Proposed Rule2021-23992
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
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
November 23, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 17
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;
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: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, and on the species profile
page of the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS)
internet site, <a href="https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/3198">https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/3198</a>. The Pascagoula
map turtle SSA report can be found in docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097
on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, and on the species profile page of the
Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) internet
site, <a href="https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/10895">https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/10895</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>
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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Hatchlings require an adequate abundance of invertebrate
prey and of emergent branches and tangles near the riverbank.
<bullet> Adult males require an adequate abundance of insect prey,
emergent logs, branches, and tangles near the bank.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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:
<bullet> Very Low: No currently occupied tributaries;
<bullet> Low: Between 1-25 percent of surveyed tributaries are
currently occupied;
<bullet> Moderate: Between 25-50 percent of surveyed tributaries
are currently occupied;
<bullet> 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.,
<10 percent of land protected), and one unit has a moderate condition
(10-20 percent of land protected). The Middle Pearl--Strong unit has by
far the greatest amount of land in protection with 147,597 ac (59,730
ha) in protection (11.67 percent), with all other units having less
than 6 percent of land in protected status.
The final habitat factor used to determine current resiliency is
the amount of forested riparian cover, which we used as a proxy for
available deadwood. Correlations of Pearl River map turtle density is
positively associated with deadwood density (Lindeman 1999, pp. 35-38).
Abundance of basking substrates has shown to be an important habitat
component driving Graptemys abundance in Kansas and Pennsylvania (Pluto
and Bellis 1986, pp. 26-30; Fuselier and Edds 1994, entire), and
radiotelemetry work with yellow-blotched map turtles (G. flavimaculata)
has indicated the importance of deadwood to habitat selection on the
lower Pascagoula River (Jones 1996, pp. 376, 379-380, 383).
Anthropogenic deadwood removal, mainly through dredging, has been noted
as a reason for decline in the sympatric microcephalic species, the
ringed map turtle (G. oculifera) (Lindeman 1998, p. 137). Experiments
with manual deposition of deadwood in stretches with less riparian
forest have been recommended as potential habitat restoration measures
(Lindeman 2019, p. 33).
An intact riparian habitat provides numerous benefits to map
turtles, including the stabilization of stream banks and the reduction
of erosional processes and channel sedimentation. Under normal
erosional processes, riparian forests also provide material for in-
stream deposition of deadwood, and deadwood is known to provide
important basking sites for thermoregulation and also foraging sites
for prey items (Lindeman 1999, entire). To assess the contribution of
riparian forests to the resilience of Pearl River map turtle units, we
calculated the percentage of forest within a 200-ft (61-m) riparian
buffer using the 2016 National Land Cover Database land use land cover
data. We considered forests to include four land use classes: deciduous
forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest, and woody wetlands.
An assessment of forested cover resulted in three units in high
condition (Lower Pearl, Middle Pearl--Strong, and Upper Pearl) and two
units in moderate condition (Bogue Chitto and Middle Pearl--Silver).
Forested cover within riparian buffers ranged from 60-98 percent across
the 5 resilience units. Forested cover was highest in the Upper Pearl,
where cover ranged from 90-96 percent across the occupied streams
within the unit, and lowest in the Middle Pearl--Silver, where forested
cover was 60 percent across the single occupied river segment. The
Bogue Chitto unit was assessed as moderate for forested cover,
primarily due to the Bogue Chitto and Topisaw having relatively low
cover compared to other streams across the range.
The habitat factors were combined into a single composite score
determined by combining the results of the water quality,
channelization/reservoirs, protected lands, and deadwood abundance
assessments (table 2). The final habitat composite score for each
resiliency unit resulted in low condition for two units (Bogue Chitto
and Lower Pearl) and moderate condition for three units (Middle Pearl--
Silver, Middle Pearl--Strong, and Upper Pearl). Additional details and
methodologies for determining each habitat condition score are
described in the SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 74-80).
After evaluating the population and habitat factors together, we
describe the overall current resiliency of each unit. Current
resiliency results are as follows: Two units have low resiliency (Bogue
Chitto and Lower Pearl), and three units have moderate resiliency
(Middle Pearl--Silver, Middle Pearl--Strong, and Upper Pearl) (table
3). The Lower Pearl seems particularly vulnerable, as both the
population and habitat composite scores were low. The Lower Pearl has
significant channelization issues, low amounts of protected land, and a
low density of individual turtles, all of which are driving the low
resilience of this unit. Although the Middle Pearl--Silver unit scored
moderate for composite habitat score, the low composite population
score (mainly a function of there being no occupied tributaries) is
what is driving the low resilience of this unit. When looking at the
three units with moderate resiliency, the Middle Pearl--Strong and
Bogue Chitto units appear to be vulnerable to further decreases in
resiliency. For the Bogue Chitto unit, low amounts of protected land
and substantial mining activity make this unit vulnerable. For the
Middle Pearl--Strong, development in the Jackson area and the presence
of the Ross Barnett Reservoir make this unit vulnerable. If development
increases substantially in this unit, or if proposed reservoir projects
move forward, it is likely there would be population-level impacts that
would drop the resiliency to low in the future conditions.
Table 3--Current Resiliency of Pearl River Map Turtle Units Based on Composite Habitat and Population Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composite habitat Composite population
Resiliency unit score score Current resilience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogue Chitto....................... Low................... Moderate............. Moderate.
Lower Pearl........................ Low................... Low.................. Low.
Middle Pearl--Silver............... Moderate.............. Low.................. Low.
Middle Pearl--Strong............... Moderate.............. Moderate............. Moderate.
[[Page 66641]]
Upper Pearl........................ Moderate.............. Moderate............. Moderate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Redundancy
Redundancy refers to the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events and is measured by the amount and distribution of
sufficiently resilient populations across the species' range.
Catastrophic events that could severely impact or extirpate entire
Pearl River map turtle units include chemical spills, changes in
upstream land use that alter stream characteristics and water quality
downstream, dam construction with a reservoir drowning lotic river
habitat, and potential effects of climate change such as rising
temperatures and SLR. The Middle Pearl--Silver unit is the most
vulnerable to a catastrophic land-based spill due to transportation via
train or automobile, and there are no known occupied tributaries at
this time. However, extant units of the species are distributed
relatively widely, and several of those units have moderate resilience,
thus it is highly unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the
entire species' range. Consequently, the Pearl River map turtle
exhibits a moderate-high degree of redundancy.
