[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 124 (Thursday, June 27, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53507-53528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-13946]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007; FXES1111090FEDR-245-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BE80


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status 
for the Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle with a Section 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(Act), as amended, for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
(Macrochelids suwanniensis), a large, freshwater turtle species from 
the Suwannee River basin in Florida and Georgia. This rule adds the 
species to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We also 
finalize a rule issued under the authority of section 4(d) of the Act 
that provides measures that are necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of this species. We have determined that designating 
critical habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not 
prudent.

DATES: This rule is effective July 29, 2024.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007 and on the 
Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) species page 
at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10891. Comments and materials we 
received, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this 
rule, are available for public inspection at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007.
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials we used 
in preparing this rule, such as the species status assessment report, 
are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes Mena, Classification and 
Recovery Division Manager, Florida Ecological Services Field Office, 
7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517; email: 
[email protected]; telephone: 352-749-2462.
    Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or Tele 
Braille) 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, 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 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species; therefore, we are listing it as such. 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 Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle (Macrochelys suwanniensis) as a threatened species and 
finalizes the rule issued under the authority of section 4(d) of the 
Act (the ``4(d) rule'') that provides measures that are necessary and 
advisable to provide for the conservation of this species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the primary threats acting 
on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle include illegal harvest and 
collection (Factor B), nest predation (Factor C), and hook ingestion 
and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater fishing 
(Factor E).

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the April 7, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 18014) for 
a detailed description of previous Federal actions concerning the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report, 
version 1.0, for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Service 2020, 
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 of 
listing actions under the Act, we sought peer review of the SSA report 
version 1.0 (Service 2020, entire). As discussed in the proposed rule, 
we sent the SSA report to four independent peer reviewers and received 
responses from one reviewer. The peer review can be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov and at our Florida Ecological Services Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). In preparing the proposed rule, 
we incorporated the results of this review, 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 in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered 
comments we received on our April 7, 2021, proposed rule to list the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as a threatened species with a 4(d) 
rule. We updated the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle SSA report (to 
version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire) based on comments and additional 
information provided during the proposed rule's

[[Page 53508]]

comment period. Those updates are reflected in this final rule, as 
follows:
    1. We update the description of the species' representation and 
redundancy and clarify these conservation principles to provide a 
better understanding of the species' current and future viability.
    2. We include new information provided during the comment period 
regarding the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) 
associated with forest management practices. We added a discussion on 
ways in which the implementation of such BMPs provides conservation 
benefits to the species.
    3. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from 
prohibitions associated with Federal and State captive-breeding 
programs to support conservation efforts for wild populations. We 
determined this provision is redundant with the exception under 50 CFR 
17.31(b), which is already included in the 4(d) rule.
    4. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from the 
prohibitions regarding incidental take resulting from herbicide/
pesticide use from this final rule. We do not have enough information 
about the types or amounts of pesticides that may be applied in areas 
where Suwannee alligator snapping 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 (Bishop et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, 
entire; Kittle et al. 2018, entire). Therefore, including this 
exception to incidental take may not provide for the conservation of 
the species. 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.
    5. For the 4(d) rule, we revise the text of the exception from 
incidental take prohibition resulting from forestry management 
practices. We remove the terms ``silviculture and silvicultural 
practices'' and replace them with ``forest management practices'' to 
clarify the exception to incidental take prohibitions, as this is more 
appropriate for the intent and purpose of the rule.
    6. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from 
incidental take prohibition resulting from construction, operation, and 
maintenance activities that occur near and in a stream. We determined 
this exception is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation 
benefits to the species. In addition, this exception could have caused 
confusion regarding whether Federal or State 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.
    7. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from 
incidental take prohibition resulting from maintenance dredging 
activities that occur in the previously disturbed portion of a 
maintained channel. We determined this exception is too vague to 
meaningfully provide conservation benefits to the species. In addition, 
dredging activities to promote river traffic can cause temporary 
turbidity, leading to decreased ability to see and ambush prey species; 
the removal of underwater snags, which could reduce prey availability 
by eliminating areas where prey is found (e.g., congregation areas, 
nursery areas, feeding areas); and the filling of scour areas used to 
ambush prey. In addition, this exception could have caused confusion 
regarding whether Federal or State regulatory processes apply to these 
activities. All in-water work, including dredging in 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.
    8. For the 4(d) rule, we are not including the exception from 
prohibitions for Tribal employees and State-licensed wildlife 
rehabilitation facilities. A provision under 50 CFR 17.31(b)(1) now 
extends to federally recognized Tribes the exceptions to prohibitions 
for threatened wildlife to aid, salvage, or dispose of threatened 
wildlife and is already included in this 4(d) rule. We also are not 
including the exception from prohibitions for State-licensed wildlife 
rehabilitation facilities because it is redundant with the provision at 
50 CFR 17.21(c)(3), which allows take of endangered wildlife without a 
permit if such action is necessary to aid a sick, injured, or orphaned 
specimen without additional authorization, which is also already 
included in the 4(d) rule.
    9. We update information to reflect that the alligator snapping 
turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) was transferred from Appendix III of 
CITES to Appendix II (CITES 2023, pp. 45-46).
    10. We make minor, nonsubstantive editorial corrections and 
revisions for clarity and consistency throughout this document.
    The information we received during the comment period on our April 
7, 2021, proposed rule did not change our determination that the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle meets the Act's definition of a 
threatened species. The information provided through the comment period 
also did not cause us to revise our determination that designation of 
critical habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not 
prudent.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on April 7, 2021 (86 FR 18014), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by June 7, 2021. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposed listing 
determination and proposed 4(d) rule. A newspaper notice inviting 
general public comment was published in the Gainesville Sun on April 
21, 2021. We did not receive any requests for a public hearing. All 
substantive information provided during the comment period either has 
been incorporated directly into the final rule or is addressed below.
    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received a response from one 
peer reviewer on the draft SSA report. As discussed above, because we 
conducted this peer review prior to the publication of our proposed 
rule, we had already incorporated all applicable peer review comments 
into version 1.1 of the SSA report, which was the foundation for the 
proposed rule and this final rule and ultimately into the latest 
version of the SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire). The peer 
reviewer generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and 
provided additional information regarding seed dispersal by the common 
snapping turtle (Chelydra sepentina). We added the information provided 
by the peer reviewer into the SSA report, version 1.1 (Service 2021, 
entire) as appropriate.

[[Page 53509]]

Public Comments

    We received 34 public comments in response to our April 7, 2021, 
proposed rule. We reviewed all comments we received during the public 
comment period for substantive issues and new information regarding the 
proposed rule. Seventeen comments provided substantive comments or new 
information concerning the proposed listing of the species' status, 
proposed 4(d) rule, and prudency determination for critical habitat for 
the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Below, we provide a summary of 
public comments we received; however, comments that we incorporated as 
changes into the final rule, comments outside the scope of the proposed 
rule, and those without supporting information did not warrant an 
explicit response and, thus, are not presented here. Identical or 
similar comments have been consolidated and a single response provided.

Comments From States

    (1) Comment: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), 
Wildlife Resources Division commented that occasional observations by 
biologists and anglers indicate that ensnarement and/or hook ingestion 
by Suwannee alligator snapping turtle may occur as a result of legal 
fishing methods in Georgia, and research is needed to further quantify 
population impacts of incidental take on this species. The GDNR also 
recommended the rule place greater emphasis on promoting practices and 
regulations to reduce impacts to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
from abandoned fishing gear.
    Our Response: We plan to work with both GDNR and the Florida Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to better understand impacts 
from legal and abandoned fishing gear. As discussed in our April 7, 
2021, proposed rule, turtle bycatch from legal recreational and 
commercial fishing with hoop nets and trot lines (and varieties 
including jug lines, bush hooks, and limb lines) is a concern for the 
conservation of the species due to its effects on species abundance, 
particularly in light of the species' life-history traits. It is 
important to ensure that fishing activities take into consideration the 
need to prevent accidental turtle deaths from the use of such fishing 
gear, and we will work with our State partners to identify measures and 
revisions to existing State fishing regulations to reduce bycatch of 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Given we did not receive 
information during the comment period for bycatch reduction techniques, 
we did not include an exception for incidental take of the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle resulting from bycatch from otherwise lawful 
recreational and commercial fishing in our final 4(d) rule. Therefore, 
take of the species resulting from bycatch activities is prohibited in 
the 4(d) rule.
Public Comments Categorized by Topic
Species' Status
    (2) Comment: One commenter stated their view that the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle should be listed as an endangered species 
rather than a threatened species.
    Our Response: An endangered species is one that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Based 
on the best available information as described in the SSA report 
(Service 2022, entire), we do not find that the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range. The current condition of the 
species provides for sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation such that it is not currently in danger of extinction 
(see Determination of Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle Status in the 
proposed listing rule (86 FR 18014, April 7, 2021, at pp. 18026-18028) 
and below in this final rule). When evaluating the species' status 
based on the threats and the species' response to the threats in the 
future, the species meets the Act's definition of a threatened species 
because it is at risk of becoming an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. The commenters did not 
provide any new information regarding threats to the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle or its current status that was not already considered 
in the SSA report (Service 2021, entire) or our April 7, 2021, proposed 
rule. With no new information to consider, our conclusion regarding the 
status of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle remains the same.
    (3) Comment: A commenter suggested we list the common snapping 
turtle (C. serpentina) under the Act based on similarity of appearance 
(see 16 U.S.C. 1533(e)) to help curb the threat of incidental captures 
of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles by trappers that are targeting 
common snapping turtles.
    Our Response: Under section 4(e) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)), a 
species may be listed as endangered or threatened due to similarity of 
appearance of a listed species if the species so closely resemble one 
another that it is difficult to tell them apart and if this similarity 
is a threat to the species that is warranted for listing. The 
likelihood of incidental capture from legal common snapping turtle 
harvest is anticipated to be low due to the disparity between the 
preferred habitat types used by the common snapping turtle and the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Common snapping turtle habitat 
typically includes impoundments such as lakes, ponds, and oxbows. The 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle prefers more riverine systems. While 
there may be some overlap between these habitat types and their ranges, 
the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle can be distinguished from the 
common snapping turtle based on certain physical characteristics. The 
common snapping turtle shares some similar features to the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle, but there are distinctive characteristics 
that can aid in differentiation of the two species. The Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle's carapace has three keeled ridges and a 
curved, hooked, beak-like projection at the mouth, while the common 
snapping turtle lacks these features. Because of the physical 
characteristics that are unique to each species that facilitate 
identification, we have determined that listing the common snapping 
turtle due to similarity of appearance is not necessary or appropriate.
    (4) Comment: One commenter noted the Service's analysis of 
redundancy and representation for the Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtle in the SSA report was contrary to the agency's SSA framework and 
commented that we did not describe representation in a meaningful way.
    Our Response: Our analysis of the Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtle's redundancy and representation adheres to the definitions 
presented in the SSA framework. Representation is the ability of the 
species to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its 
physical and biological environment, and redundancy is the ability of 
the species to withstand catastrophic events. At the time of our April 
7, 2021, proposed rule, the best available scientific information 
regarding the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle indicated there was no 
genetic or environmental condition variation across the species' range. 
We assessed representation, which measures a species' adaptive 
potential in the face of natural or anthropogenic changes, as 
inherently low for this species, because the best available information 
at that time showed it lacked significant genetic variation within its 
single population. Based on

