Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-15176

Rule2024-15176

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Pearl River Map Turtle With Section 4(d) Rule; and Threatened Species Status for Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle Due to Similarity of Appearance With Section 4(d) Rule

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

July 12, 2024

Effective

August 12, 2024

Issuing agencies

Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service

Abstract

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis), a freshwater turtle species from the Pearl River drainage in Mississippi and Louisiana as a threatened species with 4(d) protective regulations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. Due to similarity of appearance, we also list the Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), and Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) as threatened species with 4(d) protective regulations under the Act. This rule adds these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 134 (Friday, July 12, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57206-57236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15176]

[[Page 57205]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 134

July 12, 2024

Part II

Department of the Interior

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fish and Wildlife Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species
Status for Pearl River Map Turtle With Section 4(d) Rule; and
Threatened Species Status for Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle,
Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle Due to Similarity of
Appearance With Section 4(d) Rule; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 134 / Friday, July 12, 2024 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 57206]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BF42

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), list the
Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis), a freshwater turtle
species from the Pearl River drainage in Mississippi and Louisiana as a
threatened species with 4(d) protective regulations under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. Due to similarity of
appearance, we also list the Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra),
Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle
(Graptemys ernsti), and Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) as
threatened species with 4(d) protective regulations under the Act. This
rule adds these species to the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife.

DATES: This rule is effective August 12, 2024.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097 and at the
Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) species page
at <a href="https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10895">https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10895</a>. Comments and materials we
received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this
rule (such as the species status assessment report), are available for
public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2021-0097.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Austin, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A, Jackson, MS 39213;
telephone 601-321-1129. Individuals in the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711
(TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services
offered within their country to make international calls to the point-
of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range). If we determine that a
species warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and
designate the species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable. We have determined that the Pearl River map turtle
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species; therefore, we are
listing it as such. In addition, due to similarity of appearance, we
have determined threatened species status for the Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle.
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can be
completed only by issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure
Act rulemaking process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
What this document does. This rule lists the Pearl River map turtle
as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the
Act (a ``4(d) rule''). It also lists the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's
map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as
threatened species based on their similarity of appearance to the Pearl
River map turtle under section 4(e) of the Act with a 4(d) rule for
these species.
In our November 23, 2021, proposed rule, we found critical habitat
to be not prudent for the Pearl River map turtle because of the
potential for an increase in poaching. However, we have reevaluated the
prudency determination based on public comment and the already
available information in the public domain that indicates where the
species can be found. Consequently, we have determined that critical
habitat is prudent but not determinable at this time for the species.
We intend to publish a proposed rule designating critical habitat for
the Pearl River map turtle in the near future.
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 threats to the Pearl
River map turtle include habitat degradation or loss (degraded water
quality, channel and hydrologic modifications/impoundments,
agricultural runoff, mining, and development--Factor A), collection
(Factor B), and effects of climate change (increasing temperatures,
drought, sea-level rise (SLR), hurricane regime changes, and increased
seasonal precipitation--Factor E).
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
concurrently with listing designate critical habitat for the species.
We have not yet been able to obtain the necessary economic information
needed to develop a proposed critical habitat designation for the Pearl
River map turtle, although we are in the process of obtaining this
information. At this time, we find that designation of critical habitat
for the Pearl River map turtle is not determinable. When critical
habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional
year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).

Previous Federal Actions

Please refer to the proposed listing rule (86 FR 66624; November
23, 2021) for a detailed description of previous Federal actions
concerning the Pearl River map turtle, Alabama map turtle, Barbour's
map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle.

Peer Review

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the Pearl River map turtle (Service 2023, 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 past, present, and future factors (both
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing actions under the Act,

[[Page 57207]]

we solicited independent scientific review of the information contained
in the Pearl River map turtle SSA report, version 1.1 (Service 2021,
entire). We sent the SSA report to five independent peer reviewers and
received responses from all five reviewers; three substantive comments
were provided by two peer reviewers. We notified Tribal nations early
in the SSA process for the Pearl River map turtle. We sent the draft
SSA report for review to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and
received comments that were addressed in the SSA report. The peer
reviews can be found at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-
R4-ES-2021-0097 and at our Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In preparing the proposed rule,
we incorporated the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the
SSA report, which was the foundation for the proposed rule and this
final rule. A summary of the peer review comments and our responses can
be found in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations, below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

After consideration of the comments we received during the November
23, 2021, proposed rule's comment period (refer to Summary of Comments
and Recommendations, below), and new information published or obtained
since the proposed rule was published, we updated the SSA report to
include new information. The revised SSA report is available as version
1.2 (Service 2023, entire). In addition, in this final rule, we add
information to the listing determination for the Pearl River map turtle
and the associated 4(d) rule's exceptions to prohibitions. Many small,
nonsubstantive changes and corrections, which do not affect the
determination (e.g., minor clarifications, correcting grammatical
errors, etc.), are made throughout this document. Below is a summary of
changes we make in this final rule.
(1) We update the citation for one literature source reporting on
the status of the Pearl River and Pascagoula map turtles (Lindeman et
al. 2020, entire) to reflect its recent publication in a peer-reviewed
journal.
(2) We incorporate an additional citation (Refsnider et al. 2016,
entire) to discuss how the potential for climate change-induced impacts
to turtle hatchling sex ratios, a result of these turtles exhibiting
temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD), may be mitigated by
plasticity of TSD thermal sensitivity and the mother turtle's ability
for nest-site selection.
(3) For the Pearl River map turtle's 4(d) rule, we do not include
an exception from the incidental take prohibition resulting from
construction, operation, and maintenance activities that occur near and
in a stream. We determined that this exception is too vague and could
have caused confusion regarding whether State or Federal regulatory
processes apply to these activities. Many activities occurring near or
in a stream require permits or project review by Federal or State
agencies, and including this exception could have been interpreted as
removing these requirements, which was not our intention. Therefore, we
find that finalizing a 4(d) rule that included this exception to
incidental take is not necessary and advisable for the conservation of
the species.
(4) For the Pearl River map turtle's 4(d) rule, we do not include
an exception from the incidental take prohibition resulting from
maintenance dredging activities that remain in the previously disturbed
portion of a maintained channel. We determined that this exception is
too vague and could have caused confusion regarding whether State or
Federal regulatory processes apply to these activities. In addition,
dredging activities to promote river traffic can cause temporary
turbidity, leading to smothering of prey species (e.g., aquatic
invertebrates) and decreased ability of the Pearl River map turtle to
forage on these species; the removal of underwater snags, which could
further reduce prey availability by eliminating areas where prey is
found; and the removal of sheltering and basking locations for the
turtle. All in-water work, including dredging in a previously dredged
area, requires appropriate State and Federal permits, so including this
exception could have been interpreted as removing this requirement,
which was not our intention. Therefore, we find that finalizing a 4(d)
rule that included this exception to incidental take is not necessary
and advisable for the conservation of the species.
(5) For the Pearl River map turtle's 4(d) rule, we do not include
an exception to the incidental take prohibitions resulting from
herbicide/pesticide use in this final rule. We do not have enough
information about the types or amounts of pesticides that may be
applied in areas where Pearl River map turtle occurs to be able assess
the future impacts to the species. The additional materials provided
during the public comment period indicate impacts to other turtle
species from pesticide use occurs (de Solla et al. 2014, entire; Douros
et al. 2015, pp.113-114 ; Kittle et al. 2018, entire; Smith et al.
2020, entire; EPA 2021a, at Ch. 4, Appendix 4-1; EPA 2021d, at Ch. 2;
EPA 2021e, at Ch. 2, EPA2021e, at Ch. 4, Appendix 4-1). Further, we
note that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not consulted
on most pesticide registrations to date, so excepting take solely based
on user compliance with label directions and State and local
regulations EPA has not consulted on most pesticide registrations to
date and is not appropriate in this situation. Retaining this exception
in the absence of consultation on a specific pesticide registration may
create confusion regarding the consideration of these impacts and
whether Federal regulatory processes apply to these activities. It was
not our intent to supersede the consultation on the pesticide
registration nor other Federal activities. Therefore, we find that
finalizing a 4(d) rule that included this exception to incidental take
is not necessary and advisable for the conservation of the species.
(6) For the Pearl River map turtle 4(d) rule and Alabama map
turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map
turtle 4(d) rule, we make minor revisions to the preamble's description
of the prohibitions and exceptions in our rule issued under section
4(d) of the Act (``4(d) rule'') in the preamble of this final rule to
be consistent with the regulatory text that sets forth the 4(d) rule.
While we have refined the text, the substance of the prohibitions and
exceptions has not changed, except as outlined above.
In addition, we inadvertently left off from the proposed 4(d) rule
for the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle the 17.21(d)(2) provision regarding
possession and engaging in other acts with unlawfully endangered
wildlife by Federal and State law enforcement, and we have added this
to final rule itself.
(7) We update the information on the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; 27 U.S.T.
1087, TIAS 8249) to reflect that the Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys
pearlensis), Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map
turtle (Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti),
and Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) were transferred from
Appendix III of CITES to Appendix II (CITES 2023, p. 46).
(8) We reevaluated the critical habitat prudency determination for
the Pearl River map turtle and now find that critical habitat is
prudent but not

[[Page 57208]]

determinable at this time for the species. We intend to publish a
proposed rule designating critical habitat for the Pearl River map
turtle in the near future.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In our November 23, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 66624), we requested
that all interested parties submit written comments on the proposal by
January 24, 2022. We also contacted appropriate Federal and State
agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other interested
parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. Newspaper notices
inviting general public comment were published in USA Today on December
8, 2021. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All
substantive information provided to us during the comment period has
been incorporated directly into this final rule or is addressed below.

Peer Reviewer Comments

As discussed in Peer Review, above, we received comments from five
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new
information regarding the contents of the SSA report. Most comments
received were grammatical and improved accuracy and readability of the
SSA. The three substantive comments from peer reviewers are addressed
in the following summary. As discussed above, because we conducted this
peer review prior to the publication of our November 23, 2021, proposed
rule (86 FR 66624), we had already incorporated all applicable peer
review comments into version 1.2 of the SSA report (Service 2023,
entire), which is the foundation for the proposed rule and this final
rule.
The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and
conclusions and provided additional information and suggestions for
clarifying and improving the accuracy of the updated version of the SSA
report. Three substantive comments from peer reviewers are addressed in
the following summary and were incorporated into the SSA report,
version 1.2 (Service 2023, entire), as appropriate.

Peer Reviewer Comments

(1) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned how the assessment of
future condition of the Pearl River map turtle could be conducted
without knowing population trends through time compared to historical
baseline data or through the use of demographic or viability models.
Our Response: Limited historical data exist for the Pearl River map
turtle to provide a sufficient baseline to determine current or future
population trends or densities. In addition, the limited amount of
historical data prohibited the Service from modeling population
viability or demographics. The best available science was used to
assess future condition based on projected increases in potential
threats, which resulted in the Service concluding that the Pearl River
map turtle meets the Act's definition of a threatened species. We have
added a statement in the SSA report to clarify the lack of research on
population trends and demographics through time.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned if locations that were
deemed high density for the population estimates are actually
comparable to historical high density or are just populations that are
slowly declining towards extirpation.
Our Response: Since historical densities are unknown, it was not
feasible to determine if locations recently classified as high density
are comparable to historical high-density locations. Density
classifications were based on recent basking density surveys (Lindeman
et al. 2020, entire) representing the current status of the Pearl River
map turtle.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer mentioned water quality issues
associated with large-scale chicken operations on the Strong River.
Our Response: To determine how this additional water quality
information would impact the overall composite score, we decreased the
water quality score for the Pearl River-Strong and Pearl River-Silver
resilience units from moderate to low; however, the overall composite
score for both resilience units is still classified as moderate even
with a low water quality classification. Thus, the overall composite
score for the resilience units did not change, and we retain the
original scoring classifications. We appreciate the additional
reference material, and these water quality issues were updated in the
SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2023, pp. 25-27, 65).

Comments From States

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GaDNR) Wildlife
Resources Division provided a comment letter in support of listing the
Barbour's map turtle and Escambia map turtle as threatened due to
similarity of appearance. The Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) provided a comment letter in support of
listing the Pearl River map turtle as threatened and listing the
Pascagoula map turtle, Alabama map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and
Barbour's map turtle as threatened due to similarity of appearance. The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) submitted a
letter in opposition to listing the Escambia map turtle and Barbour's
map turtle as threatened due to similarity of appearance because of
potential conflicting regulations and expected regulatory confusion
within the State. Federal listing would shift permitting for take from
FWC to the Service, potentially causing regulatory confusion among
stakeholders about: (1) the legality of possession of these species in
Florida, and (2) whether or not a State permit for incidental take of
these species is required. The Service is actively working with FWC to
rectify conflicts between State regulations and those Federal
regulations that provide protection under the Act.

