[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57206-57236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-15176]



[[Page 57205]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 134

July 12, 2024

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

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

[[Page 57206]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective August 12, 2024.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

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

Previous Federal Actions

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

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the Pearl River map turtle (Service 2023, entire). The SSA team was 
composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species 
experts. The SSA report represents a compilation of the best scientific 
and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, 
including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both 
negative and beneficial) affecting the species.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in 
listing actions under the Act,

[[Page 57207]]

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

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 57208]]

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

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

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

Peer Reviewer Comments

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

Peer Reviewer Comments

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

Comments From States

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

Public Comments

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

[[Page 57209]]

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

[[Page 57210]]

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

[[Page 57211]]

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

I. Final Listing Determination for the Pearl River Map Turtle

Background

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

[[Page 57212]]

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

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. On April 5, 2024, jointly with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the 
regulations in 50 CFR 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and what criteria we apply when 
designating listed species' critical habitat (89 FR 24300). On the same 
day, the Service published a final rule revising our protections for 
endangered species and threatened species at 50 CFR 17 (89 FR 23919). 
These final rules are now in effect and are incorporated into the 
current regulations. Our analysis for this final decision applied our 
current regulations. Given that we proposed listing for the Pearl River 
map turtle under our prior regulations (revised in 2019), we have also 
undertaken an analysis of whether our decision would be different if we 
had continued to apply the 2019 regulations; we concluded that the 
decision would be the same. The analyses under both the regulations 
currently in effect and the 2019 regulations are available on 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 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 Pearl River map turtle viability, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), 
and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to both near-
term and long-term changes in its physical and biological environment 
(for example, climate conditions, pathogens). In general, species 
viability will increase with increases in resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these principles, we 
identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and 
reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and

[[Page 57213]]

described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' 
viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical 
and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat 
characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at 
its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making 
predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative 
environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout these stages, we 
used the best available information to characterize viability as the 
ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We 
use this information to inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R4-ES-
2021-0097 on 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. Additional details about the 
species' biology and threats can be found in the SSA report, version 
1.2 (Service 2023, entire) and the proposed listing rule (86 FR 66624; 
November 23, 2021).

Species Needs

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

Threats

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

[[Page 57214]]

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

[[Page 57215]]

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

[[Page 57216]]

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

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

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

[[Page 57217]]

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

[[Page 57218]]

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife State Wildlife Grants

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

[[Page 57219]]

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

Cumulative/Synergistic Effects

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

Current Condition

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

[[Page 57220]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY24.000

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

[[Page 57221]]

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

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

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

[[Page 57222]]

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

Future Conditions

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

[[Page 57223]]

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

[[Page 57224]]

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

Determination of Pearl River Map Turtle's Status

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing 
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining 
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a 
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a 
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether a species meets the definition of endangered species 
or threatened species because of any of the following factors: (A) The 
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its 
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the 
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 
manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

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

[[Page 57225]]

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

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

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

[[Page 57226]]

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

Determination of Pearl River Map Turtle's Status

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

Available Conservation Measures

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

[[Page 57227]]

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

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

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the 
use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any 
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. 
Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states 
that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any 
threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the 
case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. 
With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad 
authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened 
species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section 
9 prohibitions, for a given species.
    The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion 
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the 
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid 
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that 
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley 
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 
511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do 
not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana 
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative 
history when the Act was initially enacted, ``once an animal is on the 
threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options 
available to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those 
species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of 
such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation 
but allow the transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd 
Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).
    The provisions of this species' protective regulations under 
section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we will use to 
promote the conservation of

[[Page 57228]]

