Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for Pascagoula Map Turtle; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Pearl River Map Turtle; and Threatened Species Status for Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle Due to Similarity of Appearance With a Section 4(d) Rule
| Published date | 23 November 2021 |
| Citation | 86 FR 66624 |
| Record Number | 2021-23992 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66624-66659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23992]
[[Page 66623]]
Vol. 86
Tuesday,
No. 223
November 23, 2021
Part II Department of the Interior-----------------------------------------------------------------------Fish and Wildlife Service-----------------------------------------------------------------------50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for
Pascagoula Map Turtle; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule
for Pearl River Map Turtle; and Threatened Species Status for Alabama
Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula
Map Turtle Due to Similarity of Appearance With a Section 4(d) Rule;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 23, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 66624]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BF42
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for Pascagoula Map Turtle; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d)
Rule for Pearl River Map Turtle; and Threatened Species Status for
Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and
Pascagoula Map Turtle Due to Similarity of Appearance With a Section
4(d) Rule
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; announcement of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
12-month findings for two freshwater turtle species, the Pascagoula map
turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) and the Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys
pearlensis), as endangered or threatened species. The Pascagoula map
turtle is endemic to the Pascagoula River drainage in Mississippi, and
the Pearl River map turtle is endemic to the Pearl River drainage in
Mississippi and Louisiana. We propose to list the Pearl River map
turtle as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of
the Act (``4(d) rule''). After a thorough review of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted
at this time to list the Pascagoula map turtle; however, we propose to
list the Pascagoula map turtle along with Alabama map turtle (Graptemys
pulchra), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys barbouri), and Escambia map
turtle (Graptemys ernsti) as threatened species due to similarity of
appearance to the Pearl River map turtle with a 4(d) rule. If we
finalize this rule as proposed, it would add the Pearl River map
turtle, Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species.
DATES:
Comment submission: For the proposed rules to list the Pearl River
map turtle and the four other species (Alabama map turtle, Barbour's
map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle) due to
similarity of appearance, we will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before January 24, 2022. We also request comments on
the proposed 4(d) rule for the Pearl River map turtle and the proposed
4(d) rule for the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia
map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle during the same timeframe as
comments for the proposed listing actions. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES,
below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
We must receive requests for a public hearing, in writing, at the
address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by January 7, 2022.
12-month petition finding: For the Pascagoula map turtle, the
finding in this document was made on November 23, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the RIN or docket number
(presented above in the document headings). For best results, do not
copy and paste either number; instead, type the docket number or RIN
into the Search box using hyphens. Then, click on the Search button. On
the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of the screen, under
the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office, 6578 Dogwood View Park, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone 601-321-
1122. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD)
may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that
a species warrants listing, we are required to promptly publish a
proposal in the Federal Register, unless doing so is precluded by
higher-priority actions and expeditious progress is being made to add
and remove qualified species to or from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Service will make a determination
on our proposal within one year. If there is substantial disagreement
regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant
to the proposed listing, we may extend the final determination for not
more than six months. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species
as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical
habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We find that listing the Pascagoula map
turtle as an endangered or threatened species is not warranted at this
time. We propose to list the Pearl River map turtle as a threatened
species with a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. We also propose to
list the Pascagoula map turtle, Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, and Escambia map turtle as threatened species based on their
similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle and propose a
rule under section 4(d) of the Act for these species. We find that
designation of critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle is not
prudent.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that threats to the Pearl River
map turtle include habitat degradation or loss (degraded water quality,
channel and hydrologic modifications/impoundments, agricultural runoff,
and development--Factor B), collection (Factor C), and effects of
climate change (increasing temperatures, drought, sea level rise (SLR),
hurricane regime changes, and increased seasonal precipitation--Factor
E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent
[[Page 66625]]
with listing to the maximum extent prudent and determinable. We have
determined that designation of critical habitat for the Pearl River map
turtle is not prudent at this time.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from these proposed rules
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.
We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their
habitats, or both.
(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species,
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization,
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms,
or other natural or manmade factors.
(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to the species and existing regulations
that may be addressing the threats.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species,
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
(5) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle, and that
the Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species. We
seek information concerning the extent to which we should include any
of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether we should
consider any additional exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(d)
rule. This proposed 4(d) rule will not apply take prohibitions for
otherwise legal activities to the four turtles listed due to similarity
of appearance (Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle) if those activities will not pose a
threat to the Pearl River map turtle.
(6) Specific information on bycatch of Pearl River map turtle from
fishing or trapping gear due to recreational and commercial fishing
activities for other species.
(7) Information on why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act, including information
to inform the following factors that the regulations identify as
reasons why designation of critical habitat may be not prudent:
(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
(8) For the Pascagoula map turtle, we ask the public to submit to
us at any time new information relevant to the species' status,
threats, or its habitat.
(9) Information regarding legal or illegal collection of the
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle, or Pearl River map turtle.
(10) Threats to the Pearl River map turtle from collection of or
commercial trade involving the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle.
(11) Information regarding domestic and international trade of the
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
Pascagoula map turtle, or Pearl River map turtle.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a
threatened species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
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 submissions on https://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 https://www.regulations.gov.
Because we will consider all comments and information we receive
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species are
endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species
do not warrant listing as either endangered species or threatened
species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions
or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the 4(d) rules if we
conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new information
received. For example, we may expand the prohibitions to include
prohibiting take related to additional activities if we conclude that
those additional activities are not compatible with conservation of the
species. Conversely, we may establish additional exceptions to the
prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that the activities would
facilitate or are compatible with the conservation and recovery of the
species.
Public Hearing
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date
specified in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on
this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of
the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations,
[[Page 66626]]
in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before
the hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public
hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's
website, in addition to the Federal Register. The use of these virtual
public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR
424.16(c)(3).
Previous Federal Actions
On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for
Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition,
Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council,
and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (referred to below as the CBD
petition) to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including
the Pascagoula map turtle as an endangered or threatened species under
the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding that the
petition contained substantial information indicating listing may be
warranted for the Pascagoula map turtle (76 FR 59836). At the time of
the petition, the Pascagoula map turtle description included turtles
that occur in the Pascagoula and Pearl rivers. Since then, the
Pascagoula map turtle was determined to be two similar, yet distinct
species, the Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) and the Pearl
River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis) (Ennen et al. 2010, pp. 109-
110).
On January 21, 2020, CBD filed a complaint challenging the
Service's failure to complete 12-month findings for both species within
the statutory deadline. The Service and CBD reached a stipulated
settlement agreement whereby the Service agreed to deliver 12-month
findings for the Pascagoula map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle
to the Office of the Federal Register by October 29, 2021. This
document constitutes our 12-month finding for the April 20, 2010,
petition to list the Pascagoula map turtle and Pearl River map turtle
under the Act in compliance with the October 29, 2021, stipulated
settlement agreement.
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared SSA reports for the
Pascagoula map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle. The SSA team was
composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species
experts. The SSA reports represent compilations of the best scientific
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species,
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the species. In accordance with our
joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July
1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and
clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we
sought the expert opinions of four appropriate specialists regarding
the Pascagoula map turtle SSA report, and five appropriate specialists
regarding the Pearl River map turtle SSA report. We received responses
from all the peer reviewers; feedback we received informed our findings
and this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that
our listing determinations and 4(d) rules are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have
expertise in the biology, habitat, and threats to the species.
In addition, we provided the draft SSA reports for review to
Federal partners, State partners, and scientists with expertise in
aquatic ecology and freshwater turtle biology, taxonomy, and
conservation. We notified Tribal nations early in the SSA process for
the Pearl River map turtle. We sent the draft SSA report for review to
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and received comments that were
addressed in the SSA report. There are no Tribes associated with the
Pascagoula map turtle across its range.
Regulatory and Analytical Framework
Regulatory Framework
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The
Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a
``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine
whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species
because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the expected response by the species,
and the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and
conditions that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual,
population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected
effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of
the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative
effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that
will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing
regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines
whether the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species''
or a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative
analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in
the foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of threatened species. Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as the
Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the
species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make
[[Page 66627]]
reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction. Thus, a prediction is reliable if it is reasonable to
depend on it when making decisions.
It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future
as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future
uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should
consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the
species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history
characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the
species' biological response include species-specific factors such as
lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and
other demographic factors.
Analytical Framework
Each SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of potential threats
to the species. SSA reports do not represent a decision by the Service
on whether either species should be proposed for listing as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, they do
provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions,
which involve the further application of standards within the Act and
its implementing regulations and policies. We completed SSA reports for
the Pascagoula map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle and summarize
the key results and conclusions from the reports below, beginning with
the Pascagoula map turtle, followed by the Pearl River map turtle. The
Pascagoula map turtle SSA report can be found in docket number FWS-R4-
ES-2021-0097 on https://www.regulations.gov, and on the species profile
page of the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS)
internet site, https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/3198. The Pascagoula
map turtle SSA report can be found in docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097
on https://www.regulations.gov, and on the species profile page of the
Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) internet
site, https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/10895.
To assess the species' viability, we used the three conservation
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation
(Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the
ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic
stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy
supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events
(for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation
supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term
changes in the environment (for example, climate changes). In general,
the more resilient and redundant a species is and the more
representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations
over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these
principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the
species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these
stages, we used the best available information to characterize
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory
decision.
I. 12-Month Finding for the Pascagoula Map Turtle
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a
finding whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12
months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted (``12-month finding''). We must make
a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2)
warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded. ``Warranted but precluded''
means that (a) the petitioned action is warranted, but the immediate
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are
endangered or threatened species, and (b) expeditious progress is being
made to add qualified species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for
which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that, when we find that a petitioned
action is warranted but precluded, we treat the petition as though
resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring that a
subsequent finding be made within 12 months of that date. We must
publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register.
In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Pascagoula map
turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi; Service 2021a, entire) currently meets the
definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened species,'' we
considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial
data available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and
threats. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files,
and other available published and unpublished information. This
evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal,
State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; private entities;
and other members of the public. After comprehensive assessment of the
best scientific and commercial data available, we determined that the
Pascagoula map turtle does not meet the definition of an endangered or
a threatened species.
The SSA report for the Pascagoula map turtle contains more detailed
biological information, a thorough description of the factors
influencing the species' viability, and the current and future
conditions of the species. (Service 2021, entire). This supporting
information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097. The following is a summary of
our determination for the Pascagoula map turtle.
Summary of Finding
The Pascagoula map turtle is a freshwater turtle in the family
Emydidae (that includes all map turtles) and the megacephalic (broad-
headed) clade. Map turtles (genus Graptemys) are named for the
intricate pattern on the carapace (top half of shell) that often
resembles a topographical map. In addition to the intricate pattern,
the shape of map turtle carapaces is very different from that of other
turtle genera. The carapace is keeled, and most species show some type
of knobby projections or spikes down the vertebral (located down the
center of the carapace) scutes (thickened plates similar to scales on
the turtle's shell) (Service 2021a, p. 5). Specific to
[[Page 66628]]
Pascagoula map turtle, the plastron (entire ventral surface of the
shell) can reach lengths of up to 8.6 inches (in) (21.8 centimeters
(cm)) in mature females and in mature males can range from 2.8 to 4.0
in (7.2 to 10.1 cm) (Lindeman 2013, p. 294). Typically, male map
turtles mature in 2 to 3 years, while females mature at approximately
11 years of age (Service 2021a, pp. 18 and 26). The species is endemic
to the Pascagoula River drainage in Mississippi including the
Pascagoula, Leaf, and Chickasawhay Rivers and associated tributaries.
Before 1992, all megacephalic map turtles from the Pascagoula River
system in southeastern Mississippi, the Pearl River system in central
Mississippi and eastern Louisiana, the Escambia-Conecuh River system in
western Florida and eastern Alabama, and the Mobile Bay system in
Alabama, eastern Mississippi, northwestern Georgia, and southeastern
Tennessee were recognized as the Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra)
(Baur 1893, pp. 675-676). The Pascagoula map turtle was taxonomically
separated from the Alabama map turtle in 1992, when morphological
features were analyzed for four operational taxonomic units, resulting
in the name G. pulchra being restricted to the Mobile Bay drainages,
individuals from the Escambia-Conecuh River system being elevated to a
new species G. ernsti (Escambia map turtle), and individuals from the
Pascagoula and Pearl River systems being elevated to the new species G.
gibbonsi (Pascagoula map turtle; Lovich and McCoy 1992, pp. 296-306). A
molecular systematics study supported the division of G. pulchra into
three species, although G. gibbonsi was only represented in the
analysis by genetic material collected from individuals in the Pearl
River drainage (Lamb et al. 1994, pp. 554-559). The Pearl River map
turtle (G. pearlensis) was taxonomically separated from the Pascagoula
map turtle (G. gibbonsi) in 2010 based on morphological and genetic
features (Ennen et al. 2010, pp. 109-110). This separation was
subsequently supported with a molecular analysis of the phylogeny of
the entire genus Graptemys (Thomson et al. 2018, p. 65). The Pascagoula
map turtle is recognized as a separate species from the Pearl River map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Alabama map turtle, and the
distinction as a valid species is supported in the literature and
recognized by the herpetological community (Crother et al. 2017, p.
