Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for Pascagoula Map Turtle; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Pearl River Map Turtle; and Threatened Species Status for Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle Due to Similarity of Appearance With a Section 4(d) Rule

FederalRegulations

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

Federal Register › Vol. 86 › 86 FR 66624

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 223] RIN 1018-BF42 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for Pascagoula Map Turtle; Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for Pearl River Map Turtle; and Threatened Species Status for Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle Due to Similarity of Appearance With a Section 4(d) Rule AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; announcement of 12-month petition finding.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 12-month findings for two freshwater turtle species, the Pascagoula map turtle ( Graptemys gibbonsi ) and the Pearl River map turtle ( Graptemys pearlensis ), as endangered or threatened species. The Pascagoula map turtle is endemic to the Pascagoula River drainage in Mississippi, and the Pearl River map turtle is endemic to the Pearl River drainage in Mississippi and Louisiana. We propose to list the Pearl River map turtle as a threatened species with a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (“4(d) rule”). After a thorough review of the best available scientific and commercial information, we find that it is not warranted at this time to list the Pascagoula map turtle; however, we propose to list the Pascagoula map turtle along with Alabama map turtle ( Graptemys pulchra ), Barbour's map turtle ( Graptemys barbouri ), and Escambia map turtle ( Graptemys ernsti ) as threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle with a 4(d) rule. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add the Pearl River map turtle, Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species

map turtle ( Graptemys ernsti ) as threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle with a 4(d) rule. If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would add the Pearl River map turtle, Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and extend the Act's protections to the species.

DATES:

Comment submission: For the proposed rules to list the Pearl River map turtle and the four other species (Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle) due to similarity of appearance, we will accept comments received or postmarked on or before January 24, 2022. We also request comments on the proposed 4(d) rule for the Pearl River map turtle and the proposed 4(d) rule for the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle during the same timeframe as comments for the proposed listing actions. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES , below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by January 7, 2022.

12-month petition finding: For the Pascagoula map turtle, the finding in this document was made on November 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the RIN or docket number (presented above in the document headings). For best results, do not copy and paste either number; instead, type the docket number or RIN into the Search box using hyphens. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment.”

bove in the document headings). For best results, do not copy and paste either number; instead, type the docket number or RIN into the Search box using hyphens. Then, click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment.”

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View Park, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone 601-321-1122. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if we determine that a species warrants listing, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register , unless doing so is precluded by higher-priority actions and expeditious progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to or from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Service will make a determination on our proposal within one year. If there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant to the proposed listing, we may extend the final determination for not more than six months

s progress is being made to add and remove qualified species to or from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. The Service will make a determination on our proposal within one year. If there is substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant to the proposed listing, we may extend the final determination for not more than six months. To the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we must designate critical habitat for any species that we determine to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and designation of critical habitat can be completed only by issuing a rule.

What this document does. We find that listing the Pascagoula map turtle as an endangered or threatened species is not warranted at this time. We propose to list the Pearl River map turtle as a threatened species with a rule under section 4(d) of the Act. We also propose to list the Pascagoula map turtle, Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, and Escambia map turtle as threatened species based on their similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle and propose a rule under section 4(d) of the Act for these species. We find that designation of critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle is not prudent.

The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence

dangered or threatened species because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that threats to the Pearl River map turtle include habitat degradation or loss (degraded water quality, channel and hydrologic modifications/impoundments, agricultural runoff, and development—Factor B), collection (Factor C), and effects of climate change (increasing temperatures, drought, sea level rise (SLR), hurricane regime changes, and increased seasonal precipitation—Factor E).

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to designate critical habitat concurrent

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from these proposed rules will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule.

We particularly seek comments concerning:

(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

ents concerning:

(1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:

(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;

(b) Genetics and taxonomy;

(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, their habitats, or both.

(2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.

(3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to the species and existing regulations that may be addressing the threats.

(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of this species.

(5) Information on regulations that are necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle, and that the Service can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for the species. We seek information concerning the extent to which we should include any of the section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule or whether we should consider any additional exceptions from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule. This proposed 4(d) rule will not apply take prohibitions for otherwise legal activities to the four turtles listed due to similarity of appearance (Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle) if those activities will not pose a threat to the Pearl River map turtle.

(6) Specific information on bycatch of Pearl River map turtle from fishing or trapping gear due to recreational and commercial fishing activities for other species.

tivities to the four turtles listed due to similarity of appearance (Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle) if those activities will not pose a threat to the Pearl River map turtle.

(6) Specific information on bycatch of Pearl River map turtle from fishing or trapping gear due to recreational and commercial fishing activities for other species.

(7) Information on why we should or should not designate habitat as “critical habitat” under section 4 of the Act, including information to inform the following factors that the regulations identify as reasons why designation of critical habitat may be not prudent:

(a) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat to the species;

(b) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species, or threats to the species' habitat stem solely from causes that cannot be addressed through management actions resulting from consultations under section 7(a)(2) of the Act;

(c) Areas within the jurisdiction of the United States provide no more than negligible conservation value, if any, for a species occurring primarily outside the jurisdiction of the United States; or

(d) No areas meet the definition of critical habitat.

(8) For the Pascagoula map turtle, we ask the public to submit to us at any time new information relevant to the species' status, threats, or its habitat.

(9) Information regarding legal or illegal collection of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, or Pearl River map turtle.

(10) Threats to the Pearl River map turtle from collection of or commercial trade involving the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle.

s' status, threats, or its habitat.

(9) Information regarding legal or illegal collection of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, or Pearl River map turtle.

(10) Threats to the Pearl River map turtle from collection of or commercial trade involving the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle.

(11) Information regarding domestic and international trade of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, Pascagoula map turtle, or Pearl River map turtle.

Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or opposition to, the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or a threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES . We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES .

If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov

ssion—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.

Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.

Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any comments on that new information), we may conclude that the species are endangered instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species do not warrant listing as either endangered species or threatened species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the 4(d) rules if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new information received. For example, we may expand the prohibitions to include prohibiting take related to additional activities if we conclude that those additional activities are not compatible with conservation of the species. Conversely, we may establish additional exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule if we conclude that the activities would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation and recovery of the species.

Public Hearing

in the final rule if we conclude that the activities would facilitate or are compatible with the conservation and recovery of the species.

Public Hearing

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified in DATES . Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . We will schedule a public hearing on this proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing. For the immediate future, we will provide these public hearings using webinars that will be announced on the Service's website, in addition to the Federal Register . The use of these virtual public hearings is consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

On April 20, 2010, we received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Network, Tennessee Forests Council, and West Virginia Highlands Conservancy (referred to below as the CBD petition) to list 404 aquatic, riparian, and wetland species, including the Pascagoula map turtle as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. On September 27, 2011, we published a 90-day finding that the petition contained substantial information indicating listing may be warranted for the Pascagoula map turtle (76 FR 59836). At the time of the petition, the Pascagoula map turtle description included turtles that occur in the Pascagoula and Pearl rivers. Since then, the Pascagoula map turtle was determined to be two similar, yet distinct species, the Pascagoula map turtle ( Graptemys gibbonsi ) and the Pearl River map turtle ( Graptemys pearlensis ) (Ennen et al. 2010, pp. 109-110)

Pascagoula map turtle (76 FR 59836). At the time of the petition, the Pascagoula map turtle description included turtles that occur in the Pascagoula and Pearl rivers. Since then, the Pascagoula map turtle was determined to be two similar, yet distinct species, the Pascagoula map turtle ( Graptemys gibbonsi ) and the Pearl River map turtle ( Graptemys pearlensis ) (Ennen et al. 2010, pp. 109-110).

On January 21, 2020, CBD filed a complaint challenging the Service's failure to complete 12-month findings for both species within the statutory deadline. The Service and CBD reached a stipulated settlement agreement whereby the Service agreed to deliver 12-month findings for the Pascagoula map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle to the Office of the Federal Register by October 29, 2021. This document constitutes our 12-month finding for the April 20, 2010, petition to list the Pascagoula map turtle and Pearl River map turtle under the Act in compliance with the October 29, 2021, stipulated settlement agreement.

Supporting Documents

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared SSA reports for the Pascagoula map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle. The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA reports represent compilations of the best scientific and commercial data available concerning the status of the species, including the impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) affecting the species. In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of four appropriate specialists regarding the Pascagoula map turtle SSA report, and five appropriate specialists regarding the Pearl River map turtle SSA report

oint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of listing actions under the Act, we sought the expert opinions of four appropriate specialists regarding the Pascagoula map turtle SSA report, and five appropriate specialists regarding the Pearl River map turtle SSA report. We received responses from all the peer reviewers; feedback we received informed our findings and this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determinations and 4(d) rules are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have expertise in the biology, habitat, and threats to the species.

In addition, we provided the draft SSA reports for review to Federal partners, State partners, and scientists with expertise in aquatic ecology and freshwater turtle biology, taxonomy, and conservation. We notified Tribal nations early in the SSA process for the Pearl River map turtle. We sent the draft SSA report for review to the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and received comments that were addressed in the SSA report. There are no Tribes associated with the Pascagoula map turtle across its range.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

cedures for determining whether a species is an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act defines an “endangered species” as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and a “threatened species” as a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following factors:

(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range;

(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;

(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

to negatively affect individuals of a species. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition or the action or condition itself.

However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species.” In determining whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all identified threats by considering the expected response by the species, and the effects of the threats—in light of those actions and conditions that will ameliorate the threats—on an individual, population, and species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether the species meets the definition of an “endangered species” or a “threatened species” only after conducting this cumulative analysis and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future.

The Act does not define the term “foreseeable future,” which appears in the statutory definition of threatened species. Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely

le future,” which appears in the statutory definition of threatened species. Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term “foreseeable future” extends only so far into the future as the Service can reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make

It is not always possible or necessary to define foreseeable future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

Each SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding the status of the species, including an assessment of potential threats to the species. SSA reports do not represent a decision by the Service on whether either species should be proposed for listing as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. However, they do provide the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. We completed SSA reports for the Pascagoula map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle and summarize the key results and conclusions from the reports below, beginning with the Pascagoula map turtle, followed by the Pearl River map turtle

tific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies. We completed SSA reports for the Pascagoula map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle and summarize the key results and conclusions from the reports below, beginning with the Pascagoula map turtle, followed by the Pearl River map turtle. The Pascagoula map turtle SSA report can be found in docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097 on https://www.regulations.gov, and on the species profile page of the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) internet site, https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/3198. The Pascagoula map turtle SSA report can be found in docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097 on https://www.regulations.gov, and on the species profile page of the Service's Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) internet site, https://www.ecos.gov/ecp/species/10895.

To assess the species' viability, we used the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, resiliency supports the ability of the species to withstand environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold years), redundancy supports the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large pollution events), and representation supports the ability of the species to adapt over time to long-term changes in the environment (for example, climate changes). In general, the more resilient and redundant a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability

nd redundant a species is and the more representation it has, the more likely it is to sustain populations over time, even under changing environmental conditions. Using these principles, we identified the species' ecological requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the species' viability.

The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species' demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species' responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We use this information to inform our regulatory decision.

I. 12-Month Finding for the Pascagoula Map Turtle

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we are required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded

e required to make a finding whether or not a petitioned action is warranted within 12 months after receiving any petition that we have determined contains substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (“12-month finding”). We must make a finding that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; (2) warranted; or (3) warranted but precluded. “Warranted but precluded” means that (a) the petitioned action is warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are endangered or threatened species, and (b) expeditious progress is being made to add qualified species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) and to remove from the Lists species for which the protections of the Act are no longer necessary. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that, when we find that a petitioned action is warranted but precluded, we treat the petition as though resubmitted on the date of such finding, that is, requiring that a subsequent finding be made within 12 months of that date. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal Register .

In conducting our evaluation of the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act to determine whether the Pascagoula map turtle ( Graptemys gibbonsi; Service 2021a, entire) currently meets the definition of “endangered species” or “threatened species,” we considered and thoroughly evaluated the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. This evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; private entities; and other members of the public

ientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future stressors and threats. We reviewed the petition, information available in our files, and other available published and unpublished information. This evaluation may include information from recognized experts; Federal, State, and Tribal governments; academic institutions; private entities; and other members of the public. After comprehensive assessment of the best scientific and commercial data available, we determined that the Pascagoula map turtle does not meet the definition of an endangered or a threatened species.

The SSA report for the Pascagoula map turtle contains more detailed biological information, a thorough description of the factors influencing the species' viability, and the current and future conditions of the species. (Service 2021, entire). This supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097. The following is a summary of our determination for the Pascagoula map turtle.

