Species Status Assessment Report for the Barbour’s Map Turtle (Graptemys barbouri)

Adult female Barbour’s map turtle, Chipola River, FL. (credit: Jonathan Mays, FWC)

May 2017

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA

This document was prepared by Lisa Yarbrough (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Panama City, FL Ecological Services Field Office) with assistance from Dr. Sean Blomquist (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Panama City, FL Ecological Services Field Office) and Andreas Moshogianis (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 4/Southeast Regional Office).

Valuable peer reviews of a draft of this document were provided by John Jensen (Georgia Department of Natural Resources), Jonathan Mays (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission), Jim Godwin (Alabama Natural Heritage Program), Lora Smith (Joseph W. Jones Ecological Research Center, Georgia), Sean Sterrett (University of Massachusetts), and Marshall Williams (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 4/ Southeast Regional Office).

We appreciate the time and effort of those dedicated to learning and implementing the SSA Framework, which resulted in a more robust assessment and final report.

Suggested reference:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species status assessment report for the Barbour’s Map Turtle (Graptemys barbouri). May, 2017. Atlanta, GA.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page ii 2017

Species Status Assessment Report For Barbour’s Map Turtle (Graptemys barbouri) Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This species status assessment (SSA) reports the results of the comprehensive status review for the Barbour’s map turtle (Graptemys barbouri), documenting the species’ historical condition and providing estimates of current and future condition under a range of different scenarios. The Barbour’s map turtle is a riverine turtle native to the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint (ACF) basin, Chipola, Choctawhatchee, Pea, Ochlockonee, and Brother Rivers within Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The species occurs in fast – moving sections of limestone-bottomed streams and rivers with abundant basking sites consisting of snags and fallen trees. They can also occupy sandy bottoms of alluvial rivers with low visibility, impoundments, and blackwater streams; however their densities are much lower in these habitats.

The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we used the conservation biology principles of resilience, redundancy, and representations (together, the 3Rs) to evaluate individual Barbour’s map turtle life history needs (Table ES-1). The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of species’ demographics and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the species arrived at its current condition. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about the species’ response to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic influences. This process used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time.

To evaluate the current and future viability of the Barbour’s map turtle, we assessed a range of conditions to allow us to consider the species’ resiliency, representation, and redundancy. For the purposes of this assessment, populations were delineated using the three river basins that Barbour’s map turtles have historically occupied (i.e. ACF, Choctawhatchee, and Ochlockonee River basins).

Resiliency, assessed at the population level, describes the ability of a population to withstand stochastic disturbance events. A species needs multiple resilient populations distributed across its range to persist into the future and avoid extinction. A number of factors, including (but not limited to) water flow, instream substrate, basking sites, and sandbars, may influence whether Barbour’s map turtle populations will occupy available habitat. As we considered the future viability of the species, more populations with high resiliency distributed across the known range of the species can be associated with higher species viability. As a species, the Barbour’s map turtle has moderate resiliency, with the majority of the populations in moderate condition.

Redundancy describes the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic disturbance events; for

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page iii 2017

the Barbour’s map turtle, we considered whether the distribution of resilient populations was sufficient for minimizing the potential loss of the species from such an event. The Barbour’s map turtle historical range was limited to the ACF basin in southeastern Alabama, southwestern Georgia, and Florida’s panhandle. Both the number and distribution of populations occupying that historical range has increased over the past 60 years.

Representation characterizes a species’ adaptive potential by assessing geographic, genetic, ecological, and niche variability. The Barbour’s map turtle has exhibited historical variability in the physiographic regions it inhabited, as well as the size and range of the river systems it inhabited. At the species level, we estimated that the Barbour’s map turtle currently has moderate adaptive potential due to its abundance in six major rivers and one tributary.

Together, the 3Rs comprise the key characteristics that contribute to a species’ ability to sustain populations in the wild over time (i.e. viability). Using the principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation, we characterized both the species’ current viability and forecasted its future viability over a range of plausible future scenarios. To this end, we ranked the condition of each population by assessing the relative condition of occupied river reaches using the best available scientific information.

To assess the future condition of the Barbour’s map turtle, a variety of stressors, including water flow, open sandbars, and in-water woody debris protection, and their (potential) effects on population resiliency were considered. Populations with low resiliency are considered to be more vulnerable to extirpation, which in turn, would decrease species’ level representation and redundancy. To help address uncertainty associated with the degree and extent of potential future stressors and their impacts on species’ requests, the 3Rs were assessed using three plausible future scenarios. These scenarios were based, in part, on river degradation from over withdrawal of water for human use and the result of climate models (International Panel on Climate Change 2014) that predict changes in habitat used by the Barbour’s map turtle.

An important assumption of the predictive analysis was that future population resiliency is largely dependent on water quality, water flow, and instream and riparian habitat conditions. Our assessment predicted that six HUC8 Barbour’s map turtle populations would experience negative changes to these important habitat requisites if Scenario 2 occurs.

Given Scenario 1, “Status Quo”, no loss of resiliency, representation, and redundancy is expected to occur. Under this scenario, we predicted that two HUC8 populations would remain in high condition, thirteen HUC8 populations would remain in moderate condition, and one HUC8 would remain in low condition.

Given Scenario 2, “Historical”, we predict a reduction in redundancy throughout the species range with the removal of six HUC8 populations. The Pea, Choctawhatchee, Ocklockonee, and Wacissa populations would become extinct due to river habitat degradation due to excessive water withdrawal for human use. Within the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint River (ACF)

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page iv 2017 basin, two HUC8 populations would remain in high condition and eight HUC8 populations would remain in moderate condition. Existing levels of representation and resiliency is not expected to change due to Barbour’s map turtle wide distribution in the ACF.

Given Scenario 3, “Climate Change”, we predict no loss of resiliency, representation, or redundancy. Under this scenario, stressors influenced by the predicted climate change models are minimized by existing federal, state, and non-government organization efforts to protect the HUC8s for their important natural resources, functions, and sustained key social, economic and cultural values. Two HUC8 Barbour’s map turtle populations would remain in high condition, thirteen HUC8 populations would remain in moderate condition, and one HUC8 would remain in low condition.

Overall Summary

The analysis of species’ current condition revealed the Barbour’s map turtle abundance and distribution have increased, with the species occupying five additional rivers. Overall, the Barbour’s map turtle faces a variety of threats from reduced water flow from dams, fluctuating levels of water quality and in-water woody debris from the use of riparian BMPS, dredging and deadhead logging, and collection for the pet trade and human consumption. These threats were important factors in our assessment of the current and future viability of the Barbour’s map turtle and are not expected to significantly change in the future. Climate change is the only threat with great uncertainty and could pose a significant threat if the changes in climatic conditions follow worse case scenarios. Our estimation of the species’ moderate to high resiliency, redundancy, and representation throughout the majority of its range suggest that it has the ability to sustain its populations into the future.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page v 2017

Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... iii Chapter 1 - Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2 – Individual Needs: Life History and Biology ...... 3 2.1 Taxonomy ...... 3 2.2 Description...... 4 2.3 Reproduction...... 5 2.4 Diet ...... 5 2.5 Age, Growth, Population Size Structure, and Fecundity ...... 5 2.6 Habitat ...... 6 Chapter 3 – Population and Species Needs and Current Condition...... 9 3.1 Historical Range and Distribution ...... 9 3.2 Current Range and Distribution ...... 9 Table 3-1: G. barbouri Survey Results...... 11 ARWEA = Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area, km = kilometer ...... 14 3.2.1 Choctawhatchee River...... 14 3.2.2 Pea River HUC8 Population ...... 15 3.2.3 Chipola River HUC8 Population ...... 16 3.2.4 Apalachicola and Brothers River HUC8 Population ...... 17 3.2.5 Chattahoochee River ...... 18 3.2.6 Flint River ...... 19 3.2.7 Spring Creek HUC8 ...... 21 3.2.8 Ichawaynochaway and Chickasawhatchee Creeks HUC8 ...... 22 3.2.9 Kinchafoonee – Muckalee Creeks HUC8 ...... 23 3.2.10 Ochlockonee River ...... 23 3.2.11 Wacissa River HUC8 ...... 24 3.2.12 Ocklawaha River ...... 25 3.2.13 Land Managers ...... 25 3.3 Needs of the Barbour’s map turtles...... 29 3.3.1 G. barbouri HUC8 Population Resiliency ...... 29 3.3.2 Species Representation ...... 32

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page vi 2017

3.3.3 Species Redundancy ...... 34 3.4 Current Conditions ...... 34 3.4.1 Current Resiliency ...... 35 3.4.2 Current Representation ...... 41 3.4.3 Current Redundancy ...... 41 Chapter 4 – Factors Influencing Viability ...... 44 4.1 Release of Water from Dams...... 45 4.2 Regulatory Mechanisms ...... 47 4.3 Climate Change...... 48 4.4 Deadhead Logging ...... 48 4.5 Dredging ...... 49 4.6 Human Exploitation ...... 49 4.7 Summary ...... 50 CHAPTER 5 – FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 51 5.1 Release of Water from Dams...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2 Regulatory Mechanisms ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.3 Climate Change...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.4 Deadhead Logging ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.5 Dredging ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.6 Human Exploitation ...... 58 5.7 Future Scenario Considerations ...... 51 5.7.1 Scenario 1 – Status Quo ...... 51 5.7.2 Scenario 2 – Reduction in Range ...... 51 5.7.3 Scenario 3 – Climate Change ...... 53 5.8 Summary ...... 58 Appendix A ...... 72

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page vii 2017

Chapter 1 - Introduction

The Barbour’s map turtle is a freshwater riverine turtle found in the Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint (ACF) Rivers and their major contributories, Choctawhatchee, Pea, Ochlockonee, and Wacissa Rivers in southeastern Alabama, southwestern Georgia, and the Florida panhandle. The species was petitioned for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), as a part of the 2010 Petition to List 404 Aquatic, Riparian and Wetland Species from the Southeastern United States by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD 2010).

The Species Status Assessment (SSA) framework (USFWS 2016a) is intended to be an in-depth review of the species’ biology and threats, an evaluation of its biological status, and an assessment of the resources and conditions needed to maintain long-term viability. The intent is for the SSA Report to be easily updated as new information becomes available and to support all functions of the Endangered Species Program from Candidate Assessment to Listing to Consultations to Recovery. As such, the SSA Report will be a living document that may be used to inform Act decision making, such as listing, recovery, Section 7, Section 10, and reclassification decisions (the former four decision types are only relevant should the species warrant listing under the Act).

Because the Barbour’s map turtle SSA has been prepared at the Candidate Assessment phase, it is intended to provide the biological support for the decision on whether to propose to list the species as threatened or endangered and, if so, to determine whether it is prudent to designate critical habitat in certain areas. Importantly, the SSA Report is not a decisional document by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), rather it provides a review of available information strictly related to the biological status of the Barbour’s map turtle. The listing decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies, and the results of a proposed decision will be announced in the Federal Register, with appropriate opportunities for public input.

For the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain resilient populations in natural river, creek, impoundment, and blackwater ecosystems for at least 50 years. Using the SSA framework (Figure 1.1), we consider what the species needs to maintain viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms of its redundancy, representation, and resiliency (USFWS 2016a; Wolf et al. 2015). Figure 1-1 Species Statues Assessment Framework.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 1 2017

• Resiliency is assessed at the level of populations and reflects a species’ ability to withstand stochastic events (arising from random factors). Demographic measures that reflect population health, such as fecundity, survival, and population size, are the metrics used to evaluate resiliency. Resilient populations are better able to withstand disturbances such as random fluctuations in birth rates (demographic stochasticity), variations in rainfall (environmental stochasticity), and the effects of anthropogenic activities.

• Representation is assessed at the species’ level and characterizes the ability of a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Metrics that speak to a species’ adaptive potential, such as genetic and ecological variability, can be used to assess representation. Representation is directly correlated to a species’ ability to adapt to changes (natural or human-caused) in its environment.

• Redundancy is also assessed at the level of the species and reflects a species’ ability to withstand catastrophic events (such as a rare destructive natural event or episode involving many populations). Redundancy is about spreading the risk of such an event across multiple, resilient populations. As such, redundancy can be measured by the number and distribution of resilient populations across the range of the species.

To evaluate the current and future viability of the Barbour’s map turtle, we assessed a range of conditions to characterize the species’ redundancy, representation, and resiliency (together, the 3Rs). This SSA Report provides a thorough account of biology and natural history and assesses the risk of threats and limiting factors affecting the future viability of the species.

This SSA Report includes: (1) a description of Barbour’s map turtles resource needs at both individual and population levels (Chapter 2); (2) a characterization of the historic and current distribution of populations across the species’ range (Chapter 3); (3) an assessment of the factors that contributed to the current and future status of the species and the degree to which various factors influenced viability (Chapter 4); and (4) a synopsis of the factors characterized in earlier chapters as a means of examining the future biological status of the species (Chapter 5). This document is a compilation of the best available scientific information (and associated uncertainties regarding that information) used to assess the viability of the Barbour’s map turtle.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 2 2017

Chapter 2 – Individual Needs: Life History and Biology

In this section, we provide basic biological information about the Barbour’s map turtle, including its physical environment, taxonomic history and relationships, morphological description, and reproductive and other life history traits. We then outline the resource needs of individuals and populations. Here, we report those aspects of the life histories that are important to our analyses (Table 2.1). For further information about the Barbour’s map turtle refer to Lindeman (2013).

2.1 Taxonomy

The North American turtle genus Graptemys is confined to the United States and Canada with the center of diversity occurring along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico from the Apalachicola River, Florida to Guadalupe River, Texas (Lovich and McCoy 1992). This genus is currently comprised of 14 species (Lindeman 2013) due, in part, to drainage-specific endemism. The Graptemys species occurring in Gulf coastal rivers east of the Mississippi are broken into two groups. The “sawback” clade (G. oculifera, G. flavimaculata, and G. nigrinoda) are medium- sized with narrow heads and hypertrophied vertebral spines. The pulchra clade (G. pulchra, G. barbouri, G. ersti, G. gibbonsi, and G. pearlensis; sensu; Lamb et al. 1994, Cagle 1952, McKown 1972, Mount 1975, Dobie 1981) is defined by the following combination of characteristics:

1. Female size large (295 – 330 mm maximum carapace length); 2. Extreme sexual dimorphism in adults, SDI ([sexual dimorphism index], size of larger sex divided by size of smaller sex, Gibbons and Lovich 1990) is 2.42 – 2.58; 3. Head (adult females) broad, with alveolar surfaces of jaws greatly expanded; 4. Head pattern consisting of an interorbital and large postorbital blotches; 5. Vertebral scutes with salient spines; and possibly, 6. Diploid chromosome number 52 (McKown 1972).

The Barbour’s map turtle is the only pulchra clade species currently known from the ACF, Ocklockonee, and Wacissa watersheds. It shares the upper Choctawhatchee and lower Pea River drainages in southeastern Alabama with the Escambia map turtle (G. ernsti) where the two species are hybridizing (Godwin et al. 2014). Although localized hybridization is occurring in the shared river drainages, the species is a valid taxon based on our review of the available taxonomic information.

The currently accepted classification is (Integrated Taxonomic Information System 2016): Phylum: Chordata Class: Chelonia Order: Testudines Family: Emydidae Genus: Graptemys Species: barbouri

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 3 2017

2.2 Description

Map turtles are named for the intricate pattern on the carapace that often resembles a topographical map. In addition to the intricate pattern, the shape of the carapace in Graptemys is very distinctive. Most species show some type of knobby projections or spikes down the vertebral scutes (scutes 2-4). This trait is at its extreme in the southeastern United States. The sawback clade (G. flavimaculata, G. nigrinoda, and G. oculifera) consists of three microcephalic species found in river systems in Alabama (Alabama River), Louisiana (Pearl River), and Mississippi (Pearl, Pascagoula, and Escatawpa Rivers). The pulchra clade (G. barbouri, G. ernsti, G. gibbonsi, G. pearlensis, and G. pulchra) are a megacephalic group of turtles that also have spike-like or knobby projections on the vertebral and marginal scutes, although theirs are not as pronounced (Lovich and McCoy 1992). These five species are found in river systems in Georgia (Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers, Chickasawhatchee, Ichawaynochaway, Kinchafoonee, Muckalee, and Spring Creeks), Alabama (Alabama, Yellow, Conecuh, Pea, Chattahoochee, and Choctawhatchee Rivers), Florida (Yellow, Shoal, Apalachicola, Chipola, Escambia, Pea, Ochlockonee, Wacissa, Brothers, and Choctawhatchee Rivers), Mississippi (Pascagoula and Pearl Rivers) and Louisiana (Pearl River). Three of the five species in the pulchra-group are sympatric with each of the three species of the sawback group in their particular river drainages.

The carapace has a mid-dorsal keel with black-tipped spines posteriorly. Yellow, C-shaped markings adorn the pleural and marginal scutes on the otherwise olive to olive-brown carapace. The plastron is pale yellow with narrow, dark markings confined to the seams. Skin color is generally dark-green to black with light green or yellow markings and stripes. A large yellowish blotch is present behind each eye; a conspicuous isolated light bar, following the curvature of the jaw, is found on the chin. The extremely knobby or sharp projections and “map” patterns are more pronounced in juveniles and males, but generally become less evident in most adult females (Cagle 1954). The carapace of large female Graptemys gets extremely worn down and often dull in color due to their tendency to hide under large stumps, in dead tree crevices, and rocks along riverbanks and deep, sandy pools.

