illinois conservation assessment for the …...illinois blanding’s turtle conservation assessment...

Illinois Blanding’s Turtle Conservation Assessment 25 February 2013

1

ILLINOIS CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLANDING’S TURTLE (EMYDOIDEA BLANDINGII)

Submitted to the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board

in fulfillment of contract #RC11ESPB01, 25 February 2013

from Holbrook 1838


2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 3

SPECIES DESCRIPTION 3

TAXONOMIC STATUS 4

DISTRIBUTION 4

CONSERVATION STATUS 24

REASON FOR DECLINE 25

CURRENT THREATS TO THE SPECIES 29

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS 40

PROTECTION STATUSOF CURRENTLY OCCUPIED HABITAT 46

EXTENT OF DEGRADED HISTORICAL HABITAT AVAILABLE FOR RESTORATION

AND FEASIBILITY OF RESTORATION

46

UNOCCUPIED HABITAT AVAILABLE FOR REINTRODUCTION 46

PROPOSED TRIGGERS FOR LISTING STATUS RE-EVALUATION 47

OUTLINE OF PROPOSED RECOVERY ACTIONS 49

ESTIMATE OF TIME REQUIRED FOR ACTIONS TO BE CARRIED OUT 65

EFFECTS ON ANY OTHER SPECIES, HABITATS OR PROGRAMS 65

LIST OF AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS 66

LIST OF RECOVERY PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS WHO ASSISTED WITH

DEVELOMENT OF THE CONSERVATION ASSESSMENT

66

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 66

LITERATURE CITED 67

APPENDICES 81


3

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) was listed as threatened in Illinois in 1999 and downgraded to endangered in 2009. The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board (Board) contracted development of this document to outline the species’ current status and distribution in Illinois, review threats to the species and its habitat, establish proposed listing status review triggers, and review and prescribe possible conservation and recovery strategies. A recovery planning team composed of representatives from several state and federal agencies, universities, and research institutions with relevant expertise was established to assist in the development of the document. The Board will work with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (Department) to finalize this current document into a full recovery plan that will become final upon approval by both the Board and the Department. A final recovery plan will be used to guide review and implementation of activities funded, authorized, or performed by the Board and/or Department. Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board Note: Inclusion of information and interpretations in this assessment, including proposed recovery actions and guidelines that may not be compliant with current Illinois endangered species law, regulations, or Board or Department policies, does not imply endorsement or approval by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board or Illinois Department of Natural Resources. At a time when the Board and Department develop a recovery plan for the species, information and interpretations, including proposed actions and guidelines from this document, or revised/updated versions as appropriate, will be reviewed for possible incorporation. SPECIES DESCRIPTION The biology of Blanding’s Turtle is well described by many sources (Congdon and Keinath 2006; Congdon et al. 2008). The description of Blanding’s Turtle appearance below comes from Congdon et al. (2008, pp 2-3):

“Blanding’s Turtles are dark brown to black with some yellow spotting on the carapace. The carapace is domed and elongate and the plastron is hinged at the pectoral-abdominal seam. The characteristic that most easily separates them from other species within their range is the bright yellow color of the entire ventral portion of their throat and long neck. . . . Across most of their range, adults of both sexes range from approximately 150–240 mm in carapace length (CL), and from about 750–1400 g in body mass. . . .”

A description of Blanding’s Turtle habitat associations can be found in Congdon et al. (2008, p 4)

“In general, Blanding’s Turtles occupy a variety of eutrophic wetlands such as swamps, marshes, beaver dams, permanent and temporary ponds, and slow flowing streams . . . Blanding’s Turtles frequently emerge from water to bask on logs and tussocks, or sedge clumps.”


4

and Congdon and Keinath (2006, p 3):

“The core habitat of Blanding’s Turtles has an aquatic component that consists of a permanent wetland and a suite of other, usually smaller and more temporary, wetlands such as vernal pools that are used by adults and hatchlings as temporary refugia and seasonal food sources. Blanding’s Turtle habitat also has a large terrestrial component that consists of nesting areas and movement corridors. The terrestrial component of the core habitat is larger than that of many other aquatic turtle species, and both sexes use terrestrial corridors for movements among wetlands and for nesting migrations.”

TAXONOMIC STATUS Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, was first described by Holbrook in 1838 (as Cistuda blandingii) based on a specimen collected from the Fox River near Millbrook (then called Camden), Illinois in Kendall County (Holbrook 1838, Vernon 2003; Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia accession # 26123). Emydoidea is currently recognized as a monotypic genus and there are no described subspecies (Crother 2008, Fritz et al. 2011; see Congdon et al. 2008 for synonomy). However, two recent alternative taxonomic schemes have been suggested, one maintaining Emydoidea as a monotypic genus and the other including Blanding’s Turtle in the genus Emys (Crother 2008, pp 68-69; also see Bickham et al. 1996, Feldman and Parham 2002, Fritz et al. 2011, Lenk et al. 1999, Spinks and Shaffer 2005, 2009). The Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened Fauna uses Emydoidea blandingii (ILL. ADM. CODE, CH. I, SEC. 1010). Although no subspecies are recognized (McCoy 1973), disjunct populations of Blanding’s Turtles in Nova Scotia and in Massachusetts and eastern New York are genetically differentiated from each other and from populations comprising the rest of the species range (Fig. 1), suggesting that the Appalachian Mountains and the Hudson River represent significant barriers to gene flow (Mockford et al. 2005, 2007, Rubin et al. 2001). DISTRIBUTION RANGE-WIDE From Congdon et al. (2008, p 3; also see Fig. 1):

“The main range extends disjunctly from southeastern Ontario, adjacent Quebec, and southern Nova Scotia, south into New England and west through the Great Lakes to western Nebraska, Iowa, and extreme northeastern Missouri. . . . With the exception of two populations in the western portion of their range (Minnesota and Nebraska), populations are frequently small, discontinuous, and often isolated. In the eastern USA and Canada, small and disjunct populations occur in southeastern New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Nova Scotia.”


5

Figure 1. Distribution of Blanding’s Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii (from http://www.natureserve.org, map created June 2008; accessed 16 Dec 2011).

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?sourceTemplate=tabular_report.wmt&loadTemplate=species_RptComprehensive.wmt&selectedReport=RptComprehensive.wmt&summaryView=tabular_report.wmt&elKey=100408&paging=home&save=true&startIndex=1&nextStartIndex=1&reset=false&offPageSelectedElKey=100408&offPageSelectedElType=species&offPageYesNo=true&post_processes=&radiobutton=radiobutton&selectedIndexes=100408&selectedIndexes=777402&selectedIndexes=777775


6

ILLINOIS Data Sources. – Information on the historic and current distribution of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois was obtained from Smith (1961), Phillips et al. (1999), a survey of museum records via HerpNet (http://www.herpnet.org/) and direct requests for information (Appendix 1), the Illinois Natural Heritage Database (as of 6 December 2011; Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2012), and a review of relevant publications, technical reports, dissertations, and theses. One-hundred fifty-seven museum records from 15 institutions (Appendix 2) and 143 Element Occurrence records were reviewed, providing information on approximately 2000 individual Blanding’s Turtles. Historic and Current Distribution in Illinois. – The earliest documented occurrence of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois is a specimen collected by the physician Wm. Blanding in 1838 from the Fox River near Millbrook (then called Camden), Illinois in Kendall County (Holbrook 1838, Vernon 2003). This specimen is the basis of the species description (Holbrook 1838) and resides in the herpetological collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia (specimen # 26123). Since then, Blanding’s Turtles have been documented from 32 counties (Table 1, Fig. 2 and 3). The historic distribution of Blanding’s Turtles encompasses roughly the northern third of the state (more than 2000 records from Jo Daviess, Winnebago, Boone, McHenry, Lake, Carroll, Ogle, DeKalb, Kendall, Kane, DuPage, Cook, Whiteside, Lee, Will, Rock Island, Henry, Bureau, La Salle, Grundy, Kankakee, Iroquois, and Vermillion County) with disjunct occurrences in western Illinois (2 records from Henderson County), central Illinois (20 records from Cass, Mason, McLean, Morgan, and Peoria County), and eastern Illinois (6 records from Coles, Cumberland, and Jasper County). Single records from two additional counties (Champaign – INHS 6999, Jackson – LSU 78979) are thought to represent releases outside of their native range. The catalog entry the Champaign County specimen states that this animal may be a “transport” and the catalog entry for the Jackson County specimen indicates that it was one of f five collected in the same creek that were “probably releases.” In addition, NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org) cites natural heritage records for three Illinois counties that appear to be in error (Crawford, Hancock, Mercer); neither specimens, valid published records, nor Element Occurrence Records are known from these counties. Knowledge of the county-level distribution of Blanding’s Turtle increased most dramatically between 1931 and 1962 (18 new counties) but new county records have continued to accumulate, most recently with the addition of Bureau (1990), Grundy (1998), Jasper (1998), and Boone County (2009) records (Table 1, Fig. 2). Seven counties are represented by only one or a few old records, notably Kendall (Holbrook’s 1838 record described above), McLean (a single pre-1892 record), Coles (a single pre-1917 record), Morgan (1922 and 1933 records), Peoria (a single pre-1937 record), Rock Island (a single 1937 record), and Cumberland (three records between 1940 and 1947) (Table 1, Fig. 2,3). Another three counties are represented by no more than a few isolated observations since 1950, including DeKalb (isolated observations in 1960 and 1993), Henderson (isolated



7

observations in 1952 and 2000), and Kankakee (isolated observations in 1931, 1954, and 2001). Nine counties are represented by consistently low numbers of observations since 1950, including Bureau, Cass, Henry, Iroquois, Jasper, LaSalle, Mason, Vermillion, and Winnebago. Thirteen counties are represented by more numerous observations (10 or more since 1950) and observations in multiple years since 2000, including Boone, Carroll, Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Jo Daviess, Kane, Lake, Lee, McHenry, Ogle, Whiteside, and Will (Table 1, Fig. 2, 3). These counties are restricted to the northern half of the Blanding’s Turtle historic range in Illinois (Fig. 3). Major watersheds from which Blanding’s Turtles have been documented include Lake Michigan, Chicago/Calumet, Des Plaines, Fox, Kishwaukee, Rock, Mississippi, Green, Illinois, Kankakee, Iroquois, Vermillion, and Embarras. Natural Divisions from which Blanding’s Turtles have been documented include Northeastern Morainal, Rock River Hill Country, Wisconsin Driftless, Grand Prairie, Upper Mississippi/Illinois River Bottomlands, Illinois/Mississippi River Sand Areas, and Southern Till Plain.