Summary of Finding

The Pascagoula map turtle is a freshwater turtle in the family Emydidae (that includes all map turtles) and the megacephalic (broad-headed) clade. Map turtles (genus Graptemys ) are named for the intricate pattern on the carapace (top half of shell) that often resembles a topographical map. In addition to the intricate pattern, the shape of map turtle carapaces is very different from that of other turtle genera. The carapace is keeled, and most species show some type of knobby projections or spikes down the vertebral (located down the center of the carapace) scutes (thickened plates similar to scales on the turtle's shell) (Service 2021a, p. 5)

at often resembles a topographical map. In addition to the intricate pattern, the shape of map turtle carapaces is very different from that of other turtle genera. The carapace is keeled, and most species show some type of knobby projections or spikes down the vertebral (located down the center of the carapace) scutes (thickened plates similar to scales on the turtle's shell) (Service 2021a, p. 5). Specific to

Before 1992, all megacephalic map turtles from the Pascagoula River system in southeastern Mississippi, the Pearl River system in central Mississippi and eastern Louisiana, the Escambia-Conecuh River system in western Florida and eastern Alabama, and the Mobile Bay system in Alabama, eastern Mississippi, northwestern Georgia, and southeastern Tennessee were recognized as the Alabama map turtle ( Graptemys pulchra ) (Baur 1893, pp. 675-676). The Pascagoula map turtle was taxonomically separated from the Alabama map turtle in 1992, when morphological features were analyzed for four operational taxonomic units, resulting in the name G. pulchra being restricted to the Mobile Bay drainages, individuals from the Escambia-Conecuh River system being elevated to a new species G. ernsti (Escambia map turtle), and individuals from the Pascagoula and Pearl River systems being elevated to the new species G. gibbonsi (Pascagoula map turtle; Lovich and McCoy 1992, pp. 296-306). A molecular systematics study supported the division of G. pulchra into three species, although G. gibbonsi was only represented in the analysis by genetic material collected from individuals in the Pearl River drainage (Lamb et al. 1994, pp. 554-559). The Pearl River map turtle ( G. pearlensis ) was taxonomically separated from the Pascagoula map turtle ( G. gibbonsi ) in 2010 based on morphological and genetic features (Ennen et al. 2010, pp. 109-110). This separation was subsequently supported with a molecular analysis of the phylogeny of the entire genus Graptemys (Thomson et al. 2018, p. 65)

l River drainage (Lamb et al. 1994, pp. 554-559). The Pearl River map turtle ( G. pearlensis ) was taxonomically separated from the Pascagoula map turtle ( G. gibbonsi ) in 2010 based on morphological and genetic features (Ennen et al. 2010, pp. 109-110). This separation was subsequently supported with a molecular analysis of the phylogeny of the entire genus Graptemys (Thomson et al. 2018, p. 65). The Pascagoula map turtle is recognized as a separate species from the Pearl River map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Alabama map turtle, and the distinction as a valid species is supported in the literature and recognized by the herpetological community (Crother et al. 2017, p. 82).

The Pascagoula map turtle inhabits stretches of perennial rivers and creeks with sand or gravel substrates, with higher population densities near dense accumulations of deadwood (Lindeman 2013, p. 293). Emergent deadwood serves as thermoregulatory basking structure, foraging structure for males and juveniles (Selman and Lindeman 2015, pp. 794-795), and as an overnight resting place for males and juveniles (Cagle 1952, p. 227). Pascagoula map turtles prefer clean water (Lovich et al. 2009, p. 029.4). They have never been documented in oxbow lakes or other floodplain hydrological features, despite the fact that other microcephalic map turtle species can be found in oxbows (Lindeman 2013, p. 293). They have also never been documented in saltwater or within a mile of estuaries (McCoy and Vogt 1979, p. 15; Lovich et al. 2009, p. 029.4).

Adult female Pascagoula map turtles feed mostly on freshwater mussel species, with nonnative Asian clams ( Corbicula fluminea ) as the major source of food; however, they may also consume insects and vegetation (Ennen et al. 2007, p. 200; Floyd and Floyd 2013, p. 5). Adult males forage on mussels, insects, and some vegetation (Vucenović and Lindeman 2021, pp. 123-124). Juveniles, small females, and mature males rely on insects (Dundee and Rossman 1989, p.187; Lovich et al. 2009, p

nnative Asian clams ( Corbicula fluminea ) as the major source of food; however, they may also consume insects and vegetation (Ennen et al. 2007, p. 200; Floyd and Floyd 2013, p. 5). Adult males forage on mussels, insects, and some vegetation (Vucenović and Lindeman 2021, pp. 123-124). Juveniles, small females, and mature males rely on insects (Dundee and Rossman 1989, p.187; Lovich et al. 2009, p. 029.4; Vučenović and Lindeman 2021, p. 123). Additionally, other aquatic invertebrates such as sponges and snails are also consumed by all sex and age classes (Selman and Lindeman 2015, pp. 794-795; Vučenović and Lindeman 2021, p. 20).

For the Pascagoula map turtle to survive and reproduce, individuals need suitable habitat that supports essential life functions at all life stages. Several elements appear to be essential to the survival and reproduction of individuals: Mainstem and tributary reaches within the Pascagoula River system that have sandbars, natural hydrologic regimes, adequate supply of invertebrate prey items including insects and mollusks, an abundance of emergent and floating basking structures of various sizes, and sand, gravel, or rocky substrates (Service 2021a, p. 22).

Additional resource needs of the Pascagoula map turtle include appropriate terrestrial nesting habitat (patches of bare sand adjacent to adult habitat with sparse vegetation, typically on sandbars; adequate sand incubation temperatures to yield an appropriate hatchling sex ratio; and adequate river flow to prevent nest mortality due to flooding).

To assess the species' viability in terms of resiliency, redundancy, and representation, we delineated the range into resilience units as a proxy for populations. As data are not available to delineate biological populations at this time, these units were intended to subdivide the species' range to facilitate assessing and reporting the variation in current and future resilience across the range. To describe the species' current and future conditions in the SSA, we delineated eight resilience units of Pascagoula River map turtles based on Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 8 watersheds and in accordance with guidance from species experts. These units are: Black, Chunky-Okatibbee, Escatawpa, Lower Chickasawhay, Lower Leaf, Pascagoula, Upper Chickasawhay, and Upper Leaf. Historically, the majority of the range of the species was likely connected in a single interbreeding biological population, but we used the eight units in the SSA to most accurately describe trends in resiliency, forecast future resiliency, and capture differences in stressors among units. Additional descriptions of the methodology for delineating units and the current resiliency of each unit are available in the SSA report (Service 2021a, pp. 41-65).

For units to be resilient, the needs of individuals (sandbars, adequate flow, adequate supply of invertebrate prey items, basking structures, and sand or gravel substrates) must be met at a larger scale. Tributary and mainstem reaches with suitable habitat uninterrupted by impoundments must be sizable enough to support a large enough population of individuals to avoid issues associated with small population sizes, such as inbreeding depression (Service 2021a, p. 22). The resiliency of the eight units was assessed for the current and future condition to inform the species' viability (Service 2021a, pp. 41-105)

d mainstem reaches with suitable habitat uninterrupted by impoundments must be sizable enough to support a large enough population of individuals to avoid issues associated with small population sizes, such as inbreeding depression (Service 2021a, p. 22). The resiliency of the eight units was assessed for the current and future condition to inform the species' viability (Service 2021a, pp. 41-105). The current condition of the eight units are described as one population with low resiliency (Escatawpa), five populations with moderate resiliency (Black, Chunky-Okatibbee, Lower Chickasawhay, Pascagoula, and Upper Chickasawhay), and two units with high resiliency (Lower Leaf and Upper Leaf) (Service 2021a, p. 66).

Representation improves with the persistence of populations spread across the range of genetic and/or ecological diversity within the species. Long-term viability will require resilient populations to persist into the future; for the Pascagoula map turtle, this will mean maintaining high-quality tributary and mainstem habitat and water quality to support many redundant populations across the species' range, while preventing barriers to dispersal between populations such as dams or impoundments (Service 2021a, p. 22). The Pascagoula map turtle has distinct genetic characteristics in at least three of the rivers: Leaf, Chickasawhay, and Pascagoula (Pearson et al. 2020, entire)

high-quality tributary and mainstem habitat and water quality to support many redundant populations across the species' range, while preventing barriers to dispersal between populations such as dams or impoundments (Service 2021a, p. 22). The Pascagoula map turtle has distinct genetic characteristics in at least three of the rivers: Leaf, Chickasawhay, and Pascagoula (Pearson et al. 2020, entire). We described representation based on four representative units: Chickasawhay River representative unit (includes the Chunky-Okatibbee, Upper Chickasawhay, and Lower Chickasawhay resilience units), Leaf River representative unit (consists of the Upper and Lower Leaf resilience units), Pascagoula River representative unit (consists of the Black and Pascagoula resilience units), and the Escatawpa River representative unit (consists of the Escatawpa resilience unit only) (Service 2021a, pp. 67-70).

All representative units are currently occupied, though the Escatawpa is occupied at a very low density. The Leaf River representative units substantially contribute to representation with high resiliency. The Pascagoula River and Chickasawhay River representative units both significantly contribute to representation with moderate resiliency (Service 2021a, pp. 72-73).

Status Throughout All of Its Range

We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Pascagoula map turtle, and we evaluated all relevant factors under the five listing factors, including any regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures addressing these stressors. The primary stressors (which are pervasive across the species' range) affecting the Pascagoula map turtle's biological status include habitat degradation or loss ( i.e., channel and hydrological modifications and impoundments; removal or loss of deadwood; declines in water quality from agricultural runoff; development; and mining), collection, and effects of climate change (SLR, drought, and flooding)

primary stressors (which are pervasive across the species' range) affecting the Pascagoula map turtle's biological status include habitat degradation or loss ( i.e., channel and hydrological modifications and impoundments; removal or loss of deadwood; declines in water quality from agricultural runoff; development; and mining), collection, and effects of climate change (SLR, drought, and flooding). Additional stressors acting on the species include disease and invasive species and the synergistic effects of a multitude of stressors that affect the species or its habitat over time.

When considering the threats acting on the species, there are adequate numbers of sufficiently resilient units with redundancy and representation across the species' range to withstand any imminent threats. The current conditions of the eight resilience units range from low to high with only a single unit, Escatawpa, with low resiliency, five units with moderate resiliency (Black, Chunky-Okatibbee, Lower Chickasawhay, Pascagoula, and Upper Chickasawhay), and two with high resiliency (Lower Leaf and Upper Leaf). The species is distributed throughout the Pascagoula River watershed and thus has sufficient redundancy such that a catastrophic event, like a major, direct-hit hurricane, would only affect the small portion of the range that is in close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. The species is also not confined to the mainstem rivers, and there are many tributaries that serve as refugia for the species.

This species' habitat is surrounded by protected lands in many areas and the species is buffered from many threats such as development. Because the species currently retains moderate to high resiliency in seven out of eight of the units with sufficient redundancy and representation, the species is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range

serve as refugia for the species.

For the species to maintain viability, there must be adequate redundancy (suitable number of populations and connectivity to allow the species to withstand catastrophic events) and representation (genetic and environmental diversity to allow the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions). Our projections of Pascagoula map turtle viability into the foreseeable future ( i.e., approximately 20 to 50 years (2040 and 2070)) consider habitat and population factors, plus available climate modeling projections to inform future conditions. The greatest future threats to the Pascagoula map turtle include the effects of climate change: Loss of suitable habitat through salinization due to SLR, overall habitat changes, and other effects of climate (more precipitation extremes, including drought and floods). However, future condition projections that extend out to 2040 and 2070 do not indicate the threats will act on the species within this timeframe in a manner that would place the species in danger of extinction throughout its range. We can reasonably rely on the predictions within the timeframe presented in the future condition scenarios because these timeframes are based on input from species experts, generation time for the species, and the confidence in predicting patterns of urbanization and agriculture. This is sufficient time to account for the species' response to threats over three to seven generations. Confidence in how these land uses will interact with the species and its habitat diminishes beyond 50 years

ion scenarios because these timeframes are based on input from species experts, generation time for the species, and the confidence in predicting patterns of urbanization and agriculture. This is sufficient time to account for the species' response to threats over three to seven generations. Confidence in how these land uses will interact with the species and its habitat diminishes beyond 50 years.

Habitat in the lower portions of the Escatawpa and Pascagoula units would likely experience SLR effects and a contraction of suitable habitat due to the effects of salinization. However, six of the eight populations would remain in high or moderate resiliency and moderate or better redundancy, and representation would still occur in all eight units into the foreseeable future. The two units with the greatest impacts from the above listed threats, the Escatawpa and the Pascagoula units, would also remain extant but likely with less habitat overall and some reduced resiliency. There will be sufficient redundancy with the units across the range and representation for adaptive capacity for the species to maintain viability into the future. Therefore, this species is not likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. After assessing the best available information, we determine that the Pascagoula map turtle is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

agoula map turtle is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Having determined that the Pascagoula map turtle is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range, we now consider whether it may be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which it is true that both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the “significance” question or the “status” question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless

In undertaking this analysis for the Pascagoula map turtle, we choose to address the status question first—we consider information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the species is endangered or threatened.

