2024-15176. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Pearl River Map Turtle With Section 4(d) Rule; and Threatened Species Status for Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula ...

Table 1—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. Catastrophic events that could severely impact or extirpate entire Pearl River map turtle units include chemical spills, changes in upstream land use that alter stream characteristics and water quality downstream, dam construction with a reservoir drowning lotic river habitat and further fragmenting contiguous aquatic habitat, and potential effects of climate change such as rising temperatures and SLR.

The Middle Pearl-Silver unit is the most vulnerable to a catastrophic land-based spill due to transportation via train or automobile, and there are no known occupied tributaries at this time. However, across the range of the Pearl River map turtle, extant units of the species are distributed relatively widely, and several of those units have moderate resilience; thus, it is highly unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire species' range. As the species occurs in multiple tributaries and all units, the Pearl River map turtle has a high potential of withstanding catastrophic events; therefore, the species exhibits a moderate-high degree of redundancy.

Representation

Representation refers to the breadth of genetic and environmental diversity within and among populations that allows for adaptive capacity of the species; this influences the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time. Differences in life-history traits, habitat features, and/or genetics across a species' range often aid in the delineation of representative units, which are used to assess species representation. The species is described as consisting of a single representative unit due to the lack of genetic structuring across the range; the limited genetic diversity may reduce the ability of the species to adapt to changing conditions (Pearson et al. 2020, entire). However, there are habitat differences for the Strong River and we recognize the potential importance of that system to the adaptive capacity of the species.

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

Future Conditions

The viability of the Pearl River map turtle in the future is based on the threats that are acting on the species and the species' response to those threats in light of conservation efforts or other actions that may benefit the species or its habitat. We consider plausible scenarios using the best available scientific and commercial data for developing each scenario. We describe the future conditions of the species by forecasting the species' response to plausible future scenarios of varying environmental conditions and ameliorating conservation efforts, and then considered the impact these influences could have on the viability of the Pearl River map turtle. The scenarios described in the SSA report represent six plausible future conditions for the species (Service 2023, pp. 74-76). The scenarios include land use changes and SLR in a matrix to determine the effects of both factors to each unit. We then considered future water engineering projects for each matrix and determined the resiliency of each unit based on whether the project is installed or not. All six scenarios were projected out to two different time steps: 2040 (~20 years) and 2070 (~50 years). These timeframes are based on input from species experts, generation time for the species, and the confidence in predicting patterns of urbanization and agriculture. Confidence in how these land uses will interact with the species and its habitat diminishes beyond 50 years. The scenarios only considered threats for which there were available data. We assume that other threats will continue, such as collection from the wild and impacts from climate change.

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

Using the best available information regarding the factors influencing the species' viability in the future, we considered the following factors to inform the future resiliency of the five units: (1) changes in land use/water quality, (2) SLR, and (3) future water engineering projects.

We considered projected land-use changes related to agricultural and developed land in assessing future resilience of each unit for the Pearl River map turtle. We consider these land use classes as surrogates for potential changes in water quality, a primary risk factor for the species. We used data available at the resiliency unit scale from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Forecasting Scenarios of Land-use Change (FORE-SCE) modelling framework (USGS 2017, unpaginated) to characterize nonpoint source pollution ( i.e., from development and agriculture). The FORE-SCE model provides spatially explicit historical, current, and future projections of land use and land cover. Four scenarios were modeled, corresponding to four major scenario storylines from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC 2000, pp. 4-5). The global IPCC SRES (A1B, A2, B1, and B2 scenarios) were downscaled to ecoregions in the conterminous United States with the USGS FORE-SCE model used to produce landscape projections consistent with the IPCC SRES. The land-use scenarios focused on socioeconomic impacts on anthropogenic land use ( e.g., demographics, energy use, agricultural economics, and other socioeconomic considerations). For the A1B, A2, B1, and B2 scenarios, we used two time steps (2040 and 2070), with the A2-Extreme-One Lake project scenarios representing the highest threat scenario, the B1-Intermediate High-No One Lake project scenario the lowest threat scenario, and the other four scenarios representing moderate threat scenarios.

Sea-level rise impacts the future resiliency of Pearl River map turtles directly through loss/degradation of habitat. To estimate habitat loss/degradation due to inundation from SLR, we used National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shapefiles available at their online SLR viewer (NOAA 2020, unpaginated). We used projections corresponding to the representative concentration pathways (RCP) of RCP6 (intermediate-high) and RCP8.5 (extreme). We found the average SLR estimate for the intermediate-high and extreme NOAA scenarios to project estimated habitat loss at years 2040 and 2070. If SLR estimates overlap with known occupied portions of the river system, we assume that area is no longer suitable or occupiable; thus, resiliency would decrease.