Figure 2. Time-course of county-level documentation of the distribution of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois. The earliest documented occurrence of Blanding’s Turtles in the state is an 1838 record from Kendall County that is the basis of the species description (Holbrook 1838). Knowledge of the county-level distribution of Blanding’s Turtle increased most dramatically between 1931 and 1962 (18 new counties) but new county records have continued to accumulate through 2009.


8

Table 1. Occurrences of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois by year and county (note that the number of years included in a given column is variable). Vertical lines divide pre-1900, 1900-1949, 1950-1999, and 2000-2011 records. Yellow shading highlights the time period over which records for a given county exist. Numbers within the body of the table represent approximate counts of individual Blanding’s Turtles recorded. Sources of information include museum records (Appendix 2), Element Occurrence Records (EORs) from the Illinois Natural Heritage Database (through Dec 2011; Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2012), and (for recent Grundy Co. records) Dreslik et al. 2010. Because EORs sometimes span more than one county, approximate counts of individual turtles sometimes contribute to the numbers shown for several counties.

County pre-1900

1900-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sum

Oldest Record

Most Recent Record

Kendall 1

1 1838 1838

McLean 1

1 pre-1892 pre-1892

Coles 1

1 pre-1917 pre-1917

Morgan 2

2 1922 1933

Peoria 1

1 pre-1937 pre-1937

Rock Island 1

1 1937 1937

Cumberland 3

3 1940 1947

Cass 5 1 1

7 1951 1987

DeKalb

2 1

3 1960 1993

Henry 1 2 4

7 1953 1996

Vermilion 1 1 2

4 1948 1996

Jasper

2

2 1998 1998

Henderson 1 1

2 1952 2000

Kankakee 3 1 1

5 1931 2001

La Salle

1 1 1

3 1962 2001

Bureau

3 1 1

5 1994 2003

Carroll 8 2 2 1 1 2

16 1948 2005

Cook 3 15 1 1 3 4 1 2 1 5 1 1

38 1878 2006

Jo Daviess

2 1 2

5 1971 2007

Whiteside 1 2 55 1 1 1

61 1953 2007

Ogle

1 2 1 1 2

1

1

9 1982 2008


9

County pre-1900

1900-1949

1950-1959

1960-1969

1970-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Sum

Oldest Record

Most Recent Record

Grundy

8 29 37 45 21

140 1998 2009

Will 2 5 21 13 1 1 1 42 5 5 4 36 1

137 1937 2009

Boone

3 13

16 2009 2010

DuPage 2 1 18 179 10 9 3 10 7 48 10 33 11 9 1

351 1932 2010

Iroquois

1 1 1 2

5 1979 2010

Kane 2 2 1 4 1 1 4 19 1 35 1946 2011

Lake 16 3 44 27 19 1 3 9 7 53 4 2 11 15 5 219 1907 2011

Lee

19 32 16 6 4 3 2 1 2 12 3 3 1 104 1984 2011

Mason 3 2 2 1 1 9 1931 2011

McHenry 4 9 401 246 15 3 46 27 23 20 25 9 3 84 1 916 1946 2011

Winnebago 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 9 1936 2011


10

Figure 3. Historic and current distribution of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois by county. Red denotes counties for which post-1950 records are lacking or are restricted to a single isolated observation; yellow denotes counties for which post-2000 records are lacking; green denotes counties with post-2000 records based on information in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database as of 6 December 2011 (Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2012) Characteristics of Illinois Blanding’s Turtle Element Occurrences. – The county-level assessment provided above represents a coarse-grained description of the historic and current distribution of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois. To provide finer-grained information on the status of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois and a basis for proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation, occurrence data described above were analyzed further in ArcGIS. Occurrence data consisted of Element Occurrence Record (EOR) polygons and points provided by the Illinois Natural Heritage Database (Illinois Department of

Natural Resources 2012). As a first step in analyzing these data, core Blanding’s Turtle wetland habitat (= Core Wetland Habitat) was defined as those wetlands, excluding lakes and rivers, that intersected merged polygons or were within 1 km of points comprising a given EOR (Illinois National Wetland Inventory 2010). This information was then used to define for each EOR a Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern by adding 200 m, 1000 m, and 2000 m buffers around the Core Wetland Habitat. Use of the terms Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern follows Hartwig et al. (2009); buffer dimensions follow Hartwig et al. (2009) and Congdon et al. (2011). As defined by Hartwig et al. (2009, p 28):

“The 200 m Priority Zone is the area immediately surrounding the core wetland. This upland area is often used by the turtles to bask or to escape cool or warm


11

waters; the turtles may stay here for a week or longer at a time (Hartwig 2004) during the warmer months of the year (April through October). Nesting areas may also occur in this zone. The 1000 m Conservation Zone is the area that encompasses the wetlands that the turtles use regularly on a seasonal basis, most of the nesting areas, and most of the travel corridors. One can expect turtles regularly in this zone throughout the active season (April through October). The 2000 m Area of Concern encompasses the Priority Zone and the Conservation Zone, and also includes the landscape within which the Blanding’s Turtle travels to explore new wetlands, and sometimes to nest. One can expect a few turtles from a particular core wetland in this zone each year.”

As defined above, the Priority Zone is somewhat smaller than the smallest terrestrial protection zone (300 m) described by Congdon et al. (2011) as sufficient to protect 90% of nests and 14% of adults. However, Hartwig et al.’s (2009) definitions of Conservation Zone and Area of Concern are identical to terrestrial protection zones described by Congdon et al. (2011) as sufficient to protect 87% (1000 m) and 100% (2000 m) of adults, respectively. EORs were placed into four ranked categories reflecting current knowledge of the status of Blanding’s Turtles.

• Rank 1 – Sites with frequent records of Blanding’s Turtles since 1980. Locations with ten or more Blanding’s Turtle records since 1980 or with Blanding’s Turtle records in six or more years since 1980 or with annual Blanding’s Turtle records since 2009 were all assigned Rank 1.

• Rank 2 – Sites with infrequent Blanding’s Turtles records since 1980. Locations with nine or fewer Blanding’s Turtle records in four or fewer years since 1980 were assigned Rank 2.

• Rank 3 – Sites with only isolated Blanding’s Turtle records since 1980. Locations where Blanding’s Turtles had been observed three or fewer times since 1980 were assigned Rank 3.

• Rank 4 – Sites with no Blanding’s Turtle records from 1980 to the present (just four Rank 4 sites included records after 1960 and none included records from after 1973).

When Conservation Zones of Rank 1 and Rank 2 sites overlapped, they were merged into a single Rank 1 site. Two sites thought to represent released animals outside their native range were not ranked. It is important to note that Blanding’s Turtle site rankings are based largely on the number and temporal distribution of records in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database as of 6 December 2011. It is likely that the best remaining Blanding’s Turtle populations in Illinois are included among Rank 1 sites. However, the status of Blanding’s Turtles at some Rank 1 sites (those with fewer Blanding’s Turtle observations in fewer years) and at all Rank 2 sites is poorly known. Some Rank 1 and Rank 2 sites may represent locations where Blanding’s Turtle populations persist; others may represent observations of isolated individuals much like Rank 3 sites (the status of Rank 1 sites is addressed further under “Habitat Requirements”). The status of


