[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64553-64562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25768]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 23
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0052]
RIN 1018-AZ53
Notice of Intent To Include Four Native U.S. Freshwater Turtle
Species in Appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule: Notice of intent to amend CITES Appendix III.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
include the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Florida
softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), smooth softshell turtle (Apalone
mutica), and spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera) in Appendix III
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES or Convention), including live and dead whole
specimens, and all readily recognizable parts, products, and
derivatives. Listing these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species
(including their subspecies, except Apalone spinifera atra, which is
already included in Appendix I of CITES) in Appendix III of CITES is
necessary to allow us to adequately monitor international trade in
these species; to determine whether exports are occurring legally, with
respect to State and Federal law; and to determine whether further
measures under CITES or other laws are required to conserve these
species.
DATES: To ensure that we are able to consider your comment on this
proposed rulemaking action, you must send it by December 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
[[Page 64554]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-HQ-
ES-2013-0052.
U.S. Mail or Hand-Delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2013-0052; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Headquarters, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-
3803.
We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see
the Public Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Hoover, Chief, Wildlife Trade
and Conservation Branch, Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Headquarters, MS: IA; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2095; facsimile 703-358-2298.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be based on accurate information and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we request comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, trade, or other relevant data concerning any
threats (or lack thereof) to these species (including subspecies) and
regulations that may be addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of these species (including subspecies).
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
these species (including subspecies).
(4) Any information regarding legal or illegal collection of or
trade in these species (including subspecies).
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not consider
comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted
on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your
document that we withhold this information from public review. However,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all
hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays, at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters,
Division of Management Authority, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803; telephone 703-358-2095.
Background
CITES, an international treaty, regulates the import, export, re-
export, and introduction from the sea of certain animal and plant
species. CITES was negotiated in 1973 in Washington, DC, at a
conference attended by delegations from 80 countries. The United States
ratified the Convention on September 13, 1973, and it entered into
force on July 1, 1975, after it had been ratified by the required 10
countries. Currently 180 countries have ratified, accepted, approved,
or acceded to CITES; these countries are known as Parties.
The text of the Convention and the official list of all species
included in its three Appendices are available from the CITES
Secretariat's Web site at http://www.cites.org or upon request from the
Division of Management Authority at the address provided in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above.
Section 8A of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), designates the Secretary of the Interior as the
U.S. Management Authority and U.S. Scientific Authority for CITES.
These authorities have been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The original U.S. regulations implementing CITES took effect
on May 23, 1977 (42 FR 10465, February 22, 1977), after the first
meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) was held. The CoP meets
every 2 to 3 years to vote on proposed resolutions and decisions that
interpret and implement the text of the Convention and on amendments to
the list of species in the CITES Appendices. The last major revision of
U.S. CITES regulations was in 2014 (79 FR 30399, May 27, 2014) and
incorporated provisions from applicable resolutions and decisions
adopted at meetings of the Conference of the Parties up to and
including the fifteenth meeting (CoP15), which took place in 2010. In
2008, through a direct final rule, we incorporated certain provisions
adopted at CoP14 regarding international trade in sturgeon caviar (73
FR 40983, July 17, 2008).
The Service's International Wildlife Trade Program convened a
freshwater turtle workshop in St. Louis in September 2010 to discuss
the pressing management, regulatory, scientific, and enforcement needs
associated with the harvest and trade of freshwater turtles in the
United States. As a follow up to one of the recommendations put forth
at the St Louis Workshop in 2010 the Service hosted a workshop in Baton
Rouge, LA in November 2011 for all 16 States with turtle farms to
develop best management practices for turtle farms operating in the
United States. Information on these workshops can be found on our Web
site at http://www.fws.gov/international/animals/freshwater-turtles.html or from DMA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
CITES Appendices
Species covered by the Convention are listed in one of three
Appendices. Appendix I includes species threatened with extinction that
are or may be affected by international trade, and are generally
prohibited from commercial trade. Appendix II includes species that,
although not necessarily threatened with extinction now, may become so
unless the trade is strictly controlled. It also lists species that
must be regulated so that trade in other listed species may be brought
under effective control (e.g., because of similarity of appearance to
other listed species). Appendix III includes native species, identified
by any Party, that are regulated to prevent or restrict exploitation,
where the Party requests the help of other Parties to monitor and
control the trade of the species.
To include a species in or remove a species from Appendices I or
II, a Party must propose an amendment to the Appendices for
consideration at a meeting of the CoP. The adoption of such a proposal
requires approval of at least two-thirds of the Parties present and
voting. However, a Party may add a native species to Appendix III
independently at any time, without the vote of other Parties, under
Articles II and XVI of the Convention. Likewise, if the status of an
Appendix-III species improves or new information shows that it no
longer needs to be listed, the listing country can remove the species
from Appendix III without consulting the other CITES Parties.