For the Pascagoula map turtle, we considered whether the threats are geographically concentrated in any portion of the species' range at a biologically meaningful scale, which may signal that it is more likely to be endangered or threatened in that portion. We examined the following threats: Habitat degradation or loss ( i.e., channel and hydrological modifications and impoundments, removal or loss of deadwood, declines in water quality from agricultural runoff, development, and mining); collection; and the effects of climate change (SLR, drought, and flooding)

e, which may signal that it is more likely to be endangered or threatened in that portion. We examined the following threats: Habitat degradation or loss ( i.e., channel and hydrological modifications and impoundments, removal or loss of deadwood, declines in water quality from agricultural runoff, development, and mining); collection; and the effects of climate change (SLR, drought, and flooding). We also considered whether cumulative effects contributed to a concentration of threats across the species' range. Overall, we found that the effects of SLR are concentrated in the lower portion of the Pascagoula and Escatawpa resilience units and will affect the southern portions of these units in the future.

We first consider the threat of SLR acting on the Pascagoula resiliency unit. The effects of SLR will encroach in the southern portion of the unit, which currently has a moderate resiliency. The unit is linearly aligned along a north-south axis and connects to the Gulf of Mexico, which is the source of the saltwater inundation into the unit. The future conditions of the habitat within the unit are projected to improve because forest cover is expected to increase. The amount of available habitat will decline due to SLR; however, this situation will affect less than 15 percent of occupied habitat within the unit. This threat will create a gradual shift in conditions, allowing turtles within the area that will be affected to move north into other suitable areas not affected by saltwater intrusion from SLR. Because such a small percentage of occupied habitat in the unit will be affected by SLR, we find that SLR is not acting at a biologically meaningful scale in the Pascagoula resiliency unit such that the species may be in danger of extinction currently or within the foreseeable future in the Pascagoula unit

fected to move north into other suitable areas not affected by saltwater intrusion from SLR. Because such a small percentage of occupied habitat in the unit will be affected by SLR, we find that SLR is not acting at a biologically meaningful scale in the Pascagoula resiliency unit such that the species may be in danger of extinction currently or within the foreseeable future in the Pascagoula unit. Therefore, this portion of the species' range does not provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range.

We next consider the threat of SLR acting on the Escatawpa resilience unit. This unit will be impacted by SLR in its southern portion as it also is connected to the Pascagoula River in close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. In the Escatawpa, the area projected to be inundated has only a single record of Pascagoula map turtle occurrence. Another recent detection was approximately 25 river miles (rmi) (40 river kilometers (rkm)) upstream, so it is logical to assume there are other undetected turtles that may be impacted by inundation. Depending on the magnitude of SLR over the next 50 years, the Escatawpa unit will be inundated between 2.5 rmi (4.0 rkm) and 5.5 rmi (8.9 rkm) with 1-ft (0.3-m) and 5-ft (1.5-m) level increase, respectively (Service 2021a, p. 89). Between 5-17 percent of the species' habitat within the Escatawpa resilience unit will be affected by SLR. Because such a small percentage of the unit and such a low density and abundance of turtles within it will be affected by SLR, we find that SLR is not acting at a biologically meaningful scale in the Escatawpa resiliency unit such that the species may be in danger of extinction currently or within the foreseeable future in the Escatawpa unit

n the Escatawpa resilience unit will be affected by SLR. Because such a small percentage of the unit and such a low density and abundance of turtles within it will be affected by SLR, we find that SLR is not acting at a biologically meaningful scale in the Escatawpa resiliency unit such that the species may be in danger of extinction currently or within the foreseeable future in the Escatawpa unit. Therefore, this portion of the species' range does not provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range.

All other threats to the species are distributed throughout its range and affect the species uniformly throughout its range. After evaluating the areas that will be disproportionately affected by SLR in the future, our examination leads us to find that no portion of the species' range can provide a basis for determining that the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in a significant portion of its range, and we find that the Pascagoula map turtle is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so in the foreseeable future in any significant portion of its range. This is consistent with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. Department of the Interior, No. 16-cv-01165-JCS, 2018 WL 4053447 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2018), and Center for Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d, 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Pascagoula Map Turtle Status

(D. Ariz. 2017).

Determination of Pascagoula Map Turtle Status

Our review of the best available scientific and commercial information indicates that the Pascagoula map turtle does not meet the definition of an endangered species or a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(6) and 3(20) of the Act. Therefore, we find that listing the Pascagoula map turtle is not warranted at this time. A detailed discussion of the basis for this finding can be found in the Pascagoula map turtle species assessment form (Service 2021, entire) and other supporting documents, such as the accompanying SSA report (Service 2021a, entire) (see https://www.regulations.gov under docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097).

II. Proposed Listing Determination for Pearl River Map Turtle

Background

The Pearl River map turtle ( Graptemys pearlensis ) is a freshwater turtle species belonging to the Emydidae family that includes terrapins, pond turtles, and marsh turtles. Turtles in the genus Graptemys are also known as map turtles or sawback turtles for the intricate pattern on the carapace that often resembles a topographical map. The species is in the megacephalic (large-headed) clade as females grow proportionally larger heads and jaws than males as they age; the carapace length of adult females is over two times the length of adult males on average (Gibbons and Lovich 1990, pp. 2-3).

length of adult males on average (Gibbons and Lovich 1990, pp. 2-3).

The species inhabits rivers and large creeks with sand and gravel bottoms in the Pearl River drainage from central Mississippi to the border of southern Mississippi and Louisiana. For the Pearl River map turtle to survive and reproduce, individuals need suitable habitat that supports essential life functions at all life stages. Several elements appear to be essential to the survival and reproduction of individuals: Mainstem and tributary reaches within the Pearl River system that have sandbars, adequate flow, adequate supply of invertebrate prey items including insects and mollusks (particularly freshwater mussels), and an abundance of emergent and floating basking structures of various sizes. The diet of the Pearl River map turtle varies between females and males; mature females consume mostly Asian clams ( Corbicula fluminea ), while males and juveniles eat insects, with mature males specializing in caddisfly larvae and consuming more mollusks than juveniles (Vucenović and Lindeman 2021, entire; Service 2021a, p. 11).

Pearl River map turtles are found in rivers and creeks with sand and gravel bottoms and dense accumulations of deadwood; turtles have not been documented in oxbow lakes or other floodplain habitats. They were notably absent from lakes where their sympatric microcephalic species, the ringed map turtle ( Graptemys oculifera ), is present, but do occur at the upstream reach of Ross Barnett Reservoir, an impoundment of the Pearl River (Lindeman 2013, p. 298). Accounts from before the Pearl River map turtle and Pascagoula map turtle were taxonomically divided described ideal habitat as rivers and creeks with sand or gravel bottoms, abundant basking structures, and swift currents (Lovich 2009, p. 304; Service 2006, p. 2). Although some species of Graptemys may tolerate conditions with some salinity, there is evidence that the genus is largely intolerant of brackish and saltwater environments (Selman and Qualls 2008, pp

turtle were taxonomically divided described ideal habitat as rivers and creeks with sand or gravel bottoms, abundant basking structures, and swift currents (Lovich 2009, p. 304; Service 2006, p. 2). Although some species of Graptemys may tolerate conditions with some salinity, there is evidence that the genus is largely intolerant of brackish and saltwater environments (Selman and Qualls 2008, pp. 228-229; Lindeman 2013, pp. 396-397).

The species requires semi-exposed structure for basking. Emergent deadwood serves as thermoregulatory basking structure, foraging structure for males and juveniles (Selman and Lindeman 2015, pp. 794-795), and as an overnight resting place for males and juveniles (Cagle 1952, p. 227). Moderate-to-high basking densities of Pearl River map turtles were always associated with moderate-to-high deadwood densities, but some sites with ample deadwood structure did not have high densities of basking map turtles, indicating that those sites may lack other important characteristics (Lindeman 1999, pp. 37-40). Deadwood and its source in riparian forests are positively correlated to the abundance of riverine turtles (Sterrett et al. 2011, entire).

The life history of the Pearl River map turtle can be described as the stages of egg, hatchling, juvenile, and adult. Typically, male map turtles mature in 2 to 3 years, while females mature much later (Lindeman 2013, p. 109). Maturity for adult female Pearl River map turtles may occur around 9 years of age (Vogt et al. 2019, pp. 557-558).

2019, pp. 557-558).

Female Pearl River map turtles excavate nests and lay their eggs on sandbars and beaches along riverbanks during the late spring and early summer months. Nesting habitat has been described as sandy substrates near the water's edge. At a beach on the Pearl River downstream of the Strong River, a nest was found in fine sand 82 ft (25 m) from the water (Vogt et al. 2019, p. 557). Three confirmed Pearl River map turtle nests found on sandbars along the Pearl River were dug in relatively fine sand ranging from 23 to 180 ft (7 to 55 m) from the water's edge and averaging 5.2 ft (1.6 m) from the closest vegetation (Ennen et al. 2016, pp. 094.4-094.6). Another account states that nests are typically near the vegetation lines of sandbars (Anderson 1958, pp. 212-215).

The time from deposition to nest emergence by hatchlings in natural clutches ranged from 67 to 79 days and averaged 69.3 days. Hatchlings incubated in captivity averaged 3.66 cm (1.44 in) in carapace length (Jones, unpublished data, summarized in Ennen et al. 2016, pp. 094.4094.6). Hatchlings typically emerge from the nest within 3 hours after sunset, and this life stage depends on adequate abundance of invertebrate prey and emergent branches near the riverbank. All life stages require adequate quality and quantity of water as they are primarily freshwater aquatic turtles.

A more thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the Pearl River map turtle is presented in detail in the SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 15-30).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the Pearl River map turtle, its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future conditions in order to assess its overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Species Needs

We assessed the best available information to identify the physical and biological needs to support individual fitness at all life stages for the Pearl River map turtle

iological condition of the Pearl River map turtle, its resources, and the threats that influence the species' current and future conditions in order to assess its overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Species Needs

We assessed the best available information to identify the physical and biological needs to support individual fitness at all life stages for the Pearl River map turtle. Full descriptions of all needs are available in chapter 3 of the SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 19-21), which can be found in docket number FWS-R4-ES-2021-0097 on 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 adjacent to adult habitat with sparse vegetation, typically on sandbars, adequate sand incubation temperatures to yield an appropriate hatchling sex ratio, and appropriate river flow to prevent nest mortality due to flooding.

• Hatchlings require an adequate abundance of invertebrate prey and of emergent branches and tangles near the riverbank.

• Adult males require an adequate abundance of insect prey, emergent logs, branches, and tangles near the bank.

• 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.

dequate 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 Analysis

The following discussions include evaluations of three threats and associated sources that are affecting the Pearl River map turtle and its habitat: (1) Habitat degradation or loss, (2) collection, and (3) climate change (Service 2021b, Chapter 4). In addition, potential impacts from disease and invasive species were evaluated but were found to have minimal effects on viability of the species based on current knowledge (Service 2021b, pp. 43-45).

Habitat Degradation or Loss

Water Quality

Degradation of stream and wetland systems through reduced water quality and increased concentrations of contaminants can affect the occurrence and abundance of freshwater turtles (DeCatanzaro and Chow-Fraser 2010, p. 360). Infrastructure development increases the percentage of impervious surfaces, reducing and degrading terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Increased water volume and land-based contaminants ( e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, oils) flow into aquatic systems, modifying hydrologic and sediment regimes of rivers and wetlands (Walsh et al. 2005, entire)

ater turtles (DeCatanzaro and Chow-Fraser 2010, p. 360). Infrastructure development increases the percentage of impervious surfaces, reducing and degrading terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Increased water volume and land-based contaminants ( e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, oils) flow into aquatic systems, modifying hydrologic and sediment regimes of rivers and wetlands (Walsh et al. 2005, entire). Aquatic toxicants can have both immediate and long-term negative impacts on species and ecosystems by degrading the water quality and causing direct and indirect effects to the species or its required resources (Service 2021b, p. 25). Despite these effects, species vary widely in their tolerances and abilities to adapt to

Freshwater mussels and snails are important food sources for the Pearl River map turtle, and sedimentation and pollution can have adverse impacts on mollusk populations (Box and Mossa 1999, entire). While past studies have focused on the closely related Pascagoula map turtle's prey, we expect impacts to be similar for the Pearl River map turtle. Inputs of point (point source discharge from particular pipes, discharges, etc.) and nonpoint (diffuse land surface runoff) source pollution across the range are numerous and widespread. Point source pollution can be generated from inadequately treated effluent from industrial plants, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, active surface mining, drain fields from individual private homes, and others (Service 2000, pp. 14-15). Nonpoint source pollution may originate from agricultural activities, poultry and cattle feedlots, abandoned mine runoff, construction, silviculture, failing septic tanks, and contaminated runoff from urban areas (Deutsch et al. 1990, entire; Service 2000, pp. 14-15).