Public Comments

(4) Comment: One commenter questioned the not-warranted finding for
the Pascagoula map turtle due to the lower population abundances when
compared with other federally threatened map turtles such as the ringed
map turtle (Graptemys oculifera) and yellow-blotched map turtle (G.
flavimaculata).
Our Response: Listing of a species is not dependent upon the
population abundances of previously listed species. The Pascagoula map
turtle does not meet the Act's definition of either an endangered
species or a threatened species based on the analysis of its current
and future conditions using the best available science. The 12-month
finding and all other supporting information can be found on the
internet at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0097.
However, in this rule, we are listing the Pascagoula map turtle
along with Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle
(Graptemys barbouri), and Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti) as
threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the Pearl River
map turtle.
(5) Comment: One commenter stated that the Pearl River map turtle
is not a separate species based on a publication by Praschag et al.
(2017).
Our Response: The Pearl River map turtle was initially described as
a new species based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences, significant
carapace pattern variation, morphological differentiation, and

[[Page 57209]]

allopatric distributions between the Pearl River map turtle and the
Pascagoula map turtle (Ennen et al. 2010, entire). For example, mtDNA
sequences showed greater genetic differentiation between the Pearl
River map turtle in the Pearl River and the Pascagoula map turtle in
the Pascagoula River than mtDNA sequence differences between two other
recognized, and reciprocally sympatric, species: ringed map turtle in
the Pearl River and yellow-blotched map turtle in the Pascagoula River
(Ennen et al. 2010, entire). However, a 2017 study, using mtDNA and 12
nuclear loci, determined that the Pearl River map turtle is not a
separate species from the Pascagoula map turtle, and that the genus
Graptemys is taxonomically over split (Praschag et al. 2017, entire).
We considered this information and disregarded it due to the captive
origin of the sampled turtles used (Praschag et al. 2017, p. 677), as
well as the genetic analyses that were called into question (Thomson et
al. 2018, p. 68). The most recent comprehensive genetic analysis (18
nuclear genes and 2 mtDNA sequences) that assessed wild Graptemys
determined that the Pearl River map turtle is a valid species (Thomson
et al. 2018, entire). Additionally, several other recent publications
recognize the Pearl River map turtle as a separate species from the
Pascagoula map turtle (Lindeman et al. 2020, entire; Selman and
Lindeman 2020, entire; Vu[ccaron]enovi[cacute] and Lindeman 2021,
entire; Selman 2020b, entire; Smith et al. 2020, entire).
(6) Comment: One commenter stated that, due to the difficulty of
identifying the Pearl River map turtle, research conducted by college
and graduate students on this species is not reliable and cannot be
used to determine populations.
Our Response: A species expert stated that only 5 to 10
professionals can distinguish the difference among the megacephalic map
turtles: Pearl River map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, Alabama map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Barbour's map turtle (Selman 2021,
pers. comm.). There are only two native map turtle species within the
Pearl River drainage: the megacephalic Pearl River map turtle and the
microcephalic ringed map turtle. Unlike distinguishing among
megacephalic map turtle species, these two species can be readily
identified from one another by trained students utilizing morphological
characteristics including proportional head size, head and carapace
coloration and patterning, and the distinct rings found on the carapace
of the ringed map turtle. Information used within the SSA was gathered
by professionals from academia and State and Federal agencies, as well
as from graduate students at local universities.
(7) Comment: One commenter raised concerns about the reliability of
using data from a different species as a surrogate for Pearl River map
turtle population estimates. Additionally, the commenter stated that
differences in survey techniques for the Pearl River map turtle may
have led to inaccurate population estimates.
Our Response: As population data were not available for the Pearl
River map turtle, population abundance was estimated using a correction
factor (based on previous mark-resight studies of the Pascagoula map
turtle) to estimate the population abundance of the Pearl River map
turtle from basking density surveys conducted within the Pearl River
drainage (Lindeman et al. 2020, entire). The Service considers this to
be the best available science as the Pascagoula map turtle is the
sister species of the Pearl River map turtle (Thomson et al. 2018,
entire; Ennen et al. 2010, entire) and both fill a similar role within
their respective river drainages. Although survey techniques may have
differed among the surveys conducted on the Pearl River map turtle, we
used the best available science to assess population status (Lindeman
et al. 2020, entire).
(8) Comment: One commenter noted the relatively recent discovery of
tributary populations that consist of approximately one-third of the
total Pearl River map turtle abundance in the river system. The
commenter noted that the Service may not have taken potentially unknown
tributary populations into consideration during the proposed listing,
and that more Pearl River map turtles may reside within these
tributaries than was assessed in the SSA.
Our Response: The most recently published range map provides the
known range of the Pearl River map turtle within the Pearl River and
its major tributaries and is based on thorough surveys of the river
system (Lindeman et al. 2020, p. 176). This 2020 publication lists the
tributaries throughout the drainage that have been surveyed, as well as
those tributaries where no Pearl River map turtles were observed
(Lindeman et al. 2020, Supplemental Material 2). This information
represents the best available science and was incorporated into the
SSA, version 1.2 (Service 2023, pp. 45-48).
(9) Comment: One commenter stated that the performed models provide
insufficient information compared to actual water quality data and that
research to determine water quality within the Pearl River would be key
to developing a recovery plan. Additionally, the commenter stated that
there is speculation regarding how land use factors into the proxy
approach.
Our Response: Because no long-term (pre-Ross Barnett Reservoir)
water quality data exist for the watershed, we used the best available
science related to land use as a proxy for water quality. The 2016
National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) includes different categorizations
of agricultural use, urbanization, and forest cover. As stated in the
SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2023, p. 62), urbanization and
agricultural land uses were considered as threats impacting water
quality, and a land cover percentage was calculated for these threats
by using the total land cover (including all NLCD land cover
categories) within the buffer around each occupied stream.
(10) Comment: One commenter noted that the use of any sea-level
rise (SLR) predictions as a threat to future conditions is
questionable, as turtles will move in response to inundation, and that
the Service needs to gather actual data in order to learn what is
important to the survivability of the turtles.
Our Response: Sea-level rise is expected to impact one location
inhabited by Pearl River map turtles within the West Pearl River and up
to 10.8 river miles (rmi) (17.4 river kilometers (rkm)) of occupied
habitat within the East Pearl River under the ``extreme'' SLR scenario
(Service 2023 p. 87). These turtles may move upstream; however, SLR
eliminates suitable habitat for the species in the Pearl River and
lower sections of the Bogue Chitto River due to increased salinity. A
2009 study provides additional evidence that increased salinity can
cause population declines in Graptemys, as seen by a 50 percent decline
in population density of yellow-blotched map turtles (G. flavimaculata)
within the lower Pascagoula River attributed to Hurricane Katrina storm
surge (Selman et al. 2009, entire). We used the best available
scientific data to inform how SLR would impact the Pearl River map
turtle in the future.
(11) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service did not use the
best available science related to predation and illegal collection of
the Pearl River map turtle due to limited information known about these
two potential threats. Additionally, the commenter stated that using
the Pascagoula map turtle as a surrogate for the Pearl River

[[Page 57210]]

map turtle was not appropriate given their differing diets.
Our Response: We used the best available scientific and commercial
data on predation, diet, and illegal collection of the Pearl River map
turtle in the SSA report to inform the proposed, and this final,
threatened species status determination for the Pearl River map turtle.
Regarding predation of the Pearl River map turtle, we address the
information in the SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2023, pp. 28-29),
as no other studies are available and no additional information
regarding predation was provided during the November 23, 2021, proposed
rule's comment period.
Regarding information about diet, some variation exists between the
Pearl River map turtle and the Pascagoula map turtle's food preferences
(McCoy et al. 2020, entire; Vu[ccaron]enovi[cacute] et al. 2021,
entire); however, both species rely predominantly on aquatic
invertebrates, which are affected similarly by water quality (Jones et
al. 2021, p. 14; Lydeard et al. 2004, entire).
Although little information exists on the current collection and/or
trade of the Pearl River map turtle, exploitation of the megacephalic
map turtles (Graptemys spp.) for the pet trade has been documented
(Lindeman 1998, p. 137; Cheung and Dudgeon 2006, p. 756; Service 2006,
p. 2; Selman and Qualls 2007, pp. 32-34; Ennen et al. 2016, p. 094.6).
Additionally, rare species are more sought after for the pet trade
(Sung and Fong 2018, p. 221), potentially leading to higher
exploitation of the species.
(12) Comment: One commenter stated that listing the Pascagoula map
turtle, Alabama map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Barbour's map
turtle as threatened due to similarity of appearance does not create
any additional protection or remove any additional threats to the Pearl
River map turtle as it is the only one of the above-mentioned turtle
species that occur in the Pearl River drainage.
Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule (86 FR 66624 at 66655;
November 23, 2021), the slight morphological and color pattern
differences within the megacephalic map turtle clade makes
identification of species difficult when collection location is unknown
(Selman 2019, pers. comm.). This difficulty can lead to an additional
threat for Pearl River map turtles, with collected individuals being
misrepresented as other members of the megacephalic map turtle clade
(Pascagoula map turtle, Alabama map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or
Barbour's map turtle) within the pet trade. Difficulty in
identification and the additional threat of misrepresenting the Pearl
River map turtle as another species meets the definition of similarity
of appearance set forth in section 4(e) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(e))
and explained in the proposed rule (86 FR 66624 at 66655; November 23,
2021) and this final rule.
(13) Comment: Six commenters expressed concern that the Service's
description of the 4(d) rule's incidental take exception for
construction, operation, and maintenance activities occurring near- and
in-stream is too broad and should be more narrowly defined or removed.
Our Response: We agree that it is difficult to understand and
identify specific situations for which the proposed exception for
incidental take resulting from construction, operation, and maintenance
activities would apply. Accordingly, as stated above under Summary of
Changes from the Proposed Rule, we are not including this as an
exception to the incidental take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the
Pearl River map turtle because it is too vague and would have caused
confusion with respect to requirements that must be met when
undertaking these activities. Many activities occurring near or in a
stream require permits or project review by Federal or State agencies.
Therefore, we find that finalizing a 4(d) rule that included this
exception to incidental take is not necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species.
(14) Comment: One commenter questioned how the Service will monitor
maintenance dredging activities in order to ensure that these
activities will not encroach upon suitable turtle habitat outside of
the maintained waterway and how the Service will enforce any
violations.
Our Response: Accordingly, for the reasons stated above under
Summary of Changes from the Proposed Rule, we are not including the
proposed exception for incidental take resulting from maintenance
dredging activities from the 4(d) rule for the Pearl River map turtle.
The proposed exception is too vague and would have caused confusion
with respect to requirements that must be met when undertaking these
activities. Many activities occurring near or in a stream require
permits or project review by Federal or State agencies. Therefore, we
find that finalizing a 4(d) rule that included this exception to
incidental take is not necessary and advisable for the conservation of
the species.
In terms of monitoring these types of activities, through section 7
consultation, maintenance dredging activities will be monitored so that
these activities do not encroach upon suitable turtle habitat outside
of the maintained waterway.
(15) Comment: Seven commenters expressed concern about adopting an
incidental take exception for pesticide and herbicide use that follows
chemical label and appropriate application rates. One commenter stated
that exposure to pesticides and herbicides is harmful to turtle species
and provided several citations to support the comment (such as, de
Solla et al. 2014, entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire).
Our Response: After review of the comments to the proposed rule and
revisiting the best available scientific and commercial information, we
are not including the pesticide and herbicide use exception from the
incidental take prohibitions in the final 4(d) rule. In the proposed
and this final rule, we describe the primary threats to the Pearl River
map turtle as habitat degradation and loss, collection, and effects of
climate change. In the preamble of our proposed 4(d) rule, we proposed
an exception to incidental take prohibitions resulting from invasive
species removal activities using pesticides and herbicides as these
types of activities could be considered beneficial to the native
ecosystem and are likely to improve habitat conditions for the species.
However, as described in our SSA (Service 2023, pp. 22-42), invasive
species were found to have minimal effects to the species. In addition,
we do not have enough information about the types or amounts of
pesticides that may be applied in areas where Pearl River map turtle
occurs to be able assess the future impacts to the species.
The additional materials provided during the public comment period
do not indicate Pearl River map turtle is impacted greatly from
pesticides used to reduce impacts from nonnative, invasive species;
however, the information provided does indicate impacts to other turtle
species from pesticide use (de Solla et al. 2014, entire; Kittle et al.
2018, entire). As documented in other turtle species from the
literature provided by the commenter, we assessed that there is the
potential of indirect effects from pesticides on the Pearl River map
turtle.
Further, we note that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
not consulted on most pesticide registrations to date, so excepting
take solely based on users complying with labels is not appropriate in
this situation. Therefore, we find that finalizing a 4(d) rule that
included this

[[Page 57211]]

exception to incidental take is not necessary and advisable for the
conservation of the species.
(16) Comment: Two commenters stated that recreational and
commercial fishing gears are a potential threat to the Pearl River map
turtle and should not be excepted from incidental take. Additionally,
the commenters stated that the Service should incorporate fisheries
bycatch data into the SSA report.
Our Response: Few data are available to determine the extent that
recreational and commercial fishing have on the Pearl River map turtle.
Two recent studies determined that catch per unit effort (CPUE) in hoop
nets set in preferred Pearl River map turtle habitat was very low, with
1 Pearl River map turtle captured every 59 to 72 trap nights,
respectively (Pearson et al. 2020, pp. 55, 60; Haralson 2021, p. 65).
These numbers suggest that commercial and/or recreational fishing may
be a low risk to the Pearl River map turtle.
Recreational and commercial fishing activities are regulated by
State natural resource and fish and game agencies, and these agencies
issue permits for these activities in accordance with their
regulations. The Service will coordinate with State agencies to better
understand the impacts of permitted recreational and commercial fishing
on Pearl River map turtles and may develop a coordinated plan based on
the best available science to reduce fishing impacts through research
and development on innovative fishing technologies and methodologies to
reduce the risk of bycatch. Additionally, we will continue coordinating
with State agencies on the development of public awareness programs
regarding identification and conservation of the Pearl River map
turtle.
(17) Comment: Nine commenters claimed that the Service lacks
sufficient support for the not prudent finding for critical habitat
regarding the increased threat of illegal collection by identifying
areas where the turtles may be found. These comments also indicated
that the species' location data and maps are already available to the
public in published reports.
Our Response: In our November 23, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR
66624), we determined that designating critical habitat was not prudent
for the Pearl River map turtle. Many species of turtles are affected by
poaching worldwide because of the large demand from collectors.
Although limited, poaching has been documented for map turtles. Reports
and notes included with surveys going back several decades identify
poaching as a threat. We based our determination on our finding that
poaching may increase because the listing of the species would draw
attention to their existence and rarity, possibly creating a greater
demand among collectors. We postulated that the publication of maps in
the Federal Register could facilitate poaching of the species by making
it easier to find exact locations where the species is found.
After a thorough reevaluation of the publicly available information
regarding the locations of Pearl River map turtles, we have determined
that the current locations are currently available in sources readily
accessed by the public. These include online conservation databases,
scientific journals, and documents found on agency websites. We now
acknowledge that publishing critical habitat maps would not provide
many, if any, additional details helpful to locate the species, beyond
what is already publicly available. In addition, because locations are
largely available, the increased threat comes more from the attention
drawn by listing the species, rather than the publication of maps
depicting critical habitat. For this reason, we have reassessed our
prudency determination that designating critical habitat would likely
increase the threat of poaching. Consequently, we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Pearl River map
turtle. We will publish a proposed rule to designate critical habitat
for the Pearl River map turtle in the near future.