Inclusion of native U.S. species in Appendix III provides the
following benefits:
(1) An Appendix-III listing ensures the assistance of the other
CITES Parties, through the implementation of
[[Page 64555]]
CITES permitting requirements in controlling international trade in
these species.
(2) Listing these species in Appendix III enhances the enforcement
of State and Federal conservation measures enacted for the species by
regulating international trade in the species. Shipments containing
CITES-listed species receive greater scrutiny from border officials in
both the exporting and importing countries. When a shipment containing
a non-listed species is exported from the United States, it is a lower
inspection priority for the Service than a shipment containing a CITES-
listed species. Many foreign countries have limited legal authority and
resources to inspect shipments of non-CITES-listed wildlife. Appendix-
III listings for U.S. species will give these importing countries the
legal basis to inspect such shipments, and to deal with CITES and
national violations when they detect them.
(3) Another practical outcome of listing a species in Appendix III
is that better records are kept and international trade in the species
is better monitored. We will gain and share improved information on
such trade with State fish and wildlife agencies, and others who have
jurisdiction over resident populations of the Appendix-III species.
They will then be able to better determine the impact of trade on the
species and the effectiveness of existing State management activities,
regulations, and cooperative efforts. International trade data and
other relevant information gathered as a result of an Appendix-III
listing will help policymakers determine whether we should propose the
species for inclusion in Appendix II, or remove it from or retain it in
Appendix III.
(4) When any live CITES-listed species (including an Appendix-III
species) is exported (or imported), it must be packed and shipped
according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Live
Animals Regulations to reduce the risk of injury and cruel treatment.
This requirement helps to ensure the survival and health of the animals
when they are shipped internationally.
Criteria for Listing a Native U.S. Species in Appendix III
Article II, paragraph 3, of CITES states that ``Appendix III shall
include all species which any Party identifies as being subject to
regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or
restricting exploitation, and as needing the cooperation of other
parties in the control of trade.'' Article XVI, paragraph 1, of the
Convention states further that ``any Party may at any time submit to
the Secretariat a list of species which it identifies as being subject
to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose mentioned in
paragraph 3 of Article II. Appendix III shall include the names of the
Parties submitting the species for inclusion therein, the scientific
names of the species so submitted, and any parts or derivatives of the
animals or plants concerned that are specified in relation to the
species for the purposes of subparagraph (b) of Article I.''
At the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to CITES
(CoP9), held in the United States in 1994, the Parties adopted
Resolution Conf. 9.25 (amended at the 10th, 14th, 15th, and 16th
meetings of the CoP), which provides further guidance to Parties for
the listing of their native species in Appendix III. The Resolution,
which is the basis for our criteria for listing species in Appendix III
provided in our regulations at 50 CFR 23.90(c), recommends that a
Party:
(a) Ensure that (i) the species is native to its country; (ii) its
national regulations are adequate to prevent or restrict exploitation
and to control trade, for the conservation of the species, and include
penalties for illegal taking, trade, or possession and provisions for
confiscation; and (iii) its national enforcement measures are adequate
to implement these regulations;
(b) Determine that, notwithstanding these regulations and measures,
circumstances indicate that the cooperation of the Parties is needed to
control illegal trade; and
(c) Inform the Management Authorities of other range States, the
known major importing countries, the Secretariat, and the Animals
Committee or the Plants Committee that it is considering the inclusion
of the species in Appendix III and seek their opinion on the potential
effects of such inclusion.
Therefore, we apply the following criteria in deciding to list U.S.
species in Appendix III as outlined in 50 CFR 23.90(c):
(1) The species must be native to the United States.
(2) The species must be protected under State, Tribal, or Federal
regulations to prevent or restrict exploitation and control trade, and
the laws or regulations are being implemented.
(3) The species is in international trade, and circumstances
indicate that the cooperation of other Parties would help to control
illegal trade.
(4) We must inform the Management Authorities of other range
countries, the known major importing countries, the Secretariat, and
the Animals Committee or the Plants Committee that we are considering
the listing and seek their opinions on the potential effects of the
listing.
CITES does not allow the exclusion of particular parts or
derivatives for any species listed in Appendix I or the exclusion of
parts or derivatives of animal species in Appendix II. However, Article
XVI of the Convention allows for either all specimens of a species or
only certain identifiable parts or derivatives of a specimen (in
addition to whole specimens) to be listed in Appendix III. For example,
the current listing in CITES Appendix III of Cedrela odorata (Spanish
cedar) by Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, and Peru includes only
logs, sawn wood, and veneer sheets. Therefore, if the criteria listed
above are met, we could designate specific parts or products (e.g.,
turtle meat) of a species for inclusion in Appendix III, rather than
inclusion of all parts and derivatives, if we inform the CITES
Secretariat of the limited listing.