[[Page 53510]]

the public comments and new literature related to assessing adaptive 
capacity (Thurman et al. 2020, entire), in this final rule and our 
revised SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, entire), we updated our 
discussion of representation by describing the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle's adaptive capacity in terms of its genetic, 
biological, and ecological traits necessary to understand the species' 
plasticity to changing conditions over time. Adaptive capacity reflects 
the amount of tolerance for change based on genotypic and phenotypic 
attributes. Change can include impacts from climate change (e.g., 
higher air and water temperatures, saltwater intrusion, etc.) and 
humans (e.g., water withdrawal, fishing gear, habitat alterations, 
etc.). We assessed the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle to have low 
to moderate adaptive capacity in the life-history and demography traits 
and moderate to high adaptive capacity in the distribution, movement, 
evolutionary potential, ecological role, and abiotic niche traits. 
Further information on how we describe the species in terms of its 
adaptive capacity with its ability to acclimate to environmental 
stressors can be found in our SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, 
pp. 37-39).
    For redundancy, in our proposed and this final rule, we assessed 
current redundancy as limited, as the species is considered a single 
population with no physical barriers to movement. While there is only a 
single population, it is widely distributed across the historical 
range. We assessed the chance of a catastrophic event affecting the 
entire species as very low. However, given the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle is currently assessed as a single population with an 
estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across the species' historical 
range, we determined redundancy to be naturally limited, given the 
species' distribution is limited to the Suwannee River basin.
4(d) Rule
    (5) Comment: One commenter inquired why the Service did not apply 
the blanket 4(d) rule to this species.
    Our Response: Prior to August 27, 2019, the prohibitions for 
endangered species under section 9 of the Act were generally extended 
to threatened species (referred to as the ``blanket 4(d) rule'') unless 
we adopted a species-specific 4(d) rule for a particular species. On 
August 27, 2019, we published a final rule (84 FR 44753) removing the 
blanket 4(d) rule for threatened species. That 2019 final rule was in 
effect when we published our April 7, 2021, proposed rule for the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle and is still in effect. On May 6, 
2024, a rule became effective that re-instated the blanket 4(d) rule 
(89 FR 23919). The updated regulations extend the majority of the 
protections (all of the prohibitions that apply to endangered species 
under section 9 with certain exceptions to those prohibitions) to 
threatened species, unless we issue an alternative rule under section 
4(d) of the Act for a particular species (i.e., a species-specific 4(d) 
rule). For species with a species-specific 4(d) rule, that rule 
contains all of the protective regulations for that species. We 
exercised our authority under section 4(d) of the Act and developed a 
proposed species-specific 4(d) rule to address the specific threats and 
conservation needs of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. The 4(d) 
rule is necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. For the species-specific 4(d) rule, 
we determined that it is not necessary to apply all of the Act's 
section 9 prohibitions to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle; the 
provisions of the species-specific 4(d) rule are described below under 
Provisions of the 4(d) Rule and set forth below under Regulation 
Promulgation.
    (6) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the Service's 
description of the exceptions for construction, operation, and 
maintenance in the 4(d) rule is too broad and vague to determine when 
the exception applies.
    Our Response: We agree that it is difficult to understand and 
identify specific situations when the exception to incidental take 
resulting for construction, operation, and maintenance activities would 
apply. Accordingly, as stated above under Summary of Changes from the 
Proposed Rule, we are not including an exception to the incidental take 
prohibitions in the 4(d) rule for the Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtle because it is too vague to meaningfully provide conservation 
benefits to the species. In addition, many activities occurring near or 
in a stream require permits or project review by Federal or State 
agencies, and, if retained, this exception would have caused confusion 
with respect to the requirements that must be met when undertaking 
these activities.
    (7) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about an exception for 
silviculture and forestry BMPs, given the implementation of less 
effective silviculture and forestry BMPs for riparian areas and 
potential negative impacts to the species.
    Our Response: State-approved BMPs for silviculture and forestry 
maintain riparian buffers, resulting in reduced sedimentation into the 
stream from upland sources, reduced water temperature, increased 
dissolved oxygen, and more material for in-water woody debris. These 
attributes promote aquatic diversity and are required for healthy 
habitats.
    Implementing BMPs that avoid or minimize the effects of habitat 
alterations in areas that support Suwannee alligator snapping turtles 
will provide additional measures for conserving the species by reducing 
indirect effects to the species. We recognize that silvicultural 
operations are widely implemented in accordance with State-approved 
forestry BMPs (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2018, entire), which 
provide more stringent riparian protections, 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). For example, 
Florida's State silviculture BMPs for designated outstanding Florida 
waters, such as the Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers, require a 300-foot 
buffer on each side of the river. Forestry and silvicultural activities 
that implement State-approved BMPs will have a de minimis impact on the 
species, and we have determined that this exception to the incidental 
take prohibitions in the 4(d) rule will be beneficial to the species. 
If forestry and silvicultural activities do not implement or improperly 
implement BMPs, then this exception will not apply.
    (8) Comment: One commenter suggested that current regulatory 
mechanisms are inadequate to address the threat of incidental bycatch 
to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, and a 4(d) rule that excepts 
take incidental to recreational fishing activities would only be 
appropriate if the methods of fishing that incidentally capture turtles 
were prohibited or significantly modified to prevent incidental 
capture.
    Our Response: In the proposed rule, we requested information 
regarding ideas for the design of a turtle escape or exclusion device 
and modified trot line techniques that would effectively eliminate or 
significantly reduce bycatch of alligator snapping turtles from 
recreational fishing; however, we did not receive any comments to 
inform fishing gear modifications to reduce bycatch of Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtles. Recreational fishing activities are 
regulated by State natural resource and fish and game agencies, and 
these agencies issue permits for these

[[Page 53511]]

activities in accordance with their regulations. We will coordinate 
with State agencies to better understand the impacts of permitted 
recreational fishing on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. In 
addition, we will work with the State to reduce the risk of bycatch, 
which may include modifying fishing mechanisms based on the best 
available science related to reducing fishing impacts through research 
and development on innovative fishing technologies and methodologies. 
Additionally, we will continue coordinating with State agencies on the 
development of public awareness programs regarding identification and 
conservation of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Further, since 
we did not receive information during the comment period for bycatch 
reduction techniques, we do not include in the 4(d) rule an exception 
to incidental take of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle resulting 
from bycatch from otherwise lawful recreational and commercial fishing 
using techniques to reduce bycatch. Therefore, take of the species 
resulting from bycatch is prohibited by the 4(d) rule.
    (9) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the 4(d) rule's 
exception to the take prohibition for pesticide and herbicide use. The 
commenter stated that the exception is arbitrary and not supported by 
the best available scientific and commercial data. The commenter stated 
that exposure to pesticides and herbicides is harmful to turtle species 
and provided several citations to support the comment (such as, Bishop 
et al. 1991, entire; Sparling et al. 2006, 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 
rule and this final rule, we describe the primary threats to the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as illegal harvest and collection, 
nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch 
associated with freshwater fishing. And although nest predation is a 
primary threat to the species, the most common nest predators 
identified are raccoons (Procyon lotor). Nonnative, invasive species, 
such as feral pigs (Sus scrofa) and red imported fire ants (Solenopsis 
invicta), occur across the species' range, but to date, nest predation 
by these nonnative species has not been documented. 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, we do not have enough 
information about the types or amounts of pesticides that may be 
applied in areas where Suwannee alligator snapping turtle occurs to be 
able assess the future impacts to the species.
    The additional materials provided during the public comment period 
do not indicate Suwannee alligator snapping 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 (Bishop et al. 1991, entire; 
Sparling et al. 2006, 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 Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, and 
therefore, including this exception to incidental take may not provide 
for the conservation of the species.
    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. Thus, we are not including the exception from the 
prohibitions regarding incidental take resulting from herbicide/
pesticide use from this final rule.
    (10) Comment: One commenter suggested modifying the 4(d) rule to 
except captive breeding for turtles held in captivity prior to the 
effective date of the listing to allow for appropriate captive-breeding 
programs to contribute to the conservation of the species.
    Our Response: We recognize the contribution of permitted captive 
breeding to the conservation of species. However, there are currently 
no captive-breeding efforts occurring for the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle; therefore, there are no existing captive-breeding 
programs that we could except prior to the effective date of this final 
rule (see DATES, above). There are programs underway for M. temminckii 
that include captive rearing, head-start programs, and reintroductions 
that are successful. Similar programs may be implemented in the future 
to conserve the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. In our proposed 
4(d) rule, we included a provision allowing incidental take associated 
with Federal and State captive-breeding programs to support 
conservation efforts for wild populations. However, we determined this 
provision is duplicative of an exception under 50 CFR 17.31(b), which 
we also included in the proposed 4(d) rule and retain in this final 
4(d) rule. Therefore, this final 4(d) rule does not include a separate 
captive-breeding exception from the incidental take prohibitions.
Critical Habitat
    (11) Comment: A commenter claimed that the Service did not provide 
sufficient support for the not-prudent finding for critical habitat 
designation regarding the threat of illegal collection of the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle. The commenter also indicates the location 
data and maps are already available to the public in published reports.
    Our Response: We recognize that designation of critical habitat can 
provide benefits to listed species; however, for the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle, increased threats caused by the designation outweigh 
the benefits (for further discussion, see 86 FR 18014, April 7, 2021, 
at p. 18032). We do not dispute the claim that publicly available 
reports identify specific location data for the species, including 
locations of where the species occurs from trapping efforts. We 
acknowledge that general location information is provided within the 
proposed rule and this final rule, and some specific location 
information can be found through other sources. However, because the 
critical habitat designation process includes identifying the physical 
or biological features for the species and specific areas occupied by 
the species, the designation of critical habitat would describe and 
disclose areas of higher quality habitat that supports more turtles, 
which may allow collectors to better focus their efforts in these 
areas, thereby exacerbating the threat of collection or other harm from 
humans.