I. Final Listing Determination for the Pearl River Map Turtle

Background

The Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis) is a freshwater
turtle species belonging to the Emydidae family that includes
terrapins, pond turtles, and marsh turtles. Turtles in the genus
Graptemys are also known as map turtles for the intricate pattern on
the carapace that often resembles a topographical map. The Pearl River
map turtle is in the megacephalic (large-headed) clade as females grow
proportionally larger heads and jaws than males as they age; the
carapace length of adult females is over two times the length of adult
males on average (Gibbons and Lovich 1990, pp. 2-3). The life history
of the Pearl River map turtle can be described as the stages of egg,
hatchling, juvenile, and adult. Typically, male map turtles mature in 2
to 3 years, while females mature much later, around 9 years of age
(Lindeman 2013, p. 109; Vogt et al. 2019, pp. 557-558).
The species inhabits rivers and large creeks with sand and gravel
bottoms in the Pearl River drainage from central Mississippi to the
border of southern Mississippi and Louisiana. For the Pearl River map
turtle to survive and reproduce, individuals need suitable habitat that
supports essential life functions at all life stages. Several elements
appear to be essential to the survival and reproduction of individuals:
mainstem and tributary reaches within the Pearl River system that have
sandbars, adequate flow, an adequate supply of invertebrate prey items
including insects and mollusks (particularly freshwater mussels), and
an abundance of emergent and floating basking structures of various
sizes. The diet of the Pearl River map turtle varies between females
and males. Mature females consume mostly Asian clams (Corbicula
fluminea), while males and juveniles eat insects, with mature males
specializing in caddisfly larvae and consuming more mollusks than
juveniles (Vu[ccaron]enovi[cacute] and Lindeman 2021, entire; Service
2023, p. 11).
Pearl River map turtles are found in rivers and creeks with sand
and gravel bottoms and dense accumulations of deadwood; this species
has not been documented in oxbow lakes or other floodplain habitats.
They are notably absent from lakes where their sympatric microcephalic
species, the ringed map turtle (Graptemys oculifera), is present, but
do occur at very low densities at the upstream reach of Ross Barnett
Reservoir, an impoundment of the Pearl River (Lindeman 2013, p. 298;
Selman and Jones 2017, entire). All life stages require adequate water
quality within flowing river systems and are largely intolerant of
brackish and saltwater environments (Selman and Qualls 2008, pp. 228-
229; Lindeman 2013, pp. 396-397). The species requires semi-exposed
structure for basking, such as emergent deadwood, which serves as
thermoregulatory structure, as foraging structure for males and
juveniles (Selman and Lindeman 2015, pp. 794-795), and as an overnight
resting place for males and juveniles (Cagle 1952, p. 227).
The species also requires terrestrial nesting habitat where the
females excavate nests and lay their eggs on sandbars, and occasionally
steep cut-banks, along riverbanks during the late spring and early
summer months. Hatchlings typically emerge from the nest at night and
after an average of 69 days; the hatchling and small juvenile life
stages depend on adequate abundance of invertebrate prey and emergent
branches near the riverbank. A more thorough review of the taxonomy,

[[Page 57212]]

life history, and ecology of the Pearl River map turtle is presented in
detail in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 5-19).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the
regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same
day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for
endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919).
These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the
current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our
current regulations. Given that we proposed listing for the Pearl River
map turtle under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also
undertaken an analysis of whether our decision would be different if we
had continued to apply the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the
decision would be the same. The analyses under both the regulations
currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the
foreseeable future.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis, which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf">https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf</a>).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean
``certain''; it means sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of
confidence in the prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of
the Act.

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. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should be listed 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.
To assess Pearl River map turtle viability, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events),
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and

[[Page 57213]]

described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species'
viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout these stages, we
used the best available information to characterize viability as the
ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We
use this information to inform our regulatory decision.
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-
2021-0097 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
species and its resources, and the threats that influence the species'
current and future condition, in order to assess the species' overall
viability and the risks to that viability. Additional details about the
species' biology and threats can be found in the SSA report, version
1.2 (Service 2023, entire) and the proposed listing rule (86 FR 66624;
November 23, 2021).

Species Needs

We assessed the best available information to identify the physical
and biological needs to support individual fitness at all life stages
for the Pearl River map turtle. Full descriptions of all needs are
available in chapter 3 of the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 20-21),
which can be found in Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097 on <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Based upon the best available scientific and
commercial information, and acknowledging existing ecological
uncertainties, the resource and demographic needs for breeding,
feeding, sheltering, and dispersal of the Pearl River map turtle are
characterized as:
<bullet> For successful reproduction, the species requires patches
of fine sand with sparse vegetation (typically sandbars, occasionally
cutbanks) adjacent to adult habitat, adequate sand incubation
temperatures to yield an appropriate hatchling sex ratio, and natural
hydrologic regimes to prevent nest mortality due to out-of-season
flooding.
<bullet> Hatchlings require an adequate abundance of invertebrate
prey and of emergent branches and tangles near the riverbank for
shelter and basking.
<bullet> Adult males require an adequate abundance of insect prey
and emergent logs, branches, and tangles near the bank for basking and
foraging.
<bullet> Adult females require an adequate abundance of native
mussels or Asian clams; deeper, sand or gravel-bottomed stretches for
foraging; and emergent logs and branches for basking.
Population needs include the same requirements as individuals
(sandbars; natural hydrologic regimes; and an adequate supply of
invertebrate prey items, basking structures, and sand, gravel, or rocky
substrates) but must be met at a larger scale. Connectivity that
facilitates genetic exchange and maintains high genetic diversity is
needed; tributary and mainstem reaches with suitable habitat
uninterrupted by impoundments must be sufficient in size to support a
large enough population of individuals to avoid issues associated with
small populations, such as inbreeding depression.

Threats

The following discussions include evaluations of three threats and
associated factors that are affecting the Pearl River map turtle and
its habitat: (1) habitat degradation or loss, (2) collection, and (3)
climate change (Service 2023, chapter 4, pp. 22-42). In addition,
potential impacts from disease and invasive species were evaluated but
were found to have minimal effects on viability of the species based on
current knowledge (Service 2023, pp. 22-42).
Habitat Degradation or Loss
Water Quality--Degradation of stream and wetland systems through
reduced water quality and increased concentrations of contaminants can
affect the occurrence and abundance of freshwater turtles (DeCatanzaro
and Chow-Fraser 2010, p. 360). Infrastructure development increases the
percentage of impervious surfaces, reducing and degrading terrestrial
and aquatic habitats. Increased water volume and land-based
contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, oils) flow into aquatic
systems, modifying hydrologic and sediment regimes of rivers and
wetlands (Walsh et al. 2005, entire). Contaminants in the aquatic
environment can have both immediate and long-term negative impacts on
species and ecosystems by degrading the water quality and causing
direct and indirect effects to the species or its required resources
(Service 2023, pp. 25-27).
Freshwater mussels and snails are important food sources for the
Pearl River map turtle, and sedimentation and pollution can have
adverse impacts on mollusk populations (Box and Mossa 1999, entire).
Point source pollution can be generated from inadequately treated
effluent from industrial plants, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment
plants, active surface mining, drain fields from individual private
homes, and others (Service 2000, pp. 14-15). Nonpoint source pollution
may originate from agricultural activities, poultry and cattle
feedlots, abandoned mine runoff, construction, silviculture, failing
septic tanks, and contaminated runoff from urban areas (Deutsch et al.
1990, entire; Service 2000, pp. 14-15). These sources may contribute
pollution to streams via sediments, heavy metals, fertilizers,
herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water
leakage, and oils and greases. The contaminants likely have direct
(e.g., decreased survival or reproduction or both) and indirect (e.g.,
loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat) effects. Additionally,
water quality for the Pearl River map turtle is impacted by activities
associated with four processes: channel and hydrology modifications and
impoundments, agriculture, development (urbanization), and mining.
These processes are discussed in more detail in the proposed listing
rule (86 FR 66624 at 66632-66634; November 23, 2021).
Channel and Hydrological Modifications and Impoundments
Dredging and channelization have led to loss of aquatic habitat in
the Southeast (Warren Jr. et al. 1997, unpaginated). Dredging and
channelization projects are extensive throughout the region for flood
control, navigation, sand and gravel mining, and conversion of wetlands
into croplands (Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated; Herrig and Shute 2002,
pp. 542-543). Many rivers are continually dredged to maintain a channel
for shipping traffic. Dredging and channelization modify and destroy
habitat for aquatic species by destabilizing the substrate, increasing
erosion and siltation, removing woody debris, decreasing habitat
heterogeneity, and stirring up contaminants, which settle onto the
substrate (Williams et al. 1993, pp. 7-8; Buckner et al. 2002, entire;
Bennett et al. 2008, pp. 467-468). Channelization can also lead to
headcutting, which causes further erosion and sedimentation (Hartfield
1993, pp. 131-141). Dredging removes

[[Page 57214]]

woody debris, which provides cover and nest locations for many aquatic
species (Bennett et al. 2008, pp. 467-468). Snags and logs are removed
from some sites to facilitate boat navigation (Dundee and Rossman 1989,
p. 187). Experiments with manual deposition of deadwood in stretches
with less riparian forest have been suggested as potential habitat
restoration measures (Lindeman 2019, p. 33).
Stream channelization, point-bar mining, and impoundments were
identified as potential threats in a report issued prior to the
Pascagoula map turtle and Pearl River map turtle being recognized as
taxonomically distinct (Service 2006, p. 2). Channel modification is
recognized as a cause of decline in the ringed map turtle, a sympatric
endangered species (Lindeman 1998, p. 137). Considerably low densities
of Pearl River map turtles were observed in the lower reaches of the
Pearl River, where much channelization and flow diversion has occurred
(Lindeman et al. 2020, pp. 178, 181).
Impoundment of rivers is a primary threat to aquatic species in the
Southeast (Benz and Collins 1997, unpaginated; Buckner et al. 2002,
entire). Dams modify habitat conditions and aquatic communities both
upstream and downstream of an impoundment (Winston et al. 1991, pp.
103-104; Mulholland and Lenat 1992, pp. 193-231; Soballe et al. 1992,
pp. 421-474). Upstream of dams, habitat is flooded, and in-channel
conditions change from flowing to still water, with increased depth,
decreased levels of dissolved oxygen, and increased sedimentation.
Sedimentation alters substrate conditions by filling in interstitial
spaces between rocks that provide habitat for many species (Neves et
al. 1997, unpaginated). Downstream of dams, flow regime fluctuates with
resulting fluctuations in water temperature and dissolved oxygen
levels, the substrate is scoured, and downstream tributaries are eroded
(Schuster 1997, unpaginated; Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated).
Negative ``tailwater'' effects on habitat can extend many kilometers
downstream (Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated). Dams fragment habitat for
aquatic species by blocking corridors for migration and dispersal,
resulting in population geographic and genetic isolation and heightened
susceptibility to extinction (Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated). Dams
also preclude the ability of aquatic organisms to escape from polluted
waters and accidental spills (Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated).
Damming of streams and springs is extensive throughout the
Southeast (Etnier 1997, unpaginated; Morse et al. 1997, unpaginated;
Shute et al. 1997, unpaginated). Most Southeastern streams are impacted
by impoundment (Shute et al. 1997, p. 458). Many streams have both
small ponds in their headwaters and large reservoirs in their lower
reaches. Small streams on private lands are regularly dammed to create
ponds for cattle, irrigation, recreation, and fishing, with significant
ecological effects due to the sheer abundance of these structures
(Morse et al. 1997, unpaginated). Small headwater streams are
increasingly being dammed in the Southeast to supply water for
municipalities (Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated), and many
Southeastern springs have also been impounded (Etnier 1997,
unpaginated). Dams are known to have caused the extirpation and
extinction of many Southeastern species, and existing and proposed dams
pose an ongoing threat to many aquatic species (Folkerts 1997,
unpaginated; Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated; Service 2000, p. 15;
Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated).
On the Pearl River, Ross Barnett Reservoir was constructed between
1960 and 1963 and provides a water supply for the City of Jackson,
Mississippi, and the associated area, as well as recreational
opportunities on the 33,000-acre (ac) (13,355 hectares (ha)) lake and
the 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) surrounding it (Pearl River Valley Water
Management District 2020, entire). A total of 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of
the Pearl River that was previously suitable habitat is now submerged
beneath the Ross Barnett Reservoir (Lindeman et al. 2020, p. 173). The
Ross Barnett Reservoir has greatly reduced habitat suitability of five
percent of the mainstem Pearl River by altering the lotic (flowing
water) habitat preferred by Pearl River map turtles to lentic (lake)
habitat and fragmented the contiguous habitat for the species. Low
population densities of Pearl River map turtles have been observed
upstream of the Ross Barnett Reservoir, possibly due to recreational
boating and extended recreational foot traffic or camping on sandbars
by reservoir visitors (Selman and Jones 2017, pp. 32-34). Between the
late 1980s and early 2010s, notable population declines also have been
observed in the stretch of the Pearl River downstream of the Ross
Barnett Reservoir (north of Lakeland Drive), but the exact reason for
the decline is unknown (Selman 2020b, p. 194). Additionally, plans for
new reservoirs on the Pearl River both upstream and downstream of
Jackson have been or are being considered (Lindeman 2013, pp. 202-203).
Up to 170 individual Pearl River map turtles could be impacted by the
construction of the One Lake Project, one of several proposed
impoundments (Selman 2020b, entire).
Agriculture--Agricultural land uses occur across the Pearl River
basin (Service 2023, pp. 52-57). Some agricultural practices degrade
habitat by eroding stream banks, resulting in alterations to stream
hydrology and geomorphology. Nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, and other
organic compounds are generally found in higher concentrations in areas
affected by agriculture than in forested areas. Contaminants associated
with agriculture (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal
waste) can cause degradation of water quality and habitats through
instream oxygen deficiencies, excess nutrification, and excessive algal
growths. These, in turn, alter the aquatic community composition,
shifting food webs and stream productivity, forcing altered behaviors,
and even having sublethal effects or outright killing individual
aquatic organisms (Petersen et al. 1999, p. 6). These alterations
likely have direct (e.g., decreased survival or reproduction or both)
and indirect (e.g., loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat)
effects on the Pearl River map turtle or its habitat.
Land conversion from agricultural development may also reduce the
amount of adjacent riparian forest available to produce deadwood; in
another megacephalic map turtle species (Barbour's map turtle), turtle
abundance decreased in areas where adjacent riparian corridors had been
disturbed by agriculture, while the abundance of the red-eared slider
(Trachemys scripta), a cosmopolitan species, increased (Sterrett et al.
2011, entire).
Pesticide application and use of animal waste for soil amendment
are becoming common in many regions and pose a threat to biotic
diversity in freshwater systems. Over the past two decades, these
practices have corresponded with marked declines in populations of fish
and mussel species in the Upper Conasauga River watershed in Georgia
and Tennessee (Freeman et al. 2017, p. 419) that are prey sources for
the megacephalic Alabama map turtle. Nutrient enrichment of streams was
widespread, with nitrate and phosphorus exceeding levels associated
with eutrophication, and hormone concentrations in sediments were often
above those shown to cause endocrine disruption in