U.S. Procedure and Submission of Information to the CITES Secretariat
For this listing proposal of four native U.S. freshwater turtle
species, we will consult with and solicit comments from all States and
Tribes where the species occurs and all other range countries pursuant
to 50 CFR 23.90(e)(1). After reviewing the information submitted in
response to this proposal, we will make a final decision on whether to
include these four species in CITES Appendix III. We will publish our
decision in the Federal Register. If we decide to list these four
species in CITES Appendix III, we will notify the CITES Secretariat.
The listings will take effect 90 days after the CITES Secretariat
informs the CITES Parties of the listings.
Change in Status of Appendix-III Species Based on New Information
We monitor the trade of all species listed in Appendix III by the
United States and periodically evaluate whether each species continues
to meet the listing criteria contained in 50 CFR 23.90(c). If the
following occurs, we will consider removing the species from Appendix
III: (1) We determine that international trade in the species is very
limited (as a general guide, fewer than 5 shipments per year or fewer
than 100 individual animals or plants); and (2) we determine that trade
(legal and illegal) in the species is not a concern. If, after
monitoring the trade of any species listed in Appendix III by the
United States and evaluating its status,
[[Page 64556]]
we determine that the species meets the CITES criteria for listing in
Appendix I or II, based on the criteria contained in 50 CFR 23.89, we
will consider whether to propose the species for inclusion in Appendix
I or II.
Practical Effects of Listing a Native U.S. Species in Appendix III
Permits and other requirements: The export of an Appendix-III
species listed by the United States requires an export permit issued by
the Service's Division of Management Authority (DMA). DMA will issue a
permit only if the applicant obtained the specimen(s) legally, in
compliance with applicable U.S. laws, including relevant State and
Tribal wildlife laws and regulations, and live specimens are packed and
shipped in accordance with the IATA Live Animals Regulations to reduce
the risk of injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment. DMA, in
determining if an applicant legally obtained a specimen, may consult
relevant State, Tribal, and Federal agencies. Since the conservation
and management of these species is primarily under the jurisdiction of
State and Tribal agencies, we may consult those agencies to ensure that
specimens destined for export were obtained in compliance with State
and Tribal laws and regulations. Unlike species listed in Appendices I
and II, no scientific non-detriment finding is required from the
Service's Division of Scientific Authority (DSA) for export of an
Appendix-III species. However, DSA will monitor and evaluate the trade,
to decide if there is a conservation concern that would require any
further action on our part. With a few exceptions, any shipment
containing wildlife must be declared to a Service Wildlife Inspector
upon import, export, or re-export, and must comply with all applicable
regulations.
Permits, Findings, and Fees: To apply for a CITES permit, an
individual or business is required to submit a completed CITES export
permit application to DMA (with check or money order to cover the
application fee). You may obtain information about CITES permits from
our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/international/ or from DMA (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). We will review the application to decide
if the export meets the criteria in 50 CFR 23.60.
In addition, live animals must be shipped to reduce the risk of
injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment. We carry out this CITES
requirement by stating clearly on all CITES permits that shipments must
comply with the IATA Live Animals Regulations. The Service's Office of
Law Enforcement (OLE) is authorized to inspect shipments of CITES-
listed species at the time of export to ensure that they comply with
these regulations. Additional information on permit requirements is
available from DMA (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT); additional
information on declaration of shipments, inspection, and clearance of
shipments is available upon request from the OLE: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Headquarters, MS: OLE; 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA
22041-3803; telephone 703-358-1949; facsimile 703-358-2271. If you use
a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
Previous Federal Actions
In a notice published in the Federal Register in 1975, we proposed
listing the Cuatro Cienegas spiny softshell turtle (Trionyx ater, also
known as Apalone spinifera atra) as endangered pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (40 FR 44329, September 26, 1975), since
this softshell turtle was already included in Appendix I of the
Convention. In a subsequent notice published in the Federal Register
(41 FR 24062, June 14, 1976), we listed the Cuatro Cienegas spiny
softshell turtle as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act
of 1973. In a notice published in the Federal Register a few years
later (47 FR 39219, September 7, 1982), we invited comments on a
proposal to delist the T. ater (also known as A. s. atra) from Appendix
I. The basis of the proposal was that T. ater was becoming genetically
swamped by T. spiniferus, currently known as A. spinifera. In a follow-
up notice (47 FR 57524, December 27, 1982), we decided it would be
premature to propose removal of the Cuatro Cienegas spiny softshell
turtle from Appendix I and it currently remains in that Appendix.
