[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30820-30854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12263]
[[Page 30819]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 100
May 23, 2012
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Remove the
Morelet's Crocodile From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 30820]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0030; 92210-1113-0000-C6]
RIN 1018-AV22
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To
Remove the Morelet's Crocodile From the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
removing the Morelet's crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii) throughout its
range from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due
to recovery. This action is based on a thorough review of the best
available scientific and commercial data, which indicate that the
species' status has improved to the point that the Morelet's crocodile
is not likely to become threatened within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. After the
effective date of this final rule, the Morelet's crocodile will remain
protected under the provisions of the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
DATES: This rule becomes effective June 22, 2012.
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, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
400, Arlington, VA 22203.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janine Van Norman, Chief, Branch of
Foreign Species, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420, Arlington, VA 22203;
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:
Executive Summary
(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action
We are delisting the Morelet's crocodile throughout its range due
to recovery under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
Conservation actions by the three range countries of Mexico, Belize,
and Guatemala have eliminated or significantly reduced the threats to
the species to point that it is no longer endangered or threatened.
Wild populations have increased substantially since restrictions on
commercial harvest and trade were instituted in the 1970s. Species
experts now widely characterize Morelet's crocodile populations as
healthy.
(2) Major Provision of the Regulatory Action
This action is authorized by the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended.
We are amending Sec. 17.11(h), subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing the entry for
``Crocodile, Morelet's'' from the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.
(3) Costs and Benefits
This is a delisting action, and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has designated it as not significant. Therefore, we have not
analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking action.
Previous Federal Actions
The Morelet's crocodile was listed as endangered throughout its
entire range under the predecessor of the Act via a rule published in
the Federal Register on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Import into, export
from, or re-export from the United States, as well as other
prohibitions, including movement in the course of a commercial activity
and sale in interstate or foreign commerce, of endangered species and
their parts and products, are prohibited under the Act unless otherwise
authorized. Authorizations for endangered species can only be made for
scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the
species. On July 1, 1975, the Morelet's crocodile was listed in
Appendix I of CITES. These protections were put in place because the
species had suffered substantial population declines throughout its
range due to habitat destruction and overexploitation through the
commercial crocodilian skin trade. CITES Appendix I includes species
that are ``threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by
trade.''
On May 26, 2005, the Service received a petition from the
Government of Mexico's Comisi[oacute]n Nacional para el Conocimiento y
Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) to remove the Morelet's crocodile
from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11.
Based on the information provided, the Service's 90-day finding on
the petition, which was published in the Federal Register on June 28,
2006 (71 FR 36743), stated that the petition provided substantial
information to indicate that the requested action may be warranted. In
that finding, we announced that we had initiated a status review of the
species as required under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act, and that we
were seeking comments on the petition, as well as information on the
status of the species, particularly in Belize and Guatemala. The
Service also solicited comments or additional information from
counterparts in Mexico, Belize and Guatemala.
On April 27, 2011, the Service published in the Federal Register a
rule proposing to delist the Morelet's crocodile from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (76 FR 23650). With publication
of the proposed rule, we implemented the Service's peer review process
and opened a 60-day comment period to solicit scientific and commercial
information on the species from all interested parties. For more
detailed information on previous Federal actions, please refer to the
April 2011 proposed rule.
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 April 27, 2011, 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 delisting. We received comments from five
individuals; two of those comments were from peer reviewers.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We reviewed all comments we received from the public and peer
reviewers for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed delisting of this species, and we address those comments
below. Overall, the commenters and peer reviewers supported the
proposed delisting. Belize and Guatemala did not submit comments.
[[Page 30821]]
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from six individuals with
scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from two of the peer reviewers from
whom we requested comments. They generally agreed that the description
of the biology and habitat for the species was accurate and based on
all relevant literature. Some new information was provided, as well as
technical clarifications, as described below. Technical corrections
suggested by the peer reviewers have been incorporated into this final
rule. In some cases, it has been indicated in the citations by
``personal communication'' (pers. comm.), which could indicate either
an email or telephone conversation; in other cases, the research
citation is provided. Public Comments
The Service only received substantive comments from peer reviewers.
There were no substantive comments from the public.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer disagreed with our statement that
``Unlike most other species of crocodilians, the Morelet's crocodile
lacks bony plates beneath the skin (osteoderms) * * *'' The reviewer
stated that 14 of 23 extant crocodilian species share that same
characteristic. He suggested we change the language to ``Like many
crocodilians * * *''
Our Response: The Service agrees, and we have revised the statement
to incorporate this change.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that caution be made when
discussing threats; we should not assume that mortality factors
affecting some crocodiles constitute a threat that affects population
recruitment or population growth trajectory. He noted that crocodilians
have a robust life-history strategy, including repeated production of
offspring at intervals throughout their life cycle; long reproductive
lives; high fecundity; and low egg and hatchling survival, likely
enhanced by crocodilian parental care demonstrated for most species,
including Crocodylus moreletii. The combined result is that
crocodilians can sustain relatively high levels of mortality at all
life stages without reducing recruitment or population growth. Thus the
persistence of some anthropogenic threats at low levels such as
killing, subsistence hunting, and fishing net entanglement are unlikely
to constitute significant impacts to population persistence or even to
recovery.
Our Response: We agree, and have included revised language in this
rule.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that although the finding
refers to a ``rule,'' there were very few rules governing this species,
unlike other crocodilian species such as the saltwater crocodile, some
caimans, and Nile crocodile, in which there are requirements governing
trade, use, marking, etc.
Our Response: Those particular crocodilians were reclassified to
``Threatened'' status under the Act with a special rule under section
4(d) of the Act, governing crocodilians (see 50 CFR 17.42(c)). The
Service notes that the Morelet's crocodile is being delisted, and will
no longer fall under the provisions of the Act, and therefore will have
no further requirements under the Act. However, this species will be
subject to the requirements of 50 CFR part 23 regulations, concerning
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora, (CITES), and 50 CFR part 13 (General Permit
Procedures) and 50 CFR part 14 (Importation, Exportation, and
Transportation of Wildlife). We have included this statement in this
final rule.
(4) Comment: One reviewer stated that they were not aware of any
information on trade, biology, or populations in Guatemala. However,
they spoke to Dr. Frank Mazzotti regarding his work referenced in the
proposed rule (76 FR 23682) pertaining to a national crocodile
management program with the Belize Forestry Department and Lamanai
Field Research Center. The reviewer reports with Dr. Mazzotti's consent
that this effort has resulted in little progress being made. As of June
20, 2011, Dr. Mazzotti was in Belize trying to reactivate the program.
Our Response: We have updated the section pertaining to Dr.
Mazzotti's efforts in trying to reactivate this effort.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted our statement pertaining to
the Morelet's crocodile's size attained at sexual maturity was
incorrect: ``Morelet's crocodiles attain sexual maturity at about 4.9
ft. (1.5 m) in length, at approximately 7-8 years of age.'' The
reviewer asserted that this only pertains to females (see Platt et al.
2008). Males attain sexual maturity at larger sizes than females,
although this size may vary by habitat, nutrition, etc.
Our Response: We revised that section to reflect this correction.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer asserted our statement pertaining to
``Nests, usually constructed of leaf mounds * * *'' was incomplete.
They stated that Morelet's crocodile nests are constructed of various
types and components of vegetation such as grasses and sedges, leaves
and soil, as well as other materials, such as woody debris.
Our Response: We revised that section to include the other nesting
materials highlighted by the peer reviewer.
(7) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the proposed rule had a
number of repetitious sections where the same information was presented
almost word for word (e.g. the sections describing Mexico's 2010 CITES
proposal.)
Our Response: We agree, and have limited the CITES 2010 discussion
to Factor D., Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, Mexico's
Proposal To Transfer the Morelet's Crocodile to CITES Appendix II. We
refer back to this discussion in Factor D as needed.
(8) One of the peer reviewers expressed concern about effective
enforcement, after delisting. He stated that, due to financial
constraints, limited personnel, and other factors, ``effective
enforcement of wildlife laws and regulations can be difficult to
impossible to achieve in the range countries.
Our Response: The principle threat to Morelet's crocodiles was
trade for the crocodilian skin trade. Illegal harvest or killing of
individuals perceived as threats to humans or livestock cannot be
completely precluded, but enforcement of controls on domestic and
international trade severely limit any commercial incentives. In this
rule we state that even with this delisting of the species under the
Endangered Species Act, ``the status of the species under CITES, which
is an international trade agreement (see Factor D., Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms, Mexico's Proposal To Transfer the
Morelet's Crocodile to CITES Appendix II), will continue to preclude
the trade of wild specimens for commercial purposes and therefore
should not create additional pressure on wild populations in any of the
range states, as long as enforcement remains effective.'' The Service
feels that enforcement under CITES is effective at curtailing illegal
trade of Morelet's crocodile, and there is no indication that it will
change in the immediate future.
[[Page 30822]]
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
We fully considered the comments we received from the public on the
proposed rule when developing this final delisting of the Morelet's
crocodile. This final rule incorporates changes to our proposed
delisting based on the comments that we received (discussed above) and
newly available scientific and commercial information. Reviewers
generally commented that the proposed rule was very thorough and
comprehensive. We made some technical corrections based on new,
although limited, information presented by the peer reviewers. None of
the information, however, changed our determination that delisting this
species is warranted.
Species Information
Three species of crocodilians occur in Mexico and Central America.
The Morelet's crocodile and the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)
co-occur in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala (Schmidt 1924, pp. 79 and 85;
Stuart 1948, p. 45). While their ranges overlap, the American crocodile
has a much larger range than the Morelet's crocodile, and is found in
the United States in the State of Florida, as well as in the Caribbean,
on Pacific and Atlantic coasts of Central America and in northern South
America, in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and northern Peru. A third
species, the common or spectacled caiman (Caiman crocodilus) occurs in
Mexico and Guatemala, but is absent from Belize. The distribution of
the common caiman also extends into northern South America (Ross 1998,
pp. 14-17; Thorbjarnarson 1992, pp. 82-85). The Morelet's crocodile was
named after a French naturalist, P.M.A. Morelet (1809-1892), who
discovered this species in Mexico, in 1850 (Britton 2008, p. 1). The
type locality of the species was later restricted to ``Guatemala, El
Peten, Laguna de Peten'' when the species was scientifically described.
In Mexico, the Morelet's crocodile is known as ``lagarto'' or ``swamp
crocodile'' (Rodriguez-Quivedo et al. 2008).
The Morelet's crocodile is a ``relatively small species'' that
usually attains a maximum length of approximately 9.8-11.5 ft. (3-3.5 m
(S[aacute]nchez 2005, p. 4); Britton 2008, p. 1)), with most wild
adults ranging in length 6.6-8.2 ft. (2-2.5 m). Hurley (2005, p. 2),
however, reported specimens attaining 15.4 ft. (4.7 m). Platt and
Rainwater (2005, p. 25) stated that size estimates where shorter
lengths were documented were probably based on populations that had
been heavily impacted by hunting, and which now contained few large
adults. The Morelet's crocodile is distinguished from other crocodiles,
particularly the partially sympatric (having the same or overlapping
distribution) and somewhat larger American crocodile, by the number of
dorsal scales in each transverse row on its back, the number and
arrangement of nuchal scales (located at the nape of the neck), and
irregular scales on the ventrolateral (lower side) surface of the tail
(Meerman 1994, p. 110; Navarro Serment 2004, pp. 55-56; Platt and
Rainwater 2005, p. 27; Hern[aacute]ndez Hurtado et al. 2006, p. 376;
Platt et al. 2008b, p. 294). The Morelet's crocodile has six nuchal
scales of similar size compared to other crocodile species, which have
either four nuchal scales or four large nuchal scales and two small
ones (CITES 2010a, p. 11). Like many crocodilians, the Morelet's
crocodile lacks bony plates beneath the skin (osteoderms), making their
skin more valuable as leather (Hurley 2005, p. 9). Adults have a
yellowish-olive black skin, usually showing big black spots at the tail
and at the back area, which in some adults can be entirely black. The
ventral (underside) area is light in color, with a creamy yellowish
tone. A thick and soft skin has made the Morelet's crocodile desirable
for commercialization (CITES 2010a, p. 3).
Opportunistic carnivores, juvenile Morelet's crocodiles feed on
small invertebrates, especially insects and arachnids, while subadults
eat a more diverse diet including mollusks, crustaceans, fish,
amphibians, and small reptiles. Adult crocodiles consume reptiles,
birds, and mammals (Platt et al. 2002, p. 82; S[aacute]nchez 2005, p.
7; Platt et al. 2006, pp. 283-285; CITES 2008, p. 9, CITES 2010a, p.
3). This species is also known to exhibit necrophagy (consumption of
dead animal carcasses over an extended period (several days)) and
interspecific kleptoparasitism (stealing of food from one individual by
another individual) (Platt et al. 2007, p. 310). Female Morelet's
crocodiles attain sexual maturity at about 4.9 ft. (1.5 m) in length,
at approximately 7-8 years of age. Males attain sexual maturity at
larger sizes than females, although this size may vary by habitat,
nutrition, and other environmental factors (Rainwater 2011, pers.
comm.)
A growth rate of 0.63 inches (in) per month (1.6 centimeters (cm)
per month) was observed in Morelet's crocodiles during the first 3
years of life under protected conditions in Mexico, while a rate of
0.94-1.18 in per month (2.4-3.0 cm per month) was achieved under
farming conditions (P[eacute]rez-Higareda et al. 1995, p. 173). Adult
females build nests and lay 20-40 eggs per clutch (Hurley 2005, p. 3;
S[aacute]nchez 2005, p. 6), with an average of 35 eggs per clutch
(CITES 2008, p. 9; CITES 2010a, p. 3). Nests consist of mounds composed
of grasses, sedges, leaves, soil and woody material (Rainwater 2011,
pers. comm.), and are generally constructed at the beginning of the wet
season (April-June). They are located on the shores of freshwater
wetlands, as well as in coastal lagoons and mangrove patches (Platt et
al. 2008a, pp. 179-182).
An analysis based on DNA microsatellite data from hatchlings
collected at 10 Morelet's crocodile nests in Belize showed that progeny
from 5 of the 10 nests were sired by at least two males (McVay et al.
2008, p. 643). These data suggested that multiple paternities was a
mating strategy for the Morelet's crocodile and was not an isolated
event. In addition, this information may be useful in the application
of conservation and management techniques for the species.
The eggs of Morelet's crocodiles hatch in September-October, 65-90
days after they are laid. Females attend the nest during incubation,
and can assist the newborns to leave the nest. Both parents protect
juveniles against predators and other adult crocodiles (CITES 2010a, p.
3). Nest failures due to flooding and predation, both avian and
mammalian, are common (Platt et al. 2008a, p. 184). Expected lifespan
in the wild is 50-65 years (Hurley 2005, p. 4.) The Morelet's crocodile
exhibits and shares with other crocodilians many acoustic and visual
signals that convey reproductive, territorial, and other types of
information (Senter 2008, p. 354).
The Morelet's crocodile occurs primarily in freshwater environments
such as lakes, swamps, and slow-moving rivers, but can temporarily
inhabit intermittent freshwater bodies, such as flooded savannahs, and
is occasionally observed in brackish coastal lagoons (Villegas 2006, p.
8). Floating and emergent vegetation provide cover to protect young
crocodiles from predators, including cannibalism by adult crocodiles
(S[aacute]nchez 2005, p. 7). In contrast to the Morelet's crocodile,
the American crocodile feeds mainly on fish and occurs primarily in
coastal or brackish environments, such as coastal mangrove swamps,
brackish and saltwater bays, lagoons, marshes, tidal rivers, and
brackish creeks. American crocodiles can also be found in abandoned
coastal canals and borrow pits, and may range inland into freshwater
environments preferred by the Morelet's crocodile, such as lakes and
lower reaches of large
[[Page 30823]]
rivers. American and Morelet's crocodiles have been known to lay eggs
within the same nest mound as conspecifics, suggesting a more
gregarious and tolerant demeanor (Brien et al. 2007, pp. 17-18).
The historical distribution of the Morelet's crocodile comprised
the eastern coastal plain of Mexico, most of the Yucatan Peninsula,
Belize, and northern Guatemala (Hurley 2005, p. 1), with an estimated
historical distribution covering 173,746 mi\2\ (450,000 km\2\) (Sigler
and Dom[iacute]nguez Laso 2008, pp. 11-12). Approximately 51 percent of
the original geographic distribution in Mexico remains undisturbed,
while approximately 49 percent is disturbed or altered (Mexico 2006, p.
17, CITES 2010a, p. 16). In linear terms, the amount of undisturbed
shoreline habitat available in Mexico to the Morelet's crocodile is
about 15,534 mi (25,000 km) of shoreline, which is approximately 72
percent of the total undisturbed shoreline habitat available throughout
the species' range. According to CONABIO, the amount of undisturbed
shoreline habitat available to the Morelet's crocodile in Belize and
Guatemala is estimated to be 2,050 mi (3,300 km) and 4,163 mi (6,700
km), respectively, or 9 and 19 percent of the total undisturbed
shoreline habitat available throughout the species' range (CONABIO
2005, pp. 16-19).
Historical estimates of total population sizes in the three range
countries are unavailable or imprecise, and we were not able to find
any additional data on historical, rangewide population estimates for
the species. While not quantifiable or documented by field surveys, Lee
(1996, p. 134) characterized the historical distribution and abundance
of the Morelet's crocodile in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico as
follows: ``Throughout its range, nearly every local aguada (flood) has
(or had) its lagarto, which generally proves to be C. moreletii.'' The
same probably could be said about Belize and Guatemala.
It has been widely reported, however, that by the middle of the
20th century, populations of Morelet's crocodiles were widely depleted
due primarily to overharvest for commercial purposes during the 1940s
and1950s. In ``Crocodiles: An action plan for their conservation,''
Thorbjarnarson (1992, p. 68 and the references cited therein)
characterized the Mexican populations of Morelet's crocodiles in the
early 1990s as very depleted in the Mexican States of Tamaulipas and
Veracruz, recovering to some degree and viable in northeastern Mexico,
and severely threatened in Tabasco State and Campeche State. However,
populations of Morelet's crocodiles were not depleted in southern
Chiapas State and eastern Quintana Roo State (Sian Ka'an Biosphere
Reserve).
Few historical estimates for the Morelet's crocodile in Belize are
available, but based on surveys during 1978 and 1979, Abercrombie et
al. (1980, p. 103) reported that very few adults were observed in areas
where they had previously been relatively abundant. This condition was
attributed to overexploitation (i.e., commercial trade in hides).
Thorbjarnarson (1992, p. 55) characterized the Morelet's crocodile
populations in the early 1990s as generally depleted in the northern
part of Belize, but relatively abundant in several other areas.
Abercrombie et al. estimated the total population of Morelet's
crocodiles older than 9 months of age in Belize at 2,200-2,500
individuals (Abercrombie et al. 1982, p. 16). Nothing was known in the
scientific literature at that time about populations in the southern
part of Belize. The only available countrywide estimates for the
Morelet's crocodile in Belize suggested a total population size of
25,000-30,000 individuals that was declining in number in 1945, was
near depletion between 1970 and 1980, and, in response to several
protective measures, had undergone a slow recovery by 2000 to about
20,000 individuals (Finger et al. 2002, p. 199).
Thorbjarnarson (1992, p. 64) characterized the Guatemalan
populations in the early 1990s as depleted, but capable of recovery. He
indicated that 75 individuals had been reported at three lakes in the
Pet[eacute]n Region, in the northern portion of the country, and that
Morelet's crocodiles were known to be common in other parts of that
region.
By the late 1990s, little had changed with regard to our knowledge
of the distribution and abundance of the Morelet's crocodile. In
``Crocodiles: Status survey and conservation action plan (second
edition),'' Ross (1998, pp. 46-47) characterized several populations of
Morelet's crocodiles in all three countries as depleted. In some areas,
however, including the Lacand[oacute]n Forest (Chiapas State, Mexico)
and the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve (Quintana Roo State, Mexico),
healthy populations of the Morelet's crocodile existed. These findings
were based on anecdotal reports and incidental records; numerical data
were not readily available.
Based on extrapolations of habitat relationships (e.g., vegetation
type, size of wetland/riverine feature, and disturbance factors,
described in more detail in CONABIO 2005, pp. 16-19) and frequency of
encounter rates (derived from country-specific field research), the
potential global population of free-ranging Morelet's crocodiles in
2004 was estimated to be 102,432 individuals (all age classes; 79,718
individuals in Mexico, 8,803 in Belize, and 13,911 in Guatemala),
including approximately 19,400 adults (CONABIO 2005, pp. 17-19).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations, 50 CFR 424,
set forth the procedures for listing, reclassifying, or removing
species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. ``Species'' is defined by the Act as including any species
or subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct
vertebrate population segment of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). Once the ``species'' is determined, we
then evaluate whether that species may be endangered or threatened
because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act. We must consider these same five factors in reclassifying
or delisting a species. For species that are already listed as
endangered or threatened, the analysis of threats must include an
evaluation of both the threats currently facing the species, and the
threats that are reasonably likely to affect the species in the
foreseeable future following the delisting or downlisting and the
removal or reduction of the Act's protections. We may delist a species
according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available scientific and
commercial data indicate that the species is neither endangered nor
threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2)
the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or threatened;
and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the time the species
was classified were in error.
Factor A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
The overharvest for commercial purposes, rather than habitat
destruction or modification, was the primary reason for the Morelet's
crocodile being listed under the Act and its inclusion in CITES.
However, the Act requires an analysis of current and future potential
impacts to the species based on modification or destruction of habitat.
[[Page 30824]]
The petition (CONABIO 2005) highlights habitat degradation as a
potential threat, especially if it involves lack of prey and eventual
contamination of water bodies. Currently, the extent of habitat
degradation is estimated to be moderate in Mexico and Belize, and
slightly higher in northern Pet[eacute]n, Guatemala (CONABIO 2005,
Annex 1, p. 10). However, as stated previously, historical estimates of
rangewide habitat destruction for the Morelet's crocodile are
unavailable or imprecise. We found that the data on habitat destruction
were primarily presented separately for each individual country.
Therefore, the following analysis of the potential threats to the
species from habitat destruction or modification first presents the
specific information available for the Morelet's crocodile in each
country, and then presents the general information that was available
for the species as a whole.
Mexico
The Morelet's crocodile is known historically from 10 states in
Mexico (from east to west): Quintana Roo, Yucat[aacute]n, Campeche,
Chiapas, Tabasco, Veracruz, Oaxaca, Hidalgo, San Luis Potos[iacute],
and Tamaulipas ([Aacute]guilar 2005, p. 2). Based on available
information and interviews during a 1995 site visit to Mexico by the
IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group, Ross (1998, pp. 13) suggested ``with
some confidence'' that the Morelet's crocodile was widely distributed
throughout most of its original range. These states were resurveyed
between 2000 and 2004 to assess current Morelet's crocodile populations
in those areas.
Surveys conducted between 2000 and 2004 documented the widespread
distribution and relative abundance of wild populations of the
Morelet's crocodile in Mexico (Dom[iacute]nguez-Laso et al. 2005, pp.
21-30; also summarized in S[aacute]nchez Herrera 2000, pp. 17-19;
CONABIO 2005, pp. 11-13 and Annex 5; S[aacute]nchez Herrera and
[Aacute]lvarez-Romero 2008, p. 415; Garc[iacute]a et al. 2007, pp. 31-
32; Sigler and Dom[iacute]nguez Laso 2008, pp. 11-13). Surveys found
Morelet's crocodiles at 63 sites across all 10 Mexican states
comprising the species' entire historic range in Mexico (CONABIO 2005,
p. 12). Habitat evaluations based on five environmental components
rated habitat quality as excellent at 10 sites (24 percent), or as
favorable or suitable at 24 sites (57 percent). Furthermore, evidence
of the presence of the Morelet's crocodile was found in cultivated
areas and at sites with ``intermediate'' quality habitats (CONABIO
2005, p. 13). This suggested that the Morelet's crocodile does not
require undisturbed habitat in order to occupy a site. Habitat mapping
resulted in an estimated minimum of 15,675 mi (25,227 km) of shoreline
as suitable Morelet's crocodile habitat in Mexico, which is 72 percent
of the estimated suitable shoreline habitat available throughout the
species' range (CONABIO 2005, pp. 14-16).
