Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Sonoyta Mud Turtle, 64829-64843 [2016-22754]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64829-64843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0103; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AZ02


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for Sonoyta Mud Turtle

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
list the Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale), a 
native subspecies from Arizona in the United States and Sonora in 
Mexico, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act 
(Act). If we finalize this rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's 
protections to this subspecies. The effect of this regulation will be 
to add this subspecies to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
November 21, 2016. 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 public 
hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT by November 7, 2016.

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-R2-ES-2016-0103, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 
panel on the left

[[Page 64830]]

side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the 
Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment 
by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2016-0103; U.S. Fish & Wildlife 
Service Headquarters, MS: BPHC, 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 Public Comments below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 
9828 North 31st Ave. #C3, Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517, by telephone 602-242-
0210 or by facsimile 602-242-2513. Persons who use a telecommunications 
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay 
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish 
a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our 
proposal within one year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to 
be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species 
as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions 
of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule. We will be 
providing a proposal to designate critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud 
turtle under the Act in the near future.
    Our proposed determination. This document proposes the listing of 
the Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale) as an 
endangered species. The Sonoyta mud turtle is currently a candidate 
species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological 
vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, 
but for which development of a listing regulation has been precluded by 
other higher priority listing activities. This proposed rule reassesses 
all available information regarding status of and threats to the 
Sonoyta mud turtle.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a 
species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five 
factors after taking into account those efforts to protect such 
species: (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 Factors A (reduction or 
loss of water availability; reduction or loss of riparian habitat 
components; reduction or loss of invertebrate prey), C (nonnative 
predators), and E (climate change) are and will continue to affect the 
populations of Sonoyta mud turtle. The Act defines the term ``species'' 
to include any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants.
    We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider 
all comments and information received during the comment period, our 
final determinations may differ from this proposal.
    To provide the necessary and most up-to-date information and 
background on which to base our determination, we completed a Species 
Status Assessment Report for the Sonoyta mud turtle (SSA Report; 
Service 2016, entire), which is available online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0103. The SSA Report 
documents the results of the comprehensive biological status review for 
the Sonoyta mud turtle and provides an account of the subspecies' 
overall viability through the forecasting of the condition of surviving 
populations into the future (Service 2016, entire). In the SSA Report, 
we summarized the relevant biological data, described the past, 
present, and likely future risk factors (causes and effects), and 
conducted an analysis of the viability of the subspecies. The SSA 
Report provides the scientific basis that informs our regulatory 
decision regarding whether this subspecies should be listed under the 
Act. This decision involves the application of standards within the 
Act, its implementing regulations, and Service policies (see Finding). 
The SSA Report contains the risk analysis on which this finding is 
based, and the following discussion is a summary of the results and 
conclusions from the SSA Report. Species experts and appropriate 
agencies provided input into the development of the SSA Report. 
Additionally, we will invite peer reviewers to provide a review of the 
SSA Report.

Information Requested

Public Comments

    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 the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, 
or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We 
particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The Sonoyta mud turtle's biology, range, and population trends, 
including:
    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including 
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;
    (c) Historical and current range including distribution patterns;
    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and 
projected trends; and
    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its 
habitat or both.
    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, 
which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, 
disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, 
or other natural or manmade factors.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations 
that may be addressing those threats.
    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (5) Information related to climate change within the range the 
Sonoyta mud turtle and how it may affect the species' habitat.
    (6) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as 
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.).
    (7) The following specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Sonoyta mud 
turtle.
    (b) What areas, that are currently occupied and that contain the 
physical

[[Page 64831]]

and biological features essential to the conservation of the Sonoyta 
mud turtle, should be included in a critical habitat designation and 
why.
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat areas, 
including managing for the potential effects of climate change.
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why.
    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.
    Also please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you 
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
    If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your 
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will 
be posted on the Web site. 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, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we have sought the 
expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent 
specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is 
to ensure that our listing determination is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. The peer reviewers have 
expertise in the Sonoyta mud turtle's biology, habitat, physical or 
biological factors, or threats. We are inviting comment from the peer 
reviewers during this public comment period.

Previous Federal Actions

    We identified the Sonoyta mud turtle as a candidate species with a 
listing priority number (LPN) of 3 in the annual Candidate Notice of 
Review (CNOR) on September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398). Candidates are those 
fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient 
information on biological vulnerability and threats to support 
preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a 
listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing 
activities. We reaffirmed the Sonoyta mud turtle's candidate status in 
subsequent annual CNORs (64 FR 57534, October 25, 1999; 66 FR 54808, 
October 30, 2001; 67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 
70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 
69033, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75175, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, 
November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; and 76 FR 66370, 
October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 
22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; and 80 FR 80585, December 24, 
2015). In 2012, based on a change in the timing of the threat from the 
reduction of surface water to non-imminent, we changed the Sonoyta mud 
turtle LPN from 3 to 6, which reflects a subspecies with threats that 
are non-imminent and high in magnitude. We retained an LPN of 6 through 
the latest CNOR.
    On May 4, 2004, we received a petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity and others (petitioners) requesting the Service to 
list 225 plants and animals as endangered under the Endangered Species 
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including the Sonoyta mud 
turtle and to designate critical habitat. On September 9, 2011, the 
Service entered into two settlement agreements regarding species on the 
candidate list at that time (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline 
Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 
2011)). This proposed rule fulfills that requirement of those 
settlement agreements for the Sonoyta mud turtle. We will also be 
providing a proposal to designate critical habitat for the Sonoyta mud 
turtle under the Act in the near future.

Background

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an 
endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the five 
enumerated factors, and taking into account the effect of conservation 
measures. The Act defines the term ``species'' to include any 
subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants. We completed a comprehensive 
evaluation of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and biological 
status of the Sonoyta mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense 
longifemorale), and we provide a thorough assessment of the species' 
overall viability in the SSA Report (Service 2016, pp. 4-5; available 
at https://www.regulations.gov and the Arizona Ecological Services 
Office https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/).

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The Sonoyta mud turtle is one of two recognized subspecies of 
Sonora mud turtle (Kinosternon sonoriense) and has been differentiated 
from the other subspecies based on morphometric (shape or form of 
organism) analysis of shell measurements and mitochondrial DNA analysis 
(Iverson 1981, p. 62; Rosen 2003, entire; Rosen et al. 2006, entire). 
The other subspecies, K. s. sonoriense, is commonly referred to as 
Sonora mud turtle. Figure 1 below depicts the location of each 
subspecies. The Sonoyta mud turtle is a dark, medium-sized freshwater 
turtle with a mottled pattern on the head, neck, and limbs. The Sonoyta 
mud turtle is an isolated, native endemic (found in certain areas) of 
southern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. At Quitobaquito, annual 
survivorship of adults (7-12 years old) and juveniles (<7 years old) 
has been estimated by Rosen and Lowe (1996, p. 23) and Riedle et al. 
(2012, p. 187) with similar results. Male survivorship ranged from 
0.83-0.95, female survivorship ranged from 0.85-

[[Page 64832]]

0.95, and juvenile survivorship was lower than adult survivorship with 
a gradual transition to higher survivorship as turtles moved towards 
adulthood (Riedle et al. 2012, p. 187; Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 23).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21SE16.002

