Proposed Rule2021-23994
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Alligator Snapping Turtle
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 9, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 12-month finding on a petition to list the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), North America's largest freshwater turtle species, as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the alligator snapping turtle as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act ("4(d) rule"). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it will add the species 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 214 (Tuesday, November 9, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 9, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62434-62463]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23994]
[[Page 62433]]
Vol. 86
Tuesday,
No. 214
November 9, 2021
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Alligator Snapping Turtle; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 214 / Tuesday, November 9, 2021 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62434]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0115; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223]
RIN 1018-BG00
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Alligator Snapping Turtle
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our
12-month finding on a petition to list the alligator snapping turtle
(Macrochelys temminckii), North America's largest freshwater turtle
species, as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After a review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing
the species is warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the alligator
snapping turtle as a threatened species with a rule issued under
section 4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule''). If we finalize this rule as
proposed, it will add the species to the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species.
DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
January 10, 2022. 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
public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT by December 27, 2021.
Public informational meeting and public hearing: We will hold a
public informational meeting on December 7, 2021, from 6:00 p.m. to
7:30 p.m. Central Time, followed by a public hearing from 7:30 p.m. to
8:30 p.m. Central Time.
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 docket number or RIN
for this rulemaking (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 Search 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-2021-0115, 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: Brigette Firmin, Deputy Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological
Services Field Office, 200 Dulles Drive, Lafayette, LA 70506; telephone
337-291-3108. 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 1 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 designating critical habitat
can be completed only by issuing a rule.
What this document does. We propose to list the alligator snapping
turtle as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of
the Act.
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 the primary threats acting
on the alligator snapping turtle include habitat loss or modification
(Factor A), harvest and collection (Factor B), nest predation (Factor
C), and hook ingestion, entanglement, and drowning due to bycatch
associated with freshwater fishing (Factor E). Existing regulatory
mechanisms (Factor D) are not adequate to address these threats.
Disease (Factor C), nest parasites (Factor C), and the effects of
climate change (Factor E) may negatively influence the species, but the
impacts of these threats on the species are uncertain based on current
information.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent with listing to
the maximum extent prudent and determinable. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
defines critical habitat as (i) the specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed, on
which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to
the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special
management considerations or protections; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the species. Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act states that the Secretary must make the designation on the basis of
the best scientific data available and after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any other
relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
We have determined that designation of critical habitat is not
determinable at this time.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
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.
[[Page 62435]]
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, taxonomy, and population structure;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
(d) Survival rates for adults, juveniles, hatchlings, or eggs;
(e) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends;
(f) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species; and
(g) Tribal use or cultural significance of the species, including
use of parts for ceremonial or traditional crafts.
(2) Information on threats to the species, particularly information
on:
(a) Frequency of hook ingestion and entanglement associated with
recreational or commercial fishing, effects on individual survival, and
any population impacts;
(b) Magnitude of poaching and any population impacts from poaching;
and
(c) Nest and hatchling predation rates and effects on recruitment
and any population impacts.
(3) The spatial distribution and extent of threats to this species.
Notably, we seek any information on areas within the species' range
where these threats may overlap and potentially act synergistically or
antagonistically as well as where there may be a complete absence of
threats.
(4) The spatial variation in demographic rates related to
reproduction, recruitment, and survival.
(5) Information regarding personal or commercial trade, not limited
to the pet trade or breeding for personal collections.
(6) Information regarding habitat loss or degradation impacts to
the species at the analysis unit level.
(7) Information, especially from the commercial and recreational
fishing communities, about the design of a turtle escape or exclusion
device, modified trot line techniques, or any other practices that
would effectively eliminate or significantly reduce bycatch of
alligator snapping turtles from recreational or commercial fishing.
(8) Information to address uncertainties regarding the future
conditions analyses that informed the listing determination, including:
(a) Model input variables;
(b) Scientific or commercial information that would inform the
model; and
(c) Treatment of uncertainty within the model.
(9) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to
provide for the conservation of the alligator snapping turtle and that
the Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species. In
particular, we seek information concerning the extent to which we
should include any of the Act's section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule
or whether we should consider any additional exceptions from the
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
(10) Whether the measures outlined in the proposed 4(d) rule are
necessary and advisable for the conservation and management of the
alligator snapping turtle. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(a) Whether we should include a provision excepting incidental take
resulting from legal recreational or commercial fishing activities for
other targeted species, in compliance with State regulations. In
addition, if we include such a provision, whether we should also
include a requirement to report to the Service injured or dead turtles
resulting from such legal fishing activities and how such reporting
should be conducted;
(b) Whether the provision excepting activities such as take and
interstate commerce for captive-bred specimens from State-approved
captive breeding operations-should be revised or clarified regarding
additional restrictions or requirements, or best management practices,
or whether the Service should also except from the prohibited
activities the foreign trade of live specimens from captive breeding
operations;
(c) Whether the provisions excepting incidental take resulting from
construction, operation, and maintenance activities; pesticide and
herbicide application; and silviculture practices and forestry
activities that follow best management practices should be revised or
clarified to remove or add information, including spatial or temporal
restrictions or deferments, or additional best management practices;
(d) Whether there are additional provisions the Service may wish to
consider for the final 4(d) rule in order to conserve, recover, and
manage the alligator snapping turtle, such as allowing take associated
with certain infrastructure and other construction activities, riparian
management activities, or wetland management activities;
(e) Methods for identifying, marking, and tracking captive brood-
stock to differentiate them from wild-stock; and
(f) Whether there are any additional management activities not
described within this proposed rule that contribute to the conservation
of the alligator snapping turtle.
(11) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), 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.
(12) Whether the designation of critical habitat is not prudent
because it would more widely announce the exact locations of alligator
snapping turtles and their highly suitable habitat which could
facilitate poaching, exacerbating the existing threat of collection and
contributing to further declines of the species' viability.
(13) Specific information on the possible risks or benefits of
designating critical habitat, including risks associated with
publication of maps designating any area on which this species may be
located, now or in the future, as critical habitat. We specifically
request information on the threats of taking or other human activity on
the alligator snapping turtle and its habitat, and the extent to which
designation might increase those threats, as well as the possible
benefits of critical habitat designation to the species.
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 actions 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
[[Page 62436]]
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 is
endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species
does not warrant listing as either an endangered species or a
threatened species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the
prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the 4(d) rule
if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new
information we receive. For example, we may expand the prohibitions to
include prohibiting 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
We are holding a public informational meeting followed by a public
hearing on the date and at the time listed in DATES. We are holding the
public informational meeting and public hearing via the Zoom online
video platform and via teleconference so that participants can attend
remotely. For security purposes, registration is required. All
participants must register in order to listen and view the meeting and
hearing via Zoom, listen to the meeting and hearing by telephone, or
provide oral public comments at the public hearing by Zoom or
telephone. For information on how to register, or if technical problems
occur joining Zoom the day of the meeting, visit <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/">https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/</a>. Registrants will receive the Zoom link and
the telephone number for the public informational meeting and public
hearing. If applicable, interested members of the public not familiar
with the Zoom platform should view the Zoom video tutorials (<a href="https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials">https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/206618765-Zoom-video-tutorials</a>) prior
to the public informational meeting and public hearing.
We are holding the public informational meeting to present
information about the proposed rule to list the alligator snapping
turtle as a threatened species and to provide interested parties an
opportunity to ask questions about the proposed 4(d) rule. The public
hearing will provide interested parties an opportunity to present
verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) regarding the proposed rule to
list the alligator snapping turtle as a threatened species and the
proposed 4(d) rule. While the public informational meeting will be an
opportunity for dialogue with the Service, the public hearing is not.
The public hearing portion is a forum for accepting formal verbal
testimony. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted
for oral statements may be limited. Therefore, anyone wishing to make
an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to
provide a prepared written copy of their statement to us through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, or U.S. mail (see ADDRESSES, above). There
are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. Anyone
wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing must register
before the hearing (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/">https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/</a>). The
use of a virtual public hearing is consistent with our regulations at
50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).
Reasonable Accommodation
The Service is committed to providing access to the public
informational meeting and public hearing for all participants. Closed
captioning will be available during the public informational meeting
and public hearing. Further, a full audio and video recording and
transcript of the public hearing will be posted online at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/">https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/</a>after the hearing. Participants
will also have access to live audio during the public informational
meeting and public hearing via their telephone or computer speakers.
Persons with disabilities requiring reasonable accommodations to
participate in the meeting and/or hearing should contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business days
prior to the date of the meeting and hearing to help ensure
accessibility. An accessible version of the Service's public
informational meeting presentation will also be posted online at
<a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/">https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/</a> prior to the meeting and
hearing (see DATES, above). See <a href="https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/">https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/news/</a> for more information about reasonable accommodation.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 11, 2012, the Service received a petition to list 53
amphibians and reptiles across the United States, including the
alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), as endangered or
threatened species. On July 1, 2015, we published a 90-day finding (80
FR 37568) that the petition contained substantial information
indicating the alligator snapping turtle may warrant listing. On
September 1, 2015, the petitioner submitted supplemental information to
add to the petition that described new studies that could lead to
taxonomic differentiation of the single Macrochelys species into
multiple entities (Center for Biological Diversity 2015, entire). This
information was considered and is described in further detail below in
the Background discussion under I. Proposed Listing Determination in
this document. New information since the time of the original petition,
including that submitted to supplement the petition, provided
sufficient evidence to support splitting the alligator snapping turtle
(M. temminckii) into two separate species based on genetic and
morphological differences as well as geographic isolation, resulting in
alligator snapping turtle (M. temminckii) and Suwannee alligator
snapping turtle (M. suwanniensis). This proposed rule serves as the 12-
month finding for the alligator snapping turtle (M. temminckii).
Supporting Documents
A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the alligator snapping turtle (Service 2021, entire). The SSA team was
composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species
experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species,
including the impacts of factors (both
[[Page 62437]]
negative and beneficial) affecting the species in the past, present,
and future. 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 eight appropriate specialists regarding the SSA report and
received three responses. We also requested review of the model that
was used in the SSA analysis; we sent it to three reviewers and
received two responses. We received review from 14 partners, most of
which are State agencies. The SSA report and other materials relating
to this proposal can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FWS.
I. Proposed Listing Determination
Background
A thorough review of the taxonomy, distribution, life history, and
ecology of the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) is
presented in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 3-16); however, much of
this information is based on the Macrochelys genus as a whole and is
not specific to the alligator snapping turtle. Turtles in the genus
Macrochelys are the largest species of freshwater turtle in North
America, are highly aquatic, and are somewhat secretive. Macrochelys
turtles are characterized as having a large head, a long tail, and an
upper jaw with a strongly hooked beak. They have three raised keels
with posterior elevations on the scutes of the carapace (upper shell),
which is dark brown and often has algal growth that adds to their
camouflage. The eyes are positioned on the side of the head and are
surrounded by small, fleshy, pointed projections that are unique to the
genus. The common name for M. temminckii is alligator snapping turtle,
or occasionally, western alligator snapping turtle to differentiate
between this species and Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.
Alligator snapping turtles are primarily freshwater turtles in
freshwater bodies centralized in the southeastern United States and are
confined to river systems that flow into the Gulf of Mexico, extending
from the Apalachicola River in Florida to the San Jacinto and Trinity
rivers in Texas. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, the species is
widely distributed from the Gulf to as far north as Indiana, Illinois,
southeastern Kansas, and eastern Oklahoma. In the Gulf Coastal Plain,
the species' range extends from eastern Texas to southern Georgia and
northern Florida. Historically, the alligator snapping turtle occurred
over eastern Oklahoma, but today it is believed to be restricted to the
east-central and southeastern portion of the State (Ernst and Lovich
2009, p. 139).
The historical range of alligator snapping turtles included 14
States: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and
Texas. Currently, the species is known to occur in 12 States: Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri,
Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. This list includes all
historically occupied States except for Indiana and Kansas, where
occurrence is unknown. The range of the species has contracted in many
areas of the historical distribution. The species once occupied eastern
Oklahoma, but today it is believed to be restricted to the east-central
and southeastern portion of the State (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 139).
In Indiana, alligator snapping turtle eDNA (genetic material found
within the environment) has been collected in the water, but presence
has not been confirmed with trapping. In Kansas, the species has not
been detected since a 1991 record in Montgomery County. Range
contractions or declines in the species' abundance have occurred in
several States along the northern extent of the species' distribution,
including Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee. The physiography of the
coastal plain, particularly in the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana, provides good habitat conditions for the species and
supports greater number of alligator snapping turtles than the northern
fringe of the range. The estimated abundance of the species is around
360,000 individuals (Service 2021, p. 55).
The alligator snapping turtle is a member of the Family
Chelydridae, Order Testudinata, Class Reptilia. The species was first
described in 1789 as Testudo planitia, but it was placed in the genus
Macrochelys in 1856 (Gray 1856, entire). Although subsequent authors
referred to the genus as Macrochelys, this placement was refuted, and
it was believed the alligator snapping turtle should be included in the
genus Macroclemys (Smith 1955, p. 16). In 1995, Webb demonstrated that
the genus Macrochelys has precedence over Macroclemys, and the Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles adopted this revision in 2000
(Crother et al. 2000, p. 79). Accordingly, for the purpose of this
proposed rule, we will use the taxonomic nomenclature, Macrochelys, as
the genus for the alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii).
The alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) was
considered a single, wide-ranging species until a recent analysis of
variation in morphology and genetic structure among M. temminckii
specimens resulted in differentiation of three species of alligator
snapping turtles: alligator snapping turtle (M. temminckii),
Apalachicola alligator snapping turtle (M. apalachicolae), and Suwannee
alligator snapping turtle (M. suwanniensis) (Thomas et al. 2014,
entire). Subsequent morphological and genetic comparisons did not
support distinguishing M. apalachicolae from M. temminckii (Folt and
Guyer 2015, entire). The herpetology community, including the Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, recognizes two species of
Macrochelys: (1) M. temminckii and (2) M. suwanniensis (Crother 2017,
p. 88). The Turtle Taxonomy Working Group also concurs with the
recognition of two species and provides evidence to support the
distinction of M. temminckii (Rhodin et al. 2017, p. 26). According to
the best available science, we consider M. temminckii and M.
suwanniensis as the only two distinct species within the genus.
Throughout this document, we provide descriptions of alligator
snapping turtle where the information is available specific to the
species. We reference Macrochelys when describing the genus and M.
temminckii when referring to the species, alligator snapping turtle.
Since the taxonomic distinction of the two Macrochelys spp. is
relatively recent, we may refer to the genus, or alligator snapping
turtles in general, to describe life-history traits.
Summary of Biological Status and Threats
In this discussion, we review the biological condition of alligator
snapping turtle and its resources, and the threats that influence the
species' current and future conditions, in order to assess the species'
overall viability and the risks to that viability. We provide the best
available information on the species' life history and the threats
acting on the species as provided in the SSA report (Service 2021,
entire).
