68370 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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-ofcontact 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68372 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68374 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 mid1990s, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP03OC23.010</GPH>

Figure: Range of the Northwestern and Southwestern Pond Turtle. 

NEVADA 

N 

A 

0 50 100 200 300 

•-=~~~~::::~~=MHes Kilometers 

0 100 200 400 

Scale: 1 :12,500,000 

___ __l---

UTAH 

I 

I 

1-------- I --

1 

I 

ARIZONA 

CJ Counties 

CJ States 

l(:;:§_J Ocean 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 speciesspecific 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68376 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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, adults ................. Breeding, feeding, overwintering, sheltering, and dispersal. 

Upland habitat ............. Eggs, hatchlings, juveniles, adults ....... Nesting, overwintering and aestivation, and dispersal. 

Basking sites ............... Hatchlings, juveniles, adults ................. Thermoregulation, physiological functioning, and predator avoidance. 

Aquatic Habitat 

Western pond turtles are semiaquatic, 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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 peerreviewed 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68378 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(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 predam intermittent stream having yearround 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68380 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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; Bru ̈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 (°C) (36 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F)) on a daily basis, with 

nearly half of the eggs reaching 

maximum temperatures of 39 °C (102 °F) 

or greater (Christie and Geist 2017, pp. 

50–51). Site temperatures above 40 °C 

(104 °F) were lethal to 50 percent of 

eggs, and temperatures above 45 °C 

(113 °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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68382 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 stagebased (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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68384 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 quasiextinction 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68386 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68387 

TABLE 2—NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE RESILIENCY RANGES—Continued 

[Probability of extirpation percentages] 

Scenario Year High 

(relevant analysis unit) 

Low 

(relevant analysis unit) 

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-Rı ́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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68388 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 nearterm 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68389 

would be exacerbated as abundance 

declines across analysis units with 

increasing probability of populationlevel 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68390 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68392 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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, selfsustaining, and functioning components 

of their ecosystems. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68394 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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/financialassistance. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 speciesspecific 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68396 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
68398 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

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 speciesspecific 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 

■ 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 3, 2023 / Proposed Rules 68399 

■ 2. In § 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: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and 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. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. As proposed to be amended at 86 

FR 62434 (November 9, 2021), § 17.42 is 

further amended by adding paragraph 

(p) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§§ 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 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession and other acts with 

unlawfully taken specimens, as set forth 

at § 17.21(d)(1) for endangered wildlife. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 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 § 17.32. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(2) 

through (c)(4) for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Take, as set forth at § 17.31(b). 

(iv) Possess and engage in other acts 

with unlawfully taken wildlife, as set 

forth at § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3