82).
The Pascagoula map turtle inhabits stretches of perennial rivers
and creeks with sand or gravel substrates, with higher population
densities near dense accumulations of deadwood (Lindeman 2013, p. 293).
Emergent deadwood serves as thermoregulatory basking structure,
foraging structure for males and juveniles (Selman and Lindeman 2015,
pp. 794-795), and as an overnight resting place for males and juveniles
(Cagle 1952, p. 227). Pascagoula map turtles prefer clean water (Lovich
et al. 2009, p. 029.4). They have never been documented in oxbow lakes
or other floodplain hydrological features, despite the fact that other
microcephalic map turtle species can be found in oxbows (Lindeman 2013,
p. 293). They have also never been documented in saltwater or within a
mile of estuaries (McCoy and Vogt 1979, p. 15; Lovich et al. 2009, p.
029.4).
Adult female Pascagoula map turtles feed mostly on freshwater
mussel species, with nonnative Asian clams (Corbicula fluminea) as the
major source of food; however, they may also consume insects and
vegetation (Ennen et al. 2007, p. 200; Floyd and Floyd 2013, p. 5).
Adult males forage on mussels, insects, and some vegetation
(Vucenovi[cacute] and Lindeman 2021, pp. 123-124). Juveniles, small
females, and mature males rely on insects (Dundee and Rossman 1989,
p.187; Lovich et al. 2009, p. 029.4; Vu[ccaron]enovi[cacute] and
Lindeman 2021, p. 123). Additionally, other aquatic invertebrates such
as sponges and snails are also consumed by all sex and age classes
(Selman and Lindeman 2015, pp. 794-795; Vu[ccaron]enovi[cacute] and
Lindeman 2021, p. 20).
For the Pascagoula map turtle to survive and reproduce, individuals
need suitable habitat that supports essential life functions at all
life stages. Several elements appear to be essential to the survival
and reproduction of individuals: Mainstem and tributary reaches within
the Pascagoula River system that have sandbars, natural hydrologic
regimes, adequate supply of invertebrate prey items including insects
and mollusks, an abundance of emergent and floating basking structures
of various sizes, and sand, gravel, or rocky substrates (Service 2021a,
p. 22).
Additional resource needs of the Pascagoula map turtle include
appropriate terrestrial nesting habitat (patches of bare sand adjacent
to adult habitat with sparse vegetation, typically on sandbars;
adequate sand incubation temperatures to yield an appropriate hatchling
sex ratio; and adequate river flow to prevent nest mortality due to
flooding).
To assess the species' viability in terms of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation, we delineated the range into resilience
units as a proxy for populations. As data are not available to
delineate biological populations at this time, these units were
intended to subdivide the species' range to facilitate assessing and
reporting the variation in current and future resilience across the
range. To describe the species' current and future conditions in the
SSA, we delineated eight resilience units of Pascagoula River map
turtles based on Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8 watersheds and in
accordance with guidance from species experts. These units are: Black,
Chunky-Okatibbee, Escatawpa, Lower Chickasawhay, Lower Leaf,
Pascagoula, Upper Chickasawhay, and Upper Leaf. Historically, the
majority of the range of the species was likely connected in a single
interbreeding biological population, but we used the eight units in the
SSA to most accurately describe trends in resiliency, forecast future
resiliency, and capture differences in stressors among units.
Additional descriptions of the methodology for delineating units and
the current resiliency of each unit are available in the SSA report
(Service 2021a, pp. 41-65).
For units to be resilient, the needs of individuals (sandbars,
adequate flow, adequate supply of invertebrate prey items, basking
structures, and sand or gravel substrates) must be met at a larger
scale. Tributary and mainstem reaches with suitable habitat
uninterrupted by impoundments must be sizable enough to support a large
enough population of individuals to avoid issues associated with small
population sizes, such as inbreeding depression (Service 2021a, p. 22).
The resiliency of the eight units was assessed for the current and
future condition to inform the species' viability (Service 2021a, pp.
41-105). The current condition of the eight units are described as one
population with low resiliency (Escatawpa), five populations with
moderate resiliency (Black, Chunky-Okatibbee, Lower Chickasawhay,
Pascagoula, and Upper Chickasawhay), and two units with high resiliency
(Lower Leaf and Upper Leaf) (Service 2021a, p. 66).
For the species to maintain viability, there must be adequate
redundancy (suitable number of populations and connectivity to allow
the species to withstand catastrophic events) and representation
(genetic and environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to
changing environmental conditions). Redundancy improves with increasing
numbers of populations (natural or reintroduced) distributed across the
species' range, and connectivity (either natural or human-facilitated)
allows connected populations to ``rescue'' each other after
[[Page 66629]]
catastrophes. The Pascagoula map turtle is found across the eight
resilience units in varying densities within the mainstems and
tributaries that would prevent extinction of the entire species from
the impacts of a single catastrophic event.
Representation improves with the persistence of populations spread
across the range of genetic and/or ecological diversity within the
species. Long-term viability will require resilient populations to
persist into the future; for the Pascagoula map turtle, this will mean
maintaining high-quality tributary and mainstem habitat and water
quality to support many redundant populations across the species'
range, while preventing barriers to dispersal between populations such
as dams or impoundments (Service 2021a, p. 22). The Pascagoula map
turtle has distinct genetic characteristics in at least three of the
rivers: Leaf, Chickasawhay, and Pascagoula (Pearson et al. 2020,
entire). We described representation based on four representative
units: Chickasawhay River representative unit (includes the Chunky-
Okatibbee, Upper Chickasawhay, and Lower Chickasawhay resilience
units), Leaf River representative unit (consists of the Upper and Lower
Leaf resilience units), Pascagoula River representative unit (consists
of the Black and Pascagoula resilience units), and the Escatawpa River
representative unit (consists of the Escatawpa resilience unit only)
(Service 2021a, pp. 67-70).
All representative units are currently occupied, though the
Escatawpa is occupied at a very low density. The Leaf River
representative units substantially contribute to representation with
high resiliency. The Pascagoula River and Chickasawhay River
representative units both significantly contribute to representation
with moderate resiliency (Service 2021a, pp. 72-73).
Status Throughout All of Its Range
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the
Pascagoula map turtle, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the
five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and
conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors
(which are pervasive across the species' range) affecting the
Pascagoula map turtle's biological status include habitat degradation
or loss (i.e., channel and hydrological modifications and impoundments;
removal or loss of deadwood; declines in water quality from
agricultural runoff; development; and mining), collection, and effects
of climate change (SLR, drought, and flooding). Additional stressors
acting on the species include disease and invasive species and the
synergistic effects of a multitude of stressors that affect the species
or its habitat over time.
When considering the threats acting on the species, there are
adequate numbers of sufficiently resilient units with redundancy and
representation across the species' range to withstand any imminent
threats. The current conditions of the eight resilience units range
from low to high with only a single unit, Escatawpa, with low
resiliency, five units with moderate resiliency (Black, Chunky-
Okatibbee, Lower Chickasawhay, Pascagoula, and Upper Chickasawhay), and
two with high resiliency (Lower Leaf and Upper Leaf). The species is
distributed throughout the Pascagoula River watershed and thus has
sufficient redundancy such that a catastrophic event, like a major,
direct-hit hurricane, would only affect the small portion of the range
that is in close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The species is also
not confined to the mainstem rivers, and there are many tributaries
that serve as refugia for the species.
This species' habitat is surrounded by protected lands in many
areas and the species is buffered from many threats such as
development. Because the species currently retains moderate to high
resiliency in seven out of eight of the units with sufficient
redundancy and representation, the species is not currently in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range.
For the species to maintain viability, there must be adequate
redundancy (suitable number of populations and connectivity to allow
the species to withstand catastrophic events) and representation
(genetic and environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to
changing environmental conditions). Our projections of Pascagoula map
turtle viability into the foreseeable future (i.e., approximately 20 to
50 years (2040 and 2070)) consider habitat and population factors, plus
available climate modeling projections to inform future conditions. The
greatest future threats to the Pascagoula map turtle include the
effects of climate change: Loss of suitable habitat through
salinization due to SLR, overall habitat changes, and other effects of
climate (more precipitation extremes, including drought and floods).
However, future condition projections that extend out to 2040 and 2070
do not indicate the threats will act on the species within this
timeframe in a manner that would place the species in danger of
extinction throughout its range. We can reasonably rely on the
predictions within the timeframe presented in the future condition
scenarios because these timeframes are based on input from species
experts, generation time for the species, and the confidence in
predicting patterns of urbanization and agriculture. This is sufficient
time to account for the species' response to threats over three to
seven generations. Confidence in how these land uses will interact with
the species and its habitat diminishes beyond 50 years.
Habitat in the lower portions of the Escatawpa and Pascagoula units
would likely experience SLR effects and a contraction of suitable
habitat due to the effects of salinization. However, six of the eight
populations would remain in high or moderate resiliency and moderate or
better redundancy, and representation would still occur in all eight
units into the foreseeable future. The two units with the greatest
impacts from the above listed threats, the Escatawpa and the Pascagoula
units, would also remain extant but likely with less habitat overall
and some reduced resiliency. There will be sufficient redundancy with
the units across the range and representation for adaptive capacity for
the species to maintain viability into the future. Therefore, this
species is not likely to become an endangered species in the
foreseeable future. After assessing the best available information, we
determine that the Pascagoula map turtle is not in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.
Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Having determined that the Pascagoula map turtle is not in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future
in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether there is any
portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion.
Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the
``significance'' question or the ``status'' question first. We can
choose to address either question first. Regardless
[[Page 66630]]
of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
In undertaking this analysis for the Pascagoula map turtle, we
choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species is endangered or threatened.
For the Pascagoula map turtle, we considered whether the threats
are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at
a biologically meaningful scale, which may signal that it is more
likely to be endangered or threatened in that portion. We examined the
following threats: Habitat degradation or loss (i.e., channel and
hydrological modifications and impoundments, removal or loss of
deadwood, declines in water quality from agricultural runoff,
development, and mining); collection; and the effects of climate change
(SLR, drought, and flooding). We also considered whether cumulative
effects contributed to a concentration of threats across the species'
range. Overall, we found that the effects of SLR are concentrated in
the lower portion of the Pascagoula and Escatawpa resilience units and
will affect the southern portions of these units in the future.
We first consider the threat of SLR acting on the Pascagoula
resiliency unit. The effects of SLR will encroach in the southern
portion of the unit, which currently has a moderate resiliency. The
unit is linearly aligned along a north-south axis and connects to the
Gulf of Mexico, which is the source of the saltwater inundation into
the unit. The future conditions of the habitat within the unit are
projected to improve because forest cover is expected to increase. The
amount of available habitat will decline due to SLR; however, this
situation will affect less than 15 percent of occupied habitat within
the unit. This threat will create a gradual shift in conditions,
allowing turtles within the area that will be affected to move north
into other suitable areas not affected by saltwater intrusion from SLR.
Because such a small percentage of occupied habitat in the unit will be
affected by SLR, we find that SLR is not acting at a biologically
meaningful scale in the Pascagoula resiliency unit such that the
species may be in danger of extinction currently or within the
foreseeable future in the Pascagoula unit. Therefore, this portion of
the species' range does not provide a basis for determining that the
species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range.
We next consider the threat of SLR acting on the Escatawpa
resilience unit. This unit will be impacted by SLR in its southern
portion as it also is connected to the Pascagoula River in close
proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. In the Escatawpa, the area projected
to be inundated has only a single record of Pascagoula map turtle
occurrence. Another recent detection was approximately 25 river miles
(rmi) (40 river kilometers (rkm)) upstream, so it is logical to assume
there are other undetected turtles that may be impacted by inundation.
Depending on the magnitude of SLR over the next 50 years, the Escatawpa
unit will be inundated between 2.5 rmi (4.0 rkm) and 5.5 rmi (8.9 rkm)
with 1-ft (0.3-m) and 5-ft (1.5-m) level increase, respectively
(Service 2021a, p. 89). Between 5-17 percent of the species' habitat
within the Escatawpa resilience unit will be affected by SLR. Because
such a small percentage of the unit and such a low density and
abundance of turtles within it will be affected by SLR, we find that
SLR is not acting at a biologically meaningful scale in the Escatawpa
resiliency unit such that the species may be in danger of extinction
currently or within the foreseeable future in the Escatawpa unit.
Therefore, this portion of the species' range does not provide a basis
for determining that the species is in danger of extinction now or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion
of its range.
All other threats to the species are distributed throughout its
range and affect the species uniformly throughout its range. After
evaluating the areas that will be disproportionately affected by SLR in
the future, our examination leads us to find that no portion of the
species' range can provide a basis for determining that the species is
in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable
future in a significant portion of its range, and we find that the
Pascagoula map turtle is not in danger of extinction now or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its
range. This is consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors
v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447
(N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v.
Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).
Determination of Pascagoula Map Turtle Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Pascagoula map turtle does not meet the
definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in
accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find
that listing the Pascagoula map turtle is not warranted at this time. A
detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the
Pascagoula map turtle species assessment form (Service 2021, entire)
and other supporting documents, such as the accompanying SSA report
(Service 2021a, entire) (see https://www.regulations.gov under docket
number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097).
II. Proposed Listing Determination for Pearl River Map Turtle
Background
The Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis) is a freshwater
turtle species belonging to the Emydidae family that includes
terrapins, pond turtles, and marsh turtles. Turtles in the genus
Graptemys are also known as map turtles or sawback turtles for the
intricate pattern on the carapace that often resembles a topographical
map. The species is in the megacephalic (large-headed) clade as females
grow proportionally larger heads and jaws than males as they age; the
carapace length of adult females is over two times the length of adult
males on average (Gibbons and Lovich 1990, pp. 2-3).
The species inhabits rivers and large creeks with sand and gravel
bottoms in the Pearl River drainage from central Mississippi to the
border of southern Mississippi and Louisiana. For the Pearl River map
turtle to survive and reproduce, individuals need suitable habitat that
supports essential life functions at all life stages. Several elements
appear to be essential to the survival and reproduction of individuals:
Mainstem and tributary reaches within the Pearl River system that have
sandbars, adequate flow, adequate supply of invertebrate prey items
including insects and mollusks (particularly freshwater mussels), and
an abundance of emergent and floating basking structures of various
sizes. The diet of the Pearl River map turtle varies between females
and males; mature females consume mostly Asian clams (Corbicula
fluminea), while males and juveniles eat insects, with mature males
specializing in caddisfly larvae and consuming more mollusks than
juveniles (Vucenovi[cacute] and Lindeman 2021, entire; Service 2021a,
p. 11).
[[Page 66631]]
Pearl River map turtles are found in rivers and creeks with sand
and gravel bottoms and dense accumulations of deadwood; turtles have
not been documented in oxbow lakes or other floodplain habitats. They
were notably absent from lakes where their sympatric microcephalic
species, the ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera), is present, but
do occur at the upstream reach of Ross Barnett Reservoir, an
impoundment of the Pearl River (Lindeman 2013, p. 298). Accounts from
before the Pearl River map turtle and Pascagoula map turtle were
taxonomically divided described ideal habitat as rivers and creeks with
sand or gravel bottoms, abundant basking structures, and swift currents
(Lovich 2009, p. 304; Service 2006, p. 2). Although some species of
Graptemys may tolerate conditions with some salinity, there is evidence
that the genus is largely intolerant of brackish and saltwater
environments (Selman and Qualls 2008, pp. 228-229; Lindeman 2013, pp.
396-397).
The species requires semi-exposed structure for basking. Emergent
deadwood serves as thermoregulatory basking structure, foraging
structure for males and juveniles (Selman and Lindeman 2015, pp. 794-
795), and as an overnight resting place for males and juveniles (Cagle
1952, p. 227). Moderate-to-high basking densities of Pearl River map
turtles were always associated with moderate-to-high deadwood
densities, but some sites with ample deadwood structure did not have
high densities of basking map turtles, indicating that those sites may
lack other important characteristics (Lindeman 1999, pp. 37-40).
Deadwood and its source in riparian forests are positively correlated
to the abundance of riverine turtles (Sterrett et al. 2011, entire).
The life history of the Pearl River map turtle can be described as
the stages of egg, hatchling, juvenile, and adult. Typically, male map
turtles mature in 2 to 3 years, while females mature much later
(Lindeman 2013, p. 109). Maturity for adult female Pearl River map
turtles may occur around 9 years of age (Vogt et al. 2019, pp. 557-
558).
Female Pearl River map turtles excavate nests and lay their eggs on
sandbars and beaches along riverbanks during the late spring and early
summer months. Nesting habitat has been described as sandy substrates
near the water's edge. At a beach on the Pearl River downstream of the
Strong River, a nest was found in fine sand 82 ft (25 m) from the water
(Vogt et al. 2019, p. 557). Three confirmed Pearl River map turtle
nests found on sandbars along the Pearl River were dug in relatively
fine sand ranging from 23 to 180 ft (7 to 55 m) from the water's edge
and averaging 5.2 ft (1.6 m) from the closest vegetation (Ennen et al.
2016, pp. 094.4-094.6). Another account states that nests are typically
near the vegetation lines of sandbars (Anderson 1958, pp. 212-215).
The time from deposition to nest emergence by hatchlings in natural
clutches ranged from 67 to 79 days and averaged 69.3 days. Hatchlings
incubated in captivity averaged 3.66 cm (1.44 in) in carapace length
(Jones, unpublished data, summarized in Ennen et al. 2016, pp.
094.4094.6). Hatchlings typically emerge from the nest within 3 hours
after sunset, and this life stage depends on adequate abundance of
invertebrate prey and emergent branches near the riverbank. All life
stages require adequate quality and quantity of water as they are
primarily freshwater aquatic turtles.
A more thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology
of the Pearl River map turtle is presented in detail in the SSA report
(Service 2021b, pp. 15-30).
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the Pearl
River map turtle, its resources, and the threats that influence the
species' current and future conditions in order to assess its overall
viability and the risks to that viability.
Species Needs
We assessed the best available information to identify the physical
and biological needs to support individual fitness at all life stages
for the Pearl River map turtle. Full descriptions of all needs are
available in chapter 3 of the SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 19-21),
which can be found in docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097 on https://www.regulations.gov. Based upon the best available scientific and
commercial information, and acknowledging existing ecological
uncertainties, the resource and demographic needs for breeding,
feeding, sheltering, and dispersal of the Pearl River map turtle are
characterized as:
For successful reproduction, the species requires patches
of fine sand adjacent to adult habitat with sparse vegetation,
typically on sandbars, adequate sand incubation temperatures to yield
an appropriate hatchling sex ratio, and appropriate river flow to
prevent nest mortality due to flooding.
Hatchlings require an adequate abundance of invertebrate
prey and of emergent branches and tangles near the riverbank.
Adult males require an adequate abundance of insect prey,
emergent logs, branches, and tangles near the bank.
Adult females require an adequate abundance of native
mussels or Asian clams; deeper, sand or gravel-bottomed stretches for
foraging; and emergent logs and branches for basking.
Population needs include the same requirements as
individuals (sandbars; natural hydrologic regimes; and an adequate
supply of invertebrate prey items, basking structures, and sand,
gravel, or rocky substrates) but must be met at a larger scale.
Connectivity that facilitates genetic exchange and maintains high
genetic diversity is needed; tributary and mainstem reaches with
suitable habitat uninterrupted by impoundments must be sufficient in
size to support a large enough population of individuals to avoid
issues associated with small populations, such as inbreeding
depression.
Threats Analysis
The following discussions include evaluations of three threats and
associated sources that are affecting the Pearl River map turtle and
its habitat: (1) Habitat degradation or loss, (2) collection, and (3)
climate change (Service 2021b, Chapter 4). In addition, potential
impacts from disease and invasive species were evaluated but were found
to have minimal effects on viability of the species based on current
knowledge (Service 2021b, pp. 43-45).
Habitat Degradation or Loss
Water Quality
Degradation of stream and wetland systems through reduced water
quality and increased concentrations of contaminants can affect the
occurrence and abundance of freshwater turtles (DeCatanzaro and Chow-
Fraser 2010, p. 360). Infrastructure development increases the
percentage of impervious surfaces, reducing and degrading terrestrial
and aquatic habitats. Increased water volume and land-based
contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, oils) flow into aquatic
systems, modifying hydrologic and sediment regimes of rivers and
wetlands (Walsh et al. 2005, entire). Aquatic toxicants can have both
immediate and long-term negative impacts on species and ecosystems by
degrading the water quality and causing direct and indirect effects to
the species or its required resources (Service 2021b, p. 25). Despite
these effects, species vary widely in their tolerances and abilities to
adapt to
[[Page 66632]]
water quality degradation, including variation in stress and immune
responses (French et al. 2008, pp. 5-6), population structure (Patrick
and Gibbs 2010, pp. 795-797), survival and recruitment (Eskew and
Dorcas 2010, pp. 368-371), and ultimately distribution and abundance
(Riley et al. 2005, pp. 6-8).
Freshwater mussels and snails are important food sources for the
Pearl River map turtle, and sedimentation and pollution can have
adverse impacts on mollusk populations (Box and Mossa 1999, entire).
While past studies have focused on the closely related Pascagoula map
turtle's prey, we expect impacts to be similar for the Pearl River map
turtle. Inputs of point (point source discharge from particular pipes,
discharges, etc.) and nonpoint (diffuse land surface runoff) source
pollution across the range are numerous and widespread. Point source
pollution can be generated from inadequately treated effluent from
industrial plants, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, active
surface mining, drain fields from individual private homes, and others
(Service 2000, pp. 14-15). Nonpoint source pollution may originate from
agricultural activities, poultry and cattle feedlots, abandoned mine
runoff, construction, silviculture, failing septic tanks, and
contaminated runoff from urban areas (Deutsch et al. 1990, entire;
Service 2000, pp. 14-15).
These sources may contribute pollution to streams via sediments,
heavy metals, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes,
septic tank and gray water leakage, and oils and greases. Glyphosate
(found in Roundup and other herbicides), which is widely used as an
herbicide, has been found in many waterways across the United States
from agricultural runoff and exposure has been associated with
endocrine and reproductive disorders in animals (Jerrell et al. 2020,
entire; Medalie et al 2020, entire; Mesnage et al. 2015, entire). Water
quality and many native aquatic fauna often decline as a result of this
pollution, which causes nitrification, decreases in dissolved oxygen
concentration, and increases in acidity and conductivity. These
alterations likely have direct (e.g., decreased survival and/or
reproduction) and indirect (e.g., loss, degradation, and fragmentation
of habitat) effects. For aquatic species, submergent vegetation
provides critical spawning habitat for adults, refugia from predators,
and habitat for prey of all life stages (Jude and Pappas 1992, pp. 666-
667), and degraded water quality and high algal biomass that result
from pollutant inputs, cause loss of these critical submergent plant
species (Chow-Fraser et al. 1998, pp. 38-39).
A wide range of current activities and land uses within the range
of the Pearl River map turtle can lead to sedimentation within streams:
Agricultural practices, construction activities, stormwater runoff,
unpaved roads, incompatible timber harvest, utility crossings, and
mining. Fine sediments are not only input into streams during these
activities, but historical land use practices may also have
substantially altered hydrological and geological processes such that
sediments continue to be input into streams for several decades after
those activities cease (Harding et al. 1998, p. 14846). The negative
effects of increased sedimentation are well understood for aquatic
species (Burkhead et al. 1997, p. 411; Burkhead and Jelks 2001, p.
964). Sedimentation can alter food webs and stream productivity
(Schofield et al. 2004, p. 907), force altered behaviors (Sweka and
Hartman 2003, p. 346), and even have sublethal effects on and result in
mortality of individual aquatic organisms (Sutherland 2005, p. 94;
Wenger and Freeman 2007, p. 7).
Degradation of water quality from municipal and industrial
effluents is recognized as a cause of decline in the ringed map turtle
(Graptemys oculifera), a sympatric endangered species (Lindeman 1998,
p. 137). Lower numbers of ringed map turtles have been recorded near
gravel and sand mining operations (Shively 1999, p. 10). Native mussel
and gastropod populations have likely already decreased due to
sedimentation and other anthropogenic alterations (Jones at al. 2005,
entire). Pearl River map turtles' mollusk prey species may be affected
by municipal (e.g., sewage) and industrial (e.g., paper mills and
chicken farms) effluents that are discharged into the Pearl River (EPA
2018, entire). Because of the similar life-history traits of the ringed
map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle, it is reasonable to expect
that water quality also impacts the Pearl River map turtle populations
(Selman 2020a, p. 2).
Additionally, water quality for the Pearl River map turtle is
impacted by four processes that are further discussed below: Channel
and hydrology modifications and impoundments, agriculture, development
(urbanization), and mining. Water quality is affected across the range
of the species; however, the source and effects are greater in certain
units.
Channel and Hydrology Modifications and Impoundments
Dredging and channelization have led to loss of aquatic habitat in
the Southeast (Warren Jr. et al. 1997, unpaginated). Dredging and
channelization projects are extensive throughout the region for flood
control, navigation, sand and gravel mining, and conversion of wetlands
into croplands (Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated; Herrig and Shute 2002,
pp. 542-543). Many rivers are continually dredged to maintain a channel
for shipping traffic. Dredging and channelization modify and destroy
habitat for aquatic species by destabilizing the substrate, increasing
erosion and siltation, removing woody debris, decreasing habitat
heterogeneity, and stirring up contaminants, which settle onto the
substrate (Williams et al. 1993, pp. 7-8; Buckner et al. 2002, entire;
Bennett et al. 2008, pp. 467-468). Channelization can also lead to
headcutting, which causes further erosion and sedimentation (Hartfield
1993, pp. 131-141). Dredging removes woody debris, which provides cover
and nest locations for many aquatic species (Bennett et al. 2008, pp.