To assess the current condition and abundance levels to inform the
current and future conditions, we compared the historical and current
ranges of alligator snapping turtles by querying State biologists or
those with access to the State's natural heritage program data. We
sought expert estimates, using a 4-point elicitation procedure in a
written
[[Page 62438]]
questionnaire (Speirs-Bridge et al. 2010, p. 515). Experts were asked
to respond only for those analysis units for which they have experience
or expertise. Experts were asked to provide what they estimated to be
the lowest likely number, the highest likely number, and the most
likely number of alligator snapping turtles in each analysis unit. They
were then asked to report how confident they were that their interval
(lowest estimate to highest estimate) captured the actual number of
alligator snapping turtles (akin to a confidence interval). Finally,
the experts were asked to describe how they generated their estimates
(Service 2021, p. 51).
We also elicited information about the prevalence of negative and
positive influences on alligator snapping turtles in each analysis
unit. Using the same 4-point elicitation format, we asked the species
experts to estimate the extent of occupied area in each analysis unit
where alligator snapping turtles are exposed to each of the following
threats: incidental hooking on trot and limb lines, commercial fishing
bycatch, legal collection or harvest, illegal collection or harvest
(poaching), and nest predation by subsidized or nonnative predators. In
addition, we asked experts to describe and estimate the spatial extent
of any other threats known to occur in their analysis units, as well as
any conservation actions that are being implemented (Service 2021, pp.
51-52). In addition to soliciting information from the expert team
about the spatial extent of different threats in each analysis unit, we
also asked about the demographic impact of different threats rangewide.
We used the 4-point elicitation to receive information regarding the
effects that commercial bycatch, incidental hooking, hook ingestion,
legal harvest, illegal harvest, and nest predation have on the survival
of relevant life stages (adults, juveniles, hatchings, nests) in areas
where the threat occurs. Given a lack of species-specific information
in some places, we used this process to inform our analysis.
Biology
The alligator snapping turtle is found in a variety of habitats
across its range. It typically uses fresh waterbodies; however, it can
presumably tolerate some salinity and brackish waters, as barnacles
have been found on the carapace of some turtles (Ernst and Lovich 2009,
p. 141). The river systems within the species' range drain into the
Gulf of Mexico, where there can be an increase in salinity near the
mouths of the rivers. The species is generally found in deeper water of
large rivers and their major tributaries; however, it is also found in
a wide variety of habitats, including small streams, bayous, canals,
swamps, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and oxbows (a lake that forms when a
meander of a river is cut off) (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 141).
The species is usually bottom-dwelling within the waterbodies it
uses, but it surfaces periodically to breathe (Thomas 2014, p. 60).
Adult females leave the water to nest on land. Beyond the nest, all
life stages rely on submerged material (i.e., deadhead logs and
vegetation) as important structure for resting, foraging, and cover
from predators (Enge et al. 2014, p. 39). Woody debris, undercut banks,
and large rocks found throughout the rivers provide important habitat
during low water levels (Enge et al. 2014, p. 10). The species selects
areas with more aquatic structures (e.g., tree root masses, stumps,
submerged trees, etc.) than open water. Riparian canopy cover is also
an important habitat feature, as alligator snapping turtles select
sites with a high percentage of canopy cover (Howey and Dinkelacker
2009, p. 589).
The alligator snapping turtle is primarily carnivorous and forages
on small fish and mussels; however, adults are opportunistic feeders
and may also consume crayfish, mollusks, smaller turtles, insects,
nutria, snakes, birds, and plant material such as acorns or other
available vegetation (Elsey 2006, pp. 448-489). They have very fast
reflexes and powerful jaws that aid in this type of foraging behavior
where they sit and wait, then quickly strike, grasping the prey.
Macrochelys turtles have a sublingual (under the tongue) feature that
is unique to the genus and contributes to their predatory foraging
strategy; it resembles a live, wiggling worm and serves as a lure to
attract fish and other unsuspecting prey while the turtle is stationary
with an open mouth. Both adults and juveniles use this lure to attract
fish in striking range. The lure is white or pale pink in juveniles and
mottled or gray in adults (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 147). The presence
of this appendage indicates prey species that use visual cues, such as
fish and aquatic crustaceans, and has contributed to the evolution of
the alligator snapping turtle in developing this unique adaptation of
the genus.
The general life stages of Macrochelys can be described as egg,
hatchling (first year), juvenile (second year until age of sexual
maturity), and adult (age of sexual maturity through death). Sexual
maturity is achieved in 11 to 21 years for males and 13 to 21 years for
females and may be dependent upon growth rate (Ernst and Lovich 2009,
p. 144; Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). The size increases are greater when
food resources and other environmental conditions are more favorable.
Each life stage has specific requirements in order to contribute to
the productivity of the next life stage. Gravid (egg-bearing) females
excavate nests in sandy soils or other dry substrate near freshwater
sources that are within 8 to 656 feet (ft) (2.5 to 200 meters (m)) from
the water's edge. The period for excavating, laying eggs, and covering
the nest may take as long as 4 hours to complete (Ewert 1976, p. 153).
The incubation period for alligator snapping turtle nests in Louisiana
is between 98 to 121 days (Holcomb and Carr 2011, p. 225).
Nests require temperatures of 66 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)
(19 to 26.5 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), increasing to 79 to 98 [deg]F
(26.1 to 36.5 [deg]C) as the season progresses. The sex ratio of
alligator snapping turtles in the nest is dependent on the temperature
of the nest during embryonic development. The offspring's sex is
influenced by the physiological mechanism--temperature-dependent sex
determination--where more males are produced at intermediate incubation
temperatures, and more females are produced at the two, warmer and
cooler, temperature extremes (Ernst and Lovich 2009, pp. 16, 146).
Alligator snapping turtles, in general, have a pivotal temperature
range between 77 and 80.6 [deg]F (25 and 27 [deg]C) where more male
hatchlings are produced than females (Ewert and Jackson 1994, pp. 12-
13).
Once emerged from the nest, hatchlings need shallow water with
riparian vegetative structure that provides canopy cover. Juveniles
require small streams with mud and gravel bottoms that have submerged
structures, such as tree root masses, stumps, and submerged live and
dead trees, that allow for foraging and protection from predators.
Juvenile survival rate is estimated at only about 5 percent, with most
mortality occurring in the first 2 years of life (Ernst and Lovich
2009, p. 150).
Adult alligator snapping turtles require streams and rivers with
submerged logs and undercut banks, clean water, and ample prey. Turtles
found in higher quality habitat are more likely to become sexually
mature at an earlier age and may also produce larger clutch sizes
(Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145). Adult turtles require access to mates
to fertilize eggs, with mating occurring underwater (Ernst and Lovich
2009, p. 144). Mating has been observed in captive alligator snapping
turtles from February to October, but geographic variation within the
wild
[[Page 62439]]
population is not well understood (Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). A gravid
female will search for suitable nesting habitat on land to construct a
nest, avoiding low forested areas with abundant leaf litter and root
mats that may cause nesting obstructions. She will excavate a cavity,
deposit the eggs, and bury the eggs at a depth of about 9.45 inches
(in) (24 centimeters (cm)) in approximately 3.5 to 4 hours (Ewert 1976,
p. 153; Powders 1978, p. 155; Thompson et al. 2016, entire). Once the
female has completed the nest, she returns to the water, and there is
no other parental care of the nest or offspring.
Female alligator snapping turtles may produce a single clutch once
a year or every other year at most, even if the conditions are good
(Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). Clutch size varies as reported from across
the species' range with a mean clutch size of 27 eggs (Ernst and Lovich
2009, p. 145). Most nesting occurs from May to July (Reed et al. 2002,
p. 4), but latitudinal differences are known to occur in turtle species
(Moll 1979, entire).
Alligator snapping turtles are a long-lived species; provided
suitable conditions, adults can reach carapace lengths of up to 29 in
(74 cm) and 249 pounds (113 kilograms (kg)) for males, while females
can reach lengths of 22 inches and 62 pounds. The oldest documented
Macrochelys turtle in captivity survived to at least 80 years of age,
but in the wild, the species may live longer (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p.
147). The generation time for the species is around 31 years (range =
28.6-34.0 years, 95 percent confidence interval; Folt et al. 2016, p.
27).
Threats
We provide information regarding past, present, and future
influences, including both positive and negative, on the alligator
snapping turtle's current and future viability including harvest/
collection (Factor B), bycatch (Factor E), habitat degradation and loss
(Factor A), nest predation (Factor C), and conservation measures that
provide protections for the species. Existing regulatory mechanisms
(Factor D) have not been adequate to reduce or ameliorate the
identified threats. Additional threats such as historical commercial
and recreational harvest targeting the species, disease, nest
parasites, and climate change effects are described in the SSA report
(Service 2021, pp. 17-27); these additional stressors may negatively
affect individuals of the species or may have historically affected the
species, particularly when compounded with other ongoing stressors or
threats. However, based on the best available science, they do not
currently pose a threat to the species' overall viability.
Harvest (Commercial, Recreational, and Poaching)
Commercial and Recreational Harvest--Past commercial and
recreational turtle harvesting practices have resulted in a decline of
the alligator snapping turtle across its range (Enge et al. 2014, p. 4;
Huntzinger et al. 2019, p. 65). Commercial harvest of alligator
snapping turtles reached its peak in the late 1960s and 1970s, when the
meat was used for commercial turtle soup products and sold in large
quantities for public consumption. In addition, many restaurants served
turtle soup and purchased large quantities of alligator snapping
turtles from trappers in the southeastern States (Reed et al. 2002, p.
5). In the 1970s, the demand for turtle meat was so high that as much
as three to four tons of alligator snapping turtles were harvested from
the Flint River in Georgia per day (Pritchard 1989, p. 76). Significant
numbers of turtles were taken from the Apalachicola and Ochlocknee
Rivers, presumably to be sent to restaurants in New Orleans and other
destinations (Pritchard 1989, pp. 74-75). Commercial harvest of
alligator snapping turtles is now prohibited in all States within the
species' range, effective from 1975 in Kentucky to as recently as 2012
in Alabama (Service 2021, Appendix B). Despite the prohibitions on
commercial harvest for the species, the impacts from historical removal
of large turtles continue to affect the species due to its low
fecundity, low juvenile survival, long lifespan, and delayed maturity.
Commercial harvest is not currently a threat to the alligator snapping
turtle, but the effects of historical, large-scale removal of large
turtles are ongoing.
Recreational harvest includes trapping alligator snapping turtles
for personal use. Recreational harvest is prohibited in every State
except for Louisiana and Mississippi. In Louisiana, harvest of one
alligator snapping turtle per day, per person, per vehicle/vessel is
allowed with a fishing license; however, there are no reporting or
tagging requirements, so the number of turtles harvested in Louisiana
is unknown. In Mississippi, recreational harvest is allowed with size
and seasonal limits that include the following: (1) Limited to one
turtle per year, (2) prohibited between April 1 and June 30, and (3)
limited only to individuals with a straight-line carapace length of 24
in (61 cm) or larger.
Illegal Harvest (Poaching)--There is an international and domestic
demand for turtles for consumption as well as from enthusiasts who
collect turtle species for pets (Stanford et al. 2020, entire). The
alligator snapping turtle is no exception; hatchling alligator snapping
turtles may be sold for up to $100 (U.S.) per turtle (Lejeune et al.
2020, p. 8; MorphMarket 2021, unpaginated). Illegal harvest, or
poaching, of alligator snapping turtle may occur anywhere within the
species' range for both the pet trade and turtle meat trade. The best
available information regarding potential pressure from poaching comes
from a documented report by law enforcement agencies and court cases.
In a 2017 case, three men were convicted of collecting 60 large
alligator snapping turtles in a single year in Texas and transporting
them across State lines, violating the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16
U.S.C. 3371-3378) (Department of Justice 2017, entire).
Aside from the local and domestic use of turtles, the global demand
for pet turtles and turtle meat continues. Many species of turtles are
collected from the wild as well as bred in captivity and are sold
domestically and exported internationally. Many species of turtles are
regularly exported out of the United States to initiate brood stock for
overseas turtle farms and for turtle collectors (Stanford et al. 2020,
p. R725. In 2006, Macrochelys temminckii was listed under the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) as an Appendix III species to allow for better
monitoring of exports. According to the Service's Law Enforcement
Management Information System (LEMIS), which provides reports about the
legal international wildlife trade, most shipments of live alligator
snapping turtles exported from 2005 to 2018 consisted of small turtles
destined mostly for Hong Kong and China (Service 2018, entire). Prior
to 2006, up to 23,780 M. temminckii per year were exported from the
United States (70 FR 74700; December 16, 2005).
Impacts of Harvest--The alligator snapping turtle's life history,
with delayed maturity, long generation times, and relatively low
reproductive output, means that the species must maintain relatively
high adult survival rates (~98 percent), especially of adult females,
to sustain a stable population (Reed et al. 2002, p. 11). Adult turtles
do not reach sexual maturity until 11 to 21 years of age. A mature
female typically produces a single clutch per year with a mean size of
27 eggs (range 9 to 61 eggs) (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145). These
turtles are characterized by low survivorship in early life stages, but
surviving
[[Page 62440]]
individuals may live many decades once they reach maturity. The life-
history traits of the species (low fecundity, late age of maturity, and
low survival of nests and juveniles) contribute to the population's
slow response in rebounding after historical over-exploitation.
Therefore, population growth rates are extremely sensitive to the
harvest of adult females. Adult female survivorship of less than 98
percent per year is considered unsustainable, and a further reduction
of this adult survivorship will generally result in significant local
population declines (Reed et al. 2002, p. 9), although dynamics likely
vary across the species' range. These data underscore how influential
adult female mortality is on the ability of the species to maintain
viable populations.
Although regulatory harvest restrictions have reduced the number of
alligator snapping turtles taken from wild populations, the populations
have not necessarily increased in response. This lag in population
response is likely due to the demography of the species--specifically
delayed maturity, long generation times, and relatively low
reproductive output.
Poaching also is an ongoing threat to the alligator snapping turtle
because removing reproductively active adult turtles from the
population lowers the viability of the species by reducing reproductive
potential; in addition, the species is long-lived and slow to mature,
and juvenile survival is very low, making it more difficult for the
historically over-harvested population to recover.
Recreational and Commercial Fishing Bycatch
Alligator snapping turtles can be killed or harmed incidentally
during fishing and other recreational activities. Some of these threats
from recreational and commercial fishing for other species include
fishhook ingestion; drowning when hooked on trotlines (a fishing line
strung across a stream with multiple hooks set at intervals), limb
lines, bush hooks (single hooks hung from branches), or jug lines (line
with a hook affixed to a floating jug); and injuries and drowning when
entangled in various types of nets and fishing line. Hoop nets are also
used to capture catfish and baitfish and are made up of a series of
hoops with netting and funnels where fish enter but are unable to
escape through the narrow entry point. The baited nets are left
submerged and may entrap alligator snapping turtles that enter the
mouth of the traps and are unable to escape. Boats and boat propeller
strikes may also injure or kill alligator snapping turtles; this effect
is not limited to fishing boats.
Actively used or discarded fishing line and hooks pose harm to
alligator snapping turtles. The turtles can ingest baited fishhooks and
the attached fishing line that may cause internal injuries; depending
on where ingested hooks and line lodge in the digestive tract, they can
cause harm or death (Enge et al. 2014, pp. 40-41). For example, hooks
and fishing lines can cause gastrointestinal tract blockages, and the
hooks can puncture the digestive organs causing deadly injuries (Enge
et al. 2014, pp. 40-41). Fishhooks have been found in the
gastrointestinal tracts of many radiographed congener, Suwannee
alligator snapping turtles (Enge et al. 2014, entire; Thomas 2014, pp.
