[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68370-68399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21685]



[[Page 68369]]

Vol. 88

Tuesday,

No. 190

October 3, 2023

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Northwestern Pond Turtle and 
Southwestern Pond Turtle; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 68370]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0092; FF09E21000 FXES1111090FEDR 234]
RIN 1018-BH08


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species 
Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Northwestern Pond Turtle and 
Southwestern Pond Turtle

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), a species from 
Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and northern and central California, and 
the southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), a species from 
central and southern California and Baja California, Mexico, as 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). This determination also serves as our 12-month finding on a 
petition to list the western pond turtle, which is now recognized as 
two separate species (northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 
turtle). After a review of the best scientific and commercial 
information available, we find that listing the northwestern pond 
turtle and southwestern pond turtle is warranted. Accordingly, we 
propose to list the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 
turtle as threatened species with rules issued under section 4(d) of 
the Act (``4(d) rule'') for each species. If we finalize this rule as 
proposed, it would add the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern 
pond turtle to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
extend the Act's protections to the two species. Due to the current 
lack of data sufficient to perform required analyses, we conclude that 
the designation of critical habitat for the northwestern pond turtle 
and southwestern pond turtle is not determinable at this time.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 4, 2023. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 
p.m. eastern time on the closing date. We must receive requests for a 
public hearing, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT by November 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R8-ES-2023-0092, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click on the 
Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left side of 
the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed Rule 
box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on 
``Comment.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments 
Processing, Attn: FWS-R8-ES-2023-0092, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
    We request that you send comments only by the methods described 
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
    Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as 
the species status assessment report, are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R8-ES-2023-0092.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Henry, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 
93003; telephone 805-644-1766. Individuals in the United States who are 
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay 
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay 
services offered within their country to make international calls to 
the point-of-contact in the United States. In compliance with the 
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023, please see 
docket FWS-R8-ES-2023-0092 on https://www.regulations.gov for a 
document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), a species warrants listing if it meets the definition of an 
endangered species (in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range) or a threatened species (likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range). If we determine that a species 
warrants listing, we must list the species promptly and designate the 
species' critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and 
determinable. We have determined that the northwestern pond turtle and 
the southwestern pond turtle meet the Act's definition of threatened 
species; therefore, we are proposing to list them as such. Listing a 
species as an endangered or threatened species can be completed only by 
issuing a rule through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking 
process (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.).
    What this document does. We are proposing to list the northwestern 
pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle as threatened species with a 
rule issued under section 4(d) of the Act (a ``4(d) rule'') for both 
species.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we may determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species because of any of five 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the northwestern pond 
turtle and southwestern pond turtle are threatened species due to the 
following threats: impacts to terrestrial and aquatic habitat (Factor 
A), anthropogenic impacts to the species and its habitat (e.g., human 
modification of habitat, land conversion, loss of connectivity between 
populations, recreation) (Factors A and E), nonnative predators (Factor 
C), and the effects of climate change (e.g., drought, impacts 
associated with wildfire) (Factors A and E).
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary), to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, to 
designate critical habitat concurrent with listing. We have not yet 
been able to obtain the necessary economic information needed to 
develop proposed critical habitat designations for the two species, 
although we are in the process of obtaining this information. At this 
time, we find that designation of critical habitat for the northwestern 
pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle is not determinable. Once we 
obtain the necessary economic information, we will propose critical 
habitat designations for the two species.

[[Page 68371]]

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native 
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other 
interested parties concerning this proposed rule for the northwestern 
and southwestern pond turtle. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The two species' biology, range, and population trends, 
including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the two species, 
including habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns 
and the locations of any additional populations of these two species;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends;
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for these two species, 
their habitat, or both; and
    (f) Tribal use or cultural significance of the northwestern pond 
turtle and southwestern pond turtle, including possession and 
collection and use of the two species for ceremonial or traditional 
crafts.
    (2) Threats and conservation actions affecting the two species, 
including:
    (a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the 
two species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, 
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.
    (b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to these two species.
    (c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be 
addressing threats to these two species.
    (3) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status of these two species.
    (4) Information on regulations that may be necessary and advisable 
to provide for the conservation of the northwestern and southwestern 
pond turtle and that we can consider in developing a 4(d) rule for 
these two species. In particular, we seek information concerning the 
extent to which we should include any of the section 9 prohibitions in 
the 4(d) rule or whether we should consider any additional exceptions 
from the prohibitions in the 4(d) rule.
    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as 
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to 
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or 
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial 
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of 
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an 
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of 
the best scientific and commercial data available, and section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act directs that the Secretary shall designate critical habitat 
on the basis of the best scientific data available.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy 
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the 
top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We 
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Because we will consider all comments and information we receive 
during the comment period, our final determinations may differ from 
this proposal. Based on the new information we receive (and any 
comments on that new information), we may conclude that the 
northwestern or southwestern pond turtle is endangered instead of 
threatened, or we may conclude that either of the two species does not 
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened 
species. In addition, we may change the parameters of the prohibitions 
or the exceptions to those prohibitions in the 4(d) rule if we conclude 
it is appropriate in light of comments and new information received. 
For example, we may expand the prohibitions to include prohibiting 
additional activities if we conclude that those additional activities 
are not compatible with conservation of either of the two species. 
Conversely, we may establish additional exceptions to the prohibitions 
in the final rule if we conclude that the activities would facilitate 
or are compatible with the conservation and recovery of either of the 
two species. In our final rule, we will clearly explain our rationale 
and the basis for our final decision, including why we made changes, if 
any, that differ from this proposal.

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested. Requests must be received by the date specified 
in DATES. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule a public hearing on this 
proposal, if requested, and announce the date, time, and place of the 
hearing, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the 
Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the 
hearing. We may hold the public hearing in person or virtually via 
webinar. We will announce any public hearing on our website, in 
addition to the Federal Register. The use of virtual public hearings is 
consistent with our regulations at 50 CFR 424.16(c)(3).

Previous Federal Actions

    On July 11, 2012, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity (Center) (Center 2012, pp. 1-96), requesting that 
53 species of amphibians and reptiles, including the western pond 
turtle, be listed as endangered or threatened species and that critical 
habitat be designated for those species under the Act. On June 10, 
2014, the Center sent us a letter that cited a publication (Spinks et 
al. 2014, p. 2238) recommending that the western pond turtle be split 
into two separate species. The Center suggested that we consider the 
separation in our status review for the western pond turtle (Center 
2014, entire). On April 10, 2015, we published in the Federal Register 
(80 FR 19259) a 90-day finding affirming that the petition for the 
western pond turtle as one species presented substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be 
warranted. The 12-month finding was added to our workload as part of 
our National Listing Workplan. In 2020, the Center included the western 
pond turtle in a lawsuit (Center for Biological Diversity v. Debra 
Haaland et al. No. 1:20-cv-00573-EGS) challenging the Service's failure 
to issue listing determinations in response to petitions for 241 
species; the Service subsequently agreed in settlement to

[[Page 68372]]

submit to the Federal Register the 12-month finding in response to the 
petition to list the western pond turtle by September 30, 2023.

Peer Review

    A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for 
the northwestern pond turtle and the southwestern pond turtle (Service 
2023, entire). The SSA team was composed of Service biologists, in 
consultation with other species experts. The SSA report represents a 
compilation of the best scientific and commercial data available 
concerning the status of the two species, including the impacts of 
past, present, and future factors (both negative and beneficial) 
affecting each species. In development of the SSA, we worked with 
academic researchers affiliated with the University of Florida and U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) to develop a population model for areas in 
Oregon and California (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire). The model was 
included as part of the analysis of the western pond turtle's status, 
is included as an appendix to the SSA report, and was reviewed by the 
peer reviewers.
    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22, 
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review of 
listing actions under the Act, we solicited independent scientific 
review of the information contained in the SSA report for the two 
species. We sent the SSA report to three independent peer reviewers and 
received responses from two of the reviewers. Results of this 
structured review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov. 
In preparing this proposed rule and 12-month finding, we incorporated 
the results of these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, 
which is the foundation for this proposed rule and 12-month finding.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in Peer Review above, we received comments from two 
peer reviewers on the draft SSA report. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the material contained in the SSA report. The 
peer reviewers generally provided additional references, 
clarifications, and suggestions for the SSA report. We updated the SSA 
report based on the peer reviewers' comments and worked with 
researchers to update the current and future condition analyses in 
Oregon and California. The peer reviewer comments are addressed in the 
following summary and any necessary changes were incorporated into the 
current version of the SSA report as appropriate (Service 2023, 
entire).
    Comment 1: One peer reviewer commented on the scale at which 
resiliency and redundancy were addressed, suggesting that we analyze 
resiliency at the subwatershed level and redundancy at the regional 
level (i.e., analysis unit level) rather than species level.
    Our response: To assess the current and future condition of the two 
species, we divided their ranges into analysis units that incorporate 
genetic, management, and ecological data (Service 2023, Analysis Units, 
pp. 33-37). Although we acknowledge in the SSA report that, based on 
conversations with species experts, population processes are likely 
happening at the subwatershed level, the data necessary to conduct the 
analysis at such a level were limited and not available in all 
circumstances to analyze the two species' condition at this scale. 
Because of data limitations, breaking the analysis into smaller pieces 
potentially would have amplified uncertainties, so we maintained the 
use of analysis units for assessing resiliency, but reiterated that 
they contain multiple populations. Redundancy describes the ability of 
the species to withstand catastrophic events and, following the SSA 
framework, we analyzed redundancy at the species level rather than the 
regional level (Service 2016, pp. 11-13).
    Comment 2: One peer reviewer was critical on the methods and 
assumptions used for the model (i.e., Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire) 
to analyze probability of extirpation of the analysis units that we 
used to inform resiliency of portions of the northwestern and 
southwestern pond turtle ranges in the SSA report in Oregon and 
California. The peer reviewer was concerned that the results of the 
model would overestimate population sizes and not provide accurate 
information on population persistence.
    Our response: In response to peer review of the model, the 
researchers that developed the model lowered the initial starting 
population size in their analysis and revised their methods and 
provided additional clarifying information on how the model 
incorporated and generated results from the initial abundance estimates 
for the two species. As a result, the model currently reflects comments 
and suggestions provided by the peer reviewers. The peer reviewer 
comments did not notably change the overall results (which are 
probabilities of extirpation at the analysis unit level). Changes to 
the model are reflected in Gregory and McGowan (2023) (appendix to the 
SSA report) and incorporated into the analyses within the SSA report.
    Comment 3: One peer reviewer questioned why the threat of disease 
(specifically shell disease) was not included in the model to assess 
the two species.
    Our response: The top threats to each species were determined based 
on meetings with species experts and are consistent with a recent peer-
reviewed publication (Manzo et al. 2021, entire) that is referenced in 
the SSA report. We acknowledge that disease is a threat with unknown 
demographic impacts to the species at this time. In the SSA report, we 
present the best scientific data available at this time in the section 
on disease. Our use of the model is one part of our analysis of the 
threats acting on the two species. We also considered disease as one of 
the factors in determining status of the two species.
    Comment 4: One peer reviewer questioned the lack of objective 
criteria for assessing current condition in the model.
    Our response: The model incorporates information about human use 
activities, drought conditions, and impacts from bullfrogs. The human 
use information includes numerous factors that may affect the species 
or its habitat. In our analysis, we used a 2050 timeframe to assess 
current condition because the western pond turtle is a long-lived 
species. More specific objective or species-specific criteria were not 
available rangewide and use of such localized information may have 
amplified uncertainties.
    Comment 5: One peer reviewer stated that the generation time should 
be closer to 25 years rather than 50. They further stated that the 
projection period in the model (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire) 
should span more generations/time.
    Our response: Based on this comment, we revised our discussion of 
western pond turtle longevity in the SSA report to reflect generation 
time. In concert with this change, we added additional time steps in 
the model that are consistent with three western pond turtle 
generations (approximately 25, 50, and 75 years from now (year 2050, 
2075, and 2100), respectively).

I. Proposed Listing Determination

Background

    The western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) was first identified in 
1852, from specimens collected from Puget Sound, Washington (Baird and 
Girard 1852, pp. 174-177). In 2017, the western

[[Page 68373]]

pond turtle was recognized and accepted by the scientific community as 
two separate species (northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) 
and southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida)) (Crother 2017, p. 82; 
Rhodin et al. 2017, pp. 76, 171-172). Because of the relatively recent 
split of the species into two separate entities, the majority of 
available research and information refers to a single species (western 
pond turtle). In the SSA report and this document, and unless otherwise 
noted, any reference to the western pond turtle is understood to apply 
to the northwestern and/or southwestern pond turtle.

Description

    The northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle are 
medium in size (110 to 170 millimeter (4.33 to 7.05 inches) in length), 
with larger specimens occurring geographically in the northwestern pond 
turtle's range. Male and female western pond turtles are sexually 
dimorphic (Holland 1994, p. 2-4; Rosenberg et al. 2009, p. 10). Western 
pond turtle coloring varies with most appearing olive to dark brown, or 
blackish, occasionally without pattern but usually with a network of 
spots, lines, or dashes of brown or black (Hays et al. 1999, p. 2; Bury 
et al. 2012, p. 4; Stebbins and McGinnis 2018, pp. 204-205). The 
plastron (underside of shell) is yellowish and may have blackish or 
dark brown blotches or be unmarked (Stebbins and McGinnis 2018, p. 
204). The first proposed study of geographic differentiation of western 
pond turtles into northern and southern subspecies was based on 
differences in coloration and the presence, shape, and size of the 
inguinal scute--the plate where the carapace joins the plastron at the 
groin (Seeliger 1945, entire; Service 2023, p. 15, Figure 2). Recent 
genetic results corroborated the presence/absence of inguinal scutes as 
a differentiating factor between the two species (Shaffer and Scott 
2022, p. 9).

Diet and Habitat

    The two species are omnivorous and considered dietary generalists, 
consuming a wide variety of food items including small aquatic 
invertebrates (insect larvae) and vertebrates (fish, tadpoles, and 
frogs), carrion, and plant material (Bury 1986, pp. 516-517; Holland 
1994, pp. 2-5-2-6). Habitat needs for the two species include: (1) 
aquatic features such as ponds, lakes, and streams for breeding, 
feeding, overwintering, sheltering, and dispersal; (2) basking sites 
that allow for thermoregulation; and (3) terrestrial or upland features 
adjacent to the aquatic habitat for nesting, overwintering and 
aestivation, and dispersal and connectivity between populations 
(Service 2023, pp. 28-32). The elevational range of the two species is 
from sea-level to approximately 2,000 meters (m) (6,500 feet (ft)).

Lifespan and Reproduction

    The maximum lifespan of the two species is unknown. However, they 
are long-lived after reaching adulthood with one individual living to 
at least 55 years of age (Bury et al. 2012, p. 17). These old 
individuals are rare in natural populations, but they appear to 
reproduce throughout their life (Kaufman and Garwood 2022, p. 354). In 
our analysis in the SSA report, we estimated the generation time for 
the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle to be 
approximately 25 years (Service 2023, p. 12). The age at sexual 
maturity and breeding is variable between the two species and by 
specific locality and ranges from approximately 3.5 to 12 years of age 
depending on size, sex, environmental condition, and resource 
availability (Holland 1994, pp. 2-9, 5-2; (Hays et al. 1999, p. 12; 
Germano and Rathbun 2008, pp. 190-191; Rosenberg et al. 2009, p. 22; 
Germano 2010, p. 95; Bury et al. 2012, p. 15; Germano et al. 2022, p. 
114-115). Courtship and mating behavior has been observed from April 
through November (Holland 1991, p. 23). Nesting behavior and 
oviposition usually occur from May through July, with northern 
populations nesting later in the season than those in the south (Bury 
et al. 2012, p. 15). Incubation periods range from 73-80 days in 
captivity under controlled conditions (Feldman 1982, p. 10) and 75 to 
134 days in field studies in Oregon and northern California (Holland 
1991, 26-33; Geist et al. 2015, p. 495, figure 2(B); Christie and Geist 
2017, p. 49).

Species' Ranges

    The historical range of the western pond turtle as a single species 
included areas in the States of Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and 
California, areas in British Columbia, Canada, and areas in Baja 
California, Mexico. The current collective range of the two species has 
experienced contractions within existing occupied areas including 
extirpation from British Columbia, Canada. In Washington, the 
northwestern pond turtle was nearly extirpated from Puget Sound and was 
restricted to 150 individuals within two remnant populations along the 
Columbia River Gorge. As a result of the reduced numbers, the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) along with other 
partners initiated numerous conservation measures to conserve the 
species in Washington (see Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 
Mechanisms).
    The current range of the northwestern pond turtle includes portions 
of Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and northern and central California. The 
range in Washington now includes six areas located in the Puget Sound 
area southward toward and including areas along the Columbia River. In 
Oregon, the species occupies areas along the Columbia River and west of 
the higher elevations of the Cascades Range, including portions of the 
Klamath Basin to the California border. The range in Nevada includes 
areas along the Carson and Truckee Rivers. The range in California 
includes areas of the Coast Range from the Oregon-California border 
down to northern Monterey County, the lower elevation and foothills of 
the southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada Mountains, and areas within the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys (see figure below).
    The range of the southwestern pond turtle includes areas of central 
and southern California south into Baja California, Mexico. This 
includes areas of the central Coast Range from near northern Monterey 
County, California, portions of the Transverse Range into the Mojave 
River watershed, and areas south into Baja California, Mexico.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 68374]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03OC23.010

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
    Recent genetic information identifies the boundary between the two 
species along the Coast Range to be the middle of the Monterey Bay 
coastline south of the Monterey/Santa Cruz County line in California 
(Shaffer and Scott 2022, p. 5). The contact zone between the two 
species lies at the edge of the southern Coast Range and Transverse 
Range where they meet along the floor of the Central Valley; 
individuals of both species occur along this contact zone but do not 
overlap (Shaffer and Scott 2022, pp. 4-5).