[[Page 57215]]

fish, possibly reflecting widespread application of poultry litter and
manure (Lasier et al. 2016, entire). Researchers postulate that species
declines observed in the Conasauga watershed may be at least partially
due to hormones, as well as excess nutrients and herbicide surfactants
(Freeman et al. 2017, p. 429). Similar effects may be associated with
these practices in the Pearl River watershed.
Development--The Pearl River map turtle's range includes areas of
the Pearl River that are adjacent to several urban areas, including the
Jackson, Mississippi, metropolitan area where urbanization is expected
to increase, as well as other areas within the Pearl River basin that
are expected to grow in the future, including the cities of Monticello
and Columbia, Mississippi. Urbanization is a significant source of
water quality degradation that can reduce the survival of aquatic
organisms. Urban development can stress aquatic systems and affect the
availability of prey items and suitable habitat for aquatic turtles. In
addition, sources and risks of an acute or catastrophic contamination
event, such as a leak from an underground storage tank or a hazardous
materials spill on a highway or by train, increase as urbanization
increases.
Mining--The rapid rise in urbanization and construction of
large[hyphen]scale infrastructure projects are driving increasing
demands for construction materials such as sand and gravel. Rivers are
a major source of sand and gravel because transport costs are low;
river energy produces the gravel and sand, thus eliminating the cost of
mining, grinding, and sorting rocks; and the material produced by
rivers tends to consist of resilient minerals of angular shape that are
preferred for construction (Koehnken et al. 2020, p. 363). Impacts of
sand and gravel mining can be direct or indirect. Direct impacts
include physical changes to the river system and the removal of gravel
and floodplain habitats from the system. Indirect impacts include
shifting of habitat types due to channel and sedimentation changes;
changes in water quality, which alter the chemical and physical
conditions of the system; and hydraulic changes that can impact
movement of species and habitat availability, which is vital for
supporting turtle nesting and basking activities.
Gravel mining is a major industry in southeastern Louisiana,
particularly along the Bogue Chitto River, within the range of the
Pearl River map turtle (Selman 2020a, p. 20). Instream and unpermitted
point-bar mining was observed in the late 1990s and was the biggest
concern for Graptemys species in the Bogue Chitto River (Shively 1999,
pp. 10-11). Gravel mining is perhaps still the greatest threat to the
Pearl River system in southeastern Louisiana, particularly in the Bogue
Chitto floodplain where run-off and effluents would affect river
stretches downstream of these point sources (Selman 2020a, p. 20).
Gravel mining can degrade water quality, increase erosion, and
ultimately impact movement and habitat quality for aquatic species such
as the Pearl River map turtle (Koehnken et al. 2020, p. 363). A recent
comparison of aerial imagery from the mid-1980s and late 1990s with
images from 2019 revealed increases in the distribution and magnitude
of gravel mines in the Bogue Chitto River system, and recent surveys
have reported several areas where mining appears to have degraded water
quality significantly (Selman 2020a, pp. 20-21, 40). Although Louisiana
and Mississippi have reduced the number of gravel mining permits issued
in those States, mining in the floodplain continues to be a significant
threat to the Pearl River map turtle.
Collection
According to a species expert, collection of wild turtles in the
Pearl River system is probably occurring, and similar to what has been
observed in other States, these turtles are likely destined for the
high-end turtle pet trade in China and possibly other Southeast Asian
countries (Selman 2020a, p. 23). Information has been documented from
three different local individuals, at three different locations,
concerning turtle bycatch or harvest in local Louisiana waterways
occupied by Pearl River map turtles (Selman 2020a, pp. 22-23). The
specific species captured were not documented; however, it is likely
that at least some of these turtles were Pearl River map turtles.
The Service manages information related to species exports in the
Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS). According to a
LEMIS report from 2005 to 2022, more than 1.5 million turtles
identified as Graptemys spp. or their parts were exported from the
United States to 29 countries (Service 2023, appendix B). Collection is
allowed in Mississippi with an appropriate license through the State; a
person may possess and harvest from the wild no more than 10 non-game
turtles per license year. No more than four can be of the same species
or subspecies. It is illegal to harvest turtles between April 1 and
June 30 (see title 40 of the Mississippi Administrative Code at part 5,
rule 2.3 (``Regulations Regarding Non-game Wildlife in Need of
Management'')). In Louisiana, a recreational basic fishing license is
required but allows unlimited take of most turtle species, including
the Pearl River map turtle; exceptions are that no turtle eggs or
nesting turtles may be taken (Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries (LDWF) 2020a, pp. 50-51). A recreational gear license is also
required for operating specified trap types; for example, a
recreational gear license is required when operating five or fewer hoop
nets, but operating more than five hoop nets requires a commercial
fisherman license (see Louisiana Revised Statutes, title 56, chapter 1,
parts VI and VII, for details on licensing requirements, trap types).
Climate Change
In the southeastern United States, climate change is expected to
result in a high degree of variability in climate conditions with more
frequent drought, more extreme heat (resulting in increases in air and
water temperatures), increased heavy precipitation events (resulting in
increased flooding), more intense storms (e.g., increased frequency of
major hurricanes), and rising sea level and accompanying storm surge
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023, entire).
Warming in the Southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer,
which is predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean
precipitation is expected to increase slightly, leading to increased
flooding events (IPCC 2023, entire; Alder and Hostetler 2013,
unpaginated).
The dual stressors of climate change and direct human impact have
the potential to impact aquatic ecosystems by altering stream flows and
nutrient cycles, eliminating habitats, and changing community structure
(Moore et al. 1997, p. 942). Increased water temperatures and
alterations in stream flow are the most likely climate change effects
that will impact stream communities (Poff 1992, entire), and each of
these variables is strongly influenced by land use patterns. Increased
urbanization may lead to more impervious surfaces, increasing runoff
and flashiness of stream flows (Nelson et al. 2009, pp. 156-159).
Increasing Temperatures--Climate change may affect the viability of
the Pearl River map turtle through temperature-dependent sex
determination (TSD) during embryo development within buried nests. In
turtle species that exhibit TSD, increasing seasonal temperatures may
result in skewed sex ratios among hatchlings. This could be an
important factor as climate change drives

[[Page 57216]]

increasing temperatures. Since male map turtles develop at lower
temperatures than females, rising temperatures during developmental
periods may result in sex ratios that are increasingly female-biased;
however, microevolution of TSD thermal sensitivity and the mother's
ability for nest-site selection may partially mitigate the impact of
increasing temperatures on sex determination of hatchlings (Refsnider
et al. 2016, entire). There are approximately eight more nights per
year with a temperature above 70 degrees Fahrenheit (21.1 degrees
Celsius) in the southeastern United States, with an additional 30 days
per year over 95 degrees Fahrenheit (37.8 degrees Celsius) projected
into the future with an additional 3.6-degree Fahrenheit (2 degree
Celsius) warming (Marvel et al. 2023, pp. 2-18, 2-24).
Drought--The Pearl River map turtle and its predominant prey
species are riverine obligates that require adequate flow to complete
their life cycles. Based on down-scaled climate models for the
southeastern United States, the frequency, duration, and intensity of
droughts are likely to increase in the future (Keellings and Engstrom
2019, pp. 4-6), limiting flow in the rivers and streams occupied by the
species and its prey. Stream flow is strongly correlated with important
physical and chemical parameters that limit the distribution and
abundance of riverine species (Power et al. 1995, entire; Resh et al.
1988, pp. 438-439); as such, the invertebrate prey of the Pearl River
map turtle may experience declines associated with the effects of
droughts (Haag and Warren 2008, entire; Aspin et al. 2019, entire).
Additionally, turtles may experience changes in sex ratio of offspring,
growth, and behavior because of extreme or prolonged drought (Powell et
al. 2023, entire).
Sea-level Rise--The rate of global SLR is accelerating and is
currently estimated to be about 0.14 inches (in) (3.6 millimeters (mm))
per year (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2022,
unpaginated). It is estimated that sea levels will rise at least 1 foot
(ft) (0.3 meters (m)) above year 2000 levels by the century's end (NOAA
2022, unpaginated). However, some research suggests the magnitude may
be far greater than previously predicted due to recent rapid ice loss
from Greenland and Antarctica (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006, pp. 989-
990). Accounting for this accelerated melting, sea level could rise
upwards of 12 ft (3.7 m) higher in 2150 than it was in 2000 (NOAA 2022,
unpaginated).
SLR is likely to impact downstream Pearl River map turtle
populations directly by reducing the quality and quantity of available
habitat through increased salinity of the freshwater system upstream
from the Gulf of Mexico (Service 2023, pp. 86-90). SLR may also affect
the salt marsh wetlands at the mouth of the Pearl River, deteriorating
the protective effect of the marsh in reducing saltwater intrusion.
Barrier islands off the coast may also be submerged, resulting in loss
of the protections provided by the small land masses that buffer the
effects of hurricanes and storms. Although some species of Graptemys
appear to handle some salinity increases, there is evidence that the
group is largely intolerant of brackish and saltwater environments
(Selman and Qualls 2008, pp. 228-229; Selman et al. 2013, p. 1201;
Lindeman 2013, pp. 396-397).
Hurricane Regime Changes; Increased Intensity and Frequency--Since
1996, the frequency of hurricane landfalls in the southeastern United
States has increased, and that trend is predicted to continue for some
years into the future (Goldenberg et al. 2001, p. 475; Emanuel 2005,
entire; Webster et al. 2005, p. 1845). Increasing frequency of storms
and subsequent storm surges, compounded with SLR, will likely
exacerbate saltwater intrusion into the coastal river systems.
Conditions that result from storm surge that correspond with high tides
are amplified and change the salinity of waters ever farther upstream,
negatively affecting freshwater species that are not tolerant of saline
conditions, including map turtles.
Hurricane Regime Changes; Increased Precipitation and Flooding--
While river flooding under natural hydrologic conditions is important
for sandbar construction and deposition of basking structure (Dieter et
al. 2014, pp. 112-117), an increase in hurricane frequency and
stochastic catastrophic floods could cause an increase in nest
mortality. Climate change will continue affecting the species into the
future, with chronic and acute exposure to the resulting changes in its
aquatic and terrestrial habitats over time.
Additional Stressors
Additional stressors that affect the Pearl River map turtle that
are not well studied or considered major threats to the species'
viability include disease, contaminants, and persecution by humans.
Some of the contaminants include pesticides (e.g., herbicides and
insecticides) and heavy metals. The culmination of stress due to
disease and chronic exposure to contaminants may exacerbate the effects
of the other threats on individuals. Wanton shooting of turtles has
been documented for Graptemys species and may impact populations
(Lindeman 1998, p. 137; Service 2006, p. 2); however, this action often
goes unreported and is thus difficult to study and/or quantify.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

Existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the Pearl River map
turtle include Federal and State protections of the species and its
habitat.
Federal
The Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) regulates
dredge and fill activities that would adversely affect wetlands. Such
activities are commonly associated with dry land projects for
development, flood control, and land clearing, as well as for water-
dependent projects such as docks/marinas and maintenance of
navigational channels. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share the responsibility for
implementing the permitting program under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Permit review and issuance follows a process that encourages
avoidance, minimizing and requiring mitigation for unavoidable impacts
to the aquatic environment and habitats. This includes protecting the
riverine habitat occupied by the Pearl River map turtle. This law has
resulted in some enhancement of water quality and habitat for aquatic
life, particularly by reducing point-source pollutants. The EPA's
regulatory mechanisms have improved water quality within the Pearl
River drainage, as evidenced by a resurgence of intolerant fishes
(Wagner et al. 2018, p. 13). Because the Pearl River map turtle has a
greater tolerance for variances in water quality compared to intolerant
fishes, these regulatory mechanisms provide protection for the species
and its habitat from the threat of water quality degradation; however,
there are instances where sources exceed EPA thresholds and degrade
water quality (Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 2019,
entire).
Additionally, Federal agencies are required to evaluate the effects
of their discretionary actions on federally listed species and must
consult with the Service if a project may affect a species listed under
the Endangered Species Act. Such discretionary Federal actions within
the Pearl River map turtle's habitat that may affect other listed
species include: maintenance dredging for navigation in the lower Pearl
River by the Corps and their issuance of

[[Page 57217]]

section 404 Clean Water Act permits; construction and maintenance of
gas and oil pipelines and power line rights-of-way by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission; EPA pesticide registration; construction
and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway
Administration; and funding of various projects administered by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Section 7 consultations on
other federally listed aquatic species are known to frequently require
and recommend Federal agencies implement conservation measures, best
management practices, and other actions that may also minimize or
eliminate potential harmful effects on the Pearl River map turtle and
encourage best management practices for all aquatic species.
Accordingly, requirements under section 7 of the Act may provide some
protections indirectly to the Pearl River map turtle and its habitat.
National Wildlife Refuges
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (NWRAA; 16
U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) represents organic legislation that set up the
administration of a national network of lands and water for the
conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant
resources and their habitats for the benefit of the American people
that is managed by the Service. Conservation-minded management of
public lands allows for: (1) natural processes to operate freely, and
thus changes to habitat occur due to current and future environmental
conditions; (2) managing the use of resources and activities, which
minimizes impacts; (3) preservation and restoration to maintain
habitats; and (4) reduction of the adverse physical impacts from human
use. Amendment of the NWRAA in 1997 (Pub. L. 105-57) required the
refuge system to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of refuges be maintained.
The Pearl River map turtle occurs on the Bogue Chitto National
Wildlife Refuge within Pearl River County, Mississippi, and St. Tammany
and Washington Parishes, Louisiana. A comprehensive conservation plan
(CCP) has been developed to provide the framework of fish and wildlife
management on the refuge (Service 2011, entire). Within the CCP,
specific actions are described to protect the ringed map turtle that
will also benefit the Pearl River map turtle. Actions include ongoing
habitat management to provide downed woody debris for basking turtles
and to maintain 330-ft (100.6-m) buffers along all named streams during
forest habitat improvement and harvest to protect water quality in
streams (Service 2011, pp. 21, 73, 89, 179).
National Forests
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)
provides standards for National Forest management and planning to
protect the designated forest lands while maintaining viable
populations of existing native and desired nonnative vertebrate
species. The 2012 Planning Rule (77 FR 21162; April 9, 2012) requires
that the U.S. Forest Service develop land management plans for all
units within the National Forest system. The National Forests in
Mississippi have adopted, and in most cases exceeded, the best
management practices (BMPs) established by the State of Mississippi
(U.S. Forest Service 2014, p. 66) (see discussion below of State BMPs).
These measures include practices such as establishing streamside buffer
zones, restricting vegetation management in riparian zones, and
employing erosion control measures. The Bienville National Forest has
no known records for the Pearl River map turtle but contains
tributaries that flow into the Pearl and Strong Rivers; thus, these
practices may provide some protective measures for habitat occupied by
the species downstream. The regulations and practices applied across
the National Forests upstream from Pearl River map turtle habitat
provide protections for the species' aquatic habitat and contribute to
the conservation of the species.
Department of Defense Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-85) led to
Department of Defense guidance regarding development of integrated
natural resources management plans (INRMPs) for promoting environmental
conservation on military installations. The U.S. Navy operates the
Stennis Western Maneuver Area located along the western edge of the
National Aeronautics Space Administration Stennis Space Center and
incorporated into the Stennis Space Center Buffer Zone. The Stennis
Western Maneuver Area encompasses a 4-mi reach of the East Pearl River
and a smaller eastern tributary named Mikes River in Hancock and Pearl
River Counties, Mississippi (Buhlman 2014, p. 4). These river reaches
are used by the U.S. Navy's Construction Battalion Center for riverboat
warfare training. The western bank of the East Pearl River denotes the
boundary of the U.S. Navy property and is managed as the Pearl River
Wildlife Management Area by the State of Louisiana (see discussion
below under State Protections, ``Louisiana''). Based on known records
of the Pearl River map turtle, the U.S. Navy has developed an INRMP for
the Stennis Western Maneuver Area (Buhlman 2014, pp. 11-12, 31-32; U.S.
Navy 2011, entire). Measures within the INRMP are expected to protect
listed species and the Pearl River map turtle, and include erosion and
storm water control, floodplain management, invasive plant species
management, and the use of an ecosystem approach to general fish and
wildlife management (U.S. Navy 2011, pp. 4-4-4-20).
International Protections
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora, Appendix III
All species of Graptemys were included on the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora's
(CITES) Appendix III in 2005 (CITES 2019, p. 43; 70 FR 74700, December
16, 2005). In 2023, all megacephalic map turtles, including the Pearl
River map turtle, were upgraded to CITES Appendix II (CITES 2023, p.
46). Appendix II includes species that, although not necessarily now
threatened with extinction, may become so unless trade in them is
strictly controlled. Appendix II also includes species that must be
subject to regulation in order that trade in other CITES-listed species
may be brought under effective control. Such ``look alike'' inclusions
usually are necessary because of the difficulty inspectors have at
ports of entry or exit in distinguishing one species from other
species.
State Protections
Louisiana
The species has no State status under Louisiana regulations or law
(LDWF 2021, entire). In Louisiana, a recreational basic fishing license
is required but allows unlimited take of most species of turtles,
including the Pearl River map turtle; exceptions are that no turtle
eggs or nesting turtles may be taken (LDWF 2020, pp. 50-51). A
recreational gear license is also required for operating specified trap
types; for example, a recreational gear license is required when
operating five or fewer hoop nets, but operating more than five hoop
nets requires a commercial fisherman license (see Louisiana