    Sonoyta mud turtles occur in areas of an arid environment that 
commonly experience drought and extreme heat (ambient temperatures can 
exceed 45 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (113 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F))) 
and in order to survive and complete life-history functions need both 
perennial sources of water with aquatic vegetation and riparian areas 
with moist soil. Sonoyta mud turtles spend most of their time in water 
because water is essential to survival of individuals, as it provides 
food and prevents desiccation. Water is also needed to provide moisture 
for soil in riparian areas needed for nesting and estivation (spending 
time in a prolonged state of torpor or dormancy) during drought. 
Lastly, water with aquatic vegetation is needed to support invertebrate 
prey and provide shelter from predators. Sonoyta mud turtles are 
primarily opportunistic carnivores feeding on a variety of 
invertebrates that are on the bottom of ponds and streams or attached 
to submerged vegetation. In habitat with poor invertebrate fauna they 
will also feed on small vertebrates, carrion, and plants (Hulse 1974, 
pp. 197-198; Lovich et al. 2010, pp. 135-136; Rosen 1986, pp. 14 & 31; 
Rosen and Lowe 1996a, pp. 32-35; Stanila et al. 2008, p. 345).
    Sonoyta mud turtles are found in stream channels, and natural and 
manmade ponds. Water in ponds is supplied by either springs or human 
waste-water effluent. Aquatic habitat in ponds and stream channels is 
usually shallow (to 2 meters (m) (7 feet (ft)), with a rocky or sandy 
bottom and aquatic, emergent vegetation. Hatchlings, juveniles, and 
subadults prefer shallow water with dense aquatic vegetation and 
overhanging vegetation along the stream channel or pond margin that 
provides foraging opportunities as well as protection from

[[Page 64833]]

predators. Adults prefer water with complex structure including 
overhanging vegetation along the stream channel or pond margin but also 
deeper sections of ponds where they forage for benthic invertebrates 
along the bottom.
    Terrestrial habitat of Sonoyta mud turtles is characterized by 
riparian vegetation with moist soil that surrounds a pond or lines a 
stream channel, and occurs along the banks of ponds and streams, as 
well as in intermittently dry sections of the stream channel itself. 
Sonoyta mud turtles in dry or low surface water reaches will either 
travel along intermittent dry sections of a stream channel to find 
water or they will estivate. Riparian vegetation provides some level of 
protection from predators while turtles are out of the water, and it 
also creates a microclimate that supports moist soil. Moist soil is 
needed to prevent desiccation of adults and juveniles while traveling 
between wetted sites or during estivation. Terrestrial estivation sites 
consist of depressions under vegetation, soil, or organic matter; in 
rock crevices; or in soil burrows under overhanging banks of streams or 
ponds. Sonoyta mud turtles can endure lack of surface water for a short 
time by estivating, but prolonged and recurrent estivation will reduce 
fitness and increase mortality over the long term. Riparian vegetation 
and corresponding moist soil are also needed for nest sites. In mid to 
late July through September, females leave the water briefly to lay 
eggs in terrestrial nests that maintain some level of moisture such as 
vegetation litter, soil burrows, or possibly even in rock crevices. The 
SSA Report has more detailed discussion of our evaluation of the 
biological status of the Sonoyta mud turtle and the influences that may 
affect its continued existence.
    The Sonoyta mud turtle was historically found only in the Rio 
Sonoyta basin in Arizona and Sonora, Mexico (Figure 3.1.1.a. in the SSA 
Report). There were likely four populations of the Sonoyta mud turtle 
distributed throughout the Rio Sonoyta basin in Arizona and Sonora (SSA 
Report Figure 3.1.1.b.). One population was located at Quitobaquito in 
southern Arizona in an area that is now within the Organ Pipe Cactus 
National Monument. This population is north of the Rio Sonoyta, but 
fossil spring deposits to the west of Quitobaquito Springs indicate 
that, during floods or in times of greater natural flow, water filled 
an adjacent wash and likely established a connection to the Rio Sonoyta 
(Miller and Fuiman 1987, p. 603). The other three populations occurred 
in distinct perennial reaches of the Rio Sonoyta in Sonora, Mexico, 
just south of the U.S.-Mexico border. These included the Papalote 
reach, Santo Domingo reach, and Sonoyta reach of Rio Sonoyta. The Rio 
Sonoyta probably flowed continuously for short periods during the wet 
season providing connectivity for mud turtles allowing for immigration 
and emigration and then retracted during the dry season. This 
assumption is based on our understanding of the historical literature 
of hydrological conditions in the period 1854-1936 (Rosen et al. 2010, 
p. 146). These three distinct perennial reaches of the Rio Sonoyta 
(Papalote reach, Santo Domingo reach, and Sonoyta reach) together 
likely provided 19-27 km (11.8-16.8 mi) of stream habitat for the 
Sonoyta mud turtle (Table 1.). This amount is estimated from measuring 
maps in the historical literature of hydrological conditions in the 
period 1854-1936 (Rosen et al. 2010, p. 146). The best available 
commercial and scientific data does not indicate any additional 
populations.
    Currently, there are five extant populations. The Quitobaquito 
Springs population in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, is 
extant (National Park Service (NPS) 2015, p. 1). Populations in the 
Papalote reach and Sonoyta reach (now Xochimilco reach) of Rio Sonoyta 
are extant, but perennial water flow in their reaches are reduced. The 
historical population in the Santo Domingo reach of the Rio Sonoyta is 
now likely extirpated due to loss of perennial surface water (P. Rosen, 
pers. comm., 2016; Rosen 3004, pp. 4-5). The Sonoyta sewage lagoon and 
Quitovac populations in Mexico were historically unknown and recently 
found by Knowles et al. 2002 (p. 74) investigating potential new turtle 
habitats in and around the Rio Sonoyta basin. Turtles were reported in 
the Sonoyta sewage lagoon in October 2001 (Knowles et al. 2002, p. 4); 
turtles either dispersed there from the upstream Xochimilco reach or 
were released by humans soon after the sewage lagoon came into 
operation in 1994. The Sonoyta sewage lagoon population is in the town 
of Sonoyta adjacent to the Rio Sonoyta. The Sonoyta sewage lagoon is a 
settling pond for raw wastewater from the town of Sonoyta. Sonoyta mud 
turtles were also discovered in spring runs and ponds at Quitovac in 
March 2002 (Knowles et al. 2002, p. 72). Quitovac is located about 40 
km (25 mi) southwest of the town of Sonoyta and outside of the Rio 
Sonoyta basin, in the Rio Guadalupe basin. It is unclear when this 
population was established, and geography suggests that the turtle 
population may have resulted from human introduction of turtles.
    The perennial water supporting all five turtle populations has been 
reduced, and all populations are small and isolated. Discharge from 
Quitobaquito springs has diminished by 42 percent over the past 35 
years with 5,500 cubic feet (cf)/day average discharge measured in the 
period 1981-1992 down to 3,157 cf/day measured from 2005-present 
(Carruth 1996, pp. 13, 21; Peter Holm, pers. comm., 2016). Thus far, 
declining spring flow has been associated with < 30 centimeters (cm) 
(12 inches (in)) of surface water level decline at the pond, the depth 
of which ranges from 81 to 94 cm (32 to 37 inches). Today, the five 
Sonoyta mud turtle populations are isolated from one another even more 
than they used to be historically because the lengths of the distinct 
perennial reaches in the Rio Sonoyta have contracted. The perennial 
waters in these reaches have decreased by 80 to 92 percent from 19-27 
km (11.8-16.8 mi) historically to approximately 1.5-5.5 km (0.9-3.4 mi) 
currently (Table 1. Historical and Current Population Data below, and 
Figure 3.1.1 of the SSA Report). Periodic movement between populations 
in the Rio Sonoyta basin may occur during periods of high rainfall, but 
the extent of immigration and emigration of turtles is unknown. 
However, we assume that movement among populations is rare to limited 
due to distances between populations coupled with limited hydrological 
connection. The Quitovac population is outside of the Rio Sonoyta 
watershed, in the Rio Guadalupe basin, and has no present-day 
hydrological connection to the Rio Sonoyta.
    Table 1 lists the status and condition of each population. We 
believe that the historical locations of the Sonoyta mud turtle 
occurred in the areas of the Rio Sonoyta basin that maintained 
perennial surface water via springs fed by ground water and that these 
locations may no longer have reliable water to support mud turtles 
(Paredes-Aguilar and Rosen 2003, p. 2; Rosen et al. 2010, p. 155).