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

As noted above, water engineering projects that convert free-flowing rivers to lentic habitats negatively affect the species. The proposed One Lake project proposes a new dam and commercial development area 9 miles (mi) (14.5 kilometer (km)) south of the current Ross Barnett Reservoir Dam near Interstate 20. However, the One Lake project is still being debated, and there is uncertainty as to whether the project will proceed. Because of this uncertainty, we have created two scenarios based around the proposed One Lake project: One in which the project occurs, and one in which it does not, within the next 50 years. Because of the potential for negative impacts on Pearl River map turtles from the proposed One Lake project, we assume a decrease in resiliency of the Middle Pearl-Strong unit if the project moves forward.

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

Scenario Descriptions

Scenarios were built around three factors: land use, SLR, and water engineering projects. To present plausible future conditions for the species and to assess the viability for the Pearl River map turtle in response to those conditions, we projected two land use and two SLR scenarios out to the years 2040 (~20 years) and 2070 (~50 years). Additional details regarding the scenario descriptions can be found in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 73-75) and the proposed listing rule (86 FR 66624; November 23, 2021).

Future Resiliency

Bogue Chitto —Under all scenarios, development remains low across the Bogue Chitto unit. Agriculture is high across the entire unit in all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070, where agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR impacts or water engineering projects directly affecting this unit. There is uncertainty regarding future impacts related to mining activity, which has the potential to further reduce resiliency. However, the effects of past and current mining activities have already altered the Bogue Chitto by degrading both habitat and water quality (Service 2023, p. 31). It is likely that this unit maintains a moderate resilience over the next 50 years according to all future scenarios.

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

Middle Pearl-Silver —Development remains low across the unit under all scenarios at both time steps. Agriculture increases to high under the A2 scenarios and stays moderate under the B1 scenarios. There are no predicted SLR effects or water engineering project impacts on this unit. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all scenarios and is predicted to increase under the B1 scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. Current resilience for this unit is low, and based on the factors assessed, it is likely there will not be a decline in resilience in the future (Service 2023, p. 93).

Middle Pearl-Strong —Development is substantial in a few areas within this unit, particularly around Jackson, Mississippi. The current resiliency for this unit is moderate, and the future resiliency is likely to decline due to increased agriculture and decreased forest cover within the unit (without One Lake). Agriculture is predicted to be high across the unit under all scenarios. If the One Lake project moves forward, there is a substantial decrease in resiliency predicted within and adjacent to the project area, as several streams are predicted to lose a substantial amount of forested cover. However, these impacts from the One Lake project will not extend to the Strong River as this tributary connects with the Pearl River downstream of the proposed project area. No SLR impacts are predicted in this unit. The Middle Pearl-Strong unit is perhaps the most vulnerable unit, as development, agriculture, and water engineering projects are projected to impact this unit and lead to future declines in resiliency.

Upper Pearl —The habitat associated with this unit provides conditions to potentially support a stronghold for the species because it has the largest total area of protected lands compared to the other four units (Service 2023, p. 61). Development remains low across the entire unit under all scenarios. Agriculture is high across the entire unit in all scenarios, except for the B1 scenario in the year 2070, where agriculture is moderate. Forested cover is relatively high across the unit under all scenarios; thus, deadwood does not appear to be a limiting factor. There are no predicted SLR or water engineering project impacts in this unit. The Upper Pearl unit will remain in the moderate category over the next 50 years, based on the factors assessed; however, this population may experience genetic drift over time due to isolation caused by habitat fragmentation from the existing (Ross Barnett) and planned (One Lake) reservoirs in the adjacent (downstream) unit. This will likely result in a decline in resiliency due to a loss of connectivity with the rest of the turtle's range.

Future Redundancy

Although the scenarios do not project extirpation in any of the units, we do anticipate resiliency to decline in four units; however, only the Middle Pearl-Strong unit will be downgraded from moderate to low resiliency under all scenarios in which the One Lake project is built. All other units will stay within the same ( i.e., current) resiliency category but will decline in resiliency within their respective categories. For example, the Lower Pearl unit will be impacted by SLR under all scenarios, and this is compounded by projected increases in both development and agriculture, but resiliency is expected to remain low. Only the Middle Pearl-Silver unit will not show any decline in resiliency into the future. Because extant units of the species are predicted to be distributed relatively widely, it is highly unlikely that a catastrophic event would impact the entire species' range; thus, the Pearl River map turtle is predicted to exhibit a moderate degree of redundancy in the future under all scenarios.