12

Blanding’s Turtles at Rank 3 and Rank 4 sites is much clearer. Rank 3 sites largely represent locations where only one (24 sites), two (9 sites), or three (4 sites) Blanding’s Turtles have been observed since 1980. The majority of these observations consist of carcasses or skeletal remains (9 records), animals moving overland (29 records), or animals in constructed ponds (7 records). Thus, it is unlikely that Rank 3 sites represent wetland/upland complexes with permanent Blanding’s Turtle populations. Similarly, Rank 4 sites represents location with no recent (1980 to present) evidence of Blanding’s Turtle presence. Although the method outlined above for characterizing the site-specific rank of Blanding’s Turtles worked well for most records, there were a few exceptions. Several EORs included multiple Conservation Zones within a single Area of Concern (EOR 51, EOR 61) and were treated as single sites in this analysis. Several sites, each represented by a single point and classified as Rank 3 (EOR 54) or Rank 4 (EOR 130, 148), were more than 1 km from any wetland and were excluded from calculations of Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, or Area of Concern. Similarly, one point included in EOR 122/173 was more than 1 km from any wetland and so did not contribute to the Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, or Area of Concern for this site. One recently documented Rank 1 site fell outside any EOR included in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database (Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2012) and was included here based on information provided by G. Glowacki (Forest Preserve District of Lake County). Ten other sites of Rank 2, 3 or 4 documented in the literature, museum records or other sources but not included in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database were excluded from calculations of Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, or Area of Concern. By these criteria, 138 Blanding’s Turtle sites were identified in Illinois (Table 2, Fig. 4). Twenty-eight in 13 counties were assigned Rank 1, 36 sites were assigned Rank 2, 40 sites were assigned Rank 3, and 34 sites were assigned Rank 4 (Fig. 4, 5). Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern were defined for 125 sites. This information was used to characterize the historic and current extent of occurrence as defined by the IUCN (2001) by applying minimum convex polygons to all sites and to Rank 1, respectively (Fig. 4). By this method, the historic extent of occurrence equaled approximately 85,600 km2 and represented nearly 60% of Illinois’ total area (150,000 km2). The current extent of occurrence equals approximately 18,800 km2 and represents just 22% of the historic extent of occurrence and less than 13% of Illinois’ total area (Fig. 4). Similarly, this information was used to characterize historic and current area of occupancy as defined by the IUCN (2001) by summing the area included within the Conservation Zone for all sites and for Rank 1 sites, respectively (Fig. 4, 5). By this method, the historic area of occupancy equaled 2,240 km2 and represented about 1.5% of Illinois’ total land area. The current area of occupancy equals approximately 945 km2 and represents just 42% of the historic area of occupancy and about 0.6% of Illinois’ total land area. Estimates of adult population size have been computed from capture-mark-recapture data for


13

five Rank 1 sites. From smallest to largest, these populations are estimated to number approximately 25, 36, 61-100 (based on estimates of 30 for one area and 31-70 for another area), 95, and 120 adult Blanding’s Turtles (Dreslik et al. 2010, Kuhns 2010, Kuhns et al. 2007, Rubin et al. 2004). Estimates of the minimum number of alive (the number of unique individuals observed over the most recent three years of study) were computed for five additional sites and equaled 8, 10, 14, 20, and 56 adults (Kasuga and Janzen 2007, G. Glowacki, pers. comm.; W. Graser, pers. comm., B. Towney, pers. comm., A. Minson pers. comm.). These estimates are consistent with a recent survey of Blanding’s Turtle populations in the Illinois in which most Illinois populations were estimated to number <25 individuals, at least 4 populations were estimated to number 25-50 individuals, 2 populations were estimated to number 50-100 individuals , and 3 populations were estimated to number 100-500 (MWPARC 2010). For each of the 125 sites for which Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern were defined, area, linear extent of roads, and linear extent of railroads were tabulated within each zone (Table 3). Furthermore, for the 28 Rank 1 sites (Fig 5), land area contained within state dedicated Nature Preserves and Land and Water Reserves and land cover area classified as wetland, surface water, agricultural land, rural grassland, forested land, urban and built-up land, and barren and exposed land were tabulated (Table 4). More detailed information on data sources along with a map of the Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern for hypothetical Blanding’s Turtle site is provided in Appendix 3.


14

Table 2. Numbers of Rank 1 (frequent records since 1980), Rank 2 (infrequent records since 1980), Rank 3 (isolated records since 1980), and Rank 4 (no records since 1980) Blanding’s Turtle sites in Illinois by county. Because sites sometimes span parts of more than one county, the total number of sites (bottom row) may be less than the sum of the corresponding column.

County Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Total Boone 1 1 Bureau 2 2 Carroll 2 1 3 Cass 1 2 1 Coles 1 1 Cook 2 3 4 6 15

Cumberland 1 1 DeKalb 1 1 2 DuPage 3 6 3 1 13 Grundy 1 1

Henderson 1 1 2 Henry 1 1 2

Iroquois 1 1 Jasper 1 1

Jo Daviess 1 1 2 Kane 3 4 4 1 12

Kankakee 1 3 4 Kendall 1 1

Lake 4 1 8 2 15 LaSalle 1 1 2

Lee 6 2 8 Mason 1 1 2

McHenry 8 4 11 2 23 McLean 1 1 Morgan 1 1

Ogle 1 2 3 Peoria 1 1

Rock Island 1 1 Vermillion 1 1 2 Whiteside 1 2 3

Will 1 4 2 1 7 Winnebago 3 2 5

Total 28 36 40 34 138


15

Table 3. Total and mean area, total and mean area contained within state dedicated Nature Preserves and Land and Water Reserves and (NP/LWR, Rank 1 sites only), linear extent of roads, and linear extent of railroads within Core Wetland Habitat, Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern for Illinois Blanding’s Turtle sites classified as Rank 1 (frequent records since 1980), Rank 2 (infrequent records since 1980), Rank 3 (isolated records since 1980), and Rank 4 (no records since 1980). Priority Zone Conservation Zone Area of Concern A. Rank 1 (28 sites)

Total Area (ha) 33,860 94,530 171,770 Total NP/LWR Area (ha) 4,260 5,260 5,740 Total Roads (km) 376 1,575 3,049 Total Rails (km) 102 270 366 Mean Area (range) 1,210 (70-4,890) 3,380 (640-12,240) 6,150 (1,900-19,470) Mean NP/LWR Area (range) 150 (0-1250) 190 (0-1,460) 210 (0-1,610) Mean Roads (range) 13 (0-88) 56 (7-351) 109 (17-562) Mean Rails (range) 4 (0-24) 10 (0-58) 13 (0-70)

B. Rank 2 (34 sites) Total Area (ha) 17,560 58,230 123,470 Total Roads (km) 171 926 2,254 Total Rails (km) 37 86 196 Mean Area (range) 520 (20-2,860) 1,710 (340-6,280) 3,630 (1310-11,570) Mean Roads (range) 5 (0-16) 27 (4-75) 66 (14-194) Mean Rails (range) 1 (0-16) 3 (0-29) 6 (0-52)

C. Rank 3 (37 sites) Total Area (ha) 11,320 45,290 104,660 Total Roads (km) 216 1,224 2,896 Total Rails (km) 50 174 346 Mean Area (range) 310 (30-1,150) 1,220 (380-3,440) 2,830 (1,390-6,220) Mean Roads (range) 6 (0-22) 33 (2-79) 78 (12-226) Mean Rails (range) 1 (0-22) 5 (0-89) 9 (0-160)


16

Priority Zone Conservation Zone Area of Concern D. Rank 4 (26 sites)

Total Area (ha) 5,530 25,780 63,980 Total Roads (km) 74 609 1,583 Total Rails (km) 20 71 141 Mean Area (range) 210 (20-670) 990 (340-2,180) 2,460 (1,300-4,490) Mean Roads (range) 3 (0-8) 23 (2-69) 61 (8-163) Mean Rails (range) 1 (0-5) 3 (0-18) 5 (0-36)


17

Table 4. Characteristics of Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern for 28 Rank 1 (frequent records since 1980) Blanding’s Turtle sites. Site locations are shown in Fig. 5.

Land Cover (% of Total Area)

Site and Zone Total Area (ha)

NP/ LWR Area (ha)

Roads (km)

Rails (km) Wetland Surface

Water Rural

Grassland Forested

Land Agricultur

al Land

Urban & Built-up

Land

Barren & Exposed

Land

2 Priority Zone 643 0 2 3 11 4 77 0 7 1 0

Conservation Zone 1818 0 8 10 10 16 61 1 8 4 0 Area of Concern 3731 0 21 13 13 22 45 1 12 7 0

4 Priority Zone 1187 19 8 1 37 34 6 11 8 3 0


14 Priority Zone 183 84 1 0 3 1 0 18 10 68 0


18 Priority Zone 151 0 2 0 2 2 47 2 45 1 0


19

Priority Zone 514 0 2 0 22 1 28 31 18 0 0


21

Priority Zone 595 0 6 0 2 0 58 21 17 2 0



18



NP/ LWR Area (ha)

Roads (km)


Water Rural

Grassland Forested

Land Agricultur

al Land

Urban & Built-up

Land

Barren & Exposed

Land

27 Priority Zone 2724 63 36 1 25 15 17 29 2 11 2


44 Priority Zone 578 115 9 0 13 5 7 4 15 55 0


46 Priority Zone 799 1 6 0 2 1 46 25 26 0 0


51 Priority Zone 1673 18 17 3 3 2 42 27 23 2 1


56 Priority Zone 1369 16 9 13 48 21 7 9 10 6 0


59

Priority Zone 72 0 1 0 9 0 14 22 54 0 0


94

Priority Zone 581 0 6 0 12 6 31 14 37 1 0



19



NP/ LWR Area (ha)

Roads (km)


