SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On April 25, 2000, notice was published in the Federal Register (65 FR 24186) that a request was received for a scientific research permit on three (3) captive bottlenose dolphins ( Tursiops truncatus ) and one (1) captive false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens ) for studies on the hearing and echolocation processes in odontocete cetaceans. The research will occur over a five year period. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .) and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq .).
+Dated: July 17, 2000. Ann D. Terbush, Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+This policy, published jointly by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), jointly referred to as the Services, addresses the role of controlled propagation in the conservation and recovery of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) (Act). The policy provides guidance and establishes consistency for use of controlled propagation as a component of a listed species recovery strategy. This policy will help to ensure smooth transitions between various phases of conservation efforts such as propagation, reintroduction and monitoring, and foster efficient use of available funds. The policy supports the controlled propagation of listed species when recommended in an approved recovery plan or when necessary to prevent extinction of a species. Appropriate uses of controlled propagation include supporting recovery related research, maintaining refugia populations, providing plants or animals for reintroduction or augmentation of existing populations, and conserving species or populations at risk of imminent extinction or extirpation.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The Endangered Species Act specifically charges us with the responsibility for identification, protection, management, and recovery of species of plants and animals in danger of extinction. Fulfilling this responsibility requires the protection and conservation of not only individual organisms and populations, but also the genetic and ecological resources that listed species represent. Long-term viability depends on maintaining genetic adaptability within each species. Species, as defined in section 3(15) of the Act, includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” Though the Act emphasizes the restoration of listed species in their natural habitats, section 3(3) of the Act recognizes propagation as a tool available to us to achieve this end. The controlled propagation of animals and plants in certain situations is an essential tool for the conservation and recovery of listed species. In the past, we have used controlled propagation to reverse population declines and to successfully return listed species to suitable habitat in the wild. To support the goal of restoring endangered and threatened animals and plants, we are obligated to develop sound policies based on the best available scientific and commercial information.
+Summary of Comments and Recommendations
+A draft policy on this subject was published on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4716), and invited public comment. We received 47 comments. Twenty-four were from zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens, and conservation organizations, 3 from academic institutions, 6 from private individuals and business organizations, 2 from government organizations, and 12 from State natural resource agencies. Nearly all comments received were supportive of the policy and its goals. Comments that expressed concerns or criticisms were limited, though quite specific. We reviewed all comments received, and suggestions or clarifications have been incorporated into the final policy text. The following describes the major issues identified and our responses.
+Issue: The draft policy, as published, would have a significant impact in terms of increased workload on the Services, zoological parks and aquariums, private organizations, and individual citizens.
+Response: We acknowledge this concern and have modified the policy to reduce impacts to the zoo and aquarium community, botanical facilities, Federal fish hatcheries, and others who may be involved in propagation of listed species. As amended, this final policy is not expected to have a significant impact on organizations or individuals involved in propagation of listed species. The majority of zoological parks and aquaria that are involved in programs assisting the recovery of endangered and threatened animal species native to the United States are members of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA). The AZA has developed numerous strategies, protocols, and standards that address concerns associated with captive animal populations involved in conservation-based breeding programs. This final policy encourages the Services, and others, to follow as may be practical, the protocols and standards of the AZA, and other appropriate organizations, for the controlled propagation of animal species. The Center for Plant Conservation (CPC) is similar to the AZA in that this organization consists of member botanical gardens and arboreta that are involved in preventing the extinction of native plants, including those federally listed as endangered or threatened. When practical, the Services and others are encouraged to use the protocols and standards of the CPC, and other appropriate organizations, when propagating listed plant species.
+Those individuals or organizations that currently have permits to keep listed species are exempt from this policy for the duration of the permit unless the RegionalDirector (FWS) or Assistant Administrator (NMFS) determines otherwise. For example, a permit holder implementing activities recommended in an approved recovery plan is exempt and would not need to reapply for a new permit. We have made substantial efforts to avoid adverse impacts, economic or otherwise, in order that cooperative recovery partnership opportunities may be maintained or increased with qualified organizations and individuals.
+Issue: The policy would apply to research activities identified in recovery plans in which controlled propagation or unintentional propagation may occur.
+Response: Research identified in recovery plans, including research that may lead to development of a controlled propagation capacity, is not covered by this policy because the intent of such research is not the production of individuals for introduction into the wild. Should offspring that are the product of research efforts be proposed for introduction into the wild, such offspring and any proposed reintroductions will be subject to this policy.
+Should circumstances arise in the course of implementing recovery activities, including research, in which application of this policy is deemed necessary for the benefit of the listed species, the decision to apply the policy will rest with the Regional Director or Assistant Administrator.
+Research on species with short lifespans ( e.g. , 1 to 2 years) that requires maintenance of a captive population not intended for release to the wild is exempt from this policy. However, all activities involving reproduction of a listed U.S. species must meet the requirements of the Act, as well as any other legal and administrative obligations. All persons or institutions conducting approved activities involving controlled propagation of listed species for purposes other than release in the wild will still be required to develop appropriate measures to address concerns identified under section E. 5. of this policy.
+Issue: The policy would apply to foreign species being maintained and propagated in U.S. zoological and aquarium facilities or by private individuals.
+Response: This policy only applies to species indigenous to the United States and its territories for which we have, or intend to prepare, recovery plans. We have exempted foreign species that are listed under the Act and being propagated or maintained in the United States for conservation purposes.
+Issue: Requirements to develop genetics and reintroduction guidance documents for species being propagated for augmentation of existing populations or for the establishment of new populations in the wild are not practical.
+Response: We recognize this concern and have modified the policy accordingly. In many instances there is insufficient biological knowledge of the listed species to develop detailed genetic management documents, and the requirement for these documents may unnecessarily burden conservation and recovery efforts. However, we strongly recommend development of these documents if adequate information is available. Furthermore, we reemphasize the recommendation in the draft policy that controlled propagation activities follow accepted standards, which include appropriate genetics management.
+Issue: There are too many reporting requirements.
+Response: We have reduced reporting requirements. However, we need to identify those listed species involved in controlled propagation programs, the level of production in these programs, and efforts to secure appropriate habitat for population augmentation, reintroduction, and recovery.
+Issue: The requirement that controlled propagation be permitted only if indicated in an approved final recovery plan would place an unnecessary burden on Federal programs to revise existing recovery plans to meet this requirement.
+Response: We do not agree. The recovery plans for most species for which controlled propagation is occurring have identified this action as a specific recovery task. Where controlled propagation is not identified as a task in the recovery plan, but has been subsequently determined to be necessary to the recovery of the species, the plan would need to be amended or revised.
+Required Determinations
+1. Regulatory Planning and Review
+In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this policy was submitted for review by the Office of Management and Budget. In accordance with the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866, this policy is not a significant regulatory action. Under current and anticipated levels of activity, this policy will not result in an annual economic effect of $100 million or more. Moreover, this policy will not adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The controlled propagation policy does not pertain to commercial products or activities or anything traded in the marketplace.
+2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. )
+We certify that this policy will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. This policy does not apply to all species listed under the Act but only to those species native to the United States and its territories for which recovery plans exist or are expected to be developed. Furthermore, controlled propagation is restricted to those species for which such propagation is specifically recommended in an approved final recovery plan. Programs involving the controlled propagation of federally listed species are typically restricted to institutions such as the FWS's National Fish Hatcheries and Fish Technology Centers. Nongovernmental entities that may be involved in the controlled propagation of listed species are typically organizations with a high level of technical skill in the captive maintenance and breeding of plants and animals, such as zoos, aquaria, and botanical gardens. Rarely are academic institutions and even more infrequently, private individuals, involved in the controlled propagation of listed species for conservation and recovery purposes.
+3. Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))
+This is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This policy will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, produce increases in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries or Federal, State or local government agencies, affect economic competitiveness, or economically impact geographic regions in the United States or its territories.
+4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. )
+This policy does not impose an unfunded mandate on any State, Tribal, or local government or the private sector of $100 million or more per year.
+5. Takings
+In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this policy does not pose significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment is not required. Implementation of this policy will not result in “take” of private property and will not alter the value of private property. Many reintroductions of propagated species occur exclusively on FWS, other Federal, or State lands, but reintroductions on private lands are not unknown. In such cases, the private entities work with the Services as willing partners to ensure the success of the reintroduction effort.
+6. Federalism
+In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this policy does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment. It does not affect the structure or role of States, and will not have direct, substantial, or significant effects on States. Releases of propagated species typically occur on Federal or State lands. The States work with the Services as willing partners to ensure the success of reintroduction efforts.
+7. Civil Justice Reform
+In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this policy does not unduly burden the judicial system. The final policy provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burden, and is clearly written such that litigation risk is minimized.
+8. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. )
+This policy does not contain any new information collection requirements for which Office of Management and Budget approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. The OMB control number for the FWS is 1018-0094 and for NMFS is 0648-0230 and 0648-0402.
+9. National Environmental Policy Act
+We have analyzed this policy under the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended, and have determined that the issuance of this policy is categorically excluded by the Department of the Interior in 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10. The NMFS concurs with the Department of the Interior's determination that the issuance of this policy qualifies for a categorical exclusion and satisfies the categorical exclusion criteria in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 216-6 Administrative Order, Environmental Review Procedure. No further NEPA documentation is required.
+10. Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
+Though no reintroductions of captively propagated federally endangered or threatened species have been undertaken, in accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we recognize the potential for such actions in the future and the obligation to relate to federally recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis.
+References Cited
+A complete list of all references cited in this final policy is available on request from the Washington Office of the Division of Endangered Species (see ADDRESSES section).
+Authors. The primary authors of this policy are David Harrelson of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Division of Endangered Species, Mail Stop 420 ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240 (703/358-2171), and Marta Nammack of the National Marine Fisheries Service's Protected Species Management Division, 1335 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (301/713-1401).
+Policy Statement
+A. What is the purpose of this policy? This policy provides guidance and establishes consistency with respect to Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), jointly called the Services, activities in which the controlled propagation of a listed species, as the term “species” is defined in section 3(15) of the Act, is implemented as a component of the recovery strategy for a listed species. It supports and promotes coordination between various phases of controlled propagation efforts such as propagation technology development, propagation for release, population augmentation, reintroduction, and monitoring. This policy will also contribute to the efficient use of funding resources.
+Guidance is provided regarding the use of controlled propagation for:
+• Preventing the extinction of listed species, subspecies, or populations;
+• Recovery-oriented scientific research, including, but not restricted to, developing propagation methods and technology, and other actions that are expected to result in a net benefit to the listed taxon. Use of surrogates, while applicable to the recovery of listed species, is exempt from the requirements of this policy;
+• Maintaining genetic vigor and demographic diversity of listed species, subspecies, or populations;
+• Maintaining refugia populations for nearly extinct animals or plants on a temporary basis until threats to a listed species' habitat are alleviated, or necessary habitat modifications are completed, or when potentially catastrophic events occur ( e.g. , chemical spills, severe storms, fires, flooding);
+• Providing individuals for establishing new, self-sustaining populations necessary for recovery of the listed species; and
+• Supplementing or enhancing extant populations to facilitate recovery of the listed species.
+B. What is the scope of this policy? This policy applies to all pertinent organizational elements of both Services, notwithstanding those differences in administrative procedures and policies as noted. Exceptions to this policy appear in section F. This policy pertains to all efforts requiring permits under 50 CFR 17 subparts C and D, funded, authorized, or carried out by us that are conducted to propagate threatened or endangered species by:
+• Establishing or maintaining refugia populations;
+• Producing individuals for research and technology development needs;
+• Producing individuals for supplementing extant populations; and
+• Producing individuals for reintroduction to suitable habitat within the species' historic range.
+C. Why is this policy necessary? The controlled propagation of animals and plants in certain situations is an essential tool for the conservation and recovery of listed species. In the past, we have used controlled propagation to reverse population declines and to successfully return listed species to suitable habitat in the wild.
+Though controlled propagation has a supportive role in the recovery of some listed species, the intent of the Act is “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved.” Controlled propagation is not a substitute for addressing factors responsible for an endangered or threatened species' decline. Therefore, our first priority is to recover wild populations in their natural habitat wherever possible, without resorting to the use of controlled propagation. This position is fully consistent with the Act.
+We recognize that genetic and ecological risks may be associated with introducing to the wild, animals and plants bred and reared in a controlled environment. When considering controlled propagation as a recovery option, the potential benefits and risks must be assessed and alternatives requiring less intervention objectively evaluated. If controlled propagation is identified as an appropriate strategy for the recovery of a listed species, it must be conducted in a manner that will, to the maximum extent possible, preserve the genetic and ecological distinctiveness of the listed species and minimize risks to existing wild populations.
+We recognize that for many species, information available for detailed genetics conservation management or assessment of risks associated with reintroduction may be insufficient. Therefore, this policy does not specifically require written genetic management plans and ecological risk assessments to initiate or support controlled propagation programs. Additionally, acute conservation needs may legitimately outweigh delays that would be incurred by such a requirement. However, where sufficient biological and environmental information exists, and where conservation activities would not be unduly constrained, a formal assessment of ecological and genetic risks is strongly encouraged. Risks that must be evaluated in the planning of controlled propagation programs include the following specific examples:
+• Removal of natural parental stock that may result in an increased risk of extinction by reducing the abundance of wild individuals and reducing genetic variability within naturally occurring populations;
+• Equipment failures, human error, disease, and other potential catastrophic events that may cause the loss of some or all of the population being held or maintained in captivity or cultivation;
+• The potential for an increased level of inbreeding or other adverse genetic effects within populations that may result from the enhancement of only a portion of the gene pool;
+• Potential erosion of genetic differences between populations as a result of mixed stock transfers or supplementation;
+• Exposure to novel selection regimes in controlled environments that may diminish a listed species' natural capacity to survive and reproduce in the wild;
+• Genetic introgression, which may diminish local adaptations of the naturally occurring population;
+• Increased predation, competition for food, space, mates, or other factors that may displace naturally occurring individuals, or interfere with foraging, migratory, reproductive, or other essential behaviors; and
+• Disease transmission.
+Controlled propagation programs must be undertaken in a manner that minimizes potentially adverse impacts to existing wild populations of listed species, and we must conduct controlled propagation programs in a manner that avoids additional listing actions.
+D. What are the definitions for terms used in this policy? The following definitions apply:
+Controlled environment —A controlled environment is one manipulated for the purpose of producing or rearing progeny of the species in question, and of a design intended to prevent unplanned escape or entry of plants, animals, or gametes, embryos, seeds, propagules, or other potential reproductive products.
+Controlled propagation —Among animals, it includes natural or artificial matings, fertilization of sex cells, transfer of embryos, development of offspring, and grow-out of individuals of a species when the species is intentionally confined or the mating is directly intended by human intervention.
+The term also includes the human-induced propagation of plants from seeds, spores, callus tissue, divisions, cuttings, or other plant tissue, or through pollination in a controlled environment.
+• Defined in the context of this policy, controlled propagation refers to the production of individuals, generally within a managed environment, for the purpose of supplementing or augmenting a wild population(s), or reintroduction to the wild to establish new populations.
+Intercross —Any instance of interbreeding or genetic exchange between individuals of different species, subspecies, or distinct population segments of a vertebrate species.
+Phenotype —The expression of the genetic makeup of an organism through physical characteristics that make up its appearance.
+Recovery priority system —The system used for assigning recovery priorities to listed species and to recovery tasks. Recovery priority is based on the degree of threat, recovery potential, taxonomic distinctness, and presence of an actual or imminent conflict between the species' conservation, adverse human activities, and other threats.
+Rescue and salvage —These terms refer to extreme conditions wherein a species or population segment at risk of extinction is brought into a controlled environment (i.e., refugia) on a temporary or permanent basis.
+Taxon —A formal group of organisms of any rank or formal scientific classification.
+E. What is our Policy? This policy is intended to address candidate, proposed, and listed species indigenous to the United States and its territories for which the Services, have, or intend to prepare, recovery plans. This policy focuses primarily on those activities involving gamete transfer and subsequent development and grow-out of offspring in a laboratory, botanical facility, zoo, hatchery, aquarium, or similarly controlled environment. This policy also addresses activities related to or preceding controlled propagation activities such as:
+• Obtaining and rearing offspring for research;
+• Procuring broodstock for future controlled propagation and augmentation efforts; or
+• Holding offspring for a substantial portion of their development or through a life-stage that experiences poor survival in the wild.
+The goals of this policy include coordinating recovery actions specific to controlled propagation activities; maximizing benefits to the listed species from controlled propagation efforts; assuring that appropriate recovery measures other than controlled propagation and that other existing recovery priorities are considered in making controlled propagation decisions; and ensuring prudent use of funds.
+Our policy is that the controlled propagation of threatened and endangered species will be:
+1. Used as a recovery strategy only when other measures employed to maintain or improve a listed species' status in the wild have failed, are determined to be likely to fail, are shown to be ineffective in overcoming extant factors limiting recovery, or would be insufficient to achieve full recovery. All reasonable effort should be made to accomplish conservation measures that enable a listed species to recover in the wild, with or without intervention ( e.g. , artificial cavity provisioning), prior to implementing controlled propagation for reintroduction or supplementation.
+2. Coordinated with conservation actions and other recovery measures, as appropriate or specified in recovery plans, that will contribute to, or otherwise support, the provision of secure and suitable habitat. Controlled propagation programs intended for reintroduction or augmentation must be coordinated with habitat management, restoration, and other species' recovery efforts.
+3. Based on the specific recommendations of recovery strategies identified in approved recovery plans or supplements to approved recovery plans whenever practical. The recovery plan, in addressing controlled propagation, should clearly identify the necessity and role of this activity as a recovery strategy.
+4. Based on specific consideration of the potential ecological and genetic effects of the removal of individuals for controlled propagation purposes on wild populations and the potential effects of introductions of artificially bred animals or plants on the receiving population and other resident species. Assessments of potential risks and benefits will be addressed, as required, through sections 7 and 10 of the Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4332) for proposed controlled propagation actions.
+5. Based on sound scientific principles to conserve genetic variation and species integrity. Intercrossing will not be considered for use in controlled propagation programs unless recommended in an approved recovery plan; supported in an approved genetic management plan (if information is available to develop such a plan, and which may or may not be part of an approved recovery plan); implemented in a scientifically controlled and approved manner; and undertaken to compensate for a loss of genetic viability in listed taxa that have been genetically isolated in the wild as a result of human activity. Use of intercross individuals for species conservation will require the approval of the FWS Director or that of the NMFS Assistant Administrator, in accordance with all applicable policies.
+6. Preceded, when practical, by the development of a genetics management plan based on accepted scientific principles and procedures. Controlled propagation protocols will follow accepted standards such as those employed by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), and Federal agency protocols such as fish management guidelines to the extent practical. All efforts will be made by us and our cooperators to ensure that the genetic makeup of propagated individuals is representative of that in free-ranging populations and that propagated individuals are behaviorally and physiologically suitable for introduction. Determination of biological “suitability” may include, but should not necessarily be limited to, analysis of geomorphological similarities of habitat, genetic similarity, phenotypic characteristics, stock histories, habitat use, and other ecological, biological, and behavioral indicators. All controlled propagation programs will address the issue of disposition of individuals found to be:
+(a) Unfit for introduction to the wild;
+(b) Unfit to serve as broodstock;
+(c) Surplus to program needs; or
+(d) Surplus to the recovery needs for the species ( e.g., to preclude genetic and ecological swamping).
+Controlled propagation activities should not be initiated without including consideration of these issues and obtaining required permits and other authorizations as necessary. Disposition of individuals surplus to program needs may include use for research or other appropriate purposes.
+Programs involving the controlled propagation of listed species for research purposes identified in final recovery plans and in which progeny will not be reintroduced to the wild are exempt from this policy. Examples of exempt actions include research involving the determination of germination rates in plants and spawning success rates in fish. This exemption does not extend to the need for these activities to comply with any other applicable Federal or State permitting or regulatory requirements.
+7. Conducted in a manner that takes all known precautions to prohibit the potential introduction or spread of diseases and parasites into controlled environments or suitable habitat.
+8. Conducted in a manner that will prevent the escape or accidental introduction of individuals outside their historic range.
+9. Conducted, when feasible, at more than one location in order to reduce the potential for catastrophic loss at a single facility when a substantial fraction of a species or important population segment is brought into captivity.
+10. Coordinated, as appropriate, with organizations and qualified individuals both within and outside our agencies. We will cooperate with other Federal agencies and State, Tribal, and local governments.
+11. Conducted in a manner that will meet our information needs and that will be in accordance with accepted protocols and standards. In the case of listed species for which traditional studbooks or registrations are not practical, records of eggs, larvae, or other life-stages will be maintained.
+12. With limited exceptions, implemented only after a commitment to funding is secured.
+13. Prior to releases of propagated individuals, tied to development of a reintroduction plan, unless this information is already contained in an approved recovery plan, species survival plan, or equivalent document that has received the approval of the appropriate Service. Controlled propagation and reintroduction plans will identify measurable objectives and milestones for the proposed propagation and reintroduction effort. The controlled propagation and reintroduction plan should be based on strategies identified in the approved recovery plan. It should include protocols for health management, disease screening and disease-free certification, monitoring and evaluation of genetic, demographic, life-history, phenotypic, and behavioral characteristics, data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting as appropriate. On implementation, periodic evaluations must be made to assess project progress and consider new scientific information and the status of habitat conservation efforts.
+14. Conducted in accordance with the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Animal Welfare Act, Lacey Act, Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Services' procedures relative to NEPA.
+F. Does this policy allow any exceptions? Except as identified in this section, any exceptions to the above policy guidelines will require specific approval from the FWS Director or the NMFS Assistant Administrator on a case by case basis. The following circumstances have been anticipated and are exempted from this policy.
+1. Pacific salmon are exempted from this policy. NMFS, as the lead Service for the recovery of listed Pacific salmon, has developed and will continue to use the interim policy (April 5, 1993, 58 FR 17573) addressing controlled propagation of these species. The NMFS interim artificial propagation policy more specifically addresses the biological needs of these species.
+2. Cases where a listed species has an ephemeral reproductive stage or short (1-2 year) lifespan that necessitates controlled propagation to sustain the listed species in refugia, or to maintain a research population where there is no intent to release captive-bred individuals from that population into the wild, are exempt.
+3. In the absence of an approved recovery plan, recommendations contained in recovery outlines, draft recovery plans, or made in writing by a recovery team may be used to justify controlled propagation as a necessary recovery measure for listed species in danger of imminent extinction or extirpation of critical populations. However, under such circumstances initiation of controlled propagation activities will require the Regional Director's or Assistant Administrator's approval.
+4. Candidate and proposed species held in refugia, used in research, or used for the development of propagation technology that are subsequently listed as endangered or threatened are exempted from this policy. Any propagation program initiated with candidate or proposed species with the intent to produce individuals for release to the wild are not exempted and must comply with this policy.
+5. Captive breeding of listed species that are not native to the United States or its territories or possessions, and producing individuals not addressed in an approved recovery plan and not intended for release within the United States or its territories or possessions, is exempt from this policy. However, such activities must comply with any other Federal and State laws, permit needs, or other requirements.
+6. The temporary removal and holding of listed individuals, unless such actions intentionally involve reproduction other than for purposes of recovery-related research or as needed to maintain a refugia population is exempted.
+7. The short-term holding or captive-rearing of wild-bred individuals obtained for later reintroduction, augmentation, or translocation efforts when controlled propagation does not take place or is not intended during the period of captive maintenance.
+8. Actions involving cryopreservation or other methods of conserving biological materials, if not intended for near-term use in controlled propagation or the reintroduction into the wild of listed species, are exempt from this policy. When and if reintroduction to the wild requires the use of these materials, such activities would come under the scope of this policy.
+9. Additional exceptions to this policy may be made on a case-by-case basis with the approval of the FWS Director or NMFS Assistant Administrator, as warranted.
+Where conflicts may arise between this policy and programs carried out in furtherance of restoration goals or required by treaty, trust resources obligations, or other legal mandate, we will, to the extent practical, make every effort to achieve solutions that are consistent with the requirements of the Act and this policy.
+G. Who are our potential partners? We recognize the need for partnerships with other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, local governments, and private entities in the recovery of listed species. We will seek to develop partnerships with qualified cooperators for the purpose of propagating listed, proposed, and candidate species (as authorized under sections 6 and 2(a)(5) of the Act). Guidance for this activity is as follows:
+1. The FWS Regional Directors or the NMFS Regional Administrators may explore opportunities for accomplishing controlled propagation and any associated research tasks with other Federal cooperators, FWS/NMFS facilities, State agencies, Tribes, zoological parks, aquaria, botanical gardens, academia, and other qualified parties at their discretion. We will select cooperators on the basis of scientific merits; technical capability; willingness to adhere to our policies, guidance, and protocols; and cost-effectiveness.
+2. Regional Directors or Regional Administrators, depending on which agency has lead for the species, will be responsible for ensuring appropriate staff oversight of programs conducted by all cooperators to ensure adherence to necessary protocols, guidance, and permit conditions, and to coordinate reporting requirements.
+H. What are the Federal agency responsibilities under this policy? This policy shall be implemented in accordance with the following guidelines:
+1. The Regional Directors and Regional Administrators will ensure compliance with this policy for those species for which they have responsibility.
+2. Regional Directors and Regional Administrators are responsible for recovery of listed species under their jurisdiction. Recovery actions for which Regional Directors and Regional Administrators have authority include establishment of refugia, initiation of necessary research or technology development, implementation of controlled propagation programs, and propagation research for listed species. When determining species' priority for inclusion in controlled propagation programs, we will consider the following:
+(a) Whether or not a listed species' recovery plan outline, draft recovery plan, or final recovery plan identifies controlled propagation as an appropriate recovery strategy and what priority this task is assigned within the overall recovery strategy.
+(b) The availability and willingness of cooperators to contribute to recovery activities, including cost sharing.
+3. In the event that the current recovery plan fails to identify the establishment of refugia, initiation of propagation research, or controlled propagation as recovery tasks as necessary to the recovery of the species, the recovery plan will be updated, amended, or revised as appropriate. Recovery plans not yet finalized will be amended to reflect the changed recovery requirements of the listed species and provide justifications as necessary.
+4. Within 6 months of the effective date of this policy, FWS Regional Directors will identify all listed species for which they have the lead recovery responsibility that are (1) being held in refugia; (2) involved in pre-propagation research; and (3) are involved in controlled propagation programs. For species involved in controlled propagation programs, the level of production and the recovery purpose ( e.g. , augmentation of extant populations, establishment of new populations) will be identified. This information will be reported to the Assistant Director, Endangered Species, in the FWS Washington D.C. Office.