Future Representation

As described above under the current conditions, the species is a single representative unit regarding genetic variation. Relatively unique habitat conditions in the Strong River may influence the species' adaptive capacity and its overall representation. When looking at projections of threats within the Strong River, development is projected to remain low. In the A2 climate scenarios, agriculture increases from moderate to high; in the B1 climate scenarios, agriculture stays moderate. Also, forested cover within the riparian zone of the Strong River remains relatively high (68-83 percent), although it does drop across all climate scenarios from the current condition (92 percent). SLR does not impact this river in any of our scenarios, as the Strong River is far enough inland to avoid the effects of inundation. Finally, the One Lake project is not anticipated to directly impact the Strong River due to the location of the project ( i.e., mainstem Pearl River). Given this information, although the resiliency of the Strong River might decrease slightly due to land use projections, it is likely the Strong River will support a moderate density of individual turtles, and thus contribute to representation through maintenance of potential genetic diversity based on unique habitat features.

It is noteworthy that a recent genetics study has revealed that genetic diversity is lower in Pearl River map turtles compared to the closely related congener, Pascagoula map turtles (Pearson et al. 2020, pp. 11-12). Declining populations generally have reduced genetic diversity, which can potentially elevate the risk of extinction by reducing a species' ability and potential to adapt to environmental changes (Spielman et al. 2004, entire). Genetic bottlenecks and low overall genetic diversity are more of a concern for populations that become geographically isolated by physical barriers that inhibit connectivity. Although no documented genetic differentiation has occurred, limited gene flow and genetic isolation of Pearl River map turtle populations upstream and downstream of the Ross Barnett Reservoir is expected to occur over future generations.

Determination of Pearl River Map Turtle's Status

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

Status Throughout All of Its Range

After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) factors, we determined that the species currently has sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation contributing to its overall viability across its range. Even though the species is described as a single population, we assessed its viability by evaluating the condition of the Pearl River map turtle in five different resiliency units. This assessment indicated that the current condition of all units is below optimal or high resiliency, with three units having moderate resiliency and the remaining two units having low resiliency. There are no units within the range that demonstrate high resiliency. Despite the moderate and low conditions of all units, the species still occupies all five units. Current threats to the species include habitat degradation or loss (degraded water quality, channel and hydrologic modifications/impoundments, agricultural runoff, mining, and development), collection for the pet trade, and effects of climate change (increasing temperatures, drought, sea-level rise, hurricane regime changes, and increased seasonal precipitation).

The Ross Barnett Reservoir was completed in 1963 and has reduced the amount of available habitat for the species and fragmented contiguous suitable habitat. Pearl River map turtles prefer flowing water in rivers and creeks. Indirect effects from the reservoir are associated with recreational use from boat traffic and foot traffic from day visitors and campers. Declines in Pearl River map turtles have been documented both upstream (lower density) and downstream (population declines) from the reservoir (Selman and Jones 2017, pp. 32-34). A total of 20.9 rmi (33.6 rkm) of the Pearl River is submerged beneath the Ross Barnett Reservoir and is no longer suitable for the Pearl River map turtle. This reservoir is currently affecting the Middle Pearl-Strong unit and the Upper Pearl unit, reducing the suitable habitat of 5 percent of the mainstem Pearl River by altering the lotic (flowing water) habitat preferred by Pearl River map turtles to lentic (lake) habitat. The reservoir reduces the resiliency and overall condition of these affected units.

Despite the effects of the existing reservoir on the Upper Pearl and Middle Pearl-Strong resilience units, sufficient habitat remains to provide adequate resiliency of these units to contribute to the viability of the species. The effects from the reservoir may continue affecting the species in the future as the turtles in the Upper Pearl unit (above the reservoir) become more isolated over time; however, there is currently adequate resiliency.

In terms of redundancy and the ability of the species to respond to catastrophic events, the species currently has enough redundancy across the five resilience units to protect it from a catastrophe such as a large hurricane or oil spill. The Middle Pearl-Silver and Middle Pearl-Strong units are particularly vulnerable to a potential spill from railways and transportation corridors that are near or adjacent to habitat occupied by Pearl River map turtles. The Lower Pearl unit is vulnerable to the effects from hurricanes as it is in close proximity to the Gulf of Mexico. However, because the species is a single population distributed across five resilience units encompassing 795.1 rmi (1279.6 rkm), it is buffered against catastrophic events such as these. The overall current condition of the species exhibits moderate-high redundancy, as the species is still widespread across its range in all resilience units across the single representative unit. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Pearl River map turtle is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

A threatened species, as defined by the Act, is any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because the species is not currently in danger of extinction ( i.e., endangered) throughout its entire range, we evaluated the viability of the species over the foreseeable future considering the condition of the species in relation to its resiliency, redundancy, and representation. We analyzed future conditions (2040 and 2070) based on input from species experts, generation time for the species, and the confidence in predicting patterns of urbanization and agriculture, enabling us to make reasonably reliable predictions about the threats and the species' response to these threats over time.