Water Rural

Grassland Forested

Land Agricultur

al Land

Urban & Built-up

Land

Barren & Exposed

Land

97 Priority Zone 583 18 5 3 2 0 40 18 35 4 0


156 Priority Zone 498 425 13 0 2 1 0 82 0 15 0


162 Priority Zone 197 0 1 0 3 0 45 7 42 3 0


166 Priority Zone 264 0 4 2 11 0 19 15 40 16 0


13/60/74 Priority Zone 4890 1249 88 2 12 10 19 29 4 26 1


36/172

Priority Zone 956 0 12 0 12 2 18 16 53 1 0


38/58

Priority Zone 955 0 7 0 15 2 20 35 28 1 0



20



NP/ LWR Area (ha)

Roads (km)


Water Rural

Grassland Forested

Land Agricultur

al Land

Urban & Built-up

Land

Barren & Exposed

Land

47/49/50/70 Priority Zone 3536 640 45 5 6 1 37 21 27 8 1


53/168 Priority Zone 587 13 6 3 2 0 32 17 41 8 0


75/88 Priority Zone 2972 259 32 24 27 12 7 11 2 37 3


78/175 Priority Zone 701 124 7 13 4 2 0 12 3 79 0


79/150 Priority Zone 1744 13 25 14 5 3 23 14 10 46 0


8/9

Priority Zone 2276 1204 23 14 22 5 10 29 1 32 1


93/154

Priority Zone 2208 0 0 2 55 35 4 5 0 1 0



21



NP/ LWR Area (ha)

Roads (km)


Water Rural

Grassland Forested

Land Agricultur

al Land

Urban & Built-up

Land

Barren & Exposed

Land

GG Priority Zone 427 0 5 0 11 1 21 11 39 16 1



22

Figure 4. Historic and current extent of occurrence (polygons) and area of occupancy (irregularly shaped Conservation Zones as defined in the text) of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois. Rank 1 (frequent records since 1980), Rank 2 (infrequent records since 1980), Rank 3 (isolated records since 1980), and Rank 4 (no records since 1980) sites and the corresponding polygons, are shaded green, yellow, orange, and red, respectively.


23

Figure 5. Geographic distribution of Rank 1 (frequent records since 1980) Blanding’s Turtle sites (green with corresponding EOR # as in Table 4) in Illinois. Rank 2 (infrequent records since 1980, yellow), Rank 3 (isolated records since 1980, orange), and Rank 4 (no records since 1980, red) sites are also shown (see Fig. 4 for the geographic distribution of Rank 2, Rank 3, and Rank 4 sites in areas of Illinois not shown here).


24

CONSERVATION STATUS RANGE-WIDE Blanding’s Turtle receives legal protection over much of its range and has been variously classified as a species of conservation concern by NGOs and other organizations (Table 5). Table 5. Conservation status of Blanding’s Turtle. Region State/Provincial/Federal Status Other Status Global Proposed for inclusion in CITES

Appendix II6, G4 Apparently Secure7, Endangered8

US N4 Apparently Secure7, Sensitive9

Canada N4 Apparently Secure7

Illinois Endangered1 S3 Vulnerable7

Indiana Endangered2 S2 Imperiled7

Iowa Threatened2 S3 Vulnerable7

Maine Endangered6 S2 Imperiled7

Massachusetts Threatened6 S2 Imperiled7

Michigan Special Concern2 S3 Vulnerable7

Minnesota Threatened2 S2 Imperiled7

Missouri Endangered2 S1 Critically Imperiled7

Nebraska Species in Need of Conservation2 S5 Secure7

New Hampshire Species of Special Concern3 S1 Critically Imperiled7

New York Threatened4 S2S3 Imperiled/Vulnerable7

Ohio Species of Concern2 S2 Imperiled7

Pennsylvania Candidate Species4 S1 Critically Imperiled7

South Dakota Special Concern2 S1 Critically Imperiled7

Wisconsin Threatened2 S3S4 Vulnerable/Apparently Secure7

Nova Scotia Endangered4, 5 S1 Critically Imperiled7

Ontario Threatened5 S3 Vulnerable7

Quebec Threatened5 S1 Critically Imperiled7

1 Illinois Administrative Code. Conservation § 1010: Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened Fauna (1977 et seq.).

2MWPARC 2010 3New Hampshire Fish and Game,

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Nongame/turtles/blandings_turtle.htm 4The Blanding’s Turtle Recovery Team 2002 5COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada),

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca 6CITES (2012) 7NatureServe, http://www.natureserve.org 8IUCN, http://www.iucn.org/ 9USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region, 2003

http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/


http://www.iucn.org/


25

Regional status assessments are available for the Midwest (MWPARC 2010), the Northeast (Compton 2007), the USDA Forest Service Eastern Region (USDA Forest Service 2003), the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (Congdon and Keinath 2006), and Nova Scotia and Great Lakes/St. Lawrence (Canada) populations (COSEWIC 2005). Management plans have been developed for New Hampshire (Marchand 2005) and Massachusetts (Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program 2007) and a recovery plan has been developed for Nova Scotia (The Blanding’s Turtle Recovery Team 2002) and Quebec (Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune 2005).

ILLINOIS In Illinois, Blanding’s Turtle was designated as threatened in April 1999 and downgraded to endangered in 2009 (ILL. ADM. CODE, CH. I, SEC. 1010). REASON FOR DECLINE Historic declines in both the extent of occurrence and the area of occupancy of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois are attributable to large-scale changes in land-use patterns over the last two centuries. Statewide, wetlands decreased by 85% from the 1780’s to the 1980’s– from 8,212,000 acres (22.8% of state surface area) to 1,254,500 acres (3.5% of state surface area) (Dahl 1990) (an even greater reduction, from 23% to 2.6% of state surface area, is reported by Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 1994). This change was achieved mostly through technological advances in drainage methods and was motivated by the agricultural potential of wetland habitats (Urban 2005). Perhaps even more impressive was the conversion of prairie habitats, again primarily motivated by their agricultural potential (Fig. 6). Among the 32 counties for which verifiable Blanding’s Turtle records exist, prairie decreased from more than 9 million acres to just over 2,000 acres between 1820 and 1976 (Table 6). These changing land-use patterns are associated with dramatic changes in Illinois’ human population which increased from fewer than 1 million in 1859 to 4.8 million in 1900 and 12.4 million in 2000 (http://www.npg.org/states/il.htm; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000lk.html). Among the 32 counties for which verifiable Blanding’s Turtle records exist, the human population increased 325% between 1900 and 2000, from 3.0 to 9.8 million (Fig. 7). With this growth in human population came further change in land-use patterns to increasingly urban/built-up land cover. While northeastern Illinois, where many of the Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites are found, has an extensive network of green space in forest preserves, state parks, and other conservation lands, many are fragmented into small effective patch sizes that impede movements and negatively impact population dynamics. As of 1999-2000, wetlands accounted for an average of 3.0% and rural grasslands for 11.8% of land cover in the 32 counties for which verifiable Blanding’s Turtle records exist (Table 6). Together, cropland and urban/built-up land account for an average of 73.4% of the land cover of these counties (Table 6). Currently, 17 of the 28 sites with Rank 1 Blanding’s populations occur in those counties that also have the highest human population densities (McHenry, Lake, Kane, Cook, DuPage, Will) (Fig. 8).

http://www.npg.org/states/il.htm

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000lk.html


26

Table 6. Decrease in prairie acreage between 1820 and 1976 (Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources 1994) and 1999-2000 land cover (% of total land area; http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdihome/webdocs/landcover/index.html) in 32 Illinois counties with verified Blanding’s Turtle populations.

Acres of Prairie 1999-2000 Land Cover (% of total land area)

County 1820 1976 Cropland Rural Grassland

Forest/ Woodland Wetland Urban &

Built-up Surface Water

Barren & Exposed

Boone 96,400 2.0 70.9 16.6 4.5 1.8 5.6 0.4 0.2 Bureau 435,600 8.8 76.4 10.5 7.1 2.8 2.4 0.8 <0.1 Carroll 130,500 52.0 62.2 15.7 13.1 2.7 1.8 4.4 0.0 Cass 149,500 44.0 65.0 9.9 12.4 8.5 2.0 2.0 0.1 Coles 218,800 3.1 75.4 7.7 9.6 3.0 3.8 0.5 0.1 Cook 521,900 391.0 4.0 15.8 13.6 2.9 61.5 1.9 0.2

Cumberland 137,900 0.0 73.2 6.1 17.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 <0.1 DeKalb 373,000 7.5 83.8 8.3 1.7 0.9 4.8 0.3 0.2 DuPage 182,500 8.6 3.3 3.9 14.1 2.0 75.0 1.6 0.1 Grundy 248,700 5.3 74.1 9.5 4.2 4.4 4.8 3.0 0.1

Henderson 174,200 176.0 69.2 8.1 10.7 5.2 1.6 4.8 0.1 Henry 458,700 9.7 76.5 12.8 5.4 1.6 3.1 0.6 <0.1

Iroquois 651,000 48.0 84.6 10.3 1.6 0.9 2.3 0.4 <0.1 Jasper 190,900 0.0 77.0 5.4 13.2 2.3 0.9 1.1 0.0

Jo Daviess 74,800 2.1 38.9 24.9 27.6 2.9 2.0 2.8 <0.1 Kane 216,100 5.1 48.9 16.0 8.2 1.0 24.6 1.0 0.2