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

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

    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Pearl River 
map turtle's conservation needs. As discussed previously under Summary 
of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Pearl 
River map turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future primarily due to habitat degradation and loss caused 
by degraded water quality, channel or hydrological modifications and 
impoundments, agricultural runoff, development, mining; collection; and 
climate change. Additional stressors acting on the species include 
disease and contaminants (pesticides and heavy metals). Drowning and/or 
capture due to bycatch associated with recreational and commercial 
fishing of some species of freshwater fish may also affect the Pearl 
River map turtle but are of unknown frequency or severity.
    Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as 
she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of 
each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among 
those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 
9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are not 
required to make a ``necessary and advisable'' determination when we 
apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a threatened 
species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule 
Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home 
Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 
1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). Nevertheless, 
even though we are not required to make such a determination, we have 
chosen to be as transparent as possible and explain below why we find 
that the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in this rule as a 
whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue 
regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the 
conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.
    The protective regulations for Pearl River map turtle incorporate 
prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) of the Act to address the threats to 
the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be 
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered 
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take 
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial 
sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means 
whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective 
regulation includes all of these prohibitions because the Pearl River 
map turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and 
putting these prohibitions in place will help to better preserve the 
condition of the species' resilience units, slow its rate of decline, 
and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other ongoing or future 
threats.
    In particular, this 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of 
the Pearl River map turtle by prohibiting the following activities, 
unless they fall within specific exceptions or are otherwise authorized 
or permitted: importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts 
with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, receiving, carrying, 
transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
take will help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their 
rate of decline, and decrease cumulative effects from other ongoing or 
future threats. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of the Pearl River 
map turtle, except for take resulting from those actions and activities 
specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule. Exceptions to the prohibition 
on take include the general exceptions to the prohibition on take of 
endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and additional 
exceptions, as described below.
    Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may 
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more 
otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The 
regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the 
Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise 
prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits 
issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance 
propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological 
exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for 
special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR 
17.32). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any 
employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management 
agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation 
agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their 
agency or Tribe for such purposes,

[[Page 57229]]

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

III. Critical Habitat for the Pearl River Map Turtle

Background

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

[[Page 57230]]

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

Prudency Determination

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

[[Page 57231]]

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

Critical Habitat Determinability

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57232]]

attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57233]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JY24.001

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

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

[[Page 57234]]

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

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

    The protective regulations for Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map 
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle incorporate 
prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to the Pearl 
River map turtle. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and 
implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, 
to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be 
committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered 
wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take 
(which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial 
sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, 
transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means 
whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective 
regulation includes most of these prohibitions because the Pearl River 
map turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and 
putting these prohibitions in place for Alabama map turtle, Barbour's 
map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle will help to 
reduce threats to the Pearl River map turtle.
    Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in 
regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
take will help address primary threats to the Pearl River map turtle. 
We are only prohibiting intentional take in the form of collect, 
capture, or trap, because the threat of collectors being able to 
misrepresent Pearl River map turtles as Pearl River map turtles as 
Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or 
Pascagoula map turtles for private or commercial purposes. This 
potential unauthorized trade or commerce of Pearl River map turtles is 
caused by a lack of distinct physical characteristics and difficulty in 
distinguishing individual species of megacephalic map turtles, posing a 
problem for Federal and State law enforcement agents. Exceptions to the 
prohibition on take include the general exceptions to the prohibition 
on take of endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and 
additional exceptions, as described below.
    Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may 
under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more 
otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above in 
accordance with 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. Because 
collection is the only form of take that is prohibited, this exception 
will allow 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 to collect the 
Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or 
Pascagoula map turtle.
    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 that may result in otherwise prohibited take (in this case, 
collection) without additional authorization.
    The 4(d) rule does not prohibit incidental take of the Alabama map 
turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map 
turtle. Incidental take is take that results from, but is not the 
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. For example, 
construction activities, application of pesticides and fertilizers, 
silviculture and forest management practices, maintenance dredging 
activities that remain in the previously disturbed portion of a 
maintained channel, and any other legally undertaken actions that 
result in the accidental take of an Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map 
turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle will not be 
considered a violation of section 9 of the Act.