The threats included in the future scenarios are projected to negatively affect the Pearl River map turtle and result in a decline of resiliency throughout four (Bogue Chitto, Lower Pearl, Middle Pearl-Strong, and Upper Pearl) of the five resilience units (Service 2023, pp. 70-105). While the Middle Pearl-Silver unit is not expected to see major declines in resiliency, its current resiliency is low and is anticipated to remain low in the future projections. None of the resilience units will improve from current conditions to provide high resiliency; three units are currently in moderate condition, but resiliency within these conditions decline in the future scenarios. Three resilience units may have additional stressors including isolation for the Upper Pearl, compounded by the addition of another planned reservoir for the Middle Pearl-Strong unit, and gravel mining for the Bogue Chitto unit. These threats will likely cause a decline in the amount of available suitable habitat, thereby affecting the future resiliency; however, the development of the reservoir and future sand and gravel mining activities are uncertain. Two of the resilience units are in low condition and are expected to remain in low condition in the future (Lower Pearl and Middle Pearl-Silver), with the southernmost unit (Lower Pearl) facing threats from SLR. The low genetic variability of Pearl River map turtles may result in low adaptive capacity (the potential to adapt) to environmental or habitat changes within the units. More than half of the population inhabits the main stem river, which is subject to more catastrophic events ( e.g., an oil spill). These point source pollutants would flow downstream below the point of contamination, with greater impacts occurring in closer proximity to the spill. However, the mainstems of large, occupied tributaries (Bogue Chitto, Strong, Yockanookany) contain moderate densities of the Pearl River map turtle (34 percent of total population), which would allow for some rescue potential from tributaries to areas impacted by future catastrophic events.

In terms of resiliency, the future condition is expected to decline for all but one resilience unit. The future scenarios project out to the year 2070 to capture the species' response to threats and changing landscape conditions. The impacts from the existing Ross Barnett Reservoir will continue affecting the species, and resilience of the Middle Pearl-Strong unit will decline, and the turtle populations in the northernmost unit (Upper Pearl) will become even more spatially and genetically isolated over time. An additional planned development project (the One Lake project) downstream of the existing reservoir could affect up to 170 turtles directly and 360 turtles indirectly in the Middle Pearl-Strong unit (Selman 2020b, pp. 192-193). If this impoundment project moves forward, the species' viability will continue to decline in the foreseeable future as resiliency declines through loss of suitable habitat and further isolation of turtles above the reservoirs. The turtles in the Upper Pearl unit are subject to genetic isolation and potentially the effects of small population size as the species in this unit will not be connected to the rest of the contiguous habitat south of the reservoir.

Another future threat to the species is SLR, which will cause a contraction in the Lower Pearl unit as saline waters encroach upstream from the Gulf of Mexico, and the effects will be magnified with hurricane-related storm surge pulsing saline water upstream into the freshwater system. The amount of habitat affected over time depends on the rate of SLR and other factors that influence surge, such as increased hurricane or storm frequency and severity.

An additional threat that is expected to impact the species within the foreseeable future includes the continued collection from wild populations for the domestic and international pet trade. Map turtles are desired by collectors for their intricate shell patterns. Despite the less distinctive shell patterns and markings of adult Pearl River map turtles, the species remains a target for some herptile enthusiasts and personal collections. The demand for turtles globally is increasing, which results in more intense pressures on wild populations. The threat of illegal collection is expected to continue into the foreseeable future.

The overall future condition of the species is expected to continue a declining trajectory resulting in compromised viability as described in the future scenarios out to year 2070. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that the Pearl River map turtle is not currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) ( Everson), vacated the provision of the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (Final Policy; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014) that provided if the Service determines that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Service will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range—that is, whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for us to address the “significance” question or the “status” question first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.

Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether the species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its range. In undertaking this analysis for the Pearl River map turtle, we choose to address the status question first—we consider information pertaining to the geographic distribution of both the species and the threats that the species faces to identify any portions of the range where the species may be endangered.

We evaluated the range of the Pearl River map turtle to determine if the species is in danger of extinction now in any portion of its range. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' range that may meet the definition of an endangered species. For Pearl River map turtle, we considered whether the threats or their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the species is in danger of extinction now in that portion.

The statutory difference between an endangered species and a threatened species is the time frame in which the species becomes in danger of extinction; an endangered species is in danger of extinction now while a threatened species is not in danger of extinction now but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Thus, we reviewed the best scientific and commercial data available regarding the time horizon for the threats that are driving the Pearl River map turtle to warrant listing as a threatened species throughout all of its range. We then considered whether these threats or their effects are occurring (or may imminently occur) in any portion of the species' range with sufficient magnitude such that the species is in danger of extinction now in that portion of its range. We examined the following threats: effects of climate change (including SLR), habitat loss and degradation, and illegal collection. We also considered whether cumulative effects contributed to a concentration of threats across the species' range.

Overall, we found that the threat of SLR and habitat loss is likely acting disproportionately to particular areas within the species' range. The threat of SLR is concentrated in the Lower Pearl, which is the southernmost resilience unit that connects to the Gulf of Mexico. However, the salinity influx into the species' habitat due to SLR is not currently affecting this area but will affect the species' habitat within the foreseeable future. Thus, we have determined that SLR is not currently affecting this portion of the range to the extent that endangered status is warranted.