In a 2002 Federal Register notice (67 FR 19207, April 18, 2002), we
stated our tentative positions on recommendations for species proposals
for the United States to consider for submission for CoP12. Pending
additional information and consultations, the United States was
undecided on a proposal to include the Florida softshell turtle
(Apalone ferox), the smooth softshell turtle (Apalone mutica), and the
spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera) in Appendix II. In a notice
published in the Federal Register in 2009 (74 FR 33460, July 13, 2009),
the United States was undecided, pending additional information and
consultations, on submitting a proposal at CoP15 to include these three
species of North American softshell turtles in Appendix II. Ultimately,
we did not propose to include any of the softshell species in the CITES
Appendices at CoP15.
In a notice published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2012 (77
FR 21798), we stated our tentative positions on recommendations for
species proposals for the United States to consider submitting at
CoP16. Pending receipt of additional significant information, we
indicated that the United States was not likely to submit for
consideration at CoP16 a proposal to include the Florida softshell
turtle, the smooth softshell turtle, and the spiny softshell turtle in
Appendix II. We also stated that we would not submit a proposal to
include the common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) in Appendix
III because inclusion of a species in Appendix III is a unilateral
decision and does not require a proposal to be brought forward to the
CoP. Ultimately, we did not propose to include any of the softshell
species in the CITES Appendices at CoP16.
Summary of Threats
Common Snapping Turtle
Populations are known to be robust throughout much of the species'
range, and the common snapping turtle is among the most widely
distributed turtle species in the United States. Threats to the common
snapping turtle, besides habitat degradation and destruction, include
(in no particular order) collecting, the impact on eggs and newly
emerged hatchlings (primarily) of subsidized predators (i.e., predation
magnified as a result of human activity, e.g., cats, dogs, raccoons),
road mortality, and pollution (van Dijk, 2011, no pagination). The
reproductive parameters of the species are such that populations are
``severely constrain[ed]'' in their ability to recover from long-term
and persistent off-take (Congdon, Dunham, and Sels 1994, p. 397). In
general the species is marked by a life-history strategy of slow
recruitment, late maturity, long lifespan, and high adult survivorship.
Any given population's persistence is dependent on high adult
survivorship, which makes the species vulnerable to directed
anthropogenic activities, such as collecting (Congdon, Dunham, and Sels
1994, p. 397).
Table 1 shows recent trends in exportations of live common snapping
turtles and meat harvested from these turtles.
[[Page 64557]]
Table 1--U.S. Exportations of Live Common Snapping Turtles and Common Snapping Turtle Meat 2009-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live common snapping turtles exported from the United States.... 655,549 709,869 811,717
Common snapping turtle meat (in kg) exported from the United 36.29 27.22 46.52
States.........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a significant proportion of these live specimens and meat
originated from turtle farms, the level of wild harvest necessary to
maintain farm production is unknown. While export levels vary from year
to year, since at least 1990, the trend has been a significant increase
in common snapping turtle exports over an extended period of time
(Hoover, C. 1998 and USFWS, LEMIS database as cited in Weissgold, B.,
unpublished, 2010).
Florida Softshell Turtle
Eggs are vulnerable to predation by a variety of terrestrial
species, and hatchlings are equally vulnerable to predation by other
turtles, birds, and fish. Adults are less vulnerable, but may be taken
by alligators. The species is considered vulnerable to (in no
particular order) overcollection for human consumption, the impact of
subsidized predators (i.e., predation magnified as a result of human
activity, e.g., cats, dogs, raccoons), habitat destruction, and road
mortality, and as by-catch from freshwater fishing activities
(Buhlmann, Tuberville, and Gibbons 2008; p. 119, and Bonin, Devaux, and
Dupre 2006, p. 129; and Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 612). While in
Florida the species does not appear to be in danger, it is the most
intensively harvested freshwater turtle in Florida, and locally severe
declines or extirpations from over-fishing might be possible (Meylan
and Moler 2006, p. 166).
Table 2 shows recent trends in exportations of Florida softshell
turtles and eggs harvested from these turtles.
Table 2--U.S. Exportations of Florida Softshell Turtles and Florida Softshell Turtle Eggs 2009-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Florida softshell turtles exported from the United States.. 214,787 209,453 367,629
Florida softshell turtle eggs exported from the United States... 67,200 66,100 130,624
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a portion of these specimens and eggs were shipped from turtle
farms, the level of wild harvest necessary to maintain farm production
is unknown. While export levels vary from year to year, since at least
1995, the trend suggests that the potential remains for significant
exports in the future for human consumption and stocking of farms in
East Asia, particularly China. The Service is not aware of any evidence
indicating that this trend will reverse.