Representation
Representation refers to the breadth of genetic and environmental
diversity within and among populations, which influences the ability of
a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time.
Differences in life-history traits, habitat features, and/or genetics
across a species' range often aid in the delineation of representative
units, which are used to assess species representation.
Between 2005 and 2018, researchers genotyped 124 Pearl River map
turtles from 15 sites across the Pearl River basin (Pearson et al.
2020, pp. 6-7). No distinct genetic variation was found across the
Pearl River system. A single genetic population has been described, and
there was no evidence of isolation by distance (Pearson et al. 2020,
pp. 11-12). For this reason, we consider the entire range of the Pearl
River map turtle to be a single representative unit; however, the
Strong River, located in the Pearl River--Strong unit, may have some
unique habitat features that could facilitate adaptative capacity
(Lindeman 2020, pers. comm.). Perhaps most notably, the Strong River
has some very rocky stretches that are unlike anything else in the
drainage and could conceivably have a population with unique diet,
behaviors, or other life-history parameters, though no studies to date
have addressed this question (Lindeman 2020, pers. comm.). The Strong
River is a large tributary and occupies an estimated 54.3 rmi (87.4
rkm), with an estimated 1,749 individuals, accounting for 8 percent of
the species' total population (Lindeman 2019, p. 47). Although we do
not consider the Strong River to be a separate representative unit, we
consider the Strong River to be a potentially significant stream for
the species from a habitat diversity perspective. The species is
described as consisting of a single representative unit due to the lack
of genetic structuring across the range; the limited genetic diversity
may reduce the ability of the species to adapt to changing conditions
(Pearson et al. 2020, entire). However, we acknowledge the habitat
differences for the Strong River and the potential importance of that
system to the adaptive capacity of the species.
In summary, the current condition of the Pearl River map turtle is
described using resiliency, redundancy, and representation. We assessed
current resiliency as a function of two population factors (occupied
tributaries and density) and four habitat factors (water quality,
protected areas, deadwood abundance, and reservoirs/channelization) for
each resiliency unit. Based on these factors, there are two units with
low resiliency (Lower Pearl and Middle Pearl--Silver) and three units
with moderate resiliency (Upper Pearl, Middle Pearl--Strong, and Bogue
Chitto); no units were assessed as highly resilient. Because three of
the five units are classified as moderate resilience, and those units
are distributed relatively widely, the Pearl River map turtle exhibits
a moderate-high degree of redundancy (i.e., it is unlikely that a
catastrophic event would impact the entire range of the species). Even
with the unique habitat in the Strong River, we only recognize a single
representative unit based on low genetic variation, however, the wide
distribution within the five resilience units across the range provides
sufficient adaptive capacity to remain viable.
Future Condition
As described in the ``Summary of Biological Status and Threats''
section above, we describe what the Pearl River map turtle needs to
maintain viability. We describe the future conditions of the species by
forecasting the species' response applying plausible future scenarios
of varying environmental conditions and conservation efforts. The
future scenarios project the threats into the future and consider the
impacts those threats could have on the viability of the Pearl River
map turtle. The scenarios described in the SSA report represent six
plausible future conditions for the species. The scenarios include land
use changes and SLR in a matrix to determine the effects of both
factors to each unit. We then considered future water engineering
projects for each matrix and found the resiliency of each unit based on
whether the project is installed or not. All six scenarios were
projected out to two different time steps: 2040 (~20 years) and 2070
(~50 years). These timeframes are based on input from species experts,
generation time for the species, and the confidence in predicting
patterns of urbanization and agriculture. Confidence in how these land
uses will interact with the species and its habitat diminishes beyond
50 years.
We continue to apply the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to the future scenarios to describe possible future
conditions of the Pearl River map turtle and understand the overall
future viability of the species. When assessing the future, viability
is not a specific state, but rather a continuous measure of the
likelihood that the species will sustain populations over time.
Using the best available information regarding the factors
influencing the species' viability in the future, we applied the
following factors to inform the future resiliency of the five units:
Changes in land use/water quality, SLR, and future water engineering
projects. We considered projected land-use changes regarding
agricultural and developed land in assessing future resiliency of each
unit for the Pearl River map turtle. We also considered
[[Page 66642]]
these land-use classes as surrogates for potential changes in water
quality, a primary risk factor for the species. We used data available
at the resiliency unit scale from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
Forecasting Scenarios of Land-use Change (FORE-SCE) modelling framework
(USGS 2017, unpaginated) to characterize nonpoint source pollution
(i.e., development and agriculture). The FORE--SCE model provides
spatially explicit historical, current, and future projections of land
use and land cover. Projecting future land cover requires modelers to
account for driving forces of land-cover change operating at scales
from local (``bottom-up'') to global (``top-down'') and how those
driving forces interact over space and time. As a result of the high
level of uncertainty associated with predicting future developments in
complex socio-environmental systems, a scenario framework is needed to
represent a wide range of plausible future conditions.
As previously mentioned, SLR impacts the future resiliency of Pearl
River map turtles directly through loss/degradation of habitat. To
estimate loss/degradation of habitat due to inundation from SLR, we
used National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shapefiles
available at their online SLR viewer (NOAA 2020, unpaginated).
Projected SLR scenarios from NOAA provide a range of inundation levels
from low to extreme. We used NOAA's SLR projections corresponding to
the representative concentration pathways (RCP) of RCP6 and RCP8.5
emission scenarios to provide realistic future possible trajectories.
The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the different
emission scenarios are influenced by human behavior. With uncertainty
in future emissions, we included two plausible trajectories of SLR by
considering RCP6 (intermediate-high) and RCP8.5 (extreme).
Local scenarios were available from a monitoring station located
near Mobile Bay, Alabama, providing estimates of SLR at decadal time
steps out to the year 2100. We found the average SLR estimate for the
intermediate-high and extreme NOAA scenarios from this station and used
the estimate (rounded to the nearest foot, because shapefiles of
topography were available at only 1-ft (0.30-m) increments) to project
estimated habitat loss at years 2040 and 2070. If SLR estimates overlap
with known occupied portions of the river system, we assume that area
is no longer suitable or occupiable; thus, resiliency would decrease.
