Attachment 7 FWS Designation1

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 115

June 16, 2015

Part II

Department of the Interior

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing All Chimpanzees
as Endangered Species; Final Rule

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

34500

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R9–ES–2010–0086;
4500030115]
RIN 1018–AZ52

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing All Chimpanzees as
Endangered Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), determine
endangered species status for all
chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). This rule eliminates the
separate classification of captive and
wild chimpanzees under the Act. We
are also amending the rule issued under
section 4(d) of the Act for primates,
which is set forth at 50 CFR 17.40(c), by
removing chimpanzees from that rule.
This final rule implements the Federal
protections provided by the Act for all
chimpanzees, whether found in
captivity or in the wild.
DATES: This rule is effective September
14, 2015.
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), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:

Executive Summary

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
We are listing all chimpanzees,
whether in the wild or in captivity, as
endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
We have determined that the Act does
not allow for captive chimpanzees to be
assigned separate legal status from their
wild counterparts on the basis of their
captive state, including through

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

designation as a separate distinct
population segment (DPS). It is also not
possible to separate out captive
chimpanzees for different legal status
under the Act by other approaches.
Therefore, we are eliminating the
separate classification of chimpanzees
held in captivity and listing the entire
species, wherever found, as an
endangered species under the Act.
II. Major Provision of the Regulatory
Action
This action eliminates separate
classifications for wild and captive
chimpanzees under the Act. All
chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in
captivity, will be listed as one entity
that is an endangered species in the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
at 50 CFR 17.11(h). This action will also
remove the chimpanzee and paragraph
(c)(3) from the rule issued under section
4(d) of the Act for primates, which is set
forth at 50 CFR 17.40(c), and extend the
Act’s protections for endangered species
to all chimpanzees.
Background
The Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (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 an
animal or plant 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 October 19, 1976, we published in
the Federal Register a rule listing the
chimpanzee and 25 other species of
primates under the Act (41 FR 45990);
the chimpanzee and 13 of the other
primate species were listed as
threatened species. The chimpanzee
was found to be a threatened species
based on: (1) Commercial logging and
clearing of forests for agriculture and the
use of arboricides; (2) capture and
exportation for use in research labs and
zoos; (3) diseases, such as malaria,
hepatitis, and tuberculosis contracted
from humans; and (4) inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms. We
simultaneously issued a rule under
section 4(d) of the Act (‘‘4(d) rule’’) that
the general prohibitions provided to the
threatened species would apply except
for live animals of these species held in
captivity in the United States on the
effective date of the rulemaking

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(November 18, 1976; 41 FR 45990),
progeny of such animals, or the progeny
of animals legally imported into the
United States after the effective date of
the rulemaking (November 18, 1976).
On November 4, 1987, we received a
petition from the Humane Society of the
United States, World Wildlife Fund, and
Jane Goodall Institute, requesting that
the chimpanzee be reclassified from a
threatened species to an endangered
species. On March 23, 1988 (53 FR
9460), 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 initiated a status review.
We opened a comment period, which
closed July 21, 1988, to allow all
interested parties to submit comments
and information.
On December 28, 1988 (53 FR 52452),
we published in the Federal Register a
finding that the requested
reclassification was warranted with
respect to chimpanzees in the wild. This
decision was based on the petition and
subsequent supporting comments that
dealt primarily with the status of the
species in the wild and not with the
circumstances of captive populations.
We did not propose reclassification of
captive chimpanzees. We found that the
4(d) rule exempting captive
chimpanzees in the United States from
the general prohibitions may encourage
propagation, providing surplus animals
and reducing the incentive to remove
animals from the wild. On February 24,
1989 (54 FR 8152), we published in the
Federal Register a proposed rule to
implement such reclassification. With
publication of the proposed rule, we
opened a 60-day comment period to
allow all interested parties to submit
comments and information.
On March 12, 1990, we published in
the Federal Register (55 FR 9129) a final
rule reclassifying the wild populations
of the chimpanzee as endangered
species. The captive chimpanzees
remained classified as threatened
species, and those within the United
States continued to be covered by the
4(d) rule allowing activities otherwise
prohibited.
On March 16, 2010, we received a
petition dated the same day, from Meyer
Glitzenstein & Crystal on behalf of The
Humane Society of the United States,
the American Association of Zoological
Parks and Aquariums, the Jane Goodall
Institute, the Wildlife Conservation
Society, the Pan African Sanctuary
Alliance, the Fund for Animals,
Humane Society International, and the
New England Anti-Vivisection Society

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘petitioners’’)
requesting that captive chimpanzees
(Pan troglodytes) be reclassified as
endangered species under the Act. The
petition clearly identified itself as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioners, as
required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). The
petition contained information on what
the petitioners reported as potential
threats to the species from habitat loss,
poaching and trafficking, disease, and
inadequate regulatory mechanisms. On
October 12, 2010, we received a letter
from Anna Frostic, Staff Attorney with
the Humane Society of the United
States, on behalf of the petitioners
clarifying that the March 16, 2010,
petition was a petition to list the entire
species (Pan troglodytes) as an
endangered species, whether in the wild
or in captivity, pursuant to the Act.
On September 1, 2011, we published
in the Federal Register a finding that
the March 16, 2010, petition presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
requested action may be warranted, and
we initiated a status review (76 FR
54423).
On November 1, 2011, we published
in the Federal Register a notice
correcting an incorrect Docket Number
given under the ADDRESSES section of
the September 1, 2011, petition finding.
We also gave notice that we were
making the large volume of supporting
documents submitted with the petition
available to the public. To allow the
public adequate time to review the
supporting documents, we extended the
period of time for submitting
information to January 30, 2012 (74 FR
67401). On June 12, 2013, the Service
published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule to list all chimpanzees as
an endangered species under the Act
and remove chimpanzees from the 4(d)
rule for primates set forth at 50 CFR
17.40(c) (78 FR 35201).

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
We fully considered comments from
the public and the peer reviewer on the
proposed rule to determine our final
listing status of chimpanzees. This final
rule incorporates changes to our
proposed rule based on the comments
that we received that are discussed
below and newly available scientific
and commercial information. We made
some technical corrections and
incorporated additional information
into our discussion of diseases. On the
basis of an evaluation of the information
we received or incorporated into this
final rule we affirm our determination

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

that listing the chimpanzee as an
endangered species is warranted.
Evaluation of Captive Chimpanzees as
a Separate Listable Entity
Under section 3(16) of the Act, we
may consider for listing any species,
which includes subspecies of fish,
wildlife, and plants, or any distinct
population segment (DPS) of vertebrate
fish or wildlife that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Such
entities are considered eligible for
separate listing status under the Act
(and, therefore, referred to as listable
entities) should we determine that they
meet the definition of an endangered
species or threatened species.
The Service was petitioned to list all
chimpanzees, whether in the wild or in
captivity, as endangered species.
Essentially, this request is to eliminate
the separate classification of captive
chimpanzees from chimpanzees located
in the wild. This petition raised
questions regarding whether the Service
has any discretion to differentiate the
listing status of chimpanzees in
captivity from those in the wild.
The Service has not had an absolute
policy or practice with respect to this
issue, but generally has included wild
and captive animals together when it
has listed species. The example set by
the separate chimpanzee listings was
used as support for two petitions the
Service received in 2010 to delist U.S.
captive and U.S. captive-bred members
of three antelope species in the United
States. In the 2005 listing determination
for the scimitar-horned oryx (Oryx
dammah), dama gazelle (Gazella dama),
and addax (Addax nasomaculatus) (70
FR 52310, September 2, 2005), the
Service found that a differentiation in
the listing status of captive specimens of
these antelopes in the United States was
not appropriate. The petitioners, Exotic
Wildlife Association, Safari Club
International, and Safari Club
International Foundation, asserted that
the treatment by the Service of
chimpanzees in 1990 warranted similar
treatment for these antelope species.
Because the Service had not specifically
examined whether the current statute,
regulations, and applicable policies
provide any discretion to differentiate
the listing status of specimens in
captivity from those in the wild, we
reviewed the issues raised by these
petitions to ensure the Act is
implemented appropriately. On June 5,
2013, we found that delisting U.S.
captive and U.S. captive-bred members
of the three antelope species was not
warranted (78 FR 33790). In addition,
on August 9, 2013, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34501

upheld the Service’s decision to include
U.S. captive-bred antelope in its 2005
listing of the three antelope species as
endangered (see Safari Club Int’l v.
Jewell, 960 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C.
2013)).
For similar reasons and as discussed
below, we find that the Act does not
allow for captive chimpanzees to be
assigned separate legal status from their
wild counterparts on the basis of their
captive state, including through
designation as a separate distinct
population segment (DPS).1 It is also not
possible to separate out captive
chimpanzees for different legal status
under the Act by other approaches (see
Other Potential Approaches for
Separate Legal Status).
Provisions of the Act
The legal mandate of section 4(a)(1) is
to determine ‘‘whether any species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species . . .’’ (emphasis added). In the
Act, a ‘‘species’’ is defined to include
any subspecies and any DPS of a
vertebrate animal, as well as taxonomic
species. Other than a taxonomic species
or subspecies, captive specimens (of a
vertebrate animal species) would have
to qualify as a ‘‘distinct population
segment . . . which interbreeds when
mature’’ to qualify as a separate DPS.2
Nothing in the plain language of the
definitions of ‘‘endangered species,’’
‘‘threatened species,’’ or ‘‘species’’
expressly indicates that captive
chimpanzees can or cannot have
separate status under the Act on the
basis of their state of captivity.
However, certain language in the Act is
inconsistent with a determination of
separate legal status for captive
chimpanzees.
Under section 4(c)(1), the agency is to
specify for each species listed ‘‘over
what portion of its range’’ it is an
1 As compared to populations that exist in the
wild, ‘‘captivity’’ is defined as ‘‘living wildlife . . .
held in a controlled environment that is intensively
manipulated by man for the purpose of producing
wildlife of the selected species, and that has
boundaries designed to prevent animal [sic], eggs or
gametes of the selected species from entering or
leaving the controlled environment. General
characteristics of captivity may include but are not
limited to artificial housing, waste removal, health
care, protection from predators, and artificially
supplied food’’ (50 CFR 17.3).
2 The analysis in this document addresses only
where it is not disputed that the specimens are
members of a wildlife species, such as
chimpanzees. This analysis does not address
situations where members of a species have been
held in captivity for a sufficiently long period that
they have developed into a separate domesticated
form of the species, including where the
domesticated form is sufficiently distinct to be
considered a separate taxonomic species or
subspecies (e.g., domesticated donkey vs. the
African wild ass).

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34502

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

endangered or threatened species.3
‘‘Range,’’ while not defined in the Act,
consistently has been interpreted under
the Act as the general geographical area
of the species in the wild. Thus,
chimpanzees held in captivity and
analyzed as a separate listable entity
have no ‘‘range’’ separate from that of
the species to which they belong, at
least as that term has been applied
under the Act.
As demonstrated in various species’
listings at 50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12,
information in the ‘‘Historic Range’’
column is the range of the species in the
wild. For none of these species does the
‘‘range’’ information include countries
or geographic areas on the basis of
where specimens are held in captivity,
even though the Service knows that
specimens of many of these species
have long been held in facilities outside
their native range, including in the
United States.
Also, in analyzing the ‘‘present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of [a species’] habitat or
range’’ (emphasis added) (see section
4(a)(1)(A) of the Act), the Service has
traditionally analyzed habitat threats in
the native range of wild specimens and
not included other geographic areas
where specimens have been moved to
and are being held in captivity. We are
not aware of any Service listing decision
where analysis of threats to the ‘‘range’’
has included geographic areas outside
the native range where specimens are
held in captivity.
In analyzing other threats to a species
(see sections 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(1)(C),
4(a)(1)(D), and 4(a)(1)(E) of the Act), the
Service has also limited its analysis to
threats acting upon wild specimens
within the native range of the species,
and has not included analysis of
‘‘threats’’ to animals held in captivity
except as those threats impact the
potential for the captive population to
contribute to recovery of the species in
the geographic area where wild
specimens are native.
In addition to the use of ‘‘range’’ in
sections 4(a)(1) and 4(c)(1), the
definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and
‘‘threatened species’’ found in section 3
of the Act also discuss the role of the
species’ range in listing determinations.
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
3 Even though the Service has taken the position
in its significant portion of the range (SPR) policy
(79 FR 37578) that the range information called for
under section 4(c)(1) is for information purposes,
this statutory language still informs the question of
Congress’ intent under the statute.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.’’ The
Service’s 2014 Final Policy on
Interpretation of the Phrase ‘‘Significant
Portion of Its Range’’ in the Endangered
Species Act’s Definitions of
‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened
Species’’ (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014)
interprets ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘general
geographical area within which that
species can be found at the time [the
Service] or [the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS)] makes any
particular status determination. This
range includes those areas used
throughout all or part of the species’ life
cycle, even if they are not used regularly
(e.g., seasonal habitats). Lost historical
range is relevant to the analysis of the
status of the species, but it cannot
constitute a significant portion of a
species’ range.’’ The ‘‘general
geographical area within which that
species can be found’’ is broad enough
to include geographic areas where
animals have been moved by humans
and are being held in captivity.
However, the Service has not applied
the term in this manner in the past and
does not intend to do so in the future.
‘‘Significant portion of its range’’ (SPR)
analyses have been and will be limited
to geographic areas where specimens are
found in the wild.
Thus, throughout the Act ‘‘range’’ has
consistently been interpreted by the
Service as being the natural range of the
species in the wild.4 For all the reasons
discussed above, chimpanzees held in
captivity should not have separate legal
status under the Act because they have
no ‘‘range’’ that is separate from the
range of the species in the wild to which
they belong, as that term is used in the
Act.
Certain provisions in sections 9 and
10 of the Act show that Congress
anticipated that captive animals would
have the same legal status as their wild
counterparts by providing certain
4 See also Endangered Species Act: Hearings on
H.R. 37, H.R. 470, H.R. 471, H.R. 1461, H.R. 1511,
H.R. 2669, H.R. 2735, H.R. 3310, H.R. 3696, H.R.
3795, H.R. 4755, H.R. 2169 and H.R. 4758 Before
the House Subcomm. on Fisheries and Wildlife
Conservation and the Environment, House Comm.
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 93d Cong. 198
(1973) (hereinafter 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and
others) (Letter from S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of
Smithsonian Institute, to Chairman, House Comm.
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, April 23, 1973
(lauding H.R. 4758, the Administration’s legislative
proposal that contained a definition of ‘‘endangered
species’’ substantially similar to the statutory
definition eventually adopted by Congress in the
1973 Act: ‘‘In effect the bill offers a great deal of
flexibility by providing that a species may be placed
on the list if the Secretary determines that it is
presently threatened with extinction, not only in all
of its natural range, but in a significant part thereof,
as well.’’) (emphasis added)).

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

exceptions for animals held in captivity.
Section 9(b)(1) of the Act provides an
exemption from certain section 9(a)(1)
prohibitions for listed animals held in
captivity or in a controlled environment
as of the date of the species’ listing (or
enactment of the Act), provided the
holding in captivity and any subsequent
use is not in the course of a commercial
activity. Section 9(b)(2) of the Act
provides an exemption from all section
9(a)(1) prohibitions for raptors held in
captivity or in a controlled environment
as of 1978 and their progeny. Section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act allows permits to
‘‘enhance the propagation or survival’’
of the species (emphasis added). This
demonstrates that Congress recognized
the value of captive-holding and
propagation of listed specimens held in
captivity, but intended that such
specimens would be protected under
the Act, with these activities generally
regulated by permit.5 If captive
specimens could simply be excluded
through the listing process, none of
these exceptions and permits would be
needed.
Purpose of the Act
Meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act
The full purposes of the Act, stated in
section 2(b), are ‘‘to provide a means
whereby the ecosystems upon which
endangered species and threatened
species depend may be conserved
[hereafter referred to as the first
purpose], to provide a program for the
conservation of such endangered
species and threatened species
[hereafter referred to as the second
purpose], and to take such steps as may
be appropriate to achieve the purposes
of the treaties and conventions set forth
in subsection (a) of this section
[hereafter referred to as the third
purpose].’’ It has been stated, without
explanation, that the language of section
2(b) of the Act supports protecting only
specimens that occur in the wild.
However, the purposes listed in section
2(b) indicate that the three provisions
are intended to have independent
meaning, with little to indicate that
Congress’ intent was to protect only
specimens of endangered or threatened
5 See Endangered Species Conservation Act of
1972: Hearing on S. 249, S. 3199 and S. 3818 Before
the Senate Subcomm. on the Environment, Senate
Comm. on Commerce, 92nd Cong. 211–12 (1972)
(statement of Deborah Appel, Assistant to the
Director for Public Information, National Audubon
Society) (endorsing S. 3199, a bill considered by the
Senate that contained similar language eventually
adopted by Congress in the purpose section of the
1973 Act, but advising against a specific mandate
requiring captive propagation because ‘‘the capture
of specimens for experiment in captive propagation
may in itself endanger the chances of some rare
species for survival in the wild.’’).