[[Page 57218]]

Revised Statutes, title 56, chapter 1, parts VI and VII, for details on
licensing requirements, trap types).
The Louisiana Scenic Rivers Act (1988; see Louisiana Revised
Statutes, title 56, chapter 8, part II) was established as a regulatory
program administered by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries (LDWF) through a system of regulations and permits. Rivers
with the natural and scenic river designation that are occupied by the
Pearl River map turtle include the Bogue Chitto River, Holmes Bayou,
and West Pearl River in St. Tammany Parish and Pushepatapa Creek in
Washington Parish (Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry
(LDAF) undated, p. 48). Certain actions that may negatively affect the
Pearl River map turtle are either prohibited or require a permit on
rivers included on the State's natural and scenic river list.
Prohibited actions include channelization, channel realignment,
clearing and snagging, impoundments, and commercial clearcutting within
100 ft (30.5 m) of the river low water mark (LDAF undated, p. 45).
Permits are required for river crossing structures, bulkheads, land
development adjacent to the river, and water withdrawals (LDAF undated,
p. 45).
Additional protected areas of Pearl River map turtle habitat in
Louisiana include the Pearl River Wildlife Management Area located in
St. Tammany Parish and Bogue Chitto State Park located on the Bogue
Chitto River in Washington Parish. A master plan for management of
Wildlife Management Areas and State Refuges has been developed for
Louisiana, which describes the role of these lands in improving
wildlife populations and their habitats, including identifying and
prioritizing issues threatening wildlife resources (LDWF and The
Conservation Fund 2014, entire). Bogue Chitto State Park is managed by
the Louisiana Department of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism for public
use.
The Louisiana State Comprehensive Wildlife Action Plan was
developed as a roadmap for nongame conservation in Louisiana (Holcomb
et al. 2015, entire). The primary focus of the plan is the recovery of
``species of greatest conservation need'' (SGCN), those wildlife
species in need of conservation action within Louisiana, which includes
the Pearl River map turtle. Specific actions identified for the Pearl
River map turtle include conducting ecological studies of the turtle's
reproduction, nest success, and recruitment, as well as developing
general population estimates via mark and recapture studies (Holcomb et
al. 2015, p. 69). Recent Pearl River map turtle survey work in
Louisiana was conducted using funding from the State Wildlife Grants
(SWG) program (Selman 2020a, entire).
Gravel mining activities that occur within Louisiana require review
and permits by Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality.
Additional permits are required by LDWF for any mining activities that
occur within designated scenic streams in Louisiana. The permit
requirements ensure all projects are reviewed and approved by the
State, thus ensuring oversight by the State and application of State
laws.
Mississippi
The Pearl River map turtle is ranked as S2 (imperiled because of
rarity or because of some factor making it very vulnerable to
extinction) in Mississippi (Mississippi Museum of Natural Science
(MMNS) 2015, p. 38) but is not listed on the Mississippi State list of
protected species (Mississippi Natural Heritage Program 2015, entire).
Protections under State law are limited to licensing restrictions for
take for personal use of nongame species in need of management (which
includes native species of turtles). A Mississippi resident is required
to obtain one of three licenses for capture and possession of Pearl
River map turtles (Mississippi Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP)
2016, pp. 3-5). The three licenses available for this purpose are a
Sportsman License, an All-Game Hunting/Freshwater Fishing License, and
a Small Game Hunting/Freshwater Fishing License. A nonresident would
require a Nonresident All Game Hunting License. Restrictions on take
for personal use include that no more than four turtles of any species
or subspecies may be possessed or taken within a single year and that
no turtles may be taken between April 1 and June 30 except by permit
from the MDWFP (Mississippi Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks, MDWFP 2016, pp. 3-5; see also title 40 of the Mississippi
Administrative Code at part 5, rule 2.3 (``Regulations Regarding Non-
game Wildlife in Need of Management'')). Additional restrictions apply
to this species if removed from the wild; non-game wildlife or their
parts taken from wild Mississippi populations may not be bought,
possessed, transported, exported, sold, offered for sale, shipped,
bartered, or exhibited for commercial purposes.
The Mississippi Comprehensive Wildlife Action Plan (MMNS 2015,
entire) was developed to provide a guide for effective and efficient
long-term conservation of biodiversity in Mississippi. As in Louisiana,
the primary focus of the plan is on the recovery of species designated
as SGCN, which includes the Pearl River map turtle. Specific actions
identified for the Pearl River map turtle in Mississippi include
planning and conducting status surveys for the species (MMNS 2015, p.
686).
Lands managed for wildlife by the State of Mississippi, which may
provide habitat protections for the Pearl River map turtle, include the
Old River Wildlife Management Area in Pearl River County and the Pearl
River Wildlife Management Area in Madison County. In addition, a ringed
map turtle sanctuary was designated in 1990 by the Pearl River Valley
Water Supply District (District), north of the Ross Barnett Reservoir,
Madison County, which also provides habitat for the Pearl River map
turtle. One of the goals of management on Wildlife Management Areas in
Mississippi is to improve wildlife populations and their habitats
(MDWFP 2020, entire). The District sanctuary is approximately 12 river
miles (rmi) (19.3 river kilometer (rkm)) north from Ratliff Ferry to
Lowhead Dam on the Pearl River (Service 2010, p. 4). Within the
sanctuary, the District maintains informational signs to facilitate
public awareness of the sanctuary and of the importance of the area to
the species and conducts channel maintenance by methods that do not
hinder the propagation of the species. The District has recorded a
notation on the deed of the property comprising the sanctuary area that
will in perpetuity notify transferees that the sanctuary must be
maintained in accordance with the stated provisions (Service 2010, p.
4).
Additionally, gravel mining activities that occur within
Mississippi require review and permits by Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality. The permit requirements ensure all projects are
reviewed and approved by the State, thus ensuring oversight by the
State and application of State laws.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife State Wildlife Grants

In 2000, the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program was created
through the Fiscal Year 2001 Interior Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-
291) and provided funding to States for the development and
implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their
habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished. The SWG
Program is administered by the Service and allocates Federal funding
for proactive nongame conservation measures

[[Page 57219]]

nationwide. Congress stipulated that each State fish and wildlife
agency that wished to participate in the SWG program develop a Wildlife
Action Plan to guide the use of SWG funds (see discussion above
regarding the plans developed by the States of Louisiana and
Mississippi). This program funds studies that assist conservation by
providing needed information regarding the species or its habitat and
has contributed to the conservation of the species by assessing the
current status and range of the Pearl River map turtle.
Additional Conservation Measures--Forest Management Best Management
Practices
Most of the land adjacent to the Pearl River and Bogue Chitto River
in Louisiana and Mississippi is privately owned and much of it is
managed for timber. Both States have developed voluntary best
management practices (BMPs) for forestry activities conducted in their
respective States with the intent to protect water quality and minimize
the impacts to plants and wildlife. In addition, the forest industry
has several forest certification programs, such as the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative, which require participating landowners to meet or
exceed State forestry BMPs. Silvicultural practices implemented with
State-approved BMPs can reduce negative impacts to aquatic species,
including turtles, through reductions in nonpoint source pollution,
such as sedimentation. Although nonpoint source pollution is a
localized threat to the Pearl River map turtle, it is less prevalent in
areas where State-approved BMPs are used (Service 2023, pp. 41-42).
In Louisiana, BMPs include streamside management zones (SMZ) of 50
ft (15.24 m), measured from the top of the streambank, for streams less
than 20 ft (6.1 m) wide during estimated normal flow, to a width of 100
ft (30.5 m) for streams more than 20 ft (6.1 m) wide (LDAF undated, p.
15). Guidance includes maintaining adequate forest canopy cover for
normal water and shade conditions as well as an appropriate amount of
residual cover to minimize soil erosion (LDAF undated, p. 14). An
overall rate of 97.4 percent of 204 forestry operations surveyed by the
LDAF in 2018 complied with the State's voluntary guidelines; compliance
with guidelines in SMZs was 98.6 percent (LDAF 2018, entire).
The State of Mississippi has voluntary BMPs developed by the
Mississippi Forestry Commission (MFC) (MFC 2008, entire). These BMPs
include SMZs with the purpose of maintaining bank stability and
enhancing wildlife habitat by leaving 50 percent crown cover during
timber cuts (MFC 2008, p. 6). The width of SMZs is based on slope, with
a minimum SMZ width of 30 ft (9.14 m) extending to 60 ft (18.3 m) at
sites with more than 40 percent slope (MFC 2008, p. 6). The most recent
monitoring survey of 174 Mississippi forestry sites indicated that 95
percent of applicable sites were implemented in accordance with the
2008 guidelines (MFC 2019, p. 6).
Overall, voluntary BMPs related to forest management activities
conducted on private lands throughout the riparian corridor of the
Pearl River drainage have provided a significant foothold for Pearl
River map turtle conservation. As a result of high BMP compliance in
these specific areas, nonpoint source pollution associated with forest
management practices is not a major contributor to impacts on the
species.

Cumulative/Synergistic Effects

The Pearl River map turtle uses both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats that may be affected by activities along the Pearl River
drainage. Ongoing and future stressors that may contribute to
cumulative effects include habitat fragmentation, genetic isolation,
invasive species, disease, climate change, and impacts from increased
human interactions due to human population increases. When considering
the compounding and synergistic effects acting on the species, the
resiliency of the analysis units will be further reduced in the future.
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Current Condition

The current condition of the Pearl River map turtle is described in
terms of population resiliency, redundancy, and representation across
the species. The analysis of these conservation principles to
understand the species' current viability is described in more detail
in the Pearl River map turtle SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 43-69) and
in the proposed listing rule (86 FR 66624; November 23, 2021).
Resiliency
In order to analyze the species' resiliency, we delineated the
species into five resiliency units that represent groups of
interbreeding individuals: Upper Pearl, Middle Pearl-Silver, Middle
Pearl-Strong, Bogue Chitto, and Lower Pearl (figure 1, below).
Historically, the majority of the species' range was likely a single,
connected biological population prior to the fragmentation due to the
construction of the Ross Barnett Reservoir; however, we delineated five
different units to more accurately describe trends in resiliency,
forecast future resiliency, and capture differences in stressors
between the units.

[[Page 57220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY24.000

The factors used to assess current resiliency of Pearl River map
turtle resilience units include two population factors and four habitat
factors. The population factors we assessed were (1) occupancy in
mainstems and tributaries and (2) density and abundance. The habitat
factors we assessed were (a) water quality, (b) forested riparian
cover, (c) protected land, and (d) presence of channelization/
reservoirs/gravel mining. These population and habitat factors are
collectively described as resiliency factors.
For a given population to be resilient, the species must be present
in the mainstem and a high proportion of tributaries within a unit, as
well as having moderate to high population densities. Furthermore,
although relative abundance of the Pearl River map turtle is typically
much higher within mainstem reaches, presence of the species within
tributary systems can contribute to resiliency by increasing the number
of occupied miles of stream within a given unit, and also by providing
refugia from catastrophic events, such as chemical spills or flooding.
In order to assess occupied tributaries, we used survey data collected
from 2005-2020. These data were collected by several different
observers through a variety of survey types, including bridge surveys,
basking surveys, and live trapping.
The influence of stochastic variation in demographic (reproductive
and mortality) rates is much higher for small populations than large
ones. For small populations, this stochastic variation in demographic
rates can lead to a greater probability that fluctuations will lead to
extinction. There are also genetic

[[Page 57221]]

concerns with small populations, including reduced availability of
compatible mates, genetic drift, and low genetic diversity or
inbreeding depression. Small populations of Pearl River map turtles
inherently have low resilience, leaving them particularly vulnerable to
stochastic events. In 2020, the global population was estimated to be
21,841 individuals, with 61 percent occurring on mainstem reaches, 34
percent occurring in 4 large tributaries, and the remaining 5 percent
spread amongst other smaller tributaries (Lindeman et al. 2020, p.
174). Based on basking density surveys and on results of point counts,
each river drainage was divided into river reaches that were
categorized as high, moderate, low, and very low density (Service 2023,
p. 50).
After determining the occupied status of mainstem reaches and
tributaries, and the density classes of the mainstem reaches and
tributaries, the population factor score for each resilience unit
resulted in three moderate (Bogue Chitto, Middle Pearl-Strong, and
Upper Pearl) and two low (Lower Pearl and Middle-Pearl Silver)
conditions. The overall habitat factor score for each resiliency unit
resulted in low condition for two units (Bogue Chitto and Lower Pearl)
and moderate condition for three units (Middle Pearl-Silver, Middle
Pearl-Strong, and Upper Pearl). Additional details and methodologies
for determining each habitat condition score are described in the SSA
report (Service 2023, pp. 51-64).
After evaluating the population and habitat factors together, we
determined the overall current resiliency of each unit: two units have
low resiliency (Middle Pearl-Silver and Lower Pearl), and three units
have moderate resiliency (Bogue Chitto, Middle Pearl-Strong, and Upper
Pearl) (table 1, below). The Lower Pearl unit seems particularly
vulnerable, as both the population and habitat composite scores were
low. The Lower Pearl has significant channelization issues, low amounts
of protected land, and a low density of individual turtles, all of
which are driving the low resilience of this unit. Although the Middle
Pearl-Silver unit scored moderate for overall habitat score, the low
population score (mainly a function of the lack of occupied
tributaries) is driving the low resilience of this unit. Additional
details and methodologies for determining the overall current
resiliency of each unit are described in the SSA report (Service 2023,
pp. 45-66).
When looking at the three units with moderate resiliency, the
Middle Pearl-Strong and Bogue Chitto units appear to be vulnerable to
further decreases in resiliency. For the Bogue Chitto unit, moderate
densities of Pearl River map turtle populations are present within 40
percent of surveyed (occupied) tributaries, although low amounts of
protected land and substantial gravel mining activity make this unit
vulnerable. For the Middle Pearl-Strong, moderate population densities
are present within 50 percent of surveyed tributaries, but development
in the Jackson area and the presence of the Ross Barnett Reservoir make
this unit vulnerable. If development increases substantially in this
unit, or if proposed reservoir projects (One Lake) move forward, it is
likely there would be population-level impacts that would drop the
resiliency to low in the future conditions.