SLR is occurring, but the rate at which it continues is dependent
on the different atmospheric emissions scenarios. The range is 1 ft
(0.30 m) to 2 ft (0.61 m) in the next 20 years. By 2070, 3 ft (0.91 m)
to 5 ft (1.52 m) are projected for the lower and higher emissions
scenarios. The effects of the SLR and saltwater intrusion are
exacerbated with storm surge and high tides. Pulses of saltwater from
increased storm frequency and intensity on top of slower SLR can have
direct effects on freshwater habitats and species that are not salt-
tolerant.
Stream channelization, point-bar mining, and impoundment have been
listed as potential threats in a report written before the Pascagoula
map turtle and Pearl River map turtle were taxonomically separated
(Service 2006, p. 2). As noted above, in the Threats Analysis section,
the proposed One Lake project proposes a new dam and commercial
development area 9 mi (14.5 km) south of the current Ross Barnett
Reservoir Dam near Interstate 20. However, the One Lake project is
still being debated, and there is uncertainty as to whether the project
will proceed. Because of this uncertainty, we have created two
scenarios based around the proposed One Lake project: One in which the
project occurs, and one in which it does not, within the next 50 years.
Because of the potential for negative impacts on Pearl River map
turtles from the proposed One Lake project, we assume a decrease in
resiliency of the Middle Pearl--Strong unit if the project moves
forward.
We do not assess population factors (occupancy of tributaries and
density) in our future conditions analysis because the data are not
comparable through time or space; the baseline data come from recent
surveys and no historical data are available to allow for analyses of
trends or comparisons over time. Additionally, we assume the amount of
protected land within each unit stays the same within our projection
timeframes, although it is possible that additional land could be
converted to a protected status or lands could degrade over time.
Rather than attempting to categorize future resiliency as was done in
the current condition analysis, we indicate a magnitude and direction
of anticipated change in resiliency of Pearl River map turtle units.
Scenario Descriptions
Scenarios were built around three factors: Land use, SLR, and water
engineering projects. To present plausible future conditions for the
species and to assess the viability for the Pearl River map turtle in
response to those conditions, we projected two land use and two SLR
scenarios out to the years 2040 (20 years) and 2070 (50 years).
The two land use scenarios are based on scenarios from the IPCC
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). The SRES presents a set
of scenarios developed to represent the range of driving forces and
emissions in the scenario literature so as to reflect current
understanding and knowledge about underlying uncertainties. Four
different narrative storylines were developed to describe consistently
the relationships between emission driving forces and their evolution
and add context for the scenario quantification. Each storyline
represents different demographic, social, economic, technological, and
environmental developments. The four qualitative storylines yield four
sets of scenarios called ``families'': A1, A2, B1, and B2.
The two land use scenarios we examined are embedded within the
FORE-SCE model (A2 and B1). The two SLR projections are based on NOAA's
intermediate-high (RCP6) and extreme (RCP8.5) scenarios. We also
considered whether a proposed water engineering project (i.e., One
Lake) would be constructed within the species' range. This results in
six plausible scenarios for each of two time increments (2040 and
2070), with the A2-Extreme--One Lake project scenarios representing the
highest threat scenario for 2040 and 2070, the B1-Intermediate High--No
One Lake project scenario the lowest threat scenario for 2040 and 2070,
and the other four scenarios representing moderate threat scenarios
(table 4).
[[Page 66643]]
Table 4--Scenarios Used To Model Future Condition for Pearl River Map Turtle
[Scenarios were built around three factors: Land use (SRES emission scenarios A2 and B1), sea level rise
(emission scenarios Intermediate High (IH) and Extreme (EX)), and water engineering projects (One Lake Project:
Yes or No). Scenarios were projected under two timeframes: 2040 and 2070]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea level rise
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2040 2070
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intermediate
Intermediate high Extreme high Extreme
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One Lake Project (Yes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use:
A2........................ A2-IH--OneLake... A2-EX--OneLake.. A2-IH--OneLake.. A2-EX--OneLake.
B1........................ B1-IH--OneLake... B1-IH--OneLake..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One Lake Project (No)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use:
A2........................ A2-IH--NoProject. A2-EX--NoProject A2--IH--NoProjec A2-EX--NoProject.
t.
B1........................ B1-IH--NoProject. B1-IH--NoProject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Resiliency
Bogue Chitto--Under all scenarios, development remains low across
the Bogue Chitto unit. Agriculture is high across the entire unit in
all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070, where
agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across the
unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a
limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR or water engineering
project impacts directly affecting this unit. It is likely that the
condition of the unit will decline into the future, though there is
uncertainty regarding future impacts related to mining activity, which
has the potential to further reduce resiliency. Even with declines in
condition of the Bogue Chitto unit, there will be no change in the
resiliency category over the next 50 years according to the future
scenarios.
Lower Pearl--SLR impacts this unit under all scenarios, although
the impacts of inundation are localized to the southern portion of the
unit, mainly in the East Pearl River. Under the A2 scenarios, a few
streams are impacted by high levels of development, although most of
the unit has low levels of development; under the B1 scenario,
development is low across the entire unit. Agriculture is predicted to
be high across the unit under the A2 scenarios, and moderate across the
unit under the B1 scenario. There are no predicted water engineering
projects, and forested cover is anticipated to be relatively high.
Current resiliency for this unit is low, and resiliency is anticipated
to decrease across all scenarios, with the A2 scenarios with extreme
SLR associated with the most substantial decreases.
Middle Pearl--Silver--Development remains low across the unit under
all scenarios at both time steps. Agriculture increases to high under
the A2 scenarios and stays moderate under the B1 scenario. There are no
predicted SLR effects or water engineering project impacts on this
unit. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all
scenarios and is predicted to increase under the B1 scenario; thus,
deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. Current resiliency
for this unit is low, and although declines in condition of the Middle
Pearl-Silver unit are predicted, there will be no change in the
resiliency category in the future based on the factors assessed.