Population characteristics of the Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico
were also determined during the 2000-2004 field surveys. All age
classes were well represented (34 percent juveniles, 47 percent
subadults, and 19 percent adults), indicating good recruitment
(Dom[iacute]nguez-Laso et al. 2005, p. 31). A higher proportion of
males to females (1.55 to 1 overall versus about 1 male per female)
were observed in all age classes, except older subadults
(Dom[iacute]nguez-Laso et al. 2005, pp. 33-34). Mean frequency of
encounter, based on 62 localities surveyed--excluding one outlier site
with an atypically large crocodile population--was 5.76 individuals per
0.62 mi (= 1 kilometer (km) of shoreline ((mode = 3.16 individuals per
km); Dom[iacute]nguez-Laso et al. 2005, pp. 30, 40). These frequency of
encounter rates were similar to those reported for other sites, for
example: (1) Sigler et al. (2002, p. 222) reported rates of 8.33-18.5
individuals per km) at various sites throughout Mexico and commented
that these were the highest rates ever reported for that country; (2)
Cede[ntilde]o-V[aacute]zquez (2002, p. 353) reported rates of 1-2
individuals per km), when present (22 of 40 surveys; 711 individuals
counted; all age classes represented; hatchlings in September), at
Bahia de Chetumal and R[iacute]o Hondo, Mexico (n = 17 sites) and
commented on the recovery of the species; (3) Cede[ntilde]o-
V[aacute]zquez et al. (2006, p. 15) reported rates of 7.6 and 5.3
individuals per km at La Arrigue[ntilde]a, Campeche State, and
commented that this suggested a healthy population. A population
estimate--based on (a) extrapolations of 3.16 individuals per km, (b)
19 percent adults, and (c) a cautious estimate of occupied habitat
(15,675 mi (25,227 km) of river habitat)--produced a result of
approximately 79,718 wild individuals (all ages) in Mexico comprising
78 percent of the total wild population, including approximately 15,146
adults in Mexico (Dom[iacute]nguez-Laso 2005, p. 40).
New information now available to the Service documents updates in
the geographic distribution of the Morelet's crocodile in Mexico.
Because of several unauthorized introductions or escapes from captive-
breeding facilities in areas outside of the reported range of the
species, the Morelet's crocodile has become established in the wild at
three sites: Chacahua, Oaxaca State; Villa Flores, Chiapas State; and
Laguna de Alcuzahue, Colima State ([Aacute]lvarez Romero et al. 2008,
p. 415). Several captive-breeding facilities along the Pacific coast in
western Mexico contain Morelet's crocodiles. These facilities are
located in areas outside of the reported range of the species, but
potentially within appropriate habitat for this species. Concerns have
been raised about these introductions and the potential negative
impacts of this ``exotic'' or ``invasive'' species on the local biota
([Aacute]lvarez Romero et al. 2008, pp. 415, 417). Although genetic
evidence suggests that hybridization with the American crocodile is a
long-standing, natural situation (Ross, 2011 pers. comm.), Mexico is
making efforts to diagnose potential threats to the native American
crocodile caused by hybridization with the introduced Morelet's
crocodile on the Pacific coast of Mexico. The goal of these efforts is
to generate morphological and molecular identification materials and
study the population dynamics of the American crocodile. It will
include monitoring and harvest of Morelet's crocodiles and hybrids for
scientific research (CITES 2010a, p. 6).
According to the information presented in CONABIO 2005, the
Morelet's crocodile in Mexico occupies at least 12 protected areas
(CONABIO 2005, p. 30 and Annex 6). Part of the Sistema Nacional de
[Aacute]reas Naturales Protegidas (SINANP or National System of
Protected Natural Areas, described more fully in the Factor D section,
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms), encompasses 13 percent
of the species' range and includes the following areas: Los Tuxtlas
Biosphere Reserve, Pantanos de Centla Biosphere Reserve, Laguna de
T[eacute]rminos Biosphere Reserve, Hampolol Wildlife Conservation and
Research Center, El Palmar State Preserve, R[iacute]a Lagartos
Biosphere Reserve, Yum Balam Biosphere Reserve, Laguna Nichupte, Sian
Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Bahia Chetumal (Bay), and R[iacute]o Hondo
(River).
The Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal to transfer the
Morelet's crocodile from CITES Appendix I to CITES Appendix II provided
updated information on the number of protected areas for the Morelet's
crocodile in Mexico. About 77 Federal and certified protected areas in
Mexico provide shelter and legal protection to the Morelet's crocodile
in its potential range. Of these, 11 have records of the species
covering 7,763,147 acres (3,141,634 hectares (ha)) (CITES 2010a, pp.
11, 17-20). The Government of
[[Page 30825]]
Mexico designated 8 of the 11 protected areas containing Morelet's
crocodiles as Biosphere Reserves, and the 3 remaining protected areas
containing Morelet's crocodiles as Flora and Fauna Protection Areas. As
stated above, these protected areas are part of SINANP (described more
fully in the Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms).
The Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal used both a
narrative description (CITES 2010a, p. 11) and a list (CITES 2010a, pp.
17-20) to indicate that there are 11 federally protected areas in
Mexico containing Morelet's crocodile. CONABIO 2005 used a narrative
description (CONABIO 2005, p. 30) to indicate that there are at least
12 federally protected areas in Mexico containing Morelet's crocodile
(CONABIO 2005, p. 30), but did not include a list of the federally
protected areas. Based on the information available to the Service, we
were unable to find any additional data to explain the difference in
the numbers of federally protected areas cited in these two documents.
The Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal is the more recent
document, and we consider it to contain the best available scientific
and commercial data on the number of federally protected areas in
Mexico.
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially
as Waterfowl Habitat (also known as the Ramsar Convention) is an
intergovernmental treaty that provides a framework for international
cooperation for the conservation of wetland habitats. CONABIO 2005 did
not provide information on whether the Ramsar Convention protects any
Morelet's crocodile habitat in Mexico. However, this information was
included in the Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal. According
to their 2010 CITES proposal, there are 41 Ramsar sites in the
potential range of the Morelet's crocodile in Mexico, 13 of which have
records of the species covering 6,779,875 ac (2,743,718 ha) (CITES
2010a, pp. 11, 17-20).
According to the information presented in CONABIO 2005, one of the
main potential threats to the Morelet's crocodile is habitat
destruction and fragmentation due to residential and infrastructure
development, such as dams, roads, residential areas, and irrigated
fields (CONABIO 2005, Annex 2, pp. 4-5). The information presented in
CONABIO 2005 indicated that land reform and the ensuing colonization of
undeveloped areas are a potential threat to the Morelet's crocodile,
but the Government of Mexico has no such actions planned at this time
(CONABIO 2005, p. 33). This threat of habitat degradation is
ameliorated in Mexico by the Ley General de Equilibrio Ecol[oacute]gico
y Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente (LGEEPA; General Ecological Equilibrium
and Environmental Protection Law). This 1988 law has strict
restrictions against land use changes in Mexico, especially for
undisturbed habitat such as those areas used by the Morelet's crocodile
(CONABIO 2005, p. 25). This law is supported by several others in
Mexico that ensure the conservation of native flora and fauna in Mexico
(see discussion in the Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms; also see CONABIO 2005, Annex 3).
According to the information presented by CONABIO, even in the
historic context of prolonged habitat alteration, wild populations of
Morelet's crocodiles remained abundant; so much so that large,
commercial exploitation of the species was occurring up until federal
and international protections were put in place 40 years ago.
Alteration of Morelet's crocodile habitat occurring since then may have
produced some additional reductions in local populations, but these
reductions are not comparable to those of the past. In addition, even
in areas where changes to the original environment are not reversible,
evidence points to a certain degree of tolerance by Morelet's
crocodiles, especially when the habitat alterations are a result of
agriculture or low technology livestock production (CONABIO 2005, p.
25).
Based on surveys, it appears that the Morelet's crocodile in Mexico
occurs in all 10 states from where it traditionally has been reported
(CONABIO 2005, pp. 11-19). Although approximately 49 percent of the
original range in Mexico has been altered, much of the altered habitat
is still occupied by the Morelet's crocodile. Approximately 77,220
mi\2\ (200,000 km\2\) of undisturbed habitat remains in Mexico, which
is equivalent to approximately 15,534 mi (25,000 km) of shoreline. The
Government of Mexico protects habitat occupied by the Morelet's
crocodile in 11 areas designated by the Government of Mexico as either
Biosphere Reserves or Flora and Fauna Protection Areas covering a total
of 7,763,147 ac (3,141,634 ha). In addition, the Ramsar Convention
protects Morelet's crocodile habitat at 13 sites in Mexico covering
6,779,875 ac (2,743,718 ha). We do not have any information or data on
the amount of geographic overlap, if any, between the areas of habitat
protected by the Government of Mexico versus that protected by the
Ramsar Convention. Therefore, we considered these two protection
mechanisms as providing separate, but complementary, habitat protection
as part of our analysis of habitat protection under this final rule.
We find that the information presented in the petition, as well as
the additional information available to the Service, represents the
best available scientific and commercial data on habitat destruction or
modification for Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico. Although moderate
habitat destruction or modification is currently affecting local
populations of Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico, and this is likely to
continue in the foreseeable future, these activities would not have a
significant impact on the species because they would be subject to
conservation measures under the Government of Mexico's regulatory
framework. This framework will continue to provide adequate protection
to the Morelet's crocodile and its habitat in the foreseeable future.
Surveys conducted found Morelet's crocodiles at 63 sites across all 10
Mexican states comprising the species' entire historic range in Mexico
(CONABIO 2005, p. 12). Given that Mexico contains more than 85 percent
of the species' natural range and an estimated 78 percent of all wild
individuals, that 7,763,147 ac (3,141,634 ha) of habitat are protected
by the Government of Mexico, and that 6,779,875 ac (2,743,718 ha) of
habitat are protected by the Ramsar Convention, we conclude that
habitat destruction or modification is neither a threat to, nor is it
anticipated to significantly impact, the Morelet's crocodile in Mexico
in the foreseeable future.
Belize
The Morelet's crocodile was historically known from all six
districts in Belize (from north to south): Corozal, Orange Walk,
Belize, Cayo, Toledo (Anonymous 1998), and Stann Creek (Platt et al
1999, p. 397.) According to information provided by CONABIO, virtually
all of the country contained suitable habitat for the species. The
style of economic development in Belize has not required massive
alteration of the natural environment. Thus, in general, no extensive
and drastic alteration of Morelet's crocodile habitat has occurred in
Belize (CONABIO 2005, p. 26). The current amount of altered versus
unaltered current habitat for the Morelet's crocodile in Belize is
unknown, but CONABIO estimated the current amount of potentially
suitable habitat to be approximately 2,050 mi (3,300 km) of shoreline
(CONABIO 2005, pp.14-19).
[[Page 30826]]
While the species is widespread in the northern portion of the
country, it is naturally limited to a narrow region of lowlands along
the coast in the southern part of Belize, which is otherwise
mountainous (Schmidt 1924, p. 80; Abercrombie et al. 1982, pp. 12-16;
Platt et al. 1999, p. 395; Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000a, pp. 25-26).
Teams not associated with the Mexican effort to delist the species
recently surveyed these states, in part, to assess Morelet's crocodile
populations in those areas. Based on recent surveys, all six districts
historically known to contain Morelet's crocodiles were surveyed in a
general characterization of the biodiversity of Belize (Boles 2005, p.
4; Belize Forest Department 2006, p. 22; Biological-Diversity.info Web
site 2009). At Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, in the north-central
part of the country, Meerman et al. (2004, pp. 23-24 and 30-32)
determined that the Morelet's crocodile was fairly common at the site
(frequency of encounter rate = 1.4-2.4 individuals per km). At
Mayflower Bocawina National Park, near the coast in the southeastern
part of the country, Meerman et al. (2003b, p. 30) unexpectedly located
the Morelet's crocodile at fast-flowing streams such as Silk Grass
Creek. While this specimen could have been introduced at the site, its
occurrence could also be natural. Along the Macal River, in west-
central Belize, Stafford et al. (2003, pp. 18, 20) located a breeding
population of the Morelet's crocodile (frequency of encounter rate =
1.48 individuals per km (2001) and 1.25 individuals per km (2002)) at a
mountainous site at 1,476 ft. (450 m) elevation (higher than expected).
A total population size at the Macal River site was calculated to be,
at minimum, about 94 individuals (Stafford et al. 2003, p. 19).
Earlier comparisons between spotlight surveys conducted in northern
Belize in 1979-1980 and 1992-1997 also showed that Morelet's crocodiles
were widely distributed and relatively abundant across several habitat
types and levels of human accessibility (Platt and Thorbjarnarson
2000b, p. 23). In addition to an extensive system of nature reserves,
including significant areas of crocodile habitat, these researchers
noted relatively high Morelet's crocodile encounter rates in wetlands
surrounding sugarcane fields in this area. Morelet's crocodiles were
observed in canals and ditches within the municipal limits of Belize
City and Orange Walk, as well as in wetlands easily accessible from
many villages (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 23).
Population characteristics of Morelet's crocodiles in Belize were
also determined during these surveys. Size class distribution--25.4
percent adults in the 1990s, compared with 5-10 percent in an earlier
study--was consistent with population recovery from past
overexploitation (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 24). Platt and
Thorbjarnarson (2000b, pp. 23, 26) reported an overall frequency of
encounter of 1.56 individuals per km; encounter rates were much higher
in nonalluvial (8.20 individuals per km) and alluvial (6.11 individuals
per km) lagoons than in rivers and creeks (0.95 individuals per km) or
in mangrove habitats (0.24 individuals per km). While a significant,
male-biased sex ratio (5.3 males per 1 female versus about 1 male per
female) was identified, the reasons were unclear (Platt and
Thorbjarnarson 2000a, pp. 23, 27). Based on extrapolations of habitat
relationships in Mexico (which results in an estimated 2,080 mi (3,347
km) of potential habitat in Belize) and an average frequency of
encounter of 2.63 individuals per km, CONABIO stated that these results
suggested a total Belize population estimate for the Morelet's
crocodile of about 8,803 individuals in the wild (all age classes),
comprising 9 percent of the total wild population, including about
1,673 adults (CONABIO 2005, p. 18). Although this is not a typically
constructed population estimate, this estimate constitutes the best
available scientific and commercial data for the nationwide abundance
of Morelet's crocodiles in Belize. Although Platt suggested that these
overall values for Belize may be somewhat inflated because habitat in
southern Belize is less suitable for Morelet's crocodiles than areas in
the north (Platt 2008, pers. comm.), frequency of encounter values for
Morelet's crocodile populations and total population sizes in Belize
may have further increased due to continued protection for over a
decade since these surveys in the 1990s. Boles (2005, p. 4) and Belize
Forest Department (2006, p. 22), based on countrywide analyses, both
suggested that the Morelet's crocodile had ``recovered'' in Belize and
could be categorized as ``healthy.''
CONABIO did not present information about the distribution and
abundance of the Morelet's crocodile in protected areas in Belize.
Other information obtained by the Service, however, suggests that the
species is present in many protected areas in Belize, including:
Sarstoon Temash National Park (Meerman et al. 2003a, p. 45), Mayflower
Bocawina National Park (Meerman et al. 2003b, p. 30), and Spanish Creek
Wildlife Sanctuary (Meerman et al. 2004, pp. 30-31). Overall, about 18-
26 percent of the national territory of Belize is under some form of
protection (BERDS 2005b, p. 1; Young 2008, p. 29). In several of these
protected areas, natural resource extraction is permitted from the
site, thus potentially limiting these areas' contribution to the
conservation status of the Morelet's crocodile. However, we have no
evidence that resource extraction in these Belizean protected areas is
currently or anticipated to affect significantly the Morelet's
crocodile.
We find that the data presented by CONABIO, and additional data
available to the Service, represent the best available scientific and
commercial data on habitat destruction or modification for Morelet's
crocodiles in Belize. Although habitat destruction or modification is
currently affecting some local populations of Morelet's crocodiles in
Belize, and this is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, we do
not have any evidence that habitat destruction or modification is
currently or anticipated to be a threat to the Morelet's crocodile in
Belize.
Guatemala
The Morelet's crocodile was historically known from the northern
portion of Guatemala (States of Pet[eacute]n and Alta Verapaz; Schmidt
1924, pp. 79-84). According to information provided by CONABIO, the
Pet[eacute]n region of Guatemala was scarcely populated by humans
before 1960 (an estimated 15,000 to 21,000 inhabitants in approximately
12,960 square miles (33,566 km\2\) or about one third of Guatemala's
area) (CONABIO 2005). In 1961, the Government of Guatemala started an
official program to foster colonization in the region, and this caused
environmental alteration, as well as increased human conflicts with
crocodiles. Slightly more than 50 percent of the potential habitat for
the Morelet's crocodile has been altered in Guatemala (CONABIO 2005, p.
26). While the current amount of altered versus unaltered habitat for
the Morelet's crocodile in Guatemala is unknown, CONABIO estimated the
current amount of potentially suitable habitat to be approximately
4,163 mi (6,700 km) of shoreline (CONABIO 2005, pp.14-19). According to
information provided by CONABIO, studies on the status of Morelet's
crocodile habitat and population in Guatemala are underway, and the
potential threats to the species are under assessment (CONABIO 2005, p.
26).
Recent nationwide survey results are not available for Guatemala,
but populations appear to remain in their
[[Page 30827]]
historical range in the northern part of the country, especially the
central portion of the State of Pet[eacute]n, Laguna del Tigre National
Park (northwestern portion of the State of Pet[eacute]n)
(Casta[ntilde]eda Moya et al. 2000, p. 63), and the El Mirador-
R[iacute]o Azul National Park (ParksWatch 2002, p. 3). The Laguna del
Tigre National Park, the largest national park in Guatemala and the
largest protected wetland in Central America, is home to the largest
numbers of Morelet's crocodiles in Guatemala (ParksWatch 2003, p. 1).
While information regarding the distribution and abundance of
Morelet's crocodile in Guatemala is sparse, investigations conducted in
Laguna del Tigre National Park (date unspecified, reported in 1998)
estimated 4.35 individuals per km in the Sacluc River and 2.1
individuals per km in the San Pedro River, with a population structure
typical of stable populations (Casta[ntilde]eda Moya 1998a, p. 13).
Casta[ntilde]eda Moya (1997, p. 1; 1998a, p. 521) characterized
Morelet's crocodile distribution in the northern State of Pet[eacute]n,
Guatemala, as fragmented, with the healthiest populations in the
northern region of Pet[eacute]n, where human impact was lower. In a
follow-up study at Laguna del Tigre National Park, Casta[ntilde]eda
Moya et al. (2000, pp. 62-63) reported a mean frequency of encounter
rate for the entire park of 4.3 individuals per km, with maximum values
of 12.28 individuals per km at Flor de Luna and 11.00 individuals per
km at Laguna La Pista. The Morelet's crocodile was more frequently
encountered in closed aquatic systems than in open aquatic systems.
Juveniles were more frequently observed than were adults.
Based on extrapolations of habitat relationships in Mexico (which
resulted in an estimated 4,159.8 mi (6,694.5 km) of potential habitat
in Guatemala) and an average frequency of encounter of 2.078
individuals per km, CONABIO stated that there is an estimated total
Guatemalan population of Morelet's crocodile of about 13,911
individuals in the wild (all age classes) comprising 13 percent of the
total wild population, including about 2,643 adults (CONABIO 2005, p.
18). Although this is not a typically constructed population estimate,
this population estimate constitutes the best available scientific and
commercial data for the nationwide abundance of Morelet's crocodiles in
Guatemala.
While Guatemala has regulatory mechanisms in place to protect these
habitats, it appears that the Government of Guatemala, until recently,
was not able to enforce them adequately. Resource extraction, drug
trade, a lack of regulatory enforcement, and financial issues limited
protected areas' potential contribution to the conservation status of
the Morelet's crocodile ((Instituto de Agricultura, Recursos Naturales
y Agr[iacute]colas, Universidad Rafael Landivar, and Asociaci[oacute]n
Instituto de Incidencia Ambiental (IARNA URL IIA) 2006, pp. 88-92). For
example, the Laguna del Tigre National Park, together with the Laguna
del Tigre Protected Biotope (a small area with a distinct set of
environmental conditions that supports a particular ecological
community of plants and animals) was considered critically threatened
by drug trade, land grabs, the presence of human settlements, expanding
agriculture and cattle ranching, poaching, forest fires, the oil
industry, and the almost complete lack of institutional control over
the area (ParksWatch 2003, p. 11). ParksWatch also deemed this national
park, and its surrounding area, would not meet its biological diversity
objectives in the immediate future unless urgent steps were taken
(ParksWatch 2003, p. 11). However, the following year, ParksWatch noted
major improvements at Laguna del Tigre since their 2003 report. We have
obtained information on the specific protections recently provided to
Morelet's crocodiles in the conservation areas of Guatemala, and events
that reveal a commitment by the Guatemalan government to curtail
illegal activities harmful to Laguna del Tigre National Park. We will
go into detail in the Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms.
Casta[ntilde]eda Moya et al. (2000, p. 61), based on historical
references, cited increased destruction of habitat due to human
encroachment as having an adverse effect on the species. Based on the
research at Laguna del Tigre National Park, Casta[ntilde]eda Moya et
al. (2000, pp. 61, 65) indicated that sibal (sawgrass) (Cladium
jamaicense) was extensively burned each year. This burning constituted
a major impact to the Morelet's crocodile habitat, as sibal habitat
offered suitable insulation, food availability, nesting cover, and
protection from predators. Furthermore, the fires facilitated the
expansion of savannahs consisting almost exclusively of jimbal (Bambusa
longifolia). Studies on the Morelet's crocodile in Pet[eacute]n suggest
fires in jimbal groves prevent Morelet's crocodiles from reproducing
because fire affects nesting sites (ParksWatch 2003, p. 13). In a more
general sense, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
(2002, pp. 19-23) and Ruiz Ordo[ntilde]ez (2005, pp. 2-8) indicated
several conservation threats at the national level in Guatemala,
including habitat loss, habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation,
overutilization of resources, environmental contamination and
degradation, and the introduction of exotic species.
For the past 10 years, USAID and the Wildlife Conservation Society
(WCS) having been working with other nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and the Guatemalan government to combat these issues. In their
``Maya Biosphere Landscape Conservation Area, Guatemala, Implementation
Plan FY 2008'' (WCS 2009, page 3), the WCS highlighted their central
goals for ensuring the conservation of wide-ranging target species,
including the Morelet's crocodile, were to contain the advance of the
Laguna del Tigre agro-pastoral frontier and maintain the comparatively
intact eastern bloc of the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) forest.
Strategies to reduce impacts to wildlife in the MBR landscape include
involving people in local communities, forest concessions, governments,
and NGOs in local conservation efforts; developing adaptive management
strategies to address tactical threats across the landscape; and
educating local communities on best management practices across the MBR
and beyond. Since 2003, efforts by the WCS have reduced areas burned in
the MBR in Guatemala. Through educating locals on best management
practices, conducting aerial flights, utilizing remote sensing to
monitor changes in forest cover and fire, and establishing and
patrolling a 47-km fire break, along with regularly reporting to the
Guatemalan and provincial governments and national media, WCS's efforts
have resulted in a 90 percent reduction in areas burned in the Laguna
del Tigre portion of the MBR ((WCS 10 year report, no date given, p.
6)).
In addition, the president of Guatemala recently deployed 250
specially trained soldiers to recover fully all the protected zones of
El Pet[eacute]n in Laguna del Tigre National Park. The contingent,
called the ``green battalion,'' will work jointly with the Guatemalan
Attorney General's Office. This effort is aimed at combating drug
trafficking and removal or destruction of natural and archeological
resources in Laguna del Tigre, El Pet[eacute]n region of the MBR (Latin
American Herald Tribune 2010).
El Mirador-R[iacute]o Azul National Park in northeastern Guatemala
is located in the department of Pet[eacute]n and maintains a population
of Morelet's crocodiles (ParksWatch 2002, p. 3). The park is composed
of two sections, which are divided by the Dos Lagunas Biotope. The
western section is known as El
[[Page 30828]]
Mirador and the eastern part is known as R[iacute]o Azul. This area is
considered by World Resources Institute to be the last pristine
Guatemalan rainforest. It is also one of the few protected areas that
have experienced little deforestation over the years. No permanent
human residents live within the park borders or in its immediate
surrounding areas. El Mirador-R[iacute]o Azul National Park is
considered vulnerable, by ParksWatch, meaning that immediate
conservation measures are not needed at this time, but monitoring is
necessary to ensure the protection and maintenance of its biological
diversity in the near future (ParksWatch 2002, p. 3). NGOs such as
Asociaci[oacute]n Balam, WCS-Guatemala, the Asociati[oacute]n of Forest
Communities of Pet[eacute]n (ACOFOP), the Guatemalan National Park
Service (CONAP), the Guatemalan Archeological Institute (IDAEH), and
the office of the Executive Secretary of the President of Guatemala
formed an alliance called the ``Mesa Multisectorial para el Area
Natural y Cultural de Mirador-Rio Azule.'' This alliance was formed to
develop consensus among its team members regarding the long-term
protection of the park and provide sustained economic contribution to
the people of the MBR and of Guatemala.