42-43). It is reasonable to assume fishhooks also affect alligator
snapping turtles because both species only differ with minor skull and
shell morphologies.
Trotlines also negatively affect alligator snapping turtles.
Trotlines are a series of submerged lines with hooks off a longer line.
Trotline fishing involves leaving the lines unattended for extended
periods, before returning to check them. Limblines and bush hooks are
similar to trot lines in that they are typically set and left
unattended; however, they only use a single hook. The turtles can
become entangled in the lines and drown, as well as ingest the hooks
and attached lines, also causing drowning or internal injuries.
Bycatch from trotlines that resulted in mortality of alligator
snapping turtles has been well documented. Dead turtles have been found
on lines that had been abandoned or left without being checked for
catches (Huntzinger et al. 2019, p. 73; Moore et al. 2013, p. 145). The
lines and hooks may also become dislodged from their place of
attachment when left unattended, becoming aquatic debris that remains
in the waterway for extended periods of time and may continue to be an
entanglement hazard for many species, including alligator snapping
turtles. Entanglement in lines can cause injury or death as lines may
ensnare limbs or wrap around the body or head restricting movement.
Some types of fishing line may remain in the environment for decades
and possibly centuries; however, biodegradable lines are now available
that break down faster over a period of a few years. The use of
biodegradable fishing line will reduce the amount of excess discarded
lines remaining in the environment and is an option to further reduce
the threat of entanglement in fishing lines.
Habitat Degradation and Loss
Alligator snapping turtle aquatic and nesting habitats have been
altered by natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Changes in the
riparian or nearshore areas affect the amount of suitable soils for
nesting sites because the species constructs nests on land near the
water. Riparian cover is important, as it moderates instream water
temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels. In addition to affecting the
distribution and abundance of alligator snapping turtle prey species,
these microhabitat conditions affect the snapping turtles directly.
Moderate temperatures and sufficient dissolved oxygen levels allow the
turtles to remain stationary on the stream bottom for longer periods,
increasing the ambush foraging opportunities. Changes in the riparian
structure may affect the microclimate and conditions of the associated
water body, directly affecting the foraging success of the turtles.
Activities and processes that can alter habitat include dredging,
deadhead logging (removal of submerged or partially submerged snags,
woody debris, and other large vegetation for wood salvage), removal of
riparian cover, channelization, stream bank erosion, siltation, and
land use adjacent to rivers (e.g., clearing land for agriculture).
These activities negatively influence habitat suitability for alligator
snapping turtles. Erosion can change the stream bank structure,
affecting the substrate that may be suitable for nesting or accessing
nesting sites. Siltation affects water quality and may reduce the
health and availability of prey species. Channelization destroys the
natural benthic habitat by affecting the water depth and normal flow.
Submerged obstacles may be removed during the channelization, which
affects the microhabitat dynamics within the waterway and removes
important structures for alligator snapping turtles to use for resting,
foraging, and cover from predators. Deadhead logs and fallen riparian
woody debris, where present, provide refugia during low-water periods
and resting areas for all life stages and support important feeding
areas for hatchlings and juveniles (Enge et al. 2014, p. 40; Ewert et
al. 2006, p. 62).
Alligator snapping turtle habitat is also influenced by water
availability, quantity, and quality across the species' range.
Groundwater withdrawals may increase in the future due to human
population growth and needs. Water withdrawals may reduce flow in some
rivers and streams, effectively isolating some turtles from the rest of
the
[[Page 62441]]
population or making immature turtles more vulnerable to predators.
Additionally, reduced water levels may impact prey abundance and
distribution through restricting habitat connectivity, reducing
dissolved oxygen levels, and increasing water temperatures. The species
is not very agile on land as it spends most of its time in water.
Moving from an area where water has been depleted may be difficult for
some turtles, forcing them to cross roads, resulting in increased
encounters with humans or predators.
Water quality may also be a factor for alligator snapping turtles
as contaminants enter the aquatic systems through runoff. Runoff from
agriculture and development degrade the water quality. Agricultural
practices are the main source of nitrates, which specifically come from
fertilizers and in some cases from manure and other waste products.
They introduce nitrates to the river and groundwater (i.e., springs)
through surface runoff and groundwater seepage. Groundwater seepage
transports nitrates to the aquifer, which then reemerge through springs
and other groundwater discharge, especially during low flow periods
(Pittman et al. 1997, entire; Katz et al. 1999, entire; Thom et al.
2015, p. 2).
Water quality is also affected by runoff from development and urban
areas. The increase of impervious surfaces, such as building roofs,
roads, parking lots, and sidewalks, results in pulses of contaminants
washed into the river systems as stormwater runoff. Some of the
pollutants that may flush into the aquatic system include petroleum
products, pesticides, heavy metals, organic waste from pets and other
animals, along with microorganisms, including viruses and bacteria.
The direct effects of water quality and water quantity on alligator
snapping turtle have not been quantified; however, as the human
population that relies on water systems in the species' range continues
to increase, the indirect effects across the entire range, coupled with
other stressors, are likely to further reduce the species' viability.
Also, more development may result in an increase in contaminated runoff
and declines in water quality.
Nest Predation
Nest predation rates for alligator snapping turtles are high.
Raccoons (Procyon lotor) are common nest predators, but nine-banded
armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), Virginia opossums (Didelphis
virginiana), bobcats (Lynx rufus), crows (Corvus spp.), coyotes (Canis
latrans), river otters (Lontra canadensis), and feral pigs (Sus scrofa)
may also depredate nests (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 149; Ewert et al.
2006, p. 67; Holcomb and Carr 2013, p. 482). Additional nonnative
species found within the species' range that may depredate nests
include invasive imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta and S.
richteri) (Pritchard 1989, p. 69). Fire ants are prevalent in many
areas of the southeastern United States, and predation by fire ants was
the suspected culprit in the failure of alligator snapping turtle nests
in Louisiana (Holcomb 2010, p. 51). Beyond nest failure, some
hatchlings endured wounds inflicted by fire ants that led to the loss
of a limb or tail, which reduced their mobility and, ultimately, their
chance of survival (Holcomb 2010, p. 72).
The recovery of the species from historical overharvest depends on
successful reproduction and survival of young. The degree of added
threat from the newer, introduced nest predators is unknown, but we can
conclude that the overall threat from nest predation is greater than it
was in the past because of the introduced predators and densities of
subsidized (anthropogenically influenced) nest predators increase in
areas where resources have been altered by humans. Subsidized nest
predators include, but are not limited to, feral hogs, raccoons, and
red-imported fire ants; additional nest predators may also include
Virginia opossums, crows, coyotes, dogs, and river otters. Many of
these predators may also take small turtles once emerged from the nest;
this predation influences the survival rate of the hatchling and
juvenile life stage. Coupled with other threats, predation will
continue to negatively affect the species' overall viability.
Other Stressors
Other stressors that may affect alligator snapping turtles include
disease, nest parasites, and the effects of climate change, but none of
these stressors are having population-level impacts. These stressors
may act on individuals or have highly localized impacts. While each is
relatively uncommon, these stressors may exacerbate the effects of
other ongoing threats.
The effects of climate change may have direct and indirect impacts
to the species and its habitat. Due to the proximity of the species to
the Gulf of Mexico, loss of habitat due to saltwater intrusion from sea
level rise may occur for the populations near coastal areas leading to
a range contraction in the southern extent of the species' range.
Additionally, increasing temperatures may lead to drought conditions
and variable water availability, and physiological impacts on sex
determination. In the southeastern United States, temperatures are
predicted to warm by 4 to 8 [deg]F (2.2 to 4.4 [deg]C) by 2100 (Carter
et al. 2014, p. 399). In the southern Great Plains (e.g., Texas and
Oklahoma), increased temperatures and longer dry spells are predicted
(Shafer et al. 2014, p. 445). In the Midwest, the northernmost portion
of the alligator snapping turtle's range, models predict warming of 5.6
to 8.5 [deg]F (3.1 to 4.7 [deg]C) by 2100, increased spring
precipitation, and decreased summer precipitation (Pryor et al. 2014,
pp. 420, 424).
Alligator snapping turtles exhibit temperature-dependent sex
determination, whereby temperature influences sex determination of the
developing embryos. Male-biased sex ratios are associated with cool
nests, and warmer temperatures produce female-biased sex ratios (Ewert
and Jackson 1994, entire). In addition to temperature effects on sex
ratio, temperature has been associated with nest viability, with
greatest success in nests with intermediate sex ratios (produced at
intermediate temperatures) and lowest in nests with female-biased sex
ratios (produced at warmer temperatures) (Ewert and Jackson 1994, p.
28-29). Thus, alligator snapping turtle nests with strongly female-
biased sex ratios and declining viability may result from warming
temperatures in the future.
Climate conditions also appear to limit the distribution of
alligator snapping turtles. Their distribution appears to be limited by
low precipitation on the western edge of the range, and by temperature
along the northern edge of the range (Thompson et al. 2016, pp. 431-
432). At these northern limits of the range, adult alligator snapping
turtles can survive, but they face constraints on reproduction imposed
by the influence of temperature on embryonic development (Thompson et
al. 2016, pp. 431-432). Warmer conditions may shift the suitable range
of the species farther north as northern latitudes become able to meet
the incubation temperature ranges for viable nests.
Additional information on these stressors acting on the species,
including a more detailed discussion of the historical and current
threats that have caused and are causing a decline in the species'
viability, is available in the species' SSA report under ``Factors
Influencing Viability'' (Service 2021, pp.
[[Page 62442]]
17-27). The primary threats currently acting on the species include
harvest/collection, nest predation, habitat loss and degradation, and
bycatch (hook ingestion, entanglement, and drowning) due to
recreational and commercial fishing. These primary threats are not only
affecting the species now but are expected to continue impacting the
species and are included in the species' future condition projections
in the SSA (Service 2021, pp. 59-84).
Regulatory Protections
Several local, State, and Federal regulatory mechanisms offer some
protections to the alligator snapping turtle and its habitat.
Federal Protections
Federal Lands--The species' range encompasses areas of public land.
Many Federal lands are protected from future development and
degradation. Many sites are managed for species conservation and
preservation of habitat. Some of the Federal lands that fall within the
species' range are managed by the Department of Agriculture (U.S.
Forest Service), Department of Interior (National Park Service (NPS)
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Department of Defense (U.S. Army,
U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), and
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Department of Agriculture--National Forests are managed by the U.S.
Forest Service with the mission to sustain the health, diversity, and
productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
of present and future generations. Several National Forest lands are
within the range of the alligator snapping turtle. Forestry activities
on National Forests within the range of the alligator snapping turtle,
including timber harvest and activities that may increase sedimentation
or erosion when not following best management practices, could have
adverse impacts on the species; however, when conducting any forestry
activities, the U.S. Forest Service applies best management practices
that reduce impacts to the species' aquatic and riparian habitats. The
U.S. Forest Service also cooperates with State and local governments,
forest industries, other private landowners and forest users in the
management, protection, and development of forest land in non-Federal
ownership. Activities include cooperation in urban interface fire
management and urban forestry.
Department of Interior (National Park Service)--Alligator snapping
turtle habitat extends across many NPS units in the Midwest,
Intermountain, and Southeast regions. The species may occur in up to
the following 11 units of the NPS or be found adjacent to those areas:
Arkansas Post National Memorial, Big Thicket National Preserve, Buffalo
National River, Cane River Creole National Historical Park, Gulf
Islands National Seashore, Hot Springs National Park, Jean Lafitte
National Historical Park and Preserve, Natchez Trace Parkway, Ozark
National Scenic Riverways, Shiloh National Military Park, and Vicksburg
National Military Park. Under the NPS' Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 100101 et
seq.), the NPS promotes and regulates the use of Federal areas known as
national parks, monuments, and reservations to conserve the scenery and
the natural and historic objects and the wildlife and to provide for
the enjoyment of future generations. The land within the NPS units is
protected from future development and provides a level of protection to
the species and its habitat.
Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)--National
Wildlife Refuges are units managed by the Service's National Wildlife
Refuge System (NWRS). The mission of the NWRS is to administer a
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management
and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit
of present and future generations of Americans. Each refuge is
established to serve a statutory purpose that targets the conservation
of native species dependent on its lands and waters. All activities on
those acres are reviewed for compatibility with this statutory purpose.
There may be up to 50 National Wildlife Refuges with alligator
snapping turtle occurrences. These lands are managed according to the
designated purpose of the refuge and include conservation actions that
reduce impacts from habitat loss, invasive species, pesticides and
other contaminants, and climate change. These Federal lands are
protected from future development and will continue contributing to the
support of viable populations of alligator snapping turtles.
Department of Defense Lands--Alligator snapping turtles are found
on many Department of Defense (DOD) military installations and lands
across the species' range. The Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.)
requires DOD installations to conserve and protect the natural
resources within their boundaries. Integrated natural resources
management plans (INRMPs) are planning documents that outline how each
military installation with significant natural resources will manage
those resources, while ensuring no net loss in the capability of an
installation to support its military testing and training mission for
national security. While most INRMPs do not specifically manage for the
alligator snapping turtle, some examples of management that provide for
the conservation of the species on installations include INRMPs that
incorporate guidance provided by the State wildlife action plan (e.g.,
Ft. Chaffee Maneuver Training Center (Arkansas) INRMP, p. 12),
direction to implement project design considering State-listed species
with best management practices for all activities (e.g., Red River Army
Depot (Texas) INRMP, p. 48), and identifying alligator snapping turtle
as a species of concern, with direction to apply management consistent
with maintenance of reference stream conditions or offer direct
measures to enhance habitat for this and other rare species (e.g., Ft.
Benning (Georgia) INRMP, pp. 28, 209-210).
Federal Laws
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)--Section 401 of the
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that an applicant for a Federal
license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the
facility will not degrade water quality or violate water-quality
standards, including State-established water quality standard
requirements. Section 404 of the CWA establishes programs to regulate
the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United
States.
Permits to fill wetlands; to install, replace, or remove culverts;
to install, repair, replace, or remove bridges; or to realign streams
or water features that are issued by the State or U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under nationwide, regional general permits or individual
permits include:
<bullet> Nationwide permits for ``minor'' impacts to streams and
wetlands that do not require an intense review process. The impacts
allowed under nationwide permits usually include projects affecting
stream reaches less than 150 ft (45.72 m) in length, and wetland fill
projects up to 0.50 acres (ac) (0.2 hectare (ha)). Mitigation is
usually provided for the same type of wetland or stream impacted and is
usually at a 2:1 ratio to offset losses.
<bullet> Regional general permits for various specific types of
impacts that are common to a particular region. These
[[Page 62443]]
permits will vary based on location in a certain region/State.
<bullet> Individual permits for larger, higher impact, and more
complex projects. These require a complex permit process with multi-
agency input and involvement. Impacts in these types of permits are
reviewed individually, and the compensatory mitigation chosen may vary
depending on the project and types of impacts.