Middle Pearl--Strong--Development is substantial in a few areas
within this unit, particularly around Jackson, Mississippi. The current
resiliency for this unit is moderate and the future resiliency is
likely to decline due to increased agriculture and decreased forest
cover within the unit (without One Lake). Agriculture is predicted to
be high across the unit under all scenarios. If the One Lake project
moves forward, there is a substantial decrease in resiliency predicted
within and adjacent to the project area. A few streams are predicted to
lose a substantial amount of forested cover. No SLR impacts are
predicted in this unit. The Middle Pearl--Strong unit is perhaps the
most vulnerable unit, as development, agriculture, and water
engineering projects are all potential stressors in this unit.
Upper Pearl--The habitat associated with this unit provides
conditions to potentially support a stronghold for the species because
it has the highest amount of protected lands compared to the other four
units (Service 2021a, p. 92). Development remains low across the entire
unit under all scenarios. Agriculture is high across the entire unit in
all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070, where
agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across the
unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a
limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR or water engineering
project impacts in this unit; however, this population may experience
genetic drift over time due to isolation caused by habitat
fragmentation from the existing (Ross Barnett) and planned (One Lake)
reservoirs in the adjacent unit. Even though the threats are projected
to be low, the overall condition of the Upper Pearl unit is likely to
decline as a result of the loss of connectivity with the rest of the
turtle's range. Even with declines in condition of the Upper Pearl
unit, it will remain in the moderate category over the next 50 years
according to the future scenarios.
Future Redundancy
Although we do not project any of the units to be extirpated in any
scenarios, we do anticipate resiliency to decline in two units. For
example, the Middle Pearl--Strong unit will potentially lose a
substantial amount of habitat and individuals under all scenarios in
which the One Lake project is built. Also, the Lower Pearl unit will be
impacted by SLR under all scenarios, and this is compounded by
projected increases in both development and agriculture. All other
units are anticipated to remain relatively stable. Because extant units
of the species are predicted to be distributed relatively widely, it is
highly unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire
species' range, thus
[[Page 66644]]
the Pearl River map turtle is predicted to exhibit a moderate degree of
redundancy in the future under all scenarios.
Future Representation
As described under the current conditions, the species is a single
representative unit regarding genetic variation. Relatively unique
habitat conditions in the Strong River may influence the species'
adaptive capacity and its overall representation. When looking at
projections of threats within the Strong River, a few general trends
can be seen. First, for land use, development is projected to remain
low. In the A2 climate scenarios, agriculture increases from moderate
to high; in the B1 climate scenario, agriculture stays moderate. Also,
forested cover within the riparian zone of the Strong River remains
relatively high (68-83 percent), although it does drop across all
climate scenarios from the current condition (92 percent). SLR does not
impact this river in any of our scenarios, as the Strong River is far
enough inland to avoid the effects of inundation. Finally, the One Lake
project is not anticipated to directly impact the Strong River due to
the location of the project (i.e., mainstem Pearl River). Given all of
this information, although the resiliency of the Strong River might
decrease slightly due to land use projections, it is likely the Strong
River will support a moderate density of individual turtles, and thus
contribute to representation through maintenance of potential genetic
diversity based on unique habitat features.
It is noteworthy that a recent genetics study has revealed that
genetic diversity is lower in Pearl River map turtles compared to the
closely related congener, Pascagoula map turtles (Pearson et al. 2020,
pp. 11-12). Declining populations generally have reduced genetic
diversity, which can potentially elevate the risk of extinction by
reducing a species' ability and potential to adapt to environmental
changes (Spielman et al. 2004, entire). Future studies could help to
elucidate whether levels of genetic diversity seen in Pearl River map
turtles are low enough to suggest potential genetic bottlenecks, thus
clarifying the species' level of representation. Genetic bottleneck and
low overall genetic diversity are more of a concern for populations
that become geographically isolated by physical barriers that inhibit
connectivity.
Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms
Federal
The Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) regulates
dredge and fill activities that would adversely affect wetlands. Such
activities are commonly associated with dry land projects for
development, flood control, and land clearing, as well as for water-
dependent projects such as docks/marinas and maintenance of
navigational channels. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share the responsibility for
implementing the permitting program under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Permit review and issuance follows a process that encourages
avoidance, minimizing and requiring mitigation for unavoidable impacts
to the aquatic environment and habitats. This includes protecting the
riverine habitat occupied by the Pearl River map turtle. This law has
resulted in some enhancement of water quality and habitat for aquatic
life, particularly by reducing point-source pollutants.
The regulatory mechanisms have improved water quality within the
Pearl River drainage, as evidenced by a resurgence of intolerant fishes
(Wagner et al. 2018, p. 13). Because the Pearl River map turtle has a
greater tolerance for variances in water quality compared to intolerant
fishes, these regulatory mechanisms provide some protection for the
species and its habitat from the threat of water quality degradation;
however, there may be some instances where sources and occurrences may
exceed EPA thresholds and degrade water quality.
Additionally, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the effects
of their discretionary actions on federally listed species and must
consult with the Service if a project is likely to affect a species
listed under the Endangered Species Act. Such discretionary Federal
actions within the Pearl River map turtle's habitat that may affect
other listed species include: Maintenance dredging for navigation in
the lower Pearl River by the Corps and their issuance of section 404
Clean Water Act permits; construction and maintenance of gas and oil
pipelines and power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission; EPA pesticide registration; construction and maintenance of
roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration; and funding of
various projects administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Section 7 consultations on other federally listed
aquatic species are known to frequently require and recommend Federal
agencies implement conservation measures, best management practices,
and other actions that may also minimize or eliminate potential harmful
effects on Pearl River map turtle and encourage best management
practice for all aquatic species. Accordingly, requirements under
section 7 of the Act may provide some protections indirectly to the
Pearl River map turtle and its habitat.
National Wildlife Refuges
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRAA)
represents organic legislation that set up the administration of a
national network of lands and water for the conservation, management,
and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats for the benefit of the American people and is managed by the
Service. Conservation-minded management of public lands allows for: (1)
Natural processes to operate freely and thus changes to habitat occur
due to current and future environmental conditions; (2) managing the
use of resources and activities, which minimizes impacts; (3)
preservation and restoration to maintain habitats; and (4) reduction of
the adverse physical impacts from human use. Amendment of the NWRAA in
1997 required the refuge system to ensure that the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges be
maintained.