While CONABIO estimated that slightly more than 50 percent of the
potential habitat for the Morelet's crocodile has been altered in
Guatemala, they gave no information indicating to what extent (CONABIO
2005, p. 26). Very little information has been collected about the
consequences of forest fires, hunting, and habitat fragmentation to the
Morelet's crocodile. However, Mexico saw the presence of the Morelet's
crocodile in cultivated areas and at sites with ``intermediate''
quality habitats (CONABIO 2005, p. 13) in its own country, and Belize
noted relatively high Morelet's crocodile encounter rates in wetlands
surrounding sugarcane fields, canals, and ditches within the municipal
limits of Belize (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 23). This
information suggests that the Morelet's crocodile does not require
undisturbed habitat in order to occupy a site. The current amount of
altered versus unaltered habitat for the Morelet's crocodile in
Guatemala is unknown, but CONABIO estimated the current amount of
potentially suitable habitat to be approximately 4,163 mi (6,700 km) of
shoreline (CONABIO 2005, pp. 14-19).
Other Threats to the Species' Habitat
Recreational and Educational Activities
Nonconsumptive recreational or educational uses in the form of
ecotourism are ongoing and may grow in magnitude in the future. While
CONABIO did not present precise information about the number of
companies or sites visited by tourists, an informal internet search
suggested that large numbers of ecotourism companies and nature sites
in all three range countries were involved in this activity. At Tikal
National Park in Guatemala, for example, the number of visitors has
increased from 14,594 visitors in 1981, to 141,899 visitors in 2002
(IARNA URL IIA 2006, p. 103). Many of these visitors potentially
visited Morelet's crocodile areas in the Pet[eacute]n Region that are
in the immediate vicinity of the park as part of their ecotourism
experience.
While we cannot completely rule out the potential for adverse
effects to the Morelet's crocodile due to disturbance from ecotourism
activity in Tikal National Park, we have found no evidence of such
effects. Furthermore, we do not have any information to indicate that
ecotourism is likely to become a serious problem in the future.
Successful ecotourism, by its very nature, relies on the continued
conservation and protection of the natural resources it uses. Although
the number of visitors to protected areas is increasing and the demand
for ecotourism may grow in the future, the ecotourism industry has a
significant incentive to ensure that its activities do not become a
serious problem to the Morelet's crocodile and its habitat in the
future.
Mazzotti et al. (2005, p. 984), however, did identify the following
negative impacts associated with tourism development at Sian Ka'an
Biosphere Reserve (Mexico):
(1) Habitat loss;
(2) Alteration of surface and underground water flow;
(3) Ground water pollution;
(4) Extraction of resources;
(5) Erosion and sedimentation;
(6) Decrease in biodiversity; and
(7) Reduced traditional and recreational use for local communities.
Visual pollution, including trash, as well as ``jeep safaris''
(caravans of small convertible sports utility vehicles being driven
through the reserve) and boat traffic, is also increasing at Sian Ka'an
Biosphere Reserve (Mazzotti et al. 2005, p. 992). While none of these
factors was specifically linked to the Morelet's crocodile, all could
apply were the situation to deteriorate. However, we do not have any
information to indicate that the situation will deteriorate in the
future. Biosphere Reserves in Mexico are part of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) ``Man and
the Biosphere'' program and are legally protected under Mexican federal
laws. Key features of biosphere reserves are core zones of complete
protection of key resources surrounded by mixed-use buffer zones. These
buffer zones are particularly important given the pressures on the Sian
Ka'an Biosphere Reserve from tourism, and its culturally and
archeologically significant areas (Mazzotti et al. 2005, p. 982).
Recognizing these potential negative factors, geographically dispersed
ecotourism involving limited numbers of visitors under controlled
conditions to observe and photograph specimens from canoes,
photographic blinds, or hiking trails can provide relatively benign
opportunities to local residents for economic benefits that can serve
as an alternative or disincentive to harvest the Morelet's crocodile
(CONABIO 2005, p. 28).
There is also evidence that ecotourism, as well as scientific
research and wildlife conservation, are compatible activities with
respect to the Morelet's crocodile. In Mexico, for example, ecotourists
accompany biologists associated with the Amigos de Sian Ka'an group as
they conduct surveys of the Morelet's crocodile at Sian Ka'an Biosphere
Reserve, along the eastern coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Quintana Roo
State (EcoColors Tours 2010, pp. 1). At another site, the La Ventanilla
Eco-tourism Project in Oaxaca State, Mexico, international volunteers
assist local residents and biologists to conserve the Morelet's
crocodile, turtles, iguanas, and other species of wildlife (Volunteers
for International Partnership-Mexico 2010, pp. 1-4). In Belize,
tourists, as well as wildlife researchers from the United States and
their Belizean counterparts, are implementing an ecological field study
of the Morelet's crocodile at Lamanai Outpost Lodge and Research
Station that eventually will lead to the development of a national
management plan for the species (The Croc Docs 2010, pp. 1-6). If the
biological data, in part collected by the ecotourists, support harvest,
and effective enforcement regulations can be developed and implemented,
this plan may include commercial exploitation of the Morelet's
crocodile. In Guatemala, scientists and ecotourists are working
cooperatively with the ProPet[eacute]n group to undertake conservation
work at the Scarlet Macaw Biological Station in the
[[Page 30829]]
Maya Biosphere Reserve (ProPet[eacute]n 2009, p. 1). While these
activities differ with regard to specific details, in general they
provide positive conservation benefits to the Morelet's crocodile and
demonstrate that ecotourism, as well as scientific research and
wildlife conservation, can be compatible with respect to the species.
Agriculture, Grazing, and Infrastructure Development
Agriculture, grazing, and infrastructure development (such as dams,
roads, residential areas, and irrigated fields) generally are indirect
impacts in that the purpose of the action is not focused on the
crocodile. These activities can be either consumptive (for example,
destruction of nests and eggs by machinery) or nonconsumptive (for
example, loss of access to traditional nesting or feeding sites), and
are generally manifested through habitat loss or fragmentation.
Depending on the nature and extent of these activities, they may have a
substantial negative impact on local Morelet's crocodile populations.
Although agriculture, grazing, and infrastructure development are
currently affecting local populations of Morelet's crocodiles, and this
is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, we do not have any
evidence that these activities are currently, or anticipated to be, a
rangewide threat to the Morelet's crocodile.
Summary of Factor A
Although some habitat degradation has occurred in Mexico, this
threat is ameliorated by the LGEEPA. This law has strict restrictions
against land use changes in Mexico, especially for undisturbed habitat
such as those areas used by the Morelet's crocodile (CONABIO 2005, p.
25). The Sistema Nacional de [Aacute]reas Naturales Protegidas (SINANP)
also provides significant habitat protection in Mexico. The SINANP
created designated protected areas because these areas contain key or
representative ecosystems or species, or ecosystems or species that are
at risk and require strict control. In Mexico, at least 11 protected
areas contain populations of the Morelet's crocodile (CITES 2010a, pp.
17-20). In Belize, at least three protected areas contain Morelet's
crocodile populations (Meerman et al. 2003a, p. 45; Meerman et al.
2003b, p. 30; Meerman et al. 2004, pp. 30-31). Mexico and Belize
contain the majority of all wild Morelet's crocodiles (87 percent) and
the majority of the potentially suitable habitat throughout the
species' range (81 percent). We find that, although habitat destruction
and modification is affecting individual crocodiles locally, the
overall level of habitat protection in Mexico and Belize is currently
adequate, and we anticipate that it will remain so.
Based on current information, Guatemala contains the remaining 13
percent of the wild Morelet's crocodiles and the remaining 19 percent
of the potentially suitable habitat throughout the species' range.
Although the Morelet's crocodile occupies at least two protected areas
in Guatemala (Casta[ntilde]eda Moya et al. 2000, p. 63), one, the El
Mirador-R[iacute]o Azul National Park, has no permanent human presence
either in or surrounding the park and contains the last pristine
rainforest in Guatemala, which has experienced very little
deforestation. The NGO community has partnered with the President of
Guatemala to establish a coalition to ensure long-term protection of
this important national park, while providing for sustainable economic
incentives to the people of the MBR and of Guatemala. The second
protected area, Laguna del Tigre National Park, has been affected by
past human encroachment, fire, deforestation, grazing, and
infrastructure development. Although these factors may have affected
local populations of Morelet's crocodiles, we have no evidence that it
has affected the species rangewide. The government of Guatemala and the
local and international NGO community have again partnered to address
these issues through direct interventions, including local and
international community in conservation efforts; and educating people
on the use of best management practices. These efforts have resulted in
a 90 percent reduction in fires in Laguna del Tigre National Park, and
the successful interdiction of individuals conducting unlawful
activities.
Despite the localized impacts in all three countries, the current
rangewide distribution of Morelet's crocodile now closely resembles the
historical rangewide distribution. The species has existing available
high-quality habitat, has a healthy population distribution, is
abundant at known sites, and is expanding into new sites. Even in the
face of habitat alteration, this species has been shown to occupy
disturbed habitat. There have been observed increases in the relative
abundance of the species, and a total population size of approximately
19,400 adults in the three range countries. Species experts now widely
characterize Morelet's crocodile populations as healthy. In addition,
crocodilians are known to have a robust history strategy, including
repeated production of offspring at intervals throughout the life
cycle; long reproductive lives; high fecundity; and low egg and
hatchling survival, likely enhanced by crocodilian parental care
demonstrated for most species, including C. moreletii. The combined
result is that crocodilians can sustain relatively high levels of
mortality at all life stages without reducing recruitment or population
growth. Thus the persistence of some anthropogenic threats at low
levels such as killing, subsistence hunting, and fishing net
entanglement are unlikely to constitute significant impacts to
population persistence or even to recovery (Ross, 2011 pers. comm.).
Although some local factors continue to affect the habitat for
Morelet's crocodile, we have no information to indicate that these
local factors are of sufficient magnitude to have a range-wide impact
on the species to the point that would cause the Morelet's crocodile to
meet the definition of either an endangered or a threatened species.
Therefore, we find that the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range is not likely to
threaten or endanger the Morelet's crocodile in the foreseeable future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Commercial Harvest (Legal and Illegal Trade)
The Morelet's crocodile was included in Appendix I of CITES on July
1, 1975. Species included in Appendix I are species threatened with
extinction that are or may be affected by trade. CITES prohibits
international trade in specimens of these species unless the trade is
not found to be detrimental to the survival of the species, the
specimens in trade were legally acquired, and the purpose of the import
is not for primarily commercial purposes or the specimen meets one of
the exemptions established under the CITES Treaty. A more thorough
explanation of CITES is found in the ``Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora'' discussion under
the section Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms.
Overexploitation for commercial purposes prior to 1970 is widely
accepted as the primary cause of a drastic, rangewide population
decline of Morelet's crocodile (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 21;
CONABIO 2005, p. 27). Historically, commercial overexploitation,
through the harvest of adult animals from the wild, was a
[[Page 30830]]
much greater threat to the Morelet's crocodile than habitat loss.
During the first half of the 20th century, hundreds of thousands of
skins per year were marketed (CITES 2008, pp. 17, 20). The precise
magnitude of the trade is unclear, however, because trade data for the
Morelet's crocodile was recorded at a higher taxonomic level
incorporating other crocodilians. See, for example, Loa Loza 1998a, pp.
134-135 and Arroyo-Quiroz et al. 2007, p. 933. It is reported that
prior to 1975, hide dealers in Belize purchased up to 12,000 skins
annually, and an unknown number of skins were exported illegally in
contravention to Mexican law (Plat and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 21).
Precise estimates of historical trade from Mexico or Guatemala were
unavailable. Even now, the commercial market for designer fashion items
made from high-quality crocodile skins, such as leather belts,
footwear, wallets, and handbags, is highly lucrative. For example, a
single pair of shoes may retail for hundreds of dollars, a handbag for
several thousand dollars, and a tote bag for tens of thousands of
dollars.
Legal Trade
In 1997, the Government of Mexico established a system for
registering, supervising, and enforcing Unidad de Manejo y
Administraci[oacute]n (UMAs; Conservation Management and Administrative
Units) for intensive reproduction of economically valuable natural
resources, including the captive breeding of Morelet's crocodiles
(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, pp. 3-5). Commercial use of Morelet's
crocodiles in Mexico for domestic trade was strictly limited to animals
raised in closed-cycle, captive-breeding operations regulated by the
Government of Mexico under the UMA system. For international trade,
commercial trade was restricted to animals raised in these closed-
cycle, captive-breeding operations registered with the CITES
Secretariat. In order for these closed-cycle, captive-breeding
operations to be successful, great care was given to satisfying the
biological requirements of the species (Cremieux et al. 2005, p. 417;
Brien et al. 2007, pp. 1-26). According to Le[oacute]n Vel[aacute]zquez
(2004, p. 52), there were approximately 30,000 Morelet's crocodiles in
captive-breeding facilities in Mexico in 2004. There were 38,449
Morelet's crocodiles housed in 19 Mexican closed-cycle, captive-
breeding operations in 2008 (CITES 2010a, p. 24). Currently, the annual
production of Morelet's crocodiles in Mexican closed-cycle, captive-
breeding operations does not exceed 40,000 individuals (CITES 2010a, p.
8).
Under Mexican law, closed-cycle, captive-breeding operations
wishing to make their Morelet's crocodiles available for commercial use
must demonstrate that they are able to go beyond the F2 generation of
reproducing individuals. This requirement supports the use of Morelet's
crocodiles that is compatible with conservation of the species by
offsetting the demand for crocodiles taken from the wild. Such
facilities produced a variety of items including skins/hides, meat,
live individuals as pets, stuffed figurines, and leather products
(fashion accessories) for both domestic and international trade.
Based on CITES annual reports for the period 1996-2005, Caldwell
(2007, pp. 6-7) noted relatively low levels of international legal
trade in products from Mexican captive-breeding operations during 1996-
1999 (fewer than 200 skins/year), but higher levels during 2000-2005
(2,430 skins in 2001; 1,591 skins in 2002; and below 1,000 skins per
year during the rest of the period). Japan has been the main importer
of products from Mexican captive-breeding operations, with lesser
quantities going to France, Italy, the Republic of Korea, and Spain
(Caldwell 2007, p. 6).
The United Nations Environment Programme--World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) manages a trade database on behalf of the
CITES Secretariat. Each Party to CITES is responsible for compiling
annual reports to the CITES Secretariat regarding their country's trade
in species protected under CITES. UNEP-WCMC enters the data from these
annual reports into a trade database, which is used to analyze trade in
CITES specimens. Due to the time needed to compile the data, the most
recent year for which comprehensive trade statistics are available is
normally 2 years prior to the current year.
In general, prior to 2010, international legal trade consisted of
small quantities of unfinished hides/skins or finished leather
products, exported primarily from Mexico to Japan and European
countries, as well as biological specimens destined for research. These
countries process the unfinished hides/skins into leather products such
as belts, footwear, wallets, and handbags that in turn are sold within
their own country or re-exported for sale to other countries. Due to
the listing status of the species under the Act, the United States
cannot be a commercial destination for Morelet's crocodile skins and
products. It is currently illegal to import Morelet's crocodile skins
and products into the United States, unless the import is for
scientific or enhancement purposes.
In 2010, the Government of Mexico submitted a proposal to the 15th
Meeting of the CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP15) to transfer the
Morelet's crocodile throughout its range to Appendix II of CITES with a
zero quota for trade in wild specimens because the Government of Mexico
concluded that the Morelet's crocodile no longer met the criteria for
inclusion in Appendix I (see Factor D, Mexico's Proposal To Transfer
the Morelet's Crocodile to CITES Appendix II; CITES 2010a, p. 1).
According to the 2010 CITES proposal to transfer the Morelet's
crocodile to Appendix II, the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database showed
that, until 2007, the parts and derivatives of the Morelet's crocodile
most commonly found in trade were skins, skin pieces, and leather
products, although other products include live specimens, eggs, bodies,
scales, skulls, and shoes were also traded. The largest exporter
between 2001 and 2007 was Mexico (8,498 skins, 750 skin pieces, and
1,193 leather products), followed by Belize with 116 bodies, 766 eggs,
and 3,124 specimens for scientific purposes (exported to the United
States). The major importing countries were Japan (6,170 skins), United
States (3,124 specimens for scientific purposes), Italy (1,219 skins),
the Republic of Korea (560 skins), France (375 skins), and Spain (162
skins) (CITES 2010a, p. 8).
According to the CITES (CITES 2010a) proposal to transfer the
Morelet's crocodile to Appendix II, the national harvest of animals
from closed-cycle operations authorized in Mexico amounts to fewer than
2,000 skins per year since the year 2000. In the period between 2000
and 2009, 119 CITES export permits were issued in Mexico for a total of
12,276 Morelet's crocodile skins. However, the total potential
production from closed-cycle, captive-breeding operations were about
16,500 individuals and approximately 10,000 skins per year (CITES
2010a, p. 7).
We examined the information on Mexico's closed-cycle, captive-
breeding operations in Annex 3 of the 2010 CITES proposal. According to
the information provided in the Annex, there were 19 closed-cycle,
captive-breeding operations registered as UMAs for the Morelet's
crocodile in Mexico. Only 4 of the 19 UMAs had a captive population
sufficient to support commercial trade, and only 2--both of which were
registered with CITES--of these 4 could support international
commercial trade. As of 2008, the captive population in these four UMAs
ranged from 1,237 to 28,673 individuals.
[[Page 30831]]
The two UMAs that were not registered with CITES had the potential to
produce 1,100 skins per year for local commercial trade (CITES 2010a,
Annex 3, p. 24). The population levels for the remaining 15 UMAs were
relatively low by comparison, ranging from 6 to 576 individuals. Rather
than supporting commercial trade, 4 of the remaining 15 UMAs supported
exhibition, 7 had no commercial production, 3 contributed to the
economic support of the local community, and 1 was used for research.
Three of these 19 Mexican captive-breeding operations were also
registered with CITES, and could therefore commercially trade Morelet's
crocodile products internationally, as well as domestically while the
species was listed under Appendix I. However, one of these CITES-
registered captive-breeding operations contains only six individuals,
and is used for exhibition purposes. Only two of the three CITES-
registered captive breeding operations commercially produce enough
Morelet's crocodile skins with the annual production potential for
international trade. These two captive-breeding operations have the
potential to produce an estimated 2,500 skins annually for
international trade (CITES 2010a, pp. 7 and 24, Annex 3). Please see
the discussion in the Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms, for additional information on the three CITES-
registered captive-breeding operations.
There are no captive-breeding facilities in Belize or Guatemala
that are providing specimens or skins for trade, either domestically or
internationally under the CITES captive-breeding exception (CITES
2010c). In Belize, Morelet's crocodiles are officially protected from
commercial harvest. Platt and Thorbjarnarson (2000b) found no evidence
of commercial poaching of Morelet's crocodiles for skins or meat in
Belize (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 27). Reportedly, the species
is not subject to commercial activities in Guatemala, given that
Guatemala's Comisi[oacute]n Nacional de [Aacute]reas Protegidas (CONAP;
National Commission on Protected Areas, also known as the Guatemalan
National Park Service) prohibits the export and trade in wild specimens
of endangered species (CITES 2010a, p. 7).
Illegal Trade
According to the 2010 CITES proposal to transfer the Morelet's
crocodile to Appendix II, the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database showed few
illegal movements of parts and derivatives of the Morelet's crocodile
between 1975 and 2007 from Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize, with the
United States as the only destination. This suggests that there is a
very low level of illegal trade and that it is only with the United
States; however, enforcement actions are not a required field for CITES
Annual Reports. Unlike the United States, most countries do not specify
the action taken on imports. Thus, the fact that illegal trade to the
United States is documented in the WCMC database does not mean that
this is the only illegal trade in the species. That said, between 1982
and 2005, items found to have been ``illegally'' imported to the United
States from Mexico were mainly leather products (308) and shoes (419
pairs). It is quite possible that these U.S. imports derived from legal
operations in Mexico, but were precluded from import into the U.S.
because of the Morelet's crocodile's endangered status under the
Endangered Species Act.
Considering the same caveats pertaining to WCMC data, there were
eight records of illegal trade occurring from Guatemala (between 1989
and 1997), mainly involving pairs of shoes (27), and one case in
Belize, which involved the export of 31 eggs in 1995. Regarding
Guatemala, Casta[ntilde]eda-Moya (1998) stated that illegal capture of
the species continued in the Pet[eacute]n region in that year. However,
he admitted that the volume of such activity had decreased compared to
the situation 25 years before (CITES 2010a, p. 8).
Recent data available on illegal trade in the Morelet's crocodile
between 1975 and 2007 showed that the United States reported illegal
imports (UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database 2010a). The data on illegal
imports are based on the numbers of items that were seized and
confiscated by law enforcement personnel in both the United States and
in other countries. This information is not included in CITES annual
reports for each country; the United States is the exception. The
majority of the illegal Morelet's crocodile parts and derivatives
confiscated upon arrival into the United States between 1975 and 2007
came from Mexico (20 skins, 28 handbags, 243 leather items, 419 pairs
of shoes, 3 watch straps, 9 bodies, 10 garments, 2 live animals, and 65
small leather products). Again, these items could have come from legal
operations in Mexico, but were a violation at the time under the Act
due to the Morelet's crocodile's endangered status. A significantly
smaller number of illegal items originated from Guatemala (1 skin, 2
handbags, 1 leather item, 27 pairs of shoes, and 1 body) and Belize (31
eggs). The majority of the illegal trade reportedly began in 1985, but
began to decline steadily starting in 2000. Between 2005 and 2007,
there were only a few reported illegal imports of Morelet's crocodile
into the United States, and these were small leather products from
Mexico (UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database 2010b).
The Government of Mexico's Federal Prosecutor for Environmental
Protection (PROFEPA) has investigated illegal trade in live animals,
presumably for the pet trade. A potential illegal market in live
animals is under analysis, and would be expected to involve the Mexican
cities of Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Mexico City (Mexico 2006, p. 41).
Illegal harvest or killing of individuals perceived as threats to
humans or livestock cannot be completely precluded, but enforcement of
controls on domestic and international trade severely limit any
commercial incentives. PROFEPA performs inspections to prevent
laundering of wild Morelet's crocodile specimens and other illegal
activities. According to Mexico (Mexico 2006, pp. 39-42), 85 specimens
were confiscated in 2003, 2 in 2004, 80 in 2005, and 14 in 2006
(partial results). In addition, and according to Paola Mosig, Program
officer for TRAFFIC North America in Mexico, 20 seizures with a total
of 48 live specimens, as well as 25 belts and 2 wallets were
confiscated in 2007 (Mosig 2008, pers. comm.). According to TRAFFIC,
the Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network, these seizures are indicative of
a strong enforcement program that deters illegal trade (Mosig 2008,
pers. comm.).
Current Trade
In accordance with Article II, paragraph 2(a) of CITES, and CITES
Resolution Conf. 9.24 (Rev CoP14) Annex 1, the Government of Mexico
submitted a proposal (CoP15 Prop. 8) to CoP15 to transfer the Morelet's
crocodile throughout its range to Appendix II of CITES with an
annotation requiring a zero quota for wild specimens that was further
amended by adding the phrase, ``for commercial purposes'' (CITES 2010a,
p. 1). The Government of Guatemala opposed Mexico's CITES proposal as
it pertains to the species in Guatemala, based on the limited knowledge
of the population and population trends in Guatemala; the threats to
the species from deforestation and pollution in Guatemala; and the
possibilities of illegal, cross-border trade taking place from
Guatemala to Mexico. As a result, the parties to CITES agreed that
Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico and Belize should be transferred to
CITES Appendix II but that Morelet's
[[Page 30832]]
crocodiles in Guatemala remain in CITES Appendix I (CITES 2010b, p. 2).
The change in CITES status for Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico and
Belize became effective on June 23, 2010. Because of the zero quota
annotation, transferring the Morelet's crocodile to CITES Appendix II
precludes the trade of wild specimens for commercial purposes and
therefore should not create additional pressure on wild populations in
any of the range states, as long as enforcement remains effective.
Consequently, international commercial trade in Morelet's crocodiles
under CITES is currently limited to individuals from sources other than
wild populations. However, once the Appendix-II listing went into
effect for Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico and Belize, international
trade of Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico and Belize under CITES was no
longer limited to facilities that are registered with the CITES
Secretariat pursuant to the resolution on registration of operations
that breed Appendix-I animal species for commercial purposes
(Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15)).
According to Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal, the current level of
international trade in the Morelet's crocodile is around 8,600
individuals in 10 years (an average of 860 individuals per year). The
Morelet's crocodile represents only a small fraction of the global
trade in crocodilians, far behind the market leaders: brown spectacled
caiman (Caiman crocodilus fuscus), American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis), and Nile crocodile (Crocodylus niloticus). Current
trends in international trade do not indicate a threat to the Morelet's
crocodile in the wild (CITES 2010a, p. 8). In addition, the Government
of Mexico's proposal to move the Morelet's crocodile to CITES Appendix
II allows only individuals from sources other than wild populations to
be exported, and this provision remains in effect with the zero quota
for wild specimens traded for commercial purposes. The risk of
laundering of wild specimens through farms is very low, because the
quality of skins produced in captivity is much higher than wild-caught
skins, and demand in international trade focuses on high-quality skins
(CITES 2010a, pp. 8, 23). It should be noted that there are a number of
CITES-recognized production methods that are not ``wild'' and not
``bred in captivity.'' Mexico or any other country is free to propose a
change to the annotation at the next CoP removing this limitation.
