Scientists Debate Global Warming

Enviro-Watch: "Climate Change 1995" Scandals Charged
by Judy Franklin On Wings Dec 1996 Vol 2:12

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in an effort to assess the scientific, environmental and socio-economic impacts of climate change, so-called 'global warming', and to develop methodology to address the problem. The IPCC seeks to evaluate the influence of human activities on the world climate.

The UN sponsored panel is made up of government scientists, but also includes several hundred academic researchers and scientists from around the globe. The panel has published reports on the state of climate change in 1990, 1992, 1994, and a 1995 IPCC report, which was published in 1996. Not all the scientists on the panel share the same views; a number of `scientific skeptics', global warming as the 'empirical equivalent of the Easter Bunny', are represented in the group. The numbers of these skeptics have increased markedly in recent years.

Even as far back as the 1992 Earth Summit, when a group of several hundred scientists released the "Heidelberg Appeal", there has been controversy about global warming. The Heidelberg Appeal, which warned Earth Summit participants not to be stampeded by hyped stories of impending global disaster, has now been signed by over 4,000 scientists worldwide, among them some seventy Nobel Prize winners.

More recently, the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change has been signed by over one hundred scientists from all over the world. It reads as follows:

     "As scientists, we - along with our fellow citizens - are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate; indeed, land clearing and urban growth have been changing local climates for centuries. Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs - with warmer periods, such as the medieval "climate optimum, playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. For these reasons we must always remain sensitive to activities that could affect future climate.

    Attention has recently been focused on the increasing emission of "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere. International discussions by political leaders are currently underway that could con-strain energy use and mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change, we believe this approach may be dangerously simplistic. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called "scientific consensus" that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions.


    As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that - contrary to conventional wisdom 'there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. And to match this fact, the mathematical models are becoming more realistic and are forecasting temperature increases that are only thirty per cent of what was considered the "best" value just four years ago.
    We consider the Global Climate Treaty concluded in Rio de Janiero at the 1992 "Earth Summit" to be unrealistic; its goal is stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which requires that fuel use be cut by 60-80 per cent worldwide! Energy is essential for all economic growth, and fossil fuels provide today's' principal global energy source. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider "carbon taxes" and other drastic control policies - lacking credible support from the underlying science - to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive. This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on November 9- 10, 1995, under the sponsorship of the Prime Minister of the State of Saxony. For further information, contact Europaeische Akademie fuer Umwelragen (fax +49-7071- 72939) or the Science and Environmental Policy Project in Fairfax, Virginia (fax 703-352- 7535)."

Now the 1995 report has become the center of controversy and scandal within the scientific community recently, as lack of scientific consensus has given way to allegations of a lack of correspondence between the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers (relied upon for the facts by government representatives, and essentially a political document) and the scientific report upon which it is based. Even more shocking are assertions that certain unauthorized alterations had been made in the 1995 report after it had been accepted by the members in peer review, and prior to its printing in 1996. More than 15 sections in Chapter Eight, the chapter setting forth scientific evidence for and against accepted global warming theory, were changed or deleted— after scientists had signed off on the final text.

Three important clauses that had been in the final draft of Chapter Eight of the document, and had been approved by the authors, contributors and reviewers as representative of the panel's best scientific judgment on global warming, were deleted. The changes in the document were not minor; they served to remove any indication of the 'skepticism' which many of the scientists feel regarding the effect of human activities on climate change. The clauses read as follows:

  "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

  "No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of the climate change observed to date) to anthropogenic (man-made) causes."

 "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

Frederick Seitz, in a June 12, 1996 Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal is highly critical of the alleged intellectual tampering. "In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

Many scientists believe the deleted clauses not only should have remained in the IPCC report, but should have been included in the summary as reflecting current best scientific judgment. They point out that at least two-thirds of the global warming this century has occurred before 1940 — that is, before the great perceived increase in greenhouse gases.
Second, the period spanning the years 1940 through 1975 was a period of cooling, not warming. And finally, satellite data for the last eighteen years have shown no warming whatsoever.