Map turtles are avid baskers, basking up to 6 or more hours a day (Sanderson 1974) from March through October. In Florida and southern Alabama, map turtles will bask in every month of the year as long as the ambient temperature is above water temperature. In the northern portion of their range in Georgia and during cold spells throughout the region, turtles become lethargic in the cooler water temperatures but do not hibernate. Basking is required for thermoregulation, prevention and destruction of parasites and fungi (that may grow on the carapace or skin), and exposure to ultraviolet radiation for absorption of vitamin D (Prichard and Greenwood 1968, Lechowicz 2013). Map turtles are easily startled and will dive into the water for protection. High traffic rivers could make turtles more susceptible to higher than normal energy use due to repeated attempts to bask, increased exposure to predators, less egg production, and reduced digestive functions (Cowles and Bogert 1944, Bustard 1967, Moore and Seigel 2006, Pitt and Nickerson 2012).

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 4 2017

2.3 Reproduction

Nesting occurs from late April to early August on exposed sandbars, dredge spoil mounds undergoing succession, or bluffs (Ewert and Jackson 1994, Ewert et al. 2006; Table 2.1). In Florida, G. barbouri appear to avoid sandbars and other open areas, opting instead for sparsely vegetated areas with sand soils within sight of the river (J. Mays 2017 per. comm.). Females produce up to 3 to 4 clutches of 3 to 11 eggs per nest annually (Sanderson 1974, Ewert et al. 2006). Eggs take approximately 60 days to hatch. Late season hatchlings may overwinter in the nest (Wahlquist and Folkerts 1973, Sanderson 1974, Ewert et al. 2006). Only a fraction of females in a population lay eggs every year or multiple times per year. Normally, females will become reproductive when they have sufficient stored energy, adequate solar energy to produce eggs, and available nesting sites (Lechowicz 2005). Nests are typically laid within 650 feet (200m) from the water’s edge, making them susceptible to extended high-water events such as flooding from heavy rainfall or tropical storms.

Fish crows (Corvus ossifragus), small to medium size mammals (i.e. raccoons (Procyon lotor), and scarlet snakes (Cemophora coccinea) are known to depredate newly lain nests (Neill 1951, Ewert et al. 2006, Ernst and Lovich 2009). Once the hatchlings have reached water, they face predation from medium to large fish (e.g. Micropterus spp. and Lepisosteus spp.), American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis), and alligator snapping turtles (Macrochelys temminckii) (Suarez 2011).

2.4 Diet

Hatchlings, juveniles, and adult males feed on a variety of aquatic invertebrates (small gastropods, and trichopteran larvae) found along the stream banks and within the aquatic vegetation growing on submerged woody debris (Lee et al. 1975, Sanderson 1974). Larger sub- adult and adult females feed almost exclusively on native mollusks (i.e. freshwater mussels and snails) and introduced Asian clams (Corbicula spp.) (Cagle 1952, Sanderson 1974, Lee et al. 1975, Ewert et al. 2006, Lindeman 2006). Sub-adult females’ transition from soft-bodied prey to mollusks as their megacephalic head and enlarged alveolar surface develops and enables the turtle to crush the harder shells.

2.5 Age, Growth, Population Size Structure, and Fecundity

Little information is known about the demographics of Barbour’s map turtle populations throughout its range. Turtles have a Type III survivorship curve, meaning that mortality is very high during early life stages followed by a very low death rate for individuals reaching adulthood.

Barbour’s map turtle fecundity fluctuates based on seasonal air and water temperatures, food intake, basking availability, and parasite load (Lechowicz 2005). Nests are often predated as

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 5 2017

soon as the female leaves the area, resulting in an annual mortality rate up to 81% (Iverson 1991). Currently, nesting frequency, hatching success and juvenile survivorship are unknown for Barbour’s map turtles.

Barbour's map turtles are known for their extreme sexual dimorphism with females growing up to 80% larger than males. Adult males reach a maximum carapace length of 13 cm (5 inches) and an average mass of 206 g (0.5 pound), while adult females may obtain a length of 33 cm (13 inches) and a body mass of 2500 – 3300g (5.5 to 7.3 pounds) (Cagle 1952, Sanderson 1974, Ewert et al. 2006). Females mature at a specific size based on individual fitness and health rather than a specific age which can occur at any time between 10 – 20 years (Sanderson 1974, Ewert et al. 2006), whereas males may mature in 2 – 4 years (Cagle 1952). The megacephalic head of an adult female G. barbouri is unmistakable when compared to a male. This widened head helps the turtle consume hard-shelled mussels and clams with the help of an enlarged alveolar surface in the mouth. The alveolar surface enables the turtle to crush hard mussels, clams, and snails (Lindeman 2000).

Annual survival rate estimations for hatchlings or young juvenile stages of any species of Graptemys have not been made except for one population of common map turtles over a three year period. Bulté and Blouin-Demers (2009) noted hatchling females have a slightly higher annual survival rate than hatchling males (means 87% vs. 83%). Long-term mark-recapture studies to determine longevity are problematic for animals with large dispersal areas such as large rivers and lakes (e.g. Shealy 1976, Vogt 1980, Flaherty 1982, Pluto and Bellis 1988, Craig 1992, Jones and Hartfield 1995, Jones 1996, Carr 2001) and age estimation from scutes become increasing difficult as the turtles age. A female Barbour’s map turtle in captivity at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C has a recorded age of 31 years and 8 months (Snider and Bowler 1992) and two females in the Columbus Zoo (Ohio) have been kept 43 and 37 years (Lindeman 2013).

2.6 Habitat

Barbour’s map turtles are mostly found in riverine habitats, although creeks, streams, and impoundments may contain them (Ernst and Lovich 2009). These map turtles are historically known from the ACF River drainage (to include Chattahoochee, Flint, and Chipola Rivers) of southeastern Alabama, southwestern Georgia, and Florida panhandle and some of their tributaries. Stream geomorphology in the ACF basin is characterized by steep, sandy banks and Ocala limerock outcrops with alternating shallow, rocky shoals and deep, sandy pools. The abundance of Barbour’s map turtles in the ACF basin has lead researchers to conclude the limestone substrate and water depth are important elements (Moll 1980, Fuselier and Edds 1994). However, Barbour’s map turtles have recently been found in Wacissa (Jackson 2003), and Ochlockonee Rivers (Enge and Wallace 2008) in the Florida panhandle and the Choctawhatchee (Enge and Wallace 2008, Godwin 2002) and Pea (Godwin 2002) Rivers in Alabama and Florida panhandle.

Thunder and tropical storms and hurricanes create in-water and exposed habitat by knocking

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 6 2017

riparian trees into the water (Lechowicz 2005). The wood will break down over time and becomes free-moving debris. Debris can snag at any location within the river, but it often accumulates in bends. As submerged snags gathers along the banks, the wood becomes a place of shelter and feeding for juvenile and adult male map turtles. The submerged snags within the deeper, swifter moving water become a place of shelter and feeding for females (larger juvenile and adult). Any snags becoming partially submerged becomes basking sites for all life stages.

River sinuosity plays an important part in providing habitat, shelter, and food. The more bends and curves a river or creek has: the more riparian area that could be present to provide woody vegetation and snags for basking and sheltering, increased diversity of water depth and flow, more exposed open sandbars to provide advantageous nesting areas, and habitat for food sources consumed by of all life stages of Barbour’s map turtle.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 7 2017

Table 2.1. Life history and resource needs of the Barbour’s map turtle. Resource Resources and/or circumstances needed for Information Life Stage Function INDIVIDUALS to complete each life stage Source (BFSD*) • Presence of gravid females • Open, exposed sandbars, dredge spoil Fertilized mounds undergoing succession, or bluffs for Eggs (late May - Ewert and nest deposition through early B Jackson 1994 • August, in year Appropriate temperatures for egg - Ewert et al. 2006 1) development and mixed sex ratio • Appropriate water level to prevent flooding or “washing away” of nests • Willow thickets and woody debris for basking • Adequate availability of aquatic invertebrates Hatchlings along the stream banks and within the aquatic (late summer to - Lee et al. 1975 vegetation B, D, S early fall in - Sanderson 1974 • year 1) Near shore, in-stream woody debris for shelter • Movement up and down river will be driven by food, shelter, and habitat availability • Alternating shallow, rocky shoals and deep, sandy pools Juveniles • Exposed snags and woody debris for basking (winter year 1 – - Moll 1980 • Adequate availability of aquatic invertebrates 2 years old) - Fuselier and Edds along the stream banks and within the aquatic F, S, D and Adult 1994 vegetation Males (2+ - Sanderson 1974 • years old) Near shore in-stream woody debris for shelter • Movement up and down river will be driven by food, shelter, and habitat availability • Limestone outcrops with alternating shallow, - Moll 1980 rocky shoals and deep, sandy pools - Fuselier and Edds Sub-adult (2 – • Exposed snags and woody debris for basking 1994 10 years old) • Adequate availability of a variety of mollusks - Sanderson 1974 and Adult F, S, D and native snails - Cagle 1952 Females (10+ • - Lee et al. 1975 years old) In-stream woody debris for shelter • Movement up and down river will be driven - Ewert et al. 2006 by food, shelter, and habitat availability - Lindeman 2006 * B=breeding, F=feeding, S=sheltering, D=dispersal

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 8 2017

Chapter 3 – Population and Species Needs and Current Condition

In this chapter, we consider the Barbour’s map turtle’s historical distribution, its current distribution, and the factors that contributed to the species current condition. We first review the historical information on the range and distribution of the species. Next, we evaluate species’ requisites to consider their relative influence to Barbour’s map turtle resiliency, representation, and redundancy. Through the lens of the 3Rs, we then estimate the current condition of Barbour’s map turtle populations.

3.1 Historical Range and Distribution

Historically, Barbour’s map turtles were known from the three main ACF Rivers and their major contributories in southeastern Alabama, southwestern Georgia, and Florida’s panhandle (Figure 3- 1; Carr and Marchand 1942, Cagle 1952, Sanderson 1992). This species probably never ranged above the Georgia fall line that separates the coastal plain and Piedmont region. Rivers within the Piedmont region are higher in elevation, subject to a greater degree of seasonal temperature variability, and faster flowing water. These three factors could have caused unfavorable conditions for the Barbour’s map turtle and thus, limited its distribution further north.

3.2 Current Range and Distribution

Between 1996 and 2003, the range was expanded to include the Choctawhatchee River in the Florida panhandle and Alabama (Godwin 2002, Enge and Wallace 2008) and the Ochlockonee River in the Florida panhandle (Enge et al. 1996). In addition, a single female was found nesting

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 9 2017

at the headwaters of the Wacissa River (Aucilla River drainage) in Jefferson Co., Florida (Jackson 2003).

In a 1996 and 1997 southern Alabama survey, a single individual G. barbouri was found in the Choctawhatchee and Pea Rivers, respectively (Godwin 2002). Enge and Wallace (2008) surveyed the upper Choctawhatchee River as part of a larger survey effort and determined the 9.9-river km within Alabama had a mean density of 2.03 individuals/ km. The limestone- bottomed river areas where Barbour’s map turtles were found had clear water with abundant basking sites.

G. barbouri was first reported from the Ochlockonee River in 1996 (Enge et al 1996) and again in a follow-up 1999 – 2000 survey (Enge and Wallace 2008). Enge and Wallace (2008) noted that reproduction was apparently occurring based on the presence of juveniles. Two hypotheses for the previously undetected Ochlockonee population are: 1. the introduction of G. barbouri into the river by turtle breeders who wanted to stay compliant with the 1976 Florida legal possession regulation. Turtle breeders could have released both adult and juvenile turtles into the river system, thus providing a stable and viable population that has been flourishing for many years, and 2. Jackson (1975) found limited fossil evidence that a Graptemys spp. lived in the Santa Fe River during the Rancholabrean and Blancan periods. Barbour’s map turtles in the Ochlockonee and Wacissa Rivers could be survivors of that historic range.

In response to a multi-species petition for federal listing as threatened under the Act (Center for Biological Diversity 2010, 2012), the Service provided funds to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) to assess the

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 10 2017

distribution and status of G. barbouri occurring in both states. All state and federally funded survey results are listed in Table 3.1.

Because the river basin level is at a very coarse scale, populations were further delineated using Hydrologic Unit Code 8 (HUC8) watersheds for assessing population – level resilience (see Section 3.3). The species distribution and condition is reviewed below by HUC8.

Table 3-1: G. barbouri Survey Results. # of G. barbouri/ River State river kilometer Study Comments from surveyors (km) Carr and Marchand Chipola Florida Not reported 80 individuals observed 1942 Chipola Florida Not reported Cagle 1952 393 individuals observed Chipola Florida 68.3 turtles/ km Sanderson 1974 386 individuals observed 221 individuals observed, 58.7 Chipola Florida 2.6 turtles/ km Moler 1986 river km Review of museum specimens Iverson and Chipola Florida Not reported and journal articles, 84.5 river Etchberger 1989 km Chaney and Smith Chipola Florida 62 turtles/ km 3-night hand capture survey 1950 Segment within the ARWEA, Chipola Florida 25.6 turtles/ km Ricketts 2014 27.5 river km Chipola Florida 7.14 turtles/ km Mays and Hill 2015 826 individuals observed Iverson and Review of museum and journal Apalachicola Florida Not reported Etchberger 1989 articles, 172 river km Documentation survey in Apalachicola Florida 1.43 turtles/ km Ruhl 1991 ARWEA Apalachicola Florida 5 - 8 turtles/ km Stewart 1992 Four individual stretches Apalachicola Florida 4.46 turtles/ km Ewert et al., 2006 Segment within the ARWEA, 14 Apalachicola Florida 6.1 turtles/ km Ricketts 2014 river km Repeated surveys to estimate Apalachicola Florida 173.3 turtles/km Mays and Hill 2015 collective abundance (six 2-km sections) Apalachicola Florida 21.8 turtles/ km Mays and Hill 2015 Single pass surveys Segment within the ARWEA, 17 Brothers Florida 6.0 turtles/ km Ricketts 2014 river km Brothers and Florida 29 ca. 17 km surveyed 1.7 turtles/ km Ruhl 1991 Brickyard Cutoff St. Marks River Florida 2 ca 2.4 km surveyed 0.83 turtles/ km Ruhl 1991 Distributary East River Florida 13 ca. 7.4 km surveyed 1.6 turtles/ km Ruhl 1991 Distributary Choctawhatchee Alabama 0.75 turtles/ km Godwin 2002 25.4 river km Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 11 2017

# of G. barbouri/ River State river kilometer Study Comments from surveyors (km) Enge and Wallace Choctawhatchee Alabama 2.03 turtles/ km 9.9 river km 2008 4 individuals captured for Choctawhatchee Alabama Not reported Godwin et al. 2014 genetic testing Choctawhatchee Enge and Wallace 5 – 7 turtles/ km in the upper Florida 2.0 turtles/ km and Holmes Creek 2008 stretch of the river, 139 river km Choctawhatchee Florida 10.08 turtles/ km Lechowicz 2013 6 km stretch of the river Extended known range 17.3 km Choctawhatchee Florida 10.55 turtles/km Hill and Mays 2016 downstream Enge and Wallace Wrights Creek Florida No turtles found 3.9 km 2008 Enge and Wallace Hurricane Creek Florida No turtles found 1.5 km 2008 Upper Georgia 0.52 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Ochlockonee Lower Florida Not reported Enge et al. 1996 3 incidental individual sightings Ochlockonee Lower Enge and Wallace 4 map turtles found during Florida Not reported Ochlockonee 2008 survey, 162 river km Ochlockonee Repeated surveys to estimate (below Jackson Florida 11.7 turtles/km Mays and Hill 2016 collective abundance (five 5-km Bluff dam) sections) Ochlockonee Florida 0.70 turtles/km Mays and Hill 2015 Distribution survey Wacissa Florida Not reported Jackson 2003 Single female found nesting Wacissa Florida Not reported Mays and Hill 2015 Single female found nesting Ocklawaha Florida No sightings Mays and Hill 2015 40 river-km survey Surveyed 31 historical sites with Chattahoochee Georgia Not reported Moulis 1997 no observations Chattahoochee Georgia Not reported GDNR 2013 Incidental sighting Chattahoochee – Survey occurred above the fall Georgia No sightings Hepler et al. 2015 Lake Harding line Chattahoochee – Lake Walter F. Georgia 3.13 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 George Lower Georgia 4.83 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Chattahoochee Review of museum specimens Lazer Creek Georgia Not reported Moulis 1997 and journal articles, north of were 2015 survey stopped Review of museum specimens Buck Creek Georgia Not reported Moulis 1997 and journal articles

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 12 2017

# of G. barbouri/ River State river kilometer Study Comments from surveyors (km) Observations of eggs and Wahlquist and Flint Georgia Not reported hatchlings in Mitchell and Folkerts 1973 Dougherty Counties Observations of adult turtles in Flint Georgia Not reported Wharton et al. 1973 the upper Flint River Review of museum specimens and journal articles, 393 river km (63 km north of were 2015 Flint Georgia Not reported Moulis 1997 survey stopped) Surveyed 86 historical sites with 10 observations Upper Flint Georgia 4.92 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Middle Flint Georgia 15.13 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Lower Flint Georgia Single sighting Cagle 1952 Location not provided Lower Flint Georgia 8.39 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Review of museum specimens Spring Creek Georgia Not reported Moulis 1997 and journal articles, Surveys at 15 sites with one observation Riparian habitat management effects on turtle assemblages, Spring Creek Georgia Not reported Sterrett et al. 2010a river km not identified, 55 individuals Spring and 7 – 1 km stretches per creek, Ichawaynochaway Georgia Not reported Sterrett et al. 2010b trapping methods, 102 Creek individuals Spring Creek Georgia 5.43 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Ichawaynochaway Crenshaw and Rabb Georgia Not reported Observation report Creek 1949 Riparian habitat management Ichawaynochaway effects on turtle assemblages, Georgia Not reported Sterrett et al. 2010a Creek river km not identified, 66 individuals Ichawaynochaway 27 individuals captured for Georgia Not reported Godwin et al. 2014 Creek genetic testing Ichawaynochaway 24 km stretch – female home Georgia Not reported Sterrett et al. 2015 Creek range study, 21 individuals Ichawaynochaway Georgia 0.65 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Creek Chickasawhatchee Georgia 0.89 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Creek Kinchafoonee Georgia 0.28 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015 Creek Muckalee Creek Georgia 0.26 turtles/ km Hepler et al. 2015

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 13 2017

# of G. barbouri/ River State river kilometer Study Comments from surveyors (km) Pea Alabama 0.60 turtles/ km Godwin 2002 8.4 river km Enge and Wallace Pea Alabama 0.80 turtles/ km 0.8 km 2008 6 km stretch of the river; unable Pea Alabama Not reported Lechowicz 2013 to distinguish between G. barbouri and G. ernsti 13 individuals captured for Pea Alabama Not reported Godwin et al. 2014 genetic testing ARWEA = Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area, km = kilometer

3.2.1 Choctawhatchee River

The Choctawhatchee River Basin is approximately 8,023 km2 (3,097 mi2) and the watershed is located in both the Florida panhandle and southeastern Alabama. It contains two HUC8 populations; the Lower Choctawhatchee is located in both Florida and Alabama and the Upper Choctawhatchee lays entirely within Alabama. The Choctawhatchee watershed has several small to medium sized urban zones (Geneva, Daleville, Ozark, and Enterprise) and Fort Rucker Military Installation; however cultivated crops (cotton and peanuts) and pulp wood silviculture would have a greater influence on riparian management, water quality, and quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Choctawhatchee River Basin was estimated to be approximately 38.64 % forest, 16.62 % shrub/ scrub, 13.77 % wetlands, 12.19 % agriculture, 8.22 % pasture, 6.71 % developed, and 2.58 % grassland.