[[Page 64834]]



                                                            Table 1--Historical and Current Population Data of the Sonoyta Mud Turtle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Abundance                                                  Distribution
                                                      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            Historical                             Current
            Location                 Land ownership                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------      Status
                                                              Historical               Current         Perennial stream km      Perennial stream km
                                                                                                               (mi)                     (mi)                 Area ha (ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               AZ
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quitobaquito....................  Organ Pipe Cactus    Several hundred in 1950s  2015 = 141  25.                                  (-0.15)................  (0.67).................
                                                                                 Avg = 110 \1\.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Mexico
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Sonoyta:
    Papalote Reach (or the Agua   Mexican NPS, Rio     unknown.................  2003 = >100, low    5-6....................  1.5 to 3...............  pool size 2-4.5 m\2\...  Extant.
     Dulce).                       Sonoyta, Pinacate                              density.           (3.1-3.7)..............  (0.9-1.9)..............  (22-48 ft\2\)..........
                                   Biosphere Reserve.                            Now = unknown.....
    Santo Domingo...............  Ejido Josefa Ortiz   unknown.................  0.................  4-6....................  0......................  .......................  Extirpated.
                                   de Dominguez.                                                     (2.5-3.7)..............
    Sonoyta Reach (reduced to     Town of Sonoyta....  unknown.................  2002 = ~345.......  10-15..................  0 to 2.5...............  pool size 10-48 m\2\...  Extant.
     Xochimilco Reach).                                                          Now = unknown.....  (6.2-9.3)..............  (0-1.6)................  (107-516 ft\2\)........
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rio Sonoyta Total.......  ...................  ........................  ..................  19-27
                                                                                                     (11.8-16.8)............
    Sonoyta Sewage Lagoon.......  Town of Sonoyta....  N/A.....................  N/A...............  N/A....................  N/A....................  >5.....................  Extant.
                                                                                                                                                       (>12.3)................
    Quitovac....................  Quitovac y su anexo  N/A.....................  2002 = ~200.......  N/A....................  N/A....................  >1.....................  Extant.
                                   el Chujubabi.                                                                                                       (>2.5).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimates from Quitobaquito include adults only; no young-of-the-year are included. This average is from 2001 to 2015.

    For the Sonoyta mud turtle to maintain viability, its populations, 
or some portion of its populations, must be resilient enough to 
withstand stochastic events such as fluctuations in water levels, 
habitat modification, and introduction of nonnative predators. In a 
highly resilient Sonoyta mud turtle population, turtles are able to 
complete their life functions and breeding is successful enough to 
maintain a population that is able to withstand stochastic events. 
Influencing these population factors are elements of Sonoyta mud turtle 
habitat (surface water availability, amount of riparian habitat and 
benthic invertebrates, and lack of nonnative predators) that determine 
whether survivorship among age classes is achieved in Sonoyta mud 
turtle populations, thereby increasing the resiliency of populations. 
Population resiliency categories for the Sonoyta mud turtle are 
described in Table 3.3.1. of the SSA Report, and habitat factors used 
to develop these resiliency levels are discussed below and outlined in 
Table 3.4.2. of the SSA Report. As discussed below, water is the 
primary limiting factor, and, therefore, water drives the condition of 
each population.
    Representation in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is 
important to maintain the Sonoyta mud turtle's capacity to adapt to 
future environmental changes. Genetic investigations (Rosen 2003, pp. 
8-13; Rosen et al. 2006, p. 10) indicate the subspecies exhibits some 
level of genetic diversity among populations at Quitobaquito, in the 
Papalote reach and the Xochimilco reach of the Rio Sonoyta, and at 
Quitovac. The population in the Sonoyta sewage lagoon was not sampled, 
so we have no information on genetics of this population. Exchange of 
genetic material between Quitobaquito and populations along the Rio 
Sonoyta is unlikely due to lack of hydrological connection. Exchange of 
genetic material among populations of the Rio Sonoyta is likely a rare 
event limited to instances when a mud turtle may move during the wet 
season if there are prolonged periods of precipitation that cause a 
high flow event along the Rio Sonoyta or connects these populations by 
providing stepping stones of wetted habitat through which mud turtles 
could move or disperse.
    The Sonoyta mud turtle historically occupied habitat in two 
ecological settings including cienegas (a spring that is usually a wet, 
marshy area at the foot of a mountain, in a canyon, or on the edge of a 
grassland where ground water bubbles to the surface) and streams, both 
supported by ground water via springs. Currently, there are still 
populations within stream habitat but all the cienegas have either 
dried completely or been modified from their natural state. There are 
also two manmade impoundments that were created to capture spring flow 
that now support Sonoyta mud turtles. Currently, the Sonoyta mud turtle 
exhibits genetic and ecological diversity. Maintaining representation 
in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is important to maintain 
the Sonoyta mud turtle's capacity to adapt to future environmental 
changes. The loss of Quitobaquito, Quitovac, and either Rio Sonoyta 
Papalote or Rio Sonoyta Xochimilco populations would reduce the 
representation for the species.
    Redundancy describes the ability of a species to withstand 
catastrophic events. Measured by the number of populations, their 
resiliency, and their distribution (and connectivity), redundancy 
gauges the probability that the species has a margin of safety to 
withstand or can bounce back from catastrophic events (such as a rare 
destructive natural event or episode involving one or more 
populations). The Sonoyta mud turtle needs multiple resilient 
populations spread over their range distributed in such a way that a 
catastrophic event will not result in the loss of all populations. 
Currently four of the populations are spread throughout a small area of 
the Rio Sonoyta basin, and one population is in the northern part of 
the Rio Guadalupe basin. It is possible that a catastrophic event such 
as severe drought could impact three of

[[Page 64835]]