Table 1--Current Resiliency of Pearl River Map Turtle Units Based on Composite Habitat and Population Factors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Composite population
Resiliency unit Composite habitat score score Current resilience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bogue Chitto......................... Low.................... Moderate............... Moderate.
Lower Pearl.......................... Low.................... Low.................... Low.
Middle Pearl-Silver.................. Moderate............... Low.................... Low.
Middle Pearl-Strong.................. Moderate............... Moderate............... Moderate.
Upper Pearl.......................... Moderate............... Moderate............... Moderate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redundancy
Redundancy refers to the ability of a species to withstand
catastrophic events and is measured by the amount and distribution of
sufficiently resilient populations across the species' range.
Catastrophic events that could severely impact or extirpate entire
Pearl River map turtle units include chemical spills, changes in
upstream land use that alter stream characteristics and water quality
downstream, dam construction with a reservoir drowning lotic river
habitat and further fragmenting contiguous aquatic habitat, and
potential effects of climate change such as rising temperatures and
SLR.
The Middle Pearl-Silver unit is the most vulnerable to a
catastrophic land-based spill due to transportation via train or
automobile, and there are no known occupied tributaries at this time.
However, across the range of the Pearl River map turtle, extant units
of the species are distributed relatively widely, and several of those
units have moderate resilience; thus, it is highly unlikely that a
catastrophic event would impact the entire species' range. As the
species occurs in multiple tributaries and all units, the Pearl River
map turtle has a high potential of withstanding catastrophic events;
therefore, the species exhibits a moderate-high degree of redundancy.
Representation
Representation refers to the breadth of genetic and environmental
diversity within and among populations that allows for adaptive
capacity of the species; this influences the ability of a species to
adapt to changing environmental conditions over time. Differences in
life-history traits, habitat features, and/or genetics across a
species' range often aid in the delineation of representative units,
which are used to assess species representation. The species is
described as consisting of a single representative unit due to the lack
of genetic structuring across the range; the limited genetic diversity
may reduce the ability of the species to adapt to changing conditions
(Pearson et al. 2020, entire). However, there are habitat differences
for the Strong River and we recognize the potential importance of that
system to the adaptive capacity of the species.
In summary, the current condition of the Pearl River map turtle is
described using resiliency, redundancy, and representation. We assessed
current resiliency as a function of two population factors (occupied
tributaries and density) and four habitat factors (water quality,
protected areas, deadwood abundance, and reservoirs/channelization) for
each resiliency unit. Based on these factors, there are two units with
low resiliency (Lower Pearl and Middle Pearl-Silver) and three units
with moderate resiliency (Upper Pearl, Middle Pearl-Strong, and Bogue
Chitto); no units were assessed as highly resilient. Because three of
the five units are classified as moderately resilient,

[[Page 57222]]

and those units are distributed relatively widely, the Pearl River map
turtle exhibits a moderate-high degree of redundancy (i.e., it has a
high potential of withstanding catastrophic events). Even with the
unique habitat in the Strong River, we recognize only a single
representative unit based on low genetic variation. The wide
distribution within the five resilience units across the range provides
sufficient adaptive capacity to adapt to changing environmental
conditions.

Future Conditions

The viability of the Pearl River map turtle in the future is based
on the threats that are acting on the species and the species' response
to those threats in light of conservation efforts or other actions that
may benefit the species or its habitat. We consider plausible scenarios
using the best available scientific and commercial data for developing
each scenario. We describe the future conditions of the species by
forecasting the species' response to plausible future scenarios of
varying environmental conditions and ameliorating conservation efforts,
and then considered the impact these influences could have on the
viability of the Pearl River map turtle. The scenarios described in the
SSA report represent six plausible future conditions for the species
(Service 2023, pp. 74-76). The scenarios include land use changes and
SLR in a matrix to determine the effects of both factors to each unit.
We then considered future water engineering projects for each matrix
and determined the resiliency of each unit based on whether the project
is installed or not. All six scenarios were projected out to two
different time steps: 2040 (~20 years) and 2070 (~50 years). These
timeframes are based on input from species experts, generation time for
the species, and the confidence in predicting patterns of urbanization
and agriculture. Confidence in how these land uses will interact with
the species and its habitat diminishes beyond 50 years. The scenarios
only considered threats for which there were available data. We assume
that other threats will continue, such as collection from the wild and
impacts from climate change.
We continue to apply the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation to the future scenarios to describe possible future
conditions of the Pearl River map turtle and understand the overall
future viability of the species. When assessing the future, viability
is not a specific state, but rather a continuous measure of the
likelihood that the species will sustain populations in the wild over
time.
Using the best available information regarding the factors
influencing the species' viability in the future, we considered the
following factors to inform the future resiliency of the five units:
(1) changes in land use/water quality, (2) SLR, and (3) future water
engineering projects.
We considered projected land-use changes related to agricultural
and developed land in assessing future resilience of each unit for the
Pearl River map turtle. We consider these land use classes as
surrogates for potential changes in water quality, a primary risk
factor for the species. We used data available at the resiliency unit
scale from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Forecasting Scenarios of
Land-use Change (FORE-SCE) modelling framework (USGS 2017, unpaginated)
to characterize nonpoint source pollution (i.e., from development and
agriculture). The FORE-SCE model provides spatially explicit
historical, current, and future projections of land use and land cover.
Four scenarios were modeled, corresponding to four major scenario
storylines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC 2000, pp. 4-5). The
global IPCC SRES (A1B, A2, B1, and B2 scenarios) were downscaled to
ecoregions in the conterminous United States with the USGS FORE-SCE
model used to produce landscape projections consistent with the IPCC
SRES. The land-use scenarios focused on socioeconomic impacts on
anthropogenic land use (e.g., demographics, energy use, agricultural
economics, and other socioeconomic considerations). For the A1B, A2,
B1, and B2 scenarios, we used two time steps (2040 and 2070), with the
A2-Extreme-One Lake project scenarios representing the highest threat
scenario, the B1-Intermediate High-No One Lake project scenario the
lowest threat scenario, and the other four scenarios representing
moderate threat scenarios.
Sea-level rise impacts the future resiliency of Pearl River map
turtles directly through loss/degradation of habitat. To estimate
habitat loss/degradation due to inundation from SLR, we used National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shapefiles available at
their online SLR viewer (NOAA 2020, unpaginated). We used projections
corresponding to the representative concentration pathways (RCP) of
RCP6 (intermediate-high) and RCP8.5 (extreme). We found the average SLR
estimate for the intermediate-high and extreme NOAA scenarios to
project estimated habitat loss at years 2040 and 2070. If SLR estimates
overlap with known occupied portions of the river system, we assume
that area is no longer suitable or occupiable; thus, resiliency would
decrease.
SLR is occurring, but the rate at which it continues is dependent
on the different atmospheric emissions scenarios. In the next 20 years,
sea levels are estimated to rise 1 ft (0.30 m) to 2 ft (0.61 m), and by
2070, a 3-ft (0.91-m) to 5-ft (1.52-m) rise in sea levels is projected
for the lower and higher emissions scenarios. The effects of SLR and
saltwater intrusion are exacerbated with storm surge and high tides.
Pulses of saltwater from increased storm frequency and intensity,
coupled with SLR, can have direct effects on freshwater habitats and
species that are not salt-tolerant.
As noted above, water engineering projects that convert free-
flowing rivers to lentic habitats negatively affect the species. The
proposed One Lake project proposes a new dam and commercial development
area 9 miles (mi) (14.5 kilometer (km)) south of the current Ross
Barnett Reservoir Dam near Interstate 20. However, the One Lake project
is still being debated, and there is uncertainty as to whether the
project will proceed. Because of this uncertainty, we have created two
scenarios based around the proposed One Lake project: One in which the
project occurs, and one in which it does not, within the next 50 years.
Because of the potential for negative impacts on Pearl River map
turtles from the proposed One Lake project, we assume a decrease in
resiliency of the Middle Pearl-Strong unit if the project moves
forward.
We do not assess population factors (occupancy of tributaries and
density) in our future conditions analysis because the data are not
comparable through time or space; the baseline data come from recent
surveys, and no historical data are available to allow for analyses of
trends or comparisons over time. Additionally, we assume the amount of
protected land within each unit stays the same within our projection
timeframes, although it is possible that additional land could be
converted to a protected status or lands could degrade over time.
Rather than attempting to categorize future resiliency as was done in
the current condition analysis, we indicate a magnitude and direction
of anticipated change in resiliency of Pearl River map turtle units.
Scenario Descriptions
Scenarios were built around three factors: land use, SLR, and water

[[Page 57223]]

engineering projects. To present plausible future conditions for the
species and to assess the viability for the Pearl River map turtle in
response to those conditions, we projected two land use and two SLR
scenarios out to the years 2040 (~20 years) and 2070 (~50 years).
Additional details regarding the scenario descriptions can be found in
the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 73-75) and the proposed listing rule
(86 FR 66624; November 23, 2021).
Future Resiliency
Bogue Chitto--Under all scenarios, development remains low across
the Bogue Chitto unit. Agriculture is high across the entire unit in
all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070, where
agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across the
unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a
limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR impacts or water
engineering projects directly affecting this unit. There is uncertainty
regarding future impacts related to mining activity, which has the
potential to further reduce resiliency. However, the effects of past
and current mining activities have already altered the Bogue Chitto by
degrading both habitat and water quality (Service 2023, p. 31). It is
likely that this unit maintains a moderate resilience over the next 50
years according to all future scenarios.
Lower Pearl--SLR impacts this unit under all scenarios, although
the impacts of inundation are localized to the southern portion of the
unit, mainly in the East Pearl River. Under the A2 scenarios, a few
streams are impacted by high levels of development, although most of
the unit has low levels of development; under the B1 scenarios,
development is low across the entire unit. Agriculture is predicted to
be high across the unit under the A2 scenarios, and moderate across the
unit under the B1 scenarios. There are no predicted water engineering
projects, and forested cover is anticipated to remain relatively high.
Current resiliency for this unit is low, and resiliency is anticipated
to decline across all scenarios, with the A2 scenarios with extreme SLR
associated with the most substantial decreases.
Middle Pearl-Silver--Development remains low across the unit under
all scenarios at both time steps. Agriculture increases to high under
the A2 scenarios and stays moderate under the B1 scenarios. There are
no predicted SLR effects or water engineering project impacts on this
unit. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all
scenarios and is predicted to increase under the B1 scenarios; thus,
deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. Current resilience
for this unit is low, and based on the factors assessed, it is likely
there will not be a decline in resilience in the future (Service 2023,
p. 93).
Middle Pearl-Strong--Development is substantial in a few areas
within this unit, particularly around Jackson, Mississippi. The current
resiliency for this unit is moderate, and the future resiliency is
likely to decline due to increased agriculture and decreased forest
cover within the unit (without One Lake). Agriculture is predicted to
be high across the unit under all scenarios. If the One Lake project
moves forward, there is a substantial decrease in resiliency predicted
within and adjacent to the project area, as several streams are
predicted to lose a substantial amount of forested cover. However,
these impacts from the One Lake project will not extend to the Strong
River as this tributary connects with the Pearl River downstream of the
proposed project area. No SLR impacts are predicted in this unit. The
Middle Pearl-Strong unit is perhaps the most vulnerable unit, as
development, agriculture, and water engineering projects are projected
to impact this unit and lead to future declines in resiliency.
Upper Pearl--The habitat associated with this unit provides
conditions to potentially support a stronghold for the species because
it has the largest total area of protected lands compared to the other
four units (Service 2023, p. 61). Development remains low across the
entire unit under all scenarios. Agriculture is high across the entire
unit in all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070,
where agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across
the unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a
limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR or water engineering
project impacts in this unit. The Upper Pearl unit will remain in the
moderate category over the next 50 years, based on the factors
assessed; however, this population may experience genetic drift over
time due to isolation caused by habitat fragmentation from the existing
(Ross Barnett) and planned (One Lake) reservoirs in the adjacent
(downstream) unit. This will likely result in a decline in resiliency
due to a loss of connectivity with the rest of the turtle's range.
Future Redundancy
Although the scenarios do not project extirpation in any of the
units, we do anticipate resiliency to decline in four units; however,
only the Middle Pearl-Strong unit will be downgraded from moderate to
low resiliency under all scenarios in which the One Lake project is
built. All other units will stay within the same (i.e., current)
resiliency category but will decline in resiliency within their
respective categories. For example, the Lower Pearl unit will be
impacted by SLR under all scenarios, and this is compounded by
projected increases in both development and agriculture, but resiliency
is expected to remain low. Only the Middle Pearl-Silver unit will not
show any decline in resiliency into the future. Because extant units of
the species are predicted to be distributed relatively widely, it is
highly unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire
species' range; thus, the Pearl River map turtle is predicted to
exhibit a moderate degree of redundancy in the future under all
scenarios.
Future Representation
As described above under the current conditions, the species is a
single representative unit regarding genetic variation. Relatively
unique habitat conditions in the Strong River may influence the
species' adaptive capacity and its overall representation. When looking
at projections of threats within the Strong River, development is
projected to remain low. In the A2 climate scenarios, agriculture
increases from moderate to high; in the B1 climate scenarios,
agriculture stays moderate. Also, forested cover within the riparian
zone of the Strong River remains relatively high (68-83 percent),
although it does drop across all climate scenarios from the current
condition (92 percent). SLR does not impact this river in any of our
scenarios, as the Strong River is far enough inland to avoid the
effects of inundation. Finally, the One Lake project is not anticipated
to directly impact the Strong River due to the location of the project
(i.e., mainstem Pearl River). Given this information, although the
resiliency of the Strong River might decrease slightly due to land use
projections, it is likely the Strong River will support a moderate
density of individual turtles, and thus contribute to representation
through maintenance of potential genetic diversity based on unique
habitat features.
It is noteworthy that a recent genetics study has revealed that
genetic diversity is lower in Pearl River map turtles compared to the
closely related congener, Pascagoula map turtles (Pearson et al. 2020,
pp. 11-12). Declining populations generally have reduced genetic
diversity, which can potentially elevate the risk of extinction by
reducing a species' ability and

[[Page 57224]]

potential to adapt to environmental changes (Spielman et al. 2004,
entire). Genetic bottlenecks and low overall genetic diversity are more
of a concern for populations that become geographically isolated by
physical barriers that inhibit connectivity. Although no documented
genetic differentiation has occurred, limited gene flow and genetic
isolation of Pearl River map turtle populations upstream and downstream
of the Ross Barnett Reservoir is expected to occur over future
generations.