+5. Continuation of those programs not in conformity with this policy 12 months following implementation of this policy will require the FWS Director's or NMFS Assistant Administrator's concurrence. The Regional Director and Regional Administrator will provide his or her recommendation to the Director or Assistant Administrator.
+I. Does the policy include annual reporting requirements? For the FWS, annual reports based on fiscal years will be prepared by the responsible regional authority and submitted to the Director, through the Assistant Director, Endangered Species, not later than October 31st of each year. Reports will contain the following information for each species being maintained in refugia, in pre-propagation research, or under propagation:
+• Recovery priority number;
+• Policy criteria that are not met (if any);
+• A brief description of the controlled propagation program, including objectives and status;
+• List of cooperators, if any;
+• Expenditures for the past fiscal year;
+• Prospects for, or obstacles to, achieving research, controlled propagation, or reintroduction objectives, and,
+• A brief description of the status of wild populations, if any.
+J. What authorities support this policy? The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended; Animal Welfare Act; Lacey Act; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; and National Environmental Policy Act.
+K. What are the information collection requirements? The permit application required for participation in the controlled propagation of species listed under the Act is FWS form #3-200-55 Interstate Commerce and Recovery and form #3-200-56 for incidental take. Applicants for NMFS research/enhancement permits or incidental take permits must meet certain criteria in their applications but there are no specific forms. We use these forms or applications to permit recovery actions that may be undertaken for scientific purposes, enhancement of propagation or survival, or for incidental taking. Whenever we ask the public to submit information, we must have authorization from the Office of Management and Budget. As part of the permitting process, we often ask the public to provide information such as filling out permit applications or submitting reports.
+Information collection requirements under this policy are included under the Office of Management and Budget collection approval number 1018-0094 (FWS) and 0648-0230 (NMFS), which includes information collection for permits granted for interstate commerce and recovery and incidental take. The expiration date of this approval is February 28, 2001(FWS), and October 31, 2001 (NMFS). The purpose of information collection is to identify performance of permitted tasks and make decisions, according to criteria established in various Federal wildlife and plant conservation statutes and described in 50 CFR 17.22(a)(1) and (3) and 17.32(a)(1) and (3) (FWS) and 50 CFR 222 (NMFS).
+We have estimated that the time required by an applicant to complete FWS form 3-200-55 is 2 hours. Applications to NMFS for these permits are estimated to require 80 hours for completion. The information required is already known to the applicant and need only be entered on the application form. Summary information for endangered species permit applications will be published in the Federal Register as required by regulation. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). The total burden hours for completing reporting requirements is also estimated at 2 hours for the FWS and 80 hours for NMFS. No costs to applicants beyond the cost of hour burden described above are anticipated. Annual reports are generally required for permits for scientific research.
+For organizations, businesses, or individuals operating as a business ( i.e. , permittee not covered by the Privacy Act), we request that such entities identify any information that should be considered privileged and confidential business information to allow us to meet our responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act. Confidential business information must be clearly marked “Business Confidential” at the top of the first page and each succeeding page, and must be accompanied by a nonconfidential summary of the confidential information. Documents may be made available to the public under Department of the Interior Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regulations in 43 CFR 2.13(c)(4), 43 CFR 2.15(d)(1)(I) and Department of Commerce 15 CFR 4. Documents and other information submitted with these applications are made available for public review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and FOIA, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the appropriate Service within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice.
+Signed: August 4, 2000. Jamie Rappaport Clark, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. Dated: August 18, 2000. Penelope D. Dalton, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given of the following actions regarding permits for takes of marine mammal species for the purposes of scientific research:
+NMFS has received a permit application from Mason T. Weinrich, Whale Center of New England, P.O. Box 159, Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930-0159; NMFS has received a request to amend Permit No. 782-1446 from the National Marine Mammal Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit and amendment is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. )and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-227).
+Species Covered in This Notice
+The following endangered and threatened marine mammal species are covered in this notice:
+Humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae ),
+Fin whale ( Balaenoptera physalus ),
+Sei whale ( Balaenoptera borealis ), and
+North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis )
+New Applications Received
+File No. 605-1607
+Mason T. Weinrich, Whale Center of New England, proposes to assess the health, status and trends of endangered populations of humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), fin whale ( Balaenoptera physalus ), sei whale ( Balaenoptera borealis ), and North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ) off the U.S. Atlantic coast from southern Maine to northern Florida. The applicant proposes to annually take, by close approach, a maximum of 400 humpback whales, 250 fin whales, 50 sei whales, and 50 North Atlantic right whales over a 5-year period. These takes will be used to collect photographs for identifying individuals from all species (minimum approach of 100 feet (30 meters)), for collecting information on the prey densities around humpback, fin and sei whales (minimum approach of 50-100 ft (15-30 m)), for collecting biopsy dart samples from humpback and fin whales (minimum approach of 30-70 ft (9-21 m)), and for attaching suction-cup time-depth recorder and VHF tags to humpback and fin whales (minimum approach of 15-20 ft (5-6 m)). For biopsy sampling, no more than three attempts will be made per whale and for suction-cup tag attachment, no more than two attempts will be made per whale.
+Amendment Requests Received
+Permit No. 782-1446
+The National Marine Mammal Laboratory has requested an amendment (no. 3) to scientific research permit no. 782-1446, issued on May 18, 1998 (63 FR 27265). Permit no. 782-1446 authorizes the permit holder to conduct aerial, ground, and vessel surveys annually for stock assessment of harbor seals, California sea lions, Steller sea lions and northern elephant seals. The permit holder requests authorization to increase the number of California sea lions captured, local or gas anesthetized, instrumented and sampled for a multi-disciplinary study of the role of persistent organochlorine pollutants (OPR) and herpes virus in the development of cancer in California sea lions. California sea lions of both sexes and ages 0 through 5 years are proposed to be taken. Additionally, branded and un-branded 6-month old California sea lions of both sexes are proposed to be captured, sampled and photographed as part of a study to evaluate the condition of branded pups.
+In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), an initial determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
+Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application and amendment request to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.
+Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
+Dated: December 20, 2000. Ann D. Terbush, Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, have issued our 1997 and 1998 annual reports on marine mammals under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior, as required by section 103(f) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Our reports are for January 1 to December 31, 1997, and January 1 to December 31, 1998. We submitted the reports to Congress on May 2, 2001. By this notice, we are informing you, the public, that the reports are available and that copies may be obtained on request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The U.S. Department of the Interior is responsible for eight species of marine mammals, as assigned by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. These species are polar bear, sea and marine otters, walrus, three species of manatee, and dugong. Administrative actions discussed in our two reports include appropriations, marine mammals in Alaska, endangered and threatened marine mammal species, law enforcement activities, scientific research and public display permits, certificates of registration, research, Outer Continental Shelf environmental studies and international activities.
+Dated: May 21, 2001. Robert Batky, Acting Assistant Director—Fisheries and Habitat Conservation.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given of the following actions regarding permits for takes of marine mammal species for the purposes of scientific research:
+NMFS has received a permit application from: Ocean Alliance/Whale Conservation Institute, 191 Weston Road, Lincoln, Massachusetts 01773 (Dr. Roger S. Payne, Principal Investigator) (Application No. 751-1614-00); NMFS has received applications for permit amendments from:; NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070 (Permit No. 782-532-00)); and Dr. Peter L. Tyack, Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 (Permit No. 981-1578).
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject application and permit amendments are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq .), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. )
+New Application Received
+For Application No. 715-1614-00, the applicant requests permission to conduct vessel and aerial surveys, collect tissue samples (sloughed skin and skin and blubber biopsies) from living, free-ranging animals and collect skin, blubber, blood, bone, baleen and other organ tissue samples from dead stranded animals from all age and sex classes of 21 cetacean species in U.S., foreign, and international waters. Tissue samples would be used to quantify toxicant loads and immunochemical responses to these loads to test the hypothesis that there are demonstrable differences between different populations ans species with regard to the levels of toxic compounds present. Genetic analyses would also be performed on samples to investigate the genetic diversity and variability of the population groups sampled. This information would be used to establish a baseline for comparisons with future samples and to assist in making future management and conservation policies.
+Permit Amendment Requests Received
+For Permit No. 782-1532-00, the Permit authorizes the Holder to take Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ) for research that involves takes by aerial and ship based surveys biennally, capture and take morphological measurements, collect specimens (blood and biopsy), brand, tag, and disturb during scat collection. The Holder now requests to amend the take authority to conduct aerial surveys each year, include Southeast Alaska in monthly surveys, increase the number of animals to be incidentally harassed during scat collection, allow additional procedures for animal handling such as: using gas anesthesia, branding pups ≥4 mos and juveniles to 3 yrs, injecting Evan’s blue dye and deuterated water, collecting muscle biopsy, using noninvasive bioelectric impedance analysis, increasing blood sample volume, extracting a tooth, and pulling vibrissae. This Permit amendment will improve field techniques and incorporate collaborative efforts of scientists funded under the Steller Sea Lion Research Initiative.
+For Permit No. 981-1578-00, the Permit authorizes the Holder to tag cetaceans with an advanced digital sound recording tag (DTAG) that can record the acoustic stimuli an animal hears, along with measuring vocal, behavioral, and physiological responses to sound played back at received levels of 120-160 dB re 1 micron Pa. The research was authorized in the Mediterranean and Ligurian Seas and off the coast of the Azores in the North Atlantic. The Holder requests an amendment to increase the source level but not the received level for a whale-finding sonar to 200 dB re 1 micron Pa at 1 m, add playbacks involving exposure to impulse signals from airguns as used in seismic surveys, include one additional baleen whale species and 12 species of Odontocete whale, and extend the study area to include North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.
+In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq .), an initial determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
+Written comments or requests for a public hearing on the application or amendment requests should be mailed to the Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on these particular requests would be appropriate.
+Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.
+Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of thee application and amendment requests to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.
+Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
+For all permits and permit amendments: Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376;
+For permit 751-1614-00: Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426;
+For permits 751-1614-00 and 782-1532-00: Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907) 586-7221; fax (907) 586-7249;
+For permit 751-1614-00: Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018;
+For permits 751-1614-00 and 981-1578-00: Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978) 281-9200; fax (978) 281-9371; and
+For permits 751-1614-00 and 981-1578-00: Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727) 570-5301; fax (727) 570-5320.
+Dated: June 4, 2001. Ann D. Terbush, Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given of the following actions for takes of marine mammal species for the purposes of scientific research:
+NMFS has received permit applications from: Mystic Aquarium, 55 Coogan Blvd., Mystic, CT 06355 (Dr. Lisa Mazarro, Principal Investigator) (Application No. 42-1642); James Harvey, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, 8272 Moss Landing Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039 (Application No. 555-1638); and NMFS, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070 (Dr. Robert DeLong, Principal Investigator) (Application No. 782-1645); and NMFS has received an application for a permit amendment from Jim Hain, Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, Box 721, Woods Hole, MA 02543 (Permit No. 376-1520-01).
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permits and permit amendment are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq .), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq .)
+Applications for Permits Received
+For Application No. 42-1642, the applicant requests permission to study metabolic clearance rates of vitamins A and E using isotope tracers and vitamin analogs in captive Steller sea lions, relation to various life history stages, establish the vitamin A and E status of free-ranging Steller sea lions, determine the metabolic requirements for these vitamins by relating intake to blood levels in captive specimens, and receive or import serum and milk samples from captive marine mammals held in facilities within the United States and abroad to study the disease hemochromatosis (an excessive accumulation of iron in tissues often associated with hepatic lesions) as well as others associated with general marine mammal health.
+For Application No. 555-1638, the applicant requests permission to conduct research on 22 cetacean species and 5 pinniped species in the North Pacific Ocean along the coasts of California, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska (below the Aleutian Islands) in order to study the following: distribution and abundance related to environmental factors; prey and foraging behaviors; health and stock structure of individuals; effects of anthropogenic factors (i.e., vessel noise) on acoustic signals; and movements of individuals or pods during migrations or within their home range. This research will be accomplished using aerial and shipboard line-transect survey methods, monitoring of radio-tagged individuals, recording behavior and vocalizations, collecting biopsy samples from cetaceans, and collecting blood and morphometric measurements from small cetaceans and pinnipeds.
+For Application No. 782-1645, the applicant requests permission to capture and attach radio-telemetry devices to harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) off the coasts of Oregon and Washington to monitor the movements of tagged animals relative to current stock boundaries, and to collect blubber biopsies to determine organochlorine contaminant burdens.
+Application to Amend a Permit Received
+For Permit No. 376-1520-01, the Permit authorizes the Holder to approach a variety of cetacean species to conduct photo-identification and behavioral observations. The approach distances in the permit are currently limited to : within 100 ft (31 m) by vessel, 200 ft (61 m) directly above and 350 ft (107 m) slant range by aircraft for all species except North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ), and within 700 ft (213 m) directly above and at slant range in fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, and 500 ft (152 m) directly above and 350 ft (107 m) slant range using an aerostat (blimp) for right whales. The holder now requests permission to approach North Atlantic right whales within 100 ft (31 m) in a variety of small vessels, including kayaks, for the purpose of photo-identification.
+In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq .), an initial determination has been made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
+Written comments or requests for a public hearing on any of these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the particular request would be appropriate.
+Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.
+Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of these applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.
+Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
+For all permit applications and the application to amend a permit: Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376;
+For Applications No. 42-1642, 555-1638, and 782-1645: Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426;
+For Applications No. 42-1642 and 555-1638: Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907) 586-7221; fax (907) 586-7249;
+For Applications No. 42-1642 and 555-1638: Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018;
+For Application No. 555-1638: Protected Species Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm, 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808) 973-2935; fax (808) 973-2941;
+For Application No. 42-1642 and Permit No. 376-1520-01: Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298; phone (978) 281-9200; fax (978) 281-9371;
+For Application No. 42-1642 and Permit No. 376-1520-01: Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727) 570-5301; fax (727) 570-5320.
+Dated: July 24, 2001. Ann D. Terbush, Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) solicit review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Permit No. TE-043628
+Applicant: Institute for Applied Technology, Corvallis, Oregon.
+The permittee requests an amendment to collect seeds of Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy) in conjunction with research in Polk, Benton, and Lane Counties, Oregon for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-025733
+Applicant: Dynamac Corporation, Corvallis, Oregon.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Oregon chub ( Oregonichthys crameri ), the White River spinedace ( Lepidomeda albivallis ), the shortnose sucker ( Chasmistes brevirostris ), and the Lost River sucker ( Deltistes luxatus ) in conjunction with surveys in Oregon and Nye County, Nevada for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No. TE-022230
+Applicant: Jeff Kidd, Perris, California.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Arroyo toad ( Bufo californicus ) in conjunction with surveys in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-065988
+Applicant: Peninsula Open Space Trust, Menlo Park, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, transport, and release) the San Francisco garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia ) in conjunction with habitat manipulation in San Mateo County, California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-071098
+Applicant: North Coast Resource Management, Calpella, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Sonoma County District Population Segment of the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with surveys in Sonoma County, California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-018078
+Applicant: Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii.
+The permittee requests an amendment to remove/reduce to possession Argyroxiphium kauense (Mauna Loa silversword), Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. sandwicense ('Ahinahina), Hibiscadelphus giffardianus (hau kuahiwi), Ischaemum byrone (Hilo ischaemum), Melicope zahlbruckneri (alani), Neraudia ovata (no common name), Nothecestrum breviforum ('aiea), Plantago hawaiensis (kuahiwi laukahi), Pleomele hawaiiensis (hala pepe), Portulaca sclerocarpa (po'e), Pritchardia affinis (lo'ulu), Sesbania tomentosa ('ohai), and Sicyos alba ('anunu) in conjunction with captive propagation and outplanting throughout the range of the species in Hawaii for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No. TE-071433
+Applicant: Stephanie Dunbar, Honolulu, Hawaii.
+The applicant requests a permit to remove/reduce to possession Plantago princeps var. princeps, Plantago princeps var. anomala, Plantago princeps var. laxiflora, Plantago princeps var. longibracteata , and Plantago hawaiensis (all of which have the same common name kuahiwi laukahi) in conjunction with research studies throughout the range of the species in Hawaii for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.
+Dated: May 23, 2003. David J. Wesley, Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Dr. Thane Wibbels, Department of Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294-1170, has applied in due form for a permit to take Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), and green ( Chelonia mydas ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+The applicant proposes to utilize tangle net methodology combined with observational surveys from boats to study sea turtles in the estuarine systems of Alabama state waters from Grand Bay to Perdido Bay. The purpose of the research is to provide a basic understanding of the abundance, location, and movement of sea turtles within these estuarine ecosystems. This research will help resource managers develop optimal management strategies for these estuaries in order to conserve and protect sea turtles and their habitat. The applicant proposes to take 30 Kemp's ridley, 30 loggerhead, and 30 green sea turtles annually. Turtles would be captured with a 9.9 inch (25 cm) mesh tangle net that is 731.7 feet (223 m) long by 19.7 feet (6 m) deep. Turtles would be measured, weighed, flipper tagged, blood sampled and released. A subset of five loggerhead and five Kemp's ridley sea turtles would be tagged with a sonic or satellite transmitter. The requested duration of this permit is 5 years.
+Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
+Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) 713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or by other electronic media.
+Dated: June 10, 2003. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and other joint-lead agencies—the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Department of Interior; and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission (Commission), State of New Mexico—intend to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for the establishment of the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program (Program).
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Within the Middle Rio Grande Basin in New Mexico the continuing demand on limited water supplies to meet irrigation, municipal, industrial, and ecological purposes has strained environmental resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Rio Grande silvery minnow ( Hybognathus amarus ) and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1994 and 1995, respectively. In February 2003, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the silvery minnow along the Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir. Recovery plans for both species have been developed.
+In 1999, governmental and non-governmental entities with management responsibility for resources in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, or an interest therein, formed the Middle Rio Grande ESA Workgroup to address ESA issues in a coordinated manner. Beginning in April 2002, representatives of the following entities have signed an Interim Memorandum of Understanding to work towards establishing the Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program: Reclamation, Corps, Commission, USFWS, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, New Mexico Office of the Attorney General, New Mexico Lieutenant Governor's Office, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, New Mexico Environment Department, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, New Mexico State University, University of New Mexico, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, City of Albuquerque, Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage, Rio Grande Restoration, and the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties.
+The objective of establishing and implementing the Program is to provide the framework for coordinated actions to enhance habitat, increase populations, and contribute to the recovery of the listed species within the Rio Grande Basin between the Colorado state line and the headwaters (elevation 4,450 feet) of Elephant Butte Reservoir. A principal goal of the Program is to implement creative and flexible options under the ESA so that existing, ongoing, and future water supply and water resource management activities and projects can continue to operate and receive necessary permits, licenses, funding, and other approvals.
+The PEIS will address the establishment and governance of the Program, as well as anticipated activities such as scientific research, population monitoring, habitat restoration, fish passage at diversion structures, silvery minnow rescue and propagation, and water acquisition and management. The PEIS will present alternatives for these activities and evaluate their environmental, economic, and social effects. The environmental evaluation also will assess the potential effects that the proposed alternatives may have on Indian Trust Assets, and minority and low-income populations. the PEIS will address these actions on a programmatic basis; future activities implemented as a result of the Program will require project-specific compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws and regulations prior to implementation.
+Coordination is ongoing with public, private and tribal entities having jurisdiction or an interest in water operations in the Program area. In June 2003, the Corps, Reclamation, and the Commission, as lead agencies and on behalf of the cooperating entities, signed a Memorandum of Agreement to define the scope of the PEIS and to establish their roles and responsibilities relating to completing the PEIS in accordance with NEPA, ESA, and other laws and regulations. The joint lead agencies will seek and encourage public involvement throughout the process.
+Public scoping meetings will be held in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Socorro, New Mexico, in July 2003. Specific information regarding location and times of these meetings will be published in local newspapers. The draft PEIS will be released for public review and comment in October 2003. Signing of the Records of Decision by the joint-lead agencies is expected in February 2004.
+Dana R. Hurst, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army, District Engineer.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC), National Marine Fisheries Service, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149, has been issued a permit to take loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), green ( Chelonia mydas ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), and olive ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On April 1, 2003, notice was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 15707) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, leatherback, green, hawksbill, olive ridley, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+The permit will allow the SEFSC to conduct sea turtle bycatch reduction research in the pelagic longline fishery of the western north Atlantic Ocean. The purpose of the research is to develop and test methods to reduce bycatch that occurs incidental to commercial, pelagic longline fishing. The goal is to develop a means to reduce turtle take and retain viable fishing performance that may be adopted by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet as an alternative to more restrictive sea turtle protection measures, such as closures. The technologies developed through this research are expected to be transferrable to other nations' fleets as well, so this work will address the larger problem of sea turtle bycatch by pelagic longlines throughout the entire Atlantic Ocean and in other regions where sea turtle bycatch is a concern. The research will also attempt to determine the feasibility of using pop-up satellite tags to study the post-hooking survival of turtles impacted by the fishery. The permit expires on December 31, 2003.
+Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: June 20, 2003. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Dr. Thomas J. Kwak, U.S. Geological Survey, North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Box 7617, 201 David Clark Labs, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7617, has requested a modification to scientific research permit no. 1375.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject modification to Permit No. 1375, issued on March 27, 2003 (68 FR 16002) is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+Permit No. 1375 authorized the permit holder to deploy 1,000 hatchery-reared juvenile shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ) in cages at 10 test sites within the Roanoke/Albemarle River system for 28 days. The fish were then supposed to be euthanized and their tissue analyzed for contaminants. The results of this study would have provided needed information to determine if water quality is a limiting factor of the ecological success of shortnose sturgeon in this river system. When the initial study was conducted, however, high water temperatures and low dissolved oxygen contributed to a shortened experiment time. Although the results obtained were useful, the permit holder wants to repeat the experiment and requests authorization to obtain an additional 1000 fish for that purpose.
+Dated: December 8, 2003. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Lawrence D. Wood, Marinelife Center of Juno Beach, 14200 U.S. Hwy. #1, Juno Beach, FL, 33408, has been issued a permit to take hawksbill sea turtles ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On May 20, 2003, notice was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 27535) that a request for a scientific research permit to take hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+The applicant will hand capture, handle, measure, Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) and flipper tag, photograph, tissue sample, paint a number on the carapace of, and release up to 75 hawksbill sea turtles annually. Only 6 turtles will be initially marked with the painted number to test the efficacy of the this procedure, and future decisions concerning the value and use of this technique will be based on the results. The purpose of the research is to determine the abundance, distribution and movement patterns of this species. It will also provide growth rate information about these turtles and the researcher will determine the feasibility of photographic identification through unique individual characteristics. The permit duration is 5 years.
+Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: December 23, 2003. Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Steve W. Ross, Ph.D., North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve, MCS 5600 Marvin Moss Lane, Wilmington, North Carolina 28409, has been issued a permit to take shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirosturm, for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On November 30, 2001, notice was published in the Federal Register (66 FR 59780) that a request for a scientific research permit to take shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by Dr. Steve W. Ross. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+Due to habitat loss and overfishing, the North Carolina population of shortnose sturgeon are in danger of extinction. This research will sample and track the shortnose sturgeon in North Carolina river systems. Thirty fish annually will be collected by gillnetting, trawling, and electroshocking. The fish will then be measured, tagged with a Peterson tag, and released. A subset of these fish will also receive an internal ultrasonic transmitter.
+Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: March 21, 2003. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Dr. Jeanette Wyneken, Assistant Professor, Florida Atlantic University, Dept. of Biological Sciences, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL 33431, has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead sea turtles ( Caretta caretta ) for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+The applicant proposes to take up to 30 loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings per site at 10 sites (Onslow Beach, Kiawah Island, Hilton Head Island, Wassaw Island, Melbourne Beach, Hutchinson Island, Juno Beach, Boca Raton, Sanibel/Captiva and vicinity including waters near Ft. Meyers, and Sarasota) for scientific research. Turtles will be captured on the beach under permits issued by the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, and attached with a “Witherington Float.” The floats used to track loggerheads are 2 inches (5 cm) long and ¾ inches (1.9 cm) deep and shaped like a racing sailboat hull. The hull is hollowed and fitted with a flattened piece of split-shot in the bottom and a small eye formed of wire sunk to the balsa wood to attach one end of a cotton thread. The “deck” is hollowed out and holds a very small cynalume (cold chemical glow stick) and the hull is painted black. The cynalume is only visible from the top. The float is tethered with a thin cotton sewing thread and the other end of the thread tether (approx. 10 ft or 3 m long) is attached to the turtle by slip knot around the shell behind the foreflippers. The thread will break away and fall off in about two hours in saltwater. Turtles will be released at water's edge and followed to determine survivability. Turtles that are not lost to predators will be recaptured, the tether removed and released. The objective of this study is to document spatial variability in hatchling survivorship and provide revised values for other life stages.
+Dated: May 4, 2004. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries has been issued a permit to take loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), green ( Chelonia mydas ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On December 1, 2003, notice was published in the Federal Register (68 FR 67152) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, leatherback, Kemp's ridley, green and hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named organization. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+This permit authorizes the Permit Holder to handle, photograph, measure, weigh, collect a tissue biopsy from, flipper and Passive Integrated Responder (PIT) tag, and release turtles that have already been captured during the bottom longline fishery. The capture is covered under the incidental take statement issued as part of the Biological Opinion for the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks. The research will contribute to the understanding of the pelagic ecology of sea turtle species, assist in the development of more complete models of their population dynamics, and allow more reliable assessments of commercial fishery impacts.
+Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: July 1, 2004. Tammy C. Adams, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that a request for modification of scientific research permit no. 1190 submitted by the NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Ste. 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814 has been granted.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the provisions of 50 CFR 222.306 of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222-226).
+The modification extends the expiration date of the Permit from March 31, 2004, to March 31, 2005, for takes of green ( Chelonia mydas ), loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) and olive ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea ) sea turtles.
+Issuance of this amendment, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the threatened and endangered species which are the subject of this permit; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: January 29, 2004. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+We announce our receipt of applications to conduct certain activities pertaining to scientific research and enhancement of survival of endangered species.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The following applicants have requested issuance of survival research and enhancement of survival permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).
+TE-050706
+Applicant: David P. Young, Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.
+The applicant requests renewal of a permit to take American burying beetle ( Nicrophorus americanus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.