the five populations--Papalote reach, Xochimilco reach, and 
Quitobaquito. Conversely, catastrophic events such as disease would not 
likely impact multiple populations since the hydrological connection 
among populations is limited or nonexistent. While there could be rare 
or limited movement of individuals between populations, all populations 
are isolated in terms of one population being able to repopulate 
another should one be lost due to a catastrophic event.
    The Service evaluated the stressors affecting the conservation 
status of the Sonoyta mud turtle, which include water loss, loss of 
riparian habitat, amount of invertebrate prey, presence of nonnative 
species, and land management activities incompatible with maintaining 
needed habitat (such as dredging). Of these stressors, water loss 
caused by drought and ground water pumping, both of which are 
exacerbated by climate change, and changes to wastewater infrastructure 
are the primary activities impacting the Sonoyta mud turtle. The other 
stressors to the Sonoyta mud turtle include the loss of invertebrate 
prey and presence of nonnative species. These stressors can be additive 
in terms of effects to populations that are already stressed by water 
loss. The following is a summary of these stressors affecting the 
Sonoyta mud turtle. These stressors are described in detail in Appendix 
A of the SSA Report.
    Ground water pumping impacts the amount of surface water in 
habitats used by Sonoyta mud turtles because the perennial sections of 
the Rio Sonoyta as well as the pond at Quitobaquito and Quitovac are 
supplied by ground water. As with all streams, the Rio Sonoyta exists 
in an area where runoff has concentrated into a definable channel. In 
most of the Rio Sonoyta, the channel cuts into dry soils, so that flow 
is ephemeral and only in response to precipitation. In the Papalote and 
Xochimilco reaches of the Rio Sonoyta where Sonoyta mud turtles live, 
the defined channel intersects regional ground water held in storage, 
the ground water saturates streamside channel bottom soils, and water 
is discharged to the stream. In a hypothetical, unaffected system, 
equilibrium exists so that recharge and discharge volumes of water are 
equal. When pumping occurs in such a ground water system, it alters 
this equilibrium so that less water is available for discharge to the 
stream and springs and reduces the amount of surface water available to 
the Sonoyta mud turtle.
    Ground water can also reach the ground surface outside of a stream 
channel via springs like those that supply water to habitats of the 
Sonoyta mud turtle at Quitobaquito and Quitovac. Quitobaquito Springs 
is likely supplied by ground water but is considered somewhat isolated 
from the regional aquifer in the Sonoyta Valley (Carruth 1996, pp. 14, 
18). It is possible that there is a connection between the two systems 
so that Quitobaquito Springs could experience a delayed effect by an 
increase in ground water drawdown occurring in Mexico (Carruth 1996, p. 
21). Discharge from Quitobaquito Springs has diminished by 42 percent 
over the past 35 years with 5,500 cf/day average discharge measured 
from 1981-1992 down to 3,157 cf/day measured from 2005-present (Carruth 
1996, pp. 13, 21; Peter Holm, pers. comm., 2016). Reasons for this 
decrease are unknown.
    Human demands on ground water in the Rio Sonoyta basin include 
agriculture and municipal use to support a growing population, both of 
which are almost wholly dependent on ground water. Irrigated 
agriculture is widespread in the Rio Sonoyta Valley, and continued 
development in the towns of Sonoyta and Lukeville is placing increased 
demands on limited ground water availability. Potential ground water 
use in the Rio Sonoyta watershed is greater than the estimated recharge 
rate. Based on total number of wells installed along the Rio Sonoyta, 
existing capacity for wells to withdraw water is six times the ground 
water recharge (Pearson and Connor 2000, p. 388). Although we do not 
have any recent observations of actual ground water use, we can assume 
that ground water pumping currently exceeds recharge based on negative 
trends of depth to ground water measured from 1992 to 2010 at Organ 
Pipe Cactus National Monument in wells that are close to the 
agricultural zone of Sonoyta, Sonora (OPCNM 2011, p. 8).
    At Quitovac, there are five springs that provide water to the 
impounded pond. The pond at Quitovac is used for watering small numbers 
of livestock and irrigating fruit trees (Aguirre and Rosen 2003, p. 11; 
USFWS files). One of the five springs at Quitovac was not flowing into 
the pond during a visit to the site in 2015 (D. Duncan, pers. obs., 
2015). There has also been gold mining in the area surrounding 
Quitovac, and mine exploration and development continue, all of which 
require water. In addition, surface water diversion for agriculture has 
occurred in the past and is likely to continue into the future. The 
Quitovac population is in the Rio Guadalupe basin and, therefore, not 
likely affected by ground water pumping in the Rio Sonoyta. While 
ground water pumping could occur in this basin in the future, we 
currently have no information indicating the likelihood. Land 
management actions, such as dredging, also impact the Quitovac 
population. Partial dredging of the pond has occurred at least twice 
(Nabhan et al. 1982, p. 130; Nabhan 2008, p. 252; USFWS files). During 
a visit to the site on June 3, 2015, after the pond and spring heads 
had been completely excavated by dredging, only a single turtle with a 
damaged shell was found at the spring head (D. Duncan, pers. obs., 
2015).
    The surface water necessary for habitat of the subspecies generally 
is fed by ground water recharge. This recharge comes from infiltration 
of precipitation along mountain fronts and in ephemeral channels. 
However, drought conditions that have persisted for the past 20 years 
have likely contributed to decreased ground water recharge in the Rio 
Sonoyta basin and Rio Guadalupe basin. Decreased precipitation and 
increased evaporation related to increased duration of drought 
conditions have contributed to reduced surface water available to 
support the subspecies at all population sites. Climate model 
projections predict a shift to increasing dryness in the Southwest as 
early as 2021-2040 (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181). Streamflow is 
predicted to decrease in the Southwest even if precipitation were to 
increase moderately (Nash and Gleick 1993, State of New Mexico 2005, 
Hoerling and Eischeid 2007) because warmer surface air temperatures 
lead to increased evaporation, increased evapotranspiration, and 
decreased soil moisture. These three factors would lead to decreased 
streamflow even if precipitation increased moderately (Garfin 2005, 
Seager et al. 2007). The effect of decreased streamflow is that streams 
become smaller, intermittent, or dry, and thereby reduce the amount of 
habitat available for Sonoyta mud turtles. A smaller stream is affected 
more by air temperature than a larger one, exacerbating the effects of 
both warm and cold air temperatures (Smith and Lavis 1975). Although 
Sonoyta mud turtles evolved in an extremely arid climate and have 
survived drought in the past, it is anticipated that a prolonged, 
intense drought would affect all populations, in particular those 
occupying the Rio Sonoyta, which is likely to become entirely 
ephemeral.
    Habitat for the subspecies requires riparian vegetation, which is 
also dependent on surface water and ground water recharge. When ground 
water discharge is of sufficient volume to saturate streamside areas, 
riparian

[[Page 64836]]

