Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 2014)

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60365-60379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23671]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0003; FXES111309F2460-145-FF09E22000]
RIN 1018-AY42

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the
Straight-Horned Markhor as Threatened With a Rule Under Section 4(d) of
the ESA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened status for the straight-horned markhor (Capra falconeri
megaceros), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We are also publishing a concurrent rule under section 4(d) of the Act.
This rule protects and conserves the straight-horned markhor, while
encouraging local communities to conserve additional populations of the
straight-horned markhor through sustainable-use management programs.

DATES: This rule becomes effective November 6, 2014.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

We are combining two subspecies of markhor currently listed under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), the straight-
horned markhor (Capra falconeri jerdoni) and Kabul markhor (C. f.
megaceros), into one subspecies, the straight-horned markhor (C. f.
megaceros), based on a taxonomic change. We are listing the straight-
horned markhor (C. f. megaceros) as threatened under the Act.
We are also finalizing a rule under section 4(d) of the Act that
allows the import of sport-hunted straight-horned markhor trophies
under certain conditions. This regulation supports and encourages
conservation actions for the straight-horned markhor.

II. Major Provision of the Regulatory Action

This action eliminates the separate listing of the straight-horned
markhor and Kabul markhor as endangered and adds the combined straight-
horned markhor subspecies as threatened on the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h), and allows the import of sport-
hunted straight-horned markhor trophies under certain conditions at 50
CFR 17.40(d). This action is authorized by the Act.

Background

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), is a law that was passed to prevent extinction of
species by providing measures to help alleviate the loss of species and
their habitats. Before a plant or animal species can receive the
protection provided by the Act, it must first be added to the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants; section 4 of the Act and its
implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures
for adding species to these lists.
Previous Federal Actions
On June 14, 1976, we published in the Federal Register a rule
listing the straight-horned markhor, or the Suleiman markhor (Capra
falconeri jerdoni), and the Kabul markhor (C. f. megaceros), as well as
157 other U.S. and foreign vertebrates and invertebrates, as endangered
under the Act (41 FR 24062). All species were found to have declining
numbers due to the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of their habitats or ranges; overutilization for
commercial, sporting, scientific, or educational purposes; the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or some combination of
the three. However, the main concerns were the high commercial
importance and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to
control international trade.
Subsequent to the listing in 1976, the Suleiman markhor and the
Kabul markhor were later considered by some authorities to be the
single subspecies C. f. megaceros (straight-horned markhor). However,
the Suleiman markhor and the Kabul markhor remained listed as separate
subspecies under the Act.
On March 4, 1999, we received a petition from Sardar Naseer A.
Tareen, on behalf of the Society for Torghar Environmental Protection
and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Central
Asia Sustainable Use Specialist Group, requesting that the Suleiman
markhor (C. f. jerdoni or C. f. megaceros) population of the Torghar
Hills region of the Balochistan Province, Pakistan, be reclassified
from endangered to threatened under the Act. On September 23, 1999 (64
FR 51499), we published in the Federal Register a finding, in
accordance with section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, that the petition had
presented substantial information indicating that the requested
reclassification may be warranted, and we initiated a status review. We
opened a comment period, which closed January 21, 2000, to allow all
interested parties to submit comments and information. A 12-month
finding was never completed.
On August 18, 2010, we received a petition dated August 17, 2010,
from Conservation Force, on behalf of Dallas Safari Club, Houston
Safari Club, African Safari Club of Florida, The Conklin Foundation,
Grand Slam Club/Ovis, Wild Sheep Foundation, Jerry Brenner, Steve
Hornaday, Alan Sackman, and Barbara Lee Sackman, requesting the Service
downlist the Torghar Hills population of the Suleiman markhor (Capra
falconeri jerdoni or C. f. megaceros), in the Balochistan Province of
Pakistan, from endangered to threatened under the Act. On June 2, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register a finding that the

[[Page 60366]]

petition had presented substantial information indicating that the
requested reclassification may be warranted, and we initiated a status
review (76 FR 31903).
On February 1, 2012, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, and
other organizations and individuals filed suit against the Service for
failure to conduct a 5-year status review pursuant to section
4(c)(2)(A) under the Act (Conservation Force, et al. v. Salazar, Case
No. 11 CV 02008 D.D.C.). On March 30, 2012, a settlement agreement was
approved by the Court (11-CV-02008, D.D.C.), in which the Service
agreed to submit to the Federal Register by July 31, 2012, a 12-month
finding on the August 2010 petition. In fulfillment of the court-
ordered settlement agreement and the requirement to conduct a 5-year
status review under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act, the Service
published in the Federal Register a 12-month finding and proposed rule
to reclassify the straight-horned markhor (C. f. jerdoni) from
endangered to threatened with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the
Act (known as a 4(d) rule) (77 FR 47011) on August 7, 2012.
On December 5, 2013, the Service published in the Federal Register
a revised proposed rule to combine the straight-horned markhor and
Kabul markhor into one subspecies and reclassify the new subspecies as
threatened under the Act with a 4(d) rule (78 FR 73173).

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

We based this action on a review of the best scientific and
commercial information available, including all information received
during the public comment period. In the December 5, 2013, revised
proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties submit
information that might contribute to development of a final rule. We
also contacted appropriate scientific experts and organizations and
invited them to comment on these proposed rules. We received comments
from nine individuals and organizations.
We reviewed all comments we received from the public and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed reclassification of this subspecies, and we address those
comments below. Six of the commenters, including peer reviewers,
supported the revised proposed rule and 4(d) rule. Three commenters
opposed the reclassification and 4(d) rule; two commenters believed
more genetic studies and a better consensus among scientists was needed
before combining the two subspecies into one.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from five individuals with
scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from three of the peer reviewers from
whom we requested comments. The peer reviewers stated that the revised
proposed rule was accurate and our conclusions were logical; no
substantive comments were provided. Technical corrections suggested by
the peer reviewers have been incorporated into this final rule. In some
cases, a technical correction is indicated in the citations by
``personal communication'' (pers. comm.), which could indicate either
an email or telephone conversation; in other cases, the research
citation is provided.
Public Comments
(1) Comment: We received updated information on the population of
straight-horned markhor in Sheikh Buddin Hills, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Province, Pakistan. A 2011 field survey found that the straight-horned
markhor has been extirpated from this area.
Our Response: We included this updated information under the Range
and Population section below.
(2) Comment: The Service has not put forth sufficient population
information, especially for populations outside of the Torghar Hills,
to support a finding that the subspecies qualifies as a threatened
species.
Our Response: Our finding that the straight-horned markhor meets
the definition of a threatened species, as defined under the Act, is
not based solely on population numbers. Although most remaining
populations of straight-horned markhor are critically low, continue to
face threats, and will likely continue to decline, the population in
Torghar Hills has continued to increase and is the stronghold of the
species. Because of the protective measures provided to the Torghar
Hills population, we believe the subspecies as a whole is not presently
in danger of extinction, and, therefore, does not meet the definition
of endangered under the Act. As explained in more detail in our status
determination, the Torghar Hills population is considered to be
currently stable and increasing; based upon 2011 population surveys in
the Torghar Conservation Project (TCP), the markhor population and
domestic livestock have minimal range-use overlap, and the markhor's
habitat is secure under current management. However, the straight-
horned markhor occupies a narrow geographic range, and threats acting
on critically low populations outside Torghar Hills are likely to
continue in the foreseeable future. Moreover, within the foreseeable
future, pressures on habitat in the Torghar Hills and interactions
between livestock and markhor are likely to increase with the growth of
domestic livestock herds, the biannual migration of local tribes, and
the expansion of markhor populations in the TCP, resulting in the
subspecies as a whole being at risk of extinction due to the strong
likelihood of a catastrophic or stochastic event (e.g., disease)
impacting the Torghar Hills population. Should a catastrophic or
stochastic event (e.g., disease) impact the Torghar Hills population,
this single, stable population would likely not provide a sufficient
margin of safety for the subspecies. Thus, these factors indicate that
the straight-horned markhor, while not at risk of extinction now, will
likely become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we find that this subspecies of markhor qualifies as a
threatened species.
(3) Comment: The Service states that the subspecies in Torghar
Hills is likely to interact with domestic goats and could be
catastrophically impacted by disease. A recent study (Ostrowski et al.
2013), not considered by the Service, describes a pneumonia outbreak
that killed approximately 20 percent of the markhor population in
Tajikistan, concludes that domestic goats can carry a pathogen that
poses an insidious risk for cross-species transmission with sympatric
wild caprinae, and shows that straight-horned markhor could go extinct
due to an outbreak of pneumonia. Therefore, the straight-horned markhor
is currently in danger of extinction due to disease.
Our Response: The findings by Ostrowski et al. (2013, p. 3)
indicate that the outbreak that killed 20 percent of the markhor
population of a separate subspecies in Tajikistan was caused by a
pathogen, Mycoplasma capricolum capricolum. The source of the
Mycoplasma infection in markhor is unknown, although domestic goats may
have been responsible. The findings of the study conclude that the
markhor is vulnerable to M. c. capricolum infections and may be at risk
of future outbreaks in light of increasing encroachment of livestock
into wild habitat. However, we have found no information, in this study
or elsewhere, to support the commenter's opinion that