CWA regulations ensure proper mitigation measures are applied to
minimize the impact of activities occurring in streams and wetlands
where the species occurs. These regulations contribute to the
conservation of the species by minimizing or mitigating the effects of
certain activities on alligator snapping turtles and their habitat.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora (CITES)--The alligator snapping turtle is included in
the CITES Appendix III species list (70 FR 74700; December 16, 2005).
CITES requirements include permits for exports of Appendix III species,
as well as annual reporting; annual reports must include the number of
exported individuals of listed species. These requirements help control
and document legal, international trade. Thus, Appendix-III listings
lend additional support to State wildlife agencies in their efforts to
regulate and manage these species, improve data gathering to increase
knowledge of trade in the species, and strengthen State and Federal
wildlife enforcement activities to prevent poaching and illegal trade.
While CITES reporting indicates the number of turtles exported with
other relevant data, the information required for the export reports
does not always accurately identify the source stock of the exported
turtle(s). Most alligator snapping turtles that were exported between
2005 and 2018 were identified as ``wild'' individuals; however, there
is uncertainty regarding whether the source of the turtles was farmed
parental stock or wild-caught (Service 2018, entire). The discrepancy
in reporting the actual source of the internationally exported turtles
does not allow us to easily evaluate the impact of export on the
alligator snapping turtle. Additionally, there are no reporting
requirements to track domestically traded alligator snapping turtles,
which are not included in CITES reporting.
State Protections
The alligator snapping turtle has regulatory protections in all
States where the species occurs. The species is listed as a threatened
species in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas, and as an endangered
species in Illinois and Indiana. Alabama identifies the species as a
``species of concern''; Kansas and Oklahoma list the species as a
``species of greatest conservation need''; Missouri lists the species
as an ``imperiled species''; Tennessee lists the species as ``rare to
very rare and imperiled.'' Louisiana lists the species as a species of
conservation concern and allows legal take of up to one turtle per day,
per person, per vehicle/vessel with a fishing license. Arkansas does
not have a State list of protected species; however, it provides
protections through the State's aquatic turtle regulations. Mississippi
allows legal take; however, it restricts the take to one alligator
snapping turtle no smaller than 24 in (61 cm) carapace length in a
single year. Despite the likely extirpation of the species in Kansas,
the species was originally listed as a threatened species in the State
in 1978; then, due to lack of information on the species, the status
was changed to ``species of greatest conservation need'' in 1987, when
the species was still found in low numbers (Shipman et al. 1995, pp.
83-84). Although we have no information as to the effectiveness of
these State regulations as they pertain to the conservation of the
alligator snapping turtle, one benefit of being State-listed is to
bring heightened public awareness of the species' need for protection.
Conservation Measures
Below, we describe conservation measures in place for the alligator
snapping turtle. While many efforts are directed to Macrochelys in
general, we describe those that affect only the alligator snapping
turtle.
Surveys
Many State agencies are conducting surveys for alligator snapping
turtles to better understand the species' status. Additionally, other
organizations and universities are conducting monitoring and research
projects that are ongoing or planned.
Captive Rearing and Release/Head-Starting
A captive breeding program at Tishomingo National Fish Hatchery in
Oklahoma was initiated in 1999, to produce head-started alligator
snapping turtles for reintroduction (Riedle et al. 2008a, p. 25). The
program rears and releases small turtles to contribute to the
conservation of the species by raising hatchling turtles to an age that
increases their chance of survival. This program has successfully
released alligator snapping turtles since 2002 to the present in areas
where populations have been lost or are declining. Many of the turtles
are monitored after release to provide information about the life
history of the species. From 2008 to 2010, 246 head-started juveniles
(3 to 7 years old) were released in the Caney River in northeastern
Oklahoma and were monitored until 2012; 59 percent of released turtles
survived (Anthony et al. 2015, pp. 44-47).
In 2007, 249 adult turtles (confiscated from a turtle farm in
violation of its permits) and 16 juveniles (from Tishomingo National
Fish Hatchery) were released into seven sites in southern Oklahoma, and
follow-up monitoring occurred during May through August in 2007 and
2008 (Moore et al. 2013, p. 141). There were only seven confirmed
instances of mortality, all within the first year after release,
resulting from drowning on trotlines, a gunshot wound, and other
suspicious circumstances (Moore et al. 2013, p. 144). When viable nests
were found during follow-up surveys, they were covered with a mesh
predator exclusion device. Only one viable nest was found during 2007
or 2008, while 25 depredated nests were found, which nevertheless
indicates that released adults survived and were reproducing (Moore et
al. 2013, p. 144). Mean annual survivorship post-release was estimated
to be 59 percent, 70 percent, and 100 percent for turtles aged 3, 4,
and 5 at release, respectively (older turtles were not included in
analysis due to low sample sizes) (Anthony et al. 2015, p. 46).
Head-starting, reintroduction, and monitoring of alligator snapping
turtles were conducted between 2014 and 2016 in Illinois, Louisiana,
and Oklahoma (Dreslik et al. 2017, entire). Released turtles included
head-started juveniles, confiscations by law enforcement, classroom
turtle-rearing programs, and other captive breeding programs (Dreslik
et al. 2017, pp. 6, 13). Across three States (one site each in Oklahoma
and Illinois, two sites in Louisiana), 548 turtles were released, the
majority of which (465) were head-started at the Tishomingo National
Fish Hatchery in Tishomingo, Oklahoma, and 372 of these were tracked
using radiotelemetry (Dreslik et al. 2017, p. 22). Between 21.7 percent
and 28.8 percent of released juveniles were confirmed dead within the
first year, primarily from predation by raccoons, while 35.6 percent to
54.2 percent experienced radio transmitter failures and could not
successfully be tracked (Dreslik et al. 2017, p. 19). The greatest
predictors of survival for released juveniles were size at release,
age, and time of year. Larger, older
[[Page 62444]]
turtles had higher survival rates than smaller, younger turtles, and
survival was lower over winter than other seasons (Dreslik et al. 2017,
pp. 22-25).
Repatriation Efforts
Repatriation of wild turtles serves to return illegally poached
turtles to wild populations from the areas of origin. In July 2021, 30
alligator snapping turtles that were confiscated in a law enforcement
case were released into their river basins of origin in eastern Texas.
The turtles were illegally poached from Texas and transported to
Louisiana. Texas Game Wardens and the Service's Office of Law
Enforcement investigated the poaching and seized the turtles in 2016.
This release was a collaborative effort including many organizations
and agencies including the Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Stephen F. Austin State University, Sabine River Authority,
Northeast Texas Municipal Water District, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Houston Zoo, and the Turtle Survival Alliance, among others.
Repatriation efforts like this one not only provide for the survival of
the confiscated turtles, but also contribute to public awareness of the
species and its threats.
Farming
Alligator snapping turtles are bred and raised in farming
facilities for the purpose of supplying small turtles to collectors in
the United States and abroad. The farming operations are permitted and
regulated by States. Export of turtles is regulated through CITES
Appendix III, requiring information such as the source of the turtles
and other relevant information. Farm-raised turtles supplement the
demand for domestic pet trade and international trade (i.e., turtle
meat for consumption and the pet trade), which may alleviate harvest
pressure on wild individuals.
State and Federal Stream Protections
Structural features within the water are important components of
the habitat for alligator snapping turtles. Submerged and partially
submerged vegetation provide feeding and sheltering areas for all age
classes. The structural diversity and channel stabilization created by
instream woody debris provides essential habitat for spawning and
rearing aquatic species (Bilby 1984, p. 609; Bisson et al. 1987, p.
143). Snag or woody habitat was reported as the major stable substrate
in southeastern Coastal Plain sandy-bottom streams and a site of high
invertebrate diversity and productivity (Wallace and Benke 1984, p.
1651). Wood enhances the ability of a river or stream ecosystem to use
the nutrient and energy inputs and has a major influence on the
hydrodynamic behavior of the river (Wallace and Benke 1984, p. 1643).
One component of this woody habitat is deadhead logs, which are sunken
timbers from historical logging operations. Deadhead logging is the
removal of submerged cut timber from a river or creek bed and banks.
However, some State regulations minimize the impact of deadhead logging
on alligator snapping turtle; for example, some States regulate
deadhead logging and allow it with a permit with variable conditions
(e.g., Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana). The removal of submerged logs
is costly, complicated, and impacted by the complexity of the
permitting process; thus, the rate at which deadhead logging occurs is
variable.
Buffers and Permits--A buffer such as a strip of trees, plants, or
grass along a stream or wetland naturally filters out dirt and
pollution from rainwater runoff before it enters rivers, streams,
wetlands, and marshes. This vegetation not only serves as a filter for
the aquatic system, but the riparian cover influences microhabitat
conditions such as instream water temperature and dissolved oxygen
levels. These habitat conditions influence the distribution and
abundance of alligator snapping turtle prey species and also directly
affect alligator snapping turtles. Moderate temperatures and sufficient
dissolved oxygen levels allow the turtles to remain stationary on the
stream bottom for longer periods, increasing their ambush foraging
opportunities. Loss of riparian vegetation and canopy cover result in
increased solar radiation, elevation of stream temperatures, loss of
allochthonous (organic material originating from outside the channel)
food material, and removal of submerged root systems that provide
habitat for alligator snapping turtle prey species (Allan 2004, pp.
266-267).
Some State regulations provide protections against impacts to the
aquatic environment, and additional activities may implement
recommended best management practices (BMPs) to reduce impacts. For
example, forestry BMPs are effective with a high compliance rate (often
90 percent or better) across many of the States within the species'
range that provide protections for buffer zones and riparian areas
(Cristan et al. 2016, p. 4). Another example includes nutrient-
reduction strategies to improve water quality (Louisiana Nutrient
Reduction and Management Strategy 2020, entire).
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 influence 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
[[Page 62445]]
individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and
its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect
of all the threats acting on the species. We also consider the
cumulative effect of the threats as well as 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 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
The 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 the potential
threats to the species (Service 2021, entire). The SSA report does not
represent a decision by the Service on whether the species should be
proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the
Act. However, it does 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.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from the
SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R4-ES-2021-
0115 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
To assess the alligator snapping turtle's viability, we use 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. In general,
the more resilient populations there are that are spread across the
range, the more redundancy it provides to the species. The more
representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations
over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these
principles, we identify the species' ecological requirements for
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species
levels, and describe the beneficial and risk factors influencing the
species' viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluate an individual species' life-history
needs. The next stage involves 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 involves 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
decisions.
Current Condition
To describe the species' current condition, we apply the
conservation principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation.
Resiliency is measured at the population level to describe the ability
to withstand stochastic disturbances. Delineating biological
populations of the alligator snapping turtle is not feasible because of
the large spatial extent of the geographic range and the patchy
availability of relevant information across the entire range. In our
analysis, we delineate the range of the species into seven individual
analysis units as proxies for populations to describe variation in the
resiliency component over time across the range for each unit. The
seven analysis units are Alabama, Apalachicola, Northern Mississippi-
East, Northern Mississippi-West, Southern Mississippi-East, Southern
Mississippi-West, and Western.
The Alabama unit encompasses eastern Mississippi, western Alabama,
and small parts of Louisiana and Florida. The main water bodies that
currently support or historically supported alligator snapping turtles
include, but are not limited to, the Alabama River, Pascagoula River,
Pearl River, Jourdan River, Escambia River, and Perdido River.
The Apalachicola unit encompasses parts of the Florida panhandle,
southeastern Alabama, and Georgia. The main water bodies that currently
support or historically supported alligator snapping turtles include
the Apalachicola River, Chipola River, Ochlockonee River, Flint River,
Chattahoochee River, Choctawhatchee River, and associated permanent
freshwater habitats.
Northern Mississippi-East unit encompasses parts of Missouri,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The main water bodies that
currently support or historically supported alligator snapping turtles
include the Mississippi River, Ohio River, Illinois River, and
Tennessee River.
Northern Mississippi-West unit encompasses parts of Kansas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri. The main water bodies that currently
support or historically supported alligator snapping turtles include
the Neosho River and Verdigris River.
The Southern Mississippi-East unit encompasses parts of Louisiana,
Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, and Missouri. The main water
bodies that currently support or historically supported alligator
snapping turtles include the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River, Red
River, Ouachita River, Tensas River, Amite River, Tangipahoa River, and
their affluents in Louisiana.
The Southern Mississippi-West unit encompasses parts of
northeastern Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and
northwestern Louisiana. The main water bodies that currently support or
historically supported alligator snapping turtles include the Arkansas
River, Red River, Canadian
[[Page 62446]]
River, East Fork Cadron Creek, Black Lake Bayou, Cheechee Bay, Saline
Bayou, Black Lake, Clear Lake, Saline Lake, Cane River Canal, Black
River, Boggy Bayou, Grand Bayou, Crichton Lake, Coushatta Bayou, Smith
Island Lake, Loggy Bayou, Bayou Pierre, Wallace Lake, Smithport Lake,
and Bayou Lumbra.
The Western unit encompasses parts of eastern Texas and western
Louisiana. The main water bodies that currently support or historically
supported alligator snapping turtles include the Neches River, Red
River, Sabine River, San Jacinto River, and Trinity River.
In analyzing the alligator snapping turtle's current condition, we
evaluated the current abundance within each analysis unit as a measure
for current resilience, along with information about current threats,
conservation actions, and distribution serving as auxiliary information
about the causes and effects of current versus historical abundances
(Service 2021, pp. 32-59). In our efforts to obtain the best available
scientific and commercial information for the SSA, we consulted species
experts about current abundance, current threats, and a comparison of
the current and historical distribution regarding areas for which they
have knowledge and expertise. Despite the large amount of expertise in
the expert team we queried, the responses indicate a high degree of
uncertainty about current abundances in each analysis unit. The methods
for collecting the information from the species' experts is provided in
more detail in the SSA report (Service 2021, p. 32 and Appendix C).
The abundances, estimated densities, substantial threats, and
distribution over time as depicted by range contraction are provided in
Table 1, below.
Table 1--Alligator Snapping Turtle Analysis Unit Current Resiliency as Described by Estimated Abundance,
Percentage of Estimated Abundance in Each Unit, Density Expressed as Estimated Abundance per 1,000 Hectares of
Open Water in Each Unit, Threats, and States With Range Contraction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Analysis unit abundance (% Density Threats Range contraction
total)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................... 200,000 (55.37) 616.9 1. Adult harvest (legal
and illegal) *.
2. Nest predation *......
3. Bycatch: Incidental
hooking/hook ingestion *.
4. Habitat alteration....
Apalachicola..................... 45,000 (12.46) 281.3 1. Nest predation *......
2. Bycatch: Incidental
hooking.
3. Habitat alteration....
4. Harvest (illegal).....
Northern Mississippi-East........ 212.5 (0.06) 1.0 1. Nest predation *...... Illinois,
2. Habitat alteration.... Tennessee,
Kentucky,
Missouri.
Northern Mississippi-West........ 500 (0.14) 4.7 1. Bycatch: Incidental Kansas.
hooking/hook ingestion *.
2. Nest predation........
3. Habitat fragmentation.
4. Harvest (illegal).....
Southern Mississippi-East........ 50,000 (13.84) 55.3 1. Harvest (legal and Tennessee.
illegal) *.
2. Nest predation *......
3. Bycatch: incidental
hooking and drowning in
nets.