These sources may contribute pollution to streams via sediments, heavy metals, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water leakage, and oils and greases

activities, poultry and cattle feedlots, abandoned mine runoff, construction, silviculture, failing septic tanks, and contaminated runoff from urban areas (Deutsch et al. 1990, entire; Service 2000, pp. 14-15).

These sources may contribute pollution to streams via sediments, heavy metals, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, animal wastes, septic tank and gray water leakage, and oils and greases. Glyphosate (found in Roundup and other herbicides), which is widely used as an herbicide, has been found in many waterways across the United States from agricultural runoff and exposure has been associated with endocrine and reproductive disorders in animals (Jerrell et al. 2020, entire; Medalie et al 2020, entire; Mesnage et al. 2015, entire). Water quality and many native aquatic fauna often decline as a result of this pollution, which causes nitrification, decreases in dissolved oxygen concentration, and increases in acidity and conductivity. These alterations likely have direct ( e.g., decreased survival and/or reproduction) and indirect ( e.g., loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat) effects. For aquatic species, submergent vegetation provides critical spawning habitat for adults, refugia from predators, and habitat for prey of all life stages (Jude and Pappas 1992, pp. 666-667), and degraded water quality and high algal biomass that result from pollutant inputs, cause loss of these critical submergent plant species (Chow-Fraser et al. 1998, pp. 38-39).

ult from pollutant inputs, cause loss of these critical submergent plant species (Chow-Fraser et al. 1998, pp. 38-39).

A wide range of current activities and land uses within the range of the Pearl River map turtle can lead to sedimentation within streams: Agricultural practices, construction activities, stormwater runoff, unpaved roads, incompatible timber harvest, utility crossings, and mining. Fine sediments are not only input into streams during these activities, but historical land use practices may also have substantially altered hydrological and geological processes such that sediments continue to be input into streams for several decades after those activities cease (Harding et al. 1998, p. 14846). The negative effects of increased sedimentation are well understood for aquatic species (Burkhead et al. 1997, p. 411; Burkhead and Jelks 2001, p. 964). Sedimentation can alter food webs and stream productivity (Schofield et al. 2004, p. 907), force altered behaviors (Sweka and Hartman 2003, p. 346), and even have sublethal effects on and result in mortality of individual aquatic organisms (Sutherland 2005, p. 94; Wenger and Freeman 2007, p. 7).

Degradation of water quality from municipal and industrial effluents is recognized as a cause of decline in the ringed map turtle ( Graptemys oculifera ), a sympatric endangered species (Lindeman 1998, p. 137). Lower numbers of ringed map turtles have been recorded near gravel and sand mining operations (Shively 1999, p. 10). Native mussel and gastropod populations have likely already decreased due to sedimentation and other anthropogenic alterations (Jones at al. 2005, entire). Pearl River map turtles' mollusk prey species may be affected by municipal ( e.g., sewage) and industrial ( e.g., paper mills and chicken farms) effluents that are discharged into the Pearl River (EPA 2018, entire)

ations (Shively 1999, p. 10). Native mussel and gastropod populations have likely already decreased due to sedimentation and other anthropogenic alterations (Jones at al. 2005, entire). Pearl River map turtles' mollusk prey species may be affected by municipal ( e.g., sewage) and industrial ( e.g., paper mills and chicken farms) effluents that are discharged into the Pearl River (EPA 2018, entire). Because of the similar life-history traits of the ringed map turtle and the Pearl River map turtle, it is reasonable to expect that water quality also impacts the Pearl River map turtle populations (Selman 2020a, p. 2).

Additionally, water quality for the Pearl River map turtle is impacted by four processes that are further discussed below: Channel and hydrology modifications and impoundments, agriculture, development (urbanization), and mining. Water quality is affected across the range of the species; however, the source and effects are greater in certain units.

Channel and Hydrology Modifications and Impoundments

Dredging and channelization have led to loss of aquatic habitat in the Southeast (Warren Jr. et al. 1997, unpaginated). Dredging and channelization projects are extensive throughout the region for flood control, navigation, sand and gravel mining, and conversion of wetlands into croplands (Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated; Herrig and Shute 2002, pp. 542-543). Many rivers are continually dredged to maintain a channel for shipping traffic. Dredging and channelization modify and destroy habitat for aquatic species by destabilizing the substrate, increasing erosion and siltation, removing woody debris, decreasing habitat heterogeneity, and stirring up contaminants, which settle onto the substrate (Williams et al. 1993, pp. 7-8; Buckner et al. 2002, entire; Bennett et al. 2008, pp. 467-468). Channelization can also lead to headcutting, which causes further erosion and sedimentation (Hartfield 1993, pp. 131-141)

destabilizing the substrate, increasing erosion and siltation, removing woody debris, decreasing habitat heterogeneity, and stirring up contaminants, which settle onto the substrate (Williams et al. 1993, pp. 7-8; Buckner et al. 2002, entire; Bennett et al. 2008, pp. 467-468). Channelization can also lead to headcutting, which causes further erosion and sedimentation (Hartfield 1993, pp. 131-141). Dredging removes woody debris, which provides cover and nest locations for many aquatic species (Bennett et al. 2008, pp. 467-468). Anthropogenic deadwood removal has been noted as a reason for decline in a microcephalic species, the ringed map turtle (Lindeman 1998, p. 137). Snags and logs are removed from some sites to facilitate boat navigation (Dundee and Rossman 1989, p. 187). Experiments with manual deposition of deadwood in stretches with less riparian forest have been suggested as potential habitat restoration measures (Lindeman 2019, p. 33).

Stream channelization, point-bar mining, and impoundments were identified as potential threats in a report issued prior to the Pascagoula map turtle and Pearl River map turtle being recognized as taxonomically distinct (Service 2006, p. 2). Channel modification is recognized as a cause of decline in the ringed map turtle, a sympatric endangered species (Lindeman 1998, p. 137). Considerably low densities of Pearl River map turtles were observed in the lower reaches of the Pearl, where much channelization and flow diversion has occurred (Lindeman 2019, pp. 23-29).

Impoundment of rivers is a primary threat to aquatic species in the Southeast (Benz and Collins 1997, unpaginated; Buckner et al. 2002, entire). Dams modify habitat conditions and aquatic communities both upstream and downstream of an impoundment (Winston et al. 1991, pp. 103-104; Mulholland and Lenat 1992, pp. 193-231; Soballe et al. 1992, pp. 421-474).

Damming of streams and springs is extensive throughout the Southeast (Etnier 1997, unpaginated; Morse et al. 1997, unpaginated; Shute et al

97, 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).

Damming of streams and springs is extensive throughout the Southeast (Etnier 1997, unpaginated; Morse et al. 1997, unpaginated; Shute et al. 1997, unpaginated). Most Southeastern streams are impacted by impoundment (Shute et al. 1997, p. 458). Many streams have both small ponds in their headwaters and large reservoirs in their lower reaches. Small streams on private lands are regularly dammed to create ponds for cattle, irrigation, recreation, and fishing, with significant ecological effects due to the sheer abundance of these structures (Morse et al. 1997, unpaginated). Small headwater streams are increasingly being dammed in the Southeast to supply water for municipalities (Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated), and many Southeastern springs have also been impounded (Etnier 1997, unpaginated). Dams are known to have caused the extirpation and extinction of many Southeastern species, and existing and proposed dams pose an ongoing threat to many aquatic species (Folkerts 1997, unpaginated; Neves et al. 1997, unpaginated; Service 2000, p. 15; Buckner et al. 2002, unpaginated).

On the Pearl River, Ross Barnett Reservoir was constructed between 1960 and 1963 and provides a water supply for the City of Jackson, Mississippi, and the associated area, as well as recreational opportunities on the 33,000-acre (ac) (13,355 hectares (ha)) lake and the 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) surrounding it (Pearl River Valley Water Management District 2020, entire). A total of 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of the Pearl River that was previously suitable habitat is now submerged beneath the Ross Barnett Reservoir (Lindeman 2019, p. 19)

kson, Mississippi, and the associated area, as well as recreational opportunities on the 33,000-acre (ac) (13,355 hectares (ha)) lake and the 17,000 ac (6,880 ha) surrounding it (Pearl River Valley Water Management District 2020, entire). A total of 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of the Pearl River that was previously suitable habitat is now submerged beneath the Ross Barnett Reservoir (Lindeman 2019, p. 19). The Ross Barnett Reservoir has greatly reduced habitat suitability of five percent of the mainstem Pearl River by altering the lotic (flowing water) habitat preferred by Pearl River map turtles to lentic (lake) habitat and fragmented the contiguous habitat for the species. Low population densities of Pearl River map turtles have been observed upstream of the Ross Barnett Reservoir, possibly due to recreational boating and extended recreational foot traffic or camping on sandbars by reservoir visitors (Selman and Jones 2017, pp. 32-34). Between the late 1980s and early 2010s, notable population declines also have been observed in the stretch of the Pearl River downstream of the Ross Barnett Reservoir (north of Lakeland Drive), but the exact reason for the decline is unknown (Selman 2020b, p. 194). Additionally, plans for new reservoirs on the Pearl River both upstream and downstream of Jackson have been or are being considered (Lindeman 2013, pp. 202-203). Up to 170 individual Pearl River map turtles could be impacted by the construction of the One Lake Project, one of several proposed impoundments (Selman 2020b, entire).

Agriculture

ents (Selman 2020b, entire).

Agriculture

Agriculture is generally high across the Pearl River basin, where levels of agriculture within the units ranged from 12-23 percent, with the Bogue Chitto Unit having the highest levels of agriculture (Service 2021b, pp. 53-56). Some of the major crops in the area include soybeans and cotton, and much of the livestock farming includes chickens and cattle. Agricultural practices such as traditional farming, feedlot operations, and associated land use practices can contribute pollutants to rivers and may affect the Pearl River map turtle's aquatic habitat. These practices degrade habitat by eroding stream banks, which results in alterations to stream hydrology and geomorphology. Nutrients, bacteria, pesticides, and other organic compounds are generally found in higher concentrations in areas affected by agriculture than in forested areas. Contaminants associated with agriculture ( e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste) can cause degradation of water quality and habitats through instream oxygen deficiencies, excess nutrification, and excessive algal growths. These, in turn, alter the aquatic community composition, shifting food webs and stream productivity, forcing altered behaviors, and even having sublethal effects or outright killing individual aquatic organisms (Petersen et al. 1999, p. 6). These alterations likely have direct ( e.g., decreased survival and/or reproduction) and indirect ( e.g., loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat) effects on the Pearl River map turtle or its habitat.

Agricultural development may also reduce the amount of adjacent riparian forest available to produce deadwood through land conversion; in another megacephalic map turtle species (Barbour's map turtle), turtle abundance decreased in areas where adjacent riparian corridors had been disturbed by agriculture, while the abundance of the red-eared slider ( Trachemys scripta ), a cosmopolitan species, increased (Sterrett et al. 2011, entire)

ce the amount of adjacent riparian forest available to produce deadwood through land conversion; in another megacephalic map turtle species (Barbour's map turtle), turtle abundance decreased in areas where adjacent riparian corridors had been disturbed by agriculture, while the abundance of the red-eared slider ( Trachemys scripta ), a cosmopolitan species, increased (Sterrett et al. 2011, entire).

Pesticide application and use of animal waste for soil amendment are becoming common in many regions and pose a threat to biotic diversity in freshwater systems. Over the past two decades, these practices have corresponded with marked declines in populations of fish and mussel species in the Upper Conasauga River watershed in Georgia/Tennessee (Freeman et al. 2017, p. 419). Nutrient enrichment of streams was widespread with nitrate and phosphorus exceeding levels associated with eutrophication, and hormone concentrations in sediments were often above those shown to cause endocrine disruption in fish, possibly reflecting widespread application of poultry litter and manure (Lasier et al. 2016, entire). Researchers postulate that species declines observed in the Conasauga watershed may be at least partially due to hormones, as well as excess nutrients and herbicide surfactants (Freeman et al. 2017, p. 429).