[[Page 60367]]

this subspecies is currently in danger of extinction due to disease. As
noted in the final rule, the Torghar Hills population is considered
stable and the overlap of range use with domestic livestock is minimal.
(4) Comment: The 4(d) rule is troubling because the Service
recognizes overhunting contributed to the imperiled status and
continues to be a threat.
Our Response: Overhunting was a major factor in diminishing the
straight-horned markhor population to critical levels. Even today,
hunting remains a threat to most remaining populations. However,
increases in populations of ungulates, including markhor, have occurred
in conservation areas managed specifically for trophy hunting. The 4(d)
rule supports and encourages the development of this type of
conservation program that addresses the threat of overhunting. A well-
managed sport-hunting program that encourages sustainable use can
significantly contribute to the conservation of wildlife and improve
wildlife populations by providing an economic incentive for local
communities to protect these species. Monies received for a hunting
permit may be used to build and fund schools and health clinics,
improve access to drinking water, and improve sanitation and roads.
Local communities see a direct connection between protecting species
and improvements to their communities.
(5) Comment: The Service premises the 4(d) rule upon the purported
benefits of the proceeds from selling markhor trophies. This approach
will only serve to further commercialize endangered and threatened
wildlife and sends a message that the United States encourages exchange
of imperiled wildlife for cash. This concept runs counter to the intent
of the Act to protect and recover species.
Our Response: We are not allowing for the commercialization of the
straight-horned markhor. Under this final 4(d) rule, the Director may
authorize the importation of noncommercial specimens for personal use,
provided the sport-hunted trophy is taken from a conservation program
that meets certain criteria. Consistent with the Act, the criteria of
the 4(d) rule ensures that imported markhor trophies are only from
scientifically-based management programs that provide for the
conservation of this subspecies.
(6) Comment: The 4(d) rule does not provide for the conservation of
the species because the definition of the term ``conservation'' under
the ESA limits take of a threatened species to ``the extraordinary case
where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved.''
Our Response: The 4(d) rule does not authorize take of straight-
horned markhor, rather it authorizes the import of trophy-hunted
straight-horned markhor from established conservation programs that
meet certain criteria.
(7) Comment: A 4(d) rule authorizing trophy imports must also
conserve the species and is, therefore, limited to a finding that
overpopulation necessitates the need for regulated take.
Our Response: Take of a wholly foreign species in its native
country is not regulated by the Act because the action is not subject
to the jurisdiction of the United States. Furthermore, as previously
mentioned, the 4(d) rule authorizes the importation, not the taking, of
markhor, provided the Director finds that the sport-hunted trophy is
from a management program meeting certain criteria. Therefore, we would
not make a finding on whether overpopulation necessitates regulated
take before authorizing the import of markhor sport-hunted trophies.
The criteria of the 4(d) rule ensures that imported markhor trophies
are only from scientifically based management programs that provide for
the conservation of this subspecies.
(8) Comment: The import of trophies is not carried out for the
purpose of promoting conservation; rather the action is undertaken
solely for the benefit of the individual hunter.
Our Response: Permitting the import of trophies from scientifically
based conservation programs allows the revenue derived from U.S.
hunters to be used for markhor conservation, as well as to support the
communities that are protecting them.
(9) Comment: The 4(d) rule allows import of sport-hunted trophies
from conservation programs that benefit the community and species.
Benefits to the community are irrelevant unless they also confer a
benefit to the species.
Our Response: We agree. Our 4(d) rule states ``the conservation
program can demonstrate a benefit to both the communities surrounding
or within the area managed by the conservation program and the species,
and the funds derived from sport hunting are applied toward benefits to
the community and the species.'' Involvement of the local community in
conservation of a species results in better conservation, especially if
it creates sustainable benefits for the community (Damm and Franco in
press a, p. 29). Revenue and economic benefits generated for the
community from the use of wildlife provide incentives for people to
conserve the species and its habitat, thus removing the risk of
resource degradation, depletion, and habitat conversion (IUCN SSC 2012,
pp. 2-5; Shackleton 2001, pp. 7, 10).
(10) Comment: Allowing the import of hunted trophies based in part
on funding communities living near a hunting reserve does not provide
for conservation of the species.
Our Response: We disagree. By setting criteria in the 4(d) rule
that programs must also benefit the local community to be eligible, we
are ensuring that U.S. hunters are participating in conservation
programs that truly benefit the species by providing economic
incentives that promote community-based conservation of markhor. In
essence, the 4(d) rule, provided the criteria is met, ensures that
local communities will have sufficient reasons, or incentives, to
conserve the species in preference to their domestic livestock and to
protect species against poaching.
(11) Comment: The Service inappropriately uses the Conference
Resolution 10.15 as a justification for the 4(d) rule by indicating
that the rule is necessary to implement the resolution. A CITES
Resolution in-and-of-itself is not a proper basis for a 4(d) rule, and
the Service must independently determine that the 4(d) rule is
``necessary and advisable.''
Our Response: It was not our intent to indicate that the 4(d) rule
was necessary to implement or comply with the Conference Resolution,
nor did we intend to use the Conference Resolution as a justification
for the 4(d) rule. The Conference Resolution recommends that CITES
Authorities (authorities under the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) in the State of import
approve permits of sport-hunted markhor trophies from Pakistan if they
meet the terms of the Resolution. Because the Service will take into
account the recommendations in the Conference Resolution when
determining whether the criteria under the 4(d) are met, we intended to
refer to the consideration of these recommendations as an additional
benefit. Thus, for clarification, we removed any language suggesting
that compliance with the Resolution was a justification for the 4(d)
rule.
(12) Comment: Several commenters raised concerns that the 4(d) rule
does not ensure revenue generated through sport hunting would benefit
the species and that the Service has not established any guidelines for
evaluating or monitoring trophy programs or determining whether funds
derived

[[Page 60368]]

from sport hunting are sufficiently applied towards the community or
species.
Our Response: Under the 4(d) rule, before a sport-hunted trophy may
be imported without a permit issued under 50 CFR 17.32, the Service
must publish notice of the authorization in the Federal Register. In
that notice, the Service will explain the basis of a decision to exempt
the import of markhor trophies from the permitting requirements. The
Service does not believe that we need to codify specific guidelines on
evaluating and monitoring scientifically based management programs that
include sport hunting or how funds generated by sport hunting must be
used in relation to enhancing the conservation of the species.
Establishing prescriptive guidelines may, in fact, limit or constrain
innovative management efforts, grassroots conservation initiatives, or
community development programs. The Service believes that the criteria
established in the 4(d) rule sufficiently outline the factors that must
be considered in order to exempt imports from the requirement for
import permits under the Act.
(13) Comment: The 4(d) rule will be difficult to implement as there
is no information on who submits the information on the program, how
the Service will determine if the local regulatory authorities are
capable of obtaining sound data on populations, and whether and how the
Service will decide if regulatory authority can determine where the
trophy was hunted.
Our Response: Although information submitted and considered under
the 4(d) rule will likely be submitted by the exporting country, it is
not a requirement. Information made available to the Service relative
to the five criteria established in the 4(d) rule will be evaluated to
determine its validity. After a thorough evaluation of the information,
the Service will publish a Federal Register notice explaining the basis
of any decision to exempt the import of markhor trophies from the
permitting requirements under the Act.
(14) Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that the 4(d) rule
would encourage poaching, create a demand for straight-horned markhor,
and facilitate illegal trade or a black market for markhor.
Our Response: It is unclear to the Service how allowing the
importation of legally hunted trophies, taken as part of a
scientifically based conservation program, would stimulate illegal
trade or create an unsustainable demand for straight-horned markhor.
While it may be possible to exempt importations from the requirements
of a permit issued under the Act at 50 CFR 17.32 if the criteria under
the 4(d) rule are met, we must still adhere to CITES requirements. As
an Appendix-I species under CITES, straight-horned markhor imports must
meet the criteria under 50 CFR part 23. Namely, there is still a
requirement that the exporting country make the required findings that
the export would not be detrimental to the species and that trophies
were legally taken. Moreover, as the authority for the importing
country, we would still need to make a finding that the import would be
for purposes not detrimental to the survival of the species, and that
the specimen will not be used for primarily commercial purposes. Thus,
if the Director determines that the conservation program meets the 4(d)
criteria, the Service finds that additional authorizations under the
Act for importation of sport-hunted trophies would not be necessary and
advisable for the conservation of the species, nor appropriate, because
such importation already requires compliance with CITES' most stringent
international trade controls for this subspecies listed under Appendix
I.
(15) Comment: The 4(d) rule is broader than Conference Resolution
10.15 (Establishment of quotas for markhor hunting trophies) and could
authorize import of trophies beyond the quota granted to Pakistan under
Conference Resolution 10.15. The 4(d) rule should be modified to match
Conference Resolution 10.15, including limiting the import of trophies
to only those exports from Pakistan.
Our Response: The purpose of the Act is to protect and recover
imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 4(d)
rule is meant to encourage conservation of straight-horned markhor
across its range. Limiting the 4(d) rule to only those trophies
exported from Pakistan under the Conference Resolution 10.15 would
diminish the conservation benefit to markhor range-wide, since
conservation programs established in countries such as Afghanistan
would not be eligible. In addition, because the Service will consider
the provisions of the Conference Resolution 10.15 when evaluating
whether the subject conservation program meets the criteria under the
4(d) rule, incorporating the specific provisions of the Resolution into
the 4(d) rule would be impracticable. In the event any future changes
to the Resolution are adopted by the Parties to the Convention, the
regulatory process for amending the 4(d) rule would take time. During
the time taken to amend the 4(d) rule, inconsistencies between the
Resolution and our regulations would exist, resulting in possible
confusion among the regulated community and potential enforcement
difficulties.
(16) Comment: The 4(d) rule eliminates the requirement for a
threatened species permit under the Act, thereby also eliminating the
public notice and comment requirements typically applicable to CITES
and ESA permits. The public should be provided with notice and
opportunity for comment on markhor import permits even if they are
covered by the 4(d) rule.
Our Response: The Service does not publish notices for receipt of
applications for threatened species permits in the Federal Register;
therefore, there is no requirement for public notice and comment.
However, under the 4(d) rule, the Service will publish a Federal
Register notice explaining the basis of a decision to exempt the import
of markhor trophies from the Act's permitting requirements.
(17) Comment: The Service has failed to show how the 4(d) rule is
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.
Our Response: We have revised the preamble of this final rule to
clarify how the 4(d) rule is necessary and advisable. Because the
success of markhor conservation is directly related to support from the
local community, it is imperative that the 4(d) rule support community-
based conservation programs. We set criteria in the 4(d) rule to ensure
that U.S. hunters are participating in conservation programs that
benefit the species by providing economic incentives that promote
community-based conservation of markhor.
(18) Comment: Afghanistan's Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation,
and Livestock (MAIL) stressed that it is imperative that export of
markhor trophies be documented as taken from established conservation
programs in Torghar Hills only, and not from areas in Afghanistan.
Our Response: Our 4(d) rule establishes that ``regulating
authorities can determine that the trophies have in fact been legally
taken from the populations under an established conservation program.''
If the country of export, in this case Pakistan, cannot provide that
information to the Service, or if there is a proven indication that
animals are being taken from outside approved conservation programs,
the import would not meet the enhancement criteria set forth in the
4(d) rule. Further, CITES provides additional protections because
markhor