The Pearl River map turtle occurs on the Bogue Chitto National
Wildlife Refuge within Pearl River County, Mississippi, and St. Tammany
and Washington Parishes, Louisiana. A Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) has been developed to provide the framework of fish and wildlife
management on the refuge (Service 2011, entire). Within the CCP,
specific actions are described to protect the ringed map turtle that
will also benefit the Pearl River map turtle. Actions include ongoing
habitat management to provide downed woody debris for basking turtles
and to maintain 330-ft (100.6-m) buffers along all named streams during
forest habitat improvement and harvest to protect water quality in
streams (Service 2011, pp. 21, 73, 89, 179).
National Forests
The National Forest Management Act (1976) provides standards for
National Forest management and planning to protect the designated
forest lands while maintaining viable populations of existing native
and desired non-native
[[Page 66645]]
vertebrate species. The Planning Rule (2012) requires that the U.S.
Forest Service develop land management plans for all units within the
National Forest system. The National Forests in Mississippi have
adopted, and in most cases exceeded, the best management practices
(BMPs) (see discussion below of State BMPs) established by the State of
Mississippi (U.S. Forest Service 2014, p. 66). These include practices
such as establishing streamside buffer zones, restricting vegetation
management in riparian zones, and employing erosion control measures.
The Bienville National Forest has no known records for the Pearl River
map turtle but contains tributaries that flow into the Pearl and Strong
Rivers; thus, these practices may provide some protective measures for
habitat occupied by the species downstream. The regulations and
practices applied across the national forests upstream from the Pearl
River map turtle habitat provide protections for the species' aquatic
habitat and contribute to the conservation of the species.
Department of Defense Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans
The Sikes Act Improvement Act (1997) led to Department of Defense
guidance regarding development of Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plans (INRMPs) for promoting environmental conservation on
military installations. The U.S. Navy operates the Stennis Western
Maneuver Area located along the western edge of the NASA Stennis Space
Center and incorporated into the Stennis Space Center Buffer Zone. The
Stennis Western Maneuver Area encompasses a 4-mile reach of the East
Pearl River and a smaller eastern tributary named Mikes River (Buhlman
2014, p. 4) in Hancock and Pearl River Counties, Mississippi. These
river reaches are used by the Navy's Construction Battalion Center for
riverboat warfare training. The western bank of the East Pearl River
denotes the boundary of the Navy property and is managed as the Pearl
River Wildlife Management Area by the State of Louisiana (see below
under State/Louisiana). There are records of the Pearl River map turtle
from Stennis Western Maneuver Area (Buhlman 2014, pp. 11-12, 31-32).
The U.S. Navy has developed an INRMP for the Stennis Western Maneuver
Area (U.S. Navy 2011, entire). Measures within the INRMP are expected
to protect listed species, and also provide a level of protection for
the Pearl River map turtle, include erosion and storm water control,
floodplain management, invasive plant species management, and the use
of an ecosystem approach to general fish and wildlife management (U.S.
Navy 2011, pp. 4-4-4-20).
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, Appendix III
All species of Graptemys are included on the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora's
(CITES) Appendix III (CITES 2019, p. 43). The Pearl River map turtle
was added to the CITES Appendix III list in 2006 (70 FR 74700; December
16, 2005). Appendix III is a list of species included at the request of
a Party to the Convention that already regulates trade in the species
and that needs the cooperation of other countries to prevent
unsustainable, illegal exploitation. International trade in specimens
of species listed in Appendix III is allowed only on presentation of
the appropriate permits or certificates. The information that is
provided in export reports for the Pearl River map turtle does not
provide sufficient information to support identification of the source
of the turtles. 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). 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 regarding the sources of the
exported turtles as they could have originated from captive stock. The
CITES Appendix III reporting does not provide sufficient protections
for the Pearl River map turtle because only the genus name, Graptemys,
is used to describe the turtles, resulting in no mechanism to
understand the number or source of Pearl River map turtles that are
exported.
State Protections--Louisiana
In Louisiana, the species has no State status under Louisiana
regulations or law (LDWF 2021, entire). Protections under State law for
collecting the Pearl River map turtle are limited to licensing
restrictions for turtles. In Louisiana, a recreational basic fishing
license is required but allows unlimited take of most species of
turtles, including the Pearl River map turtle; exceptions are that no
turtle eggs or nesting turtles may be taken (LDWF 2020, pp. 50-51). A
recreational gear license is also required for operating specified trap
types (see Louisiana's regulations for details on trap types), for
instance, five or fewer hoop nets; greater than five hoop nets requires
a Commercial Fisherman License.
The Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act (1988) was established as a
regulatory program administered by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries (LDWF) through a system of regulations and permits.
Certain actions that may negatively affect the Pearl River map turtle
are either prohibited or require a permit on rivers included on the
natural and scenic river list. Prohibited actions include
channelization, channel realignment, clearing and snagging,
impoundments, and commercial clearcutting within 100 ft (30.5 m) of the
river low water mark (Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
(LDAF) undated, p. 45). Permits are required for river crossing
structures, bulkheads, land development adjacent to the river, and
water withdrawals (LDAF undated, p. 45). Rivers with the natural and
scenic river designation that are occupied by the Pearl River map
turtle include the Bogue Chitto River, Holmes Bayou, and West Pearl
River in St. Tammany Parish and Pushepatapa Creek in Washington Parish
(LDAF undated, p. 48).
Additional protected areas of Pearl River map turtle habitat in
Louisiana include the Pearl River Wildlife Management Area located in
St. Tammany Parish and Bogue Chitto State Park located on the Bogue
Chitto River in Washington Parish. A master plan for management of
Wildlife Management Areas and State Refuges has been developed for
Louisiana, which describes the role of these lands in improving
wildlife populations and their habitat including identifying and
prioritizing issues threatening wildlife resources (LDWF and The
Conservation Fund 2014, entire). Bogue Chitto State Park is managed by
the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism for public
use.