Genetics

    Molecular analyses for western pond turtles were first conducted in 
the mid-1990s, with results generally following long-held subspecies 
designations based on coloration and morphological variation (Seeliger 
1945, p. 156). More recent genetic analyses have since confirmed the 
taxonomic separation between the two entities and split them into two 
separate species (Spinks and Shaffer 2005, entire; Spinks et al. 2010, 
entire; Spinks et al. 2014, entire). The genetic makeup of the 
northwestern and southwestern pond turtle each largely follows a north/
south geographic characterization, with greater (more differentiated) 
clustering in southern portions of the two species' ranges (Shaffer and 
Scott 2022, entire).
    When reviewing the patterns of relative genetic similarity for the 
northwestern pond turtle, the species was found to be subdivided into 
five groups or clusters and includes: (1) a large area including the 
north California coast, Oregon, and Washington; (2) the area occupying 
the Sacramento Valley; (3) the Delta and areas due east across the 
Central Valley and Nevada; (4) the Yosemite Valley area; and (5) the 
San Joaquin Valley and the area east and south of the San Francisco Bay 
Area and San Francisco Peninsula (Shaffer and Scott 2022, p. 6-8). 
Genetic clustering for the southwestern pond turtle includes six groups 
or clusters: (1) a Coast Range group in the central coast from roughly 
Monterey Bay south to northern Santa Barbara County; (2) a Ventura/
Santa Barbara cluster from

[[Page 68375]]

Point Conception to the Santa Clara River; (3) a Los Angeles group 
including the west-flowing Los Angeles basin drainages; (4) a Mojave 
group from the east-flowing Mojave River Drainage; (5) an Orange 
County/San Diego cluster encompassing southern coastal California from 
the Santa Ana river south through most of San Diego and Orange 
Counties; and (6) a Baja California group covering populations south of 
the U.S.-Mexico border.
    We used this genetic clustering information on the two species as 
one of the factors in determining the boundaries of the analysis units 
used in our SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 33-37). A thorough 
description and review of the taxonomy, genetics, and ranges of the 
northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle is presented in 
the SSA report for the two species and literature cited within (Service 
2023, pp. 11-20).

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing 
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth 
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered 
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for 
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and 
threatened species. In 2019, jointly with the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, the Service issued a final rule that revised the regulations 
in 50 CFR part 424 regarding how we add, remove, and reclassify 
endangered and threatened species and the criteria for designating 
listed species' critical habitat (84 FR 45020; August 27, 2019). On the 
same day, the Service also issued final regulations that, for species 
listed as threatened species after September 26, 2019, eliminated the 
Service's general protective regulations automatically applying to 
threatened species the prohibitions that section 9 of the Act applies 
to endangered species (84 FR 44753; August 27, 2019).
    The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we 
determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened 
species because of any of the following factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused 
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued 
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for 
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as 
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative 
effects or may have positive effects.
    We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or 
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively 
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions 
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct 
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration 
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat'' 
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action 
or condition or the action or condition itself.
    However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not 
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an 
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining 
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all 
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and 
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions 
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and 
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the 
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on 
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the 
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have 
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory 
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether 
the species meets the definition of an ``endangered species'' or a 
``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis 
and describing the expected effect on the species now and in the 
foreseeable future.
    The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which 
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our 
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for 
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis. The term 
``foreseeable future'' extends only so far into the future as we can 
reasonably determine that both the future threats and the species' 
responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the foreseeable 
future is the period of time in which we can make reliable predictions. 
``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means sufficient to provide 
a reasonable degree of confidence in the prediction. Thus, a prediction 
is reliable if it is reasonable to depend on it when making decisions.
    It is not always possible or necessary to define the foreseeable 
future as a particular number of years. Analysis of the foreseeable 
future uses the best scientific and commercial data available and 
should consider the timeframes applicable to the relevant threats and 
to the species' likely responses to those threats in view of its life-
history characteristics. Data that are typically relevant to assessing 
the species' biological response include species-specific factors such 
as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, certain behaviors, and 
other demographic factors.

Analytical Framework

    The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive 
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding 
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential 
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision 
on whether the species should be proposed for listing as an endangered 
or threatened species under the Act. However, it does provide the 
scientific basis that informs our regulatory decisions, which involve 
the further application of standards within the Act and its 
implementing regulations and policies.
    To assess the viability of the two species, we used the three 
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly, 
resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand environmental and 
demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry, warm or cold 
years), redundancy is the ability of the species to withstand 
catastrophic events (for example, severe droughts, large pollution 
events), and representation is the ability of the species to adapt to 
both near-term and long-term changes in its physical and biological 
environment (for example, changing climate conditions, pathogens). In 
general,

[[Page 68376]]

species viability will increase with increases in resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). Using these 
principles, we identified the two species' ecological requirements for 
survival and reproduction at the individual, population, and species 
levels, and described the beneficial and risk factors influencing the 
two species' viability.
    The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. 
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual species' life-
history needs for the two species. The next stage involved an 
assessment of the historical and current condition of the two species' 
demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of 
how the two species arrived at their current condition. The final stage 
of the SSA involved making predictions about the two species' responses 
to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. 
Throughout all of these stages, we used the best scientific information 
available to characterize viability as the ability of the two species 
to sustain populations in the wild over time which we then used to 
inform our regulatory decision.
    The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from 
the SSA report for the northwestern and southwestern pond turtle; the 
full SSA report can be found at Docket FWS-R8-ES-2023-0092 on https://www.regulations.gov.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the two 
species and their resources, and the threats that influence the two 
species' current and future condition, in order to assess the two 
species' overall viability and the risks to that viability.
    We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of 
the scientific information documented in the SSA report for the 
northwestern and southwestern pond turtle, we have analyzed the 
cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation actions on 
the species. To assess the current and future condition of the species, 
we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that may be 
influencing the species, including threats and conservation efforts. 
Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of the 
factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the 
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the 
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative effects analysis.

Species Needs

    The habitat needs considered most important for western pond 
turtles to complete their life cycle include: aquatic habitat, upland 
habitat, and basking sites. Table 1, below, summarizes the individual 
habitat needs by life stage and resource function. The demographic 
needs considered most important for western pond turtles are abundance, 
reproduction/recruitment, survival, and connectivity.

                          Table 1--Individual Habitat Needs of the Western Pond Turtle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Individual need                    Life stage                         Resource function
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic habitat...................  Hatchlings, juveniles,       Breeding, feeding, overwintering, sheltering,
                                     adults.                      and dispersal.
Upland habitat....................  Eggs, hatchlings,            Nesting, overwintering and aestivation, and
                                     juveniles, adults.           dispersal.
Basking sites.....................  Hatchlings, juveniles,       Thermoregulation, physiological functioning,
                                     adults.                      and predator avoidance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aquatic Habitat
    Western pond turtles are semi-aquatic, requiring both aquatic and 
terrestrial (upland) habitats that are connected to one another or 
within close proximity. Western pond turtles occur in a broad range of 
permanent and ephemeral water bodies including rivers and streams, 
lakes, natural and constructed ponds, wetlands, marshes, vernal pools, 
reservoirs, settling ponds, irrigation ditches, and estuaries with 
tidal influence (Spinks et al. 2003, entire; Bury and Germano 2008, p. 
001.3; Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 175; Bury et al. 2012, p. 12; Stebbins 
and McGinnis 2018, p. 205). Western pond turtles use aquatic habitat 
for breeding, feeding, overwintering, and sheltering. Preferred aquatic 
conditions are those with standing or slow-moving water that contain 
underwater shelter sites (undercut banks, submerged vegetation, mud, 
rocks, and logs) and abundant basking sites (see ``Basking Sites,'' 
below) (Holland 1991, pp. 13-14; Reese and Welsh Jr. 1998a, p. 852; 
Hays et al. 1999, p. 10; Bury and Germano 2008, p. 001.4; Ernst and 
Lovich 2009, p. 175). Western pond turtles inhabiting lentic aquatic 
habitat, such as ponds, lakes, and slack water habitats, often 
overwinter within the aquatic environment by burying themselves within 
the bottom substrate, such as mud. Various depths of both deeper and 
shallower water provide western pond turtles with habitat necessary for 
overwintering and hatchling growth. Primary habitat for hatchlings and 
young juveniles is shallow water with dense submerged vegetation and 
logs, which most likely provides shelter, prey, and thermoregulatory 
requirements or other functions for survival (Holland 1994, pp. 1-14, 
2-12; Rosenberg and Swift 2013, p. 119).
Upland Habitat
    Western pond turtles use upland habitat for nesting and 
overwintering. Females require upland nesting habitat in order to lay 
their eggs. Upland nesting habitat varies greatly across the two 
species' geographic ranges, but regardless of composition, it needs to 
be in close proximity to the aquatic habitat being used by the species. 
This habitat is typically characterized as having sparse vegetation 
with short grasses and forbs and little or no canopy cover to allow for 
exposure to direct sunlight (Holland 1994, p. 2-10; Rathbun et al. 
2002, p. 232; Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 16-17; Riensche et al. 2019, 
p. 97). Females excavate nests in compact, dry soils that are 3 to 400 
m (10 to 1,300 ft) from water (Holland 1994, p. 2-10; Holte 1998, p. 
54). Additional features of nesting habitat/sites that may be important 
include aspect, slope, and vegetation (Service 2023, pp. 29-30).
    Upland overwintering habitat also varies greatly across the two 
species' ranges. Overwintering habitat usually occurs above the high 
water elevation of the aquatic habitat and beyond any riparian zone 
(Reese and Welsh Jr. 1997, p. 355; Rathbun et al. 2002, p. 229; Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 2015, pp. 6-7). While vegetation 
communities differ from site to site, open areas were avoided for 
overwintering, and leaf litter was present at most sites (Reese and 
Welsh Jr. 1997, pp. 354-355; Davis 1998, p. 19; Rathbun et al. 2002, p. 
230). In central California, overwintering western pond turtles were 
generally located where they could be exposed to direct sunlight during 
a portion of the day (Rathbun et al. 2002, p. 230).

[[Page 68377]]

Basking Sites
    As reptiles, western pond turtles use basking as a means to 
thermoregulate their body temperature. Western pond turtles engage in 
basking both within water (aquatic basking) and outside water (emergent 
basking). Basking is essential for physiological functions such as 
metabolism, digestion, reproduction, and growth. Additional benefits of 
emergent basking include drying out the shell and skin for parasite or 
algal control. Western pond turtles use logs, rocks, vegetation, 
shorelines, and essentially any other substrate located within and 
adjacent to aquatic habitat for emergent basking (Holland 1994, p. 2-8; 
Hays et al. 1999, p. 10). The location of the basking site above or 
adjacent to aquatic features allows for quick retreat into the water if 
there is perceived danger (Storer 1930, p. 431). Aquatic basking occurs 
in shallow water in top layers of vegetative matter or in submerged 
vegetation such as algal mats. Aquatic basking may be used when 
emergent basking sites are limited or not present and provides a warmer 
environment than that of surrounding water (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 
100; Reese and Welsh Jr. 1998a, p. 851).
Habitat Connectivity
    Despite their ability to use a wide range of aquatic and upland 
features, suitable aquatic habitats are relatively rare across much of 
the range, exacerbated mostly by past land use changes (e.g., 
urbanization and agriculture) (see ``Habitat Loss and Fragmentation,'' 
below). Consequently, the distribution of populations of the two 
species may be disjunct depending on habitat availability across the 
landscape, especially in areas with increased development; roadways; or 
extensive open, dry terrain between waterways (Holland 1991, pp. 13, 
53-54; Bury et al. 2012, p. 12; Thomson et al. 2016, pp. 300-301). 
Western pond turtle populations need a network of appropriate aquatic 
breeding, feeding, and basking habitat that has sufficient upland 
nesting and overwintering/aestivation sites that are connected by 
suitable habitat. The back-and-forth movements between aquatic and 
upland habitats of individuals within a population (i.e., migration) 
are typically less than 500 m (1,600 ft) (Reese and Welsh Jr 1997, p. 
357).
    Dispersal between populations is an important demographic need for 
both western pond turtle species. A population that is connected to 
other populations through dispersal is more resilient because 
individuals have the ability to bolster existing sites and thereby 
enhance the genetic diversity of the population or recolonize 
extirpated sites. The dispersal of western pond turtles between 
populations is not well understood. However, genetic research suggests 
that most dispersal activity occurs within drainages or watersheds 
(Spinks and Shaffer 2005, p. 2057). Observed dispersal distances for 
the western pond turtle varied from approximately 2.6 kilometers (km) 
(1.6 miles (mi)) to 7 km (4.3 mi) within aquatic habitat, with overland 
dispersal distances being slightly less (approximately 5 km (3 mi)) 
under optimal conditions (Holland 1994, pp. 2-9; 7-28; Rosenberg et al. 
2009, p. 21; Purcell et al. 2017, pp. 21, 24).

Threats Influencing Current and Future Condition of the Western Pond 
Turtle

    The following is a summary of information and evaluations of the 
threats analyzed in the SSA report for the northwestern and 
southwestern pond turtle. The discussion focuses on threats impacting 
both species with specific information regarding threats acting on each 
species individually. Additional information on the specific threats 
associated with each species is provided in the SSA report (Service 
2023, Chapter 8, pp. 38-69).
    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available 
including State wildlife agency status reviews, threat and conservation 
assessments, and management plans in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and 
California (Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 1-80; Thomson et al. 2016, pp. 
296-303; Hallock et al. 2017, pp. 8-11; Wildlife Action Plan Team 2022, 
p. 57), a peer-reviewed threat analysis (Manzo et al. 2021, pp. 485-
501), and other published information gathered for the SSA report on 
the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle (Service 
2023, Chapter 8, pp. 38-69), we identified habitat loss and 
fragmentation (including latent impacts from past habitat impacts), 
altered hydrology, predation, competition, road impacts, collection 
(including historical overutilization in California (Bettelheim and 
Wong 2022, pp. 7-12)), contaminants, disease, and the effects of 
climate change (including increasing temperatures, severe drought, 
extreme flood events, and high severity wildfire) as threats acting on 
individuals, populations, or each species as a whole to varying degrees 
across their respective ranges. Based on our assessment as identified 
in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 85-91, section 9.2), we identified 
three key factors as most influential in driving the western pond 
turtle's current and future condition: anthropogenic impacts, predation 
by bullfrogs, and drought. Anthropogenic impacts are a group of threats 
that are driving or influencing the viability of both the northwestern 
or southwestern pond turtle and are outlined in the threat discussion 
of the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 38-69, 81-85, and figure 18) and 
other supporting literature (Theobald et al. 2020, entire; Manzo et al. 
2021, pp. 492-493; Theobald 2021, entire). Anthropogenic impacts 
include or exacerbate all the threats identified below outside of those 
associated with bullfrogs and drought. These threats have had 
substantial population-level effects on the northwestern and 
southwestern pond turtle and are anticipated to continue to be the 
primary drivers of northwestern and southwestern pond turtle viability.
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation
    Habitat loss and fragmentation from land conversion associated with 
historical and current urbanization and agriculture has impacted 
aquatic and upland habitat for the western pond turtle (Service 2023, 
pp. 41-45). Areas of significant habitat loss, conversion, and 
alteration for the northwestern pond turtle include areas in Washington 
in the Puget Sound and lower Columbia River (Lower Columbia River Fish 
Recovery Board 2010, p. B-204; Hallock et al. 2017, p. 10), areas in 
Oregon in the Portland metropolitan area and Willamette Basin 
(Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 37, 40), and areas in California in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and urbanized areas for the San 
Francisco Bay Area (Jennings et al. 1992, p.12; Jennings and Hayes 
1994, p. 99; Kelly et al. 2005, pp. 63, 70). Areas of significant 
habitat loss for the southwestern pond turtle include areas in the 
heavily urbanized portions of southern California including Los 
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Thomson et al. 
2016, p. 301).
    In areas associated with agriculture and urbanization, upland land 
conversion and draining of the extensive wetlands or channeling of 
streams have resulted in the decline and extirpation of many 
populations and left the remaining western pond turtle populations 
within these areas disjunct, scattered, and isolated from each other 
with little upland habitat available for nesting (Holland 1991, p. 13; 
Reese 1996, p. 105; Thomson et al. 2016, p. 300-301). Currently, 
western pond turtle populations rarely have densities similar to their 
historical counterparts, and age structures of extant populations tend 
to be skewed towards adults

[[Page 68378]]