I. Final Listing Determination

Background

    Please refer to the April 7, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 18014) and 
the SSA report, version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 4-14) for a full summary 
of species' information. Both are available on our ECOS website for the 
species at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10891 and at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0007.
    A thorough review of the taxonomy, distribution, life history, and 
ecology of

[[Page 53512]]

the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys suwanniensis) is 
presented in the SSA report version 1.2 (Service 2022, pp. 13-22); 
however, much of this information is based on the Macrochelys genus as 
a whole and describes the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle using the 
best available information.
    Turtles in the genus Macrochelys are the largest species of 
freshwater turtle in North America, are highly aquatic, and are 
somewhat secretive. The genus includes two distinct species, M. 
temminckii and M. suwanniensis. Macrochelys turtles are characterized 
as having a large head, long tail, and an upper jaw with a strongly 
hooked beak. They have three raised keels with posterior elevations on 
the scutes of the carapace (upper shell), which is dark brown and often 
has algal growth that adds to their camouflage. Their eyes are 
positioned on the side of the head and are surrounded by small, fleshy, 
pointed projections that are unique to the genus.
    Suwannee alligator snapping turtles are primarily freshwater 
turtles endemic to the Suwannee River basin and found more abundantly 
in the middle reaches of the Suwannee River where freshwater springs 
contribute to an increase in productivity of the aquatic system (Enge 
et al. 2014, p. 36). These turtles are typically bottom-dwelling, but 
surface periodically to breathe (Thomas 2014, p. 60). While the species 
is typically found in fresh water, it can tolerate some salinity and 
brackish waters, as barnacles have been found on the carapace of some 
turtles. The species is found in a variety of habitats across its 
range, but all life stages rely on submerged material (i.e., deadhead 
logs and vegetation) as important structure for resting, foraging, and 
cover from predators (Enge et al. 2014, p. 39).
    The Suwannee River basin encompasses parts of southern Georgia and 
northern Florida. Main water bodies that currently or historically 
supported the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle include the Suwannee 
River, Santa Fe River, New River, Alapaha River, Little River, and 
Withlacoochee River. Individuals occupy main river channels and 
tributaries where habitat is present.
    Throughout this document, we provide descriptions of the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle where the information is available specific 
to the species. We describe the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as 
Macrochelys suwanniensis or Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. We 
reference Macrochelys when describing the genus and Macrochelys 
temminckii (abbreviated as M. temminckii) when referring to the second 
species of the genus, alligator snapping turtle. Since the taxonomic 
distinction of the two Macrochelys spp. is relatively recent, we may 
refer to the genus, or alligator snapping turtles in general, to 
describe life-history traits.
    The general life stages of Macrochelys spp. can be described as 
egg, hatchling (first year), juvenile (second year until age of sexual 
maturity), and adult (age of sexual maturity through death). Each life 
stage has specific requirements in order to contribute to the 
productivity of the next life stage. They excavate nests in sandy soils 
or other dry substrate near freshwater sources that are within 8 to 656 
feet (ft) (2.5 to 200 meters (m)) from the shore. The incubation period 
for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is between 105 to 110 days 
(Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145).
    Males achieve sexual maturity in 11-21 years and females in 13-21 
years (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 144; Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). The age 
of sexual maturity can be influenced by the size of the turtle, as size 
increases are greater when food resources and other environmental 
conditions are more favorable. Adult Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtles require streams and rivers with submerged logs and undercut 
banks, clean water, and ample prey.
    Female alligator snapping turtles may produce a single clutch once 
a year or every other year at most even if the conditions are good 
(Reed et al. 2002, p. 4). Clutch size may vary across the species' 
range to between 9 and 61 eggs, with a mean clutch size of 27 eggs 
(Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 145). Most nesting occurs from May to July 
(Reed et al. 2002, p. 4).
    Suwannee alligator snapping turtles are long-lived species; 
provided suitable conditions, adults can reach carapace lengths of up 
to 29 inches and 249 pounds for males, while females can reach lengths 
of 22 inches and 62 pounds. The oldest documented Macrochelys turtle in 
captivity survived to at least 80 years of age, but in the wild, the 
species may live longer (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 147). The generation 
time for the species is around 31 years (range = 28.6-34.0 years, 95 
percent confidence interval, Folt et al. 2016, p. 27).

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 part 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 part 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 this 
species 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 as of May 6, 2024, and the 2019 regulations are 
available on https://www.regulations.gov.
    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

[[Page 53513]]

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 https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf). 
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 Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's 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 
described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these 
stages, we used the best available information to characterize 
viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the 
wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory 
decision. 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-2021-0007 on https://www.regulations.gov.

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.
    The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is found in the Suwannee 
River basin in Georgia and Florida. The species is mostly aquatic and 
uses a variety of habitat types including deeper water of large rivers 
and their major tributaries; however, they are also found in a wide 
variety of habitats, including small streams, springs, bayous, canals, 
swamps, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds. This large turtle species is an 
opportunistic feeder and consumes a variety of foods. Fish comprise a 
significant portion of its diet; however, crayfish, mollusks, smaller 
turtles, insects, snakes, birds, and vegetation (including acorns) have 
also been reported (Elsey 2006, pp. 448-489; Elbers and Moll 2011, 
entire). Additional information regarding the species' needs is 
provided in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 4-14) and the proposed 
listing rule (86 FR 18014; April 7, 2021).

Threats

    We provide information regarding past, present, and future 
influences, including both positive and negative influences, on the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's current and future viability, 
including illegal harvest (Factor B), bycatch (Factor E), habitat loss 
and degradation (Factor A), nest predation (Factor C), climate change 
(Factor E), and conservation measures. The existing regulatory 
mechanisms (Factor D) have not been adequate to arrest the decline of 
the species. Additional threats such as historical commercial and 
recreational harvest targeting the species, disease, parasitic insects, 
boating, and contaminants are described in the SSA report (Service 
2022, pp. 15-22); these additional threats may negatively affect 
individuals of the species or have historically

[[Page 53514]]

affected the species, particularly when compounded with other ongoing 
stressors or threats, but they do not impact the species' overall 
current or future viability.
Harvest (Commercial and Poaching)
    Commercial and recreational turtle harvesting practices in the last 
century resulted in a decline of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
across its range (Enge et al. 2014, p. 4). Commercial harvest of both 
species of alligator snapping turtles reached its peak in the late 
1960s and 1970s, when the meat was used for commercial turtle soup 
products and sold in large quantities for public consumption. In 
addition, many restaurants served turtle soup and purchased large 
quantities of alligator snapping turtles from trappers in the 
southeastern States (Reed et al. 2002, p. 5). In the 1970s, the demand 
for turtle meat was so high that as much as three to four tons of 
alligator snapping turtles (M. temminckii) were harvested from the 
Flint River in Georgia per day (Pritchard 1989, p. 76). The Florida 
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (now the Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FWC)) reported significant numbers of turtles 
being taken from the Apalachicola and Ochlocknee Rivers to presumably 
be sent to restaurants in New Orleans and other destinations (Pritchard 
1989, pp. 74-75). While such large-scale removal of Macrochelys turtles 
occurred across the range of the genus, the population demographics of 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtles in Florida indicate there was 
likely less commercial harvesting activities in the Suwannee River 
drainage than elsewhere (Enge et al. 2017, p. 6; Enge et al. 2014, 
entire; Johnston et al. 2015, entire).
    Florida prohibited the commercial harvest of all Macrochelys spp. 
in 1972, and recreational or personal harvest in 2009; Georgia 
prohibited all harvest in 1992 (Service 2022, pp. 27-29). Despite the 
prohibitions on commercial and recreational harvest for the species, 
the historical removal of large turtles continues to affect the species 
due to their low fecundity, low juvenile survival, long lifespan, and 
delayed maturity. Commercial harvest is not currently a threat to the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, but the effect of historical, 
large-scale removal of large turtles is ongoing.
    Although both Florida and Georgia have prohibited recreational 
harvest, there is an international and domestic demand for turtles for 
consumption and for herpetofauna enthusiasts who collect turtle species 
for pets (Stanford et al. 2020, entire). The Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle is no exception; farmed, hatchling alligator snapping 
turtles may be sold for up to 400 U.S. dollars per turtle (Lejeune et 
al. 2020, p. 8; MorphMarket 2024, unpaginated). Illegal harvest, or 
poaching, of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles may occur anywhere 
within the species' range for both the pet trade and turtle meat trade. 
The best available information regarding potential pressure from 
poaching comes from documented reports by law enforcement agencies and 
court cases involving the congeneric (species within the same genus) 
alligator snapping turtle. In 2017, three men were convicted of 
violating the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378; 18 U.S.C. 42) because 
they collected 60 large alligator snapping turtles (M. temminckii) in a 
single year in Texas and transported them across State lines (see 
United States v. Travis Leger et al., No. 1:17-CR-00040 (E.D. Tex.)). 
We expect that illegal harvest is affecting Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtles, given it has been documented on many occasions for the 
heterospecific alligator snapping turtle. Illegal harvest is an ongoing 
threat to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle because removing adult 
female turtles from the population lowers the viability of the species 
by reducing reproductive potential; in addition, the species is long-
lived, slow to mature, and juvenile survival is very low, making it 
more difficult for the historically over-harvested population to 
recover.
    Aside from the local and domestic use of turtles, the global demand 
for pet turtles and turtle meat continues to increase. Many species of 
turtles are collected from the wild as well as bred in captivity and 
are sold domestically and exported internationally. Macrochelys spp. 
are regularly exported out of the United States, typically as 
hatchlings or juveniles, to initiate brood stock for overseas turtle 
farms and for turtle collectors. According to the Service's Law 
Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS), which provides 
reports about the legal international wildlife trade, most shipments of 
live alligator snapping turtles exported from 2005 to 2018 consisted of 
small turtles destined mostly for Hong Kong and China (Service 2018, 
entire). Prior to 2006, up to 23,780 M. temminckii per year were 
exported from the United States (70 FR 74700; December 16, 2005). Since 
the time of the proposed listing, the species has been uplisted to 
CITES Appendix II that may provide additional protections to the 
species. See the section below for additional information, Conservation 
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms.
Impacts of Harvest
    Because of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's delayed 
maturity, long generation times, and relatively low reproductive 
output, the species cannot sustain collection from the wild, especially 
of adult females, over any length of time (Reed et al. 2002, pp. 8-12). 
Adult turtles do not reach sexual maturity until 11 to 21 years of age. 
A mature female typically produces only one clutch per year consisting 
of 8-52 eggs (Ernst and Barbour 1989, p. 133). These turtles are 
characterized by low survivorship in early life stages, but surviving 
individuals may live many decades once they reach maturity. The life-
history traits of the species (low fecundity, late age of maturity, and 
low survival of nests and juveniles) contribute to the population's 
slow response rebound after historical over-exploitation. Therefore, 
population growth rates are extremely sensitive to the harvest of adult 
females. Adult female survivorship of less than 98 percent per year is 
considered unsustainable, and a further reduction of this adult 
survivorship will generally result in significant local population 
declines (Reed et al. 2002, p. 9), although dynamics likely vary across 
the species' range. These data underscore how influential adult female 
mortality is on the ability of the species to maintain viability.
    Although regulatory harvest restrictions have decreased the number 
of Suwannee alligator snapping turtles harvested, populations have not 
necessarily increased in response. This lag in population response is 
likely due to the demography of the species--specifically delayed 
maturity, long generation times, and relatively low reproductive 
output. The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population remains low 
despite commercial and recreational harvest prohibitions (Florida Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2017, p. 6). Through expert 
elicitation, the magnitude of the threat of illegal harvest or poaching 
across the basin ranges from 20-55 percent of the species' range may be 
affected (Service 2022, p. 28).
Bycatch
    Suwannee alligator snapping turtles can be killed or harmed 
incidentally during fishing and other recreational activities. Some of 
these threats include fishhook ingestion; drowning when hooked on 
trotlines (a fishing line strung across a stream with multiple hooks 
set at intervals), limb lines, bush