4. Habitat fragmentation.
Southern Mississippi-West........ 15,000 (4.15) 30.2 1. Bycatch: incidental Kansas, possibly
hooking/hook ingestion *. Oklahoma.
2. Nest predation........
3. Habitat fragmentation.
4. Harvest (legal and
illegal) *.
Western.......................... 50,500 (13.98) 139.3 1. Nest predation *......
2. Bycatch: incidental
hooking.
3. Habitat alteration....
4. Adult harvest (legal
and illegal) *.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Denotes ``substantial'' threats, which refer to those threats estimated to reduce survival rates of an age
class by 8 percent or more; legal and illegal harvest reduce adult survival, and nest predation reduces nest
survival. To be considered substantial, the threat impacts more than 50 percent of the alligator snapping
turtles in the unit. All information in the table was provided by experts with knowledge of the species and
the area associated within the unit(s).
Our assessment of the current condition for alligator snapping
turtle considers the current abundance, current threats, and
conservation actions in the context of what is known about the species'
historical range. To determine species-specific population and habitat
factors along with threats and conservation actions acting on the
species, data were available for some populations, and demographic
parameters (e.g., clutch size, survival of specific life stages) and
threats from previous studies. Where data were unavailable to inform
the model, species experts provided relevant information related to the
analysis units for which each is familiar. To describe alligator
snapping turtle's viability, we evaluated the ability of the
populations within each unit to respond to stochastic events
(resiliency) in each of the seven analysis units and the ability of the
species to respond to catastrophic events (redundancy) and the adaptive
capacity (representation) of the species as a whole.
We describe the species' resiliency of each analysis unit using the
estimated abundances, distribution, and threats acting on the species
(see Table 1, above). The abundance estimates presented were obtained
from species experts with knowledge of the species in particular
geographic areas; due to the wide range of the species and compiling
information across the seven analysis units, there is a level of
uncertainty with the precision of the estimates provided. Rangewide,
the abundance of alligator snapping turtles is estimated to be between
68,154 and 1,436,825 (a range of 1,368,671 individuals). This enormous
range in the estimated abundance illustrates the
[[Page 62447]]
high degree of uncertainty in abundances at local sites and the ability
to extrapolate local abundance estimates to a much broader spatial
scale. Within these bounds, the most likely estimate of rangewide
alligator snapping turtle abundance is 361,213 turtles, with 55 percent
of the turtles occurring in the Alabama analysis unit (Service 2021,
pp. 47-48).
Just as the data to estimate current abundances are scarce, there
is little information with which to make rigorous comparisons between
current and historical abundances. Dramatic population depletions
occurred in Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Florida panhandle, and
elsewhere in the range during the 1960s and 1970s, with information on
the magnitude of changes coming from anecdotal observations by trappers
(Pritchard 1989, pp. 74, 76, 80, 83). Since that time, commercial and
recreational harvest has been banned in a large portion of the species'
range (all States except Louisiana and Mississippi, where recreational
harvest still occurs). There are limited data available describing how
populations have responded to reduced harvest pressure. Population
dynamics in Georgia, Arkansas, and Oklahoma suggest that the population
in East Fork Cadron Creek, Arkansas (Howey et al. 2013, entire), and
Big Vian Creek, Oklahoma (East et al. 2013, entire), are still in
decline. Twenty-two years after commercial harvest ended, surveys
conducted during 2014 and 2015 in Georgia's Flint River reveal no
significant change in abundance since 1989 surveys (King et al. 2016,
p. 583). A similar study in Missouri and Arkansas detected population
declines between the initial survey period in 1993-1994 and repeated
surveys in 2009, over a decade after State-level protections were
implemented (Lescher et al. 2013, pp. 163-164). At Sequoyah National
Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, an alligator snapping turtle population
declined between 1997-2001 and 2010-2011 (Ligon et al. 2012, p. 40).
However, an additional study in Arkansas spanning 20 years documents an
increase in abundance of both adult male and female alligator snapping
turtles within Salado Creek (Trauth et al. 2016, p. 242).
Because the size and amount of suitable habitat within each unit
vary greatly, density is calculated using the estimated abundance and
the area of open water within each analysis unit; this calculation
results in the estimated number of turtles per 1,000 ha (2,471 ac) of
open water in the unit (as delineated by the 2016 National Land Cover
Database; Yang et al. 2018, entire) (see Table 1, above).
Note that these are rough densities meant only to correct
abundances for analysis unit size so that units can be more
appropriately compared relative to each other; they are not intended to
serve as actual estimates of density in alligator snapping turtle
habitat. Because of the variation in analysis unit size and limitations
in calculating true densities of alligator snapping turtles within
units, we refrained from leaning heavily on comparisons of abundance or
density between analysis units to summarize resilience other than to
highlight general patterns. Resilience inherently increases with
abundance and density; where there are more individuals, populations
will have a greater ability to withstand stochastic demographic and
environmental changes. Thus, in terms of the density as a demographic
factor, resilience is highest in the core of the species' range, and
lowest in the northernmost analysis units at the edge of the range. The
southern portion of the species range within the Alabama, Apalachicola,
Southern Mississippi- East, and Western units constitute the core areas
for the species according to the percentage of the species' estimated
abundance (Table 1).
We also consider the threats acting on the species within each
unit. The current major threats acting on the alligator snapping turtle
include fishing bycatch (including incidental hooking, hook ingestion,
and drowning), harvest/collection, habitat loss and degradation, and
nest predation. Other stressors acting on the species include disease,
nest parasites, and the effects of climate change. Experts were
consulted regarding information about the prevalence of negative and
positive influences on viability in each analysis unit and were asked
to provide an extent of occupied area in each analysis unit where
alligator snapping turtles may be exposed to incidental hooking on trot
and limb lines, commercial fishing bycatch, legal collection or
harvest, illegal collection or harvest (poaching), and nest predation
by subsidized or nonnative predators. Experts also provided the best
available information regarding the spatial extent of the different
threats. This includes the effects that commercial fishing bycatch,
incidental hooking, hook ingestion, legal harvest, illegal harvest, and
nest predation have on the survival of relevant life stages (adults,
juveniles, hatchings, nests) in areas where the threat occurs.
The historical, large-scale removal of large, reproductive turtles
from the population for commercial harvest continues to affect the
species and its ability to rebound. Therefore, due to the historical
and current threats, as described above, the species currently has the
highest resiliency at the core of the species' range, where there are
higher abundances of turtles. Harvest, both legal and illegal, is
estimated to have the highest impact on adult survival rates, with
harvest causing reductions in survival of 18 percent (most likely
estimate) in some units. Commercial and recreational bycatch and hook
ingestion are estimated to have lower impacts on adult survival, with
most likely reductions in survival of 7 to 9 percent. The estimated
impacts of threats on juvenile survival are lower than impacts to adult
survival with most likely impacts of a 6 to 8 percent reduction in
survival where commercial bycatch, incidental hooking, and hook
ingestion occur, and a 6 to 7 percent reduction in survival from legal
and illegal harvest where they occur. Hatchlings are not estimated to
be heavily impacted by any of the threats we explored. Nest survival is
estimated to be heavily impacted by nest predation by subsidized or
nonnative predators (e.g., raccoons, fire ants), with a most likely
estimate of 58 percent reduction in survival.
Another resiliency factor informing the species' current condition
is the comparison between the historical range and the current range
(year 2000 to 2019). We compared the historical and current ranges of
alligator snapping turtles by querying State biologists or those with
access to the State's natural heritage program data. For each county or
parish in their State, we asked for the current and historical status,
and the date of the last confirmed record of alligator snapping
turtles. Due to historical overharvest, habitat degradation and loss,
and other threats in some areas of the species' range, the range has
contracted in Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and
possibly in Oklahoma. These States are all on the fringe of the range,
where conditions are likely marginal and more dynamic. The units
affected include Northern Mississippi-East, Northern Mississippi-West,
Southern Mississippi-East, and Southern Mississippi-West. Additional
information regarding current condition descriptions and methodology
used in the analysis are included in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp.
32-59).
Redundancy refers to the number and distribution of sufficiently
resilient populations across a species' range, which provides
protection for the species against catastrophic events that
[[Page 62448]]
impact entire populations. Due to the wide range of the species, it is
unlikely that a catastrophic event would affect the entire species.
When considering changes from historical conditions to current
conditions, none of the seven analysis units across the species' range
that we identified has been lost. All units remain extant and provide
the ability to withstand catastrophic events.
Although the number of analysis units has not changed, redundancy
for alligator snapping turtles has been reduced in terms of the
distribution within analysis units, with range contractions in the
northern portions of the species' range (Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri,
Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee). Within the core of the species'
range, however, alligator snapping turtles still seem to be widely
distributed, although there are many gaps in the spatial extent of
surveys. While the distribution of the species encompasses much of its
historical range, resilience within that range has decreased, largely
from historical harvest pressures. With the range contractions and
decreases in abundance, the Northern Mississippi-East analysis unit has
decreased in resilience such that it is not a robust contributor to
redundancy (only 212.5 estimated abundance of turtles, influenced
largely by introductions).
Representation refers to the breadth of diversity within and among
populations of a species, which allow it to adapt to changing
environmental conditions. Because of this mismatch in scale between
analysis units and biological populations, representation is described
in terms of representative units and the resiliency units within each,
under the assumption that representative units with higher abundances
will be more able to contribute to future adaptation than those with
lower abundances.
No representative units have been lost compared to the historical
distribution. The Northern Mississippi representative unit, which adds
diversity in life-history strategies within the species, currently has
very low abundance within its two constituent analysis units relative
to the other representative units, with an estimated 712.5 alligator
snapping turtles total and a shrinking range. However, alligator
snapping turtles in Illinois have been introduced from Southern
Mississippi breeding stock, diluting the presence of unique genetic
characteristics in the Northern Mississippi representative unit.
In summary, the overall current condition of the species' viability
is affected by the residual effects of historical overharvest,
historical and ongoing impacts from incidental limb line/bush hook and
recreational fishing bycatch and/or hook ingestion, harvest, nest
predation, and the species' life history (i.e., low annual recruitment
and delayed sexual maturity). Because of these threats, and
particularly the legacy effects of historical harvest, the overall
current condition of the species is based on the resiliency of each
analysis unit, the redundancy of these units across the range, and the
representation across the range. Due to the variation in analysis unit
size and limitations in calculating true densities of alligator
snapping turtles within units, we refrain from leaning heavily on
comparisons of abundance or density between analysis units to summarize
resilience other than to highlight general patterns. Resilience
increases with abundance and density; where there are more individuals,
populations will have a greater ability to withstand stochastic
demographic and environmental events. Thus, resilience is highest in
the core of the species' range and lowest in the northernmost analysis
units at the edge of the range. The trend in resiliency from historical
to current conditions is declining because of the loss of reproductive
females and the species' life history (long-lived, late age to sexual
maturity, low intrinsic growth rate). With the reduction in available
habitat in some areas of the range, redundancy has declined compared to
historical conditions as the species has been extirpated in some
counties or parishes. However, no representative units have been lost
compared to the historical distribution, as the genetic lineages across
the representative units are still represented across the species'
range.
Future Condition
To evaluate the species' future viability, we constructed a stage-
structured matrix population model to project the population dynamics
into the future and incorporated information from the literature, as
well as information elicited on current abundance and the threats
acting on the species (described above). In that model, we apply six
plausible scenarios that factor in the estimated abundance and threats
acting on the species to project the future resiliency of the species.
Three scenarios consider conservation actions to be implemented, while
the remaining three scenarios project conditions with no conservation
actions. No specific endpoint for modeling was chosen at the outset;
rather, the endpoint was selected after trajectories were generated,
and it became clear that extending the projection further was
unnecessary because the species is extirpated under all scenarios at a
certain point.
In developing the future conditions scenarios described above, we
used the best available information from the literature to parameterize
a population matrix and elicited data from species experts to quantify
stage-specific initial abundance, the spatial extent of threats, and
threat-specific percent reductions to survival. To account for
potential uncertainty in the effects of each threat, the six future
scenarios are divided along a spectrum: Threat-induced reductions to
survival are decreased by 25 percent, are unaltered, or are increased
by 25 percent. To simulate conservation actions, the spatial extent of
each threat is either left the same or reduced by 25 percent. We used a
fully stochastic projection model that accounted for uncertainty in
demographic parameters to predict future conditions of the alligator
snapping turtle units under the six different scenarios. We derived a
series of summary statistics to evaluate population trends and identify
potential variation among analysis units and alternative scenarios. We
define an extirpation event as the total population (juveniles +
adults) declining to zero individuals, whereas a decline to less than 5
percent of the starting population size is considered quasi-
extirpation. We applied 5 percent because it accounts for the effects
of small population size and it also represents the result of a
potential catastrophic population decline (Service 2021, p. 163).
Experts provided information regarding the following threat-related
quantities: Percent reduction to stage-specific survival rates
attributed to each threat and the spatial extent of each threat within
their analysis unit(s) of expertise. Thus, reductions in survival rates
attributed to each threat are assumed to be the same across all
analysis units, although the spatial extent of each threat (i.e., the
proportion of the alligator snapping turtles exposed to the threat)
varies among analysis units. For example, ingesting a fishing hook
would be expected to produce the same percent reduction in survival
across the entire range, although the probability that an individual
alligator snapping turtle encounters that threat would vary among
analysis units. However, we determined that legal collection likely
violated this assumption, as regulations for legal alligator snapping
turtle collection differ among States (LDWF 2019a, unpaginated; MFWP
2019, unpaginated). Therefore, we decided to model the effects of legal
collection as a direct reduction in juvenile and adult
[[Page 62449]]
abundances (Service 2021, Appendix E) that varied across analysis
units, rather than a reduction to demographic parameters. For each
analysis unit, we calculated threat-adjusted survival rates, accounting
for reductions in stage-specific survival rates resulting from the
percent reduction in survival expected from a given threat multiplied
by the spatial extent of the threat, for each threat occurring in a
given analysis unit. Lastly, to reflect spatial heterogeneity in threat
occurrence and overlap within each analysis unit, we calculated a
weighted average of each survival parameter, based on the probable
occurrence and overlap of all possible threat combinations (Service
2021, Appendix E).
We built scenarios around the potential uncertainty regarding: (a)
The magnitude of the impact of threats on survival rates, and (b) the
presence or absence of conservation actions. To capture the variability
in the potential input for each threat, uncertainty is considered and
applied directly to the model. First, we define three different
``threat levels'' by adjusting the demographic effect of each threat
(percent reduction in stage-specific survival) up and down 25 percent
relative to the compiled expert elicitation responses. In addition to
legal collection (as mentioned above), the only exceptions to this
structure are subsidized nest predators, in which the percent reduction
to nest survival remains the same across all threat levels. These three
levels reflect that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the impact
that each threat has on survival rates and allows us to explore what
the future condition might be if the mean estimates of threat magnitude
either underestimate or overestimate the true impacts by 25 percent.