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
species found in the wild. The treaties
and conventions under the third
purpose are expressly those listed in
section 2(a)(4) of the Act, all of which
are for the protection of wildlife and
plants, and none of which is limited to
protection of endangered or threatened
specimens in the wild.6 The first
purpose calls for conservation of
ecosystems, independent of
conservation of species themselves
(which is separately listed as the second
purpose). This does focus on protection
of native habitats (those inhabited by
the species in the wild in its native
range), as it is generally the ecosystems
or habitats within which a species has
evolved that are those upon which it
‘‘depends.’’ However, the phrase ‘‘upon
which endangered species and
threatened species depend’’ indicates
only that ecosystem (i.e., habitat)
protection should be focused on that
used by endangered and threatened
species, and does not indicate that the
sole focus of the Act is conservation of
species within their native ecosystems.
Several provisions in the Act provide
authority to protect habitat,
independent of authorities applicable to
protection and regulation of specimens
of listed species themselves. See, for
example, section 5 (Land Acquisition),
section 6 (Cooperation With the States),
section 7 (Interagency Cooperation), and
section 8 (International Cooperation).
It is the second purpose under section
2(b) of the Act that speaks to the
conservation of species themselves that
are endangered or threatened species.
However, nothing in the language of the
second purpose indicates that
conservation programs should be
limited to specimens located in the
wild. The plain language of section 2(b)
refers to ‘‘species,’’ with no distinction
between wild specimens of the species
as compared to captive specimens of the
species. Thus, nothing in the plain
language indicates that captive
specimens should be excluded from the
Act’s processes and protections that
would contribute to recovery (i.e.,
‘‘conservation’’) of the entire taxonomic
species. It is true that the phrasing of the
second purpose (‘‘to provide a program
for the conservation of such endangered
species and threatened species’’
(emphasis added)) links the second
purpose of species recovery to the first
purpose of ecosystem (i.e., native
habitat) protection, thus making the goal
of the statute recovery of endangered
and threatened species in their natural
ecosystems. But there is nothing in the
6 Nor are these treaties and conventions limited
to protection of species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

phrasing to indicate that the specific
provisions of the statute for meeting this
goal should be limited to specimens of
the species located within the
ecosystems upon which they depend.
Separate Legal Status Is Inconsistent
With Section 2(b)
The potential consequences of captive
chimpanzees having separate legal
status under the Act on the basis of their
captive state, particularly where captive
specimens could have no legal
protection while wild specimens are
listed as an endangered species,7
indicate that such separate legal status
is not consistent with the section 2(b)
purpose of conserving endangered and
threatened species. Congress
specifically recognized ‘‘overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific,
or educational purposes’’ as a potential
threat that contributes to the risk of
extinction for many species. If captive
chimpanzees have separate legal status
under the Act, particularly with no
protections under the Act, the threat of
overutilization would potentially
increase. The United States is one of the
world’s largest markets for wildlife and
wildlife products.8 Poachers and
smugglers would have increased
incentive to remove animals from the
wild and smuggle them into captiveholding facilities in the United States
for captive propagation or subsequent
commercial use, because once in
captivity there would be no Act
restrictions on use of the captive
specimens or their offspring. This
would be a particular issue for foreign
species such as chimpanzees where
States regulate native wildlife (and
therefore captive domestic endangered
or threatened specimens would
continue to be regulated under State
law), but often do not regulate use of
nonnative wildlife. This could be a
particularly lucrative trade for poachers
and smugglers because many
endangered and threatened species
(particularly foreign species such as
chimpanzees) can be at risk of
extinction because of their high
commercial value in trade (as trophies
7 If it were determined that captive chimpanzees
can have separate legal status on the basis of their
captive state, proponents of separate legal status
could argue that these captive specimens do not
qualify as endangered or threatened species at all
because they do not face ‘‘threats’’ that create a
substantial risk of extinction to the captive
specimens such as those faced by the wild
population, in which case captive chimpanzees
would have no protections under the Act (see
Section 4: Listing Effects on Captive Animals).
8 See USFWS Office of Law Enforcement Annual
Report for FY 2009 p. 7.

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34503

or pets, or for their furs, horns, ivory,
shells, or medicinal or decorative use).
Once removed from the wild, species
such as chimpanzees would potentially
be subject to increased trade in
‘‘laundered’’ wild-caught specimens to
feed U.S. or foreign market demand
because protected wild specimens
would be generally indistinguishable
from unprotected captive specimens.
Because there would be no restriction or
regulation on the taking, sale, import,
export, or transport in the course of
commercial activities in interstate or
foreign commerce of captive specimens
by persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction,
there would be a potential legal U.S.
market in captive specimens and their
progeny operating parallel to any illegal
U.S. market (or U.S. citizen
participation in illegal foreign markets)
in wild specimens. With the difficulty
of distinguishing captive from wild
specimens, especially if they are broken
down into their parts and products,
illegal wild specimens of commercial
value could likely easily be passed off
as legal captive specimens and thus be
traded as legal specimens. As the court
found in Safari Club Int’l v. Jewell,
listing captive members of the species
along with the wild members ‘‘avoids
any confusion about the source of the
[animals]’’ and therefore is consistent
with the purposes of the Act (960 F.
Supp. 2d at 67).
Congress included the similarity-ofappearance provision in section 4(e) to
allow the Service to regulate species
under the Act where one species so
closely resembles an endangered or
threatened species that enforcement
personnel cannot distinguish between
the protected and unprotected species
and this difficulty is a threat to the
species. The Service’s only option in the
situations described above would be to
complete separate similarity-ofappearance listings for captive animals
not regulated under the Act. A
similarity-of-appearance listing under
the Act for such captive specimens
would become the only means to make
captive specimens subject to the same
restrictions as listed wild specimens
and thereby protect the wild
populations from overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes.
Operation of Key Provisions of the Act
As described in the following
subsections, operation of key provisions
in sections 4 and 7 of the Act also
indicate that it would not be consistent
with Congressional intent or the
purpose of the Act to treat captive
chimpanzees as a separate listable entity
on the basis of their captive state.

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34504

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Section 4: Listing Effects on Captive
Animals
The section 4 listing process is not
well suited to analyzing threats to an
entirely captive group of specimens that
are maintained under controlled,
artificial conditions, and the process
could be lead to consequences that are
not consistent with the purposes of the
Act.
The majority of the section 4(a)(1)
factors would be difficult to apply to
captive specimens with a range
independent of wild specimens because
the five factors are not readily suited to
evaluating specimens held in captivity.
There may be situations where only
disease threats (factor C) and other
natural or manmade factors (factor E)
would be applicable to consideration of
purely captive groups of specimens. The
present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat
or range (factor A) may not be a threat
for a listable entity consisting solely of
captive specimens, because the physical
environment under which captive
specimens are held is generally readily
controllable and, in many cases,
optimized to ensure the physical health
of the animal. Overutilization (factor B)
is unlikely to be a factor threatening the
continued existence of groups of captive
specimens where both breeding and
culling are managed to ensure the
continuation of stock at a desired level
based on ownership interest and market
demand. Predation (factor C) may rarely
be a factor for captive specimens
because predators may be more readily
controlled in captive situtions. In
addition, human management may
provide for all essential life functions,
thereby eliminating selection or
competition for mates, food, water
resources, and shelter.
It is unclear how the ‘‘inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms’’ (factor
D) would apply to captive specimens
with a range independent of wild
specimens because this factor generally
applies in relationship to threats
identified under the other factors.
Regulatory mechanisms applicable to
wild specimens usually include
measures to protect natural habitat and
laws that regulate activities such as take,
sale, and import and export. However,
there might be no regulatory
mechanisms applicable when the group
of specimens under consideration is in
captivity (except perhaps general
humane treatment or animal health
laws).
That the section 4 process is not well
suited to listings of entirely captive
specimens is demonstrated by the
previous listing action for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

chimpanzee. The chimpanzee was
originally listed in its entirety as a
threatened species (41 FR 45990,
October 19, 1976). On March 12, 1990
(55 FR 9129), the Service reclassified
wild populations of chimpanzees as a
separate endangered species, noting that
wild populations had declined due to
massive habitat destruction, excessive
hunting and capture by people, and lack
of effective national and international
controls. But the reclassification rule
never analyzed whether the newly
designated DPS consisting of
chimpanzees ‘‘wherever found in
captivity’’ separately met the definition
of a threatened species based on the five
factors found in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. Instead, the rule discussed
estimated numbers of animals in
captivity and known captive-breeding
programs, stating in response to a
comment that some chimpanzee
breeding groups were being managed in
the United States with the objective of
achieving self-sustainability. The fivefactor analysis in both the proposed and
final listing rules considered only
information applicable to wild
populations and within the taxonomic
species’ native range.
That the section 4 listing process is
not well suited to separate consideration
of captive specimens could result in
consequences that would be contrary to
the purposes of the Act. Because captive
members of the species and wild
members of the species would be under
separate consideration for listing under
the Act and therefore under separate
five-factor analyses, some would argue
that captive chimpanzees do not meet
the definition of a threatened species or
an endangered species under the
statutory factors when the scope of the
section 4 analysis would be the
conditions under which the captive
specimens are kept, not the conditions
of the members of the species as a
whole. They might argue that captive
chimpanzees as well as captive
members of other species do not meet
the definition of an endangered species
(in danger of extinction throughout all
or a significant portion of its range) or
a threatened species (likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range) when the
conditions for individual animals’
survival are carefully controlled under
human management and therefore not
subject to ‘‘threats,’’ especially for
species that readily breed in captivity,
where breeding has resulted in large
numbers of genetically diverse animals,
or where there are no known

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

uncontrollable conditions such as
disease.
If wild specimens and captive
specimens could qualify as separate
listable entities and it was determined
that captive chimpanzees do not qualify
as a threatened species or an
endangered species under the section 4
analysis because they do not face
‘‘threats,’’ captive chimpanzees would
receive no assistance or protection
under the Act even where wild
populations continue to decline, even to
the point of the taxonomic species being
extirpated from the wild with the
animals in captivity being the only
remaining members of the species and
survival of the entire taxonomic species
being dependent on the survival of the
captive animals. Indeed, we have been
petitioned at least once in the past to
delist captive members of three
species—the three African antelope, one
of which is extirpated from the wild—
where the petitioner argued that captive
members should be removed from the
list because the captive animals had
‘‘recovered.’’ This would not be
consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Section 4: Listing Effects on Wild
Populations
If wild populations and captive
chimpanzees could qualify as separate
listable entities, and because the
analysis for determining legal status of
wild populations would be separate
from the analysis for determining legal
status of captive specimens, the wild
population would likely qualify for
delisting in the event that all specimens
are extirpated from the wild (in other
words, if they became extinct in the
wild), thereby removing both incentives
and protections for conservation of the
species in the wild and the conservation
of its ecosystem.
Under the Service’s standard section
4 process, both captive and wild
specimens of the species are members of
the listed entity and have legal status as
endangered or threatened species. In
situations where all specimens in the
wild are gone, either because they are
extirpated due to threats or because, as
a last conservation resort, the remaining
wild specimens are captured and moved
into captivity, the species remains listed
until specimens from captivity can be
reintroduced to the wild and wild
populations are recovered. However, if
captive specimens and wild populations
could have separate legal status, once all
members of the wild population were
gone from the wild, the wild population
could be petitioned for and would likely
qualify for delisting under 50 CFR
424.11(d)(1) as a ‘‘species’’ that is now
extinct. As shown above, the separate

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
captive members of the taxonomic
species might not qualify for legal status
as endangered or threatened species,
due to the lack of ‘‘threats.’’ With no
protected members of the species and
therefore no authority to use funding or
other provisions of the Act for the
species, the Service would lose valuable
tools for recovery of the species to the
wild. This would clearly not be
consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Section 7: Consultation
All Federal agencies have a legal
obligation to ensure that their actions
are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered and
threatened species. This means that for
separately listed captive endangered or
threatened specimens, any Federal
agency that is taking an action within
the United States or on the high seas
that may affect the captive listed species
arguably would have a legal duty to
consult with the Service. However, the
section 7 consultation process is not
well suited to analysis of adverse
impacts posed to a purely captive group
of specimens given that such specimens
are maintained under controlled,
artificial conditions.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Section 4: Designation of Critical
Habitat
For any listed entity located within
the United States or within U.S.
jurisdictional territories or waters, we
have a section 4 duty to designate
critical habitat unless such designation
is not prudent.9 Although it is
appropriate not to designate critical
habitat for foreign species or to limit a
critical habitat designation to natural
habitats for U.S. species when a listing
is focused on the species in the wild
(even when some members of the
species may be held in captivity within
the United States), it is not clear how
the Service would support not
designating critical habitat when the
listed entity would consist entirely of
captive specimens (when the focus of
captivity is within the United States).
As with the consultation process, the
critical habitat designation duty is not
well suited for listings that consist
entirely of captive specimens, especially
given the anomaly of identifying the
physical and biological features that
would be essential to the conservation
of a species consisting entirely of
captive animals in a controlled
environment. These complexities
related to section 7 consultations and
9 Making

a not determinable finding is also an
option under section 4(b)(6) of the statute, but only
delays the requirement to designate such critical
habitat.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

designation of critical habitat indicate
that Congress did not intend the Service
to treat captive specimens as separate
listable entities on the basis of their
captive state.
Legislative History
Legislative history surrounding the
1978 amendment of the definition of
‘‘species’’ in the Act indicates that
Congress intended designation of a DPS
to be used for wild vertebrate
populations, not separation of captive
specimens from wild members of the
same taxonomic species. The original
(1973) definition of species was ‘‘any
subspecies . . . and any other group of
fish or wildlife of the same species or
smaller taxa in common spatial
arrangement that interbreed when
mature’’ (Pub. L. 93–205). In 1978,
Congress amended the Act to the Act’s
current definition of species,
substituting ‘‘any distinct population
segment’’ for ‘‘any other group’’ and
‘‘common spatial arrangement’’
following testimony on the inadequacy
of the original definition, such as the
exclusion of one category of populations
commonly recognized by biologists:
Disjunct allopatric populations that are
separated by geographic barriers from
other populations of the same species
and are consequently reproductively
isolated from them physically (See
Endangered Species Act Oversight:
Hearing Before Senate Subcommittee on
Resource Protection, Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works, 95th
Cong. 50 (July 7, 1977) (hereafter 1977
Oversight Hearing) (letter from Tom
Cade, Program Director, The Peregrine
Fund, to Director of the Service).
Although there was discussion
regarding population stocks and
reproductive isolation generally,
particularly in association with
development of the 1973 definition,10
discussions that provide additional
context on the scope of the definition of
‘‘species’’ show that Congress thought of
the population-based listing authority as
appropriate for populations that are
distinct for natural and evolutionary
reasons. For example, one witness
discussed ‘‘species’’ as associated with
the concept of geographic reproductive
isolation and including characteristics
of a population’s ability or inability to
freely exchange genes in nature (See
1977 Oversight Hearing at 50 (Cade
letter)). There is no evidence that
Congress intended for the agency to use
the authority to separately list groups of
10 See 1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others p. 286
(statement of John Grandy, National Parks and
Conservation Assoc.) p. 307 (statement of Stephen
Seater, Defenders of Wildlife), and pp. 299–300
(statement of Tom Garrett, Friends of the Earth).

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34505

animals that have been artificially
separated from other members of the
species through human removal from
the wild and maintenance in a
controlled environment. Examples in
testimony for which population-based
listing authority would be appropriately
used were all for wild populations (See
1973 Hearing on H.R. 37 and others at
307 (statement of Stephen Seater,
Defenders of Wildlife); Endangered
Species Act of 1973: Hearings on S.
1592 and S. 1983 Before the Senate
Subcomm. on Environment, Senate
Comm. on Commerce, 93d Cong. 98
(1973) (statement of John Grandy,
National Parks and Conservation
Assoc.); Endangered Species
Authorization: Hearings on H.R. 10883
Before the House Subcomm. on
Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and
the Environment, House Comm. on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 95th
Cong. 560 (1978) (statement of Michael
Bean, Environmental Defense Fund)).
No examples were given suggesting
designation of captive vertebrates as a
DPS.
Other Potential Approaches for
Separate Legal Status
In addition to separate designation as
‘‘species,’’ there are two other
approaches under which it could be
argued that captive chimpanzees could
be given separate legal status from their
wild counterparts: (1) Directly
excluding captive chimpanzees from the
Act’s protections, or (2) designating only
wild chimpanzees as a DPS, with
captive chimpanzees not included in
the DPS. However, neither approach
would be consistent with Congress’
intent for the Act.
One court already determined that
captive specimens of a listable entity
cannot simply be excluded when they
are members of the listable entity and
the Service agrees with the court’s
reasoning in this case. The Service
cannot exclude captive animals from a
listing once these animals are
determined to be part of the species.
This case—Alsea Valley Alliance v.
Evans— involved the listing of coho
salmon by NMFS. NMFS’s 1993
Hatchery Policy (58 FR 17573, April 5,
1993) stated that hatchery populations
could be included in the listing of wild
members of the same evolutionary
significant unit (equivalent to a DPS),
but only if the hatchery fish were
‘‘essential to recovery.’’ In 1998, NMFS
listed only ‘‘naturally spawned’’
specimens when it listed an
evolutionary significant unit (ESU) of
coho salmon (63 FR 42587, August 10,
1998). This decision was challenged in
court, and the Court found NMFS’s

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

34506

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

listing decision invalid because it
excluded hatchery populations (which
are fish held in captivity) even though
they were part of the same DPS (or ESU)
(Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F.
Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2001)). The Court
held that ‘‘Congress expressly limited
the Secretary’s ability to make listing
distinctions below that of subspecies or
a DPS of a species,’’ which was the
practical result of excluding all hatchery
specimens. NMFS subsequently
changed its Hatchery Policy in 2005,
stating that all hatchery fish that qualify
as members of the ESU would be
considered part of the ESU, would be
considered in determining whether the
ESU should be listed as an endangered
or threatened species, and would be
included in any listing under the Act
(70 FR 37204, June 28, 2005). NMFS’s
2005 Hatchery Policy was upheld by the
Ninth Circuit Court in Trout Unlimited
v. Lohn, 559 F. 3d 946 (2009).
For the same reasons as discussed
earlier in this document, the Service
also cannot simply designate wild
chimpanzees as a DPS, leaving all
captive animals unlisted. Although this
would avoid designating captive
animals as a separate DPS and would
not technically be excluding animals
that otherwise have been found to be
members of a DPS (and thereby avoid
the error the court found in the Alsea
Valley Alliance v. Evans decision), the
result would be separate legal status and
no legal protections for captive
chimpanzees, and many of the same
legal and conservation consequences
discussed above would occur. For these
reasons, we also find this outcome to be
inconsistent with Congress’ intent for
the Act, primarily as inconsistent with
the purposes of the Act.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Listing Evaluation
Now that we have determined that all
chimpanzees, including captive and
wild animals, should be considered as
a single listable entity under the Act, we
will next assess the status of the species
and determine if the species meets the
definition of endangered or threatened
under the Act. In 1990, we determined
that chimpanzees in the wild are
endangered. This analysis considers
new information in light of that
previous determination and includes
the extent to which captive
chimpanzees create or contribute to
threats to the species or remove or
reduce threats to the species by
contributing to the conservation of the
species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