vegetation develops. This occurrence also extends to manmade ponds 
created to capture ground water discharge. The extent and persistence 
of this vegetation depends on the depth to ground water. In the case of 
the perennial sections of the Rio Sonoyta as well as the ponds at 
Quitobaquito and Quitovac, riparian vegetation has established where 
its root systems can reach the alluvial ground water. The use of water 
by the riparian vegetation (evapotranspiration) is itself a discharge 
of ground water, and can even affect surface flow in the adjacent 
stream or surface level in a pond. Because ground water extraction in 
the Rio Sonoyta basin continues to reduce depth to ground water, 
riparian vegetation has likely been reduced in the Rio Sonoyta, and 
streamside areas are now occupied by drought-tolerant plants, which 
generally lack the same ecological value of riparian vegetation.
    Riparian vegetation is associated with increased ecological site 
conditions; organic matter produced by plants is a major contributor to 
soil development, structure, and moisture. The below-ground component 
of riparian vegetation further enhances floodplain and bank water 
storage because root growth, and subsequent root decay, creates 
conditions that increase rates of infiltration of rainwater and 
floodwater, thereby enhancing ground water recharge and base-flow 
replenishment. Riparian vegetation, despite its own water use, also 
moderates the direct evaporation of water from a stream or pond. Open 
water in Sonoyta mud turtle habitats likely exhibits relatively high 
evaporation compared to areas shaded by riparian overstory (Goodrich et 
al. 2000, pp. 292-293). Riparian vegetation surrounding water features 
provides essential habitat for all life stages of turtles. As riparian 
vegetation dies due to declining ground water, the physical and 
biological processes are reversed and a cascade of interconnected 
impacts begins. Dead trees decompose and no longer stabilize floodplain 
soils, which are then readily eroded away. The loss of floodplain soils 
and their ability to store flood waters reduces the gradual release of 
post-flood infiltrated water back to the stream, further reducing 
surface flows. Reductions in riparian habitat will also decrease 
subsurface moisture needed for nesting sites; drought refuge for 
hatchlings, juvenile and adult turtles; and shelter from large flooding 
events for juvenile and adult turtles. Decreased riparian vegetation 
will lead to deterioration of the microclimate that provides soil 
moisture to nest sites and burrows. (See Section 4.2 and Appendix A of 
the SSA Report).
    In addition to loss of habitat associated with ground water pumping 
and drought in the Rio Sonoyta basin, changes to wastewater 
infrastructure in the town of Sonoyta have reduced surface water 
available in the Xochimilco reach of the Rio Sonoyta, but increased 
habitat for the subspecies in the Sonoyta sewage lagoon. Most of the 
wastewater that used to be discharged directly into the Xochimilco 
reach and provided a constant source of surface water that maintained 
perennial flow in this reach is now redirected to the Sonoyta sewage 
lagoon. Wastewater runoff is now likely limited to individual 
homesteads. Consequently, surface water available for Sonoyta mud 
turtles is greatly reduced in the Xochimilco reach of the Rio Sonoyta. 
It is likely that there is always a small pool of water in or near the 
dam site at Xochimilco, either from springs or urban wastewater from 
individual homesteads atop the arroyo wall. When wastewater that used 
to contribute surface water to the Xochimilco reach was redirected to 
the Sonoyta sewage lagoon, the amount of perennial water for Sonoyta 
mud turtles increased at the lagoon.
    Sonoyta mud turtles continue to persist at the Sonoyta sewage 
lagoon, and this site is not subject to effects of ground water 
withdrawal and drought due to a consistent inflow of wastewater. The 
Sonoyta sewage lagoon is within the floodplain of the Rio Sonoyta, and 
might contribute some level of recharge to the Rio Sonoyta basin 
through seepage and outflow. There is a high likelihood that the sewage 
lagoon in the town of Sonoyta will be replaced by a new wastewater 
treatment plant about 2.4 km (1.5 mi) northwest of the existing sewage 
lagoon in the next few years. Efforts will be made to translocate as 
many Sonoyta mud turtles as possible to the new wastewater facility 
from the sewage lagoon; however, it is unknown what amount this will 
be. The new wastewater treatment plant will serve an additional 35 
percent of the town of Sonoyta's residences and will, therefore, be 
larger overall. However, the habitat available to Sonoyta mud turtles 
will be reduced by more than 75 percent. There will be a greater number 
of lagoons at the new wastewater treatment plant, but only one will be 
unlined and provide habitat for the Sonoyta mud turtle. Lining 
precludes the development of habitat for Sonoyta mud turtles including 
aquatic and riparian vegetation (See Figure 3.2.1 of the SSA Report). 
This unlined pond will provide less than 25 percent of the habitat that 
is currently present at the Sonoyta sewage lagoon.
    Effluent flowing through the new wastewater treatment facility will 
be discharged into the Rio Sonoyta. This activity could improve 
recharge of ground water and create perennial flow in the river 
immediately downstream of the new wastewater treatment plant, which in 
turn would provide additional habitat to the subspecies, although the 
extent is unknown. Based on the persistence of turtles at the Sonoyta 
sewage lagoon and increased wastewater volume to the new wastewater 
treatment plant, we would expect that turtles at the new wastewater 
treatment plant would also persist. Overall, wastewater from the town 
of Sonoyta will continue to provide a perennial water source that 
should continue to support one population of the Sonoyta mud turtle; 
however, since the available habitat is reduced by more than 75 
percent, the population size will likely be reduced.
    Reduced surface water and associated decrease in riparian 
vegetation, regardless of the cause, shrinks overall habitat amount and 
quality causing crowding and increased competition for limited 
resources (Stanila 2009 p. 45). Lack of surface water for a short time 
outside the typical dry season may be endured by individual Sonoyta mud 
turtles periodically, but multiple years without sufficient perennial 
water will reduce fitness and increase mortality. Sonoyta mud turtles 
in drying pond habitats or low surface water reaches will burrow in 
banks to escape desiccation for a short period of time. After time, 
burrows themselves may become too dry, turtles will lose fat reserves 
due to lack of foraging opportunity, females may not have viable eggs 
due to lack of nutrition and fat reserves, and eventually turtles will 
die from either starvation or desiccation. Potential population level 
impacts from reduced surface water and drought include lower 
reproductive rates, reduced recruitment, reduced population growth 
rate, or changes in distribution.
    Decreasing availability of prey is another factor tied to surface 
water availability and corresponding loss of habitat that may impact 
the subspecies. We have very limited information on prey availability 
for the known populations of mud turtles. However, a reduction in 
surface water will impact the amount of aquatic invertebrate prey 
available and result in increased competition for prey. Aquatic 
invertebrates, the primary food source for Sonoyta mud turtles, need 
surface water and emergent vegetation to

[[Page 64837]]