Next, we defined conservation action either as absent or present in
the future. Where present, conservation action is modeled to reduce the
spatial extent of threats (proportion of analysis unit exposed to
threat) by 25 percent. This led to six different scenarios of expert-
elicited threats, decreased threats, or high threats, with conservation
action absent or present. The conservation scenarios reduce the spatial
extent of threats rather than their magnitude. For example, the
``Decreased Threats +'' scenario takes into consideration reduced
survival rate impacts by 25 percent and also the spatial extent of
threats decreasing by 25 percent compared to the conservation-absent
scenario of each analysis unit, relative to the mean expert-elicited
quantities. Also note that only the means for survival rate impacts and
spatial extent of threats, and not the standard deviations, are
adjusted across the different scenarios.
Conservation actions that could decrease the spatial extent of
threats include, but are not limited to, increased enforcement or law
enforcement presence to reduce poaching or bycatch on illegally set
trot or limb lines, increasing the size of protected areas that
prohibit recreational fishing or certain gear (e.g., trotlines,
hoopnets), additional harvest restrictions in some areas, and
management actions that reduce the densities of nest predators. The
actual amount that any of these actions would influence the prevalence
of threats will depend on factors like the time, money, personnel, and
conservation partners available, but we selected a 25 percent reduction
in the spatial extent of threats to explore how much a change of that
amount affected future population dynamics. Conservation scenario
outcomes show us that conservation actions (if applied) do not alter
the basic trajectory of the declines.
Note that the threat level scenarios (expert-elicited, decreased,
increased) vary in the magnitude of the impact of threats on survival
where they occur, reflecting uncertainty in their true values.
Conversely, the conservation scenarios (absent or present) vary in the
spatial extent (the proportion of the population within the analysis
unit exposed to the threat) of threats rather than their magnitude. For
example, in either ``Expert-Elicited Threats'' scenario, the survival
rate where recreational bycatch occurs is expected to remain the same
whether conservation actions are present or absent, but in the
``Expert-Elicited Threats +'' scenario, the spatial extent of any given
analysis unit exposed to recreational bycatch is reduced by 25 percent
compared to the conservation-absent scenario. Also note that only the
means for survival rate impacts and spatial extent of threats, and not
the standard deviations, are adjusted across the different scenarios.
Our modeling framework also incorporates three effects believed to
influence alligator snapping turtle demography that are not
incorporated into scenarios as described above: Legal collection, head-
start and adult releases, and habitat loss. Unlike the threat-specific
reductions in survival rates, these effects are consistent across all
future condition scenarios, although they are subject to stochastic
variation among iterations and time steps. The effects from legal
collection and head-start releases are applied directly to the
estimated stage-specific abundances at the beginning of each time step.
Habitat loss is incorporated into the model through the adult fecundity
element of the transition matrix where its effect depends on total
abundance.
Legal Collection
Regulations for legal collection differ among States, which do not
align with analysis units (LDFW 2019a, unpaginated; MFWP 2019,
unpaginated). Therefore, we decided to model the effects of legal
collection as an annual reduction in abundance that varies across
analysis units, rather than a reduction in survival rates. Collection
of alligator snapping turtles is legal only in Mississippi and
Louisiana. Legal collection in Mississippi is not incorporated into the
model because the harvest restrictions (>24 in (61 cm) carapace length)
functionally exclude females, which typically do not exceed 19.7 in (50
cm) in carapace length (Folt et al. 2016, p. 24), and thus would have
had no effect on our female-only population model. In Louisiana,
current regulations allow for any angler with a freshwater fishing
license to take one alligator snapping turtle of any size per day (LDWF
2019b, unpaginated). Within our modeling framework, we restrict the
effects of legal collection to the two modeled analysis units that
overlap geographically with Louisiana: Southern Mississippi-East and
Alabama. The annual reduction in abundance due to legal collection in
these analysis units is based on using freshwater fishing license and
specialty permit sales for wire traps and hoopnets (often used to catch
turtles) from 2012-2017 as an index of take (LDWF 2019b, unpaginated),
and the proportion of each analysis unit that overlaps Louisiana
(Service 2021, Appendix E).
Captive Breeding for Conservation/Head-Starts and Adult Releases
Several States within the alligator snapping turtle's range have
initiated head-start release programs, in which alligator snapping
turtles are raised for several years in captivity and then released
into the wild population as juveniles (Dreslik et al. 2017, p. 13).
Similarly, States also opportunistically release adult alligator
snapping turtles confiscated from illegal activities (e.g., poaching)
into wild populations. We include juvenile and adult releases within
the model, but only for the first 10 time steps within an iteration, to
avoid having alligator snapping turtle population persistence be
contingent on head-start activities (i.e., conservation-dependent). We
parameterized the releases in the model based on statistics from
Illinois (Dreslik et al. 2017, p. 13):
[[Page 62450]]
juvenile females: ~30 individuals/year; adult females: ~12 individuals/
year. The mean number of releases does not vary among analysis units or
scenarios, but because of the uncertainty and variability in the
simulations, the specific value drawn for each year in each unit in
each iteration varies. Specifically, for the first 10 time steps of
each iteration, the number of released juveniles and adults are drawn
from Poisson distributions that provide the probability of a certain
event occurring over a fixed time or space.
Habitat Loss
We asked the species expert team to list habitat loss mechanisms
within their analysis unit(s) of expertise. After adjusting for
linguistic differences among responses (e.g., ``desnagging'' and
``removal of large woody debris'' are two answers that reflect the same
mechanism), we summarized the number of unique habitat loss mechanisms
within each analysis unit and calculated the mean across experts. We
imposed a population ceiling (i.e., carrying capacity) that was
annually reduced by a habitat loss rate, which equaled the mean number
of unique threats in the unit, divided by 100. The initial population
ceiling was determined based on the summarized expert elicitation
values for the maximum possible number of alligator snapping turtles
currently within the analysis unit, after adjusting for sex ratios and
presence of hatchlings in the estimate. Thus, the population ceiling
for each analysis unit at each time step was calculated
deterministically and was not subject to stochastic variation across
simulation iterations. To incorporate the effects of habitat loss on
alligator snapping turtle demography within the model, we included a
function that set adult fecundity to zero if total abundance (juveniles
and adults) in any time step exceeded the population ceiling. While
this function is included in the model, abundances are so far below
population ceilings that the effect of habitat loss does not have an
impact on modeling results (Service 2021, Appendix E).
Additional Model Descriptions
We must keep in mind the limitations of this model when
interpreting the results. The precision and accuracy of model outputs
depend heavily on the precision and accuracy of the information going
into a model. In the case of the alligator snapping turtle, there is a
large amount of uncertainty in the information that went into the
model, including estimates of current abundance, age class proportions,
impact of threats on stage-specific demographic rates, spatial extent
of threats, and variability of these metrics across and within analysis
units. We relied heavily on expert elicitation to obtain these values.
Wherever possible, the uncertainty in these values is incorporated into
the model structure itself, but others we were unable to address; for
example, the assumptions we had to make that baseline demographic rates
are largely uniform across the range of the species. Future modeling
efforts would be greatly improved with further study into these aspects
of the alligator snapping turtle's biology, demography, and response to
(and prevalence of) threats, as well as how these threats vary across
the range of the species.
We also acknowledge an ongoing concern raised with regard to the
model used is that it does not match the published estimates of the
population growth model (Folt et al. 2016, entire) and conflicts with
the perceived stability of alligator snapping turtle populations from
some catch-per-unit-effort studies for this species. First, Folt et al.
(2016) resulted from a population without several of the threats
explored in this model. In addition a few errors have been corrected
since its publication which resulted in a change in the prediction of a
population growing at 3% annually to one that was declining 3%
annually. With regard to CPUE data, it is generally used for relative
abundance and was not appropriate for use in this modeling effort. In
addition, while there were published parameter estimates and data to
inform survival, egg production and nest survival, modelers had to use
expert elicitation to parameterize the spatial extent of threats and
the effect of the threats on population demographics. However,
estimates of variance for many elicited parameters are small,
suggesting that the experts generally agree with each other, even
though the values were elicited independently from each expert.
Below, Table 2 presents the six plausible scenarios that factored
in the estimated abundance and threats acting on the alligator snapping
turtle to project the future resiliency of the species. Tables 3 and 4
present the results of the model depicting the future condition of each
of four analysis units; Table 3 shows conservation-absent scenarios,
while Table 4 shows conservation-present scenarios. In both Tables 3
and 4, for each scenario, we calculated the probability of extirpation
and quasi-extirpation as the proportion of the 500 replicates in which
the total population (adults and juveniles) declined to zero or less
than 5 percent of the starting population size, respectively. For only
those replicates in which the population reached extirpation or quasi-
extirpation, we then calculated the mean number of years until those
thresholds were reached to represent the time to quasi-extirpation or
time to extirpation, respectively. Mean quantities and their standard
deviations are listed with the range (minimum and maximum quantity
observed across all replicates) given in parentheses. An asterisk (*)
indicates only a single simulation crossed the threshold, precluding a
standard deviation calculation.
Table 2--Description of Six Future Scenarios Modeled for the Alligator
Snapping Turtle's Analysis Units
[Scenario names are given in quotation marks]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation absent Conservation present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreased Threat Magnitude.. ``Decreased ``Decreased Threats
Threats'' Impact of + '' Impact of
threats: Reduced 25 threats: Reduced 25
percent Spatial percent. Spatial
extent of threats: extent of threats:
Expert-elicited. Reduced 25 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert-Elicited Threat ``Expert-Elicited ``Expert-Elicited
Magnitude. Threats'' Impact of Threats + '' Impact
threats: Expert- of threats: Expert-
elicited. Spatial elicited. Spatial
extent of threats: extent of threats:
Expert-elicited. Reduced 25 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increased Threat Magnitude.. ``Increased ``Increased Threats
Threats'' Impact of + '' Impact of
threats: Increased threats: Increased
25 percent Spatial 25 percent. Spatial
extent of threats: extent of threats:
Expert-elicited. Reduced 25 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62451]]
Table 3--Probability and Time to Extirpation and Quasi-Extirpation for Alligator Snapping Turtles for Conservation-Absent Scenarios With Three Different
Threat Levels
(Decreased, expert-elicited, and increased)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability of quasi- Time to quasi- Probability of Time to extirpation
Threat level extirpation extirpation (years) extirpation (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Absent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Unit:
Decreased....................................... 1 17.68 <plus-minus> 2.27 0.13 48.91 <plus-minus> 2.09
(12, 29) (43, 51)
Expert-Elicited................................. 1 14.20 <plus-minus> 1.6 0.846 45.64 <plus-minus> 3.36
(10, 20) (36, 51)
Increased....................................... 1 12.11 <plus-minus> 1.35 1 40.19 <plus-minus> 3.47
(8, 16) (30, 51)
Apalachicola Unit:
Decreased....................................... 0.99 33.11 <plus-minus> 6.09 0.004 49.5 <plus-minus> 0.71
(19, 51) (49, 50)
Expert-Elicited................................. 1 26.28 <plus-minus> 4.65 0.124 49.02 <plus-minus> 2.05
(16, 47) (44, 51)
Increased....................................... 1 21.21 <plus-minus> 3.25 0.66 46.82 <plus-minus> 3.15
Northern Mississippi-East Unit:
Decreased....................................... 0.02 45.90 <plus-minus> 4.01 0
(38, 51)
Expert-Elicited................................. 0.016 48.00 <plus-minus> 4.11 0
(39, 51)
Increased....................................... 0.024 45.42 <plus-minus> 3.42 0
(41, 51)
Southern Mississippi-East Unit:
Decreased....................................... 1 17.69 <plus-minus> 2.40 0.434 49.45 <plus-minus> 1.92
(11, 29) (43, 51)
Expert-Elicited................................. 1 14.89 <plus-minus> 1.75 0.95 47.49 <plus-minus> 2.84
(10, 22) (39, 51)
Increased....................................... 1 12.97 <plus-minus> 1.39 0.998 44.92 <plus-minus> 3.87
(9, 18) (33, 51)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Probability and Time to Extirpation and Quasi-Extirpation for Alligator Snapping Turtles for Conservation Present Scenarios With Three
Different Threat Levels
[Decreased, expert-elicited, and increased]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probability of quasi- Time to quasi- Probability of Time to extirpation
Threat level extirpation extirpation (years) extirpation (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Present (+)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Unit:
Decreased...................................... 1 22.84 <plus-minus> 3.20 0.002 * 51 <plus-minus> (51,
(14, 33) 51)
Expert-Elicited................................ 1 17.91 <plus-minus> 2.27 0.114 49.14 <plus-minus> 2.23
(13, 26) (40, 51)
Increased...................................... 1 15.11 <plus-minus> 1.72 0.658 47.21 <plus-minus> 2.76
(12, 23) (40, 51)
Apalachicola Unit:
Decreased...................................... 0.98 32.44 <plus-minus> 6.1 0
(20, 51)
Expert-Elicited................................ 1 32.04 <plus-minus> 5.79 0.006 50.67 <plus-minus> 0.58
(18, 51) (50, 51)
Increased...................................... 1 26.22 <plus-minus> 4.75 0.052 48.92 <plus-minus> 1.94
Northern Mississippi-East Unit:
Decreased...................................... 0.038 48.21 <plus-minus> 2.90 0 .......................
(42, 51)
Expert-Elicited................................ 0.036 46.72 <plus-minus> 3.39 0.002 * 51.00 <plus-minus>
(39, 51) (51, 51)
Increased...................................... 0.02 46.60 <plus-minus> 2.50 0 .......................
(42, 50)
Southern Mississippi-East Unit:
Decreased...................................... 1 20.9 <plus-minus> 3.34 0.058 49.45 <plus-minus> 1.92
(14, 35) (43, 51)
Expert-Elicited................................ 1 17.74 <plus-minus> 2.34 0.476 47.49 <plus-minus> 2.84
(12, 26) (39, 51)
Increased...................................... 1 15.74 <plus-minus> 1.98 0.856 44.92 <plus-minus> 3.87
(11, 25) (33, 51)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama Analysis Unit
The Alabama analysis unit provides habitat for more than half
(55.37 percent) of the entire estimated alligator snapping turtle
abundance; however, the total abundance in the Alabama analysis unit is
predicted to decline over the next 50 years in all scenarios. Predicted
declines are more rapid the higher the threat level and are slightly
mediated by conservation actions. Compared to initial abundances, after
the first 10 years of the simulation, the mean abundance within the
unit is predicted to decline by 75-83 percent under decreased threat
scenarios, 83-90 percent under expert-elicited threat scenarios, and
88-93 percent under increased threat scenarios (see Tables 3 and 4,
above). Halfway through the simulation, after 25 years, the mean
abundance is predicted to decline by 97-100 percent compared to the
initial abundance across all six scenarios, with declines of 100
percent (extirpation) after 50 years (Service 2021, Appendix E).