+TE-039100
+Applicant: Rockford G. Plettner, Nebraska Public Power District, Columbus, Nebraska.
+The applicant requests renewal of a permit to take Interior least terns ( Sterna antillarum ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.
+TE-080647
+Applicant: Jerald M. Powell, Wildlife Specialties, Lyons, Colorado.
+The applicant requests issuance of a permit to take Southwestern willow flycatchers ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing its survival and recovery.
+Dated: December 30, 2003. Ralph O. Morgenweck, Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
+SUMMARY:
+The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Permit No.: TE-081310.
+Applicant: Thomas L. Richards, Los Osos, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (locate, handle, measure, and release) the Morro shoulderband snail ( Helminthoglypta walkeriana ) in conjunction with demographic studies in San Luis Obispo County, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-081298.
+Applicant: Daniel H. Weinberg, Berkeley, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California and Oregon for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No.: TE-081296.
+Applicant: Loafer Creek Management, Oroville, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No.: TE-081306.
+Applicant: Howard O. Clark, Fresno, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (spotlight, capture, radio collar, mark, collect biological samples, and release) the San Joaquin kit fox ( Vulpes macrotis mutica ) in conjunction with scientific research throughout the range of the species for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-081529.
+Applicant: Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander Sonoma County distinct population segment ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with surveys in Sonoma County, California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-039161.
+Applicant: Lara Tikkanen Reising, La Mesa, California.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take (monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ), and take (harass by survey and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with demographic studies in San Diego County, California, for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No.: TE-054011.
+Applicant: John Green, Riverside, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) in conjunction with demographic studies in San Diego, San Bernardino, Orange, and Riverside Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.
+Dated: February 12, 2004. Michael Fris, Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUMMARY:
+The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+ +Permit No. TE-068142
+Applicant: The University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (collect) the Blackburn's sphinx moth ( Manduca blackburni ) in conjunction with captive propagation and genetic research throughout the range of the species for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-702631
+Applicant: Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take the Rota bridled white eye ( Zosterops rotensis ) in conjunction with recovery efforts throughout the range of the species for the purpose of enhancing its propagation and survival.
+Permit No. TE-082914
+Applicant: David Bainbridge, Verona, Illinois.
+The applicant requests a permit to purchase, in interstate commerce, one female and one male captive bred Hawaiian (=nene) goose ( Branta [= Nesochen ] sandvicensis ) for the purpose of enhancing its survival. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over the next 5 years.
+We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.
+Dated: March 5, 2004. David J. Wesley, Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that a request for modification of scientific research permit no. 1214 submitted by Jane Provancha, Dyn-2, Dynamac Corporation, Kennedy Space Center, FL, 32899 has been granted.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the provisions of 50 CFR 222.306 of the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened fish and wildlife (50 CFR 222-226).
+The modification extends the expiration date of the Permit from March 31, 2004, to March 31, 2005, for takes of green ( Chelonia mydas ) and loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) sea turtles.
+Issuance of this amendment, as required by the ESA was based on a finding that such permit: (1) Was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of the threatened and endangered species which are the subject of this permit; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: March 19, 2004. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92037, has requested a modification to scientific research Permit No. 1227.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject modification to Permit No. 1227, issued on May 1, 2000 (65 FR 25312) is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+Permit No. 1227 authorizes the permit holder to capture leatherbacks ( Dermochelys coriacea ) from the wild or rescue them from ghost fishing gear. It authorizes the researchers to tissue sample, fat sample, flipper and PIT (passive integrated transponder) tag up to 100 of this species over the life of the 5 year permit. Twenty of these 100 may also be satellite tagged. The permit holder requests authorization to attach satellite transmitters using the harness backpack method allowed in the current permit on up to an additional 40 of the remaining leatherbacks that they are already permitted to take in the eastern Pacific Ocean nearshore to California and Oregon through December of 2005. The information from this research is part of studies on the migration and habitat use of these species in the Pacific Ocean. The permit holder also requests authorization to conduct short-term tracking of 20 additional leatherbacks in the Monterey Bay area without having to capture them, using VHF/TDR (time depth recorder)/sonic tag units attached with suction cups. The VHF/TDR/sonic tag units will be used to study the short-term movements, dive behavior and foraging ecology of this species. They will provide fine-scale movements and diving behavior of leatherbacks in the vicinity of Monterey Bay and give important information regarding the foraging ecology of this species off the coast of California.
+Dated: April 2, 2004. Patrick Opay, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that the John A. Musick, Ph.D., Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS), Gloucester Point, VA 23062, has applied in due form for a permit to take loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ), green ( Chelonia mydas ), and hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+The purpose of the proposed research is to study loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, green, and hawksbill sea turtles in the waters of the Chesapeake Bay (Bay), and the Virginia (VA) and Maryland (MD) tributaries to the Bay to identify relative abundance over time; detect changes in sea turtle size and age composition; monitor and document movement and migration patterns; and to study sea turtle interactions with whelk pot gear. The applicant proposes to take up to 100 loggerhead, 30 Kemp's ridley, 10 leatherback, 10 green, and 5 hawksbill sea turtles each year over the course of a 5-year permit. Of the 100 loggerhead turtles taken annually, 74 would be taken in VA waters, and the remaining 26 would be taken in MD waters. Likewise, the numbers by state of the other species are: 22 Kemp's ridleys from VA and 8 from MD; 7 leatherbacks from VA and 3 from MD; 7 greens from VA and 3 from MD; and 3 hawksbills from VA and 2 from MD. Seventy-one of the loggerhead, 21 of the Kemp's ridley, 7 of the leatherback, 7 of the green, and 3 of the hawksbill sea turtles are expected to be caught in pound nets. The remaining turtles would be captured utilizing relocation trawls as part of dredging activities authorized under separate permits and then turned over to the applicant. All turtles would be blood sampled, measured, weighed when practicable, flipper tagged, and PIT tagged. A subset of these animals would have satellite or radio/sonic transmitters attached to their carapace, and would be laparoscopied and bone biopsied. Twenty loggerheads would be used in a whelk gear bycatch reduction study.
+Dated: August 18, 2005. Steve Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from the public, and from local, State and Federal agencies on the following permit requests.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Permit No. TE-101141
+Applicant: Washington State University, Vancouver, Washington.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit, mark, and release) the Fender's blue butterfly ( Icaricia icarioides fenderi ) in conjunction with research in Polk and Lane Counties, Oregon, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-101373
+Applicant: Jeanie Taylor, Seattle, Washington.
+The applicant requests a permit to reduce/remove to possession (collect seeds) Hackelia venusta (showy stickseed) in conjunction with research in Chelan County, Washington, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+We solicit public review and comment on these recovery permit applications.
+Dated: March 11, 2005. Don Weathers, Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Llewellyn Ehrhart, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, Florida 32816-2368 has been issued a permit to take green ( Chelonia mydas ), loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ), and leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On December 2, 2004, notice was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 70125) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+Researchers will annually capture, flipper tag, PIT tag, measure, mark, weigh, blood sample, lavage, photograph, attach a satellite transmitter to, attach a tethered instrument to, release, and track loggerhead, green, hawksbill and Kemp's ridley sea turtles. The purpose of the research is to conduct in-water studies of marine turtle populations in the Indian River Lagoon (Project 1); to conduct studies of marine turtle populations residing on the Sabellariid Worm Reef of Indian River County, Florida (Project 2); to study sea turtle distribution and movement through the use of satellite telemetry (Project 3); to assess the juvenile green turtle population at the Trident Turning Basin, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (Project 4); and to study juvenile green turtle and loggerhead habitat utilization in the central region of the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida (Project 5). The permit is issued for 5 years.
+Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: March 29, 2005. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Permit No.: TE-839960
+Applicant: John Dicus, Black Canyon City, Arizona.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey) the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl ( Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in Arizona for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-049175
+Applicant: Melanie Dicus, Black Canyon City, Arizona.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey) the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl ( Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in Arizona for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-099477
+Applicant: Kimberly Boydstun-Peterson, Rancho Santa Margarita, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly ( Euphydryas editha quino ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-099463
+Applicant: Mike McEntee, Rancho Santa Margarita, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ), and take (locate and monitor nests) the least Bell's vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No.: TE-100007
+Applicant: Krista R. Garcia, Fresno, California.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take (capture and release) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ), the Riverside fairy shrimp ( Streptocephalus wootoni ), and the San Diego fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta sandiegonensis ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No.: TE-101154
+Applicant: Douglas Rischbieter, Arnold, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ), the mountain yellow-legged frog ( Rana muscosa ), the arroyo toad ( Bufo californicus ), and the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander ( Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum ) in conjunction with surveys in throughout the range of each species in California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No.: TE-101156
+Applicant: Thomas Keegan, Roseville, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) in conjunction with surveys in throughout its range in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-827500
+Applicant: Sean Barry, Dixon, California.
+The permittee requests an amendment to take (harass by survey and capture) the San Francisco garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia ) in conjunction with genetic research throughout the range of the species in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No.: TE-049693
+Applicant: Jody Gallaway, Chico, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and collect and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta conservatio ), the longhorn fairy shrimp ( Branchinecta longiantenna ), and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp ( Lepidurus packardi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the range of each species in northern California for the purpose of enhancing their survival.
+Permit No.: TE-101148.
+Applicant: David Compton, Santa Barbara, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with surveys in Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties, California, for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications.
+Dated: March 16, 2005. Ken McDermond, Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that two applicants have been issued a permit to take endangered and threatened sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On October 8, 2004, notice was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 60363) that a request for a scientific research permit to take endangered and threatened sea turtles had been submitted by the above-named individuals. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+Dr. Allen Foley, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 6134 Authority Avenue, Building 200, Jacksonville, FL 32221: Permit No. 1501 authorizes Dr. Foley to take listed turtles in Florida Bay. Researchers may annually capture 175 loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), 20 green ( Chelonia mydas ), 10 hawksbill ( Eretmochelys imbricata ) and 20 Kemp's ridley ( Lepidochelys kempii ) sea turtles by hand to continue long-term studies. Researchers may also annually capture an additional 50 adult loggerhead sea turtles by hand for studies of reproductive movements and behavior from southeast U.S. foraging grounds. Animals would be weighed, measured, examined, photographed, flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged, paint marked on carapace, blood sampled, and released. The additional 50 loggerhead turtles would also be skin sampled, transported to a lab for ultrasound and laparoscopy, held 24 hours, testicular biopsy sampled, and released. A subset of 15 of the 50 loggerheads may be tagged with satellite, sonic, and time-depth recorder (TDR) transmitters.
+Blair E. Witherington, Ph.D., (Principal Investigator), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Melbourne Beach Field Laboratory, 9700 South A1A, Melbourne Beach, FL 32951: Permit No. 1506 authorizes Dr. Witherington to annually capture 250 loggerhead, 10 green, 5 hawksbill, 2 Kemp's ridley, and 2 leatherback ( Dermochelys coriacea ) neonate and juvenile sea turtles in the Florida Atlantic Ocean and Gulf coasts to continue long-term studies. Turtles would be captured using a long handled dip net, handled, measured and released. A subset of loggerhead turtles would be transported to a lab and examined with a veterinary high resolution magnetic resonance interferometry (MRI) or computerized tomography (CT) exam, held for 3-4 days and released to determine their level of anthropogenic debris ingestion.
+Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: March 23, 2005. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Michael Salmon (Permit No. 1509) and Kenneth Lohmann (Permit No. 1522) have been issued permits to take endangered and threatened sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On March 9, 2005, notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 11619) that a request for a scientific research permit to take threatened sea turtles had been submitted by Jeanette Wyneken (Permit No. 1509). Ms. Wyneken subsequently requested that the permit be issued to Michael Salmon. On February 23, 2005, notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 8767) that a request for a scientific research permit to take endangered and threatened sea turtles had been submitted by Kenneth Lohmann. The requested permits have been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).
+ +Michael Salmon, Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University, Dept. of Biological Sciences, 777 Glades Rd., Boca Raton, FL 33431: Permit No. 1509 authorizes Dr. Salmon to take ESA-listed turtles in the waters of Florida. Researchers may capture a total of 80 loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ) sea turtle hatchlings over a 2-year period. Animals will be tracked, captured by hand or dip net, have a float tether removed from their carapace, and released. A subset of these animals may also be transported to the Gulf Stream if they need help to reach it. The research will investigate whether mis-oriented turtles remain behaviorally competent when released at beach sites and are likely to complete their offshore migration, and whether they are likely to survive and contribute to population recovery.
+Kenneth Lohmann, Ph.D., Department of Biology, Wilson Hall, CB#3280, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599: Permit No. 1522 authorizes Dr. Lohmann to annually capture up to 120 loggerhead and 40 green ( Chelonia mydas ) sea turtle hatchlings over a 5-year period. Turtles will be tracked, captured by hand or dip net, have experimental gear removed, and be released. The research will take place in the waters off the Florida coast as part of magnetic orientation studies of hatchlings.
+Dr. Lohmann will also take up to 6 adult loggerhead sea turtles annually over five years. Animals will be tracked and have their float tether removed while at sea in waters off the coast of Florida as part of sea turtle navigation studies.
+Issuance of these permits, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permits (1) were applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: April 15, 2005. Stephen L. Leathery, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (Stephen Reilly, Responsible Official), 8604 La Jolla Shores Drive, La Jolla, CA 92038, has applied in due form for a permit to take green ( Chelonia mydas ), loggerhead ( Caretta caretta ), and olive ridley ( Lepidochelys olivacea ) sea turtles for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+The purpose of this project would be to continue long-term monitoring of the status of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California. Researchers would study the species present at this temperate foraging area to determine their abundance, size ranges, growth, sex ratio, health status, diving behavior, local movements, habitat use, and migration routes. Turtles would be captured using entanglement nets and each animal would be flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged, measured, weighed, sexed, blood sampled, and tissue sampled. A subset of animals be lavaged and would have transmitters attached to their carapace. A primary goal of the research would be to integrate data from genetic analysis, flipper tagging, and satellite telemetry to identify nesting beach origins of turtles occurring in San Diego Bay and contribute to the overall understanding of sea turtle stock structure in the Pacific Ocean. Researchers would compare current data with those collected in San Diego Bay since 1989 to determine growth rates of juveniles and adults, determine tag retention rates, and examine population abundance trends. Genetic studies based on blood and tissue samples are part of an international collaboration to define stock structure of sea turtles in the Pacific. Up to 50 green, 5 loggerhead, and 5 olive ridley sea turtles would be taken annually. The permit would be issued for 5 years.
+Dated: September 18, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+We invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“we”) solicits review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies, and the public on the following permit requests.
+Permit No. TE-131084
+Applicant: Angie Harbin-Ireland, Walnut Creek, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, measure, and release) the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the species range in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-131083
+Applicant: Lynn Hermansen, Walnut Creek, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, measure, and release) the California tiger salamander ( Ambystoma californiense ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the species range in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+Permit No. TE-128295
+Applicant: Nicolas H. Bauer, Arcata, California.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby ( Eucyclogobius newberryi ) in conjunction with surveys throughout the species range in California for the purpose of enhancing its survival.
+We solicit public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment, but you should be aware that we may be required to disclose your name and address pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
+Dated: September 28, 2006. Linda Belluomini, Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUMMARY:
+We, the United States, as a Party to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), will attend the fourteenth regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP14) in The Hague, The Netherlands, June 3-15, 2007. This notice announces the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on amendments to the CITES Appendices (species proposals), draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items submitted by other countries and the CITES Secretariat for consideration at CoP14. With this notice we also announce that we will publish a notice after the conclusion of CoP14 to invite public input on whether the United States should take a reservation on any of the amendments to the CITES Appendices that are adopted.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Background
+The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES or the Convention) is an international treaty designed to control and regulate international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now or potentially may become threatened with extinction due to trade. These species are listed in the Appendices to CITES, which are available on the CITES Secretariat's Web site at http://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.shtml . Currently, 171 countries, including the United States, are Parties to CITES. The Convention calls for regular meetings of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to review issues pertaining to implementation, makes provisions enabling the CITES Secretariat to carry out its functions, consider amendments to the list of species in Appendices I and II, consider reports presented by the Secretariat, and make recommendations to improve the effectiveness of CITES. Any country that is a Party to CITES may propose and vote on amendments to Appendices I and II (species proposals), draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items submitted for consideration by the Conference of Parties. Accredited nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) may participate in the meeting as approved observers and may speak during sessions when recognized by the meeting Chairman, but they may not vote or submit proposals.
+This is our fourth in a series of Federal Register notices that, together with announced public meetings, provide you with an opportunity to participate in the development of U.S. tentative negotiating positions for CoP14. In this notice we announce the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on species proposals, draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items submitted by other Parties and the Secretariat for consideration at CoP14. We published our first CoP14-related Federal Register notice on January 20, 2006 (71 FR 3319), and with it we requested information and recommendations on species proposals, draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items for the United States to consider submitting for consideration at CoP14. We published our second such Federal Register notice on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65126), and with it we requested public comments and information on species proposals, draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items that the United States was considering submitting for consideration at CoP14. On December 11, 2006, we held the public meeting announced in our second Federal Register notice; at that meeting, we discussed the issues contained in our November 7 Federal Register notice and in our Web site posting on the same topic. In our third Federal Register notice, published on February 21, 2007 (72 FR 7904), we announced the provisional agenda for CoP14, solicited public comments on items on the provisional agenda, and announced a public meeting to discuss the agenda items. That public meeting was held on April 9, 2007.
+You may obtain information on the above Federal Register notices from the following sources. For information on draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items, contact the Division of Management Authority (see ADDRESSES , above); and for information on species proposals, contact the Division of Scientific Authority (see ADDRESSES , above). Our regulations governing this public process are found in 50 CFR 23.31-23.39. Pursuant to 50 CFR 23.38(a), the Director has decided to suspend the procedure for publishing a notice of final negotiating positions in the Federal Register because time and resources needed to prepare a Federal Register notice would detract from essential preparation for CoP14.
+Tentative Negotiating Positions
+In this notice we summarize the tentative U.S. negotiating positions on proposals to amend the Appendices (species proposals), draft resolutions and decisions, and agenda items that have been submitted by other countries and the CITES Secretariat. Documents submitted by the United States for consideration of the Parties at CoP14 can be found on the Secretariat's Web site at: http://www.cites.org/eng/cop/index.shtml . Those documents are: CoP14 Doc. 18.2, CoP14 Doc. 39, and CoP14 Doc. 43. The United States also submitted Document CoP14 Doc. 67 at the request of the Animals and Plants Committees. The United States, either alone or as a co-proponent, submitted the following proposals to amend Appendices I and II: CoP14 Prop. 2, CoP14 Prop. 17, CoP14 Prop. 19, CoP14 Prop. 21, CoP14 Prop. 22, CoP14 Prop. 23, CoP14 Prop. 28, and CoP14 Prop. 36. In this notice, we will not provide any additional explanation of the U.S. negotiating position for documents that the United States submitted. The introduction in the text of each of the documents the United States submitted contains a discussion of the background of the issue and the rationale for submitting the document.
+In this notice, numerals next to each agenda item or resolution correspond to the numbers used in the agenda for CoP14 and posted on the Secretariat's Web site. When we completed the notice, the Secretariat had not yet made available documents for a number of the agenda items on the CoP14 agenda. For several other documents, we are still working with other agencies in the United States and other CITES Parties to develop the U.S. negotiating position. The documents for which we do not currently have tentative U.S. negotiating positions are: CoP14 Doc. 10 and CoP14 Doc. 30.
+In the discussion that follows, we have included a brief description of each species proposal, draft resolution, draft decision, and agenda item submitted by other Parties or the Secretariat, followed by a brief explanation of the tentative U.S. negotiating position for that item. New information that may become available prior to or at CoP14 could lead to modifications of these positions. The U.S. delegation will fully disclose changes in our negotiating positions and the explanations for those changes during public briefings at CoP14. The United States is concerned about the budgetary implications and workload burden that will be placed upon the Parties, the committees, and the Secretariat, and intends to evaluate all documents for CoP14 in view of these concerns.
+Agenda (Provisional)
+Opening Ceremony and Welcoming Addresses
+The Secretariat will not prepare a document on these agenda items. According to tradition, as the host country for CoP14, The Netherlands will conduct an opening ceremony and make welcoming remarks.
+Administrative Matters
+1. Rules of Procedure (Doc. 1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The CITES Secretariat prepared Document CoP14 Doc. 1, the draft Rules of Procedure for CoP14. The draft Rules are identical to those adopted for CoP13, except for several amendments proposed to Rules 14 and 15, regarding the creation of the position of an Alternate Chairman of the Conference, and Rule 28, regarding submission of informative documents for the CoP. The United States tentatively supports the draft Rules of Procedure and the amendments proposed to Rules 14, 15, and 28, but plans to propose several additional amendments to the text of these three Rules to clarify several points.
+2. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the meeting and of Chairmen of Committees I and II (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. According to tradition, the host country—in this case, The Netherlands—will provide the Conference Chairman. The United States will support the election of committee Chairmen and a Vice-Chairman of the Conference who have the required technical knowledge and skills and also reflect the geographic and cultural diversity of the CITES Parties.
+3. Adoption of the agenda (Doc. 3). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support.
+4. Adoption of the working programme (Doc. 4). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Prior to a CoP, the working programme is provisional and changes may be made to it prior to the start of CoP14 or at the beginning of the CoP. The United States supports the provisional working programme posted at the time this notice was prepared.
+5. Credentials Committee
+5.1Establishment of the Credentials Committee (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided.
+5.2Report of the Credentials Committee (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The United States will follow the work of the Credentials Committee and intervene as appropriate.
+6. Admission of observers (Doc. 6). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. A document for this agenda item is not normally distributed prior to the start of a CoP. National NGOs are admitted as observers if their headquarters are located in a CITES Party country and if the national government of that Party approves their attendance at the CoP. International NGOs are admitted by approval of the CITES Secretariat. After being approved as an observer, an NGO is admitted to the CoP unless one-third of the Parties object. The United States supports admission to the meeting of all technically qualified NGOs, and opposes unreasonable limitations on their full participation as observers at CoP14. In addition, the United States supports flexibility and openness in the process for disseminating documents produced by NGOs to Party delegates, which are vital to decision-making and scientific and technical understanding.
+7. Financing and budgeting of the Secretariat and of meetings of the Conference of the Parties. Tentative U.S. negotiating position on Agenda Items 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3: Undecided. These are comprehensive documents that require extensive review, internal discussion, and analysis of the financial implications for Parties and the impact on the work of the Secretariat and the committees. The United States will review the documents carefully, bearing in mind the need to balance tasks with available resources. The United States advocates fiscal responsibility and accountability on the part of the Secretariat and the Conference of the Parties and plans to be an active participant in the budget discussions at CoP14. The voluntary annual contribution of the United States to CITES is determined through our domestic budgeting process. The United States believes it is necessary that the CITES Secretariat provide additional information on budgetary and financial matters in relation to the costed programme of work proposed in Document CoP14 Doc. 7.3. Until such information is provided and analyzed, and discussed with the Parties and the Secretariat, we will not be able to consider supporting any increase in the budget of the Convention.
+8. Committee Reports
+8.1Report of the Chairman of the Standing Committee (Doc. 8.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's website. This report is largely a summary of activities conducted by the Standing Committee, or particularly the Chairman, since CoP13. Many of these activities are covered by other CoP14 agenda items.
+8.2Report of the Chairman of the Animals Committee (Doc. 8.2). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Most of this document is a report by the Chairman of his activities or a recounting of the proceedings of meetings of the Animals Committee, and therefore not requiring a position. The outcomes of some of the Animals Committee deliberations are reflected in other agenda items for CoP14, where they are elaborated more substantially. However, there are some specific recommendations contained in the report requiring a position. These (and the tentative U.S. position) include:
+• Draft decisions for Psittacus erithacus , derived from the Review of Significant Trade in this species, calling for the development of management plans by range countries, with assistance from the Secretariat, subject to external funding (Support);
+• A draft decision for the Secretariat to convene, subject to external funding, a workshop to initiate regional cooperation on fisheries management for Tridacnidae (Support);
+• Extending Decision 13.93 to continue the review of the Felidae, particularly the review of Lynx spp. and look-alike issues, until CoP15 (Support);
+• Consider that the Parties, Animals Committee, and Secretariat have complied with Decisions 13.95-13.97 related to fossil corals (Support); and
+• Consideration of providing supplemental funding (US$30,000 annually) to the Chairman of the Animals Committee, especially if from a developing country and where governmental or institutional support is insufficient to fulfill the duties of the position (Unable to support given the current budgetary situation for the Convention).
+8.3Report of the Chairman of the Plants Committee (Doc. 8.3). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Most of this document is a report by the Chairman of her activities or a recounting of the proceedings of meetings of the Plants Committee, and therefore not requiring a position. The outcomes of some of the Plants Committee deliberations are reflected in other agenda items for CoP14, where they are elaborated more substantially. However, there are some specific recommendations contained in the report requiring a position. These (and the tentative U.S. position) include:
+• A draft decision directed to range countries, regional Plants Committee representatives, and the Secretariat to address the management and enforcement needs of seven species of medicinal plants from Asia, and to report on progress to the Plants Committee at its 17th and 18th meetings (Support);
+• Consideration by the Parties of ways to obtain identification materials for plants listed in the Appendices given that there is no longer a specific budget line for this activity (Support);
+• A draft decision directed to the Plants Committee and the Secretariat to continue cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (Support, as amended by the Secretariat);
+• A draft decision directed to the Plants Committee to develop principles, criteria, and indicators for making non-detriment findings for timber and medicinal plant species (Support);
+• Renewal of Decision 13.54, which directs the Plants Committee to continue to consider proposals to include additional timber species in the Appendices, based on the outcomes of regional workshops and other information (Support);
+• Consideration that the Plants Committee's work under Decisions 13.51 and 13.52 regarding annotations of medicinal plants, Decision 13.60 related to Harpagophytum , and Decision 13.72 regarding monitoring effects of the revision of the definition of “artificially propagated” have been completed (Support);
+• Draft decisions directed to the Parties and the Plants Committee to monitor the effects of exempting the artificially propagated hybrids of various orchid genera from CITES controls, and consideration of whether the exemption of hybrids of additional genera is advisable (Support); and
+• Draft decisions directed to the Parties, Plants Committee, Secretariat, and inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations (IGOs and NGOs) to address various issues related to trade in agarwood, including capacity building, the making of non-detriment findings, information sharing, definition of terms relating to agarwood, development of identification and training materials, and recommendations on appropriate units of measure for agarwood, as well as consideration of potential annotations to exempt certain agarwood specimens from CITES controls (Support, but with reservations regarding the ability of the CoP to direct work to IGOs and NGOs, and also regarding the scope of work and potential budget implications).