[[Page 60369]]

are listed under CITES Appendix I. Appendix-I specimens require an
export permit to be issued by the Management Authority of the state of
export, in this case Pakistan. Prior to issuing the CITES export
permit, Pakistan must determine that the specimen was legally obtained,
that the trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species,
and that a CITES import permit has already been issued by the importing
country (in this case, the United States). We feel that the protections
put in place under this 4(d) rule and CITES are sufficient to ensure
that animals will not be taken from outside approved conservation
programs. However, we would appreciate notification of any such
incidences where markhor are taken in violation of CITES or the Act.
(19) Comment: The Service did not adequately address or consider
the impacts of the 4(d) rule to endangered snow leopards (Panthera
uncia), whose range overlaps with the straight-horned markhor in
northern Pakistan.
Our Response: The range of the snow leopard overlaps only with the
flare-horned markhor (Capra falconeri falconeri) and Heptner's markhor
(C. f. heptneri), not the straight-horned markhor. The 4(d) rule
applies only to the straight-horned markhor and has no bearing on the
snow leopard.
(20) Comment: The Service has failed to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 4(d) rule allows controversial
sport-hunting and import under a vague program for conservation and
must be fully analyzed.
Our Response: As stated above, the 4(d) rule does not authorize
take of straight-horned markhor. Because this subspecies is wholly
foreign, the United States and the Act do not have jurisdiction to
prohibit or allow take of a listed species. Furthermore, under our 1983
policy, we determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment in connection with regulations adopted under section 4(a) of
the Act, including 4(d) rules that accompany listings of threatened
species.
(21) Comment: One commenter expressed concerns about the Service's
draft Significant Portion of the Range (SPR) policy. Specifically, the
commenter disagreed with our analysis of populations of straight-horned
markhor outside of Torghar Hills and our conclusion that it did not
meet our definition of ``significant'' as defined in our SPR policy.
Our Response: Since we published our revised proposed rule, the
Service and National Marine Fisheries Service published a final rule
interpreting the phrase ``significant portion of the range'' (79 FR
37578, July 1, 2014). The final policy states that, if a species is
found to be endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion
of its range, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened,
respectively, and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the
species wherever found. Consistent with the final policy, because we
found the straight-horned markhor to be threatened throughout its
entire range, we did not conduct an additional analysis as to whether
any portion of the subspecies' range is ``significant.''
(22) Comment: The Service should confirm that the Torghar Hills
population meets the criteria set forth in the 4(d) rule and that
sport-hunted trophies taken from this population may be imported
without a threatened species permit under 50 CFR 17.32.
Our Response: We will review all conservation programs to determine
whether they meet the enhancement criteria set forth in the 4(d) rule.
We will publish those enhancement findings in a separate Federal
Register document.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

We fully considered comments from the public and peer reviewers to
develop this final reclassification of the straight-horned markhor. We
made some technical corrections and incorporated changes to our
proposed rule as described above. In addition, we made some non-
substantive changes to our analysis under the Significant Portion of
the Range section of this rule to reflect the final version of the SPR
policy. In the proposed listing rule, after determining the species was
threatened throughout its range, we conducted an additional analyses to
determine that no portion of the species range was ``significant.''
Under the final SPR policy, however, once it is determined that a
species is threatened or endangered throughout its range, the Service
need not analyze whether any portion of its range is ``significant.''
Accordingly, we revised the text of the Significant Portion of the
Range section of this rule to reflect the final version of the SPR
policy. Despite this modification, the proposed status determination
that the subspecies is threatened throughout its range did not change
in this final listing rule.

Subspecies Information

Taxonomic Classification
The markhor (Capra falconeri) is a species of wild goat belonging
to the Family Bovidae and Subfamily Caprinae (sheep and goats) (Valdez
2008, unpaginated). When the markhor was first listed under the Act in
1975, seven subspecies of markhor were generally recognized: Capra
falconeri jerdoni (straight-horned or Suleiman markhor), C. f.
megaceros (Kabul markhor), C. f. cashmirensis (Kashmir markhor), C. f.
falconeri (Astor markhor), C. f. ognevi (Uzbek markhor), C. f. heptneri
(Tajik markhor), and C. f. chialtanensis (Chiltan markhor) (64 FR
51499, September 23, 1999; Roberts 1977, p. 196). In 1975, Schaller and
Khan (1975, pp. 188, 191) recognized three subspecies of markhor based
on horn shape and body characteristics: C. f. jerdoni and C. f.
megaceros were combined into C. f. megaceros (straight-horned markhor);
C. f. cashmirensis and C. f. falconeri were combined into C. f.
falconeri (flare-horned markhor); and C. f. ognevi and C. f. heptneri
were combined into C. f. heptneri (Heptner's markhor). Many authorities
consider C. f. chialtanensis to be Capra aegagrus chialtanensis
(Chiltan wild goat) (64 FR 51500, September 23, 1999).
In our June 2, 2011, 90-day petition finding, August 7, 2012,
proposed rule, and December 5, 2013, revised proposed rule to
reclassify the straight-horned markhor (C. f. jerdoni), we requested
information on the taxonomy of C. f. jerdoni and C. f. megaceros to
determine if these constitute a single subspecies. We have reviewed the
available information, including information submitted by the public.
While scientists have not reached a consensus on the correct
classification of markhor (Zahler 2013, pers. comm.; Frisina 2012,
pers. comm.) and genetic studies are needed (Rafique 2014, pers.
comm.), the Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS),
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the IUCN Species
Survival Commission (IUCN SSC) Caprinae Specialist Group, and CITES all
follow Grubb 2005 (p. 701) and Schaller and Khan (1975 pp. 188, 191),
which recognizes three subspecies of markhor (Damm and Franco in press,
pp. 4-5; ITIS 2013a, unpaginated; ITIS 2013b, unpaginated; Smithsonian
National Museum of Natural History 2011, unpaginated; CITES Resolution
Conf. 12.11. (Rev. CoP15) 2010, p. 3; Valdez 2008, unpaginated; CITES
10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 894; Shackleton 1997, p. 12).
Currently, the straight-horned markhor (C.f. jerdoni) and Kabul
markhor (C.f. megaceros) are listed as separate subspecies under the
Act. Based on the information available and our present understanding
of taxonomic relationships, we are revising the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife at

[[Page 60370]]