However, there is no indication at this time that a change is imminent.
To see if our results would be comparable to Mexico's assessment,
we queried the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database for the number of
Morelet's crocodile skins legally exported between 1998 and 2008, and
found similar results for the current level of legal trade cited above
by the Government of Mexico. According to the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade
Database, Mexico exported 8,780 skins between 1998 and 2008, an average
of 878 skins per year (UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database 2010b). Two of
the previously CITES-registered captive-breeding operations in Mexico
have the potential to produce 2,500 skins per year for international
trade (CITES 2010a, Annex 3, p. 24), which is more than adequate to
meet the current demand for legal trade of fewer than 900 skins per
year. Now that this rule is final, Morelet's crocodile products may be
imported into the United States and the demand for international trade
may increase. However, we do not believe this potential increase in
international trade is likely to threaten or endanger wild Morelet's
crocodiles due to the adequate supply of captive-bred individuals in
Mexico available for legal international commercial trade under CITES.
Besides CITES and the Act, no other international measures control
the cross-border movement of the Morelet's crocodile (CITES 2010a, p.
10). When this final rule is effective, (see DATES above), the
prohibitions of the Act are removed, and Morelet's crocodile parts and
products may be imported into the United States for commercial
purposes, provided they do not originate in Guatemala. However, cross-
border movement of the Morelet's crocodile throughout its range will
still be regulated through CITES (Appendix II for Mexico and Belize;
Appendix I in Guatemala).
Subsistence Harvest
The overharvest for commercial purposes, other than subsistence
harvest, was the primary reason for the Morelet's crocodile listing
under the Act and under CITES. Although subsistence harvest has
historically had an impact on some local populations of Morelet's
crocodiles, these impacts have diminished over time and do not
currently have a significant impact on the species as a whole.
Indigenous cultures in Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala have a long
history of using the Morelet's crocodile for subsistence and cultural
purposes (Maimone Celorio et al. 2006, pp. 40-43; Zamudio 2006, pp. 5-
8; M[eacute]ndez-Cabrera and Montiel 2007, p. 132). Historically, the
Maya Indians in Mexico consumed small quantities of the eggs and meat
of the Morelet's crocodile (Maimone Celorio et al. 2006, pp. 40-43;
Zamudio 2006, pp. 5-8; M[eacute]ndez-Cabrera and Montiel 2007, p. 132).
Hunting and harvest techniques were based on traditional knowledge by
these people of the behavior and ecology of the Morelet's crocodile
(Cede[ntilde]o-V[aacute]zquez and Zamudio Acedo 2005, pp. 8-9). More
recently (1965-1980), and in response to a demand by outside buyers and
businessmen, Maya hunters harvested large quantities of hides for
commercial purposes, but that activity now has largely been
discontinued (Zamudio et al. 2004, p. 344).
Indigenous and nonindigenous people in Belize, generally poor
farmers, also engaged in large-scale, commercial harvest of hides
during the previous century, but that practice was primarily based on
economic instead of cultural reasons (Hope and Abercrombie 1986, p.
146). Abercrombie et al. (1982, p. 19) made a distinction between
master hunters in Belize, generally older men who made extensive forays
into the forest in search of specific game species, and part-time
hunters, generally younger men who made short-term, opportunistic
outings and often harvested Morelet's crocodiles. Among other uses, the
Morelet's crocodile also has important roles in indigenous art,
medicine, and religion (Stocker and Armsey, 1980, p. 740; Cupul-
Maga[ntilde]a 2003, pp. 45-48), and is used locally for handicrafts,
jewelry, decorations, and curios (BERDS 2005a, p. 1). Meerman et al.
(2003a, p. 49) noted a relative scarcity of fish and fish predators
such as crocodiles in the Sarstoon Temash National Park in Belize. They
suspected that fish populations are depressed, and that over-fishing by
humans must play a role. People engaged in fishing along the Upper
Temash River also annually collect Morelet's crocodile eggs from nests
located along water channels for human consumption. In some years, one
or more nests escape discovery, so the eggs are not collected. As a
result, baby crocodiles are subsequently seen that year. Heavy fishing
also reduces the potential prey base for the Morelet's crocodile. The
heavy predation on eggs together with the depletion of the Morelet's
crocodile's prey base may be responsible for the low crocodile count
along the river (Meerman et al. 2003a, pp. 42, 45).
Casta[ntilde]eda Moya (1998a, p. 521; 1998b, p. 13) listed illegal
hunting as a threat to Morelet's crocodile in the Pet[eacute]n region
of Guatemala, but did not provide a numerical estimate of the
[[Page 30833]]
take. ARCAS, an animal welfare group in Guatemala, reported the rescue
or recovery of 49 live individuals (about 8 per year), most likely from
pet dealers or private individuals, during the period 2002-2007 (ARCAS
2002, p. 3; 2003, p. 2; 2004, p. 2; 2005, p. 2; 2006, p. 3; 2007, p.
3). We do not have any information describing the effect of these
threats on the status of wild populations in Guatemala.
Although subsistence harvest continues to affect negatively some
local populations of the Morelet's crocodile, the impacts appear to be
very small. We have no evidence that subsistence harvest is currently
or anticipated to significantly affect the Morelet's crocodile
throughout its range. The current rangewide distribution of the
Morelet's crocodile closely mirrors the historical rangewide
distribution, with a total population size of approximately 19,400
adults in the three range countries.
Scientific Research
Scientific research in and of itself also constitutes a use of the
Morelet's crocodile. Research in the three range countries has mainly
focused on field surveys for the occurrence of the species, relative to
abundance and habitat quality, which do not require removal of
specimens. Research protocols followed so far have been those accepted
worldwide and do not involve significant alteration of habitat or
behavior (CITES 2010a, p. 7). Several scientific research projects on
the Morelet's crocodile have focused on field surveys that involve
capture, handling, or invasive techniques to identify, for example, the
species, sex, or size class of the specimen, as well as to collect
biological specimens or to attach an identification tag. If conducted
according to standard protocols, these physical activities pose little
risk of injury or disturbance to the subject crocodiles. Several
studies have also entailed, for example, night surveys using bright
spotlights (Casta[ntilde]eda Moya et al. 2000, p. 62), stomach flushing
(Platt et al. 2006, p. 282), collection of small blood samples (Dever
et al. 2002, p. 1079), or the gathering of nonviable eggs from nests
for contaminants analyses (Rainwater et al. 2002a, p. 320). None of
these studies has cited any negative effects due to handling or
observation on the Morelet's crocodile populations.
All three range countries regulate scientific research and
collection. According to the UNEP-WCMC CITES Trade Database, 3,124
specimens were exported for scientific purposes from Mexico to the
United States. From an administrative standpoint, a permit at the state
or Federal level regulates the collection of biological samples for
scientific purposes in Mexico. In Mexico, the Mexican Endangered
Species List (NOM-126-SEMARNAT-2000) regulates the collection of
biological samples from wild species for scientific use. In addition,
the Governments of Belize and Guatemala regulate scientific collection
and research. In Belize, this type of export is subject to strict
protocols and provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act (CITES 2010a,
p. 7).
With the Appendix-II designation for Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico
and Belize, individuals or institutions wishing to import scientific
samples originating from those countries will no longer be required to
obtain a CITES import permit. However, the CITES import permit
requirement will still be in effect for Guatemala, and CITES export
permits or re-export certificates, regardless of the country of origin,
will be required. The elimination of import permits, while continuing
the CITES requirement for export permits and re-export certificates,
may result in additional scientific collecting and research to benefit
the species while ensuring that adequate protections for the species
remain in place (see the Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms, below).
In conclusion, we are not aware of any evidence that utilization of
the Morelet's crocodile for scientific research purposes poses anything
more than a low risk to the subject individuals; furthermore, risks at
the population level are probably negligible. To the contrary, these
studies (surveys and sampling) provide useful information essential to
monitoring the status and continued health of individuals as well as
populations. These studies also allow ecotourists in these countries to
work with the scientific community in the collection of Morelet's
crocodile data (Volunteers for International Partnership 2009, pp. 1-
4.) This provides ecotourists with an opportunity to observe the
Morelet's crocodile in its native habitat and to gain firsthand
knowledge about the conservation of the species.
Ranching
Although the Belize-Guatemala-Mexico Tri-national Strategy for the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Morelet's Crocodile (see the Post
Delisting Monitoring section, below) includes long-term plans for
ranching, none of the range countries have given any indication they
plan to ranch Morelet's crocodiles within the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor B
While uncontrolled commercial harvests nearly extirpated the
Morelet's crocodile, the species has largely recovered because of being
protected under CITES and the Act in the early 1970s, as well as the
implementation of CITES trade controls by all three range countries.
All of the range countries currently continue to prohibit harvest of
wild Morelet's crocodiles.
Illegal international and domestic trade still occurs, but levels
remain low. Any incidence of illegal killing that may have occurred has
not prevented the observed population increase of the species. The
potential remains for illegal cross-border trade, as well as the
laundering of wild specimens through existing captive-breeding
operations in Mexico, but enforcement in Mexico is relatively strict.
Given the increased effectiveness of law enforcement personnel with
regard to the implementation of CITES, the increased supply of captive-
bred Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico that are now available for
commercial trade as a result of the Morelet's crocodile's transfer to
CITES Appendix II, and the increasing awareness of these regulations by
the public, we anticipate that illegal trade in wild Morelet's
crocodiles will decrease in the majority of the species' range in the
foreseeable future.
The Government of Mexico's Federal Prosecutor for Environmental
Protection (PROFEPA) performs inspections to prevent laundering of wild
Morelet's crocodile specimens and other illegal activities. In Belize,
the importation and exportation of wildlife requires a permit and is
subject to strict protocols and provisions of the Wildlife Protection
Act; hunting of scheduled species for scientific or educational
purposes in Belize also requires a permit. There was a declining trend
in seizures of illegal specimens and products from 1998-2007. According
to TRAFFIC, these seizures are indicative of a strong enforcement
program that deters illegal trade (Mosig 2008, pers. comm.).
Other uses such as scientific research are either benign or involve
relatively small numbers of Morelet's crocodiles. In addition, and
given the steps that the Government of Mexico is taking internally to
promote the sustainable commercial use of Morelet's crocodiles, we
anticipate that commercial uses will increase in the foreseeable
future, especially in Mexico, but that captive-bred specimens will be
used instead of wild individuals.
[[Page 30834]]
In conclusion, we find that the overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a significant
factor affecting the Morelet's crocodile throughout its range, both now
and for the foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Inter-specific interactions, namely disease and predation, can have
significant impacts on the conservation status of a species. At the
time CONABIO petitioned us to delist the Morelet's crocodile, disease
was not considered a significant conservation threat to the Morelet's
crocodile. However, the West Nile Virus (WNV) has been detected in
several Mexican populations of the Morelet's crocodile. According to
Farf[aacute]n-Ale et al. (2006, pp. 910-911), six specimens tested
negative to the WNV at the M[eacute]rida Zoo, Yucatan State, Mexico,
during 2003-2004, while six of seven specimens tested positive to the
WNV at Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche State, Mexico, in 2004. All
crocodiles, including those not sampled, showed no signs of illness at
the time of the testing or during the 3 months that followed
(Farf[aacute]n-Ale et al. (2006, p. 911).
In a separate survey conducted during May-October 2005, Hidalgo-
Mart[iacute]nez et al. (2008, p. 80) detected the WNV in six of seven
Morelet's crocodiles at Zool[oacute]gico La Venta, Villahermosa,
Tabasco State, Mexico. All animals were healthy at the time of serum
collection, and none had a history of WNV-like illness. The presence of
WNV antibodies in animals from those zoos demonstrated the presence of
WNV in those regions and indicated a potential risk of infection in
animals. The magnitude of that potential risk, however, has not been
determined. West Nile Virus was responsible for a significant number of
deaths of farmed American alligators in the U.S. State of Georgia
during separate outbreaks in 2001 and 2002 (Farf[aacute]n-Ale et al.
2006, p. 908). However, we do not have any information to indicate that
WNV causes illness in the Morelet's crocodile. The sample sizes in the
above studies on Morelet's crocodile were small; much larger studies
are needed. However, the best available information does not suggest
that WNV is a threat or likely to become a threat.
Predation on Morelet's crocodile eggs and juveniles is a common
natural phenomenon, posing no risk to healthy populations. They are
preyed upon more frequently at the juvenile stage by many birds and
medium-sized mammals (CITES 2010a, p. 4). Larger juveniles and
subadults are less susceptible than small juveniles are to predation,
and only large carnivores such as jaguars (Panthera onca) (Navarro
Serment 2004, p. 57) pose a risk to adult crocodiles. Larger Morelet's
crocodiles may prey upon the juveniles of their species. However, this
tends to act as an early factor promoting population regulation and
adult spacing. Aggressive interactions among adults seem to be reduced
by this mechanism, especially in populations with too many adults. In
populations with a steady state of age distribution, cannibalism
usually remains at a minimum (CONABIO 2005, p. 29). We are unaware of
any unnatural rates of predation affecting any age class of Morelet's
crocodile, and we have no indication that predation will exacerbate
other threats to the species in the future.
Other interspecific interactions can also affect the conservation
status of a species. The Morelet's crocodile and the American crocodile
co-occur and may compete with each other for resources along the
freshwater-saltwater interface in coastal Mexico and Belize. Platt and
Thorbjarnarson (2000a, p. 16; 2000b, pp. 24-26) reported relatively
higher frequency of encounter rates for the Morelet's crocodile at
alluvial and nonalluvial lagoons, mangrove forest, and rivers and
creeks, collectively characterized as inland sites, while the American
crocodile was relatively more abundant in offshore cays and the
Turneffe Atoll. These differences were attributed to the smaller body
size of the Morelet's crocodile, as well as past exploitation patterns
by hunters and subsequent niche expansion by this species (Platt and
Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 26). There was no indication, however, that
interspecific competition between the Morelet's and the American
crocodiles was a serious conservation problem.
Parasites have been also reported for the Morelet's crocodile, but
have not been identified as a conservation threat. In Mexico,
trematodes (parasitic flatworms commonly called flukes) and nematodes
(unsegmented worms commonly called roundworms) have been reported
(Moravec and Vargas-V[aacute]zquez 1998, p. 499; Moravec 2001, p. 47)
from the Yucatan Peninsula, but health problems with the crocodile
hosts were not noted. Rainwater et al. (2001a, p. 836) reported ticks
(Amblyomma dissimile and Amblyomma sp.), but noted that parasitism by
ticks on the Morelet's crocodile was rare in Belize and elsewhere.
Padilla Paz (2008, p. vi) characterized hematology, body index, and
external injuries for 103 Morelet's crocodiles from the northern
wetlands of Campeche State, Mexico. These variables were used to
characterize the health of the animals. Captive Morelet's crocodiles
evaluated for that study presented significantly more injuries than did
wild individuals. Parasitism with nematodes (Paratrichosoma recurvum)
was greater in wild crocodiles than in captive individuals. No serious
health issues were identified in individuals in either group (Padilla
Paz 2008, pp. 67-68).
Individual Morelet's crocodiles can also have physical issues that
can affect their well-being. Rainwater et al. (2001b, pp. 125-127)
reported 2 individuals among 642 Morelet's crocodiles captured in
Belize with a missing forelimb. Known in the technical literature as
ectromelia, this condition was probably the result of congenital
defects and not due to an injury. Both individuals otherwise appeared
to be in good condition.
Summary of Factor C
While the full impact of WNV on the Morelet's crocodile has yet to
be determined, there is no indication at present that WNV poses a
threat to the species, and other interspecific interactions do not
appear to be adversely affecting the Morelet's crocodile. In
conclusion, we find that neither disease nor predation is a significant
factor affecting the Morelet's crocodile throughout its range, both now
and for the foreseeable future.
Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
CITES
CITES (the Convention, or Treaty) is an international agreement
between member governments to ensure that the international trade in
plants and wildlife does not threaten the species' survival. It
provides varying degrees of protection to more than 30,000 species of
animals and plants, whether they are traded as live specimens, parts,
or products. Countries that have agreed to be bound by the Convention
(that have ``joined'' CITES) are known as Parties. Although CITES is
legally binding on the Parties, it does not take the place of national
laws. Rather, it provides a framework to be respected by each Party,
which has to adopt its own domestic legislation to ensure that CITES is
implemented at the national level. For many years, CITES has been among
the international conservation agreements with the largest membership,
with now 175 Parties (http://www.cites.org).
[[Page 30835]]
CITES works by subjecting international trade in specimens of
selected species to certain controls. Trade includes any movement into
or out of a country and is not limited to commercial movement. All
import, export, re-export, and ``introduction from the sea'' of species
covered by the Convention have to be authorized through a permitting
system. The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices,
according to the degree of protection they need (CITES 2009c).
Appendix I include species threatened with extinction that are or
may be affected by trade. Trade in specimens of these species is
permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Appendix II includes
species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade
must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with
their survival. Appendix III includes species that have been
unilaterally listed by a Party to assist in the implementation of the
listing Party's national legislation to conserve and monitor trade in
the listed species. The Conference of the Parties (CoP), which is the
decision-making body of the Convention and comprises all its member
countries, has agreed on a set of biological and trade criteria to help
determine whether a species should be included in Appendices I or II.
As Appendix-III listings are a unilateral decision, Parties do not need
to abide by the same biological and trade criteria adopted by the
Parties. At each regular meeting of the CoP, Parties submit proposals
based on those criteria to amend these two Appendices to add, remove,
or reclassify species (such as the Government of Mexico's 2010 proposal
to transfer the Morelet's crocodile from Appendix I to Appendix II).
Parties discuss these amendment proposals during the CoP, and then they
are submitted for adoption by the Parties (http://www.cites.org).
A specimen of a CITES-listed species may be imported into or
exported (or re-exported) from a Party only if the appropriate permit
or certificate has been obtained prior to the international trade and
presented for clearance at the port of entry or exit.
Regulation of Trade in Appendix-I Specimens
Both an export permit or re-export certificate must be issued by
the country of export and an import permit from the country of import
must be obtained prior to international trade for Appendix-I species.
An export permit may only be issued if: (1) The country of export
determines that the export will not be detrimental to the survival of
the species; (2) the specimen was legally obtained according to the
animal and plant protection laws in the country of export; (3) live
animals or plants are prepared and shipped for export to minimize any
risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment; and (4) an import
permit has been granted by the importing country. Likewise, the
requirements for a re-export certificate are that the country of re-
export determines: (1) That the specimen was imported into their
country in accordance with CITES; (2) that live animals or plants are
prepared and shipped for re-export to minimize any risk of injury,
damage to health, or cruel treatment; and (3) that an import permit has
been granted.
Issuance of import permits for Appendix-I species will also need a
determination from the country of import that the import will not be
for purposes that are detrimental to the survival of the species, the
proposed recipient of live animals or plants is suitably equipped to
house and care for them, and the purpose of the import is not for
primarily commercial purposes. Thus, with few exceptions, Appendix-I
species cannot be traded for commercial purposes.
Regulation of Trade in Appendix-II Specimens
In contrast to the trade requirements for an Appendix-I species,
CITES does not require an import permit from the destination country as
a condition for the export and re-export of an Appendix-II species,
unless it is required by the destination country's national law.
However, an export permit or re-export certificate is required from the
exporting country prior to the international trade taking place. An
export permit may only be issued for Appendix-II species if the country
of export determines that: (1) The export will not be detrimental to
the survival of the species; (2) the specimen was legally obtained
according to the animal and plant protection laws in the country of
export; and (3) live animals or plants are prepared and shipped for
export to minimize any risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel
treatment.
A re-export certificate may only be issued for Appendix-II species
if the country of re-export determines that: (1) The specimen was
imported into their country in accordance with CITES and (2) live
animals or plants are prepared and shipped for re-export to minimize
any risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment.
Parties to CITES are required to monitor both the export permits
granted and the actual exports for Appendix II species. If a Party
determines that the export of an Appendix-II species should be limited
in order to maintain that species throughout its range at a level
consistent with its role in the ecosystems in which it occurs and well
above the level at which the species might become eligible for
inclusion as an Appendix-I species, then that Party must take suitable
measures to limit the number of export permits granted for that species
(CITES article IV, paragraph 3).
CITES Registered Captive-Breeding Operations
Prior to the Morelet's crocodile in Mexico and Belize being
downlisted to Appendix II, it could be treated as an Appendix-II
species and internationally traded commercially only if the specimen
originated from a captive-breeding operation registered with the CITES
Secretariat in accordance with CITES Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev.
CoP15) ``Guidelines for a procedure to register and monitor operations
that breed Appendix-I animal species for commercial purposes.'' These
captive-breeding operations may only be registered if specimens
produced by that operation qualify as ``bred in captivity'' according
to the provisions of Resolution Conf. 10.16 (Rev.). To qualify as bred
in captivity, specimens must be born in a controlled environment where
the parents mated. In addition, breeding stock must be established in
accordance with the provisions of CITES and relevant national laws, and
in a manner not detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild.
Breeding stock must also be maintained without the introduction of
specimens from the wild, except for the occasional addition of animals,
eggs, or gametes meeting certain requirements. The breeding stock must
have produced offspring of second generation (F2) in a controlled
environment or be able to demonstrate that it is capable of reliably
producing second-generation offspring in a controlled environment.
Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) defines the term ``bred in
captivity for commercial purposes'' as ``any specimen of an animal bred
to obtain economic benefit, including profit, whether in cash or kind
where the purpose is directed toward sale, exchange, or provision of a
service or any other form of economic use or benefit.'' Countries
operating CITES-registered operations must ensure that the operation,
``will make a continuing meaningful contribution according to the
conservation needs of the species'' (CITES 2007b, pp. 1-2). Under the
exception in the Treaty and
[[Page 30836]]
Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15), specimens of Appendix-I species
originating from CITES-registered captive-breeding operations can be
traded for commercial purposes, and shipments only need to be
accompanied by an export permit issued by the exporting country. The
importer is not required to obtain an import permit because these
specimens are treated as CITES Appendix II. Countries that are Parties
to CITES should restrict their imports of Appendix-I captive-bred
specimens to those coming only from CITES-registered operations.
Additional information on CITES-registered operations can be found on
the CITES Web site at http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/registers.shtml.
Prior to the downlisting of the species in Mexico and Belize, three
CITES-registered operations for Morelet's crocodiles were located in
Mexico. These facilities, while no longer registered with the CITES
Secretariat, are still in operation (CITES 2010a, p. 24, Annex 3). The
names of these operations are:
(1) Cocodrilos Mexicanos (established in 1989; (former)
registration number A-MX-501) in Culiacan, Sinaloa State. In 2008, this
operation contained 28,673 captive Morelet's crocodiles for commercial
production (CITES 2010a, p. 24, Annex 3).
(2) Industrias Moreletii (established in 1993; (former)
registration number A-MX-502) in Villahermosa, Tabasco State. In 2008,
this operation contained 1,237 captive Morelet's crocodiles for
commercial production (CITES 2010a, p. 24, Annex 3).
(3) Cocodrilos de Chiapas (established in 1989; (former)
registration number A-MX-503) in Tapachula, Chiapas State. In 2008,
this operation contained six captive Morelet's crocodiles for
exhibition purposes (CITES 2010a, p. 24, Annex 3).
When the CITES Appendix-II designation became effective on June 23,
2010, for Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico and Belize, commercial
international trade in captive Morelet's crocodiles was no longer
limited to crocodiles originating from the three operations that were
registered with the CITES Secretariat. However, with the annotated
listing, no export of wild-caught specimens for commercial purposes is
allowed. Thus, any commercial export will continue to come from sources
other than wild populations. There are currently 19 closed-cycle,
captive-breeding operations registered with the Government of Mexico as
UMAs for the production of Morelet's crocodile in Mexico. Under Mexican
law, UMAs registered with the Government of Mexico must be closed-cycle
and prove that they can produce individuals beyond the F2 generation
(UMAs are described more fully below). Only 4 of the 19 UMAs have a
captive population sufficiently large to support commercial trade, and
only 2, Cocodrilos Mexicanos and Industrias Moreletii, of these 4 UMAs
currently support international commercial trade() (CITES 2010a, Annex
3, p. 24). Importing Morelet's crocodiles from Mexican captive-breeding
operations no longer requires a CITES import permit because a CITES
import permit is not required for Appendix-II species. However, a CITES
export permit or re-export certificate is still required. Although the
two remaining UMAs capable of supporting trade (Cacahuatal in Veracruz
State and Punta del Este in Campeche State) currently do not contain
enough Morelet's crocodiles to support international commercial trade,
they do have enough potential annual production to produce enough skins
to support local commercial trade (CITES 2010a, Annex 3, p. 24).