+8.4Joint report of the Chairmen of the Animals and Plants Committees (Doc. 8.4). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: U.S. position: Much of this document is a report by the Chairmen of the Animals and Plants Committees recounting the proceedings of joint meetings of the two committees, and therefore not requiring a position. The outcomes of some of the deliberations of the two committees meeting in joint session are reflected in other agenda items for CoP14, where they are elaborated more substantially. However, there are some specific recommendations contained in the report requiring a position. These (and the tentative U.S. position) include:
+• Recommended Rules of Procedure for the two committees, which follow longstanding practices and represent the committees' views with regard to a practicable adaptation of the Rules of Procedure for the Standing Committee (Support, with some amendments proposed by the Secretariat);
+• A draft decision directed to the Secretariat to publish and distribute, subject to available funding, manuals for regional representatives to the committees in the three languages of the Convention (Support, as amended by the Secretariat);
+• A recommendation to eliminate Resolution Conf. 13.10 on “Trade in invasive alien species” and incorporate elements of it into Resolution Conf. 10.4 on “Cooperation and synergy with the Convention on Biological Diversity,” to reflect the limited role CITES can play in addressing the problem of invasive species (Support); and
+• Draft decisions directed to the Parties, Standing Committee, and Secretariat to provide support to the University of Co rdoba and the International University of Andalusia (Spain) to support the continuation of the Master's course on “Management, Access and Conservation of Species in Trade” (Support).
+8.5Report of the Nomenclature Committee (Doc. 8.5). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The report contains numerous recommendations regarding the adoption of standard nomenclatural and taxonomic references for CITES-listed fauna and flora, and a program of work and proposed budget for the next intersessional period. We are still evaluating the references, and the proposed work and budget implications.
+9. Committee Elections and Appointments
+9.1Standing Committee (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Since the close of CoP13, the North American region has been represented on the Standing Committee by Canada, serving as the North American regional representative, and Mexico, serving as the alternate representative. Canada and Mexico will continue to serve in their current capacities until the end of CoP15.
+9.2Animals Committee (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Since the close of CoP14, the North American region has been represented on the Animals Committee by Mr. Rodrigo A. Medelli n of Mexico, serving as the North American regional representative, and up until May 2007, Mr. Robert R. Gabel of the United States, serving as the alternate representative. Mr. Gabel has now moved on to other duties as the Chief of the U.S. Management Authority, and as such, the United States will provide a new alternate representative who has yet to be determined.
+9.3Plants Committee (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Since the close of CoP14, the North American region has been represented on the Plants Committee by Mr. Robert R. Gabel of the United States, serving as the North American regional representative, and Dr. Adrianne Sinclair, of Canada, serving as the alternate representative.
+9.4Nomenclature Committee (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In its report to the CoP, the Nomenclature Committee recommends, as also recommended in CoP14 Doc. 12 (on review of the scientific committees), submitted by the Standing Committee, that the Nomenclature Committee be re-characterized as a working group of the Animals and Plants Committees. However, we anticipate that this will have little effect on the operation of the Nomenclature Committee, and we expect the current Chairmen of this committee, Dr. Ute Grimm of Germany (co-Chairman for Fauna) and Dr. Noel McGuff of the United Kingdom (co-Chairman for Flora), to continue in their positions, regardless of how this body is characterized.
+Strategic Matters
+11. CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013 (Doc. 11). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: While the United States supports the revision and updating of both CITES' Strategic Plan and the accompanying Action Plan, we have significant concerns related to the revisions proposed in Document CoP14 Doc. 11, which we communicated in comments to the Strategic Plan Working Group (SPWG) following the 54th meeting of the CITES Standing Committee (SC54). CITES developed its current (and first) “Strategic Vision Through 2005” when the United States chaired the Standing Committee. This earlier document was adopted at CoP11 and was closely linked to an Action Plan, with practical and measurable steps for the Parties, Secretariat, and other entities. The Action Plan was developed in concert with the Strategic Vision to provide evidence that the goals of the latter were being met. At CoP13 the Parties adopted Decision 13.1, which extended the Strategic Vision through CoP14, but also set in motion the process to revise and update both the Strategic Vision and the Action Plan. Document CoP14 Doc. 11 represents the output of the SPWG, taking into account the comments received from Parties and NGOs on the draft Strategic Plan after SC54. The SPWG has also prepared a draft resolution for consideration by the Parties at CoP14 (Document Doc. 11 Annex, p. 4), and the “CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013” is included as a sub-annex to that document (pp. 5-12). While the SPWG accepted some of the comments of the United States in preparing this document, we remain concerned that the document would direct CITES away from its core mission of monitoring and controlling international trade in wildlife and plants. Although the “CITES Strategic Vision: 2008-2013” does not prescribe or proscribe specific actions by the Parties, if adopted, it is intended to provide guidance for the evolution of CITES through 2013.
+12. Review of the scientific committees (Doc. 12). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document is submitted by the Standing Committee. At SC54 in October 2006, the Committee adopted the recommendations of an External Evaluation Working Group's review of the CITES scientific committees (Animals, Plants, and Nomenclature), and agreed to propose to CoP14 pertinent modifications to Resolution Conf. 11.1 (Rev. CoP13) and 12.11 (Rev. CoP13). The United States supports adoption of the Standing Committee's recommendations that will enhance the work and efficiency of the scientific committees. However, the United States disagrees with the Secretariat's suggestion to merge the scientific committees.
+13. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (Doc. 13). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Document CoP14 Doc. 13 was prepared by the Plants and Animals Committees, and is based on the outcome of discussions at the 22nd meeting of the Animals Committee and 16th meeting of the Plants Committee (PC16—Lima, Peru; July 2006). The committees focused on the applicability of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity (Addis Ababa Principles) to the making of non-detriment findings, and concluded that not all of the principles and guidelines are directly relevant. The committees proposed that Resolution Conf. 10.4 be amended to acknowledge the use of the Addis Ababa Principles as a voluntary additional tool that can be used in making non-detriment findings. The United States agrees with the committees' conclusion that the Addis Ababa Principles are not always applicable to the decision making process under CITES, and supports the proposal to consider them as a voluntary additional tool that can be used in making non-detriment findings.
+14. CITES and livelihoods (Doc. 14; Argentina, China, Germany on behalf of the European Community Member States, and Nicaragua). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 14, the proponents summarize the outcomes and recommendations from the CITES and Livelihoods Workshop (Cape Town, South Africa; September 2006), and propose two draft decisions that build on those recommendations. The first draft decision directs the Standing Committee to assist in the development of tools and guidelines for the Parties to use in examining the impacts of CITES regulation on human well-being and the livelihoods of the poor. The second draft decision directs the Secretariat to provide an assessment of the ways in which the implementation of CITES has taken, or could take, into account these impacts on the livelihoods of the poor. Although we are supportive of considering human well-being and livelihoods in the implementation of CITES, these considerations should be separate from the objective scientific assessments required for listings and making non-detriment findings. We are also concerned about the budget implications of the proposed Decisions in this document.
+15. National wildlife trade policy reviews (Doc. 15). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 15, the CITES Secretariat reported on progress made in implementing Decisions 13.74 and 13.75 and that the four pilot countries interested in undertaking wildlife trade policy reviews, will be provided an opportunity to share compiled and synthesized information on the initial results from their wildlife trade policy reviews at a CoP14 side event. The Secretariat further recommends that interested importing countries carry out national wildlife policy reviews in order to provide a balanced view to exporting countries and facilitate a better understanding of wildlife trade policy at both ends of the international wildlife trade (supply and demand), and invites donors to provide financial support to countries interested in preparing these reviews. The Secretariat recommends renewing the deadlines in Resolution Conf. 13.74 for reporting to the Standing Committee and Conference of the Parties to SC57 and CoP15, and deleting a recommendation calling for submission of project proposals in order to seek financial support for preparation of trade policy reviews in interested countries.
+The United States looks forward to reviewing the results achieved with the four pilot countries. However, given the overall lackluster response of the Parties (7 out of 171 Parties expressed interest), this is not high priority work of the CITES Secretariat. Implementation of the Secretariat's recommendations would have budgetary implications that must be weighed against priorities that are more urgent.
+16. Capacity building (Doc. 16). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This document from the CITES Secretariat proposes the creation of an interactive CITES Virtual College for basic and more advanced training in the Convention over the Internet. The Secretariat proposes that this program could be linked to academic institutions. In Document CoP14 Doc. 7.3 Annex 1, the CITES Secretariat estimates that it would cost close to $1.6 million to run this program from 2009 through 2011. While the United States has always, and continues to be, a strong supporter and proponent of training in the implementation and enforcement of CITES, we do not support such an initiative with such significant budget implications. There are already similar educational and capacity-building programs and mechanisms that would be duplicated by the development of such a program at the Secretariat (e.g., the Masters and Doctoral courses conducted by the International University of Andalucia, and current U.S. training offered in connection to Regional Free Trade Agreements).
+17. Cooperation between Parties and promotion of multilateral measures (Doc. 17). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's Web site.
+18. Cooperation With Other Organizations
+18.1Cooperation with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Doc. 18.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided on establishment of a Fishery Working Group within CITES; support strengthening cooperation between CITES and United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) with regard to forestry and non-timber forest products, but opposed to formalization of the relationship through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). This document was submitted by the CITES Secretariat. It provides a history of the collaboration between CITES and FAO regarding marine listing and implementation issues, and summarizes cooperative activities in recent years related to queen conch, sturgeons, sharks, sea cucumbers, and other species. Pointing to the success of collaborative efforts between CITES and FAO on marine issues, the Secretariat recommends strengthening cooperation with FAO on issues related to forestry and non-timber forest products. The document includes draft decisions for consideration by the Parties at CoP14. One of these decisions directs the Secretariat to initiate discussions with FAO on strengthening and formalizing cooperation between CITES and FAO with regard to forestry and non-timber forest products. Another, directed to the Standing Committee, would establish a Fishery Working Group to address practical issues related to the implementation of the Treaty for fish and marine invertebrates.
+The United States endorsed the establishment of the MoU with FAO on marine issues that was finalized at SC54, and we fully support ongoing cooperation between CITES and FAO regarding marine issues. FAO has provided valuable advice and assistance to CITES on a number of marine issues, including the development of listing criteria for marine species and the formation of ad hoc expert advisory panels to evaluate marine listing proposals prior to a CoP. We have endorsed the idea of a marine working group in the past; in fact, at CoP10, the United States submitted a document calling for the Standing Committee to establish a temporary working group for marine fish species. However, given the formalized cooperative arrangement with FAO, ongoing work in the Animals Committee, and the desire to avoid duplication of effort, we are uncertain of the need for establishing a Fishery Working Group within CITES at this time. No information has been provided regarding the proposed composition or the mandate of such a group. We will develop a position as more information becomes available.
+The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) promotes the conservation and sustainable management of and trade in tropical forest resources. We submitted a document for consideration at CoP14 (Doc. 18.2) that recognizes the importance of close cooperation between CITES and ITTO in the consideration and implementation of CITES listings of tropical timber species and recommends strengthening the cooperation between the CITES and ITTO Secretariats. While we would also support increased cooperation between CITES and ITTO regarding forestry and non-timber forest products, we do not believe that it is necessary to formalize the relationship through a MoU.
+18.3Statements from representatives of other conventions and agreements (No document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Not applicable.
+19. Dialogue Meetings
+19.1Terms of reference for CITES dialogue meetings (Doc. 19.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Range country dialogue meetings have occurred for the African elephant since 1996 and hawksbill sea turtles since 2001. The Standing Committee instructed the Secretariat to draft terms of reference for the organization and conduct of dialogue meetings for any taxon. The Secretariat's draft was reviewed at SC50 and approved with amendments at SC53 (July 2005). The Standing Committee agreed with the Secretariat that the revised document should be the basis for a draft resolution at CoP14. This document incorporates the suggestions from the Standing Committee and describes what a dialogue meeting is, who may call a dialogue meeting, the organization of the meeting, how decisions are made and communicated, and how the rules of procedure may be amended. The United States participated in the SC53 discussions and generally supports the document.
+19.2Results of the dialogue meeting on the African elephant (Doc. 19.2). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Not applicable. The African elephant dialogue meeting is scheduled to be held in The Hague, The Netherlands, immediately prior to the start of CoP14. When the document is available, we will review it closely and develop our position. We support the range States dialogue process for debating multinational species issues, and the United States provided funding for this meeting through a grant under the African Elephant Conservation Act.
+Interpretation and Implementation of the Convention
+Review of Resolutions and Decisions
+20. Review of Resolutions
+20.1Resolutions relating to Appendix-I species (Doc. 20.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 20.1, the Secretariat puts forward two draft consolidated resolutions relating to Appendix-I species. The first draft resolution is a consolidation of the resolutions related to hunting trophies for Appendix-I species, and the second draft resolution consolidates the resolutions related to the conservation of and trade in specimens of specific Appendix-I species. The United States has long supported the efforts to consolidate resolutions related to Appendix-I species, as long as such an approach continues to allow for the elaboration of specific measures that may be needed for individual species and does not result in a generic approach to the conservation of these rare and endangered species.
+20.2General review (Doc. 20.2). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, Document CoP14 Doc. 20.2 was not available for review on the Secretariat's Web site. Prior to CoP12, the Secretariat began a review of the existing CITES resolutions to identify those that were difficult to implement, redundant with other resolutions, or with outdated text. At CoP12 and again at CoP13, the Secretariat proposed changes to and consolidations of sections of several resolutions, which the Parties considered, and some of which the Parties adopted. With Document CoP14 Doc. 20.2, the Secretariat is continuing this review process by identifying a number of resolutions for which it has proposed changes, consolidations, or transfers of text to other resolutions.
+21. Revision of Resolution Conf. 11.16 on ranching and trade in ranched specimens of species transferred from Appendix I to Appendix II (Doc. 21). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose, but agree with some aspects. While the United States agrees that reporting requirements should request only appropriate information that is used to monitor ranching operations and to determine that such operations continue to meet the requirements agreed by the Parties in Resolution Conf. 11.16, we do not agree with eliminating the collection of needed information based on Parties' inability or unwillingness to submit a complete report. Annual reporting must include sufficient information to determine if ranching operations are having an adverse effect on wild populations and that population trends are stable or increasing.
+Regarding the revision to the definition of “ranching,” the United States agrees that the definition should be amended, but does not accept the proposed definition. The Parties should postpone a revision of the definition of “ranching” in Resolution Conf. 11.16 until consideration of Document CoP14 Doc. 38, and if agreed, the review proposed in that document has been completed.
+22. Review of Decisions (Doc. 22). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, Document CoP14 Doc. 22 was not available for review on the Secretariat's Web site. At CoP13, the Parties reviewed the current CITES decisions to identify those that were long term in nature. For these long-term decisions, the Parties adopted the transfer of their text into new or existing resolutions. With Document CoP14 Doc. 22, the Secretariat is continuing this process by identifying existing decisions that are intended to be valid for a long term and making proposals for the transfer of the relevant texts of these decisions into new or existing resolutions.
+Compliance and Enforcement Issues
+23. Guidelines for compliance with the Convention (Doc. 23). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. At CoP12, the Parties directed the Standing Committee to develop guidelines for compliance with the Convention and a working group was established at SC50 to accomplish the task. The United States has been an active member of the Working Group on Compliance and supports completion of the draft guidelines at CoP14. The existing compliance mechanisms in the Treaty and resolutions are effective and appropriate. We have worked to ensure that the guidelines for compliance accurately describe those mechanisms and do not go beyond what already exists by introducing new mechanisms or procedures. Although significant progress was made and agreement was reached on most of the text, some areas of disagreement remained after SC54. Document CoP14 Doc. 23 was prepared by the Chairman of the Working Group on Compliance and includes the draft guidelines and the Chairman's recommendations for resolving remaining areas of disagreement. The United States supports his recommendations because they focus the guidelines on describing existing practice instead of creating new compliance procedures.
+24. National laws for implementation of the Convention (Doc. 24). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's Web site. The United States strongly believes that the Convention's effectiveness is undermined when Party States do not have adequate national laws in place for implementing CITES, and we have previously supported action by the Conference of the Parties to compel Parties to adopt effective CITES implementing legislation.
+25. Enforcement matters (Doc. 25). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The United States supports the proposed decisions relating to a meeting of the CITES Enforcement Experts Group and the suggestion that Resolution Conf. 11.3 be revised. The United States agrees that existing efforts to capture illegal trade information have largely been unsuccessful and welcomes an opportunity to discuss the issue so that illegal trade activities are better understood and enforcement efforts to combat them are made more effective. The United States also concurs with the Secretariat's assessment that, despite remarkable efforts by dedicated wildlife enforcement officers around the world, governments need to raise the profile of wildlife enforcement and ensure that sufficient resources are devoted to interdiction of illegal trade and prosecution of wildlife criminals.
+26. Compliance and enforcement (Doc. 26; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Partial support. The United States agrees with many of the Secretariat's concerns. The United States does not believe it is necessary, at this point, to establish a permanent Enforcement Experts Group. However, a second meeting of this group is warranted to follow up on previous recommendations and take up some of the issues identified in this document as well as enforcement-related documents, such as Document CoP14 Doc. 25 and Document CoP14 Doc. 28.
+27. Disposal of illegally traded and confiscated specimens of Appendix-II and -III species (Doc. 27; Indonesia). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The United States does not support the proposed decision directed to the Standing Committee regarding amendments to Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev. CoP13). Some of the issues raised in Document CoP14 Doc. 27 and the proposed decision are clearly addressed in existing resolutions. In addition, several of the issues identified as possible amendments would raise enormous logistical, financial, and workload challenges that would substantially outweigh any possible conservation benefit for Parties that regularly confiscate large volumes of wildlife. The proposed amendments to Resolution Conf. 9.10 (Rev. CoP13) included in this document, if adopted, could have a negative conservation impact by discouraging Parties from confiscating illegally traded wildlife if they were required to take on the substantial logistical, financial, and workload burdens that would accompany these requirements.
+28. Internet trade in specimens of CITES-listed species (Doc. 27; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The United States is concerned about the role of the Internet in illegal wildlife trade and has already devoted enforcement resources to this issue. The United States supports the Secretariat's alternative draft decisions, which would be a more efficient and cost-effective approach to the workshop.
+29. National reports (Doc. 29). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support with minor changes. With Document CoP14 Doc. 29, the Secretariat reports on progress it and the Parties have made since CoP13 in implementing Resolution Conf. 11.17 (Rev. CoP13) on national reports, and on progress it has made in implementing Decisions 13.90-13.92 on reporting requirements. The Secretariat recommends that the Parties consider adopting two draft decisions included in Annex 2 of Document CoP14 Doc. 29. The first draft decision, which the United States supports, would direct the Standing Committee to undertake a review of the CITES recommendations to Parties to provide special reports, assess whether they might be effectively incorporated into the annual and biennial reports, and report to CoP15 on its conclusions and recommendations. The second draft decision would direct the Secretariat to continue work directed under Decision 13.92 to facilitate the harmonization of knowledge management and reporting with other biodiversity-related conventions. This draft decision would continue work directed under Decision 13.90 to identify ways to reduce reporting burdens on Parties. The United States supports both of these aspects of the draft decision. However, the second point of the draft decision also directs the Secretariat to support the Standing Committee on electronic permitting. The United States recognizes the potential benefits electronic permitting could provide in relation to national reports, but we are concerned about the potential financial impact on some Parties and the limited capacity of many Parties to completely implement electronic permitting (see the U.S. position on Document CoP14 Doc. 40.1 and Document CoP14 Doc. 40.2). Therefore, the United States, while supportive of most of the text of the second draft decision, does not support inclusion of the phrase “* * * its support of the Standing Committee on electronic permitting* * *”
+31. Monitoring of the implementation of the annotations to Euphorbia spp. and Orchidaceae spp. included in Appendix II (Doc. 31; Switzerland). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Switzerland has submitted a proposal for CoP14 to amend the annotation to Orchidaceae (Prop. 34), and another proposal to amend the annotation to Euphorbia spp. (Prop. 29). In Document CoP14 Doc. 31, Switzerland explains that, if these two proposals are adopted, then it would be appropriate to renew Decisions 13.98 and 13.99 to monitor the implementation of the amended orchid annotation, and also adopt similar decisions to monitor the implementation of the amended Euphorbia annotation. In the Annex to Document CoP14 Doc. 31, Switzerland provides the draft renewals of Decisions 13.98 and 13.99, plus two new similar draft decisions on the Euphorbia annotation. The United States agrees that, if the species proposals amending the Euphorbia annotation and the orchid annotation are adopted at CoP14, then the Parties should also adopt decisions to monitor the implementation of these amended annotations, in order to determine how effective they are and whether they are causing any significant enforcement difficulties. It is also the U.S. position that, if these two proposals are not adopted, Decisions 13.98 and 13.99 should still be continued.
+32. Incentives for implementation of the Convention (Doc. 32). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. Document CoP14 Doc. 32 reviews Decisions 13.76 and 13.77, and summarizes the issues involved in incentives for implementation of the convention. The Secretariat's lists numerous recommendations, including the creation of a working group to identify options for CITES Authorities in designing and using specific incentive measures.
+While the United States does not have any fundamental objections to the use of economic incentives to further wildlife conservation in the context of CITES, the text of the Convention is silent on this matter. Although careful and detailed consideration must be given by the Parties prior to incorporating these concepts and specific recommendations into the body of CITES soft law, we note that the Secretariat's report indicates that there was no response from Parties to the Notification calling for submissions on economic incentives (2005/022). We, therefore, have questions about the value of this work to the CITES Parties. The report presents interesting information to the Parties, but given the lack of interest, this work can be successfully brought to a close and this agenda topic retired. Specific work, such as the survey of fee structures is valuable in its own right as an implementation item, but other proposed decision elements directed to the Standing Committee, the Parties, and the Secretariat are not a priority and should not be supported.
+Trade Control and Marking Issues
+33. Introduction from the sea (Doc. 33). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document was prepared by the CITES Secretariat on behalf of the Standing Committee and reports on progress made since CoP13 on issues related to introduction from the sea. In 2005, a workshop on introduction from the sea was convened in accordance with Decision 13.18. The report of the workshop, the comments received on the report, and a draft resolution and draft decision prepared by the Secretariat were considered at SC54. It was agreed that a working group would work electronically to refine the definition of the “marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State” based on issues raised at SC54 and comments on the workshop report. Document CoP14 Doc. 33 includes a draft resolution that contains both the definition agreed by the workshop and an alternative definition put forward by the working group. The Standing Committee recommends that the CoP reach agreement on the bracketed text and adopt the resolution to provide a definition of the “marine environment not under the jurisdiction of any State.” The United States has been actively involved in discussions related to introduction from the sea since the drafting of the Treaty, and we strongly support continuing efforts to achieve common understanding of the practical application of the introduction from the sea provision under CITES. We participated in the 2005 workshop and the electronic working group following SC54. We strongly support adoption of the draft resolution with the alternative definition put forward by the working group in place of the definition agreed at the 2005 workshop.
+Document CoP14 Doc. 33 also includes a draft decision directed to the Standing Committee. The decision calls for the establishment of a working group on introduction from the sea, to work primarily through electronic means, to consider further clarification of terms and other issues identified in the 2005 workshop report. The working group would be asked to report its findings to CoP15. The United States believes that, given the increasing number of listing proposals for marine species at recent CoPs, continued work on the practical implementation of the introduction from the sea provision is important, and we therefore support the formation of such a working group.
+34. Trade in Appendix-I species (Doc. 34). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Based on the results of the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) analysis reported at SC54, most trade in Appendix-I species reported by the Parties is conducted appropriately. However, UNEP-WCMC noted that further clarification of the purpose of transaction codes would be useful, and that countries also need to show greater care in applying source codes. The United States supports the need to clarify further the use of certain purpose of transaction and source codes so that there is more uniformity in how codes are used. As identified in Document CoP14 Doc. 38, the Animals Committee and Plants Committee were unable to make significant progress on production systems and source codes and have proposed a more narrow scope of work to develop a definition of ranching for application to CITES for CoP15. The United States submitted a document (CoP14 Doc. 39) proposing refinements to the purpose of transaction codes, to eliminate duplicities and ensure better usage by the Parties.
+35. International expert workshop on non-detriment findings (Doc. 35; Mexico). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The Scientific Authority of each Party is required to make non-detriment findings for species listed in Appendix I and Appendix II. However, many countries lack financial and technical resources and expertise to fully meet this obligation. The proposed workshop on making CITES non-detriment findings will improve Parties abilities to make scientifically sound findings, build regional capacity, and foster greater cooperation among Parties to effectively implement the Convention.
+The proposed workshop is an initiative that grew out of discussions among the three Parties in the North American Region of CITES—Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The United States is fully supportive of this workshop. We believe that strengthening the capacities of CITES Scientific Authorities will help to ensure that trade in CITES-listed species does not occur at levels that threaten their survival.
+36. Management of annual export quotas (Doc. 36). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support, provided negotiated changes to the text of the draft resolution will advance and support the establishment, implementation, and monitoring of nationally established export quotas for Appendix-II species. The United States initiated discussion of this issue at CoP12 and has been an active participant in the Standing Committee's Export Quota Working Group (EQWG). This document accurately reflects the discussions of the EQWG since CoP13, which has made significant progress in developing a draft resolution and amendments to existing resolutions that would cover this issue. Although substantive issues remain unresolved, as reflected in Document CoP14 Doc. 36, the United States hopes that, with further discussion at CoP14, a final draft resolution can be agreed and adopted. The United States has participated in these deliberations with a goal of ensuring that export quotas for CITES-listed species provide a meaningful tool for monitoring and controlling trade by providing a feedback mechanism for importing countries to communicate irregularities and potential illegal trade to exporting countries.
+37. Appendix-I Species Subject to Export Quotas
+37.1Leopard export quotas for Mozambique (Doc. 37.1; Mozambique). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. In this document, Mozambique proposes to increase its export quota for leopard hunting trophies and skins for personal use from 60 to 120. The United States, as reflected in the document we submitted for CoP12 on establishing scientifically based quotas, and in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.21 (Rev. CoP13), which calls for establishment of a scientific basis for proposed quotas, is very interested in ensuring that annual export quotas are established on strong biological data. Mozambique's request does not provide enough biological information about the population of leopards or their prey in Mozambique to determine whether the population can be sustained under the proposed quota figure.