The Upper Choctawhatchee HUC8 population

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 14 2017

The Upper Choctawhatchee population was first documented in September 1997 (Godwin 2002) and was further surveyed in 1999 – 2002 to collect specimens and basking survey data (Figure 3.3). In the Choctawhatchee, it was determined that G. barbouri could be found approximately 33.3 km to the north of the confluence with the Pea River (Godwin 2002).

The Lower Choctawhatchee HUC 8 population

The Lower Choctawhatchee population was first documented in 1999 (Enge and Wallace 2008) and the population range occurred from the Pea and Choctawhatchee river confluence in Alabama to 39 km south into Florida (Figure 3.3). During the 2002 survey, Godwin also captured G. ernsti in the Choctawhatchee River downstream of its confluence with the Pea River. Both G. barbouri and G. ernsti occur along the 11 river km stretch of the Choctawhatchee River between the Pea River and the Alabama – Florida state line (Godwin 2002).

During a 1999 – 2000 basking survey effort, Engle and Wallace (2008) recorded 274 map turtles in Florida and 20 in Alabama along the Choctawhatchee River and its tributaries. They were unaware of the possible presence of G. ernsti in the upper portion of Lower Choctawhatchee and had assumed all individuals observed to be G. barbouri. Upon notification of the presence of G. ernsti, Engle and Wallace changed their determination to Graptemys for their survey results. Densities of Graptemys observed in the Lower Choctawhatchee ranged from 0 turtles/ km in the lower reaches to 7.05 turtles/ km in the northern Florida reaches and 2.03 turtles/ km in the southern Alabama portion of the Lower Choctawhatchee. Their survey also extended the known range of the Barbour’s map turtle to 67 km south (Ebro, Washington Co., Florida) of the confluence of the Pea and Choctawhatchee rivers.

In 2008, Lechowicz (2013) conducted a spring and fall basking survey for G. barbouri on a 6 km stretch of the Choctawhatchee River south of the Pea and Choctawhatchee confluence and observed 20 and 45 turtles, respectively. The distribution of G. barbouri in this river stretch was 10.08 turtles/ km.

In 2014, FWC survey of G. barbouri in the Lower Choctawhatchee (Figure 3.3) extended the known range of G. barbouri 17.3 km downstream on the Choctawhatchee and included the first vouchered records from Walton Co. (Hill and Mays 2016). The surveyors found 1,245 individuals and estimated 10.55 turtles/ river km. As with Enge and Wallace (2008), Mays and Hill observed the highest densities of map turtles in the limestone – bottomed upper stretches of the river and a decreasing population as the river transitioned and became a sandy bottomed system. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.2.

3.2.2 Pea River HUC8 Population

The Pea River Basin is approximately 4,024 km2 (1,554 mi2) with the watershed located in both the southeastern Alabama and Florida panhandle. The watershed has several small urban zones (Elba, Kingston, and Samson), however pulp wood silviculture may have a greater influence on

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 15 2017

water quality and quantity in this basin. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Pea River Basin was estimated to be approximately 52.93 % forest, 16.36 % shrub/ scrub, 9.72 % pasture, 8.2 % agriculture, 5.3 % developed 4.04 % wetlands, and 2.55 % grassland.

The Pea River HUC8 population was first documented in 2002 (Godwin 2002) and was found to occupy the lower Pea River (Figure 3.3). During the same time period, G. ernsti and unidentifiable Graptemys spp. were collected from the upper regions of the Pea River (Godwin 2002) between Elba, Coffee Co., Alabama and just south of the Florida border in the Choctawhatchee River. Lechowicz (2013) conducted a spring and fall basking survey for G. barbouri in a 6 km stretch of the Pea River starting at the boat ramp at County Rd 17 to the confluent of Flat Creek, but found it difficult to distinguish Graptemys by species on the Pea River. Lechowicz’s basking surveys in the spring of 2008 resulted in 19 observations and the fall survey resulted in 38 unidentified Graptemys species with an average of 9.5 turtles/ km.

The unidentifiable Graptemys spp. displayed physical characteristics from both G. barbouri and G. ernsti, indicating the two megacephalic Graptemys were hybridizing and producing offspring. Hybridization of the two Graptemys spp. in the Pea River was confirmed by McHenry et al. (2006) through genetic analysis. Godwin et al. (2014) demonstrated that the Pea River population is morphologically intermediate between G. barbouri and G. ernsti in a discriminant analysis of mensural shell variables, an examination of diagnostic head characters, and genetic analysis. Since the hybrids have characteristic markings from both parents, species determination by binoculars is unreliable where both Graptemys are found (Lechowicz 2013). Population estimates and G. barbouri per river km from the Pea River are difficult to determine due to the hybridizing in this watershed.

3.2.3 Chipola River HUC8 Population

The Chipola River Basin is approximately 3,346 km2 (1,292 mi2) with the watershed located entirely within the Florida panhandle. The watershed has several small urban zones (Wewahitchka, Altha, Alford, Marianna, and Greenwood); however pulp wood silviculture may have a greater influence on water quality and quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Chipola River Basin was estimated to be approximately 31.0 % forest, 19.34 % wetlands, 17.17 % shrub/ scrub, 14.6 % agriculture, 6.93 % pasture, 6.15 % developed, and 3.79 % grassland.

G. barbouri was first described by Carr and Marchand (1942) from the Chipola River HUC8 population north of Marianna, Florida were ca. 80 individuals were observed. Chaney and Smith (1950) hand – captured 397 map turtles in the Chipola River over a 3-night period that (per Lindeman 2013) translated to 62 turtles/ km for the stretch they worked. Cagle (1952) collected 393 G. barbouri in an unspecified stretch of the Chipola, Sanderson (1974) captured 386 individuals in a 5.65 km stretch within Jackson Co. for a rate of 68.3 turtles/ km, and Moler (1986) later resampled 59 km of the Chipola and visually observed 221 basking individuals for an overall rate of 2.64 turtles/ km. The highest single survey was from October 2012, where

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 16 2017

observers reported 1,010 turtles along a 27.5 km stretch for an average of 36.7 turtles/ km (Ricketts 2014). In 2014, the FWC survey of G. barbouri in the Chipola River (Figure 3-4) detected 826 individuals and estimated 7.14 turtles/ river km (Mays and Hill 2015). Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.2.

3.2.4 Apalachicola and Brothers River HUC8 Population

Apalachicola River Basin is approximately 2,893 km2 (1,117 mi2) and the watershed is located in both the Florida panhandle and southwestern Georgia. The watershed has several small urban zones (Blountstown, Bristol, Sneads, and Chattahoochee) and the western portion of the Apalachicola National Forest. Pulp wood silviculture, commercial river traffic, and upper ACF basin water use may have a greater influence on riparian management, as well as water quality and quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Choctawhatchee River Basin was estimated to be approximately 51.76 % wetlands, 27.91 % forest, 7.10 % shrub/ scrub, 3.12 % agriculture, 2.01 % pasture, 3.04 % developed, and 2.25 % grassland.

The Apalachicola and Brothers River HUC8 Population has been well documented (Ernst and Lovich 2009). Basking surveys completed in 1990 (Ruhl 1991) and in 1990 - 1991 (Ewert et al., 2006), resulted in the observation of 1.43 turtles/ km and 4.46 turtles/ km, respectively. While Stewart (1992) surveyed four separate stretches of the upper and middle Apalachicola River to tally 5-8 turtles/ km along separate stretches. A continual survey effort in the lower Apalachicola, Chipola, and Brothers Rivers has been occurring since 1999 within the Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area (ARWEA) and report an estimated 6.1 turtles/ km for the Apalachicola and 6.0 turtles/ km in the Brothers (Ricketts 2014).

In 2014, the FWC survey G. barbouri along the Apalachicola

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 17 2017

River within the APBR (Figure 3-4) used a single pass distribution basking survey approach and produced 3,779 individual sightings with an average of 21.8 turtles/ km. A collective abundance survey completed on six 2 – km stretches of the River identified 2,079 turtles or 173.3 turtles/ km (Mays and Hill 2015). Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.2.

3.2.5 Chattahoochee River

The Chattahoochee River Basin is approximately 22,548 km2 (8,706 mi2) and the watershed is located in western and northern Georgia, eastern Alabama, and a small portion of the Florida panhandle. It contains three HUC8 populations; the Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Harding is located in Georgia and Alabama, the Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Walter F. George is located in Georgia and Alabama, and Lower Chattahoochee located in Georgia, Alabama, and the Florida panhandle. A fourth HUC8 (Upper Chattahoochee) occurs in northern Georgia, but no known Barbour’s map turtles occur in this section of the basin. The Upper Chattahoochee HUC 8 will be a part of the future condition scenarios and will not be discussed further in this section. The three watersheds occupied by Barbour’s map turtles have several medium to large urban zones (Dothan, Eufaula, Phenix City, and Columbus) and Fort Benning Military Installation that could impact water quality and quantity due to human use, hydroelectric power stations, and industrial operations operating in these urban areas. Pulp wood silviculture and cultivated crops may also have an influence on riparian management, water quality, and water quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Chattahoochee River Basin was estimated to be approximately 53.76 % forest, 19.24 % developed, 8.35 % pasture, 6.16 % shrub/ scrub, 4.58 % grassland, 3.07 % wetlands, and 1.26 % agriculture.

Moulis (1997) conducted a status survey of Barbour's Map Turtle in Georgia that did not involve any stream access, but rather was done strictly from access points along the banks such as bridge crossings and

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 18 2017

boat landings. No G. barbouri were observed at any of the 31 Chattahoochee River sites during Moulis’ survey. During a M. temminckii (alligator snapping turtle) status survey (Jensen and Birkhead 2003), G. barbouri were observed at two of the four Chattahoochee River drainage sites. Ten to twenty individuals of varying size classes were observed basking in the river along the banks of Chattahoochee County, and one adult female and several immatures or males were seen along the Seminole County river banks (GDNR, 2013).

Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Harding HUC8 Population

In 2014, the GDNR surveyed G. barbouri in the Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Harding HUC8 (Figure 3-5). This HUC8 is located above the fall line near Columbus, which is outside the known range for the species within the Chattahoochee River (Figure 3-5). This survey did not yield any observations of G. barbouri (Hepler et al. 2015). The Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Harding will be a part of the future condition scenarios and will not be discussed further in this section.

Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Walter F George HUC8 Population

In 2014, the GDNR survey of G. barbouri in the Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Walter F. George HUC8 (Figure 3-5) observed most individuals south of the historic City Mills Dam located between Columbus and Phenix City, GA with the highest density occurring on and just south of Fort Benning (Hepler et al. 2015). This survey covered 119.92 river km of the Chattahoochee River within the boundaries of the Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Walter F. George. Walter F. George Lake encompasses approximately 43.3 river km of the Chattahoochee River and do not provide adequate habitat for this riverine species. G. barbouri turtles were found in the northern areas of Walter F. George Lake but numbers diminished as the lake grew in width and depth. For the remaining 76.52 river km, surveyors observed 240 individuals with a density of 3.13 turtles/ km. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

Lower Chattahoochee HUC8 Population

During the 2014 GDNR survey of G. barbouri in the Lower Chattahoochee HUC8 (Figure 3-5), G. barbouri observations were low in the portions of Chattahoochee River below the Walter F. George Lock, Dam, and Powerhouse located in Eufaula, Alabama (0.25 turtles/ km for the first 23.59 km below the dam (Hepler et al. 2015). However, population densities increased in the southern portion of this HUC and into the northern area of Lake Seminole. Hepler et al. (2015) surveyed 101.68 river km of the Chattahoochee River within the boundaries of the Lower Chattahoochee. Surveyors observed 491 individuals with a density of 4.83 turtles/ km. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

3.2.6 Flint River

The Flint River Basin is approximately 14,143 km2 (5,461 mi2) and the watershed is located

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 19 2017

entirely within Georgia. It contains three HUC8 populations; the Upper Flint, Middle Flint, and Lower Flint. The watershed has several medium to large urban zones (Bainbridge, Albany, Montezuma, and Newton). Human use, hydroelectric power stations, industrial operations, pulp wood silviculture and agriculture may influence riparian management, water quality, and water quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Flint River Basin was estimated to be approximately 44.31 % forest, 15.54 % agriculture, 9.39 % pasture, 8.94 % developed, 8.62 % wetlands, 7.46 % grassland, and 4.28 % shrub/ scrub.

Moulis’ (1997) status survey of Barbour's map turtle in Georgia visited 86 access points along the banks of the Flint River, such as bridge crossings and boat landings, in 24 counties including all historic sites recorded in the literature and regional museums. Barbour's map turtles were observed at 10 of these 86 sites.

Upper Flint HUC8 Population

During the 2014 GDNR to survey of G. barbouri in the Upper Flint HUC8 (Figure 3-6) the Upper Flint had the lowest observed number of G. barbouri within the Flint River (Hepler et al. 2015). They surveyed 92.92 river km within the boundaries of the Upper Flint and surveyors observed 458 individuals with a density of 4.92 turtles/ km. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

Middle Flint HUC8 Population

During the 2014 GDNR to survey of G. barbouri in the Middle Flint HUC8 (Figure 3-6), the Middle Flint had the highest observed number of G. barbouri within the Flint River. Hepler et al. (2015) surveyed 94.35 river km of the Flint River within the boundaries of the Middle Flint. Surveyors observed 1741 individuals with a density of 15.13 turtles/ km. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 20 2017

Lower Flint HUC8 Population

A specimen in the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan was collected by John W. Crenshaw, Jr., in the Flint River, Newton, Baker County, Georgia, January 28, 1950 (Cagle 1952). In 2014, GDNR surveyed G. barbouri in the Lower Flint (Figure 3-6). Hepler et al. (2015) surveyed 133.9 river km of the Flint River within the boundaries of the Lower Flint. Surveyors observed 1124 individuals with a density of 8.39 turtles/ km. This survey included 14.62 km of the Flint River that is considered part of Lake Seminole. Surveyors observed 122 turtles with a density of 8.34 turtles/ km. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

3.2.7 Spring Creek HUC8

The Spring Creek Basin is approximately 2,040 km2 (788mi2) and the watershed is located entirely within Georgia. The watershed has several small urban zones (Brinson, Colquitt, Damascus, and Iron City). Agriculture and pulp wood silviculture may have the greatest influence on riparian management, water quality, and water quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Spring Creek Basin was estimated to be approximately 41.45 % agriculture, 27.04 % forest, 13.1 % wetlands, 5.78 % pasture, 4.87 % developed, 3.96 % grassland, and 1.97 % shrub/ scrub.

Moulis (1997) conducted a status survey of G. barbouri in the Spring Creek HUC8 population that did not involve any stream access by boat, but rather was done strictly from points along the banks such as bridge crossings and boat landings. G. barbouri were observed at one of the 15 Spring Creek sites. G. barbouri individuals were captured in 2007 – 2008 to help identify the effects of land use on freshwater turtle assemblages (n = 55, Sterrett et al. 2010a). In 2014 GDNR surveyed G. barbouri in the Spring

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 21 2017

Creek (Figure 3-6). Hepler et al. (2015) surveyed 14.54 river km in the Spring River within the boundaries of the Spring Creek. Surveyors observed 79 individuals with a density of 5.43 turtles/ km. About 5.85 river km of Spring Creek surveyed occurred in Lake Seminole. Unlike other lakes, the density of G. barbouri found within the Lake Seminole region of Spring Creek were greater than in the creek itself, 8.58 turtles/ km. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

3.2.8 Ichawaynochaway and Chickasawhatchee Creeks HUC8

The Ichawaynochaway Creek Basin encompasses both Ichawaynochaway Creek and its tributary Chickasawhatchee Creek. The basin is approximately 2,859 km2 (1,104 mi2) and the watershed is located entirely within Georgia. The watershed has several small urban zones (Leary, Morgan, Shellman and Dawson). Agriculture and pulp wood silviculture may have the greatest influence on riparian management, water quality, and water quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Ichawaynochaway Creek Basin was estimated to be approximately 37.84 % forest, 27.58 % agriculture, 15.59 % wetlands, 6.17 % pasture, 5.68 % grassland, 3.46 % developed, and 3.12 % shrub/ scrub.