Development

The Pearl River map turtle range includes areas of the Pearl River that are adjacent to several urban areas, including the Jackson, Mississippi, metropolitan area where urbanization is expected to increase; other areas within the Pearl River basin that are expected to grow in the future include the cities of Monticello and Columbia, Mississippi. Urbanization is a significant source of water quality degradation that can reduce the survival of aquatic organisms. Urban development can stress aquatic systems in a variety of ways, which could affect the diet and habitat needs of aquatic turtles

increase; other areas within the Pearl River basin that are expected to grow in the future include the cities of Monticello and Columbia, Mississippi. Urbanization is a significant source of water quality degradation that can reduce the survival of aquatic organisms. Urban development can stress aquatic systems in a variety of ways, which could affect the diet and habitat needs of aquatic turtles. This includes increasing the frequency and magnitude of high flows in streams, increasing sedimentation and nutrient loads, increasing

Mining

The rapid rise in urbanization and construction of large‐scale infrastructure projects are driving increasing demands for construction materials such as sand and gravel. Rivers are a major source of sand and gravel because transport costs are low; river energy produces the gravel and sand, thus eliminating the cost of mining, grinding, and sorting rocks; and the material produced by rivers tends to consist of resilient minerals of angular shape that are preferred for construction (Koehnken et al. 2020, p. 363). Impacts of sand and gravel mining can be direct or indirect. Direct impacts include physical changes to the river system and the removal of gravel and floodplain habitats from the system. Indirect impacts include shifting of habitat types due to channel and sedimentation changes; changes in water quality, which changes the chemical and physical conditions of the system; and hydraulic changes that can impact movement of species and habitat availability, which is vital for supporting turtle nesting and basking activities.

upporting turtle nesting and basking activities.

Gravel mining is a major industry in southeastern Louisiana, particularly along the Bogue Chitto River, within the range of the Pearl River map turtle (Selman 2020a, p. 20). In-stream and unpermitted point-bar mining was observed in the late 1990s and was the biggest concern for Graptemys species in the Bogue Chitto River (Shively 1999, pp. 10-11). Gravel mining is perhaps still the greatest threat to the Pearl River system in southeastern Louisiana, particularly in the Bogue Chitto floodplain where run-off and effluents would affect the downstream of these point sources (Selman 2020a, p. 20). Gravel mining can degrade water quality, increase erosion, and ultimately impact movement and habitat quality for aquatic species such as the Pearl River map turtle (Koehnken et al. 2020, p. 363). A recent comparison of aerial imagery from the mid-1980s and late 1990s with images from 2019 reveal increases in distribution and magnitude of gravel mines in the Bogue Chitto River system, and recent surveys have reported several areas where mining appears to have degraded water quality significantly (Selman 2020a, pp. 20-21, and p. 40). Mining in the floodplain continues to be a threat to the species; however, permit requirements in Louisiana and Mississippi have reduced the threat of instream gravel mining.

Collection

Due to the intricacy of the shell morphology, map turtles are popular in the pet trade (Service 2006, p. 2), both domestically and internationally. An analysis of online marketplace offerings in Hong Kong revealed that interest in turtles as pets is increasing, that many of the species offered for sale are from North America, and that there is a higher interest in rare species (Sung and Fong 2018, p. 221). The common map turtle ( Graptemys geographica ) is one of three most-traded species in the international wildlife trade market, with individuals being sold both as pets and incorporated into Chinese aquaculture for consumption (Luiselli et al. 2016, p

that many of the species offered for sale are from North America, and that there is a higher interest in rare species (Sung and Fong 2018, p. 221). The common map turtle ( Graptemys geographica ) is one of three most-traded species in the international wildlife trade market, with individuals being sold both as pets and incorporated into Chinese aquaculture for consumption (Luiselli et al. 2016, p. 170). Exploitation of Pearl River map turtles for the pet trade domestically and in Asian markets has been documented, but the degree of impact is unclear, as it is unknown whether captive individuals were Pascagoula map turtles or Pearl River map turtles (Lindeman 1998, p. 137; Cheung and Dudgeon 2006, p. 756; Service 2006, p. 2; Selman and Qualls 2007, pp. 32-34; Ennen et al. 2016, p. 094.6).

According to a species expert, collection of wild turtles in the Pearl River system is probably occurring, and similar to what has been observed in other States, these turtles are likely destined for the high-end turtle pet trade in China and possibly other Southeast Asian countries (Selman 2020a, p. 23). Information has been documented from three different local individuals, at three different locations, concerning turtle bycatch or harvesting in local Louisiana waterways occupied by Pearl River map turtles (Selman 2020a, pp. 22-23). These locations included the Pearl River south of Bogalusa, Louisiana (possible mortality resulting from bycatch in hoop nets), the West Pearl River Navigation Canal (turtles captured and sold, possibly for shipment to China), and the Bogue Chitto River (local comment that baby turtles were being captured and shipped to China) (Selman 2020a, pp. 22-23). The specific species captured were not documented; however, it is likely that at least some of these turtles were Pearl River map turtles.

The Service manages information related to species exports in the Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS)

to China), and the Bogue Chitto River (local comment that baby turtles were being captured and shipped to China) (Selman 2020a, pp. 22-23). The specific species captured were not documented; however, it is likely that at least some of these turtles were Pearl River map turtles.

The Service manages information related to species exports in the Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS). According to a LEMIS report from 2005 to 2019, more than 300,000 turtles identified as Graptemys spp. or their parts were exported from the United States to 29 countries (Service 2021b, Appendix B). The number of turtles recorded in each shipment ranged widely. Due to their similarity in appearance, species of Graptemys are difficult to differentiate. Records from 2005, when the highest number of Graptemys were exported, show more than 35,000 turtles ( Graptemys spp.) in a single shipment to Spain and a total of 172,645 individual Graptemys exported to 24 different countries. However, there is some uncertainty in the sources of the exported turtles as they could have originated from captive stock.

Collection is allowed in Mississippi with an appropriate license through the State; a person may possess and harvest from the wild no more than 10 non-game turtles per license year. No more than four can be of the same species or subspecies. It is illegal to harvest turtles between April 1 to June 30 (40 MISS Admin Code Part 5 Rule 2.3 on Non-game Species in Need of Management).

Climate Change

In the Southeastern United States, climate change is expected to result in a high degree of variability in climate conditions with more frequent drought, more extreme heat (resulting in increases in air and water temperatures), increased heavy precipitation events ( e.g., flooding), more intense storms ( e.g., increased frequency of major hurricanes), and rising sea level and accompanying storm surge (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, entire)

sult in a high degree of variability in climate conditions with more frequent drought, more extreme heat (resulting in increases in air and water temperatures), increased heavy precipitation events ( e.g., flooding), more intense storms ( e.g., increased frequency of major hurricanes), and rising sea level and accompanying storm surge (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, entire). Warming in the Southeast is expected to be greatest in the summer, which is predicted to increase drought frequency, while annual mean precipitation is expected to increase slightly, leading to increased flooding events (IPCC 2013, entire; Alder and Hostetler 2013, unpaginated). This variability in climate may affect ecosystem processes and communities by altering the abiotic conditions experienced by biotic assemblages resulting in potential effects on community composition and individual species interactions (DeWan et al. 2010, p. 7). These changes have the potential to impact Pearl River map turtles and/

The dual stressors of climate change and direct human impact have the potential to impact aquatic ecosystems by altering stream flows and nutrient cycles, eliminating habitats, and changing community structure (Moore et al. 1997, p. 942). Increased water temperatures and alterations in stream flow are the climate change effects that are most likely to affect stream communities (Poff 1992, entire), and each of these variables is strongly influenced by land use patterns. For example, in agricultural areas, lower precipitation may trigger increased irrigation resulting in reduced stream flow (Backlund et al. 2008, pp. 42-43). Alternatively, increased urbanization may lead to more impervious surfaces, increasing runoff and flashiness of stream flows (Nelson et al. 2009, pp. 156-159).

Increasing Temperatures

Another area where climate change may affect the viability of the Pearl River map turtle is through temperature-dependent sex determination (TDSD) during embryo development within buried nests

. 2008, pp. 42-43). Alternatively, increased urbanization may lead to more impervious surfaces, increasing runoff and flashiness of stream flows (Nelson et al. 2009, pp. 156-159).

Increasing Temperatures

Another area where climate change may affect the viability of the Pearl River map turtle is through temperature-dependent sex determination (TDSD) during embryo development within buried nests. In turtle species that exhibit TDSD, increasing seasonal temperatures may result in unnatural sex ratios among hatchlings. This could be an important factor as climate change drives increasing temperatures. Since male map turtles with TDSD develop at lower temperatures than females, rising temperatures during developmental periods may result in sex ratios that are increasingly female-biased.

Drought

Climate change may increase the frequency of drought events, such as the one that occurred in the Southeastern United States in 2007. Based on down-scaled climate models for the Southeastern United States, the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts are likely to increase in this region in the future (Keellings and Engstrom 2019, pp. 4-6). Stream flow is strongly correlated with important physical and chemical parameters that limit the distribution and abundance of riverine species (Power et al. 1995, entire; Resh et al. 1988, pp. 438-439). The Pearl River map turtle is aquatic and requires adequate flow for all life stages.

Sea Level Rise

As a result of climate change, the world's oceanic surface-waters and land are warming. The density of water decreases as temperature increases causing it to expand. This process of “thermal expansion,” exacerbated by an influx of melt water from glaciers and polar ice fields, is causing sea levels to rise. During the 20th century, global sea level rose by 0.56 feet (ft) (0.17 meters (m)) at an average annual rate of 0.079 in (2.01 millimeter (mm) per year, which was 10 times faster than the average during the previous 3,000 years (IPCC 2007, pp. 30-31)

xpand. This process of “thermal expansion,” exacerbated by an influx of melt water from glaciers and polar ice fields, is causing sea levels to rise. During the 20th century, global sea level rose by 0.56 feet (ft) (0.17 meters (m)) at an average annual rate of 0.079 in (2.01 millimeter (mm) per year, which was 10 times faster than the average during the previous 3,000 years (IPCC 2007, pp. 30-31). The rate of SLR continues to accelerate and is currently believed to be about 0.12 in (3 mm) per year (Church and White 2006, pp. 2-4). It is estimated that sea level will rise by a further 0.59 ft (0.18 m) to 1.94 ft (0.59 m) by the century's end (IPCC 2007, p. 46). However, some research suggests the magnitude may be far greater than previously predicted due to recent rapid ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica (Rignot and Kanagaratnam 2006, pp. 989-990). Accounting for this accelerated melting, sea level could rise by between 1.64 ft (0.5 m) and 4.6 ft (1.4 m) by 2100 (Rahmstorf et al. 2007, p. 709). SLR is likely to impact downstream Pearl River map turtle populations directly by reducing the quality and quantity of available habitat through increased salinity of the freshwater system upstream from the Gulf of Mexico (Service 2021b, p. 86). Local scenarios based on downscaled climate models predict between 2-10 ft (0.6-3.0 m) of SLR in the northern Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Pearl River and could inundate up to 23.73 rmi (38.18 rkm) of the Pearl River under an extreme scenario (NOAA 2020, unpaginated).

km) of the Pearl River under an extreme scenario (NOAA 2020, unpaginated).

SLR may also affect the salt marsh wetlands at the mouth of the Pearl River deteriorating the protective effect of the marsh in reducing saltwater intrusion. Barrier islands off the coast may also be submerged, resulting in loss of the protections from the small land masses that buffer the effects of hurricanes and storms. Although some species of Graptemys appear to handle some salinity increases, there is evidence that the group is largely intolerant of brackish and saltwater environments (Selman and Qualls 2008, pp. 228-229; Selman et al. 2013, p. 1201; Lindeman 2013, pp. 396-397).

Hurricane Regime Changes—Increased Intensity and Frequency

Since 1996, the frequency of hurricane landfalls in the Southeastern United States has increased, and that trend is predicted to continue for some years into the future (Goldenberg et al. 2001, p. 475; Emanuel 2005, entire; Webster et al. 2005, p. 1845). Individual storm characteristics play a large role in the types and temporal extent of impacts (Greening et al. 2006, p. 878). For example, direction and speed of approach, point of landfall, and intensity all influence the magnitude of storm surge and resultant flooding (Weisberg and Zheng 2006, p. 164) and consequent environmental damage. The storm surge from storms of increased intensity, when compounded with SLR, will force salt water higher upstream with storm surges. Conditions that result from storm surge that correspond with high tides are amplified and change the salinity of waters ever farther upstream, negatively affecting freshwater species, such as map turtles, that are not tolerant of saline environments.

Increased Precipitation—Flooding

While river flooding under natural hydrologic conditions may be important for sandbar construction and deposition of nesting sand on riverine beaches (Dieter et al. 2014, pp

high tides are amplified and change the salinity of waters ever farther upstream, negatively affecting freshwater species, such as map turtles, that are not tolerant of saline environments.