467-468). Anthropogenic deadwood removal has been noted as a reason for
decline in a microcephalic species, the ringed map turtle (Lindeman
1998, p. 137). Snags and logs are removed from some sites to facilitate
boat navigation (Dundee and Rossman 1989, p. 187). Experiments with
manual deposition of deadwood in stretches with less riparian forest
have been suggested as potential habitat restoration measures (Lindeman
2019, p. 33).
Stream channelization, point-bar mining, and impoundments were
identified as potential threats in a report issued prior to the
Pascagoula map turtle and Pearl River map turtle being recognized as
taxonomically distinct (Service 2006, p. 2). Channel modification is
recognized as a cause of decline in the ringed map turtle, a sympatric
endangered species (Lindeman 1998, p. 137). Considerably low densities
of Pearl River map turtles were observed in the lower reaches of the
Pearl, where much channelization and flow diversion has occurred
(Lindeman 2019, pp. 23-29).
Impoundment of rivers is a primary threat to aquatic species in the
Southeast (Benz and Collins 1997, unpaginated; Buckner et al. 2002,
entire). Dams modify habitat conditions and aquatic communities both
upstream and downstream of an impoundment (Winston et al. 1991, pp.
103-104; Mulholland and Lenat 1992, pp. 193-231; Soballe et al. 1992,
pp. 421-474).
[[Page 66633]]
Upstream of dams, habitat is flooded, and in-channel conditions change
from flowing to still water, with increased depth, decreased levels of
dissolved oxygen, and increased sedimentation. Sedimentation alters
substrate conditions by filling in interstitial spaces between rocks
that provide habitat for many species (Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated).
Downstream of dams, flow regime fluctuates with resulting fluctuations
in water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, the substrate is
scoured, and downstream tributaries are eroded (Schuster 1997,
unpaginated; Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated). Negative ``tailwater''
effects on habitat can extend many kilometers downstream (Neves et al.
1997, unpaginated). Dams fragment habitat for aquatic species by
blocking corridors for migration and dispersal, resulting in population
geographic and genetic isolation and heightened susceptibility to
extinction (Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated). Dams also preclude the
ability of aquatic organisms to escape from polluted waters and
accidental spills (Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated).
Damming of streams and springs is extensive throughout the
Southeast (Etnier 1997, unpaginated; Morse et al. 1997, unpaginated;
Shute et al. 1997, unpaginated). Most Southeastern streams are impacted
by impoundment (Shute et al. 1997, p. 458). Many streams have both
small ponds in their headwaters and large reservoirs in their lower
reaches. Small streams on private lands are regularly dammed to create
ponds for cattle, irrigation, recreation, and fishing, with significant
ecological effects due to the sheer abundance of these structures
(Morse et al. 1997, unpaginated). Small headwater streams are
increasingly being dammed in the Southeast to supply water for
municipalities (Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated), and many
Southeastern springs have also been impounded (Etnier 1997,
unpaginated). Dams are known to have caused the extirpation and
extinction of many Southeastern species, and existing and proposed dams
pose an ongoing threat to many aquatic species (Folkerts 1997,
unpaginated; Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated; Service 2000, p. 15;
Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated).
On the Pearl River, Ross Barnett Reservoir was constructed between
1960 and 1963 and provides a water supply for the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, and the associated area, as well as recreational
opportunities on the 33,000-acre (ac) (13,355 hectares (ha)) lake and
the 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) surrounding it (Pearl River Valley Water
Management District 2020, entire). A total of 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of
the Pearl River that was previously suitable habitat is now submerged
beneath the Ross Barnett Reservoir (Lindeman 2019, p. 19). The Ross
Barnett Reservoir has greatly reduced habitat suitability of five
percent of the mainstem Pearl River by altering the lotic (flowing
water) habitat preferred by Pearl River map turtles to lentic (lake)
habitat and fragmented the contiguous habitat for the species. Low
population densities of Pearl River map turtles have been observed
upstream of the Ross Barnett Reservoir, possibly due to recreational
boating and extended recreational foot traffic or camping on sandbars
by reservoir visitors (Selman and Jones 2017, pp. 32-34). Between the
late 1980s and early 2010s, notable population declines also have been
observed in the stretch of the Pearl River downstream of the Ross
Barnett Reservoir (north of Lakeland Drive), but the exact reason for
the decline is unknown (Selman 2020b, p. 194). Additionally, plans for
new reservoirs on the Pearl River both upstream and downstream of
Jackson have been or are being considered (Lindeman 2013, pp. 202-203).
Up to 170 individual Pearl River map turtles could be impacted by the
construction of the One Lake Project, one of several proposed
impoundments (Selman 2020b, entire).
Agriculture
Agriculture is generally high across the Pearl River basin, where
levels of agriculture within the units ranged from 12-23 percent, with
the Bogue Chitto Unit having the highest levels of agriculture (Service
2021b, pp. 53-56). Some of the major crops in the area include soybeans
and cotton, and much of the livestock farming includes chickens and
cattle. Agricultural practices such as traditional farming, feedlot
operations, and associated land use practices can contribute pollutants
to rivers and may affect the Pearl River map turtle's aquatic habitat.
These practices degrade habitat by eroding stream banks, which results
in alterations to stream hydrology and geomorphology. Nutrients,
bacteria, pesticides, and other organic compounds are generally found
in higher concentrations in areas affected by agriculture than in
forested areas. Contaminants associated with agriculture (e.g.,
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste) can cause
degradation of water quality and habitats through instream oxygen
deficiencies, excess nutrification, and excessive algal growths. These,
in turn, alter the aquatic community composition, shifting food webs
and stream productivity, forcing altered behaviors, and even having
sublethal effects or outright killing individual aquatic organisms
(Petersen et al. 1999, p. 6). These alterations likely have direct
(e.g., decreased survival and/or reproduction) and indirect (e.g.,
loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat) effects on the Pearl
River map turtle or its habitat.
Agricultural development may also reduce the amount of adjacent
riparian forest available to produce deadwood through land conversion;
in another megacephalic map turtle species (Barbour's map turtle),
turtle abundance decreased in areas where adjacent riparian corridors
had been disturbed by agriculture, while the abundance of the red-eared
slider (Trachemys scripta), a cosmopolitan species, increased (Sterrett
et al. 2011, entire).
Pesticide application and use of animal waste for soil amendment
are becoming common in many regions and pose a threat to biotic
diversity in freshwater systems. Over the past two decades, these
practices have corresponded with marked declines in populations of fish
and mussel species in the Upper Conasauga River watershed in Georgia/
Tennessee (Freeman et al. 2017, p. 419). Nutrient enrichment of streams
was widespread with nitrate and phosphorus exceeding levels associated
with eutrophication, and hormone concentrations in sediments were often
above those shown to cause endocrine disruption in fish, possibly
reflecting widespread application of poultry litter and manure (Lasier
et al. 2016, entire). Researchers postulate that species declines
observed in the Conasauga watershed may be at least partially due to
hormones, as well as excess nutrients and herbicide surfactants
(Freeman et al. 2017, p. 429).
Development
The Pearl River map turtle range includes areas of the Pearl River
that are adjacent to several urban areas, including the Jackson,
Mississippi, metropolitan area where urbanization is expected to
increase; other areas within the Pearl River basin that are expected to
grow in the future include the cities of Monticello and Columbia,
Mississippi. Urbanization is a significant source of water quality
degradation that can reduce the survival of aquatic organisms. Urban
development can stress aquatic systems in a variety of ways, which
could affect the diet and habitat needs of aquatic turtles. This
includes increasing the frequency and magnitude of high flows in
streams, increasing sedimentation and nutrient loads, increasing
[[Page 66634]]
contamination and toxicity, decreasing the diversity of fish, aquatic
insects, plants, and amphibians, and changing stream morphology and
water chemistry (Coles et al. 2012, entire; CWP 2003, entire).
Activities related to development can also reduce the amount of
adjacent riparian forest available to produce deadwood; in another
megacephalic map turtle species (Barbour's map turtle), abundance
decreased in areas where adjacent riparian corridors had been disturbed
(Service 2021b, p. 10). In addition, sources and risks of an acute or
catastrophic contamination event, such as a leak from an underground
storage tank or a hazardous materials spill on a highway or by train,
increase as urbanization increases.
Mining
The rapid rise in urbanization and construction of
large[hyphen]scale infrastructure projects are driving increasing
demands for construction materials such as sand and gravel. Rivers are
a major source of sand and gravel because transport costs are low;
river energy produces the gravel and sand, thus eliminating the cost of
mining, grinding, and sorting rocks; and the material produced by
rivers tends to consist of resilient minerals of angular shape that are
preferred for construction (Koehnken et al. 2020, p. 363). Impacts of
sand and gravel mining can be direct or indirect. Direct impacts
include physical changes to the river system and the removal of gravel
and floodplain habitats from the system. Indirect impacts include
shifting of habitat types due to channel and sedimentation changes;
changes in water quality, which changes the chemical and physical
conditions of the system; and hydraulic changes that can impact
movement of species and habitat availability, which is vital for
supporting turtle nesting and basking activities.
Gravel mining is a major industry in southeastern Louisiana,
particularly along the Bogue Chitto River, within the range of the
Pearl River map turtle (Selman 2020a, p. 20). In-stream and unpermitted
point-bar mining was observed in the late 1990s and was the biggest
concern for Graptemys species in the Bogue Chitto River (Shively 1999,
pp. 10-11). Gravel mining is perhaps still the greatest threat to the
Pearl River system in southeastern Louisiana, particularly in the Bogue
Chitto floodplain where run-off and effluents would affect the
downstream of these point sources (Selman 2020a, p. 20). Gravel mining
can degrade water quality, increase erosion, and ultimately impact
movement and habitat quality for aquatic species such as the Pearl
River map turtle (Koehnken et al. 2020, p. 363). A recent comparison of
aerial imagery from the mid-1980s and late 1990s with images from 2019
reveal increases in distribution and magnitude of gravel mines in the
Bogue Chitto River system, and recent surveys have reported several
areas where mining appears to have degraded water quality significantly
(Selman 2020a, pp. 20-21, and p. 40). Mining in the floodplain
continues to be a threat to the species; however, permit requirements
in Louisiana and Mississippi have reduced the threat of instream gravel
mining.
Collection
Due to the intricacy of the shell morphology, map turtles are
popular in the pet trade (Service 2006, p. 2), both domestically and
internationally. An analysis of online marketplace offerings in Hong
Kong revealed that interest in turtles as pets is increasing, that many
of the species offered for sale are from North America, and that there
is a higher interest in rare species (Sung and Fong 2018, p. 221). The
common map turtle (Graptemys geographica) is one of three most-traded
species in the international wildlife trade market, with individuals
being sold both as pets and incorporated into Chinese aquaculture for
consumption (Luiselli et al. 2016, p. 170). Exploitation of Pearl River
map turtles for the pet trade domestically and in Asian markets has
been documented, but the degree of impact is unclear, as it is unknown
whether captive individuals were Pascagoula map turtles or Pearl River
map turtles (Lindeman 1998, p. 137; Cheung and Dudgeon 2006, p. 756;
Service 2006, p. 2; Selman and Qualls 2007, pp. 32-34; Ennen et al.
2016, p. 094.6).
According to a species expert, collection of wild turtles in the
Pearl River system is probably occurring, and similar to what has been
observed in other States, these turtles are likely destined for the
high-end turtle pet trade in China and possibly other Southeast Asian
countries (Selman 2020a, p. 23). Information has been documented from
three different local individuals, at three different locations,
concerning turtle bycatch or harvesting in local Louisiana waterways
occupied by Pearl River map turtles (Selman 2020a, pp. 22-23). These
locations included the Pearl River south of Bogalusa, Louisiana
(possible mortality resulting from bycatch in hoop nets), the West
Pearl River Navigation Canal (turtles captured and sold, possibly for
shipment to China), and the Bogue Chitto River (local comment that baby
turtles were being captured and shipped to China) (Selman 2020a, pp.
22-23). The specific species captured were not documented; however, it
is likely that at least some of these turtles were Pearl River map
turtles.
The Service manages information related to species exports in the
Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS). According to a
LEMIS report from 2005 to 2019, more than 300,000 turtles identified as
Graptemys spp. or their parts were exported from the United States to
29 countries (Service 2021b, Appendix B). The number of turtles
recorded in each shipment ranged widely. Due to their similarity in
appearance, species of Graptemys are difficult to differentiate.
Records from 2005, when the highest number of Graptemys were exported,
show more than 35,000 turtles (Graptemys spp.) in a single shipment to
Spain and a total of 172,645 individual Graptemys exported to 24
different countries. However, there is some uncertainty in the sources
of the exported turtles as they could have originated from captive
stock.