Ichawaynochaway and Chickasawhatchee Creeks HUC8 population of G. barbouri was first reported in the Ichawaynochaway Creek, Baker County, Georgia (Crenshaw and Rabb 1949). G. barbouri individuals were later captured by snorkeling around in-water woody debris in 2007 – 2008 to help identify the effects of riparian habitat management on freshwater turtles (n = 66, Sterrett et al. 2010a) and G. barbouri were again captured for a female home range study conducted in 2015 (n = 21, Sterrett et al. 2015). During the GDNR 2014 survey G. barbouri in the Ichawaynochaway and Chickasawhatchee Creeks HUC8 (Figure 3-8), Hepler et al. (2015) surveyed 57.15 river km in the Ichawaynochaway Creek and observed 37 G. barbouri with a density of 0.65 turtles/ km. In Chickasawhatchee Creek, 4.5 river km were surveyed with 4 G. barbouri observed; giving

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 22 2017

the surveyed stretch a 0.89 turtles/ km encounter rate. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

3.2.9 Kinchafoonee – Muckalee Creeks HUC8

The Kinchafoonee – Muckalee Creeks Basin encompasses both creeks, is approximately 2,851 km2 (1,101 mi2), and the watershed is located entirely within Georgia. The watershed has several small to medium urban zones (Americus, Leesburg, Preston, and Buena Vista). Agriculture and pulp wood silviculture may have the greatest influence on riparian management, water quality, and water quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Kinchafoonee – Muckalee Creeks Basin was estimated to be approximately 44.30 % forest, 20.45 % agriculture, 10.65 % wetlands, 7.32 % grassland, 6.71 % pasture, 5.53 % developed, and 4.57 % shrub/ scrub.

In the GDNR 2014 survey of G. barbouri in the Kinchafoonee – Muckalee Creeks HUC8 population (Figure 3-8), Hepler et al. (2015) surveyed 31.74 river km in Kinchafoonee Creek within the boundaries of the Kinchafoonee – Muckalee Creeks HUC8. Surveyors observed 9 individuals with a density of 0.28 turtles/ km. In Muckalee Creek, 22.95 river km were surveyed with 6 G. barbouri observed; giving the surveyed stretch a 0.26 turtles/ km density. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

3.2.10 Ochlockonee River

The Ochlockonee River Basin is approximately 6,428 km2 (2,482 mi2) and the watershed is located in southern Georgia and the Florida panhandle. The basin contains two HUC8 populations; the Upper and Lower Ochlockonee. The watershed has several small to medium urban zones (Thomasville, Moultrie, Midway, and Sopchoppy) and a large portion of the Apalachicola National Forest. Human use, hydroelectric power stations, industrial operations, pulp wood silviculture and agriculture would have an influence on riparian management, water quality and quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Ochlockonee

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 23 2017

River Basin was estimated to be approximately 32.12 % forest, 31.82 % wetlands, 15.12 % agriculture, 6.12 % shrub/ scrub, 5.99 % developed, 3.67 % grassland, and 3.25 % pasture.

Upper Ochlockonee River HUC8 Population

The 2014 GDNR survey of G. barbouri in the Upper Ochlockonee River HUC8 (Figure 3-9), covered7.7 river km of the Ochlockonee River within the boundaries of the Upper Ochlockonee (Helper et al. 2015). Surveyors observed 4 individuals with a density of 0.52 turtles/ km. Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.3.

Lower Ochlockonee River HUC8 Population

The first observation of G. barbouri in the Lower Ochlockonee River was reported by Enge et al. (1996) when three individuals were found. Two were found above Lake Talquin in Gadsden Co. and the third individual was observed near the Liberty/ Leon Co. line below Jackson Bluff dam. Subsequent basking surveys in 1999 – 2000 (Enge and Wallace 2008) found two subadults and two juvenile; two upstream and two downstream of Lake Talquin. The straight-line distance between the northernmost and southernmost turtles was ca. 34.5 km with an overall density of 0.025 G. barbouri/ km.

The 2014 FWC survey of G. barbouri in the Lower Ochlockonee HUC8 (Figure 3-9) extended the known range of G. barbouri by 7.5 km upstream and 10.2 km downstream on the Ochlockonee and included the first vouchered records from Wakulla Co. (Mays and Hill 2016). Two types of surveys were conducted: distribution and collective abundance. For the distribution survey, a total of 67 G. barbouri were observed during the 95.4 river km survey with an average of 0.70 turtles/ river km. During the collective abundance surveyed conducted below the Jackson Bluff dam, 292 G. barbouri were observed with an average of 11.7 turtles/ km. While trapping for Apalachicola alligator snapping turtles (Macrochelys apalachicolae) on a lower section of the Ochlockonee River, an adult female Barbour’s map turtle was observed and photographed, extending the range another 41.2 km downstream (51.4 km further downstream than previously reported, Mays and Hill 2015 unpublished report). Sex and age structure of observed G. barbouri in this survey can be found in Table 3.2.

3.2.11 Wacissa River HUC8

The Aucilla River Basin is approximately 2,341 km2 (904mi2) and the watershed is located in southern Georgia and Florida panhandle. The watershed has several small urban zones (Greenville, Monticello, and Boston). Agriculture and pulp wood silviculture may have the greatest influence on riparian management, water quality, and water quantity. Based on the 2011 National Land Cover Data, the Wacissa Creek Basin was estimated to be approximately 35.62 % forest, 35.47 % wetlands, 10.93 % shrub/ scrub, 9.47 % agriculture, 4.67 % developed, 3.14 % grassland, and no pasture.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 24 2017

Wacissa River HUC8 Population is not well known (Figure 3-9) with only a few individuals documented and no targeted surveys. A single female was found laying fertile eggs at the headwaters of the Wacissa River in Jefferson Co. (Jackson 2003) and another adult female was observed on the lower part of the Wacissa River by Hill and Mays (2015) while conducting a survey for alligator snapping turtle.

3.2.12 Ocklawaha River

Unverified reports exist from the Ocklawaha River, Marion Co. where a population has been reported to exist in an unidentified section of the river. In 2014, the Service provided funds to FWC to survey G. barbouri in the Ocklawaha River. No G. barbouri were detected during the 40 river-km basking survey (Mays and Hill 2015).

Table 3-2. Sex and Age Structure of Observed G. barbouri in the Lower Choctawhatchee, Chipola, Apalachicola, and Lower Ocklockonee Rivers, Florida, 2014 – 2015 Service funded Distribution Surveys by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Lower Lower G. barbouri Chipola Apalachicola Total Choctawhatchee Ocklockonee Adult male 401 107 1159 26 1693 Adult female 174 127 670 5 976 Subadult male 16 6 25 3 50 Subadult female 188 84 322 10 604 Subadult unknown 161 135 516 12 824 Juvenile 114 78 596 10 798 Unknown 191 289 491 1 972 Adults (all sexes) 575 234 1829 31 2669 Subadults (all sexes) 365 225 863 25 1478 TOTAL 1245 826 3779 67 5917 Number of G. 10.55 7.14 21.80 0.70 11.79 barbouri/ river km km = kilometers

3.2.13 Land Managers

The ACF Rivers and their major contributories, Choctawhatchee, Pea, Ochlockonee, and Wacissa Rivers fall within 18 Hydrologic Unit Codes 8 (HUC-8s). There are two HUC-8s, located north of the Georgia fall line, that supply water to the Chattahoochee River but do not have Barbour’s map turtles inhabiting them; Upper Chattahoochee (1,014,806 acres) and Middle Chattahoochee-Lake Harding (1,945,962 acres) sub-basins. The Upper Choctawhatchee (987,732 acres) and Upper Ochlockonee (593,256 acres) sub-basins supply water to the Choctawhatchee River and Ochlockonee River (respectively), but no Barbour’s map turtles have been found in either HUC-8 unit to date. The 18 HUC-8s comprise a total of 17,703,804 acres of watershed.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 25 2017

The four non-inhabited HUC-8s comprise a total of 4,547,756 acres (25.7%) and the inhabited 14 HUC-8s comprise 13,162,048 acres (74.3%).

Within the 18 HUC-8s, 1,818,846 acres (9.7%) are managed by Federal, State, County, City, and Non-government Organizations (NGOs) (Figure 3-10). Federal land managers include: Department of Defense, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and National Park Service. State land managers include: parks and recreation, environmental protection, forests, wildlife management areas, land trust, and water management districts. County and City managed areas include: greenspace, park and recreation areas, and local historical sites. Table 3-4 provides a breakdown of managers, approximate acres, and percent of total acres.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 26 2017

Table 3-3. Sex and Age Structure of Observed G. Barbouri in the 2014 – 2015 Service funded Georgia Department of Natural Resources Surveys per HUC 8 Population. Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Lower Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Chattahoochee Ochlockonee Upper Chickasawhatchee Ichawaynochaway Kinchafoonee Middle Flint Flint

Lower Flint Lower Upper Flint * George F. Muckalee Harding Spring Total – Entire G. barbouri –

Lake Walter Walter Lake

* - –

Entire *

* * Lake Lake

*

Adult male 305 0 101 204 2002 261 1247 397 1 1 5 0 1 50 2365

Adult female 118 0 43 75 821 125 299 494 3 3 32 6 4 26 1013

Juvenile 308 0 96 212 500 72 195 233 0 0 0 3 1 3 815

Adults (all sexes) 423 0 144 279 2823 386 1546 891 4 4 37 6 5 76 3915

TOTAL 731 0 240 491 3,323 458 1741 1124 4 4 37 9 6 79 4,193

Length Surveyed (km) 305 0 119.9 101.7 342 92.92 115.09 133.9 7.7 4.5 57 32 23 14.5 785

Number of G. barbouri/ 2.4 0 2.0 4.83 9.72 4.93 15.13 8.39 0.52 0.89 1.5 3.5 0.26 5.4 ~ river km *Totals are included in the Entire column, km = kilometers.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 27 2017

Figure 3-10. Breakdown of managed land by the type of governmental and NGO managers within the 18 HUC-8s that supply water to rivers inhabited by Barbour’s map turtles. Land Management by Federal, State, County/ City, and Non-Government/ Private Management

Federal

State

County and City

Non-Government and Private

Table 3-4. Table of governmental, NGOs, and private land managers with approximate acres and percent of total acres. Manager Acres Group Total Acres Group Percent Alabama – State 87,397 Alabama – County and City 0 88,367 4.86% Alabama – NGO and Private 970 Florida – State 354,822 Florida – County and City 530 360,315 19.81% Florida – NGO and Private 4,963 Georgia – State 219,152 Georgia – County and City 5,832 288,535 15.86% Georgia – NGO and Private 63,551 The Nature Conservancy 27,691 112,606 6.19% Tall Timbers Land Conservancy 84,915 U.S. Department of Defense 482,140 482,140 26.51% Natural Resources Conservation 4,586 4,586 0.25% Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 32,583 32,582.97 1.79% U.S. Forest Service 446,672 446,672 24.56% National Park Service 3,042 3,042 0.17% NGO = Non-Governmental Organization

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 28 2017

3.3 Needs of the Barbour’s map turtles

As discussed in Chapter 1, for the purpose of this assessment, we define viability as the ability of the species to sustain populations in the wild over time (in this case, 50 years). Using the SSA framework, we describe the species’ viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms of its resiliency, redundancy, and representation (the 3Rs, Figure 3-11). Using various time frames and the current and future characterization of the 3Rs, we thereby describe the species’ level of viability over time.

Figure 3-11 Resiliency is measured at the population level, representation is measured at the species and, and possibly, population level, and redundancy is measured at the species level (after Figure 4, USFWS 2016a). HUC 8 = Hydrologic Unit Code

3.3.1 G. barbouri HUC8 Population Resiliency

As previously described, G. barbouri populations were delineated at the HUC8 watersheds that encompass historically or currently documented occupied habitat. Because the river basin level was determined to be too coarse of a scale at which to estimate the condition of factors influencing resiliency, HUC8s were used to evaluate this metric. Given the hierarchical nature of the relationship between individuals, populations, and species (Figure 3-11), we first consider

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 29 2017

resiliency at the level of an individual, then scale up to populations (HUC8s), and, ultimately, make inferences at the species-level.

Resiliency (measured at the population level) is the foundational building block of the SSA Framework; thus, for the Barbour’s map turtle to be viable, some proportion of its range must be resilient enough to withstand stochastic events. Stochastic events that have the potential to affect turtle populations include high flow events, droughts, and thunder and tropical storms. Given the data available, the metrics that were used to assess resiliency were categorized as population factors (abundance within current occupied rivers, population growth, and recruitment) and habitat elements (water flow, open sandbars, and in-water woody debris). In the next section, we discuss the methods used to estimate resiliency metrics and we explore potential causal relationships between resiliency and turtle habitat requisites (see Figure 3-12).

Population Factors that Influence Resiliency

Approximate Abundance – Turtle populations and assemblages are spatially variable in rivers due to abiotic (e.g., temperature and limestone outcrops) and biotic factors (e.g., prey availability, in-water woody debris, competitors; Ernst and Lovich 2009, Bodie and Semlitsch 2000; Bodie et al. 2000, Moll and Moll 2004) and require a suite of survey methods and locations to adequately estimate populations and species composition. Since this information is not available, the Service used the Barbour’s map turtle survey results from the 2014 – 2015 FWC and GDNR basking surveys as the best available data to determine abundance. Turtle abundance is the number of G. barbouri identified along the basking survey route.

Using ArcMap editing tools, the basking survey data was processed to determine the number of Barbour’s map turtles observed per river km. The final feature class representing all of the surveyed km segments was classified using the Jenks Natural Breaks method into three classes: low, medium, and high. The Jenks Natural Breaks algorithm is a standard method for dividing a dataset into a certain number of homogenous classes by minimizing the sum of the variance within each class (Jenks 1967).

Population growth: Turtles have high mortality rates during early life stages followed by a very low death rate for individuals reaching adulthood. This type of survivorship curve places a great amount of importance to hatching success (e.g. percent of eggs hatched divided by the total number of eggs laid) and the survival of juveniles to maintain and to grow a population. Females have the ability to lay up to 11 eggs per nest and three to four nests annually; however, most turtles do not meet their full nesting potential due to various environmental factors and nests are often predated as soon as the female leaves the area. Annual frequency of nesting and hatching success are critical aspects in determining population trends. Horne et al. (2003), in an optimal situation, estimated that a female yellow-blotched map (G. flavimaculata) turtle could replace itself in a breeding population in 6.8 years if the following were true: juvenile survival rate of 80%, average clutch size of 4.8 eggs, 1.16 clutches/ year, a 1:1 primary sex ratio, and an age at maturity of 10 years. Currently, nesting frequency, clutch size, hatching success and juvenile

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 30 2017

survivorship is unknown for Barbour’s map turtles. Since many of the elements of this critical population factor have not been documented, an unknown designation will occupy this column in the resiliency table.

Recruitment: Visual identification of all size and age classes is a passive and efficient way to determine if there is successful nesting and juvenile/ adult survival.

Habitat Elements that Influence Resiliency

Physical, biological, and chemical processes influence instream habitat quality and quantity, which, in turn, influence the condition and abundance of species using that habitat. In the case of the Barbour’s map turtle, breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs such as basking, nesting, and food availability are all needs influenced by water flow, open sandbar availability, and suitable exposed and in-water woody debris (Figure 3-12). See Chapter 4 for further discussion about the many factors that influence the condition of these habitat elements.

Water flow: The water flow in the ACF basin is prominently influenced for the production of hydroelectric power, aids to navigation (i.e. locks and commercial barge traffic), municipal water supply needs, and seasonal flooding/ drought management. Major electric companies own and operate a number of dams and their operational needs are based on the demand for electricity by their customers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) operates five federal facilities, individually and in concert, under its Water Control Manual. This manual balances water supply, navigation, hydroelectric generation, recreation, flood control, drought reduction, fish and wildlife habitat, and endangered species needs. The Ocklockonee River has one hydroelectric dam that produces electricity for the City of Tallahassee, Florida and creates Lake Talquin reservoir.

Sandbars: Optimal sandbar conditions would have an open canopy to allow the temperature- dependent sex determinate eggs to develop into a 1:1 sex ratio of hatchling, allows for natural gas and liquid exchange through the egg shell, non-compactable composition to allow the female to dig, deposit, and cover the nest, and provides adequate shelter in the event the hatchlings overwinter in the nest. Both spoil piles undergoing succession and river banks can provide a mixture of the above conditions, but the sex ratio of the hatchlings can be skewed, have reduced nest survival, or provide easier access for predation (Horne et al. 2003).

In-water woody debris: Exposed and in-water woody debris provides basking sites, shelter, and habitat for prey species. The removal of woody vegetation by deadhead logging, the salvaging of submerged cut timber, and main channel dredging for barge traffic has the potential for long- term impacts to partially submerged and in-water woody debris. Currently, Florida permits deadhead logging in all of the rivers inhabited by Barbour’s map turtles except for the Wacissa River (Appendix C), Alabama allows deadhead logging in both the Pea and Choctawhatchee Rivers, and no deadheading occurs in Georgia. The Corps maintains navigational channels in major rivers to support barge and small commercial craft traffic. Due to federal budget

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 31 2017

constraints and reduced barge traffic, the ACF has not been dredged since 1999, except for a limited action in 2001.

Figure 3-12 Barbour’s map turtle Ecology: Influence diagram illustrating how habitat factors influence breeding, feeding, and sheltering factors, which in turn affect demographic factors that ultimately drive mussel population growth and maintenance. Diagram was developed by a group of freshwater mussel experts and substantiated from literature.

3.3.2 Species Representation

Identifying and evaluating representative units that contribute to a species’ adaptive potential are important components of assessing overall species’ viability (Shaffer and Stein 2000, USFWS 2016b). This is because populations that are distributed throughout multiple representative units may buffer a species’ response to environmental changes over time. Representation for the Barbour’s map can be described in terms of River Variability and Spatial Variability. Below we examine these aspects of the historic and current distribution of the Barbour’s map turtle and identify potential causal effects for changes in representation over time.