Kankakee 406,700 7.8 76.6 12.2 3.4 1.7 5.5 0.7 0.3 Kendall 184,700 20.0 75.0 11.8 4.9 1.4 6.0 0.7 0.2

Lake 102,400 670.0 10.2 9.1 22.9 4.3 47.4 5.8 0.3 LaSalle 612,800 1.3 76.9 9.4 5.4 2.2 4.3 1.5 0.4

Lee 415,300 8.8 81.9 9.1 4.4 1.8 2.1 0.7 0.0


27

Acres of Prairie 1999-2000 Land Cover (% of total land area)

County 1820 1976 Cropland Rural Grassland

Forest/ Woodland Wetland Urban &

Built-up Surface Water

Barren & Exposed

Mason 26,500 186.0 71.5 8.5 6.6 7.7 1.7 3.7 0.2 McHenry 220,900 9.2 44.9 21.5 12.4 2.1 16.9 1.7 0.6 McLean 669,800 5.0 84.4 7.6 1.6 1.2 5.0 0.3 <0.1 Morgan 235,100 11.0 74.0 10.0 9.4 2.4 3.2 0.8 0.1

Ogle 307,200 15.0 72.0 14.1 8.5 2.0 2.6 0.8 <0.1 Peoria 208,700 14.0 52.1 12.9 19.5 3.8 8.9 2.7 0.1

Rock Island 126,600 5.6 44.6 13.8 17.9 6.0 11.6 5.9 0.1 Vermilion 449,500 4.1 72.9 13.3 5.2 2.2 4.4 1.1 0.1 Whiteside 284,400 206.0 74.8 11.4 5.3 2.9 3.3 2.2 <0.1

Will 469,500 206.0 45.6 18.3 7.9 2.3 23.3 2.3 0.4 Winnebago 235,600 50.0 49.5 15.5 11.2 7.9 14.1 1.7 <0.1


28

Figure 6. Pre-settlement vegetation map of Illinois (Illinois Natural History Survey GIS database, August 2003). Areas occupied by Blanding’s Turtles were historically dominated by prairie and, to a lesser degree, wet prairie and forest.

Figure 7. Human population growth from 1900 – 2000 in 32 Illinois counties with verified Blanding’s Turtle occurrences (data from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000lk.html).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Popu

latio

n siz

e (m

illio

ns)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17000lk.html


29

Figure 8. Human population density in Illinois (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois; 2010 census data). Most Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites (Fig. 4) occur in high human-density counties surrounding Chicago. CURRENT THREATS TO THE SPECIES Current threats to Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois and throughout their range have been summarized by Nÿboer et al. (2006; Illinois), MWPARC (2010; Illinois and other Midwestern states), Marchand (2005; New Hampshire), Compton (2007; New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine), Congdon and Keinath (2006; USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region), USDA Forest Service (2003; USDA Forest Service Eastern Region), COSEWIC (2005; Nova Scotia), Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (2007; Massachusetts), The Blanding’s Turtle Recovery Team (2003; Nova Scotia), Congdon et al. (2008; entire range), among other sources. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of its Habitat or Range. – Habitat loss and fragmentation represent significant threats to Blanding’s Turtle persistence in Illinois. Blanding’s Turtles inhabit wetland complexes that include both permanent and temporary water bodies and associated upland habitat. Overland movements are extensive (Congdon et al. 2011; Steen et al. 2012; Table 7) and population densities are typically low (Condgon et al. 1986; Congdon et al 1996; Congdon and Gibbons 1989). As a consequence, large areas (100s – 1,000s of ha) of contiguous habitat are necessary to maintain self-sustaining populations. In Illinois, agricultural and urban development has meant that Blanding’s Turtles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois


30

persist in increasingly small and isolated wetland complexes that support only small populations of adult individuals. Small population size increases risk of local extinction, even in protected habitats, because of the probabilistic nature of demographic processes (survival, reproduction). For example, if annual probability of survival is 50%, there is a greater chance that at least some individuals survive in a population of 100 than in a population of 10, a phenomenon referred to as “demographic stochasticity.” Habitat fragmentation exacerbates this problem because “demographic rescue” by immigrants from other sites is unlikely. Table 7. Mean distance to nearest water and associated statistics for (A) Blanding’s Turtle nests and (B) gravid female Blanding’s Turtles based on individuals records (from Table 1 and 2 in Steen et al. 2012). States and provinces with N ≥ 10 are listed individually. Overall values in (B) include states and provinces with N < 10. Mean

(m) Standard Deviation

Standard Error

Median Minimum Maximum N

A. Mean distance to nearest water for Blanding’s Turtle nests Massachusetts 85.2 72.7 9.6 70.0 5.0 333.0 58 Maine 128.0 94.2 25.2 99.5 19.0 365.0 14 Michigan 126.8 96.5 6.1 100.0 4.0 448.0 254 Minnesota 481.3 426.8 93.2 353.0 100.0 2012.0 21 New York 193.0 74.0 12.3 191.0 22.0 427.0 36 Ontario 71.2 108.4 17.8 16.0 1.0 461.0 37 Overall 139.6 154.3 7.5 103.0 1.0 2012.0 420

B. Mean distance to nearest water for gravid female Blanding’s Turtles Massachusetts 80.3 41.3 9.73 85.0 2.0 150.0 18 Overall 334.6 709.0 129.45 85.0 2.0 3421.0 30

In addition to its effects on movements among populations, habitat fragmentation functions to restrict Blanding’s Turtle movements within populations. Conservation Zones associated with Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites are traversed by an average of 56 km of roads (range = 7-351 km) and 10 km of rails (0-58 km) (Table 3, 4), often with high traffic volumes. Roads and rails not only function as physical barriers to movements habitats but also result in increased adult mortality both through vehicle strikes and entrapment (between rails) and associated thermal stress (Kornilev et al. 2006; Marsack and Swanson 2009; Steen and Gibbs 2004).

Land-use practices outside wetland complexes also impact Blanding’s Turtles. Agriculture, transportation infrastructure, urbanization, and storm water management influence wetland hydrology and water quality, even in protected wetlands. For Blanding’s Turtles, consequences can include increased risk of nest site flooding and mortality during hibernation because of intentional water level manipulation or increased variability of unmanipulated water levels. Impacts due to increased nutrient loading, siltation, and contaminant exposure are also possible.


31

Natural succession, invasive plants, and invasive animals also have the potential to reduce habitat quality for Blanding’s Turtles. Canopy closure over wetlands may reduce thermoregulatory opportunities for juveniles and adults. Woody plant encroachment at nesting sites may affect the thermal environment of developing eggs and affect offspring sex ratios because Blanding’s Turtles exhibit temperature dependent sex determination. Invasive European Buckthorn and rusty crayfish are well established in northeastern Illinois and have effects on wetland hydrology (buckthorn) and aquatic community composition (both species) that may impact Blanding’s Turtles. Invasive common carp impact aquatic vegetation and turbidity, both of which alter structure of vegetated waterways which are associated with Blanding's Turtle occurrence (Crivelli 1983; Fletcher et al. 1985; Lougheed et al. 1998; Roberts et al. 1995). The impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on Blanding’s Turtles are expected to increase into the future. Concomitant increases in urban and suburban development, transportation infrastructure, and traffic volume are likely to follow projected increases in Illinois’ human population (by 4% to 13.4 million by 2030) (http://www.census.gov/population/projections/SummaryTabA1.pdf). Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes. – As a state endangered species, commercial harvest and recreational collecting of Blanding’s Turtles is prohibited and collecting for scientific or educational purposes requires possession of an Illinois Endangered or Threatened Species Possession Permit. Despite these prohibitions and regulations, collecting by hobbyists or visitors is a common concern of land managers in Illinois (MWPARC 2010). M. Redmer (pers. comm.) reports hatchling and adult Blanding’s Turtles offered for sale at $150 and $400, respectively, on Kingsnake.com in 2012. U.S. exports of Blanding’s Turtles numbered 976 individuals from 1999-2010 (CITES 2012). Although difficult to quantify, illegal collection for the pet trade is cited as a threat by many natural resource management agencies (e.g., Blanding’s Turtle fact sheets for Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ontario) and has resulted in noteworthy convictions in jurisdictions outside of Illinois (e.g., http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=714D9AAE-1&news=A3E69C1E-A384-43FF-AD52-0FEEAEA05B92).

Disease or Predation. – Emerging infectious disease represents a significant concern for wildlife conservation generally because of the potential for inadvertent human-mediated dispersal of disease-causing organisms or vectors and because of the rapidity with which novel diseases can impact populations. Recent examples include white-nose syndrome in bats and Chytridiomycosis in amphibians, both caused by fungal pathogens thought to have been spread by humans (Farrer et al. 2011, Warnecke et al. 2012). While evidence for emerging infectious disease among Blanding’s Turtles is lacking (Allender 2009), upper respiratory disease, caused by Mycoplasma bacteria, is an identified threat to the federally threatened Mojave Desert Tortoise (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011) and has been implicated in gopher tortoise declines (Ozgul et al. 2009) and ranavirus sometimes affects aquatic turtle populations (Allender et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2009; Zhao et al. 2007).