survive and complete their life-history functions. Water permanence 
will affect the diversity of invertebrate prey available for mud 
turtles, with ephemeral habitats having lower invertebrate diversity 
than intermittent or perennial habitats (Stanila 2009, p. 38). A 
reduction in water and emergent vegetation due to ground water pumping 
will reduce the amount of aquatic invertebrate prey for Sonoyta mud 
turtles. Adequate prey allows juvenile turtles to grow rapidly before 
becoming adults and allows adults to have sufficient lipid content to 
support reproduction. Poor body condition (i.e., low lipids) may be 
associated with lower clutch size (total number of eggs produced) and, 
therefore, lower population growth (Rosen and Lowe 1996, pp. 40-43).
    There are also native fish at Quitobaquito that may compete with 
turtles for invertebrate prey. Stomach analysis of turtles at 
Quitobaquito revealed animals were primarily consuming young shoots of 
bulrush even though benthic invertebrates were present in the aquatic 
system. Rosen and Lowe (1996, pp. 32, 41) thought that turtles may not 
be consuming invertebrates due to competition with native subspecies of 
desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius eremus) found at Quitobaquito. 
Desert pupfish are well known to feed on many of the same invertebrates 
that Sonoran mud turtles consume (Rosen and Lowe 1996, p. 41). Pupfish 
densities at Quitobaquito are similar or greater than the density used 
in an experimental pond study that demonstrated strong effects of 
desert pupfish on aquatic invertebrate abundance, so that competition 
between Sonoyta mud turtles and desert pupfish is plausible (Rosen and 
Lowe, p. 41).
    Similarly, like competition with desert pupfish, the establishment 
of nonnative aquatic vertebrate species may also affect future 
persistence of the Sonoyta mud turtle. Currently two of the five 
populations of Sonoyta mud turtles exist with some nonnative species 
present. Black bullheads and western mosquitofish were introduced to 
the Rio Sonoyta Papalote reach, and blue tilapia were introduced at 
Quitovac. These species are now established at these two sites (Rosen 
et al. 2010, pp. 153-154; Minkley et al. 2013, p. 289). All of these 
fish species likely compete with Sonoyta mud turtles for benthic 
invertebrates or alter the invertebrate community so that benthic 
invertebrates are reduced. Other nonnative aquatic species including 
American bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), crayfish (Orconectes spp. 
and Cherax spp.), large sunfish (centrarchids), and exotic turtles such 
as red-eared sliders (Trachemys scripta elegans) are not currently 
present in areas occupied by the Sonoyta mud turtle, but could be 
released and become established, as they have been in many Sonoran mud 
turtle populations in the United States (Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 
39-41; Hensley et al. 2010, pp. 175-176; Drost et al. 2011, p. 33).
    Bullfrogs, crayfish, large sunfish and catfish (ictalurids) are 
known to prey upon hatchling and juvenile Sonoran mud turtles. 
Crayfish, in particular, could decimate a population if introduced 
(Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 41-43; Hensley et al. 2010, pp. 186-
187). In addition, crayfish, African cichlid fishes including tilapia, 
western mosquitofish, and exotic turtles may also disrupt the food 
chain, which could alter the invertebrate community (Taylor et al. 
1984, pp. 330-331; Fernandez and Rosen 1996, pp. 39-40; Duncan 2013, p. 
1). This, in turn, could decrease type and amount of benthic 
invertebrate prey available to Sonoyta mud turtles (Fernandez and Rosen 
1996, pp. 39-40) (See Section 4.4 and Appendix A of the SSA Report). In 
addition, turtles isolated in pools as a result of decreased surface 
water availability may be subject to increased predation from nonnative 
aquatic predators. Although we cannot specifically quantify effects to 
Sonoyta mud turtle populations now or in the immediate future we are 
highly confident that nonnatives are impacting the Papalote and 
Quitovac populations as described above. In addition, it is possible 
that in the near future the remaining three populations could become 
infested with the nonnative species listed above.
    In summary, ground water withdrawal and changes to wastewater 
infrastructure are highly likely to continue into the immediate future 
and to negatively affect base flow that supports three populations of 
the Sonoyta mud turtle basin. There is also the potential that Quitovac 
may be impacted by ground water losses in the future, although we are 
highly uncertain of this outcome. The sewage lagoon and new wastewater 
treatment plant are not likely to be impacted by ground water pumping, 
and may actually contribute to ground water recharge of the Rio 
Sonoyta. Ongoing and future drought periods are likely to continue and 
will affect the availability of water in both the United States and 
Mexico (See Section 4.1 and Appendix A of the SSA Report). In addition, 
drought is likely to be exacerbated by future climate change, 
decreasing water availability and increasing evapotranspiration losses.
    Effects from climate change are expected to impact all but one 
population of Sonoyta mud turtles (the sewage lagoon). Although we 
cannot specifically quantify effects to available surface water, we are 
highly confident that there will be a reduction in surface water due to 
ground water pumping and changes to wastewater infrastructure in 
addition to impacts from climate change. This reduction in surface 
water reduces or in some populations could eliminate habitat Sonoyta 
mud turtles need to survive desiccation or complete life-history 
functions as described above. Our assessment of water reduction in the 
SSA Report indicates that water loss is an immediate and high-magnitude 
threat to the species. Quitovac is likely to undergo partial dredging 
again (and possibly complete dredging), and nonnatives are likely to be 
introduced again. Nonnatives are still present in the Papalote reach, 
and it is likely, based on the spread of nonnatives, that all sites 
could receive nonnative species in the immediate future.
    Management actions undertaken by the National Park Service and 
Quitobaquito Rio Sonoyta Working Group have ameliorated many of the 
risks to the single Sonoyta mud turtle population in the United States 
at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and, as explained below, these 
actions are expected to continue. The Quitobaquito Rio Sonoyta Working 
Group consists of biologists and managers from the National Park 
Service (NPS), Arizona Game and Fish Department, FWS, University of 
Arizona, Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, the National Commission of 
Natural Protected Areas in Mexico, and private citizens interested in 
conservation of aquatic native species in the Rio Sonoyta basin of 
Arizona and Sonora. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument has already 
implemented numerous conservation measures recommended for the Sonoyta 
mud turtle by the Quitobaquito Rio Sonoyta Working Group. Since the 
1970's the NPS has implemented conservation measures including trucking 
water, spring renovation, strengthening the dike that keeps water in 
the pond, re-lining parts of the pond, and removing bulrush, that have 
benefited the Quitobaquito population. Efforts by Organ Pipe Cactus 
National Monument eventually resulted in water levels in the pond 
stabilizing near historical norms.
    One risk that cannot be addressed at Organ Pipe Cactus National 
Monument is diminishing spring flow that supplies water to Quitobaquito 
Pond, as the cause is still unknown. (See Section 4.5

[[Page 64838]]

of the SSA Report). Per the National Park Service Organic Act (16 
U.S.C. 1-4), the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument will survey for, 
protect, and strive to recover all species native to national park 
system units. Based on their past conservation efforts at Quitobaquito, 
the NPS will continue conservation efforts to maintain water at 
Quitobaquito pond, to the extent within their power, as they have done 
since the 1950s and protect the Sonoyta mud turtle as they have since 
the late 1980s as this is a native species. Further, the endangered 
desert pupfish and designated critical habitat co-occurs with the 
Sonoyta mud turtle within the Quitobaquito pond. Some conservation 
actions to protect the desert pupfish and critical habitat will also 
protect the Sonoyta mud turtle and its aquatic habitat, as well as some 
of the riparian habitat surrounding Quitobaquito Springs.
    Quitobaquito Rio Sonoyta Working Group management actions in Mexico 
have included defining the ecological status and distribution of the 
Sonoyta mud turtle in Sonora, creating new habitat to replace lost 
habitat, removing nonnative aquatic species, and outreach. Primary 
actions included nonnative removal and fencing to prevent livestock. 
However, the fencing has been removed and nonnatives have been 
reintroduced by the locals. These management actions have not addressed 
most of the risks to the four populations of the Sonoyta mud turtle in 
Mexico (See Section 4.5, Management Actions, of the SSA Report). The 
Quitobaquito and Rio Sonoyta Working Group has been developing a 
conservation assessment and conservation agreement for five aquatic 
species for a number of years. This agreement is meant to promote the 
conservation of a number of species dependent on the aquatic and 
riparian habitats of the Rio Sonoyta watershed. The agreement would 
take the form of a Candidate Conservation Agreement. The Sonoyta mud 
turtle is a species listed in the conservation agreement; it would 
benefit from the conservation actions proposed. It is unclear when this 
agreement will be finalized.
    In the SSA, we described the viability of the species in a way that 
characterizes the needs of the species in terms of resiliency, 
redundancy, and representation. Resiliency is having sufficiently large 
populations for the species to withstand stochastic events. Stochastic 
events are those events arising from random factors such as 
fluctuations in water levels, habitat modification, or introduction of 
nonnative predators. Redundancy is having a sufficient number of 
populations for the species to withstand catastrophic events. A 
catastrophic event is a rare destructive event or episode involving one 
or more populations and occurring suddenly. Representation is having 
the breadth of genetic and ecological diversity for the species to 
adapt to changing environmental conditions. In the SSA Report, 
populations of the Sonoyta mud turtle having a low level of resiliency 
are not considered to contribute to the redundancy and representation 
of the subspecies due to low probability that the populations will 
persist.
    Currently, we consider the Quitobaquito and Sonoyta sewage lagoon 
populations of the Sonoyta mud turtle to have high resiliency, the 
Papalote reach population to have moderate resiliency, and the 
Xochimilco reach and Quitovac populations to have low resiliency. The 
Quitobaquito population occurs in an area of relatively good habitat 
and exhibits high survivorship among all age classes with increasing 
recruitment of juveniles. Resiliency of the four populations in Mexico 
is less certain as habitat has been greatly reduced in the Papalote and 
Xochimilco reaches, survivorship among age classes is unknown at the 
Sonoyta sewage lagoon due to lack of any surveys, and survivorship 
among age classes is unknown at Quitovac due to recent dredging of all 
of the aquatic habitat available for mud turtles. Current abundance of 
mud turtle populations in Mexico is unknown, and we have low confidence 
that numbers have remained stable.
    The viability of the Sonoyta mud turtle depends on maintaining 
multiple resilient populations over time. The resiliency of Sonoyta mud 
turtle populations depends on surface water availability, amount of 
riparian habitat and benthic invertebrates, and absence of nonnative 
competitors and predators. We expect the five extant Sonoyta mud turtle 
populations to experience changes to all of these aspects of their 
habitat, although it may be in different ways under the different 
conditions. Given our uncertainty regarding when habitats of the 
Sonoyta mud turtle will experience a reduction or elimination of 
surface water and corresponding loss of riparian habitat in the future, 
we forecasted future conditions of the Sonoyta mud turtle under three 
future plausible scenarios over three time periods (Chapter 5 of the 
SSA Report). These scenarios focus on surface water availability 
because this is the driving factor for the other variables impacting 
Sonoyta mud turtle populations--riparian habitat and prey. For example, 
if there is a somewhat reduced amount of surface water there would be a 
reduced amount or reduced quality of riparian area and prey. These 
factors in turn impact reproduction and recruitment, which drive the 
population growth. The three scenarios were:
    (1) Best Case--All habitats occupied by Sonoyta mud turtle 
experience no measurable drop in surface water and nonnatives are 
absent.
    (2) Moderate Case--Surface water in habitats occupied by Sonoyta 
mud turtle is somewhat reduced but not eliminated, and nonnatives 
remain at status quo.
    (3) Worst Case--All surface water at sites occupied by Sonoyta mud 
turtle is extremely reduced or eliminated, and nonnatives are present 
in all populations.
    We selected three useful timeframes for our forecasting: 7 years, 
35 years, and 70 years. We chose 7 years based on the area's drought 
cycle, 35 years because it incorporates both the maximum lifespan of 
the species and the mid-century climate projections for the 
southwestern United States, and 70 years because it is within the range 
of the available drought and climate change model forecasts and is 
about twice the maximum lifespan of the species (Lenart 2008, entire; 
Stritthold et al. 2012, entire; Garfin et al. 2013, entire; P. Holms, 
2016, pers. comm.). Within these timeframes, we considered the three 
different scenarios that spanned a range of potential conditions that 
we believe are important influences on the status of the species, and 
our results describe this range of possible conditions in terms of our 
projections of how many and where Sonoyta mud turtle populations will 
persist into the near term.
    We assessed the moderate-case scenario as the most likely to occur 
because this scenario is based on the threats identified above 
continuing at their current intensity and scale through the various 
time steps. This scenario projected the current level of stressors 
associated with the status quo conditions. The moderate-case scenario 
was the most likely to occur, as explained in the SSA. While full 
analyses of all scenarios are available in the SSA report, we are only 
presenting the full results of the moderate-case scenario here because 
it gives the most realistic projection of the future condition of the 
subspecies. The worst-case scenario was not found to be very likely 
because, as explained in the SSA, it is unlikely that all populations 
will lose all or most of their surface water. Conversely, the best-case 
scenario of improving conditions was found not to