Collection is allowed in Mississippi with an appropriate license
through the State; a person may possess and harvest from the wild no
more than 10 non-game turtles per license year. No more than four can
be of the same species or subspecies. It is illegal to harvest turtles
between April 1 to June 30 (40 MISS Admin Code Part 5 Rule 2.3 on Non-
game Species in Need of Management).
Climate Change
In the Southeastern United States, climate change is expected to
result in a high degree of variability in climate conditions with more
frequent drought, more extreme heat (resulting in increases in air and
water temperatures), increased heavy precipitation events (e.g.,
flooding), more intense storms (e.g., increased frequency of major
hurricanes), and rising sea level and accompanying storm surge
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, entire).
Warming in the Southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer,
which is predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean
precipitation is expected to increase slightly, leading to increased
flooding events (IPCC 2013, entire; Alder and Hostetler 2013,
unpaginated). This variability in climate may affect ecosystem
processes and communities by altering the abiotic conditions
experienced by biotic assemblages resulting in potential effects on
community composition and individual species interactions (DeWan et al.
2010, p. 7). These changes have the potential to impact Pearl River map
turtles and/
[[Page 66635]]
or their habitat, are ongoing, and will likely become more evident in
the future.
The dual stressors of climate change and direct human impact have
the potential to impact aquatic ecosystems by altering stream flows and
nutrient cycles, eliminating habitats, and changing community structure
(Moore et al. 1997, p. 942). Increased water temperatures and
alterations in stream flow are the climate change effects that are most
likely to affect stream communities (Poff 1992, entire), and each of
these variables is strongly influenced by land use patterns. For
example, in agricultural areas, lower precipitation may trigger
increased irrigation resulting in reduced stream flow (Backlund et al.
2008, pp. 42-43). Alternatively, increased urbanization may lead to
more impervious surfaces, increasing runoff and flashiness of stream
flows (Nelson et al. 2009, pp. 156-159).
Increasing Temperatures
Another area where climate change may affect the viability of the
Pearl River map turtle is through temperature-dependent sex
determination (TDSD) during embryo development within buried nests. In
turtle species that exhibit TDSD, increasing seasonal temperatures may
result in unnatural sex ratios among hatchlings. This could be an
important factor as climate change drives increasing temperatures.
Since male map turtles with TDSD develop at lower temperatures than
females, rising temperatures during developmental periods may result in
sex ratios that are increasingly female-biased.
Drought
Climate change may increase the frequency of drought events, such
as the one that occurred in the Southeastern United States in 2007.
Based on down-scaled climate models for the Southeastern United States,
the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to
increase in this region in the future (Keellings and Engstrom 2019, pp.
4-6). Stream flow is strongly correlated with important physical and
chemical parameters that limit the distribution and abundance of
riverine species (Power et al. 1995, entire; Resh et al. 1988, pp. 438-
439). The Pearl River map turtle is aquatic and requires adequate flow
for all life stages.
Sea Level Rise
As a result of climate change, the world's oceanic surface-waters
and land are warming. The density of water decreases as temperature
increases causing it to expand. This process of ``thermal expansion,''
exacerbated by an influx of melt water from glaciers and polar ice
fields, is causing sea levels to rise. During the 20th century, global
sea level rose by 0.56 feet (ft) (0.17 meters (m)) at an average annual
rate of 0.079 in (2.01 millimeter (mm) per year, which was 10 times
faster than the average during the previous 3,000 years (IPCC 2007, pp.
30-31). The rate of SLR continues to accelerate and is currently
believed to be about 0.12 in (3 mm) per year (Church and White 2006,
pp. 2-4). It is estimated that sea level will rise by a further 0.59 ft
(0.18 m) to 1.94 ft (0.59 m) by the century's end (IPCC 2007, p. 46).
However, some research suggests the magnitude may be far greater than
previously predicted due to recent rapid ice loss from Greenland and
Antarctica (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006, pp. 989-990). Accounting for
this accelerated melting, sea level could rise by between 1.64 ft (0.5
m) and 4.6 ft (1.4 m) by 2100 (Rahmstorf et al. 2007, p. 709). SLR is
likely to impact downstream Pearl River map turtle populations directly
by reducing the quality and quantity of available habitat through
increased salinity of the freshwater system upstream from the Gulf of
Mexico (Service 2021b, p. 86). Local scenarios based on downscaled
climate models predict between 2-10 ft (0.6-3.0 m) of SLR in the
northern Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Pearl River and could
inundate up to 23.73 rmi (38.18 rkm) of the Pearl River under an
extreme scenario (NOAA 2020, unpaginated).
SLR may also affect the salt marsh wetlands at the mouth of the
Pearl River deteriorating the protective effect of the marsh in
reducing saltwater intrusion. Barrier islands off the coast may also be
submerged, resulting in loss of the protections from the small land
masses that buffer the effects of hurricanes and storms. Although some
species of Graptemys appear to handle some salinity increases, there is
evidence that the group is largely intolerant of brackish and saltwater
environments (Selman and Qualls 2008, pp. 228-229; Selman et al. 2013,
p. 1201; Lindeman 2013, pp. 396-397).
Hurricane Regime Changes--Increased Intensity and Frequency
Since 1996, the frequency of hurricane landfalls in the
Southeastern United States has increased, and that trend is predicted
to continue for some years into the future (Goldenberg et al. 2001, p.
475; Emanuel 2005, entire; Webster et al. 2005, p. 1845). Individual
storm characteristics play a large role in the types and temporal
extent of impacts (Greening et al. 2006, p. 878). For example,
direction and speed of approach, point of landfall, and intensity all
influence the magnitude of storm surge and resultant flooding (Weisberg
and Zheng 2006, p. 164) and consequent environmental damage. The storm
surge from storms of increased intensity, when compounded with SLR,
will force salt water higher upstream with storm surges. Conditions
that result from storm surge that correspond with high tides are
amplified and change the salinity of waters ever farther upstream,
negatively affecting freshwater species, such as map turtles, that are
not tolerant of saline environments.
Increased Precipitation--Flooding
While river flooding under natural hydrologic conditions may be
important for sandbar construction and deposition of nesting sand on
riverine beaches (Dieter et al. 2014, pp. 112-117), an increase in
hurricane frequency and stochastic catastrophic floods could cause an
increase in nest mortality. Nest mortality from flooding has not been
studied in the Pearl River map turtle but has been documented in
several other riverine turtle species. A study on the sympatric yellow-
blotched map turtle (Graptemys flavimaculata) revealed that nest
mortality from flooding can be as high as 86.3 percent in some years
(Horne et al. 2003, p. 732). In a study on nests of the Ouachita map
turtle (Graptemys ouachitensis), two 10-day floods (in 2008 and 2010)
were believed to have caused the complete mortality of all nests
existing before the floods, as hatchlings were found dead inside eggs
after the flood. However, a shorter flooding event in 2011
(approximately 4 days of inundation) caused no known nest mortalities
(Geller 2012, pp. 210-211). A study on freshwater turtles in South
America indicated that as flooding incidents have increased since the
1970s, the number of days that nesting sandbars remain above the
inundation threshold has been steadily and significantly decreasing,
causing steep declines in the number of hatchlings produced per year
(Eisemberg et al. 2016, p. 6).
The effects of climate change will continue affecting the species
into the future with chronic and acute exposure to the changes that
will occur in its aquatic and terrestrial habitats over time.
Additional Stressors
Additional stressors that affect the Pearl River map turtle that
are not well studied or considered major threats to the species'
viability include disease,
[[Page 66636]]
contaminants, and persecution by humans. Some of the contaminants
include pesticides (herbicides and insecticides) and heavy metals. The
culmination of stress due to disease and chronic exposure to
contaminants may exacerbate the effects of the other threats on
individuals. Wanton shooting of turtles has been documented for
Graptemys species and may impact populations (Lindeman 1998, p. 137;
Service 2006, p. 2). However, this practice often goes unreported and
is thus difficult to study and/or quantify.
Cumulative/Synergistic Effects
The Pearl River map turtle uses both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats that may be affected by activities along the Pearl River
basin. Ongoing and future stressors that may contribute to cumulative
effects include habitat fragmentation, genetic isolation, invasive
species, disease, climate change, and impacts from increased human
interactions due to human population increases. When considering the
compounding and synergistic effects acting on the species, the
resiliency of the analysis units will be further reduced in the future.
However, these effects would not change the overall current and future
conditions of the species.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not
only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also
analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the
cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the
current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and
future conditions of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis
that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then
accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts.
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.
Current Condition
The current condition of the Pearl River map turtle is described in
terms of population resiliency, redundancy, and representation across
the species. The analysis of these conservation principles to
understand the species' current viability is described in more detail
in the Pearl River map turtle SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 52-75).
Resiliency
In order to analyze the species' resiliency, we delineated the
species into resiliency units that represent groups of interbreeding
individuals. Historically, the majority of the range of the species was
likely a single, connected biological population prior to the
fragmentation from the Ross Barrett Reservoir; however, we delineated
five different resilience units to more accurately describe trends in
resiliency, forecast future resiliency, and capture differences in
stressors between the units. We considered population and habitat
factors to describe the overall resiliency of each unit. The resilience
units are: Upper Pearl, Middle Pearl--Silver, Middle Pearl--Strong,
Bogue Chitto, and Lower Pearl (figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 66637]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.000
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The factors used to assess current resiliency of Pearl River map
turtle resilience units include two population factors: (1) Occupied
tributaries as a proxy for presence and (2) density and abundance of
four habitat factors: (a) Water quality, (b) forested riparian cover,
(c) protected land, and (d) presence of channelization/reservoirs/
gravel mining. These population and habitat factors are collectively
described as resiliency factors.
Forty-nine percent of the total range occupied by the Pearl River
map turtle is in the mainstem Pearl and West Pearl Rivers, with the
remaining 51 percent of the occupied range found in various tributary
systems (Lindeman 2019, p.
[[Page 66638]]
19). Tributary populations have been shown to be less densely populated
compared to mainstem populations, although some tributaries (e.g.,
Bogue Chitto River) contain relatively large populations of Pearl River
map turtles, including some that have only recently been discovered.
To assess the occupancy of tributaries, we used survey data
collected from 2005-2020. These data were collected by several
different observers through a variety of survey types, including bridge
surveys, basking surveys, and live trapping. We used 2005 as the cutoff
based on the species' biology and expert input. Females typically reach
sexual maturity after 8 years, so 15 years approximates two
generations. Species experts also noted that most surveys conducted for
the species have occurred after 2005. When assessing the occupancy of
tributaries within the range, we considered all surveyed tributaries
including those where Pearl River map turtles were not detected. We
established thresholds to describe the occupancy of the surveyed
tributaries within each resilience unit by applying the following rule
set:
Very Low: No currently occupied tributaries;
Low: Between 1-25 percent of surveyed tributaries are
currently occupied;
Moderate: Between 25-50 percent of surveyed tributaries
are currently occupied;
High: 50 Percent or more of surveyed tributaries are
currently occupied.
Using this threshold rule set, we found that one unit was
determined to be ranked very low (Middle Pearl--Silver); three ranked
moderate (Upper Pearl, Bogue Chitto, and Lower Pearl); and one ranked
high (Middle Pearl--Strong). The Middle Pearl--Silver unit has four
surveyed tributaries, with zero detections in any of those tributaries,
leading to the very low rank. In the Lower Pearl, although only 43
percent of surveyed tributaries were found to be occupied, this unit
had by far, the most occupied tributaries (7), thus the moderate rank
is likely more a function of survey effort. Half of the tributaries
surveyed within the Middle Pearl--Strong unit were found to be
occupied, giving it a high rank.
Data from point counts, basking density surveys, and results from
trapping efforts in 2006-2018 were combined to estimate density and
abundance for stream segments throughout the range of the Pearl River
map turtle (Lindeman 2019, pp. 11-12). The entire species' population
estimate is 21,841 individuals, with 61 percent occurring on mainstem
reaches, 34 percent occurring in 4 large tributaries, and the remaining
5 percent spread amongst other smaller tributaries (Lindeman 2019, p.
21). Generally, abundance of the species declined with the size of the
river reach surveyed, where smaller tributaries generally had lower
numbers of turtles compared to larger, mainstem reaches (Lindeman 2019,
p. 13). For example, basking density was found to be 2.2 times higher
on mainstem reaches than on tributary reaches, and 2.1 times higher on
large tributaries than on small tributaries (Lindeman 2019, p. 15).
When applying the population factors of density and abundance to
determine resiliency, each river drainage was divided into river
reaches that were categorized as high, moderate, low, and very low
density based on basking density surveys and point count results. All
mainstem reaches of the Pearl River were classified as moderate with
the exception of the Lower Pearl, which was low. The tributaries and
sections of the mainstems of each resilience unit were classified
resulting in all moderate to low scores, with only the Pearl River
mainstem within the Upper Pearl resiliency unit scoring moderate/high
for its density classification.
To determine a composite (combined) score for population factors
within individual units, we combined the results of the assessment of
the occupancy of tributaries and density classes of mainstream reaches
and large tributaries. The resulting population factor composite
scoring for each resiliency unit describes three units (Bogue Chitto,
Middle Pearl--Strong, and Upper Pearl) as moderate and two units (Lower
Pearl and Middle Pearl--Strong) as low (table 1). Additional
information regarding the methodology is described in detail in the SSA
report (Service, 2021b, pp. 47-50).