Species Information
Taxonomy and Species Description
In 1990, when the wild populations of
chimpanzees were reclassified as
endangered species, only three
subspecies were recognized. Since that
time, the correct taxonomic labeling for
chimpanzees has been debated and
includes the use of a two-subspecies
system, a four-subspecies system, and
the use of the species level without
subspecific designations (Carlsen et al.
2012, p. 5; Morgan et al. 2011, p. 7;
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Ghobrial et
al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated). Today, four subspecies
are commonly recognized and include
the Central African chimpanzee (Pan
troglodytes troglodytes), East African
chimpanzee (P. t. schweinfurthii), West
African chimpanzee (P. t. verus), and
Nigeria–Cameroon chimpanzee (P. t.
ellioti) (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 7; Oates
et al. 2009, pp. 78–80; Gonder et al.
2006, p. 1120; Gonder et al. 1997,
p. 337).
Characteristics of the chimpanzee
include an opposable thumb and
prominent mouth. The skin on a
chimpanzee’s face, ears, palms, and
soles of the feet are bare, whereas the
rest of the body is covered with brown
to black hair. Arms extend beyond the
knees. This species walks ‘‘on all four’’
but is able to walk on just its legs for
more than a kilometer (0.6 miles (mi))
(WWF n.d., unpaginated). The male
stands over 1.2 meters (m) (4 feet (ft))
tall and weighs 59 kilograms (kg) (130
pounds (lb)); the female is closer to 0.9
m (3 ft) tall and weighs less than 45 kg
(100 lb) (AZA 2000, p. 1).
Chimpanzees live in social
communities that range from 5 to 150
individuals (Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated). A male dominance
hierarchy forms the core of the
community. Males work together to
defend a home range and will
occasionally attack and kill individuals
from another community (Lonsdorf
2007, pp. 72, 74). These communities do
not move around in a group like gorillas
or monkeys, but rather spend most of
their time in subgroups called parties
(Pusey et al. 2007, p. 626; Plumptre et
al. 2003, p. 9). Members of a community
may join, or leave, at any time and
parties may change frequently in size
and composition depending on presence
of receptive females, food availability,
and activity of the party (Lonsdorf 2007,
p. 72; Lehmann and Boesch 2004, p.
207; Humle 2003, p. 17; Plumptre et al.
2003, p. 9).
Males remain in the community in
which they were born; however, once
females become sexually mature,

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

between the ages of 9 and 13, they leave
the community to join a new one
(Humle 2003, p. 16). Chimpanzees are
slow breeders; females do not give birth
until they are 12 years of age or older
and only have one infant every 5 or 6
years. Infants are weaned around 4 years
old, and stay with their mothers until
they are about 8 to 10 years old
(Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72; Kormos 2003, p.
1; Plumptre et al. 2003, pp. 8, 10, 13).
The relationship between the mother
and her offspring is critical; young may
not survive being orphaned, even after
they are weaned (Lonsdorf 2007, p. 72).
Essential Needs of the Species
The chimpanzee lives in a variety of
moist and dry forest habitats including
savanna woodlands, mosaic grassland
forests, and tropical moist forests (Oates
et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et al.
2007, p. 626; GRASP 2005a, p. 6;
Butynski 2003, p. 6). In general,
chimpanzees need large areas to provide
sufficient resources for feeding, nesting,
and shelter (Carter 2003b, p. 158).
However, home ranges may vary
depending on the quality of habitat and
community size; competition for food
and predation risk may also play a role.
Home ranges average 12.5 square
kilometers (km2) (8 square miles (mi2)),
but can range from 5–400 km2 (3–249
mi2) (Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated;
Humle 2003, pp. 17–18).
Chimpanzees are omnivores; half
their diet is ripe fruit, but they also feed
on leaves, bark, stems, insects, and
mammals, mostly red colobus
(Procolobus spp.), but also black-andwhite colobus (Colobus guereza), and
occasionally blue duikers (Philantomba
monticola) and red-tailed guenons
(Cercopithecus ascanius). Diets vary
seasonally and between populations,
depending on food availability and
habitat type (Oates 2013, pers. comm.;
Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Pusey et
al. 2007, p. 626; Humle 2003, pp. 13–
14; Watts and Mitani 2002, p. 7).
Chimpanzees build arboreal nests in
which they sleep at night and may rest
during the day (Plumptre et al. 2003, p.
10; Humle 2003, p. 15). Nests are
constructed by preparing a foundation
of solid side branches; bending,
breaking, and interweaving side
branches crosswise; then bending
smaller twigs in a circle around the rim.
Chimpanzees exhibit strong preferences
for certain tree species for nesting,
independent of their availability in the
habitat. Choice of nesting sites is
variable across populations and
communities of chimpanzees and is
dependent on habitat structure, resource
distribution, predation levels, and
human disturbance. Chimps can be

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
deterred from nesting in certain areas
where human habitation is
concentrated. As a result, human
presence influences nesting behavior
and can put chimpanzees at risk of
predators, as habitats where they
relocate nests to avoid humans may not
provide sufficient protection (Humle
2003, pp. 15–16).
Range and Population
Historically, this species may have
spanned most of Equatorial Africa, from
Senegal to southwest Tanzania, ranging
over 25 countries (Butynski 2003, p. 6).
Today, the chimpanzee is reported as
extirpated in Benin, Togo, and Burkina
Faso; however, there are a few recent

reports of chimpanzees in eastern Togo
and reports of chimpanzees migrating
into Burkina Faso from Coˆte d’Ivoire
during the rainy season. The species
now occurs in a wide but discontinuous
distribution over 22 countries in an area
approximately 2,342,000 km2 (904,000
mi2) (Mitchell and Gonder 2013, p. 1;
Oates 2013, pers. comm.; Carlsen et al.
2012, p. 5; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; Kormos and Boesch 2003,
p. 1; Butynski 2003, pp. 6, 7; Brownell
2003a, p. 117; Brownell 2003b, p. 121).
Chimpanzees are thought to have
numbered in the millions at the
beginning of the 20th century, although
there are no hard data to support this.
Chimpanzee populations are believed to

34507

have declined by 66 percent, from
600,000 to 200,000 individuals before
the 1980s (Kormos and Boesch 2003, p.
1). Since the 1980s, estimates for the
chimpanzee have varied, but in general
have increased over the past three
decades (see Table 1) (Oates 2006, pp.
102–104; Butynski 2003, p. 10). Using
the latest population estimates for each
subspecies, the chimpanzee, today,
totals between 294,800 and 431,100
individuals; although we note that this
estimate does not factor in a recent
calamitous decline in the chimpanzee
population of Coˆte d’Ivoire (see below).
The range countries and most recent
population estimates for each
subspecies are outlined in Table 2.

TABLE 1—HISTORICAL POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR CHIMPANZEE
Year
1900
1900
1960
1979
1987
1989
1989
2000
2003

Estimated population

.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................
.........................................................................................

1,000,000
2,000,000
>1,000,000
20,000–200,000
151,000–235,000
≤150,000
145,000–228,000
152,200–254,600
173,000–300,000

Source
Teleki in Butynski 2003, p. 10; Oates 2006, p. 104.
Goodall 2000 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
Goodall 2000 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
Lee et al. 1988 in Oates 2006, p. 103.
Teleki in Butynski 2003, p. 10; Oates 2006, p. 104.
Goodall 2000 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
Teleki 1991 in Butynski 2003, p. 10.
Butynski 2001 in Oates 2006, p. 104.
Butynski 2003, p. 10.

TABLE 2—RANGE COUNTRIES AND POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR EACH CHIMPANZEE SUBSPECIES
Subspecies
Eastern (P.t.
schweinfurthii).
Nigeria-Cameroon
(P.t. ellioti).
Central (P.t. troglodytes).
Western (P.t. verus)

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Total ................

Range countries
Burundi, Central African Republic,
Democratic Republic of Congo,
Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda.
Cameroon, Nigeria ..............................

200,000–250,000

Angola, Cameroon, Central African
Republic, Congo, The Democratic
Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon.
Burikina Faso, Coˆte d’lvoire, Ghana,
Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia,
Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone.

70,000–116,500

..............................................................

294,800–431,100

As stated above, the chimpanzee
population has appeared to increase
since the 1980s. However, this
estimated increase is believed to be a
result of previous difficulties in
producing accurate estimates combined
with the more recent availability of new
information, rather than an actual
increase in chimpanzee numbers (Oates
2006, p. 104). Some of the difficulties
associated with earlier estimates
include: Few areas being adequately
surveyed; some chimpanzee
populations survived at densities too
low for accurate detection; survey
methods lacked precision to enable
extrapolation to large areas of potential

VerDate Sep<11>2014

Population estimate

18:43 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

3,500–9,000

21,300–55,600

Reference
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 22.
Morgan et al. 2011, p. 4.
Butynski 2003, p. 8.

Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 3; Butynski 2003, p. 8.

habitat; some surveys were outdated;
and in many cases estimates were
simply best guesses (Morgan et al. 2011,
p. 9; Plumptre et al. 2010, pp. 5, 7, 9,
31, 41; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 904;
Oates 2006, p. 102; Tutin et al. 2005,
p. 6; GRASP 2005a, p. 7; Butynski 2003,
p. 5; Kormos and Bakarr 2003, p. 29).
When more careful surveys of
chimpanzees are made, higher estimates
are produced, indicating that previous
estimates underestimated the size of
surviving populations (Oates 2006,
p. 104). Therefore, the estimated
increase in chimpanzees is not evidence
of steady increase in the population, but

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

a result of inaccurate early estimates to
which newer estimates are compared.
Despite the appearance of an increase
in chimpanzee numbers, experts agree
that chimpanzee populations are
declining (Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 1;
Greengrass 2009, pp. 77, 80–82;
Kabasawa 2009, p. 37; Campbell et al.
2008, pp. 903–904; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; Oates 2006, p. 110; Tutin
2005, p. 2; GRASP 2005a, p. 3; Kormos
and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Butynski 2003,
p. 11; Nishida et al. 2001, pp. 45–46).
Data to support a declining trend come
from nationwide surveys of Gabon, Coˆte
d’Ivoire, and Tanzania; data from longterm chimpanzee research sites; a

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

34508

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

questionnaire survey of great ape field
researchers; and the expansion and
increasing intensity of threats (Junker et
al. 2012, p. 3; Plumptre et al. 2010, p.
8; Oates 2006, pp. 105–106; Nishida et
al. 2001, p. 45; Campbell et al. 2008, pp.
903–904; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32). One
of the greatest documented losses of
chimpanzees comes from a 2007 survey
of Coˆte d’Ivoire, which found a 90
percent decline in the total nest
encounter rate since the last survey
conducted in 1989–1990, indicating a
significant loss of chimpanzees from a
country once thought to be one of the
final strongholds of the western
chimpanzee (Campbell et al. 2008, p.
903). Many remaining populations are
now small and isolated, and face serious
threats (Oates 2006, pp. 104, 110).
Furthermore, the chimpanzee is
reported to already have been extirpated
from three countries. Due to national
populations fewer than 1,000
individuals, there is concern that the
chimpanzee could soon be extirpated
from Senegal, Ghana, and Guinea–
Bissau (Carlsen et al. 2012, p. 5;
Butynski 2003, p. 11).
In addition to wild populations,
chimpanzees are held in captivity in
several countries around the world,
including African countries and the
United States. We do not have detailed
information on the number, subspecies,
or location of captive chimpanzees.
However, we did find information
indicating that 70 chimpanzees are
living in sanctuaries in Cameroon and
Nigeria (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 9).
Approximately 171 chimpanzees are
living in sanctuaries throughout West
Africa; another 478 chimpanzees in the
region are known to be held outside of
sanctuaries (e.g., in homes or hotels)
(Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4). Within
the United States, approximately 2,000
chimpanzees are in captivity
(ChimpCare 2013, unpaginated; Ross et
al. 2008, p. 1,487).
Summary of Threats
Threats to the chimpanzee have
intensified and expanded since 1990,
when wild populations of the
chimpanzee were listed as an
endangered species. Across its range,
high deforestation rates are destroying,
degrading, and fragmenting forests the
chimpanzee needs to support viable
populations and provide food and
shelter. Widespread poaching, capture
for the pet trade, and outbreaks of
disease are removing individuals
needed to sustain viable populations;
recovery from the loss of individuals is
more difficult given the slow
reproductive rates of chimpanzees.
These actions are exacerbated by an

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

increasing human population, the
expansion of settlements, and increasing
pressure on natural resources to meet
the needs of the growing population
(Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; Plumptre et
al. 2010, p. 2; Kabasawa 2009, p. 37;
Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; Lonsdorf
2007, p. 72; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti
2007b, p. 5; Bennett 2006, p. 885; Tutin
et al. 2005, p. 1; GRASP 2005a, p. 3;
Kormos 2003, pp. ix, 1; Kormos and
Boesch 2003, p. 4; Nisbett et al. 2003,
p. 97; Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 611–612;
Carter et al. 2003, p. 38).
Deforestation, with consequent access
and disturbance by humans, remains a
major factor in the decline of
chimpanzee populations across their
range. Although some large forest blocks
remain, commercial logging and the
conversion of forests to agricultural
land, especially for oil palm production,
continue to severely reduce and
fragment chimpanzee habitat (Morgan et
al. 2011, pp. 12, 18, 19, 26, 31; Plumptre
et al. 2010, p. 2; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti
2007b, p. 5; CBFP 2006, p. 16; Fa et al.
2006, p. 498; Tutin et al. 2005, pp. 1, 2,
10, 12, 14–17, 21–23; Humle 2003, p.
150; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall et
al. 2003, p. 47; Gippoliti et al. 2003, p.
57; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83;
Herbinger et al. 2003, pp. 106, 109;
Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71; Kormos et
al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson et al. 2003,
p. 113; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 95, 97;
Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Walsh et al.
2003, p. 613; Parren and Byler 2003, p.
135). As the human population and
economic development have increased,
pressure on forest resources has also
increased. This increasing pressure has
led to uncontrolled legal and illegal
forest conversion within and outside of
protected areas (e.g., national parks and
forest reserves), leaving them destroyed
and fragmented (Greengrass 2009, pp.
77, 80; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903;
CBFP 2006, pp. 16, 33; Nasi et al. 2006,
p. 14; Carter et al. 2003, p. 38; Duvall
et al. 2003, p. 47; Herbinger et al. 2003,
p. 109; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113;
Oates et al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and
Byler 2003, pp. 135, 137).
The natural protection once afforded
to chimpanzees by large blocks of
suitable habitat, isolated from human
activities, is disappearing due to logging
activity. Much of the chimpanzee’s
range is already allocated to logging
concessions, and logging operations,
both legal and illegal, are expanding
(Morgan et al. 2011, pp. 12, 26; Laporte
et al. 2007, p. 1451; Morgan and Sanz
2007, pp. 3, 5; CBFP 2006, p. 29; Hewitt
2006, p. 43; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Tutin
2005, pp. 2, 4, 12, 30, 32; Kormos et al.
2003a, p. 29). Heavy pressures on timber

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

resources have led to cutting cycles that
occur too frequently in an area to allow
for proper regrowth, resulting in rapid
degradation of forests (Parren and Byler
2003, p. 135). In addition to clearing
forests, logging operations often create a
network of roads for transporting
timber. These roads provide greater
access to forests that were once
inaccessible, facilitate the establishment
of human settlements, and are
accompanied by further deforestation
from the conversion of forests to
agriculture (Junker et al. 2012, p. 7;
Morgan et al, 2011, p. 12; Plumptre et
al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 80;
Laporte et al. 2007, p. 1451; Hewitt
2006, p. 44; Duvall 2003, p. 143; Oates
et al. 2003, p. 129; Parren and Byler
2003, pp. 133, 137–138).
Human population growth and
agricultural expansion have destroyed
and fragmented forests across the range
of the chimpanzee and are two of the
greatest threats to chimpanzee survival.
The spread of large-scale commercial
plantations, including oil palm
plantations, results in additional land
being cleared of most vegetation and
planting crops in monocultures;
plantations and farms have been
established in suitable chimpanzee
habitat, including within protected
areas (Oates 2013, pers. comm.;
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 9; Greengrass
2009, p. 80; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti
2007b, p. 5; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 20;
Duvall 2003, p. 143; Gippoliti et al.
2003, pp. 55, 57; Hanson-Alp et al.
2003, p. 83; Humle 2003, p. 147;
Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; Magnuson et
al. 2003, p. 113; Parren and Byler 2003,
p. 138). In West Africa, most unreserved
forests have been converted to
cultivation (Parren and Byler 2003, p.
138). Agricultural practices are largely
unsustainable and are encroaching into
additional forested areas (Parren and
Byler 2003, p. 133).
Chimpanzees are highly adaptive and
occur in a variety of habitats, including
primary, secondary, and regenerating
forests, logged forests, and plantations;
they have even been found living in
close proximity to humans. However,
the loss, or even the degradation, of the
chimpanzee’s traditional habitat can
affect their survival by impacting the
species’ food resources, behavior,
susceptibility to disease, and abundance
and distribution (Morgan and Sanz
2007, p. 1; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36;
Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, p. 83; Kormos
and Boesch 2003, p. 18; Nisbett et al.
2003, p. 97; Parren and Byler 2003, p.
137).
Although chimpanzees feed on a wide
variety of foods, their energy
requirements, as large primates with

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
large home ranges, predispose them to
a reliance on high-energy fruits
(Greengrass 2009, p. 81). Removal, or
lowering the quality, of habitat through
logging activity or establishment of
agricultural lands destroys the structure
and composition of the forest,
eliminating essential food sources,
which can affect sociability, condition
of individuals, and female reproductive
success, and increase vulnerability to
diseases or parasites and infant and
juvenile mortality (Greengrass 2009, pp.
81–82). Even in areas with lower levels
of logging where essential food sources
were unaffected, chimpanzee densities
have declined significantly and
remained low for years. Clear-cutting
results in total habitat loss, and because
of severe soil erosion, the potential for
future forest regeneration is also lost
(Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 137–138).
The loss or reduction of food sources
and the noise and disturbance from
logging activity can cause chimpanzee
communities to abandon their home
range to find a new home range with
sufficient resources and less human
activity. These chimpanzees may enter
another community’s territory, which
can lead to further competition for
resources and conflict that can lead to
death. As habitat is lost or fragmented
and chimpanzee populations are forced
into smaller forest fragments, lethal
interactions with other chimpanzees
may increase. Furthermore,
chimpanzees may be cautious about
reinhabiting previous home ranges
where they were displaced by humans
(Morgan et al. 2011, p. 12; Lonsdorf
2007, p. 74; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36;
Parren and Byler 2003, pp. 137–138). If
the displacement of chimpanzees forces
them into suboptimal habitat, they may
not have sufficient protection from
predators, especially at night (Humle
2003, pp. 15–16).
The loss or reduction of food sources
due to expanding logging, agriculture,
and human settlements into chimpanzee
habitat has also resulted in increased
conflicts between humans and
chimpanzees (Tacugama Sanctuary
2013, unpaginated; Unti 2007b, p. 5;
Tweheyo et al. 2005, pp. 237–238, 244;
Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106; Humle
2003, p. 147; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 71;
Naughton-Treves et al. 1998, pp. 597,
600). Lack of sufficient wild food and an
increase in farming and human presence
have increased the occurrence of crop
raiding to supplement the chimpanzee’s
diet. Crop raiding can cause substantial
losses to farmers, reduce the tolerance of
humans to chimpanzee presence, and
increase killing chimpanzees to protect
valuable crops or in retaliation for the
destruction of crops (Tacugama