Increased Precipitation—Flooding

While river flooding under natural hydrologic conditions may be important for sandbar construction and deposition of nesting sand on riverine beaches (Dieter et al. 2014, pp. 112-117), an increase in hurricane frequency and stochastic catastrophic floods could cause an increase in nest mortality. Nest mortality from flooding has not been studied in the Pearl River map turtle but has been documented in several other riverine turtle species. A study on the sympatric yellow-blotched map turtle ( Graptemys flavimaculata ) revealed that nest mortality from flooding can be as high as 86.3 percent in some years (Horne et al. 2003, p. 732). In a study on nests of the Ouachita map turtle ( Graptemys ouachitensis ), two 10-day floods (in 2008 and 2010) were believed to have caused the complete mortality of all nests existing before the floods, as hatchlings were found dead inside eggs after the flood. However, a shorter flooding event in 2011 (approximately 4 days of inundation) caused no known nest mortalities (Geller 2012, pp. 210-211). A study on freshwater turtles in South America indicated that as flooding incidents have increased since the 1970s, the number of days that nesting sandbars remain above the inundation threshold has been steadily and significantly decreasing, causing steep declines in the number of hatchlings produced per year (Eisemberg et al. 2016, p. 6).

The effects of climate change will continue affecting the species into the future with chronic and acute exposure to the changes that will occur in its aquatic and terrestrial habitats over time

nesting sandbars remain above the inundation threshold has been steadily and significantly decreasing, causing steep declines in the number of hatchlings produced per year (Eisemberg et al. 2016, p. 6).

The effects of climate change will continue affecting the species into the future with chronic and acute exposure to the changes that will occur in its aquatic and terrestrial habitats over time.

Additional Stressors

Additional stressors that affect the Pearl River map turtle that are not well studied or considered major threats to the species' viability include disease, Graptemys species and may impact populations (Lindeman 1998, p. 137; Service 2006, p. 2). However, this practice often goes unreported and is thus difficult to study and/or quantify.

Cumulative/Synergistic Effects

The Pearl River map turtle uses both aquatic and terrestrial habitats that may be affected by activities along the Pearl River basin. Ongoing and future stressors that may contribute to cumulative effects include habitat fragmentation, genetic isolation, invasive species, disease, climate change, and impacts from increased human interactions due to human population increases. When considering the compounding and synergistic effects acting on the species, the resiliency of the analysis units will be further reduced in the future. However, these effects would not change the overall current and future conditions of the species.

ditions of the species.

We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have not only analyzed individual effects on the species, but we have also analyzed their potential cumulative effects. We incorporate the cumulative effects into our SSA analysis when we characterize the current and future condition of the species. To assess the current and future conditions of the species, we undertake an iterative analysis that encompasses and incorporates the threats individually and then accumulates and evaluates the effects of all the factors that may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Current Condition

The current condition of the Pearl River map turtle is described in terms of population resiliency, redundancy, and representation across the species. The analysis of these conservation principles to understand the species' current viability is described in more detail in the Pearl River map turtle SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 52-75).

Resiliency

In order to analyze the species' resiliency, we delineated the species into resiliency units that represent groups of interbreeding individuals. Historically, the majority of the range of the species was likely a single, connected biological population prior to the fragmentation from the Ross Barrett Reservoir; however, we delineated five different resilience units to more accurately describe trends in resiliency, forecast future resiliency, and capture differences in stressors between the units. We considered population and habitat factors to describe the overall resiliency of each unit

ecies was likely a single, connected biological population prior to the fragmentation from the Ross Barrett Reservoir; however, we delineated five different resilience units to more accurately describe trends in resiliency, forecast future resiliency, and capture differences in stressors between the units. We considered population and habitat factors to describe the overall resiliency of each unit. The resilience units are: Upper Pearl, Middle Pearl—Silver, Middle Pearl—Strong, Bogue Chitto, and Lower Pearl (figure 1).

BILLING CODE 4333-15-P EP23NO21.000

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C The factors used to assess current resiliency of Pearl River map turtle resilience units include two population factors: (1) Occupied tributaries as a proxy for presence and (2) density and abundance of four habitat factors: (a) Water quality, (b) forested riparian cover, (c) protected land, and (d) presence of channelization/reservoirs/gravel mining. These population and habitat factors are collectively described as resiliency factors.

Forty-nine percent of the total range occupied by the Pearl River map turtle is in the mainstem Pearl and West Pearl Rivers, with the remaining 51 percent of the occupied range found in various tributary systems (Lindeman 2019, p. e.g., Bogue Chitto River) contain relatively large populations of Pearl River map turtles, including some that have only recently been discovered.

To assess the occupancy of tributaries, we used survey data collected from 2005-2020. These data were collected by several different observers through a variety of survey types, including bridge surveys, basking surveys, and live trapping. We used 2005 as the cutoff based on the species' biology and expert input. Females typically reach sexual maturity after 8 years, so 15 years approximates two generations. Species experts also noted that most surveys conducted for the species have occurred after 2005

cted by several different observers through a variety of survey types, including bridge surveys, basking surveys, and live trapping. We used 2005 as the cutoff based on the species' biology and expert input. Females typically reach sexual maturity after 8 years, so 15 years approximates two generations. Species experts also noted that most surveys conducted for the species have occurred after 2005. When assessing the occupancy of tributaries within the range, we considered all surveyed tributaries including those where Pearl River map turtles were not detected. We established thresholds to describe the occupancy of the surveyed tributaries within each resilience unit by applying the following rule set:

• Very Low: No currently occupied tributaries;

• Low: Between 1-25 percent of surveyed tributaries are currently occupied;

• Moderate: Between 25-50 percent of surveyed tributaries are currently occupied;

• High: 50 Percent or more of surveyed tributaries are currently occupied.

Using this threshold rule set, we found that one unit was determined to be ranked very low (Middle Pearl—Silver); three ranked moderate (Upper Pearl, Bogue Chitto, and Lower Pearl); and one ranked high (Middle Pearl—Strong). The Middle Pearl—Silver unit has four surveyed tributaries, with zero detections in any of those tributaries, leading to the very low rank. In the Lower Pearl, although only 43 percent of surveyed tributaries were found to be occupied, this unit had by far, the most occupied tributaries (7), thus the moderate rank is likely more a function of survey effort. Half of the tributaries surveyed within the Middle Pearl—Strong unit were found to be occupied, giving it a high rank.

ely more a function of survey effort. Half of the tributaries surveyed within the Middle Pearl—Strong unit were found to be occupied, giving it a high rank.

Data from point counts, basking density surveys, and results from trapping efforts in 2006-2018 were combined to estimate density and abundance for stream segments throughout the range of the Pearl River map turtle (Lindeman 2019, pp. 11-12). The entire species' population estimate is 21,841 individuals, with 61 percent occurring on mainstem reaches, 34 percent occurring in 4 large tributaries, and the remaining 5 percent spread amongst other smaller tributaries (Lindeman 2019, p. 21). Generally, abundance of the species declined with the size of the river reach surveyed, where smaller tributaries generally had lower numbers of turtles compared to larger, mainstem reaches (Lindeman 2019, p. 13). For example, basking density was found to be 2.2 times higher on mainstem reaches than on tributary reaches, and 2.1 times higher on large tributaries than on small tributaries (Lindeman 2019, p. 15).

When applying the population factors of density and abundance to determine resiliency, each river drainage was divided into river reaches that were categorized as high, moderate, low, and very low density based on basking density surveys and point count results. All mainstem reaches of the Pearl River were classified as moderate with the exception of the Lower Pearl, which was low. The tributaries and sections of the mainstems of each resilience unit were classified resulting in all moderate to low scores, with only the Pearl River mainstem within the Upper Pearl resiliency unit scoring moderate/high for its density classification.

d resulting in all moderate to low scores, with only the Pearl River mainstem within the Upper Pearl resiliency unit scoring moderate/high for its density classification.

To determine a composite (combined) score for population factors within individual units, we combined the results of the assessment of the occupancy of tributaries and density classes of mainstream reaches and large tributaries. The resulting population factor composite scoring for each resiliency unit describes three units (Bogue Chitto, Middle Pearl—Strong, and Upper Pearl) as moderate and two units (Lower Pearl and Middle Pearl—Strong) as low (table 1). Additional information regarding the methodology is described in detail in the SSA report (Service, 2021b, pp. 47-50).

Table 1—Population Factors and the Compiled Composite Score for Each Resiliency Unit Resiliency unit Tributary occupancy Density Composite score Bogue Chitto Moderate Moderate Moderate. Lower Pearl Moderate Low Low. Middle Pearl—Silver Very Low Moderate Low. Middle Pearl—Strong High Moderate Moderate. Upper Pearl Moderate Moderate Moderate. The habitat factors used to describe resiliency include water quality; hydrological and structural changes from channelization, reservoirs, and gravel mining; amount of protected land adjacent to the rivers and streams; and forested riparian cover (a proxy for deadwood abundance). All four of the habitat factors were then compiled into a composite score (table 2) that is analyzed together with the population factors composite score for an overall assessment of the current resiliency of the Pearl River map turtle (table 3).

map turtle (table 3).

Table 2—Habitat Factor Composite Scores for all Pearl River Map Turtle Units as a Function of Four Habitat Factors (Water Quality, Channelization/Reservoirs, Protected Land, and Deadwood Abundance) Resiliency unit Water quality Channelization/reservoirs Protected land Deadwood Composite score Bogue Chitto Moderate Low Low Moderate Low. Lower Pearl Moderate Low Low High Low. Middle Pearl—Silver Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate. Middle Pearl—Strong Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate. Upper Pearl Moderate Moderate Low High Moderate. Water quality is an important habitat component of Pearl River map turtle resiliency because it affects how well all life stages can survive and, for the adults, reproductive success. To characterize water quality, we considered the watershed health, riparian health, and land use. Water quality is monitored by Mississippi and Louisiana Departments of Environmental Quality (DEQ); however, the surveyed sites do not cover all of the tributaries or provide information for the entire range. Instead of using water quality monitoring data to describe the species' habitat conditions, we used land use as a proxy as it can be an indicator of overall watershed health and provide insight into water quality. Agricultural land use within riparian zones has been shown to directly impact biotic integrity when assessed within intermediate-sized zones ( i.e., 200-ft (61-m) buffer) surrounding streams in the region (Diamond et al. 2002, p. 1150). Urbanization has also been shown to impair stream quality by impacting riparian health (Diamond et al. 2002, p. 1150). We assessed watershed health by combining several metrics within each resiliency unit: Percent urban and agricultural land use at the watershed level, as well as riparian effects, which included urban and agricultural land use in close proximity to the stream (within a 200-ft (61-m) buffer from the center of the waterbody)

stream quality by impacting riparian health (Diamond et al. 2002, p. 1150). We assessed watershed health by combining several metrics within each resiliency unit: Percent urban and agricultural land use at the watershed level, as well as riparian effects, which included urban and agricultural land use in close proximity to the stream (within a 200-ft (61-m) buffer from the center of the waterbody).

The resulting water quality composite scores based on land use for all five units were moderate (table 2). The only stream that was assessed as having a relatively high degree of threat based on land use was the Lower Pearl, driven primarily by a high degree of development within the riparian buffer (33 percent). In general, development is low throughout the Pearl River basin, although there is continual development across the Middle Pearl—Strong Unit (12 percent development) associated with the area near the city of Jackson, Mississippi. Agriculture is generally high across the Pearl River basin, where levels of agriculture within the units ranged from 12 to 23 percent, with the Bogue Chitto Unit having the highest levels of agriculture.

The next habitat factor evaluated for resiliency is the presence and abundance of channelization, reservoirs, and gravel mining. We assume that substantial channelization, the presence of a major reservoir, or evidence of gravel mining operations has a negative impact on resiliency and include these as a resiliency factor.

Considerably low densities of Pearl River map turtles were observed in the Lower Pearl unit, where much channelization and flow diversion has occurred (Lindeman 2019, pp. 23-29)

oirs, and gravel mining. We assume that substantial channelization, the presence of a major reservoir, or evidence of gravel mining operations has a negative impact on resiliency and include these as a resiliency factor.

Considerably low densities of Pearl River map turtles were observed in the Lower Pearl unit, where much channelization and flow diversion has occurred (Lindeman 2019, pp. 23-29). Low densities of Pearl River map turtles in the West and East Pearl Rivers have been attributed to flow alteration due to the construction of the Pearl River Navigation Canal, which also has very low densities of turtles, suggesting that substantial loss of population in the lower reaches of the Pearl River drainage has occurred historically due to river engineering (Lindeman 2019, p. 27). Significantly lower basking densities of Pearl River map turtles have been reported in the West Pearl (0.16/rmi (0.1/rkm)) compared to the Upper Pearl (2.9/rmi (1.8/rkm)) (Dickerson and Reine 1996, Table 4, unpaginated; Selman 2020a, pp. 17-18). Because of these stream alterations, we assessed the Lower Pearl unit as low ( i.e., high degree of threats) for this factor.