In 1992, the "Earth Summit" was held in Rio. There, world leaders including George Bush were pressed to sign the U.N. Convention on Climate Change, the so-called Global Climate Treaty, which was ratified by the US Senate in 1993. The treaty groups member countries into industrialized, or Annex I countries, and developing countries, or non-annex I countries. Annex I countries such as the United States are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

The controversial and oft-criticized Berlin mandate was agreed to by the parties in 1995. That agreement allowed non-Annex countries, after the year 2000, to avoid binding new commitments, while committing Annex I countries to legally binding, time constrained, emissions limitation programs. That is, emissions limitations must be met by industrialized countries only.

Senator Jesse Helms criticized the U.S. support of the Mandate on economic grounds: "The U.S. position turns basic principles of sound economic policy on its head since it directs industrialized countries to subsidize developing countries by polluting less while incurring higher costs so that developing countries can pollute more without incurring costs."

Furthermore, an Australian Government study, "Global Climate Change: Economic Dimensions of a Cooperative International Policy Response Beyond 2000" noted that stabilizing carbon dioxide levels to 1990 1evels in industrialized countries only "would lead to minimal reductions in global emissions and would have higher costs for most countries than alternative abatement strategies."

Meetings were held this past July in Geneva, where delegates discussed the implementation of Article 2 of the Global Climate Treaty, and timetables for reducing the emission of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Most delegates there had had access only to the Policy Maker's Summary of "Climate Change 1995", and could not have been expected to be aware of the controversy surrounding its predictions. Neither could delegates have been expected to recognize that the report's alterations would have a profound effect on prescriptions for policy changes in the future. No exception was the United States' Tim Worth, Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs.

Worth had previously assured scientists that the United States had no intention of adopting a policy of legally binding goals and timetables for the control of greenhouse emissions, to replace the current and voluntary Climate Action Plan in place since 1994. They were surprised then, when the July 25 issue of Nature quoted Worth as saying that "the administration has been working on this policy for more than a year." At the Geneva meeting, he declared, perhaps based on the arguably flawed Policymaker's Summary.  The science calls on us to take urgent action."

A group of scientists have signed a letter to Worth, chastising him for this abrupt shift. "We are naturally dismayed to find that you have changed your position in spite of your previous assurances -- and without giving a considered hearing to opposing views from scientists or from consumer and industry groups likely to be affected by such policies. We hope the Congress will provide such a forum before far-reaching and eco¬nomically disastrous policies, like energy taxes or rationing, are imposed on the American public," read the letter signed by Henry Linden, Ph.D., of Illinois Institute of Technology; William' Nierenberg, Ph.D., director emeritus of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography; Frederick Seitz, Ph.D.; S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia, and Chauncey Starr, Ph.D., of the Electrical Power Research Institute.

Comments Roger Bate, director of the IEA Environment Unit and a member of Wolfson College, Cambridge, "Policy can-not be made on science alone; the world cannot be run as a rational machine. But if policy is to be based upon science at all, then this science must be sound.... The way in which the normal procedural rules governing the publishing of scientific documents were flouted by the editors of the IPCC report leads one to suspect that the science upon which the report is based is not sound science, and hence, that its policy recommendation would not constitute sound policy."

Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana defended the IPCC, however, claiming that "there is not a shred of evidence of misconduct by any of the scientists involved."

The Congress has for years attempted to deal with environmental issues by throwing more and money at perceived problems. According to a GAO study, in the period from 1993 to 1995, Federal Agencies of the United States have spent almost $700 million on global climate change related spending. This amounts to almost 70 per cent of all US spending for environmental treaties

Congressman Clifford Stearns of Florida has called for a more common sense approach: Eco-Sanity. Comments Congressman Stearns, "Spending on environmental protection in the United States is greater both in dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product than it has ever been before, also considerably higher than spending in many other countries. Our biggest problem is that it is in the politics . . . What then is the biggest barrier to improving environmental protection? Mr. Speaker, I think it is the environmental movement itself. More specifically, I believe that the lack of understanding and critical thinking on the part of most environmentalists has compromised the movement's ability to be an effective force for real true environmental protection."