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/SummaryTabA1.pdf

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=714D9AAE-1&news=A3E69C1E-A384-43FF-AD52-0FEEAEA05B92

http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=714D9AAE-1&news=A3E69C1E-A384-43FF-AD52-0FEEAEA05B92


32

Predation risk varies dramatically among Blanding’s Turtle life stages (egg vs. post-hatchling) and size classes (hatchling, juvenile, adult). Eggs are especially vulnerable to predators such as raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes, mink, and coyotes and because turtles lay all their eggs in a single nest, these predators are likely to consume entire clutches in a single predation event. The impact of mesopredators has increased because their populations have grown following declines in apex predators such as the gray wolf, mountain lion, and black bear (all extirpated from Illinois, Hoffmeister 2002), a response referred to as mesopredator release (Prugh et al. 2009). Mesopredator numbers have also increased because of food subsidies associated with human habitation (e.g., the availability of waste food, food for pets, food intentionally provided to feral animals and wildlife; McKinny 2002; Gompper and Vanak 2008). Such subsidized predators can sometimes have devastating impacts on their prey (Gompper and Vanak 2008), including turtles (Esque et al. 2010, Wirsing et al. 2012), especially in urban areas where food subsidies are readily available (McKinny 2002). Among meospredators, raccoons have exhibited especially rapid increases in population density in urban environments (Smith and Engeman 2002, Prange et al. 2003, Hadidian et al. 2010, Graser et al. 2012) and can cause nearly 100% mortality of turtle nests (e.g., Engeman et al. 2005), including Blanding’s Turtles (Table 8). Furthermore, raccoon management can result in dramatic and immediate improvements in turtle nesting success (from less than 50% to more than 90% hatching success, Christiansen and Gallaway 1984; from less than 5% to more than 90% hatching success, Engeman et al. 2005, 2010). Other effect measures to reduce nest predation include protection of individual nests using wire caging (Anthonysamy 2012, Butler & Grahm 1995, Emrich 1991, Joyal et al. 2000, Kuhns 2010, Spetz 2008, Standing et al. 2000) and protection of nesting areas using electric fencing (Geller 2012). Although raccoon predation on Blanding’s Turtle eggs is especially great in human-dominated urban landscapes, raccoon predation on Blanding’s Turtle eggs in natural and agricultural landscapes can also be significant, especially during periods of low pelt prices and harvest levels (Congdon 1993, Gehrt et al. 2002). Similar trends are seen in nest predation on Illinois songbirds (Schmidt 2003). It is noteworthy that raccoon populations in urban areas also represent a significant public health concern (Hadidian et al. 2010). Due to their small size (6-12 g), hatchling Blanding’s Turtles are vulnerable to a numerous predators, including the egg predators listed above (raccoons, skunks, opossums, foxes, mink, coyotes), cats and dogs, bullfrogs, chipmunks, and a variety of avian predators (e.g., jays, crows), many of which feed opportunistically on a wide variety of animal prey (Jones and Seivert 2012). Juvenile and adult Blanding’s Turtles are also subject to predation by mesopredators, but presumably at far lower rates than eggs and hatchlings. Of concern are potentially elevated predation rates on these size classes because of increased predator numbers and vulnerability. Changes in land use patterns mean that Blanding’s turtles making overland movements (across lawns, agricultural land, roads) are at greater risk of predation than would be the case in unaltered habitats. Given other novel sources of mortality (e.g., vehicle-caused deaths), even slightly elevated rates of predation are a concern.


33

Table 8. Blanding’s Turtle hatching success (A) in situ unprotected from predators, (B) in situ protected from predators, and (C) ex situ. State/ Province County

# of Clutches

Hatching Success Source Comments

A. in situ, unprotected IL Lake 6 0.18 Kuhns 2010 5 of 6 clutches depredated

MA

35 0.06 Butler & Grahm 1995 33 of 35 clutches depredated MI

73 0.33 Congdon et al. 1983 49 of 73 clutches depredated

NS

23 0.35 Standing et al. 2000 15 of 23 clutches depredated Mean

0.23

B. in situ, protected from predators IL Lake 10 0.83 Kuhns 2010

IL Will 5 0.48 Anthonysamy 2012 MA

14 0.87 Butler & Grahm 1995

ME

5 0.47 Joyal et al. 2000 MI

13 0.88 Congdon et al. 1983 unprotected but not depredated

NS

101 0.48 Standing et al. 2000 NY

6 0.60 Emrich 1991

OH

2 0.77 Spetz 2008 4 additional nests failed due to flooding/ saturated soil Mean

0.67

C. ex situ IL DuPage 11 0.51 Ludwig et al. 2005 2001 IL DuPage 14 0.57 Thompson & Reklau 2005a 2002 IL DuPage 15 0.53 Thompson & Reklau 2005b 2003 IL DuPage 18 0.70 Thompson & Reklau 2005c 2004 IL DuPage 19 0.89 Thompson & Reklau 2005d 2005 IL DuPage 13 0.95 Thompson & Reklau 2007 2006 IL DuPage 12 0.80 Thompson et al. 2008 2007 IL DuPage 16 0.90 Thompson et al. 2009 2008 IL DuPage 22 0.92 Thompson et al. 2010 2009 IL DuPage 22 0.88 Thompson et al. 2011 2010


34

IL DuPage 23 0.94 Thompson et al. 2012 2011; infertile eggs excluded IL Lake 13 0.80 Glowacki 2011

IL Lake 10 0.64 Kuhns 2010 2009; 1 clutch with 0% hatching excluded IL Lake 4 0.82 Kuhns 2010 2010; 1 clutch with 0% hatching excluded IL McHenry 33 0.55 Chandler et al. 2009

IL McHenry 49 eggs 0.82 Hayden 2007 IL Will 23 0.79 Anthonysamy 2012 IL Will/Cook 11 0.34 Dreslik et al. 2011 2007 & 2008

IL Will/Cook 14 0.81 Dreslik et al. 2011 2009 & 2010 NE

- 0.79 Chandler et al. 2009 unpublished data from F. Janzen

Mean

0.75


35

Other Natural or Human-caused Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence. – Blanding’s Turtles are negatively impacted by a wide range of natural and human-caused factors. Direct mortality results from collisions with vehicles, mowing and construction equipment, and agricultural equipment. Direct mortality may also occur from some land management practices (e.g., prescribed burning, winter lake draw-downs). The risk of road mortality in turtles is well documented (see Andrews et al. 2008 for review) and has been investigated in detail for Blanding’s Turtles in the northeastern United States (Compton et al. 2007, Langen et al. 2012) which, like Blanding’s Turtles in northeastern Illinois, occur in conjunction with high human population densities and associated transportation infrastructure. Based on radio-telemetry studies, the probability of an attempted road crossing increases as the distance between roads and home range centroids decrease (to greater than 50% for turtles whose home-range centroids are less than 500 m from a road; Fig. 9). Likewise, the probability of mortality increases rapidly with increasing traffic volumes (to more than 40% per attempt at traffic volumes ≥ 10,000 vehicles per day; Fig. 9). Close proximity of roads and high traffic volumes are a significant risk for many Illinois Blanding’s Turtle populations (Table 4). Impacts of road mortality and possible mitigation is discussed for Blanding’s Turtles generally by Ashley and Robinson (1996), Beaudry (2007), Beaudry et al. (2008, 2010), Christoffel and Hay (1995), Gibbs and Shriver(2002), Gibbs and Steen (2005), Lang (2004), Litvaitis and Tash (2008), Patrick and Gibbs 2010, Steen et al. (2005), Walston and LaGory (2010) and for one Illinois population by Kuhns (2010). Possible mitigation of turtle mortality in agricultural lands is discussed by Erb and Jones (2011). A combination of fencing or other barrier structures to prevent turtle access to road and rail rights-or-way and passages to enhance connectivity within wetland complexes has proven to be an effective management strategy for turtles generally (Aresco 2005; Woltz et. al. 2008) and for Blanding’s Turtles in particular (Lang 2004; pers. comm., Mark Lindvall, USFWS). At Valentine National Wildlife Refuge and Ballard Marsh State Wildlife Area in Nebraska, fencing reduced turtle mortality three-fold, from 132 if 204 turtles encountered to 30 of 123 turtles encountered in a comparison of three unfenced and three fenced localities along US 83 (Lang 2004). Most mortalities at fenced sites occurred when turtles walked around the ends of fences, a problem that could be corrected with modifications to fence location and design (e.g, Aresco 2005). Fencing has also been used to effectively reduce Blanding’s Turtle mortality at Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge (pers. comm., Stephanie Kock, USFWS). Indirect effects include harm to turtle nests through alterations of the thermal environment; disturbance of nesting females and their eggs by humans and their pets; exposure to environmental contaminants; hydrologic alteration due to development; and wetland degradation resulting from runoff and increased silt, nutrient, and contaminant inputs. Proximity to rail, road, and pipeline rights-of-way makes Blanding’s Turtles and their habitats vulnerable to hazardous material spills.