+37.2Black rhinoceros export quotas for Namibia and South Africa (Doc. 37.2; Kenya). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. Kenya is proposing to rescind Resolution Conf. 13.5, which allows Namibia and South Africa to export five black rhino sport-hunted trophies annually. Kenya has provided information about management problems in Namibia and increased levels of rhino poaching in South Africa since the exports were approved at CoP13 in 2004. However, this information is contradicted by a report on the status and trade of rhinos produced by the IUCN-SSC's African Rhino Specialist Group (CoP14 Doc. 54), which reports an increase in the black rhino population in both countries and very limited rhino poaching in Namibia or South Africa. Although Kenya fails to provide information to show that the existing quota is biologically unsustainable or that range-wide poaching of black rhinos has increased as a result of the export of sport-hunted trophies, their document does raise questions that should be addressed by Namibia and South Africa prior to the United States finalizing its position on this document. It should be noted that this species is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and that the import of a black rhinoceros sport-hunted trophy into the United States must meet additional regulatory requirements.
+38. Production systems for specimens of CITES-listed species (Doc. 38). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The United States has been an active participant in the discussion of production systems and source codes, by chairing an intersessional joint working group of the Animals and Plants Committees on the subject. We agree that additional discussions with a narrower focus on ranching are warranted, as described in the document.
+40. Electronic Permitting
+40.1Report of the Secretariat (Doc. 40.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The United States believes that the majority of Parties do not and will not have the technological or financial support to fully implement an electronic permitting system, now or in the near future. Given the complexity of this effort and the current state of technology, the United States believes that this does not represent a high-priority activity at this time, particularly given the current budget atmosphere.
+40.2Report of the Standing Committee's Working Group (Doc. 40.2). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. See discussion on Document CoP14 Doc. 40.1 above.
+41. Transport of live specimens (Doc. 41). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 41 (Rev. 1), the Secretariat summarizes work done by the Transport Working Group and presents a revision of Resolution Conf. 10.21 on “Transport of live animals” to “Transport of live specimens” by including the transport of plants. Other changes would limit review of shipment mortality to only those shipments with high mortality.
+The United States is generally in favor of the revisions to Resolution Conf. 10.21, in particular the inclusion of plants, which will result in a more comprehensive resolution. While the United States continues to be interested in all mortality during shipment, we realize that this presents a burden on already-taxed inspectors and customs officials, and agree with the new language in the revision that calls for the Animals and Plants Committees to examine high-mortality shipments of live specimens.
+The United States is in favor of efforts to provide comprehensive information on the best methods for live animal and plant transport. The requirements in the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Live Animals Regulations (LAR), while used specifically for air transport, are in most cases appropriate for non-air transport (road, rail, and sea). The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)'s proposed Web site for non-air animal and plant transport methods would be useful as a supplement for alternative transport methods to those described in the IATA-LAR, provided it addresses the challenges presented with the transport of live captive and wild CITES-listed taxa that require special attention for non-air transport methods (e.g., duration of transit time, environmental conditions, and conveyance vehicles).
+42. Physical inspection of timber shipments (Doc. 42; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Document CoP14 Doc. 42 details a number of problems faced by CITES inspection officials at ports of import and export in inspecting, identifying, and measuring the volume of CITES timber shipments. Document CoP14 Doc. 42 recommends that CITES take action to provide guidance to the Parties on enforcement of timber listings and focuses on identification and the development of a methodology for the physical inspection of timber shipments. The document contains two draft decisions in the Annex. The first draft decision would direct the Secretariat, in consultation with the Plants Committee, CITES Parties, and relevant organizations, to identify existing timber identification tools for CITES-listed species and identify ways that these tools can be accessed by CITES inspection authorities. This decision would further direct the Secretariat to identify gaps for which additional work is needed to develop timber identification tools; the Secretariat is then to report its findings to the Standing Committee. The second draft decision would direct the Standing Committee, in consultation with the Secretariat, range countries, and other Parties and relevant organizations, to develop guidelines for the enforcement of timber listings and to focus on the development of a methodology to carry out physical inspections of timber shipments.
+44. Identification Manual (Doc. 44). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document is a report from the Secretariat on progress in the development of identification materials for listed species. We are nearing completion of an identification sheet for paddlefish ( Polyodon spathula ) and plan to submit the sheet to the CITES Secretariat later this year. On December 16, 2005, we listed the alligator snapping turtle ( Macroclemys temminckii ) and all species of map turtles ( Graptemys spp.) in Appendix III of CITES. We are currently working with the University of Kansas to draft identification sheets for those species. We will continue to address the remaining CITES-listed species for which the United States is responsible for providing identification materials.
+Exemptions and Special Trade Provisions
+45. Personal and household effects (Doc. 45). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document contains a proposal from the Standing Committee's Personal and Household Effects Working Group to amend Resolution Conf. 13.7 (on control of trade in personal and household effects) to facilitate trade in personally owned specimens of certain CITES-listed species. The United States has been an active participant in this working group since it was established in 2006. The United States believes that the list of exempted items is a useful tool in implementing the Convention. We also believe that, although additions to the list may be appropriate in certain limited circumstances, any substantial increase in the number of items included in the list is likely to create confusion and enforcement problems. The United States supports development of a careful and deliberative process to amend the list.
+46. Trade in some crocodilian specimens (Doc. 46; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The basic contention of the document is that the implementation of Resolution Conf. 11.12 is working so well that the issuance of re-export documents for finished crocodilian leather products is an expensive, unnecessary redundancy. This proposal is inconsistent with CITES Article I(b)(ii), which requires that readily recognizable parts and derivatives of animal species listed in Appendices I and II are considered specimens that are subject to the provisions of the Convention. The proponents have not argued or presented information to suggest that these specimens are not readily recognizable. We are unconvinced that the issuance of re-export documents for finished crocodilian leather products is unnecessarily redundant. Furthermore, we believe that adoption of such a proposal would establish a dangerous precedent that some Parties may wish to apply to the finished products of other CITES-listed species.
+47. Applications to register operations that breed Appendix-I animal species in captivity for commercial purposes (Doc. 47). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This document refers to Notification to the Parties Nos. 2004/054 and 2005/48, requests by the Management Authority of the Philippines to register a captive-breeding operation for the following birds: Amazona ochrocephala auropalliata, Amazona ochrocephala oratrix, Amazona viridigenalis, Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus, Ara militaris, Ara rubrogenys, Cacatua goffini, and Propyrrhura maracana. We are unable to support the approval of this operation for these eight species because the applications did not provide sufficient documentation on legal acquisition of the parental stock. Although documentation was provided, it is not specific to the species involved and refers only generically to parrots. Further, no documentation is provided to show that the parental stock was legally exported from range countries. Therefore, the captive-breeding operation does not meet the bred-in-captivity criteria of Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.), specifically paragraph (b)(ii)A, which requires that the breeding stock must have been established “in accordance with CITES and relevant national laws.” Approval of this operation in the absence of documentation of legal origin of its stock could potentially set a precedent for approving other captive-breeding operations that similarly lack such documentation.
+48. Relationship between ex situ production and in situ conservation: report of the Standing Committee (Doc. 48). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Document CoP14 Doc. 48 contains recommendations of the Standing Committee's Clearing House. As a member of the Clearing House, the United States provided technical comments on the version of this document presented to the Standing Committee for SC54. The United States agrees with the CITES Secretariat that the issues raised by the relationship between ex situ production methods and in situ conservation efforts (for CITES-listed species) are interesting. However, we believe that the Parties must carefully consider, in light of current budgetary constraints, whether the recommended study represents a high-priority activity and will support the core purposes and functions of CITES.
+49. Reservations regarding species transferred from one Appendix to another (Doc. 49). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The Convention provides three provisions under which a Party may take a reservation: (1) Article XXIII provides for a new Party to take a reservation with respect to a species listed in Appendix I, II, or III, within 90 days after the date that the Party deposits its instrument of ratification; (2) Article XV provides for a Party to take a reservation to an adopted amendment to Appendix I or II, within 90 days after the CoP at which the amendment was adopted; and (3) Article XVI provides for a Party to take a reservation on a species listed in Appendix III, or on any parts or derivatives of that species, at any time after the listing of the species. With Document CoP14 Doc. 49, the Secretariat presents a draft revision to Resolution Conf. 4.25 to clarify that, in cases where a Party holds a reservation in relation to a species that is subsequently transferred from one Appendix to another (or in other words deleted from one Appendix and simultaneously added to another Appendix), the reservation will be considered as no longer valid, and the Party will need to enter a new reservation if it wishes to maintain the reservation on the species. In the draft revision, the Secretariat also proposes to combine the two existing recommendations in Resolution Conf. 4.25 to shorten and simplify the text.
+Species Trade and Conservation Issues
+50. Great apes (Doc. 50). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided until certain reports are made available to the CITES Secretariat and reviewed. In Document CoP14 Doc. 50 the CITES Secretariat reviews activities involving great apes.
+At SC54, held in October 2006, the Secretariat expressed its concern regarding a lack of information relating to orangutans that had been illegally imported into Cambodia and questioned whether the Convention was being adequately implemented. The Standing Committee called upon Cambodia to facilitate a mission by the Secretariat to assess implementation of the Convention, but to date the request has not been answered. The Secretariat will report on this subject at CoP14 and also has expressed its concerns regarding illicit trade in great apes by Egypt. The Standing Committee requested Egypt to prepare a report for CoP14 on its enforcement of the Convention, particularly with regard to the illicit trade in primates. The report has not yet been prepared. The Standing Committee recommended that the Conference of the Parties review the reports concerning Cambodia and Egypt and decide whether additional measures, including non-compliance measures or a verification mission by the Secretariat, are necessary.
+The United States is unable to determine a definite position until the reports requested by the Secretariat from Cambodia and Egypt concerning reports on illegal trade in primates can be reviewed. The United States takes non-compliance issues very seriously and will look closely at the responses and reports requested from Cambodia and Egypt. The United States has been supportive of past actions recommended by the Secretariat in response to non-compliance issues, and unless there are circumstances that would warrant otherwise, we expect to continue our support of the Secretariat's recommendations.
+51. Cetaceans (Doc. 51; Japan). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This document contains two draft decisions that, if adopted, would direct the Animals Committee to include in its Review of the Appendices all cetaceans in Appendix I that are managed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The second draft decision would direct the CITES Secretariat to write to the IWC Secretariat conveying the concern of the Conference of the Parties regarding the postponement of the Revised Management Scheme discussions. The United States believes it is doubtful that any new and compelling information would be revealed by this review, since the whale species most highly traded have been carefully reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee and have been under almost continuous scrutiny by the Parties since CoP9 in 1994.
+52. Asian big cats (Doc. 52). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 52, the Secretariat notes that several countries have achieved success in halting the downward population trend for wild tigers by using well-equipped and trained anti-poaching units. However, the Secretariat contends that, despite all the attention and money that have been put towards conserving tigers, wild tiger populations are probably at greater risk of extinction today than ever before. Unless the CoP can identify any new approach to the conservation of Asian big cat species, the Secretariat sees little option other than for the Parties to renew their efforts to eliminate illicit trade in specimens of these species.
+53. Elephants
+53.1Trade in elephant specimens (Doc. 53.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided, pending the outcome of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and discussions at SC55. This document was submitted by the Secretariat to report on a number of items related to both domestic and international ivory trade. Specifically, the document provides information on accomplishments achieved under the Action Plan for the control of trade in African elephant ivory, adopted at CoP13; the Secretariat's efforts to verify if certain conditions have been met to allow international trade from government-owned ivory stocks for certain countries, in line with the annotation adopted at CoP12; a review of the implementation of ivory trade controls in Zimbabwe; and a number of recent items related to illegal international trade in ivory. The Secretariat will report orally on this subject at CoP14 and make specific recommendations at that time. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14.
+53.2Monitoring of illegal trade in ivory and other elephant specimens (Doc. 53.2). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. At the time this notice was prepared, this document had not been posted on the Secretariat's website.
+53.3Monitoring of illegal hunting in elephant range States (Doc. 53.3). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. This document was prepared by the Secretariat to report on progress since CoP13 in implementing the MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants) program. At SC54, the Committee agreed that MIKE baseline information was not yet complete (a condition required before the ivory sale agreed at CoP12 may take place) and that the Secretariat should report on the MIKE baseline at SC55. The Secretariat notes in Document CoP14 Doc. 53.3 that the completed baseline information is ready to be presented at SC55. The document discusses MIKE activities since CoP13 and describes the current status of funding for the African and Asian MIKE programs. Although funding has been secured to support the MIKE program in Africa through 2011, the Secretariat is seeking $4 million to support MIKE activities in Asia for the period 2007-2011. The Secretariat will report orally on this subject at CoP14, including information on the outcomes of the baseline discussions at SC54 and fund-raising efforts. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14.
+53.4Illegal ivory trade and control of internal markets (Doc. 53.4; Kenya and Mali). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. This document submitted by Kenya and Mali is intended to support CoP14 Prop. 6. Document CoP14 Doc. 53.4 chronicles ivory seizures since CoP13 and provides information on domestic ivory markets around the world. Kenya and Mali propose amendments to Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12), including a recommendation that Parties whose elephant populations are listed in Appendix I not introduce proposals to transfer those populations to Appendix II for a period of 20 years and a 20-year moratorium on ivory trade from Appendix-II populations, except for non-commercial trade in hunting trophies and the sale approved at CoP12. The document also includes a draft decision urging ivory-importing countries and others to provide financial and technical support for implementation of the Action Plan for the control of trade in African elephant ivory. We appreciate the position of Kenya and Mali relative to conservation efforts for African elephants. However, we note that a 20-year ban on listing proposals may be contrary to Article XV of the Treaty, which provides for any Party to propose an amendment to Appendix I or II at any CoP. The United States will formulate its final position based on the results of the African elephant range States dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14.
+54. Rhinoceroses (Doc. 54). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support in principle, but financial decisions are still undecided. In Document CoP14 Doc. 54, the Secretariat reports on the outcome of the projects undertaken by IUCN and TRAFFIC related to the conservation of and trade in African and Asian rhinoceroses. The Secretariat proposes to incorporate the reporting role of the IUCN/SSC African and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups and TRAFFIC into Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP13). The Secretariat also proposes two draft decisions related to the continued illegal trade in rhinoceros horns and one draft decision related to site-based monitoring of rhinoceros populations. The Secretariat notes that there are substantial financial implications associated with adopting its recommendations on this issue. The United States applauds the work undertaken by IUCN and TRAFFIC and supports continued work in combating the illegal hunting and trade in rhinoceroses. However, with regard to the financial implications of adopting the recommendations in the document, we believe that any items related to budgeting and financing activities under CITES must be carefully considered by the Parties in light of other priorities.
+55. Tibetan antelope (Doc. 55). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Resolution Conf. 11.8 (Rev. CoP13) instructed the Standing Committee to undertake a regular review of the enforcement measures taken by the Parties to eliminate illicit trade in Tibetan antelope products on the basis of the CITES Secretariat's report, and to report the results at each meeting of the Conference of the Parties. This document submitted by Secretariat summarizes the report.
+56. Saiga antelope (Doc. 56). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support, with additions. This document refers to Decisions 13.27 through 13.35 on saiga antelope, which were to be implemented prior to CoP14. These interconnected decisions were directed to the range States of the saiga antelope (Kazakhstan, Mongolia, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and possibly China), other Parties (specifically those that are important consumers of and traders in saiga products, and those that could act as financial donors) and bodies, the Standing Committee, and the CITES Secretariat to address serious concerns over the continuously deteriorating conservation status of the saiga antelope. This document reports on the progress in accomplishing these decisions over the past 3 years, and recommends additional draft decisions to the Parties to ensure the continued conservation of saiga antelope. The saiga antelope was listed in Appendix II in 1995. The most significant threat to the species is illegal hunting, primarily for the Asian traditional medicine trade. In the document, the Secretariat notes that anti-poaching efforts have intensified in some parts of the saiga's range, and should be extended to its entire range. We wish to underscore the significance of this statement, because poaching continues to impact conservation efforts to restore the saiga population, which decreased from one million to 30,000 animals in the 1990s. According to the Secretariat's document, the Russian Federation is the only range country that has not signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of the Saiga Antelope ( Saiga tatarica tatarica ). The MoU contains a Saiga Action Plan that calls for measures to restore the habitat and populations of the saiga antelope, and enhance transboundary and international cooperation through, inter alia , a regional conservation and management strategy. Therefore, the Secretariat recommends that the Russian Federation sign the MoU as soon as possible. The United States has provided financial support for the conservation and protection of the saiga antelope in the wild and for the range States workshop on this species in May 2002 in Kalmykia. We support the Secretariat's recommendations and plan to suggest the inclusion of saiga antelope on the agenda of the Standing Committee meetings between CoP14 and CoP15.
+57. Tortoises and freshwater turtles (Doc. 57). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The United States has been involved in developing CITES listing proposals and policy advice on the trade in tortoises and turtles for a number of years. While we generally do not have an objection to the amendments suggested by the Secretariat—provided they are endorsed by consensus by the Asian range and trading States—we are concerned that the CITES Parties have not paid sufficient attention to these trade problems after listing a number of Asian turtle species in Appendix II at CoPs 12 and 13. Due to the continuing and evolving trade in these species in Asia, including farming practices that may negatively impact wild populations, the United States believes that additional study and discussion of these problems is needed, and we plan to introduce this point at CoP14.
+58. Hawksbill turtle (Doc. 58). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. We agree with the Secretariat that no further action is needed. No funding was found for the convening of a workshop to develop a collaborative regional strategy for the conservation of hawksbill sea turtles, perhaps because it is regulation of international trade and not management that is the main responsibility of CITES. However, the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, at its last meeting passed a resolution calling for a workshop to evaluate the current status of hawksbill sea turtle populations in the Wider Caribbean and Western Atlantic, and to present the best available methods of research and conservation for the species. The United States will announce its support for the IAC workshop and recommend that CITES collaborate with this and other relevant bodies concerning this species such as the Caribbean Environment Program.
+59. Sharks
+59.1Report of the Animals Committee (Doc. 59.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support with exception. The report contains: (1) A review of implementation issues related to sharks listed in the CITES Appendices, to provide assistance to Parties in managing the species covered by the Convention; (2) information on specific cases where trade is having an adverse impact on sharks and the key species of sharks affected in this way; and (3) a listing and analysis of those species that are specifically threatened by trade. The proposal contains a large number of wide-ranging decisions and recommendations. As indicated by the Secretariat, at CoP14 a working group will review and edit the draft decisions; prioritize and rationalize the proposed measures; minimize overlapping instructions; look into reducing and simplifying the reporting burden; and assess the cost of implementing the draft decisions. The United States will work to ensure that this work is completed.
+59.2Additional conservation measures (Doc. 59.2; Australia). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document states that, while the report from the Animals Committee to this meeting of the Conference of the Parties contains a number of useful suggestions for consideration to protect and conserve sharks, additional measures should be considered under the agenda item addressing sharks. These measures include: (1) That countries with National Plans of Action (NPOA-Sharks) strongly encourage the remaining shark-fishing countries to develop and implement NPOA-Sharks; (2) that regional fishing management organizations implement regional plans of action; and (3) that Parties greatly improve their data collection and reporting. The United States is one of the 16 countries that have implemented a NPOA-Sharks and is a lead country for promoting the sustainable use of shark resources.
+59.3Trade measures regarding the porbeagle Lamna nasus and the spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias (Doc. 59.3; Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. This document will be considered if proposals for listing porbeagle and spiny dogfish in Appendix II are adopted. The document contains a draft decision that, if adopted, would direct the Animals Committee, in consultation with the FAO and other relevant experts, to examine trade in porbeagles and spiny dogfish and report at the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The Secretariat believes Resolution Conf. 12.6 on Conservation and Management of Sharks already directs the Animals Committee to make species-specific recommendations to the Conference of the Parties, if necessary, on improving the conservation status of sharks and the regulation of international trade in these species. FAO has been present at each of the recent meetings of the Animals Committee and has assisted the Committee in discussions on marine fish species, including sharks.
+60. Sturgeons and Paddlefish
+60.1Report of the Secretariat (Doc. 60.1). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: No position is necessary; the CoP is asked to note the report. This document was prepared by the Secretariat to report on progress made in developing a trade database for sturgeon specimens subject to annual quotas (Decisions 13.44-13.47) and other activities related to sturgeon conservation.
+60.2Amendment of Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP13)
+60.2.1Proposal of the Standing Committee's Working Group on Sturgeons (Doc. 60.2.1; Islamic Republic of Iran). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support some provisions; oppose others. Two documents (CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 and CoP14 Doc. 60.2.2) contain proposed amendments to the resolution on conservation and trade of sturgeons and paddlefish (Resolution Conf. 12.7 (Rev. CoP13)) and should be considered together. Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 was submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of the Standing Committee's working group on sturgeons, and Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.2 was submitted by the Russian Federation. We fully support some of the changes proposed, including a reduction of the personal effects exemption for caviar from 250g to 125g, but we have serious concerns about others, including the proposed extension of the timeframe established at CoP13 for export of caviar from shared stocks. The United States has participated in past working groups on this issue, including the group established at SC54. Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 includes text that was not agreed to by the working group and will require further discussion at the CoP. We expect that a working group will be established at CoP14, and we plan to continue to participate fully on this important issue. We will develop a final position based on the outcome of discussions at CoP14.
+60.2.2Proposal of the Russian Federation (Doc. 60.2.2). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: See discussion on Document CoP14 Doc. 60.2.1 above.
+61. Toothfish: report of CCAMLR (Doc. 61). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. At CoP12, the Parties adopted Resolution Conf. 12.4, Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) regarding trade in toothfish, that encouraged CCAMLR to “maintain a permanent flow of information” to CITES through the Conference of the Parties. Document CoP14 Doc. 61 is CCAMLR's report to the CoP and contains four recommendations for the Conference of the Parties to: (1) request four particular CITES Parties that are either involved in illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing for toothfish or engaged in toothfish trade without having fully implemented CCAMLR conservation measures to report their position regarding implementing Resolution Conf. 12.4 for consideration at the next CCAMLR annual meeting; (2) notify CITES Parties whose fishing vessels are engaged in IUU fishing for toothfish that their actions seriously undermine the objectives of CCAMLR; and (3) reinforce the provision of Resolution Conf. 12.4 that recommends that CITES Parties that capture or trade in toothfish adhere to CCAMLR if they have not already done so and, in any case, cooperate voluntarily with its conservation measures, particularly the catch documentation scheme (CDS).
+The United States recognizes the threat that IUU fishing poses to toothfish populations and fully supports adoption of CCAMLR conservation measures by all countries involved in the toothfish trade. We renew our full endorsement and strong support of the fundamental principles and language adopted in Resolution Conf. 12.4 in 2002.
+62. Sea cucumbers (Doc. 62). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document fulfills the decision of the last CoP, that the Animals Committee should prepare, for consideration at the 14th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, a discussion paper on the biological and trade status of sea cucumbers to provide scientific guidance on the actions needed to secure their conservation status. The United States has actively participated in this process and will continue to do so.
+63. Trade in traditional medicines (Doc. 63; Australia). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In its document, Australia recommends a number of revisions to Resolution Conf. 10.19 (Rev. CoP12) (Traditional medicines), primarily aimed at encouraging Parties to pursue the development and use of alternative ingredients in traditional medicines as a preferred alternative to breeding Appendix-I species in captivity for commercial purposes. The United States shares Australia's concerns regarding the potential for creating or increasing demand for wild Appendix-I species by using captive-bred specimens in traditional medicines.
+64. Bigleaf mahogany: Report of the Working Group (Doc. 64). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. In Document CoP14 Doc. 64, prepared by the Chairman of the Plants Committee with the assistance of the Chairman of the Bigleaf Mahogany Working Group (BMWG), the Plants Committee recommends adoption of a number of new draft decisions related to the continuation of the BMWG under the Plants Committee and the interpretation of the annotations for tree species listed in the Appendices. Additionally, the Plants Committee recommends a draft decision directed to the Plants Committee that it review at its 17th meeting (anticipated to be held in April 2008) range State reports on implementation of the CITES listing for bigleaf mahogany and consider whether there is a need to include the species in the Review of Significant Trade. The United States supports the continuation of the BMWG under the Plants Committee, but believes that, if by the 17th meeting of the Plants Committee (PC17), sufficient progress has not been made in improving the regulation of trade, the species should be included in the Review of Significant Trade as a matter of urgency.
+65. Report of the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group (Doc. 65). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Document CoP14 Doc. 65 presents the Coordinator's report of the Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group in fulfillment of Decision 13.102 on progress in implementing national action plans relating to the trade in bushmeat and other initiatives regarding this issue. The United States has supported the work of the Working Group since its inception and applauds the progress the group has made in supporting the development of national strategies and action plans to combat international commercial bushmeat trade.
+Amendment of the Appendices
+66. Periodic review of the Appendices (Doc. 66). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The Review of the Appendices is an activity conducted by the Animals and Plants Committees to ensure that the CITES Appendices continue to accurately reflect the biological and trade status of species included in the Appendices. This document recounts efforts by the Animals and Plants Committees, with the involvement of the Standing Committee, to establish an objective and efficient process for selecting species for review. Although the two technical committees, through a working group, developed a “rapid assessment” technique for selecting species for review, this procedure was subsequently determined to not be practicable for selecting a workable list of species for review. The Animals and Plants Committees have suggested that further work is needed to develop a process for selecting species for review, and are proposing that the work done thus far should be used as a starting point for further refining and finalizing these efforts.
+68. Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II (Doc. 68)
+Prop. 1. Transfer of Nycticebus spp. from Appendix II to Appendix I. Proposed by Cambodia. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. Slow lorises ( Nycticebus spp.) are prosimians, an ancient group of primates. The genus is widely distributed in at least 14 South and Southeast Asian countries. Large-scale deforestation has reduced the habitat for Nycticebus species, and thus it can be inferred that the genus has undergone a reduction in overall population numbers. In September 2006, the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group revised its classification of Nycticebus species based on the IUCN Red List criteria and recommended that all species now be considered Vulnerable or Endangered. Recent scientific studies have also revealed that the genus Nycticebus contains more species than previously thought, and consequently, the individual species may consist of smaller populations. All species of Nycticebus have a low reproductive rate, making them particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Therefore, it seems that the biological criteria are met for listing in Appendix I according to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13). The proposal also demonstrates that international trade in species of Nycticebus has been, and still is taking place, primarily for medicinal purposes and for use as pets. Although official figures for legal trade are relatively low, much of the trade is illegal, as evidenced by the number of seizures taking place, indicating that the real trade volume is likely to be much higher.