Effects of the Final 4(d) Rule

    Listing the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map 
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened species under the 
``similarity of appearance'' provisions of section 4(e) of the Act, and 
the promulgation of a rule under section 4(d) of the Act to extend 
prohibitions regarding take in the form of collect, capture, or trap, 
import, export, and commerce to these species, will provide a 
conservation benefit to the Pearl River map turtle.
    As the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map 
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle can be confused with the Pearl River 
map turtle, we strongly recommend maintaining the appropriate 
documentation and declarations with legal specimens at all times, 
especially when importing them into the United States, and permit 
holders must also comply with the import/export transfer regulations at 
50 CFR part 14, where applicable. All otherwise legal activities that 
may involve what we would normally define as incidental take (take that 
results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise 
lawful activity) of these

[[Page 57235]]

similar turtles, and which are conducted in accordance with applicable 
State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations, are not 
prohibited under this 4(d) rule.
    We do not find it necessary to apply incidental take prohibitions 
for those otherwise legal activities to these four similar turtles 
(Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and 
Pascagoula map turtle), as these activities will not pose a threat to 
the Pearl River map turtle because: (1) Activities that affect the 
waters where the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map 
turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle reside will not affect the Pearl 
River map turtle; and (2) the primary threat as it relates to the Pearl 
River map turtle comes from collection and commercial trade of the 
similar turtles. Listing the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, 
Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle under the similarity of 
appearance provision of section 4(e) of the Act, coupled with this 4(d) 
rule, will help minimize enforcement problems related to collection and 
enhance conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.

Required Determinations

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, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the 
President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for 
Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department 
of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized 
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-
government basis. In accordance with Secretaries' Order 3206 of June 5, 
1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 
Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. We coordinated with Tribes within the Pearl River map 
turtle's range when we initiated the SSA process. We also requested 
review of the SSA report and addressed comments accordingly. We also 
coordinated with Tribes within the Alabama, Barbour's, and Escambia map 
turtles' ranges, requesting information regarding threats and 
conservation actions for those species. There are no Tribes within the 
range of the Pascagoula map turtle.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from 
the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are the staff members of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the Mississippi 
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 entries for ``Turtle, Alabama map'', 
``Turtle, Barbour's map'', ``Turtle, Escambia map'', ``Turtle, 
Pascagoula map'', and ``Turtle, Pearl River map'' in alphabetical order 
under Reptiles to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name      Where listed         Status         applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Turtle, Alabama map.............  Graptemys pulchra.  Wherever found....  T (S/A)        89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
                                                                                          REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          7/12/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.42(n).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Turtle, Barbour's map...........  Graptemys barbouri  Wherever found....  T (S/A)        89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
                                                                                          REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          7/12/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.42(n).\4d\
 

[[Page 57236]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Turtle, Escambia map............  Graptemys ernsti..  Wherever found....  T (S/A)        89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
                                                                                          REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          7/12/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.42(n).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Turtle, Pascagoula map..........  Graptemys gibbonsi  Wherever found....  T (S/A)        89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
                                                                                          REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          7/12/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.42(n).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Turtle, Pearl River map.........  Graptemys           Wherever found....  T              89 FR [INSERT FEDERAL
                                   pearlensis.                                            REGISTER PAGE WHERE
                                                                                          THE DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                                                          7/12/2024; 50 CFR
                                                                                          17.42(m).\4d\
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.42 by adding paragraphs (m) and (n) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  17.42  Species-specific rules--reptiles.

* * * * *
    (m) Pearl River map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to the Pearl River map turtle. Except as 
provided under paragraphs (m)(2) and (3) of this section and Sec. Sec.  
17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to 
solicit another to commit, or cause to be committed, any of the 
following acts in regard to this species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (2) 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) and (4) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (iii) Take as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (3) Exceptions from prohibitions for specific types of incidental 
take. You may take this species incidental to an otherwise lawful 
activity caused by silvicultural practices and forest management 
activities that use State-approved best management practices designed 
to protect water quality and stream and riparian habitat.
    (n) Alabama map turtle (Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle 
(Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle (Graptemys ernsti), and 
Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map 
turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle. Except as 
provided under paragraph (n)(2) of this section and Sec. Sec.  17.4 and 
17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 
United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to 
commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard 
to these species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Intentional take in the form of collect, capture, or trap 
(other than for scientific purposes).
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (2) General exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to these 
species, you may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Take as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iii) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-15176 Filed 7-9-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P