(Holland 1991, p. 53; Reese 1996, p. 73; Manzo et al. 2021, p. 493).
    Although the rate of habitat losses has diminished, the lingering 
effects of past habitat loss and ongoing habitat loss, alteration, and 
fragmentation continue to impact the northwestern and southwestern pond 
turtle by reducing the size of populations due to reductions in 
available aquatic and upland habitat, isolating populations, and 
limiting dispersal between populations. These impacts reduce the 
capability of populations of the two species to respond to stochastic 
or catastrophic events and thereby affect the species' ability to 
maintain populations in the wild; the level of impact varies among 
populations and is dependent on habitat availability and condition and 
level of past habitat loss (Holland 1991, pp. 13, 53; Reese 1996, p. 
73; Manzo et al. 2021, p. 493; Service 2023, pp. 41-45). The effects 
associated with habitat loss by urbanization and agriculture include 
additional impacts associated with human activity such as recreation, 
road impacts, collection, and contaminants (Service 2023, pp. 45-46, 
54-59) (see Human Impacts below).
Altered Hydrology
    The threats associated with altered hydrology that have impacted 
both the northwestern and southwestern pond turtle include: wetland 
conversion and draining; stream channelization and ditching; 
modification of flow regimes; groundwater pumping; water diversions; 
damming; and water regulation for flood risk management (flood control) 
(Reese and Welsh Jr. 1998b, p. 505; Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 37, 40; 
Germano 2010, p. 89). These threats affect the hydrology, thermal 
conditions, and structure of the western pond turtle aquatic and upland 
habitat (Service 2023, pp. 45-46). Dams and the reservoirs they create 
can act as barriers to migration, create stretches of unsuitable 
habitat, and/or degrade or eliminate habitat (Holland 1994, p. 1-29; 
Reese and Welsh Jr. 1998a, p. 851). Managed stream flows below dams 
that alter natural flow regimes and hold water during winter and 
release water during the summer have been shown to reduce water 
temperatures, increase sedimentation, and have a higher canopy cover 
percentage compared to undammed systems (Ligon et al. 1995, entire; 
Reese and Welsh Jr. 1998a, p. 842, 847-848; Madden-Smith et al. 2005, 
p. 5; Rosenberg et al. 2009, p. 40; Williams and Wolman, entire). 
Reduced water temperatures, increased sedimentation, and high canopy 
cover all negatively impact the aquatic habitat as well as basking 
habitat conditions for the northwestern and southwestern pond turtle.
    In northern California, colder water temperatures on regulated 
streams below dams likely contributed to northwestern pond turtles 
having a slower growth rate, less recruitment, and fewer juveniles 
(Reese 1996, pp. 43-44; Reese and Welsh Jr. 1998b, p. 513; Ashton et 
al. 2015, pp. 624-628). Changes to the timing of water releases from a 
dam on a regulated stream in northern California resulted in a pre-dam 
intermittent stream having year-round flows post-dam. This change 
provided for an increase in food availability, which allowed 
northwestern pond turtles to grow larger. However, similar to the other 
studies, there were fewer juveniles below the dam, which suggested an 
effect on the population's recruitment (Bondi and Marks 2013, p. 146-
149).
    The impacts of altered hydrology can also be exacerbated or 
compounded by other threats to the two species, such as drought and 
nonnative predators (see Predation and Drought below) (Meyer et al. 
2003, p. 2; Moyle 1973, p. 21; Holland 1991, pp. 54-57; Holland 1994, 
pp. 2-11-2-12; Hays et al. 1999, pp. 13-14; Spinks et al. 2003, pp. 
264-265; Cadi and Joly 2004, pp. 2515-2517; Service 2023, p. 47).
Disease
    Disease has been and is an emerging concern for western pond turtle 
populations. Documented diseases in western pond turtles include 
respiratory disease and shell disease. Several respiratory diseases 
have been shown to impact both northwestern and southwestern pond 
turtles but only in limited areas and not in large numbers. Shell 
disease has been found to impact the northwestern pond turtle, but 
again in only parts of its range and may be associated with headstarted 
western pond turtles. Although disease may impact individuals or 
localized populations and may be a cumulative impact on either the 
northwestern or southwestern pond turtle, we do not consider disease a 
driving factor in the viability of either species. As a result, we do 
not expect that respiratory or shell disease are significant threats 
impacting the northwestern or southwestern pond turtle. See the SSA 
report for additional information regarding disease (Service 2023, pp. 
53-54).
Predation
    Western pond turtles are impacted by both native and nonnative 
predators including most carnivorous or omnivorous animals large enough 
to consume eggs, nestlings, or adult turtles (Rosenberg et al. 2009, p. 
27). Native predators to western pond turtles include but are not 
limited to black bears (Ursus americanus), foxes (Urocyon 
cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans), raccoons 
(Procyon lotor), skunks (Mephitis sp. and Spilogale sp.), mink (Neogale 
vison), river otters (Lontra canadensis), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), 
bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), ravens (Corvus corax), American 
crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and herons (Order Ciconiiformes) 
(Holland 1994, p. 2-12; Bury and Germano 2008, p. 5; Ernst and Lovich 
2009, p. 180; Thomson et al. 2016, p. 302). Nonnative predators include 
American bullfrogs (bullfrogs) (Lithobates catesbeianus), invasive 
fish, such as large and smallmouth bass (Micropterus sp.), and feral 
and domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) (Moyle 1973, p. 21; Bury and 
Whelan 1984, pp. 2-5; Holland 1994, p. 2-12; Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 
180).
    Nonnative predators in western pond turtle habitat influence the 
species by increasing predation pressure on hatchlings and young 
juveniles. Increased predation beyond the natural levels under which 
western pond turtles evolved results in reduced survival and 
reproduction, affecting population recruitment and abundance, which in 
turn, lessens overall resiliency. Increased predation effects beyond 
those in natural settings are further amplified when considered with 
other factors contributing to reduced recruitment and survival, such as 
occurrence in urbanized areas with increased nest predators (such as 
dogs, raccoons, crows, ravens, or coyotes), or in areas with altered 
hydrology that are more susceptible to drought (Service 2023, p. 49).
    Although the effects of bullfrogs on western pond turtles are 
difficult to distinguish from co-occurring factors influencing 
viability (such as habitat loss and degradation), research indicates 
that bullfrogs play an instrumental role in western pond turtle 
population declines due to reductions in recruitment through predation 
on hatchlings and competition for resources (see ``Competition 
(nonnative species),'' below) (Holland 1991, p. 43; Holland 1994, p. 2-
12; Hays et al. 1999, p. 14; Ernst and Lovich 2009, p. 180; Hallock et 
al. 2017, pp. 9-10; Nicholson et al. 2020, pp. 4-5, 9). Teasing apart 
the impacts of nonnative predators from other factors may best be 
observed by testing the effects of removing them from the system and 
measuring the response by western pond turtles. For

[[Page 68379]]

example, at Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve in San Diego County, 
California, removal of invasive predators including bullfrogs resulted 
in observations of hatchling and young juvenile southwestern pond 
turtles (less than 80 millimeter carapace length (over the curve 
measurement)) for the first time in over a decade (Brown et al. 2015, 
pp. 24, 110). Similar improvements of hatchling success have been 
observed in northwestern pond turtles in Washington once bullfrog 
control efforts were implemented (Hallock et al. 2017, pp. 13-14).
    Bullfrogs are native to the eastern United States and were first 
introduced into the West as part of commercial farming operations and 
were first documented in California in 1896 (Heard 1904, p. 24; 
Jennings and Hayes 1985, p. 98, California Department of Fish and 
Wildlife (CDFW) 2023b, entire). Since that time, bullfrogs have become 
widespread throughout much of the western pond turtles' range due in 
part to altered hydrology, land-use and habitat changes, and 
unauthorized introductions (Holland 1991, p. 40; Fuller et al. 2011, 
pp. 210-211; CDFW 2023b, entire). Once bullfrogs are introduced or 
become established, they often require multi-year or permanent 
implementation of management efforts for their removal and eradication 
from a site (Doubledee et al. 2003, pp. 424-425; Adams and Pearl 2007, 
pp. 679-670; Kamoroff et al. 2020, pp. 618-622). For example, the 
National Park Service (NPS) implemented a program to remove bullfrogs 
from sites in Yosemite National Park. The program required 
implementation of numerous eradication and monitoring methods and a 
significant amount of funding and staffing resources over a multi-year 
timeframe (2005 to 2019 for a site in Yosemite Valley, and 2019-2024 
(and potentially beyond) for an ongoing effort on a site in the 
Tuolumne River watershed) (Kamoroff et al. 2020, pp. 617-624; NPS 2020, 
entire). Bullfrogs are an especially detrimental aquatic predator due 
to their use of shallow aquatic habitat less suitable to other 
predators such as nonnative fish; the apparent lack of an anti-predator 
response in western pond turtles (particularly in hatchlings, which are 
most susceptible to predation), as western pond turtles did not co-
evolve with bullfrogs; and the difficulty and continued intensive 
management necessary for removal once bullfrogs are established (Hays 
et al. 1999, p. 14; Hallock et al. 2017, pp. 9-10; Nicholson et al. 
2020, pp. 4-5, 9).
Competition (Nonnative Species)
    Nonnative species such as red-eared sliders, bullfrogs, bass, 
snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina), and several crayfish species 
(Pacifastacus leniusculus, Procambarus clarkii) may compete with the 
western pond turtle for food or habitat resources (Thomson et al. 2010, 
p. 300; Lambert et al. 2013, p. 196; Fulton et al. 2022, pp. 102-104; 
ODFW 2022, entire). Although competition is a contributing factor and 
may act as a cumulative threat on individual northwestern and 
southwestern pond turtles, its impact on populations of the two species 
is not to such a degree that it causes significant impacts to the 
northwestern or southwestern pond turtle. As a result we do not 
consider competition from nonnative species to be a factor influencing 
the viability of the northwestern or southwestern pond turtle. See the 
SSA report for additional discussion on competition from nonnative 
species (Service 2023, pp. 51-53)
Human Impacts
    Recreation. Recreational activities such as hiking, biking, 
fishing, boating, and off-highway vehicles, and the associated 
disturbance within or adjacent to aquatic and nest habitats, can affect 
western pond turtles in a variety of ways, depending on the region and 
type of recreation. Some forms of recreation may inadvertently cause 
mortality, degrade habitat, disturb pond turtle behavior, and/or 
contribute to other threats.
    Western pond turtles are extremely wary and will rapidly flee from 
basking sites or dive when on the water surface when disturbed by the 
sight or sound of people at distances of greater than 100 m (328 ft) 
(Bury and Germano 2008, p. 001.5). This disturbance reduces the amount 
of time basking and has potential effects on the species' metabolism, 
proper digestion, feeding, reproduction, and growth (Lambert et al. 
2013, p. 196; Nyhof and Trulio 2015, p. 183; Service 2023, p. 45). 
Direct impacts to western pond turtles, although less prevalent, may 
include ingestion of or injury by fishhooks (Lovich et al. 2017, p. 6) 
and shooting (Shore 2001, p. 37). Although impacts from recreation may 
affect individual turtles, recreation's impact on populations of the 
two species is not to such a degree that it causes significant impacts 
to the northwestern or southwestern pond turtle.
    Road and Transportation Impacts. Although roads and other 
transportation infrastructure are tightly linked to urbanization and 
development, they also exist as a stand-alone threat since their 
presence is not always associated with urban or developed areas. In an 
assessment of the susceptibility of California herpetofauna to road 
mortality and habitat fragmentation, one study evaluated 160 species 
and classified western pond turtles in the top 10 affected (Brehme et 
al. 2018, p. 921). Populations of western pond turtles are increasingly 
male-biased the closer the species' aquatic habitat is to roads, a 
correlation consistent with higher road mortality of females dispersing 
to nesting habitat (Nicholson et al. 2020, pp. 11-13, 16). Roads can 
affect western pond turtle viability by killing or injuring individuals 
through vehicle impacts, disturbing basking behavior, increasing human 
and predator access to areas, reducing migration between upland and 
aquatic habitat of individual populations, and limiting connectivity 
between populations (Steen and Gibbs 2004, pp. 1145-1146; Rosenberg et 
al. 2009, p. 41; Nyhof 2013, p. 43; Nyhof and Trulio 2015, p. 183; 
Thomson et al. 2016, p. 301; Rautsaw et al. 2018, pp. 138-139; Madden-
Smith et al. 2005, pp. 43, 45; Nicholson et al. 2020, entire; Manzo et 
al. 2021, p. 494, S1 text supplement). As a result, we expect that 
populations of northwestern or southwestern pond turtles near or within 
urbanized areas may be negatively affected by the impacts of roads.
    Collection. Historical collection of the western pond turtle for 
commercial harvesting of food for the San Francisco market in the 
latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century was extensive 
and led in part to the declines in abundance of western pond turtles 
especially in the San Francisco Bay area and the Sacramento and San 
Joaquin Valleys (Holland 1991, p. 44; Holland 1994, p. 2-13; Hays et 
al. 1999, p. 16; Bettelheim 2005, entire; Rosenberg et al. 2009, p. 42; 
Thomson et al. 2016, p. 301; Bettelheim and Wong 2022, pp. 5-16). 
Harvesting of western pond turtles has declined significantly, but 
still occurs, typically for the pet trade, food, or opportunistic 
collection by the public as a personal pet in urbanized areas. In some 
instances (especially near urbanized areas), the collection may cause a 
reduction in numbers of individuals within populations of western pond 
turtles, but the impact is expected to be localized and not a driving 
factor of population or species' status (Sweet pers. comm. in 
Bettelheim 2005, p. 42; Germano 2021, p. 240; Barnes 2023, entire).
    Contaminants. Western pond turtles are exposed to a variety of 
toxins

[[Page 68380]]

throughout their range; however, the exact sensitivity of individuals 
to pesticides, heavy metals, pollutants, and other contaminants is 
largely unknown. Sources of contaminants affecting western pond turtles 
include run-off, discharge, or drift from agricultural activities, 
mining sites, accidental hazardous waste spills, urbanized areas, and 
roadways (Bury 1972, p. 294; Holland 1994, p. 2-13; Majewski and Capel 
1995, entire; Tudi et al. 2021, pp. 6-8; Meyer et al. 2014, p. 2994). 
Potential effects from contaminants to long-lived species such as the 
western pond turtle include premature mortality or chronic accumulation 
that could potentially be transferred to offspring (Rowe 2008, p. 626). 
Contaminants can be toxic to aquatic prey or food items of western pond 
turtles such as amphibians, small aquatic invertebrates, and plants 
(Davidson 2004, p. 1892; Relyea 2005, p. 1118; Br[uuml]hl et al. 2013, 
p. 1). Thus, a potential reduction of prey due to contaminants may have 
negative impacts at the individual and population level of western pond 
turtle.
Effects of Climate Change
    The effects of climate change are already having statewide impacts 
in California, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington (Washington Department of 
Ecology 2012, pp. 34-44; Bedsworth et al. 2018, p. 13; Mote et al. 
2019, p. ii, summary; University of Nevada, Reno Extension 2021, pp. 1-
9). The recent overall trends in climate conditions across the range of 
the western pond turtle include increasing temperatures, changes in 
precipitation patterns, and increased frequency and severity of extreme 
events such as droughts, heat waves, wildfires (and associated debris 
flows), and floods (Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 19-33; May et al. 2018, 
pp. 1036-1050; Oregon Climate Change Research Institute 2019, pp. 5-7). 
Because of the large ranges of the northwestern and southwestern pond 
turtle, impacts associated with climate change are expected to vary 
throughout the range of the two species with the southern portion of 
each species' range seeing greater impacts. Below we provide 
information regarding the major impacts associated with climate change: 
increasing temperatures, drought, extreme flood events, and wildfire 
impacts.
    Increasing Temperatures. Both the northwestern and southwestern 
pond turtle exhibit temperature-dependent sex determination (TSD). This 
is where the sexual makeup of male and female hatchlings within a 
population is based on the temperature conditions of the nest site 
during egg incubation (Ewert et al. 1994, pp. 3-7; Ewert et al. 2004, 
pp. 21-32). Under higher mean nest temperatures during the incubation 
period, western pond turtle hatchlings are more likely to be female and 
under lower mean nest temperatures, hatchlings are more likely to be 
male. Increases in incubation temperature of the nest site due to the 
effects of climate change could lead to skewed sex ratios or reduced 
hatching success (Christie and Geist 2017, pp. 49, 51). The western 
pond turtle requires certain temperature thresholds for proper 
development of the embryo (Geist et al. 2015, pp. 494-496). The mean 
and maximum temperatures of the nest site and their interaction with 
each other significantly influence the incubation period for the 
western pond turtle (Christie and Geist 2017, p. 51). According to one 
study, nest sites exposed to mean higher temperatures had shorter 
incubation periods, and nest sites exposed to higher temperature 
extremes had a longer incubation period (Christie and Geist 2017, p. 
49). This is most likely due to higher extreme temperatures, which are 
outside proper temperature development thresholds for the western pond 
turtle, slowing or halting embryo development (Christie and Geist 2017, 
p. 51). Longer incubation times delay hatchling emergence and cause 
them to either enter aquatic habitat later in the season when aquatic 
habitat conditions may be reduced or impacted by drought, or cause 
hatchlings to overwinter in the nest and have a lower fitness level 
when they do emerge in the spring. If extreme or elevated temperatures 
are prolonged during the incubation period, then development of the 
embryos would stop entirely and the embryos would die (Christie and 
Geist 2017, pp. 50-51).
    The incubation temperatures observed at nest sites over a 3-year 
period in a northern California pond in Lake County, commonly 
fluctuated more than 20 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (36 degrees Fahrenheit 
([deg]F)) on a daily basis, with nearly half of the eggs reaching 
maximum temperatures of 39 [deg]C (102 [deg]F) or greater (Christie and 
Geist 2017, pp. 50-51). Site temperatures above 40 [deg]C (104 [deg]F) 
were lethal to 50 percent of eggs, and temperatures above 45 [deg]C 
(113 [deg]F) resulted in a 90 percent infertility rate (Christie and 
Geist 2017, pp. 49, 51).
    In some instances, such as in cooler climactic regions, warmer mean 
temperatures may allow for reproductive success by expanding the 
nesting season (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015, p. C-
56), but the impacts of winter warming temperatures were less clear 
based on research of other reptile species (Moss and MacLeod 2022, pp. 
264-266).
    This skew in populations favoring more females, limiting 
reproductive success, and reducing the number of hatchlings produced as 
a result of increased temperatures has been found in other turtle 
species with TSD (Refsnider and Janzen 2016, pp. 66-67). Individual 
western pond turtles within a population may be able to tolerate 
increased temperatures and show some level of tolerance to temperature 
variation, or egg-laying females may be able to compensate for 
increased temperatures by digging deeper nests or seeking cooler upland 
nest sites, if such locations are available. However, due to the 
current expected rate and magnitude of temperature changes, it is 
unknown whether any individual behavioral changes or internal traits 
can compensate for the expected temperature changes. Increasing 
temperatures will impact the western pond turtle on both the individual 
and population level by impacting population composition, nesting 
behavior, and nesting success, and further influence aquatic habitat 
conditions. Therefore, we would expect declines in both individuals and 
populations of northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle, 
especially in areas in the southern parts of each species' range where 
temperatures are typically warmer.
    Drought: Since 1900, drought conditions (or below average 
precipitation seasons) in the range of the western pond turtle in 
California have been relatively common, with significant drought 
conditions occurring intermittently over an extended period in the 
1920s through 1930s and in 1976-77 (CDWR 2015, pp. 6-12). In Nevada, 
the western pond turtle populations on the Truckee River and Carson 
River are mostly influenced by snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 
and, as a result, those populations' drought and aquatic habitat 
conditions in Nevada mimic those in California. In Oregon and 
Washington, documented drought impacts to western pond turtles are 
limited; however, drought conditions in the Northwest have increased in 
incidence, extent, and severity between 2000 and 2021, and this trend 
is predicted to continue (Dalton and Fleishman 2021, pp. 37-42). 
However, the severity and impacts of drought are not uniform across the 
north-south gradient from Washington to Mexico, resulting in a variable 
impact intensity for both the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern 
pond turtle (Dong et