50 CFR 17.11(h) to maintain consistency with ITIS, IUCN, and CITES to
reflect the current scientifically accepted taxonomy and nomenclature.
In the Regulation Promulgation section of this document, we implement a
taxonomic change to reflect the combining of the straight-horned
markhor (C. f. jerdoni) and Kabul markhor (C. f. megaceros) into one
subspecies, the straight-horned markhor (C. f. megaceros). We will also
refer to the straight-horned markhor as ``markhor'' in this final rule.
Species Description
Markhor are sturdy animals with strong, relatively short, thick
legs and broad hooves. They are a reddish-grey color, with more buff
tones in the summer and grey in the winter. The legs and belly are a
cream color with a conspicuous dark-brown pattern on the forepart of
the shank interrupted by a white carpal patch. They also have a dark
brown mid-dorsal stripe that extends from the shoulders to the base of
the tail. The tail is short and sparsely covered with long black hairs,
but is naked underneath. Adult males have an extensive black beard
followed by a long, shaggy mane extending down the chest and from the
fore part of the neck. There is also a crest of long black and dark
brown hair that hangs like a mane down either side of the spine from
the shoulders to the croup (Roberts 1977, p. 197). Horns are straight
with an open, tight spiral resembling a corkscrew (Schaller and Khan
1975, p. 189).
Life History
Markhor are associated with extremely rugged terrain with
precipitous cliffs, rocky caves, and bare rock surfaces interspersed
with patches of arid, steppe vegetation. They can be found from 600
meters (m) (1,969 feet (ft)) up to 3,300 m (10,827 ft) in elevation
(Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181; Mitchell 1989, p. 8; Johnson 1994b, p.
5).
Markhor are diurnal in feeding activity. They are most active in
the early morning and late evening (Mitchell 1989, p. 8). Wild
pistachios are a preferred food for straight-horned markhor (Johnson
1994, p. 12; Roberts 1977, p. 198), although in general they are known
to feed on grasses and leaves, and twigs of bushes. Markhor seek water
in the late afternoon; they may need to descend to valley bottoms for
water, but only after darkness (Roberts 1977, p. 198).
Markhor are gregarious, with females, their young, and immature
males associating in small herds, but competition with domestic goat
flocks may drive markhor populations to higher terrain and result in
larger herds. Adult males live solitary lives, taking shelter under
rock overhangs or natural caves. They join the females and young only
during the rut, which for the straight-horned markhor peaks around mid-
November and lasts about 2 weeks. Males may attach themselves to one
particular territory or herd. Fighting between rival males also occurs
during this time. Markhor reach sexual maturity around 3 years of age.
Females usually give birth to one young, but twins are not uncommon. A
young markhor will remain with its mother until the rutting season or
until the next young is born. After this, the female will drive the
older young away if it approaches too closely. In the wild, it is
possible that markhor can live up to 18 years of age, but few males are
estimated to live beyond 11 or 12 years (Ali 2008, p. 16; Mitchell
1989, p. 9; Roberts 1977, pp. 198-199).
Range and Population
For most of the straight-horned markhor populations, there is no
detailed information on distribution, population estimates, or threats
to the subspecies; most information that is available predates the
onset of hostilities in the region in 1979. However, the Torghar Hills
population of the straight-horned markhor has been extensively studied
since the mid-1980s due to the implementation of a conservation plan in
this area. Therefore, this status review mainly consists of information
related to this population. When possible, we have included general
information on the status of the populations outside of the Torghar
Hills.
Historically, the straight-horned markhor inhabited a wide range in
the mountains of eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Afghanistan, it
has been reported that this subspecies survives only in the Kabul Gorge
and the Kohe Safi area of Kapissa Province, and in some isolated
pockets in between (Ali 2008, pp. 17-18; Valdez 2008, unpaginated;
Habibi 1997, p. 208; Schaller and Khan 1975, pp. 195-196). However, no
surveys have been conducted in the area, and it is likely that this
subspecies has been extirpated from Afghanistan (Zahler 2013, pers.
comm.). In Pakistan, the straight-horned markhor is found in the
mountains of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces. There is one
unconfirmed report of the subspecies in Punjab Province (Valdez 2008,
unpaginated; CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 894). For a species range map,
please see the IUCN Red List species account for Capra falconeri
(http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=3787); zooming in on
populations will reveal subspecies labels.
Within Balochistan, the straight-horned markhor has been reduced to
small, scattered populations on all the mountain ranges immediately to
the north and east of Quetta, including Murdar, Takhatu, Zarghun,
Kaliphat, Phil Garh, and Suleiman. It is reported that the straight-
horned markhor still survives in the Shingar Range on the border of
Balochistan and South Waziristan. However, surveys are needed to
confirm these localities. The greatest concentration is in the Torghar
Hills of the Toba Kakar Range on the border with Afghanistan, within a
community-based management program, the Torghar Conservation Project
(Rafique 2014, pers. comm.; Frisina and Tareen 2009, pp. 142-143;
Johnson 1994b, p. 16; Roberts 1977, p. 198; Schaller and Khan 1975, p.
196).
Within Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the subspecies is reported to still
survive in the Sakra Range, Murghazar Hills, Khanori Hills, and Safed
Koh Range. Surveys are needed to confirm these localities; the
occurrence in Safed Koh has been questioned due to a lack of
information. A 2011 survey found that the straight-horned markhor has
been extirpated from the Sheikh Buddin Hills (Rafique 2014, pers.
comm.; Ali 2008, p. 18; Valdez 2008, unpaginated; Hess et al. 1997, p.
255; Roberts 1977, p. 198).
Limited information is available for populations throughout most of
the straight-horned markhor's range. Many historical populations were
extirpated due to overhunting (Johnson 1994b, p. 5; Johnson 1994, p.
10). In Afghanistan, very few straight-horned markhor survive; perhaps
as few as 50-80 occur in the Kohe Safi region, with few in other
isolated pockets (Valdez 2008, unpaginated; Habibi 1997, pp. 205, 208;
Schaller and Khan 1975, p. 195). However, as stated above, this
subspecies may be extirpated from Afghanistan (Zahler 2013, pers.
comm.). In Pakistan, Schaller and Khan (1975, pp. 195-196) estimated
150 in Takhatu, 20 to 30 in Kalifat, 20 in Zarghum, 20 in Shinghar, 20
around Sheikh Buddin, 50 in the Sakra Range, and at least 100 in Safed
Koh. Few were estimated to survive in the Murdar Range, and a remnant
population may have existed near Loralei in the Gadabar Range. Roberts
(1969 in Valdez, 2008, unpaginated) believed the number of markhor in
the Toba Kakar range was fewer than 500. In 1984, Tareen estimated
fewer than 200 remained in the Torghar Hills (Mitchell, 1989, p. 9).
Overall, Schaller and Khan (1975, pp. 195-196) estimated fewer than
2,000

[[Page 60371]]

straight-horned markhor survived throughout the subspecies' range.
In general, markhor populations are reported as declining
(Kanderian et al. 2011, p. 287; Valdez 2008, unpaginated). Hess et al.
(1997, p. 255) and Habibi (1997, p. 208) concluded that the straight-
horned markhor had likely not increased in recent years. Current
estimates for populations of straight-horned markhor are lacking, with
the exception of the population in the Torghar Hills of the Toba Kakar
Range. This population has been extensively studied due to the
implementation of a community-based management program. In addition, as
part of the use of annual export quotas for markhor sport-hunted
trophies granted to Pakistan at the 10th meeting of the Conference of
the Parties to CITES, Pakistan submits annual surveys of markhor
populations, including populations within the Torghar Conservation Area
(Resolution Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14); see discussion below under
Summary of Threats). Based on surveys conducted from 1985 through 1988,
Mitchell (1989, p. 9) estimated 450 to 600 markhor inhabited the
Torghar Hills. Regular surveys of the managed area have taken place
since 1994, when Johnson (1994b, p. 12) estimated the population of
markhor to be 695. Later surveys estimated the population to be 1,296
in 1997; 1,684 in 1999; 2,541 in 2005; 3,158 in 2008; and 3,518 in 2011
(Frisina and Rasheed 2012, p. 5; Arshad and Khan 2009, p. 9; Shafique
2006, p. 6; Frisina 2000, p. 8; Frisina et al. 1998, p. 6). Although
most of the mountain ranges in Balochistan have not been formally
surveyed, Johnson (1994b, p. 16) concluded that Torghar was the last
remaining stronghold for the subspecies.

Summary of Threats

Throughout the range of the straight-horned markhor, overhunting,
keeping of large herds of livestock for subsistence, deforestation, and
the lack of effective federal and provincial laws have devastated
populations of straight-horned markhor and destroyed vital habitat
(Valdez 2008, unpaginated; Habibi 1997, pp. 205, 208; Hess et al. 1997,
p. 255).
Small-scale hunting has been a long-standing tradition of the
people of Afghanistan and Pakistan (Zahler 2013, pers. comm.; Kanderian
et al. 2011, p. 283; Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 146; Ahmed et al.
2001, p. 2). However, prior to the beginning of the Soviet-Afghan War
in 1979, few animals were hunted, as weapons were primitive and
ammunition scarce and expensive. After the beginning of the war, there
was an influx of more sophisticated weapons, such as semi- and fully-
automatic rifles, and cheap ammunition was more accessible. This
proliferation of arms and increased likelihood of a successful kill,
combined with millions of displaced people dependent on wild meat for
subsistence, led to excessive hunting of wildlife and critically low
populations of straight-horned markhor (Zahler 2013, pers. comm.;
Kanderian et al. 2011, p. 284; Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 145; MAIL
2009, p. 4; Woodford et al. 2004, p. 181; Ahmed et al. 2001, pp. 2, 4;
CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 895; Habibi 1997, pp. 205, 208; Hess et al.
1997, p. 255; Johnson 1994b, p. 1).
In an effort to manage diminishing wildlife populations, national
bans on hunting were implemented in Pakistan in 1988, 1991, and 2000.
However, the ban had little impact on the recovery of wildlife
populations (Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 5). In 2005, Afghanistan banned
hunting for 5 years, but there was no enforcement and most Afghans were
either unaware of the decree or ignored it (Kanderian et al. 2011, p.
291; MAIL 2009, pp. 4, 23, 24). Additionally, the markhor (Capra
falconeri) is a protected species under Afghanistan's Environmental Law
of 2007, the Balochistan Wildlife Protection Act of 1974 (BWPA), and
the North-West Frontier Province Wild-life (Protection, Preservation,
Conservation, and Management) Act (NWFPWA) of 1975, which extends to
all of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. Under these laws, hunting,
killing, or capturing of markhor is prohibited (MAIL 2009, p. 23;
Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 58; Official Gazette No. 912, dated 25
January 2007, Article 49; BWPA 1977, p. 15; NWFPWA 1975, Third
Schedule).
Today, the straight-horned markhor has been extirpated from much of
its former range due to overhunting, and they survive only in the most
inaccessible regions of its range (Habibi 1997, p. 205; Johnson 1994b,
p. 5; Johnson 1994, p. 10), despite laws intended to provide protection
from hunting. We have no information on the extent of poaching
currently taking place in most of the subspecies' range, but
information suggests that uncontrolled hunting remains a threat to most
remaining populations of this subspecies (United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) 2009, p. 10; NEPA and UNEP 2008, p. 17; Valdez 2008,
unpaginated; CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 895; Hess et al. 1997, p.
255). However, increases in populations of ungulates, including
markhor, have occurred in conservation areas managed specifically for
trophy hunting (University of Montana 2013, unpaginated; Frisina and
Rasheed 2012, p. 5; Wildlife Conservation Society 2012, unpaginated;
Arshad and Khan 2009, p. 9; Government of Pakistan 2009, p. viii; Ali
2008, pp. 21, 38, 64; Shafique 2006, p. 6; Frisina 2000, p. 8; Virk
1999, p. 142; Frisina et al. 1998, p. 6). Currently, only one
conservation plan is being implemented for the straight-horned markhor,
the Torghar Conservation Project (TCP) in Torghar Hills, Pakistan.
In the early 1980s, local tribal leaders became alarmed at the
significant decline in the markhor population in the Torghar Hills
(Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 145; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4; Johnson
1994b, p. 1). The population had dropped to a critical level, estimated
at fewer than 200 animals (Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4; Johnson 1994b, p.
14; Mitchell, 1989, p. 9). Tribal leaders attributed the decline to an
increase in poaching due to the significant increase in weapons in the
area during the Soviet-Afghan War (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 145;
Johnson 1994b, p. 1). After unsuccessful attempts to receive assistance
from the Balochistan Forest Department, they turned to wildlife
biologists in the United States, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Together, they developed the TCP, an innovative, community-
based conservation program that allows for limited trophy hunting to
conserve local populations of markhor, improve habitat for both markhor
and domestic livestock, and improve the economic conditions for local
tribes in Torghar (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 146; Woodford et al.
2004, p. 182; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4 Johnson 1994b, pp. 1-2).
In 1985, the TCP was launched and covered most of the Torghar area
(approximately 1,000 square kilometers (386 square miles)). First,
tribal leaders implemented a ban on all hunting activities by tribesmen
in the Torghar Hills. Then, local tribesmen were hired as game guards
to assist in population surveys and prevent poachers from entering the
Torghar Hills. Guards were placed at points of entry into the protected
area to inform migrating tribesmen of the hunting ban, who, in turn,
agreed to the ban so as not to jeopardize their passage through the
Torghar Hills. Support for the program, including salaries for the game
guards, is raised through fees for limited trophy hunting of markhor
within the TCP, mostly by foreign game hunters. Currently, markhor fees
are $35,000 U.S. dollars, 80 percent of which goes to the TCP and the
other 20 percent goes to the Pakistani Government. In the beginning,