[[Page 53515]]

hooks (single hooks hung from branches), or jug lines (line with a hook 
affixed to a floating jug); and injuries or drowning when entangled in 
various types of fishing line. The magnitude of the threat due to 
incidental hooking (i.e., recreational trot and limb lines, fishing 
tackle, etc.) as provided though expert elicitation describes the 
impact to the species as affecting between 30-75 percent of the 
species' range (Service 2022, p. 28).
    Hoop nets are also used to capture catfish and baitfish and are 
made up of a series of hoops with netting and funnels where fish enter 
but are unable to escape through the narrow entry point. The nets are 
left submerged and may entrap small Suwannee alligator snapping turtles 
that enter the traps and are unable to escape. Actively used or 
discarded fishing line and hooks pose harm to Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtles. They can ingest baited fishhooks and attached fishing 
line and depending on where ingested hooks and line lodge in the 
digestive tract, they can cause harm or death (Enge et al. 2014, pp. 
40-41). For example, hooks and line can cause gastrointestinal tract 
blockages, and the hooks can puncture the digestive organs, leading to 
mortality (Enge et al. 2014, pp. 40-41). Fishhooks have been found in 
the gastrointestinal tracts of radiographed Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtles (Enge et al. 2014, entire; Thomas 2014, pp. 42-43).
    Trotlines also negatively affect Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtles. Trotlines are a series of submerged lines with hooks off a 
longer line. Trotline fishing involves leaving the lines unattended for 
extended periods, before returning to check them. Limblines and bush 
hooks are similar to trot lines in that they are typically set and left 
unattended; however, they only use a single hook. The turtles can 
become entangled in the lines and drown, as well as ingest trotline 
hooks and lines, also causing drowning or internal injuries. Bycatch 
from trotlines that resulted in mortality of Macrochelys turtles has 
been well documented. Dead turtles have been found on lines that had 
seemingly been abandoned (Moore et al. 2013, p. 145). The lines and 
hooks may also become dislodged from their place of attachment when 
left unattended, becoming aquatic debris that remains in the waterway 
for extended periods of time and may continue to be an entanglement 
hazard for many species, including Suwannee alligator snapping turtles.
Habitat Alteration and Degradation
    The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's aquatic and nesting 
habitats have been altered by anthropogenic disturbances. Changes in 
the riparian or nearshore areas affect the amount of suitable soils for 
nesting sites because the species constructs nests on land near the 
water. Riparian cover is important as it moderates in-stream water 
temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels. In addition to affecting the 
distribution and abundance of alligator snapping turtle prey species, 
these microhabitat conditions affect the snapping turtles directly. 
Moderate temperatures and sufficient dissolved oxygen levels allow the 
turtles to remain stationary on the stream bottom for longer periods, 
increasing the ambush foraging opportunities. Changes in the riparian 
structure may affect the microclimate and conditions of the associated 
water body, directly affecting the foraging success of the turtles.
    Activities and processes that can alter habitat include dredging, 
deadhead logging (removal of submerged or partially submerged snags, 
woody debris, and other large vegetation for wood salvage), removal of 
riparian cover, channelization, stream bank erosion, siltation, and 
land use adjacent to rivers (e.g., clearing land for agriculture). 
These activities negatively influence habitat suitability for Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtles. Erosion can change the stream bank 
structure, affecting the substrate that may be suitable for nesting or 
accessing nesting sites. Siltation affects water quality and may reduce 
the health and availability of prey species. Channelization destroys 
the natural benthic habitat and also affects the water depth and normal 
flow. Submerged obstacles may be removed during the channelization, 
which affects the microhabitat dynamics within the waterway and removes 
important structures for alligator snapping turtles to use for resting, 
foraging, and cover from predators. While channelization within the 
species' range does not regularly occur, it is not prohibited. Deadhead 
logs and fallen riparian woody debris, where present, provide refugia 
during low-water periods and resting areas for all life stages and 
support important feeding areas for hatchlings and juveniles (Enge et 
al. 2014, p. 40; Ewert et al. 2006, p. 62).
    Suwannee alligator snapping turtle habitat is also influenced by 
water availability and quantity, as well as water quality, across the 
species' range. Ground water withdrawals in the Florida portion of the 
species' range are managed by the Suwannee River Water Management 
District (SRWMD); withdrawals increased by 64 percent between 1975 and 
2000, mostly for irrigation. Most withdrawals in the basin occur in 
agricultural areas along the Suwannee River during the spring (March 
through May) (Thom et al. 2015, p. 2). Water withdrawals may reduce 
flow in some streams, effectively isolating some turtles from the rest 
of the population or making immature turtles more vulnerable to 
predators. Additionally, reduced water levels may impact prey abundance 
and distribution through restricting habitat connectivity, reducing 
dissolved oxygen levels, and increasing water temperatures.
    Water quality may also be a factor for Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtles as contaminants enter the aquatic systems through runoff. The 
Lower Suwannee River's middle and lower basins are directly impacted by 
nutrients, including nitrates. Agricultural practices are the main 
source of nitrates, which specifically come from fertilizers and in 
some cases from manure and other waste products. They introduce 
nitrates to the river and groundwater (i.e., springs) through surface 
runoff and groundwater seepage. Groundwater seepage transports nitrates 
to the aquifer, which then reemerge through springs and other 
groundwater discharge, especially during low-flow periods (Pittman et 
al. 1997, entire; Katz et al. 1999, entire; Thom et al. 2015, p. 2).
    The direct effects of water quality and water quantity on the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle have not been quantified; however, 
as the human population that relies on water systems in the species' 
range continues to increase, the indirect effects across the entire 
range, coupled with other stressors, is likely to further reduce the 
species' viability. Underscoring the potential severity of this threat, 
Florida's human population is anticipated to grow from nearly 21.5 
million in 2019 to more than 24.0 million by 2030 (Rayer and Wang 2020, 
p. 9). The public water supply demand will increase with increased 
human population growth. All counties within the species' range in 
Florida (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, 
Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Suwannee, and Union Counties) are part of the 
SRWMD supply area and are projected to increase the public water supply 
demand by an average of 11.29 percent in millions of gallons of water 
per day from 2010 to 2035 (SRWMD 2015, p. 42). In addition, the human 
population in these counties will experience an average of 17.25 
percent population growth from the year 2010 to 2035 (SRWMD 2015, p. 
43). As the human population increases, other threats to the species 
and its habitat are

[[Page 53516]]

likely to increase. For example, recreational use of the Suwannee River 
will more than likely continue to rise, which will increase human 
encounters with Suwannee alligator snapping turtles through incidental 
bycatch. Also, more development may result in an increase in 
contaminated runoff and declines in water quality.
Nest Predation
    Nest predation rates for Macrochelys spp. are high. Raccoons 
(Procyon lotor) are common nest predators, but nine-banded armadillos 
(Dasypus novemcinctus), Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana), 
bobcats (Lynx rufus), and river otters (Lontra canadensis) may also 
depredate nests (Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 149; Ewert et al. 2006, p. 
67; Holcomb and Carr 2013, p. 482). Additional nonnative species found 
within the species' range that may depredate nests include feral pigs 
(Sus scrofa) and invasive red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) 
(Pritchard 1989, p. 69). Although not documented in Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle nests, fire ants are prevalent across the species' 
range, and predation by fire ants was the suspected culprit in the 
failure of alligator snapping turtle (M. temminckii) nests in Louisiana 
(Holcomb 2010, p. 51). Beyond nest failure, some hatchlings endured 
wounds inflicted by fire ants that led to the loss of a limb or tail, 
which reduced their mobility and their chance of survival (Holcomb 
2010, p. 72). The recovery of the species from historical overharvest 
depends on successful reproduction and survival of young. The currently 
low population size does not allow for absorbing the impact of elevated 
nest predation. The degree of added threat from the newer, introduced 
nest predators is unknown, but we can conclude that the overall threat 
from nest predation is greater than it was in the past because of 
introduced predators such as feral hogs, and fire ants. The magnitude 
of nest predation by native and exotic species affected between 5-10 
percent of the spatial extent of the species' range, as provided 
through expert elicitation (Service 2022, p. 28). Coupled with other 
threats, nest predation will continue to negatively affect the species' 
overall viability.
Climate Change
    Climate change may also affect the Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtle to varying degrees, but the extent of impact is influenced by 
certain geographical factors, including proximity to the coast and 
latitudinal thermogradients. Climate change may affect the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle in several ways. First, the effects of 
decreased precipitation due to climate change will cause an increase in 
water withdrawal for human use (i.e., potable water and agriculture 
irrigation). Additionally, reduced precipitation may directly and 
indirectly impact habitat, food, and water availability throughout the 
Suwannee River basin. Available water will be reduced as evaporation 
increases with continued warming temperatures. Furthermore, increased 
temperatures may have physiological impacts on sex ratios because these 
turtles have temperature-dependent sex determination, and higher 
temperatures may skew the sex ratio.
    In the southeastern United States, temperatures are predicted to 
warm by 4 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (2.2 to 4.4 degrees Celsius 
([deg]C)) by 2100 (Carter et al. 2014, p. 399). Temperature determines 
the sex of the Macrochelys developing embryos; certain nest 
temperatures result in primarily male hatchlings with females produced 
at temperatures of the two extremes of the intermediate male-producing 
temperatures. Females are produced when the nest temperatures are 
either cooler or warmer than the temperature threshold for male 
development. In order to develop mixed ratios of both sexes, 
fluctuating temperatures near the intermediate and extremes are ideal. 
In addition to temperature effects on sex ratio, temperature has been 
associated with nest viability, with highest viability in nests with 
intermediate sex ratios (produced at the male-producing intermediate 
temperature range with fluctuations of warmer or cooler temperatures 
for female-producing temperatures during the incubation period) and 
lowest in nests with female-biased sex ratios (Ewert and Jackson 1994, 
pp. 28-29). Thus, warming temperatures might lead to Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle nests with strongly female-biased sex ratios. These 
skewed sex ratios may result in declining viability as mating behaviors 
are altered and other issues with unbalanced populations arise.
    Collectively, these impacts from reduced precipitation and 
increased temperature would reduce the quality or availability of 
suitable habitat for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Thom et 
al. 2015, p. 126). Climate change impacts on the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle will likely act in concert with, and exacerbate, the 
impacts of other threats and stressors.
Other Stressors
    Other stressors that may affect Suwannee alligator snapping turtles 
include disease, nest parasites, contaminants from urban and 
agricultural runoff, and historical recreational harvest, but none of 
these stressors are having species-level impacts on the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle. These stressors may act on individuals or 
have highly localized impacts. While each is relatively uncommon, these 
stressors may exacerbate the effects of other ongoing threats.
    Additional information on these stressors acting on the species is 
available in the species' SSA report under ``Factors Influencing 
Viability'' (Service 2022, pp. 23-29). This information includes 
historical and current threats that have caused and are causing a 
decline in the species' viability. The primary threats currently acting 
on the species include illegal harvest, nest predation, and hook 
ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch associated with freshwater 
fishing. These primary threats are not only affecting the species now 
but are expected to continue impacting the species and were included in 
the species' future condition projections in the SSA report (Service 
2022, pp. 41-56).