Table 1--Population Factors and the Compiled Composite Score for Each Resiliency Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resiliency unit Tributary occupancy Density Composite score
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogue Chitto....................... Moderate.............. Moderate............. Moderate.
Lower Pearl........................ Moderate.............. Low.................. Low.
Middle Pearl--Silver............... Very Low.............. Moderate............. Low.
Middle Pearl--Strong............... High.................. Moderate............. Moderate.
Upper Pearl........................ Moderate.............. Moderate............. Moderate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The habitat factors used to describe resiliency include water
quality; hydrological and structural changes from channelization,
reservoirs, and gravel mining; amount of protected land adjacent to the
rivers and streams; and forested riparian cover (a proxy for deadwood
abundance). All four of the habitat factors were then compiled into a
composite score (table 2) that is analyzed together with the population
factors composite score for an overall assessment of the current
resiliency of the Pearl River map turtle (table 3).
Table 2--Habitat Factor Composite Scores for all Pearl River Map Turtle Units as a Function of Four Habitat Factors (Water Quality, Channelization/
Reservoirs, Protected Land, and Deadwood Abundance)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channelization/
Resiliency unit Water quality reservoirs Protected land Deadwood Composite score
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogue Chitto...................... Moderate............. Low................. Low................. Moderate............ Low.
Lower Pearl....................... Moderate............. Low................. Low................. High................ Low.
Middle Pearl--Silver.............. Moderate............. High................ Low................. Moderate............ Moderate.
Middle Pearl--Strong.............. Moderate............. Low................. Moderate............ High................ Moderate.
Upper Pearl....................... Moderate............. Moderate............ Low................. High................ Moderate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66639]]
Water quality is an important habitat component of Pearl River map
turtle resiliency because it affects how well all life stages can
survive and, for the adults, reproductive success. To characterize
water quality, we considered the watershed health, riparian health, and
land use. Water quality is monitored by Mississippi and Louisiana
Departments of Environmental Quality (DEQ); however, the surveyed sites
do not cover all of the tributaries or provide information for the
entire range. Instead of using water quality monitoring data to
describe the species' habitat conditions, we used land use as a proxy
as it can be an indicator of overall watershed health and provide
insight into water quality. Agricultural land use within riparian zones
has been shown to directly impact biotic integrity when assessed within
intermediate-sized zones (i.e., 200-ft (61-m) buffer) surrounding
streams in the region (Diamond et al. 2002, p. 1150). Urbanization has
also been shown to impair stream quality by impacting riparian health
(Diamond et al. 2002, p. 1150). We assessed watershed health by
combining several metrics within each resiliency unit: Percent urban
and agricultural land use at the watershed level, as well as riparian
effects, which included urban and agricultural land use in close
proximity to the stream (within a 200-ft (61-m) buffer from the center
of the waterbody).
The resulting water quality composite scores based on land use for
all five units were moderate (table 2). The only stream that was
assessed as having a relatively high degree of threat based on land use
was the Lower Pearl, driven primarily by a high degree of development
within the riparian buffer (33 percent). In general, development is low
throughout the Pearl River basin, although there is continual
development across the Middle Pearl--Strong Unit (12 percent
development) associated with the area near the city of Jackson,
Mississippi. Agriculture is generally high across the Pearl River
basin, where levels of agriculture within the units ranged from 12 to
23 percent, with the Bogue Chitto Unit having the highest levels of
agriculture.
The next habitat factor evaluated for resiliency is the presence
and abundance of channelization, reservoirs, and gravel mining. We
assume that substantial channelization, the presence of a major
reservoir, or evidence of gravel mining operations has a negative
impact on resiliency and include these as a resiliency factor.
Considerably low densities of Pearl River map turtles were observed
in the Lower Pearl unit, where much channelization and flow diversion
has occurred (Lindeman 2019, pp. 23-29). Low densities of Pearl River
map turtles in the West and East Pearl Rivers have been attributed to
flow alteration due to the construction of the Pearl River Navigation
Canal, which also has very low densities of turtles, suggesting that
substantial loss of population in the lower reaches of the Pearl River
drainage has occurred historically due to river engineering (Lindeman
2019, p. 27). Significantly lower basking densities of Pearl River map
turtles have been reported in the West Pearl (0.16/rmi (0.1/rkm))
compared to the Upper Pearl (2.9/rmi (1.8/rkm)) (Dickerson and Reine
1996, Table 4, unpaginated; Selman 2020a, pp. 17-18). Because of these
stream alterations, we assessed the Lower Pearl unit as low (i.e., high
degree of threats) for this factor.
Within the Middle Pearl--Strong unit, 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of the
middle Pearl River is inundated by the Ross Barnett Reservoir, which is
a suspected contributing factor to the overall decline in Pearl River
map turtle population densities upstream and downstream. Near Jackson,
Mississippi, river channelization has also impacted the species'
habitat negatively (Selman 2020b, entire), and Pearl River map turtles
are almost nonexistent in a highly channelized stretch of the Pearl
River. However, upstream and downstream of this section, the species
occurs in low numbers (Selman 2020b, entire). Due to the presence of
the Ross Barnett Reservoir, and the river channelization that has
occurred in and around Jackson, we assessed the Middle Pearl--Strong
unit as low habitat quality due to the effects of channelization and
reservoirs.
In the Upper Pearl unit, channelization has occurred along
Tuscolameta Creek and the upper Yockanookany River. In 1924, the
Tuscolameta Creek received a 24-mile (mi) (39-kilometer (km))
channelization, and Yockanookany River received a 36-mi (58-km) canal,
which was completed in 1928 (Dunbar and Coulters 1988, p. 51). In the
Yockanookany, low water stages in 1960 were 6 feet higher than those of
1939, as the channel silted significantly during that period (Speer et
al. 1964, pp. 26-27). In some areas of the Yockanookany, water
continues to flow in the river's old natural channel (Speer et al.
1964, pp. 26-27). Although stream alteration has occurred within these
streams, there has yet to be any reported evidence of Pearl River map
turtle decline, thus we assessed this habitat factor as moderate for
the Upper Pearl unit.
In-stream and unpermitted point-bar mining in the Bogue Chitto unit
was a concern in the late 1990s (Shively 1999, entire), and although
these activities no longer occur, gravel mining operations within
floodplains do occur (Selman 2020a, pp. 20-21). Recent surveys have
reported several areas where mining appears to have degraded water
quality significantly (Selman 2020a, pp. 20-21). There is also a
concern that historical in-stream and point-bar mining can have
deleterious legacy effects that could be negatively impacting the
species (Selman 2020a, p. 21). For these reasons, we assessed this
habitat factor as low for the Bogue Chitto unit.
The next habitat factor considered protected lands adjacent to or
including the terrestrial and aquatic habitat of the species. For the
purposes of this analysis, we apply the definition of protected area as
a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and
managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-
term conservation of nature (IUCN 2008, pp. 8-9). Protected areas are a
generally accepted, although not always uncontroversial, mechanism for
halting the global decline of biodiversity. Some examples of the
positive effects that protected areas can have on freshwater
biodiversity have been reported, such as increased local abundance or
size classes of some fish species (Suski and Cooke, 2007, entire).
From an indirect standpoint, the presence of protected lands will
function to minimize human disturbance in an area, which may benefit
freshwater environments at multiple levels. First, enforcement of
restrictions in protected areas can serve to minimize boat traffic that
has been shown to have deleterious impacts to other Graptemys species
(Selman 2013 et al., entire). The presence of protected areas may help
ameliorate some of these conflicts by segregating user groups into
defined areas (Suski and Cooke 2007, p. 2024). Finally, the more land
within a unit that is under some sort of protection (e.g., easement,
State and Federal ownership), the less likely land will be developed.
Because development can have negative impacts to aquatic fauna, as
discussed previously, the more protected land that exists in a unit,
the more resilient that unit is assumed to be.
Conservation areas have been established along the Pearl River that
have positively influenced riparian forest along the river or forest
land cover in the basin. Riparian conservation areas include Nanih
Waiya Wildlife Management Area (WMA) (Neshoba County), Mississippi Band
of Choctaw
[[Page 66640]]
Indian Reservation (Neshoba County), Pearl River WMA (Madison County),
Fannye Cook Natural Area (Rankin County), Old River WMA (Pearl River
County), Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge (St. Tammany and
Washington Parishes), and Pearl River WMA (St. Tammany Parish).
Bienville National Forest contributes positively to increased forest
cover in headwater streams that drain into the Pearl River, especially
the Strong River. The most extensive habitat preservation on the Pearl
River is the Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge along the upper West
and East Pearl and lower Bogue Chitto Rivers, which is contiguous with
the Pearl River WMA, which protects the area between the West and East
Pearl Rivers downstream to the Gulf of Mexico.
To assess the contribution of protected areas to the resilience of
Pearl River map turtle resilience units, we calculated the percentage
of the HUC 8 that is in protected status. We used the Protected Areas
Database of the U.S. version 2.0 (PAD--US 2.0), released in 2019 (USGS
2019, unpaginated). The results of the analysis of protected lands show
that the Pearl River basin in general has relatively small amounts of
land in protected status. Four of the units have a low condition (i.e.,
http://www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our Mississippi Ecological
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
If the Pearl River map turtle is listed, funding for recovery
actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal
landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations.
In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Louisiana
and Mississippi would be eligible for Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Pearl
River map turtle. Information on our grant programs that are available
to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although the Pearl River map turtle is only proposed for listing
under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to any species that
[[Page 66650]]
is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with
respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for
listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed
critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they
authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its
critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or
its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into
consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions within the species' range that may require
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding
paragraph include actions that fund, authorize, or carry out management
and any other landscape-altering activities include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would increase sediment deposition within the
stream channel. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
channelization, channel alteration, dredging, impoundment, flood-
control structures, road and bridge construction, de-snagging
(submerged dead-wood removal), timber harvests, destruction of riparian
vegetation, oil or natural gas development, pipeline construction, off-
road vehicle use, and other land-disturbing activities in the watershed
and floodplain. Sedimentation from these activities could lead to
stream bottom embeddedness that eliminates or reduces the quality of
aquatic habitat necessary for the conservation of the Pearl River map
turtle.
(2) Actions that would alter river or tributary morphology or
geometry. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
channelization, dredging, impoundment, road and bridge construction,
pipeline construction, and destruction of riparian vegetation. These
activities may cause changes in water flows or channel stability and
lead to increased sedimentation that eliminates or reduces the
sheltering habitat necessary for the conservation of the Pearl River
map turtle.
(3) Actions that would alter water chemistry or quality. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, the release of
chemicals, fill, biological pollutants, or off-label pesticide use.
These activities could alter water conditions to levels that are beyond
the tolerances of the Pearl River map turtle and result in direct or
cumulative adverse effects to individual turtles.
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the
species proposed for listing. The discussion below (section III.
Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act for the Pearl River
Map Turtle) regarding protective regulations under section 4(d) of the
Act complies with our policy.
III. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act for the Pearl
River Map Turtle
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that statutory
language like ``necessary and advisable'' demonstrates a large degree
of deference to the agency (see Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988)).
Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and
procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence
of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation
prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited
under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section
9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Thus, the combination of the two
sentences of section 4(d) provides the Secretary with wide latitude of
discretion to select and promulgate appropriate regulations tailored to
the specific conservation needs of threatened species. The second
sentence grants particularly broad discretion to the Service when
adopting the prohibitions under section 9.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld rules
developed under section 4(d) as a valid exercise of agency authority
where they prohibited take of threatened wildlife or include a limited
taking prohibition (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007
U.S. Dist. Lexis 60203 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council
v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5432 (W.D.
Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address
all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity,
853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when
the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the threatened
list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available
to him/[her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species.
[S]he may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such
species, or [s]he may choose to forbid both taking and importation but
allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
Exercising our authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to address the Pearl River map turtle's
conservation needs. Although the statute does not require us to make a
``necessary and advisable'' finding with respect to the adoption of
specific prohibitions under section 9, we find that this proposed rule
as a whole satisfies the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to
issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the Pearl River map turtle. As discussed under Summary
of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Pearl
River map turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future primarily due to habitat degradation and loss due to
impoundments, dams, agricultural runoff, development, mining, loss of
riparian habitat and deadwood abundance, collection, and climate
change. Additional stressors acting on the species include disease and
contaminants (pesticides and heavy metals). Drowning and/or capture due
to bycatch associated with recreational and commercial fishing of some
species of freshwater fish also may affect the species but are of
unknown frequency or severity.
The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of the Pearl River map turtle by encouraging responsible
land management activities and implementing use of best management
practices for activities near and in rivers, streams, and riparian
areas to minimize habitat alteration to the maximum extent practicable.