[[Page 64839]]

be very likely to occur because this scenario projected no reduction in 
surface water, which is an unlikely and unrealistic scenario given 
current climate change projections. Please refer to the SSA report 
(Service 2016, Chapter 5) for the full analysis of future scenarios.
    Under the moderate-case scenario within the 7-year timeframe, we 
expect the Sonoyta mud turtle's viability to be characterized by lower 
levels of resiliency, representation, and redundancy than it has 
currently, which is already reduced as described above. We expect 
populations at Xochimilco reach and Quitovac to have low population 
resiliency. In addition, we expect the Sonoyta sewage lagoon to have 
low population resiliency and its possible extirpation within 7 years. 
This possible outcome is dependent on exactly when the new wastewater 
treatment plant begins operating, which will replace the Sonoyta sewage 
lagoon. The new population at the new wastewater treatment plant will 
be stocked with animals from the Sonoyta sewage lagoon population. 
However, aquatic habitat at the new wastewater treatment plant is 
smaller than the sewage lagoon, and riparian habitat will essentially 
be nonexistent at first, so the population resiliency at the wastewater 
treatment plant is expected to be only moderate at the 7-year time 
step, whereas, the Sonoyta sewage lagoon currently has high population 
resiliency.
    We anticipate the population at Quitobaquito will be highly 
resilient and the Papalote reach will be moderately resilient at this 
time step. We expect the three populations with low resiliency, Sonoyta 
sewage lagoon, Xochimilco reach, and Quitovac, will have only some or 
few individuals that can complete life functions and breed 
successfully, and the populations are decreasing and not able to 
withstand stochastic events. Further, it is possible that one of the 
low-resiliency populations, Sonoyta sewage lagoon, will be extirpated 
by this time. Two of the three remaining populations are projected to 
be moderately resilient and will occur in highly managed habitats--the 
Quitobaquito population with a spring-fed pond and the wastewater 
treatment plant that is maintained by wastewater effluent. The Santo 
Domingo population is considered extirpated. We expect representation 
and redundancy will also be substantially reduced due to the three 
populations of low resiliency being functionally extirpated. This 
leaves three populations with only one being highly resilient and two 
being moderately resilient, including the wastewater treatment plant, 
which will be reduced in size from the sewage lagoon it is replacing.

                  Table 2--Rio Sonoyta Mud Turtle Current and Near-Future Population Condition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Moderate-case scenario
              Country                  Population name         Current  condition     --------------------------
                                                                                            7-year time step
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States.....................  Quitobaquito.........  High......................  High.
Mexico............................  Papalote Reach (Agua   Moderate..................  Moderate.
                                     Dulce).
                                    Sonoyta Sewage Lagoon  High......................  Low.
                                    New Sonoyta            0.........................  Moderate.
                                     wastewater treatment
                                     plant.
                                    Xochimilco Reach       Low.......................  Low.
                                     (Sonoyta Reach).
                                    Quitovac.............  Low.......................  Low.
                                    Santo Domingo........  0.........................  0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal 
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 
4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make endangered or threatened 
determinations required by section 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of the 
best scientific and commercial data available to her after conducting a 
review of the status of the species and after taking into account 
conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The standards for 
determining whether a species is endangered or threatened are provided 
in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any species that is 
``in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range.'' A threatened species is any species that is ``likely to 
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range.'' Per section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act, in reviewing the status of the species to determine if it meets 
the definition of endangered or of threatened, we determine whether any 
species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any 
of the following 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; and (E) other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be 
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination.
    The fundamental question before the Service is whether the 
subspecies warrants protection as an endangered or threatened species 
under the Act. To make this determination, we evaluated extinction 
risk, described in terms of the current condition of populations and 
their distribution (taking into account the risk factors (i.e., 
threats, stressors) and their effects on those populations). For any 
species, as population conditions decline and distribution shrinks, the 
species' overall viability declines and extinction risk increases.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Sonoyta mud turtle. Currently, there are five extant 
populations, and all are significantly isolated from one another such 
that recolonization of areas previously extirpated or areas that may be 
extirpated is extremely unlikely. Expert input provided during the 
development of the SSA Report indicated that, under the current 
situation for the five currently occupied sites, connectivity or 
movement among the populations is a rare occurrence. The species' range 
has been reduced by 80 to 92 percent in the Rio Sonoyta (Factor A) in 
Mexico, and current distribution is limited to five populations in 
three ponds totaling <7 ha (<15.5 ac) and two perennial sections of the 
Rio Sonoyta totaling 1.5 to 5.5 km (0.9 to 3.4 mi). Two historical 
populations are extirpated due to loss of perennial water. There are 
two newly discovered extant populations in addition to the three 
historical