[[Page 68381]]

al. 2019, pp. 3818-3819; Manzo et al. 2021, p. 497).
    During normal drought conditions, when aquatic habitat levels are 
low or become dry, western pond turtles can aestivate in upland habitat 
or move to another water body if one is within migration or dispersal 
distance. Aestivating western pond turtles have been observed to remain 
in upland habitat during drought periods for approximately 7 months, 
suggesting that the western pond turtle is adapted to some level of 
drought conditions (Belli 2015, pp. 57, 59). During multi-year or 
severe drought conditions, individuals could remain alive in upland 
habitat and return to their aquatic habitat when conditions become 
suitable again depending on whether the aquatic habitat is more 
ephemeral or permanent, other aquatic habitat is located nearby (within 
dispersal capabilities of the species), climate refugia between sites 
are available, and if the species can avoid the expected increased 
predation opportunities in upland areas (Purcell et al. 2017, pp. 19-
24). However, although individuals may survive extended droughts, the 
ability of small or isolated populations of western pond turtles to 
survive such events is unlikely (Purcell et al. 2017, pp. 23-24). 
Survival of populations would require a sufficient number of adult 
individuals of appropriate male and female composition to survive. A 
study on common box turtles (Terrapene carolina), a similarly long-
lived turtle subject to catastrophic events such as severe drought, 
found that populations that were increasing or stable would remain at a 
site subject to a single event after 50 years, and that if the site was 
subject to multiple catastrophic events, only those sites with 
increasing populations would remain (Dodd et al. 2015, pp. 373-376). 
Although the western pond turtle has evolved with and can tolerate 
periodic drought conditions, its populations have been reduced or 
extirpated in areas that have been impacted by severe drought, 
especially in central and southern California (Leidy et al. 2016, pp. 
71-74; Purcell et al. 2017, pp. 6-10; Service 2023, pp. 60-63), and the 
frequency, severity, and duration of drought are expected to increase 
in response to climate change (Washington Department of Ecology 2012, 
pp. 34-44; Bedsworth et al. 2018, pp. 13, 19-33; May et al. 2018, pp. 
1036-1050; Mote et al. 2019, p. ii, summary; Oregon Climate Change 
Research Institute 2019, pp. 5-7). The increased frequency, severity, 
and duration of droughts would greatly alter hydrology or reduce 
aquatic habitat, would limit movement of western pond turtles between 
habitats, would further isolate local populations, and would cause 
species' declines (Holland 1994, p. 2-14; Leidy et al. 2016, pp. 73-74; 
Hallock et al. 2017, pp. 10-11). In addition, drought affects the 
quality and quantity of aquatic habitat, increases competition for 
resources (leading to starvation), limits reproductive output, and 
causes warmer water temperatures that may benefit nonnative predators 
and competitors such as bullfrogs and nonnative fish in the remaining 
aquatic habitat (Goodman Jr. 1997, p. 23; Lovich et al. 2017, p. 7; 
Purcell et al. 2017, p. 21). In addition, because females often forego 
nesting when conditions are unfavorable, extended drought can result in 
reduced reproduction and recruitment opportunities.
    As a result, extended drought conditions or the increased frequency 
or severity of droughts could have significant effects on both 
northwestern or southwestern pond turtle populations, and other 
cumulative effects could create conditions such that repopulation of 
sites is unlikely, especially in more ephemeral aquatic habitats.
    Extreme flood events: Flooding is a natural event that occurs 
throughout the range of the western pond turtle. Effects of flooding on 
western pond turtles include flushing of individuals from aquatic and 
terrestrial habitat and inundation of nesting sites (Rathbun et al. 
1992, p. 323; Nerhus 2016, p. 45). Strong winter flows from heavy 
precipitation are typical in western pond turtle habitats, and floods 
can maintain and improve nesting habitat quality (Risley et al. 2010, 
p. 64). However, extreme flood events have the potential to cause 
severe habitat destruction and can act in concert with other stressors, 
leading to potential extirpation of populations, as may have occurred 
at two sites in the Mojave Desert, San Bernardino County, California 
(Lovich pers. comm. in Nerhus 2016, p. 44; Puffer et al. 2020, 
unpaginated). Western pond turtles are known to leave the water during 
times of highwater events and mostly aestivate or overwinter in the 
uplands above the highwater marks (Reese and Welsh Jr. 1997, p. 356). 
In Oregon, most hatchlings overwinter in the nest; however, fall 
emergence was observed in response to a heavy precipitation event 
(Rosenberg and Swift 2013, p. 117). Without protection from the nest, 
these hatchlings were exposed to both environmental and predation risk 
that may have reduced their survival. Extreme flood events can also 
cause nest failure as a result of prolonged inundation or too much 
moisture during the incubation period, and they may cause drowning of 
hatchlings (Bury et al. 2012, p. 17).
    A potential benefit of flood events may be aided dispersal. 
Hatchlings that overwinter in nests along the Mojave River may be 
dispersed by floods (Lovich and Meyer 2002, p. 542). Anecdotal accounts 
have been reported of young and adult turtles being flushed to the 
mouth of rivers after the floods of 1995 in Ventura County, California 
(Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 20-21). While some pond turtles were most 
likely injured or killed, long distance dispersal from these infrequent 
but large flood events likely occurred (Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 20-
21) and may have provided opportunities for genetic exchange.
    High Severity Wildfire. Wildfires are a natural part of the 
environment within the range of the western pond turtle, increased 
wildfire activity on the landscape is expected and is likely 
exacerbated by years of wildfire suppression (both by increasing fuel 
levels and increased shading) and increased temperatures and drought 
conditions; and increased wildfire activity on the landscape is also 
positively correlated with urbanization, roads, and recreation (Lang 
1961, pp. 84-86; Crawford and Hall 1998, pp. 13-14; Hays et al. 1999, 
p. 11; Abatzoglou and Williams 2016, entire; Halofsky et al. 2020, pp. 
2-16; Parks and Abatzoglou 2020, pp. 1, 5-6; Service 2023, pp. 64-65). 
Observed and projected trends in warmer and drier wildfire seasons in 
the western United States are likely to continue the trend toward 
higher-severity wildfires and larger burn areas (Parks and Abatzoglou 
2020, pp. 1, 5-6). There is broad agreement among wildfire scientists 
that dry forests are becoming less resilient to fire under current and 
projected climate conditions (Moritz et al. 2018, p. 3). Large-scale 
wildfires would result in additional loss, degradation, fragmentation, 
and alteration of habitat, and secondary impacts from wildfire 
suppression activities, increased sedimentation (from debris flows), 
and increased predation (due to lack of cover) for the western pond 
turtle across its range (McDonald et al. 1996, pp. 62, 69, 71; Finger 
et al. 1997, pp. 136-137; Moritz et al. 2018, p. 3).

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

    The western pond turtle was listed as endangered by the State of 
Washington in 1993 (Hays et al. 1999, p. 23; WDFW 2022, p. 1). The WDFW 
developed a State recovery plan for the northwestern

[[Page 68382]]

pond turtle in 1999 (Hays et al. 1999, entire). Recovery efforts being 
implemented by the State include monitoring, bullfrog removal, habitat 
restoration, land acquisition and protection, and population 
enhancement (see Headstarting, Captive Breeding and Rearing, and 
Reintroductions, below). In Oregon, the species is State sensitive-
critical and a species of greatest conservation need (ODFW 2021, p. 9). 
ODFW has developed a western pond turtle conservation strategy for 
Oregon, identified and implemented best management practices, developed 
an educational program, established a monitoring program, and conducted 
habitat enhancement projects for the northwestern pond turtle. In 
Nevada, the northwestern pond turtle is a species of conservation 
priority (Nevada State Wildlife Action Plan 2012, p. 77; Nevada Natural 
Heritage Program 2012, p. 11) and measures being implemented include 
population monitoring and education. In California, the species (both 
northwestern and southwestern pond turtle) is a species of special 
concern (CDFW 2023a, p. 53). Measures being implemented by the CDFW 
include research funding, population monitoring, conservation 
coordination, and education. These State efforts have identified 
conservation strategies and priorities, and the States have implemented 
efforts to conserve western pond turtles; however, outside Washington 
where it is state listed, these efforts do not provide regulatory 
protections for the species. The southwestern pond turtle is not listed 
in Mexico (NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, entire), although monitoring and 
survey work has identified the southwestern pond turtle in small 
populations throughout its range in Baja California, Mexico (Amphibian 
and Reptile Atlas 2023, entire).
    As part of an effort to foster awareness and promote conservation 
of sensitive species, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) 
implemented programs for numerous species including the western pond 
turtle (AZA 2017, entire). This effort has resulted in a multi-
stakeholder supported agreement to coordinate western pond turtle 
conservation and develop a conservation strategy for the species across 
its range (Western Pond Turtle Range-wide Conservation Coalition 2020, 
entire; Western Pond Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 2021, 
entire). This effort includes Federal agencies (the Service, U.S. 
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), NPS, Department of 
Defense (DOD), USGS), State agencies (WDFW, ODFW, Nevada Department of 
Wildlife (NDOW), CDFW), and nongovernmental conservation partners (AZA, 
Fauna Del Noroeste A.C.) throughout the range of both species. This 
coordinated strategy will assist in identifying priorities for 
conservation, will assist in obtaining funding for identified 
initiatives, will kick-start recovery planning, and will raise 
awareness of and provide educational information on both the 
northwestern and southwestern pond turtle.
    Several Federal and State regulatory mechanisms, other than listing 
the northwestern pond turtle by the State of Washington, provide some 
protection for the western pond turtle or reduce or eliminate impacts 
to habitat from threats. These regulatory mechanisms include the 
California Environmental Quality Act, which requires minimizing 
significant effects to the environment; U.S. Forest Service/BLM's 
sensitive species conservation through the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA 
and USDI 1994, entire); CDFW's lake and streambed alteration agreements 
(California Fish and Game Code, section 1602), which provide measures 
to protect lake and stream habitat; CDFW's natural community 
conservation plans (NCCPs); and the Service's habitat conservation 
plans (HCPs) permitted under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Currently, 
20 HCPs are being implemented that include western pond turtles as a 
covered species (10 for the northwestern pond turtle, and 10 for the 
southwestern pond turtle). Several of these in California are also 
joint NCCPs. In general, these plans assure that habitat will be set 
aside and managed for the western pond turtle as compensation for 
covered activities that occur in the plan area, such as planned urban 
development, and that measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize 
take of the covered species. Many of these plans have been in place for 
over 20 years and have implemented measures for habitat protection, 
habitat restoration, species monitoring, and provided educational 
benefits for the western pond turtle or its habitat. Of these 20 HCPs, 
several in the range of the southwestern pond turtle have been 
implemented since 1998 and have resulted in significant protection and 
management for the southwestern pond turtle. Two examples of large-
scale HCPs in the range of the southwestern pond turtle include the 
2004 Western Riverside County Multi-Species HCP (MSHCP) (Dudek and 
Associates 2003, entire) and the 1998 South County HCP in San Diego 
County (San Diego County 1998, entire). These two HCPs cover areas in 
the western portion of the southwestern pond turtle's range and help 
minimize the effects of urbanization, development, and other human 
activities as well as assist in maintaining populations of the 
southwestern pond turtle by establishing connected ecosystem preserves, 
controlling unauthorized access, monitoring habitat conditions, and 
maintaining and improving aquatic and upland habitat. Together, the two 
HCPs have established over 425,000 ac (171,992 ha) of preserve lands in 
the western portion of the southwestern pond turtle's range. Although 
not all of the preserve land is used by the southwestern pond turtle, 
the preserve land they do occupy within the two HCP areas is well 
connected and provides both aquatic and upland habitat. This level of 
habitat conservation and connectivity will reduce the current threats 
impacting the southwestern pond turtle and assist in maintaining 
populations by avoiding impacts from development and other habitat loss 
and allow the species to respond to the environmental variability of 
drought by providing connected habitat should conditions at a given 
site become unsuitable in a given year.
    The DOD has implemented numerous integrated natural resources 
management plans (INRMPs) for their military installations through the 
Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 670a) including INRMPs for 
U.S. Marine Corps base at Camp Pendleton (DOD MCB Camp Pendleton 2018, 
entire) in San Diego County, U.S. Army bases at Camp Roberts (DOD Camp 
Roberts INRMP 2022, entire) and Fort Hunter Liggett (DOD Fort Hunter 
Liggett INRMP 2022, entire) in Monterey and San Luis Obispo County, and 
Vandenberg Space Force Base (DOD VSFB INRMP 2021, entire) in Santa 
Barbara County, California, which all include large areas within the 
range of the southwestern pond turtle. Some of the DOD military 
installations in the range of the northwestern pond turtle include: 
Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington; Air National Guard 
installations in Portland (142 Wing) and Klamath Falls (Kingsley Field) 
in Oregon; and Travis Air Force Base and Beale Air Force Base in 
California. The DOD military facilities in the range of the 
northwestern pond turtle are generally associated with airbases and do 
not contain large amounts of habitat for the northwestern pond turtle, 
except for Joint Base Lewis-McChord (U.S. Army/Air Force) which has 
developed an INRMP for their facilities (Joint Base

[[Page 68383]]

Lewis-McChord INRMP 2017, entire). However, populations in Washington 
are limited and the occupancy by northwestern pond turtle on Joint Base 
Lewis-McChord is unknown. Conservation measures and management for 
species in the INRMPs include establishing restrictions for vehicle 
use, habitat protections, monitoring, habitat enhancement, and 
establishment of best management practices for species and habitat 
protection.
Headstarting, Captive Breeding and Rearing, and Reintroductions
    Headstarting is the process of collecting eggs or young from the 
wild and rearing them in captivity through the most vulnerable stages 
of their life cycle, and then releasing those individuals back into 
wild populations. Headstarting was initiated in Washington in 1990 
(Hays et al. 1999, pp. 25-26) to bolster the last two known populations 
of western pond turtle left in the State (Hays et al. 1999, entire; 
Pramuk et al. 2013, p. 3; Hallock et al. 2017, p. iv). From 1991 
through 2015, 2,200 captive-bred and wild-bred western pond turtles 
raised at the Woodland Park Zoo and Oregon Zoo have been released, 
increasing the number of sites for these turtles in Washington from two 
sites in 1993 to six sites today (Hallock et al. 2017, p. iv). The 
Washington State Recovery Plan indicates that headstarting and captive 
breeding should continue until northwestern pond turtle populations are 
sustainable without such intervention (Hays et al. 1999, p. 39). Due to 
the success of the headstarting program in bolstering the populations 
of northwestern pond turtle, the captive breeding has been 
discontinued. In reviewing the success of the headstarting program and 
commitment of the WDFW and other partners to continue the program, we 
consider headstarting and other conservation efforts (not including 
captive breeding) such as conducting habitat management efforts, 
investigating and managing shell disease, and predator control for the 
species to increase adult and hatchling survival to currently be 
sufficient for the conservation of the northwestern pond turtle in 
Washington (Anderson 2022, entire; Bergh and Wickhem 2022, p. 13; 
Hallock 2022, entire).
    Headstarting of both northwestern pond turtles and southwestern 
pond turtles has been implemented to a limited degree by additional 
zoos and other partners in other parts of the two species' ranges 
(Spinks et al. 2003, pp. 260-261; Brown et al. 2015, pp. 4-16). Other 
reintroduction efforts in San Diego County have occurred that involved 
translocating western pond turtles from private ponds into restored 
habitat, often in conjunction with nonnative species removals (Molden 
et al. 2022, p. 2).