+Prop. 3. Transfer the Ugandan population of leopard ( Panthera pardus ) from Appendix I to Appendix II with an annotation that trade is to be allowed for the exclusive purpose of sport hunting for trophies and skins for personal use, to be exported as personal effects; and with an annual export quota of 50 leopards for the whole country. Proposed by Uganda. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose transfer to Appendix II; oppose the proposed export quota of 50 leopards per year. The proposal cites both Resolution Conf. 10.14 (Rev. CoP13) and Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) for the approval of an annual export quota of 50 leopards. The proposal is not written in accordance with the format for proposals to amend the Appendices as per Annex 6 to Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13). As a result, it does not demonstrate that the population in Uganda no longer meets the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I or which precautionary measure will be in place. The CITES Secretariat has suggested that Uganda request consideration of this proposal under agenda item 37 (Appendix-I species subject to export quotas) rather than item 68 (Proposals to amend the Appendices).
+Uganda asserts that the proposed export quota of 50 leopards per year is a precautionary figure that will account for both animal control and sport hunting. The United States, as reflected in the document we submitted for CoP12 on establishing scientifically based quotas and in accordance with Resolution Conf. 9.21 (Rev. CoP13), which calls for establishment of a scientific basis for proposed quotas, is keen to ensure that annual export quotas are established on strong biological data. Although a quota of 50 is considered by Uganda as precautionary, the proposal does not provide any supporting biological information for this figure. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the population can be sustained under the proposed quota figure.
+Prop. 4. Maintenance of the African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe in Appendix II in terms of Article II, paragraph 2(b), with the replacement of all existing annotations with annotations on trade, export quotas, and proceeds regarding raw ivory. Proposed by Botswana and Namibia. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The proposal would maintain the populations of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe in Appendix II with changes to the annotations. The annotations would be replaced to allow the establishment of annual export quotas for trade in raw ivory. The ivory would be sold to trading partners that have been certified by the Secretariat, in consultation with the Standing Committee, and the income from the trade in raw ivory would be used exclusively for elephant conservation and community development programs. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range states dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14.
+Prop. 5. Amendment of the annotation of the African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) populations of Botswana. Proposed by Botswana. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. This proposal would amend the annotation for Botswana's elephant population from the live animal trade condition “for in situ conservation programs” only to “for commercial purposes.” “Trade in leather goods” would be changed from “non-commercial” to “commercial” purposes (as is the case for Namibia and South Africa). Trade in registered raw ivory could only come from registered government-owned stocks originating in Botswana and subject to the conditions of Resolution Conf. 10.10 (Rev. CoP12) concerning domestic manufacturing and trade. A maximum of 40 metric tons of ivory could be traded and exported in a single shipment under strict supervision of the Secretariat. The income of the trade would be used exclusively for elephant conservation and community conservation and development programs within or adjacent to the elephant range. The proposed annotation would allow an immediate “one-off” sale and annual sales of up to 8 metric tons of registered stocks of raw ivory for commercial purposes. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African elephant range states dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14.
+Prop. 6. Amendment of the annotation of the African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) populations of Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa. Proposed by Kenya and Mali. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. This proposal would amend the annotations of the populations of Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa to prohibit trade in raw or worked ivory for 20 years, except for hunting trophies for non-commercial purposes, the one-off sale agreed upon at CoP12, and Namibian ekipas (ivory trinkets) for non-commercial purposes. It also revokes Zimbabwe's annotation to sell ivory carvings for non-commercial purposes. The United States will formulate its position based on the results of the African Elephant Range State Dialogue meeting and reports expected at SC55 and CoP14.
+Prop. 8. Amendment of the annotation of the vicuña ( Vicugna vicugna ) population of Bolivia for the exclusive purpose of allowing international trade in wool sheared from live vicuñas, and in cloth and items made thereof, including luxury handicrafts and knitted articles. Proposed by Bolivia. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. In February 2003, Bolivia listed its vicuña population in Appendix II for wool and products derived from sheared live animals of the populations of the Conservation Units of Mauri-Desaguadero, Ulla Ulla, and Lípez-Chichas; and wool products made from sheared live animals of the rest of the population of Bolivia. This proposal would amend the annotation to include the entire Bolivian vicun a population for wool and products. The rest of the annotation remains unchanged. Although the wild population is increasing, we would like an explanation for the decrease in the population of Lípez-Chichas of over 2,000 specimens between 2002 and 2004.
+Prop. 9. Inclusion of Barbary red deer ( Cervus elaphus barbarus ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The Barbary red deer is considered a subspecies of red deer ( Cervus elaphus ) and is confined to Tunisia, Algeria, and a reintroduced population in Morocco. However, recent genetic analysis has indicated that these populations in North Africa are virtually indistinguishable from C. elaphus corsicanus in Sardinia, Italy, and the reintroduced population in Corsica, France. One assessment considers all these populations to belong to a separate species, Cervus corsicanus. The Barbary red deer has been included in Appendix III at the request of Tunisia since 1976. The subspecies was assessed as “Lower risk/near threatened” by IUCN in 1996. The wild population is reported to have decreased historically, and appears to have a restricted area of distribution. However, it is unclear if the biological criteria are met due to the uncertainty of its taxonomy. According to the proposal, there is no national utilization, no legal or illegal trade, and no actual or potential trade impacts. Therefore, the trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing are not met. Threats are reported to include poaching and forest fires; listing in Appendix I is not likely to benefit the conservation of this species.
+Prop. 10. Inclusion of Cuvier's gazelle ( Gazella cuvieri ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The Cuvier's gazelle is distributed in Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia in small scattered populations. The species has been included in Appendix III at the request of Tunisia since 1976. The species was assessed by IUCN as “Endangered” in 1996, on the basis that the population numbered below 2,500 mature individuals and was declining. In 2005-2006, the Algerian population was estimated at 500 individuals, and populations were reported to be stable. According to the proposal, there is no national utilization, no legal or illegal trade, and no actual or potential trade impacts. Therefore, the trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing are not met. Threats are reported to include poaching and forest fires; listing in Appendix I is not likely to benefit the conservation of this species.
+Prop. 11. Inclusion of Dorcas gazelle ( Gazella dorcas ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The Dorcas gazelle has a patchy distribution in at least 19 countries in the arid and sub-arid zones of the Sahelo-Saharan region and in the Near East. The species has been included in Appendix III of CITES at the request of Tunisia since 1976. According to the proposal, the species' population in the wild has declined significantly, perhaps by 50% within the past half-century, due to hunting with motorized vehicles and, to a lesser extent, degradation and disappearance of habitat. The species was assessed as “Vulnerable” by IUCN in 2000, and is included in Appendix I of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The species does not appear to meet the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I, because there is no indication that the species' range is restricted in extent or that the overall population is small. The proposal does not provide any information on trade, and although the CITES trade database shows very low levels of international trade, it is mainly in live specimens, and to a lesser extent body parts and trophies. Therefore, the trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing are not met. Threats are reported to include poaching and overgrazing by cattle. Listing in Appendix I is not likely to benefit the conservation of this species.
+Prop. 12. Inclusion of slender-horned gazelle ( Gazella leptoceros ) in Appendix I. Proposed by Algeria. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The slender-horned gazelle is distributed across eight or nine countries in northern Africa. The species has been included in Appendix III of CITES at the request of Tunisia since 1976. The species was assessed as “Endangered” by IUCN in 1996 and appears to meet the biological criteria for an Appendix-I listing. According to the proposal, threats to the species include motorized hunting and degradation of vegetation. International trade in trophies does occur, but is not well documented. From a precautionary standpoint this species merits inclusion in Appendix I.
+Prop. 13. Transfer of the Brazilian population of black caiman ( Melanosuchus niger ) from Appendix I to Appendix II. Proposed by Brazil. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. Brazil submitted this proposal to transfer its population from Appendix I to Appendix II. The population in Brazil comprises approximately 80% of the species' range, is estimated to comprise 16 million individuals, and is increasing. Brazil proposes to harvest 695 specimens per year in the Mamirau? Sustainable Development Reserve. In subsequent years, a harvest quota of 5-7% of the non-hatchling wild population (primarily juvenile males) would be in place throughout Brazil. We have some concerns about the adequacy of safeguards against illegal harvest, uncontrolled exports from Brazil, and possible effects on the species in adjacent range countries. We would also like to hear the opinions of the other range States (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, and Suriname). We note that this species is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, and as such, even if the proposal is adopted, the import of specimens into the United States for commercial purposes would remain prohibited.
+Prop. 14. Transfer Guatemalan beaded lizard ( Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti ) from Appendix II to Appendix I. Proposed by Guatemala. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. The Guatemalan beaded lizard is one of four subspecies of beaded lizard, a large venomous species native to Mexico and Guatemala. The Guatemalan beaded lizard is endemic to the Motagua Valley in eastern Guatemala and is considered to be one of the most endangered animals in the world. This subspecies was formally described in 1988, a decade later thought to be extinct in the wild, and then re-discovered in 2002. There are an estimated 170-250 individuals of this subspecies; it is believed to have declined based on the difficulty of locating individuals compared to the 1980s. The major threats to the Guatemalan beaded lizard are habitat destruction, over-collection for local and foreign use, persecution by locals, and effects of hurricanes. Collection and trade in this subspecies are illegal in Guatemala. However, illegal domestic and international trade occur due to the high demand for the subspecies by collectors. Even a small level of trade in this subspecies is significant due to its extremely low population numbers.
+Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) states that split-listing a species should generally be avoided due to the potential enforcement problems it creates, and it states that taxonomic listings below the species level should be avoided unless the taxon in question is highly distinctive and the use of the name would not give rise to enforcement problems. Consultations with experts have revealed that specimens of this subspecies from one year of age to adulthood can be distinguished from other subspecies. Potential identification difficulties of very young animals should not be an issue of concern because only adult specimens have been found in the wild. This subspecies meets the biological and trade criteria for an Appendix-I listing, and prevention of any level of trade in wild specimens of this critically endangered subspecies would contribute significantly to its conservation.
+Prop. 15. Inclusion of porbeagle ( Lamna nasus ) in Appendix II with entry into effect of the inclusion to be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve the related technical and administrative issues. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The proponent has cited that the species' life history, vulnerability to overexploitation, inadequate fisheries management, and overfishing as supporting reasons for the proposal. There is not sufficient data in the proposal to support the statement that international trade is one of the driving factors in this species' overfished status or a factor that could prohibit populations from rebounding. Both the United States and Canada are actively managing the species to reduce fishing pressure. It is also not clear whether it is possible (efficient and enforceable) to distinguish porbeagle sharks from other species of sharks in trade. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are studying the proposal and consulting with other Parties to develop the U.S. position.
+Prop. 16. Inclusion of spiny dogfish ( Squalus acanthias ) in Appendix II with entry into effect of the inclusion to be delayed by 18 months to enable Parties to resolve the related technical and administrative issues. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The proponent has cited that the species' life history, vulnerability to overexploitation, inadequate fisheries management, and overfishing as supporting reasons for the proposal. The proposal calls for the listing of the species throughout its range. The Northeast Atlantic stock has suffered a large decline, but a number of other global stocks are currently stable. There are currently both Federal and interstate fishery management plans for spiny dogfish in the United States. The proponent also indicates that population declines in several Northern Hemisphere stocks, combined with high market demand, are driving fishing pressure on other stocks that are now beginning to supply international markets. The proposal contains little information to support this observation. The Service and NMFS are studying the proposal and consulting with other Parties to develop the U.S. position.
+Prop. 18. Inclusion of European eel ( Anguilla anguilla ) in Appendix II. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The European eel occurs in coastal areas and freshwater ecosystems in Europe, northern Africa, and the Mediterranean parts of Asia. The proponent has cited that the species' complex life history in combination with heavy exploitation in all of its life stages and high fishing mortality, along with habitat loss, pollution, climate change affecting ocean currents, and damming of rivers, as factors that have resulted in sharp population declines. Poaching and illegal trade in European eels is also a concern. However, because the fishery is small in scale and specialized, bycatch of the species is not considered a threat to the species. Although there are various regional management measures in place, there is no regulatory protection mechanism in place to regulate international trade in the European eel. Due to historical and recent declines, as measured from harvest data (e.g., an average 95-99% decline in harvest in 19 rivers in 12 countries), the species appears to meet the criteria in Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP13) for inclusion in Appendix II. However, the similarity of appearance between this species and other eels in the genus Anguilla, including the American eel ( A. rostrata ), which is also in international trade, presents implementation and enforcement difficulties for such a listing.
+Prop. 20. Inclusion of Brazilian populations of spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus and P. laevicauda ) in Appendix II. Proposed by Brazil. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. The proponent states that the status of these species in Brazilian waters is severely overfished and that overfishing is still occurring mainly due to take of undersized animals. The United States feels strongly that, as the world's largest importer of Brazil's spiny lobsters, we should make every effort to support Brazil for its efforts to conserve and manage spiny lobster in their waters. However, this proposal is not supportable because it would result in a split-listing of the species that would not be enforceable. Enforcement authorities in importing countries would not be able to determine whether spiny lobsters entering their countries were coming from Brazil, and thus required to be accompanied by CITES export permits, or whether they had originated elsewhere. Inclusion of these species in Appendix III throughout their ranges would provide greater conservation benefit and would track the species throughout the Wider Caribbean. The Service and NMFS are consulting bilaterally with the Government of Brazil and multilaterally with other governments in the region to consider additional tools for the conservation of spiny lobster populations.
+Prop. 24. Deletion of leaf-bearing cacti in the genera Pereskia and Quiabentia from Appendix II. Proposed by Argentina. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. This proposal would remove all species of these leaf-bearing cacti from Appendix II. For some of these species, whose status in the wild is unclear, we are concerned about the impact that unregulated trade may have on these species.
+Prop. 25. Deletion of leaf-bearing cacti in the genus Pereskiopsis from Appendix II. Proposed by Mexico. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This proposal would remove Pereskiopsis spp. from Appendix II. We have evaluated this proposal and discussed it directly with the Mexican CITES authorities, and have determined that the removal of this genus from Appendix II should not result in the unsustainable use of these species for trade or enforcement difficulties for regulating trade in other species due to similarity of appearance.
+Prop. 26. Merging and amendment of annotations #1, #4 and #8 for cacti ( Cactaceae spp. (#4)) and orchids ( Orchidaceae spp. (#8)) in Appendix II, and all taxa annotated with annotation #1. Proposed by Switzerland. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This proposal was produced outside the process that was established by the Plants Committee, at the direction of the Parties, to streamline the annotations for CITES-listed medicinal plants. The proposed language broadens the exemptions as well as the taxa exempted, while providing little information on the impact of unregulated trade on the species. In particular, we note that inclusion of provisions to exempt leaves did not receive support from the Plants Committee when discussed at its 15th meeting (PC15), and the proposed provision to exempt herbarium specimens has been previously rejected by the Parties as not being consistent with the terms of the Convention.
+Prop. 27. Amendment of the annotations to Adonis vernalis, Guaiacum species, Hydrastis canadensis, Nardostachys grandiflora, Panax ginseng, Panax quinquefolius, Picrorhiza kurrooa, Podophyllum hexandrum, Pterocarpus santalinus, Rauvolfia serpentina, Taxus chinensis, T. fuana, T. cuspidata, T. sumatrana , and T. wallichiana, Orchidaceae species in Appendix II, and all Appendix-II and -III taxa annotated with annotation #1. Proposed by Switzerland as the Depositary Government, at the request of the Plants Committee. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This document was produced by consensus of the Medicinal Plant Annotations Working Group (MPAWG) in consultation with the Plants Committee, under the direction of the Conference of the Parties, to assess the effectiveness of and streamline the annotations for CITES-listed medicinal plants (CoP13: Decisions 13.50-13.52). The proposal clarifies terms and tracks currently exempted material believed to be in trade, without expanding upon the exemptions for species.
+Prop. 29. Amendment of the annotation to Euphorbia species. Proposed by Switzerland. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. As currently written, the annotation is difficult to understand and may provide the opportunity to exclude wild-collected specimens from CITES controls.
+Prop. 30. Inclusion of pernambuco ( Caesalpinia echinata ) in Appendix II, including all parts and derivatives. Proposed by Brazil. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support on the condition that the proposal will be amended at the CoP to exempt a limited quantity of manufactured musical bows for personal use (e.g., by professional musicians), or something similar. Pernambuco is the primary wood used to make fine bows for stringed musical instruments, for which there is no other comparable wood substitute.
+Pernambuco is a slow-growing tropical tree restricted to the Atlantic Coastal Forest of Brazil. Since 1992, the species has been listed as threatened in Brazil, and is categorized as endangered by the IUCN. Although Brazil has strict national controls in place that regulate the use of this species, the species and its Atlantic Forest habitat remain poorly protected, and enforcement of environmental laws is constrained by the availability of financial and human resources. Conservationists, and bow makers and musicians worldwide are concerned about the conservation and sustainable use of existing stocks of pernambuco. Several entities (e.g., the International Pernambuco Conservation Initiative) are actively working in Brazil to promote conservation and reforestation of pernambuco.
+The listing of pernambuco in Appendix II would support the efforts undertaken by the Brazilian Government to ensure that trade is both legal and sustainable by requiring specimens in trade to have CITES permits. However, given the number of existing bows worldwide, a listing of the species that includes all parts and derivatives may be overly burdensome on traveling musicians without providing substantial conservation benefit. We will work with Brazil and other Parties on this proposal to promote the conservation of this species while avoiding unnecessary constraints on products already in trade.
+Prop. 31. Inclusion of rosewood or cocobola ( Dalbergia retusa ) in Appendix II, and D. granadillo for look-alike reasons. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. Dalbergia retusa is a slow-growing tree of tropical dry forests from Mexico to Panama; D. granadillo occurs in El Salvador and Mexico. Dalbergia retusa has been extensively harvested, and some areas are reported to be commercially exhausted. The United States imports rosewood, which is used primarily for the production of musical instruments. We are evaluating this proposal to determine if it meets the requirements for inclusion in Appendix II. The positions of range countries on this proposal are critical to the development of our position, and therefore, we are currently consulting with them on this proposal to determine how we can best work cooperatively for the conservation and sustainable use of this species.
+Prop. 32. Inclusion of Honduras rosewood ( Dalbergia stevensonii ) in Appendix II. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. Honduran rosewood is restricted to swamp forests of southern Belize, northern Guatemala, and southeastern Mexico. The United States imports rosewood, which is used primarily for the production of musical instruments. We are evaluating this proposal to determine if it meets the requirements for inclusion in Appendix II. The positions of range countries on this proposal are critical to the development of our position, and therefore, we are currently consulting with them on this proposal to determine how we can best work cooperatively for the conservation and sustainable use of this species.
+Prop. 33. Inclusion of the genus Cedrela in Appendix II. Proposed by Germany, on behalf of the European Community Member States. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Undecided. The proposal would include Spanish cedar ( C. odorata ), and all other species in the genus Cedrela (an estimated six species) for look-alike reasons, in Appendix II. Spanish cedar is a wide-ranging species of lowland forests in the Caribbean Islands, Central America, Mexico, and South America. In 2001, Colombia and Peru included their populations of Spanish cedar in Appendix III, with annotation #5, which designates logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets. Since this listing, exports of Spanish cedar from Peru to the United States have increased. We are consulting with the range countries to clarify the support for, and the anticipated effects of, this proposal. We will work with range countries and other Parties on this proposal to promote sustainable forest management and conservation of this species.
+Prop. 34. Amendment of the annotation to exempt certain artificially propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae (interspecific and intergeneric hybrids of Cymbidium, Dendrobium, Miltonia, Odontoglossum, Oncidium, Phalaenopsis and Vanda ) included in Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Oppose. This proposal would merge existing taxon-specific exemptions on the Orchidaceae family, but more importantly would broaden exemptions for artificially propagated hybrids to include the genera Miltonia, Odontoglossum, and Oncidium . There are concerns that the exemption of New World genera would create enforcement problems for range countries, a sentiment that was previously raised at CoP12 and CoP13.
+Prop. 35. Amendment of the annotation to exempt certain artificially propagated hybrids of Orchidaceae (interspecific and intergeneric hybrids of Cymbidium, Dendrobium, Phalaenopsis, and Vanda ) included in Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland as the Depositary Government, at the request of the Plants Committee. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support. This proposal would replace confusing language in the existing taxon-specific orchid hybrid exemptions (referred to as footnote 8) with language proposed and agreed upon by consensus of the Plants Committee.
+Prop. 37. Deletion of the current annotation for Taxus chinensis, T. fuana, and T. sumatrana, and adoption of a new annotation for T. cuspidata in Appendix II. Proposed by Switzerland, as Depositary Government, at the request of the Standing Committee. Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Support Part A; oppose Part B of the proposal. The adoption of Part A of this proposal would delete the annotation to exempt labeled, potted artificially propagated plants of T. chinensis, T. fuana, and T. sumatrana from CITES regulations. Adoption of Part B would add a new annotation to the listing of T. cuspidata to exempt labeled, potted artificially propagated plants of hybrids and cultivars of the species from CITES regulations. This proposal seeks to rectify the adoption of an annotation at CoP13 for these taxa, which was subsequently determined to contravene the provisions of the Convention. However, it is the opinion of the United States that this proposal is similarly flawed in that it allows an exemption for whole plants or artificially propagated hybrids and cultivars of T. cuspidata, but does not exempt readily recognizable parts and derivatives.
+Conclusion of the Meeting
+69. Determination of the time and venue of the next regular meeting of the Conference of the Parties (no document). Tentative U.S. negotiating position: Not applicable. The Secretariat does not normally circulate a document on the time and venue of the next CoP. We anticipate receiving information on this at CoP14, at which time the United States will develop a negotiating position. The United States favors holding CoP15 in a country where all Parties and observers will be admitted without political difficulties, and where facilities are available to ensure the safe and efficient conduct of the meeting.
+70. Closing Remarks (No document)
+Future Actions
+During our regular public briefings at CoP14, we will discuss any changes in our negotiating positions. After CoP14, we will publish a notice to invite public input on whether the United States should take a reservation on any of the amendments to the CITES Appendices. Whereas CITES provides a period of 90 days from the close of a CoP for any Party to enter a reservation with respect to an amendment to Appendix I or II, the United States has never entered a reservation on any CITES listing. As discussed in the Federal Register notice of November 17, 1987 (52 FR 43924), entering a reservation would do very little to relieve importers in the United States from the need for foreign export permits because the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq. ) make it a Federal offense to import into the United States any animals taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of foreign conservation laws. If the foreign nation has enacted CITES, and has not taken a reservation with regard to any species, part, or derivative, the United States would continue to require CITES documents as a condition of import. A reservation by the United States also would provide exporters in this country with little relief from the need for U.S. export documents. Receiving countries that are party to CITES will require CITES-equivalent documentation from the United States even if it enters a reservation, because the Parties have agreed to allow trade with non-Parties (including reserving countries) only if they issue documents containing all of the information required on CITES permits and certificates, and only if the same findings have been made prior to issuance of the documents.
+Author: This notice was prepared by Clifton A. Horton, Division of Management Authority; under the authority of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
+Dated: May 24, 2007. Kenneth Stansell, Acting Director.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Darlene R. Ketten, Ph.D., Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Biology Department, MRF- Room 233, MS 50, Woods Hole, MA 02543 has been issued a permit to receive, import, and export marine mammal specimens for scientific research purposes.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+On August 28, 2006, notice was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 50893) that a request for a scientific research permit had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR parts 18 and 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226), and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq. ).
+Dr. Ketten has been issued a scientific research permit to possess and import/export worldwide marine mammal and endangered species parts from the orders of Cetacea (dolphins, porpoises and whales), Pinnipedia (seals, sea lions and walrus), Carnivora (sea otter, Enhydra lutris , and polar bear, Ursus maritimus ) and Sirenia (dugongs and manatees). Whole carcasses, heads, or temporal bones (ears) are requested from stranded animals that die prior to beaching, are euthanized upon stranding, or which die in captivity. No animals may be intentionally killed for the purpose of collecting specimens, and no money can be offered for the specimens. This permit has been issued for a period of 5 years.
+In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), a final determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit: (1) was applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
+Dated: February 22, 2007. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+Dated: February 22, 2007. Charlie R. Chandler, Chief, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
+SUMMARY:
+&We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. Both laws require that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+I. Public Comment Procedures
+A. How Do I Request Copies of Applications or Comment on Submitted Applications?
+Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES . Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an e-mail or address not listed under ADDRESSES . If you provide an email address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.
+Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
+The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ).
+B. May I Review Comments Submitted by Others?
+Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
+II. Background
+To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section 10(a)(1)(A), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17, the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 18 require that we invite public comment before final action on these permit applications. Under the MMPA, you may request a hearing on any MMPA application received. If you request a hearing, give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Service Director.
+III. Permit Applications
+A. Endangered Species
+Applicant: University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT; PRT-14240A
+The applicant requests a permit to export biological samples from captive born golden-crowned sifaka ( Propithecus tattersalli ) for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
+Applicant: Christina Marisa Tellez, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA; PRT-10564A
+The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from American crocodile ( Crocodylus acutus ), and Morelet's crocodile ( Crocodylus moreletti ) from Belize for the purpose of enhancement of the species through scientific research. This notification covers activities conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
+Multiple Applicants
+The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.
+Applicant: Steven Louis, Richland Center, WI; PRT-21605A
+Applicant: Selmer Erickson, Park Rapids, MN; PRT-21574A
+B. Endangered Marine Mammals and Marine Mammals
+Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management, Anchorage, AK; PRT-046081
+The applicant requests amendment and renewal of the permit to take and harassment polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) in the wild in Alaska and in waters around Alaska for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
+Applicant: Indianapolis Zoological Society, Indianapolis, IN; PRT-19420A
+The applicant requests a permit to take a Pacific walrus, ( Odobenus rosmarus divergens ), one male, found beached and abandoned as a newborn near Barrow, AK on July 4, 2003 for the purpose of public display. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
+Applicant: Thomas A. Postel, Minneola, FL; PRT-19806A
+The applicant requests a permit to photography Florida manatees ( Trichechus manatus ) underwater for commercial and educational purposes. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a one-year period.