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

Clean Water Act

    Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq.) requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit 
provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will not 
degrade water quality or violate water-quality standards, including 
State-established water quality standard requirements. Section 404 of 
the CWA establishes programs to regulate the discharge of dredged and 
fill material into waters of the United States.
    Nationwide, regional general, or individual permits are issued by 
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection or U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers to fill wetlands; to install, replace, or remove culverts; 
to install, repair, replace, or remove bridges; or to realign streams 
or water features. These permit types are summarized below.
     Nationwide permits are for ``minor'' impacts to streams 
and wetlands, and do not require an intense review process. The impacts 
allowed under nationwide permits usually include projects affecting 
stream reaches less than 150 ft (45.72 m) in length, and wetland fill 
projects up to 0.50 acres (0.2 hectares). Mitigation is usually 
provided for the same type of wetland or stream impacted and is usually 
at a 2:1 ratio to offset losses.

[[Page 53517]]

     Regional general permits are for various specific types of 
impacts that are common to a particular region; these permits will vary 
based on location in a certain region or State.
     Individual permits are for the larger, higher impact, and 
more complex projects. These require a complex permit process with 
multi-agency input and involvement. Impacts in these types of permits 
are reviewed individually, and the compensatory mitigation chosen may 
vary depending on the project and types of impacts.
    The CWA regulations, set forth in title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) for the Environmental Protection Agency and in title 
33 of the CFR for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ensure proper 
mitigation measures are applied to minimize the impact of activities 
occurring in streams and wetlands where the species occurs. These 
regulations contribute to the conservation of the species by minimizing 
or mitigating the effects of certain activities on Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtles and their habitat.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora (CITES)

    Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is included in the CITES 
Appendices under Macrochelys temminckii, based on the CITES standard 
nomenclature reference for turtles (Fritz & Hava[scaron] 2007, p. 172), 
which recognizes M. temminckii as the only taxon in the genus 
Macrochelys. This species was originally included in CITES Appendix III 
in 2006, when the genus was recognized as a single species, described 
as Macroclemys and synonymous with Macrochelys (70 FR 74700; December 
16, 2005). At the 19th Conference of the Parties (November 2022), 
Macrochelys temminckii was transferred from Appendix III of CITES to 
Appendix II (CITES 2023, pp. 45-46). Because CITES only recognizes a 
single species of Macrochelys (M. temminckii), both taxa, the alligator 
snapping turtle and the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, are 
protected under CITES Appendix II regulations.
    CITES requires permits for exports of Appendix II species, which 
are only issued when: (1) the Scientific Authority has advised that the 
export will not be detrimental to the survival of the species; (2) the 
Management Authority is satisfied that the specimen(s) were legally 
acquired; and (3) the Management Authority is satisfied that any living 
specimens will be prepared and shipped so as to minimize the risk of 
injury, damage to health, or cruel treatment. Export numbers are also 
monitored by U.S. CITES Authorities and reported to CITES annually. 
Whenever a Scientific Authority determines that the export of specimens 
of any such species should be limited in order to maintain that species 
throughout its range at a level consistent with its role in the 
ecosystems in which it occurs and well above the level at which that 
species might become eligible for inclusion in Appendix I, the 
Scientific Authority shall advise the appropriate Management Authority 
of suitable measures to be taken to limit the grant of export permits 
for specimens of that species.These requirements help regulate and 
document legal, international trade; they further ensure that specimens 
entering international trade are acquired legally, and that the trade 
of the species is biologically sustainable for, and will not be 
detrimental to the survival of, the species. Thus, Appendix II 
regulations complement and lend additional support to State wildlife 
agencies in their efforts to regulate and manage these species, improve 
data gathering to increase knowledge of trade in the species, and 
strengthen State and Federal wildlife enforcement activities to prevent 
poaching and illegal trade.
    When this taxon was included in CITES Appendix III, reporting of 
annual exports was also required. While CITES reporting indicates the 
number of turtles exported with other relevant data, in the past, the 
information required for the export reports has not always accurately 
identified the source stock of the exported turtle(s). Most alligator 
snapping turtles that were exported between 2005 and 2018 were 
identified as ``wild'' individuals; however, many were likely from 
farmed parental stock (Service 2018, entire). The discrepancy in 
reporting the actual source of the internationally exported turtles has 
not allowed us to easily evaluate the impact of export on Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtles. Inclusion in Appendix II, unlike Appendix 
III, requires an evaluation that the export will not be detrimental to 
the survival of the species, which will help better assess the impact 
of export.

National Wildlife Refuges

    Approximately 5 percent of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's 
range includes areas within two National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), 
Okefenokee in Georgia and Lower Suwannee in Florida. These NWRs are 
managed by the Service to conserve native wildlife species and their 
habitats and are protected from future development. Both NWRs have 
comprehensive conservation plans (CCP) that ensure each NWR is managed 
to fulfill the purpose(s) for which it was established.
    Okefenokee NWR is at the northernmost proximity of the species' 
range and is a freshwater wetland. There are only a few anecdotal 
reports of the species occurring within Okefenokee NWR. There have been 
no systematic surveys conducted within the swamp, so the extent of use 
by the species of that area has not yet been documented. However, the 
paucity of documented and anecdotal records from the surrounding areas 
would indicate that the species is not common or widespread at this 
location.
    The Okefenokee NWR CCP includes a strategy within the wildlife 
management goal to ``develop and implement surveys to determine 
distribution and population status of amphibians and reptiles, 
particularly those species that are threatened, endangered, or species 
of special concern.'' The CCP also includes an objective to ``identify 
factors influencing declines in the refuge's fishery by examining water 
chemistry, groundwater withdrawals, water quality, pH levels, 
invertebrate populations, and the physical environment'' (Service 2006, 
pp. 84-86). This knowledge would clearly benefit management of the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.
    The Lower Suwannee NWR is at the mouth of the Suwannee River where 
it feeds into the Gulf of Mexico. Twenty miles of the Suwannee River is 
within the refuge and is suitable habitat for Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtles, albeit less so as salinity increases the closer the 
river gets to the Gulf of Mexico. The species is considered common 
within the refuge, and nesting has been confirmed; however, the species 
is not commonly seen (due to their ability to burrow into the river or 
creek banks, or to sit on the bottom of the river and stay submerged 
until surfacing for air is needed), and cryptic coloration when 
submerged makes detection of the species very difficult (Woodward 2021, 
pers. comm.). The Lower Suwannee NWR CCP includes management actions 
that may benefit the species and provides goals for wildlife, habitat, 
and landscape management. The CCP's objectives and strategies provide 
that the refuge monitor and manage wildlife populations, manage the 
habitats for endangered and threatened species and species of special 
concern in the State of Florida, and promote interagency and private 
landowner cooperation (Service 2001, pp. 11-22). The Lower Suwannee 
River NWR provides logistical,

[[Page 53518]]

operational, in-kind, and financial support to FWC's Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle team to conduct surveys on the refuge.

Department of Defense--Moody Air Force Base

    Moody Air Force Base (Base) is near Valdosta, Georgia, and has many 
freshwater ponds and a large lake, Mission Lake, that drains into the 
Grand Bay system. Suwannee alligator snapping turtles do not commonly 
occur on the Base, but they are occasionally found. The Base's 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) describes 
Macrochelys as occurring on the Base; however, there are no management 
activities described directly for the species in the INRMP. The 
Department of Defense ensures INRMPs are consistent with the Sikes Act 
Improvement Act of 1997, as amended through 2010 (16 U.S.C. 670 et 
seq.), which requires the preparation, implementation, update, and 
review of an INRMP for each military installation in the United States 
and its territories with significant natural resources.

State Protections

    The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is protected by State law in 
both Florida and Georgia as a threatened species. Florida 
Administrative Code rule 68A-27.003 makes it illegal to take, possess, 
or sell (except as specifically permitted or authorized) species listed 
as federally designated endangered or threatened species and State-
designated threatened species; this includes the species' parts, their 
nests, and their eggs. Since the original 2011 biological status review 
for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (FWC 2011, entire), two 
species of alligator snapping turtle were differentiated based upon 
genetic and skeletal differences (Thomas 2014, entire), necessitating 
new biological status reviews of both species. During FWC's 2017 
biological assessment of Macrochelys, the biological review group 
determined that M. suwanniensis was distinct and warranted designation 
as State-threatened based upon International Union for Conservation of 
Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria (Enge et al. 2017. p. 3).
    Florida developed a species action plan (SAP) that includes all 
Macrochelys spp. due to their similarity in appearance, vulnerability 
to deliberate human take, incidental take with fishing gear, pollution, 
riverine habitat alteration, and nest predation (FWC 2018, p. iii). The 
objectives of the SAP include habitat conservation and management, 
population management, monitoring and research, rule and permitting 
intent, law enforcement, incentives and influencing, education and 
outreach, and coordination with other entities (FWC 2018, pp. 10-27). 
Implementation of the Macrochelys spp. SAP is ongoing (FWC 2018, 
entire). FWC has established a team of biologists who continue to study 
the species to better understand the species and population trends.
    Both Macrochelys suwanniensis and M. temminckii are found in 
Georgia, but their ranges do not overlap. Georgia listed M. temminckii 
as threatened in 1992, which at the time included both species, and 
continues to cover both species as threatened. State law protects 
threatened animal species by prohibiting their harassment, capture, 
killing, sale, and purchase, as well as the destruction of their 
habitat on public lands (Georgia Administrative Code, rule 391-4-
10-.06). In the State's wildlife action plan, the Department of Natural 
Resources indicates they intend to conduct genetic, taxonomic, and 
reproductive studies of high-priority species (GDNR 2015, p. D-5). 
Current State regulations are intended to minimize the impact of 
poaching and also contribute to the conservation of the species through 
public outreach.