Smooth Softshell Turtle
Both eggs and juveniles are vulnerable to a wide assortment of
predators, although adults are generally only vulnerable to human and
alligator predation (Buhlmann, Tuberville, and Gibbons 2008, p. 144).
In recent years, smooth softshell turtle populations have declined due
to river channelization, siltation, and water pollution (retrieved
September 2, 2014, from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
Rare Species Guide at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/profile.html?action=elementDetail&selectedElement=ARAAG01020).
U.S. export data show that 200 live smooth softshell turtles were
exported in 2009 sourced from the wild, and none were exported in 2010
or 2011. While export levels vary from year to year, we believe that
the potential remains for significant exports in the future based on
overseas demand principally, but not limited to, China.
Spiny Softshell Turtle
Populations are in decline in many areas due to (in no particular
order) pollution, habitat degradation, and collection as a food source
(Buhlmann, Tuberville, and Gibbons 2008, p. 141; and Ernst and Lovich
2009, p. 634).
Table 3 shows the recent trend in exportations of spiny softshell
turtles. While export levels vary from year to year, we believe that
the potential remains for significant exports in the future. The
Service is not aware of any evidence indicating that this trend will
reverse.
Table 3--U.S. Exportations of Spiny Softshell Turtles 2009-2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live spiny softshell turtles exported from the United States. 46,117 56,056 55,713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species and Subspecies for Listing in Appendix III
We propose to list these four native U.S. freshwater turtle
species, including their subspecies, except A. s. atra: common snapping
turtle, Florida softshell turtle, smooth softshell turtle, and the
spiny softshell turtle in Appendix III of CITES, including live and
dead whole specimens, and all readily recognizable parts and
derivatives. The term ``readily recognizable'' is defined in our
regulations at 50 CFR 23.5 and means any specimen that appears from a
visual, physical, scientific, or forensic examination or test; an
accompanying document, packaging, mark, or label; or any other
circumstances to be a part, product, or derivative of any CITES
wildlife or plant, unless such part, product, or derivative is
specifically exempt from the provisions of CITES or 50 CFR part 23.
Listing these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species in Appendix
III of CITES is necessary to
[[Page 64558]]
allow us to adequately monitor international trade in these species; to
determine whether exports are occurring legally, with respect to State,
Tribal, and Federal law; and to determine whether further measures
under CITES or other laws are required to conserve these species.
Common Snapping Turtle
The common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina, Linnaeus 1758) is
the second-largest freshwater turtle species native to the United
States. Currently two subspecies are widely recognized: C. s. osceola
(Stejneger, 1918), distributed in the Florida peninsula, and C. s.
serpentina (Linnaeus, 1758), distributed throughout the remainder of
the species range, which encompasses most of the eastern two-thirds of
the United States and portions of southern Canada, including Nova
Scotia. The species has been introduced into the wild outside its range
both within and outside the United States, including into the wild in
China and Taiwan, where it is also bred on turtle farms. The common
snapping turtle is easily recognized by a roughly textured black to
grey carapace (top shell), a long tail studded with large saw-toothed
tubercles, large claws, and a large head with strong jaws and a sharp
beak.
The species is readily distinguished from the alligator snapping
turtle (Macrochelys temmincki) because the latter has a larger head,
hooked beak, a smooth tail, and three distinct keels on the carapace.
There are other morphological differences as well. The common snapping
turtle inhabits a wide variety of freshwater habitats, including
rivers, ponds, lakes, swamps, and marshes, although it prefers slow-
moving aquatic habitats with mud or sand bottoms, abundant vegetation,
and submerged tree branches, trunks, and brush. Common snapping turtles
feed on a wide variety of both plants and animals (Ernst and Lovich
2009, pp. 9, 132-133).
Irrespective of the taxonomic differentiation of the common
snapping turtle, all currently recognized common snapping turtle
subspecies would be included in the CITES Appendix-III listing.
Florida Softshell Turtle
The Florida softshell turtle (Apalone ferox, Schneider 1783) is one
of three species of softshell turtle native to the United States. The
Florida softshell, the largest North American softshell turtle, occurs
from southern South Carolina, through southern Georgia and Florida, and
west into the extreme southern portions of Alabama. No subspecies are
currently recognized. Females may reach a Maximum Carapace Length
(SCLmax) of 67.3 centimeters, over twice the size of males, which may
reach 32.4 centimeters SCLmax. The leathery skin-covered carapace has
rough, rounded tubercles (bumps) on its front edge; the limbs are grey
to brown with lighter-colored mottling. The feet are webbed, and the
species has an extended nose tip. In large specimens, the head can grow
disproportionately large compared to the body. The Florida softshell
inhabits calm waters, including rivers, swamps, marshes, lakes, and
ponds. The species may spend extended periods of time submerged, buried
in the silty or sandy bottom. The Florida softshell is largely
carnivorous, eating a variety of aquatic and sometimes terrestrial
animals, although vegetation may also be consumed (Ernst and Lovich
2009, p. 611).