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

Chimpanzee Sanctuary 2013,
unpaginated; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885;
Tweheyo et al. 2005, p. 245; Duvall
2003, p. 144; Carter et al. 2003, p. 36;
Gippoliti et al. 2003, p. 57; Humle 2003,
pp. 147, 150; Parren and Byler 2003, p.
138; Naughton-Treves 1998, p. 597).
Unsustainable hunting for the
bushmeat trade is one of the major
causes of the decline in chimpanzees,
and continues to be a major threat to the
survival of chimpanzees in protected
and unprotected areas (Ghobrial et al.
2011, pp. 1, 2, 11; Morgan et al. 2011,
p. 10; Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 1, 3, 6, 11;
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Kabasawa
2009, p. 37; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903;
Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Lonsdorf
2007, p. 74; Unti 2007b, p. 5; Tutin et
al. 2005, pp. 1, 10–23, 27–28; Herbinger
et al. 2003, p. 109; Humle 2003, p. 17;
Kormos and Boesch 2003, pp. 2, 14, 16,
19; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 63; Kormos
et al. 2003c, p. 151; Magnuson et al.
2003, pp. 111, 113; Nisbett et al. 2003,
p. 95; Oates et al. 2003, pp. 123, 129;
Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; Bowen-Jones
1998, p. 12). Growth in the human
population in Africa has increased the
demand for wild animal meat, or
bushmeat. Expansion of logging
activities, including the construction of
logging roads, has facilitated a
significant market, much of it illegal, for
commercial bushmeat to meet this
demand (Amati et al. 2009, p. 6;
Kabasawa 2009, pp. 50–51; AV Oates et
al. 2008, unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, pp.
503, 506; Magazine 2003, p. 7; Kormos
et al. 2003c, p. 151; Walsh et al. 2003,
p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47;
Bowen-Jones 1998, pp. 1, 11). Logging
roads and vehicles provide access to the
forests and a means to export meat to
markets and cities. Logging operations
are accompanied by an onslaught of
workers who are encouraged to hunt to
provide for their own needs and
commercial hunters who operate in
forests to supply the needs of forestry
workers and to trade outside of the
forested areas (Plumptre et al. 2010, p.
2; Kormos et al. 2003c, p. 151; Nisbett
et al. 2003, p. 95; Walsh et al. 2003, p.
613; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 47; BowenJones 1998, p. 1). Furthermore,
bushmeat trade is also an important
livelihood and the primary source of
protein for humans in much of the
chimpanzee’s range (Abwe and Morgan
2008, p. 26; Fa et al. 2006, p. 507;
Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; Kormos et
al. 2003c, p. 155; Wilkie and Carpenter
1999, p. 927).
The intensity of hunting chimpanzees
varies by country and region (Kormos et
al. 2003c, pp. 151–152). Religious,
traditional, and familial taboos against

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34509

the killing of chimpanzees and the
consumption of their meat exist in many
areas (Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Plumptre
et al. 2010, p. 2; Greengrass 2009, p. 81;
Kabasawa 2009, p. 51; Unti 2007a, p. 4;
Carter et al. 2003, pp. 31, 38; Duvall et
al. 2003, p. 47; Gippoliti et al. 2003, pp.
55, 57; Humle 2003, p. 18; Kormos and
Boesch 2003, pp. 10, 13; Kormos et al.
2003b, pp. 63, 71; Kormos et al. 2003c,
pp. 152, 154; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95;
Oates et al. 2003, p. 129;Waller and
Reynolds 2001, p. 135; Bowen-Jones
1998, pp. 19, 27). However, these areas
may be hunted by people from
surrounding areas where there is
demand for chimpanzee meat (Kormos
et al. 2003b, p. 72). Furthermore, these
traditions and beliefs are not necessarily
being passed down to younger
generations and cannot be relied on to
protect chimpanzees in the future
(Hicks et al. 2010, p. 9; Unti 2007a, p.
4; Oates et al. 2003, p. 129).
Despite the high demand for
bushmeat, primates do not represent the
majority of animals killed for the
bushmeat trade (AV Magazine 2003, p.
7; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113; Walsh
et al. 2003, p. 613; Nishida et al. 2001,
p. 47; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 1). In fact,
studies have found that chimpanzee
meat makes up only a small fraction of
the meat found in markets; estimates
from different regions have ranged from
0.01 to 3 percent (Kabasawa 2009, p. 38;
Fa et al. 2006, p. 502; Herbinger et al.
2003, p. 106; Kormos and Boesch 2003,
p. 2; Kormos et al 2003c, pp. 151–152).
However, because the sale of ape meat
is often hidden and the meat may be
eaten in villages and never make it to
markets, the proportion of chimpanzee
meat in bushmeat markets could be
greater than reported (Kabasawa 2009,
p. 38; Kormos et al. 2003c, pp. 151–152;
Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 21). Hunting
pressure even at a low level is enough
to result in the local extirpation of large
chimpanzee populations. Low
population densities and slow
reproductive rates prevent chimpanzees
from recovering easily from the loss of
several individuals (Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; Fa et al. 2006, p. 503; AV
Magazine 2003, p. 7; Duvall et al. 2003,
p. 47; Herbinger et al. 2003, p. 106;
Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 2; Kormos
et al. 2003c, pp. 151, 153; Nisbett et al.
2003, p. 95; Magnuson et al. 2003, p.
113; Bowen-Jones 1998, p. 13).
Threats to the chimpanzee from
habitat loss and commercial hunting
have been exacerbated by civil unrest
that has occurred in several chimpanzee
range countries (Plumptre et al. 2010,
pp. 4–5; Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903;
CBFP 2006, p. 16; Hanson-Alp et al.
2003, p. 85; Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 89,

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34510

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

95; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven
2002, pp. 35–36). During civil conflict,
many people, including refugees,
military groups, and rebels, take shelter
in interior forests and protected areas
(Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 4; CBFP 2006,
p. 16). The presence of soldiers and
displaced refugees increases the number
of people that rely on bushmeat for
protein. Not only do soldiers hunt, but
they also supply locals with weapons
and ammunition to hunt them
(Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 5; Hanson-Alp
et al. 2003, p. 85; Draulans and Van
Krunkelsven 2002, pp. 35–36). Civil
unrest has contributed to a significant
loss of wildlife, including chimpanzees
(Campbell et al. 2008, p. 903; HansonAlp et al. 2003, p. 85).
Capture of live chimpanzees for the
pet trade has been one of the major
causes of the decline in chimpanzees.
Today, illegal capture and smuggling of
chimpanzees continue for the pet trade
across Africa and, to some extent, the
international market (Ghobrial et al.
2010, pp. 1, 2, 11; Kabasawa 2009, pp.
37, 48–49; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; Carter 2003b, p. 157;
Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4; Nisbett
et al. 2003, p. 95). A recent increase in
orphaned chimpanzees has been
attributed to the growing bushmeat
crisis. Killing a mother with an infant
earns twice the income for the hunter;
the mother’s body is sold in the
bushmeat trade while the infant enters
the pet trade (Kabasawa 2009, p. 50;
Carter 2003b, p. 157). Furthermore,
hunters have found a lucrative market
for pet chimpanzees with military
personnel, police, government officials,
and traditional chiefs (Hicks et al. 2010,
p. 8; Draulans and Van Krunkelsven
2002, pp. 35–36). The intensity of trade
differs among countries, but is
reportedly a substantial problem in The
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Coˆte
d’Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and
Guinea (Hicks et al. 2010, pp. 3, 6, 11;
Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Unit 2007, p.
5; Unti 2007a, p. 4; Hanson-Alp et al.
2003, p. 84; Herbinger et al. 2003, p.
106; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72;
Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 113). It is not
possible to determine how many wild
chimpanzees are captured for the pet
trade, but the number of chimpanzees in
sanctuaries that were either confiscated
from owners by authorities, surrendered
by owners after being informed about
wildlife laws, or voluntarily donated or
abandoned by owners indicates it is a
significant problem. Since 2000, the
number of chimpanzees in African
sanctuaries has increased 59 percent
(Kabasawa 2009, pp. 37, 44–45, 50).
The petitioners assert that the
exploitation of chimpanzees in the U.S.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

entertainment and pet industries is seen
around the world and misleads the
public into believing chimpanzees are
well protected in the wild and make
good pets, further fueling the demand
for chimpanzees. Studies suggest a link
between seeing chimpanzees portrayed
in the media and misperceptions about
the species’ status in the wild. This
misperception may also affect
conservation efforts (Ross et al. 2011,
pp. 1, 4–5; Schroepfer et al. 2011, pp.
6–7; Ross 2008a, pp. 25–26; Ross et al.
2008b, p. 1487). However, we did not
find evidence that this situation was a
significant driver in the status of the
species under the Act.
The effects of the pet trade are
particularly devastating to wild
populations because the mother and
other family members may be killed to
capture an infant. Researchers estimate
that as many as 10 chimpanzees may be
killed for every infant that enters the pet
trade. Furthermore, the infant is likely
to die of malnutrition, disease, or injury
(Hicks et al. 2010, p. 8; Kabasawa 2009,
p. 49; Lonsdorf 2007, p. 74; Carter
2003b, p. 157; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003,
p. 84; Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 4).
The loss of even just a few individuals
from a population can have devastating
effects due to the slow reproductive rate
of chimpanzees. Because so many
chimpanzees may be killed to secure an
infant, the pet trade has a significant
draining effect on remaining
populations, and threatens the survival
of wild chimpanzees (Kabasawa 2009, p.
49; Carter 2003b, p. 157; Magnuson et
al. 2003, p. 113).
Historically, wild chimpanzees were
captured and exported to meet a
significant demand for chimpanzees in
biomedical research in countries around
the world, significantly impacting
chimpanzee distribution and abundance
(Unti 2007a, p. 4; Unti 2007b, p. 5;
Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). A
substantial number of countries do not
permit or conduct research on
chimpanzees, and the international
research community is no longer
seeking access to wild chimpanzees
(Hicks 2011, pers. comm.; Unti 2007a, p.
4; Unti 2007b, p. 5). Although some
biomedical research on captive
chimpanzees continues in the United
States and Gabon, in the United States,
there is a decreasing scientific need for
chimpanzee studies due to the
emergence of non-chimpanzee models
and technologies (Institute of Medicine
2011, pp. 5, 66–67).
As previously stated, chimpanzees are
held in captivity in several countries
around the world, including African
countries and the United States.
Chimpanzees in captivity are bred and

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

sold as pets, used in the entertainment
industry (e.g., movies, television, and
advertisements), exhibited in hotels and
roadside shows, used as party
entertainment or animal encounters,
displayed in zoos, and used for
biomedical research. It is thought that
self-sustaining breeding groups of
captive chimpanzees provide surplus
animals for research and other purposes,
thereby reducing the demand for wild
individuals. Although captive
chimpanzees may have removed the
demand for wild chimpanzees in
biomedical research, given that threats
to the chimpanzee have expanded and
intensified, and capture for the illegal
pet trade continues to be a major threat
to remaining chimpanzee populations, it
does not appear that the availability of
captive chimpanzees has reduced any
threats to the species.
National laws exist within all range
countries to protect chimpanzees. In
general, hunting, capture, possession,
and commercial trade of chimpanzees
are prohibited. Laws also protect
chimpanzee habitat, including the
establishment of protected areas, in
many of the range countries. However,
as evidenced by the continuing and
increasing habitat destruction and
hunting and trading of this species
(Ghobrial et al. 2010, pp. 1, 2, 11; Hicks
et al. 2010, pp. 8–9; Kabasawa 2009, p.
39; Laporte et al. 2009, p. 1451; Unti
2007a, pp. 4, 6, 10–11; Unti 2007b, p.
6, 8, 10; Bennett et al. 2006, p. 885; AV
Magazine 2003, p. 7; Carter 2003a, p. 52;
Carter 2003b, p. 157; Carter et al. 2003,
pp. 31, 32, 38; Duvall et al. 2003, p. 47;
Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, pp. 79, 87;
Herbinger et al. 2003, pp. 100, 106;
Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 6; Kormos
et al. 2003b, p. 64; Kormos et al. 2003c,
p. 155; Magnuson et al. 2003, p. 112;
Nisbett et al. 2003, pp. 90, 95; Oates et
al. 2003, p. 123), even within protected
areas, these laws are not often enforced.
A lack of resources, limited training,
limited personnel, lack of basic
logistical support, corrupt officials, and
weak legislation prevent government
agencies charged with the protection of
wildlife and forest management from
providing effective protection (Hicks et
al. 2010, p. 9; Unti 2007a, pp. 4, 6, 8;
Unti 2007b, p. 7–10; Bennett et al. 2006,
p. 887; AV Magazine 2003, p. 7; Duvall
et al. 2003, p. 47; Hanson-Alp et al.
2003, pp. 79, 87; Magnuson et al. 2003,
p. 112; Nisbett et al. 2003, p. 95; Oates
et al. 2003, p. 125). Furthermore,
penalties for violations are not adequate
to serve as a deterrent (Unti 2007b, p.
8; Hanson-Alp et al. 2003, pp. 79;
Kormos and Boesch 2003, p. 6; Kormos
et al. 2003c, p. 155).

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
The chimpanzee is also protected
under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (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. All
chimpanzee range countries are Parties
to CITES.
The chimpanzee is listed in Appendix
I of CITES. 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)).
Based on CITES trade data from 1990–
2011, obtained from United Nations
Environment Programme–World
Conservation Monitoring Center
(UNEP–WCMC) CITES Trade Database,
there has been significant legal trade of
chimpanzees and their parts, and
products worldwide. However, legal
trade in wild specimens, including live
animals, bones, scientific specimens,
and hair has been limited. Trade of
these wild specimens for commercial
purposes was reported for 14 live
specimens, 121 scientific specimens,
and 10 skulls. From 2002–2012, exports
and re-exports of wild specimens from
the United States have numbered 8
scientific specimens for scientific
purposes. Imports of wild specimens
into the United States have been limited
and have included hairs, scientific
specimens, a skull, and one unspecified
specimen for personal, scientific,
educational, and medical purposes.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

As human settlements expand and
populations of chimpanzees and their
habitat are reduced, the frequency of
interactions between chimpanzees and
humans or human waste increases,
leading to greater risks of disease
transmission with a similar magnitude
of impact on wild chimpanzee
populations as habitat loss and
poaching. A close genetic relationship
allows for easy transmission of
infectious diseases between
chimpanzees and humans (Ryan and
Walsh 2011, p. 1; Plumptre et al. 2010,
p. 2; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated;
Lonsdorf 2007, p. 73; Tutin et al. 2005,
p. 29; Formenty et al. 2003, p. 169;
Huijbregts et al. 2003, p. 437). Rural
communities that share the same habitat
as chimpanzees have no access to health
care and are not vaccinated against
diseases that can spread through ape
populations and result in high mortality
rates. Additionally, exposure to humans
through conservation and research
activities, such as habituation,
ecotourism, and reintroductions, can
also increase the risk of disease
transmission (Ryan and Walsh 2011, p.
2; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Ko¨ndgen
et al. 2008, p. 260; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; Pusey et al. 2008, p. 738;
Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Huijbregts et al.
2003, p. 437; Nishida et al. 2001, p. 48).
As discussed below, disease
transmission is a major threat to
remaining populations of the central
and eastern chimpanzees (FaustherBovendo et al. 2012, p. 3; Ryan and
Walsh 2011, p. 2; Morgan et al. 2011, p.
10; Plumptre et al. 2010, p. 2; Pusey et
al. 2008, p. 743; GRASP 2005a, p. 7;
Tutin et al. 2005, p. 2; Leendertz et al.
2004, p. 451; Walsh et al. 2003, p. 612).
Five subtypes of the Ebola virus have
been identified: Zaire, Sudan, Coˆte
d’Ivoire, Bundibugyo, and Reston. All
five are lethal to great apes. Repeated
epidemics have resulted in dramatic
declines in ape populations in Coˆte
d’Ivoire, Gabon, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, and the Republic of Congo.
The Zaire strain alone has killed nearly
one-third of the world’s chimpanzees
(Fausther-Bovendo et al. 2012, p. 1;
Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 2; Plumptre et
al. 2010, p. 2; Ko¨ndgen et al. 2008, p.
261; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated;
Tutin et al. 2005, p. 29; Leendertz et al.
2004, p. 451; Huijbregts et al. 2003, pp.
437, 441; Walsh et al. 2003, pp. 612–
613; Formenty et al. 2003, pp. 169–172).
Chimpanzees are naturally infected
with simian immunodeficiency viruses
(SIVs), the precursor to acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),
but it was long thought that SIVs were
non-pathogenic (not capable of inducing
disease) and did not generally cause