State and Federal Stream Protections (Deadhead Logging)

    Structural features within the water are important components of 
the habitat for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles. Submerged and 
partially submerged vegetation provide feeding and sheltering areas for 
all age classes. The structural diversity and channel stabilization 
created by instream woody debris provides essential habitat for 
spawning and rearing aquatic species (Bilby 1984, p. 609; Bisson et al. 
1987, p. 143). Snag or woody habitat was reported as the major stable 
substrate in southeastern Coastal Plain sandy-bottom streams and a site 
of high invertebrate diversity and productivity (Wallace and Benke 
1984, p. 1651). Wood enhances the ability of a river or stream 
ecosystem to use the nutrient and energy inputs and has a major 
influence on the hydrodynamic behavior of the river (Wallace and Benke 
1984, p. 1643). One component of this woody habitat is deadhead logs, 
which are sunken timbers from historical logging operations. Deadhead 
logging is the removal of submerged cut timber from a river or creek 
bed and banks. However, current State regulations minimize the impact 
of deadhead logging on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. Florida 
allows deadhead logging only with proper permits from the Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection; this State agency assesses the 
proposed activity's impacts on wildlife before issuing a permit. 
Further, the State of Florida prohibits deadhead logging in some of the 
waterways in the species' range. Georgia is not currently processing 
permits; therefore, deadhead logging is not currently being permitted 
in any of Georgia's waterways.

State and Federal Stream Protections (Buffers and Permits)

    A buffer such as a strip of trees, plants, or grass along a stream 
or wetland naturally filters out dirt and pollution from rainwater 
runoff before it enters rivers, streams, wetlands, and marshes. This 
vegetation not only serves as a filter for the aquatic system, but the 
riparian cover influences microhabitat conditions such as in-stream 
water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels. These habitat conditions 
not only influence the distribution and abundance of alligator snapping 
turtle prey species but also directly affect Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtles. Moderate temperatures and sufficient dissolved oxygen 
levels allow the turtles to remain stationary on the stream bottom for 
longer periods, increasing their ambush foraging opportunities. Loss of 
riparian vegetation and canopy cover result in increased solar 
radiation, elevation of stream temperatures, loss of allochthonous 
(organic material originating from outside the channel) food material, 
and removal of submerged root systems that provide habitat for 
alligator snapping turtle prey species (Allan 2004, pp. 266-267).
    The Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act of 1975 restricts 
disturbance and trimming of vegetation within a 25-ft (7.62-m) buffer 
adjacent to creeks, streams, rivers, saltwater marshes, and most lakes 
and ponds, and the Georgia Planning Act of 1989 requires some local 
governments to adopt a 100-ft (30.48-m) buffer. Georgia also has a non-
point water pollution source management program under which the State 
established and updates a nonpoint source management plan; this plan 
sets long-term goals and short-term activities for the State, partners, 
and stakeholders to address non-point source pollution. Although not 
focused on buffers per se, the Florida Surface Water Improvement and 
Management Act of 1987 addresses Statewide non-point source pollution 
impacts to waterbodies on a landscape scale and partners with Federal, 
State, and local governments, and the private sector to restore damaged 
ecosystems and prevent pollution from storm water runoff. These State 
laws provide

[[Page 53519]]

riparian protections and promote water quality, which protect potential 
nesting areas for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD)

    Water conservation measures restricting lawn and landscaping 
irrigation can benefit the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle by 
limiting water withdrawal, which directly benefits the turtle through 
maintaining available habitat and supporting habitat for prey species, 
and by reducing runoff of fertilizers and other turf management 
chemicals that could disrupt or alter water chemistry in the streams. 
The SRWMD manages the water and other related resources within the 
range of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle including the Suwannee, 
Withlacoochee, Alapaha, Santa Fe, and Ichetucknee Rivers within 
Florida. The agency monitors the water quantity and quality by regular 
testing and reporting. It also implements water-use restrictions to 
conserve freshwater resources of springs and rivers within the SRWMD. 
Unnecessary water use is discouraged, and landscape irrigation 
restrictions are implemented as needed, such as limiting watering to 
twice per week based on district water conservation measures that apply 
to residential landscaping, public or commercial recreation areas, and 
businesses that are not regulated by a district-issued water use permit 
(SRWMD 2021, unpaginated). Landscape irrigation accounts for the 
largest percentage of household water use in the State of Florida. 
Mandatory lawn and landscape watering measures are in effect throughout 
the SRWMD. These restrictions contribute to maintaining healthy 
groundwater level and flows.

Current Condition

    The current condition for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
considers the current abundance, current threats, and current 
conservation actions in the context of what is known about the species' 
historical range. In order to determine species-specific population and 
habitat factors along with threats and conservation actions influencing 
the species, expert elicitation was used in the absence of available 
related information. To describe Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's 
current resiliency, redundancy, and representation, we assessed the 
species as a single population, because there is evidence that the 
turtles may move between the mouths of the Suwannee and Santa Fe Rivers 
in Florida. The entire species is estimated to have an abundance of 
2,000 turtles across its entire range in Georgia and Florida (Service 
2022, p. 34).
    The primary threats currently acting on the species include illegal 
harvest, nest predation, and hook ingestion and entanglement due to 
bycatch associated with freshwater fishing. Other stressors acting on 
the species include historical commercial and recreational harvest, 
habitat alteration and degradation, and the effects of climate change. 
The species is State-listed as threatened in both Florida and Georgia. 
When evaluating range expansion or constriction, recent surveys have 
confirmed minimal change in the known, limited historical range.
    The resiliency of the single Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
population is described according to its abundance, threats, and range 
expansion or contraction. Current resilience was assessed as current 
abundance, along with information about current threats, conservation 
actions, and distribution serving as auxiliary information about the 
causes and effects of current versus historical abundances. There is 
little information with which to make rigorous comparisons between 
current and historical abundances; however, population depletions 
historically occurred for consumption and cumulated through the 1970s, 
when turtles and turtle meat were exported regionally for commercial 
use. Information about the magnitude of the changes in abundance over 
time comes from anecdotal observations by trappers (Pritchard 1989, pp. 
74, 76, 80, 83). The historical large-scale removal of large, 
reproductive turtles from the population for commercial harvest 
continues to affect the species and its ability to rebound. The species 
is described as a single population with an estimated abundance of 
2,000 turtles across most of its historical range. As a result of the 
impacts from historical and ongoing threats, as described above, the 
population size has been reduced from historical levels. This decline 
has impacted the current ability of the species to withstand 
environmental stochasticity. Additional information regarding current 
condition descriptions is included in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 
30-40).
    The home range for Suwannee alligator snapping turtles has been 
reported between 780 ft (243 m) and 6,604 ft (2,013 m) (Thomas 2014, 
pp. 41-42). Turtles are not confined to any part of their range as long 
as there are no physical barriers; while this species is aquatic with 
the exception of nesting, these turtles are capable of moving across 
land if necessary, as conditions become unsuitable or resources are 
diminished. When describing the species' representation, for the 
purposes of the SSA in evaluating the species' current and future 
viability, the species consists of a single representative unit. 
Representation is used to describe the species' ability to withstand 
environmental changes over time, or the species' adaptive capacity. We 
describe the species in terms of its adaptive capacity with its ability 
to acclimate to environmental stressors (Service 2022, pp. 37-39). We 
considered life-history attributes and assessed the species' propensity 
to respond to chronic environmental influences (Thurman et al. 2020, 
entire). The species has a type 3 survivorship curve, meaning only a 
few individuals reach maturity with adults usually having a long life 
span. This type of survivorship limits the Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtle to an overall low to moderate adaptive capacity in the life-
history and demographic attributes. The high rating of its fecundity 
and parity is overshadowed by the low rate of hatchling survivorship to 
maturity. The low level of parental investment allows females to nest 
and resume feeding and sheltering activities with minimal impacts to 
their health, thus allowing for a high adaptive capacity for this 
attribute. The species has a moderate to high adaptive capacity in the 
distribution, movement, evolutionary potential, ecological role, and 
abiotic niche attributes. The life history and demographic attributes 
used in determining the species' adaptive capacity have the greatest 
influence on the species' ability to respond to changes in its physical 
and biological environments over time. Therefore, representation will 
continue to be low to moderate.
    The best available science regarding the species indicates there is 
no genetic variation within the species' single population across the 
species' range that would allow for delineating additional 
representative units.
    The Suwannee alligator snapping turtle's redundancy is likewise 
limited to the single population, with an estimated abundance of 2,000 
turtles, across its range. Redundancy is related to a species' response 
to a catastrophic event. While there is only a single population, it is 
widely distributed across the historical range; therefore, the chance 
of a catastrophic event affecting the entire species is very low.
    In summary, the overall current condition of the species' viability 
is affected by the residual effects of historical overharvest, 
historical and

[[Page 53520]]

ongoing impacts from recreational fishing, including incidental limb 
line/bush hook take and bycatch, and from hook ingestion, illegal 
harvest, habitat alteration, nest predation, and the species' life 
history (i.e., low annual recruitment and delayed sexual maturity). 
Because of these threats, and particularly the legacy effects of 
historical harvest, the overall current condition is a single 
population with an estimated abundance of 2,000 turtles across most of 
the species' historical range. The species' resiliency is likely lower 
than it was historically as a result of the loss of reproductive 
females and the species' life history (long-lived, late age to sexual 
maturity, low intrinsic growth rate). However, the species was not 
well-studied historically, so there is little information (anecdotal 
observations) with which to make comparisons between historical and 
current abundance estimates. Redundancy and representation are limited, 
respectively, since the species is considered a single population with 
little genetic variability and there are no physical barriers to 
movement.