The threat of habitat loss and degradation is concentrated on the Middle Pearl-Strong and Upper Pearl units due to an existing reservoir and a planned project that disjoins the connectivity of turtles above and below the reservoir. The impacts due to habitat degradation and loss because of the existing reservoir are acting on the species' current condition and possibly future condition if the One Lake project is constructed as planned. The impacts from the One Lake project are in the future and are not currently affecting the species; therefore, we will only consider the existing reservoir for the analysis to determine if the species is endangered in a significant portion of its range.

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

Determination of Pearl River Map Turtle's Status

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

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition as a listed species, planning and implementation of recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies, including the Service, and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Section 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

The recovery planning process begins with development of a recovery outline made available to the public soon after a final listing determination. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions while a recovery plan is being developed. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) may be established to develop and implement recovery plans. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt and reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The recovery plan identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for reclassification from endangered to threatened (“downlisting”) or removal from protected status (“delisting”), and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery outline, draft recovery plan, final recovery plan, and any revisions will be available on our website as they are completed ( https://www.fws.gov/​program/​endangered-species), or from our Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration ( e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.

Once the Pearl River map turtle is listed (see DATES , above), funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Louisiana and Mississippi will be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Pearl River map turtle. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/​service/​financial-assistance.

Please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for the Pearl River map turtle. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

Section 7 of the Act is titled, “Interagency Cooperation” and mandates all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities to further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.

Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in jeopardy or adverse modification.

Examples of discretionary actions for the Pearl River map turtle that may be subject to consultation procedures under section 7 are land management or other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Service (Refuges) and Department of Defense (Stennis Western Maneuver Area) as well as actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat—and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or carried out by a Federal agency—do not require section 7 consultation. Federal agencies should coordinate with the Field Supervisor of the Service's Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ) with any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference requirements.

It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species. Although most of the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act apply to endangered species, sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1)(G) and (a)(2)(E)) prohibit the violation of any regulation under section 4(d) pertaining to any threatened species of fish or wildlife, or threatened species of plant, respectively. Section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)) directs the Secretary to promulgate protective regulations that are necessary and advisable for the conservation of threatened species. As a result, we interpret our policy to mean that, when we list a species as a threatened species, to the extent possible, we identify activities that will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of the protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act for that species.

At this time, we are unable to identify specific activities that will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act beyond what is already clear from the descriptions of prohibitions and exceptions established by protective regulation under section 4(d) of the Act.

Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Field Supervisor of the Service's Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT ).

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

Background

Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species listed as threatened. Conservation is defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Additionally, the second sentence of section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. With these two sentences in section 4(d), Congress delegated broad authority to the Secretary to determine what protections would be necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species, and even broader authority to put in place any of the section 9 prohibitions, for a given species.

The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the legislative history when the Act was initially enacted, “once an animal is on the threatened list, the Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to [her] with regard to the permitted activities for those species. [She] may, for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, or [she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the transportation of such species” (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 1973).

The provisions of this species' protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of many tools that we will use to promote the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle. Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any way the recovery planning provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service to enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the Pearl River map turtle. As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures, Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of such species. These requirements are the same for a threatened species regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.

Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that “may affect” a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule (“blanket rule” or species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule does not change the process and criteria for informal or formal consultations and does not alter the analytical process used for biological opinions or concurrence letters. For example, as with an endangered species, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “not likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, this will require the Service's written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). Similarly, if a Federal agency determines that an action is “likely to adversely affect” a threatened species, the action will require formal consultation and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 402.14(a)).

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

Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, we have developed a rule that is designed to address the Pearl River map turtle's conservation needs. As discussed previously under Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the Pearl River map turtle is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future primarily due to habitat degradation and loss caused by degraded water quality, channel or hydrological modifications and impoundments, agricultural runoff, development, mining; collection; and climate change. Additional stressors acting on the species include disease and contaminants (pesticides and heavy metals). Drowning and/or capture due to bycatch associated with recreational and commercial fishing of some species of freshwater fish may also affect the Pearl River map turtle but are of unknown frequency or severity.

Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are not required to make a “necessary and advisable” determination when we apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a threatened species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))). Nevertheless, even though we are not required to make such a determination, we have chosen to be as transparent as possible and explain below why we find that the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in this rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.

The protective regulations for Pearl River map turtle incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) of the Act to address the threats to the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation includes all of these prohibitions because the Pearl River map turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and putting these prohibitions in place will help to better preserve the condition of the species' resilience units, slow its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other ongoing or future threats.

In particular, this 4(d) rule will provide for the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle by prohibiting the following activities, unless they fall within specific exceptions or are otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or exporting; take; possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens; delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.