During hearings of the Senate Energy Committee in September, Alaska Senator Frank Murkowski raised serious questions about the administration's support of global climate change negotiations in general, and on the possibility or advisability of a 'carbon tax' in particular. Such 'green taxes' are already in effect in certain areas around the world. Taxes are imposed on sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxides in Sweden; the Netherlands imposes taxes on water pollution.

Because no economic analyses of any proposed protocols have yet been provided to the Congress, the Senator stressed the need to ensure that U.S. jobs are protected and that businesses in this country are not subject to unfair competition abroad due to any provisions in a legally binding treaty.

But, even now the US is negotiating new protocols dealing with global climate change, the details of which are not expected to be announced until December, after the elections. The possibility of a `carbon tax' in the United States has already been raised.

Salmon Crested Cockatoo

November 3, 2009
Service Announces Proposal to List the Salmon-crested Cockatoo as Threatened under Endangered Species Act
Tamara Ward
703/358-2512
tamara_ward@fws.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Register: November 3, 2009; Volume 74, Number 211; Proposed Rules;
pp 56770-56791
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R9-IA-2009-0056]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened Throughout Its Range with Special Rule

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the salmon-crested cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis) as threatened, with a special rule, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This proposal, if made final, would extend the Act's protections to this species and amend the regulations at 50 CFR part 17
to create a special rule under authority of section 4(d) of the Act that provides measures that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the salmon-crested cockatoo. The Service seeks data and comments from the public on this proposed listing and special rule.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before February 1, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by December 18, 2009.

The proposed special rule would, if adopted, allow import and export of certain salmon-crested cockatoos and interstate commerce of this species without a permit under the Act.


Comments may be submitted at the Federal eRulemaking Portal, http://www.regulations.gov. (Follow the instructions on the Web page for submitting comments). To deliver written comments by U.S. mail or hand-delivery, address to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R9-IA-2009-0028; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. All comments except anonymous comments will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Comments, along with personal identifying information such as an address, telephone number, email address or other personal identifying information will be posted along with your comments.


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced a proposal to protect the salmon-crested cockatoo of Indonesia as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If made final, the measure would extend ESA protection to this species. The measure was published in the November 3, 2009, Federal Register.

The salmon-crested cockatoo (also known as the Seram, Moluccan, pink-crested, or rose-crested cockatoo) is the largest and the most striking of Indonesia’s white cockatoos. The cockatoo is believed to prefer habitat consisting of primary lowland forests and flat or gently sloping terrain.

The proposed special rule for the salmon-crested cockatoo, in most instances, adopts the existing conservation regulatory requirements of CITES and the WBCA as the appropriate regulatory provisions for the import and export of certain captive salmon-crested cockatoos. It would also allow interstate commerce. However, import and export of birds taken from the wild after January 18, 1990, take, and foreign commerce will need to meet the requirements of 50 CFR 17.31 and 17.32. ``Take'' under the Act includes both harm and harass. When applied to captive wildlife, take does not include generally accepted animal husbandry practices, breeding procedures, or provisions of veterinary care for confining, tranquilizing, or anesthetizing, when such practices, procedures, or provisions are not likely to result in injury to the wildlife. When conducting an activity that could take or incidentally take wildlife, a permit under the Act is required.