36

Figure 9. Road crossing (left) and road mortality (right) probability functions developed for Blanding’s Turtles in the northeastern United States (fig. 12 and fig. 10 from Compton et al 2007). Changing land-use patterns and development of transportation infrastructure result in habitat fragmentation and increased barriers to dispersal. As a consequence, Blanding’s Turtles must traverse increasingly inhospitable habitats, resulting in elevated risk of desiccation and predation. Fragmentation also has demographic and genetic consequences. Small, isolated populations are more strongly impacted by stochastic processes (e.g., predation, weather, disease, nest site thermal regime). In addition, small, isolated populations are especially prone to loss of genetic variability due to the effects of random genetic drift (Allendorf and Luikart 2007). In the case of Blanding’s Turtles, long-generation time is expected to buffer against rapid loss of genetic variability and available data suggests that if such losses have occurred, they are no greater in Illinois populations than in populations elsewhere. For example, observed microsatellite DNA heterozygosity averages 0.57 (range = 0.38-0.75) for 13 Illinois populations compared to 0.59 (0.38-0.72) for 16 populations elsewhere (Table 9). Molecular genetic analyses using microsatellite DNA markers have documented strong differentiation (FST ≥ 0.15) between disjunct populations of Blanding’s Turtles in Nova Scotia, New York, and Massachusetts and those in the Michigan, Illinois (represented by a site in DuPage Co.), Wisconsin, and Minnesota (Mockford et al. 2007). Similarly, strong differentiation (FST ≥ 0.13) is evident between Illinois populations (represented by sites in Carroll, McHenry, and Will County), and those in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska (F. Janzen, pers. comm.). Within Illinois, populations in McHenry Co. are well differentiated from those in Will and Carroll Co. (FST > 0.37) but populations Carroll and Will Co. are less differentiated (FST = 0.05; F. Janzen, pers. comm.). Similarly, populations in Kane and Will Co. are well differentiated (FST = 0.59) but evidence for differentiation between a Will Co. and two DuPage Co. populations is equivocal (FST = 0.01 and 0.31; Klut 2012). In general, these results suggest low rates of gene flow among


37

local populations. However, because genetic analyses of Illinois Blanding’s Turtles have been conducted independently in different laboratories (Chandler 2009, Dreslik et al. 2010, 2011, Klut 2012, Mockford et al. 2007) and some sites (e.g., in Lake and Lee Co.) remain unsampled, knowledge of the population genetic structure of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois is incomplete. The infrequent occurrence of multiple paternity in one Illinois population (Anthonysamy et al. 2011; Dreslik et al. 2011) compared to populations elsewhere (Osentoski 2001, McGuire et al. 2011, Refsnider 2009) suggests that, possibly, low population density has resulted in reduced mate-finding ability (= Allee effect) (also see Beckett 2006). Conservation and management of Blanding’s Turtles is exacerbated by the slow rate at which reproductive maturity is reached (ca. 17 years) and long generation time (ca. 30 years) (Congdon and van Loben Sels 1993, Congdon et al. 2008). As a consequence, recovery is expected to take decades or even centuries. Furthermore, populations that are in decline can persist for long periods (decades) during which they may appear stable, due to a combination of high adult survival but low (or no) recruitment. Blanding’s Turtles may be adversely affected by climate change. For example, more extreme drought cycles may result in changed wetland hydrology and, for Blanding’s Turtles, habitat degradation. Increased movements in search of better quality wetlands during periods of drought may also increase risk of road mortality (Buhlmann et al. 2009; Buhlmann and Gibbons 2001; Cagle 1944; Christiansen and Bickham 1989; Gibbons et al. 1983; Joyal et al. 2001; Kennett and Georges 1990; Lignon and Stone 2003; Rees et al. 2009; Roe and Georges 2008).


38

Table 9. Genetic variation in Blanding’s Turtle populations from (A) Illinois and (B) other states and provinces based on allelic richness (mean number of alleles per locus), observed heterozygosity (mean observed frequency of heterozygotes), and expected heterozygosity (mean expected frequency of heterozygotes under Hardy-Weinberg conditions). Only sites with samples sizes ≥ 10 are included.

Site # of

loci

Sample Size

Mean allelic

richness

Mean observed

heterozygosity

Mean expected

heterozygosity Reference

A. Illinois Carroll 8 22 5.6 0.52 0.64 F. Janzen, pers. comm. Cook/Will 14 23 5.3 0.57 0.54 Dreslik et al. 2011 DuPage – A 7 16 4.8 0.62 0.72 Klut 2011 DuPage – B 7 44 7.5 0.67 0.73 Klut 2011 DuPage 5 23 5.8 0.71 0.68 Mockford et al. 2007 Grundy 4 45 3.0 0.38 0.35 Dreslik et al. 2010 Kane 7 22 6.7 0.67 0.63 Klut 2011 McHenry – Alden 8 10 4.6 0.50 calculated from Chandler et al. 2009 McHenry – Exner 8 14 3.9 0.63 calculated from Chandler et al. 2009 McHenry – Hollows 8 13 3.3 0.52 calculated from Chandler et al. 2009 McHenry – McHenry 8 15 2.4 0.47 calculated from Chandler et al. 2009 Will 8 21 5.0 0.43 0.58 F. Janzen, pers. comm. Will 7 10 5.8 0.75 0.81 Klut 2011

Average 4.9 0.57 0.63 B. Other States and Provinces

IA – Bremer 8 13 7.1 0.68 0.71 F. Janzen, pers. comm. IA – Muscatine 8 14 8 0.59 0.79 F. Janzen, pers. comm. MA 5 18 5.4 0.57 0.60 Mockford et al. 2007 MI – George Reserve 5 20 6.4 0.61 0.70 Mockford et al. 2007 MI – George Reserve 8 240 10.3 0.68 0.61 Osentoski 2001 MN w 5 8 4.6 0.70 0.71 Mockford et al. 2007 MN r 5 24 6.0 0.61 0.66 Mockford et al. 2007 MN b 5 57 6.2 0.64 0.67 Mockford et al. 2007 MN – Scott 4 38 6.0 0.72 0.72 Refsnider 2009


39

NE 8 24 4.3 0.38 0.50 F. Janzen, pers. comm. Nova Scotia k 5 44 5.0 0.51 0.49 Mockford et al. 2007 Nova Scotia m 5 40 5.0 0.56 0.54 Mockford et al. 2007 Nova Scotia p 5 27 3.6 0.54 0.45 Mockford et al. 2007 NY 5 17 4.2 0.49 0.61 Mockford et al. 2007 Ontario 5 11 4.2 0.48 0.61 Mockford et al. 2007 WI 5 11 5.4 0.71 0.68 Mockford et al. 2007

Average 5.7 0.59 0.63


40

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS Structural Components. – Blanding’s Turtles inhabit wetland complexes that include both permanent and temporary water bodies and associated upland habitat (Congdon et al. 2008). They favor marshes, ponds, shrub swamps and sloughs over lakes, rivers and other open waters (Hamernick 2000, Bury and Germano 2003, Hartwig and Kiviat 2007, Kuhns et al. 2007, Kasuga and Janzen 2008, Edge et al. 2010). Occupied wetlands are often shallow with soft organic substrates and abundant emergent vegetation (Sajwaj et al. 1998). Upland habitats associated with wetlands are used as overland travel corridors among permanent and temporary water bodies and as nesting sites. Nests sites are typically in well-drained soil (e.g., sand, sandy loam) with low vegetation cover and exposure to sunlight (Ross and Anderson 1990, Standing et. al. 1999, Banning et al. 2007, Congdon et al. 2008, Kasuga and Janzen 2008, Dowling et al. 2010). Disturbed sites (road and trail margins, borrow pits, lands associated with quarry operations) and agricultural lands are sometimes used as nest sites (Sajwaj et al. 1998, Banning et al. 2007, Spetz 2008; Beaudry et al. 2010). Juvenile and adult Blanding’s Turtles overwinter within organic substrates of wetlands and may do so singly (Sajwaj et al. 1998) or communally (Newton and Herman 2009). Hatchlings overwinter in terrestrial habitats associated with wetlands and in aquatic habitats (Camaclang 2007, Linck and Gillette 2009, Paterson et al. 2012, Seburn 2010, Thiel and Wilder 2010). Extent. – Home ranges of Blanding’s Turtles are large, averaging 10s of hectares and sometimes exceeding 100 ha and up to 5 km in linear extent (Table 7, 10, 11; Congdon et al. 2011; Steen et al. 2012). This large home range size arises from movements among permanent and temporary wetlands within wetland complexes. Blanding’s Turtles also exhibit long distance (typically 100 m or more and sometimes > 1 km) overland movements to nest sites (Table 7, 10, 11; Ross and Anderson 1990, Standing et. al. 1999, Banning et al. 2007, Congdon et al. 2008, Kasuga and Janzen 2008, Dowling et al. 2010; Steen et al. 2012; Refsnider and Link 2012). The large extent of habitat necessary to support Blanding’s Turtle is evident from a comparison of Rank 1 vs. Rank 2, 3, and 4 sites in Illinois. Rank 1 sites (n = 28) included significantly larger core wetlands (mean = 330 vs. 80 ha, t assuming unequal variances = -3.14, df = 29.94, P = 0.004) and encompassed significantly larger Priority Zones (mean = 1,210 vs. 350 ha, t assuming unequal variances = -3.84, df = 28.81, P < 0.001), Conservation Zones (mean = 3,380 vs. 1,310 ha, t assuming unequal variances = -3.86, df = 29.82, P < 0.001) and areas of concern (mean = 6,130 vs. 2,950 ha, t assuming unequal variances = -3.85, df = 29.34, P < 0.001) than did Rank 2, 3, and 4 sites (n = 99) (Fig. 10). To further characterize Illinois Blanding’s Turtle habitat requirements, Rank 1 sites were divided into two groups; one group consisting of the 14 sites at which the number of Blanding’s Turtle records since 1980 were below the median (EOR 14, 18, 19, 59, 94, 97, 156, 162, 166, 36/172, 53/168, 93/154, GG) and the other group consisting of the 14 sites at which the number of Blanding’s Turtle records since 1980 were above the median (EOR 2, 4, 8/9, 13/60/74, 21, 27, 44, 46, 47/49/50/70, 51, 75/88 78/175, 79/150; median number of records = 23). If the number of records since 1980 is associated with population size and habitat quality then comparisons between these groups may help clarify