[[Page 60372]]

7 game guards were hired; currently, 90 game guards are employed. The
number of markhor allowed to be hunted each year is based on surveys
conducted by game guards and wildlife biologists (Bellon, 2010, p. 117;
Frisina and Tareen 2009, pp. 142, 146-147; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 5;
Johnson 1994b, p. 3). Numbers of animals taken have ranged from 1 to 5
animals per hunting season, or less than the 2 percent of the total
population recommended by Harris (Harris 2012, pers. comm.; 1993 in
Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182) annually for trophy hunting (Frisina and
Tareen 2009, pp. 146-147, 149; Ali 2008, p. 20; Woodford et al. 2004,
p. 182; Johnson 1997, pp. 403-404). Because markhor have a polygynous
mating system, reproduction rates have not been affected by the removal
of a limited number of adult males (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182), as
evidenced by the continuing increase in the Torghar Hills population.
As a result of the TCP, poaching has been eliminated in the Torghar
Hills (Woodford et al. 2004, p. 182; Johnson 1994b, p. 3). Johnson
(1994b, p. 15) attributed the markhor population growth to the
substantial reduction in mortality when uncontrolled hunting was
stopped.
The markhor (Capra falconeri) is protected under CITES, an
international agreement between governments to ensure that the
international trade of CITES-listed plant and animal species does not
threaten species' survival in the wild. Under this treaty, CITES
Parties (member countries or signatories) regulate the import, export,
and reexport of specimens, parts, and products of CITES-listed plant
and animal species. Trade must be authorized through a system of
permits and certificates that are provided by the designated CITES
Management Authority of each CITES Party. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan
are Parties to CITES.
The straight-horned markhor was listed in CITES Appendix I,
effective July 1, 1975. An Appendix-I listing includes species
threatened with extinction whose trade is permitted only under
exceptional circumstances, which generally precludes commercial trade.
The import of an Appendix-I species generally requires the issuance of
both an import and export permit. Import permits for Appendix-I species
are issued only if findings are made that the import would be for
purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species and
that the specimen will not be used for primarily commercial purposes
(CITES Article III(3)). Export permits for Appendix-I species are
issued only if findings are made that the specimen was legally acquired
and trade is not detrimental to the survival of the species, and if the
issuing authority is satisfied that an import permit has been granted
for the specimen (CITES Article III(2)).
Straight-horned markhor in the Torghar Hills, and other subspecies
of markhor within community-managed conservation areas in Pakistan, may
be legally hunted and exported. In 1997, at the 10th meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to CITES, the Government of Pakistan
submitted a proposal for approval of an annual export quota for sport-
hunted markhor trophies to act as an incentive to communities to
conserve markhor. During that same meeting, the Conference of the
Parties approved an annual export quota of six sport-hunted markhor
trophies for Pakistan (Resolution Conf. 10.15). Due to the success of
conservation programs in Pakistan, CITES increased the annual export
quota to 12 markhor in 2002, to further encourage community-based
conservation; four were allotted to the TCP (Bellon 2010, p. 117; Ali
2008, p. 24; Resolution Conf. 10.15 (Rev. CoP 14)).
Furthermore, because the straight-horned markhor is listed as an
Appendix-I species under CITES, legal international trade is very
limited; most of the international trade in straight-horned markhor
specimens consists of trophies and live animals. Data obtained from the
United Nations Environment Programme--World Conservation Monitoring
Center (UNEP-WCMC) CITES Trade Database show that, from July 1975, when
the straight-horned markhor was listed in Appendix I, through 2012, a
total of 136 specimens were reported to UNEP-WCMC as (gross) exports.
Of those 136 specimens, 55 were trophies, 80 were live animals, and 1
was a body. In analyzing these data, it appears that one record may be
an overcount due to a slight difference in the manner in which the
importing and exporting countries reported their trade. It is likely
that the actual number of straight-horned markhor specimens in
international trade during this period was 134, including 55 trophies,
78 live animals, and 1 body. Exports from range countries included: 48
trophies from Pakistan, 1 trophy from Afghanistan, and 1 body from
Afghanistan. It should be noted that the straight-horned markhor trade
data provided above are based on reported trade to UNEP-WCMC in both
the subspecies Capra falconeri jerdoni and the subspecies Capra
falconeri megaceros. It should also be noted that the markhor at the
species level (Capra falconeri), except for C. f. chialtanensis, C. f.
megaceros, and C. f. jerdoni, was listed in Appendix II in 1975, but
was transferred Appendix I in 1992. Since then, international trade was
likely in some cases reported to UNEP-WCMC at the species level rather
than the subspecies level. Therefore, it is possible that, between 1992
and 2012, some international trade in Capra falconeri jerdoni and Capra
falconeri megaceros may have been reported to UNEP-WCMC at the species
level. It was not possible to determine whether the trade reported at
the species level represented trade in straight-horned markhor or trade
in other markhor subspecies. Because there has been limited trade in
straight-horned markhor, totaling 136 specimens over 38 years, we
believe that international trade controlled via valid CITES permits is
not a threat to the subspecies.
Habitat modification has also contributed to the decline of the
straight-horned markhor. People living in rural areas heavily depend on
natural resources; habitat throughout the range of the straight-horned
markhor has been negatively impacted by domestic livestock overgrazing
and deforestation (Kanderian et al. 2011, pp. 281, 284, 287; World
Wildlife Fund (WWF) 2011, unpaginated; MAIL 2009, p. 5; UNEP 2009, p.
6; NEPA and UNEP 2008, p. 15; Valdez 2008, unpaginated; WWF 2008,
unpaginated; Hess et al. 1997, p. 255; CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p.
895).
Much of the land where straight-horned markhor occur is owned by
local tribes whose subsistence is largely dependent on keeping large
herds of primarily sheep and goats. Livestock often exceed the carrying
capacity of rangelands, leading to overgrazing, a halt to natural
regeneration, and subsequent desertification of native vegetation.
Overgrazing and competition with domestic livestock for forage is known
to have resulted in the decline of wild ungulates and pushed their
occurrence to range edges (WWF 2011, unpaginated; Frisina and Tareen
2009, pp. 145, 154; UNEP 2009, p. 8; NEPA and UNEP 2008, pp. 15-17;
Valdez 2008, unpaginated; WWF 2008, unpaginated; Woodford et al. 2004,
p. 180; Tareen 1990, p. 4; Mitchell 1989, pp. 4-5; Schaller and Khan
1975, p. 197).
Throughout the markhor's range, millions of displaced people and a
high human population growth rate have created a tremendous demand for
natural resources. Straight-horned markhor habitat and food sources are
suffering significant declines due to deforestation from illegal
logging and collection of wood for building materials, fuel, and
charcoal (Zahler

[[Page 60373]]