Under the Act, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating take will help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their rate of decline, and decrease cumulative effects from other ongoing or future threats. Therefore, we are prohibiting take of the Pearl River map turtle, except for take resulting from those actions and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule. Exceptions to the prohibition on take include the general exceptions to the prohibition on take of endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and additional exceptions, as described below.

Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above. The regulations that govern permits for threatened wildlife state that the Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species. These include permits issued for the following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship, for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental taking, or for special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR 17.32). The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; or (ii) Dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) Remove specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner; the taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by live capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area.

We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct activities designed to conserve the Pearl River map turtle that may result in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization.

The 4(d) rule will also provide for the conservation of the species by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation actions or that, while they may have some minimal level of take of the Pearl River map turtle, are not expected to rise to the level that would have a negative impact ( i.e., would have only de minimis impacts) on the species' conservation. The exceptions to these prohibitions include take resulting from forest management practices that use State-approved best management practices (described below) that are expected to have negligible impacts to the Pearl River map turtle and its habitat.

Silvicultural Practices and Forest Management Activities that Use State Forestry Best Management Practices —Forest management practices that implement State-approved BMPs designed to protect water quality and stream and riparian habitat will avoid or minimize the effects of habitat alterations in areas that support Pearl River map turtles. We consider that certain activities associated with silvicultural practices and forest management activities may remove riparian cover or forested habitat, change land use within the riparian zone, or increase stream bank erosion and/or siltation. We recognize that forest management practices are widely implemented in accordance with State-approved BMPs (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2018, entire), and the adherence to these BMPs broadly protects water quality, particularly related to sedimentation (as reviewed by Cristan et al. 2016, entire; Warrington et al. 2017, entire; and Schilling et al. 2021, entire), to an extent that does not impair the species' conservation. Forest landowners who properly implement those BMPs are helping conserve the Pearl River map turtle, and this 4(d) rule is an incentive for all landowners to properly implement applicable State-approved BMPs to avoid any take implications. Further, those forest landowners who are third-party-certified (attesting to the sustainable management of a working forest) to a credible forest management standard are providing audited certainty that BMP implementation is taking place across the landscape.

Summary of Species-specific Incidental Take Exceptions in the 4(d) Rule —Under this final 4(d) rule, incidental take associated silviculture practices and forest management activities that use State-approved BMPs designed to protect water quality and stream and riparian habitat with the following activities is excepted from the prohibitions.

III. Critical Habitat for the Pearl River Map Turtle

Background

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate a species' critical habitat concurrently with listing the species. Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features

(a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and

(b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and

(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary ( i.e., range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis ( e.g., migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, but not solely by vagrant individuals).

Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resource management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that each Federal action agency ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation also does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Rather, designation requires that, where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect an area designated as critical habitat, the Federal agency consult with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. If the action may affect the listed species itself (such as for occupied critical habitat), the Federal action agency would have already been required to consult with the Service even absent the critical habitat designation because of the requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, they must implement “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, cover, and protected habitat).

Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

When we are determining which areas should be designated as critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information from the SSA report and information developed during the listing process for the species. Additional information sources may include any generalized conservation strategy, criteria, or outline that may have been developed for the species; the recovery plan for the species; articles in peer-reviewed journals; conservation plans developed by States and counties; scientific status surveys and studies; biological assessments; other unpublished materials; or experts' opinions or personal knowledge.

Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act; (2) regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species; and (3) the prohibitions found in the 4(d) rule. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary shall designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species. On April 5, 2024, we published a final rule revised our regulations at 50 CFR part 424 to further clarify when designation of critical habitat may not be prudent (89 FR 24300). Our regulations (50 CFR424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat may not be prudent in circumstances such as, but not limited to, the following:

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

(ii) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of a species' habitat or range is not a threat to the species;

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

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

We found that designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the Pearl River map turtle in our November 23, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 66624). We based this finding on a determination that the designation of critical habitat would increase the threat to the Pearl River map turtle from unauthorized collection and trade, and may further facilitate inadvertent or purposeful disturbance of the turtle's habitat. We stated that designation of occupied critical habitat is likely to confer only an educational benefit to the species beyond that provided by listing. Alternatively, the designation of unoccupied critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle could provide an educational and at least some regulatory benefit for the species. However, we stated that the risk of increasing significant threats to the species by publishing more specific location information in a critical habitat designation greatly outweighed the benefits of designating critical habitat.