Because the Morelet's crocodile in Guatemala is listed as an
Appendix-I species under CITES, the only way that Morelet's crocodiles
and their parts and products from Guatemala could legally be traded
commercially in international trade is if a captive-breeding operation
were to be registered with the CITES Secretariat. However, because
Guatemala does not currently have any captive-breeding operations that
are registered with the CITES Secretariat, the commercial international
trade in Morelet's crocodile products from Guatemala remains
restricted.
However, under the current listing of the species under the Act, it
remains illegal to import Morelet's crocodiles or their parts or
products into the United States, regardless of the source, unless the
purpose of the import is for scientific research or enhancement of
propagation or survival of the species. When this final rule is
effective (see DATES above), the prohibitions of the Act are removed.
Morelet's crocodile parts and products originating from sources other
than wild populations from Mexico and Belize may be imported into the
United States for commercial purposes, as long as the required CITES
export permit or re-export certificate has been granted. As discussed
earlier, however, an export permit will not be granted unless the
exporting country finds that the export will not be detrimental to the
species and the specimen was lawfully acquired.
Mexico's Proposal To Transfer the Morelet's Crocodile to CITES Appendix
II
At the 2008 CITES Animals Committee meeting, the Government of
Mexico submitted for comment and review a draft proposal to transfer
Mexico's population of Morelet's crocodile from Appendix I to Appendix
II based on Mexico's belief that the Morelet's crocodile no longer met
the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I (CITES 2008a, pp. 1-28; CITES
2008a, p. 32). Committee members were generally favorable of the
proposal, but had several technical questions and suggestions. The
Government of Mexico subsequently revised their 2008 proposal and
formally submitted a 2010 CITES proposal for consideration at CoP15,
held in March 2010 in Doha, Qatar (Government of Mexico 2010). The 2010
proposal was to transfer the Morelet's crocodile throughout its range
to Appendix II (CoP15 Prop. 8). The CITES Secretariat reviewed the
proposal and agreed that the Morelet's crocodile no longer met the
biological criteria for an Appendix-I species and recommended that the
proposal be adopted.
The Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal recommended
transferring the Morelet's crocodile from Appendix I to Appendix II
because the species no longer met the criteria for inclusion in
Appendix I. Under the 2010 proposal, the transfer to Appendix II
applied to all three range countries. The 2010 proposal included an
annotation establishing a zero quota for wild specimens. The zero quota
would prohibit any international trade in wild specimens within the
context of CITES, thereby limiting the trade in Morelet's crocodile and
its products to those originating from sources other than wild
specimens. Although the Belize-Guatemala-Mexico Tri-national Strategy
for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Morelet's Crocodile (see
the Post-delisting Monitoring section, below) includes long-term plans
for ranching, none of the range countries have indicated they plan to
ranch Morelet's crocodiles within the foreseeable future.
The Government of Mexico consulted with the Governments of Belize
and Guatemala on their 2010 CITES proposal. The Government of Belize
supported the proposal, but did not provide documents to the CITES
Secretariat to indicate their official support. According to the
Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal, the Government of Guatemala
supported the proposal in part, but recommended transferring only the
Mexican
[[Page 30837]]
population of Morelet's crocodile in captive-breeding operations to
Appendix II, with a zero quota for wild specimens traded for commercial
purposes. In a letter from Guatemala's Consejo Nacional de Areas
Protegidas to the Ambassador of Mexico dated 5 June 2009 (CITES 2010a,
Annex 4, p. 25), the Government of Guatemala indicated that it did not
support the Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal as written. They
recommended verifying that moving captive Morelet's crocodiles in
Mexico to Appendix II would not put wild Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico
at risk. They supported Mexico's transfer of captive-bred populations
of Morelet's crocodiles from Appendix I to Appendix II provided the
parties ensure the following:
They verify that wild populations of Morelet's crocodiles
in Mexico will not be at risk as they are moved from Appendix I to II;
If Mexico's proposal at CoP15 is approved, then measures
should be put in place for strict monitoring and enforcement on the
Mexico-Guatemala border;
That the marking of live animals be done by methods that
cannot be falsified and that skins be tagged in accordance with CITES
to maintain chain of custody;
That the tagging methods for Mexican populations of
Morelet's crocodile be widely circulated to range countries and those
countries importing parts and products as well as live specimens.
Under Guatemala's recommended scenario, Morelet's crocodiles in
Mexico and Belize would be in Appendix II, with a zero quota for wild
specimens traded for commercial purposes, and all Morelet's crocodiles
in Guatemala would remain on Appendix I (CITES 2010a, pp. 12, 25-26).
The Appendix-II designation became effective on June 23, 2010. As a
result, Morelet's crocodiles and their products from Mexico and Belize
from sources other than wild populations are now allowed to enter
international trade for commercial purposes under CITES. They are not,
however, currently able to enter the United States market because the
Act's prohibitions remain in effect. The international commercial trade
in all wild Morelet's crocodiles remains restricted.
At this time, the Government of Mexico intends to export products
derived from Morelet's crocodiles raised in its captive-breeding
operations that are registered with the Government of Mexico as UMAs,
and that have a proven track record of producing offspring beyond the
F2 generation (CITES 2008, p. 23; CITES 2010a, p. 9).
Now that the Morelet's crocodile in Mexico and Belize is
transferred to CITES Appendix II with an annotation providing a zero
quota for wild specimens traded for commercial purposes, and when this
delisting rule becomes effective (see DATES, above), live Morelet's
crocodiles and parts and products originating from any captive-breeding
operations in Mexico (and Belize, if any) may be imported into the
United States. In addition, Morelet's crocodile products manufactured
in other countries could also be re-exported into the United States if
those skins originated in Mexico or Belize and were not derived from
wild populations. Live Morelet's crocodiles and parts or products
originating from Guatemala will remain in CITES Appendix I, with its
associated trade restrictions remaining in place.
CITES National Legislation Project
Through Resolution Conf. 8.4 (Rev. CoP15), the Parties to CITES
have adopted a process, the National Legislation Project, to evaluate
whether Parties have adequate domestic legislation to successfully
implement the Treaty. In reviewing a country's national legislation,
the Secretariat considers whether a Party's domestic laws designate the
responsible Scientific and Management authorities, prohibit trade in
violation of the Convention, have penalty provisions in place for
illegal trade, and provide for seizure of specimens that were illegally
traded or possessed.
While both Guatemala and Mexico's legislation have been determined
to be sufficient to properly implement the Treaty, Belize's national
legislation was considered lacking. As part of the National Legislative
Project, Belize has submitted a plan to revise their legislation to the
Secretariat in March 2010, but as of the publication of this final
rule, Belize has not officially enacted any revised legislation (CITES
2010e). Although a trade suspension was put in place for Belize for one
orchid species, Myrmecophila tibicinis, the suspension was in relation
to the Review of Significant Trade in Specimens of Appendix II species
(CITES 2010d) and not due to Belize's current legislation implementing
CITES. After the effective date of this final rule (see DATES, above),
CITES will continue to protect the Morelet's crocodile throughout its
range by regulating international trade.
All three countries also have protected-species and protected-areas
legislation under the jurisdiction of specific ministries or
departments. The three range countries have an extensive regulatory
framework to control activities with respect to the Morelet's crocodile
and its habitat. Mexico is unique among the three range countries in
that the Government of Mexico also has legislation regulating captive-
breeding operations.
Mexico
The Government of Mexico has a strict and comprehensive legal
framework to regulate the conservation and sustainable use of the
Morelet's crocodile in Mexico:
(1) Ley General de Equilibrio Ecol[oacute]gico y Protecci[oacute]n
al Ambiente (LGEEPA; General Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental
Protection Law)--This is the primary Mexican law for environmental
matters and is the principal legal instrument that regulates the
Morelet's crocodile in Mexico (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 1). Passed in
1988, this law applies to and integrates the three levels of government
within the context of natural resources: Federal, state, and municipal.
With regard to trade in wildlife species, including the Morelet's
crocodile, the LGEEPA contains the basis to regulate all activities,
including importation, exportation, seizures, sustainable use,
violations, fines, animal welfare, and legal possession. While 45
articles within the Mexican LGEEPA deal with environmental
contamination (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 1), we are not aware of any
specific provisions or their relevance to Morelet's crocodile.
(2) Ley General de Vida Silvestre (LGVS: General Wildlife Law)--
Passed in 2000, this law regulates the use, conservation, and
management of domestic wild fauna and flora and their habitat (CONABIO
2005, Annex 3, pp. 1-2). This law is based on the principle of
sustainable use. Any activity with regard to wild fauna and flora must
comply with certain requirements: The activity must be supported by an
approved management plan; the quantity to be harvested must be less
than natural recruitment (replacement); and the harvest must not have
negative impacts on the wild populations, their habitat, or biological
activities. With regard to the Morelet's crocodile, harvest of wild
populations is not permitted, and harvest under this law would only be
permitted for specimens obtained through closed-cycle, captive-breeding
operations that have programs that contribute to the development of
wild populations (CITES 2010a, p. 9).
According to the LGVS, alien specimens or populations are those
occurring outside their natural range
[[Page 30838]]
(such as the Morelet's crocodiles found on the Pacific coast of
Mexico), including hybrids. Such specimens or populations can only be
managed in captivity, and with prior approval. A management plan must
be in place with established security and contingency measures to avoid
any negative effects on the conservation of wild native specimens and
populations or their habitat. LGVS establishes management, control, and
remediation measures for individuals or populations considered harmful.
Measures may consist of capture/collection for the development of
recovery, restocking, and reintroduction projects; for research or
environmental education activities; for relocation of specimens
(subject to prior evaluation of the destination habitat and condition
of the individuals); for elimination or eradication of individuals/
populations; or of actions or devices to keep the individuals away,
disperse them, make access difficult, or reduce the damage they cause
(CITES 2010a, p. 9).
(3) Programa de Conservaci[oacute]n de la Vida Silvestre y
Diversificaci[oacute]n Productiva en el Sector Rural (Program for
Wildlife Conservation and Productive Diversification of the Rural
Sector)--Launched in 2000, this program defines the conceptual,
strategic, legal, and administrative framework that governs any
initiative for the conservation and use of wild species (CITES 2010a,
p. 8). The goal of this program is to establish incentives for private
and public initiatives that favor natural resources conservation, as
well as provide economic opportunities for private entities for the
sustainable use of these resources (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, pp. 2-3).
Based on a biological evaluation of the species, this program promotes
the use and conservation of priority species of plants and animals,
including the establishment of wildlife production units and technical
advisory committees such as the COMACROM (Subcomit[eacute]
T[eacute]cnico Consultivo para la Conservaci[oacute]n, Manejo y
Aprovechamiento Sustentable de los Crocodylia en M[eacute]xico;
Technical Advisory Subcommittee for the Conservation, Management, and
Sustainable Use of the Crocodilians in Mexico) in the case of the
Morelet's crocodile. Created by the Government of Mexico in 1999,
COMACROM includes scientists, technicians, NGOs, producers,
authorities, and other stakeholders. It participates in meetings of the
IUCN Crocodile Specialist Group (CSG) and contributes publications to
the CSG (CITES 2010a, p. 8).
(4) Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2001--Passed in 2001,
this regulation provides legal protection to domestic endangered
species of fauna and flora, and provides a mechanism to evaluate
extinction risks (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 3). The M[eacute]todo de
Evaluaci[oacute]n de Riesgo de Extinci[oacute]n de Especies Silvestres
de M[eacute]xico (MER; Method to Evaluate Wildlife Extinction Risks in
Mexico), one of the parts of this regulation, has four categories of
risk: Probably extinct in the wild, in peril, threatened, and subject
to special protection. The Morelet's crocodile is included in the
category ``subject to special protection.'' This regulation defines the
category ``subject to special protection'' as ``those species or
populations that might find themselves threatened by factors that
adversely affect their viability, thus determining the need to promote
conservation or recovery and the recovery and conservation of
associated species populations. (This category may include lower risk
categories of the IUCN classification).''
Although the Government of Mexico no longer classifies the
Morelet's crocodile as ``endangered'' or ``threatened,'' classification
as ``subject to special protection'' under Mexican Official Law NOM-
059-SEMARNAT-2001 allows legal protection at the national level (CITES
2010a, p. 9). Including the Morelet's crocodile in this category allows
the Government of Mexico to make sure it still meets the conservation
needs of important species from both a biologically and socioeconomic
standpoint before the species can be considered to be endangered or
threatened. CONABIO recommended keeping the Morelet's crocodile in this
category of ``subject to special protection'' to maintain existing
measures of conservation, technical supervision, monitoring and
enforcement in order to avoid the species' having a higher risk
category in the future (CONABIO 2005, p. 4 and Annex 2, p. 5).
(5) Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-126-SEMARNAT-2000--Passed in 2000,
this regulation oversees scientific research and collection by
individual domestic and foreign researchers, as well as by institutions
(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 3). If a species is also regulated under
CITES, the appropriate permit or certificate must be obtained under
this regulation. Scientific research or collections involving the
Morelet's crocodile are regulated under these provisions.
(6) Sistema de Unidades de Manejo para la Conservaci[oacute]n de la
Vida Silvestre (SUMA; Wildlife Conservation Management and
Administration Unit System)--In 1997, the Government of Mexico
established a system for registering, supervising, and enforcing UMAs
(Unidad de Manejo y Administraci[oacute]n; Conservation Management and
Administrative Units) for intensive reproduction of economically
valuable natural resources, including captive farming of Morelet's
crocodiles (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, pp. 3-5). The goal of this
regulation was to ensure that biodiversity conservation be considered
within the context of the production and socioeconomic needs of the
country. This system combined a broad range of entities or facilities
(``units'') under a single administrative program, including zoological
and botanical gardens, greenhouses, and animal breeding centers.
Through these units, the Government of Mexico promotes natural
resources uses that are responsible and planned. Extensive and
intensive captive-breeding units for the Morelet's crocodile are
covered under this system. In exchange for the right to harvest the
Morelet's crocodile under controlled conditions, closed-cycle, captive-
breeding unit operators are required to develop and implement an
approved management plan for the site, as well as to conserve the
species' habitat and other species that use that habitat. Strict animal
husbandry practices and welfare considerations are required under these
plans.
Legal registration of approved UMAs requires proof of captive
production beyond the F2 generation (CITES 2010a, p. 9). For intensive
UMAs, such as captive-breeding operations in Mexico, the Government of
Mexico requires the UMAs to submit regular reports that must include
information on births and deaths, number and identification of traded
specimens, and management activities (CITES 2010a, p. 10).
The Government of Mexico uses three methods to mark live Morelet's
crocodiles registered with the Wildlife Division through the
corresponding inventories of UMAs. The first method is interdigital
staples on the feet. The second method is the traditional method of
cutting notches in the tail scales and is only used by some operations
(CITES 2010a, p. 10). These marks are registered with the Government of
Mexico. The third method is the Universal Tagging System required by
CITES for the export of skins (Resolution Conf. 11.12 (Rev. CoP15)),
which consists of a plastic security tag with the UMA registration
number, the species code, a serial number, and the year of production
or harvest. Any application for a CITES export permit must include the
number of the authorized specimen based on the interdigital tag and the
skin's plastic
[[Page 30839]]
security tag, and is used to track skins and other products (CITES
2010a, p. 10).
Approximately 50 UMAs have been registered for rearing Morelet's
crocodiles in Mexico since the 1980s, primarily for domestic commerce.
Nineteen of them are still actively managing the species, and 3 were
registered with the CITES Secretariat when the species in Mexico was
included in Appendix I (CITES 2010a, p. 11). Only 5 of the 19 UMAs have
the potential for annual commercial production of products made from
Morelet's crocodile (CITES 2010a, p. 24).
(7) Sistema Nacional de [Aacute]reas Naturales Protegidas (SINANP;
National System of Protected Natural Areas)--Passed in 2000, this
system is made up of parcels identified as Protected Natural Areas
(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 5). These Protected Natural Areas are
created by Presidential decree and the activities on them are regulated
under the LGEEPA, which requires that the Protected Natural Areas
receive special protection for conservation, restoration, and
development activities. The National Commission of Natural Protected
Areas (CONANP), a decentralized organ of the Government of Mexico's
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), currently
administers 173 federal natural areas representing more than 62,396,392
ac (25,250,963 ha). These natural areas are categorized as: Biosphere
Reserves, National Parks, Natural Monuments, Areas of Natural Resource
Protection, Areas of Protection of Flora and Fauna, and Sanctuaries.
These areas are protected under Mexican law because they contain
key or representative ecosystems or species, or ecosystems or species
that are at risk and require strict control. Many ecosystems or
species, including the Morelet's crocodile, are protected under this
system. According to the Government of Mexico, SINANP includes at least
12 protected areas occupied by Morelet's crocodile, covering an
estimated 13 percent of the species' geographic range (CONABIO 2005, p.
30).
(8) C[oacute]digo Penal Federal (Federal Penal Code)--The code
contains a special section for environmental crimes (CONABIO 2005,
Annex 3, pp. 5-6). These penalties apply to those who commit crimes
against plants or animals, as well as to individuals who illegally use
or commercialize regulated species without authorization. These
penalties apply to crimes involving the Morelet's crocodile.
In order to implement and enforce the laws and regulations
mentioned above, SEMARNAT created the office of the Procuradur[iacute]a
Federal de Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente (PROFEPA; Federal Prosecutor
for Environmental Protection) and the Programa para la
Inspecci[oacute]n y Vigilancia en Puertos, Aeropuertos y Fronteras
(Ports, Airports, and Borders Inspection and Enforcement Program)
(CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 6). Under this program, imports and exports
for key products regulated by SEMARNAT are inspected at 65 points of
entry and exit to prevent laundering. Morelet's crocodile products are
regulated under this program. PROFEPA implements the Environmental
Inspection Program at ports, airports, and borders, as well as the
Wildlife Inspection Program, which monitors all stages of the use of
wild species and ensures their protection. Inspection and enforcement
programs make these Mexican laws and regulations more effective,
especially at airports and border ports of entry and exit. Specific
actions include the verification of cross-border movements in
compliance with CITES and other international agreements in
coordination with customs authorities; inspection of areas of wildlife
harvest, stockpiling, distribution, and sale; surveillance of areas of
wildlife distribution and harvest; and special operations in areas of
wildlife harvest, stockpiling, distribution and sale, in coordination
with public law enforcement and judicial authorities (Govt. of Mexico
2010, p. 11). Mexico has implemented several programs to prevent and
combat illegal harvest, including the System of Wildlife Management
Units (SUMA) which is based on six key elements: (1) Registration with
the Wildlife Division (DGVS Direcci[oacute]n General de Vida
Silvestre--SEMARNAT, CITES Management Authority); (2) proper habitat
management; (3) monitoring of wild populations of the species
harvested; (4) controlled harvest (including periodic reports and
inventories on each UMA); (5) management plan approved and registered
with the Wildlife Division; and (6) certificate of production and
market/tagging methods. SEMARNAT conducts random inspections of UMAs
and, if any issues are detected in the management plan, carries out
population studies, including sampling activities and species
inventories, and producing periodic reports on these findings (CITES
2010a, p. 10).
We do not have any information on whether the Mexican legal
framework specifically authorizes subsistence hunting or cultural use
of the Morelet's crocodile, or on the current level of enforcement, or
whether the enforcement is considered adequate.
Belize
The Government of Belize also has a legal framework that regulates
the conservation and sustainable use of the Morelet's crocodile, along
with other species of birds, mammals, and reptiles (collectively known
as Scheduled species). In general terms, the Wildlife Protection Act
prohibits illegal harvest and export in Belize (Government of Belize
2000 pp. 7-9). The Forestry Department, within the Ministry of Natural
Resources and the Environment, is the relevant government agency with
respect to the Morelet's crocodile. Under this legislation, the Game
Warden controls hunting of these species. Certain activities are
prohibited, and a license is required. For example, hunting of the
Morelet's crocodile is prohibited. Importation and exportation of
wildlife is subject to strict protocols and provisions of the Wildlife
Protection Act and requires a permit. Hunting of certain species for
scientific or educational purposes also requires a permit. The
legislation also identifies offenses and penalties.
In addition to the Wildlife Protection Act, the Government of
Belize is in the process of developing and implementing a National List
of Critical Species (Meerman 2005a, pp. 1-8; Meerman 2005b, p. 38).
This list is based, in part, on the procedures used by IUCN Red List of
Threatened Animals (see IUCN 2001, version 3.1, 35 pp.). Within the
context of the Belize Protected Areas Policy and System Plan, this list
will serve as a basis for the Belize Red Data List. According to the
2005 list (Meerman 2005a, p. 8), the Morelet's crocodile is categorized
as ``CD'' (Conservation Dependent) in Belize due to the following
factors: small range, hunted, economic importance, charismatic species
drawing national and international attention, and persecuted as
perceived pest. Under the 2005 list, Conservation Dependent species are
taxa that are the focus of a continuing taxon-specific or habitat-
specific conservation program for the taxon in question, the cessation
of which would result in the taxon qualifying for one of the threatened
categories on the list within 5 years (Meerman 2005a, p. 3).
These laws and regulations provide legal protection to the
Morelet's crocodile in Belize. We have no information on whether the
Wildlife Protection Act is sufficiently enforced. The CITES Legislation
Project (CITES 2010e) concluded that Belize's national
[[Page 30840]]
legislation does not meet any of the requirements for implementing
CITES. However, Belize has submitted a plan and draft legislation to
CITES as of March 2010, but has not officially enacted the legislation.
In spite of this assessment by CITES, trade data seem to indicate the
threat of unregulated trade from Belize is minimal.
Guatemala
The Government of Guatemala also has a legal framework that
regulates the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources,
including the Morelet's crocodile (IIA URL FCAA IARNA 2003, pp. 67-69;
IARNA URL IIA 2006, pp. 104-107; Rep[uacute]blica de Guatemala 2007,
pp. 3-4, 31). In general terms, and based on our review of other
materials, natural resources management is under the jurisdiction of
the Ministerio de Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Ministry of the
Environment and Natural Resources; USAID 2002, pp. 44-45;
Rep[uacute]blica de Guatemala 2007, pp. 3-4, 9). The main legislation
in this regard is Decreto N[uacute]mero 4-89 (Ley de [Aacute]reas
Protegidas, Gobierno de Guatemala 1989, pp. 1-24; Birner et al. 2005,
p. 290; Law of Protected Areas and Amendments/Revisions). This decree
established the Comisi[oacute]n Nacional de [Aacute]reas Protegidas
(CONAP; National Commission on Protected Areas). CONAP has been tasked
to run the Sistema Nacional de [Aacute]reas Protegidas (SIGAP; National
System of Protected Areas; IARNA URL IIA 2006, pp. 104-107). In
Guatemala, the Morelet's crocodile is included in the Endangered
Species List (Resolution No. ALC/032-99 of CONAP) in Category 2,
``Seriously Endangered,'' which includes species that are endangered
because of habitat loss, trade, the very small size of their
populations, and/or endemism with limited distribution (CITES 2010a, p.
9).
In the past, threats to the Morelet's crocodile and its habitat in
Guatemala, compounded with the lack of funding and personnel, made it
difficult for the Government of Guatemala to adequately enforce these
laws and regulations. Ongoing conservation actions were often
overwhelmed by slow economic development, high levels of poverty,
unequal land distribution, a highly segmented society, and the effects
of more than 3 decades of civil war (Birner et al. 2005, pp. 285, 292).
In 2003, Laguna del Tigre National Park was considered by ParkWatch as
critically threatened due to drug trade, land grabs, the presence of
human settlements, expanding agriculture and cattle ranching, poaching,
forest fires, the oil industry, and an almost complete lack of
institutional control over the area (ParksWatch 2003, pp. 1, 11).
However, in 2004, ParksWatch stated that the staff at Laguna del Tigre
had doubled in size since their 2003 report (ParksWatch 2004, p, 30.)
Seventy-three park rangers, 10 archeological site guards, and 96 Army
personnel were hired to staff the park, and since the increase in
staffing, both the park and the biotope are ``constantly patrolled.''
In addition, the Wildlife Conservation Society and USAID continued its
``Biodiversity Conservation at a Landscape Scale'' program and have
provided a comprehensive plan with specific goals to preserve and
protect wildlife in the Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR) in Guatemala
through conserving wildlife species and their habitat, while
maintaining the economic productivity of renewable natural resources.