River Variability – River variability for the Barbour’s map turtle has been extended 17.3 km downstream in the Choctawhatchee and 7.5 km upstream and 51.4 km downstream on the Ochlockonee Rivers in Florida (Figure 3.2, Ewert et al., 2006); thus, the species has gained

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 32 2017

approximately 6 % of River Variability. However, it should be noted that this is a relative estimate of gain as variability for populations within basins fluctuate and in some instances, only occupy a small portion of the river basin (Table 3-5).

Table 3-5 Barbour’s map turtle River Variability. Population (HUC8) # of Historically # of Currently Total # of Individuals Occupied River km Occupied River km 2014 – 2015 Lower 99.03 117.5 1,245 Choctawhatchee Upper 35.3 35.3 Not included in effort Choctawhatchee Pea 72.4 72.4 Not included in effort Chipola 84.5 115.7 826 Apalachicola1 187.5 187.5 3,882 Lower Ochlockonee 162 76.82 67 Upper Ochlockonee 7.7 7.7 4 Middle Chattahoochee – 76.52 76.52 240 Walter F. George Lower 101.68 101.68 491 Chattahoochee Upper Flint 176 92.92 458 Middle Flint 115.09 115.09 1741 Lower Flint 133.9 133.9 1124 Ichawaynochaway – Chickasawhatchee 24 61.65 41 Creeks Kinchafoonee – 0.0 54.69 15 Muckalee Creeks Spring 8.5 14.54 79 1 Apalachicola, Brothers and Brickyard Cutoff, St. Marks and East River Distributary; HUC = Hydrologic Unit Code, km = kilometer

Spatial Variability – Historically, the Barbour’s map turtle was known to be sparsely distributed in the ACF basin and its major tributaries, but current survey data indicates distribution within the basin is much broader, several impoundment lakes, two adjacent watersheds (Choctawhatchee and Ochlockonee), and limited observations from the Wacissa River.

Summary As evaluated through the lens of river basin and spatial variability, the contemporary distribution of Barbour’s map turtle reflects a considerable gain over the known historical representation. Because representation is an indirect measure of a species’ adaptive potential, this trend is inspiring in terms of the ability of the species to respond to a changing environment. Later, we

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 33 2017

discuss the benefits of a potential continued gain in representation.

3.3.3 Species Redundancy

Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the species’ range will be negatively affected by a natural or anthropogenic catastrophic event at a given point in time. Species that have resilient populations spread throughout their historical range are less susceptible to extinction (Carroll et al. 2010, Redford et al. 2011). Thus, high redundancy for Barbour’s map turtle is defined as multiple resilient populations distributed throughout the species’ historical range. That is, highly resilient populations, coupled with a relatively broad distribution, have a positive relationship to species-level redundancy. The best available published historical data indicates that Barbour’s map turtle populations were once less broadly distributed throughout their historical range (Figure 3-1) with an unknown abundance. However, several factors, including a greater understanding of G. barbouri’s secretive nature and basking behavior, have improved survey techniques which resulted in a more efficient way to determine occupancy and distribution of the turtles (see Chapter 4).

3.4 Current Conditions

The results of recent surveys conducted from 1990s to 2015 suggest that the currently occupied range of the G. barbouri includes eight major rivers, five tributaries on the Flint River, and several sighting in the Wacissa River from 15 HUC8 populations in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. G. barbouri was the most observed of all turtle species on the Flint, Choctawhatchee, Chipola, and Apalachicola Rivers during the 2014 – 2015 surveys and the second most observed on the Ochlockonee and Chattahoochee rivers, Chickasawhatchee, Ichawaynochaway, Ocklockonee and Spring Creeks during the same time period. Table 3-6 shows the current species status as tracked by national and state entities that track conservation status of species.

Table 3-6 Current species status/ranks by other entities who track conservation status of Barbour’s map turtle Entity Status/Rank Notes Reference NatureServe G2N2 Restricted to a single river system, NatureServe subject to dredging, impoundment, 2015 water withdrawal and pollution IUCN Vulnerable IUCN 2011 CITES: Appendix III Not Evaluated Protected Status CITES 2017 Alabama High River and stream alterations are the ADCNR Conservation greatest threat to species 2017 Concern Florida State Species of Protected under Florida’s Endangered FWC 2017 Special Concern and Threatened Species Rule Georgia Threatened River and stream alterations are the GDNR 2007 greatest threat to species

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 34 2017

ADCNR = Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, CITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, GDNR = Georgia Department of Natural Resources, IUCN = International Union for Conservation for Natural Resources

3.4.1 Current Resiliency

Methodology

To summarize the overall current conditions of occupied Barbour’s map turtle HUC8s, we sorted them into three categories (high, moderate, low) based on the population factors and habitat elements discussed in Section 3.3.1. The current condition category is a qualitative estimate based on the analysis of the three population factors (HUC8 Occupancy, Population Growth, and Recruitment) and three habitat elements (Water Flow, Open Sandbars, and In-water Woody Debris). Overall population condition rankings and habitat condition rankings were determined by combining the three population factors and three habitat elements, respectively (Table 3-8).

The Service used a hypothetical situation to help determine the amount of sandbar that would be needed for river turtle reproduction on an annual basis (Table 3-7). The amount of open sandbar needed for a high population of G. barbouri is estimated to be approximately 1.21 m2 (13 feet2). After reviewing the best available digital aerial photographs of the rivers inhabited by Barbour’s map turtles, there are adequate amounts of open sandbars along the rivers. It has been determined that this is not a limiting habitat factor; however it is a requirement for successful nesting without a skewed sex ratio and can be influenced by the management of water flow, storms, and dredging activities in support of barge traffic. This factor will have a presence/ absent determination.

Table 3-7: Hypothetical situation to evaluate an estimated amount of open sandbar area needed to support freshwater riverine nesting turtles. Step Description Population For this exercise, the Service is estimating an average of 50 individual 50 individuals freshwater riverine turtles within a 1 km stretch of river. 25 males, We are presuming an optimal sex ratio of 1:1. 25 females Turtles mature at a certain size than at a specified age. We are presuming maturity at 15 years. It is also difficult to determine life spans for turtle 12 Juvenile species since it is difficult to determine exact age of individuals with visual females; inspection and it would require a long term mark - recapture study (up to 40 13 Adult or more years). For this exercise, we are going to presume a life span of 30 females years. At any point in time, 1/2 of the female population would be mature. Individuals may lay one to six nests annually and whether or not an individual 13 Adult nests depends on a number of factors (i.e. seasonal air and water temperatures, females overall health, time spent basking, etc.). This makes the number of nests laid 13 nests lain in one year very difficult to determine. We are going to presume that each annually adult female lays one nest annually. A total of 13 nests each year.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 35 2017

Step Description Population The amount of area needed to lay a nest varies due to the number of eggs 13 Adult deposited and egg size. For this exercise, we are going to presume that each females; 13 nesting turtle would need an average of 0.09 m2 (1 foot2) of space for their nests lain nest. This would require 1.21 m2 (13 feet2) of open sandbar for the 13 nests. annually; An open sandbar allows the sunlight to warm and maintain internal nest minimum of temperatures that result in a mix of males and females. Whereas nests laid in 1.21 m2 (13 shaded areas tend to be a few degrees lower and typically produce more males feet2) of than females. sandbar. km = kilometer, m = meter

The amount of in-water woody habitat is difficult to measure and what an individual Barbour’s map turtle would need throughout its lifetime is even more difficult to estimate. Currently, researchers estimate adequacy based on their knowledge of turtle behavior and occupancy of out- of-water baskers (i.e. Trachemys spp., Pseudemys spp., and G. barbouri). Numerous published journal articles report the amount of observed woody debris within surveyed river reaches; however, there was no consistent unit of measurement used across time, rivers, or researchers. During the 2014 survey, observers noted that basking sites may not be a limiting resource for G. barbouri on the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers (Hepler et al. 2015).

The riparian area serves as a source for future in-water woody debris. To the best of their ability, federal, state, and local governments incorporate nonstructural and structural riparian BMPs on their managed lands (Table 3-4); however, these land managers are not the majority of land owners along the waterways and private land owners may or may not follow BMPs along the rivers and creeks. To help protect riparian areas on private land, the three states have a variety of programs (e.g. Natural Resources Conservation Service) and/ or state statutes to protect these important areas.

Alabama: The Alabama Department of Environmental Management encourages implementation of effective best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control associated with timber harvesting forestry activities, including road construction associated with harvesting.

Florida: The Surface Water Improvement and Management program (SWIM) is a statewide program to address non-point source pollution impacts to waterbodies on a landscape scale. This program partners Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), FDEP Water Management Districts, federal, state, and local government, and the private sector to restore damaged ecosystems, prevent pollution from storm water runoff and other sources, and education the public. The Northwest Florida Water Management District’s priority waterbodies for the panhandle include: Apalachicola River and bay watershed, Choctawhatchee River and bay watershed, and Ochlockonee River and bay watershed.

Georgia: The Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act restricts disturbance and trimming of vegetation within a 25 foot buffer adjacent to creeks, streams, rivers, saltwater marshes and most

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 36 2017

lakes and ponds, and within a 50 foot buffer on trout streams. Homeowners may not cause any significant land disturbance within this buffer without a variance, but may thin or trim vegetation so long as water quality and aquatic habitat are protected and a natural canopy is left in sufficient quantity to provide shade on the stream bed. The Mountain and River Corridors Protection Act and the Georgia Planning Act require some local governments to adopt a 100 foot buffer and restrict certain land uses along various large river corridors in the state.

For this status assessment, we will use a point system based on states regulatory protection of the riparian areas (Table 3-8).

Table 3-8. Point system used to determine high, moderate, or low current condition for in-water vegetation. Deadhead Volunteer State programs State statues logging implementation for riparian to protect HUC 8 Total NOT of state riparian habitat riparian permitted BMPs restoration vegetation Pea River 0 1 0 0 1 Upper 0 1 0 0 1 Choctawhatchee Lower 0 1 1 0 2 Choctawhatchee Chipola 0 1 1 0 2 Apalachicola 0 1 1 0 2 Chattahoochee – Lake Walter F. 1 1 1 1 4 George Lower Chattahoochee 1 1 1 1 4 Upper Flint 1 1 1 1 4 Middle Flint 1 1 1 1 4 Lower Flint 1 1 1 1 4 Spring Creek 1 1 1 1 4 Ichawaynochaway and 1 1 1 1 4 Chickasawhatchee Creeks Kinchafoonee and 1 1 1 1 4 Muckalee Creeks Upper Ochlockonee 1 1 1 1 4 Lower Ochlockonee 0 1 1 0 2 Wacissa 1 1 1 0 3 0 = not applicable, 1 = applicable

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 37 2017

Table 3-9 Population and habitat characteristics within HUC8s used to create condition categories in Table 3-10. Demographic Factors Habitat Factors Condition In-water Average of Open Woody Debris category Population Growth Recruitment Water Flow Abundance Sandbars Protection (Table 3-8) Adult female survival > 75% If water flow is managed, then All size/ age > 11.0 G. Juvenile survival > there will be seasonal variation classes are High barbouri/ 75% in water depth and natural river 4 observed river km 1 successful nest lain sinuosity (allows for area with

annually. Growing fast and slow water flow) population Combined: Water flow is managed to Moderate – Adult female survival alleviate some seasonal water High 50 - 75% 4.1 to 11.0 depth variation in upper reaches, Juvenile survival ~ Various size/ G. supply water for human Moderate 75% age classes 2 - 3 barbouri/ consumption, hydroelectric 1 successful nest lain are observed river km power production, navigation, every 2 - 3 years. and recreational opportunities. Stable population Faster moving water. Adult female survival < 50% Water flow is managed to 0.1 to 4.0 Juvenile survival < One size or alleviate flooding and for human G. Low 75% age class consumption only. Water levels Absent 0 - 1 barbouri/ 1 successful nest lain observed staying high in spring, very low river km every 4 - 5 years. in summer, and fast moving. Declining population km = kilometer

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 38 2017

Table 3-10 Resiliency of Barbour’s map turtle populations. See Table 3-9 for condition descriptions. Population Factors Habitat Elements In-water HUC8 Population Habitat Overall Population Water Open Woody HUC8 Population Average Recruitment Current Current Current Growth Flow Sandbar Debris Population Conditions Conditions Condition Protection Moderate Pea River Low UN High Moderate High Low Moderate Moderate - High Moderate Upper Choctawhatchee Low UN Moderate Low High Low Moderate Low - High Moderate Moderate Lower Choctawhatchee Moderate UN High Moderate High Moderate Moderate - High - High Moderate Chipola Moderate UN High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate - High Moderate Moderate Apalachicola High UN High High High Moderate High - High - High Chattahoochee – Lake Moderate Moderate Low UN Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Walter F. George - High - High Moderate Moderate Lower Chattahoochee Moderate UN Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate - High - High Moderate Upper Flint Moderate UN Moderate Moderate High High High Moderate - High Moderate Middle Flint High UN High High High High High High - High Moderate Lower Flint Moderate UN High Moderate High High High Moderate - High Moderate Spring Creek Moderate UN High Moderate High High High Moderate - High Ichawaynochaway and Moderate Chickasawhatchee Low UN Moderate Low High High High Moderate - High Creeks

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 39 2017

Population Factors Habitat Elements In-water HUC8 Population Habitat Overall Population Water Open Woody HUC8 Population Average Recruitment Current Current Current Growth Flow Sandbar Debris Population Conditions Conditions Condition Protection Kinchafoonee and Moderate Low UN Moderate Low High High High Moderate Muckalee Creeks - High Moderate Upper Ochlockonee Low UN Moderate Low High High High Moderate - High Moderate Lower Ochlockonee Low UN High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate - High Moderate Moderate Wacissa Low UN Moderate Low High Moderate Moderate - High - High HUC = Hydrologic Unit Code, UN = Unknown, data not available

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 40 2017

Combined habitat elements, representing overall habitat condition, were high in two HUC8 populations, moderate in 13 HUC8 populations, and low in one HUC8 population. Water flow management was the only limiting factor. Water flow management was moderate in four of the HUC8 populations, Chipola, Chattahoochee (Lower and Lake Walter F. George) and Lower Ochlockonee. Combined population factors, representing a combination of average population, population growth, and recruitment, was estimated to be high for two HUC8 populations, moderate for eight HUC8 population units and low for six HUC8 population units. (Table 3-10). As noted in Section 3.3.1, both average population and recruitment should be considered conservative estimates.

At the population level, the overall current condition (= resiliency) was estimated to be high for the Apalachicola and Middle Flint populations, moderate for the Pea, Lower Choctawhatchee, Chipola, Chattahoochee (Lower and Lake Walter F. George), Upper and Lower Flint River, Spring Creek, Ichawaynochaway and Chickasawhatchee, Kinchafoonee and Muckalee Creek, Upper and Lower Ochlockonee, and Wacissa River Populations, low for the Upper Choctawhatchee Population (Table 3-9, Figure 3-13).

3.4.2 Current Representation

We estimated that the Barbour’s map turtle currently has moderate adaptive potential due to its representation in six major rivers and one tributary (Figure 3-14). Even though G. barbouri may have low representation in the smaller Wacissa and Ochlockonee Rivers, the head waters of the Choctawhatchee and Flint Rivers, and tributaries (Ichawaynochaway, Chickasawhatchee, Kinchafoonee, and Muckalee Creeks); these occupied areas represent expansion into the peripheral edges of G. barbouri historical range.

3.4.3 Current Redundancy

While the overall range of the Barbour’s map turtle has not changed significantly, the occupied portions of the range have become more robust within each HUC8. Redundancy was estimated as the number of historically occupied HUC8s that remain currently occupied (Table 3-5). The Kinchafoonee and Muckalee HUC8 was not known to be occupied G. barbouri, but recent surveys documented low numbers near their confluence with the Flint River. The species retains redundancy (albeit in low condition) within the Flint River tributaries, Upper and Lower Ocklockonee, Wacissa, Pea, and Upper Choctawhatchee River populations. Overall, the species has increased redundancy across its range by an estimated 6% increase in occupancy compared to historical levels.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 41 2017

Dark Green = High, Green = Moderate, Yellow = Low

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 42 2017

Dark Green = High, Green = Moderate, Yellow = Low

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 43 2017

Chapter 4 – Factors Influencing Viability

In this chapter, we evaluate the past, current, and future factors that are affecting what the Barbour’s map turtle needs for long term viability. Aquatic systems face a multitude of natural and anthropogenic threats and stressors (Neves et al. 1997). Alabama, Florida, and Georgia’s State Fish and Wildlife agencies have identified several factors that have impacts on habitats (see blue boxes in Figure 4.1 below). Generally, these factors can be categorized as either environmental stressors (e.g., water management, deadhead logging, dredging or channel maintenance for commerce and public use of the waterways) or systematic changes (e.g., climate change, riparian management or regulatory mechanisms, human consumption, and pet trade collection). Current and potential future effects, along with current distribution and abundance help inform viability and, therefore, vulnerability to extinction. Those factors that are not known to have effects on Barbour’s map turtle populations, such as overutilization for scientific purposes and disease, are not discussed in this SSA report.

Figure 4-1 Influence diagram illustrating how stressors influence habitat, breeding, feeding, and sheltering needs of the species, and ultimately influence G. barbouri population viability.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 44 2017

4.1 Release of Water from Dams

The ACF River Basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia has five federal facilities operated, individually and in concert, by the Corps (Figure 4-1). The ACF River basin is a working river basin that provides water, transportation, and livelihood for residents in the three states. The Corps uses a Water Control Manual (WCM) to balance these uses, for recreation, water supply, navigation, hydroelectric generation, flood control, drought reduction, fish and wildlife habitat, and endangered species. The WCM includes actions for fish and wildlife conservation, including actions for federally-listed species (e.g., water releases below Woodruff Dam on the basis of spawning, non-spawning, and winter requirements), drought operations, flood risk management, water quality, and water supply.

