation program for straight- * * * * * for the long-term survival of the horned markhor: populations; and Dated: July 26, 2012. (i) Populations of straight-horned Thomas O. Melius, markhor within the conservation (v) Regulating authorities can program’s areas can be shown to be determine that the sport-hunted Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife sufficiently large to sustain sport trophies have in fact been legally taken Service. hunting and are stable or increasing; from the populations under an [FR Doc. 2012–19071 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] (ii) Regulating authorities have the established conservation program, the BILLING CODE 4310–55–P capacity to obtain sound data on Director may, consistent with the populations; purposes of the Act, authorize by

VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:01 Aug 06, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\07AUP1.SGM 07AUP1 erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1