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34511

AIDS. However, testing from 2000 to
2008 found that SIV is, in fact,
pathogenic in wild chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees infected with SIV showed
AIDS-like symptoms and had a 10- to
16-fold increased chance of death than
uninfected chimpanzees. Additionally,
females were less likely to give birth
and had higher infant mortality (Keele
et al. 2009, pp. 517–518).
Other infectious diseases, including
Marburg virus, polio, anthrax,
pneumonia, human respiratory
syncytical virus, and human
metapneumovirus have resulted in
widespread death of chimpanzees, even
within national parks (Ryan and Walsh
2011, pp. 2, 3; Rudicell et al. 2010, pp.
1, 10; Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated;
Ko¨ndgen et al. 2008, pp. 260–262; Pusey
et al. 2008, pp. 740, 741; Williams et al.
2008, pp. 766, 768–770; Leendertz et al.
2004, pp. 451–452; Nishida et al. 2001,
p. 48). Disease can have a particularly
devastating impact to ape populations
since they have little resilience to
diseases. For example, recovery of a
gorilla population from a single disease
outbreak can range from 5 years for a
low mortality (4 percent) respiratory
disease outbreak to 131 years for an
Ebola outbreak with high mortality (96
percent); this does not take into account
other impacts to the populations such as
additional disease outbreaks or Allee
effects. Recovery for a chimpanzee
population would be longer as they
have a lower maximum population
growth rate than gorillas (Ryan and
Walsh 2011, pp. 2, 3).
There are several strategies that can be
taken to protect wild chimpanzees from
diseases. Some ‘‘hands off’’ approaches
include educating governments about
the cost of too much tourism, stricter
enforcement of health guidelines for
approaching habituated animals,
excluding humans from protected areas,
and health programs for staff and local
populations. However, tourism is a
substantial source of revenue, and
enforcement of guidelines is often weak,
making these strategies difficult to
implement (Ryan and Walsh 2011, pp.
5–6; Pusey et al. 2008, p. 742).
A more interventionist approach is
treatment and vaccination of wild apes
via darting or oral baiting (FaustherBovendo et al. 2012, p. 4; Ryan and
Walsh 2011, p. 5). At this time,
treatment is not practical, as there are
no licensed anti-viral drugs effective
against Ebola and anti-viral drugs have
limited effectiveness against respiratory
viruses. Furthermore, a reactive type
strategy, such as treatment, requires a
sufficient monitoring system to detect
symptoms and a veterinary
infrastructure to effectively implement

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34512

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

treatment (Ryan and Walsh 2011, p. 6).
However, one of the reasons the
Kasekela community in Gombe National
Park has maintained its size through
periodic epidemic diseases is that
efforts were made to treat sick
chimpanzee when possible.
Chimpanzees were given Ivermectin
during a mange epidemic and
antibiotics during a respiratory
epidemic (Pusey et al. 2008, p. 741).
There have only been a few occasions
in which wild apes have been
vaccinated against diseases.
Chimpanzees in the Kasekela
community were given a polio vaccine
in 1966, during a polio epidemic;
gorillas were vaccinated during a
measles outbreak in 2011; and a few
gorillas were vaccinated against tetanus
when immobilized for treatment of
snare wounds (Ryan and Walsh 2011,
p. 6; Walsh 2011, p. 3; Academy of
Achievement 2009, p. 9; Pusey et al.
2008, p. 741). There are approximately
16 human vaccines that could
potentially be used to protect wild apes,
including chimpanzees (Ryan and
Walsh 2011, p. 6). However, vaccines
for great apes require the same standard
of testing and ethical review as a
vaccine for humans (Fausther-Bovendo
et al. 2012, p. 5). Because management
authorities place a strong emphasis on
animal welfare, it is preferable that
vaccines be tested on captive apes.
Captive chimpanzees in the United
States could be used to test vaccines
before they are given to wild
populations. In 2011, for the first time,
captive chimpanzees were used in an
experiment aimed to help wild
chimpanzees. The experiment assessed
the safety of an Ebola vaccine and its
ability to trigger an immune response.
Ultimately, the vaccine could be given
to gorillas and chimpanzees in the wild
to protect them against Ebola (Cohen
2011, unpaginated; Walsh 2011, p. 3).
Similar experiments on vaccines and
treatments against other diseases known
to pose a high risk to wild apes,
including respiratory pathogens,
gastrointestinal parasites, SIV, and
malaria, are planned for the future
(Walsh 2011, p. 3). At this time, these
types of experiments have been
extremely limited and have not yet
contributed to a reduction in any threats
to chimpanzees from diseases.
Once a chimpanzee population has
been reduced, whether by hunting,
capture for the pet trade, or disease, its
ability to recover is limited due to very
slow reproductive rates and complex
social behavior (Plumptre et al. 2010,
p. 1; Kabasawa 2009, p. 49; Bennett et
al. 2006, p. 885; Tutin et al. 2005, p. 32;
Leroy et al. 2004, p. 389; Kormos et al.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

2003c, pp. 151, 155; Wilkie and
Carpenter 1999, p. 927). Even low levels
of hunting can have a devastating effect
on the population. The loss of
reproductive-age female chimpanzees
can be particularly devastating, further
reducing the population’s ability to
recover from the loss (Carter 2003b,
p. 157; Kormos et al. 2003b, p. 72). The
occurrence of chimpanzees at low
densities coupled with slow
reproductive rates can lead to the rapid
extinction of even large populations
(Oates et al. 2008, unpaginated; Kormos
and Boesch 2003, p. 2).
The current threats to the
chimpanzee, as described above, are not
likely to improve in the foreseeable
future, resulting in a continuing decline
of chimpanzee populations. Threats to
this species are driven by the needs of
an expanding human population.
Within the range countries of the
chimpanzee, the human population is
expected to continue to increase and
will inevitably increase the pressures on
natural resources. Therefore, impacts to
remaining populations of chimpanzees,
as described above, from deforestation,
hunting, commercial trade, and disease
are likely to continue or even intensify
(Morgan et al. 2011, p. 10; Ryan and
Walsh 2011, p. 5; Plumptre et al. 2010,
pp. 50, 71; Fitzherbert et al. 2008, pp.
538–539, 544; Oates et al. 2008,
unpaginated; CBFP 2006, p. 33; Fa et al.
2006, p. 506; Hewitt 2006, pp. 44, 48–
49; Nasi et al. 2006, p. 14; Carter et al.
2003, p. 38; Duvall 2003, p. 145; Parren
and Byler 2003, p. 137; Nishida et al.
2001, p. 45; Wilkie and Carpenter 1999,
pp. 927–928).
Continuing threats acting on
chimpanzee populations, coupled with
the species’ inability to recover from
population reductions, will likely lead
to the loss of additional populations.
Chimpanzees could be lost from an
additional three countries due to threats
acting on populations that are already
below what is considered the minimum
for a viable population (Carlsen et al.
2012, p. 5; Butynski 2003, p. 11; Kormos
and Boesch 2003, p. 3). Many remaining
populations are small and isolated,
putting them at an increased risk of
extinction (Morgan et al. 2011, p. 12).
Many management plans have been
developed to conserve the chimpanzee
(e.g., Morgan et al. 2011; Plumptre et al.
2010; GRASP 2005a; GRASP 2005b;
Tutin et al. 2005; Kormos and Boesch
2003; Kormos et al. 2003). These plans
lay out goals and research needs to
address the threats faced by
chimpanzees. Development of forest
management plans with the goal of
sustainable forestry practices has
increased (Hewitt 2006, p. 43; Nasi et al.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

2006, pp. 17–19). However,
implementation of these management
plans faces challenges, and the effect of
these plans has yet to be determined.
There is no evidence that management
plans have reduced threats to the
species. Chimpanzees are found in
numerous protected areas. In some
cases, these areas provide adequate
protection and support substantial
populations of chimpanzees.
Unfortunately, many protected areas
have weak or nonexistent management
with poor law enforcement and are
illegally logged, converted to
agricultural lands, and hunted
(Campbell et al. 2011, p. 1).
Furthermore, we have no evidence that
enforcement of legislation to protect
chimpanzees and their habitat,
including protected areas, will improve.
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 an endangered species
or a threatened species 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.
As required by the Act, we conducted
a review of the status of the species and
considered the five factors in assessing
whether the chimpanzee is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range or likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future 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
chimpanzee. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and
other available published and
unpublished information.
One approach we can use to
determine whether a species is an
endangered species or a threatened
species, as defined under the Act, is to
evaluate the viability of the species. In
this context, viability refers to the
ability of a species to persist over the
long term, and conversely, avoid

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
extinction over the long term. A species
can be considered viable if it has a
sufficient degree of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy.
However, a species that is deficient in
one or more of these characteristics will
have a lower probability of being viable
and, therefore, a greater risk of
extinction.
Species have certain needs at the
individual, population, and species
level that are to be met in order to be
viable. Using the concepts of resiliency,
representation, and redundancy, we can
evaluate threats to these needs,
determine the effect on the species, and
gauge the probability of viability. In
evaluating threats to the needs of the
species and 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 an
endangered species or a threatened
species, as those terms are defined in
the Act.
Resiliency describes the
characteristics of a species and its
habitat that allow it to recover from
periodic disturbance. Species-level
resiliency is measured through the
resiliency of its collective populations.
Healthy populations allow for recovery
after stochastic events or periodic
disturbances. Populations lacking
healthy characteristics will be less likely
to bounce back and are thus less
resilient.
Chimpanzee habitat is continually
subjected to disturbance. Chimpanzees
need large areas to provide sufficient
resources for food, nesting, and shelter.
However, across its range, habitat that is
needed to support viable chimpanzee
populations is being fragmented and
lost to logging operations and
conversion to agriculture. Logging
operations often create a network of
roads for transporting timber. These
roads provide greater access to forests
that were once inaccessible, facilitate
the establishment of human settlements,
and are accompanied by further
deforestation from the conversion of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

forests to agriculture. Additionally,
agricultural practices are largely
unsustainable and are encroaching into
additional forested areas. As the human
population and economic development
have increased, pressure on forest
resources has also increased. This
increasing pressure has led to
uncontrolled legal and illegal forest
conversion within and outside of
protected areas (e.g., national parks and
forest reserves), leaving them destroyed
and fragmented. Cutting cycles that
occur too frequently in an area to allow
for proper regrowth, clear-cutting that
results in total habitat loss, and severe
soil erosion results in the loss of future
forest regeneration and recovery of vital
habitat.
The loss, or even the degradation, of
the chimpanzee’s traditional habitat can
affect their survival by impacting the
species’ food resources, behavior,
susceptibility to disease, and abundance
and distribution. Removal, or lowering
the quality, of habitat through logging
activity or establishment of agricultural
lands destroys the structure and
composition of the forest, eliminating
essential food sources, which can affect
sociability, condition of individuals,
and female reproductive success, and
increases vulnerability to diseases or
parasites and infant and juvenile
mortality. Even in areas with lower
levels of logging where essential food
sources were unaffected, chimpanzee
densities declined significantly and
were unable to recover, remaining low
for years.
Chimpanzee populations are also
continually subjected to disturbance.
Individuals needed to maintain viable
populations are lost to hunting for the
bushmeat trade, trade in pet
chimpanzees, disease, and conflicts
with humans. Hunting pressure even at
a low level is enough to result in the
local extirpation of large chimpanzee
populations. The loss of reproductiveage female chimpanzees can be
particularly devastating, further
reducing the population’s ability to
recover from the loss. The pet trade has
a significant draining effect on
remaining populations, and threatens
the survival of wild chimpanzees,
because so many chimpanzees may be
killed to secure one infant. Repeated
epidemics have resulted in dramatic
declines in ape populations in Coˆte
d’Ivoire, Gabon, Democratic Republic of
the Congo, and the Republic of Congo.
The Zaire strain of the Ebola virus alone
has killed nearly one-third of the
world’s chimpanzees. Disease, such as
SIV increase the chance of death by 10to 16-fold, decreases the likelihood of
females giving birth, and increases

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34513

infant mortality. Disease can have a
particularly devastating impact to ape
populations since they have little
resilience to diseases. For example,
recovery of a gorilla population from a
single disease outbreak can range from
5 years for a low mortality (4 percent)
respiratory disease outbreak to 131 years
for an Ebola outbreak with high
mortality (96 percent); this does not take
into account other impacts to the
populations such as additional disease
outbreaks or Allee effects. Recovery for
a chimpanzee population would be
longer as they have a lower maximum
population growth rate than gorillas.
Once a chimpanzee population has
been reduced, whether by hunting,
capture for the pet trade, or disease, its
ability to recover is limited due to very
slow reproductive rates and complex
social behavior. Females do not give
birth until 12 years of age and have only
one infant every 5 to 6 years. Infants are
weaned around 4 years old, and stay
with their mothers until they are about
8 to 10 years old. Even after being
weaned, young may not survive if
orphaned. The occurrence of
chimpanzees at low densities coupled
with slow reproductive rates can lead to
the rapid extinction of even large
populations.
Continuing threats acting on
chimpanzee habitat and populations,
coupled with the loss of future forest
regeneration and recovery of vital
habitat and the species’ inability to
recover from population reductions,
will lead to the loss of additional
populations and is evidence that neither
chimpanzees, nor its habitat, are
resilient.
Representation is the species’ ability
to adapt to changing environmental
conditions, whether natural or human
caused. The species’ adaptive
capabilities are supported by the range
in variation found within and between
populations. Representation can be
measured through the breadth of genetic
diversity within and among populations
and/or ecological diversity occupied by
populations across the species range. In
short, sufficient representation is having
the genetic flexibility and/or inhabiting
varying environmental conditions to
allow the populations to respond to
changing environmental conditions
through adaptation. Species without
diversity within and among populations
are thought to be more likely to go
extinct as conditions change.
Genetic diversity in chimpanzees is
evident by the four-subspecies
taxonomic classification. Determining
intraspecific variation among natural
populations is more difficult. Given that
some chimpanzee populations are

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34514

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

small, isolated and continue to face
threats, it is reasonable to conclude that
these particular populations may have,
or will experience, decreased genetic
diversity. However, we found no
information to suggest that genetic
exchange is particularly low for the
species as a whole or chimpanzee
populations in general.
Chimpanzee habitats, diet, and choice
of nesting sites vary across populations
and communities. In regards to habitat,
chimpanzees are highly adaptive,
occurring in primary, secondary, and
regenerating forests, logged forests, and
plantations; they have even been found
living in close proximity to humans.
However, the loss, or even the
degradation, of the chimpanzee’s
traditional habitat can affect their
survival by impacting the species’ food
resources, behavior, susceptibility to
disease, and abundance and
distribution. Although chimpanzees
feed on a wide variety of foods, their
energy requirements, as large primates
with large home ranges, predispose
them to a reliance on high-energy fruits.
Removal, or lowering the quality, of
habitat through logging activity or
establishment of agricultural lands
destroys the structure and composition
of the forest, eliminating essential food
sources, which can affect sociability,
condition of individuals, female
reproductive success, and increase
vulnerability to diseases or parasites
and infant and juvenile mortality.
Choice of nesting sites is variable across
populations and communities of
chimpanzees, but chimpanzees exhibit
strong preferences for certain tree
species for nesting, independent of their
availability in the habitat. Chimps can
also be deterred from nesting in certain
areas where human habitation is
concentrated. As a result, chimpanzees
are at a greater risk of predation, as
habitats where they relocate nests may
not provide sufficient protection.
Furthermore, the loss or reduction of
food sources and the noise and
disturbance from logging activity can
cause chimpanzee communities to
abandon their home range to find a new
home range with sufficient resources
and less human activity. These
chimpanzees may enter another
community’s territory, which can lead
to further competition for resources and
conflict that can lead to death. As
habitat is lost or fragmented and
chimpanzee populations are forced into
smaller forest fragments, lethal
interactions with other chimpanzees
may increase. Chimpanzees may also be
cautious about reinhabiting previous

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

home ranges where they were displaced
by humans.
Chimpanzees are ecologically diverse
across subspecies, populations, and
communities. However, this species
faces ongoing threats that impact the
various habitat types and result in
declining populations across its range.
As stated above, these impacts are
particularly devastating to populations
as their ability to recover from these
ongoing disturbances is limited due to
very slow reproductive rates and
complex social behavior. Therefore, we
find that chimpanzees do not have
sufficient representation to adapt to
changing environmental conditions.
Redundancy is the ability of a species
to withstand catastrophic events either
by having populations that are
unaffected or by having populations that
can recover following such an event.
Sufficient redundancy is having enough
populations distributed across the
landscape to provide a margin of safety
for the species to withstand catastrophic
events. This can be measured by the
number of populations comprising the
species and how they are distributed
across the landscape. Additionally,
because the species depends on its
habitat, the ability of its habitat to
withstand, or recover from, a
catastrophic event should be
considered.
Chimpanzee populations occur across
22 African countries. Affected
populations, owing to the lack of
resiliency, would be unlikely to recover
after a catastrophic event, leaving the
species more depleted and fragmented
than its current state. Additionally,
unaffected populations would continue
to face ongoing threats, and owing to a
lack of resiliency, will be unlikely to
sufficiently recover from these
continuous disturbances. Similarly, the
habitat types occupied by chimpanzees
across the 22 range countries are not
likely to be all be directly impacted by
a catastrophic event, but the ability of
the habitat to recover, given the current
threats acting on chimpanzee habitat
and the lack of forest regeneration, is
unlikely. Furthermore, unaffected
habitat will continue to face threats and
will be unable to recover due to heavy
pressures to meet the demands and
needs of the growing human population.
Therefore, we find that chimpanzee
populations do not represent sufficient
redundancy to withstand a catastrophic
event.
In summary, wild chimpanzees were
listed as an endangered species in 1990
due to habitat loss, excessive hunting,
capture for the pet trade, disease, and
lack of effective national and
international laws. Since then, threats to

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the chimpanzee have only expanded
and intensified. The chimpanzee is a
species whose declining and fragmented
populations are not resilient to current
ongoing disturbances. Despite the
ecological diversity of the species,
threats to the chimpanzee and its habitat
are such that the representation is not
sufficient to allow chimpanzees to adapt
to the ongoing changes in its
environment. In the event of a
catastrophic event, the remaining
populations would likely not recover
due to ongoing threats. Due to the
current, ongoing threats and impacts to
the chimpanzee and its habitat,
resiliency, representation, and
redundancy are not sufficient to
characterize the chimpanzee as a viable
species. Laws exist throughout the range
countries and internationally to protect
the chimpanzee, but enforcement of
national laws is lacking. Impacts to the
chimpanzee and its habitat are expected
to continue into the future as the human
population continues to expand and
pressures on natural resources to meet
the demands of the human population
increase.
Threats and the impact of these
threats to the chimpanzee and its habitat
are at a level that compromises the
viability of the species. We do not find
that the chimpanzee is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. Rather, we find that
the chimpanzee (including
consideration of all members, both
captive and wild) is not a viable species
and is currently in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. Therefore,
we are retaining the status of the
chimpanzee as an endangered species,
but with this listing we are now
including all members of the species in
the endangered classification.
We also examined the chimpanzee to
analyze if any other listable entity under
the definition of ‘‘species,’’ such as
subspecies or distinct population
segments, may qualify for a different
status. Because of the magnitude and
uniformity of the threats throughout its
range, we find that there are no other
listable entities that may warrant a
different determination of status. In
addition, because we find that the
chimpanzee is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range, consistent
with our Final Policy on Interpretation
of the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its
Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s
Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’
and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (79 FR
37578; July 1, 2014) it is not necessary
to consider whether the species might
qualify for a different status based on
some ‘‘significant portion of its range’’