The Louisiana State Comprehensive Wildlife Action Plan (Holcomb et
al. 2015, entire) was developed as a roadmap for nongame conservation
in Louisiana. The primary focus of the plan is the recovery of Species
of Greatest Conservation Need, those wildlife species in need of
conservation action within Louisiana, which includes the Pearl River
map turtle. Specific actions identified for the Pearl River map turtle
include conducting ecological studies of the turtle's reproduction,
nest success, and recruitment as well as developing general population
estimates via mark
[[Page 66646]]
and recapture studies (Holcomb et al. 2015, p. 69). Recent Pearl River
map turtle survey work in Louisiana was conducted using funding from
the SWG program (Selman 2020a, entire).
Gravel mining activities that occur within Louisiana require review
and permits by Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
Additional permits are required by LDWF for any mining activities that
occur within designated Scenic Streams in Louisiana. The permit
requirements ensure all projects are reviewed and approved by the
State, thus ensuring oversight by the State and application of State
laws.
State Protections--Mississippi
The Pearl River map turtle is S2 (imperiled because of rarity or
because of some factor making it very vulnerable to extinction) in
Mississippi (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science (MMNS) 2015, p. 38)
but is not listed on the Mississippi State list of protected species
(Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 2015, entire). Protections under
State law are limited to licensing restrictions for take for personal
use of nongame species in need of management (which includes native
species of turtles). A Mississippi resident is required to obtain one
of three licenses for capture and possession of Pearl River map turtles
(Mississippi Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks 2016, pp. 3-5). The three
licenses available for this purpose are a Sportsman License, an All
Game Hunting/Freshwater Fishing License, and a Small Game Hunting/
Freshwater Fishing License. A nonresident would require a Nonresident
All Game Hunting License. Restrictions on take for personal use include
no more than four turtles of any species or subspecies may be possessed
or taken within a single year and that no turtles may be taken between
April 1st and June 30th except by permit from the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (Mississippi Commission on
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, MDWFP 2016, pp. 3-5). Additional
restrictions apply to this species if removed from the wild; non-game
wildlife or their parts taken from wild Mississippi populations may not
be bought, possessed, transported, exported, sold, offered for sale,
shipped, bartered, or exhibited for commercial purposes.
The Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Action Plan (MMNS 2015,
entire) was developed to provide a guide for effective and efficient
long-term conservation of biodiversity in Mississippi. As in Louisiana,
the primary focus of the plan is on the recovery of species designated
as SGCN, which includes the Pearl River map turtle. Specific actions
identified for the Pearl River map turtle in Mississippi include
planning and conducting status surveys for the species (MMNS 2015, p.
686).
Lands managed for wildlife by the State of Mississippi, which may
provide habitat protections for the Pearl River map turtle, include the
Old River Wildlife Management Area, Pearl River County and Pearl River
Wildlife Management Area, Madison County. In addition, a ringed map
turtle sanctuary was designated in 1990 by the Pearl River Valley Water
Supply District (District), north of the Ross Barnett Reservoir,
Madison County, which also provides habitat for the Pearl River map
turtle. One of the goals of management on Wildlife Management Areas in
Mississippi is to improve wildlife populations and their habitat (MDWFP
2020, entire). The District sanctuary is approximately 12 rmi (19.3
rkm) north from Ratliff Ferry to Lowhead Dam on the Pearl River
(Service 2010, p. 4). Within the sanctuary, the District maintains
informational signs to facilitate public awareness of the sanctuary and
of the importance of the area to the species and conducts channel
maintenance by methods that do not hinder the propagation of the
species. The District has recorded a notation on the deed of the
property comprising the sanctuary area that will in perpetuity notify
transferees that the sanctuary must be maintained in accordance with
the stated provisions (Service 2010, p. 4).
Additionally, gravel mining activities that occur within
Mississippi require review and permits by Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality. The permit requirements ensure all projects are
reviewed and approved by the State, thus ensuring oversight by the
State and application of State laws.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife State Wildlife Grants
In 2000, the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program was created
through the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations Act and provided
funding to States ``for the development and implementation of programs
for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that
are not hunted or fished.'' The SWG Program is administered by the
Service and allocates Federal funding for proactive nongame
conservation measures nationwide. Congress stipulated that each State
fish and wildlife agency that wished to participate in the SWG program
develop a Wildlife Action Plan to guide the use of SWG funds (see
discussion below regarding the plans developed by the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) and Mississippi Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP)). This program funds studies
that assist conservation by providing needed information regarding the
species or its habitat and has contributed to the conservation of the
species by assessing the current status and range of the Pearl River
map turtle.
Additional Conservation Measures--Best Management Practices
Most of the land adjacent to the Pearl and Bogue Chitto Rivers in
Louisiana and Mississippi is privately owned and much of it is managed
for timber. Both States have developed voluntary BMPs for forestry
activities conducted in their respective States with the intent to
protect water quality and minimize the impacts to plants and wildlife.
In addition, the forest industry has a number of forest certification
programs, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, which require
participating landowners to meet or exceed State forestry BMPs.
Silvicultural practices implemented with State-approved BMPs can reduce
negative impacts to aquatic species, such as turtles, through
reductions in nonpoint source pollution, such as sedimentation.
Although nonpoint source pollution is a localized threat to the Pearl
River map turtle, it is less prevalent in areas where State-approved
BMPs are used (Service 2021b, p. 41).
In Louisiana, BMPs include streamside management zones (SMZ) of 50
ft (15.24 m), measured from the top of the streambank, for streams of
less than 20 ft (6.1 m) under estimated normal flow, to a width of 100
ft (30.5 m) for streams more than 20 ft (6.1 m) wide (LDAF undated, p.
15). Guidance includes maintaining adequate forest canopy cover for
normal water and shade conditions as well as an appropriate amount of
residual cover to minimize soil erosion (LDAF undated, p. 14). An
overall rate of 97.4 percent of 204 forestry operations surveyed by the
LDAF in 2018 complied with the State's voluntary guidelines; compliance
with guidelines in SMZs was 98.6 percent (LDAF 2018, entire).