The rule will also address the threat of
[[Page 66651]]
collection by prohibiting take of individuals from the wild. The
provisions of this proposed rule include some of the many tools that we
would use to promote the conservation of Pearl River map turtle. This
proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if and when we make final the
listing of Pearl River map turtle as a threatened species.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, Tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation.
This obligation does not change in any way for a threatened species
with a species-specific 4(d) rule. Actions that result in a
determination by a Federal agency of ``not likely to adversely affect''
continue to require the Service's written concurrence and actions that
are ``likely to adversely affect'' a species require formal
consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Pearl River Map Turtle
This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the
Pearl River map turtle by prohibiting the following activities, except
as otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting; take;
possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering,
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce
in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale
in interstate or foreign commerce. We also include several exceptions
to these prohibitions, which along with the prohibitions, are set forth
under Proposed Regulation Promulgation, below.
As discussed above under Summary of Biological Status and Threats,
habitat degradation and loss (aquatic and terrestrial nesting) and
collection are affecting the status of the Pearl River map turtle. A
range of activities has the potential to affect the Pearl River map
turtle, including: Dredging, de-snagging, removal of riparian cover,
channelization, in-stream activities that result in stream bank erosion
and siltation (e.g., stream crossings, bridge replacements, flood
control structures, impoundments, etc.), improper pesticide use, and
changes in land use within the riparian zone of waterbodies (e.g.,
clearing land for agriculture). Regulating take associated with these
activities would provide for the conservation of the species by better
preserving the condition of the species' resilience units, slowing its
rate of decline, and decreasing synergistic, negative effects from
other ongoing or future threats.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. This
proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of Pearl River
map turtle by prohibiting intentional and incidental take, except as
otherwise authorized or permitted. Prohibiting take of the species
resulting from activities, including but not limited to habitat
alteration and collection, will provide for the conservation of the
species. Regulating take from these activities under a 4(d) rule would
prevent continued declines in population abundance and decrease
synergistic, negative effects from other threats; this regulatory
approach will provide for the conservation of the species by improving
resiliency of the species across all units within its range and prevent
future projected declines in its viability.
Prohibitions
Aquatic and terrestrial nesting habitat alteration is a threat to
the Pearl River map turtle, as the species is endemic to the Pearl
River basin and its river ecosystems, including tributary waterbodies,
where structure (e.g., tree root masses, stumps, submerged trees, etc.)
provides habitat for the species and its prey. Pearl River map turtles
spend the majority of their time in aquatic habitat; overland movements
are generally restricted to nesting females and juveniles moving from
the nest to water (Jones 2006, pp. 207-208; Lindeman 2013, pp. 211-
212). The primary causes for aquatic habitat alteration include actions
that change hydrologic conditions to the extent that dispersal and
genetic interchange are impeded.
The activities that alter Pearl River map turtle aquatic and
terrestrial nesting habitats may directly or indirectly affect the
species. As well as providing basking sites for all age classes of
Pearl River map turtles, fallen riparian woody debris provides
important feeding areas for juvenile and male turtles. The species'
habitat needs include flowing water with limited sedimentation,
sufficient water quality to support the invertebrate and mussel food
source of the species, and sandbars for nesting sites. We recommend the
implementation of industry and/or State-approved best management
practices for activities that may change the hydrology or water quality
or reduce available basking structures such as deadwood. Additionally,
pesticides should be applied according to label guidelines complying
with State and Federal regulations.
State regulatory programs for Pearl River map turtle include
regulations in Louisiana and Mississippi that limit or prohibit
possession, purchase, sale, transport, or export. Additionally,
collection of turtles for the pet trade and aquaculture is a practice
that continues to threaten many turtle species globally and also within
the Southeastern United States. Based on the provisions of this
proposed 4(d) rule, the following actions would be prohibited across
the range of the species: Importing or exporting individuals; take (as
set forth at 50 CFR 17.21(c)(1) with exceptions as discussed below);
possession, sale, delivery, carrying, transporting, or shipping of
specimens from any source; delivering, receiving, transporting, or
shipping individuals in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of
commercial activity; and selling or offering for sale individuals in
interstate or foreign commerce.
[[Page 66652]]
Exceptions to the Prohibitions
We are proposing several exceptions to the prohibitions: Take
incidental to any otherwise lawful activity caused by pesticide and
herbicide use; construction, operation, and maintenance activities that
implement industry and/or State-approved best management practices
accordingly; silviculture practices and forestry activities that
implement industry and/or State-approved best management practices
accordingly; and maintenance dredging that affects previously disturbed
portions of the maintained channel.
Best Management Practices for Implementing Actions That Occur Near-
or In-Stream--Implementing best management practices to avoid and/or
minimize the effects of habitat alterations in areas that support Pearl
River map turtles would provide additional measures for conserving the
species by reducing direct and indirect effects to the species. We
consider that certain construction, forestry, and pesticide/herbicide
management activities that occur near- and in-stream may remove
riparian cover or forested habitat, change land use within the riparian
zone, or increase stream bank erosion and/or siltation. These actions
and activities, if implemented using appropriate best management
practices, may have some minimal level of incidental take of the Pearl
River map turtle, but any such take is expected to be rare and
insignificant and is not expected to negatively impact the species'
conservation and recovery efforts.
Construction, operation, and maintenance activities such as
installation of stream crossings, replacement of existing in-stream
structures (e.g., bridges, culverts, water control structures, boat
launches, etc.), operation and maintenance of existing flood control
features (or other existing structures), and directional boring, when
implemented with industry and State-approved standard best management
practices, will have minimal impacts to Pearl River map turtles and
their habitat. In addition, silviculture practices and forestry
management activities that follow State-approved best management
practices to protect water and sediment quality and stream and riparian
habitat will not impair the species' conservation. Lastly, invasive
species removal activities, particularly through pesticide (insecticide
and herbicide) application, are considered beneficial to the native
ecosystem and are likely to improve habitat conditions for the species;
all excepted pesticide applications must be conducted in a manner
consistent with Federal and applicable State laws, including
Environmental Protection Agency label restrictions and pesticide
application guidelines as prescribed by pesticide manufacturers that
would not impair the species' conservation. These activities should
have minimal impacts to Pearl River map turtles if industry and/or
State-approved best management practices are implemented. These
activities and management practices should be carried out in accordance
with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best
management practices to avoid or minimize impacts to the species and
its habitat.
Thus, under this proposed 4(d) rule, incidental take associated
with the following activities are excepted:
(1) Construction, operation, and maintenance activities that occur
near- and in-stream, such as installation of stream crossings,
replacement of existing in-stream structures (e.g., bridges, culverts,
water control structures, boat launches, etc.), operation and
maintenance of existing flood control features (or other existing
structures), and directional boring, when implemented with industry
and/or State-approved best management practices for construction;
(2) Pesticide and herbicide applications that follow the chemical
label and appropriate application rates; and
(3) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that
use State-approved best management practices to protect water and
sediment quality and stream and riparian habitat.
Maintenance Dredging of Navigable Waterways--We considered that
maintenance dredging activities generally disturb the same area of the
waterbody in each cycle; thus, there is less likelihood that suitable
turtle habitat (e.g., submerged logs, cover, etc.) occurs in the
maintained portion of the channel. Accordingly, incidental take
associated with maintenance dredging activities that occur within the
previously disturbed portion of the navigable waterway is excepted from
the prohibitions as long as these activities do not encroach upon
suitable turtle habitat outside the maintained portion of the channel
and provide for the conservation of the species.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities,
including those described above, involving threatened wildlife under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.32. With regard to threatened wildlife, a permit may be issued
for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. The statute
also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found
in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
We recognize the special and unique relationship with State natural
resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of listed
species. State agencies often possess scientific data and valuable
expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and
candidate species of wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of
their authorities and their close working relationships with local
governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist the
Service in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section
6 of the Act provides that the Service shall cooperate to the maximum
extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs authorized
by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State
conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with the
Service in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated
by his or her agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct
activities designed to conserve Pearl River map turtle that may result
in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
The proposed 4(d) rule would also allow any employee or agent of
the Service, or other Federal land management agency, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a State-
licensed wildlife rehabilitation facility staff member designated by
his/her agency for such purposes, when acting in the course of official
duties, to take endangered wildlife without a permit in accordance with
50 CFR 17.21(c)(3).
Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of the Pearl River map turtle. However, interagency
cooperation may be further streamlined through planned programmatic
consultations for the species between Federal agencies and the Service,
where appropriate. We ask the public, particularly State agencies and
other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the proposed 4(d)
rule, to provide comments and
[[Page 66653]]
suggestions regarding additional guidance and methods that the Service
could provide or use, respectively, to streamline the implementation of
this proposed 4(d) rule (see Information Requested, above).
IV. Critical Habitat for the Pearl River Map Turtle
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, habitat restoration,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Designation also does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the Federal agency would be required to consult
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. However, even if the
Service were to conclude that the proposed activity would result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical or biological features that occur in specific occupied areas,
we focus on the specific features that are essential to support the
life-history needs of the species, including, but not limited to, water
characteristics, soil type, geological features, prey, vegetation,
symbiotic species, or other features. A feature may be a single habitat
characteristic or a more complex combination of habitat
characteristics. Features may include habitat characteristics that
support ephemeral or dynamic habitat conditions. Features may also be
expressed in terms relating to principles of conservation biology, such
as patch size, distribution distances, and connectivity.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. The implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(b)(2) further
delineate unoccupied critical habitat by setting out three specific
parameters: (1) When designating critical habitat, the Secretary will
first evaluate areas occupied by the species; (2) the Secretary will
consider unoccupied areas to be essential only where a critical habitat
designation limited to geographical areas occupied by the species would
be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species; and (3) for an
unoccupied area to be considered essential, the Secretary must
determine that there is a reasonable certainty both that the area will
contribute to the conservation of the species and that the area
contains one or more of those physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the
[[Page 66654]]
species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not
signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may
not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to
the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in section 9 of the Act.
Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside
their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will
continue to contribute to recovery of the species. Similarly, critical
habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available at the time of those planning efforts calls for a different
outcome.
Prudency Determination
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the Secretary
may, but is not required to, determine that a designation would not be
prudent in the following circumstances:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes
that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from
consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States;
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat; or
(v) The Secretary otherwise determines that designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent based on the best scientific data
available.
Increased Degree of Threat to the Pearl River Map Turtle
After evaluating the status of the species and considering the
threats acting on the species, we find the designation of critical
habitat would not be prudent for Pearl River map turtle because the
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species. As discussed earlier in the
proposed listing determination for Pearl River map turtle, there is
currently an imminent threat of collection identified under Factor B
for the Pearl River map turtle. Identification and mapping of critical
habitat is expected to facilitate any such threat.
Collection of wild turtles in the Pearl River system is probably
occurring, and similar to what has been observed in other States, these
turtles are likely destined for the high-end turtle pet trade in China
and possibly other Southeast Asian countries (Selman 2020a, p. 23).
Information has been documented from three different local individuals,
at three different locations, concerning turtle bycatch or harvesting
in local Louisiana waterways occupied by Pearl River map turtles
(Selman 2020a, pp. 22-23). These locations included the Pearl River
south of Bogalusa, Louisiana (possible mortality resulting from bycatch
in hoop nets), the West Pearl River Navigation Canal (turtles captured
and sold, possibly for shipment to China), and the Bogue Chitto River
(local comment that baby turtles were being captured and shipped to
China) (Selman 2020a, pp. 22-23). The specific species captured were
not documented; however, it is likely that at least some of these
turtles were Pearl River map turtles.
The Service manages information related to species exports in the
Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS). According to a
LEMIS report from 2005 to 2019, more than 300,000 turtles identified as
Graptemys spp. or their parts were exported from the United States to
29 countries (Service 2021b, Appendix B). The number of turtles
recorded in each shipment ranged widely. Due to their similarity in
appearance, species of Graptemys are difficult to differentiate (Selman
2021, pers comm.). Records from 2005, when the highest number of
Graptemys were exported, show more than 35,000 turtles (Graptemys spp.)
in a single shipment to Spain and a total of 172,645 individual
Graptemys exported to 24 different countries (Service 2021b, Appendix
B). However, there is some uncertainty regarding the sources of the
exported turtles as they could have originated from captive stock.
The Pearl River map turtle is declining throughout its range as a
consequence of factors including collection of live adult turtles from
the wild for the pet trade. All life stages of aquatic turtles are at
risk of collection for both domestic and international distribution
(Stanford et al. 2020, p. R722). All species of map turtles are prized
by collectors because of their intricate shell patterns. While the
Pearl River map turtle lacks many of the distinct intricacies, there is
still a demand for all map turtles and this species is collected and
trafficked domestically and internationally (Service 2021b, Appendix
B).
The unauthorized collection of Pearl River map turtles for the pet
trade is a factor contributing to the species' decline and remains a
threat today. Pearl River map turtles can be found near basking
structures because many turtles may use the same logs and semi-
submerged features (Selman and Lindeman 2015, pp. 794-795). Therefore,
publishing specific location information would provide a high level of
assurance that any person going to a specific location would be able to
successfully locate and collect multiple individuals given the species'
concentrated use of limited basking sites.