Current and Future Conditions

    The current condition of a species may be described in terms of 
past and ongoing changes in a species' habitat, demographics, and 
distribution (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306). To assess the current 
condition of the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle, 
we used the best scientific and commercial data available to describe 
past and ongoing changes in occupancy and impacts from the primary 
threats impacting the two species. We assessed the current and future 
conditions for both the northwestern and southwestern pond turtle by 
evaluating the health and distribution of western pond turtles in 
identified analysis units throughout the range of each species. The 
analysis units are delineated based on occupancy, genetic makeup, 
management regions, and ecological data depending on each State, and 
they stem from information gathered in collaboration with researchers 
and other stakeholders across the range of both species (Service 2023, 
pp. 33-37). Each of the analysis units contains multiple populations 
based on observation information. We identified 14 analysis units for 
the northwestern pond turtle: 2 analysis units in Washington, 7 in 
Oregon, and 5 in California (Service 2023, p. 34, figure 8, and p. 36, 
table 2). For the southwestern pond turtle, we identified six analysis 
units: five analysis units over the species' range in California and 
one analysis unit in Baja California, Mexico (Service 2023, p. 35, 
figure 9, and p. 37, table 3).
Modeling Population Growth and Probability of Extirpation
    To assist in our analysis and quantitatively assess the current and 
future condition of the northwestern and southwestern pond turtle, we 
used results from two modeling efforts. For northwestern pond turtle 
analysis units in the State of Washington, we used information from a 
population viability analysis model (PVA) (Pramuk et al. 2013, entire) 
that looked at potential changes in the number of individuals over time 
based on various parameters including with and without bullfrog removal 
efforts and with or without headstarting efforts (Pramuk et al. 2013, 
pp. 19-28). Although the model is from 2013, the projections for the 
model start with slightly reduced population levels and therefore may 
slightly overestimate the rates of decline. To account for this 
potential overestimation we compared the model results to current 
population numbers and took any differences into account in our 
analysis. Drought is not explicitly incorporated into the Washington 
PVA but has been considered as part of our assessment of threats facing 
the northwestern pond turtle. We used a separate model for Washington 
due to its availability and because the populations in Washington have 
been extensively supplemented by headstarted turtles, so using this 
separate model avoided potentially conflicting results when compared to 
natural populations in other parts of the species' range.
    For the remainder of the northwestern pond turtle analysis units in 
Oregon, Nevada, and California, as well as for 5 of the 6 analysis 
units in the range of the southwestern pond turtle, we used a single 
sex (female) stochastic stage-based (hatchling, juvenile, adult) matrix 
population model developed by researchers as part of our SSA analysis 
(Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; Service 2023, appendix A). The model 
did not include information regarding the analysis unit in Baja 
California, Mexico (AU-6), due to the paucity of occurrence information 
for the unit (Service 2023, Appendix A). In the model, the researchers 
refer to declines of the northwestern and southwestern pond turtle as 
the ``probabilities of extinction'' in each analysis unit in Oregon, 
Nevada, and California. In this document, we present information from 
the model as probability of extirpation (locally or regionally extinct) 
to avoid confusion with the loss of either of the two species 
rangewide.
    This model incorporated information on western pond turtle 
presence, specifically occurrence observations, as well as data on the 
primary threats identified for the northwestern and southwestern pond 
turtle (anthropogenic impacts, drought, and bullfrogs) as described 
above. The model projected land use change and drought conditions into 
the future by calculating annual rates of increase of moderate and 
extreme drought for representative concentration pathway (RCP) 4.5 
(shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP 2)) and RCP 8.5 (SSP 5). RCPs are 
changes in carbon dioxide gas emissions based on land use pattern 
changes and other climate drivers. An RCP level of 4.5 represents mid-
level emission scenario with some level of carbon dioxide emission 
reduction and an RCP of 8.5 represents continued carbon dioxide 
emission with little or no reduction. RCPs were developed explicitly 
for climate modeling into the

[[Page 68384]]

future based on the emission level, and, as a result, the socioeconomic 
characteristics used in RCPs were not standardized. SSPs further refine 
RCP emission levels to include other factors, such as standardized 
societal and economic patterns. The model also incorporated the spread 
of bullfrogs based on a continuation of the bullfrog's existing rates 
of distribution change at the analysis unit scale.
    The modeling identified threats to the species or its habitat from 
human alteration of habitat and anthropogenic effects on the species 
(anthropogenic impacts), effects from nonnative bullfrogs, and the 
effects of drought conditions, which are influenced by the effects of 
climate change, to the year 2100 (approximately 75 years or three 
western pond turtle generations) (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; 
Service 2023, pp. 91-98). To model impacts from human alteration and 
land conversion, the modelers used data and projection information 
developed by the USGS and Environmental Protection Agency from the 
Integrated Climate and Land-Use Scenarios model (ICLUS) (Gregory and 
McGowan 2023, p. 22). The ICLUS project produces spatially explicit 
projections of human population and land-use that are based on 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scenarios and 
pathways (Morefield et al. 2018, unpaginated). The model provided a 
continuous rate of change over time to the year 2100 and assigns 
probabilities of extirpation in each analysis unit for the two species 
in Oregon, Nevada, and California under two emission scenarios (RCP 
8.5/SSP5 (scenario 1: higher emissions/higher human population growth 
impacts) and RCP 4.5/SSP2 (scenario 2: medium emissions/medium human 
population growth impacts)) (Gregory and McGowan 2023, pp. 18-22; 
Service 2023, pp. 102-105).
    In the SSA report, we identified the results of the model from 
three time periods (2050, 2075, and 2100) to provide information for 
the two species' current and projected future condition in Oregon, 
Nevada, and California. Because the western pond turtle is a long-lived 
species, we consider results from the model at 2050 (approximately 25 
years) (approximately one western pond turtle generation) to represent 
current condition of western pond turtles. The SSA report also provides 
results for discussion purposes to the year 2075 (approximately two 
generations) and to the year 2100 (approximately three generations) 
(Service 2023, pp. 69, 101-114). Because the results of the modeling in 
Oregon, Nevada, and California (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire) 
provide information on a continuum to the year 2100 rather than 
specifically identified intermediate dates, in our analysis of future 
conditions, we considered a range of 50 to 75 years from now (between 
the year 2075 and 2100) to be our foreseeable future timeframe for both 
the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle. This time 
range allows for the incorporation of the climate change information, 
projected human development changes, and additional impacts from 
bullfrogs on the northwestern pond turtle in Oregon, Nevada, and 
California, and the southwestern pond turtle in California, and this 
time range allows us to address how the impacts from these driving 
threats may impact the two species' resiliency over time. Our analysis 
of the northwestern and southwestern pond turtles' current and future 
redundancy and resiliency are assessed qualitatively based on past 
population trends and the life-history characteristics of the two 
species. Therefore, in addition to the modeling effort used to assist 
our determinations on resiliency, we also considered other factors not 
specifically part of the modeling efforts to determine the future 
condition of the northwestern pond turtle such as information on 
population persistence and species' longevity, the species' 
reproduction capabilities, known species distribution, the species' 
ability to use variable aquatic habitat, the variable ecological and 
environmental characteristics of habitat used across the species' 
range, regulatory mechanisms in place to protect the species, and any 
current management and rangewide conservation efforts and coordination 
being implemented for the species. Below, we provide information on the 
current and future conditions of the northwestern pond turtle and 
southwestern pond turtle separately.
Northwestern Pond Turtle--Current Condition
    In Washington, historically the northwestern pond turtle was 
considered locally common. The species was listed as a WDFW sensitive 
species in 1981 and State threatened in 1983, and then was uplisted to 
State endangered in 1993 (Hays et al. 1999, p. 23). In 1990, the 
northwestern pond turtle in Washington was nearly extirpated in Puget 
Sound and other areas of the State and was found in two isolated 
populations, totaling only 150 individuals, near the Columbia Gorge. As 
a result of the northwestern pond turtle's reduced numbers, the WDFW 
and other partners initiated the headstarting program (see Conservation 
Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms, above) and captive breeding program 
in 1990 and 1991, respectively (Hays et al. 1999, pp. 25-27).
    The captive breeding efforts collected the last 12 western pond 
turtles from the Puget Sound area and placed them in a breeding program 
at the Woodland Park Zoo. The captive breeding program was successful 
and, along with the headstarting program, assisted in releasing 
captive-bred and wild-bred western pond turtles into the wild. The 
captive breeding program was discontinued after 1991, but the 
headstarting program is still being implemented. By 2015, these 
programs expanded the total number of populations to six (two 
reestablished populations in Puget Sound, two remnant populations in 
Columbia River Gorge, and two additional reestablished populations also 
in the Columbia River Gorge) and increased the total number of 
northwestern pond turtle individuals in the State to approximately 800-
1,000 (Hallock et al. 2017, pp. 5-6).
    More than 2,300 headstarted turtles have been released to these 6 
sites since the program's inception and the total current population 
estimate in Washington remains near 1,000 individuals, although survey 
efforts at some of the sites have imperfect detection and may 
underestimate actual numbers, especially for detecting juvenile turtles 
(Hallock et al. 2017, p. 6; WDFW 2021, entire; Oregon Zoo 2022, entire; 
Woodland Park Zoo 2023, entire). The six sites are part of recovery 
efforts by the State and all are protected through landowner agreements 
or ownership by the WDFW (Hays et al. 1999, pp 36-45; Hallock et al. 
2017, p. 7). Two of the sites in Skamania County (Pierce National 
Wildlife Refuge (Service-owned) and Beacon Rock sites (Washington State 
Parks-owned)) are within the dispersal distance for the species from 
each other (Hallock et al. 2017, p. 7). Two additional sites (one in 
Puget Sound area and one along the Columbia River Gorge) have 
populations of more than 250 individuals and are above the State-
identified recovery goals for population size (Hays et al. 1999, p. 37; 
Hallock et al. 2017, p. 7). Despite these successes, the northwestern 
pond turtle is still heavily dependent on the headstarting program and 
the WDFW has committed to continue to implement the program as part of 
their recovery efforts for the northwestern pond turtle (Hays et al. 
1999, entire; Hallock 2022, entire; Hallock and Anderson 2022, entire).

[[Page 68385]]

Resiliency
    Resiliency is having sufficiently robust populations for the 
species to withstand stochastic events (i.e., events arising from 
random factors). Analysis unit resiliency relies on sufficient suitable 
habitat in a condition to support multiple populations with enough 
individuals to withstand stochastic events. To evaluate resiliency for 
the northwestern pond turtle, we considered the modeling results, as 
well as the long-lived nature of the species and its ability to 
reproduce throughout its lifespan, habitat availability and quality, 
environmental conditions across this range of the species, the 
proximity of populations to each other and opportunities of dispersal 
between populations, the level of habitat fragmentation and habitat 
loss and conservation efforts being implemented across these areas by 
numerous Federal, State, and other entities.
    For the northwestern pond turtle, we determined that resiliency (at 
the analysis unit level) is a function of the probability of 
extirpation as derived from the modeling results (Service 2023, pp. 96-
97, 102-105, Appendix A). Specifically, the model uses quasi-extinction 
as the threshold under which the western pond turtle numbers within an 
analysis unit would be so small that it would no longer be viable 
(functionally extirpated) and unlikely to sustain populations in the 
wild. According to the Washington PVA, populations of northwestern pond 
turtle would decline significantly in the absence of headstarting 
(Pramuk et al. 2013, pp. 28-29). When looking at adult females only, 
the PVA identified an initial increase in abundance that reflected the 
transition of sub-adults to adults, where the number of adult females 
increased even as the overall population declined (Pramuk et al. 2013, 
pp. 26-27). Despite these overall declines, the PVA suggests that 
northwestern pond turtles are expected to persist in Washington, 
although at substantially reduced numbers through the year 2050 without 
headstarting (Pramuk et al. 2013, pp. 28-29; Service 2023, p. 114). 
However, based on our discussions with WDFW and those assisting in the 
headstarting program, our information gathering for the SSA, our work 
with researchers and zoos associated with the headstarting program, and 
the State's emphasis and commitment to northwestern pond turtle 
conservation and to the continuance of the implementation of the 
recovery goals for the species (including the headstarting and bullfrog 
removal programs), we do not anticipate that the headstarting efforts 
would cease now or in the near future due to WDFW's designation of the 
species as State endangered. As a result, we consider the northwestern 
pond turtle in Washington to currently have sufficient resiliency due 
to current conservation measures to provide for the current viability 
of the species.
    In Oregon, Nevada, and California within all of the analysis units, 
population growth rate and abundance for the northwestern pond turtle 
are currently declining. However, based on species survey information 
and abundance modeling, numerous relatively large populations exist 
throughout the species range in these three States (Rosenberg et al. 
2009, pp. 32-38; Manzo et al. 2021, pp. 493-495; Service 2023, 72-74). 
According to the modeling efforts, at the year 2050, the probability of 
extirpation in analysis units in Oregon, Nevada, and California ranges 
from approximately 6 percent in AU-11 in the North Central Valley unit 
in California to 15 percent in analysis unit 14 (AU-14) in the southern 
part of the species' range in the San Joaquin Valley unit in California 
using the RCP 8.5 climatic conditions and ranges from approximately 6 
percent in AU-6 in the North Coast unit in Oregon to 15 percent in AU-
14 using the RCP 4.5 climatic conditions. This equates to an overall 
probability of persistence of 85 to 94 percent in 2050 across analysis 
units in Oregon, Nevada, and California under either emission scenario 
(Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; Service 2023, pp. 97-99 and Appendix 
A). Based on habitat availability and connectivity, relatively 
favorable environmental conditions lessening the effects of climate 
change, the number and distribution of occupied areas, the number of 
relatively large populations and their distribution throughout the 
three States, and the relatively low probabilities of extirpation 
identified above, we consider the northwestern pond turtle in Oregon, 
Nevada, and California to currently have sufficient resiliency.
Redundancy
    Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand 
catastrophic events. To determine redundancy for the northwestern pond 
turtle, we assessed the number and distribution of sufficiently 
resilient analysis units relative to the scale of anticipated species-
relevant catastrophic events, which entailed assessing the cumulative 
risk of catastrophes occurring within the species' range over time. 
These factors were assessed in terms of their potential influence on 
the ability of northwestern pond turtle populations to survive and 
recover after a plausible catastrophic event.
    The northwestern pond turtle has been subject to historical habitat 
loss, alteration, and fragmentation and is still impacted by the legacy 
effects from such habitat impacts (Rosenberg et al. 2009, p. 40). 
Nonnative predators, such as bullfrogs and largemouth bass, are also a 
threat to northwestern pond turtles (Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 40-47; 
Manzo et al. 2021, p. 492). Based on standardized occupancy surveys 
that were conducted in 2018-2020 at 138 historical sites and 176 new 
sites in Oregon, the current occupancy information appears to indicate 
that there are fewer occupied areas when compared to historical 
information (Samara Group, LLC 2021, entire). However, the existing 
habitat availability and connectivity, population distribution, and 
size of some populations would help maintain the species in Oregon. In 
California, the most significant declines have occurred in the southern 
portion of its range and is associated with habitat loss, urbanization, 
and historical overutilization (Jennings et al. 1992, pp. 10-11; 
Jennings and Hayes 1994, pp. 101-102; Kelly et al. 2005, pp. 63, 70; 
Bury and Germano 2008, p. 001.6; Bettelheim and Wong 2022, pp. 7-12). 
According to modeling efforts and other status assessments, the parts 
of the species' range in Oregon and northern California currently are 
less likely to be subject to the extensive habitat losses that have 
occurred further south and still have numerous well distributed and 
well connected populations in this area (Thomson et al. 2016, p. 301; 
Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; Service 2023, Appendix A). For the 
species' southern parts of its range in central California, the species 
has a higher probability of extirpation than the populations in Oregon 
and northern California; however, numerous populations with evidence of 
breeding do still occur in areas such as Merced, Fresno and Kern 
Counties and would also provide some level of redundancy as these areas 
are associated with permanent natural and artificially ponded habitats 
that are currently protected or maintained (Germano 2010, pp. 91-96; 
Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; Service 2023, Appendix A).
    In terms of current redundancy, the northwestern pond turtle is 
currently distributed across the analysis units in Washington, Oregon, 
Nevada, and California similarly to its historical distribution, with 
the majority of populations in northern California and Oregon. This 
spatial spread would most

[[Page 68386]]

likely protect the species from catastrophic events including wildfire, 
flooding events, and severe drought. As a result, the species would 
most likely continue to maintain its ability to withstand catastrophic 
events, particularly in the center of the range (Oregon and Northern 
California) due to this extensive distribution. Based on this 
information, we consider the northwestern pond turtle in Oregon, 
Nevada, and California to currently have sufficient redundancy.
Representation
    Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to 
changing environmental conditions. This includes both near-term and 
long-term changes in its physical (e.g., climate conditions, habitat 
conditions, habitat structure, etc.) and biological (e.g., pathogens, 
competitors, predators, etc.) environments. This ability of a species 
to adapt to these changes is often referred to as ``adaptive 
capacity.'' To assess the current condition of representation for the 
northwestern pond turtle, we considered the current diversity of 
ecological conditions and genetic make-up of the species throughout its 
range.
    For current representation, the species exhibits ecological 
flexibility in habitat use, particularly different types of waterbodies 
and ecological conditions from the Pacific Northwest in Oregon to 
northern and central California and eastern Sierra Nevada in Nevada. 
Based on genetic analyses, the northwestern pond turtle in Oregon and 
northern California has lower genetic variation than those further 
south, despite covering a larger geographic area. Although genetic 
variation is lower in the northern portions of its range, researchers 
suggest this is due to a more relatively recent (on a geologic 
timescale, after the retreat of Pleistocene glaciation in the last 
~15,000 years) range expansion rather than a reduction in available 
genetic make-up (Shaffer and Scott 2022, p. 6). In addition, based on 
the number and distribution of populations and modeling efforts on 
persistence to the year 2050 (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; Service 
2023, Appendix A), we do not expect severe population declines or 
extirpations in the near-term across Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and 
California analysis units; therefore the species is likely to maintain 
its ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions in the near-
term and currently has sufficient representation.