The Corps has worked extensively with the Service to identify how flow regime on the Apalachicola River affects habitat conditions for numerous federally-listed species, including the fat threeridge (Amblema neislerii), purple bankclimber (Elliptoideus sloatianus), and Chipola slabshell (Elliptio chipolaensis). By monitoring and protecting habitat for these protected mussel species, the Corps is also providing better habitat and water quality for non-listed mussel species and improving the prey base for sub-adults and adult female G. barbouri.

The seven remaining privately owned hydroelectric dams within the ACF, operating within G. barbouri known range, vary in size and operational needs. Six of the dams, Langdale, Riverview, Bartlett’s Ferry, Lake Oliver, North Highlands and Goat Rock, occur within the Middle Chattahoochee – Lake Walter F. George HUC8 (Figure 4-1). The remaining hydroelectric dam, Lake Blackshear located in the Middle Flint HUC8, has an average depth of 3.2 m with living and dead trees located throughout the lake which provide sheltering, basking sites and prey for all life stages of Barbour’s map turtles.

The Ochlockonee River has one hydroelectric dam, Jackson Bluff, which creates Lake Talquin and is operated by the City of Tallahassee (Figure 4-2). The release of water is currently based on electrical demand and flood water relief. There are no efforts to manage the release of water to mimic seasonal flooding or water flow regime to protect native aquatic species or their habitat. During the summer of 2017, the City of Tallahassee with need to make the decision to: 1. Relinquish their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license, 2. Transfer the FERC license to a different entity, or 3. Renew their FERC license. Regardless of their choice, the City of Tallahassee will be required to consult with the USFWS on water flow management and its effect on federal resources.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 45 2017

Figure 4-2. Apalachicola – Chattahoochee – Flint River Basin showing Corps (USACE) and privately operated dams.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 46 2017

4.2 Regulatory Mechanisms

State Endangered Species Laws

The State of Florida listed the species as Threatened in 1978 and subsequently changed to a Species of Special Concern in 1979 (FWC 2013). The State of Georgia lists the species as Threatened, with no take except by permit, under its Endangered Wildlife Act of 1973 (391-4- 10-.08). Although it does not have an endangered species law, the State of Alabama lists Barbour’s map turtle as a nongame species with no allowable take except by special permit (ADCNR, Nongame Species Regulation 220-2-.92).

State and Federal Stream Protections (Buffers & Permits)

A buffer is a strip of trees, plants, or grass along a stream or wetland that naturally filters out dirt and pollution from rain water runoff before it enters rivers, streams, wetlands, and marshes (Southern Environmental Law Center 2014). Loss of riparian vegetation and canopy cover result in increased solar radiation, elevation of stream temperatures, loss of allochthonous (organic material originating from outside the channel) food material, and removal of submerged root systems that provide habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates (Allan 2004, Hauer and Lamberti 2006, Minshall and Rugenski 2006). The Georgia Erosion and Sediment Control Act restricts disturbance and trimming of vegetation within a 25 foot buffer adjacent to creeks, streams, rivers, saltwater marshes and most lakes and ponds, and within a 50 foot buffer on trout streams and the Mountain and River Corridors Protection Act and the Georgia Planning Act require some local governments to adopt a 100 foot buffer and restrict certain land uses along various large river corridors in the state. The Florida SWIM plan addresses statewide non-point source pollution impacts to waterbodies on a landscape scale and partners’ federal, state, local government, and the private sector to restore damaged ecosystems and prevents pollution from storm water runoff. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management encourages implementation of effective best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control associated with timber harvesting forestry activities.

Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that an applicant for a federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from the facility will not degrade water quality or violate water-quality standards, including state-established water quality standard requirements. Section 404 of the CWA establishes programs to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States.

Permits to fill wetlands and fill, culvert, bridge or re-align streams or water features are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Nationwide, Regional General Permits or Individual Permits. • Nationwide Permits are for “minor” impacts to streams and wetlands, and do not require an intense review process. These impacts usually include stream impacts under 150 feet, and wetland fill projects up to 0.50 acres. Mitigation is usually provided for the same type of

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 47 2017

wetland or stream impacted, and is usually at a 2:1 ratio to offset losses and make the “no net loss” closer to reality. • Regional General Permits are for various specific types of impacts that are common to a particular region; these permits will vary based on location in a certain region/state. • Individual permits are for the larger, higher impact and more complex projects. These require a complex permit process with multi-agency input and involvement. Impacts in these types of permits are reviewed individually and the compensatory mitigation chosen may vary depending on project and types of impacts.

4.3 Climate Change

As mentioned in the Poff et al. (2002) report on Aquatic Ecosystems and Global Climate Change, likely impacts of climate change on aquatic systems include: • Increases in water temperatures that may alter fundamental ecological processes, thermal suitability of aquatic habitats for prey species, as well as the geographic distribution of species. Adaptation by migration to suitable habitat might be possible due to the habitat availability for G. barbouri. • Changes and shifts in seasonal patterns of precipitation and runoff will alter the hydrology of stream systems, affecting species composition and ecosystem productivity. Aquatic organisms are sensitive to changes in frequency, duration, and timing of extreme precipitation events such as floods or droughts, potentially resulting in interference of reproduction. Further, increased water temperatures and seasonally reduced stream flows may alter many ecosystem processes, including a skewed sex ratio and reduction of prey. • Climate change is an additional stressor to sensitive freshwater systems, which are already adversely affected by a variety of other human impacts, such as altered flow regimes and deterioration of water quality. • As mentioned by Poff et al. (2002), aquatic ecosystems have a limited ability to adapt to climate change. Reducing the likelihood of significant impacts will largely depend on human activities that reduce other sources of ecosystem stress to ultimately enhance adaptive capacity; these include maintaining riparian forests, reducing nutrient loading, restoring damaged ecosystems, and minimizing groundwater (and stream) withdrawal. • Specific ecological responses to climate change cannot be easily predicted because new combinations of native and non-native species will interact in novel situations. • Since freshwater mussels have limited refugia from disturbances such as droughts and floods, and since they are thermo-conformers whose physiological processes are constrained by water temperature within species-specific thermal preferences, climate-induced changes in water temperature can lead to shifts in mussel community structure (Galbraith et al. 2010) and have a negative impact to the sub-adult and adult female food base.

4.4 Deadhead Logging

Deadhead logging is the removal of submerged cut timber from a river or creek bed and banks. The structural diversity and channel stabilization created by instream woody debris has been Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 48 2017

found to be essential in providing habitat for spawning and rearing aquatic species (Bilby 1984 and Bisson et al., 1987). Wallace and Benke (1984) reported that snag or woody habitat was the major stable substrate in southeastern Coastal Plain sandy-bottom streams and a site of high invertebrate diversity and productivity. Wood enhances the ability of a river or stream to utilize the nutrient and energy inputs and has a major influence on the hydrodynamic behavior of the river (Wallace and Benke 1984). Florida allows deadhead logging with the proper permits from FDEP, Alabama does not require any type of permits, and Georgia is not currently processing permits.

4.5 Dredging

The water resources of the ACF River Basin have been developed by the Corps to serve multiple purposes, including flood control, navigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. A basin-wide development plan, authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1945 and modified in 1946, consisted of three multi-purpose reservoirs on the Chattahoochee, three multi-purpose reservoirs on the Flint River, and six locks and dams. Navigation was to be provided by (1) dredging, cutoffs, training works, and other open river methods; (2) a series of locks and dams; and (3) flow regulation from upstream storage projects. The project ultimately constructed consisted of a 9- by 100-foot navigation channel along 107 miles of the Apalachicola River between the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam. From there the navigation channel extends 155 miles up the Chattahoochee River to Columbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama, and 28 miles up the Flint River to Bainbridge, Georgia. The dredging of the channel and disposal of dredged material along the banks degrade habitat and increase siltation rates downstream of the dredged area(s). This can cause a great decline in aquatic species.

Lindeman (1999) found a positive correlation between the amount of in-water deadwood and basking densities of Graptemys populations in the Pearl and Pascagoula river drainages in Mississippi and Louisiana and the lower Tennessee River in Kentucky. Dredging the deadwood from the river or stream channel to allow boat traffic could shift the aquatic habitat into a less favorable condition by reducing the available areas for basking, feeding, and sheltering for G. barbouri.

4.6 Human Exploitation

Because of past threats and suspected declines of Barbour’s map turtles, principally from human take, the Florida FWC enacted a series of protective measures: prohibition of commercialization of the species (i.e., a ban on sale, purchase, or export from the state) in 1972, prohibition of wanting shooting with firearms in 1974, and limiting possession to 2 individuals in 1976. Since anyone could take and eat 2 turtles repeatedly without violating the 1976 possession limit, the FWC in 2009 ultimately prohibited all take of the species (Rule 68A-25.002, Florida Administrative Code).

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 49 2017

In 2012 both Georgia and Alabama adopted strict rules to curtail commercial harvest of freshwater turtles from the wild. Specifically, the ADCNR imposed an emergency rule in April 2012 to end all commercial take of wild turtles, their eggs, and turtle parts; the rule applies to all of the state’s public and private waters. In January 2012, the GDNR limited commercial harvest of all freshwater turtle species for the first time. Plinking, the wanton killing for sport, by humans has been an issue for many species throughout the U.S. The impact to Barbour’s map turtles by plinking is unknown.

International trade of all Graptemys spp. requires permits or certificates from the U.S. due to their listing on the Conservation on International Trade in Endangered Species of Flora and Fauna as an Appendix III species. Appendix III is a list of species included at the request of a nation that already regulates trade in the species and that needs the cooperation of other countries to prevent unsustainable or illegal exploitation.

4.7 Summary

Of the past, current, and future influences on what the Barbour’s map turtle needs for long term viability, the largest threats to the future viability of the species relate to habitat degradation from stressors influencing water quality, water quantity, instream habitat, and riparian management. All of these factors are influenced by human actions and climate change. We did not assess overutilization for scientific purposes or disease, because these risks do not appear to be occurring at a level that affects Barbour’s map turtle populations. Impairment of water quality, declines in flows, riparian and instream habitat fragmentation and degradation, as well as management efforts, are carried forward in our assessment of the future conditions of Barbour’s map turtle HUC8 populations, and the viability of the species overall.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 50 2017

CHAPTER 5 – FUTURE CONDITIONS

Thus far, we have considered Barbour’s map turtle life history characteristics, identified the habitat and demographic requisites needed for viability, and estimated the current condition of those needs through the lens of the 3Rs (Chapters 2 and 3). Next, we reviewed the factors that may be driving the historical, current, and future conditions of the species (Chapter 4). In this chapter, we predict the species’ future conditions to inform us of the viability of the species. Our ability to predict this is limited due to limited demographic data and our lack of knowledge about how populations respond to stressors. Thus, our analysis will be limited to three future scenarios on how stressors to the species may drive changes from current conditions (Table 3-10).

5.1 Future Scenario Considerations

This section will explain how the stressors discussed in Chapter 4 will influence the 3Rs and population conditions for the Barbour’s map turtle throughout its current known range using a 30 year time horizon.

5.1.1 Scenario 1 – Status Quo

Under the Status Quo scenario, factors that influence current populations of Barbour’s map turtle were assumed to remain constant over the 30 year time horizon. The Service does not expect there to be any reduction in federal, state, or NGO protection for the species or the riverine environment. The current resiliency, redundancy, and representation will remain the same as well as the current conditions (Table 3-10, Figure 3 – 14).

5.1.2 Scenario 2 – Reduction in Range

Under the Reduction in Range scenario, populations of Barbour’s map turtle within the Pea, Choctawhatchee, Ocklockonee, and Wacissa Rivers would no longer be sustainable and the range of Barbour’s map turtles would return to their historic extant of the ACF (Figure 3 – 1). It is unknown how or when Barbour’s map turtles started to occupy these adjacent waterways and it is unknown how the populations would respond if stressors were increased in these rivers.

The Pea and Choctawhatchee Rivers are currently free flowing rivers with water withdrawn for municipalities and agricultural use. Climate models predict that, if emissions continue at current rates, the Southeast Region will experience a rise in low flow (drought) events (IPCC 2014). If more frequent drought events lead to increased water withdrawal for human and agricultural use, the river conditions could become unfavorable. The resulting low water depth and flow may impact prey base, both native mussels and aquatic invertebrates, and could entice deadhead loggers to increase collection due to optimal river conditions and cause river degradation with the removal of in-stream woody vegetation and increase erosion from stream bank instability. This could result in Barbour’s map turtles within these rivers to be reduced to unsustainable numbers and the populations could disappear within these rivers.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 51 2017

The Ocklockonee River flow is currently influenced by the City of Tallahassee for hydroelectric power production for the City of Tallahassee and water is withdrawn throughout the river for municipality and agricultural use. If the City of Tallahassee and the surrounding areas experience substantial growth in the next 30 years, increased hydroelectric demand could affect the riverine habitat below the dam (Jefferson Bluff) by altering water flow and water quality. Downstream of the dam, the released water has scoured the river bed and the reservoir water is low in dissolved oxygen. A study conducted in the summer of 2004 found dissolved oxygen concentrations downstream of the dam were consistently below levels considered protective of aquatic life (Hemming et al. 2005), thus impacting the prey base of all life stages and both sexes of the Barbour’s map turtle. In addition to impacting the prey base, the low water levels could entice deadhead loggers to increase collection due to optimal river conditions and cause further river degradation with the removal of in-stream woody vegetation and erosion from stream bank instability.

Water needs above Jefferson Bluff dam from agriculture demands could increase if more frequent drought events (longer time between precipitation) occur (GDNR 2002). Drought conditions would require more irrigation of fields with water from the river basin. River conditions could become unfavorable (i.e. low prey availability, low dissolved oxygen rates, and increased sedimentation from farm field runoff) and result in Barbour’s map turtles within Ocklockonee River to be reduced to unsustainable numbers and the population could disappear.

There are only a few records of Barbour’s map turtles from the Wacissa River. It is unknown if this is a self-sustaining small population or this is the remnants of a much larger population in decline. Any alteration in the flow of the Wacissa River could impact the small number of Barbour’s map turtles inhabiting the river and cause the population to disappear.

The effect of the removal of these six HUC8 populations from current species range would result in a reduction in overall redundancy in the 30 year time horizon; however, the species would retain its level of resilience and representation due to the Barbour’s map turtle’s wide distribution throughout the ACF basin (Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1).

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 52 2017

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 53 2017

Table 5-1 Resiliency of Barbour’s map turtle populations. See Table 3-9 for condition descriptions. Population Factors Habitat Elements In-water HUC8 Population Habitat Overall Population Water Open Woody HUC8 Population Average Recruitment Current Current Current Growth Flow Sandbar Debris Population Conditions Conditions Condition Protection Moderate Chipola Moderate UN High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate - High Moderate Moderate Apalachicola High UN High High High Moderate High - High - High Chattahoochee – Lake Moderate Moderate Low UN Moderate Low Moderate High Moderate Walter F. George - High - High Moderate Moderate Lower Chattahoochee Moderate UN Moderate Moderate Moderate High Moderate - High - High Moderate Upper Flint Moderate UN Moderate Moderate High High High Moderate - High Moderate Middle Flint High UN High High High High High High - High Moderate Lower Flint Moderate UN High Moderate High High High Moderate - High Moderate Spring Creek Moderate UN High Moderate High High High Moderate - High Ichawaynochaway and Moderate Chickasawhatchee Low UN Moderate Low High High High Moderate - High Creeks Kinchafoonee and Moderate Low UN Moderate Low High High High Moderate Muckalee Creeks - High

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 54 2017

5.1.3 Scenario 3 – Climate Change

An increase in both severity and variation in climate patterns is expected, with extreme floods, strong storms, and droughts becoming more common (Cook et al. 2004, Ford et al. 2011, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014). Estimates of the effects of climate change using available climate models typically lack the geographic precision needed to predict the magnitude of effects at a scale small enough to discretely apply to the range of a given species. However, data on recent trends and predicted changes for southeastern United States (Carter et al. 2014) provide some insight for evaluating the potential impacts of climate change to the Barbour’s map turtle. These models provide estimates of average annual increases in maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, sea level rise, and other variables.

The range of the various models used predicts a 4oF to 8 oF increase in the annual mean temperature with the coastal regions 1oF to 2 oF less than the interior temperatures through 2100 (Carter et al. 2014). The coastal temperatures are often influenced by the wind off of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. Precipitation models for the region indicate small changes relative to natural variations due to the Southeast’s transitional location between a much drier southwest and a wetter north. Change is more likely to be in an increase in number of consecutive days without precipitation and an increase in Category 4 and 5 tropical storms intensified by higher temperatures (Carter et al. 2014). Global sea level rise over the past century averaged approximately 20 cm (8 inches) and that rate is expected to accelerate through 2100. The amount of future sea level rise depends on whether and how much the local land is sinking (also called subsidence) or rising, and changes in offshore currents (Parris et al. 2012 and Sallenger et al. 2012).

Barbour’s map turtle conservation issues are multi-faceted (Kiester and Olson 2011) and climate change concerns for Barbour’s map turtle include: • Altered habitats and increased habitat fragmentation may occur due to a reduction of woody vegetation along the rivers and streams. Trees in the southeast may experience reduced growth and recruitment rates caused by climatic fluctuations (Dale et al. 2001). Riparian areas supply vegetation for in-water woody habitat used for sheltering, feeding, and basking and their shade moderates water temperature (Olson and Saenz 2013). • Turtles have temperature-sensitive sex determination: cooler temperatures may produce nests of only males; warmer temperatures may produce nests of only females. Temperature changes in a local area may have the effect of altering the sex ratios of populations - potentially affecting future reproduction and over time compromising their evolutionary fitness (Gibbons et al. 2000, Janzen 1994). • Turtle populations along the coast are susceptible to an increasing frequency or intensity of storms caused by increases in ocean temperatures. Storm surges can displace or drown animals, and dehydrate them by salt water intrusion into freshwater habitats (Schriever et al. 2009).