Determination of Pearl River Map 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 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species 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

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we determined that the species currently has sufficient
resiliency, redundancy, and representation contributing to its overall
viability across its range. Even though the species is described as a
single population, we assessed its viability by evaluating the
condition of the Pearl River map turtle in five different resiliency
units. This assessment indicated that the current condition of all
units is below optimal or high resiliency, with three units having
moderate resiliency and the remaining two units having low resiliency.
There are no units within the range that demonstrate high resiliency.
Despite the moderate and low conditions of all units, the species still
occupies all five units. Current threats to the species include habitat
degradation or loss (degraded water quality, channel and hydrologic
modifications/impoundments, agricultural runoff, mining, and
development), collection for the pet trade, and effects of climate
change (increasing temperatures, drought, sea-level rise, hurricane
regime changes, and increased seasonal precipitation).
The Ross Barnett Reservoir was completed in 1963 and has reduced
the amount of available habitat for the species and fragmented
contiguous suitable habitat. Pearl River map turtles prefer flowing
water in rivers and creeks. Indirect effects from the reservoir are
associated with recreational use from boat traffic and foot traffic
from day visitors and campers. Declines in Pearl River map turtles have
been documented both upstream (lower density) and downstream
(population declines) from the reservoir (Selman and Jones 2017, pp.
32-34). A total of 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of the Pearl River is submerged
beneath the Ross Barnett Reservoir and is no longer suitable for the
Pearl River map turtle. This reservoir is currently affecting the
Middle Pearl-Strong unit and the Upper Pearl unit, reducing the
suitable habitat of 5 percent of the mainstem Pearl River by altering
the lotic (flowing water) habitat preferred by Pearl River map turtles
to lentic (lake) habitat. The reservoir reduces the resiliency and
overall condition of these affected units.
Despite the effects of the existing reservoir on the Upper Pearl
and Middle Pearl-Strong resilience units, sufficient habitat remains to
provide adequate resiliency of these units to contribute to the
viability of the species. The effects from the reservoir may continue
affecting the species in the future as the turtles in the Upper Pearl
unit (above the reservoir) become more isolated over time; however,
there is currently adequate resiliency.
In terms of redundancy and the ability of the species to respond to
catastrophic events, the species currently has enough redundancy across
the five resilience units to protect it from a catastrophe such as a
large hurricane or oil spill. The Middle Pearl-Silver and Middle Pearl-
Strong units are particularly vulnerable to a potential spill from
railways and transportation corridors that are near or adjacent to
habitat occupied by Pearl River map turtles. The Lower Pearl unit is
vulnerable to the effects from hurricanes as it is in close proximity
to the Gulf of Mexico. However, because the species is a single
population distributed across five resilience units encompassing 795.1
rmi (1279.6 rkm), it is buffered against catastrophic events such as
these. The overall current condition of the species exhibits moderate-
high redundancy, as the species is still widespread across its range in
all resilience units across the single representative unit. Thus, after
assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Pearl
River map turtle is not currently in danger of extinction throughout
all of its range.
A threatened species, as defined by the Act, is any species which
is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because the
species is not currently in danger of extinction (i.e., endangered)
throughout its entire range, we evaluated the viability of the species
over the foreseeable future considering the condition of the species in
relation to its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. We analyzed
future conditions (2040 and 2070) based on input from species experts,
generation time for the species, and the confidence in predicting
patterns of urbanization and agriculture, enabling us to make
reasonably reliable predictions about the threats and the species'
response to these threats over time.
The threats included in the future scenarios are projected to
negatively affect the Pearl River map turtle and result in a decline of
resiliency throughout four (Bogue Chitto, Lower Pearl, Middle Pearl-
Strong, and Upper Pearl) of the five resilience units (Service 2023,
pp. 70-105). While the Middle Pearl-Silver unit is not expected to see
major declines in resiliency, its current resiliency is low and is
anticipated to remain low in the future projections. None of the
resilience units will improve from current conditions to provide high
resiliency; three units are currently in moderate condition, but
resiliency within these conditions decline in the future scenarios.
Three resilience units may have additional stressors including
isolation for the Upper Pearl, compounded by the addition of another
planned reservoir for the Middle Pearl-Strong unit, and gravel mining
for the Bogue Chitto unit. These threats will likely cause a decline in
the amount of available suitable habitat, thereby affecting the future
resiliency; however, the development of the reservoir and future sand
and gravel mining activities are uncertain. Two of the resilience units
are in low condition and are expected to remain in low condition in the
future (Lower Pearl and Middle Pearl-Silver), with the southernmost
unit (Lower Pearl) facing threats from SLR. The low genetic variability
of Pearl River map turtles

[[Page 57225]]

may result in low adaptive capacity (the potential to adapt) to
environmental or habitat changes within the units. More than half of
the population inhabits the main stem river, which is subject to more
catastrophic events (e.g., an oil spill). These point source pollutants
would flow downstream below the point of contamination, with greater
impacts occurring in closer proximity to the spill. However, the
mainstems of large, occupied tributaries (Bogue Chitto, Strong,
Yockanookany) contain moderate densities of the Pearl River map turtle
(34 percent of total population), which would allow for some rescue
potential from tributaries to areas impacted by future catastrophic
events.
In terms of resiliency, the future condition is expected to decline
for all but one resilience unit. The future scenarios project out to
the year 2070 to capture the species' response to threats and changing
landscape conditions. The impacts from the existing Ross Barnett
Reservoir will continue affecting the species, and resilience of the
Middle Pearl-Strong unit will decline, and the turtle populations in
the northernmost unit (Upper Pearl) will become even more spatially and
genetically isolated over time. An additional planned development
project (the One Lake project) downstream of the existing reservoir
could affect up to 170 turtles directly and 360 turtles indirectly in
the Middle Pearl-Strong unit (Selman 2020b, pp. 192-193). If this
impoundment project moves forward, the species' viability will continue
to decline in the foreseeable future as resiliency declines through
loss of suitable habitat and further isolation of turtles above the
reservoirs. The turtles in the Upper Pearl unit are subject to genetic
isolation and potentially the effects of small population size as the
species in this unit will not be connected to the rest of the
contiguous habitat south of the reservoir.
Another future threat to the species is SLR, which will cause a
contraction in the Lower Pearl unit as saline waters encroach upstream
from the Gulf of Mexico, and the effects will be magnified with
hurricane-related storm surge pulsing saline water upstream into the
freshwater system. The amount of habitat affected over time depends on
the rate of SLR and other factors that influence surge, such as
increased hurricane or storm frequency and severity.
An additional threat that is expected to impact the species within
the foreseeable future includes the continued collection from wild
populations for the domestic and international pet trade. Map turtles
are desired by collectors for their intricate shell patterns. Despite
the less distinctive shell patterns and markings of adult Pearl River
map turtles, the species remains a target for some herptile enthusiasts
and personal collections. The demand for turtles globally is
increasing, which results in more intense pressures on wild
populations. The threat of illegal collection is expected to continue
into the foreseeable future.
The overall future condition of the species is expected to continue
a declining trajectory resulting in compromised viability as described
in the future scenarios out to year 2070. Thus, after assessing the
best available information, we conclude that the Pearl River map turtle
is not currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of
its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the provision 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'' (Final Policy; 79 FR
37578, July 1, 2014) that provided if the Service determines that a
species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Service will not
analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of
its range.
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether
the species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range. In undertaking this analysis for the Pearl River map turtle, we
choose to address the status question first--we consider information
pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range
where the species may be endangered.
We evaluated the range of the Pearl River map turtle to determine
if the species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its
range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into
portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on
portions of the species' range that may meet the definition of an
endangered species. For Pearl River map turtle, we considered whether
the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any
biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other
portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now in that
portion.
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 within the foreseeable future. Thus, we reviewed
the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the time
horizon for the threats that are driving the Pearl River map turtle to
warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of its range. We
then considered whether these threats or their effects are occurring
(or may imminently occur) in any portion of the species' range with
sufficient magnitude such that the species is in danger of extinction
now in that portion of its range. We examined the following threats:
effects of climate change (including SLR), habitat loss and
degradation, and illegal collection. We also considered whether
cumulative effects contributed to a concentration of threats across the
species' range.
Overall, we found that the threat of SLR and habitat loss is likely
acting disproportionately to particular areas within the species'
range. The threat of SLR is concentrated in the Lower Pearl, which is
the southernmost resilience unit that connects to the Gulf of Mexico.
However, the salinity influx into the species' habitat due to SLR is
not currently affecting this area but will affect the species' habitat
within the foreseeable future. Thus, we have determined that SLR is not
currently affecting this portion of the range to the extent that
endangered status is warranted.

[[Page 57226]]

The threat of habitat loss and degradation is concentrated on the
Middle Pearl-Strong and Upper Pearl units due to an existing reservoir
and a planned project that disjoins the connectivity of turtles above
and below the reservoir. The impacts due to habitat degradation and
loss because of the existing reservoir are acting on the species'
current condition and possibly future condition if the One Lake project
is constructed as planned. The impacts from the One Lake project are in
the future and are not currently affecting the species; therefore, we
will only consider the existing reservoir for the analysis to determine
if the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.
After identifying areas where the concentration of threats of
habitat degradation and loss affects the species or its habitat and the
time horizon of these threats, we evaluated whether the species is
endangered in the affected portion of the range. The area that
currently contains a concentration of threats includes a portion of the
Middle Pearl-Strong and Upper Pearl units. Habitat loss and degradation
from an existing reservoir has reduced the amount and quality of
existing habitat for the species in these units. The Ross Barnett
Reservoir, constructed between 1960 and 1963 near Jackson, Mississippi,
changed the natural hydrology of the Pearl River and resulted in 20.9
rmi (33.6 rkm) of river submerged and made unsuitable for the Pearl
River map turtle (Lindeman et al. 2020, p. 173). Low population
densities of turtles have been observed upstream from the reservoir
(Selman and Jones 2017, pp. 32-34). Notable population declines also
have been observed in the stretch of the Pearl River downstream of the
Ross Barnett Reservoir (north of Lakeland Drive), but the exact reason
for the decline is unknown (Selman 2020b, p. 194). However, despite
these declines, the species can be found throughout the Pearl River
downstream of the reservoir, and all size classes and moderate
population densities have been observed in the mainstem and tributaries
upstream of the reservoir. As a result, the Pearl River map turtle is
not currently in danger of extinction in the portion of the range
affected by the Barnett Ross Reservoir. We found no biologically
meaningful portion of the Pearl River map turtle's range where threats
are impacting individuals differently from how they are affecting the
species elsewhere in its range, or where the biological condition of
the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its range such that
the status of the species in that portion differs from any other
portion of the species' range. Therefore, no portion of the species'
range provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of
extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that
the Pearl River map turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction
within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does
not conflict with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S.
Department of the Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal.
2018) and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d
946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did
not apply the aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of
``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Determination of Pearl River Map Turtle's Status

Our review of the best scientific and commercial data available
indicates that the Pearl River map turtle meets the Act's definition of
a threatened species. Therefore, we are listing the Pearl River map
turtle as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and
4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed
species, planning and implementation of 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,
including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities
are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed
species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and
functioning components of their ecosystems.
The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery
outline made available to the public soon after a final listing
determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed.
Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be
established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery
planning process involves the identification of actions that are
necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the
threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan 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. Revisions of the plan may
be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new
substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft
recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available
on our website as they are completed (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species">https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species</a>), or from our Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses,
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
Once the Pearl River map turtle is listed (see DATES, above),
funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of
sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of
the Act, the States of Louisiana and Mississippi will be eligible for
Federal

[[Page 57227]]

funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or
recovery of the Pearl River map turtle. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
<a href="https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance">https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance</a>.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Pearl River map turtle. Additionally, we
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7 of the Act is titled, ``Interagency Cooperation'' and
mandates all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities to
further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing
section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat,
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in
jeopardy or adverse modification.
Examples of discretionary actions for the Pearl River map turtle
that may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 are land
management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands
administered by the Service (Refuges) and Department of Defense
(Stennis Western Maneuver Area) as well as actions on State, Tribal,
local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under
section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such
as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat--and actions
on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency--do not require
section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the
Field Supervisor of the Service's Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with any specific
questions on section 7 consultation and conference requirements.
It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known
at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To
the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to
result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as
possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the
range of the species. Although most of the prohibitions in section 9 of
the Act apply to endangered species, sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(G) and (a)(2)(E)) prohibit the
violation of any regulation under section 4(d) pertaining to any
threatened species of fish or wildlife, or threatened species of plant,
respectively. Section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)) directs the
Secretary to promulgate protective regulations that are necessary and
advisable for the conservation of threatened species. As a result, we
interpret our policy to mean that, when we list a species as a
threatened species, to the extent possible, we identify activities that
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of the
protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for that species.
At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that
will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section
9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of
prohibitions and exceptions established by protective regulation under
section 4(d) of the Act.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Field
Supervisor of the Service's Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act for the Pearl
River Map Turtle

Background

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species
listed as threatened. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the
use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary.
Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states
that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any
threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants.
With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad
authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened
species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section
9 prohibitions, for a given species.
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, as a valid
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL
511479 (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).
The provisions of this species' protective regulations under
section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we will use to
promote the conservation of

[[Page 57228]]

the Pearl River map turtle. Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any way the
recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the
consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of
the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and
protection of the Pearl River map turtle. As mentioned previously in
Available Conservation Measures, Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, 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. These requirements are the same for a threatened
species regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.
Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that ``may
affect'' a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the
activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule (``blanket rule'' or
species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule does not change the process
and criteria for informal or formal consultations and does not alter
the analytical process used for biological opinions or concurrence
letters. For example, as with an endangered species, if a Federal
agency determines that an action is ``not likely to adversely affect''
a threatened species, this will require the Service's written
concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). Similarly, if a Federal agency
determines that an action is ``likely to adversely affect'' a
threatened species, the action will require formal consultation and the
formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(a)).