The State of Mississippi has voluntary BMPs developed by the
Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC) (MFC 2008, entire). These BMPs
include SMZs with the purpose of maintaining bank stability and
enhancing wildlife habitat by leaving 50 percent crown cover during
timber cuts (MFC 2008, p. 6). The width of SMZs is based on slope,
[[Page 66647]]
with a minimum SMZ width of 30 ft (9.14 m) extending to 60 ft (18.3 m)
at sites with over 40 percent slope (MFC 2008, p. 6). The most recent
monitoring survey of 174 Mississippi forestry sites indicated that 95
percent of applicable sites were implemented in accordance with the
2008 guidelines (MFC 2019, p. 6).
Overall, voluntary BMPs related to forest management activities
conducted on private lands throughout the riparian corridor of the
Pearl River System have provided a significant foothold for Pearl River
map turtle conservation. As a result of high BMP compliance in these
specific areas, non-point source pollution associated with
silvicultural operations is not a major contributor to impacts on the
species.
Determination of Pearl River Map Turtle Status
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 meets the definition of endangered species or
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 a species meets the definition of endangered
species or 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.
In conducting our status assessment of the Pearl River map turtle,
we evaluated all identified threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors and assessed how the cumulative impact of all threats acts on
the current and future viability of the species based on resiliency,
redundancy, and representation. In assessing future viability, all the
anticipated effects from both habitat-based and direct threats to the
species are examined in total and then evaluated in the context of what
those combined negative effects will mean to the future condition of
the Pearl River map turtle. We use the best available information to
determine the magnitude of each individual threat on the species, and
then assess how those effects combined (and as may be ameliorated by
any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts) will impact
the Pearl River map turtle's future viability.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the section 4(a)(1) factors, we
determined that the species currently has sufficient resiliency,
redundancy, and representation contributing to its overall viability
across its range. Even though the species is described as a single
population, the current condition of the units are all below optimal or
high resiliency, three units have moderate resiliency, and the
remaining two units have low resiliency. There are no units within the
range that demonstrate high resiliency. Despite the moderate and low
conditions of all units, the species is widely distributed across much
of its range. Current threats to the species include habitat
degradation and loss due to alterations in the aquatic and terrestrial
environments that affect water quality through sedimentation,
impoundment, and gravel mining; and collection for the pet trade is
also an ongoing threat to the species.
The Ross Barnett Reservoir was completed in 1963 and has reduced
the amount of available habitat for the species and fragmented
contiguous suitable habitat. Pearl River map turtles prefer flowing
water in rivers and creeks. Indirect effects from the reservoir are
associated with recreational use from boat traffic and foot traffic
from day visitors and campers. Declines in Pearl River map turtles have
been documented both upstream (lower density) and downstream
(population declines) from the reservoir (Selman and Jones 2017, pp.
32-34). A total of 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of the Pearl River is submerged
beneath the Ross Barnett Reservoir and no longer suitable for the Pearl
River map turtle. This reservoir is currently affecting the Middle
Pearl-Strong unit and the Upper Pearl unit, reducing the suitable
habitat 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. The reservoir reduces the resiliency and overall
condition of these affected units.
Despite the effects of the existing reservoir on the Upper Pearl
and Middle Pearl-Strong resilience units, sufficient habitat remains to
provide adequate resiliency of these units to contribute to the
viability of the species. The effects from the reservoir may continue
affecting the species in the future as the turtles in the Upper Pearl
unit (above the reservoir) become more isolated over time; however,
there is currently adequate resiliency.
In terms of redundancy and the ability of the species to respond to
catastrophic events, the species currently has enough redundancy across
the five resilience units to protect it from a catastrophe such as a
large hurricane or oil spill. The Middle Pearl-Silver and Middle Pearl-
Strong units are particularly vulnerable to a potential spill from
railways and transportation corridors that are near or adjacent to
habitat occupied by Pearl River map turtles. The Lower Pearl unit is
vulnerable to the effects from hurricanes as it is in close proximity
to the Gulf of Mexico. However, because the species is a single
population distributed across five resilience units encompassing
1,279.6 rkm (795.1 rm), it is buffered against catastrophic events such
as these.
While the overall current condition of the species exhibits low
redundancy, the species is still widespread across its range in all
resilience units across the single representative unit. Although we do
not project any of the units to be extirpated in any scenarios, we do
anticipate resilience to drop significantly in several units across
many scenarios. Thus, after assessing the best available information,
we conclude that the Pearl River map turtle is not currently in danger
of extinction throughout all of its range.
A threatened species, as defined by the Act, is any species which
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because the
species is not currently in danger of extinction (endangered)
throughout its entire range, we evaluated the viability of the species
over the foreseeable future considering the condition of the species in
relation to its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. We analyzed
future conditions based on input from species experts, generation time
for the species, and the confidence in predicting patterns of
urbanization and agriculture, enabling us to reliably predict threats
and conservation actions and the species' response over time. Details
regarding the future condition analyses are available in the SSA report
(Service 2021b, pp. 81-118).
The threats included in the future scenarios are projected to
negatively affect the Pearl River map turtle and result in a decline of
resiliency throughout four (Bogue Chitto, Lower Pearl, Middle Pearl-
Strong, and Upper Pearl) of the five resilience units (table
[[Page 66648]]
2). While the Middle Pearl-Silver unit is not expected to see major
declines in resiliency, its current resiliency is low and it is
anticipated to remain low in the future projections. None of the
resilience units will improve from current conditions to provide high
resiliency; three units are moderate, but the conditions decline in the
future scenarios. Three resilience units may have additional stressors
including isolation for the Upper Pearl, compounded by the addition of
another planned reservoir for the Middle Pearl-Strong unit, and gravel
mining for the Bogue Chitto unit. These threats will likely cause a
decline in the amount of available suitable habitat, thereby affecting
the future resiliency; however, the development of the reservoir and
future sand and gravel mining activities are uncertain. Two of the
resilience units are low (Lower Pearl and Middle Pearl), with the most
southern unit (Lower Pearl) facing threats from SLR. The single
population that consists of five resilience units has low genetic
variability resulting in low adaptive capacity or the potential to
adapt to environmental or habitat changes within the units. Most of the
population primarily uses the main stem river, which is subject to more
catastrophic events (e.g., an oil spill) as any point source pollutants
would flow downstream throughout the range of the turtle below the
point of contamination. The species has limited occurrence in
tributaries in its range, resulting in limited refugia from future
catastrophic effects.