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

because if a species is endangered or
threatened throughout its range, no
portions of its range can qualify as
‘‘significant.’’ Therefore, on the basis of
the best available scientific and
commercial information, we have
determined that the chimpanzee meets
the definition of an endangered species
under the Act. Consequently, we are
revising the listing of chimpanzees
under the Act so that all chimpanzees,
wherever found, are listed as
endangered species.
A rule normally becomes effective 30
days after publication of a final rule in
the Federal Register; however, our final
determination to list all chimpanzees as
endangered species under the Act will
become effective in 90 days (see DATES,
above). We are delaying the effective
date to allow time to process
applications for ongoing activities
involving chimpanzees that would
require a permit under the Act. This
will allow persons who qualify for a
permit to avoid unnecessary suspension
of their activities, which include
important ongoing medical and
scientific research. Delaying the
effective date will not adversely affect
wild populations of chimpanzees or
significantly affect captive chimpanzees.
4(d) Rule
For threatened species, section 4(d) of
the Act gives the Service discretion to
specify the prohibitions and any
exceptions to those prohibitions that are
appropriate for the species, as well as
include provisions that are necessary
and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the species. A 4(d) rule
allows us to develop regulatory
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 for threatened wildlife at 50
CFR 17.31 and 17.32. Because captive
chimpanzees in the United States were
previously classified as threatened
species, they were exempt from the
general prohibitions for threatened
wildlife at 50 CFR 17.31 under a 4(d)
rule for primates set forth at 50 CFR
17.40(c). However, because 4(d) rules
can be applied only to threatened
species, and we find that all
chimpanzees, both wild and captive, are
an endangered species, the 4(d) rule for
captive chimpanzees can no longer be
applied. Therefore, we are removing the
chimpanzee, including a provision
specific to the chimpanzee, from the
4(d) rule found at 50 CFR 17.40(c).
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

threatened species under the Act
include recognition, requirements for
Federal protection, and prohibitions
against certain practices. Recognition
through listing results in public
awareness, and encourages and results
in conservation actions by Federal and
state 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
species and with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is being designated.
However, given that the chimpanzee 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.
In 2000, the U.S. Congress passed the
Great Ape Conservation Act to protect
and conserve the great ape species,
including the chimpanzee, listed under
both the Endangered Species Act and
CITES. The Great Ape Conservation Act
granted the Service the authority to
establish the Great Ape Conservation
Fund to provide funding for projects
that aim to conserve great apes through
law enforcement training, community
initiatives, and other conservation
efforts. The Service’s Wildlife Without
Borders program, through the Great Ape
Conservation Fund, is supporting efforts
to fight poaching and trafficking in great
apes; to increase habitat protection by
creating national parks and protected
areas; and to engage the community
through local initiatives to conserve the
most threatened great ape species.
The Endangered Species Act and its
implementing regulations set forth a
series of general prohibitions and
exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife and to threatened wildlife that
are not regulated through a 4(d) rule.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34515

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. To possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that
has been taken in violation of the Act is
also illegal. 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 wildlife and 17.32 for
threatened wildlife. 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.
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 June 12, 2013,
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 the proposed listing. We
received tens of thousands of comments.
We reviewed all comments we
received from the public for substantive
issues and new information regarding
the proposed listing of this species, and
we address those comments below.
Overall, most commenters supported
the proposed listing, but did not provide
additional scientific or commercial data
for consideration. We have not included
responses to comments that supported
the listing decision but did not provide
specific information for consideration.
Most of the commenters that did not
support the proposed listing were
affiliated with the biomedical industry
and opposed the rule due to potential
impacts on biomedical research.
Additionally, we received comments
opposing our finding that the Act does
not allow for captive chimpanzees to be
assigned separate legal status from their

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

34516

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

wild counterparts on the basis of their
captive state, including through
designation as a separate distinct
population segment.

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

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 wild members of the species
occur, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from
one of the peer reviewers from whom
we requested comments. The peer
reviewer found the proposed rule
generally accurate and comprehensive
in its description of the biology, habitat,
population trends, and distribution of
chimpanzees, including the factors
affecting the species. The peer reviewer
provided comments for our
consideration to improve the accuracy
of the rule. Those comments are
addressed below. Technical corrections
suggested by the peer reviewer 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.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: The peer reviewer
provided technical corrections,
including more appropriate citations, on
the species’ taxonomy, description, diet,
and population estimates.
Our Response: We reviewed the
recommended citations and made minor
changes to the Taxonomy and Species
Description, Essential Needs of the
Species, and Range and Population
sections.
(2) Comment: The Service’s statement
that chimpanzees have been lost from
Benin, Togo, and Burkina Faso is too
definitive, as there are a few recent,
second-hand reports of chimpanzees in
Togo, one of which has led a
primatologist to plan a new survey to
investigate.
Our Response: The loss of
chimpanzees from Togo is widely
reported in scientific literature;
therefore, in the absence of a survey
confirming the presence of chimpanzees
in this country we will continue to rely
on the best scientific data available,
which indicates that chimpanzees have
been extirpated from Togo. However, we
acknowledge these recent reports in our
Range and Population section.
(3) Comment: The peer reviewer
disagrees that the chimpanzee could be

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

extirpated from Nigeria. The current
population of chimpanzees in just one
national park in Nigeria, GashakaGumti, appears to be over 1,000
individuals and is relatively well
protected.
Our Response: In light of this
information we have reevaluated our
analysis of potential extirpation from
specific countries. According to Carlsen
et al. (2012, p. 5) and Butynski (2003,
p. 11), the western chimpanzee is highly
threatened; combined with national
populations fewer than 1,000
chimpanzees, survival in Senegal,
Guineau Bissau, and Ghana is a
concern. Because the population in a
well-protected national park in Nigeria
is over 1,000 chimpanzees, we have
revised our analysis under our Range
and Population section. However, this
did not change our finding that the
chimpanzee meets the definition of an
endangered species under the Act.
Public Comments
(4) Comment: The inclusion of nonnative species under the Endangered
Species Act is a misdirection of agency
resources that does little to protect wild
habitat and merely imposes regulatory
burdens on those who maintain these in
human care domestically.
Our Response: The Act requires the
Service to determine if species qualify
as endangered or threatened species
regardless of whether a species is native
to the United States. Benefits to the
species include prohibitions on certain
activities including import, export, take,
and certain commercial activity in
interstate or foreign commerce. By
regulating these activities, the Act helps
to ensure that people under the
jurisdiction of the United States do not
contribute to the further decline of
listed species. Although the Act’s
prohibitions regarding listed species
apply only to people subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, the Act
can generate additional conservation
benefits such as increased awareness of
listed species, research efforts to address
conservation needs, or funding for insitu conservation of the species in its
range countries.
(5) Comment: Several commenters
oppose the elimination of the separate
classification of chimpanzees held in
captivity and the listing of the entire
species, wherever found, as an
endangered species under the Act,
stating that it is unlikely to benefit
chimpanzees in the wild and will have
little effect on the major threats to
chimpanzees.
Our Response: Our determination that
the Act does not allow for captive
chimpanzees to be assigned separate

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

legal status from their wild counterparts
is based on a detailed analysis on
whether the current statute, regulations,
and applicable policies provide any
discretion to differentiate the listing
status of specimens in captivity from
those in the wild. Therefore, benefits to
the species or the effect of the listing
decision is not relevant to what
constitutes a listable entity and is
eligible for separate listing status under
the Act. We did, however, consider to
what extent captive chimpanzees
contribute to or create threats to the
species or reduce or remove any threats
to the species as a whole.
(6) Comment: Commenters requested
chimpanzees located in the United
States to continue to be regulated under
the existing rule issued under section
4(d) of the Act, or that the special rule
for chimpanzees be revised in order to
allow certain activities with
chimpanzees to be undertaken without
the administrative burden and delays
associated with obtaining permits under
the Act.
Our Response: Because special rules
under section 4(d) authority can only
apply to threatened species, the special
rule that includes captive chimpanzees
at 50 CFR 17.40(c) will no longer be
available once this listing action and the
accompanying removal of the special
rule as applied to chimpanzees become
effective.
(7) Comment: Several commenters
oppose the listing of all chimpanzees as
endangered species, and removal of
chimpanzees from the 4(d) rule for
primates, because essential biomedical
research for both human and
chimpanzee health, including critical
research needed to develop preventions
and treatments of infectious diseases in
wild chimpanzee populations, that uses
chimpanzees could be prohibited.
Furthermore, the utilization of research
chimpanzees is currently well-regulated
under other Federal statutes, including
the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the
Public Health Service Act, and the
Chimp Act of 2000, as well as other
Federal policies and guidelines.
Our Response: It is not our intent to
prevent any biomedical research.
However, research involving
chimpanzees that could cause harm to
the animal (i.e., ‘‘take’’) will require a
take permit under the Act. While take
includes harassment of individual
animals, our regulations specify that
when captive animals are involved,
harassment does not include animal
husbandry practices that meet or exceed
AWA standards, breeding procedures,
or veterinary care that is not likely to
result in injury (see the definition of
harass at 50 CFR 17.3). In addition,

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
research that does not adversely affect
chimpanzees, such as observations in
behavioral research, are not considered
take and will not require a permit. For
activities that may result in a prohibited
act such as a taking, permits may be
issued for scientific purposes or to
enhance the propagation or survival of
the species. Enhancement may be direct,
such as developing a vaccination to be
administered to chimpanzees in the
wild (in situ), or indirect such as
contributions that are made to in situ
conservation.
Additionally, the comment appears to
imply that additional regulation under
the Act is not needed for captive
chimpanzees in the United States.
Whether or not additional regulation is
needed is not a factor considered when
evaluating whether a species meets the
definition of a threatened or endangered
species. Having concluded that we had
no discretion to treat captive
chimpanzees as a separate listable entity
from wild chimpanzees, the Service
properly assessed the status of the
‘‘species’’ to determine if it met the
definition of a ‘‘threatened species’’ or
an ‘‘endangered species’’ due to any one
or a combination of the five factors
found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. We
properly applied the five factors under
section 4(a)(1) to the species, including
the extent to which captive
chimpanzees create or contribute to the
threats to the species or remove or
reduce threats to the species. Having
determined that all chimpanzees qualify
as an ‘‘endangered species,’’ the Act’s
protections for endangered species are
extended to all chimpanzees.
(8) Comment: There is no causal
nexus between research with
chimpanzees in the United States and
the removal of specimens from the wild
by ‘‘poachers and smugglers,’’ and the
Service has provided no example of
illegal trafficking attributable to
research.
Our Response: In assessing whether
captive chimpanzees actually create or
contribute to the threat of
overutilization to the species as part of
its status review, the Service did not
find evidence that captive animals used
for research in the United States were
contributing to or creating any threats to
the species. In fact, the availability of
captive chimpanzees may have removed
the demand for wild chimpanzees in
biomedical research.
(9) Comment: Several commenters are
concerned that the permitting process
may delay time-sensitive research.
Our Response: The Service intends to
work with research institutions to
minimize the time needed to authorize
activities under the Act. However, it

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

should be noted that the permitting
process includes a 30-day comment
period required by statute for permit
applications involving endangered
species. Given that it takes time to plan
and implement any research studies, we
do not believe the permitting process
will be problematic or result in any
critical delays in research.
(10) Comment: The Service should
amend the permitting requirements so
that details of requests for biomedical
research permits are not required to be
published in the Federal Register.
Our Response: We do not publish the
details of permit applications in the
Federal Register; we publish only a
notice to the public that we have
received a permit application.
Information received as part of any
application is available to the public,
however, as a matter of public record.
(11) Comment: How many and for
which type of biomedical research will
the Service issue permits?
Our Response: All determinations of
whether particular entities and
particular activities qualify for permits
under the Act are made on a case-bycase basis depending on the facts of the
situation. We do not set a limit on the
number of permits we issue; however,
in the course of reviewing permit
applications we may refer back to all
applications we have received and
issued for a particular species and
activity. We cannot foresee what
biomedical research would be
authorized because up until the
effective date of this rule (see DATES),
permits for activities involving
chimpanzees have not been required.
Further, to list those activities prior to
reviewing them during the course of the
permitting procedure would be
predecisional. We will issue permits for
activities that meet the requirements of
50 CFR 17.22.
(12) Comment: The Service’s
proposed listing rule does not consider
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms for permitting biomedical
research with captive chimpanzees
under the Act.
Our Response: The commenter
appears to be referencing factor D and
appears to maintain that inadequate
permitting of research negatively
impacts wild chimpanzees because such
regulations impede research that has the
potential to treat diseases that impact
chimpanzees. As stated above,
biomedical research involving
chimpanzees that benefits chimpanzees
in the wild would likely meet
enhancement requirements and,
therefore, would likely be authorized.
Thus, the issue mentioned by the
commenter is not applicable.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34517

(13) Comment: The impact of this rule
on the biomedical community will
endanger human populations. The
Service should include biomedical
research aimed at improving human
health within the definition of
‘‘scientific purposes’’ under the Act.
Our Response: The purposes of the
Act are to conserve species and the
ecosystems on which they depend, and
any permit issued must meet the
standards under section 10(a) and 10(d)
of the Act. While not intended to impact
research involving human health, there
are requirements that must be met when
endangered species, such as the
chimpanzee, are involved. We will
evaluate each application for a permit
on a case-by-case basis to determine if
it qualifies under the Act, including for
scientific purposes. We will work with
institutions applying for a permit to
minimize adverse effects to research
activities.
(14) Comment: An enhancement-ofsurvival permit for biomedical research
on chimpanzees would require research
programs to provide a conservation
benefit to species in the wild, a huge
imposition on research institutions’
resources.
Our Response: The Service does not
believe that requiring biomedical
institutions to obtain authorization to
carry out otherwise prohibited activities
would impose a significant imposition
on their resources. In discussions with
a number of the institutions currently
holding chimpanzees, it appears that
there are ways these institutions could
benefit chimpanzees in the wild through
currently on-going activities or activities
that could be reasonably developed.
Behavioral studies, the development of
veterinary treatments, and support for
in-situ conservation efforts like orphan
care, currently carried out by some
institutions, all would support the
issuance of an endangered species
permit by the Service. The Service will
continue to work with research
institutions on ways to continue their
current activities, while ensuring that
the standards of the Act are met.
(15) Comment: Additional
information on diseases and the threat
they pose to the viability of wild
chimpanzees was provided.
Our Response: We have incorporated
additional information into our
discussion of diseases, including the
potential impact of disease outbreaks on
chimpanzee populations and the
potential for captive chimpanzees in the
United States to be used to test vaccines
for wild populations. This information
did not change our finding that the
chimpanzee meets the definition of an
endangered species under the Act.

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34518

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

Rather, it provided additional support to
our finding that disease is a threat to
chimpanzees.
(16) Comment: The Service only used
literature related to wild chimpanzees
and included very limited scientific
data related to captive chimpanzees,
especially information on the use of
captive chimpanzees in research to
advance both human and chimpanzee
health.
Our Response: Consistent with the
Act, we assessed the status of the
species to determine whether
chimpanzees meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species and
should be listed under the Act. This
included assessing the extent to which
captive chimpanzees create or
contribute to threats to the species or
remove or reduce threats to the species
by contributing to the conservation of
the species. We have included in our
Summary of Threats section information
on the potential for captive
chimpanzees to contribute to a
reduction in threats to chimpanzees
from diseases. Because the use of
captive chimpanzees in the
advancement of human health does not
impact chimpanzees, either positively
or negatively, this information is not
relevant in assessing the status of the
species.
(17) Comment: Some commenters
claimed listing all chimpanzees as
endangered species would hurt
conservation efforts to the extent that
the Service would set limitations on the
exhibition of endangered chimpanzees
in zoological settings.
Our Response: The Act does not
prohibit the exhibition of listed species.
Listing all chimpanzees will not set any
limitations on exhibition. The Service
disagrees, however, that listing all
chimpanzees as endangered would have
any negative impact on conservation
efforts. Instead, the listing will most
likely promote greater participation in
conservation efforts by zoological
institutions and the public. Before the
listing, individuals wishing to sell and
engage in certain other commercial
activities with captive chimpanzees
could do so without providing any
conservation benefits to the species.
With this listing, otherwise prohibited
activities, such as these commercial
activities, will require authorization
from the Service and this authorization
can be issued only if the activity meets
the requirements of the Act.
(18) Comment: The listing petition’s
general arguments regarding exhibitors’
commercial gain from their exhibition of
captive chimpanzees should have no
bearing on Service’s decision regarding
the conservation status of captive

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

chimpanzees under the Act.
Furthermore, the Service should clarify
that commercial gains from educational
and entertainment activities are not
illegal under the Act.
Our Response: The Service’s listing
determination is based upon an analysis
of the best available scientific and
commercial information relative to the
statutory standards under the Act
indicating that chimpanzees as a species
meet the definition of an endangered
species under the Act. Thus, the
appropriate conservation status of the
species was not based upon the issue
mentioned by the commenter.
Additionally, the Act and our
implementing regulations set forth the
prohibitions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions
make it illegal for any person who is
subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to, among other things, sell or
offer for sale an endangered species in
interstate or foreign commerce or to
deliver, receive, transport, carry, or ship
an endangered species in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of a
commercial activity. Services provided
by persons who own captive
chimpanzees such as those provided by
circuses and appearances in movies,
television, advertisements, or parties are
not unlawful unless the person engages
in one of the prohibited activities.
(19) Comment: The Service’s
differentiation between threatened and
endangered species permits issued for
the purpose of exhibition is misplaced
because the Service’s regulatory
definition of ‘‘enhancement of
propagation or survival’’ includes
‘‘exhibition of living wildlife in a
manner designed to educate the public
about the ecological role and
conservation needs of the affected
species.’’ Thus, in the event that the
Service designates captive chimpanzees
as endangered under the Act, the
Service should expressly reaffirm that
public exhibition continues to be
permitted.
Our Response: The Act does not
prohibit the exhibition of listed species.
Therefore, the Service does not issue
permits for public exhibition or
education. However, the Act does
regulate, among other things, import;
export; sale and offer for sale in
interstate and foreign commerce; and
delivery, receipt, transport, carrying,
and shipment in interstate or foreign
commerce in the course of a commercial
activity. As pointed out in the proposed
rule, Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act for
endangered species states that the
Secretary may permit ‘‘any act
otherwise prohibited by section 9 for
scientific purposes or to enhance the