They are fulfilling these goals by establishing specific parameters:
``to develop adaptive and participatory strategy to reduce threats to
wildlife in the MBR; to develop, implement, and monitor sustainable
mechanisms to reduce threats to wildlife and ecosystems across the MBR
landscape; to learn and teach best management practices for the
conservation of the MBR and beyond; and to guide, design, and test
wildlife-focused planning'' (WCS 2008, p. 3). For the past 9 years, the
WCS has been conducting over-flights of Laguna del Tigre National Park
with the Guatemalan National Park Service and LightHawk, a volunteer-
based environmental aviation organization, and has used that
information to identify illegal colonization, resulting in successfully
removing illegal squatters (80+ families) from the area. In addition,
over-flights revealed marijuana clearings on the eastern-most port of
Mirador-R[iacute]o Azule National Park in 2007. WCS over-flights helped
to monitor fires, locate illegal settlements, and notify the national
and provincial government as well as the national media of illegal
activities. As a result, the presence of fires in Laguna del Tigre
National Park has been reduced by 90 percent. In addition, WCS has
taken an active role in educating locals and concessionaires on best
management practices for sustainable use of forest products (WCS 10
year report, no date given, p. 6).
In August 2010, the president of Guatemala announced that he was
deploying 250 soldiers to recover fully all the protected zones of El
Pet[eacute]n in the Laguna del Tigre section of the MBR. This ``Green
Battalion'' was deployed specifically to protect the Laguna del Tigre
National Park and work jointly with the National Civil Police and the
Attorney General's Office to combat drug trafficking and the illegal
harvest of natural resources and archaeological sites of that region of
the MBR (Latin American Herald Tribune, December 6, 2010).
The Government of Guatemala is also participating in the Tri-
national Strategy (see the Post-delisting Monitoring section below) for
Morelet's crocodile, wherein specific actions directed toward the
Morelet's crocodile are defined. Conservation actions in Guatemala are
being developed and implemented within the context of the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan (Birner et al. 2005, p. 285). Many outstanding accomplishments
have been achieved in Guatemala in terms of biodiversity conservation
(IARNA URL IIA 2006, p. 22), and the Guatemalan government seems
committed to ensuring that environmental management and enforcement
efforts continue.
Summary of Factor D
Based on the fact that all three range countries are Parties to
CITES, have protected-species and protected-areas legislation,
implemented that legislation, and enforce relevant laws, the current
regulatory mechanisms appear to be adequate to conserve the Morelet's
crocodile in the majority of the species' range. As per the CITES
National Legislation Project (CITES 2010e), both Guatemala and Mexico's
legislation meet all the requirements for implementing CITES. Belize's
national legislation was considered not to meet any of the requirements
for implementing CITES. However, Belize has submitted a plan and draft
legislation to CITES as of March 2010, but has not officially enacted
the legislation. Per decisions made during CoP15, the CITES protections
for Morelet's crocodiles in Guatemala will remain unchanged. They will
remain protected as an Appendix-I species, with those CITES trade
restrictions remaining in place.
Together, Mexico and Belize contain the majority of wild
individuals (87 percent) and the estimated potentially suitable habitat
(81 percent) throughout the species' range. We anticipate that these
conditions will remain essentially the same, both domestically and
internationally, in the foreseeable future. However, we did not solely
rely on these future measures in finding the species is no longer
endangered or threatened.
Existing regulatory mechanisms, including CITES and domestic
prohibitions on harvest of wild
[[Page 30841]]
Morelet's crocodiles, have played a vital role in the resurgence of
Morelet's crocodiles over the last 40 years. While some trade
restrictions could be lifted in the future, particularly to allow
increased trade in captive-bred specimens now that Morelet's crocodiles
in Mexico and Belize have been moved to CITES Appendix II with a zero
export quota for wild specimens traded for commercial purposes, we
believe such lifting of restrictions would pose little risk to the
species. All three range countries restrict the use of wild specimens,
and the Government of Mexico has institutions with proven track records
to administer and enforce controls on captive-breeding operations and
laundering of illegal specimens. Should the zero export quota for wild
specimens traded for commercial purposes be lifted, it may create
greater enforcement challenges in all three range countries in the
foreseeable future because the taking of wild Morelet's crocodiles
could be authorized. If this happens, the requirements of CITES
Appendix II will apply. The exporting country will be required to
determine that the export is not detrimental to the survival of the
species in the wild and specimens are legally acquired prior to issuing
a permit authorizing the export. However, a change to the annotation
would require approval of two-thirds of the Parties voting at a CoP and
cannot be achieved unilaterally by any of the range countries.
Therefore, we do not have any indication that CITES and the regulatory
mechanisms of the range countries will be inadequate to continue to
protect the species in the wild when this delisting rule becomes
effective, or if ranching or wild harvest are authorized in the future.
The reproduction and survival rates of wild Morelet's crocodiles
are currently robust. Populations remain stable throughout most of
their range, and have expanded their range in some areas. In
conclusion, we find that, taken together, the currently existing
protections described above are adequate, and they will remain adequate
to protect the Morelet's crocodile and its habitat in the majority of
its range now and within the foreseeable future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued
Existence of the Species
Human-Crocodile Conflicts
The Morelet's crocodile is known to attack humans. While data about
these conflicts are limited, anecdotal reports suggest that these
conflicts are widespread and ongoing. In a well-documented attack in
Belize in August 2001, a Morelet's crocodile attacked a 13-year-old
male and caused him to drown in the Belama area of Belize City (Finger
et al. 2002, p. 198).
More often, human-crocodile conflicts involving the Morelet's
crocodile are more benign. In Mexico, for example, the Crocodile Museum
(Chiapas State; about 80 cases per year) assists local officials
through the capture, rescue, and relocation of local crocodilians (all
three species, including the Morelet's crocodile) that are considered
potentially dangerous or, because of their location (close proximity to
human activities), they might be killed by local inhabitants
(Dom[iacute]nguez-Laso 2008, p. 5). Abercrombie et al. (1982, p. 19)
reported that the Morelet's crocodile was generally feared in Belize.
Finger et al. (2002, p. 199) indicated that development related to
human occupation (such as residential areas and infrastructure) in
Morelet's crocodile habitat around Belize City was generating
increasing numbers of human-crocodile conflicts. Windsor et al. (2002,
p. 418) also noted that the practice of feeding the Morelet's crocodile
by residents and tourists was becoming more common and was also
generating increasing numbers of human-crocodile conflicts in Belize.
According to Platt and Thorbjarnarson (2000a, p. 27), large Morelet's
crocodiles, despite legal protections, are still perceived as threats
to humans and livestock, and are occasionally killed near residential
areas in Belize. While educational programs are needed for local
residents and visitors to deter this activity, it may also be necessary
to develop a problem crocodile removal program to resolve these
conflicts (Windsor et al. 2002, p. 418). No information was available
about human-crocodile conflicts in Guatemala. Although human-crocodile
conflicts are affecting local populations of Morelet's crocodiles, and
this is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, we do not have
any evidence that it is currently or anticipated to be a threat to the
species as a whole.
Environmental Contaminants
Environmental contaminants are known to have negative impacts on
terrestrial vertebrates (Smith et al. 2007, p. 41), including
crocodilians (Ross 1998, p. 3). The primary routes through which
terrestrial reptiles, including the Morelet's crocodile, are exposed to
environmental pollutants are ingestion of contaminated prey, dermal
contact, maternal transfer, and accumulation of chemicals into eggs
from contaminated nesting media (Smith et al. 2007, p. 48). With regard
to the Morelet's crocodile, organochlorine contaminants have been
detected in the scutes (external scales) (DeBusk 2001, pp. viii-ix) and
the chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) of hatched Morelet's crocodile eggs
(Pepper et al. 2004, pp. 493, 495), as well as in whole contents
analysis of nonviable crocodile eggs (Wu et al. 2000a, p. 6,416; 2000b,
p. 671; Wu et al. 2006, p. 151).
The most common organochlorine found in studies of Morelet's
crocodile in Belize was DDE (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene),
detected in 100 percent of eggs collected by Wu et al. (2000b, p. 673)
and 69 percent of CAMs sampled by Pepper et al. (2004, p. 495).
Organochlorines have also been detected at additional sites throughout
coastal Belize and the interior highlands (Meerman 2006a, p. 26; Wu et
al. 2006, p. 153). Although exposure to organochlorines has been linked
to adverse effects on population health of the American alligator in
Florida (several studies cited by Wu et al. 2000b, p. 676), no
population-level effects were detected in Belize (McMurry and Anderson
2000, pp. 1, 4; Wu et al. 2000b, p. 676). Rainwater (2003, pp. xii,
38), however, later suggested that some of the sites that had been
chosen for comparative purposes in fact had similar contaminant
profiles and that some study results suggesting no significant
differences between sites may be equivocal.
Reproductive impairment due to endocrine-disrupting contaminants
has been demonstrated elsewhere in crocodilians and is suspected to
occur with Morelet's crocodiles in Belize due to known contaminant
levels (Selcer et al. 2006, p. 50; Rainwater et al. 2008, p. 101).
Initial results have not documented contaminant-induced vitellogenin in
blood plasma in the Morelet's crocodile, but this condition may occur
in the wild in Belize; studies are ongoing (Selcer et al. 2006, p. 50;
Rainwater et al. 2008, pp. 101, 106-107).
Mercury was detected in nonviable Morelet's crocodile eggs
collected from eight nests across three localities in northern Belize
in 1995 (Rainwater et al. 2002a, p. 320; Rainwater et al. 2002b, p.
190). While mercury was detected in all eggs sampled, the mean
concentration per egg was among the lowest reported values for any
crocodile species. No overt signs of mercury toxicity or evidence of a
population decline was noted for Morelet's crocodiles at the site
(Rainwater et al. 2002a, pp. 321-322).
All samples for studies of organochlorine and mercury contaminants
cited above came from Belize, and we are not aware of any
[[Page 30842]]
similar investigations elsewhere in the Morelet's crocodile range
(Mexico or Guatemala). As reproduction and survival rates of Morelet's
crocodiles are currently robust, we do not have any reason to believe
that environmental contaminants are currently likely to cause the
Morelet's crocodile to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future.
Populations currently remain stable throughout most of the species
range, and have even expanded their range in some areas. This provides
empirical evidence of the species' intrinsic resilience and
adaptability. There is no evidence that environmental contaminants
currently pose a threat to the species. Although environmental
contaminants may represent a potential threat, especially given the
potential for long-term bioaccumulation of contaminants during the
species' long reproductive life, given this species' resiliency we do
not have any data to indicate that they are likely to become a threat
in the foreseeable future.
Manmade factors that could affect the continued existence of the
Morelet's crocodile, according to CONABIO (CONABIO 2005, p. 32), were
the construction and operation of oil extraction infrastructure and
thermoelectric plants. The operation of chemical and manufacturing
industries could also become a threat if potentially toxic residual
materials are disposed of improperly. These activities, however, are
highly regulated by the Ley General de Equilibrio Ecol[oacute]gico y
Protecci[oacute]n al Ambiente (LGEEPA; General Ecological Equilibrium
and Environmental Protection Law) and the Attorney General for the
Protection of the Environment (PROFEPA). Under LGEEPA, every new
project has to fulfill strict protocols for the assessment of
environmental impacts before it can be approved.
As discussed above in the Factor D., Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms, section, the Government of Guatemala opposed the
Government of Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal based, in part, on threats
to the species from pollution in Guatemala (CITES 2010a, p. 6).
However, we do not have any information or data on the extent of the
impact, if any, that pollution may have on the Morelet's crocodile in
Guatemala.
Genetic Diversity and Integrity
At least three factors have been identified as potential threats
with respect to the Morelet's crocodile: (1) Genetic heterogeneity; (2)
hybridization; and (3) male-biased sex ratios.
Genetic Heterogeneity
Evaluation of nine microsatellite loci (highly repetitive DNA
sequences) from Morelet's crocodiles in Belize suggested a high degree
of genetic heterogeneity within local populations, relatively high
levels of migration among populations, and no evidence of a major
genetic bottleneck due to population depletion in the mid-1900s (Dever
and Densmore 2001, pp. 543-544; Dever et al. 2002, p. 1084). Population
bottlenecks are a period when a species population drops to such a low
level that many genetic lineages become extinct and genetic variation
is reduced to a few individuals, resulting in genetic homogeneity. If
severe, it can lead to inbreeding. Endangered species that do not
become extinct might expand their populations, but with limited genetic
diversity, they may not be able to adapt to changing environmental
conditions. The high degree of genetic heterogeneity found in Morelet's
crocodiles was attributed to frequent migration by individuals among
the several adjacent Morelet's crocodile populations. Ray et al. (2004,
pp. 455-457) found low levels of genetic diversity in the mitochondrial
control region of Morelet's crocodiles at 10 sites in northern Belize
and at one site each in northern Guatemala and Mexico, but these
results were inconsistent with a population bottleneck and may be
typical of crocodilian populations. Other studies of the repetitive
sequences in the mitochondrial control are ongoing in the Morelet's
crocodile and may be a useful tool for researchers investigating
population dynamics of this species (Ray and Densmore 2003, p. 1012).
Hybridization
Data suggest that some hybridization between Morelet's crocodiles
and American crocodiles has always periodically occurred in the wild in
areas where both species are sympatric, and that the hybridization is
more frequent than previously believed (Cede[ntilde]o-V[aacute]zquez et
al., 2008, pp. 666-667; Rodr[iacute]guez et al. 2008, p. 678). In fact,
Ross (2011, pers. comm.) states that ``evidence suggests that
hybridization is a long standing, quite natural situation, and likely a
stable hybrid zone of the sort described for many other species. While
it is of considerable scientific and evolutionary interest, it does not
constitute a threat to the species in its present form.''
While the first hybrids were identified in coastal areas of eastern
Belize, later studies also located hybrids in Mexico along the eastern
and northern coasts of the Yucatan Peninsula (Ray et al. 2004, p. 449;
Cede[ntilde]o-V[aacute]zquez et al. 2008, p. 661; Rodr[iacute]guez et
al. 2008, p. 674).
Hybridization involves several key issues. First, hybridization
appears to be bidirectional (males of one species with females of the
other species, and vice versa). In addition, hybrids (confirmed by
laboratory tests) do not always exhibit physical characteristics (such
as body size, shape, or coloration) that are a mixture of both species,
and they are not always readily identifiable as such in the hand.
Furthermore, F2 hybrids and backcrosses of hybrids to nonhybrids have
been reported. These circumstances hinder the field identification of
potential hybrids.
Ray et al. (2004, p. 459) stated that further assessment of genetic
contact between these two species should precede reclassification of
Morelet's crocodile under CITES, presumably because of uncertainty
regarding numbers of genetically pure individuals in Belize. While
populations of both the Morelet's crocodile and the American crocodile
suffered from the hunting pressures of the 1950s and 1960s, the
American crocodile has been slower to recover. Indeed, Ray et al.
(2004, p. 459) noted that hybridization likely represents a greater
danger to the genetic integrity of the larger but rarer American
crocodile than to the Morelet's crocodile in Belize. The Service
believes this concern bears additional investigation, but is not
sufficient to warrant continued endangered or threatened status under
the Act for the Morelet's crocodile.
One hypothetical concern about hybridization is that
supplementation of wild Morelet's crocodile populations in Mexico with
captive-bred crocodiles might affect the genetic integrity of wild
populations. While analyses of captive-bred populations have not been
published, differences in the nature and extent of genetic variation of
these populations compared with wild populations might be expected. It
is not clear if these differences, if they occur, would be significant
or important from a conservation standpoint. Furthermore, this issue
may be a moot point. Although agreements between captive-breeding
operations and the Government of Mexico require breeders to make
available up to 10 percent of their offspring for reintroduction to the
wild, or as breeding stock for other crocodile farms in the country, no
releases of captive-bred stock have occurred (Mexico 2006, p. 28). No
releases have occurred because the current total population sizes of
wild populations in Mexico, according to Mexican officials, are
sufficiently large to render releases unnecessary (CITES
[[Page 30843]]
2008, p. 23). However, accidental escapes and deliberate releases of
the Morelet's crocodile from captive-rearing units outside of the
species' natural range have occurred in wetland habitats along the
Pacific coast of Mexico. These wetland habitats are already occupied by
the naturally occurring American crocodile, and interactions between
the two crocodile species are likely (Ross 1995, p. 14). These escapes
and releases of Morelet's crocodiles may pose risks to the genetic
integrity of naturally occurring American crocodiles, but probably not
to Morelet's crocodiles. The Government of Mexico is making efforts to
diagnose potential threats to the native American crocodile caused by
hybridization with the introduced Morelet's crocodile on the Pacific
coast of Mexico. The goal of these efforts is to generate morphological
and molecular identification materials and study the population
dynamics of the American crocodile. The efforts will include monitoring
and harvest of Morelet's crocodiles and hybrids for scientific research
(CITES 2010a, p. 6).
Although hybridization between American and Morelet's crocodiles
continues to affect some local populations of the Morelet's crocodile,
the impacts appear to be very small. We have no evidence that
hybridization is currently or anticipated to significantly affect the
Morelet's crocodile throughout its range.
Male-Biased Sex Ratios
Another potential risk from supplementation of wild populations
with captive-bred Morelet's crocodiles is that of skewed sex ratios
(greater proportion of males in captive populations). Incubation
temperature affects the sex ratio of crocodilian species differently
(Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n 2006, p. 131). Like many crocodilian species,
the Morelet's crocodile exhibits temperature-dependent sex
determination. Incubation temperatures greater than about 93 [deg]F (34
[deg]C) or less than 90 [deg]F (32 [deg]C) produce females, while
temperatures between 90-93 [deg]F (32-34 [deg]C) generally produce
males (Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n 2006, p. 133; Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et
al. 2008, p. 2). Some wild populations of the Morelet's crocodile in
Belize also have greater proportions of males than females (5.3 males
per 1 female), but seem to be healthy (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000a,
p. 23). We do not have any evidence that skewed sex ratios currently
pose a threat to the species. Although skewed sex ratios may represent
a potential threat, especially given the potential for skewed sex
ratios as a result of climate change, this information is not
sufficient to be able to judge the timing of this potential, i.e., that
it will manifest within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we do not
have any information to indicate that it is likely to become a threat
in the foreseeable future.
Natural Weather Events
Natural weather can affect the Morelet's crocodile. Hurricanes or
heavy seasonal rains, for example, may pose risks to Morelet's
crocodile eggs located in nests along water channels. Flooding
associated with hurricanes or rains, however, may also provide
conservation benefits to the Morelet's crocodile by facilitating
movements of individuals across the landscape, thereby promoting gene
flow (CITES 2010a, p. 6). Furthermore, extended dry periods can result
in the temporary disappearance of ephemeral water bodies, with
concomitant increases in Morelet's crocodile densities and
intraspecific interactions at nearby sites that still have water. There
is no evidence, however, that natural weather conditions have been a
problem for the Morelet's crocodile, which has adapted to these weather
conditions. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that natural
weather events are currently likely to cause the Morelet's crocodile to
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout
all or any significant portion of its range.
Climate Change
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that
warming of the climate system is unequivocal (IPCC 2007a, p. 30) and
sea levels are expected to rise well into the foreseeable future (Bates
et al. 2008, pp. 20, 28-29). Numerous long-term changes have been
observed including changes in arctic temperatures and ice, widespread
changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns, and
aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation,
heat waves, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007b, p. 7).
Based on scenarios that do not assume explicit climate policies to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global average temperature is
projected to rise by 2-11.5 [deg]F by the end of this century (relative
to the 1980-1999 time period) (USGCRP 2011, p. 9). Species that are
dependent on specialized habitat types, limited in distribution, or
occurring already at the extreme periphery of their range will be most
susceptible to the impacts of climate change. While continued change is
certain, the magnitude and rate of change is unknown in many cases.
The information currently available on the effects of climate
change and the available climate change models do not make sufficiently
accurate estimates of location and magnitude of effects at a scale
small enough to apply to the range of the Morelet's crocodile. We do
not have any information on the projected impacts to the Morelet's
crocodile because of climate change, particularly the potential impacts
of shifting global temperatures on sex ratios. The study by Escobedo-
Galv[aacute]n et al. (2008) regarding climate change's projected
impacts to the American crocodile illustrates the possible impacts to
the Morelet's crocodile. This study, entitled ``Potential effects of
climate change on the sex ratio of crocodiles'' (Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n
et al. 2008), was presented at the February 2008 International Science
Symposium: Climate Change and Diversity in the Americas. The study
selected several areas in Florida and western Mexico that contain
American crocodiles, and used the current environmental information for
these areas to predict how increased temperatures would affect the
potential geographical distribution and sex ratios of the species in
Florida, the Caribbean, and Central America.
Based on a preliminary analysis (focusing on the geographic
distribution and sex ratios of American crocodiles in the present,
2020, and 2050), Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. (2008) postulated that
the geographic distribution and sex ratios of American crocodile
populations in different parts of the range would change in response to
temperature and sea-level parameters. Crocodiles are ectothermic,
relying on external sources of heat to regulate their body temperature.
They control their body temperature by basking in the sun, or moving to
areas with warmer or cooler air or water temperatures. Optimal growth
in crocodilians has been found to occur around 88 [deg]F (31 [deg]C),
with appetites and effective digestion diminishing below 84 [deg]F (29
[deg]C) (Brien et al. 2007, p. 15). As global temperatures increase,
areas that are currently too cool to support American and Morelet's
crocodiles may become warm enough to support them in the future.
According to Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. 2008, increased global
temperatures and sea level would benefit the American crocodile by
significantly increasing its potential habitat and distribution. Their
study predicted that the current potential distribution for the
American crocodile would expand 69 percent in 2020, and 207 percent in
2050. This is an 81 percent increase in potential distribution from
2020 to 2050
[[Page 30844]]
(Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. 2008, presentation, pp. 9-10).
The study also predicted that increased global temperatures would
have a significantly negative impact on the sex ratios of the American
crocodile. Like many other crocodilian species, both the American and
the Morelet's crocodile exhibit temperature-dependent sex
determination. The macroclimate (global climate) affects the
mesoclimate (the temperature outside of a crocodile's nest), which in
turn affects the microclimate (the temperature inside of a crocodile's
nest), which in turn determines the proportion of males to females
produced in the nest (Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. 2008, presentation,
p. 4). Incubation temperatures greater than about 93 [deg]F (34
[ordm]C) or less than 90 [deg]F (32 [ordm]C) produce females while
temperatures between 90-93 [deg]F (32-34 [ordm]C) generally produce
males (Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n 2006, p. 133; Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et
al. 2008, p. 2). Thus, the production of males is entirely dependent
upon a sustained incubation temperature range of only 3 degrees.
Incubation temperatures greater than 97 [deg]F (36 [deg]C) are at the
upper end of the tolerance range for reptile eggs and result in death
of embryos and stress to the surviving hatchlings (Escobedo-
Galv[aacute]n et al. 2008, presentation, p. 2).
According to Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. (2008), the current sex
ratio of the American crocodile favors females (based on potential
species distribution): 75 percent of the potential species distribution
has fewer males than females, 15 percent has an equal number of males
and females, and 10 percent has more males than females. The study
predicted that by 2020, the sex ratio is expected to shift in favor of
males due to increases in nest temperature as a result of climate
change: 24 percent of the potential species distribution will have
fewer males than females, 16 percent will have an equal number of males
and females, and 60 percent will have more males than females
(Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. 2008, presentation, pp. 11-12). Under
this scenario, the number of females produced will be reduced
significantly by 2020, which in turn will reduce the overall total eggs
laid in each breeding season. Of the eggs laid, more are likely to
become males, which in turn would further reduce the number of breeding
females produced over time. Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. (2008)
predicted that by 2050, American crocodiles would become extinct in
Florida, the Caribbean, or Central America (Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et
al. 2008, presentation, p. 13).
Although American crocodiles are found primarily in saline and
brackish environments, they can also be found in abandoned coastal
canals and borrow pits, and may range inland into freshwater
environments preferred by Morelet's crocodiles, such as lakes and lower
reaches of large rivers. American crocodiles are extremely adaptable in
their nesting strategy, and while they mainly nest in holes,
individuals will readily build mound nests if suitable materials are
available. American and Morelet's crocodiles have been known to lay
eggs within the same nest mound as conspecifics, suggesting a more
gregarious and tolerant demeanor (Brien et al. 2007, pp. 17-18). Sea-
level rise would significantly expand the amount of inland saline and
brackish coastal habitat available to the American crocodile, and
correspondingly decrease the amount of inland freshwater habitat
available to the Morelet's crocodile. The area of available land would
also be reduced as a result of sea-level rise, further increasing
competition between the two species for terrestrial activities such as
nesting and basking on the shoreline.
The study by Escobedo-Galv[aacute]n et al. (2008) did not provide
any information or data on the effects of climate change on the
Morelet's crocodile. Although the American crocodile and Morelet's
crocodile have overlapping ranges, similar life-history requirements,
and may lay eggs in the same nest, we do not have any evidence that
climate change currently poses a threat to the Morelet's crocodile.
Ross (2010, pers. comm.) noted that while climate change constitutes
one of the most pressing potential threats to biodiversity,
crocodilians seem the most adapted to be minimally impacted.