We received numerous comments from private and Federal entities stating that the locations of Pearl River map turtle are already available in scientific journals, online databases, and documents published by the Service, which led us to reconsider the prudency determination for these species. Our original determination rested on the increased risk of poaching resulting from publicizing the locations of Pearl River map turtle populations through maps of critical habitat in the Federal Register . In light of the comments we received during the November 23, 2021, proposed rule's comment period, we now find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Pearl River map turtle. Our rationale is outlined below. The principal benefit of including an area in critical habitat is the requirement for agencies to ensure actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated critical habitat, the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2) of the Act under which consultation is completed. Critical habitat provides protections only where there is a Federal nexus, that is, those actions that come under the purview of section 7 of the Act. Critical habitat designation has no application to actions that do not have a Federal nexus.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act mandates that Federal agencies, in consultation with the Service, evaluate the effects of their proposed actions on any designated critical habitat. Similar to the Act's requirement that a Federal agency action not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, Federal agencies have the responsibility not to implement actions that would destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Federal actions affecting the species even in the absence of designated critical habitat areas will still benefit from consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act and may still result in jeopardy findings. However, the analysis of effects of a proposed project on critical habitat is separate and distinct from that of the effects of a proposed project on the species itself. The jeopardy analysis evaluates the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the destruction or adverse modification analysis evaluates the action's effects to the designated habitat's contribution as a whole to conservation of the species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. This would, in some instances, lead to different results and different regulatory requirements. Thus, critical habitat designations may provide greater benefits to the recovery of a species than would listing alone.

Map turtles are valuable to collectors and the threat of poaching remains imminent (Factor B) for the Pearl River map turtle. There is evidence that the designation of critical habitat could result in an increased threat from taking, specifically collection, for the species, through publication of maps and a narrative description of specific critical habitat units in the Federal Register . However, such information on locations of extant Pearl River map turtle populations is already widely available to the public through many outlets, as noted above. Therefore, identification and mapping of critical habitat is not expected to increase the degree of such threat. In the comments we received on the November 23, 2021, proposed rule, we were alerted to the existing public availability of many, if not all, populations or locations of the Pearl River map turtle.

Critical Habitat Determinability

Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist:

(i) Data sufficient to perform required analyses are lacking, or

(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to identify any area that meets the definition of “critical habitat.”

When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act allows the Service an additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).

For the Pearl River map turtle, the species' needs are sufficiently well known, but a careful assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical habitat designation is ongoing. Until these efforts are complete, information sufficient to perform a required analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking; therefore, we find the designation of critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle to be not determinable at this time. In the future, we plan to publish a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Pearl River map turtle concurrent with the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation.

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

Section 4(e) authorizes the treatment of a species, subspecies, or population segment as an endangered or threatened species if: (a) Such species so closely resembles in appearance, at the point in question, a species which has been listed pursuant to the Act that enforcement personnel would have substantial difficulty in attempting to differentiate between the listed and unlisted species; (b) the effect of this substantial difficulty is an additional threat to an endangered or threatened species; and (c) such treatment of an unlisted species will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(e)).

The treatment of a species as an endangered or threatened species due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act does not extend other protections of the Act, such as consultation requirements for Federal agencies under section 7 and the recovery planning provisions under section 4(f), that apply to species that are listed as endangered or threatened species under section 4(a) of the Act. All applicable prohibitions and exceptions for species listed under section 4(e) of the Act due to similarity of appearance to an endangered or threatened species are set forth in a species-specific rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act. The Service implements this section 4(e) authority in accordance with the Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 17.50 through 17.52. Our analysis of the criteria for the 4(e) rule is described in the proposed rule (86 FR 66624; November 23, 2021) for the similarity of appearance of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle in relation to the threatened Pearl River map turtle.

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

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

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

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

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

The listing of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle due to similarity of appearance will facilitate Federal, State, and local law enforcement agents' efforts to curtail unauthorized possession, collection, and trade in the Pearl River map turtle. Listing the four similar map turtle species due to similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act and providing applicable prohibitions and exceptions in a rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act will substantially facilitate the enforcement and further the policy of the Act for the Pearl River map turtle. For these reasons, we are listing the Alabama map turtle (occurring in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee), Barbour's map turtle (occurring in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), Escambia map turtle (occurring in Alabama and Florida), and Pascagoula map turtle (occurring in Mississippi) as threatened due to similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle pursuant to section 4(e) of the Act.

With this final rule, we do not consider the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle to be biologically threatened or endangered, but we have determined that listing the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened species under the similarity of appearance provision of section 4(e) of the Act, coupled with a 4(d) rule as discussed below, minimizes misidentification and enforcement-related issues. This listing will promote and enhance the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.

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

Whenever a species is listed as a threatened species under the Act, the Secretary may specify regulations that she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of that species under the authorization of section 4(d) of the Act. Because we are listing the Alabama map turtle ( Graptemys pulchra), Barbour's map turtle ( Graptemys barbouri), Escambia map turtle ( Graptemys ernsti), and Pascagoula map turtle ( Graptemys gibbonsi) as threatened species due to similarity of appearance to the Pearl River map turtle (see IV. Similarity of Appearance for the Alabama Map Turtle, Barbour's Map Turtle, Escambia Map Turtle, and Pascagoula Map Turtle, above), we are finalizing a 4(d) rule to minimize misidentification and enforcement-related issues. This 4(d) rule will promote and enhance the conservation of the Pearl River map turtle.