Interstate commerce. Under the proposed special rule, a person may deliver, receive, carry, transport, ship, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase a salmon-crested cockatoo in interstate commerce. Although we do not have current data, we believe there are a large number of salmon-crested cockatoos in the United States. Current ISIS (International Species Information System) information shows 123 salmon-crested cockatoos are held in U.S. zoos (ISIS 2008, p. 4). This number is an underestimate as some zoos do not enter data into the ISIS database. In addition, CITES annual report data shows that 58,484 salmon-crested cockatoos were imported into the United States between 1981 and 1989 (UNEP-WCMC 2009b, p. 2). We believe that a number of these birds are still held in captivity in the United States. In 1990 and 1991, surveys of captive breeding by U.S. aviculturists showed 820 and 625 salmon-crested cockatoos were held by 239 and 194 survey respondents, respectively (Allen & Johnson 1991, p. 17; Johnson 1992, p. 46). We have no information to suggest that interstate commerce activities are associated with threats to the salmon-crested cockatoo or will negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species. At the same time, the prohibitions on take under 50 CFR 17.31 would apply under this special rule, and any interstate commerce activities that could incidentally take cockatoos would require a permit under 50 CFR 17.32. Therefore, we find that it is not necessary or advisable for the conservation of the salmon- crested cockatoo to regulate interstate commerce of this species.

FWS Removes Neophema Spp from CBW Requirement

FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE Removes Neophema Spp
from CBW Requirement

On Wings, September 1998, Volume 4:9
(with some additional information)



The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published in the September 11 Federal Register; Volume 63, Number 176; Rules and Regulations, pp.48634-48641 a final rule removing the Captive Bred Wildlife (CBW) permit requirements for parakeets of the species Neophema pulchella and N splendida, the Laytan duck Anas laysanensis, ten species of pheasant, the white-winged wood duck Cairina scutulata, and the inter-subspecific crossed or 'generic' tiger panthera tigris. The Service has deemed these species to be present in the United States in large numbers and/or that (they) are genetically unsuitable for scientifically based breeding programs. This rule will be effective October 13, 1998.

The Neophemas, or grass parakeets, exempted are the turquoisine N pulchella and the scarlet-chested, or splendid, N splendida. Thanks to the World Wildlife Fund's 1991 Psittacine Captive Breeding Survey, done in conjunction with the American Federation of Aviculture, it was demonstrated that these species are well-represented in captivity and are breeding well. Survival of these species seems assured if inbreeding can be minimized. As of 1991, 114 pairs of N splendida hatched 337 eggs; sixty-one pairs of N punchella hatched 266.

Pheasants removed from CBW permit requirements include the bar-tailed pheasant Syrmaticus humiae, Elliot's pheasant S. ellioti, Mikado pheasant S. mikado, brown eared pheasant Crossopilon manichuricum, white eared pheasant C. crossoptilon, cheer pheasant Catreus wallichii, Edward's pheasant Lophura edwardsi, Swinhoe's pheasant L. swinhoii, Chinese monal Lophophorus lhuysii, and Palawan peacock pheasant Polyplecteron emphanum, for the same reasons.

"In addition, the Service has announced that it will, in the near future, propose a new rule setting criteria for the orderly listing and de listing of taxa under CBW regulation. Current CBW holders working with affected species will no longer need their permits, and annual reports will no longer be required. Pending permits will not be further processed."

"In the near future, the Service will propose a new rule that sets criteria for adding or deleting taxa from the list exempted from the CBW registration requirements. The Service will solicit comments from the public on the proposed rule to ensure that the proposal is as accurate and effective as possible."

The Secretary of the Interior was given authority under the Endangered Species Act to regulate permit matters relating to endangered species. He has delegated that authority to the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service believes that the Endangered Species Act is best served by protecting species in the wild, along with their habitats. Once an individual of a species has been removed from the wild, it retains its role in the survival of its species for potential restocking purposes only to the extent that its genetic integrity is retained.

The Service initiated its CBW registration system in 1979. The registration system allows interstate purchase and sale of certain non-native endangered or threatened wildlife only between parties that hold a registration permit for that species. Commercial commerce in these species is not permitted under a CBW permit.

By 1993, they issued a proposed rule aimed at eliminating the registration requirement for several species abundant in captive breeding in the U.S. Later that same year it published final rule eliminating 'public education through exhibition of living wildlife' as the 'sole' justification for issuance of a CBW permit, pursuant to the Service's belief that its proper role was in the encouragement of responsible breeding for the purposes of enhancement of species conservation.