``Crocodilians have demonstrably survived several previous periods of
climate change comparable to current and predicted scenarios and while
they may well change distribution and experience sex ratio and
physiological effects, these seem well within the capacity of this
species. They seem likely to be one of those species that will adapt to
climate change, neither going extinct or requiring significant movement
or mitigation.'' Thus, although climate change may represent a
potential threat to the Morelet's crocodile, all indications are that
it is not likely to become a threat to this species in the foreseeable
future.
Other Potential Concerns
Other information obtained by the Service, however, suggests that
the construction and operation of dams to generate electricity could be
a conservation threat to the Morelet's crocodile (for example, the
Chalillo hydroelectric dam in Belize on the Macal River, an area
inhabited by the Morelet's crocodile) (Environment News Service 2004,
p. 1; Hogan 2008, p. 2). At the national level, six main environmental
issues affecting natural resources have been identified for Belize: (1)
High deforestation rate; (2) solid and liquid waste management issues;
(3) rising poverty rates; (4) rapid coastal development; (5)
ineffective institution and legal frameworks; and (6) oil discovery
(Young 2008, p. 18).
We do not have any information to indicate the extent of the
impact, if any, that these environmental issues may have on the
Morelet's crocodile in Belize. There is no evidence that these
environmental issues in Belize currently pose a threat to the species.
Although they may represent a potential threat, we do not have any data
to indicate that they are likely to become a threat in the foreseeable
future.
There has been some information indicating that fishing nets (for
fish and turtles) and death by drowning are threats to the Morelet's
crocodile in Guatemala, but we do not have information regarding
specific rates of injury or mortality (CITES 2008, p. 18). CONABIO
(2005, p. 27) suggested that the number of crocodiles accidentally
captured in nets in Guatemala was low, but the basis for this claim was
unclear. Platt and Thorbjarnarson (2000b, p. 27) noted that ``a limited
number of crocodiles'' drown in fish and turtle nets in northern Belize
each year. There is no evidence that fishing currently poses a threat
to the species. Although it may represent a potential threat, we do not
have any data to indicate that it is likely to become a threat in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
Few, if any, natural or manmade factors are anticipated to affect
the continued existence of the Morelet's crocodile. While natural
factors such as hurricanes and extended dry seasons (CONABIO 2005, p.
32) may affect the species, we believe that the species has evolved
with these kinds of events, and the events do not pose a threat to the
species.
Several phenomena are categorized here as other natural or manmade
factors that were considered as potentially affecting the conservation
status of the Morelet's crocodile in the foreseeable future. Our
knowledge about these factors is incomplete and uneven among the three
range countries. Environmental contaminants, especially DDE and
mercury, have been widely
[[Page 30845]]
reported for Belize. To date, however, there is no evidence of negative
effects to the Morelet's crocodile due to exposure to organochlorines
even though these contaminants have been linked to documented adverse
effects on population health in a similar species, the American
alligator.
Vitellogenin induction in males, suggesting endocrine disruption
due to environmental contamination, is predicted in Belize, but has not
been documented. These factors do not appear to pose a conservation
threat to the Morelet's crocodile in Belize at this time. Information
about environmental contaminants in Mexico and Guatemala with regard to
the Morelet's crocodile is limited. Potential environmental contaminant
issues with respect to the Morelet's crocodile probably are the least
well known in Mexico, but that country has an extensive legal framework
to resolve any problems that may develop, especially if contaminants
also become a public health issue. We do not have any information to
indicate that environmental contaminants pose a danger to the species
throughout its range. Although environmental contaminants may represent
a potential threat, especially given the potential for bioaccumulation
of contaminants during the species' long reproductive life, we do not
have any data to indicate that environmental contaminants are likely to
become a threat to the species in the foreseeable future.
Bycatch in fishing nets has been mentioned as a potential problem
in Guatemala. In Belize, a ``limited number of crocodiles'' may die or
be injured in nets (Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000b, p. 27), while
information about the potential negative effects of fishing nets on the
Morelet's crocodile in Mexico is limited. Overall, these local impacts
do not appear to have any significant impact on Morelet's crocodiles.
Although bycatch in fishing nets may represent a potential threat, we
do not have any data to indicate that it is likely to become a threat
in the foreseeable future.
Genetic diversity and integrity is a relatively complicated subject
with respect to the Morelet's crocodile, and our knowledge across the
three range countries is uneven. Studies in Belize suggest that wild
populations in that country have a high degree of genetic diversity
(Dever and Densmore 2001, pp. 543-544; Dever et al. 2002, p. 1084).
Hybridization between the Morelet's crocodile and the American
crocodile has been documented for eastern Belize and the eastern and
northern coasts of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico (Ray et al. 2004, p.
440; Cede[ntilde]o-V[aacute]zquez et al. 2008, p. 661; Rodriguez et al.
2008, p. 674). The nature and extent of genetic variation of captive-
bred populations with respect to wild populations, as well as male-
biased sex ratios, are also poorly understood issues, but potentially
important in Mexico where captive-bred individuals may eventually be
released into the wild. There is no indication, however, that the
Morelet's crocodile suffers from any genetic limitations throughout its
range.
Natural weather events do not appear to have any population-level
impacts to the Morelet's crocodile, which has evolved to thrive in this
climate. We also do not have any evidence that climate change poses a
threat to the species. Although climate change may represent a
potential threat, especially given the crocodilian requirement for
temperature dependent sex determination, we do not have any data to
indicate that climate change is likely to become a threat in the
foreseeable future.
Although some local factors continue to affect the Morelet's
crocodile, we do not have any information to indicate that these
factors are of sufficient magnitude to affect any population of the
Morelet's crocodile. In conclusion, we find that other natural and
manmade factors are not a significant factor affecting the Morelet's
crocodile throughout its range, both now and for the foreseeable
future.
Finding
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available and have determined that the Morelet's crocodile is no longer
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. When considering
the listing status of the species, the first step in the analysis is to
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become endangered throughout all of its range. For instance, if the
threats on a species are acting only on a portion of its range, but the
effects of the threats are such that they do not place the entire
species in danger of extinction or likely to become endangered, we
would not retain the entire species on the list.
In developing this final rule, we have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial data available regarding the threats facing
this species, as well as the ongoing conservation efforts by the three
range countries. This information indicates that numbers of Morelet's
crocodiles have significantly increased over the past 4 decades since
being categorized as depleted by species experts in the 1970s. In
Mexico and Belize, the species is broadly distributed geographically,
essentially occupying the entire historical range, and age classes
reflect healthy reproduction and recruitment into a wild breeding
population of about 10,000-20,000 adults (Ross 2000, p. 3; CONABIO
2005, p. 19).
We have identified a number of potential threats to the Morelet's
crocodile. Some of these potential threats may directly or indirectly
affect individual Morelet's crocodiles, while others may affect
Morelet's crocodile habitat. The contributions of these potential
threats, identified in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
sections above, are discussed in approximate descending magnitude of
impact in the foreseeable future:
(1) A continuation of wild harvest for ranching or direct export
may pose a threat to the species if the countries decide to change
course. However, if conducted in compliance with CITES, the wild
harvest would have to be non-detrimental for the specimens to enter
international trade. Our assessment of the risk associated with this
potential threat is based primarily on the demonstrated adverse effects
of past overharvest on populations. Additional monitoring programs and
adequate regulatory mechanisms would need to be established prior to
legalizing ranching. Such mechanisms would be important to prevent the
laundering of illegally harvested Morelet's crocodiles. We find that,
taken together, the currently existing protections (described above in
the Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms) are
adequate, and they will remain adequate to protect the Morelet's
crocodile and its habitat in the majority of its range now and within
the foreseeable future.
(2) The detection of organic and inorganic environmental
contaminants in Morelet's crocodile eggs in Belize indicates that
impacts from concentrations of environmental contaminants may represent
a potential threat because Morelet's crocodiles have a long lifespan
during which contaminants may bioaccumulate. However, there is no
evidence that environmental contaminants are currently affecting
populations (numbers and reproduction appear to be robust). In order to
determine that environmental contaminants may be a threat to the
Morelet's crocodile in the future, their presence in the environment
must be occurring at a level that affects the long-term population
levels over at least a significant portion of the range of the species.
We know of no ongoing monitoring of environmental contaminants anywhere
in the species'
[[Page 30846]]
range. Although 45 articles within the Mexican LGEEPA deal with
environmental contamination (CONABIO 2005, Annex 3, p. 1), we have not
received a detailed analysis of the specific provisions and their
relevance to Morelet's crocodile. We are unaware of regulatory
mechanisms governing activities that discharge environmental
contaminants that potentially affect Morelet's crocodile in Belize.
However, we do not have any data to indicate that environmental
contaminants are likely to become a threat in the foreseeable future.
(3) Although habitat loss and degradation continues to negatively
affect the habitat for some local populations of the Morelet's
crocodile, we do not have any information to indicate that it is of
sufficient magnitude to have a rangewide impact on the species to the
point that would cause the Morelet's crocodile to meet the definition
of either an endangered or a threatened species. The species'
relatively wide distribution throughout its historical range and
apparent tolerance for habitats in proximity to agriculture, grazing,
and human habitation are substantial factors mitigating these impacts
to Morelet's crocodiles over the next several decades. We anticipate
that these conditions will remain essentially the same in the
foreseeable future due to the adequate regulatory mechanisms in place
to protect suitable habitat for the Morelet's crocodile in the majority
of its range (see discussion above under the Factor D. section,
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms).
The Morelet's crocodile continues to be affected by a variety of
potential residual threats. It is likely that development, hurricanes
and other storm events, random human disturbance, fishery activities,
oil spills, and infestation by parasites will continue to impact
individual crocodiles into the future. Although these impacts are
generally expected to continue intermittently at low levels into the
foreseeable future, we do not expect these impacts to significantly
affect the Morelet's crocodile to the point that they would result in
declines in the rangewide status of the species.
Although some potential threats to the Morelet's crocodile remain
throughout its range, as discussed above, they are at a low enough
level they are not having a significant population-level or demographic
effect on Morelet's crocodile populations in Mexico and Belize; in
fact, most populations are stable and/or increasing and still occur in
their historical range. Any low-level threats occurring in Guatemala
are currently being addressed by the Guatemalan national and provincial
governments with the help of the local and international NGO community.
We do not believe, based on the best available information, that the
extent of potential threats to the species in Guatemala, even if the
extent of the potential threats increase, will cause the Morelet's
crocodile to become endangered or threatened in the future. The
government of Guatemala recognizes the importance of this and other
landscape species in the Guatemalan Maya Biosphere and are implementing
regulatory and enforcement controls to combat human encroachment, land
clearing, fires, and other illegal activities that may pose a threat to
these species. In addition, Guatemala's request to keep Guatemala's
populations of Morelet's crocodile in Appendix I attests to their
commitment to ensure trade does not affect Guatemala's wild Morelet's
crocodile populations.
The population viability analysis (PVA) conducted by Sanchez
(S[aacute]nchez 2005) suggests the probability of survival of a
population of 30,000 individuals (roughly \1/3\ of the actual
population of Morelet's crocodiles), subject to high-stress conditions,
is approximately 86 percent, and the long-term prognosis for the
survival and genetic diversity of the Morelet's crocodile throughout
its range is very good, estimating that the average time to reach the
quasi-extinction threshold of 500 individuals being 483 years
(S[aacute]nchez 2005, pp. 43-61).
A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the Act if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. The word ``range'' is used here to refer to the range in which
the species currently exists, and the word ``significant'' refers to
the value of that portion of the range being considered to the
conservation of the species.
In considering the foreseeable future as it relates to the status
of the Morelet's crocodile, we defined the ``foreseeable future'' to be
the extent to which, given the amount and substance of available data,
events or effects can and should be anticipated, or the threats
reasonably extrapolated. We considered the historical data to identify
any relevant threats acting on the species, ongoing conservation
efforts, data on species abundance and persistence at individual sites
since the time of listing, and identifiable informational gaps and
uncertainties regarding residual and emerging threats to the species,
as well as population status and trends. We then looked to see if
reliable predictions about the status of the species in response to
those factors could be drawn. We considered the historical data to
identify any relevant existing trends that might allow for reliable
prediction of the future, in the form of extrapolating the trends. We
also considered whether we could reliably predict any future events,
not yet acting on the species and, therefore, not yet manifested in a
trend, that might affect the status of the species, recognizing that
our ability to make reliable predictions into the future is limited by
the variable quantity and quality of available data. Following a range-
wide threats analysis, we evaluated whether the Morelet's crocodile is
endangered or threatened in any significant portion(s) of its range.
As required by the Act, we considered the five factors, alone and
in combination, in assessing whether the Morelet's crocodile is
endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files,
comments and information received after the publication of our 90-day
finding (71 FR 36743; June 28, 2006), comments received after the
publication of our 12-month finding and proposed rule (76 FR 23650;
April 27, 2011) and other available published and unpublished
information, and we consulted with recognized experts. We have
carefully assessed the best available scientific and commercial data
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the Morelet's
crocodile. We found that although some localized impacts to individual
Morelet's crocodiles still occur, such as habitat loss from
agricultural development, they have been reduced enough so as to not
affect the species on a population level. In addition to the five-
factor analysis, we also considered the progress made by the range
countries towards addressing previous threats to Morelet's crocodiles.
We took into consideration the conservation actions that have occurred,
are ongoing, and are planned. Since listing, the species' status has
improved because of the following:
National and international laws and treaties have
minimized the impacts of hunting and trade in wild-caught specimens.
Morelet's crocodile populations are stable or increasing.
Total population size is approximately 19,400 adults in
the three range countries.
[[Page 30847]]
Species experts now widely characterize Morelet's
crocodile populations as healthy.
The current rangewide distribution of Morelet's crocodile
now closely resembles the historical rangewide distribution.
Range countries have improved efforts to protect and
manage Morelet's crocodile habitat.
The long-term prognosis for the survival and genetic
diversity of the Morelet's crocodile throughout its range is very good.
In sum, the ongoing development and updating of management plans,
the active management of habitat, the ongoing research, and the
protections provided by laws and protected lands provide compelling
evidence that recovery actions have been and will continue to be
successful.
The primary factor that led to the listing of the Morelet's
crocodile was trade. However, the trend today is towards increasing
population sizes, with trade restricted to ``sources other than wild''
specimens only. We find that the localized impacts identified in the
three range countries, when combined with the increase in population
sizes, ongoing active research and management, and protections provided
by range countries, those impacts are not of sufficient imminence,
intensity, or magnitude to indicate that the Morelet's crocodile is
threatened with extinction now or in the foreseeable future.
Consequently, we have determined that Morelet's crocodile is no longer
endangered or threatened throughout its range.
Having determined that the Morelet's crocodile is no longer
endangered or threatened throughout its range, we must next determine
if the threats to the Morelet's crocodile are not uniformly distributed
such that populations in one portion of its range experience higher a
level of threats than populations in other portions of its range.
Significant Portion of Its Range
The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any species which is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any species which is ``likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' The definition of
``species'' is also relevant to this discussion. The Act defines
``species'' as any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any
distinct population segment [DPS] of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature. The phrase ``significant
portion of its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and we have
never addressed in our regulations either: (1) The consequences of a
determination that a species is either endangered or likely to become
so throughout a significant portion of its range, but not throughout
all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of a range as
``significant.''
For the purposes of this finding, we interpret the phrase
``significant portion of its range'' in the Act's definitions of
``endangered species'' and ``threatened species'' to provide an
independent basis for listing; thus there are two situations (or
factual bases) under which a species would qualify for listing: a
species may be endangered or threatened throughout all of its range; or
a species may be endangered or threatened in only a significant portion
of its range. If a species is in danger of extinction throughout an
SPR, then that species is an ``endangered species.'' The same analysis
applies to ``threatened species.'' Based on this interpretation and
supported by existing case law, the consequence of finding that a
species is endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of
its range is that the entire species will be listed as endangered or
threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections will be applied
across the species' entire range.
We conclude, for the purposes of this finding, that interpreting
the SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the
best interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the
purposes and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it
does not conflict with established past agency practice, as no
consistent, long-term agency practice has been established; and it is
consistent with the judicial opinions that have most closely examined
this issue. Having concluded that the phrase ``significant portion of
its range'' provides an independent basis for listing and protecting
the entire species, we next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to
determine the threshold for when such an independent basis for listing
exists.
Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the
purposes of this finding, that the significance of the portion of the
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation.
Thus, for the purposes of this finding, and as explained further below,
a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if its
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that
without that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction.
We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species
and its habitat that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance.
Redundancy (having multiple populations distributed across the
landscape) may be needed to provide a margin of safety for the species
to withstand catastrophic events. Representation (the range of
variation found in a species) ensures that the species' adaptive
capabilities are conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and representation
are not independent of each other, and some characteristic of a species
or area may contribute to all three. For example, distribution across a
wide variety of habitat types is an indicator of representation, but it
may also indicate a broad geographic distribution contributing to
redundancy (decreasing the chance that any one event affects the entire
species), and the likelihood that some habitat types are less
susceptible to certain threats, contributing to resiliency (the ability
of the species to recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is
intended to be mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range
may be determined to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under
any one or more of these concepts.
For the purposes of this finding, we determine whether a portion
qualifies as ``significant'' by asking whether without that portion,
the representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be
so impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to
threats to the point that the overall species would be in danger of
extinction (i.e., would be ``endangered''). Conversely, we would not
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger
of extinction throughout its range if the population in that portion of
the range in question became extirpated (extinct locally).
We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' (a portion of
the range of a species is ``significant'' if its contribution to the
viability of the
[[Page 30848]]
species is so important that without that portion, the species would be
in danger of extinction) establishes a threshold that is relatively
high. On the one hand, given that the consequences of finding a species
to be endangered or threatened in an SPR would be listing the species
throughout its entire range, it is important to use a threshold for
``significant'' that is robust. It would not be meaningful or
appropriate to establish a very low threshold whereby a portion of the
range can be considered ``significant'' even if only a negligible
increase in extinction risk would result from its loss. Because nearly
any portion of a species' range can be said to contribute some
increment to a species' viability, use of such a low threshold would
require us to impose restrictions and expend conservation resources
disproportionately to conservation benefit: Listing would be rangewide,
even if only a portion of the range of minor conservation importance to
the species is imperiled. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate
to establish a threshold for ``significant'' that is too high. This
would be the case if the standard were, for example, that a portion of
the range can be considered ``significant'' only if threats in that
portion result in the entire species' being currently endangered or
threatened. Such a high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent
meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton,
258 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001).
The definition of ``significant'' used in this finding carefully
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we
minimize the degree to which restrictions will be imposed or resources
expended that do not contribute substantially to species conservation.
But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase ``in a
significant portion of its range'' loses independent meaning.
Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was under the
interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders litigation.
Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would have to be so
important that current imperilment there would mean that the species
would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the definition of
``significant'' used in this finding, the portion of the range need not
rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological significance.
(We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a portion that rises
to that level of biological significance, then we should conclude that
the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of its range, and that
we would not need to rely on the SPR language for such a listing.)
Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the species would be
endangered everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were
completely extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need
not be so important that even the species being in danger of extinction
in that portion would be sufficient to cause the species in the
remainder of the range to be endangered; rather, the complete
extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the species in that portion
would be required to cause the species in the remainder of the range to
be endangered.
The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be
significant or to analyzing portions of the range in which there is no
reasonable potential for the species to be endangered or threatened. To
identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we
determine whether there is substantial information indicating that: (1)
The portions may be ``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in
danger of extinction there or likely to become so within the
foreseeable future. Depending on the biology of the species, its range,
and the threats it faces, it might be more efficient for us to address
the significance question first or the status question first. Thus, if
we determine that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do
not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened
there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened
in a portion of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion
is ``significant.'' In practice, a key part of the determination that a
species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are essentially uniform throughout
its range, no portion is likely to warrant further consideration.
Moreover, if any concentration of threats to the species occurs only in
portions of the species' range that clearly would not meet the
biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such portions will
not warrant further consideration.
After reviewing the potential threats throughout the range of the
Morelet's crocodile, we determine that there is one portion, Guatemala,
in which threats could be considered to be concentrated. However,
Guatemala comprises a small portion of the overall range of the
Morelet's crocodile. The estimated number of Morelet's crocodiles in
Guatemala is 13 percent of the potential global population estimate.
The extent of undisturbed habitat in Guatemala is estimated to be 19
percent of the total range of undisturbed habitat for the species
(CONABIO 2005, pp. 16-19).
As stated above, a portion of the range of a species is
``significant'' if it contributes to the viability of the species, and
is so important that without that portion, the species would be in
danger of extinction. Although Guatemala's commitment to the
conservation of the Morelet's crocodile and its habitat has markedly
improved, past drug trade, land grabs, the presence of human
settlements, expanding agriculture and cattle ranching, poaching,
forest fires, the oil industry, habitat fragmentation, environmental
contamination, introduction of invasive species, and an almost complete
lack of institutional control over their protected areas (IARNA URL IIA
2006, pp. 88-92) has greatly limited, Guatemala's potential
contribution to the conservation status of the species. In addition, we
have no information indicating that the Guatemala population is
genetically different from the remainder of the range, and we are
unaware of any data or information indicating that the Morelet's
crocodile in Guatemala is ecologically unusual, unique, or otherwise
significant to the species as a whole in any way. We find that if there
were a loss of the Guatemalan range, it would be unlikely to place the
remainder of the species in danger of extinction. Thus, we conclude
that Guatemala does not qualify as a significant portion of the
species' range, and therefore find that the species does not warrant
listing throughout a significant portion of its range.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Section 3(16) of the Act defines ``species'' to include any species
or subspecies of fish and wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). After assessing whether
or not the Morelet's crocodile is endangered or threatened throughout
all or a significant portion of its range, we next consider whether a
distinct vertebrate population segment (DPS) of the Morelet's crocodile
meets the definition of endangered or is likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future (threatened).
To interpret and implement the DPS provisions of the Act and
congressional
[[Page 30849]]
guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (now
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries Service)
published the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments (DPS Policy) in the Federal Register on February 7,
1996 (61 FR 4722). Under the DPS Policy, we evaluate a set of elements
in a three-step process in order to make our decision concerning the
establishment and classification of a possible DPS. These elements are
applied similarly for additions to or removals from the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
These elements include: (1) The discreteness of a population in
relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; (2) the
significance of the population segment to the taxon to which it
belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status in
relation to the Act's definitions of ``endangered'' species and
``threatened'' species.
First, the Policy requires the Service to determine that a
vertebrate population is discrete in relation to the remainder of the
taxon to which it belongs. Discreteness refers to the ability to
delineate a population segment from other members of a taxon based on
either (1) Physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors;
or (2) international governmental boundaries that result in significant
differences in control of exploitation, management, or habitat
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act--the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms.
Second, if we determine that the population is discrete under one
or more of the discreteness conditions, then a determination is made as
to whether the population is significant to the larger taxon to which
it belongs in light of Congressional guidance (see Senate Report 151,
96th Congress, 1st Session) that the authority to list a DPS be used
``sparingly and only when the biological evidence indicates that such
action is warranted.'' In carrying out this examination, we consider
available scientific evidence of the population's importance to the
taxon to which it belongs. This consideration may include, but is not
limited to the following: (1) The persistence of the population segment
in an ecological setting that is unique or unusual for the taxon; (2)
evidence that loss of the population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside of its historical range; and (4) evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics from other populations of the
species. The Service may determine that a population segment is
significant to the taxon to which it belongs based on sufficiently
strong evidence with respect to any one of these considerations.
Lastly, if we determine that a population segment is significant to
the taxon to which it belongs based on these considerations, then the
policy requires an analysis of the population segment's conservation
status in relation to the Act's definitions of ``endangered species''
and ``threatened species.''
Discreteness
The first step in our DPS analysis for the Morelet's crocodile was
to determine whether there were any populations of the Morelet's
crocodile that were discrete in relation to the remainder of the taxon
to which it belongs. Under the DPS Policy, a population segment of a
vertebrate taxon may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one
of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon because of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or
(2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act--the inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms. Recognition of international
boundaries when they coincide with differences in the management,
status, or exploitation of the species under the Act is consistent with
CITES, which recognizes international boundaries for these same
reasons. CITES is implemented in the United States by the Act.
Physical, Physiological, Ecological, or Behavioral Factors
We do not have any data or information to indicate that there are
any physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral facts that
separate any populations of the Morelet's crocodile. The historical
distribution of the Morelet's crocodile comprised the eastern coastal
plain of Mexico, most of the Yucatan Peninsula, Belize, and northern
Guatemala (Hurley 2005, p. 1), with an estimated historical
distribution covering 173,746 mi\2\ (450,000 km\2\) (Sigler and
Dom[iacute]nguez Laso 2008, pp. 11-12). The Morelet's crocodile is a
wide-ranging species that occurs primarily in freshwater environments
such as lakes, swamps, and slow-moving rivers. This species of
crocodile can temporarily inhabit intermittent freshwater bodies such
as flooded savannahs and is occasionally observed in brackish coastal
lagoons (Villegas 2006, p. 8).