HUC 8 Average Populations: Freshwater turtles occupying waterways within the coastal plains

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 55 2017

along the northern Gulf of Mexico have evolved with undulating changes in climatic patterns that bring sporadic floods and intense hurricanes. Hurricanes along with their associated storms increase the amount of habitat in rivers and streams from falling trees and branches that form brush piles and snags. The in-water woody debris is critical to the Barbour’s map turtles as it is used as basking sites, provide shelter, and areas to feed (Lechowicz 2005). Floods from seasonal storms and hurricanes will shift and distribute the in-water woody debris within the river system and create new habitat or enhance existing in-water woody habitat. These piles also help to prevent shoreline erosion, provide habitat for mussel host fish, and habitat for prey.

Salt water intrusion impacts from sea level rise are not expected to effect the HUC 8 populations that occur on the coast (i.e. Lower Choctawhatchee, Apalachicola, Lower Ocklockonee, and Wacissa). Barbour’s map turtles have been documented within 2 km of the Apalachicola Bay (Ruhl 1991) were the level of salinity fluctuates based on tides, release of water from the Jim Woodruff Dam, and precipitation rates. This indicates Barbour’s map turtles are adaptable to the change in salinity and as long as habitat and prey availability are adequate, they will inhabit the area.

Basking surveys are the most efficient way to determine population numbers, however; it only captures a portion of the population because an unknown number of Barbour’s map turtles are underwater feeding or shelter, unseen while basking along the bank and a few adult females could be nesting. These factors create inconsistencies between survey efforts and not all surveys are completed in the same fashion (i.e. motor boat vs. kayak). Because it is difficult to determine the percent of the population being counted at any one time and the low negative impacts from climate change, the Service does not expect the known average population per HUC8 to change if all else stays the same.

Population Growth: Much of the reproductive factors (i.e. average age at maturity, average clutch size, and average clutches per year), nest success (i.e. annual average nest mortality and average number of hatchling), sex ratio, and hatchling and juvenile survival rate information needed to create population growth models for the Barbour’s map turtle are unknown. Higher temperatures from climate change may skew the sex ratio in the temperature dependent sex determination turtle’s population. But until significant effort into research is implemented, population growth and the impacts from increased temperatures from climate change for the Barbour’s map turtle throughout its known range will remain unknown during the 30 year time horizon.

Recruitment: Increased summer temperatures from climate change may skew the sex ratio of nests laid in open sandbar nests, producing predominately females. However, Barbour’s map turtles will also utilize river and streambanks shaded by riparian area vegetation for nesting sites, producing predominately males. In Florida, Barbour’s map turtle females are showing a preference to nesting on river banks (J. Mays, pers. comm.). The reason for this change in nest site preference is unknown, but may help to provide an equally distributed sex ratio in HUC 8 populations if average temperatures continue to rise and start to affect the sex ratio.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 56 2017

Periotic severe seasonal floods and flooding from intense hurricane producing storms may impact annual nest and hatchling survival during the event. Eggs can withstand some inundation; however, extended periods of inundation may cause the developing embryo to die due to lack of gas and fluid exchange (i.e. oxygen, carbon dioxide, water, etc.). Hatchlings may not have the strength to cling to exposed tree limbs in the fast moving water and may be either distributed downstream or drowned. Juvenile and adult turtles can utilize exposed tree limbs for basking and sheltering during the flooding event. As long as severe seasonal flooding and intense hurricanes do not occur annually for extended periods of time, the impacts from climate change is not expected to have negative affect on recruitment within all of the known occupied HUC8s.

Water Flow: As explained in the Chapter 4, the ACF WCM utilizes adaptive management to manage water resource needs. As part of this, drought operation plans will moderate the release and maximum fall rate of water and is required as a minimization measure to reduce impacts to federal resources found in the ACF basin (USFWS 2016c).

There has been no evidence found to indicate the previous flow regime used by the Corps for the ACF water management negatively impacted the Barbour’s map turtle populations found within the basin. The current and future water flow regime is being adjusted due to its negative impacts to native freshwater mussels, the preferred prey of sub-adult and adult female Barbour’s map turtles. The turtles appear to have been able to thrive on non-threatened and non-native mussels found within the basin and are expected to continue to consume available prey.

Ocklockonee River’s flow rate is manipulated for hydroelectric power by the City of Tallahassee and there is no evidence found to indicate the past and current flow rates have negatively impacted Barbour’s map turtle populations within this river. The Pea, Chattahoochee, Chipola, Brothers, and Wacissa Rivers’ flow rates are not managed. Due to the wide distribution and population numbers of Barbour’s map turtles, past flow regimes have not impacted the species and that it not will become a significant threat in the 30 year time horizon due to climate change.

Open Sandbars: No foreseen impacts to open sandbars are expected as a result of climate change.

In-water Woody Debris Protection: With proper management from governmental and private land owners, riparian areas could sustain their current range, especially if they are maintained as important sinks for atmospheric CO2 and as part of a strategy to slow global warming (Ingram et al. 2013). Clean water for public consumption is at the forefront of all state and local governments; therefore, the Section 401 and Section 404 programs established through the CWA are not expected to be reduced. The programs designed to benefit humans also benefit Barbour’s map turtles and the aquatic species they feed upon.

Deadhead logging is expected to continue to be permitted by Florida, to be unregulated by Alabama, and prohibited in Georgia. We have no information indicating the current rate of

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 57 2017

deadhead logging in Florida and Alabama is a significant threat or anticipated to change in the future.

The navigation channel on the Apalachicola River was last dredged in 2001, but the dredge ran aground due to low flow, and the job was not completed. The last complete cycle of dredging a 100-ft by 9-ft channel occurred in 1998 (in 1999, dredging was discontinued in the middle of the dredging season due to lack of dredged material disposal capacity). In 2005, the State of Florida denied the Corps' application to renew its certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act for maintaining the navigation channel. In July of 2006, the Corps concurred with the decision to defer dredging of the subject project in light of the permit denial. At this time, the USFWS is unaware of any intentions for the Corps to resubmit an application to maintain the navigation channel with dredging. The Pea, Chattahoochee, Chipola, Brothers, Ocklockonee and Wacissa Rivers are not dredged for commercial barge or recreational traffic.

Based on this information, we do not expect the stressors associated with federal and state stream protection regulatory mechanisms or dredging operation to be a significant threat in the 30 – year time frame.

Under the Climate Change scenario, stressors influenced by the predicted climatic changes over the 30 year time horizon is not expected to diminish the current resiliency, redundancy, and representation of Barbour’s map turtles (Figure 3-14 and Table 3-10)

5.2 Stressors not Addressed in the Scenarios

5.2.1 State Endangered Species Laws

The Alabama, Florida and Georgia level of protection for the Barbour’s map turtle is not expected to be reduced in the 30 year time frame, thus the current condition map (Figure 3-14) is not expected to change. Each state has indicated some level of monitoring that includes species distribution and population (ADCNR 2015, FWC 2013, and GDNR 2015).

5.2.2 Human Exploitation

We have no information indicating that current state and federal regulatory limitations on the collection and exportation of Barbour’s map turtle is insufficient or that it will become a significant threat in the 30 year time frame, thus the current condition map (Figure 3-14) is not expected to change. We also have no information that plinking of Barbour’s map turtles by humans will become a significant threat in the future.

5.3 Summary

This section is intended to synthesize the future scenarios and stressors analyses and discuss the future viability of Barbour’s map turtle. As discussed, the limited demographic data and our lack

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 58 2017

of knowledge about how populations respond to stressors may hinder our ability to evaluate changes in Barbour’s map turtle populations over time and to predict the species’ response to various stressors over the 30 year time frame. However, species occurrence records over an extended period of time (1950 – 2015) and corresponding estimates of abundance allow us to make some inferences about the species’ resilience, redundancy, and representation.

Resiliency: At the population level, the Apalachicola and Middle Flint populations were estimated to be high, Pea, Lower Choctawhatchee, Chipola, Chattahoochee (Lower and Lake Walter F. George), Upper and Lower Flint River, Spring Creek, Ichawaynochaway and Chickasawhatchee, Kinchafoonee and Muckalee Creek, Upper and Lower Ochlockonee, and Wacissa River Populations were estimated to be moderate, and the Upper Choctawhatchee Population is estimated to be low. None of the future scenarios or stressors not covered in the three future scenarios are predicted to have an impact on the species resiliency during the 30 year time horizon.

The number of Barbour’s map turtles in the Wacissa River population is comprised of two observations. The observations were of two nesting females. The first nest was salvaged to determine fertility. The clutch of 12 eggs produced 8 hatchlings (Jackson 2003). This indicates adult males are also present in the Wacissa River and the potential presence of juveniles. Further surveys are needed to determine the extent of Barbour’s map turtle range. The Wacissa River has habitat elements estimated from moderate to high, indicating the habitat is present to support a sustainable population.

Redundancy: At the species level, the Barbour’s map turtle occupies 16 HUC8s within the ACF, Choctawhatchee, Ochlockonee and Wacissa River basins. This includes occupation of the Flint River above the fall line. The fall line divides the older Paleozoic and Crystalline strata from the more recent coastal plain. Rivers flowing across the fall line from the upland to the coastal plain usually have stretches of shoals or rapids, thought to be unfavorable for Barbour’s map turtles (Tinkle 1959). Barbour’s map turtle presence in the Wacissa and the Kinchafoonee and Muckalee Creek HUC8s and in the Chickasawhatchee creek extends the distribution of the species by adding two new HUC8s and a new creek within the Ichawaynochaway and Chickasawhatchee creeks HUC8. Future scenario two, reduction in species range, was the only scenario that decreased the species redundancy. Future scenario one and three and the stressors not covered in the three future scenarios are not predicted to have an impact on the species redundancy during the 30 year time horizon.

Representation: At the species level, we estimated that the Barbour’s map turtle currently has moderate adaptive potential due to its abundance in six major rivers and one tributary. Even though G. barbouri may have low representation in the smaller Wacissa and Ochlockonee Rivers, the head waters of the Choctawhatchee and Flint Rivers, and tributaries (Ichawaynochaway, Chickasawhatchee, Kinchafoonee, and Muckalee Creeks); these occupied areas likely represent expansion into the peripheral edges of G. barbouri historical range. None of the future scenarios or stressors not covered in the three future scenarios is predicted to have

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 59 2017

an impact on the species representation during the 30 year time horizon.

Overall, estimates of current resiliency, representation, and redundancy for Barbour’s map turtle are moderate to high, with the exception of the Upper Choctawhatchee River (Table 3-10), and we did not find any evidence that these conditions may change in the future. The Barbour’s map turtle faces a variety of threats from reduced water flow from dams, fluctuating levels of water quality and in-water woody debris from the use of riparian BMPS, dredging and deadhead logging, and collection for the pet trade and human consumption. These threats were important factors in our assessment of the current and future viability of the Barbour’s map turtle and are not expected to significantly change in the future. Climate change is the only threat with great uncertainty and could pose a threat if the changes in climatic conditions follow worse case scenarios. Our estimation of the species’ moderate to high resiliency, redundancy, and representation throughout the majority of its range suggest that it has the ability to sustain its populations into the 30 year time horizon.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 60 2017

LITERATURE CITED

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR). 2015. Alabama State Wildlife Action Plan. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Montgomery, Alabama. 523 pp.

- 2017. Alabama Turtles, Barbour’s Map Turtle. http://www.outdooralabama.com/barbours-map-turtle (accessed 4/12/2017)

Allan, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:257-284.

Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of woody debris may affect stream channel stability. Journal of Forestry 82:609-613.

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Byrant, C.A. Dollof, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. Pages 143-190 in E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. College of Forestry Resources, Contribution No. 57 University of Washington, Seattle.

Bodie, J.R., and R.D. Semlitsch. 2000. Size-specific mortality and natural selection in freshwater turtles. Copeia 2000:732–739.

Bodie, J.R., R.D. Semlitsch, and R.B. Renken. 2000. Diversity and structure of turtle assemblages: associations with wetland characters across a floodplain landscape. Ecography 23:444–456.

Bulte. G. and G. Blouin-Demers. 2009. Does sexual bimaturation affect the cost of growth and the operational sex ratio in an extremely size-dimorphic reptile? Ecoscience 16:175-182.

Bustard, H.R. 1967. Activity cycle and thermoregulation in the Australian gecko Gehyra variegate. Copeia 1967:753-758.

Cagle, F.R. 1952. The status of the turtles Graptemys pulchra Baur and Graptemys barbouri Carr and Marchand, with notes on their natural history. Copeia 1952:223-234.

- 1954. Two new species of the Genus Graptemys. Tulane Studies of Zoology. 1 (11):165- 186.

Carr, A.F., Jr., and L.J. Marchand. 1942. A new turtle from the Chipola River, Florida. Proceedings of the New England Zoology Club 20:95-100.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 61 2017

Carr, J.L. 2001. Louisiana map turtle survey: map turtles in Northern Louisiana. Unpublished report to the U.S. Geological Survey - Biological Resources Division, Cooperative Agreement no. 99CRAG0017, Washington, D.C.

Carroll, C., J.A. Vucetich, M.P. Nelson, D.J. Rohlf, and M.K. Phillips. 2010. Geography and recovery under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 24:395-403.

Carter, L.M., J.W. Jones, L. Berry, V. Burkett, J.F. Murley, J. Obeysekera, P.J. Schramm, and D. Wear, 2014: Ch. 17: Southeast and the Caribbean. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program, 396-417.

Center for Biological Diversity. 2010. Petition to list 404 aquatic, riparian and wetland species from the southeastern United States as threatened or endangered under the endangered species act. http://www.fws.gov/cookeville/pdfs/sepetitionfinal.pdf. 1145pp.

- 2012. Petition to list 53 amphibians and reptiles in the United States as threatened or endangered species under the endangered species act. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/amphibian_conservation/pdfs/Mega_herp_ petition_7-9-2012.pdf. 454pp.

Chaney, A., and C.L. Smith. 1950. Methods for collecting map turtles. Copeia 1950: 323-324.

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 2017. The CITES Appendices. https://cites.org/eng/app/index.php (accessed 4/12/2017)

Cook, E.R., C.A. Woodhouse, C.M. Eakin, D.M. Meko, and D.W. Stahle. 2004. Long-term aridity changes in the western United States. Science 306:1015-1018.

Cowles, R.B. and C.M. Bogert. 1944. A preliminary study of the thermal requirements of desert reptiles. American Museum of Natural History Bulletin. 83: 259-296.

Craig, M.J. 1992. Radio-telemetry and tagging study of movement patterns, activity cycles, and habitat utilization in Cagle’s map turtle, Graptemys caglei. Unpublished M.S. thesis, West Texas State University, Canyon. 116 Pages

Crenshaw, J.W. Jr. and G.B. Rabb. 1949. Occurrence of the turtle Graptemys barbouri in Georgia. Copeia (3): 226.

Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayres, M.D. Flannigan, F.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks, and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances: Climate change can affect forests by

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 62 2017

altering the frequency, intensity, duration, an timing of fire, drought, introduced species, insect and pathogen outbreaks, hurricanes, windstorms, ice storms, or landslides. BioScience 51(9):723-734.

Dobie, J.L. 1981. The taxonomic relationship between Malaclemys Gray, 1844 and Graptemys Agassiz, 1857 (Testudines, Emydidae). Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany, 23(1):85-102.

Enge, K.M., R.L. Cailteux, and J.J. Nordhaus. 1996. Geographic distribution: Graptemys barbouri (Barbour’s map turtle). Herpetological Review 27:150–151.

Enge, K.M., and G.E. Wallace. 2008. Basking surveys of turtles (Graptemys) in the Choctawhatchee and Ochlockonee Rivers, Alabama and Florida. Florida Scientist 70:310–322.

Ennen, J.R., J.E. Lovich, B.R. Kreiser, W. Selman, and C.P. Qualls. 2010. Genetic and morphological variation between populations of the Pascagoula map turtle (Graptemys gibbonsi) in the Pearl and Pascagoula rivers with description of a new species. Chelonian Research & Biology 9(1): 98-113.

Ernst, C.H., and J.E. Lovich. 2009. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C 827 Pages

Ewert, M.A., and D.R. Jackson. 1994. Nesting ecology of the alligator snapping turtle (Macroclemys temminckii) along the lower Apalachicola River, Florida. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program Report NC89-020, Tallahassee, Florida, 45pp.

Ewert, M.A., P.C.H. Pritchard, and G.E. Wallace. 2006. Graptemys barbouri – Barbour’s map turtle, p. 260–272. In: Biology and conservation of Florida turtles. P. A. Meylan (ed.). Chelonian Research Monographs No. 3.

Flaherty, N.C. 1982. Home range, movement, and habitat selection in a population of map turtle, Graptemys geographica (Le Sueur), in Southwestern Quebec. Unpublished M.S. thesis. McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2013, A Species Action Plan for Barbour’s Map Turtle Graptemys barbouri. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. 51 pp.

- 2017. Species Profiles, Barbour’s Map Turtle. http://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/imperiled/profiles/reptiles/barbours-map-turtle/ (accessed 4/12/2017)

Ford, C.R., S.H. Laseter, W.T. Swank, and J.M. Vose. 2011. Can forest management be used to

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 63 2017

sustain water-based ecosystem services in the face of climate change? Ecological Applications 21: 2049–2067.