Although abundance declined in all scenarios, the probability of
extirpation within 50 years depends heavily on the threat levels and
presence or absence of conservation actions. Without conservation, the
species is unlikely to be extirpated in this unit within 50 years under
the ``Decreased Threats'' scenario, likely to be extirpated under the
``Expert-Elicited Threats'' scenario, and virtually certain to become
extirpated under the ``Increased Threats'' scenario (see Table 3,
above). With conservation, the species is exceptionally unlikely to be
extirpated under the ``Decreased Threats +'' scenario, unlikely to be
extirpated under the ``Expert-Elicited Threats +'' scenario, and about
as likely as not to be extirpated under the ``Increased Threats +''
scenario (see Table 4, above). While the likelihood that the species
will become extirpated from the Alabama analysis unit varies by
scenario, quasi-extirpation where abundances fell below 5 percent of
current levels is virtually certain in all
[[Page 62452]]
scenarios. In scenarios where the probability of extirpation is about
as likely as not, extirpation occurs on average after 40-51 years, with
quasi-extirpation occurring much sooner in 12-23 years. Predicted time
to quasi-extirpation averages 18-22 years under the decreased threats
scenarios, 14-18 years under the expert-elicited threats scenarios, and
12-15 years under the increased threats scenarios, with the upper bound
of each time period range predicted when conservation actions are
present.
Apalachicola Analysis Unit
The Apalachicola analysis unit is included in part of the species'
core area and includes around 12 percent of the entire estimated
abundance of the species; however, the total abundance in the
Apalachicola analysis unit is predicted to decline over the next 50
years in all scenarios. Predicted declines are more rapid the higher
the threat level and are slightly mediated by conservation actions
(Service 2021, Appendix E). Compared to initial abundances, after the
first 10 years of the simulation, the mean abundance within the unit is
predicted to decline by 55-64 percent under decreased threats
scenarios, 65-74 percent under expert-elicited threats scenarios, and
72-82 percent under increased threats scenarios. Halfway through the
simulation after 25 years, mean abundance is predicted to decline by
90-99 percent compared to initial abundance across all six scenarios
and is predicted to decline by 99-100 percent after 50 years in all
scenarios (Service 2021, Appendix E).
Although abundance declined in all scenarios, the probability of
extirpation within 50 years depends heavily on the threat levels and
presence or absence of conservation actions. Without conservation, the
species is exceptionally unlikely to be extirpated in this unit within
50 years under the ``Decreased Threats'' scenario, unlikely to be
extirpated under the ``Expert-Elicited Threats'' scenario, and likely
to become extirpated under the ``Increased Threats'' scenario (see
Table 3, above). With conservation, the species is exceptionally
unlikely to be extirpated under the ``Decreased Threats +'' scenario
and the ``Expert-Elicited Threats +'' scenario, and very unlikely to be
extirpated under the ``Increased Threats +'' scenario (see Table 4,
above). In scenarios where the probability of extirpation is about as
likely as not, when extirpation does occur, it is on average around the
47-year mark. In the conservation-absent scenarios, quasi-extirpation
is very likely to occur within 26-33 years. While the likelihood that
the species will become extirpated in the Apalachicola analysis unit
varies by scenario and ranges between likely to exceptionally unlikely,
quasi-extirpation, where abundances fell below 5 percent of current
levels, is very likely to virtually certain to occur with or without
conservation actions within 50 years in all scenarios (see Tables 3 and
4, above).
Northern Mississippi-East Analysis Unit
The Northern Mississippi-East analysis unit currently supports the
fewest alligator snapping turtles (0.06 percent) of any other unit
across its range. Because of ongoing conservation efforts with turtle
releases occurring in the Northern Mississippi-East analysis unit,
alligator snapping turtle abundances in this unit are predicted to
increase for the next decade because of the population augmentation
efforts, but at 50 years in all scenarios, the population is predicted
to decline to a mean of fewer than 51 females (Service 2021, pp. 72-74,
Appendix E). Predicted declines are consistent across scenarios with
and without conservation; however, the rate of decline is lower in the
Northern Mississippi-East analysis unit (Service 2021, Appendix E).
Compared to initial abundances, after the first 10 years of the
simulation, mean abundance is predicted to increase by at least 200
percent across every scenario. By halfway through the simulation after
25 years, mean abundances are predicted to fall but remain over 32
percent higher than initial abundances. By the end of the 50-year
simulation, however, abundances are predicted to decline by 47-51
percent compared to initial abundances in the scenarios without
conservation actions, and 44-48 percent in the scenarios with
conservation actions (Service 2021, Appendix E).
Although abundance eventually declines in all scenarios after
initial increases, the species is exceptionally unlikely to very
unlikely to be extirpated in this unit within 50 years under any
modeled scenario (Service 2021, p. 74). Quasi-extirpation is similarly
very unlikely to occur in any scenario; however, abundance continues to
decline beyond 50 years.
Southern Mississippi-East Analysis Unit
The Southern Mississippi-East analysis unit includes around 14
percent of the total estimated abundance of the species; however, the
total abundance in the Southern Mississippi-East analysis unit is
predicted to decline over the next 50 years in all scenarios (Service
2021, pp. 70-72). Predicted declines are more rapid the higher the
threat level and are slightly mediated by conservation actions (Service
2021, Appendix E). Compared to initial abundances, after the first 10
years of the simulation, mean abundance is predicted to decline by 76-
82 percent under decreased threats scenarios, 83-88 percent under
expert-elicited threats scenarios, and 87-92 percent under increased
threats scenarios (see Tables 3 and 4, above). Halfway through the
simulation, after 25 years, mean abundance is predicted to decline by
95-100 percent compared to initial abundance across all six scenarios
(Service 2021, Appendix E).
Although abundance declines in all scenarios, the probability of
extirpation within 50 years depends heavily on the threat levels and
presence or absence of conservation actions. Without conservation, the
species is unlikely to be extirpated in this unit within 50 years under
the ``Decreased Threats'' scenario, likely to be extirpated under the
``Expert-Elicited Threats'' scenario, and very likely to become
extirpated under the ``Increased Threats'' scenario (see Table 3,
above). With conservation, the species is exceptionally unlikely to be
extirpated under the ``Decreased Threats +'' scenario, very unlikely to
be extirpated under the ``Expert-Elicited Threats +'' scenario, and
about as likely as not to be extirpated under the ``Increased Threats
+'' scenario (see Table 4, above). While the likelihood that the
species will become completely extirpated within this unit varied by
scenario, quasi-extirpation where abundances fell below 5 percent of
current levels is virtually certain in all scenarios within the next
13-21 years. Predicted time to quasi-extirpation averages 18-21 years
under the decreased threats scenarios, 15-18 years under the expert-
elicited threats scenarios, and 13-16 years under the increased threats
scenarios, with the lower bound of each range predicted when
conservation actions are present.
The Western, Southern Mississippi-West, and Northern Mississippi-
West analysis units are not included in the future simulation modeling
because we do not have adequate input data. However, we have no
evidence that alligator snapping turtle demographic trends in response
to threats in these analysis units would behave dramatically
differently from the range of analysis units that we did model. While
we do not have precise abundance estimates in the future or
probabilities of extirpation or quasi-extirpation, it is likely that
alligator snapping turtles in these analysis units will decline along
similar trajectories as
[[Page 62453]]
the modeled analysis units, meaning they likely face a high probability
of quasi-extirpation within the next 30-50 years.
In summary, alligator snapping turtle abundance was shown to
decline drastically over the next 30 to 50 years in all analysis units
that are included in the model (Alabama, Apalachicola, Northern
Mississippi-East, and Southern Mississippi-East) across all scenarios.
The model projects out past 50 years; however, the declining abundance
trends drop so low within 50 years, there was no need to project beyond
that time period. The future conditions projections, which include
three conservation-based scenarios, indicate a 95 percent decline in 50
years and quasi-extirpation in approximately 30 years under even the
most optimistic scenario.
Resilience is expected to drastically decline across all analysis
units under all scenarios. We modeled scenarios that reflected
uncertainty in the impact of threats on alligator snapping turtle
demography, and all threat levels (decreased, expert-elicited, and
increased) produced mean growth rates (lambda) indicating population
decline. Predicted abundances are likely to very likely to virtually
certain to drop below 5 percent of current abundances within 12-50
years under all scenarios in the Southern Mississippi-East, Alabama,
and Apalachicola analysis units (Service 2021, pp. 78-82). The only
analysis unit for which quasi-extirpation is not consistently likely is
the Northern Mississippi-East analysis unit. Although the risk of
quasi-extirpation is lower in this analysis unit than the others, this
is in part an artifact of the way that quasi-extirpation thresholds are
defined, as a percentage of the initial abundance. In terms of raw
abundance, the Northern Mississippi-East analysis unit is predicted on
average to support fewer than 51 female alligator snapping turtles (as
we used a female-only demographic model) with or without conservation
actions. Thus, even though quasi-extirpation risks are lower than other
analysis units, the predicted abundances for this unit still indicate
that alligator snapping turtles will become very rare or disappear from
this analysis unit.
Time to quasi-extirpation varies across analysis units and
scenarios (conservation absent-conservation present), but in general,
the first analysis unit likely to reach the quasi-extirpation threshold
is the Alabama unit (12-22 years), followed by the Southern
Mississippi-East unit (after an average of 14-25 years depending on the
scenario), the Apalachicola unit (21-33 years), and finally the
Northern Mississippi-East unit, where quasi-extirpation is not likely
to occur within the 50-year time frame.
After 50 years, the mean female abundance in any given analysis
unit is not predicted to exceed 133 individuals in any scenario. As we
did for the current condition, we scaled future predicted abundances
(after 25 years and after 50 years of the simulation) to the area of
open water in each analysis unit to aid in comparing abundances among
units of different sizes.
Resilience refers to the ability of populations (or, in our case,
analysis units, as we are unable to delineate populations with
currently available information) to withstand stochastic disturbances
(e.g., demographic, environmental stochasticity). Abundance is central
to resilience, as small populations are more vulnerable to
perturbations than larger populations. We compiled the best information
available about alligator snapping turtles, their demographic rates,
and threats, and the resulting simulation model predicts dramatic
declines in abundance, and thus resilience, over the next 50 years
across all analysis units. Abundances in nearly every analysis unit are
predicted to decline by more than 95 percent, resulting in drastically
lowered abilities of populations to withstand stochastic events, if
alligator snapping turtle populations persist at all.
Most of the threats described in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp.
17-21) (hook ingestion, illegal collection, etc.) are factors that
affect adult or juvenile survival, and so large changes in population
growth and predicted future abundance are expected to occur when those
effects are incorporated into the model. For example, experts indicated
that hook ingestion is likely to negatively affect adult survival and
could cause up to 8 percent decline in survival rate in areas where
trotline and other fishing activities are allowed, dropping survival
from 95 percent to 87 percent. That one threat alone changes the
trajectory of the population from stable or increasing to rapidly
declining, as a result of the cumulative threats.
Future representation, referring to the ability of the species to
adapt to changing environmental conditions over time, is similarly
predicted to decline rapidly as alligator snapping turtles in every
representative unit decline in abundance to quasi-extirpation or true
extirpation. The loss of alligator snapping turtles across all
representative units would represent losses in genetic diversity (two
broad genetic lineages), life-history diversity along a north-south
gradient, and finer scale genetic differences among drainages within
the larger genetic lineages.
Future redundancy, or the ability to withstand catastrophic events,
for alligator snapping turtles is expected to decline drastically over
the next 50 years. Our future simulation model operates at the scale of
the analysis unit and is limited to the units for which data are
available, so we cannot provide precise predictions about which States
or counties are most likely to lose or retain alligator snapping turtle
biological populations in the future. While accounting for uncertainty
with the magnitude of threats at the analysis unit scale, all units are
predicted to lose resiliency at such a high rate that no analysis unit
will remain across the landscape to contribute to redundancy. Where
alligator snapping turtles persist in the future, they are predicted to
be rare and not found in adequately resilient groupings. Analysis units
are predicted to reach quasi-extirpation thresholds in some cases
within the next two decades, with more units becoming quasi-extirpated
each decade after that. The addition of conservation actions, or
different assumptions about the impact of threats on alligator snapping
turtle demography, alters the time to quasi-extirpation by about a
decade at most, typically less. No scenarios result in stable or
increasing redundancy within representative units or rangewide. The
future condition analysis for the alligator snapping turtle is
described in detail in the SSA report (Service 2021, pp. 59-84).
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 condition 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.
[[Page 62454]]
Determination of Alligator Snapping Turtle's 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 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 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.
Status Throughout All of Its Range
When evaluating the species to determine if it is in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range, we consider the threats acting
on the species and the cumulative effects of those threats under the
section 4(a)(1) factors. The current threats include harvest and
collection (Factor B), nest predation (Factor C), habitat degradation
and loss (Factor A), and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch
associated with freshwater fishing (Factor E). The current condition of
the alligator snapping turtle, as discussed under Current Condition
above, describes the species and the threats acting on the species such
that it retains sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation
to ensure the species is currently maintaining viability across its
range.
The species is currently still relatively widespread, occurring
throughout much of its historical range, and remains extant within all
analysis units. Although some resiliency has been lost due to past and
ongoing threats, sufficient resiliency remains across the seven
analysis units, especially in the core of the range in the southern
parts of the Alabama, Apalachicola, South Mississippi-East, and Western
analysis units. There has been some range contraction in some of the
fringe States, including Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Tennessee where the species' resilience is lowest in the northernmost
analysis units.
Despite the historical, large-scale commercial harvest in some
areas and additional ongoing threats, the overall population across the
current range is still large with an estimated 360,000 turtles (range
of 68,000 to 1.4 million) (Service 2021, pp. 50). However, due to the
delayed age of sexual maturity and a generation time of about 30 years,
the species has been slow to recover from the historical harvest
pressures. An example of the slow response is evident in a study
conducted 22 years after alligator snapping turtle commercial harvest
ended in Georgia; surveys conducted during 2014 and 2015 in Georgia's
Flint River reveal no significant change in abundance since 1989 (King
et al. 2016, entire). Thus, despite the prohibition of legal harvest of
alligator snapping turtles in all States except Louisiana and
Mississippi, the species has been slow to recover because it is a long-
lived species with high nest predation and relatively low fecundity.
This past large-scale removal of large, adult turtles continues to
affect the current demographics; however, successful reproduction is
occurring. While the species is not currently impacted by commercial
harvest, resiliency is lower than it was historically as a result of
the loss of reproductive females, low juvenile survival, and the
species' life-history traits (long-lived, late age to sexual maturity,
low intrinsic growth rate). Regardless, the current estimated
population size provides a sufficient contribution to the species'
viability through successful reproduction that is adequate to sustain
the populations across all units. Thus, after assessing the best
available information, we conclude that the alligator snapping turtle
is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
To determine if the species is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we
considered the threats that will affect the species in the future and
the species' response to those threats. According to the description
above under Future Condition, six scenarios are considered to project
the threats acting on the species' viability over the next 50 years;
however, the species will decline into extirpation or quasi-extirpation
under all six scenarios within the next 30-50 years. We can reasonably
predict the threats acting on the species and the species' response to
those threats within the 30- to 50-year timeframe when extirpation
within most of the analysis units is projected. Based on this
information, we determined the appropriate timeframe for assessing
whether this species is likely to become in danger of extinction in the
foreseeable future is 30-50 years. While there is inherent uncertainty
in the modeling, we have determined we can make reliable predictions as
to the status of the alligator snapping turtle within this timeframe.
As our framework for determining foreseeable future articulates,
``reliable'' does not mean ``certain;'' it means sufficient to provide
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. We have a
reasonable degree of confidence in our status predictions, particularly
because the species declines into extirpation or quasi-extirpation
under even the most optimistic scenarios.