2013, pers. comm.; Smallwood et al. 2011, p. 507; WWF 2011,
unpaginated; MAIL 2009, pp. 3, 5; UNEP 2009, p. 6; NEPA and UNEP 2008,
pp. 15-16; Valdez 2008, unpaginated; WWF 2008, unpaginated; Hess et al.
1997, p. 255; Hasan and Ali 1992, pp. 8-9, 12-13).
Several Afghan and Pakistani laws protect wildlife and its habitat
in these countries. Protected areas, such as national parks,
sanctuaries, and game reserves may be designated under Afghanistan's
Environmental Law, the BWPA, and the NWFPWA (MAIL 2009, pp. 22-23;
Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 58, 65-67; Environmental Law 2007,
Articles 38, 39, 40, and 41; NWFPWA 1975, sections 15, 16, and 17).
However, no designated protected areas contain the straight-horned
markhor.
Article 45 of Afghanistan's Environmental Law dictates that grazing
of livestock shall be managed and controlled by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Food to minimize the impact on, and
optimize use of, vegetation cover. Given that overgrazing of livestock
is a wide-ranging threat to Afghanistan's environment (UNEP 2009, p. 8;
NEPA and UNEP 2008, pp. 15-17; Valdez 2008, unpaginated), it appears
that the Environmental Law has not yet been effectively implemented.
Also, Presidential Decrees No. 405 and No. 736 prohibit the cutting of
forests to preserve and maintain forests as a national asset. However,
these decrees are unfamiliar to most Afghans or are ignored (MAIL 2009,
pp. 5, 23).
In Balochistan, the Forest Act of 1927 allows for the creation of
various classes of forests, the reservation of state-owned forest land,
and for the provincial government to assume control of privately owned
forest land and declare government-owned land to be a protected area.
It also prohibits grazing, hunting, quarrying, and clearing land for
cultivation; removal of forest produce; and the felling or lopping of
trees and branches in reserved and protected forests (Aurangzaib and
Pastakia 2008, p. 46). However, this law does not provide for
sustainable use, conservation, or the protection of endangered wildlife
within forests. Other legislation related to forests in Balochistan
restricts subsistence use, but focuses on maximizing commercial
exploitation. This may be because these laws date back to the early
20th century and reflect priorities of that time. Provincial amendments
have done little to alter the focus of these laws. Enforcement of
forest laws is lacking, and where enforcement is possible, penalties
are not severe enough to serve as a deterrent to violators.
Furthermore, these laws may be overridden by other laws in favor of
development and commercial uses (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 42-
43).
The Land Preservation Act of 1900 is a Punjab law that, by default,
was applied to the Balochistan province shortly after its establishment
in 1970. This law allows the government to prevent soil erosion and
conserve subsoil water. Activities such as clearing, breaking up, and
cultivating land not ordinarily under cultivation; quarrying stone and
burning lime; cutting trees and removing forest produce; setting fire
to trees, timber, and forest produce; and herding and pasturing goats
and sheep are prohibited. However, the government may permit
inhabitants to carry out such activities (Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008,
p. 39).
In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the North-West Frontier Province Forest,
Ordinance, 2002 (No. XIX of 2002) consolidates and amends the laws
relating to protection, conservation, management, and sustainable
development of the forests and natural resources of the province. It
allows the government to declare forest land as a reserved forest
(Forest Ordinance 2002, section 4). Within a reserved forest, it is
illegal for a person to cultivate, clear, break up, or occupy any land;
construct a building, road, enclosure, or any infrastructure, or alter
or enlarge any such existing structures; trespass, graze, browse, or
drive cattle; set fire, cut, fell, uproot, lop, tap, or burn any tree
listed in Schedule I; quarry stone, burn lime or charcoal, or collect
or remove forest produce; pollute; or hunt, shoot, fish, or set snares
or traps (Forest Ordinance 2002, section 26). Given that deforestation
is a widespread problem in Pakistan, it appears that this provincial
law has not been effectively implemented.
Despite federal and provincial laws, declines in markhor
populations and significant degradation of habitat have continued.
Enforcement is lacking and very difficult to achieve due to the
remoteness of many areas, the political situation in remote areas,
conflicting policies, lack of understanding of the need and importance
of conservation, and economic constraints (MAIL 2009, pp. 5, 23; UNEP
2009, pp. 4, 29; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 39, 42-43; Hess et
al. 1997, p. 243). Additionally, many of the areas where the straight-
horned markhor occurs are on tribal lands, which are generally governed
by tribal law, and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas where federal
and provincial laws do not apply (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 144;
Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 13, 24; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, p. 23;
CITES 10.84 (Rev.) 1997, p. 895; Johnson 1994a, p. 1). In areas where
existing laws are applicable, it does not appear that they have
provided adequate protection given the severe declines in straight-
horned markhor and threats the markhor continues to face from habitat
loss and poaching.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are Parties to major multilateral treaties
that address natural resource conservation and management (MAIL 2009,
p. 32; Ahmed and Khazi 2008, p. 31). Among these are the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the Convention on Combating Desertification
(MAIL 2009, p. 34; Ahmed and Khazi 2008, pp. 14, 31). In becoming a
Party to these treaties, both countries assumed obligations to
implement the treaties' provisions, which in many cases require
legislation. However, participation in treaty activities or laws to
implement obligations is lacking (MAIL 2009, pp. 32-33; Ahmed and Khazi
2008, pp. 14, 31; Aurangzaib and Pastakia 2008, pp. 65, 58). Therefore,
these treaties do not provide adequate protections to ameliorate
threats faced by the straight-horned markhor.
Although international, federal, and provincial laws do not appear
to effectively provide protection to markhor habitat from overgrazing
and deforestation, the TCP has taken steps to create better habitat for
both markhor and domestic livestock.
In our August 7, 2012, proposed rule, we determined that key areas
in the steeper, upland slopes and higher elevation of the Torghar Hills
are not easily accessible and, therefore, are not impacted by human
settlement or grazing pressure. However, we expressed concern that
grazing pressure may increase in these upland areas due to a
combination of drought conditions and the tradition of keeping large
herds of domestic livestock. The lower slopes and valleys have been
denuded of trees for livestock grazing and collection of fuel wood
(Ahmed et al. 2001, pp. 3, 8; Frisina et al. 1998, pp. 9-10). Demand on
these resources increases during the biannual migration of local and
nearby tribes and their herds through the Torghar Hills (Woodford et
al. 2004, p. 180; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 4). As forage becomes limited
in the lower slopes and valleys, due to drought conditions and grazing
pressure, domestic herds are likely to move to higher elevations in
search of forage (Frisina et al. 2002, p. 13).
Recognizing that protecting markhor and its habitat can generate
greater

[[Page 60374]]

income for the community than relying solely on traditional livestock
production, tribesmen of the Torghar Hills requested that the Society
for Torghar Environmental Protection (STEP), the community-based,
nongovernmental organization established to administer the TCP,
integrate habitat management measures to protect markhor, and create
better habitat for both markhor and domestic animals.
A habitat management plan was developed in 2001. The plan
emphasizes range management, improved agriculture, and water storage
projects to improve habitat conditions, and reduce grazing pressure,
eliminate the need for domestic herds to utilize upper slope areas,
and, therefore, reduce interactions between domestic livestock and
markhor around forage and water resources (Frisina and Tareen 2009, p.
152; Woodford et al. 2004, pp. 180, 184; Frisina et al. 2002, pp. 3, 8,
16; Ahmed et al. 2001, pp. 7, 11). Agriculture is seen as an
alternative to raising livestock, thus reducing grazing pressure
(Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 152; Ahmed et al. 2001, p. 11). Revenue
raised by trophy hunting has been used to fund projects for community
needs, including construction of water tanks, dams, and irrigation
channels to water fruit trees, and to supply water for the community
during times of drought (IUCN SSC 2012, p. 10). STEP plans to plant
woodlots of indigenous trees to meet the fuel wood and timber
requirements of the local tribes. STEP will also train locals in
livestock management and agricultural practices (Bellon 2010, p. 117;
Frisina and Tareen 2009, p. 152).
Although we do not know the extent to which the different stages of
the management plans described above have been implemented, we have
received new information on the markhor and its habitat in the TCP.
Frisina and Rasheed (2012, p. 8) concluded from the 2011 population
surveys in the TCP that the markhor population and its habitat are
secure under the current management scenario.
Currently, there is no evidence of disease transmission between
livestock and markhor in the Torghar Hills (Woodford et al. 2004, p.
184; Frisina et al. 2002, p. 13), although disease transmission was
identified as a potential threat to the Torghar Hills straight-horned
markhor in our August 7, 2012, proposed rule. The potential for disease
transmission stems from livestock-wildlife interactions due to
overgrazing by large herds of livestock, drought conditions, and the
migration of flocks through the Torghar Hills. The risk of transmission
was linked to future and continued habitat and livestock management.
The risk of disease transmission is particularly severe if large
numbers of domestic livestock are present during periods of drought.
During these circumstances, resources are limited and interactions
would be more frequent around available water sources and in the
vegetated upper slopes. Additionally, researchers are concerned that
interactions would likely increase in the TCP if domestic livestock
herds grow and the markhor population expands (Woodford et al. 2004, p.
183).
In addition to implementing measures to improve habitat conditions
at lower elevations, eliminating the need for domestic herds to utilize
upper slope areas, and, thereby, reduce interactions between domestic
livestock and markhor around forage and water resources, STEP has
discussed the establishment of a community-based Animal Health Service.
The herdsmen within the TCP have agreed to this measure. As it is not
feasible to vaccinate markhor in mountainous terrain, STEP will train
and equip tribesmen to act as ``barefoot vets'' with the responsibility
of vaccinating domestic sheep and goats, and administering appropriate
anthelmintics (drugs that expel parasitic worms) as they travel through
the TCP. Veterinary care will be effective only if range and livestock
management plans are implemented, and have the potential to result in
smaller, healthier domestic livestock herds (Woodford et al. 2004, p.
185).
The plans developed by STEP to improve habitat for markhor also
lower the risk of disease transmission by addressing livestock
management and minimizing interactions between domestic livestock and
wildlife. With these actions, coupled with the planned Animal Health
Service, the risk of diseases being transferred from domestic livestock
to markhor is significantly reduced. Although we do not know the status
of the habitat management plans or the Animal Health Service, Frisina
and Rasheed (2012, p. 8) concluded from the 2011 population surveys in
the TCP that the markhor population and domestic livestock have minimal
range-use overlap, and the markhor's habitat is secure under the
current management scenario. Therefore, we have no information that
indicates that disease transmission is a current threat to the Torghar
Hills markhor. However, because the larger Torghar Hills population is
within an area that heavily relies on domestic livestock for
subsistence, it is more likely to interact with domestic sheep and
goats than the other populations. In the event of a disease outbreak,
the Torghar Hills population would be particularly vulnerable. Because
the other extant populations are critically low, declining, and
continue to face threats from poaching and habitat loss, a reduction in
the single population in the Torghar Hills will not provide a
sufficient enough margin of safety for the subspecies to withstand this
type of stochastic event.
In the rest of the straight-horned markhor's range, we have no
information on the occurrence of disease or the risk of disease
transmission from domestic sheep and goats. Overgrazing of domestic
livestock has contributed to habitat loss in other mountain ranges,
suggesting large livestock herds have also been maintained in these
areas, but we do not have information on herd size or the likelihood of
livestock-wildlife interactions. Given the extremely small population
estimates of straight-horned markhor outside of the Torghar Hills,
interactions may be rare.
We found no information indicating that the current threats to the
straight-horned markhor, as described above, are likely to improve in
the future. Threats to this subspecies are driven by past and current
conflict, the needs of millions of displaced people, and an expanding
human population. Current regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the
markhor and its habitat are not being implemented effectively in most
of the range to reduce or remove threats to the subspecies. With the
exception of the TCP in the Torghar Hills, no other management plans
are in place to specifically address the straight-horned markhor.
Therefore, the tremendous pressure put on natural resources, and the
impacts to the straight-horned markhor and its habitat, will likely
continue unless the natural resources of Afghanistan and Pakistan are
effectively protected.
In the Torghar Hills, the TCP has eliminated poaching of straight-
horned markhor and managed the habitat such that the population has
steadily increased since the TCP's inception and both the population
and its habitat are currently secure. Because the TCP has incorporated
economic incentives for the local community and is supported by the
community, we believe the protections and management provided by the
TCP will continue.
The narrow geographic range of the straight-horned markhor and the
small, scattered, and declining populations make this subspecies
particularly vulnerable to threats. Furthermore,