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

propagation or survival of the affected
species . . .’’ In addition, any permit
issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) must,
among other things, be consistent with
the policies and purposes of the Act.
Therefore, when considering whether a
permit can be issued to authorize
activities that would otherwise be
prohibited with an endangered species,
the purposes of the activity must be for
either scientific purposes or for
enhancement, not solely for educational
or exhibition purposes.
The commenter is correct, however,
in referencing that the definition of
‘‘enhance the propagation or survival’’
in the regulations (50 CFR 17.3) does
identify exhibition of living wildlife as
part of an overall approach to
enhancement for captive wildlife.
Specifically, the regulations state:
Enhance the propagation or survival,
when used in reference to wildlife in
captivity, the following activities when
it can be shown that such activities
would not be detrimental to the survival
of wild or captive populations of the
affected species:
(a) Provision of health care,
management of populations by culling,
contraception, euthanasia, grouping or
handling of wildlife to control
survivorship and reproduction, and
similar normal practices of animal
husbandry needed to maintain captive
populations that are self-sustaining and
that possess as much genetic vitality as
possible;
(b) Accumulation and holding of
living wildlife that is not immediately
needed or suitable for propagative or
scientific purposes, and the transfer of
such wildlife between persons in order
to relieve crowding or other problems
hindering the propagation or survival of
the captive population at the location
from which the wildlife would be
removed;
(c) Exhibition of living wildlife in a
manner designed to educate the public
about the ecological role and
conservation needs of the affected
species.
This definition was established
primarily in relation to the Captive-bred
Wildlife Registration program (50 CFR
17.21(g)) to facilitate captive breeding of
listed species as part of an overall
captive management program.
Therefore, public display in a manner
designed to education the public about
the ecological role of the species, along
with being part of a captive breeding
program that strives for a self-sustaining
captive population that ensures
maximum genetic diversity and vitality
could be permitted under the Act.
(20) Comment: Several commenters
opposed the proposed rule, and the

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
associated regulation of captive
chimpanzees, stating that captive
populations are essential for the
perpetuation of global chimpanzee
populations and repopulating African
countries.
Our Response: The status of all
chimpanzees as endangered does not
affect the ability to maintain captive
populations. The Act does not prohibit
captive breeding of listed species.
(21) Comment: One commenter
requested amending the Service’s
regulatory definition of the phrase
‘‘industry and trade’’ found in the Act’s
definition of the term ‘‘commercial
activity,’’ as well as revising the
Service’s Captive-Bred Wildlife
Regulations under 50 CFR 17.21(g) to
require the agency to respond in the
Federal Register to public comments
received on applications for captivebred wildlife registrations.
Our Response: The comment is
outside the scope of this agency action
to consider whether all chimpanzees
should be listed as endangered species
under the Act.
(22) Comment: Some commenters
believed that this rulemaking was not
the appropriate vehicle for issuing new
agency policy regarding whether captive
animals, in general, may be assigned
separate legal status from their wild
counterparts on the basis of their
captive state. One commenter explained
that the Service could not use a petitionspecific determination to promulgate a
new interpretive rule, and the law
requires such action to be done via a
more direct and thorough public
process, not as an adjunct to a species
listing petition. One commenter
maintained that the Service’s actions
violated section 4(h) of the Act. Thus,
these commenters indicated
promulgation of such a policy or
interpretive rule should be subject to
separate public notice and comment
procedures pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act and the
Endangered Species Act.
Our Response: The Service was
petitioned to list all chimpanzees,
whether in the wild or in captivity, as
an endangered species, thereby
eliminating the separate classification of
captive chimpanzees from chimpanzees
located in the wild. As explained in the
preamble of our proposed listing rule,
we therefore examined the question
raised by the petition as to whether the
Service has discretion under the Act to
differentiate the listing status of
chimpanzees in captivity from those in
the wild. Because the Service had not
specifically examined whether the Act,
its implementing regulations, and
applicable policies provide such

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

discretion prior to receiving the
petitions for chimpanzees and the
African antelope, we reviewed the issue
in order to ensure that we addressed
each petition in accordance with the
Act. Nonetheless, each assessment is
specific to the petitioned species. The
rule has been revised to clarify that the
Service’s analysis is specific to the issue
of whether captive chimpanzees should
have separate legal status on the basis of
their captivity.
Furthermore, this listing decision
does not establish new agency policy. In
fact, this listing determination is
consistent with the Service’s general
practice for captive members of a
species to be afforded the same legal
status under the Act as those members
of the species in the wild.
In compliance with the Endangered
Species Act and the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Service’s listing
determination, which included its
evaluation of whether captive
chimpanzees may have separate legal
status under the Act, was subject to
public notice and comment. The Service
was under no legal requirement, as
suggested by the commenter, to subject
the analysis used in evaluating this
petition to an additional and separate
rulemaking process or to develop
agency guidelines such as those
identified under section 4(h) of the Act.
(23) Comment: Commenters expressed
concern that the Service’s broad
statements of policy regarding its legal
authority to recognize exemptions from
the Act for captive animals is beyond
the scope of the petition. According to
one commenter, the petition is specific
to the listing of chimpanzees only, and
the Service’s proposal should be as well.
Our Response: Assuming that the
commenters are characterizing the
authority to designate separate legal
status under the Act for captive animals
as an ‘‘exemption,’’ the Service
disagrees that the issue of designating
separate legal status for captive
chimpanzees is beyond the scope of the
petition. Because the petition requested,
in essence, the elimination of the
separate classification for captive
chimpanzees from chimpanzees located
in the wild, the Service appropriately
considered, as an initial matter, whether
it had any discretion to designate legal
status under the Act to captive members
separate from their wild counterparts.
Assessing whether the petitioned action
involves an entity eligible for legal
status under the Act is part of the
Service’s standard practice in making
petition-findings. See, e.g., 12-Month
Findings on Petitions to Delist U.S.
Captive Populations of the Scimitarhorned Oryx, Dama Gazelle, and Addax

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34519

78 FR 33790, 33791 (June 5, 2013)
(including a discussion on the
‘‘Evaluation of Listable Entities’’); 12Month Finding on a Petition to List 14
Aquatic Mollusks as Endangered or
Threatened, 77 FR 57922, 57923
(September 18, 2012) (including a
discussion on the ‘‘Evaluation of
Listable Entities’’); 12-Month Finding on
Petition to List the Wanton’s Cave
Meshweaver as Endangered or
Threatened, 79 FR 47413, 47415
(August 13, 2014) (including a
discussion on ‘‘Evaluation of Listable
Entities’’); 90-Day Finding on a Petition
to List Thermophilic Ostracod as
Endangered or Threatened, 77 FR 9618,
9618 (February 17, 2012) (including a
discussion on the ‘‘Evaluation of
Listable Entities’’); 90-Day Finding on
Petition to List Sphinx Date Palm, 77 FR
71757 (including a discussion on the
‘‘Evaluation of Listable Entities’’). Thus,
the issue was properly part of the
Service’s petition-finding and
determination to list all chimpanzees as
an endangered species. In addition, as
noted above the rule has been revised to
clarify that the Service’s analysis is
specific to the issue of whether captive
chimpanzees should have separate legal
status on the basis of their captivity.
(24) Comment: One commenter stated
that for a notice of a new policy to be
effective, particularly one that modifies,
or at least substantially impacts, the
Captive-Bred Wildlife rule, it must alert
the public that a change in policy is
being considered.
Our Response: The commenter fails to
identify any new policy or a change in
policy being issued through this listing
determination. As explained in the
preamble of our proposed listing rule,
the Service has not had an absolute
policy or practice with respect to the
designation of separate legal status
under the Act for captive animals, but
generally has included wild and captive
animals together when it has listed
species. Thus, this action does not
involve a change in policy, nor does it
involve any modification or impact to
the Captive-Bred Wildlife rule. In fact,
this listing action is consistent with the
Service’s general practice of listing
captive and wild members of a species
together. As part of the Service’s
evaluation of the petition to list all
chimpanzees as endangered, this action
included an examination of whether the
agency has any discretion to
differentiate the listing status of
specimens in captivity from those in the
wild. The Service’s listing
determination, including its analysis of
whether captive chimpanzees may have
separate legal status under the Act from

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34520

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

their wild counterparts, was subject to
public notice and comment.
(25) Comment: The Service received
comments that it should base this listing
determination on the conservation
status of the captive specimens,
focusing on an assessment of whether
the five factors require listing of captive
chimpanzees, rather than a position or
policy that the agency lacks authority to
assign a separate legal status to all
captive species by virtue of their captive
status. Other commenters claimed that
the Service’s failure to analyze whether
captive chimpanzees are an endangered
species due to the five factors under
section 4(a)(1) constituted a violation of
the Act. Some commenters further
contended that captive chimpanzees are
not in danger of extinction due to any
of the five factors set forth under section
4(a)(1) of the Act.
Our Response: Having concluded that
we do not have discretion to treat
captive chimpanzees as a separate
listable entity from wild chimpanzees,
the Service properly assessed the status
of the ‘‘species’’ to determine if it met
the definition of a ‘‘threatened species’’
or an ‘‘endangered species’’ due to any
one or a combination of the five factors
found in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. See
Trout Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F. 3d 946,
955–956 (9th Cir 2009) (distinguishing
between two analytical phases of the
listing process—the ‘‘composition
phase’’ involving the ‘‘neutral’’ task of
defining a ‘‘species’’ and the subsequent
decision to list due to the factors under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act). As part of the
assessment of the status of the
‘‘species,’’ the Service examined the
extent to which captive chimpanzees
created or contributed to threats to the
species or remove or reduce threats to
the species by contributing to the
conservation of the species. This
approach of considering the
contribution of captive members on
their wild counterparts in a status
assessment of the species has been
upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Trout
Unlimited v. Lohn, 559 F. 3d at 961
(upholding NMFS’s 2005 Hatchery
Policy which established that the effects
of hatchery fish will be included in
assessing the status of the entire
Evolutionary Significant Unit in the
context of their contributions to
conserving natural self-sustaining
populations). But having found for a
number of reasons that the Service does
not have the discretion to give captive
chimpanzees separate legal status, it
was both unnecessary and would be
inappropriate to conduct a listing
analysis on just captive chimpanzees.
(26) Comment: The proposed rule
states that captive populations of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

wildlife do not have their own
recognizable range and that a species’
range consists only of those portions of
the species’ historic range where the
species is found in the wild. This
approach ignores the importance that
adaptation plays in species
conservation. If the Service refuses to
recognize a species’ range as the habitat
in which the population currently lives,
whether in the wild or in captivity, then
the Service will be powerless to
accommodate circumstances that
change wildlife behavior patterns.
Our Response: It appears that the
commenter may have misunderstood
our interpretation of ‘‘range.’’
Nonetheless, we stand by our position
noted in the proposed rule and this final
rule that ‘‘range’’ has consistently been
interpreted by the Service as being the
natural range of the species in the wild.
Furthermore, the Service’s 2014 policy
on the meaning of the phrase
‘‘significant portion of its range’’ (SPR)
(79 FR 37577; July 1, 2014) defines
‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘general geographic area
within which that species can be found
at the time [the Service] or [the National
Marine Fisheries Service] makes any
particular status determination,’’ which
we interpret also to apply to the range
of the species in the wild. Therefore, the
Service’s definition of range does not
ignore the importance of adaptation in
species conservation. If circumstances
change wildlife behavior patterns,
changes in areas where the species is
found in the wild would be considered
part of its range.
(27) Comment: One commenter
asserted that the Service’s interpretation
of the term ‘‘range’’ under section 4(c)(1)
of the Act as including the general
geographical area where the species is
found in the wild would prevent the
Service from complying with its
statutory obligation to specify for each
species listed over what portion of its
range it is an endangered species or a
threatened species in the event a species
no longer exists in the wild and can
only be found in captivity.
Our Response: Under this
hypothetical, the Service disagrees that
its interpretation of the term ‘‘range’’
would prevent it from specifying ‘‘over
what portion of its range’’ it is an
endangered species or a threatened
species in accordance with section
4(c)(1) of the Act. For a species that only
exists in captivity, the Service indicates
the range of the species in the wild that
would occur but for the conditions that
have led to extirpation from the wild in
the ‘‘Historic Range’’ column of the
listing at 50 CFR 17.11 or 17.12,
consistent with our interpretation. For
example, the listing of the Scimitar-

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

horned oryx at 50 CFR 17.11 indicates
the historic range as North Africa, even
though the Service acknowledged the
oryx may no longer exist in the wild.
See Final Rule to List the Scimitarhorned oryx, Addax, and Dama Gazelle
as Endangered, 70 FR 52319 (September
2, 2005).
(28) Comment: The Service’s position
that the Act deprives it of the authority
to separately classify a population made
exclusively of captive members
contradicts the Service’s litigation
position in Safari Club International v.
Salazar, et al. in which the Service
maintained that it possessed the
authority to make decisions about the
listing status of captive populations on
a case-by-case basis.
Our Response: Prior to fully analyzing
the issue of designating separate legal
status for captive animals for
consistency with the statutory
standards, an issue raised in the
petitions to delist U.S. captive
populations of Scimitar-horned oryx,
addax, and dama gazelle and the
petition to list all chimpanzees as an
endangered species, we acknowledge
that the Service provided the same
listing status to all members of a species
as the default, unless the facts indicated
that there should be a different result.
See Safari Club International v. Jewell,
960 F.Supp 2d 17, 64 (D.D.C. 2013)
(upholding the Service’s 2005 final
determination to list Scimitar-horned
oryx, addax, and dama gazelle as being
consistent with the agency’s general
policy and practice). Having now
examined the language, purpose,
operation of key provisions, and the
legislative history of the Act in response
to the issue raised in the abovementioned petitions, we have
concluded that the Service does not
have the discretion to designate separate
legal status under the Act for captive
chimpanzees from wild members of the
same species, which is consistent with
our findings on the antelope petitions.
As noted above, the rule has been
revised to clarify that the Service’s
analysis is specific to the petitioned
species.
(29) Comment: The Service expresses
a general concern that captive
chimpanzees might not meet the Act’s
definition of ‘‘threatened species’’ or
‘‘endangered species,’’ leaving captive
chimpanzees unprotected by the Act. In
order to avoid this result, the Service
proposes that captive chimpanzees must
receive the same listing as wild
chimpanzees to ensure that they receive
protections, even though they do not
qualify for listing. Such an approach is
inconsistent with the Act’s purpose to
promote conservation of the species and

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
DPS which are actually endangered or
threatened species.
Our Response: It is unclear whether
the commenter believes that the Service
found that captive chimpanzees would
not qualify for listing under the Act if
the required analysis were conducted or
whether the commenter believes that
captive chimpanzees do not qualify for
listing. To process the petition, we had
to consider whether captive
chimpanzees had appropriately been
considered separate listable entities
previously. Part of this analysis
included potential conservation
outcomes if a section 4(a) analysis were
conducted solely on captive
chimpanzees (which was not done
when we designated captive
chimpanzees as a separate threatened
DPS in 1990) and whether the potential
consequences of this approach would be
consistent with Congress’ intent for the
Act. Having found for a number of
reasons that the Service does not have
the discretion to give captive animals
separate legal status, it was both
unnecessary and would be
inappropriate to conduct a listing
analysis on just captive chimpanzees.
For all the reasons explained in this
rule, we find that this decision is
consistent with the purposes of the Act
and Congress’ intent.
In fact, if the separate designation of
wild chimpanzees and captive
chimpanzees were maintained,
proponents of separate legal status
could argue that captive specimens do
not qualify as endangered or threatened
species under an analysis of the best
available scientific information related
to the five factors found under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. Indeed, we note that
this commenter appears to contend that
captive chimpanzees do not qualify for
listing. Because under this line of
thinking captive chimpanzees might not
meet the definitions of endangered or
threatened species under the statutory
factors, captive chimpanzees could be
petitioned for, and arguably would
qualify for, delisting. These animals
would therefore lose any legal
protections of the Act, even as wild
chimpanzees face threats that have
intensified and expanded since 1990,
continue to decline, and have already
been extirpated from some range
countries. Unfortunately it is
conceivable that all wild chimpanzees
could be extirpated at some point in the
future and therefore, under the
commenter’s line of reasoning, wild
chimpanzees would qualify for delisting
as extinct under 50 CFR 424.11(d)(1)
while captive chimpanzees would still
have no protections under the Act. Such
potential consequences due to separate

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

listings of chimpanzees would be
inconsistent with the Act’s purpose of
protecting threatened and endangered
species.
(30) Comment: The Service should
reconsider its definition of ‘‘captivity.’’
If a species’ existence outside of its
historic range involves a lifestyle closely
resembling life in the wild, then the
Service should treat that population
more like wild populations than captive
ones. In captivity, chimpanzees do not
have a lifestyle that even remotely
mimics their existence in the wild.
Our Response: The request to
reconsider the Service’s regulatory
definition of ‘‘captivity’’ is beyond the
scope of this action to consider whether
all chimpanzees should be listed as an
endangered species under the Act.
(31) Comment: In its new
interpretation, the Service did not
address the fact that the Act recognizes
the ‘‘scientific’’ value of wildlife and
acknowledges ‘‘scientific’’ purposes as a
separate animal use in addition to other
possible uses, i.e., commercial,
recreational, or educational purposes,
when the potential for overutilization is
considered.
Our Response: In determining
whether we had any discretion to
designate separate legal status under the
Act to captive chimpanzees, the Service
specifically acknowledged that Congress
recognized ‘‘overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
education purposes’’ as a potential
threat that contributes to the risk of
extinction for many species. We found
that if captive specimens could have
separate legal status under the Act, the
threat of overutilization could increase.
Such a consequence would be
inconsistent with section 2(b)’s purpose
of conserving endangered and
threatened species. The role of scientific
use of endangered wildlife is also
acknowledged under section 10(a)(1)(A)
as one of the purposes for which a
permit may be issued to conduct
otherwise prohibited activities.
(32) Comment: Although the Service
noted past examples of and concerns
about the possibility of not being able to
distinguish between captive and wild
specimens in its proposed rule,
chimpanzees currently located at U.S.
research facilities are not only few in
number, but also individually identified
and recorded.
Our Response: The comment appears
to be referring to the Service’s
conclusion that, as a general matter,
separate legal status for captive animals
would be inconsistent with the purpose
of section 2(b) of the Act due to the
potential for increased take and trade in
‘‘laundered’’ wild-caught specimens