+Concurrent with publishing this notice in the Federal Register , we are forwarding copies of the above applications to the Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors for their review.
+Dated: September 17, 2010 Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given the following applicants have applied in due form for modifications to permits (Permit Nos. 1578 and 1595-03) to take shortnose sturgeon for purposes of scientific research:
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit amendments are requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+Application to Modify Permit No. 1578
+The existing permit authorizes sampling 500 shortnose sturgeon adults and sub-adults annually in the main stem of the Kennebec River between Augusta, ME and Lockwood Dam. Efforts have focused on the location of spawning and foraging habitat, migratory pathways, and effects of river flow on migration and habitat use. The applicant now proposes to document the use of other river systems by sturgeon in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) proposing an increase in numbers of shortnose sturgeon captured from 500 to 600, while also expanding the action area to include: (1) the Kennebec River mouth to Lockwood Dam; (2) the Androscoggin River mouth to Brunswick Dam; (3) the Sheepscot River mouth to Reversing Falls; (4) the Sasanoa River, the Back River, and Sagadahoc Bay; (5) Tottman Cove; and (6) the lower Saco River. New research methods proposed include: use of Floy tags for external identification; endoscopic examination with borescopes to verify sex; blood sampling; gastric lavage for diet analysis; scute sampling for elemental analysis; and electro-narcosis for anesthetization.
+Application to Modify Permit No. 1595-03
+The objectives of the original research would remain the same for the proposed modification, assessing the distribution, movements, abundance and spawning of shortnose sturgeon in the Penobscot River system. However, the Permit Holder requests an increased number of shortnose sturgeon captured with gill and trammel nets from 200 to 300. Other research activities requested include: (1) lowering the minimum water temperature to 0°C to target sturgeon; (2) using Floy tags; (3) using electro-narcosis for anesthetization; (4) using scute sampling for elemental analysis; (5) using gastric lavage for diet analysis; and (6) using fall (September December) to sample early life stages.
+Dated: Septemeber 21, 2010. Jolie Harrison, Acting Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that National Marine Fisheries Service, National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML), Alaska Fisheries Science Center, (Dr. John Bengtson, Responsible Party), 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Seattle, Washington 98115-6349, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct scientific research in the Pacific, Southern, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans on 33 cetacean species, including endangered blue ( Balaenoptera musculus ), sei ( B. borealis ), fin ( B. physalus ), sperm ( Physeter macrocephalus ), North Pacific right ( Eubalaena japonica ), bowhead ( Balaena mysticetus ), humpback ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), Southern Resident killer ( Orcinus orca ), and Cook Inlet beluga ( Delphinapterus leucas ) whales.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+The NMML requests a five-year permit to conduct research on marine mammals in the Pacific, Southern, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans to monitor cetaceans for scientific and management purposes. NMML would conduct ongoing projects designed to collect multi-year data to evaluate trends, abundance and distribution of whales and dolphins over long periods of time. Research activities would include aerial and vessel surveys, biopsy sampling, tagging, captures and a suite of sampling procedures associated with captures. Aerial and vessel surveys would be conducted for abundance estimation and distribution using line transect survey methods, photo-identification surveys, feeding studies, and searching for target species for feeding, biopsy and tagging studies. Eight pinniped species, including endangered Steller sea lions ( Eumetopias jubatus ), could be incidentally harassed during aerial surveys below 1,000 ft. Biopsy sampling would be conducted in conjunction with photo-identification surveys and tagging projects and during dedicated biopsy projects. Individuals may sampled up to four times annually for studies on distribution and prey choices. Transmitters would be attached using various methods to investigate cetacean movements and habitat use. Beluga whales, Dall's porpoises ( Phocoenoides dalli ), and harbor porpoises ( Phocoena phocoena ) would be captured for health assessments, attachment of satellite and/or VHF telemetry tags, and released. Over the life of the permit, capture activities may result in the unintentional deaths of four beluga whales from each non-listed stock and four animals from each species of porpoise. Capture research would be suspended and reviewed if four beluga whales, all stocks combined, die in a single year. NMFS is not permitting capture activities or mortality of endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales at this time, but is analyzing the impacts of these activities under the National Environmental Policy Act and the ESA in the event that these activities are considered in the future. The NMML also requests the salvage and import/export of cetacean parts, specimens, and biological samples collected during these projects.
+Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register , NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.
+Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
+Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376;
+Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426;
+Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907)586-7221; fax (907)586-7249;
+Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018;
+Pacific Islands Region, NMFS, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Rm 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)944-2200; fax (808)973-2941;
+Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978)281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394; and
+Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309.
+Dated: April 21, 2010. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA law requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+I. Public Comment Procedures
+A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?
+Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES . Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an e-mail or address not listed under ADDRESSES . If you provide an e-mail address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.
+Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
+The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ).
+B. May I review comments submitted by others?
+Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
+II. Background
+To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), requires that we invite public comment before final action on these permit applications.
+III. Permit Applications
+A. Endangered Species
+Applicant: Graham Banes, Miami, FL; PRT-49805A
+The applicant requests a permit to export biological samples obtained from captive-born and captive-held orangutans ( Pongo spp. ) held in zoos in the United States to the Department of Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, for the purpose of scientific research.
+Applicant: Nicole Smolensky, College Station, TX; PRT-47878A
+The applicant requests a permit to import biological specimens of African dwarf crocodiles ( Osteolaemus tetraspis tetraspis ) and slender snouted crocodiles ( Crocodylus cataphractus ) collected from the wild in Cameroon and Nigeria for the purpose of scientific research. This notification covers activities to be conducted by the applicant over a 5-year period.
+Applicant: Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens, Los Angeles, CA; PRT 52827A
+The applicant requests a permit to export eight live, captive-born komodo monitors ( Varanus komodoensis ) to Germany, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.
+Multiple Applicants
+The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.
+Applicant: Anthony Foyt, Hockley, TX; PRT-50926A
+Applicant: Joseph Thompson, Atlanta, GA; PRT-47139A
+Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch of Permits, Division of Management Authority.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received twelve applications applying in due form for permits to take Atlantic sturgeon ( Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus ) for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+Each of the twelve applications is summarized below. For specific take numbers of each research project, please refer to the associated application.
+Gail Wippelhauser, PhD, [File No. 16526] of the Maine Department of Marine Resources, 21 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, requests a five year permit to determine the movement patterns and rate of exchange between coastal river systems in Maine, characterize the population structure and generate estimates of population abundance. Researchers would capture adult, juvenile, and early life stage Atlantic sturgeon. Individuals would be measured, weighed, photographed, PIT tagged, Floy/T-bar tagged, tissue sampled, boroscoped, apical spine sampled, blood sampled, anesthetized, fin ray sectioned, and be implanted with an acoustic telemetry tag.
+Tom Savoy [File No. 16323] of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries, P.O. Box 719, Old Lyme, CT 06371, requests a five year permit to monitor Atlantic sturgeon populations to determine behavior, movement and current status of the species in Connecticut waters. Adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon would be measured, weighed, photographed, PIT and Floy/T-bar tagged, genetic tissue sampled, anesthetized and have a fin ray clipped for ageing analysis, and a subset would be implanted with an internal sonic tag to assess movement patterns.
+Kathryn Hattala [File No. 16436] of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 21 South Putt Corners Road, New Paltz, NY 12561, requests a five year permit to research Atlantic sturgeon in the Hudson River estuary, specifically to assess abundance of juveniles, characterize the adult spawning stock, and generate population estimates. Captured Atlantic sturgeon would be measured, weighed, PIT and dart tagged, tissue sampled, implanted with an external telemetry tag, anesthetized and gastric lavaged.
+Stony Brook University (Keith Dunton, Responsible Party) [File No. 16422], School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000, requests a five year permit to research Atlantic sturgeon in the marine and estuarine waters of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. To characterize Atlantic sturgeon aggregations, Atlantic sturgeon would be captured, measured, weighed, Carlin/Dart tagged, PIT tagged, anesthetized, fin ray sampled, and genetic tissue sampled. Some sturgeon would additionally be implanted internally with a satellite tag, and others would be fitted with an external pop-up satellite tag. A subset of fish would be gastric lavaged, blood sampled and gill biopsied.
+Hal Brundage [File No. 16438] of Environmental Research and Consulting, Inc., 126 Bancroft Road, Kennett Square, PA 19348, requests a five year permit to study juvenile Atlantic sturgeon abundance, distribution, movement, habitat preferences and biology in the Delaware River and Bay. The applicant would capture, measure, weigh, photograph, PIT and Floy tag, genetic tissue sample juvenile Atlantic sturgeon. A subset would be selected and be anesthetized, gastric lavaged, blood sampled, and implanted an internal sonic tag. Early life stage fish would also be lethally sampled.
+Matthew Fisher [File No. 16431] of the Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife, 4876 Hay Point Landing Road, Smyrna, DE 19977, requests a five year permit to sample juvenile Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River to locate nursery habitat, characterize population ecology and habitat use. Fish would be captured using gill nets, measured, weighed, photographed, PIT and Floy tagged, tissue sampled, anesthetized, gastric lavaged, and implanted with an internal sonic tag.
+Dewayne Fox, PhD, [File No. 16507] of Delaware State University, 1200 North DuPont Highway, Dover, DE 19901, requests a five year permit to sample Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon in the Delaware River and Bay, as well as in the coastal waters of Delaware. The objectives of this research are to provide more detailed information on the spawning location of Atlantic sturgeon and to develop a fishery independent sampling program to help assess recovery of the species. The applicant would use gill nets to capture adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon and egg mats to capture larval fish. Adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon would be measured, weighed, photographed, PIT and Floy tagged, and tissue sampled; a subset would be anesthetized, implanted with an internal sonic tag and gonad tissue sampled.
+Albert Spells of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 11110 Kimages Road, Charles City, VA 23030 (Responsible Party) [File No. 16547] requests a five year permit in conjunction with other investigators in Maryland and Virginia to study Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon would be captured using gill nets, trawls, fyke nets, trammel nets, and pound nets, and larval fish would be collected using egg mats. Adult and juvenile fish would be measured, weighed, tissue sampled, PIT and Floy tagged, and a subset of fish would have an external satellite tag attached.
+Joe Hightower, PhD, [File No. 16375] of North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7617, Raleigh, NC 27695-7617, requests a five-year permit to determine the presence, abundance, and distribution of Atlantic sturgeon in North Carolina rivers and estuaries. The applicant would use gill nets to capture adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon. Captured fish would be measured, weighed, photographed, PIT tagged, Floy tagged, tissue sampled, and a sub-set would be implanted with an internal sonic tag.
+Bill Post, [File No. 16442] of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 217 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC 29412, requests a five year permit to conduct scientific research on Atlantic sturgeon in the rivers and estuaries of South Carolina. Adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon would be captured using gill nets, and measured, weighed, photographed, PIT and dart tagged, tissue sampled, and a sub-set would be implanted with an internal satellite tag. Young of the year fish would be captured using trawls, and measured and weighed; larval fish would be collected with egg mats. This research would contribute to knowledge about Atlantic sturgeon coastal migrations and riverine movement patterns and information on the status of the species.
+Doug Peterson, PhD, [File No. 16482] of the University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources Fisheries Division, Athens, GA 30602, requests a five year permit to determine population dynamics and seasonal habitat use of Atlantic sturgeon in Georgia. Gill nets and trammel nets would be used to capture adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon, which would be measured, weighed, photographed, PIT and Floy tagged, tissue sampled; a sub-set would also be anesthetized, laproscoped, fin ray clipped, and implanted with an internal satellite tag. Egg mats and D-frame nets would be used to collect larval fish.
+Kenneth Sulak, PhD, [File No. 16508] of the U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center, 7920 NW., 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653, requests a five year permit to identify and track Atlantic sturgeon in Florida and Georgia rivers. Adult and juvenile Atlantic sturgeon would be captured using a combination of side-scan sonar and gill nets. Captured individuals would be measured, weighed, photographed, PIT and Floy tagged, tissue sampled, and have an external satellite tag attached.
+Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
+Northeast Region, NMFS, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281-9328; fax (978) 281-9394; and
+Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg, Florida 33701; phone (727) 824-5312; fax (727) 824-5309.
+Dated: September 15, 2011. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that Gail Wippelhauser, Maine Department of Marine Resources, 21 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, has applied in due form for a permit to take shortnose sturgeon for purposes of scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+The applicant proposes to collect information on shortnose sturgeon life history in the Gulf of Maine, including movement, natal river origin, and other vital population parameters. The proposed research would take place in the waters of the Gulf of Maine, the Penobscot, Kennebec, and Saco Rivers in Maine, the Merrimack River in Massachusetts, and other small coastal rivers of Maine and New Hampshire. Adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon would be collected using gill nets, trammel nets, beach seines and trawls. Shortnose sturgeon eggs would be lethally collected using egg mats or D-frame nets. All adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon would be measured, weighed, passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged, Floy/T-bar tagged, tissue sampled, boroscoped, photographed, and released. Depending on the research objective to be met, several subsets of captured shortnose sturgeon would be assigned different take activities. One subset of the sturgeon from each river would additionally be fitted with either an internal or external satellite tag; another subset would have an apical spine or scute removed; a third subset would be blood sampled; a fourth subset would undergo gastric lavage; a fifth subset would have a fin ray section removed; and a final subset of ten adult/juvenile fish would be fitted with an internal/external acoustic tag with trailing antennae. As required for the specific procedure, fish would be anesthetized using tricaine methanesulfonate (MS-222) or electronarcosis. The proposed research would provide managers with a more comprehensive understanding of the population dynamics of shortnose sturgeon in the Gulf of Maine and aid in the management of this protected species. The permit would be valid for five years from the date of issuance.
+Dated: September 15, 2011. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given that NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC), 3333 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA 92037, [Responsible Party: Lisa Ballance, Ph.D.], has applied in due form for a permit to take leatherback sea turtles ( Dermochelys coriacea ) for scientific research.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226).
+The SWFSC proposes to conduct research on leatherback sea turtles to continue long-term monitoring of their status off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. This purpose of the work is to identify critical forage habitats, genetic stock structure, migratory corridors, and potential fishery impacts for leatherbacks. Up to 55 sea turtles would be located annually through aerial surveys and subsequently approached from a research vessel for remote tissue sampling and attachment of a suction-cup transmitter. After tag attachment a subset of the animals would be captured by breakaway hoopnet for additional research procedures before release: measure; weigh; flipper and passive integrated transponder tag; ultrasound; tissue, blood, cloacal swab and fat sample; opportunistically sample feces and stomach contents; photograph/video; insertion of a stomach pill; transmitter attachment via suction-cup and drilling through the medial ridge; and/or oxytetracline injection. The permit would be valid for 5 years from the date of issuance.
+Dated: September 16, 2011. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and ducation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA law requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+I. Public Comment Procedures
+A. How do I request copies of applications or comment on submitted applications?
+Send your request for copies of applications or comments and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact listed under ADDRESSES . Please include the Federal Register notice publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in your request or submission. We will not consider requests or comments sent to an e-mail or address not listed under ADDRESSES . If you provide an e-mail address in your request for copies of applications, we will attempt to respond to your request electronically.
+Please make your requests or comments as specific as possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
+The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. We will not consider or include in our administrative record comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see DATES ) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES ).
+B. May I review comments submitted by others?
+Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES . The public may review documents and other information applicants have sent in support of the application unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
+II. Background
+To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), require that we invite public comment before final action on these permit applications.
+III. Permit Applications
+A. Endangered Species
+Applicant: Los Angeles Zoo and Botanical Gardens, Los Angeles, CA; PRT 52827A
+The applicant requests an amendment to the permit to increase the number of live, captive-born komodo monitors ( Varanus komodoensis ) from eight to ten for export to Germany, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.
+Applicant: Ivan Schwab, University of California, Department of Ophthalmology, Sacramento, CA; PRT-48306A
+The applicant requests a permit to import one head, including eyes, lacrimal glands, and brain of one stranded dead wild leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ) from the Canadian Sea Turtle Network, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, for the purpose of scientific research.
+Multiple Applicants
+The following applicants each request a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok ( Damaliscus pygargus pygargus ) culled from a captive herd maintained under the management program of the Republic of South Africa, for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species.
+Applicant: Daniel Cabela, Dripping Springs, TX; PRT-52963A
+Applicant: Woolsey Caye, Louisville, KY; PRT-50923A
+Applicant: Carlos Ramirez, Houston, TX; PRT-52683A
+Applicant: Wesley Bryant, Globe, AZ; PRT-53794A
+Brenda Tapia, Program Analyst/Data Administrator,Branch of Permits,Division of Management Authority.
+SUMMARY:
+The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Northeast Region, NMFS (Assistant Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application submitted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would exempt participating vessels from the following types of fishery regulations: Minimum fish size restrictions; fish possession limits; prohibited fish species, not including species protected under the Endangered Species Act; and gear-specific fish possession restrictions for the purpose of collecting fishery dependent catch data and biological samples.
+Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on EFP applications.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+NEFSC submitted a complete application for an EFP on February 28, 2012, to enable data collection activities that the regulations on commercial fishing would otherwise restrict. The EFP would exempt 29 federally permitted commercial fishing vessels from the regulations detailed below while participating in the Study Fleet Program and operating under projects managed by the NEFSC. The EFP would exempt participating vessels from minimum fish size restrictions; fish possession limits; prohibited fish species, not including species protected under the Endangered Species Act; and gear-specific fish possession restrictions for the purpose of at-sea sampling and, in limited situations for research purposes only, to retain and land fish.
+The NEFSC Study Fleet Program was established in 2002 to more fully characterize commercial fishing operations and to leverage sampling opportunities to augment NMFS data collection programs. Participating vessels are contracted by NEFSC to collect tow by tow catch and environmental data, and to fulfill specific biological sampling needs identified by NEFSC. To collect these data, the NEFSC Study Fleet Program has obtained an EFP to secure the necessary waivers needed by the vessels to obtain fish that would otherwise be prohibited by regulations.
+Crew trained by the NEFSC Study Fleet Program in methods that are consistent with the current NEFSC observer protocol, while under fishing operations, would sort, weigh, and measure fish that are to be discarded. An exemption from minimum fish size restrictions; fish possession limits; prohibited fish species, not including species protected under the Endangered Species Act; and gear-specific fish possession restrictions for at-sea sampling is required because some discarded species would be on deck slightly longer than under normal sorting procedures.
+Participating vessels would also be authorized to retain and land, in limited situations for research purposes only, fish that do not comply with fishing regulations. The vessels would be authorized to retain specific amounts of particular species in whole or round weight condition, in marked totes, which would be delivered to Study Fleet Program technicians. The NEFSC would require participating vessels to obtain written approval from the NEFSC Study Fleet Program prior to landing any fish in excess of possession limits and/or below minimum size limits to ensure that the landed fish do not exceed any of the Study Fleet Program's collection needs, as detailed below. None of the landed biological samples from these trips would be sold for commercial use or used for any other purpose other than scientific research.
+The table below details the regulations from which the participating vessels would be exempt. The participating vessels would be required to comply with all other applicable requirements and restrictions specified at 50 CFR part 648, unless specifically exempted in this EFP. All catch of stocks allocated to Sectors by vessels on a Sector trip would be deducted from the Sector's Annual Catch Entitlement for each Northeast multispecies stock regardless of what fishery the vessel was participating in when the fish was caught.
+NEFSC Study Fleet Program EFP Number of Vessels 29. Possession Possession for at-sea sampling plus limited landing. Exempted regulations in 50 CFR part 648 Size limits . § 648.83(a)(3) NE multispecies minimum size. § 648.93 Monkfish minimum fish size. § 648.103 Summer flounder minimum fish size. § 648.143(a) Black sea bass minimum fish size. Possession restrictions . § 648.86(b) Atlantic cod. § 648.86(c) Atlantic halibut. § 648.86(e) White hake. § 648.86(g) Yellowtail flounder. § 648.86(g)(1) Southern New England yellowtail flounder possession limit. § 648.86(j) Georges Bank winter flounder. § 648.86(l) Zero retention of SNE winter flounder and Atlantic wolffish. § 648.94 Monkfish possession limit. § 648.22(c) Incidental possession limit of long-finned squid. § 648.322 Skate possession and landing restrictions. § 648.145 Black sea bass possession limits. § 648.235 Spiny dogfish possession and landing restrictions.
+NEFSC Study Fleet Program's Sampling Needs
+Haddock-whole fish would be retained for maturity and fecundity research. The haddock retained would not exceed 30 fish per trip, or 360 fish for all trips. The maximum weight of haddock on any trip would not exceed 120 lb (54.43 kg) total weight per trip, and would not exceed 1,440 lb (653.17 kg) for all trips combined.
+Yellowtail Flounder—whole fish would be retained for maturity, fecundity, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), food habits, and genetic research. The yellowtail flounder retained would not exceed 120 fish per month from each of the three stock areas (Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA)), or 1,800 fish total from each stock area for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 50 lb (22.70 kg) total weight, and would not exceed 1,500 lb (680.39 kg) for all trips combined.
+Summer Flounder—whole fish would be retained for maturity, fecundity, BIA, food habits, and genetic research. The summer flounder retained would not exceed 120 fish per month from each of the three stock areas (GOM, GB, SNE/MA), or 1,800 fish total from each stock area for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 100 lb (45.36 kg) total weight, and would not exceed 3,000 lb (1,360.78 kg) for all trips combined.
+Winter Flounder—whole fish would be retained for maturity, fecundity, BIA, food habits, and genetic research. The winter flounder retained would not exceed 120 fish per month from each of the three stock areas (GOM, GB, SNE/MA), or 1,800 fish total from each stock area for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 75 lb (34.02 kg) total weight, and would not exceed 2,250 lb (1,020.58 kg) for all trips combined.
+Spiny Dogfish—whole fish would be retained for reproductive biology research. The spiny dogfish retained would not exceed 50 fish per month from each of the two stock areas (GOM, SNE/MA), or 1,200 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 390 lb (176.9 kg), and would not exceed 9,360 lb (4,245.62 kg) total for all trips.
+Monkfish—whole fish would be retained for maturity and fecundity research. Monkfish retained would not exceed 10 fish per trip, or 120 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 100 lb (45.36 kg) total weight, and would not exceed 1,200 lb (544.31 kg) for all trips combined.
+Cod—whole fish would be retained for tagging demonstrations and educational purposes. Cod to be retained would not exceed 15 fish per trip, or 60 cod for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 150 lb (68.04 kg) total weight, and would not exceed 600 lb (272.16 kg) for all trips combined.
+Barndoor Skate—whole and, in some cases, live skates would be retained for age and growth research and species confirmation. The barndoor skates retained would not exceed 20 fish per 3-month period, or 80 skates total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 75 lb (34.02 kg) total weight, and would not exceed 300 lb (136.08 kg) total for all trips combined.
+Thorny Skate—whole and, in some cases, live skates would be retained for age and growth research and species confirmation. Thorny skates retained would not exceed 20 fish per 3-month period, or 80 skates total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 75 lb (34.02 kg) whole weight, and would not exceed 300 lb (136.08 kg) total for all trips combined.
+Black Sea Bass—whole fish would be retained for examination of seasonal and latitudinal patterns in energy allocation. This effort is in support of an ongoing study at the NEFSC to evaluate BIA to measure fish energy density and reproductive potential for stock assessment. Black sea bass retained would not exceed 75 fish per trip or 300 black sea bass total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 250 lb (113.40 kg) total weight, and would not exceed 1,000 lb (453.59 kg) total for all trips combined.
+Atlantic wolffish—whole fish would be retained for maturity, fecundity, and life history research. Atlantic wolffish retained would not exceed 30 fish per month or 360 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 120 lb (54.4 kg) and would not exceed 3,000 lb (1,360.8 kg) total for all trips combined.
+Cusk—whole fish would be retained for maturity, fecundity, and life history research. Cusk retained would not exceed 30 fish per month or 360 fish total for all trips. The maximum weight on any trip would not exceed 100 lb (45.4 kg) and would not exceed 2,300 lb (1,043.3 kg) total for all trips combined.
+If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impact that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
+Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
+Dated: April 3, 2012. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
+SUMMARY:
+We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Background
+We invite public comment on the following permit applications for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and our regulations governing the taking of endangered species in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17. Submit your written data, comments, or request for a copy of the complete application to the address shown in ADDRESSES .
+Permit Applications
+Permit Application Number: TE71464A.
+Applicant: Bishop Hill Energy LLC, Chicago, IL.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (salvage) the endangered Indiana bat ( Myotis sodalis ) at the Bishop Hill Wind Energy Project, Henry County, IL. The applicant proposes a maximum take of two Indiana bats during proposed research to determine operating methods to avoid long-term take of the species at the facility.
+Under the research proposal, Bishop Hill Energy would evaluate bat mortality and take avoidance at the facility to benefit listed and unlisted bat species. The primary goal of the research is to evaluate and devise biologically based operational protocols for turbines at the Henry County facility to successfully avoid take of listed bat species.
+In addition, information generated by the proposed research could be used to inform operational protocols at other operating wind energy projects within the range of Indiana bats, thereby enhancing the propagation and survival of the listed species. The proposed study is designed to research (1) effective methods to avoid mortality of listed bats through curtailment of turbines and (2) the relationship between temperature and risk of bat mortality. The applicant requests a permit term of two years.
+The environmental impacts of the proposed study have been evaluated in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The USFWS has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to conduct this evaluation prior to making its decision on permit issuance. The EA is available for public review concurrent with the permit application.
+Permit Application Number: TE71680A.
+Applicant: Megan Caylor, Indianapolis, IN.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats and Gray bats ( Myotis grisescens ) throughout the range of the species. The applicant requests authority to conduct activities aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, DC, and West Virginia.
+Permit Application Number: TE15027A.
+Applicant: Stantec Consulting, Columbus, OH.
+The applicant requests a renewal of their permit, with an amendment, to take the following species: Indiana bats, gray bats, Hine's emerald dragonfly ( Somatochlora hineana ), American burying beetle ( Nicrophorus americanus ), and Mitchell's satyr butterfly ( Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii ) for the purpose of enhancement of the survival of the species in the wild. Proposed activities may occur within the following States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
+Permit Application Number: TE71718A.
+Applicant: Steffen J. Bradley, Finneytown, OH.
+The applicant requests a permit to take Indiana bats and gray bats within Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the recovery of the species and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE71720A.
+Applicant: Forest Preserve District of Will County, Plainfield, IL.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats and gray bats within the Forest Preserve District, Will County, IL, for the purpose of recovery and enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE71730A.