Within the Middle Pearl—Strong unit, 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of the middle Pearl River is inundated by the Ross Barnett Reservoir, which is a suspected contributing factor to the overall decline in Pearl River map turtle population densities upstream and downstream. Near Jackson, Mississippi, river channelization has also impacted the species' habitat negatively (Selman 2020b, entire), and Pearl River map turtles are almost nonexistent in a highly channelized stretch of the Pearl River. However, upstream and downstream of this section, the species occurs in low numbers (Selman 2020b, entire). Due to the presence of the Ross Barnett Reservoir, and the river channelization that has occurred in and around Jackson, we assessed the Middle Pearl—Strong unit as low habitat quality due to the effects of channelization and reservoirs

ent in a highly channelized stretch of the Pearl River. However, upstream and downstream of this section, the species occurs in low numbers (Selman 2020b, entire). Due to the presence of the Ross Barnett Reservoir, and the river channelization that has occurred in and around Jackson, we assessed the Middle Pearl—Strong unit as low habitat quality due to the effects of channelization and reservoirs.

In the Upper Pearl unit, channelization has occurred along Tuscolameta Creek and the upper Yockanookany River. In 1924, the Tuscolameta Creek received a 24-mile (mi) (39-kilometer (km)) channelization, and Yockanookany River received a 36-mi (58-km) canal, which was completed in 1928 (Dunbar and Coulters 1988, p. 51). In the Yockanookany, low water stages in 1960 were 6 feet higher than those of 1939, as the channel silted significantly during that period (Speer et al. 1964, pp. 26-27). In some areas of the Yockanookany, water continues to flow in the river's old natural channel (Speer et al. 1964, pp. 26-27). Although stream alteration has occurred within these streams, there has yet to be any reported evidence of Pearl River map turtle decline, thus we assessed this habitat factor as moderate for the Upper Pearl unit.

In-stream and unpermitted point-bar mining in the Bogue Chitto unit was a concern in the late 1990s (Shively 1999, entire), and although these activities no longer occur, gravel mining operations within floodplains do occur (Selman 2020a, pp. 20-21). Recent surveys have reported several areas where mining appears to have degraded water quality significantly (Selman 2020a, pp. 20-21). There is also a concern that historical in-stream and point-bar mining can have deleterious legacy effects that could be negatively impacting the species (Selman 2020a, p. 21). For these reasons, we assessed this habitat factor as low for the Bogue Chitto unit.

The next habitat factor considered protected lands adjacent to or including the terrestrial and aquatic habitat of the species

. 20-21). There is also a concern that historical in-stream and point-bar mining can have deleterious legacy effects that could be negatively impacting the species (Selman 2020a, p. 21). For these reasons, we assessed this habitat factor as low for the Bogue Chitto unit.

The next habitat factor considered protected lands adjacent to or including the terrestrial and aquatic habitat of the species. For the purposes of this analysis, we apply the definition of protected area as a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature (IUCN 2008, pp. 8-9). Protected areas are a generally accepted, although not always uncontroversial, mechanism for halting the global decline of biodiversity. Some examples of the positive effects that protected areas can have on freshwater biodiversity have been reported, such as increased local abundance or size classes of some fish species (Suski and Cooke, 2007, entire).

From an indirect standpoint, the presence of protected lands will function to minimize human disturbance in an area, which may benefit freshwater environments at multiple levels. First, enforcement of restrictions in protected areas can serve to minimize boat traffic that has been shown to have deleterious impacts to other Graptemys species (Selman 2013 et al., entire). The presence of protected areas may help ameliorate some of these conflicts by segregating user groups into defined areas (Suski and Cooke 2007, p. 2024). Finally, the more land within a unit that is under some sort of protection ( e.g., easement, State and Federal ownership), the less likely land will be developed. Because development can have negative impacts to aquatic fauna, as discussed previously, the more protected land that exists in a unit, the more resilient that unit is assumed to be

ups into defined areas (Suski and Cooke 2007, p. 2024). Finally, the more land within a unit that is under some sort of protection ( e.g., easement, State and Federal ownership), the less likely land will be developed. Because development can have negative impacts to aquatic fauna, as discussed previously, the more protected land that exists in a unit, the more resilient that unit is assumed to be.

Conservation areas have been established along the Pearl River that have positively influenced riparian forest along the river or forest land cover in the basin. Riparian conservation areas include Nanih Waiya Wildlife Management Area (WMA) (Neshoba County), Mississippi Band of Choctaw

To assess the contribution of protected areas to the resilience of Pearl River map turtle resilience units, we calculated the percentage of the HUC 8 that is in protected status. We used the Protected Areas Database of the U.S. version 2.0 (PAD—US 2.0), released in 2019 (USGS 2019, unpaginated). The results of the analysis of protected lands show that the Pearl River basin in general has relatively small amounts of land in protected status. Four of the units have a low condition ( i.e., <10 percent of land protected), and one unit has a moderate condition (10-20 percent of land protected). The Middle Pearl—Strong unit has by far the greatest amount of land in protection with 147,597 ac (59,730 ha) in protection (11.67 percent), with all other units having less than 6 percent of land in protected status.

The final habitat factor used to determine current resiliency is the amount of forested riparian cover, which we used as a proxy for available deadwood. Correlations of Pearl River map turtle density is positively associated with deadwood density (Lindeman 1999, pp. 35-38). Abundance of basking substrates has shown to be an important habitat component driving Graptemys abundance in Kansas and Pennsylvania (Pluto and Bellis 1986, pp

termine current resiliency is the amount of forested riparian cover, which we used as a proxy for available deadwood. Correlations of Pearl River map turtle density is positively associated with deadwood density (Lindeman 1999, pp. 35-38). Abundance of basking substrates has shown to be an important habitat component driving Graptemys abundance in Kansas and Pennsylvania (Pluto and Bellis 1986, pp. 26-30; Fuselier and Edds 1994, entire), and radiotelemetry work with yellow-blotched map turtles ( G. flavimaculata) has indicated the importance of deadwood to habitat selection on the lower Pascagoula River (Jones 1996, pp. 376, 379-380, 383). Anthropogenic deadwood removal, mainly through dredging, has been noted as a reason for decline in the sympatric microcephalic species, the ringed map turtle ( G. oculifera ) (Lindeman 1998, p. 137). Experiments with manual deposition of deadwood in stretches with less riparian forest have been recommended as potential habitat restoration measures (Lindeman 2019, p. 33).

An intact riparian habitat provides numerous benefits to map turtles, including the stabilization of stream banks and the reduction of erosional processes and channel sedimentation. Under normal erosional processes, riparian forests also provide material for in-stream deposition of deadwood, and deadwood is known to provide important basking sites for thermoregulation and also foraging sites for prey items (Lindeman 1999, entire). To assess the contribution of riparian forests to the resilience of Pearl River map turtle units, we calculated the percentage of forest within a 200-ft (61-m) riparian buffer using the 2016 National Land Cover Database land use land cover data. We considered forests to include four land use classes: deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest, and woody wetlands.

r using the 2016 National Land Cover Database land use land cover data. We considered forests to include four land use classes: deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest, and woody wetlands.

An assessment of forested cover resulted in three units in high condition (Lower Pearl, Middle Pearl—Strong, and Upper Pearl) and two units in moderate condition (Bogue Chitto and Middle Pearl—Silver). Forested cover within riparian buffers ranged from 60-98 percent across the 5 resilience units. Forested cover was highest in the Upper Pearl, where cover ranged from 90-96 percent across the occupied streams within the unit, and lowest in the Middle Pearl—Silver, where forested cover was 60 percent across the single occupied river segment. The Bogue Chitto unit was assessed as moderate for forested cover, primarily due to the Bogue Chitto and Topisaw having relatively low cover compared to other streams across the range.

The habitat factors were combined into a single composite score determined by combining the results of the water quality, channelization/reservoirs, protected lands, and deadwood abundance assessments (table 2). The final habitat composite score for each resiliency unit resulted in low condition for two units (Bogue Chitto and Lower Pearl) and moderate condition for three units (Middle Pearl—Silver, Middle Pearl—Strong, and Upper Pearl). Additional details and methodologies for determining each habitat condition score are described in the SSA report (Service 2021b, pp. 74-80).

After evaluating the population and habitat factors together, we describe the overall current resiliency of each unit. Current resiliency results are as follows: Two units have low resiliency (Bogue Chitto and Lower Pearl), and three units have moderate resiliency (Middle Pearl—Silver, Middle Pearl—Strong, and Upper Pearl) (table 3). The Lower Pearl seems particularly vulnerable, as both the population and habitat composite scores were low

factors together, we describe the overall current resiliency of each unit. Current resiliency results are as follows: Two units have low resiliency (Bogue Chitto and Lower Pearl), and three units have moderate resiliency (Middle Pearl—Silver, Middle Pearl—Strong, and Upper Pearl) (table 3). The Lower Pearl seems particularly vulnerable, as both the population and habitat composite scores were low. The Lower Pearl has significant channelization issues, low amounts of protected land, and a low density of individual turtles, all of which are driving the low resilience of this unit. Although the Middle Pearl—Silver unit scored moderate for composite habitat score, the low composite population score (mainly a function of there being no occupied tributaries) is what is driving the low resilience of this unit. When looking at the three units with moderate resiliency, the Middle Pearl—Strong and Bogue Chitto units appear to be vulnerable to further decreases in resiliency. For the Bogue Chitto unit, low amounts of protected land and substantial mining activity make this unit vulnerable. For the Middle Pearl—Strong, development in the Jackson area and the presence of the Ross Barnett Reservoir make this unit vulnerable. If development increases substantially in this unit, or if proposed reservoir projects move forward, it is likely there would be population-level impacts that would drop the resiliency to low in the future conditions.

Table 3—Current Resiliency of Pearl River Map Turtle Units Based on Composite Habitat and Population Factors Resiliency unit Composite habitat score Composite population 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

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 potential effects of climate change such as rising temperatures and SLR. The Middle Pearl—Silver unit is the most vulnerable to a catastrophic land-based spill due to transportation via train or automobile, and there are no known occupied tributaries at this time. However, extant units of the species are distributed relatively widely, and several of those units have moderate resilience, thus it is highly unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire species' range. Consequently, the Pearl River map turtle exhibits a moderate-high degree of redundancy.

Representation

Representation refers to the breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and among populations, which influences the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time. Differences in life-history traits, habitat features, and/or genetics across a species' range often aid in the delineation of representative units, which are used to assess species representation.

hich are used to assess species representation.

Between 2005 and 2018, researchers genotyped 124 Pearl River map turtles from 15 sites across the Pearl River basin (Pearson et al. 2020, pp. 6-7). No distinct genetic variation was found across the Pearl River system. A single genetic population has been described, and there was no evidence of isolation by distance (Pearson et al. 2020, pp. 11-12). For this reason, we consider the entire range of the Pearl River map turtle to be a single representative unit; however, the Strong River, located in the Pearl River—Strong unit, may have some unique habitat features that could facilitate adaptative capacity (Lindeman 2020, pers. comm.). Perhaps most notably, the Strong River has some very rocky stretches that are unlike anything else in the drainage and could conceivably have a population with unique diet, behaviors, or other life-history parameters, though no studies to date have addressed this question (Lindeman 2020, pers. comm.). The Strong River is a large tributary and occupies an estimated 54.3 rmi (87.4 rkm), with an estimated 1,749 individuals, accounting for 8 percent of the species' total population (Lindeman 2019, p. 47). Although we do not consider the Strong River to be a separate representative unit, we consider the Strong River to be a potentially significant stream for the species from a habitat diversity perspective. The species is described as consisting of a single representative unit due to the lack of genetic structuring across the range; the limited genetic diversity may reduce the ability of the species to adapt to changing conditions (Pearson et al. 2020, entire). However, we acknowledge the habitat differences for the Strong River and the potential importance of that system to the adaptive capacity of the species.

In summary, the current condition of the Pearl River map turtle is described using resiliency, redundancy, and representation

genetic diversity may reduce the ability of the species to adapt to changing conditions (Pearson et al. 2020, entire). However, we acknowledge the habitat differences for the Strong River and the potential importance of that system to the adaptive capacity of the species.

In summary, the current condition of the Pearl River map turtle is described using resiliency, redundancy, and representation. We assessed current resiliency as a function of two population factors (occupied tributaries and density) and four habitat factors (water quality, protected areas, deadwood abundance, and reservoirs/channelization) for each resiliency unit. Based on these factors, there are two units with low resiliency (Lower Pearl and Middle Pearl—Silver) and three units with moderate resiliency (Upper Pearl, Middle Pearl—Strong, and Bogue Chitto); no units were assessed as highly resilient. Because three of the five units are classified as moderate resilience, and those units are distributed relatively widely, the Pearl River map turtle exhibits a moderate-high degree of redundancy ( i.e., it is unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire range of the species). Even with the unique habitat in the Strong River, we only recognize a single representative unit based on low genetic variation, however, the wide distribution within the five resilience units across the range provides sufficient adaptive capacity to remain viable.