Smooth Softshell Turtle
The smooth softshell turtle (Apalone mutica, Le Sueur 1827) is the
smallest of the three softshell species native to the United States.
The species is generally found in streams, rivers, and channels. It
inhabits the Ohio River drainage (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois), the
upper Mississippi River watershed (Minnesota and Wisconsin), the
Missouri River in the Dakotas, south through the watershed and
eventually spreading to the western Florida Panhandle, and west to
Central Texas (including all States between these areas). The smooth
softshell is considered extinct in Pennsylvania, where it previously
inhabited the Allegheny River. An isolated population exists in New
Mexico's Canadian River drainage. Two subspecies are recognized: The
smooth softshell turtle (A. m. mutica; Le Sueur 1827) and the Gulf
Coast smooth softshell turtle (A. m. calvata; Webb 1959). Females may
reach 35.6 centimeters SCLmax and males may reach 26.6 centimeters
SCLmax. The carapaces of males may have blotchy dark markings, and a
yellow stripe is present on each side of the head; females have darkly
mottled carapaces, and the yellow head stripe may be faint or
nonexistent in older animals. The smooth softshell has webbed feet and
an extended nose tip. The species is fully aquatic, only leaving the
water to nest or bask. Smooth softshells consume insect larvae, other
aquatic invertebrates, small fish, and plant material (Ernst and Lovich
2009, pp. 619-620).
Irrespective of the taxonomic differentiation of the smooth
softshell turtle, all currently recognized smooth softshell turtle
subspecies would be included in the CITES Appendix-III listing.
Spiny Softshell Turtle
The spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera, Le Sueur 1827) is a
small softshell with webbed feet and large claws. It has a leathery
shell colored from brown to sand to grey, with dark black ocelli or
blotches and a pair of light stripes on the side of its head. Limbs are
grey and may have dark streaks or spots. The population of the spiny
softshell in the United States is divided into six subspecies: The
spiny softshell turtle (A. s. spinifera, Le Sueur 1827), Gulf Coast
spiny softshell (A. s. aspera, Agassiz 1857), Texas spiny softshell (A.
s. emoryi, Agassiz 1857), Guadalupe spiny softshell (A. s.
guadalupensis, Webb 1962), western spiny softshell (A. s. hartwegi,
Conant and Goin 1948), and pallid spiny softshell (A. s. pallida, Webb
1962). An additional subspecies, the Cuatro Cienegas spiny softshell
(A. s. atra [=Apalone atra], Webb and Legler 1960), occurs in Mexico
and is listed in Appendix I of CITES and as endangered under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act (as Trionyx ater) (50 CFR 17.11(h)).
The spiny softshell inhabits the largest range of the three
softshell turtles of North America, occurring from New York, south to
Florida, west through Texas to New Mexico, and over most of the
midwestern United States, including to the States bordering the Great
Lakes, and extreme southern portions of Canada, and naturally in
northern portions of Mexico. It has also been introduced widely in
other parts of Mexico. Disjunct populations also are found from New
Mexico to California and in Montana and Wyoming. Isolated populations
are found in a number of States. The spiny softshell inhabits creeks
and rivers, but also occurs in other types of water bodies, including
artificial bodies, so long as the bottom is sandy or muddy to support
its burrowing behavior. The species is almost entirely aquatic and
largely carnivorous; its reported list of food items is extensive and
includes insects, molluscs, and other invertebrates, fish, amphibians,
and small snakes. It will also consume plant material (Ernst and Lovich
2009, pp. 632-633).
Conservation
The common snapping turtle (since 2012) and spiny softshell turtle
(since 2011) are considered to be of ``Least Concern'' by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) with the
population trend being stable. The Florida softshell turtle (since
2011) and
[[Page 64559]]
the smooth softshell (since 2011) turtle are also considered to be of
``Least Concern'' by the IUCN, but with the population trend being
unknown.
These four native U.S. freshwater turtle species are protected to
varying degrees by State and Tribal laws within the United States, with
significant differences in levels and types of protection.
Common Snapping Turtle
Personal collection and commercial harvest of the common snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina) is permitted in Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
In Arizona, where the species has been introduced, an unlimited
number may be collected. In Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Michigan,
Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, and West Virginia, collection for
personal use is permitted; however, commercial harvest and trade is not
permitted. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, collection and trade is
allowed, with a 4 inch and 6 inch minimum shell length requirement for
trade, respectively. Delaware requires limits on take to individuals
with 8 inches or greater curved carapace length along with harvest
equipment restrictions in place. North Dakota allows for harvest as
specified on the appropriate permit.