Provisions of the 4(d) Protective Regulations for the Pearl River Map
Turtle

Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act,
we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Pearl River
map turtle's conservation needs. As discussed previously under Summary
of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Pearl
River map turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future primarily due to habitat degradation and loss caused
by degraded water quality, channel or hydrological modifications and
impoundments, agricultural runoff, development, mining; collection; and
climate change. Additional stressors acting on the species include
disease and contaminants (pesticides and heavy metals). Drowning and/or
capture due to bycatch associated with recreational and commercial
fishing of some species of freshwater fish may also affect the Pearl
River map turtle but are of unknown frequency or severity.
Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as
she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of
each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among
those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section
9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are not
required to make a ``necessary and advisable'' determination when we
apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a threatened
species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule
Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home
Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir.
1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). Nevertheless,
even though we are not required to make such a determination, we have
chosen to be as transparent as possible and explain below why we find
that the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in this rule as a
whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.
The protective regulations for Pearl River map turtle incorporate
prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) of the Act to address the threats to
the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial
sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means
whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective
regulation includes all of these prohibitions because the Pearl River
map turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and
putting these prohibitions in place will help to better preserve the
condition of the species' resilience units, slow its rate of decline,
and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other ongoing or future
threats.
In particular, this 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of
the Pearl River map turtle by prohibiting the following activities,
unless they fall within specific exceptions or are otherwise authorized
or permitted: importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts
with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, receiving, carrying,
transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce.
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. Regulating
take will help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their
rate of decline, and decrease cumulative effects from other ongoing or
future threats. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of the Pearl River
map turtle, except for take resulting from those actions and activities
specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule. Exceptions to the prohibition
on take include the general exceptions to the prohibition on take of
endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and additional
exceptions, as described below.
Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more
otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The
regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise
prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR
17.32). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any
employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management
agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation
agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their
agency or Tribe for such purposes,

[[Page 57229]]

may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take
threatened wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to:
(i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; or (ii) Dispose of a
dead specimen; or (iii) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for
scientific study; or (iv) Remove specimens that constitute a
demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the
taking is done in a humane manner; the taking may involve killing or
injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such
threat by live capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in an
appropriate area.
We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with
our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to
conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific
data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of
endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants.
State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this
regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the
maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs
authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a
State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement
with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated
by his or her agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct
activities designed to conserve the Pearl River map turtle that may
result in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.
The 4(d) rule will also provide for the conservation of the species
by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation actions or that,
while they may have some minimal level of take of the Pearl River map
turtle, are not expected to rise to the level that would have a
negative impact (i.e., would have only de minimis impacts) on the
species' conservation. The exceptions to these prohibitions include
take resulting from forest management practices that use State-approved
best management practices (described below) that are expected to have
negligible impacts to the Pearl River map turtle and its habitat.
Silvicultural Practices and Forest Management Activities that Use
State Forestry Best Management Practices--Forest management practices
that implement State-approved BMPs designed to protect water quality
and stream and riparian habitat will avoid or minimize the effects of
habitat alterations in areas that support Pearl River map turtles. We
consider that certain activities associated with silvicultural
practices and forest management activities may remove riparian cover or
forested habitat, change land use within the riparian zone, or increase
stream bank erosion and/or siltation. We recognize that forest
management practices are widely implemented in accordance with State-
approved BMPs (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2018, entire), and the
adherence to these BMPs broadly protects water quality, particularly
related to sedimentation (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2016, entire;
Warrington et al. 2017, entire; and Schilling et al. 2021, entire), to
an extent that does not impair the species' conservation. Forest
landowners who properly implement those BMPs are helping conserve the
Pearl River map turtle, and this 4(d) rule is an incentive for all
landowners to properly implement applicable State-approved BMPs to
avoid any take implications. Further, those forest landowners who are
third-party-certified (attesting to the sustainable management of a
working forest) to a credible forest management standard are providing
audited certainty that BMP implementation is taking place across the
landscape.
Summary of Species-specific Incidental Take Exceptions in the 4(d)
Rule--Under this final 4(d) rule, incidental take associated
silviculture practices and forest management activities that use State-
approved BMPs designed to protect water quality and stream and riparian
habitat with the following activities is excepted from the
prohibitions.

III. Critical Habitat for the Pearl River Map Turtle

Background

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat
concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in
section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e.,
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g.,
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically,
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or
threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant
to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures
include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with
scientific resource management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in
consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of
critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge,
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such
designation also does not allow the government or public to access
private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal
landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may
affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency
consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the
action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied
critical habitat), the Federal action agency would have already been
required to consult with the Service even absent the critical habitat
designation because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Even if
the Service were to conclude after

[[Page 57230]]

consultation that the proposed activity is likely to result in
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the
Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the
proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they
must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat).
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information from the SSA report and information developed during the
listing process for the species. Additional information sources may
include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline
that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the
species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans
developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and
studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species; and (3) the prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. Federally
funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings
in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue
to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the
time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened
species. On April 5, 2024, we published a final rule revised our
regulations at 50 CFR part 424 to further clarify when designation of
critical habitat may not be prudent (89 FR 24300). Our regulations (50
CFR424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent in circumstances such as, but not limited to, the following:
(i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of such threat to the species;
(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the
species;
(iii) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no
more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species
occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or
(iv) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.
We found that designation of critical habitat was not prudent for
the Pearl River map turtle in our November 23, 2021, proposed rule (86
FR 66624). We based this finding on a determination that the
designation of critical habitat would increase the threat to the Pearl
River map turtle from unauthorized collection and trade, and may
further facilitate inadvertent or purposeful disturbance of the
turtle's habitat. We stated that designation of occupied critical
habitat is likely to confer only an educational benefit to the species
beyond that provided by listing. Alternatively, the designation of
unoccupied critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle could
provide an educational and at least some regulatory benefit for the
species. However, we stated that the risk of increasing significant
threats to the species by publishing more specific location information
in a critical habitat designation greatly outweighed the benefits of
designating critical habitat.
We received numerous comments from private and Federal entities
stating that the locations of Pearl River map turtle are already
available in scientific journals, online databases, and documents
published by the Service, which led us to reconsider the prudency
determination for these species. Our original determination rested on
the increased risk of poaching resulting from publicizing the locations
of Pearl River map turtle populations through maps of critical habitat
in the Federal Register. In light of the comments we received during
the November 23, 2021, proposed rule's comment period, we now find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Pearl River map
turtle. Our rationale is outlined below. The principal benefit of
including an area in critical habitat is the requirement for agencies
to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of

[[Page 57231]]

any designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section
7(a)(2) of the Act under which consultation is completed. Critical
habitat provides protections only where there is a Federal nexus, that
is, those actions that come under the purview of section 7 of the Act.
Critical habitat designation has no application to actions that do not
have a Federal nexus.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act mandates that Federal agencies, in
consultation with the Service, evaluate the effects of their proposed
actions on any designated critical habitat. Similar to the Act's
requirement that a Federal agency action not jeopardize the continued
existence of listed species, Federal agencies have the responsibility
not to implement actions that would destroy or adversely modify
designated critical habitat. Federal actions affecting the species even
in the absence of designated critical habitat areas will still benefit
from consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act and may still
result in jeopardy findings. However, the analysis of effects of a
proposed project on critical habitat is separate and distinct from that
of the effects of a proposed project on the species itself. The
jeopardy analysis evaluates the action's impact to survival and
recovery of the species, while the destruction or adverse modification
analysis evaluates the action's effects to the designated habitat's
contribution as a whole to conservation of the species. Therefore, the
difference in outcomes of these two analyses represents the regulatory
benefit of critical habitat. This would, in some instances, lead to
different results and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical
habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a
species than would listing alone.
Map turtles are valuable to collectors and the threat of poaching
remains imminent (Factor B) for the Pearl River map turtle. There is
evidence that the designation of critical habitat could result in an
increased threat from taking, specifically collection, for the species,
through publication of maps and a narrative description of specific
critical habitat units in the Federal Register. However, such
information on locations of extant Pearl River map turtle populations
is already widely available to the public through many outlets, as
noted above. Therefore, identification and mapping of critical habitat
is not expected to increase the degree of such threat. In the comments
we received on the November 23, 2021, proposed rule, we were alerted to
the existing public availability of many, if not all, populations or
locations of the Pearl River map turtle.

Critical Habitat Determinability

Having determined that designation is prudent, under section
4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the Pearl
River map turtle is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to identify any area that meets the definition of ``critical
habitat.''
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the
Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
For the Pearl River map turtle, the species' needs are sufficiently
well known, but a careful assessment of the economic impacts that may
occur due to a critical habitat designation is ongoing. Until these
efforts are complete, information sufficient to perform a required
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; therefore, we
find the designation of critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle
to be not determinable at this time. In the future, we plan to publish
a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Pearl River map
turtle concurrent with the availability of a draft economic analysis of
the proposed designation.

IV. Similarity of Appearance for the Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map
Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle

Section 4(e) authorizes the treatment of a species, subspecies, or
population segment as an endangered or threatened species if: (a) Such
species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a
species which has been listed pursuant to the Act that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to
differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect
of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered
or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species
will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)).
The treatment of a species as an endangered or threatened species
due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act does not
extend other protections of the Act, such as consultation requirements
for Federal agencies under section 7 and the recovery planning
provisions under section 4(f), that apply to species that are listed as
endangered or threatened species under section 4(a) of the Act. All
applicable prohibitions and exceptions for species listed under section
4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to an endangered or
threatened species are set forth in a species-specific rule issued
under section 4(d) of the Act. The Service implements this section 4(e)
authority in accordance with the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR
17.50 through 17.52. Our analysis of the criteria for the 4(e) rule is
described in the proposed rule (86 FR 66624; November 23, 2021) for the
similarity of appearance of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle in relation to
the threatened Pearl River map turtle.

Do the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle,
and Pascagoula map turtle so closely resemble in appearance, at the
point in question, the Pearl River map turtle such that enforcement
personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to
differentiate between the listed and unlisted species?

Map turtles (genus Graptemys) are named for the intricate pattern
on the carapace that often resembles a topographical map. In addition
to the intricate markings, the shape of the carapace (top half of
shell) in map turtles is very distinctive. The carapace is keeled, and
many species show some type of knobby projections or spikes down the
vertebral scutes (located down the midline of the carapace). All five
of these map turtle species are in the megacephalic (large-headed)
clade where the females have large, broad heads, and all occur in the
southeastern United States. The ranges of these species do not
geographically overlap, with the exception of Barbour's and Escambia
map turtles in some areas of the Choctawhatchee River drainage in
Alabama and Florida (see figure 2, below). Additional information
regarding characteristics and identification of megacephalic map
turtles is described in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 5-8). The
lack of distinctive physical features makes it difficult to
differentiate among these species, even for law enforcement officers,
especially considering their similar body form, shell markings, and
head markings (Selman 2021, pers. comm). The Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle
all closely resemble in appearance, at the point in question, the Pearl
River map turtle such that enforcement personnel would have substantial
difficulty in

[[Page 57232]]

attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species.

Is the effect of this substantial difficulty an additional threat to
the Pearl River map turtle?

Under 50 CFR 17.50(b)(2), we considered the possibility that an
additional threat is posed to the Pearl River map turtle by
unauthorized trade or commerce by persons who misrepresent Pearl River
map turtle specimens as Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle,
Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle specimens, because this
might result in the Pearl River map turtle entering the global black
market via the United States or contributing to market demand for the
Pearl River map turtle. Collection is a real threat to many turtle
species in the United States and globally (Stanford et al. 2020,
entire), as turtles are collected in the wild and sold into the pet
trade. This potential unauthorized trade or commerce of Pearl River map
turtles is caused by a lack of distinct physical characteristics and
difficulty in distinguishing individual species of megacephalic map
turtles, posing a problem for Federal and State law enforcement agents.
The listing of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia
map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened due to similarity
of appearance minimizes the possibility that private and commercial
collectors will be able to misrepresent Pearl River map turtles as
Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or
Pascagoula map turtles for private or commercial purposes. Therefore,
we find that the difficulty enforcement personnel will have in
attempting to differentiate among the megacephalic map turtle species
would pose an additional threat to the Pearl River map turtle.

Would treatment of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle,
Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as endangered or
threatened due to similarity of appearance substantially facilitate the
enforcement and further the policy of the Act?

The listing of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle,
Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle due to similarity of
appearance will facilitate Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agents' efforts to curtail unauthorized possession, collection, and
trade in the Pearl River map turtle. Listing the four similar map
turtle species due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of
the Act and providing applicable prohibitions and exceptions in a rule
issued under section 4(d) of the Act will substantially facilitate the
enforcement and further the policy of the Act for the Pearl River map
turtle. For these reasons, we are listing the Alabama map turtle
(occurring in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee), Barbour's
map turtle (occurring in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), Escambia map
turtle (occurring in Alabama and Florida), and Pascagoula map turtle
(occurring in Mississippi) as threatened due to similarity of
appearance to the Pearl River map turtle pursuant to section 4(e) of
the Act.
With this final rule, we do not consider the Alabama map turtle,
Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle to
be biologically threatened or endangered, but we have determined that
listing the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened species under the
similarity of appearance provision of section 4(e) of the Act, coupled
with a 4(d) rule as discussed below, minimizes misidentification and
enforcement-related issues. This listing will promote and enhance the
conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.

[[Page 57233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY24.001

V. Protective Regulations Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act for the
Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and
Pascagoula Map Turtle

Whenever a species is listed as a threatened species under the Act,
the Secretary may specify regulations that she deems necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of that species under the
authorization of section 4(d) of the Act. Because we are listing the
Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle (Graptemys
barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), and Pascagoula map
turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) as threatened species due to similarity of
appearance to the Pearl River map turtle (see IV. Similarity of
Appearance for the Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia
Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle, above), we are finalizing a 4(d)
rule to minimize misidentification and enforcement-related issues. This
4(d) rule will promote and enhance the conservation of the Pearl River
map turtle.
This 4(d) rule establishes certain prohibitions on take in the form
of collection, capturing, and trapping of these four similar-in-
appearance species of map turtle in order to protect the Pearl River
map turtle from unlawful take, unlawful possession, and unlawful trade.
In this context, take in the form of collect, capture, or trap is
defined as any activity where Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map
turtles, Escambia map turtles, or Pascagoula map turtles are, or are
attempted to be, collected, captured, or trapped from wild populations.
Incidental take associated with all otherwise legal activities
involving the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle that are conducted in accordance with
applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and

[[Page 57234]]

local laws and regulations is not considered prohibited under this 4(d)
rule.

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule for the Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map
Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle

The protective regulations for Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle incorporate
prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to the Pearl
River map turtle. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit,
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial
sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such
wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry,
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means
whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective
regulation includes most of these prohibitions because the Pearl River
map turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and
putting these prohibitions in place for Alabama map turtle, Barbour's
map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle will help to
reduce threats to the Pearl River map turtle.
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. Regulating
take will help address primary threats to the Pearl River map turtle.
We are only prohibiting intentional take in the form of collect,
capture, or trap, because the threat of collectors being able to
misrepresent Pearl River map turtles as Pearl River map turtles as
Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or
Pascagoula map turtles for private or commercial purposes. This
potential unauthorized trade or commerce of Pearl River map turtles is
caused by a lack of distinct physical characteristics and difficulty in
distinguishing individual species of megacephalic map turtles, posing a
problem for Federal and State law enforcement agents. Exceptions to the
prohibition on take include the general exceptions to the prohibition
on take of endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and
additional exceptions, as described below.
Despite these p

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 12, 2024.

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.