In terms of resiliency, the future condition is expected to decline
for all resilience units. The future scenarios project out to the year
2070 to capture the species' response to threats and changing landscape
conditions. The impacts from the existing Ross Barnett Reservoir will
continue affecting the species, and resilience of the units will
decline as the turtles in the most northern unit (Upper Pearl) will
become even more spatially isolated. An additional planned development
project adjacent to the existing reservoir could affect up to 170
turtles directly and 360 turtles indirectly in the Upper Pearl and
Middle Pearl-Strong units (Selman 2020b, pp. 192-193). If this
impoundment project moves forward, the species' viability will continue
to decline in the foreseeable future as resiliency declines through
loss of suitable habitat and further isolation of turtles above the
reservoirs. The turtles in the Upper Pearl unit are subject to genetic
isolation and potentially the effects of small population size as the
species here will not be connected to the rest of the contiguous
habitat south of the reservoir.
Another future threat to the species is SLR, which will cause a
contraction in the most southern unit (Lower Pearl) as saline waters
encroach farther north from the Gulf of Mexico in rising seas, and the
effects will be magnified with hurricane-related storm surge pulsing
saline water upstream into the freshwater system. The amount of habitat
affected over time depends on the rate of SLR and other factors that
influence surge such as increased hurricane or storm frequency and
severity.
An additional threat that is expected to impact the species in the
foreseeable future includes the continued collection from wild
populations for the domestic and international pet trade. Map turtles
are desired by collectors for their intricate shell patterns. Despite
the less distinctive shell patterns and markings of adult Pearl River
map turtles, the species remains a target for some herptile enthusiasts
and personal collections. The demand for turtles globally is
increasing, which results in more intense pressures on wild
populations. The threat of illegal collection is expected to continue
into the foreseeable future.
The overall future condition of the species is expected to continue
a declining trajectory resulting in compromised viability as described
in the future scenarios out to year 2070. Therefore, the species is
likely to become in danger of extinction within 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. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
2020 WL 437289 (D.D.C. Jan. 28, 2020) (Center for Biological
Diversity), vacated the aspect of the Final Policy on Interpretation of
the Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered
Species Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened
Species'' (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) that provided that the Service
does not undertake an analysis of significant portions of a species'
range if the species warrants listing as threatened throughout all of
its range. Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
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 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.
Following the court's holding in Center for Biological Diversity,
we now consider whether there are any significant portions of the
species' range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e.,
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for the Pearl River 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. We considered whether the
threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species'
range at a biologically meaningful scale. We examined the following
threats: Effects of climate change (including SLR), habitat loss and
degradation, and illegal collection. We also considered whether
cumulative effects contributed to a concentration of threats across the
species' range.
Overall, we found that the threat of SLR and habitat loss are
likely acting disproportionately to particular areas within the
species' range. The threat of SLR is concentrated in the Lower Pearl,
which is the most southern resilience unit that connects to the Gulf of
Mexico. However, the salinity influx into the species' habitat due to
SLR is not currently affecting this area but will affect the species'
habitat within the foreseeable future; thus, we excluded SLR from the
significant portion of its range analysis as we have already determined
the species is threatened across all of its range.
The threat of habitat loss and degradation is concentrated on the
Middle Pearl-Strong and Upper Pearl units due to an existing reservoir
and a planned project that disjoins the connectivity of turtles above
and below the reservoir. The impacts due to habitat degradation and
loss are acting on the species' current condition and possibly future
condition if the One Lake project is constructed as planned. Future
reduction in habitat in the Middle Pearl-Strong and Upper Pearl units
will occur, and increased isolation of the Upper Pearl unit will
further reduce
[[Page 66649]]
connectivity if the additional One Lake project is completed.
Researchers have estimated that up to 170 individual Pearl River map
turtles could be directly impacted by the One Lake Project (Selman
2020b, pp. 192-193). The impacts from this project are in the future
and are not currently affecting the species; therefore, we will only
consider the existing reservoir for the analysis to determine if the
species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.
After identifying areas where the concentration of threats of
habitat degradation and loss affects the species or its habitat and the
time horizon of these threats, we considered the status to determine if
the species is endangered in the affected portion of the range. The
area that currently contains a concentration of threats includes a
portion of the Middle Pearl-Strong and Upper Pearl units. Habitat loss
and degradation from an existing reservoir has reduced the amount and
quality of existing habitat for the species in these units. The Ross
Barnett Reservoir constructed between 1960 and 1963 near Jackson,
Mississippi, changed the natural hydrology of the Pearl River and
resulted in 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of river submerged and made unsuitable
for the Pearl River map turtle (Lindeman 2019, p. 19). Low population
densities of turtles have been observed upstream from the reservoir
(Selman and Jones 2017, pp. 32-34). 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). However, despite
these declines, the species currently exhibits adequate resiliency in
these portions.
As a result, the Pearl River map turtle is not in danger of
extinction in the portion of the range affected by the Barnett Ross
Reservoir. In other words, we found no concentration of threats in any
portion of the Pearl River map turtle's range at a biologically
meaningful scale. Thus, there are no portions of the species' range
where the species has a different status from its rangewide status.
Therefore, no portion of the species' range provides a basis for
determining that the species is in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of its range, and we determine that the Pearl River
map turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all 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 Pearl River Map Turtle Status
Our review of the best available scientific and commercial
information indicates that the Pearl River map turtle meets the
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the
Pearl River map turtle as a threatened species in accordance with
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried
out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and
the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part,
below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of listed
species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the
Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning consists of preparing draft and final recovery
plans, beginning with the development of a recovery outline and making
it available to the public within 30 days of a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for
reclassification from endangered to threatened (``downlisting'') or
removal from protected status (``delisting''), and methods for
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our website
(<a href="http://www.fws.gov/endangered">http://www.fws.gov/endangered</a>) 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: <a href="http://www.fws.gov/grants">http://www.fws.gov/grants</a>.
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 ba
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 23, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.