We do not have any data or information to indicate that any
populations of the Morelet's crocodile exhibit genetic or morphological
discontinuity that may indicate that they are a separate population.
Although we do not have any data or information on the dispersal
strategies for the Morelet's crocodile that would indicate a population
may be discrete, we have no evidence to suggest that there are barriers
that would prevent the Morelet's crocodile from dispersing within its
known range. The current rangewide distribution of the Morelet's
crocodile closely mirrors the historical rangewide distribution, and
there is a large amount of high-quality habitat available. Therefore,
we have no evidence suggesting that the Morelet's crocodile is isolated
in any part of its range.
International Differences in Species' Conservation Status
As discussed above in the Factor D section, Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms, all three range countries are Parties to CITES.
In addition, data and information available to the Service indicates
that all three range countries have federally protected-species and
protected-areas legislation under the jurisdiction of specific
ministries or departments that control activities that affect the
Morelet's crocodile and its habitat. Mexico's Federal legal framework
is particularly robust. The CITES National Legislation Project (http://
www.CITES.org) deemed both Mexico and Guatemala's national legislation
as Category 1, meeting all the requirements to implement CITES. Belize
is currently considered to be Category 3 (not meeting the requirements
for implementing CITES), but has submitted to CITES a national
legislation plan and draft of legislation, which, if adopted, may
qualify Belize as Category 1.
Based on current data and information available to the Service, the
Governments of Mexico, Guatemala, and
[[Page 30850]]
Belize appear to be adequately enforcing their respective legal
frameworks, both at the federal level and under CITES. Mexico and
Belize contain the majority of wild Morelet's crocodiles (87 percent)
and the majority of the potentially suitable habitat (81 percent)
throughout the species' range. Because of this adequate enforcement,
the majority of the threats to the species and its habitat have been
eliminated in Mexico and Belize. Although some residual threats remain,
these threats have been reduced to a low enough level that they are not
having significant population level or demographic effects.
In contrast, based on data and information available to the
Service, it appears that in the past, the Government of Guatemala was
not able to enforce adequately their legal framework to protect the
Morelet's crocodile and its habitat in Guatemala. The lack of funding
and personnel made enforcement of Guatemala's legal framework
especially challenging. Conservation actions were often overwhelmed by
slow economic development, high levels of poverty, unequal land
distribution, a highly segmented society, and the effects of more than
three decades of civil war (Birner et al. 2005, pp. 285, 292).
For example, ParkWatch (2003) noted that a designation as a
national park or important wetland conservation area in Guatemala does
not necessarily afford protection to the Morelet's crocodile or its
habitat. The Laguna del Tigre National Park, located in Pet[eacute]n
region of Guatemala, is home to the largest population of Morelet's
crocodiles in Guatemala. The park was considered by ParkWatch as
critically threatened due to drug trade, land grabs, the presence of
human settlements, expanding agriculture and cattle ranching, poaching,
forest fires, the oil industry, and an almost complete lack of
institutional control over the area (ParksWatch 2003, pp. 1, 11).
However, by 2004, ParksWatch stated that the staff at Laguna del Tigre
had doubled in size since their 2003 report. Seventy-three park
rangers, 10 archeological site guards, and 96 Army personnel were hired
to staff the park and since the increase in staffing, both the park and
the biotope are ``constantly patrolled.'' In addition, the Wildlife
Conservation Society continued its ``Biodiversity Conservation at a
Landscape Scale'' program (with USAID) for Guatemala and has provided a
comprehensive plan with specific goals to preserve and protect wildlife
in the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala through conserving wildlife
species and their habitat, while maintaining the economic productivity
of renewable natural resources. They are fulfilling these goals by
establishing specific parameters: ``to develop adaptive and
participatory strategy to reduce threats to wildlife in the MBR; to
develop, implement, and monitor sustainable mechanisms to reduce
threats to wildlife and ecosystems across the MBR landscape; to learn
and teach best management practices for the conservation of the MBR and
beyond; and to guide, design, and test wildlife-focused planning'' (WCS
2008, p. 3). These efforts were endorsed by the president of Guatemala
through his office's attendance at the Mesa Multisectorial roundtable
discussion held in Guatemala in 2009.
Many outstanding accomplishments have been achieved in Guatemala in
terms of biodiversity conservation (IARNA URL IIA 2006, p. 22), and
efforts to achieve desired levels of environmental management are
ongoing. In August 2010, the president of Guatemala announced that he
is deploying 250 soldiers to recover fully all the protected zones of
El Pet[eacute]n in the Laguna del Tigre section of the MBR. This
``Green Battalion'' was deployed specifically to protect the Laguna del
Tigre National Park and to work jointly with the National Civil Police
and the Attorney General's Office to combat drug trafficking and the
illegal harvest of natural resources and archaeological sites of that
region of the MBR (Latin American Herald Tribune, December 6, 2010).
Additional help from WCS and USAID includes establishing over-flights
to monitor fires, locating illegal settlements, and notifying the
national and provincial governments (as well as the national media) of
illegal activities. These efforts have resulted in additional personnel
added to parks, removal of settlements, consistent patrols and
cessation of illegal activities, and educating locals and
concessionaires on best management practices for sustainable use of
forest products.
Casta[ntilde]eda Moya (1998a, p. 521; 1998b, p. 13) listed illegal
hunting as a threat to Morelet's crocodile in the Pet[eacute]n region
of Guatemala (CITES 2010a), but did not provide a numerical estimate of
the take. ARCAS, an animal welfare group in Guatemala, reported the
rescue or recovery of 49 live individuals (about 8 per year), most
likely from pet dealers or private individuals, during the period 2002-
2007 (ARCAS 2002, p. 3; 2003, p. 2; 2004, p. 2; 2005, p. 2; 2006, p. 3;
2007, p. 3).
The Government of Guatemala acknowledged these issues when it
opposed Mexico's 2010 CITES proposal to transfer the Morelet's
crocodile from Appendix I to Appendix II throughout its range (See
Factor D. Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms, Mexico's Proposal To
Transfer the Morelet's Crocodile to CITES Appendix II. As a result of
the Government of Guatemala's past inability to adequately enforce
their legal framework, the Morelet's crocodile in Guatemala may be
still subject to some illegal hunting and some destruction of habitat
due to previous human encroachment. This constitutes a difference in
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms that is significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) of the Act.
We have determined, based on the best available data and
information, that the population of Morelet's crocodiles in Guatemala
is discrete due to the significant difference in the control of
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms between international boundaries. Therefore, we have
determined that the Guatemala population of the Morelet's crocodile
meets the requirements of our DPS Policy for discreteness.
Significance
Having determined that the population of Morelet's crocodiles in
Guatemala is discrete under one or more of the discreteness conditions
described in the DPS Policy, we determined whether the population in
Guatemala is significant. We evaluate its biological and ecological
significance based on ``the available scientific evidence of the
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it
belongs'' (61 FR 4722). We make this evaluation in light of
congressional guidance that the Service's authority to list a DPS be
used ``sparingly.'' As precise circumstances are likely to vary
considerably from case to case, the DPS Policy does not describe all
the classes of information that might be used in determining the
biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However,
the DPS Policy describes four possible classes of information that
provide evidence of a population segment's biological and ecological
importance to the taxon to which it belongs. As specified in the DPS
Policy (61 FR 4722), consideration of the population segment's
significance may include, but is not limited to the following: (1)
Persistence of the population segment in an ecological setting that is
unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon; (3) evidence that the population
[[Page 30851]]
segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon
that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside
of its historical range; and (4) evidence that the discrete population
segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its
genetic characteristics.
Persistence in a Unique Ecological Setting
As stated in the DPS Policy, occurrence in an unusual ecological
setting may be an indication that a population segment represents a
significant resource warranting conservation under the Act (61 FR
4724). In considering whether the population occupies an ecological
setting that is unusual or unique for the taxon, we evaluate whether
the habitat includes unique features not used by the taxon elsewhere
and whether the habitat shares many features common to the habitats of
other populations. As stated above, the Morelet's crocodile is a wide-
ranging species that occurs primarily in freshwater environments such
as lakes, swamps, and slow-moving rivers. This species of crocodile can
temporarily inhabit intermittent freshwater bodies such as flooded
savannahs and is occasionally observed in brackish coastal lagoons
(Villegas 2006, p. 8). All 3 of the Morelet's crocodile's range
countries have similar freshwater habitats utilized by this species. We
do not have any evidence to indicate that the Guatemala population of
the Morelet's crocodile occurs in habitat that includes unique features
not used by the taxon elsewhere in its range. Morelet's crocodile
habitat in the Laguna del Tigre National Park consists of flooded
savannahs and marshes that are typical of the species' habitat
throughout its range. Therefore, we conclude that the discrete
population of Morelet's crocodiles in Guatemala is not ``significant''
because of persistence in a unique or unusual ecological setting.
Significant Gap in the Taxon's Range
As stated in the DPS Policy, evidence that loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a
taxon is potentially an indication that a population segment represents
a significant resource warranting conservation under the Act (61 FR
4724). As the Ninth Circuit has stated, ``[t]he plain language of the
second significance factor does not limit how a gap could be
important'' (National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Norton, 340 F.3d 835,
846 (9th Cir. 2003)). Thus, we considered a variety of ways in which
the loss of the Guatemala population of the Morelet's crocodile might
result in a significant gap in the range of species. Namely, we
considered whether Guatemala contributed to the resiliency, redundancy,
or representation of the taxon's range. As stated previously in the
Significant Portion of its Range analysis, the Service concluded that
due to the small size of the Guatemalan portion of the Morelet's
crocodile's range and the small population size of the species in
Guatemala, its overall contribution to the species was limited. While
Guatemala has regulatory mechanisms in place to protect their national
parks, it appears that until recently, the government was unable to
enforce them adequately. Although Guatemala has conserved several areas
of the Morelet's crocodile's range, past threats limited this
population's contribution to the species (IARNA URL IIA 2006, pp. 88-
92).
The Morelet's crocodile in Guatemala does not significantly
contribute to the resiliency, redundancy, or representation of the
species or its range, including, but not limited to, the size of the
range, habitat quality, habitat variability, or genetic uniqueness. The
majority of the species' range occurs in Mexico and Belize, which
contain the majority of all wild Morelet's crocodiles (87 percent) and
the majority of the potentially suitable habitat throughout the
species' range (81 percent). Guatemala is surrounded to the east by
Belize, and the north and west by Mexico. It is the southernmost range
of the species, which resides primarily in the northern part of the
country. Guatemala shares several rivers with the other range
countries, including but not limited to, the Rio San Pedro, Rio
Pasi[oacute]n, and the Rio Ixc[aacute]n with Mexico, and the Rio
Mop[aacute]n with Belize. All 3 countries share the Rio Azule. Because
they move throughout these river systems, should a discrete population
segment of Morelet's crocodiles in Guatemala decrease for any reason
(which we have concluded is unlikely), then it is likely that Morelet's
crocodiles in Mexico and Belize, where 87 percent of the species exist,
could expand their range and recolonize any potential habitat in
Guatemala. Finally, in spite of Guatemala's recent successes in
mitigating localized threats to Morelet's crocodile habitat,
Guatemala's biological contribution to the conservation status of the
species is limited, due to past impacts from the drug trade, land
grabs, the presence of human settlements, expanding agriculture and
cattle ranching, poaching, forest fires, the oil industry, habitat
fragmentation, environmental contamination, introduction of invasive
species, and lack of institutional control over their protected areas.
Thus, we have determined that, although the loss of a discrete
population segment in Guatemala may create a gap, we conclude that such
a loss would not create a significant gap in the range of the species.
Natural Occurrence of a Taxon Abundant Elsewhere as an Introduced
Population
As stated in the DPS Policy, evidence that the population segment
represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be
more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside of its
historical range may be an indication that a population segment
represents a significant resource warranting conservation under the Act
(61 FR 4724). This element does not apply to the Morelet's crocodile in
Guatemala. The Guatemala population of the Morelet's crocodile does not
represent the only surviving natural occurrence of the Morelet's
crocodile throughout the range of the taxon. After the protections of
the Act and CITES were put in place in the 1970s, populations of
Morelet's crocodiles increased and expanded their range naturally over
time to the point that they have recovered and are now found in all
areas of their historical range.
Marked Differences in Genetic Characteristics
As stated in the DPS Policy, evidence that a discrete population
segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its
genetic characteristics may be an indication that a population segment
represents a significant resource warranting conservation under the Act
(61 FR 4724).
Genetic diversity and integrity is a relatively complicated subject
with respect to the Morelet's crocodile, and our knowledge across the
three range countries is uneven. The genetic data we do have are with
respect to hybridization between Morelet's crocodiles and American
crocodiles. Thus, we have no information indicating that the Guatemala
population is markedly different from the remainder of the range
Summary of Significance
First, we do not have any data or information to indicate that the
Guatemala population of the Morelet's crocodile occurs in habitat that
includes unique features not used by the taxon elsewhere in its range.
Morelet's crocodile habitat in the Laguna del Tigre
[[Page 30852]]
National Park consists of flooded savannahs and marshes that are
typical of the species' habitat throughout its range. Second, we
conclude that based on Guatemala's limited biological contribution to
the range of the species, the loss of Morelet's crocodiles in 13
percent of their range would not constitute a significant gap in the
range of the species, due to the loss of a population that is
ecologically unusual, unique, or otherwise significant to the species
as a whole in any way (for example, in terms of species or habitat), or
that contributes substantially to the representation, resiliency, or
redundancy of the species. Third, the Guatemala population of the
Morelet's crocodile does not represent the only surviving natural
occurrence of the Morelet's crocodile throughout the range of the
taxon. Finally, the Guatemala population of the Morelet's crocodile
does not have any genetic characteristics that are markedly different
from Morelet's crocodiles elsewhere in the range of the taxon.
Therefore, based on the information available to the Service, we
conclude that the discrete population of Morelet's crocodiles in
Guatemala does not meet the requirements under our DPS Policy for
significance.
Based on the best available data and information, we conclude that
the Guatemala population of the Morelet's crocodile meets the
requirements of our DPS Policy for discreteness, but does not meet the
requirements of our DPS policy for significance in relation to the
remainder of the taxon (i.e., Morelet's crocodiles in Mexico and
Belize). The population of Morelet's crocodiles in Guatemala is
discrete due to the significant difference in the control of
exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms between international boundaries. This difference is
evidenced by the fact that Morelet's crocodiles in Guatemala remain
listed under Appendix I of CITES, while those in Mexico and Belize were
downgraded to Appendix II. The discrete population of Morelet's
crocodiles in Guatemala does not meet the requirements of our DPS
policy for significance because it: (1) Does not occur in habitat that
includes unique features not used by the taxon elsewhere in its range;
(2) would not constitute a significant gap in the range of the species
due to the loss of a population that contributes substantially to the
representation, resiliency, or redundancy of the species; (3) does not
represent the only surviving natural occurrence of the Morelet's
crocodile throughout the range of the taxon; and (4) does not have any
genetic characteristics that are markedly different from Morelet's
crocodiles elsewhere in the range of the taxon. Therefore, we conclude
that the population of the Morelet's crocodile in Guatemala is not a
DPS pursuant to our DPS Policy and, therefore, is not a listable entity
under section 3(16) of the Act.
Effects of This Final Rule
This final rule revises our regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h) by
removing the Morelet's crocodile throughout its range from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Our regulations do not
authorize designating critical habitat in areas outside of the United
States. Specifically, our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(h) specify that
critical habitat shall not be designated within foreign countries or in
other areas outside of U.S. jurisdiction. Because no critical habitat
was ever designated for this species, this rule will not affect 50 CFR
17.95.
The prohibitions and conservation measures provided by the Act,
particularly through section 9, will no longer apply after the
effective date of this rule (see DATES, above). This rulemaking,
however, does not affect the protection given to the Morelet's
crocodile under CITES. Delisting under the Act allows U.S. import, re-
export, and commercial activity in Morelet's crocodiles and their parts
and products originating from any country, including the three range
countries, provided that the requirements of 50 CFR part 13 (General
Permit Procedures), 50 CFR part 14 (Importation, Exportation, and
Transportation of Wildlife) and 50 CFR part 23 (CITES) have been met.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior,
through the Service, to implement a system in cooperation with the
States to monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species
that are removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12) due to recovery. This monitoring
requirement is to ensure prevention of significant risk to the well-
being of recovered species.
Species monitoring is also called for under CITES. CITES Resolution
Conf. 9.24 (Rev. CoP 15) provides criteria for including species under
CITES Appendices I and II. Through the resolution, the parties have
resolved that the status of species included in Appendices I and II
should be regularly reviewed by the range countries and proponents, in
collaboration with the CITES Animals Committee or Plants Committee, in
order to monitor the effectiveness of CITES protections, subject to the
availability of funds (CITES 2007a, p. 3).
At the international level, perhaps the most important ongoing
conservation effort for the Morelet's crocodile is the agreement by the
three range countries to develop and implement the Belize-Guatemala-
Mexico Tri-national Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Morelet's Crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii) (Estrategia
Tri-nacional Belice-Guatemala-M[eacute]xico para la Conservaci[oacute]n
y el Manejo Sostenible del Cocodrilo de Morelet (Crocodylus moreletii)
(Tri-national Strategy) (S[aacute]nchez 2006).
This initiative began in June 2001, at Laguna del Tigre National
Park, Pet[eacute]n, Guatemala, when representatives of the three
countries met to discuss matters of mutual interest. A follow-up
meeting attended by about 25 species experts and government officials
from all three range countries took place in April 2006 (Mexico City,
Mexico). Two working groups were formed: (1) Technical and Scientific
Matters; and (2) Administration, Management, and Uses. Group members
discussed technical issues for 2 days, and generated a series of
products, commitments, and agreements. The first group produced or
agreed to compile a series of documents, including distribution maps,
survey techniques, scientific literature, and databases (e.g.,
geographic information system). The second group agreed to work toward
a regional assessment of the conservation status of the Morelet's
crocodile, as well as development and implementation of regional
actions to improve the conservation status of the species
(institutional capacity building, project development and
implementation, and development of a regional captive-breeding
program). The final product of the workshop was the development of
``Estrategia Regional para el Manejo y la Conservaci[oacute]n del
Cocodrilo de Morelet (Crocodylus moreletii) (Regional Strategy for the
Management and Conservation of the Morelet's Crocodile) (Regional
Strategy), found on pp. 43-53 of the Tri-national Strategy document
(Sanchez 2006). This Regional Strategy outlines a series of objectives,
products, and working protocols to accomplish the goals of the Tri-
national Strategy. As these tasks are completed, they will
significantly enhance the conservation status of the Morelet's
crocodile.
According to S[aacute]nchez Herrera and [Aacute]lvarez-Romero
(2006), as a result of this initiative, the three range countries have
agreed to implement the Regional
[[Page 30853]]
Strategy, which also includes monitoring the species. The three range
countries plan to implement the Regional Strategy by:
(1) Conducting population surveys in defined priority areas using
systematic and coordinated monitoring, with standardized fieldwork
methods and techniques.
(2) Developing a shared biological and geographical information
system.
(3) Identifying priority areas and routes for conservation and
surveillance, along with those for future potential for ranching.
(4) Supporting and developing educational programs and outreach
materials.
(5) Promoting personnel training and experience exchange, including
field techniques and surveillance.
(6) Promoting species-friendly production projects such as closed-
cycle farms (and eventually future ranching), along with the
development of a legal regional market and a certification strategy for
Morelet's crocodile products.
(7) Raising funds in support of the activities and tasks outlined
in the Strategy (S[aacute]nchez Herrera and [Aacute]lvarez-Romero 2006,
p. 263).
In 2003, CONABIO requested the Natural History and Ecology
Institute of Chiapas (IHNE) to develop a study on ``Determination of
the status of the wild populations of the Morelet's crocodile
(Crocodylus moreletii) in Mexico and evaluation of its status in
CITES'' (called the CoPan Project) (CITES 2010a). The Government of
Mexico is making efforts to design and implement a countrywide
monitoring program for the populations and habitat of the Morelet's
crocodile, including the possibility of involving Belize and Guatemala.
The aim is to build on the experiences and results of the CoPan Project
and the suggestions made at the 23rd meeting of the CITES Animals
Committee (Geneva, April 2008, see the Animals Committee summary record
labeled as document AC23) to obtain better information about the status
and trends of relevant populations of the species and their habitat.
The program will be developed in the framework of the Tri-national
Strategy (CITES 2010a, p. 9). The Government of Mexico has established
contacts with the Governments of Belize and Guatemala as part of the
Tri-National Strategy (CITES 2008, p. 32).
Stage 1 of the project is currently under way. It aims to develop a
preliminary design of the program, considering relevant areas in the
range of the species. Ideally, areas could be selected in the three
countries, based on the COPAN Project and subsequent studies. The
design was reviewed and assessed in a 2010 workshop involving species
experts and authorities, who agreed upon on the most appropriate
methods and define time intervals, routes/localities and variables to
take into account for crocodiles and their habitat. A manual was
developed to ensure the effectiveness of fieldwork and training of
staff. This stage also includes the design of a database where
information will be organized and centralized (CITES 2010a, p. 9).
To date, the preliminary design proposes a monitoring effort with
biannual sampling throughout the range of the species, with
observations made in at least three routes per defined region (e.g., 12
regions in Mexico) using nighttime counts. In addition, one of the
three routes per region will be selected for capture-mark-recapture of
individuals and standard data/sample collection, as well as nest
location and monitoring. Information obtained will make it possible to
estimate relative abundance indices to detect variations in the
population in time; determine the sex and age ratio and the general
status and activity of individuals; and obtain data on the reproductive
effort and success of the species, and on habitat critical for breeding
(CITES 2010a, pp. 9-10).
Stage 2 will be implemented once the monitoring program has been
published. It will consist of implementing the actions decided,
including setting up and training the field teams; signing the relevant
cooperation agreements; carrying out field work, and developing the
database. Information stored in the database will be periodically
analyzed to produce estimates of the population and its trends in the
short, medium, and long term (CITES 2010a, pp. 9-10) (CITES 2010a, p.
10).
In Belize, Dr. Frank Mazzotti (University of Florida) is
collaborating with the Belize Forestry Department to develop a national
crocodile management program (The Croc Docs 2009, pp. 1-8). This
project seeks to develop, in collaboration with the Lamanai Field
Research Center, a monitoring program for these species. Along with the
monitoring program, the project will develop a training program for
government and nongovernment personnel in Belize so that the monitoring
program can be maintained. This long-term program has great potential
to provide ongoing conservation benefits to the Morelet's crocodile in
Belize. However, recent information suggests that little progress has
been made for this monitoring program in Belize, and it is currently in
the process of being reactivated.
The Act requires the Service to monitor the status of the species
in cooperation with the States. The Act defines the term ``State'' as
``any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.'' For species found entirely outside
of the United States and therefore outside the areas defined as a
``State'' under the Act, we must cooperate with the species' range
countries to meet the post-delisting monitoring requirements of the Act
to ensure that the species will maintain its recovered status
throughout its range after the protections of Act are removed. As the
species experts, the range countries are best qualified to develop and
implement a range-wide post-delisting monitoring plan for their
species. When this rule becomes effective (see DATES, above), and the
Morelet's crocodile is delisted under the Act, we will work with the
range countries to monitor the status of the species throughout its
range via the range countries' implementation of the existing
monitoring requirements under CITES, the Tri-national Strategy, the
Belizean monitoring program discussed above, and any additional
monitoring plans that may be developed in the future.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint peer review policy with the National
Marine Fisheries Service, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy
for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' that was
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and
the Office of Management and Budget's Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review, dated December 16, 2004, we sought the expert
opinions of six independent specialists regarding the science in this
rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that listing,
reclassification, and delisting decisions are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We sent copies of the April 27,
2011, proposed rule to the peer reviewers immediately following
publication in the Federal Register. We invited these peer reviewers to
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions
and conclusions in the proposed delisting of the Morelet's crocodile.
Although we solicited peer review from 6 peer reviewers, only 2
responded. We summarized the opinions of these 2 reviewers in this
final rule, and considered their input and any additional information
we received as
[[Page 30854]]
part of our process of making this final decision.
Required Determinations
Clarity of Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must: (a) Be logically
organized; (b) Use the active voice to address readers directly; (c)
Use clear language rather than jargon; (d) Be divided into short
sections and sentences; and (e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us page numbers and the names of
the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections
or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables
would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or environmental impact statement, as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
References Cited
A complete list of the references used to develop this rule is
available upon request from the Endangered Species Program in our
Headquarters office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise
noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Crocodile,
Morelet's'' under ``REPTILES'' from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife.
Dated: May 11, 2012.
Daniel M. Ashe,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-12263 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P