[[Page 60375]]

small, scattered populations may experience decreased demographic
viability and increased susceptibility to extinction from stochastic
environmental factors (e.g., weather events, disease) and an increased
threat of extinction from genetic isolation and subsequent inbreeding
depression and genetic drift. Although the Torghar Hills population is
subject to a management plan, and the protections provided by that
management plan have led to an increasing population, a reduction in
this single stable population would not provide a sufficient margin of
safety for the subspecies to withstand effects from catastrophic or
stochastic events.

Finding

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations
(50 CFR part 424) set forth procedures for adding species to, removing
species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, a species may be determined to be endangered or threatened
based on any of the following five factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly
or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the
subspecies and considered the five factors in assessing whether the
straight-horned markhor is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the straight-horned markhor. We reviewed the
1999 petition submitted by the Society for Torghar Environmental
Protection and IUCN, the 2010 petition submitted by Conservation Force,
information available in our files, other available published and
unpublished information, and information received in response to the
August 7, 2012, proposed rule and the December 5, 2013, revised
proposed rule.
Today, the straight-horned markhor occurs in small, scattered
populations in the mountains of Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
provinces, Pakistan. Although we have found reports that this
subspecies survives in Afghanistan, we believe it has likely been
extirpated. In general, markhor populations are reported as declining
and have likely not increased since 1975. However, one exception to
this declining population trend is the Torghar Hills population in the
Toba Kakar Range. Due to the implementation of a conservation plan,
which includes revenues brought in from trophy hunting, the Torghar
Hills population has increased from fewer than 200 in the mid-1980s to
3,518 currently.
Straight-horned markhor have been significantly impacted by years
of conflict and the accompanying influx of sophisticated weapons. Easy
access to accurate weapons and millions of displaced people dependent
on wild meat for subsistence led to excessive hunting and the
extirpation of the straight-horned markhor from much of its former
range and a severe reduction in remaining populations. Additionally,
tremendous pressure has been placed on natural resources from millions
of displaced people and an expanding human population. Deforestation
for livestock grazing, illegal logging, and collection of wood for
building materials, fuel, and charcoal, to meet the needs of the
growing population, continue to impact straight-horned markhor habitat.
Several federal and provincial laws are in place to provide some
protection to natural resources, but they are subject to broad
exemptions, allowing for overriding laws favoring development and
commercial use, and enforcement is lacking. However, in the Torghar
Hills, the population of straight-horned markhor and its habitat have
been effectively managed by the TCP such that both are secure under the
current management scenario. Due to the establishment of the TCP, the
cessation of uncontrolled poaching, and the hunting of only a limited
number of trophies in the Torghar Hills, the population has increased
substantially since TCP's inception in 1985. Furthermore, due to the
TCP, straight-horned markhor habitat is currently secure and is
presently no longer impacted by overgrazing or collection of wood.
Because the TCP has incorporated economic incentives derived from
trophy hunting for the local community and is supported by the
community, we believe the protections and management provided by the
TCP will continue. We are not aware of other populations of straight-
horned markhor under the same level of management. Information
indicates that hunting and habitat loss remain as threats in the rest
of the straight-horned markhor's range; without effective enforcement
of federal and provincial laws, we believe these threats will continue
into the foreseeable future.
Section 3 of the Act defines an ``endangered species'' as ``any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a ``threatened species'' as
``any species which is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' Most of the straight-horned markhor populations are small and
declining. Threats to this subspecies from hunting and habitat loss
still exist and will likely continue into the foreseeable future.
Current regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to ameliorate the negative
effects of these threats on the subspecies and will likely remain
ineffective until changes in implementation are made. Therefore, we
expect that most straight-horned populations will continue to decline
into the foreseeable future.
However, although most remaining populations of straight-horned
markhor are critically low, continue to face threats from overhunting
and habitat loss, and will likely continue to decline, implementation
of the TCP has eliminated threats from hunting and habitat loss in the
Torghar Hills. This population has continued to increase since the
inception of the TCP and, today, is the only stronghold of the species.
Furthermore, because of the protective measures provided to the
Torghar Hills population by the TCP, we believe that the threats
identified under Factors A, B, and D are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the subspecies is presently in
danger of extinction, and, therefore, does not meet the definition of
endangered under the Act. The Torghar

[[Page 60376]]

Hills population is considered to be currently stable and increasing;
based upon 2011 population surveys in the TCP, the markhor population
and domestic livestock have minimal range-use overlap, and the
markhor's habitat is secure under current management. However, the
straight-horned markhor occupies a narrow geographic range and threats
acting on those critically low populations outside Torghar Hills are
likely to continue in the foreseeable future. Moreover, within the
foreseeable future, pressures on habitat in the Torghar Hills and
interactions between livestock and markhor are likely to increase with
the growth of domestic livestock herds, the biannual migration of local
tribes, and the expansion of markhor populations in the TCP, resulting
in the subspecies as a whole being at risk of extinction due to the
strong likelihood of a catastrophic or stochastic event (e.g., disease)
impacting the Torghar Hills population. Should a catastrophic or
stochastic event (e.g., disease) impact the Torghar Hills population,
this single stable population would likely not provide a sufficient
margin of safety for the subspecies. Thus, these factors indicate that
the straight-horned markhor, while not at risk of extinction now, will
likely become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future due to
those continuing threats. Therefore, on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial information, we have determined that the
straight-horned markhor meets the definition of a ``threatened
species'' under the Act. Consequently, we are listing the straight-
horned markhor as threatened in its entirety.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Section 3(16) of the Act defines ``species'' to include any species
or subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Under the Service's
``Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments Under the Endangered Species Act'' (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996), three elements are considered in the decision concerning the
establishment and classification of a possible distinct population
segment (DPS). These elements, which are applied similarly for
additions to or removals from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, include:
(1) The discreteness of a population in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs;
(2) The significance of the population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and
(3) The population segment's conservation status in relation to the
Act's standards for listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is
the population segment endangered or threatened?).
Discreteness
Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions:
(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
(2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
We reviewed available information to determine whether any
population, including the Torghar Hills population, of the straight-
horned markhor meets the first discreteness condition of our 1996 DPS
policy. We found no evidence that any population was markedly separated
from other markhor populations as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors. Additionally, we are
not aware of measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity that
provide evidence of marked separation. With respect to Torghar Hills,
the boundaries are unclear and appear to grade into other ranges within
the Toba Kakar Mountains. Additionally, Johnson (1994b, p. 15) noted
that, if the Torghar Hills population reaches carrying capacity, it
could become a source of emigrants for other mountain ranges in the
area and that intermountain movement is probably already taking place.
Since that publication, the Torghar Hills population has increased from
695 markhor to 3,518, indicating a greater likelihood that
intermountain movement of markhor will or is already taking place. We
currently do not know the extent, if any, that markhor are moving from
the Torghar Hills into other mountain ranges; however, it appears that
they could. Movement may require markhor to cross unsuitable habitat
(e.g., the TCP is surrounded by less severe topography and valleys
typically not preferred by markhor), but there is no reason that they
could not cross, especially if carrying capacity is met, thereby
creating a need to emigrate to other suitable areas in adjacent ranges.
Therefore, without evidence of marked separation, we determine that
none of the populations of the straight-horned markhor meet the first
discreteness condition of the 1996 DPS policy.
We next evaluated whether any of the straight-horned markhor
populations meet the second discreteness condition of our 1996 DPS
policy. A population segment may be considered discrete if it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Although the
straight-horned markhor is reported to occur in Afghanistan, it has
likely been extirpated. Additionally, we found no significant
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms in Afghanistan and
Pakistan; therefore, none of the populations of the straight-horned
markhor meet the second discreteness condition of the 1996 DPS policy.
We determine, based on a review of the best available information,
that none of the populations of the straight-horned markhor, including
the Torghar Hills population, meet the discreteness conditions of the
1996 DPS policy. Because we found that the straight-horned markhor
populations do not meet the discreteness element under the Service's
DPS policy, we need not conduct an evaluation of significance under
that policy. We conclude that none of the straight-horned markhor
populations qualify as a DPS under the Act.
Significant Portion of the Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The term ``species'' includes ``any
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population
segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' We published a final policy interpreting the
phrase ``Significant Portion of its Range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578, July 1,
2014). The final policy states that (1) if a species is found to be
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range,
the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively,
and the Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species
wherever found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is
``significant'' if the