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34521

that would generally be
indistinguishable from unprotected,
captive specimens. In assessing whether
captive chimpanzees actually create or
contribute to the threat of
overutilization to the species, the
Service did not find evidence that
captive specimens specifically held in
U.S. research facilities were
contributing to or creating any threats to
the species. Nonetheless, even if captive
chimpanzees in U.S. research facilities
are currently few in number and all
captive chimpanzees at these facilities
are individually identified and
recorded, this may not be the case in the
future. In addition, it does not appear
that captive chimpanzees generally have
reduced any threats to the species,
including removal of animals from the
wild for the pet trade, as threats to the
species have only intensified since the
1990 reclassification of the wild
population from a threatened species to
an endangered species.
(33) Comment: Some commenters
indicated their support for the Service’s
continued reliance on its policy
regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments under
the Endangered Species Act to assign
separate legal status under the Act for
chimpanzees held in captivity. Other
commenters noted that captive
chimpanzee population in the U.S.
qualifies as a ‘‘distinct population
segment’’ under the plain language of
the Act and the interagency policy on
distinct population segments.
Our Response: Based upon an
examination of the language, purpose,
operation of key provisions, and the
legislative history of the Act, the Service
has concluded that it does not have the
discretion to assign legal status under
the Act for captive specimens of
chimpanzees separate from their wild
counterparts, which includes
designating captive chimpanzees and
wild chimpanzees as separate distinct
population segments pursuant to our
1996 policy regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
under the Endangered Species Act.
Although the Service’s 1990 final
reclassification rule for chimpanzees,
issued prior to the promulgation of the
1996 policy, designated captive and
wild chimpanzees as separate distinct
population segments, that designation
was not analyzed as to how it was
consistent with the statutory standards.
(34) Comment: The Service received
comments indicating that the Act does
not limit the Service’s authority to
assign captive animals separate legal
status from specimens of the same
species or subspecies that occur in the
wild. Some commenters noted that

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34522

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

nothing in the plain language, purpose,
or legislative history of the Act
precludes according separate legal
status to captive animals and their wild
counterparts. Other commenters
maintained that the Act provides broad
authority to the Service to carry out
animal conservation and protection
requirements, as well as flexibility for
the agency to take a variety of regulatory
approaches.
Our Response: We agree that nothing
in the Act expressly specifies whether
or not captive specimens can or cannot
have separate legal status based on their
captive state. However, our analysis of
the language, purpose, operation, and
legislative history of the Act, when
considered together, indicates that
Congress did not intend for captive
specimens of wildlife to be subject to
separate legal status on the basis of their
captive state. We believe that this is a
reasonable construction of the Act and
is consistent with our general practice of
designating the same legal status to
captive and wild members of the same
species.
As for the authority under the Act to
carry out animal conservation and
protection programs, such programs, as
well as other regulatory options, are
only available if the entity qualifies as
an endangered or threatened species.
For the reasons explained in this final
rule, as well as past petitions received
and comments received during this
rulemaking, it is possible that captive
animals considered as separate listable
entities would not qualify as
endangered or threatened species.
(35) Comment: The Service received
comments that this agency action
overturns 37 years of previous policy
according separate conservation status
of captive chimpanzees without
justification. Observing that an agency’s
long-standing policies or statutory
interpretations are entitled to deference,
one commenter indicated that the
agency failed to explain its reasoning for
departing from its prior interpretation
through this action. Another commenter
noted that the Service cannot cite to any
change in the language of the Act since
it adopted the split-listing of captive
and wild chimpanzees to support its
departure from its 37-year-old policy.
Our Response: Because the Service
has had no absolute policy or practice
concerning differentiating the listing
status of specimens in captivity from
those in the wild, but has generally
listed captive and wild members
together, we do not believe that this
listing determination represents a
departure from any policy on that
matter. To the extent that the
commenters maintain that this action is

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

a departure from how the Service has
previously treated chimpanzees listed
under the Act, we agree that there has
been no statutory change prompting the
Service to list all chimpanzees as an
endangered species. However, the
Service’s 1990 decision to reclassify
wild chimpanzees from a threatened
species to an endangered species, while
maintaining the threatened species
classification for captive chimpanzees,
did not include a thorough analysis of
whether it was appropriate under the
Act to accord legal status for captive
members separate from wild members of
the same species. In response to a
comment that there was no legislative
history suggesting that captive
populations could be treated as distinct
species and no precedent for doing so,
the 1990 final chimpanzee rule stated
only that captive animals are distinct
from wild populations and have the
potential to interbreed when mature, an
apparent reference to the DPS provision
within the Act’s definition of ‘‘species,’’
and that some captive chimpanzees
were specifically being managed as an
interbreeding population. The 1990
final rule also noted one situation—the
Nile crocodile—where the Service had
previously listed captive specimens
separately from wild specimens.
In response to the issues raised in this
petition, we evaluated the language,
purposes, operation, and legislative
history of the Act to reasonably
conclude that Congress did not intend
for captive chimpanzees to be subject to
separate legal status on the basis of their
captive state. After determining that all
chimpanzees, including captive and
wild animals, should be considered a
single listable entity under the Act, we
evaluated the status of the ‘‘species’’ to
find that endangered is the correct
conservation status for the chimpanzee.
The Service’s justification for
designating all chimpanzees as an
endangered species was thoroughly
detailed in our 12-month finding and
proposed rule and is explained again
here.
We acknowledge, however, that the
Service has indicated in a limited
number of situations that captive
wildlife can have separate legal status
from wild members of the species. In
1992, the Service received a petition to
reclassify cotton-top tamarins held in
captivity in North America and found
that the petition presented substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (58
FR 64927, December 10, 1993). But the
notice provided no analysis of how the
captive animals could be given separate
legal status and no further action was
taken on the petition. The taxonomic

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

species remains listed as an endangered
species in its entirety. In 2011, we found
that a petition to list plains bison did
not present substantial information
indicating that listing may be warranted
and in the notice stated that we only
considered wild bison in the evaluation
because the Service did not consider it
to be within the intent of the Act to
consider bison ‘‘in commercial herds’’
for listing (76 FR 10299, February 24,
2011). This notice did not contain a
thorough analysis like that conducted in
response to the antelope petitions or
this petition, however, and we likely
would not reach the same conclusion
today.
Other than the chimpanzee listing
decision in 1990, there is only one time
where we have given separate legal
status to captive specimens on the basis
of their captive state. On June 17, 1987,
we published a final rule reclassifying
captive Nile crocodiles in Zimbabwe
from an endangered species to a
threatened species (52 FR 23148). The
rule provided no explanation for how
captive Nile crocodiles in Zimbabwe
could qualify as a separate listed entity,
however, and appears to have been
based on a concurrent change in the
specimens’ status under CITES from
Appendix I to Appendix II, not on any
analysis under the Act. The differing
listings statuses for captive and wild
Zimbabwe Nile crocodiles were
resolved a little more than a year later
when wild Nile crocodiles in Zimbabwe
were also reclassified from endangered
to threatened (53 FR 38451, September
30, 1988). Importantly, both the
chimpanzee and the Nile crocodile split
listings were completed prior to the
development of our 1996 DPS Policy (61
FR 4722, February 7, 1996) and thus
before we had fully considered the
appropriateness of separate legal status
for captive specimens under the Act.
(36) Comment: The Service has not
followed certain legal procedures
required in publishing the proposed
listing rule. Specifically, the Service
failed to make certain documents
available for review and comment by
the public. In addition, the Service
failed to have this regulatory action
reviewed by the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, as required by
Executive Order 12866.
Our Response: The Service observed
all procedural requirements in
promulgating this listing determination.
Consistent with the Administrative
Procedure Act, all information upon
which this determination is based was
identified in the Service’s listing
proposal in order to allow for
meaningful public comment on this
rulemaking. Additionally, as noted in

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
the Conference Report to the 1982
Amendments to the Act, economic
factors cannot be considered when
assessing the legal status of a species
under the Act. Thus, this action is not
subject to review by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
(37) Comment: The Service contends
that captive chimpanzees cannot qualify
as a species because they have no
‘‘habitat’’ or ‘‘range.’’ However, the Act’s
definitions of ‘‘species,’’ ‘‘habitat,’’ or
‘‘range’’ does not require the Service to
list all chimpanzees as an endangered
species. Just because the Service may
interpret ‘‘range’’ as the ‘‘geographical
area where the species is found in the
wild,’’ this does not mean that the Act
precludes a definition which would
encompass geographic areas where
animals are held in captivity.
Our Response: We agree that nothing
in the Act, including its definition of
‘‘species,’’ ‘‘endangered species,’’ or
‘‘threatened species,’’ expressly
precludes designating legal status under
the Act for captive chimpanzees based
on their captive state. However, as part
of our evaluation as to whether captive
and wild chimpanzees can have
separate legal status, we reviewed,
among other things, the language of the
Act. Although the Act does not contain
a definition of the term ‘‘range,’’ the
Service has consistently interpreted that
term to mean the geographical area
where the species is found in the wild.
Thus, given the Service’s consistent
interpretation of ‘‘range,’’ among other
things, we have found that
inconsistencies would exist under a
determination of separate legal status for
captive animals. Overall, we believe that
the analysis shows that our
interpretations of ‘‘range’’ and ‘‘species’’
are consistent with Congress’ intent and
the most appropriate approach under
the Act.
(38) Comment: Nothing in the Act’s
permitting provisions under section
10(a)(1) of the Act or any other
provision addressing exceptions for
animals in captivity precludes the
Service from issuing a split-listing.
Thus, there is no inconsistency between
the listing procedures of the Act and
those provisions that permit otherwise
unlawful activities that would result
from designating legal status to animals
held in captivity from members of the
same species or subspecies that occur in
the wild.
Our Response: We believe the
exceptions in section 9(b)(1) and section
9(b)(2), as well as the availability of
permits for the propagation of the
species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Act, shows that Congress intended that

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

captive animals would generally have
the same legal status as their
counterparts. Otherwise, if captive
specimens could simply be excluded
through the listing process, none of
these provisions would be needed.
(39) Comment: The case law cited by
the Service does not require that captive
chimpanzees be listed with the same
conservation status as wild
chimpanzees.
Our Response: We agree that there is
no case law specifically addressing
whether captive chimpanzees must be
listed with the same conservation status
as wild chimpanzees. However, the
decision in Alsea Valley Alliance v.
Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D.Or.
2001), in which the Court found that
captive specimens, in that case hatchery
fish, cannot simply be excluded under
the Act when they are members of the
listable entity, supports our conclusion
that other potential approaches besides
separate designation as a DPS cannot be
used to provide separate legal status
under the Act for captive specimens
from their wild counterparts.
(40) Comment: In its factual findings
promulgated in the 1990 rule to
reclassify wild chimpanzees as
endangered species, the Service
indicated that to the extent selfsustaining breeding groups of captive
chimpanzees provide surplus animals
for research and other purposes, there
may be reduced probability that other
individuals of that species will be
removed from the wild. The Service’s
failure to address or distinguish its 1990
finding that research with captive
chimpanzees may conserve the wild
chimpanzee population is irrational and
inconsistent with the Act’s purpose to
promote conservation of the species.
Our Response: In this listing action,
we examined whether captive
chimpanzees create or contribute to
threats to the species or remove or
reduce threats to the species. Although
we stated in the 1990 rule that captive
chimpanzees may reduce the probability
that individuals of the species would be
removed from the wild, we found that
given that threats to wild chimpanzees
have expanded and intensified since
1990, and capture for the illegal pet
trade continues to be a major threat, it
doesn’t appear that the availability of
captive chimpanzees have reduced any
threats to the species. Therefore, we
disagree that our analysis is irrational
and inconsistent with the purposes of
the Act.
(41) Comment: Excluding captive
species is consistent with the Act’s
purposes, set forth in section 2(b),
because it provides a pool of genetic
diversity and stock which can form the

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

34523

basis for repopulation in the wild, or
provide important research that assists
in wild species management and
protection. As long as maintenance of a
captive population presents no threat to
the species in the wild and may assist
in their conservation and protection,
there is no barrier in law to their
exclusion.
Our Response: We disagree that the
Act allows the Service to exclude
captive chimpanzees as long as they
provide no threat to their wild
counterparts or may assist in their
conservation and protection. While
captive animals may provide stock for
reintroduction efforts or provide
important research for management and
protection of the species in the wild, we
reasonably concluded that Congress did
not intend for captive chimpanzees to
be subject to separate legal status under
the Act from specimens that occur in
the wild based on the language,
purposes, operation of key provisions,
and the legislative history of the Act. In
addition, sections 9 and 10 of the Act
contain provisions that allow the
development and maintenance of
genetically diverse captive stock for use
in reintroductions or research that
assists the species in the wild while at
the same time providing these animals
the appropriate legal protections under
the Act.
(42) Comment: The petition requests
the Service for a new legal opinion, as
well as a repeal of the current 4(d) rule
that applies to captive chimpanzees;
however, the Act does not provide the
public a right to petition for these types
of relief.
Our Response: In making our 90-day
finding, we determined that the petition
clearly identified itself as a petition
under the Endangered Species Act to
request reclassification of captive
chimpanzees from threatened species to
endangered species and contained the
requisite information required of
petitions under our implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a
subsequent October 2010 letter, the
petitioners clarified that their petitioned
action was to list the entire species as
an endangered species, whether in the
wild or in captivity. Thus, we found
that the petition to reclassify
chimpanzees was appropriate under the
Act. The petitioners did not petition for
a new legal opinion. The petitioners
also did not specifically petition for
revision of the 4(d) rule as applied to
chimpanzees, although petitioning for
such a rulemaking is available under the
Administrative Procedure Act and our
regulations at 50 CFR 424.14(a).
(43) Comment: Listing captive
chimpanzees as endangered species is

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

34524

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations

not warranted. No scientific
information, substantial or otherwise,
has been presented suggesting that U.S.
captive chimpanzees meet the listing
criteria set forth in the law and are in
danger of extinction. By the Service’s
own account, the availability of captive
chimpanzees has had, at worst, a neutral
effect on wild populations.
Our Response: All chimpanzees,
including captive and wild animals, are
considered by the Service to be a single
listable entity under the Act for the
reasons explained in the proposed rule
and this final rule. As such, we did not
evaluate whether captive chimpanzees,
alone, met the definition of an
‘‘endangered species’’ or a ‘‘threatened
species’’ due to the five factors under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. Rather, in our
review of the status of the ‘‘species’’
pursuant to section 4(b)(1) of the Act,
we properly applied the five factors
under section 4(a)(1) to the species,
including considering the extent to
which captive chimpanzees create or
contribute to the threats to the species
or remove or reduce threats to the
species in order to determine that all
chimpanzees are in danger of extinction.
(44) Comment: The Service
hypothesizes that if captive and wild
specimens have different legal status
under the Act, there will be increased
poaching, smuggling, and laundering of
protected wild specimens, and that wild
populations would decline while
survival of the species would depend on
unprotected members in captivity.
However, these hypotheticals cannot
serve as valid authority for eliminating
the separate legal status of captive and
wild chimpanzees under the Act
because the Service recognizes that,
despite the current classification, trade
in wild chimpanzee specimens has in
fact been limited.

Our Response: Although we noted
that legal trade in wild chimpanzee
specimens has been limited, that finding
does not affect our conclusion that
chimpanzees, including captive and
wild animals, should be treated as a
single listable entity, which is
consistent with how we have evaluated
other species. In evaluating whether we
have discretion to provide separate legal
status for captive chimpanzees, we
found that Congress did not intend for
captive specimens to be subject to
separate legal status on the basis of their
captive state, in part because of the
potential consequences of such
designation. The Service appropriately
considered the conservation
consequences of designating legal status
under the Act to captive members
separate from wild members of the same
species in order to determine whether
such designation would be consistent
with the purposes of the Act and
Congress’ intent. Given the potential for
increased take and trade in ‘‘laundered’’
wild-caught specimens that would
generally be indistinguishable from
unprotected and unregulated captive
specimens, we concluded that separate
legal status under the Act for captive
animals would be inconsistent with the
purpose under section 2(b) of the Act.
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 for the listing, delisting, or
reclassification of species. We published
a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register
on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Species

Vertebrate
population where
endangered or
threatened

Status

Common name

Scientific name

MAMMALS

...............................

...............................

...............................

*
Chimpanzee ..........

*
Pan troglodytes ....

*
Africa ....................

*
Entire ....................

*
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Historic range

*

*

3. Amend § 17.40 by revising
paragraph (c)(1) and removing
paragraph (c)(3).
The revision reads as follows:

■

§ 17.40

Special rules—mammals.

(c) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

*

*
E

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

A list of all references cited in this
document is available at http://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R9–ES–2010–0086, 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]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:

■

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

2. Amend § 17.11(h) in the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by:
■ a. Revising the entry for ‘‘Chimpanzee
(Pan troglodytes)’’ (‘‘Wherever found in
the wild’’); and
■ b. Removing the entry for
‘‘Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes)’’
(‘‘Wherever found in captivity’’).
The revision reads as follows:
■

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.

*

*
*
(h) * * *

Sfmt 4700

*

*

When listed

Critical
habitat

Special
rules

..............................

....................

....................

*
16, 376, 852

NA

*

(1) Except as noted in paragraph (c)(2)
of this section, all provisions of § 17.31
apply to the lesser slow loris
(Nycticebus pygmaeus); Philippine
tarsier (Tarsius syrichta); white-footed
tamarin (Saguinus leucopus); black
howler monkey (Alouatta pigra); stump-

PO 00000

References Cited

*

*
NA
*

tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides);
gelada baboon (Theropithecus gelada);
Formosan rock macaque (Macaca
cyclopis); Japanese macaque (Macaca
fuscata); Toque macaque (Macaca
sinica); long-tailed langur (Presbytis
potenziani); purple-faced langur

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
(Presbytis senex); and Tonkin snub-

nosed langur (Pygathrix [Rhinopithecus]
avunculus).
*
*
*
*
*

34525

Dated: June 1, 2015.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–14232 Filed 6–12–15; 4:15 pm]

asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:24 Jun 15, 2015

Jkt 235001

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

E:\FR\FM\16JNR2.SGM

16JNR2