Designation of critical habitat requires the publication of maps
and a narrative description of specific critical habitat areas in the
Federal Register. We are concerned that designation of critical habitat
would more widely announce the exact locations of Pearl River map
turtles and their suitable habitat that may facilitate unauthorized
collection/poaching and contribute to further declines of the species'
viability. Moreover, as species become rarer and more difficult to
obtain, the monetary value increases, thus driving increased collection
pressure on remaining wild individuals. We anticipate that listing the
Pearl River map turtle under the Act may promote further interest in
black market sales of the turtles and increase the likelihood that the
species will be sought out for the pet trade as demand rises. The
removal of the species by taking is expected to increase if we identify
critical habitat; thus, we find that designation of critical habitat
for
[[Page 66655]]
the Pearl River map turtle is not prudent. Therefore, because the
species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species, the criterion as provided in
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) has been met. Accordingly, we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent for
the Pearl River map turtle.
Critical Habitat Determinability
Having determined that designation is not prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we do not evaluate the extent to which critical
habitat for the Pearl River map turtle is determinable.
V. Similarity of Appearance for the Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map
Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle
Whenever a species which is not endangered or threatened closely
resembles an endangered or threatened species, such species may be
treated as either endangered or threatened if the Secretary makes such
determination in accordance with section 4(e) of the Act for similarity
of appearance. Section 4(e) authorizes the treatment of a species,
subspecies, or population segment as an endangered or threatened
species if: ``(a) Such species so closely resembles in appearance, at
the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to such
section that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in
attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species;
(b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat
to an endangered or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an
unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and
further the policy of this Act.''
A designation of an endangered or threatened species due to
similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act, however, does
not extend other protections of the Act, such as consultation
requirements for Federal agencies under section 7 and the recovery
planning provisions under section 4(f), that apply to species that are
listed as an endangered or threatened species under section 4(a). All
applicable prohibitions and exceptions for species listed under section
4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to a threatened or
endangered species will be set forth in a species-specific rule issued
under section 4(d) of the Act. The Service implements this Section 4(e)
authority in accordance with the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR
17.50. Our analysis of the criteria for the 4(e) rule is described
below for the similarity of appearance of the Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle in
relation to the proposed threatened Pearl River map turtle.
Do the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle so closely resemble in appearance, at the
point in question, the Pearl River map turtle such that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to
differentiate between the listed and unlisted species?
Map turtles (genus Graptemys) are named for the intricate pattern
on the carapace that often resembles a topographical map. In addition
to the intricate markings, the shape of the carapace (top half of
shell) in map turtles is very distinctive. The carapace is keeled, and
many species show some type of knobby projections or spikes down the
vertebral scutes (located down the midline of the carapace). All five
of these map turtle species are in the megacephalic (large-headed)
clade where the females have large, broad heads and all occur in the
Southeastern United States. There are only slight morphological
differences between the Pearl River map turtle and four other map
turtle species in the megacephalic clade from the Southeastern United
States: Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle. The ranges of these species do not
geographically overlap, with the exception of Barbour's and Escambia
map turtle ranges in some areas of the Choctawhatchee River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (figure 2). Additional information regarding
characteristics and identification of megacephalic map turtles is
described in the SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 17-24). The lack of
distinctive physical features makes it difficult to differentiate among
these species, even for law enforcement officers, especially
considering their similar body form, shell markings, and head markings
(Selman 2021, pers. comm). The Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle all closely
resemble in appearance, at the point in question, the Pearl River map
turtle such that enforcement personnel would have substantial
difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and
unlisted species.
Is the effect of this substantial difficulty an additional threat to
Pearl River map turtle?
As provided in 50 CFR 17.50(b)(2), we considered the additional
threat posed to the proposed threatened Pearl River map turtle because
of its similarity of appearance to the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's
map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle.
Specifically, we considered the possibility that an additional threat
is posed to the Pearl River map turtle by unauthorized trade or
commerce by persons who misrepresent Pearl River map turtle specimens
as Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or
Pascagoula map turtle specimens, because this might result in the Pearl
River map turtle (if listed) entering the global black market via the
United States or contributing to market demand for the Pearl River map
turtle.
Due to the lack of distinct physical characteristics and difficulty
in distinguishing individual species of megacephalic map turtles, the
similarity of these species poses a problem for Federal and State law
enforcement agents trying to stem unauthorized collection of the Pearl
River map turtle. Collection is a real threat to many turtle species in
the United States and also affects species globally (Stanford et al.
2020, entire). Turtles are collected in the wild and sold into the pet
trade both domestically and internationally. The proposed listing of
the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle as threatened due to similarity of appearance
minimizes the possibility that private and commercial collectors will
be able to misrepresent Pearl River map turtles as Alabama map turtles,
Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or Pascagoula map turtles
for private or commercial purposes.
We find that the difficulty enforcement personnel have in
attempting to differentiate between the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's
map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle species
would pose an additional threat to the Pearl River map turtle.
Would treatment of the four unlisted map turtles as threatened or
endangered due to similarity of appearance substantially further the
enforcement and policy of the Act?
The listing of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle,
Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle due to similarity of
appearance will facilitate Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agents' efforts to curtail
[[Page 66656]]
unauthorized possession, collection, and trade in the Pearl River map
turtle. Listing the four similar map turtle species due to similarity
of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable
prohibitions and exceptions under section 4(d) of the Act will
substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the
Act for the Pearl River map turtle. For these reasons, we propose to
list Alabama map turtle (occurring in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi,
and Tennessee), Barbour's map turtle (occurring in Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia), Escambia map turtle (occurring in Alabama and Florida),
and Pascagoula map turtle (occurring in Mississippi) as threatened due
to similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle pursuant to
section 4(e) of the Act (see figure 2).
With this proposed rule, we do not consider the Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle to
be biologically threatened or endangered but we have determined that
listing the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened species under the
similarity of appearance provision of the Act, coupled with a proposed
4(d) rule as discussed below, minimizes misidentification and
enforcement-related issues. This proposed listing would promote and
enhance the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP23NO21.001
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
[[Page 66657]]
VI. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act for the Alabama
Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula
Map Turtle Background
Whenever a species is listed as a threatened species under the Act,
the Secretary may specify regulations that she deems necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of that species under the
authorization of section 4(d) of the Act. Because we are proposing to
list the Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle
(Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), and
Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) as threatened species due to
similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle (see V.
Similarity of Appearance for the Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map
Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle section), we are
proposing a 4(d) rule to minimize misidentification and enforcement-
related issues. This proposed 4(d) rule would promote and enhance the
conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.
This proposed 4(d) rule, to be promulgated for addition to 50 CFR
17.42, will establish prohibitions on collection of these four similar-
in-appearance species of map turtle in order to protect the Pearl River
map turtle from unlawful collection, unlawful possession, and unlawful
trade. In this context, collection is defined as any activity where
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle are, or are attempted to be, collected from wild
populations. Capture of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle,
Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle is not prohibited if it
is not intentional, such as during research or fishing activities,
provided live animals are released immediately upon discovery at the
point of capture and dead animals are reported to the Service.
Incidental take associated with all otherwise legal activities
involving the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle that are conducted in accordance with
applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations is
not considered prohibited under this proposed rule.
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Alabama Map Turtle,
Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle
This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the
Pearl River map turtle by prohibiting the following activities for
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle, except as otherwise authorized or permitted:
Take in the form of collection (other than for scientific purposes);
importing or exporting individuals; possession and other acts with
unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, receiving, transporting, or
shipping of unlawfully taken specimens from any source; delivering,
receiving, transporting, or shipping individuals in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; and selling or
offering for sale individuals in interstate or foreign commerce.
The proposed 4(d) rule does not prohibit incidental take of the
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle through permitted and other excepted activities
as described below. Incidental take is take that results from, but is
not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. For
example, construction activities, application of pesticides and
fertilizers according to label, silviculture and forest management
practices, maintenance dredging activities that remain in the
previously disturbed portion of a maintained channel, and any other
legally undertaken actions that result in the accidental take of an
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle will not be considered a violation of section 9
of the Act in the southern States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
Effect of the Proposed Rule
Listing the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened species under the
``similarity of appearance'' provisions of the Act, and the
promulgation of a rule under section 4(d) of the Act, to extend take
prohibitions regarding collection, import, export, and commerce to
these species will provide a conservation benefit to the Pearl River
map turtle. Capture of these species is not prohibited if it is
accidental, such as during research, provided the animal is released
immediately upon discovery at the point of capture.
As Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle can be confused with the Pearl River map
turtle, we strongly recommend maintaining the appropriate documentation
and declarations with legal specimens at all times, especially when
importing them into the United States, and permit holders should also
comply with the import/export transfer regulations under 50 CFR part
14, where applicable. All otherwise legal activities that may involve
what we would normally define as incidental take (take that results
from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful
activity) of these similar turtles, and which are conducted in
accordance with applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and
regulations, are not prohibited under this proposed regulation.
This proposed 4(d) rule will not consider instances of incidental
take as violations of section 9 of the Act if they result in incidental
take of any of the similarity of appearance turtles. We do not find it
necessary to apply incidental take prohibitions for those otherwise
legal activities to these four similar turtles (Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle),
as these activities will not pose a threat to the Pearl River map
turtle because: (1) Activities that affect the waters where Alabama map
turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map
turtle reside will not affect Pearl River map turtle and (2) the
primary threat to the Pearl River map turtle comes from collection and
commercial trade as it relates to the similar turtles. Listing the
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle under the similarity of appearance provision of
the Act, coupled with this 4(d) rule, will help minimize enforcement
problems related to collection and enhance conservation of the Pearl
River map turtle.
Required Determinations
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:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) 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 rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell
[[Page 66658]]
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.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
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), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
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 coordinated with Tribes within the
Pearl River map turtle's range when we initiated the SSA process. We
also requested review and addressed comments accordingly. We also
coordinated with Tribes within the Alabama, Barbour's, and Escambia map
turtles' ranges, requesting information regarding threats and
conservation actions for those species. There are no Tribes within the
range of the Pascagoula map turtle. We will continue to work with
Tribal entities during the development of a final rule.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in the petition finding for the
Pascagoula map turtle and this proposed rulemaking for the Pearl River
map turtle is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Service's
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding entries for ``Turtle, Alabama map'',
``Turtle, Barbour's map'', ``Turtle, Escambia map'', ``Turtle,
Pascagoula map'' and ``Turtle, Pearl River map'' to the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under Reptiles
to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations and
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Turtle, Alabama map............. Graptemys pulchra.. Wherever found..... T (S/A) [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.42(n).\4d\
* * * * * * *
Turtle, Barbour's map........... Graptemys barbouri. Wherever found..... T (S/A) [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.42(n).\4d\
* * * * * * *
Turtle, Escambia map............ Graptemys ernsti... Wherever found..... T (S/A) [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.42(n).\4d\
* * * * * * *
Turtle, Pascagoula map.......... Graptemys gibbonsi. Wherever found..... T (S/A) [Federal Register
citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.42(n).\4d\
* * * * * * *
Turtle, Pearl River map......... Graptemys Wherever found..... T [Federal Register
pearlensis. citation when
published as a final
rule]; 50 CFR
17.42(m).\4d\
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 66659]]
0
3. As proposed to be amended at 85 FR 61700 (September 30, 2020), 86 FR
18014 (April 7, 2021), and 86 FR 62122 (November 9, 2021), Sec. 17.42
is further amended by adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.42 Special rules--reptiles.
* * * * *
(m) Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis)--(1)
Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to endangered
wildlife also apply to the Pearl River map turtle. Except as provided
under paragraph (m)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec. 17.4 and 17.5, it
is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit,
or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard to this
species:
(i) Import or export as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(2) through (4) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken
wildlife, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
(iv) Take as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
(v) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
(A) Construction, operation, and maintenance activities that occur
near- and in-stream, such as installation of stream crossings,
replacement of existing in-stream structures (e.g., bridges, culverts,
water control structures, boat launches, etc.), operation and
maintenance of existing flood control features (or other existing
structures), and directional boring, when implemented with industry
and/or State-approved best management practices for construction.
(B) Pesticide (insecticide or herbicide) application that follows
approved chemical label instructions and appropriate application rates.
(C) Silviculture practices and forest management activities that
use State-approved best management practices to protect water and
sediment quality and stream and riparian habitat.
(D) Maintenance dredging activities that remain in the previously
disturbed portion of the maintained channel.
(n) Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle
(Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), and
Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi)--(1) Prohibitions. The
following prohibitions that apply to endangered wildlife also apply to
the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Pascagoula map turtle. Except as provided under paragraph (n)(2) of
this section and Sec. Sec. 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to
attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or cause to be
committed, any of the following acts in regard to these species:
(i) Take in the form of collection (other than for scientific
purposes).
(ii) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for
endangered wildlife.
(iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as
set forth at Sec. 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(vi) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to these species, you
may:
(i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec. 17.32.
(ii) Take as set forth at Sec. 17.31(b).
Martha Williams,
Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-23992 Filed 11-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