CBW Permit Requirements Are Waived for these two Neophema Parakeets
although the neophemas must now be delisted and removed from the ESA list

For further information, see:

Federal Register: May 29, 2001; Volume 66, Number 103; Proposed Rules; pp. 29072-29074; 50 CFR Part 15 Wild Bird Conservation Act; Review of Approved List of Captive-bred Species. Notice of Review

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a review of all approved captive-bred species listed in the Approved List of Captive-bred Species as provided for in the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA) of 1992. The WBCA requires periodic review of the list. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the list accurately reflects the most current status information for each listed species. We request comments that will provide us with the most current scientific and trade information available on these listed species as well as similar information on species that may warrant consideration for inclusion in the list. If inclusion of a species in the list is not consistent with the best scientific and trade information available at the conclusion of this review, we will change the list accordingly.

The Approved List of Captive-bred Species under the WBCA is a list of bird species that are included in the appendices of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and which exist in international trade only as captive-bred specimens. The listing criteria are described in 50 CFR 15.31-15.32 and the list is presented in 50 CFR 15.33. A WBCA permit is not required if an exotic bird species is listed in the Approved List of Captive-bred Species. We periodically review and update the list. To be included in the list, a species must meet the following criteria:
(a) All specimens of the species known to be in trade (legal or illegal) must be captive bred;
(b) No specimens of the species may be removed from the wild for commercial purposes;
(c) Any importation of the species must not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild; and
(d) Adequate enforcement controls must be in place to ensure compliance.

Where Can the Approved List of Captive-Bred Species Be Found?
The Approved Species List of Captive-bred Species can be found in 50 CFR 15.33. The list is also available on the World Wide Web at http://international.fws.gov/global/wbcaacbs.html. This list contains the names of species of captive-bred exotic birds for which importation into the United States is not prohibited by the WBCA.

Although the WBCA also contains provisions for an approved list of wild-caught birds harvested under approved sustainable-use management plans, and also allows imports from qualifying overseas breeding facilities, those lists have not yet been established. The Approved List of Captive-bred Species currently contains the following species that are subject to this review, although other species may be added if information is received to show that they qualify.

Federal Register: September 2, 2003; Volume 68, Number 169; Proposed Rules; pp. 52169-52173; 50 CFR Part 17; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Removal of the Scarlet-chested Parakeet and Turquoise Parakeet from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to remove the scarlet-chested parakeet (Neophema splendida) and the turquoise parakeet (Neophema pulchella) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), because the endangered designation no longer correctly reflects the current conservation status of these birds. Our review of the status of these species shows that the wild populations of these species are stable or increasing, trade in wild-caught specimens is strictly limited, and the species are protected through domestic regulation within the range country (Australia) and through additional national and international treaties and laws. This determination is based on available data indicating that these species have recovered.

The scarlet-chested parakeet and the turquoise parakeet of the genus Neophema are listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as endangered throughout their entire ranges. The scarlet-chested parakeet was listed on December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18320). The turquoise parakeet was listed on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495). Both species were originally listed under the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135, 83 Stat. 275 (1969)) as part of a list of species classified as endangered. This list was absorbed into the current Act. The endangered listing under the Act prohibits imports, exports, and re-exports of the species into or out of the United States as well as interstate and foreign commerce. On July 1, 1975, the scarlet-chested parakeet was placed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; 42 FR 10465; February 22, 1977). On June 6, 1981, the turquoise parakeet was also added to CITES Appendix II. Listing in CITES Appendix II allows for regulated commercial trade based on certain findings. Furthermore, because no wild-caught specimens of these two species are in international trade, and they only occur in trade as captive-bred specimens, they were included in the approved list of captive-bred species under the regulations of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916). Inclusion in this list allows for imports of these species without requiring a WBCA permit.