Personal harvest and commercial trade are prohibited in the
District of Columbia, and Florida prohibits harvest from the wild
(including eggs) or commercial trade in wild-caught specimens. In
Illinois, commercial harvest is prohibited; however, aquaculture is
allowed, and limited harvest for personal use is permitted in some
areas.
Florida Softshell Turtle
Commercial harvest and trade of the Florida softshell turtle is
permitted in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. In Florida, one
specimen per day per person may be taken from the wild, but commercial
sale is not permitted. There are exceptions with specific requirements
and limitations for commercial aquaculture.
Smooth Softshell Turtle
Personal collection and commercial harvest of the smooth softshell
turtle are permitted in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Collection for personal use is permitted in Indiana, Kansas,
Mississippi, and West Virginia; however, commercial harvest and trade
are not permitted.
In Florida, State regulations allow one specimen per day per person
to be taken from the wild, but commercial sale is not permitted; there
are exceptions with specific requirements and limitations for
commercial aquaculture. In Illinois, commercial harvest is prohibited;
however, aquaculture is allowed as well as limited harvest for personal
use in some areas.
Spiny Softshell Turtle
Collection for personal use and commercial harvest of the spiny
softshell turtle are permitted in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
In Arizona, where the species has been introduced, an unlimited
number may be collected. Collection for personal use is permitted in
Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana,
and West Virginia; however, commercial harvest and trade are not
permitted. In Florida, one specimen per day per person may be taken
from the wild, but commercial sale is not permitted. There are
exceptions with specific requirements and limitations for commercial
aquaculture. In Illinois, commercial harvest is prohibited; however,
aquaculture is allowed, as well as limited harvest for personal use in
some areas.
Federal Status
Under section 3372(a)(1) of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is unlawful to import, export, transport, sell,
receive, acquire, or purchase any wildlife taken, possessed,
transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of
the United States. This prohibition would apply in instances where
these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species were unlawfully
collected from Federal lands, such as those Federal lands within the
range of these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species that are
managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, or other Federal agency.
It is unlawful under section 3372(a)(2)(A) of the Lacey Act to
import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in
interstate or foreign commerce any wildlife taken, possessed,
transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any
State. Because many State laws and regulations regulate the take of
these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species, certain acts with
these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species acquired unlawfully
under State law could result in a violation of the Lacey Act Amendments
of 1981 and thus provide for Federal enforcement action due to a
violation of State law.
Decision To Propose To List Four Native U.S. Freshwater Turtle Species
Based on the recommendations contained in Resolution Conf. 9.25
(Rev. CoP16) and the listing criteria provided in our regulations at 50
CFR 23.90, these four native U.S. freshwater turtle species, including
all subspecies, qualify for listing in CITES Appendix III. Declines
have been documented or locally severe declines may be possible in at
least some portions of the range of these four native U.S. freshwater
turtle species, although the Florida softshell seems to be resistant to
high levels of commercial harvest. Its take in Florida is regulated and
it is a species of special concern in South Carolina. Although snapping
turtle populations are known to be vigorous throughout much of the
species' range, long-term persistent take makes the species vulnerable
to decline. Existing laws have not been completely successful in
preventing the unauthorized collection and trade of these four native
U.S. freshwater turtle species. Listing these four native U.S.
freshwater turtle species, including their subspecies, except the
Cuatro Cienegas spiny softshell turtle which is already listed in
Appendix I, in Appendix III is necessary to allow us to adequately
monitor international trade in these taxa; to determine whether exports
are occurring legally, with respect to State law; and to determine
whether further measures under CITES or other laws are required to
conserve these species and subspecies. An Appendix-III listing would
lend additional support to State wildlife agencies in their efforts to
regulate and manage these species, improve data gathering to increase
our knowledge of trade in these species, and strengthen State and
Federal wildlife enforcement activities to prevent poaching and illegal
trade. Furthermore, listing these species in Appendix III would enlist
the assistance of other Parties in our efforts to monitor and control
trade in these species and subspecies.
[[Page 64560]]
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will
review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rulemaking in a manner
consistent with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Department of the
Interior certifies that this action would not have a significant effect
on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons discussed
below.
This proposed rule establishes the means to monitor the
international trade in species native to the United States and does not
impose any new or changed restriction on the trade of legally acquired
specimens. Based on current exports of these four native U.S.
freshwater turtle species, we estimate that the costs to implement this
rule will be less than $100,000 annually due to the costs associated
with obtaining permits.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. This proposed rule:
(a) Would not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more.