[[Page 60377]]

species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its
range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species
is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species
would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a
species is considered to be the general geographical area within which
that species can be found at the time FWS or NMFS makes any particular
status determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or
threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant
portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire
taxonomic species or subspecies.
The first step in our analysis of the status of a species is to
determine its status throughout all of its range. If we determine that
the species is in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range, we list the species as
endangered (or threatened) and no additional SPR analysis is required.
We found the straight-horned markhor to be threatened throughout its
range. Therefore, no portions of the species' range are ``significant''
as defined in our SPR policy and no additional SPR analysis is
required.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, requirements for Federal
protection in the United States, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
encourages and results in conservation actions by Federal and State
governments in the United States, foreign governments, private agencies
and groups, and individuals.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, and as implemented by
regulations at 50 CFR part 402, requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions within the United States or on the high seas with respect
to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened
and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that the straight-horned markhor is not native to the
United States, we are not designating critical habitat for this species
under section 4 of the Act.
Section 8(a) of the Act authorizes the provision of limited
financial assistance for the development and management of programs
that the Secretary of the Interior determines to be necessary or useful
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species in foreign
countries. Sections 8(b) and 8(c) of the Act authorize the Secretary to
encourage conservation programs for foreign endangered species and to
provide assistance for such programs in the form of personnel and the
training of personnel.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered and
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31, in
part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to ``take'' (take includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt any of these)
within the United States or upon the high seas; import or export;
deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for
sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered or threatened
wildlife species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken in violation
of the Act. Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species and 17.32 for threatened species. For
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for scientific purposes, to
enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental
take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. For threatened
species, a permit may be issued for the same activities, as well as
zoological exhibition, education, and special purposes consistent with
the Act.

4(d) Rule

Section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may, by
regulation, extend to threatened species prohibitions provided for
endangered species under section 9 of the Act. Our implementing
regulations for threatened wildlife (50 CFR 17.31) incorporate the
section 9 prohibitions for endangered wildlife, except when a 4(d), or
special, rule is promulgated. For threatened species, section 4(d) of
the Act gives the Secretary discretion to specify the prohibitions and
any exceptions to those prohibitions that are appropriate for the
species, and provisions that are necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of the species. A 4(d) rule allows us to include
provisions that are tailored to the specific conservation needs of the
threatened species and which may be more or less restrictive than the
general provisions at 50 CFR 17.31.
Wildlife often competes with humans and land uses upon which human
livelihoods depend (e.g., agriculture and pastoralism). In areas where
wildlife does not provide any benefits to the local people or imposes
substantial costs, it is often killed and its habitat degraded or lost
to other, more beneficial land uses (IUCN SCC 2012, p. 5). Well-managed
sport hunting programs that encourage sustainable use can contribute to
the conservation of wildlife and improve wildlife populations. The
primary objective of a well-managed trophy-hunting program is not
hunting, but the conservation of large mammals (Shackleton 2001, p. 7).
The IUCN SSC Caprinae Specialist Group specifically states that trophy
hunting usually generates substantial funds that can be used for
conservation activities, such as habitat protection, population
monitoring, law enforcement, research, or management programs (IUCN SSC
2012, p. 3). Additionally, involvement of the local community in
conservation of a species results in better conservation outcomes,
which improve even more if those efforts generate sustainable benefits
for the community (Damm and Franco in press a, p. 29). Revenue,
employment, improved livelihoods, and/or other benefits generated from
the use of wildlife provide incentives for people to conserve the
species and its habitat, thus removing the risk of resource
degradation, depletion, and habitat conversion (IUCN SSC 2012, pp. 2-5;
Shackleton 2001, pp. 7, 10).
Recognizing the potential of sport-hunting-based conservation
programs to contribute to the conservation of straight-horned markhor,
we are finalizing the following 4(d) rule to allow the import of sport-
hunted markhor trophies taken from established conservation programs
without a threatened species permit issued under 50 CFR 17.32, provided
that certain criteria are met. Importation of a personal sport-hunted
straight-horned markhor may be authorized by the Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Director) without a threatened species
permit if the trophy is taken from a conservation program that meets
the following criteria:
(1) Populations of straight-horned markhor within the conservation
program's areas can be shown to be sufficiently large to sustain sport-
hunting, and the populations are stable or increasing.

[[Page 60378]]

(2) Regulatory authorities have the capacity to obtain sound data
on populations.
(3) The conservation program can demonstrate a benefit to both the
communities surrounding or within the area managed by the conservation
program and the species, and the funds derived from sport hunting are
applied toward benefits to the community and the species.
(4) Regulatory authorities have the legal and practical capacity to
provide for the long-term survival of the populations.
(5) Regulatory authorities can determine that the trophies have in
fact been legally taken from the populations under an established
conservation program.

The Director may, consistent with the purposes of the Act, authorize by
publication of a notice in the Federal Register the importation of
personal sport-hunted straight-horned markhor, taken legally from the
established conservation program after the date of such notice, without
a threatened species permit, provided that the applicable provisions of
50 CFR parts 13, 14, 17, and 23, which includes obtaining appropriate
CITES export and import permits, have been met.
Many hunters are willing to pay relatively large fees for the
privilege to hunt, but only if they are able to import their trophy.
The United States is a major market country for trophy hunting (IUCN
SCC 2012, p. 10). Authorizing the importation of personal sport-hunted
straight-horned markhor according to the 4(d) rule without a threatened
species permit under the Act facilitates the participation of U.S.
hunters in scientifically based conservation programs that include
hunting. In the case of the markhor, the revenue generated by hunters
has directly supported a community-based conservation program and has
resulted in measurable improvements in straight-horned markhor
populations. Furthermore, the criteria of the 4(d) rule ensure that
U.S. hunters participate in sustainable sport-hunting programs.
Additionally, while it may be possible to exempt importations from the
requirements of a permit issued under the Act at 50 CFR 17.32 if the
criteria under the 4(d) rule are met, we must still adhere to CITES
requirements. As an Appendix-I species under CITES, straight-horned
markhor imports must meet the criteria under 50 CFR 23. Namely, there
is still a requirement that the exporting country make the required
findings that the export would not be detrimental to the species and
that trophies were legally taken. Moreover, as the authority for the
importing country, we would still need to make a finding that the
import would be for purposes not detrimental to the survival of the
species, and that the specimen will not be used for primarily
commercial purposes. Thus, if the Director determines that the
conservation program meets the 4(d) criteria, the Service finds that
additional authorizations under the Act for importation of sport-hunted
trophies would not be necessary and advisable for the conservation of
the species, nor appropriate, because such importation already requires
compliance with CITES' most stringent international trade controls for
this subspecies listed under Appendix I. Therefore, we find that this
4(d) rule contains appropriate provisions, as well as measures that are
necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations
adopted under section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining
our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October
25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

A list of all references cited in this document is available at
http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2011-0003, or upon
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species
Program, Branch of Foreign Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this rule are staff members of the Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Markhor, Kabul''
and revising the entry for ``Markhor, straight-horned'' in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

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

* * * * * * *
Markhor, straight-horned........ Capra falconeri Afghanistan, Entire............. T 15, 841 NA 17.40(d)
megaceros. Pakistan.

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.40 by adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.40 Special rules--mammals.

* * * * *
(d) Straight-horned markhor (Capra falconeri megaceros).
(1) General requirements. Except as noted in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section, all prohibitions of Sec. 17.31 and

[[Page 60379]]

exemptions of Sec. 17.32 apply to this subspecies.
(2) What are the criteria under which a personal sport-hunted
trophy may qualify for import without a permit under Sec. 17.32? The
Director may, consistent with the purposes of the Act, authorize by
publication of a notice in the Federal Register the importation,
without a threatened species permit issued under Sec. 17.32, of
personal sport-hunted straight-horned markhor from an established
conservation program that meets the following criteria:
(i) The markhor was taken legally from the established program
after the date of the Federal Register notice;
(ii) The applicable provisions of 50 CFR parts 13, 14, 17, and 23
have been met; and
(iii) The Director has received the following information regarding
the established conservation program for straight-horned markhor:
(A) Populations of straight-horned markhor within the conservation
program's areas can be shown to be sufficiently large to sustain sport
hunting and are stable or increasing.
(B) Regulatory authorities have the capacity to obtain sound data
on populations.
(C) The conservation program can demonstrate a benefit to both the
communities surrounding or within the area managed by the conservation
program and the species, and the funds derived from sport hunting are
applied toward benefits to the community and the species.
(D) Regulatory authorities have the legal and practical capacity to
provide for the long-term survival of the populations.
(E) Regulatory authorities can determine that the sport-hunted
trophies have in fact been legally taken from the populations under an
established conservation program.
* * * * *

Dated: September 22, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-23671 Filed 10-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P