Northwestern Pond Turtle--Future Condition

    In the future, impacts from land conversion, bullfrog predation, 
and increasing drought will continue throughout the 50- to 75-year 
timeframe (to the year 2100) we considered in our analysis. The level 
of impact on the northwestern pond turtle associated with these threats 
generally follows a latitudinal trend, with the southern analysis units 
having a more negative response and therefore poorer condition than the 
more northern analysis units.
Resiliency
    In Washington, as discussed above, the northwestern pond turtle is 
heavily reliant on implementation of conservation measures and is 
expected to depend on headstarting, bullfrog control, and habitat 
management into the future (Hallock et al. 2017, p. 14). Population 
modeling efforts looking out approximately 100 years (year 2112) found 
that populations declined towards extirpation in the absence of 
headstarting and management (Pramuk et al. 2013, pp. 28-29). Declines 
in populations were tied to both adult and hatchling mortality rates, 
with bullfrog removal positively influencing population persistence 
(Service 2023, pp. 101-102). Small populations were shown in the model 
to persist in the future without headstarting as long as adult 
mortality is relatively low and hatchling mortality is reduced through 
habitat management and predator control (Pramuk et al. 2013, pp. 29 and 
32). The current adult mortality rate is unknown and hatchling 
mortality is estimated to be high (above 85 percent). Because the 
northwestern pond turtle is a State endangered species and recovery 
goals for down and delisting have not been met, the WDFW is committed 
to continuing the conservation measures of headstarting, conducting 
habitat management efforts, investigating and managing shell disease, 
and implementing predator control for the species to increase adult and 
hatchling survival (Anderson 2022, entire; Bergh and Wickhem 2022, p. 
13; Hallock 2022, entire). However, without the continuance of current 
management (i.e., headstarting, predator control, and ongoing habitat 
management), we consider the northwestern pond turtle's resiliency in 
Washington to be in decline and question the ability of the species to 
withstand stochastic events in the future.
    In the Oregon, Nevada, and California analysis units, we used the 
modeling efforts to inform resiliency into the future. Looking at 
conditions of the northwestern pond turtle in the 50-75 year timeframe, 
by the year 2075 (approximately the next 50 years), the modeling 
efforts identified some declines in population size for the species 
with the probabilities of extirpation of the analysis units ranging 
from 30 percent in AU-6 along the Oregon coast to 43 percent in AU-14 
in the San Joaquin Valley and San Francisco Bay area in California 
under scenario 1 (RCP 8.5/SSP 5) and 29 percent in AU-5 in the 
Willamette Valley unit in Oregon to 42 percent in AU-14 under scenario 
2 (RCP 4.5/SSP 2). By the year 2100 (approximately next 75 years), the 
probabilities of extirpation of populations in analysis units ranged 
from 46 percent in AU-10 in the Northern California unit to 59 percent 
in AU-14 under scenario 1 (RCP 8.5/SSP 5) and 47 percent in AU-11 to 59 
percent in AU-14 under scenario 2 (Service 2023, pp. 101-105). These 
predicted results of extirpation at the end of the 75-year timeframe 
(year 2100) will most likely cause declines in all analysis units with 
some populations within the analysis units to become functionally 
extirpated and limit the ability of smaller populations or populations 
in fragmented habitats to respond to stochastic events and limit the 
population resiliency in those units. Table 2 below identifies the 
range of the probability of extirpation (highest and lowest percentage) 
of analysis units for the northwestern pond turtle in 2050, 2075, and 
2100.

                                                   Table 2--Northwestern Pond Turtle Resiliency Ranges
                                                        [Probability of extirpation percentages]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Scenario                       Year                High (relevant analysis unit)                   Low (relevant analysis unit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RCP 8.5..................................            2050  15 (AU-14)....................................  6 (AU-11).
                                                     2075  43 (AU-14)....................................  30 (AU-6).
                                                     2100  59 (AU-14)....................................  46 (AU-10).
RCP 4.5..................................            2050  15 (AU-14)....................................  6 (AU-6).

[[Page 68387]]

 
                                                     2075  42 (AU-14)....................................  29 (AU-5).
                                                     2100  59 (AU-14)....................................  47 (AU-11).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We consider the northwestern pond turtle's resiliency in Oregon, 
Nevada, and California will decline from current levels such that the 
species will be less able to withstand stochastic events in the future 
because of the fragmented nature of habitat and increased threat from 
anthropogenic impacts, predation from nonnative bullfrogs, and the 
effects of climate change from drought.
    Therefore, looking at the overall resiliency of the northwestern 
pond turtle across its range, we have determined that the species' 
resiliency will decline across the majority of its range in the next 
50-75 year timeframe.
Redundancy
    Future redundancy of northwestern pond turtles is expected to 
decline due to the reduced number of populations across the range of 
the species. In Washington, as discussed, the species relies heavily on 
headstarting and other conservation actions to sustain populations in 
the wild. Although we expect those conservation measures to continue to 
be implemented for the northwestern pond turtle in the State in the 
future (Hallock and Anderson 2022, entire) the certainty of future 
funding mechanisms are not secure. In addition, the existing 
populations are small and dispersed with little connectivity or 
opportunity to bounce back from catastrophic events such as drought or 
high severity wildfire. In Oregon, Nevada, and California, the latent 
negative effects to habitat from land use conversion (urbanization and 
agriculture), impacts from the increased magnitude and frequency of 
wildfire, impacts from more frequent and intense drought conditions, 
and the continued effects from existing threats will cause further 
declines in populations. These declines are reflected in probability of 
extirpation for all analysis units (AU-3 through AU-14) for the 
northwestern pond turtle in Oregon, Nevada, and California. Under 
scenario 1 (RCP 4.5/SSP 2) the probabilities of extirpation are near 30 
percent in 2075 and above 47 percent by the year 2100. Similar 
probabilities of extirpation are expected under scenario 2 (RCP 8.5/SSP 
5) for 2075 and 2100. Therefore, in the future, we expect that 
northwestern pond turtle populations in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and 
California to become reduced in size, distribution, and connectivity 
with numerous populations becoming functionally extirpated resulting in 
a decline in the ability to bounce back from catastrophic events.
Representation
    Future representation of northwestern pond turtles is expected to 
be reduced. As discussed, the number and distribution of populations 
and the differing habitat conditions in which they occur is projected 
to decrease across all analysis units. This loss will likely reduce the 
species' genetic diversity and ability to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions under both scenarios. By 2100, continued 
declines would result in additional losses of representation. Besides 
analysis units in Washington, the southern-most northwestern pond 
turtle analysis unit (San Joaquin Valley, AU-14) has the highest 
probability of extirpation. Given that these turtles are at the lowest 
latitude and experience some of the highest temperatures across the 
range, loss of these individuals may result in a potential loss of 
adaptive capacity for increasing temperatures with climate change. 
Overall, in the 50-75 year timeframe, genetic diversity and adaptive 
capacity will be lost and we anticipate that the future representation 
of the northwestern pond turtle will be reduced.

Southwestern Pond Turtle--Current Condition

    The current distribution of the southwestern pond turtle in 
California is similar to its historically occupied range except for the 
areas associated with the heavily urbanized areas of the Los Angeles 
basin, San Diego County, and other heavily developed areas along the 
California coast (Service 2023, pp. 76-77). Recent occurrence 
information in Baja California, Mexico, also identifies occurrence 
records throughout the historically occupied range of the species in 
Mexico (Amphibian and Reptile Atlas of Peninsular California 2023, 
entire).
    Specific population abundance and trend information is lacking 
rangewide for the southwestern pond turtle, but estimates of selected 
localities have identified most populations in California and one 
location in Mexico to be made up of less than 50 individuals with a 
mean of 10 individuals (Manzo et al. 2021, pp. 493, 495; Service 2023, 
p. 78). Information on the southwestern pond turtle in Baja California, 
Mexico is limited mostly to occurrence information (Amphibian and 
Reptile Atlas of Peninsular California 2023, entire). The limited 
information available identifies the distribution of the southwestern 
pond turtle in Baja California, Mexico as being ``marginal'' (Macip-
R[iacute]os et al. 2015, p. 1053). This is reflected in the limited 
streams and isolated desert ponds or other similar habitats where they 
are currently known to occur. An assessment looking at the 
environmental vulnerability (an assessment of a species' distribution, 
habitat, and threats) of amphibians and reptiles in Mexico (Wilson et 
al. 2013, pp. 1-47), found the southwestern pond turtle to have an 
environmental vulnerability score of 17 out of 20 (Wilson et al. 2013, 
p. 29) and similar to the International Union of Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN) as being vulnerable (VU)(high risk of extinction) (IUCN 2012, p. 
15).
Resiliency
    In California, we used the modeling efforts (Gregory and McGowan 
2023, entire) to assist in determining the current and future 
resiliency for the southwestern pond turtle. According to the modeling 
efforts, which takes into account threats to the species and its 
habitat, the probability of extirpation to the year 2050 for the 
analysis units is relatively low and ranges from approximately 21 
percent (AU-1 Coast Range unit) to 24 percent (AU-3 Mojave unit) using 
the RCP 8.5 (SSP 5) climatic conditions and approximately 20 percent 
(AU-1) to 23 percent (AU-2 Ventura/Santa Barbara unit) using the RCP 
4.5 (SSP 2) climatic conditions (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; 
Service 2023, Appendix A).
    The current condition of the southwestern pond turtle in Mexico is 
expected to have sufficient resiliency. This is based on recent 
occupancy records (2014-2022) distributed in both new and previously 
known to be

[[Page 68388]]

occupied areas; in addition, the areas in which they occur are in 
relatively remote areas and not subject to development or other 
threats. Therefore, we would expect that the habitat and environmental 
conditions would be sufficient for southwestern pond turtle populations 
within Baja California, Mexico to be currently able continue to carry 
out their normal life history functions and be able to withstand 
stochastic events.
    Based on this information, we consider southwestern pond turtle 
populations to currently withstand stochastic events such that the 
species currently has sufficient resiliency.
Redundancy
    Because the threats facing the species are relatively uniform, the 
majority of populations are expected to maintain their distribution, 
and are not expected to be lost in the next 25 years, we expect the 
species will be able to maintain its ability to withstand catastrophic 
events. The southwestern pond turtle is currently distributed across 
all analysis units in California and Mexico similarly to their 
historical distribution, with the majority of occupancy in California. 
This broad distribution would most likely protect the species from 
catastrophic events including wildfire, flooding events, and severe 
drought. Based on this information, we consider southwestern pond 
turtle to currently have sufficient redundancy.
Representation
    The southwestern pond turtle exhibits ecological flexibility in 
habitat use, particularly different types of waterbodies and ecological 
conditions from the arid portions of Mexico and the Mojave region in 
California to the moister areas along the California Coast Range to 
Monterey County. In addition, based on the number and distribution of 
populations and the probabilities of extirpation for each analysis unit 
identified in the modeling efforts to the year 2050 (Gregory and 
McGowan 2023, entire) (Service 2023, Appendix A), we expect the species 
can likely maintain its ability to adapt to changing environmental 
conditions in the near-term and it currently has sufficient 
representation.

Southwestern Pond Turtle--Future Condition

Resiliency
    Across all southwestern pond turtle analysis units in California, 
populations declined for the duration of the model simulation, with the 
probability of extirpation rising over time. Model results were most 
sensitive to increases in drought, especially in the Ventura/Santa 
Barbara (AU-2), LA (AU-4), and Orange County/San Diego (AU-5) analysis 
units. The probability of extirpation for all the analysis units in 
2075 was above 50 percent and ranged from 54 percent (AU-1) to 57 
percent (AU-3) under scenario 1 (RCP 8.5 (SSP 5)) and 51 percent (AU-5) 
to 55 percent (AU-3) under scenario 2 (RCP 4.5 (SSP 2)). These results 
suggest that the populations in some of the analysis units are likely 
to become extirpated and that all populations across the species' range 
in California would be less able to withstand stochastic events within 
the next 50 years.
    The probability of extirpation of all the analysis units in 2100 
increases substantially to over 70 percent, ranging from 73 percent 
(AU-1) to 78 percent (AU-2) under scenario 1 and 70 percent (AU-5) to 
73 percent (AU-2) under scenario 2 (Service 2023, pp. 107, 108 (figures 
32 and 33)). This indicates a 70 to 78 percent likelihood of 
extirpation of the populations for each analysis unit in the next 75 
years under either plausible future scenario. Under both scenarios, 
multiple analysis units are projected to be at risk of extirpation and 
resiliency would be reduced such that the species is less able to 
withstand environmental stochasticity. Table 3 below, identifies the 
range of the probability of extirpation (highest and lowest percentage) 
of analysis units for the southwestern pond turtle in 2050, 2075, and 
2100.

                                                   Table 3--Southwestern Pond Turtle Resiliency Ranges
                                                        [Probability of extirpation percentages]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Scenario                       Year                High (relevant analysis unit)                   Low (relevant analysis unit)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RCP 8.5..................................            2050  24 (AU-3).....................................  21 (AU-1).
                                                     2075  57 (AU-3).....................................  54 (AU-1).
                                                     2100  78 (AU-2).....................................  73 (AU-1).
RCP 4.5..................................            2050  23 (AU-2).....................................  20 (AU-1).
                                                     2075  55 (AU-3).....................................  51 (AU-5).
                                                     2100  73 (AU-2).....................................  70 (AU-5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Redundancy
    Based on projections of probability of extirpation, loss of all 5 
analysis units in the U.S. is greater than 50 percent under both 
scenarios by 2075. Therefore, all U.S. analysis units are more likely 
than not to become functionally extinct in approximately 50 years. 
There is a possibility that the species could maintain some of its 
current distribution in those waterbodies most resistant to 
anthropogenic impacts, bullfrog predation, and drought, which would 
continue to offer some low level of redundancy for the species. 
However, increasing probability of extirpation across analysis units 
and contraction of the range mean that the species would be less likely 
to withstand catastrophic events under either future scenario in 
approximately 50 years.
    By 2100, all California analysis units are substantially likely 
(greater than 70 percent) to be functionally extinct under both 
scenarios. Given the increasing probability of extirpation predicted 
across analysis units and contraction of the range, the species would 
be much less likely to withstand catastrophic events under either 
future scenario in approximately 75 years.
Representation
    Representation of southwestern pond turtles would be reduced with 
extirpation of any analysis units. As stated above, based on 
probability of extirpation, all analysis units in the U.S. portion of 
the range have greater than a 50 percent probability of extirpation or 
are more likely than not to become functionally extinct by 2075 and 
have over a 70 percent probability of becoming functionally extinct by 
2100. With projected losses in both future scenarios, the species may 
lose occupancy throughout most of its current distribution. Inbreeding 
depression and loss of genetic diversity

[[Page 68389]]

would be exacerbated as abundance declines across analysis units with 
increasing probability of population-level extirpations. Even without 
the overall extirpation of analysis units, additive loss of individuals 
over time leads to an overall decline in species genetic diversity due 
to increased probability of inbreeding, genetic drift, and increasing 
the potential for incorporating detrimental genetic traits into a 
population, which decreases adaptive potential (Palstra and Ruzzante 
2008, entire). Therefore, under both future scenarios, representation 
in southwestern pond turtles is likely to be severely reduced in the 
next approximately 50 to 75 years, such that the species will be less 
able to adapt to changing conditions.

Determination of 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 an endangered 
species or a threatened species because of any of the following 
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle. Below we 
summarize our assessment of status of the northwestern pond turtle and 
southwestern pond turtle under the Act.

Northwestern Pond Turtle: Status Throughout All of Its Range

    The threats that are affecting the northwestern pond turtle 
throughout its range in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and California 
include habitat loss, fragmentation, and alteration (Factor A), 
predation from nonnative species (Factor C), urbanization (including 
development and roads) (Factor A), and the effects of climate change 
and recreation (Factor E). In addition, in portions of its range, the 
northwestern pond turtle is impacted by disease (Factor C) and 
competition from nonnative turtles (Factor E).
    In Washington, the condition of the northwestern pond turtle is 
considered to be conservation reliant due to the small number of 
occupied sites, low abundance, impacts from nonnative predators, and 
reliance of these populations on headstarting. A population viability 
assessment for Washington that looked at populations to the year 2112 
suggested that the sites in that State are reliant on continuation of 
population augmentation via the headstarting program until bullfrog 
predation and adult and hatchling mortality are reduced (Pramuk et al. 
2013, entire). The State of Washington has listed the northwestern pond 
turtle as endangered and WDFW has developed a recovery plan for the 
northwestern pond turtle that identifies that headstarting and captive 
breeding should continue until populations are sustainable without such 
intervention (Hays et al. 1999, p. 39). The captive breeding program 
was discontinued by the WDFW after initial efforts to maintain the 
northwestern pond turtle. Based on our discussions with WDFW, they 
intend to continue their emphasis and commitment to northwestern pond 
turtle conservation and continuance of the implementation of the 
recovery goals (except for captive breeding) for the species, and we do 
not anticipate that the headstarting efforts would cease now or in the 
foreseeable future. As discussed above, headstarting and other 
conservation efforts are required to maintain populations of the 
northwestern pond turtle in the wild in Washington. As a result, we 
consider the northwestern pond turtle in Washington to be conservation 
reliant in order to maintain sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation and provide for the continued viability of the species 
now and into the future.
    In Oregon, Nevada, and California, based on occurrence information 
and some survey efforts, the northwestern pond turtle is still well 
distributed throughout its historical range. Some of the analysis units 
have at least one population with relatively large abundances and 
habitat connectivity between populations. The occupancy and 
distribution of the species covers Oregon and northern California Coast 
Ranges, Willamette Valley, Klamath Mountains, Trinity Mountains, 
eastern and southern Cascades in Oregon and California, Sacramento 
Valley, Carson River and other areas of Nevada, west slope of the 
Sierra Nevada foothills in California, as well as the majority of the 
species' range outside the southern San Joaquin Valley region 
(Rosenberg et al. 2009, pp. 31-38, 72-80; Thomson et al. 2016, pp. 297, 
300-301; Manzo et al. 2021, p. 495; Service 2023, pp. 70-75). 
Populations within the Willamette Valley, Oregon (AU-5) and southwest 
Oregon (AU-9) and populations in northwestern California (AU-10) and 
into the northern and southern Sacramento Valley and northern San 
Joaquin Valley (AU-11, AU-12, AU-13) in California all contain a number 
of abundantly sized and connected populations. The number of 
individuals in several of these populations is over 50 with some over 
100 (Service 2023, pp. 70-75). Based on modeling efforts to the year 
2050 (our current condition timeframe) the probability of extirpation 
under both scenarios ranges from 5 to 9 percent in Oregon. As a result, 
despite some expected declines in abundance and distribution of 
individuals from negative habitat impacts (Factor A), nonnative 
predators (Factor C), and negative effects of climate change (Factor 
E), the populations of northwestern pond turtle in Oregon are likely to 
currently withstand stochastic and catastrophic events, maintain its 
ecological flexibility and likely be able to adapt to changing 
environmental conditions and thereby still has a sufficient degree of 
resiliency, redundancy, and representation to sustain populations in 
the near term.
    In California and Nevada, as discussed above, parts of the 
historical distribution and abundance of the northwestern pond turtle 
have declined, especially in the southern parts of its range in the 
Central Valley of California associated with historical habitat loss, 
although some stable populations with relatively large abundance and 
reproduction do still occur within these areas in Merced, Fresno, and 
Kern Counties (Jennings et al. 1992; pp. 10-11; Kelly et al. 2005, pp. 
63, 70; Bury and Germano 2008, p. 001.6; Germano 2010, 91-96; 
Bettelheim and Wong 2022, pp. 10-12). In Nevada, available historical 
distribution and status information is limited and additional research 
is needed (Nevada State Wildlife Action Plan 2012, pp. 44-45). However, 
information from the State's natural heritage program on vulnerability 
and conservation priority for the northwestern pond turtle does not 
suggest that the species' current abundance or distribution within its 
currently known occupied areas will change substantially by the year 
2050; the northwestern pond turtle has been