(b) Would not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Would not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C.
1501), the Service makes the following findings: (a) This rulemaking
would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a
provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments, or the
private sector, and includes both ``Federal intergovernmental
mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' These terms are
defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal intergovernmental mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon
State, local, or Tribal governments,'' with two exceptions. It excludes
``a condition of federal assistance.'' It also excludes ``a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,'' unless the
regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal program under which
$500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and Tribal
governments under entitlement authority,'' if the provision would
``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' or ``place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to
provide funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal governments ``lack
authority'' to adjust accordingly. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.'' This
proposed rule would not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal
Government entities or private parties and would not impose an unfunded
mandate of more than $100 million per year or have a significant or
unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private
sector because we, as the lead agency for CITES implementation in the
United States, are responsible for the authorization of shipments of
live wildlife, or their parts and products, that are subject to the
requirements of CITES.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of
information that require approval by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Information that we
would collect under this proposed rule on FWS Form 3-200-27 is covered
by an existing OMB approval and has been assigned OMB control number
1018-0093, which expires on May 31, 2017. We may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
[[Page 64561]]
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
The Service has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Council on
Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, at 40 CFR
1508.4, define a ``categorical exclusion'' as a category of actions
which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect
on the human environment. CEQ's regulations further require Federal
agencies to adopt NEPA procedures, including the adoption of
categorical exclusions for which neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required (40 CFR 1507.3). The
Service has determined that this rulemaking is categorically excluded
from further environmental analysis under NEPA in accordance with the
Department's NEPA regulations at 43 CFR 46.210(i), which categorically
excludes ``[p]olicies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: That
are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature.'' In addition, the Service has determined that none of the
extraordinary circumstances listed under the Department's regulations
at 43 CFR 46.215, in which a normally excluded action may have a
significant environmental effect, applies to this proposed rule.
Takings (Executive Order 12630)
In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12630 (``Government
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights''), we have determined that this proposed rule would
not have significant takings implications since there are no changes in
what may be exported.
Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule
would not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment
is not required because this proposed rule would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Although this
proposed rule would generate information that would be beneficial to
State wildlife agencies, we do not anticipate that any State monitoring
or control programs would need to be developed to fulfill the purpose
of this proposed rule. We have consulted the States, through the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, on this proposed action. The
CITES Technical Work Group, comprising representatives from States in
different regions of the United States, of the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies has concluded that including these four native U.S.
freshwater turtle species in CITES Appendix III is warranted in order
to help ensure conservation of these species in the wild and to assist
State agencies in regulating harvest and trade.
Further, formal and informal consultation with various interested
parties regarding this proposal has generally resulted in support for
the proposal. These proposed changes will help us more effectively
conserve these species and will help those affected by CITES to
understand how to conduct lawful international trade in wildlife and
wildlife products.
Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
The Department, in promulgating this rulemaking, has determined
that it will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets
the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we have a responsibility to communicate
meaningfully with Federally recognized Indian Tribes on a government-
to-government basis. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 of June
5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available
to Tribes. We determined that this proposed action will not interfere
with the Tribes' ability to manage themselves or their funds or to
regulate these turtle species on Tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (Executive Order 13211)
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking actions that significantly affect energy
supply, distribution, and use. This proposed action is not expected to
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Clarity of the 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 ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the proposed rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers 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.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request
from the Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this proposed rule is Clifton A. Horton,
Division of Management Authority, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
[[Page 64562]]
Proposed Amendment to CITES Appendix III
Our regulations at 50 CFR 23.90 require us to publish a proposed
rule and, if appropriate, a final rule for a CITES Appendix-III
listing, even though the final rule would not result in any changes to
the Code of Federal Regulations. Accordingly, for the reasons provided
in this document, we propose to ask the CITES Secretariat to amend
Appendix III of CITES to include for the United States these four
native U.S. freshwater turtle species, including their subspecies
(except the Cuatro Cienegas spiny softshell turtle, which is in
Appendix I): The common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Florida
softshell turtle (Apalone ferox), smooth softshell turtle (Apalone
mutica), and spiny softshell turtle (Apalone spinifera).
After analysis of any comments received on the proposed rule, we
will publish our final decision in the Federal Register. If we adopt a
final rule, we will contact the CITES Secretariat prior to publishing
the rule to clarify the exact time period required by the Secretariat
to inform the Parties of the listing, so that the effective date of the
final rule coincides with the effective date of the listing in Appendix
III. The listing would take effect 90 days after the CITES Secretariat
informs the Parties of the listing.
Dated: October 7, 2014.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-25768 Filed 10-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P