On September 22, 2000, we announced a review of all endangered and threatened foreign species in the Order Psittaciformes (parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatoos, and others; also known as psittacine birds) listed under the Act (65 FR 57363). Section 4(c)(2) of the Act requires such a review at least once every 5 years. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (50 CFR 17.11) accurately reflect the most current status information for each listed species. We requested comments and the most current scientific or commercial information available on these species, as well as information on other species that may warrant future consideration for listing. If the present classification of species is not consistent with the best scientific and commercial information available at the conclusion of this review, we may propose changes to the list accordingly. One commenter suggested that we review the listing of these species and provided enough scientific information, including information and correspondence with Australian Government officials, to merit review of these species by the Service.

Commercial exports of these species from Australia have been prohibited since 1962. The prohibition is covered under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. Although there are recommended actions for protection of both species under The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000 (Garnett and Crowley 2000), Australian has no recovery plan for either. Both species are, however, protected by State legislation and may not be trapped from the wild for commercial purposes.

Effects of This Rule
This rule, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to remove the scarlet-chested parakeet and the turquoise parakeet from among the species included in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Because no critical habitat was ever designated for these species, this rule would not affect 50 CFR 17.95.If these species are removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Endangered Species Act protection would no longer apply. The Endangered Species Act currently prohibits the export, import, and interstate commerce of specimens unless certain biological and legal criteria are met, including a demonstrable benefit to the wild population. However, the protections under the Lacey Act and the Wild Bird Conservation Act (for wild-caught specimens only) would remain unchanged. These species are prohibited from commercial export by the Government of Australia and receive additional domestic protection through the Australian States. Removing these species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife does not alter or supersede their designations as near threatened (turquoise parakeet) and least concern (scarlet-chested parakeet) by the Government of Australia. In addition, removing them from the List will not increase the level of trade in wild-caught specimens or decrease the level of protection provided by CITES.

Federal Register: April 23, 2007; Volume 72, Number 77; Proposed Rules; pp. 20183-20210
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

SUMMARY: In this review, we announce our annual petition findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we must complete a new status review each year until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are referred to as ``resubmitted'' petition findings.

Information contained in this review describes our status review of 56 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-precluded findings. Based on our review, we find that 50 species continue to warrant listing, but that their listing remains precluded by higher-priority listing actions (see Table 1). For six species previously found to be warranted but precluded, listing is now warranted. We will promptly publish a listing proposal for those six species.

With this review, we are requesting additional status information for the 50 species that remain warranted-but-precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted petition findings. This information will also help us to monitor the status of the taxa and in conserving them.

Federal Register: July 29, 2008; Volume 73, Number 146; Proposed Rules; pp. 44061-44099; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule

"We are also making a final determination on whether to delist the scarlet-chested parakeet (Neophema splendida) and the turquoise parakeet (Neophema pulchella)."

SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we announce our annual petition findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded, we must complete a new status review each year until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are referred to as ``resubmitted'' petition findings.

Information contained in this notice describes our status review of 50 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2007 Notice of Review (72 FR 20184). Based on our current review, we find that 20 species (see Table 1) continue to warrant listing, but that their listing remains precluded by higher-priority listing actions. For 30 species previously found to be warranted but precluded, the petitioned action is now warranted. We will promptly publish listing proposals for those 30 species.

Federal Register: August 12, 2009; Volume 74, Number 154; Proposed Rules; pp. 40540-40560 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions for Foreign Species; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions

SUMMARY: In this notice of review, we announce our annual petition findings for foreign species, as required under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. When, in response to a petition, we find that listing a species is warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions, we must complete a new status review each year until we publish a proposed rule or make a determination that listing is not warranted. These subsequent status reviews and the accompanying 12-month findings are referred to as ``resubmitted'' petition findings.

Information contained in this notice describes our status review of 20 foreign taxa that were the subjects of previous warranted-but-precluded findings, most recently summarized in our 2008 Notice of Review. Based on our current review, we find that 20 species (see Table 1) continue to warrant listing, but that their listing remains precluded by higher priority listing actions.

With this annual notice of review (ANOR), we are requesting additional status information for the 20 taxa that remain warranted but precluded by higher priority listing actions. We will consider this information in preparing listing documents and future resubmitted petition findings for these 20 taxa. This information will also help us to monitor the status of the taxa and in conserving them.