+Applicant: Missouri Department of Conservation, Lost Valley Hatchery, Warsaw, MO.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and hold; propagate and release) the Topeka shiner ( Notropis topeka ) within the State of Missouri. Propagation activities will be conducted in accordance with the 10-year Strategic Plan for Recovery of the Topeka Shiner in Missouri. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of propagation and survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE00622A.
+Applicant: Upper Peninsula Land Conservancy, Marquette, MI.
+The applicant requests a permit renewal to take Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ) within Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Proposed activities involve protection of nests and adults, collection, and participating in captive rearing/release in accordance with USFWS protocols. Activities proposed are for the recovery of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE06846A.
+Applicant: Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, Washington, DC
+The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, band/tag, and release) the Kirtland's warbler ( Dendroica kirtlandii ) throughout Michigan for scientific research aimed at recovery of the species.
+Permit Application Number: TE71737A.
+Applicant: Roger A. Klocek, Plainfield, IL.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Higgins' eye pearlymussel ( Lampsilis higginsii ), spectaclecase mussel ( Cumberlandia monodonta ), and sheepnose mussel ( Plethobasus cyphus ) within the Mississippi River in Iowa. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE71819A.
+Applicant: The University of Michigan, Dearborn, MI.
+The applicant requests a permit to take Karner blue butterfly ( Lycaeides melissa samuelis ) within Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. Proposed take involves capture and handling, nonlethal collection of tissue, and release. Activities are proposed to enhance the recovery of the species through research into genetic diversity.
+Permit Application Number: TE08603A.
+Applicant: Michelle Malcosky, Hudson, OH.
+The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE71821A.
+Applicant: David T. Zanatta, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release; temporary holding) the following mussel species: Snuffbox ( Epioblasma triquetra ), rayed bean ( Villosa fabalis ), Clubshell ( Pleurobema clava ), and Northern riffleshell ( Epioblasma torulosa rangiana ). Proposed activities may occur within Michigan and Wisconsin for the purpose of research and enhancement of propagation and survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE71827A.
+Applicant: Benjamin T. Hale, Jacksonville, IL.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, Ozark big-eared bats ( Corynorhinus townsendii ingens ), and Virginia big-eared bats ( Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus ) throughout the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE206778.
+Applicant: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, Twin Cities, MN.
+The applicant requests a permit amendment to add snuffbox, spectaclecase, and sheepnose mussels to existing Fish and Wildlife Permit Number TE206778. Proposed activities would occur within Minnesota and Wisconsin for the enhancement of propagation and survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE71834A.
+Applicant: Robert J. Welch, Waupaca Biological Field Station, Waupaca, WI.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release) snuffbox mussels within Wisconsin for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE02360A.
+Applicant: Sydney Morgan, Charleston, WV.
+The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and release) Indiana bats, gray bats, and Virginia big-eared bats throughout the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Public Comments
+We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
+Dated: April 12, 2012. Sean Marsan, Acting Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3.
+SUMMARY:
+We announce our receipt of applications to conduct certain activities pertaining to enhancement of survival of endangered species.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The following applicants have requested issuance of enhancement of survival permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ).
+Applicant: TE-039090, Tony Korth, Ak-Sar-Ben Aquarium, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Gretna, Nebraska. The applicant requests a renewed permit to take Pallid sturgeons ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Applicant: TE-040510, William Butler, ERO Resources Corporation, Denver, Colorado
+The applicant requests a renewed permit to take Southwestern willow flycatchers ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Applicant: TE-040837, Ronald Kass, Intermountain Ecosystems, Springville, Utah
+The applicant requests a renewed permit to take Southwestern willow flycatchers ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Applicant: TE-046427, Thomas Fenske, Landry's Downtown Aquarium, Denver, Colorado
+The applicant requests a renewed permit to display Bonytail ( Gila elegans ), Humpback chub ( Gila cypha ), Colorado pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus lucius ), Razorback sucker ( Xyrauchen texanus ), Desert pupfish ( Cyprinodon macularius ), Gila topminnow ( Poeciliopsis occidentialis ), Green sea turtles ( Chelonia mydas agassisi ) in conjunction with recovery activities for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Applicant: TE-047260, Steve Beverlin, U.S. Forest Service, Dolores Public Lands Office, Dolores, Colorado
+The applicant requests a renewed permit to take Southwestern willow flycatchers ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Applicant: TE-047285, Patrick Braaten, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Peck, Montana
+The applicant requests a renewed permit to take Pallid sturgeons ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Applicant: TE-062035, Rob Holm, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Garrison Dam, National Fish Hatchery, Riverdale, North Dakota
+The applicant requests a renewed permit to take Pallid sturgeons ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Applicant: TE-109048, Herbert Bollig, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery, Yankton, South Dakota
+The applicant requests a permit to take Pallid sturgeons ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) in conjunction with recovery activities throughout the species' range for the purpose of enhancing their survival and recovery.
+Dated: January 18, 2006. Mike Stempel, Acting Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
+SUMMARY:
+The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with threatened and endangered species.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The public is invited to comment on the following applications for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ). This notice is provided under section 10(c) of the Act. If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES section) or via electronic mail (e-mail) to david_dell@fws.gov . Please include your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the Fish and Wildlife Service that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly at the telephone number listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). Finally, you may hand deliver comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service office listed above (see ADDRESSES section).
+Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. There may also be other circumstances in which we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
+Applicant: Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, TE697819
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to take or remove and reduce to possession listed species occurring in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southeast Region for scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival, and for approved recovery activities. The applicant also requests amendment of their existing permit to add or remove all newly listed or de-listed species since the last permit renewal, as well as to add candidate species expected to be listed in the near future.
+Applicant: Harold Schramm, USGS, Mississippi Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Mississippi State, Mississippi, TE178448
+The applicant requests authorization to capture, implant acoustic transmitters into, and release pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) for tracking purposes in the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers in Mississippi and Louisiana.
+Applicant: Scott Slankard, Eco-Tech Consultants, Inc., Frankfort, Kentucky, TE810274
+The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, handle, radio-tag, and release Indiana bats ( Myotis sodalis ) and gray bats ( Myotis grisescen ) for presence/absence surveys and scientific research aimed at recovery of the species throughout the states of New Jersey, West Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.
+Applicant: Peggy Measel, Round Mountain Biological and Environmental Studies, Inc., Nicholasville, Kentucky, TE121059
+The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, identify, measure, sex, and release Indiana bats and gray bats while conducting presence/absence surveys throughout the species ranges in Tennessee.
+Applicant: Norman Wagoner, Forest Supervisor, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Springs, Arkansas, TE125605
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, handle, band, and release the Indiana bat while conducting inventory and monitoring surveys within the boundaries of Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas and Oklahoma.
+Applicant: Chris Fleming, BDY Environmental, LLC, Nashville, Tennessee, TE111326
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, identify, sex, photograph, temporarily hold, release, and relocate the Nashville crayfish ( Orconectes shoupi ) while conducting presence/absence surveys and translocation activities in Mill Creek Watershed, Davidson and Williamson Counties, Tennessee.
+Applicant: Robert Oney, Palmer Engineering, Winchester, Kentucky, TE178524
+The applicant requests authorization to capture, identify, temporarily hold, and release Indiana bats, gray bats, and Virginia big-eared bats ( Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus ); cumberlandian combshell ( Epioblasma brevidens ), Cumberland elktoe ( Alasmidonta atropurpurea ), Cumberland bean ( Villosa trabalis ), fanshell ( Cyprogenia stegaria ), ring pink ( Obovaria retusa ), orangefoot pimpleback ( Plethobasus cooperianus ), rough pigtoe ( Pleurobema plenum ), pink mucket ( Lampsilis abrupta ), clubshell ( Pleurobema clava ), and fat pocketbook ( Potamilus capax ); and locate white-haired goldenrod ( Solidago albopilosa ), running buffalo clover ( Trifolium stoloniferum ), and Virginia spiraea ( Spiraea virginiana ) while conducting presence/absence surveys throughout the range of the species.
+Applicant: Paul Stone, Crosby Resource Management, LLC, DeRidder, Louisiana, TE179330
+The applicant requests authorization to harass the red-cockaded woodpecker ( Picoides borealis ) while surveying population occurrence and conducting management activities for this species throughout Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
+Applicant: Jeffrey Walters, Department of Biological Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, TE070846
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to monitor nests, capture, band, radio-tag, collect blood, construct cavities, and translocate red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of banding juveniles and adults, monitoring populations and nest cavities, and various research projects throughout the species range in Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
+Applicant: Michael Keys, North Florida Wildlife, Crawfordville, Florida, TE834056
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, band, and release red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of banding juveniles and adults and monitoring populations and nest cavities throughout the species range in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Virginia, Oklahoma, and Texas.
+Applicant: Shaun Williamson, Forest Supervisor, National Forests in Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, TE020890
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to harass red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of constructing and monitoring artificial nest cavities and restrictors; for capturing, banding, and translocation of birds; and for monitoring populations and nest cavities throughout the species range in Mississippi.
+Applicant: Charles Rabolli, CCR Environmental, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, TE096132
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to harass red-cockaded woodpeckers while conducting presence/absence surveys, constructing artificial nest cavities, controlling vegetation, and monitoring activities in clusters throughout the species range in Virginia, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
+Applicant: Curtis Garriock, Pittsboro, North Carolina, TE179329
+The applicant requests authorization to capture, identify, photograph, temporarily hold, and release the Saint Francis Satyr butterfly ( Neonympha mitchellii francisci ) while conducting presence/absence surveys for this species throughout North Carolina and Virginia.
+Applicant: Eric Hoffman, Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, TE179312
+The applicant requests authorization to capture, examine, draw blood, collect hairs, and release the Lower Keys marsh rabbit ( Sylvilagus palustris hefneri ) to assess genetic diversity in Monroe County, Florida.
+Applicant: Chris Isaac, Appalachian Technical Services, Inc., Wise, Virginia, TE009638
+The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, handle, radio-tag, and release Indiana bats, gray bats, Virginia big-eared bats, and blackside dace ( Phoxinus cumberlandensis ) for presence/absence surveys and scientific research aimed at recovery of the species throughout the species ranges in Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
+Applicant: Brian Estes, Jordan, Jones, and Goulding, Inc., Norcross, Georgia, TE087127
+The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture, identify, and release blue shiner ( Cyprinella caerulea ), Etowah darter ( Etheostoma etowahae ), Cherokee darter ( Etheostoma scotti ), amber darter ( Percina antesella ), goldline darter ( Percina aurolineata ), snail darter ( Percina tanasi ), Conasauga logperch ( Percina jenkinsi ), and the eastern indigo snake ( Drymarchon corais couperi ) for presence/absence surveys throughout the species ranges in Georgia.
+Applicant: Jeffrey West, Columbia, South Carolina, TE178643
+The applicant requests authorization to harass the Carolina heelsplitter ( Lasmigona decorate ) for presence/absence surveys throughout the species range in North Carolina and South Carolina.
+Applicant: John Alford, Ecological Solution, Inc., Roswell, Georgia, TE070800
+The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to harass all threatened and endangered fish, mussel, and snail species native to Georgia and Alabama for presence/absence surveys.
+Applicant: Julie Lockwood, North Brunswick, New Jersey, TE075916
+The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to capture, band, collect blood samples, release, and monitor nests of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow ( Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis ) while conducting demographic studies in Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve, Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties, Florida.
+Dated: May 5, 2008. Cynthia K. Dohner, Acting Regional Director.
+SUMMARY:
+We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Background
+We invite public comment on the following permit applications for certain activities with endangered species authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and our regulations governing the taking of endangered species in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17. Submit your written data, comments, or request for a copy of the complete application to the address shown in ADDRESSES . When submitting comments, please refer to the appropriate permit application number.
+Permit Applications
+Permit Application Number: TE224720
+Applicant: ABR, Inc., Environmental Research Services, Forest Grove, Oregon.
+The applicant requests a permit to take (harass through capture and release; collection of hair and tissue samples) Indiana bats ( Myotis sodalis ) and gray bats ( Myotis grisescens ) throughout the States of Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Proposed activities under this permit application include surveys to document species' presence or absence in areas proposed for wind-energy development, studies to document habitat use, collection of echolocation data and hair/tissue sampling for scientific research. The applicant's proposed activities are aimed at enhancement of the survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE224719
+Applicant: Richard B. King, DeKalb, Illinois.
+The applicant requests renewal of a permit to take the Lake Erie water snake ( Nerodia sipedon insularum ) in the State of Ohio. Proposed activities include capture and release of snakes, insertion of PIT tags or radio transmitters, blood sampling, stomach sampling, and temporarily holding snakes for scientific study or public exhibition. These proposed activities are for enhancement of the survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE226335
+Applicant: Michael C. Quist, Ames, Iowa.
+The applicant requests a permit to take the Topeka shiner ( Notropis topeka ) in the State of Iowa. Proposed activities include capture and release to determine presence or absence of the species and to study species' distribution. The applicant also proposes to take voucher specimens to document presence of the species in formerly undocumented sites or in sites where documentation is over 20 years old. These proposed activities are for the enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE195082-1
+Applicant: Thomas E. Tomasi, Springfield, Missouri.
+The applicant requests an amendment to his permit to add Virginia big-eared bats ( Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus ) to the list of species covered by the permit. In addition, this amendment request seeks authorization to capture and temporarily hold Virginia big-eared bats and gray bats at Missouri State University for a period of five months during hibernation. Bats are proposed to be captured from caves in Missouri and Kentucky and will be returned unharmed to point of capture at the end of the hibernation period. The proposed research activity is aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Public Comments
+We seek public review and comments on these permit applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
+National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
+In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ), we have made an initial determination that the proposed activities in these permits are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (516 DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)).
+Dated: September 11, 2009. Lynn M. Lewis, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 3.
+SUMMARY:
+&We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the + public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain + activities with endangered species, marine mammals, or both. With + some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Marine Mammal + Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits activities with listed species + unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. Both + laws require that we invite public comment before issuing these + permits.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+I. Public Comment Procedures
+A. How Do I Request Copies of Applications or Comment on + Submitted Applications?
+Send your request for copies of applications or comments + and materials concerning any of the applications to the contact + listed under ADDRESSES . Please include the Federal Register notice + publication date, the PRT-number, and the name of the applicant in + your request or submission. We will not consider requests or + comments sent to an e-mail or address not listed under ADDRESSES . + If you provide an email address in your request for copies of + applications, we will attempt to respond to your request + electronically.
+Please make your requests or comments as specific as + possible. Please confine your comments to issues for which we seek + comments in this notice, and explain the basis for your comments. + Include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to + authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include.
+The comments and recommendations that will be most useful + and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by + quantitative information or studies; and (2) Those that include + citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. + We will not consider or include in our administrative record + comments we receive after the close of the comment period (see + DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed + above (see ADDRESSES ).
+B. May I Review Comments Submitted by Others?
+Comments, including names and street addresses of + respondents, will be available for public review at the address + listed under ADDRESSES . The public may review documents and other + information applicants have sent in support of the application + unless our allowing viewing would violate the Privacy Act or Freedom + of Information Act. Before including your address, phone number, + e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your + comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your + personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at + any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your + personal identifying information from public review, we cannot + guarantee that we will be able to do so.
+II. Background
+To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for + affected species, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, section + 10(a)(1)(A), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), and our + regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17, + the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 + et seq. ), and our regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations + (CFR) at 50 CFR 18 require that we invite public comment before + final action on these permit applications. Under the MMPA, you may + request a hearing on any MMPA application received. If you request a + hearing, give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. + The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Service + Director.
+III. Permit Applications
+A. Endangered Species
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to export biological samples from
+ captive born golden-crowned sifaka (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from
+ American crocodile (
+
Multiple Applicants
+
+ The following applicants each request a permit to import the
+ sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ Applicant:
+
B. Endangered Marine Mammals and Marine Mammals
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests amendment and renewal of the permit to take
+ and harassment polar bears (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take a
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to photography Florida manatees (
+
Concurrent with publishing this notice in the Federal + Register , we are forwarding copies of the above applications to the + Marine Mammal Commission and the Committee of Scientific Advisors + for their review.
+SUMMARY:
+Notice is hereby given of the following actions for takes + of marine mammal species for the purposes of scientific research: +
+
+ NMFS has received permit applications from: Mystic Aquarium, 55
+ Coogan Blvd.,
+
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The subject permits and permit amendment are requested + under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as + amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq .), the Regulations Governing + the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216), the + Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et + seq .), the regulations governing the taking, importing, and + exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR 222-226), and + the Fur Seal Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq .)
+Applications for Permits Received
+For Application No. 42-1642, the applicant requests + permission to study metabolic clearance rates of vitamins A and E + using isotope tracers and vitamin analogs in captive Steller sea + lions, relation to various life history stages, establish the + vitamin A and E status of free-ranging Steller sea lions, determine + the metabolic requirements for these vitamins by relating intake to + blood levels in captive specimens, and receive or import serum and + milk samples from captive marine mammals held in facilities within + the United States and abroad to study the disease hemochromatosis + (an excessive accumulation of iron in tissues often associated with + hepatic lesions) as well as others associated with general marine + mammal health.
+
+ For Application No. 555-1638, the applicant requests permission to
+ conduct research on 22 cetacean species and 5 pinniped species in
+ the North Pacific Ocean along the coasts of
+
+ For Application No. 782-1645, the applicant requests permission to
+ capture and attach radio-telemetry devices to harbor porpoises (
+
Application to Amend a Permit Received
+
+ For Permit No. 376-1520-01, the Permit authorizes the Holder to
+ approach a variety of cetacean species to conduct
+ photo-identification and behavioral observations. The approach
+ distances in the permit are currently limited to : within 100 ft (31
+ m) by vessel, 200 ft (61 m) directly above and 350 ft (107 m) slant
+ range by aircraft for all species except North Atlantic right whales
+ (
+
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of + 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq .), an initial determination has been + made that the activities proposed are categorically excluded from + the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or + environmental impact statement.
+Written comments or requests for a public hearing on any of + these applications should be mailed to the Chief, Permits and + Documentation Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, + 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those + individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific + reasons why a hearing on the particular request would be + appropriate.
+Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301) + 713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted + by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the comment + period. Please note that comments will not be accepted by e-mail or + by other electronic media.
+Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the + Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of these applications to + the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific + Advisors.
+Documents may be reviewed in the following locations:
+For all permit applications and the application to amend a + permit: Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected + Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, + MD 20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376;
+For Applications No. 42-1642, 555-1638, and 782-1645: + Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, + Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426; +
+For Applications No. 42-1642 and 555-1638: Alaska Region, + NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668; phone (907) 586-7221; + fax (907) 586-7249;
+For Applications No. 42-1642 and 555-1638: Southwest + Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA + 90802-4213; phone (562) 980-4001; fax (562) 980-4018;
+
+ For Application No. 555-1638: Protected Species Coordinator,
+
For Application No. 42-1642 and Permit No. 376-1520-01: + Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA + 01930-2298; phone (978) 281-9200; fax (978) 281-9371;
+For Application No. 42-1642 and Permit No. 376-1520-01: + Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. + Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727) 570-5301; fax (727) 570-5320. +
+SUMMARY:
+We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), invite the + public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain + activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the + Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered + and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. + The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these + permits.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+Background
+We invite public comment on the following permit + applications for certain activities with endangered species + authorized by section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. + ) and our regulations governing the taking of endangered species in + the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17. Submit your + written data, comments, or request for a copy of the complete + application to the address shown in ADDRESSES .
+Permit Applications
+Permit Application Number: TE71464A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (salvage) the endangered
+ Indiana bat (
+
Under the research proposal, Bishop Hill Energy would + evaluate bat mortality and take avoidance at the facility to benefit + listed and unlisted bat species. The primary goal of the research is + to evaluate and devise biologically based operational protocols for + turbines at the Henry County facility to successfully avoid take of + listed bat species.
+
+ In addition, information generated by the proposed research could be
+ used to inform operational protocols at other operating wind energy
+ projects within the range of
+
The environmental impacts of the proposed study have been + evaluated in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act + of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The USFWS has prepared an + Environmental Assessment (EA) to conduct this evaluation prior to + making its decision on permit issuance. The EA is available for + public review concurrent with the permit application.
+Permit Application Number: TE71680A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release)
+ Indiana bats and Gray bats (
+
Permit Application Number: TE15027A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a renewal of their permit, with an amendment,
+ to take the following species: Indiana bats, gray bats,
+
Permit Application Number: TE71718A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take Indiana bats and gray bats
+ within Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and
+
Permit Application Number: TE71720A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release)
+ Indiana bats and gray bats within the Forest Preserve District,
+
Permit Application Number: TE71730A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and hold; propagate
+ and release) the Topeka shiner (
+
Permit Application Number: TE00622A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit renewal to take Piping Plover (
+
Permit Application Number: TE06846A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, band/tag,
+ and release) the Kirtland's warbler (
+
Permit Application Number: TE71737A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release)
+
Permit Application Number: TE71819A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take Karner blue butterfly (
+
Permit Application Number: TE08603A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture + and release) Indiana bats throughout the species' range for the + purpose of enhancement of survival of the species in the wild.
+Permit Application Number: TE71821A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release;
+ temporary holding) the following mussel species: Snuffbox (
+
Permit Application Number: TE71827A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release)
+ Indiana bats, gray bats, Ozark big-eared bats (
+
Permit Application Number: TE206778.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit amendment to add snuffbox,
+ spectaclecase, and sheepnose mussels to existing Fish and Wildlife
+ Permit Number TE206778. Proposed activities would occur within
+ Minnesota and
+
Permit Application Number: TE71834A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and release)
+ snuffbox mussels within
+
Permit Application Number: TE02360A.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture and
+ release) Indiana bats, gray bats, and Virginia big-eared bats
+ throughout the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware,
+ Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
+ Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
+ York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
+ South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia,
+ and
+
Public Comments
+We seek public review and comments on these permit + applications. Please refer to the permit number when you submit + comments. Comments and materials we receive are available for public + inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the + address shown in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your + address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying + information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire + comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made + publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment + to withhold your personal identifying information from public + review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
+SUMMARY:
+The public is invited to comment on the following + applications to conduct certain activities with threatened and + endangered species.
+SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
+The public is invited to comment on the following + applications for permits to conduct certain activities with + endangered and threatened species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of + the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et + seq. ). This notice is provided under section 10(c) of the Act. If + you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of the + following methods. You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife + Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES section) or via electronic + mail (e-mail) to david_dell@fws.gov . Please include your name and + return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a + confirmation from the Fish and Wildlife Service that we have + received your e-mail message, contact us directly at the telephone + number listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). + Finally, you may hand deliver comments to the Fish and Wildlife + Service office listed above (see ADDRESSES section).
+Before including your address, telephone number, e-mail + address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, + you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal + identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. + While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal + identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that + we will be able to do so. There may also be other circumstances in + which we would withhold from the administrative record a + respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to + withhold your name and address, you must state this prominently at + the beginning of your comments. We will not, however, consider + anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations + or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as + representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, + available for public inspection in their entirety.
+
+ Applicant:
+
The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to + take or remove and reduce to possession listed species occurring in + the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Southeast Region for scientific + purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival, and for + approved recovery activities. The applicant also requests amendment + of their existing permit to add or remove all newly listed or + de-listed species since the last permit renewal, as well as to add + candidate species expected to be listed in the near future.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to capture, implant acoustic
+ transmitters into, and release pallid sturgeon (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to
+ capture, handle, radio-tag, and release Indiana bats (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to
+ capture, identify, measure, sex, and release
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture,
+ handle, band, and release the
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture,
+ identify, sex, photograph, temporarily hold, release, and relocate
+ the
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to capture, identify,
+ temporarily hold, and release Indiana bats, gray bats, and
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to harass the red-cockaded
+ woodpecker (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to monitor
+ nests, capture, band, radio-tag, collect blood, construct cavities,
+ and translocate red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of banding
+ juveniles and adults, monitoring populations and nest cavities, and
+ various research projects throughout the species range in Florida,
+ South Carolina, and
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture,
+ band, and release red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of
+ banding juveniles and adults and monitoring populations and nest
+ cavities throughout the species range in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia,
+ South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi,
+ Virginia, Oklahoma, and
+
+ Applicant:
+
The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to + harass red-cockaded woodpeckers for the purposes of constructing and + monitoring artificial nest cavities and restrictors; for capturing, + banding, and translocation of birds; and for monitoring populations + and nest cavities throughout the species range in Mississippi.
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to harass
+ red-cockaded woodpeckers while conducting presence/absence surveys,
+ constructing artificial nest cavities, controlling vegetation, and
+ monitoring activities in clusters throughout the species range in
+ Virginia, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North
+ Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to capture, identify,
+ photograph, temporarily hold, and release the Saint
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to capture, examine, draw
+ blood, collect hairs, and release the Lower Keys marsh rabbit (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to
+ capture, handle, radio-tag, and release Indiana bats, gray bats,
+ Virginia big-eared bats, and blackside dace (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests renewal of existing authorization to capture,
+ identify, and release blue shiner (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to harass the Carolina
+ heelsplitter (
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to
+ harass all threatened and endangered fish, mussel, and snail species
+ native to
+
+ Applicant:
+
+ The applicant requests authorization to amend an existing permit to
+ capture, band, collect blood samples, release, and monitor nests of
+ the Cape Sable seaside sparrow (
+
+ * Usage: java -mx400m -cp "stanford-ner.jar:." NERDemo [serializedClassifier [fileName]]
+ *
+ * If arguments aren't specified, they default to + * ner-eng-ie.crf-3-all2006.ser.gz and some hardcoded sample text. + *
+ * To use CRFClassifier from the command line:
+ * java -mx400m edu.stanford.nlp.ie.crf.CRFClassifier -loadClassifier
+ * [classifier] -textFile [file]
+ * Or if the file is already tokenized and one word per line, perhaps in
+ * a tab-separated value format with extra columns for part-of-speech tag,
+ * etc., use the version below (note the 's' instead of the 'x'):
+ * java -mx400m edu.stanford.nlp.ie.crf.CRFClassifier -loadClassifier
+ * [classifier] -testFile [file]
+ *
+ * @author Jenny Finkel
+ * @author Christopher Manning
+ */
+
+public class NERDemo {
+
+ public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
+
+ String serializedClassifier = "classifiers/english.all.3class.distsim.crf.ser.gz";
+
+ if (args.length > 0) {
+ serializedClassifier = args[0];
+ }
+
+ AbstractSequenceClassifier