Fuselier, L. and D. Edds. 1994. Habitat partitioning among three sympatric species of map turtles, genus Graptemys. Journal of Herpetology 28:154–158.

Galbraith, H.S., D.E. Spooner, and C.C. Vaughn. 2010. Synergistic effects of regional climate patterns and local water management on freshwater mussel communities. Biological Conservation 143: 1175-1183.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). 2002. Ocklockonee River Basin Management Plan, Environmental Protection Division, Atlanta, GA.

- 2007. Reptile Profiles. Barbour’s Map Turtle. http://www.georgiawildlife.com/SpeciesInfo/Reptiles (accessed 4/12/2017)

- 2013. Nongame Conservation Section Biotics Database. Wildlife Resources Division, Social Circle.

- 2015. Georgia State Wildlife Action Plan. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Social Circle, Georgia. 262 Pages

Gibbons, J.W., and J.E. Lovich. 1990. Sexual dimorphism in turtles with emphasis on the slider turtle (Trachemys scripta). Herpetological Monographs 4:1–29.

Gibbons, J.W.; Scott, D.E.; Ryan, J.; Buhlmann, K.A.; Tuberville, T.D.; Metts B.S.; Greene, J.L.; Mills, T.; Leiden, Y.; Poppy, S; Winne, C.T. 2000. The global declines of reptiles, Deja vu amphibians. BioScience 50:653-666.

Godwin, J.C. 2002. Distribution and status of Barbour’s map turtle (Graptemys barbouri) in the Choctawhatchee River system, Alabama. Alabama Natural Heritage Program: Report to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 21pp.

Godwin, J.C., J.E. Lovich, J.R. Ennen, B.R. Kreiser, B. Folt, and C. Lechowicz. 2014. Hybridization of two megacephalic map turtles (Testudines: Emydidae: Graptemys) in the Choctawhatchee River Drainage of Alabama and Florida. Copia (4): 725-742.

Hauer, F.R., and G.A. Lamberti. 2006. Methods in stream ecology (2nd edition). Elsevier, Boston, Massachusetts. 877 pp.

Hemming, J.M., P. Winger, W. Gierhart, R. Jarvis, H. Blalock-Herod, and J. Ziewitz. 2005. Water and sediment quality survey of threatened and endangered freshwater mussel habitat in the Ocklockonee River Basin. 71 pp.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 64 2017

Hepler, B.P., R.L. King, and L.L. Smith. 2015. Unpublished report on Status and Distribution of Barbour’s Map Turtle (Graptemys barbouri) in the Flint River, Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 12 pp.

Hill, E.P. and J.D. Mays. 2016. Geographic distribution: Graptemys barbouri (Barbour's map turtle). Herpetological Review 47(1):79.

Horne B.D., R.J. Brauman, M.J.C. Moore, and R.A. Seigel. 2003. Reproductive and Nesting Ecology of the Yellow-Blotched Map Turtle, Graptemys flavimaculata: implications for Conservation and Management. Copeia 4:729-738.

Ingram, K., K. Dow, L. Carter, J. Anderson, eds. 2013. Climate of the Southeast United States: Variability, change, impacts, and vulnerability. Washington DC: Island Press.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Climate change 2014 synthesis report. Available at http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/.

Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 2016. ITIS Standard Report Page: Graptemys barbouri. http://www.itis.gov (Accessed 4/12/2017).

International Union for Conservation for Nature and Natural Resources. 2001. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, version 3.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/9496/0 (accessed: 4/12/2017).

Iverson, J.B. 1991. Life History and Demography of the Yellow Mud Turtle, Kinosternon flavescens. Herpetologica 47(4):373-395.

Iverson J.B. and C.R. Etchberger. 1989. The Distribution of the Turtles of Florida. Biological Sciences 52(2):119-144.

Jackson, D.R. 1975. A Pleistocene Graptemys (Reptilia: Testudines) from the Santa Fe River of Florida. Herpetologica 31(2):213-219.

- 2003. Geographic distribution. Graptemys barbouri. Herpetological Review 34:164.

Janzen, F.J. 1994. Climate Change and Temperature-dependent Sex Determination in Reptiles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 91:7487-7490.

Jenks, G.F. 1967. The data model concept in statistical mapping. International Yearbook of Cartography 7:186-190.

Jensen, J.B. and W.S. Birkhead. 2003. Distribution and status of the alligator snapping turtle

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 65 2017

(Macrochelys temminckii) in Georgia .Southeastern Naturalist 2:25-34.

Jones, R.L. 1996. Home range and seasonal movements of the turtle Graptemys flavimaculata. Journal of Herpetology 30:376-385.

Jones, R.L. and P.D. Hartfield. 1995. Population size and growth in the turtle Graptemys oculifera. Journal of Herpetology 29:426-436.

Kiester, A.R.; Olson, D.H. 2011. Prime time for turtle conservation. Herpetological Review. 42:198-204.

Lamb, T., C. Lydeard, R.B. Walker, and J.W. Gibbons. 1994. Molecular systematics of map turtles (Graptemys): a comparison of mitochondrial restriction site versus sequence data. Systematic Biology 43:543–559.

Lechowicz, C.J. 2005. Map Turtles (Genus Graptemys) in the hurricane belt of the Gulf Coast. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 40(10): pp.181-183.

- 2013. Aspects of the population of sympatric map turtles, Graptemys barbouri and Graptemys ernsti, in the Lower Choctawhatchee River System (Master’s Dissertation, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida, USA). 114 pp. Retrieved from http://fgcu.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fgcu%3A21425

Lee, D.S., R. Franz, and R.A. Sanderson. 1975. A note on the feeding habits of male map turtles. Florida Field Naturalist 3:45-46.

Lindeman, P.V. 1999. Surveys of basking map turtles Graptemys spp. in three river drainages and the importance of deadwood abundance. Biological Conservation 88:33-42.

- 2000. Evolution of the relative width of the head and alveolar surfaces in map turtles (Testudines: Emydidae: Graptemys). Herpetologica 57:313-318.

- 2006. Diet of the Texas map turtle (Graptemys versa): relationship to sexually dimorphic trophic morphology and changes over five decades as influenced by an invasive mollusk. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 5:25–31.

- 2013. The map turtle and sawback atlas: ecology, evolution, distribution, and conservation. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. 460pp.

Lovich, J.E., and C.J. McCoy. 1992. Review of the Graptemys pulchra group (Reptilia, Testudines, Emydidae), with descriptions of two new species. Annuals of the Carnegie Museum 61:293-315.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 66 2017

Mays, J. 2017. Personnel communications. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

Mays, J.D., and E.P. Hill. 2015. Unpublished report on Status and Distribution of Barbour’s Map Turtle (Graptemys barbouri) in Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Gainesville Florida, USA. 24pp.

- 2016. Geographic distribution: Graptemys barbouri (Barbour's map turtle). Herpetological Review 47(1):79

McHenry, D.J., J.C. Godwin, and M.R.J. Forstner. 2006. Initial characterization of genetic differentiation among Graptemys spp. Poster abstract at Missouri Life Sciences Week, 17–21 April 2006, Univ. Missouri, Columbia, MO.

McKown, R.R. 1972 Phylogenetic relationships within the turtle genera Graptemys and Malaclemys. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. 111 pp.

Minshall, G.W. and A. Rugenski. 2006. Riparian processes and interactions. Pages 721-723 In F.R. Hauer and G.A. Lamberti (eds). Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edition. Elsevier, Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts. 877 pp.

Moler, P.E. 1986. Barbour's map turtle census. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Resources Final Report, Study No.E-1-10 III-A, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 9pp.

Moll, D. 1980. Dirty river turtles. Natural History 89:42–49.

Moll, D., and E.O. Moll. 2004. The Ecology, Exploitation and Conservation of River Turtles. Oxford University Press, New York, New York, USA. 420 pp.

Moore, M.J.C. and R.A. Seigel. 2006. No Place to nest or bask: Effects of human disturbance on the nesting and basing habits of yellow-blotched map turtles (Graptemys flavimaculata). Biological Conservation 130:386-393.

Moulis, R. 1997. Unpublished report on the status of Graptemys barbouri. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 76 pp.

- 2008. Barbour’s map turtle Graptemys barbouri. Pp. 478-480 in J.B. Jensen, C. D. Camp, J.W. Gibbons, and M.J. Elliott (eds.), Amphibians and Reptiles of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, USA. 600 pp.

Mount, R.H. 1975. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. 360 pp.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 67 2017

NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Graptemys+barbouri (Accessed: 4/12/2017).

Neill, W.T. 1951. Notes on the natural history of certain North American snakes. Publications of the Research Division, Ross Allen’s Reptile Institute 1:47-60.

Neves, R.J., A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams, S.A. Ahlstedt, and P.W. Hartfield. 1997. Status of Aquatic Mollusks in the Southeastern United States: A Downward Spiral of Diversity; Chapter 3 (pp.44-86) in Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective, edited by G.W. Benz and D.E. Collins (1997), Special Publication 1. Southeast Aquatic Research Institute. Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, GA. 554pp.

Olson, D.H.; Saenz, D. 2013. Climate Change and Reptiles. (March, 2013). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/wildlife/reptiles/

Parris, A., P. Bromirski, V. Burkett, D. Cayan, M. Culver, J. Hall, R. Horton, K. Knuuti, R. Moss, J. Obeysekera, A. Sallenger, and J. Weiss. 2012. Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1, 37 pp., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.

Pitt, A., and M. Nickerson. 2012. Reassessment of the turtle community in the North Fork of White River, Ozark County, Missouri. Copeia 3:368-374.

Pluto, T.G. and E.D. Bellis. 1988. Seasonal and annual movement of riverine map turtles, Graptemys geographica. Journal of Herpetology 22:152-158.

Poff, N.L., M.M. Brinson, and J.W. Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic ecosystems & Global climate change: Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetlands Ecosystems in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 56pp.

Prichard. C.H. and W.F. Greenwood. 1968. The sun and the turtle. International Turtle and Tortoise Society Journal. 2 (1):2-25.

Redford, K.H., G. Amoto, J. Baillie, P. Beldomenico, E.L. Bennett, N. Clum, R. Cook, G. Fonseca, S. Hedges, F. Launay, S. Lieberman, G.M. Mace, A. Murayama, A. Putnam, J.G. Robinson, H. Rosenbaum, E.W. Sanderson, S.N. Stuart, P. Thomas, and J. Thorbjarnarson. 2011. What does it mean to successfully conserve a (vertebrate) species? Bioscience 61:39–48.

Ricketts, C. 2014. Barbour’s map turtle (Graptemys barbouri) 2014 survey, Apalachicola River

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 68 2017

Wildlife and Environmental Area. Unpublished report to Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Wewahitchka, Florida, USA. 13pp.

Ruhl, J.D. 1991. Barbour's map turtle survey, Apalachicola River Wildlife and Environmental Area. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Report, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 7pp.

Sallenger, A.H., K.S. Doran, and P.A. Howd. 2012. Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America. Nature Climate Change, 2:884-888.

Sanderson, R.A. 1974. Sexual dimorphism in the Barbour’s map turtle (Carr and Marchand). M.S. thesis, University of South Florida.

- Sanderson, R.A. 1992. Barbour's map turtle, Graptemys barbouri Carr & Marchand. Pages 196–199 in P.E. Moler (editor). Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume III. Amphibians and reptiles. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 272 pp.

Schriever, T.A.; Ramspott, J.; Crother, B.I.; Fontenot, C.L. 2009. Effects of hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita on a southeastern Louisiana herpetofauna. Wetlands. 29:112-122.

Shaffer, Mark L., and Bruce A. Stein. 2000. Safeguarding our precious heritage. Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 301-321.

Shealy, R.M. 1976. The natural history of the Alabama map turtle, Graptemys pulchra Baur, in Alabama. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences 21:47-111.

Snider, A.T. and J.K. Bowler. 1992. Longevity of reptiles and amphibians in North American collections. 2nd ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles Herpetological Circular 21:1-40.

Southern Environmental Law Center. 2014. State Court Ruling Clarifies All Georgia Waters Protected by Buffers. https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/press- releases/state-court-ruling-clarifies-all-georgia-waters-protected-by-buffers (accessed: 5/3/2017).

Sterrett, S.C., L.L. Smith, S.W. Golladay, S.H. Schweitzer, and J.C. Maerz. 2010a. The Conservation Implications of Riparian Land Use on River Turtles. Animal Conservation 14(1):38-46.

Sterrett, S.C., L.L. Smith, S.H. Schweitzer, and J.C. Maerz. 2010b. An Assessment of Two Methods for Sampling River Turtle Assemblages. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5(3):490-497.

Sterrett, S.C., A.J. Kaeser, R.A. Katz, L.L. Smith, J.C. Brock, and J.C. Maerz. 2015. Spatial

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 69 2017

Ecology of Female Barbour’s Map Turtles (Graptemys barbouri) in Ichawaynochaway Creek, Georgia. Copia 2:1-9.

Stewart, J.H. 1992. Status review: Barbour’s map turtle, Graptemys barbouri. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Miss. 4pp.

Suarez, E., M.H. Kail, and G.R. Johnston. 2011. Pseudemys concinna suwanniensis (Suwannee Cooter). Fish predation. Herpetological Review 42:423.

Tinkle, W.D. 1959. The Relation of the Fall Line to the Distribution and Abundance of Turtles. Copeia 2:167-170.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. USFWS Species Status Assessment Framework: An integrated analytical framework for conservation. Version 3.4 dated August 2016.

- 2016b. Species status assessment report for the Texas hornshell (Popenaias popeii), Version 1.0. July 2016. Albuquerque, NM.

- 2016c. Update of the Water Control Manual for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia and a Water Supply Storage Assessment Biological Opinion. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ecological Services Office, Panama City, Florida. Pp 305.

Vogt, R.C. 1980. Natural history of the map turtles Graptemys pseudogeographica and G. ouachitensis in Wisconsin. Tulane Studies in Zoology and Botany 22:17-48.

Wahlquist, H. and G.W.Folkerts. 1973. Eggs and Hatchlings of Barbour’s Map Turtle, Graptemys barbouri Carr and Marchand. Herpetologica, Vol. 29, No. 3:236-237.

Wallace J.B. and A.C. Benke. 1984. Quantification of Wood Habitat in Subtropical Coastal Plain Steams. Canadian Journal of Fishery and Aquatic Science 41:1643-1652.

Wharton, C.H., T. French, and C. Ruckdeschel. 1973 Recent Range Extensions for Georgia Amphibians and Reptiles. HISS News Journal 1(1):22.

Wolf, E.D. 2010. Propagation of species at risk: Atlantic Pigtoe on military installations. A report to the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program. Project No. 09- 450.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 70 2017

APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE: Lead Regions must obtain written concurrence from all other Regions within the range of the species before recommending changes, including elevations or removals from candidate status and listing priority changes; the Regional Director must approve all such recommendations. The Director must concur on all resubmitted 12-month petition findings, additions or removal of species from candidate status, and listing priority changes.

Approve: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service Date

Concur: ______Director, Fish and Wildlife Service Date

Do not concur: ______Director, Fish and Wildlife Service Date

Director's Remarks:

Date of annual review: Conducted by:

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 71 2017

Appendix A

Florida Department of Environmental Protection Deadhead Logging Prohibited Waterbodies

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 72 2017

PROHIBITED WATERBODIES FOR REMOVAL OF PRE-CUT TIMBER

Recovery of pre-cut timber shall be prohibited in those waterbodies that are considered pristine due to water quality or clarity or where the recovery of pre-cut timber will have a negative impact on, or be an interruption to, navigation or recreational pursuits, or significant cultural resources. Recovery shall be prohibited in the following waterbodies or described areas:

1. Alexander Springs Run 2. All Aquatic Preserves designated under chapter 258, F.S. 3. All State Parks designated under chapter 258, F.S. 4. Apalachicola River between Woodruff lock to I-10 during March, April and May 5. Chipola River within state park boundaries 6. Choctawhatchee River from the Alabama Line 3 miles south during the months of March, April and May. 7. Econfina River from Williford Springs south to Highway 388 in Bay County. 8. Escambia River from Chumuckla Springs to a point 2.5 miles south of the springs 9. Ichetucknee River 10. Lower Suwannee River National Refuge 11. Merritt Mill Pond from Blue Springs to Hwy. 90 12. Newnan’s Lake 13. Ocean Pond – Osceola National Forest, Baker County 14. Oklawaha River from the Eureka Dam to confluence with Silver River 15. Rainbow River 16. Rodman Reservoir 17. Santa Fe River, 3 Miles above and below Ginnie Springs 18. Silver River 19. St. Marks from Natural Bridge Spring to confluence with Wakulla River 20. Suwannee River within state park boundaries 21. The Suwannee River from the Interstate 10 bridge north to the Florida Sheriff's Boys Ranch, inclusive of section 4, township 1 south, range 13 east, during the months of March, April and May. 22. Wacissa River 23. Wakulla River 24. Wekiva River 25. White River

No recovery will be allowed within state park boundaries.

No recovery allowed within the bounds of a state forest without the site specific approval of the Division of Forestry.

No recovery will be allowed in any landlocked freshwater lake effective August 25, 2000 until further review by the Governor and Cabinet.

No recovery will be permitted from any waters within Eglin Air Force Base due to public safety concerns due to the possible presence of unexploded ordnance.

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 73 2017

Due to special concerns regarding certain listed mussel species in these waters if during the course of recovery you observe a mussel colony you are to stop recovery in that area immediately and report the location to the Department of Environmental Protection district office.

Additional waterbodies and/or sections of waterbodies may be added at any time due to environmental considerations. Upon changes or updates to this list of restricted waterbodies, copies will be mailed to all holders of a trustees Use Agreement to recover precut timber from state owned lands.

[document1-aug2000]

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 74 2017

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 75 2017

Barbour’s Map Turtle SSA Page 76 2017