[[Page 68390]]

assigned as a not vulnerable or presumed stable species for the State 
(Nevada Natural Heritage Program 2012, pp. 7 and 11). In California, 
the main threats facing the species include the latent impacts 
associated with historical habitat loss and fragmentation (Factor A), 
current urbanization (Factor A), nonnative species predation (Factor 
C), and the effects of climate change (Factor E) on habitat and the 
species. These threats continue to reduce and fragment habitat, reduce 
recruitment, and impact the ability of the species to maintain 
populations. However, due to the number and distribution of populations 
of the species, the amount of available habitat for the populations of 
the species to sustain themselves, and relatively low near-term (2050) 
probability of extirpation (6 to 15 percent) of the populations in all 
five analysis units in California (Service 2023, pp. 71 and 97, figures 
13 and 26 respectively), we have concluded that although the impacts 
resulting from present-day threats are currently negatively affecting 
individuals of the northwestern pond turtle in California, the species 
still has a sufficient degree of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to sustain populations in the near term.
    After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the 
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1) 
factors as well as assessing the conservation measures in place for the 
species, we have determined that the northwestern pond turtle 
throughout all of its range in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and 
California, is able to maintain viability with numerous populations 
that are well distributed across the species' range and those 
populations currently have sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation to sustain themselves in the wild. Thus, after assessing 
the best information available, we conclude that the northwestern pond 
turtle is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its 
range.
    Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the northwestern 
pond turtle is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range. In considering the foreseeable 
future as it relates to the status of the northwestern pond turtle, we 
considered the timeframes applicable to the relevant risk factors 
(threats) to the species and whether we could draw reliable predictions 
about future exposure, timing, and scale of negative effects and the 
species' response to these effects. We considered whether we could 
reliably assess the risk posed by the threats to the species, 
recognizing that our ability to assess risk is limited by the variable 
quantity and quality of available data about the effects to the 
northwestern pond turtle and its response to those effects.
    In the SSA report, we developed two future scenarios that range 
over an approximately 50- to 75-year timeframe to the years 2075 and 
2100 that encompass the best information available for projected future 
conditions across the range of the northwestern pond turtle. This 50- 
to 75-year timeframe encompasses approximately two to three generations 
of western pond turtles and enabled us to consider the threats acting 
on the species and to draw conclusions on the species' response to 
those threats, and accordingly, we consider this 50- to 75-year range 
to be the period of foreseeable future for this species.
    As discussed above, to assist in determining the future condition 
of the northwestern pond turtle, we used two modeling efforts, one for 
Washington (Pramuk et al. 2013, entire; Service 2023, pp. 101-102) and 
one for Oregon, Nevada, and California (Gregory and McGowan 2023, 
entire; Service 2023, pp. 101-105) (see Modeling Population Growth and 
Probability of Extirpation, above). These models looked at those 
threats most influential on determining the species' future condition. 
We also considered other factors not specifically part of the modeling 
efforts to determine the future condition of the northwestern pond 
turtle such as information on population persistence and species' 
longevity, the species' reproduction capabilities, known species 
distribution, the species' ability to use variable aquatic habitat, the 
variable ecological and environmental characteristics of habitat used 
across the species' range, regulatory mechanisms in place to protect 
the species, and any current management and rangewide conservation 
efforts and coordination being implemented for the species.
    In Washington, modeling efforts looking out approximately 100 years 
using four management scenarios found that populations declined towards 
extirpation in the absence of headstarting and management within this 
timeframe (Pramuk et al. 2013, pp. 28-29). The four scenarios included: 
(1) maintaining current headstarting efforts; (2) complete cessation of 
headstarting without additional management; (3) continuing headstarting 
to year 20; and (4) continuing headstarting to year 20 with bullfrog 
removal efforts. Scenario 1 identified a short term increase then 
leveling of population numbers for the species into the future. 
Scenarios 2 and 3 each showed declines in populations which eventually 
lead to expected functional extirpation of the species, although at 
differing rates of decline, at or near the 100 year timeframe. Declines 
in populations were tied to both adult and hatchling mortality rates, 
with bullfrog removal positively influencing continued population 
persistence even under a scenario (scenario 4) where headstarting was 
discontinued after 20 years but bullfrog removal efforts were 
maintained (Pramuk et al. 2013, pp. 28-29, figure 6-4; Service 2023, 
pp. 101-102). WDFW has committed to manage for and conserve the 
northwestern pond turtle through implementation of its existing 
headstarting program, habitat management actions, disease control, and 
bullfrog removal activities as identified in its recovery plan for the 
species. These conservation measures will assist in maintaining and 
increasing adult and hatchling survival in the State. However, because 
the northwestern pond turtles in Washington are conservation reliant 
and require on-going management and commitment by the WDFW, the species 
in Washington would decline and become functionally extirpated in the 
foreseeable future should management efforts for the species cease.
    In Oregon, Nevada, and California, modeling efforts of future 
resiliency of populations within our analysis units identified that 
individuals and populations of the northwestern pond turtle will most 
likely decline due to the threats from human activities and habitat 
loss, increased predation from nonnative bullfrogs, and increased 
impacts from the effects of climate change mostly attributed to 
drought. These threats would reduce resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation into the future. However, the threats, the magnitude of 
threats, and the species' response to the threats in both extent and 
timing are not uniform throughout the area, with populations in 
northern California and Oregon faring better over time than populations 
in more southerly parts of the species' range within the 50- to 75-year 
timeframe (Service 2023, pp. 102-103). This is partly due to past 
extensive habitat loss and fragmentation due to agriculture and 
urbanized land conversion leaving mostly small, isolated populations. 
However, rangewide, Federal, State, and local conservation efforts such 
as the HCPs/NCCPs, DOD facilities with INRMPs, BLM and Forest Service 
sensitive species management activities under the Northwest Forest Plan 
will continue to assist in conservation of the

[[Page 68391]]

northwestern pond turtle throughout its range.
    According to the modeling efforts for Oregon, Nevada, and 
California, the range of the probabilities of extirpation across 
analysis units was estimated to be between 28 to 33 percent over the 
next approximately 50 years (year 2075), and between 45 to 60 percent 
over the next approximately 75 years (year 2100) (Gregory and McGowan 
2023, entire; Service 2023, pp. 96-97 and 102-105). The analysis units 
most impacted and more likely (greater than 50 percent chance) of 
becoming extirpated by 2100 included areas in the San Joaquin Valley 
(AU-13 and AU-14), southern Sacramento Valley (AU-12) of California and 
areas in the Klamath Basin (AU-8), and an area along the Columbia River 
Gorge (AU-3) in Oregon (Service 2023, figure 30, p. 105). According to 
our modeling efforts, the species is likely to maintain populations 
throughout its range in the next 50 to 75 years in Oregon, Nevada, and 
California; however, the species is likely to lose its adaptability to 
variable environmental conditions and ability to use various habitat 
types and conditions, have reduced levels of reproduction, and have a 
low likelihood of responding to catastrophic events such as severe 
drought, extreme flooding events, or high severity wildfire occurring 
uniformly across the entire species' range (see Effects of Climate 
Change).
    Therefore, due to the northwestern pond turtle's projected lower 
occupancy levels, abundance, connectivity, and distribution of 
populations within its range in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and 
California, we have determined that the northwestern pond turtle will 
have a reduced level of resiliency, redundancy, and representation such 
that we anticipate the future threats will limit the species' ability 
to maintain populations in the wild in the next 50 to 75 years.
    After our review of the threats identified above and cumulative 
effects facing the northwestern pond turtle, as well as existing 
regulatory mechanisms and conservation measures, we conclude that 
threats have and will likely continue to impact individuals or 
localized populations of the northwestern pond turtle especially in the 
southern portion of its range in California to the point where 
populations may become extirpated. As a result, we have determined that 
the northwestern pond turtle will have reduced resiliency, 
representation, and redundancy in the future such that it is likely to 
become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range.

Northwestern Pond Turtle: Status Throughout a Significant Portion of 
Its Range

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. 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'' (hereafter ``Final Policy''; 79 FR 
37578, July 1, 2014) that provided if the Services determine that a 
species is threatened throughout all of its range, the Services will 
not analyze whether the species is endangered in a significant portion 
of its range.
    Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the northwestern pond 
turtle is endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, 
whether there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) 
the portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of 
extinction in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more 
efficient for us to address the ``significance'' question or the 
``status'' question first. We can choose to address either question 
first. Regardless of which question we address first, if we reach a 
negative answer with respect to the first question that we address, we 
do not need to evaluate the other question for that portion of the 
species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether 
there are any significant portions of the northwestern pond turtle's 
range where the species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., 
endangered). In undertaking this analysis for northwestern pond 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 portions of the range where 
the species may be endangered.
    In undertaking this analysis for northwestern pond turtle, we 
choose to address the status question first. We began by identifying 
portions of the range where the biological status of the species may be 
different from its biological status elsewhere in its range. For this 
purpose, we considered information pertaining to the geographic 
distribution of (a) individuals of the species, (b) the threats that 
the species faces, and (c) the resiliency condition of populations.
    We evaluated the range of the northwestern pond turtle to determine 
if the species is in danger of extinction now or likely to become so 
within the foreseeable future in any portion of its range. The range of 
a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite 
number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the species' 
range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered species. For 
the northwestern pond 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.
    For the northwestern pond turtle, we examined the following 
threats: habitat impacts, disease, predation, competition, recreation, 
collection, and the effects of climate change, including cumulative 
effects.
    The threats associated with negative habitat conditions or 
availability, nonnative predators, and the effects of climate changes 
(drought and increased temperatures) are occurring throughout the range 
of the northwestern pond turtle to varying degrees. In the 14 analysis 
units we evaluated in Oregon, Nevada, and California a portion of the 
species' range within AU-14 associated with the lower elevations of the 
southern San Joaquin Valley in Tulare and Kern County, California has 
been subject to extensive past habitat loss and land use changes which 
have resulted in declines of the northwestern pond turtle (Frayer et 
al. 1989, p. 4; Jennings et al. 1992; pp. 10-11; Kelly et al. 2005, pp. 
63, 70; Bury and Germano 2008, p. 001.6; Germano 2010, 91-96; 
Bettelheim and Wong 2022, pp. 10-12). Based on modeling efforts, this 
unit also had the highest probability of likely current and future 
extirpation based on the current lower levels of occurrence, human 
disturbance, nonnative predators, and impacts from climate change 
(drought) (Service 2023, figure 30, p. 105). The probability of 
extirpation for AU-14 as a whole, which also includes portions of 
Merced County and several other San Francisco Bay counties (see figure 
8 and 13 in the SSA report (Service 2023, pp. 34 and 71 respectively)), 
is 15 percent in the year 2050 (current condition). Although these 
areas in the species' southern portion of its range in California were 
identified as being impacted to a greater degree than other portions of 
the species' range, numerous well established and breeding northwestern 
pond turtle populations still occur (observation information from 2013-
2022) within AU-14 in these lower elevation areas, including but not

[[Page 68392]]

limited to areas in Merced, Fresno, and Kern Counties (Germano 2010, 
pp. 91-96; Thomson et al. 2016, pp. 301) and we find that the 
populations in these areas will maintain sufficient resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation currently. Therefore, we found no 
concentration of threats in any portion of the northwestern pond 
turtle's range at a biologically meaningful scale.
    Although within the southern San Joaquin Valley portion of AU-14, 
some threats to the northwestern pond turtle are impacting individuals 
differently from how they are affecting the species elsewhere in its 
range, or the biological condition of the species differs from its 
condition elsewhere in its range, the best scientific and commercial 
data available do not indicate that the threats, or the species' 
responses to the threats, are such that the northwestern pond turtle is 
currently in danger of extinction in the identified portion. Based on 
the discussion outlined above, we find that the species is not in 
danger of extinction now in the southern San Joaquin Valley portion of 
AU-14.
    Therefore, no portion of the northwestern pond turtle's range 
provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of 
extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that 
the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This determination 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 on Interpretation of the 
Phrase ``Significant Portion of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species 
Act's Definitions of ``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' 
(79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014), including the definition of 
``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Northwestern Pond Turtle: Determination of Status

    Our review of the best scientific and commercial information 
available indicates that the northwestern pond turtle meets the 
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
northwestern pond turtle as a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Southwestern Pond Turtle: Status Throughout All of Its Range

    As discussed above, the threats that are affecting the southwestern 
pond turtle throughout its range in California and Baja California, 
Mexico, include impacts to habitat from land conversion and 
urbanization (including development and roads) (Factor A), predation 
from nonnative species (Factor C), and the effects of climate change 
and other anthropogenic impacts (Factor E). The impact of these threats 
has caused the distribution and abundance of the southwestern pond 
turtle to decline, especially in the southern parts of California that 
are associated with the developed and highly urbanized areas of 
southern Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties (AU-5), although 
some stable populations with relatively high abundance and evidence of 
reproduction do still occur in these areas, especially in areas further 
north along the California Coast Range outside urbanized areas 
(Jennings and Hayes 1994, pp. 99, 101; Thomson et al. 2016, p. 301). 
Status trends and abundance for areas in Baja California are not 
available, but information suggests that similar conditions exist for 
the species in Mexico, based on recent occupancy and distribution of 
populations of the species. Despite populations of the species being 
impacted by the existing threats, the species currently continues to 
maintain populations (Manzo et al. 2021, p. 495; Service 2023, pp. 75-
80). This is supported by the modeling efforts (see Modeling Population 
Growth and Probability of Extirpation, above) developed for our 
analysis that found that probability of extirpation across southwestern 
pond turtle analysis unit was approximately 20 to 24 percent (76 to 80 
percent probability of persistence) in the year 2050 (i.e., current 
condition, representing one generation into the future) (Gregory and 
McGowan 2023, entire; Service 2023, pp. 97-99).
    After evaluating threats to the southwestern pond turtle and 
assessing the cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 
4(a)(1) factors, we have determined that the southwestern pond turtle 
is maintaining its viability due to the number and distribution of 
populations of the species, the current ability of the species to 
maintain its populations despite the existing threats, and relatively 
low current probability of extirpation of the species across its range 
(Service 2023, pp. 76 and 97, figures 15 and 26 respectively). We 
conclude that, although the impacts resulting from present-day threats 
are currently negatively affecting the southwestern pond turtle, the 
species still has a sufficient degree of resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation. As such, after assessing the best available 
information, we conclude that the southwestern pond turtle is not 
currently in danger of extinction.
    Therefore, we proceed with determining whether the southwestern 
pond turtle is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable 
future throughout all of its range. In considering the foreseeable 
future as it relates to the status of the southwestern pond turtle, we 
considered the timeframes applicable to the relevant risk factors 
(threats) to the species and whether we could draw reliable predictions 
about future exposure, timing, and scale of negative effects and the 
species' response to these effects. We considered whether we could 
reliably assess the risk posed by the threats to the species, 
recognizing that our ability to assess risk is limited by the variable 
quantity and quality of available data about the effects to the 
southwestern pond turtle and its response to those effects.
    In the SSA report, we developed two future scenarios that range 
over an approximately 50- to 75-year timeframe to the years 2075 and 
2100 that encompass the best information available for projected future 
conditions across the range of the southwestern pond turtle. This 50- 
to 75-year timeframe encompasses approximately two to three generations 
of western pond turtles and enabled us to consider the threats acting 
on the species and to draw conclusions on the species' response to 
those threats, and accordingly, we consider this 50- to 75-year range 
to be the period of foreseeable future for this species. As discussed 
above (see Modeling Population Growth and Probability of Extirpation), 
we used modeling efforts (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; Service 
2023, pp. 101-105) to assist in determining the future condition of the 
southwestern pond turtle. According to the modeling efforts developed 
for the southwestern pond turtle, the probability of extirpation for 
the species by the year 2075 (two generations) was estimated at greater 
than 50 percent across all analysis units, ranging from 54 percent to 
57 percent under scenario 1 (RCP 8.5/SSP 5) and 51 percent to 55 
percent under scenario 2 (RCP 4.5/SSP 2). The future impacts on the 
species would most likely include reduced distribution, abundance, and 
range contraction resulting in a reduced ability to withstand 
catastrophic events or adapt to changing environmental

[[Page 68393]]

conditions. The modeling results in the year 2100 (approximately three 
generations) identified continued declines for the species with the 
probability of extirpation estimated at greater than 70 percent in all 
analysis units, ranging from 73 percent to 78 percent under scenario 1 
(RCP 8.5/SSP 5) and 70 percent to 73 percent under scenario 2 (RCP 4.5/
SSP 2) (Gregory and McGowan 2023, entire; Service 2023, pp. 107-110).
    Based on our projections of the future condition for the species in 
the next 50 to 75 years and the ongoing and increased threats to the 
species into the future from anthropogenic impacts, bullfrog predation, 
and increases in drought intensity due to climate change conditions, 
the species will have continued and increasing impacts on its abundance 
and connectivity between populations that will most likely cause the 
species to be increasingly less able to support itself into the future. 
Thus, after assessing the best available information, we conclude that 
the southwestern pond turtle is likely to become in danger of 
extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.