Future Condition

    The future condition of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is 
described in detail in the SSA report (Service 2022, pp. 41-56). When 
evaluating the species' future viability, we consider the current 
condition of the species and the threats acting on the species to 
develop a model to determine future trends of species' estimated 
abundance. We applied six plausible scenarios that factored in the 
estimated abundance and threats acting on the species to project the 
future resiliency of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (see table, 
below). Three scenarios consider conservation actions to be applied, 
while the remaining three scenarios project conditions with no 
conservation actions. Conservation actions that could decrease the 
spatial extent of habitat threats include but are not limited to: 
increased enforcement of state laws or law enforcement presence to 
reduce poaching or bycatch on illegally set trot or limb lines, 
prohibited recreational fishing or certain gear (e.g., trotlines, 
hoopnets) in the Suwanee River basin, and management actions that 
reduce the densities of nest predators. In addition to habitat 
modification, long term female population augmentation can be 
implemented by head-starting and captive breeding programs by Federal, 
State, and non-governmental organizations. The actual amount that any 
of these actions would influence the prevalence of threats will depend 
on factors like the time, money, personnel, and conservation partners 
available, but we selected a 25 percent reduction in the spatial extent 
of threats to explore how much a change of that amount affected future 
population dynamics (Service 2022, pp. 37-38).
    To assess future conditions and the viability of the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle, we constructed a female-only, stage-
structured matrix population model to project the population dynamics 
over 50 years to encompass a two-generation period for the species and 
the reliability in predicting the response to the threats in that time 
frame. Species experts identified five primary threats that were likely 
to reduce stage-specific survival probabilities: commercial fishing 
bycatch (includes entanglement, drowning, or otherwise dying from 
interaction with fishing gear; influencing hatchling, juvenile, and 
adult survival), recreational fishing bycatch (has the same impacts as 
commercial fishing bycatch; influenced juvenile and adult survival), 
hook ingestion (surviving a bycatch event but enduring the lingering 
effects of an ingested hook; influenced juvenile and adult survival), 
illegal collection (i.e., poaching; influenced hatchling, juvenile, and 
adult survival), and subsidized nest predators (influenced nest 
survival) with two having the greatest impact (illegal harvest and nest 
predation). The subsidized nest predator threat reflects additional 
nest depredation beyond what would be expected from common nest 
mesopredators (e.g., raccoons and opossums), with fire ants (Solenopsis 
spp.) being the primary nest predator.
    We used the best available information from the literature to 
provide values for the population matrix and elicited data from species 
experts to quantify stage-specific initial abundance, the spatial 
extent of threats, and threat-specific percent reductions to survival. 
To account for potential uncertainty in the effects of each threat, the 
six future scenarios were divided along a spectrum: threat-induced 
reductions to survival were decreased by 25 percent, were unaltered, or 
were increased by 25 percent. To simulate conservation actions, the 
spatial extent of each threat was either left the same or reduced by 25 
percent (see table, below). The 25 percent was selected using expert 
input and included a logical extent in which we would expect to see 
evident impacts to the population. We used a fully stochastic 
projection model that accounts for uncertainty in demographic 
parameters to predict future conditions of the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle units under the six different scenarios. We then used 
the model output to predict the probability of extinction and quasi-
extinction. In the model, quasi-extinction is defined as the point in 
time at which the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population 
declined to less than 5 percent of the starting abundance (females 
only). Time to quasi-extinction varied across scenarios, but in 
general, the Suwannee River basin is likely to reach this in 32-42 
years (Service 2022, p. 46).

    Table 1--Six Future Scenarios Modeled for the Suwannee Alligator
    Snapping Turtle's Single Population With Magnitude of Threat and
Conservation Absent/Present. Scenario Names Are Given in Quotation Marks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Conservation absent  Conservation present
      Threat magnitude                 \1\                   \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decreased...................  ``Decreased           ``Decreased Threats
                               Threats''.            + ''
                              Impact of threats:    Impact of threats:
                               Reduced 25%.          Reduced 25%.
Expert-Elicited \3\.........  ``Expert-Elicited     ``Expert-Elicited
                               Threats''.            Threats + ''
                              Impact of threats:    Impact of threats:
                               Expert-elicited.      Expert-elicited.
Increased...................  ``Increased           ``Increased Threats
                               Threats''.            + ''
                              Impact of threats:    Impact of threats:
                               Increased 25%.        Increased 25%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The spatial extent of threats for the Conservation Absent scenarios
  were expert-elicited.
\2\ The spatial extent of threats for the Conservation Present scenarios
  were reduced by 25 percent.
\3\ Experts throughout the range of the Suwannee alligator snapping
  turtle were elicited for their expert, professional opinion on the
  threats to the species.


[[Page 53521]]

    Suwannee alligator snapping turtle abundance was predicted to 
decline over the next 50 years in all six scenarios. The single 
population's resiliency measure also declined as abundance declined. 
Given the high uncertainties parameterized in the model, the species 
does not have a high likelihood of extinction in the basin within 50 
years, however the loss of 95 percent of the adult female abundance is 
expected to occur (quasi-extinction) Resiliency continues to decline in 
all scenarios.
    Future representation for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is 
expected to decline as the adaptive capacity for the distribution, 
movement, evolutionary potential, ecological role, and abiotic 
ecological attributes may not provide the species with the capacity to 
offset the low to moderate life history and demography complexes. These 
two attribute categories directly impact reproduction and the ability 
to maintain or to grow the population. Representation is further 
reduced by the continued impacts of human activities (e.g., unattended 
fishing gear and reduced water flow) and the probability of low numbers 
of adult females within the population. (Service 2022, p. 48).
    Future redundancy for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is 
expected to decline over the next 50 years. Where the species persists 
in the future, they are predicted to be rare and not found in resilient 
groupings. The addition of conservation actions, or different 
assumptions about the impact of threats on the species' demography may 
alter the time to quasi- extinction by about a decade at most, 
typically less. No scenarios resulted in stable or increasing 
population within the Suwannee River basin (Service 2022, p. 48).
    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.

Determination of Suwannee Alligator Snapping Turtle Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of 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 Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's 
section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined that the historical and ongoing 
threats that are acting on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
include illegal harvest and collection (Factor B), nest predation 
(Factor C), and hook ingestion and entanglement due to bycatch 
associated with freshwater fishing (Factor E). While historical 
activities that included removal of turtles for consumption through 
recreational and commercial harvest (Factor B) continue to suppress the 
viability of the species despite current harvest prohibitions, the 
species is currently well-distributed across most of its historical 
range. There are currently about 2,000 individuals distributed 
throughout the entire species' range across southern Georgia and 
northern Florida in the Suwannee River basin (Service 2022, p. 27).
    The magnitude of the threats acting on the species were obtained 
through expert elicitation. Incidental hooking (i.e., recreational trot 
and limb lines, fishing tackle, etc.) affects between 30-75 percent of 
the species. Illegal harvest or poaching across the basin ranges from 
20-55 percent. Nest predation by native and exotic species affected 
between 5-10 percent of the spatial extent of the species' range 
(Service 2022, p. 28). Due to the delayed age of sexual maturity and a 
generation time of about 28 years, the species is slow to recover from 
historical harvest pressures that reduced the species' viability. As 
the genus was recently split, the specific impact of large-scale 
harvest on Suwannee alligator snapping turtles is unknown; however, for 
Macrochelys temminckii, 22 years after M. temminckii commercial harvest 
ended in Georgia, surveys conducted during 2014 and 2015 in Georgia's 
Flint River revealed no significant change in abundance since 1989 
(King et al. 2016, entire). We expect commercial harvest had a similar 
impact on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle as it did on the 
alligator snapping turtle. Thus, despite prohibition of legal harvest 
of the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle in Georgia and Florida, the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle population will similarly be slow to 
recover.
    Alligator snapping turtle populations experienced severe depletion 
in the past when these turtles were heavily harvested, primarily for 
consumption, prior to prohibitions (Factor B). This past large-scale 
removal of large, adult turtles continues to affect the current 
demographics because the species has a relatively long lifespan, late 
age to maturity, and low fecundity with production of a single clutch 
every 1 to 2 years. The current recruitment rate has declined because 
of past commercial harvest practices, which caused the large-scale loss 
of adult females that have the highest reproductive potential; however, 
successful reproduction is occurring. The species is not currently 
impacted by commercial harvest; however, the species' resiliency is 
lower than it was historically as a result of the loss of reproductive 
females, low juvenile survival, and the species' life-history traits 
(long-lived, late age to sexual maturity, low intrinsic growth rate). 
The current estimated population size of 2,000 turtles provides 
sufficient contribution to the species' current viability through 
successful reproduction, albeit at a lower recruitment rate than 
historically. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we 
conclude that the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not currently 
in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
    When evaluating the future viability of the species to determine 
whether the species may become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout its range, we found that the threats 
currently acting on the species are expected to continue across its 
range into the future, resulting in greater reduction of the number and 
distribution of reproductive individuals.

[[Page 53522]]

We determined the appropriate timeframe for assessing whether this 
species is likely to become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable 
future is 50 years. Based on our knowledge of the species' life history 
and the threats acting on the species, this 50-year timeframe provides 
a period for which we can make reasonably reliable predictions about 
the threats to the species and the species' response to those threats. 
Additional information regarding the model and future scenarios is 
available under ``Future Conditions'' in the SSA report (Service 2022, 
pp. 51-56).
    This species is highly dependent upon adult female survival to 
maintain viable populations. Existing and ongoing threats affecting 
adult female survival are projected to reduce recruitment to an extent 
that the single population will continue to decline in the foreseeable 
future. While there is uncertainty regarding the rate at which 
population declines will occur, these threats are projected to drive 
the species towards extinction unless reduced.
    A key statutory difference between a threatened and an endangered 
species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction. 
As described above, the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is not in 
danger of extinction throughout its range at this time. However, the 
best available information shows that the species' viability is 
expected to decline with quasi-extinction projected to occur within the 
next 50 years under all modeled future scenarios (Service 2022, p. 41). 
Based on modeling results, which address uncertainty regarding the 
extent and severity of threats, resiliency is expected to decline under 
all scenarios. Regardless of the scenario, the projected loss of 
resiliency with limited representation and redundancy, across the range 
of the species will place the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle at 
risk of extinction across all of its range due to the inability of this 
species to maintain a viable population in the foreseeable future.
    Recreational harvest of Macrochelys spp. was prohibited in Georgia 
and Florida, in 1992 and 2009, respectively, and State-listed as 
threatened in Georgia (in 1992) and Florida (in 2018). Based on the 
projection of future conditions, these threats will cause about a 20-
year shift in the species' resiliency, indicating these factors will 
act faster on the generations in the foreseeable future.
    Despite the implementation of the conservation actions described 
earlier in this final rule, the lag in the species' response to 
historical over-harvesting indicates other factors may be acting on the 
species or additional conservation actions are needed. The future 
conditions projections, which include three conservation-based 
scenarios, based on the female-only matrix population model indicates a 
95 percent decline in less than 50 years under the most optimistic 
scenario. Therefore, given the future projections in the model, the 
species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future. Thus, after assessing the best available 
information, we conclude that Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is 
likely to become an endangered species 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 Services determine that a 
species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services 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 
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the 
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 
undertaking this analysis for the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, 
we choose to address the status question first. We consider information 
pertaining to the geographical distribution of both the species and the 
threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range 
where the species is endangered.
    We evaluated the range of the Suwannee alligator snapping 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 Act's definition of an 
endangered species. For the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle, we 
considered whether the threats to 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.
    We examined the following threats: illegal harvest (poaching), 
bycatch, habitat alteration, nest predation, and climate change, 
including cumulative threats. We also considered the cumulative effects 
acting on the species with additional stressors such as disease, 
parasites, and contaminants. Due to the species' low population size 
due to historical overharvest and limited redundancy and 
representation, we find that additional stressors such as disease, 
parasites, and contaminants would add to the ongoing impacts to the 
species from ongoing threats further negatively affecting the species' 
viability.
    In the current condition analysis, as described in the SSA report, 
expert elicitation values were provided to better understand the 
occurrence of the threats and the collective amount of the species' 
range affected (Service 2022, pp. 33-35). The impact of the threats was 
estimated as a proxy for the magnitude of the threats in terms of the 
amount of the entire species' range affected; these estimates do not 
indicate the spatial distribution of the threats. Rather, they estimate 
the percentages of the total amount of the species' range affected by 
each threat noted. Bycatch from incidental hooking affects 30-75 
percent of the species' range, illegal harvest affects 20-55 percent of 
the species' range, and nest predation affects 5-10 percent of the 
species' range; however, the impact of each threat is spread out and 
not concentrated in a manner that is causing more significant declines 
in any particular portion such that any portion is likely to have a 
different status. Therefore, we found no portion of the Suwannee 
alligator snapping 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