[[Page 64840]]

populations that remain. Only three of these populations are of 
sufficient resiliency to withstand stochastic events.
    Habitat loss from anthropogenic ground water withdrawals and long-
term drought is occurring rangewide and is likely to continue and 
increase in the near term (Factor A; Factor E). This reduction in water 
restricts the limited available habitat and decreases the resiliency of 
the Sonoyta mud turtle within those habitats. We find that ongoing 
drought is likely to continue and be exacerbated by climate change, 
decreasing water availability and increasing evapotranspiration losses 
(Factor A). This threat is ongoing, rangewide, and expected to increase 
in the future. Predation by nonnative aquatic species has occurred at 
two sites in Mexico, although there is uncertainty with regard to the 
population effects (Factor C). Predation by nonnative aquatic species 
has been shown to reduce recruitment and population size of other 
populations of Sonora mud turtle and it is likely to occur in Sonoyta 
mud turtle populations in the future. The Quitovac population's current 
habitat was just recently completely dredged, and the status of Sonoyta 
mud turtles is unknown. Partial dredging in the near term is likely 
based on past dredging activity. It is reasonably likely that a 
catastrophic event could occur anytime within the initial 7-year time 
step analyzed in the SSA Report and that current population resiliency 
and redundancy are inadequate to maintain population viability.
    The implementation of the conservation measures by the National 
Park Service and the Quitobaquito Rio Sonoyta Working Group has 
resulted in maintaining the only Sonoyta mud turtle population in the 
United States and reduces the risk of loss of at least one population 
in Mexico. However, the conservation measures do not alleviate the 
threats that are influencing the resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation of the Sonoyta mud turtle across its range (as described 
above).
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' Based on the information presented in 
the SSA Report for the Sonoyta mud turtle, and the discussion above, we 
find that the best available scientific and commercial information 
indicates that the Sonoyta mud turtle is presently in danger of 
extinction throughout its entire range based on the severity and 
immediacy of threats currently impacting the species. The overall range 
has been significantly reduced; the limited remaining habitat and 
populations are currently threatened by an increase in ground water 
pumping, which results in reduced spring flows and, therefore, reduced 
surface water. Reduced surface water results in reduced aquatic habitat 
for the subspecies where they spend the majority of their time and is 
needed to avoid desiccation. Further, the reduction in surface water 
impacts aquatic vegetation used by the Sonoyta mud turtle for cover and 
by their prey species. Lastly, the reduction in ground water reduces 
the soil moisture of the riparian area resulting in habitat that is too 
dry for Sonoyta mud turtles to use for estivation and nesting.
    These factors acting in combination reduce the overall viability of 
the species. The risk of extinction is high because the five remaining 
populations are small, isolated, and have limited, if any, potential 
for recolonization. The estimated current and near-term future 
conditions of the known Sonoyta mud turtle populations as described in 
the SSA Report lead us to find that the condition and distribution of 
populations do not provide sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and 
representation for this subspecies; therefore, we find that the 
subspecies meets the definition of an endangered species under the Act. 
Accordingly, on the basis of the best available scientific and 
commercial information, we propose listing the Sonoyta mud turtle as 
endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the 
Sonoyta mud turtle is endangered throughout all of its range, no 
portion of its range can be ``significant'' for purposes of the 
definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened species.'' See 
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 37577, July 1, 
2014).
    We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the 
Sonoyta mud turtle because of the existing contracted range (loss of 
80-92 percent of its historic range in Mexico) compared to the 
historical range, the primary threats are occurring rangewide and are 
not localized, and the threats are impacting the species now and are 
ongoing. We find the Sonoyta mud turtle to be in danger of extinction 
now.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, 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 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. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop 
and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive 
information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies 
recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for 
downlisting or 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. Recovery teams (composed of species 
experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and 
stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When 
completed, the recovery outline, draft

[[Page 64841]]

recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web 
site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Arizona Ecological 
Services 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 water availability and associated 
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, and, in the case of the Sonoyta mud turtle, 
cooperation with our counterparts in Mexico. If this species is 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 State of Arizona would be eligible for Federal funds to 
implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of 
the Sonoyta mud turtle. Information on our grant programs that are 
available to aid species recovery can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Although the Sonoyta mud turtle is only proposed for listing under 
the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in 
participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an 
endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical 
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this 
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR 
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a 
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 
Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or 
carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the 
species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a 
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the 
Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the National Park Service 
(Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument); issuance of section 404 Clean 
Water Act permits by the Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and 
maintenance of roads or highways by the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. 
The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 
17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high 
seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, 
carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the 
course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate 
or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, 
sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has 
been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the 
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land 
management agencies, and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to 
endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: 
For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the 
prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. 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. At this time, we are unable to identify 
specific activities that would not be considered to result in a 
violation of section 9 of the Act because the Sonoyta mud turtle sites 
where the species currently occurs are subject to a variety of 
potential activities, and it is likely that site-specific conservation 
measures may be needed for activities that may directly or indirectly 
affect the species. Additionally, most activities subject to 
consultation include direct effects to the species and/or the aquatic 
and riparian habitats to which it is inextricably tied. It is difficult 
to predict an activity already subject to consultation that would not 
result in anticipated take of individual Sonoyta mud turtles.
    Based on the best available information, the following activities 
may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this 
list is not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species.
    (2) Destruction/alteration of the species' habitat by discharge of 
fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, pond construction, stream 
channelization or diversion, removal or destruction of emergent aquatic 
vegetation; or diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow 
into or out of the wetland (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge 
pipes, stormwater detention basins, etc.) or in any body of water in 
which the Sonoyta mud turtle is known to occur.
    (3) Direct or indirect destruction of riparian habitat.
    (4) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the Sonoyta mud turtle, such as the introduction of nonnative fish 
and crayfish species.
    (5) Release of biological control agents that attack any life stage 
of this species.
    (6) Discharge of chemicals or fill material into any waters in 
which the Sonoyta mud turtle is known to occur.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Arizona 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

[[Page 64842]]

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 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.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

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), Executive Order 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 recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial 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.
    Based on cultural claims maps and reservation boundaries we have on 
file, the distribution of the Sonoyta mud turtle overlaps areas that 
may be of interest to the following tribes: Tohono O'odham Nation, 
Quechan Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, and Cocopah 
Indian Tribe. On November 20, 2015, we notified these tribes via letter 
of our intent to conduct a status assessment for the purpose of 
determining whether the subspecies warrants protection under the Act. 
In our letter we offered to meet with the tribe to discuss the process, 
potential impacts to the tribes, and how tribal information may be used 
in our assessment. In addition, we requested any information they have 
regarding the subspecies. To date we have not received a response from 
these any of these tribes. Upon publication of this proposed rule we 
will send notification letters to these tribes and again extend an 
invitation to meet and discuss.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available 
in the SSA Report (U.S. Fish and Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. 
Species status assessment report for the Sonoyta mud turtle 
(Kinosternon sonoriense longifemorale), Version 1.0. Albuquerque, NM) 
that is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2016-0103, at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/, and upon request from the Arizona Ecological Services Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of 
the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

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--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), add an entry for ``Turtle, Sonoyta mud'' to the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under 
REPTILES to read as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Listing
          Common name                   Scientific name            Where listed       Status      citations and
                                                                                                applicable rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
           Reptiles
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Turtle, Sonoyta mud...........  Kinosternon sonoriense           Wherever found..  E            [Federal
                                 longifemorale.                                                  Register
                                                                                                 citation when
                                                                                                 published as a
                                                                                                 final rule.]
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 64843]]

    Dated: September 7, 2016.
Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-22754 Filed 9-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P