Southwestern Pond Turtle: 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'' (hereafter ``Final 
Policy''; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014) that provided if the Services 
determine that a species is threatened throughout all of its range, the 
Services will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a 
significant portion of its range.
    Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is 
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether 
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the 
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction 
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for 
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question 
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of 
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with 
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to 
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
    Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether 
there are any significant portions of the species' range where the 
species is in danger of extinction now (i.e., endangered). In 
undertaking this analysis for southwestern pond 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 portions of the range where the species 
may be endangered.
    We evaluated the range of the southwestern pond 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 the southwestern pond 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.
    We examined the following threats: habitat impacts, anthropogenic 
impacts, competition, and the effects of climate change, including 
cumulative effects. The current and expected future threat conditions 
and impacts from those threats on the southwestern pond turtle across 
its range are relatively uniform as informed by the modeling efforts 
used to determine the species' current and future conditions (Service 
2023, p. 108, figure 32). The difference in the species' probability of 
extirpation across all analysis units varied only by a maximum of 4 
percent between the highest and lowest analysis unit probabilities for 
both current and future conditions (Service 2023, p. 109, figure 33).
    Based on this information, we found no biologically meaningful 
portion of the southwestern pond 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 southwestern pond turtle's range 
provides a basis for determining that the species is in danger of 
extinction in a significant portion of its range, and we determine that 
the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the 
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict 
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the 
aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of 
``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Southwestern Pond Turtle: Determination of Status

    Our review of the best available scientific and commercial 
information indicates that the southwestern pond turtle meets the 
definition of a threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the 
southwestern pond turtle as a threatened species in accordance with 
sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.

Available Conservation Measures for the Northwestern and Southwestern 
Pond Turtle

    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.

[[Page 68394]]

    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 for each species 
will be available on our website as they are completed (https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species), or from our Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife 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.
    If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost-share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Washington, Oregon, 
Nevada, and California would be eligible for Federal funds to implement 
management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the 
northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle, as applicable to 
each species' range. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/service/financial-assistance.
    Although the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle 
are only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us 
know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for 
these species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new 
information on the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 
turtle whenever it becomes available and any information you may have 
for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7 of the Act is titled Interagency Cooperation and mandates 
all Federal action agencies to use their existing authorities to 
further the conservation purposes of the Act and to ensure that their 
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed 
species or adversely modify critical habitat. Regulations implementing 
section 7 are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
    Section 7(a)(2) states that each Federal action agency shall, in 
consultation with the Secretary, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Each Federal agency shall 
review its action at the earliest possible time to determine whether it 
may affect listed species or critical habitat. If a determination is 
made that the action may affect listed species or critical habitat, 
formal consultation is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)), unless the Service 
concurs in writing that the action is not likely to adversely affect 
listed species or critical habitat. At the end of a formal 
consultation, the Service issues a biological opinion, containing its 
determination of whether the Federal action is likely to result in 
jeopardy or adverse modification.
    In contrast, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies 
to confer with the Service on any action which is likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the 
Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species. Although the 
conference procedures are required only when an action is likely to 
result in jeopardy or adverse modification, action agencies may 
voluntarily confer with the Service on actions that may affect species 
proposed for listing or critical habitat proposed to be designated. In 
the event that the subject species is listed or the relevant critical 
habitat is designated, a conference opinion may be adopted as a 
biological opinion and serve as compliance with section 7(a)(2).
    Examples of discretionary actions for the northwestern pond turtle 
and southwestern pond turtle that may be subject to conference and 
consultation procedures under section 7 are land management or other 
landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the U.S. 
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or 
Department of Defense 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 
local Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) with 
any specific questions on section 7 consultation and conference 
requirements.
    It is the policy of the Services, as published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the extent known 
at the time a species is listed, specific activities that will not be 
considered likely to result in violation of section 9 of the Act. To 
the extent possible, activities that will be considered likely to 
result in violation will also be identified in as specific a manner as 
possible. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of 
the effect of a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities 
within the range of the species proposed for listing. Although most of 
the prohibitions in section 9 of the Act apply to endangered species, 
sections 9(a)(1)(G) and 9(a)(2)(E) of the Act prohibit the violation of 
any regulation under section 4(d) pertaining to any threatened species 
of fish or wildlife, or threatened species of plant, respectively. 
Section 4(d) of the Act

[[Page 68395]]

directs the Secretary to promulgate protective regulations that are 
necessary and advisable for the conservation of threatened species. As 
a result, we interpret our policy to mean that, when we list a species 
as a threatened species, to the extent possible, we identify activities 
that will or will not be considered likely to result in violation of 
the protective regulations under section 4(d) for that species.
    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 Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

II. Proposed Rule Issued Under Section 4(d) of the Act

Background

    Section 4(d) of the Act contains two sentences. The first sentence 
states that the Secretary shall issue such regulations as she deems 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of species 
listed as threatened species. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that 
statutory language similar to the language in section 4(d) of the Act 
authorizing the Secretary to take action that she ``deems necessary and 
advisable'' affords a large degree of deference to the agency (see 
Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 600 (1988)). 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. 
Thus, the combination of the two sentences of section 4(d) provides the 
Secretary with wide latitude of discretion to select and promulgate 
appropriate regulations tailored to the specific conservation needs of 
the threatened species. The second sentence grants particularly broad 
discretion to the Service when adopting one or more of the prohibitions 
under section 9.
    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 proposed 4(d) rule would promote 
conservation of the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 
turtle by encouraging management of the habitat for both species in 
ways that facilitate conservation for each species. The provisions of 
this proposed rule are one of many tools that we would use to promote 
the conservation of the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 
turtle. This proposed 4(d) rule would apply only if and when we make 
final the listing of the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 
turtle as threatened species.
    As mentioned previously in Available Conservation Measures for the 
Northwestern and Southwestern Pond Turtle, section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that any 
action they fund, authorize, 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. In addition, even before the listing 
of any species or the designation of its critical habitat is finalized, 
section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any agency action which is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the Act 
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat proposed to be designated for such species.
    These requirements are the same for a threatened species with a 
species-specific 4(d) rule. For example, as with an endangered species, 
if a Federal agency determines that an action is ``not likely to 
adversely affect'' a threatened species, it will require the Service's 
written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). Similarly, if a Federal agency 
determinates that an action is ``likely to adversely affect'' a 
threatened species, the action will require formal consultation with 
the Service and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR 
402.14(a)).

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Northwestern and 
Southwestern Pond Turtles

    Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act, 
we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the 
northwestern pond turtle's and southwestern pond turtle's conservation 
needs. As discussed previously in Summary of Biological Status and 
Threats, we have concluded that the northwestern pond turtle and 
southwestern pond turtle are likely to become in danger of extinction 
within the foreseeable future primarily due to threats associated with 
the ongoing residual effects of past habitat alteration, increased 
predation from nonnative bullfrogs, and the effects associated with 
climate change. 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 find 
that, if finalized, the protections, prohibitions, and exceptions in 
this proposed 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 northwestern pond turtle and 
southwestern pond turtle.
    The protective regulations we are proposing for the northwestern 
pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle incorporate prohibitions from 
section 9(a)(1) to address the threats to the species. Section 9(a)(1) 
prohibits the following activities for endangered wildlife: 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. This 
protective regulation includes all of

[[Page 68396]]

these prohibitions because the northwestern pond turtle and 
southwestern pond turtle are at risk of extinction in the foreseeable 
future and putting these prohibitions in place will help to prevent 
further declines, preserve the two species' remaining populations, slow 
their rates of decline, and decrease negative effects from other 
ongoing or future threats.
    In particular, this proposed 4(d) rule would provide for the 
conservation of the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 
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 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by 
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating 
take would help preserve the two species' remaining populations and 
potentially slow the two species' future declines. Therefore, we 
propose to prohibit take of the northwestern pond turtle and 
southwestern pond turtle, except for take resulting from those actions 
and activities specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
    Exceptions to the prohibition on take would include all of the 
general exceptions to the prohibition against take of endangered 
wildlife, as set forth in 50 CFR 17.21 and certain other specific 
activities that we propose for exception, as described below.
    The proposed 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of 
the two species by allowing exceptions that incentivize conservation 
actions that, while they may have some minimal level of take of the 
northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond 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 two species' conservation. As 
described in more detail below, the proposed exceptions to these 
prohibitions are expected to have negligible impacts to the 
northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle and their 
habitat.
    We note that the long-term viability of the northwestern pond 
turtle and southwestern pond turtle, as with many wildlife species, is 
intimately tied to the condition of their habitat. As described in our 
analysis of the two species' status, one of the major threats to the 
northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle's continued 
viability is habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation resulting 
from past or current anthropogenic impacts, nonnative bullfrogs, and 
impacts from an increase and intensity of drought conditions. The 
exceptions we have determined are appropriate to include for the 
northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle include: wildfire 
suppression and forest management activities; habitat restoration 
activities specifically identified for the two species otherwise not 
covered under other permitting processes as coordinated with the 
Service; nonnative bullfrog removal; and because the northwestern pond 
turtle and southwestern pond turtle can use various aquatic habitats 
and often take advantage of artificial ponds such as those developed 
for livestock, we are proposing to provide an exception for routine 
ranching activities associated with maintenance of livestock ponds by 
private landowners. The exceptions we are considering are outlined 
below.
    (1) Forest or wildland management activities that are conducted for 
the purpose of and in accordance with an established forest or fuels 
management plan and that include measures that minimize impacts to the 
species and its aquatic habitat for the purposes of reducing the risk 
or severity of catastrophic wildfire or maintaining the minimum 
clearance (defensible space) requirement to provide reasonable fire 
safety and to reduce wildfire risks consistent with State fire codes or 
local fire codes or ordinances. These measures include prescribed 
burns, fuel reduction activities, maintenance of fuel breaks, and 
defensible space maintenance actions.
    (2) Habitat restoration activities conducted as part of 
nonpermitted Federal or State habitat restoration plans that are 
developed in coordination with the Service or the Washington Department 
of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or Nevada Department of 
Wildlife that are for the purpose of northwestern pond turtle and/or 
southwestern pond turtle conservation as appropriate. Measures may 
include enhancement of nesting sites, clearing of pond or stream 
habitat of material associated with debris flows, and improving basking 
areas for the species.
    (3) Nonnative bullfrog removal activities that include bullfrog 
trapping, gigging, shooting with air guns (using nonlead ammunition), 
dipnetting, or hand catching. Activities that disrupt habitat (e.g., 
vegetation removal, dewatering) or that may indiscriminately harm or 
kill wildlife or aquatic organisms (e.g., use of chemicals, electro-
shocking) are not included in this exception. Northwestern pond turtle 
or southwestern pond turtles that are caught alive as part of nonnative 
bullfrog removal must be returned to their source location.
    (4) Routine management and maintenance of livestock ponds, 
including maintenance and management of berms and dams to maintain 
livestock water supplies, by landowners. The intentional introduction 
into a livestock pond of species that may prey on northwestern pond 
turtle or southwestern pond turtle adults, juveniles, or eggs is not 
included in this exception.
    We described above the prohibitions that apply to threatened 
species. We may under certain circumstances issue permits to carry out 
one or more otherwise-prohibited activities. 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.
    We recognize the special and unique relationship 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

[[Page 68397]]

with us in accordance with section 6(c) of the Act, who is designated 
by his or her agency for such purposes, would be able to conduct 
activities designed to conserve the northwestern pond turtle and/or the 
southwestern pond turtle that may result in otherwise prohibited take 
without additional authorization.
    Nothing in this proposed 4(d) rule would 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 our ability to 
enter into partnerships for the management and protection of the 
northwestern pond turtle and/or southwestern pond turtle. However, 
interagency cooperation may be further streamlined through planned 
programmatic consultations for the species between us and other Federal 
agencies, where appropriate. We ask the public, particularly State 
agencies and other interested stakeholders that may be affected by the 
proposed 4(d) rule, to provide comments and suggestions regarding 
additional guidance and methods that we could provide or use, 
respectively, to streamline the implementation of this proposed 4(d) 
rule (see Information Requested, above).

III. Critical Habitat

Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.02 define the geographical area 
occupied by the species as an area that may generally be delineated 
around species' occurrences, as determined by the Secretary (i.e., 
range). Such areas may include those areas used throughout all or part 
of the species' life cycle, even if not used on a regular basis (e.g., 
migratory corridors, seasonal habitats, and habitats used periodically, 
but not solely by vagrant individuals).
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the 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 agency would have already been required 
to consult with the Service even absent the designation because of the 
requirement to ensure that the action is not likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. Even if the Service were to 
conclude after consultation that the proposed activity is likely to 
result in destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat, 
the Federal action agency and the landowner are not required to abandon 
the proposed activity, or to restore or recover the species; instead, 
they must implement ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to avoid 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they 
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the 
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special 
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, those physical or biological features that 
are essential to the conservation of the species (such as space, food, 
cover, and protected habitat).
    Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat, 
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    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

[[Page 68398]]

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 the 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 those planning efforts calls for a 
different outcome.

Critical Habitat Determinability

    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)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle and 
habitat characteristics where the two species are located. A careful 
assessment of the economic impacts that may occur due to a critical 
habitat designation is still ongoing, and we are in the process of 
working with our Federal partners, Tribes, and State and other partners 
in acquiring the complex information needed to perform that assessment. 
Therefore, due to the current lack of data sufficient to perform 
required analyses, we conclude that the designation of critical habitat 
for the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern pond turtle is not 
determinable at this time. The Act allows the Service an additional 
year to publish a critical habitat designation that is not determinable 
at the time of listing (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by E.O.s 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential 
Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This 
means that each rule we publish must:
    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us 
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For 
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs 
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, 
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

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), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's 
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to 
communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a 
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 
3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes. During the development of the SSA report for the western 
pond turtle, we asked for information and concerns from all the 
federally recognized Tribes in the range of the two species in 
Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and California. We did not receive any 
information regarding the western pond turtle from any Tribe. We will 
continue to work with Tribal entities during the development of the 
final rule for listing of the northwestern pond turtle and southwestern 
pond turtle and the designation of critical habitat for the two 
species.

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 Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Species Assessment Team and the 
Service's Ecological Field Offices in the Pacific Northwest and Pacific 
Southwest Regions.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

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

[[Page 68399]]

0
2. In Sec.  17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by adding entries for ``Turtle, northwestern pond'' 
and ``Turtle, southwestern pond'' in alphabetical order under REPTILES 
to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Listing citations and
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed        Status        applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reptiles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Turtle, northwestern pond.......  Actinemys marmorata  Wherever found.....  T            [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR 17.42(p)
                                                                                          \4d\.
Turtle, southwestern pond.......  Actinemys pallida..  Wherever found.....  T            [Federal Register
                                                                                          citation when
                                                                                          published as a final
                                                                                          rule]; 50 CFR 17.42(p)
                                                                                          \4d\.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. As proposed to be amended at 86 FR 62434 (November 9, 2021), Sec.  
17.42 is further amended by adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.42  Special rules--reptiles

* * * * *
    (p) Northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) and Southwestern 
pond turtle (Actinemys pallida).
    (1) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to 
endangered wildlife also apply to the northwestern pond turtle and 
southwestern pond turtle. Except as provided under paragraph (p)(2) of 
this section and Sec. Sec.  17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to commit, to 
attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or cause to be 
committed, any of the following acts in regard to these species:
    (i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(b) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(1) for endangered 
wildlife.
    (iii) Possession and other acts with unlawfully taken specimens, as 
set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife.
    (iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(f) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (2) Exceptions from prohibitions. In regard to these species, you 
may:
    (i) Conduct activities as authorized by a permit under Sec.  17.32.
    (ii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(c)(2) through (c)(4) for 
endangered wildlife.
    (iii) Take, as set forth at Sec.  17.31(b).
    (iv) Possess and engage in other acts with unlawfully taken 
wildlife, as set forth at Sec.  17.21(d)(2) for endangered wildlife.
    (v) Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity caused by:
    (A) Forest or wildland management activities that are conducted for 
the purpose of and in accordance with an established forest or fuels 
management plan and that include measures that minimize impacts to the 
species and its aquatic habitat for the purposes of reducing the risk 
or severity of catastrophic wildfire or maintaining the minimum 
clearance (defensible space) requirement to provide reasonable fire 
safety and to reduce wildfire risks consistent with State fire codes or 
local fire codes or ordinances. These measures include prescribed 
burns, fuel reduction activities, maintenance of fuel breaks, and 
defensible space maintenance actions.
    (B) Habitat restoration activities conducted as part of 
nonpermitted Federal or State habitat restoration plans that are 
developed in coordination with the Service or the Washington Department 
of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or Nevada Department of 
Wildlife that are for the purpose of northwestern pond turtle and/or 
southwestern pond turtle conservation as appropriate.
    (C) Nonnative bullfrog removal activities that include bullfrog 
trapping, gigging, shooting with air guns (using only nonlead 
ammunition), dipnetting, or hand catching. Activities that disrupt 
habitat (e.g., vegetation removal, dewatering) or that may 
indiscriminately harm or kill wildlife or aquatic organisms (e.g., use 
of chemicals, electro-shocking) are not included in the exception in 
this paragraph (p)(2)(v)(C). Northwestern pond turtle and southwestern 
pond turtles that are caught alive as part of nonnative bullfrog 
removal must be returned to their source location.
    (D) Routine management and maintenance of livestock ponds, 
including maintenance and management of berms and dams to maintain 
livestock water supplies, by landowners. The intentional introduction 
into a livestock pond of species that may prey on northwestern pond 
turtle or southwestern pond turtle adults, juveniles, or eggs is not 
included in the exception in this paragraph (p)(2)(v)(D).
* * * * *

Janine Velasco,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-21685 Filed 10-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P