[[Page 53523]]

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 species 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 Status

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

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition 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, foreign 
governments, 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 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. When completed, the recovery 
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be 
available on our website (https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10891), or 
from our Florida 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 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 this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Florida and Georgia 
will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that 
promote the protection or recovery of the Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtle. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid 
species recovery can be found at https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Suwannee alligator snapping 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 action 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 Suwannee alligator 
snapping 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, U.S. Forest Service, and 
Department of Defense (Moody Air Force Base) 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

[[Page 53524]]

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 
local Service 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 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 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) for that species.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the Act

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 species. 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 [s]he may choose to forbid both taking and importation 
but allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd 
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    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 the Suwannee alligator snapping 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 Suwannee 
alligator snapping 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)). Because 
consultation obligations and processes are unaffected by 4(d) rules, we 
may consider developing tools to streamline future intra-Service and 
inter-Agency consultations for actions that result in forms of take 
that are not prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still require 
consultation). These tools may include consultation guidance, 
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) effects determination 
keys, template language for biological opinions, or programmatic 
consultations.

Provisions of the 4(d) Rule

    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle's conservation needs. As discussed previously 
in Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the 
Suwannee alligator snapping turtle is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to illegal 
harvest (poaching), nest predation, and bycatch-related incidents of 
hook ingestion and entanglement due recreational fishing of freshwater 
fish. There are other activities that could affect the species and its 
habitat if they occur in areas occupied by the species, such as impacts 
to water quality and quantity.

[[Page 53525]]

    Due to the life-history characteristics of the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle, specifically delayed maturity, long generation times, 
and relatively low reproductive output, this species cannot sustain 
significant collection from the wild, especially of adult females (Reed 
et al. 2002, pp. 8-12). An adult female harvest rate of more than 2 
percent per year is considered unsustainable, and harvest of this 
magnitude or greater will result in significant local population 
declines (Reed et al. 2002, p. 9). Although both Florida and Georgia 
prohibit commercial and recreational harvest of Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtles, due to the species' demography, the overall 
population has not recovered from prior extensive loss of individuals 
due to past over-exploitation.
    Habitat alteration is also a concern for the Suwannee alligator 
snapping turtle, as the species is endemic to the Suwannee River basin 
and its river ecosystems, including tributary waterbodies and 
associated wetland habitats (e.g., swamps, lakes, reservoirs, etc.), 
where structure (e.g., tree root masses, stumps, submerged trees, etc.) 
and a high percentage of canopy cover is more often selected over open 
water (Howey and Dinkelacker 2009, p. 589). Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtles spend the majority of their time in aquatic habitat; overland 
movements are generally restricted to nesting females and juveniles 
moving from the nest to water (Reed et al. 2002, p. 5). The primary 
causes for habitat alteration include actions that change hydrologic 
conditions to the extent that dispersal and genetic interchange are 
impeded.
    Some examples of activities that may alter the habitat include 
dredging, deadhead logging, clearing and snagging, removal of riparian 
cover, channelization, in-stream activities that result in stream bank 
erosion and siltation (e.g., stream crossings, bridge replacements, 
flood control structures, etc.), and changes in land use within the 
riparian zone of waterbodies (e.g., clearing land for agriculture). 
Deadhead logs and fallen riparian woody debris provide refugia during 
low-water periods (Enge et al. 2014, p. 40), resting areas for all life 
stages (Ewert et al. 2006, p. 62), and important feeding areas for 
hatchlings and juveniles. The species' habitat needs concentrate around 
a freshwater ecosystem that supplies both shallower water for 
hatchlings and juveniles and deeper water for adults, with associated 
forested habitat that is free from inundation for nesting and that 
provides structure within the waterbody.
    Regulating certain activities and take associated with other 
activities under this 4(d) rule will prevent continued declines in 
population abundance, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from 
other threats.
    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 Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.
    The protective regulations for Suwannee alligator snapping turtle 
incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) 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 Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable 
future and putting these prohibitions in place will help to prevent 
further declines, preserve the species' remaining population, 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 Suwannee alligator snapping 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 of the species resulting from activities including, but not 
limited to, illegal harvest (poaching), hook ingestions and 
entanglement due to bycatch associated with irresponsible commercial 
and recreational fishing of some species of freshwater fish 
(particularly as a result of unlawful activities or abandonment of 
equipment), and habitat alteration will provide for the conservation of 
the species. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of the Suwannee 
alligator snapping 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

[[Page 53526]]

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, 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 Suwannee alligator snapping 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 Suwannee 
alligator snapping 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 the following activities forest management 
practices that use State-approved best management practices (described 
below) that are expected to have negligible impacts to the Suwannee 
alligator snapping turtle and its habitat.
    Pesticide and Herbicide Use: Pesticide and herbicide application 
was included as an exception in the proposed 4(d) rule and after 
further consideration, we are removing this exception. When considering 
pesticide use, we note that the 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 is not 
appropriate in all situations. The Service will continue to coordinate 
with EPA on further pesticide consultation and registration efforts. We 
have reviewed comments provided during the public comment period on the 
exception to the prohibition of take related to pesticide use and the 
impact of pesticide use on the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. We 
have determined that the exception for pesticide use described in the 
preamble of the proposed rule was not necessary and advisable for the 
conservation of the species and have therefore not included that 
exception in this final rule.
    Forest 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 Suwannee alligator snapping 
turtles. We considered that forest management activities may result in 
removal of riparian cover or forested habitat, changes in land use 
within the riparian zone, or 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 Suwannee alligator snapping 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: Thus, under this final 4(d) rule, incidental take 
associated with forest management practices that use State-approved 
BMPs to protect water quality and stream and riparian habitat is 
excepted from the prohibitions.

III. Critical Habitat

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 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, 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

[[Page 53527]]

requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the 
Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not 
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land 
ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. 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 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 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.

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 species or a 
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, we published a final rule that 
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.
    In the April 7, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 18014), we determined 
that designation of critical habitat would not be prudent. However, we 
invited public comment and requested information on the factors that 
the regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat 
may be not prudent, and the extent to which designation might increase 
threats to the species, as well as the possible benefits of critical 
habitat designation to the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.
    During the comment period, we did not receive any comments that 
caused us to change the not-prudent determination or our rationale for 
it. The not-prudent determination for the proposed rule was based on 
increasing the threat of collection as described in 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1)(i). This component of the latest regulatory language has 
not changed from the regulatory language used in the proposed rule. The 
non-prudent determination for this final rule is the same as the 
proposed because the threat of collection is one of the factors in 
determining prudency that remained consistent in the previous 
regulations and the current regulations
    Therefore, after review and consideration of the comments we 
received, we now make a final determination that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent, in accordance with 50 CFR 
424.12(a)(1), because the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle faces the 
threat of poaching, and designation can reasonably be expected to 
increase the degree of this threat to the species by making location 
information more readily available.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt 
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes 
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical 
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations 
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a 
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g., 
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical 
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) 
rule)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination with Indian Tribal

[[Page 53528]]

Governments), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, 
we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully 
with federally recognized Tribes on a government-to-government basis. 
In accordance with Secretary's Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American 
Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the 
Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to 
work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy 
ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the 
same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian 
culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
    Upon the initiation of the SSA process, we contacted Tribes within 
the range of Suwannee alligator snapping turtle and additional Tribes 
of interest to inform them of our intent to complete an SSA for the 
species that would inform the species' 12-month finding. We did not 
receive any responses. In addition, no Tribes commented on our April 7, 
2021, proposed rule to list the Suwannee alligator snapping turtle.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2021-0007 and upon request from the Florida Ecological Services 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Florida 
Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by adding an entry for ``Turtle, Suwannee alligator 
snapping'' in alphabetical order under REPTILES to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Listing citations
           Common name                Scientific name        Where listed         Status        and applicable
                                                                                                    rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turtle, Suwannee alligator         Macrochelys           Wherever found......            T   89 [INSERT FEDERAL
 snapping.                          suwanniensis.                                             REGISTER PAGE
                                                                                              WHERE DOCUMENT
                                                                                              BEGINS], 6/27/
                                                                                              2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                              17.42(k).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.42 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.42  Species-specific rules--reptiles.

* * * * *
    (k) Suwannee alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys suwanniensis).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to Suwannee alligator snapping turtle. 
Except as provided under paragraph (k)(2) of this section and 
Sec. Sec.  17.4, 17.5, and 17.8 it is unlawful for any person subject 
to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to 
commit, to solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of 
the following acts in regard to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (2) General exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to this 
species, you may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(2) through (4) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iii) Take as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (3) Exception from prohibitions for specific types of incidental 
take. You may take this species incidental to an otherwise lawful 
activity caused by forest management practices that use State-approved 
best management practices designed to protect water quality and stream 
and riparian habitat.
* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-13946 Filed 6-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P