Small Critter, Big Problem: Protecting the Pearl River Map Turtle in Mississippi

• Date: 01 March 2018

48 ELR 10200 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 3-2018

C O M M E N T S

Small Critter, Big Problem:

Protecting the Pearl River

Map Turtle in Mississippi

by Kristina Alexander

Kristina Alexander is a Senior Research Counsel with the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal

Program located at the University of Mississippi School of Law. Previously, she was a Legislative

Attorney focusing on natural resources issues at the Congressional Research Service.

Mississippi has 47 animal species federally pro-

tected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).1

at list includes all t ypes of animals, from

whales to mollusks, but it does not include the Pearl River

map turtle (Graptemys pearlensis). is is notable because

the Pearl River map turtle is considered endangered or per-

haps critically endangered by the International Union for

Conservation of Nature (IUCN),2 and trade of the map

turtle is restricted by international treaty—the Conven-

tion on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild

Fauna and Flora (CITES)3—at the request of the United

States. is Comment will examine the existing protec-

tions for the turtle—state, federal, and international—to

demonstrate why ESA protection is still needed to prevent

the extinction of G. pearlensis.

I. Background on the ESA

e ESA authorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(FWS) of the U.S. Department of the Interior to list as

endangered any plant or animal that is “in danger of

extinction throughout all or a signicant portion of its

range.”4 Species likely to become endangered are listed as

threatened species.5 “Species” is broadly dened within the

1. 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1544; ELR S. ESA §§2-18; e list is based on spe-

cies “believed to or known to occur in Mississippi,” acknowledging that

species are protected wherever they may occur, even if not included on

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) state list. FWS Environmental

Conservation Online System (ECOS), Listed Species Believed to or Known

to Occur in Mississippi, https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-listed-by-

state-report?state=MS&status=listed (last visited Jan. 1, 2018); 16 U.S.C.

§§1531-1544; ELR S. ESA §§2-18.

2. IUCN, Home Page, https://www.iucn.org (last visited Jan. 1, 2018).

3. Mar. 3, 1973, 27 U.S.T. 108. See CITES, Home Page, https://www.cites.org

(last visited Jan. 1, 2018).

4. 16 U.S.C. §1532(6). Insects found to be pests may not be listed.

5. Id. §1532(20).

Act to include subspecies and distinct population segments

(DPS) “which interbreed[] when mature.”6

FWS may list a species on its own or in response to a

petition led by a ny interested person.7 In either case, t he

listing determination must be based solely on the best sci-

entic data available.8 FWS may base it s ndings on any of

ve factors: loss of or harm to habitat; overuse for commer-

cial, recreational, scientic, or educational purposes; dis-

ease or predation; whether existing regulatory mechanisms

are already in place; or other natural or man-made factors

aecting the species’ continued existence.9

Once listed, a species may not be captured, harassed,

injured, or killed—described as a “take” under the Act.10

Additionally, the Act imposes responsibilities on federal

agencies with regard to listed species. Generally, federal

agencies must use “t heir authorities . .. by carrying out

programs for the conservation of endangered species and

threatened species.”11 More specically, federal agencies

must ensure that their actions are “not likely to jeopar-

dize the continued existence of any endangered species or

threatened species” or to ha rm or modif y those species’

critical habitat.12

To do this, agencies engage in “consultation,” in

which the action agency communicates with FWS or the

National Marine Fisheries Ser vice (NMFS), in the case of

marine species, to avoid jeopardizing listed species.13 is

is also referred to a s a Section 7 consultation.14 If jeopardy

is found by either FWS or NMFS, that ser vice will sug-

gest reasonable and prudent a lternatives to the proposed

6. Id. §1532(16). Only vertebrates may be listed as DPS.

7. Id. §1533.

8. Id. §1533(b)(1)(A).

9. Id. §1533(a)(1)(A)-(E).

10. Id. §1532(19).

11. Id. §1536(a)(1).

12. Id. §1536(a)(2).

13. Id. §1536.

14. Pub. L. No. 93-205, §7, 87 Stat. 884 (1973).

Copyright © 2018 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.