This 4(d) rule establishes certain prohibitions on take in the form of collection, capturing, and trapping of these four similar-in-appearance species of map turtle in order to protect the Pearl River map turtle from unlawful take, unlawful possession, and unlawful trade. In this context, take in the form of collect, capture, or trap is defined as any activity where Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or Pascagoula map turtles are, or are attempted to be, collected, captured, or trapped from wild populations. Incidental take associated with all otherwise legal activities involving the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle that are conducted in accordance with applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations is not considered prohibited under this 4(d) rule.

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

The protective regulations for Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to the Pearl River map turtle. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit or to cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) within the United States, within the territorial sea of the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce. This protective regulation includes most of these prohibitions because the Pearl River map turtle is at risk of extinction in the foreseeable future and putting these prohibitions in place for Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle will help to reduce threats to the Pearl River map turtle.

Under the Act, “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in regulation at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating take will help address primary threats to the Pearl River map turtle. We are only prohibiting intentional take in the form of collect, capture, or trap, because the threat of collectors being able to misrepresent Pearl River map turtles as Pearl River map turtles as Alabama map turtles, Barbour's map turtles, Escambia map turtles, or Pascagoula map turtles for private or commercial purposes. This potential unauthorized trade or commerce of Pearl River map turtles is caused by a lack of distinct physical characteristics and difficulty in distinguishing individual species of megacephalic map turtles, posing a problem for Federal and State law enforcement agents. Exceptions to the prohibition on take include the general exceptions to the prohibition on take of endangered wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and additional exceptions, as described below.

Despite these prohibitions regarding threatened species, we may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out one or more otherwise prohibited activities, including those described above in accordance with 50 CFR 17.32. The statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

In addition, to further the conservation of the species, any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official duties, take threatened wildlife without a permit if such action is necessary to: (i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned specimen; or (ii) Dispose of a dead specimen; or (iii) Salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study; or (iv) Remove specimens that constitute a demonstrable but nonimmediate threat to human safety, provided that the taking is done in a humane manner; the taking may involve killing or injuring only if it has not been reasonably possible to eliminate such threat by live capturing and releasing the specimen unharmed, in an appropriate area. Because collection is the only form of take that is prohibited, this exception will allow any employee or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a federally recognized Tribe to collect the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle.

We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants. State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique position to assist us in implementing all aspects of the Act. In this regard, section 6 of the Act provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore, any qualified employee or agent of a State conservation agency that is a party to a cooperative agreement with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated by his or her agency for such purposes, will be able to conduct activities that may result in otherwise prohibited take (in this case, collection) without additional authorization.

The 4(d) rule does not prohibit incidental take of the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle. Incidental take is take that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. For example, construction activities, application of pesticides and fertilizers, silviculture and forest management practices, maintenance dredging activities that remain in the previously disturbed portion of a maintained channel, and any other legally undertaken actions that result in the accidental take of an Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, or Pascagoula map turtle will not be considered a violation of section 9 of the Act.

Effects of the Final 4(d) Rule

Listing the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle as threatened species under the “similarity of appearance” provisions of section 4(e) of the Act, and the promulgation of a rule under section 4(d) of the Act to extend prohibitions regarding take in the form of collect, capture, or trap, import, export, and commerce to these species, will provide a conservation benefit to the Pearl River map turtle.

As the Alabama map turtle, Barbour's map turtle, Escambia map turtle, and Pascagoula map turtle can be confused with the Pearl River map turtle, we strongly recommend maintaining the appropriate documentation and declarations with legal specimens at all times, especially when importing them into the United States, and permit holders must also comply with the import/export transfer regulations at 50 CFR part 14, where applicable. All otherwise legal activities that may involve what we would normally define as incidental take (take that results from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity) of these similar turtles, and which are conducted in accordance with applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations, are not prohibited under this 4(d) rule.

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

Required Determinations

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

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 (Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretaries' Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes. We coordinated with Tribes within the Pearl River map turtle's range when we initiated the SSA process. We also requested review of the SSA report and addressed comments accordingly. We also coordinated with Tribes within the Alabama, Barbour's, and Escambia map turtles' ranges, requesting information regarding threats and conservation actions for those species. There are no Tribes within the range of the Pascagoula map turtle.

References Cited

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

Authors

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

2. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife by adding entries for “Turtle, Alabama map”, “Turtle, Barbour's map”, “Turtle, Escambia map”, “Turtle, Pascagoula map”, and “Turtle, Pearl River map” in alphabetical order under Reptiles to read as follows:

§ 17.11

Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

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