When evaluating the future viability of the species, we found that
the threats currently acting on the species are expected to continue
across its range into the future, resulting in greater reduction of the
number and distribution of reproductive individuals and continued
effects of subsidized nest predators on nest success and juvenile
survival. This species is highly dependent upon adult female survival
to maintain viability. Existing and ongoing threats affecting adult
female survival are projected to reduce recruitment to an extent that
the species will continue to decline in the foreseeable future. While
there is uncertainty regarding the rate at which population declines
will occur, the threats are projected to drive the species towards
extinction unless reduced. Additionally, the resiliency of each
analysis unit will continue to decline and further reduce the species'
redundancy and representation into the future. The existing regulatory
mechanisms are not adequate to protect the species from these threats
(Factor D).
There are additional stressors including disease, nest parasites,
and climate change impacts (elevated nest temperatures, increased
flooding, increased water withdrawals, etc.). These secondary
environmental stressors will have compounding impacts that further
reduce the viability of the species in the foreseeable future.
Despite the implementation of the conservation actions described
above under Conservation Measures, the delay in the species' response
to historical over-harvesting indicates other factors may be acting on
the species or additional conservation actions are needed. This is
illustrated by the future conditions projections, which include three
conservation-based scenarios and indicate a 95 percent decline in 50
years and quasi-extirpation in approximately
[[Page 62455]]
30 years under even the most optimistic scenario.
The best available information shows that the species' viability is
expected to decline with projected quasi-extirpation of most units to
occur within the next 30 years and within the next 50 years for the
Northern Mississippi-East unit (Service 2021, pp. 78-79). Based on
modeling results, which address uncertainty regarding the extent and
severity of threats, resiliency is expected to decline dramatically
under all scenarios. Regardless of whether the projected timeframe to
quasi-extirpation is fully accurate, the projected loss of resiliency
across the range of the species will place the alligator snapping
turtle at risk of extinction within the foreseeable future across all
of its range due to the inability of this species to effectively
reproduce and maintain viability in the coming decades in light of
ongoing threats.
Thus, after assessing the best available information regarding the
threats acting on the species and the species' response as described in
the future condition analysis (Service 2021, pp. 59-85), we conclude
that the alligator snapping turtle 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 extirpation 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 extirpation
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 extirpation now (i.e.,
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for alligator snapping
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.
The statutory difference between an endangered species and a
threatened species is the time frame in which the species becomes in
danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction
now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but
is likely to become so in the foreseeable future. Thus, we reviewed the
best scientific and commercial data available regarding the time
horizon for the threats that are driving the alligator snapping turtle
to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of its range.
We considered whether the threats are geographically concentrated in
any portion of the species' range in a way that would accelerate the
time horizon for the species' exposure or response to the threats. We
examined the following threats: Harvest (legal and poaching), fishing
bycatch (recreational and commercial), and nest predation. We also
considered the cumulative effects acting on the species with additional
stressors such as disease, nest parasites, and climate change.
After considering the threats acting on the species, we identified
a concentration of threats in Mississippi and Louisiana due to legal
harvest, albeit more limited in Mississippi. The three analysis units
that overlap with these two States include the Alabama, Southern
Mississippi-East, and Southern Mississippi-West units. The Alabama unit
has the greatest abundance and density estimates of all seven analysis
units, indicating this unit at the core of the range may be a
stronghold for the species in terms of resiliency and contributing to
the species' overall viability. The Alabama unit currently demonstrates
high resiliency in comparison to the other units; however, due to the
continued compounding effects of the threats acting on the species in
the Alabama unit, resiliency will decline in the future.
The estimated abundance within the Southern Mississippi-East unit
is around 50,000 individuals; the major threats acting on the species
in this unit include nest predation and harvest. Legal harvest has been
ongoing in the Louisiana and Mississippi portions of this unit;
however, the species is not in danger of extinction now due to the high
abundance of turtles and augmented populations from conservation
efforts of head-start and release programs. The historical and current
distribution in this unit has some shifts in county and parish
occurrences with some range contraction in western Tennessee and
expansion in Mississippi and Louisiana (Service 2021, p. 42).
Additionally, the species has been managed through conservation efforts
by supplementing the population from a captive breeding program that
raises the turtle beyond the first few years and releases them into the
wild. Due to the current condition of the population within this unit,
it is not currently in danger of extinction; however, the ongoing
threats will cause the species to decline in the future.
The Southern Mississippi-West unit has an estimated current
abundance of 15,000 alligator snapping turtles, but impoundments have
fragmented the habitat in this unit. About 9 percent of the unit is the
upper northwestern part of Louisiana where legal harvest is still
allowed. When considering the historical and current ranges, there has
been some range contraction in some counties in Oklahoma; however,
occurrence is unknown, meaning there have been no recent surveys or
documented records in some of those counties. The species has become
virtually extirpated in Kansas. The species is still found in all
parishes in Louisiana with no changes in the historical distribution.
In Texas, there have been changes from occupied to unknown status and
vice versa, but no contractions of the species' range have been
confirmed between historical and current distribution. Because the
species is still widely distributed across this unit as described in
the species' current condition, the population within this unit has
sufficient resiliency such that the species is not currently in danger
of extinction in this unit, but the ongoing threats will cause the
species to decline in the future.
Although the threat of legal harvest is concentrated in the
Mississippi and Louisiana areas of the Alabama, Southern Mississippi-
East, and Southern Mississippi-West units, the best scientific and
commercial data available do not indicate that the concentration of
threats, or the species'
[[Page 62456]]
responses to the concentration of threats, are likely to accelerate the
time horizon in which the species becomes in danger of extinction in
this portion of its range. As a result, the alligator snapping turtle
is not in danger of extinction now in this portion range of the
species' range.
We also considered the threat of habitat degradation and loss
compounded with historical overharvest that has affected the species
along the fringe areas of the range as there has been some range
contraction in Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and
possibly in Oklahoma likely due to changes in the habitat. These areas
are all on the fringe of the range, where conditions are likely
marginal and more dynamic. The species does not occur in large numbers
or densities in these areas because the core areas are associated with
the more southern portions of the species' range. The species'
occurrence within these areas is inherently low because of the variable
pressures associated with dynamic conditions. The alligator snapping
turtle is not in danger of extinction now in this portion range of the
species' range.
After analyzing the portions of the range where threats are
concentrated, we found there are no significant portions of the range
where the species is at risk of extinction and do not meet the
definition of endangered. Therefore, we determine that the species 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 Status
Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition
of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the alligator
snapping 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
goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed
species so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act.
Subsection 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 subsequent to 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. The plan may be revised 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 for alligator snapping turtle will be available on our
website (<a href="http://www.fws.gov/endangered">http://www.fws.gov/endangered</a>), or from our Louisiana
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,
protective regulations, adjustments to fishing techniques to reduce
bycatch, 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. Achieving recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal
lands.
If the alligator snapping 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 Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas would
be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that
promote the protection or recovery of the alligator snapping 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 alligator snapping 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 the species. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on the 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 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
[[Page 62457]]
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' habitat that may require
conference, consultation, or both, as described in the preceding
paragraph, may include, but are not limited to, management and any
other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; U.S. Forest Service; NPS;
Department of Transportation (construction and maintenance of roads or
highways by the Federal Highway Administration and railroads by the
Federal Railroad Administration); National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; Department of Defense (DOD), including issuance of
section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (dams that produce
hydropower).
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 regarding protective
regulations under the Act's section 4(d) complies with our policy.
II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act
Background
Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states in part 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 in part 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 the
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 [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species.
[She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such
species, or [she] 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 this authority under section 4(d), we have developed a
proposed rule that is designed to address the alligator snapping
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
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 alligator snapping turtle. As discussed above under
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the
alligator snapping turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future primarily due to harvest/collection, nest
predation, habitat alteration, and bycatch (hook ingestion,
entanglement, and drowning) associated with commercial and recreational
fishing.
The provisions of this proposed 4(d) rule would promote
conservation of the alligator snapping turtle by prohibiting harvest
and encouraging implementation of best management practices for
activities in freshwater wetlands and riparian areas to minimize
habitat alteration to the maximum extent practicable. The provisions of
this proposed rule are one of many tools that we would use to promote
the conservation of the alligator snapping turtle. This proposed 4(d)
rule would apply only if and when we make final the listing of the
alligator snapping 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.
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
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 to confer on species proposed to be listed or
engage in consultation with the Service on actions that may affect
listed species or their critical habitat 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.
[[Page 62458]]
Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule
This proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the
alligator snapping turtle by prohibiting the following activities,
except as otherwise authorized or permitted: Importing or exporting;
take (as set forth at 50 CFR 17.21(c)(1) with exceptions as discussed
below); possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or
shipping of unlawfully taken specimens from any source; delivering,
receiving, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce
in the course of commercial activity; and 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.
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 alligator
snapping 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, harvest
(legal and poaching), hook ingestions and entanglement due to bycatch
associated with commercial and recreational fishing practices for
freshwater fish (particularly as a result of unlawful activities and/or
abandonment of equipment), and habitat alteration, will provide for the
conservation of the species. Regulating take associated with 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 within all seven
analysis units.
Prohibitions
Due to the life-history characteristics of the alligator snapping
turtle, specifically delayed maturity, long generation times, and
relatively low reproductive output, this species cannot sustain
significant collection from the wild, especially of adult females (Reed
et al. 2002, pp. 8-12). An adult female harvest rate of more than 2
percent per year is considered unsustainable, and harvest of this
magnitude or greater will result in significant local population
declines (Reed et al. 2002, p. 9). Louisiana and Mississippi allow
recreational harvest of alligator snapping turtles; all other States
within the species' range prohibit commercial and recreational harvest
of the species. Due to the species' demography, however, the overall
population has not recovered from prior extensive loss of individuals
from past over-exploitation. While current recruitment is sufficient to
maintain viability, continued harvest, combined with other stressors,
will eventually result in quasi-extinction. Therefore, this proposed
4(d) rule would prohibit collection and harvest (with some exceptions
as described below).
Habitat alteration is also a concern for the alligator snapping
turtle, as the species is endemic to river systems that drain into the
Gulf of Mexico, including tributary waterbodies and associated wetland
habitats (e.g., swamps, lakes, reservoirs, etc.), where structure
(e.g., tree root masses, stumps, submerged trees, etc.) and a high
percentage of canopy cover is more often selected over open water
(Howey and Dinkelacker 2009, p. 589). Alligator snapping 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 (Reed at al. 2002, p. 5). The primary causes for habitat
alteration include actions that change hydrologic conditions to the
extent that dispersal and genetic interchange are impeded.
Activities that may alter the habitat include dredging, deadhead
logging, clearing and snagging, removal of riparian cover,
channelization, instream activities that result in stream bank erosion
and siltation (e.g., stream crossings, bridge replacements, flood
control structures, etc.), and changes in land use within the riparian
zone of waterbodies (e.g., clearing land for agriculture). Deadhead
logs and fallen riparian woody debris provide refugia during low-water
periods (Enge et al. 2014, p. 40), resting areas for all life stages
(Ewert et al. 2006, p. 62), and important feeding areas for hatchlings
and juveniles. The species' habitat needs concentrate around a
freshwater ecosystem that supplies both shallower water for hatchlings
and juveniles and deeper water for adults, with associated forested
habitat that is free from inundation for nesting and provides structure
within the waterbody. The species can tolerate some brackish
conditions; however, freshwater provides higher quality habitat.
Exceptions to the Prohibitions
The exceptions to the prohibitions set forth in this proposed 4(d)
rule include activities conducted as authorized by a permit issued
under 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened species, as well as certain actions
taken by an employee or agent of the Service, of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, or of a State conservation agency that is operating
a conservation program in accordance with 50 CFR 17.31(b), as discussed
later in this document. In addition, this proposed 4(d) rule includes
some of the general exceptions allowed for take of endangered wildlife
as set forth at 50 CFR 17.21 (see the rule portion of this document)
and certain other specific activities that we propose for exception, as
described below.
We are proposing to except certain activities involving specimens
originating from captive breeding operations, for conservation or
commercial purposes, if the captive breeding operations meet the
necessary requirements. We are also proposing to except take incidental
to construction, operation, and maintenance activities using
appropriate BMPs; pesticide and herbicide use; silviculture practices
and forestry activities that implement industry and/or State-approved
BMPs accordingly; and maintenance dredging that affects previously
disturbed portions of the maintained channel.
Captive breeding for conservation--The Service recognizes that
captive breeding provides for the species' conservation (i.e., captive
rearing, head-starting, and reintroductions) by supplementing depleted
populations and reintroducing turtles to areas where the species has
been extirpated. This includes head-starting programs, where turtles
are bred and raised beyond the hatchling phase to improve survival,
then released into the wild. Captive rearing for the purposes of head-
starting hatchlings to release back into the wild can help mitigate
losses from nest predation and parasitic insects, as well as provide
individuals for reintroduction into areas with depleted turtle numbers.
Such activities can help bolster population numbers by improving
overall juvenile survival and may also increase genetic diversity. When
brood stock is legally acquired and permitted, with proper pedigree
management and disease surveillance, Federal and State agencies can
implement head-start programs without putting undue stress on the wild
population.
All captive production programs for the purpose of reintroducing
alligator snapping turtles to the wild must also
[[Page 62459]]
develop a controlled propagation plan in accordance with the Service's
Policy Regarding Controlled Propagation of Species Listed under the
Endangered Species Act (65 FR 56916; September 20, 2000). In addition,
captive breeding for conservation purposes should apply kinship-based
pedigree management to avoid consequences of inbreeding or
inadvertently introducing turtles with deleterious alleles into the
wild population. Thus, incidental take associated with Federal and
State captive-breeding programs to support conservation efforts for
wild populations (i.e., head-starting) would be excepted from the
prohibitions when conducted using permitted brood stock and following
approved turtle husbandry practices in accordance with State
regulations and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy.
State-authorized farming/captive breeding programs--The Service
recognizes that turtle farming can alleviate harvest of wild stock and
provides a means to serve international markets without affecting wild
populations in the future. Therefore, existing State-authorized farming
operations using captive brood stock or otherwise legally acquired
turtles prior to the listing of the species would be excepted. We will
work with States to ensure an appropriate mechanism for identifying,
marking, and tracking captive brood stock to differentiate them from
wild stock. Without a system to identify alligator snapping turtles
that have originated from these operations, we will not be able to
finalize such an exception, as there will not be a way to distinguish
captive-bred from wild-caught alligator snapping turtles.
This 4(d) rule would allow individuals to take; deliver, receive,
carry, transport or ship in interstate commerce, in the course of a
commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate commerce
alligator snapping turtle specimens that meet the definitions of
``captive-bred'' or ``bred in captivity'' in 50 CFR 17.3 and the
definitions and requirements in 50 CFR part 23 (see 50 CFR 23.5 and
23.24) if the specimen originated in a State-approved facility. It also
allows individuals to import; export; deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in foreign commerce and in the course of a
commercial activity; or sell or offer to sell in foreign commerce dead
specimens of alligator snapping turtle that are otherwise lawfully
taken. We are not currently proposing to allow foreign commerce and
foreign trade of live specimens, in an effort to further ensure that
wild specimens are not lau
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on November 9, 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.