Future Condition

As described in the “Summary of Biological Status and Threats” section above, we describe what the Pearl River map turtle needs to maintain viability. We describe the future conditions of the species by forecasting the species' response applying plausible future scenarios of varying environmental conditions and conservation efforts. The future scenarios project the threats into the future and consider the impacts those threats could have on the viability of the Pearl River map turtle

e what the Pearl River map turtle needs to maintain viability. We describe the future conditions of the species by forecasting the species' response applying plausible future scenarios of varying environmental conditions and conservation efforts. The future scenarios project the threats into the future and consider the impacts those threats could have on the viability of the Pearl River map turtle. The scenarios described in the SSA report represent six plausible future conditions for the species. The scenarios include land use changes and SLR in a matrix to determine the effects of both factors to each unit. We then considered future water engineering projects for each matrix and found the resiliency of each unit based on whether the project is installed or not. All six scenarios were projected out to two different time steps: 2040 (~20 years) and 2070 (~50 years). These timeframes are based on input from species experts, generation time for the species, and the confidence in predicting patterns of urbanization and agriculture. Confidence in how these land uses will interact with the species and its habitat diminishes beyond 50 years.

We continue to apply the concepts of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to the future scenarios to describe possible future conditions of the Pearl River map turtle and understand the overall future viability of the species. When assessing the future, viability is not a specific state, but rather a continuous measure of the likelihood that the species will sustain populations over time.

Using the best available information regarding the factors influencing the species' viability in the future, we applied the following factors to inform the future resiliency of the five units: Changes in land use/water quality, SLR, and future water engineering projects. We considered projected land-use changes regarding agricultural and developed land in assessing future resiliency of each unit for the Pearl River map turtle. We also considered i.e., development and agriculture)

viability in the future, we applied the following factors to inform the future resiliency of the five units: Changes in land use/water quality, SLR, and future water engineering projects. We considered projected land-use changes regarding agricultural and developed land in assessing future resiliency of each unit for the Pearl River map turtle. We also considered i.e., development and agriculture). The FORE—SCE model provides spatially explicit historical, current, and future projections of land use and land cover. Projecting future land cover requires modelers to account for driving forces of land-cover change operating at scales from local (“bottom-up”) to global (“top-down”) and how those driving forces interact over space and time. As a result of the high level of uncertainty associated with predicting future developments in complex socio-environmental systems, a scenario framework is needed to represent a wide range of plausible future conditions.

As previously mentioned, SLR impacts the future resiliency of Pearl River map turtles directly through loss/degradation of habitat. To estimate loss/degradation of habitat due to inundation from SLR, we used National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shapefiles available at their online SLR viewer (NOAA 2020, unpaginated). Projected SLR scenarios from NOAA provide a range of inundation levels from low to extreme. We used NOAA's SLR projections corresponding to the representative concentration pathways (RCP) of RCP6 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios to provide realistic future possible trajectories. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the different emission scenarios are influenced by human behavior. With uncertainty in future emissions, we included two plausible trajectories of SLR by considering RCP6 (intermediate-high) and RCP8.5 (extreme).

Local scenarios were available from a monitoring station located near Mobile Bay, Alabama, providing estimates of SLR at decadal time steps out to the year 2100

n the atmosphere through the different emission scenarios are influenced by human behavior. With uncertainty in future emissions, we included two plausible trajectories of SLR by considering RCP6 (intermediate-high) and RCP8.5 (extreme).

Local scenarios were available from a monitoring station located near Mobile Bay, Alabama, providing estimates of SLR at decadal time steps out to the year 2100. We found the average SLR estimate for the intermediate-high and extreme NOAA scenarios from this station and used the estimate (rounded to the nearest foot, because shapefiles of topography were available at only 1-ft (0.30-m) increments) to project estimated habitat loss at years 2040 and 2070. If SLR estimates overlap with known occupied portions of the river system, we assume that area is no longer suitable or occupiable; thus, resiliency would decrease.

SLR is occurring, but the rate at which it continues is dependent on the different atmospheric emissions scenarios. The range is 1 ft (0.30 m) to 2 ft (0.61 m) in the next 20 years. By 2070, 3 ft (0.91 m) to 5 ft (1.52 m) are projected for the lower and higher emissions scenarios. The effects of the SLR and saltwater intrusion are exacerbated with storm surge and high tides. Pulses of saltwater from increased storm frequency and intensity on top of slower SLR can have direct effects on freshwater habitats and species that are not salt-tolerant.

Stream channelization, point-bar mining, and impoundment have been listed as potential threats in a report written before the Pascagoula map turtle and Pearl River map turtle were taxonomically separated (Service 2006, p. 2). As noted above, in the Threats Analysis section, the proposed One Lake project proposes a new dam and commercial development area 9 mi (14.5 km) south of the current Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam near Interstate 20. However, the One Lake project is still being debated, and there is uncertainty as to whether the project will proceed

l River map turtle were taxonomically separated (Service 2006, p. 2). As noted above, in the Threats Analysis section, the proposed One Lake project proposes a new dam and commercial development area 9 mi (14.5 km) south of the current Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam near Interstate 20. However, the One Lake project is still being debated, and there is uncertainty as to whether the project will proceed. Because of this uncertainty, we have created two scenarios based around the proposed One Lake project: One in which the project occurs, and one in which it does not, within the next 50 years. Because of the potential for negative impacts on Pearl River map turtles from the proposed One Lake project, we assume a decrease in resiliency of the Middle Pearl—Strong unit if the project moves forward.

We do not assess population factors (occupancy of tributaries and density) in our future conditions analysis because the data are not comparable through time or space; the baseline data come from recent surveys and no historical data are available to allow for analyses of trends or comparisons over time. Additionally, we assume the amount of protected land within each unit stays the same within our projection timeframes, although it is possible that additional land could be converted to a protected status or lands could degrade over time. Rather than attempting to categorize future resiliency as was done in the current condition analysis, we indicate a magnitude and direction of anticipated change in resiliency of Pearl River map turtle units.

Scenario Descriptions

Scenarios were built around three factors: Land use, SLR, and water engineering projects. To present plausible future conditions for the species and to assess the viability for the Pearl River map turtle in response to those conditions, we projected two land use and two SLR scenarios out to the years 2040 (20 years) and 2070 (50 years).

The two land use scenarios are based on scenarios from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES)

se, SLR, and water engineering projects. To present plausible future conditions for the species and to assess the viability for the Pearl River map turtle in response to those conditions, we projected two land use and two SLR scenarios out to the years 2040 (20 years) and 2070 (50 years).

The two land use scenarios are based on scenarios from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). The SRES presents a set of scenarios developed to represent the range of driving forces and emissions in the scenario literature so as to reflect current understanding and knowledge about underlying uncertainties. Four different narrative storylines were developed to describe consistently the relationships between emission driving forces and their evolution and add context for the scenario quantification. Each storyline represents different demographic, social, economic, technological, and environmental developments. The four qualitative storylines yield four sets of scenarios called “families”: A1, A2, B1, and B2.

The two land use scenarios we examined are embedded within the FORE-SCE model (A2 and B1). The two SLR projections are based on NOAA's intermediate-high (RCP6) and extreme (RCP8.5) scenarios. We also considered whether a proposed water engineering project ( i.e., One Lake) would be constructed within the species' range. This results in six plausible scenarios for each of two time increments (2040 and 2070), with the A2-Extreme—One Lake project scenarios representing the highest threat scenario for 2040 and 2070, the B1-Intermediate High—No One Lake project scenario the lowest threat scenario for 2040 and 2070, and the other four scenarios representing moderate threat scenarios (table 4).

2040 and 2070, and the other four scenarios representing moderate threat scenarios (table 4).

Table 4—Scenarios Used To Model Future Condition for Pearl River Map Turtle [Scenarios were built around three factors: Land use (SRES emission scenarios A2 and B1), sea level rise (emission scenarios Intermediate High (IH) and Extreme (EX)), and water engineering projects (One Lake Project: Yes or No). Scenarios were projected under two timeframes: 2040 and 2070] Sea level rise 2040 Intermediate high Extreme 2070 Intermediate high Extreme One Lake Project (Yes) Land Use: A2 A2-IH—OneLake A2-EX—OneLake A2-IH—OneLake A2-EX—OneLake. B1 B1-IH—OneLake B1-IH—OneLake One Lake Project (No) Land Use: A2 A2-IH—NoProject A2-EX—NoProject A2—IH—NoProject A2-EX—NoProject. B1 B1-IH—NoProject B1-IH—NoProject Future Resiliency

Bogue Chitto—Under all scenarios, development remains low across the Bogue Chitto unit. Agriculture is high across the entire unit in all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070, where agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR or water engineering project impacts directly affecting this unit. It is likely that the condition of the unit will decline into the future, though there is uncertainty regarding future impacts related to mining activity, which has the potential to further reduce resiliency. Even with declines in condition of the Bogue Chitto unit, there will be no change in the resiliency category over the next 50 years according to the future scenarios.

the future scenarios.

Lower Pearl—SLR impacts this unit under all scenarios, although the impacts of inundation are localized to the southern portion of the unit, mainly in the East Pearl River. Under the A2 scenarios, a few streams are impacted by high levels of development, although most of the unit has low levels of development; under the B1 scenario, development is low across the entire unit. Agriculture is predicted to be high across the unit under the A2 scenarios, and moderate across the unit under the B1 scenario. There are no predicted water engineering projects, and forested cover is anticipated to be relatively high. Current resiliency for this unit is low, and resiliency is anticipated to decrease across all scenarios, with the A2 scenarios with extreme SLR associated with the most substantial decreases.

Middle Pearl—Silver—Development remains low across the unit under all scenarios at both time steps. Agriculture increases to high under the A2 scenarios and stays moderate under the B1 scenario. There are no predicted SLR effects or water engineering project impacts on this unit. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all scenarios and is predicted to increase under the B1 scenario; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. Current resiliency for this unit is low, and although declines in condition of the Middle Pearl-Silver unit are predicted, there will be no change in the resiliency category in the future based on the factors assessed.

Middle Pearl—Strong—Development is substantial in a few areas within this unit, particularly around Jackson, Mississippi. The current resiliency for this unit is moderate and the future resiliency is likely to decline due to increased agriculture and decreased forest cover within the unit (without One Lake). Agriculture is predicted to be high across the unit under all scenarios. If the One Lake project moves forward, there is a substantial decrease in resiliency predicted within and adjacent to the project area

ppi. The current resiliency for this unit is moderate and the future resiliency is likely to decline due to increased agriculture and decreased forest cover within the unit (without One Lake). Agriculture is predicted to be high across the unit under all scenarios. If the One Lake project moves forward, there is a substantial decrease in resiliency predicted within and adjacent to the project area. A few streams are predicted to lose a substantial amount of forested cover. No SLR impacts are predicted in this unit. The Middle Pearl—Strong unit is perhaps the most vulnerable unit, as development, agriculture, and water engineering projects are all potential stressors in this unit.

Upper Pearl—The habitat associated with this unit provides conditions to potentially support a stronghold for the species because it has the highest amount of protected lands compared to the other four units (Service 2021a, p. 92). Development remains low across the entire unit under all scenarios. Agriculture is high across the entire unit in all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070, where agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR or water engineering project impacts in this unit; however, this population may experience genetic drift over time due to isolation caused by habitat fragmentation from the existing (Ross Barnett) and planned (One Lake) reservoirs in the adjacent unit. Even though the threats are projected to be low, the overall condition of the Upper Pearl unit is likely to decline as a result of the loss of connectivity with the rest of the turtle's range. Even with declines in condition of the Upper Pearl unit, it will remain in the moderate category over the next 50 years according to the future scenarios.

Future Redundancy

Although we do not project any of the units to be extirpated in any scenarios, we do anticipate resiliency to decline in two units

kely to decline as a result of the loss of connectivity with the rest of the turtle's range. Even with declines in condition of the Upper Pearl unit, it will remain in the moderate category over the next 50 years according to the future scenarios.

Future Redundancy

Although we do not project any of the units to be extirpated in any scenarios, we do anticipate resiliency to decline in two units. For example, the Middle Pearl—Strong unit will potentially lose a substantial amount of habitat and individuals under all scenarios in which the One Lake project is built. Also, the Lower Pearl unit will be impacted by SLR under all scenarios, and this is compounded by projected increases in both development and agriculture. All other units are anticipated to remain relatively stable. Because extant units of the species are predicted to be distributed relatively widely, it is highly unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire species' range, thus

Future Representation

As described under the current conditions, the species is a single representative unit regarding genetic variation. Relatively unique habitat conditions in the Strong River may influence the species' adaptive capacity and its overall representation. When looking at projections of threats within the Strong River, a few general trends can be seen. First, for land use, development is projected to remain low. In the A2 climate scenarios, agriculture increases from moderate to high; in the B1 climate scenario, agriculture stays moderate. Also, forested cover within the riparian zone of the Strong River remains relatively high (68-83 percent), although it does drop across all climate scenarios from the current condition (92 percent). SLR does not impact this river in any of our s

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.