41

Blanding’s Turtle habitat needs. Rank 1 sites with numbers of records above the median encompassed significantly larger Priority Zones, Conservation Zones and areas of concern than did Rank 1 sites with numbers of records below the median (Table 11.A). Furthermore, multivariate analysis of variance indicated that percentages of Land Cover falling into different categories differed between groups of sites. Rank 1 sites with numbers of records above the median encompassed greater percentages of Urban & Built-up Land and lower percentages of Agricultural Land within Priority Zones, Conservation Zones and areas of concern than did Rank 1 sites with numbers of records below the median (Table 11.A). Although initially counterintuitive, this result arises from the fact that many of the Rank 1 sites with numbers of records above the median occur in the heavily urbanized northeastern portion of the state (Table 11.A). When analyses were repeated with Urban & Built-up Land and Agricultural Land excluded, Rank 1 sites with numbers of records above the median still encompassed significantly larger Priority Zones, Conservation Zones and areas of concern than did Rank 1 sites with numbers of records below the median (Table 11.B; Fig. 11). However, percentages of Land Cover falling into different categories did not differ between Rank 1 sites with larger vs. smaller populations (Table 11.B). These analyses suggest that Blanding’s Turtle population size, as reflected in the number of records since 1980, is positively associated with the total amount of available habitat comprised of Open Water, Wetland, Rural Grassland and Forest Land. Table 10. Home range area and longest axis for Blanding’s Turtles at sites in (A) Illinois and (B) other states. To facilitate comparisons, only studies reporting home range in the form of minimum convex polygons (MCP) are included. N refers to number of individual turtles tracked.

Site N Home range (MCP, ha) Longest axis of

home range (km)

Reference

Mean Range Mean Range A. Illinois

Cook/Will 24 16.0 0.2-47.3 Dreslik et al. 2011 Lake 20 17.6 4.1-48.3 Kuhns et al. 2007 Grundy 7 48.8 3.5-102.1 Dreslik et al. 2010 Will 21 16.7 3.5-44.4 Kuhns et al. 2007 Carroll/Whiteside 17 38.3 1.3-129.0 Kasuga and Janzen 2008

B. Other States and Provinces NY 20 10.8 1.1-33.9 Crockett 2008 NE – Valentine 66 22.0 6.0-74.0 1.6 0.3-5.0 Lang 2004 MN – Weaver 24 72.2 0.6-496.8 1.7 0.3-5.2 Hamernick 2000 MN – Camp Ripley 25 30.7 0.9 0.2-3.0 Piepgras and Lang 2000 WI 18 23.4 Schuler and Thiel 2008 Onatrio 21 60.2 Edge et al. 2010 Ontario 38 12.2 1.6-40.6 0.8 0.3-2.0 Millar 2010


42

This synthesis of spatial habitat requirements of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois and elsewhere makes clear the need for large areas of protected habitat for recovery. Using the median area of higher quality Illinois sites (those Rank 1 sites where numbers of records since 1980 are above the median) as a guide, protected Priority Zones (core wetlands with 200 m buffers) and Conservation Zones (core wetlands with 1,000 m buffers) should encompass approximately 900 ha and 1,800 ha, excluding Urban and Built-up Land and Agricultural Land.

Figure 10. Comparison of area included with Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern for 28 Rank 1 (green) and 99 Rank 2, 3, and 4 Illinois Blanding’s Turtle sites (blue).


43

Table 11. Comparison of the area and % land cover composition between Rank 1 sites with numbers of Blanding’s Turtle records since 1980 above or below the median1 when all land cover categories are included (A) and when Urban & Built-up Land and Agricultural Land is excluded (B). T statistics compare the area between sites with numbers of records above vs. below the median and allow for unequal variances. F statistics from multivariate analyses of variance compare % Land Cover composition between sites with numbers of records above vs. below the median. P values < 0.05 are highlighted in bold.

% Land Cover

Numbers

of Records since 1980

Area mean (median)

minimum-maximum Wetland Surface

Water Rural

Grassland Forest Land

Urban and Built-up

Land

Agricultural Land

A. All Land-Cover Categories

Area of Concern

Above Median

8,100 (6080) 3,550-19,470 8 6 19 15 30 22

Below Median

4,170 (3,400) 1,900-8,680 6 4 17 12 14 46

t = -3.85, df = 29.34, P < 0.001 F = 2.95, df = 7,20, P = 0.027

Conservation Zone

Above Median

4,720 (3,730) 1,710-12,240 7 7 22 15 28 19

Below Median

2,030 (1,610) 640-4,230 8 5 22 15 12 44

t = -3.86, df = 29.82, P < 0.001 F = 3.58, df = 7,20, P = 0.012

Priority Zone

Above Median

1,810 (1,430) 580-4,890 13 7 26 19 22 12

Below Median

610 (510) 70-2,210 14 5 22 19 10 30

t = -3.84, df = 28.81, P < 0.001 F = 2.94, df = 7,20, P = 0.028


44

% Land Cover

Population Area

mean (median) minimum-maximum

Wetland Surface Water

Rural Grassland

Forest Land

Urban and Built-up

Land

Agricultural Land

B. Urban & Built-up Land and Agricultural Land Excluded

Area of Concern

Above Median

3,840 (2,980) 470-10,590 17 10 68 36

Below Median

1,870 (1,310) 320-6,150 12 8 49 31

t = -2.25, df = 23.19, P = 0.035 F = 0.48, df = 3,24, P = 0.701

Conservation Zone

Above Median

2,500 (1,840) 280-7,050 16 12 39 33

Below Median

1,050 (790) 120-4,020 14 8 47 31

t = -2.44, df = 21.46, P = 0.024 F = 0.30, df = 7,20, P = 0.825

Priority Zone

Above Median

1,210 (910) 130-3,380 21 10 37 31

Below Median

440 (330) 40-2,190 20 7 39 34

t = -2.59, df = 21.58, P = 0.017 F = 0.60, df = 7,20, P = 0.623 1Rank 1 sites with numbers of records since 1980 that are above the median include EOR 2, 4, 8/9, 13/60/74, 21, 27, 44, 46, 47/49/50/70, 51, 75/88 78/175, and 79/150; Rank 1 sites with numbers of records since 1980 that are below the median include EOR 14, 18, 19, 59, 94, 97, 156, 162, 166, 36/172, 53/168, 93/154, and GG.


45

Figure 11. Comparison of area included with Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern for Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites with number of records since 1980 that are above (green) vs. below (blue) the median after excluding Urban & Built-up Land and Agricultural Land. Floral Associations. – Floral associations include emergent aquatic woody, herbaceous, and floating vegetation; however, the species composition of this assemblage varies across Blanding’s Turtle range (Congdon et al. 2008). Flora comprising upland habitat is also variable and includes sedge meadow, wet prairie, prairie, grassland, savannah, and woodland assemblages. Faunal Associations. – Faunal associations are most closely associated with Blanding’s Turtle diet which includes a wide range of invertebrate aquatic and terrestrial taxa including insects (fly, true bug, beetle, and dragonfly larvae), annelids (leeches, earthworms), crayfish, mollusks, and fish (Rowe 1992, Congdon et al. 2008, Spetz 2008). Plant material is also included in the diet of Blanding’s Turtles (Rowe 1992, Congdon et al. 2008, Spetz 2008).


46

PROTECTION STATUS OF CURRENTLY OCCUPIED HABITAT Of 28 Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites, Priority Zones, Conservation Zones, and areas of concern total 33,860 ha, 94,530 ha, and 171,770 ha, respectively (Table 3, 4). Of these, 4,260 ha (13%), 5,260 ha (6%) and 5,740 ha (3%) are included within state dedicated Nature Preserves and Land and Water Reserves (Table 3, 4). For these 28 sites, Priority Zones average 1,210 ha (range = 70-4,890 ha) of which an average of 150 ha or 10% (range = 0-1,250 ha, 0-85%) are included within state dedicated Nature Preserves and Land and Water Reserves (Table 3, 4). Similarly, Conservation Zones average 3,380 ha (range = 640-12,240 ha) of which an average of 190 ha or 4% (range = 0-1,460 ha, 0-31%) are included within state dedicated Nature Preserves and Land and Water Reserves and areas of concern average 6,140 ha (range = 1,900-19,470 ha) of which an average of 210 ha or 3% (range = 0-1,610 ha, 0-21%) are included within state dedicated Nature Preserves and Land and Water Reserves (Table 3, 4). Other categories of protected lands (state parks, county forest preserves, preserves owned by private or non-governmental agencies, conservation easements) are also inhabited by Blanding’s Turtles and it would be useful to extend land cover analyses to include them. However, such lands do not receive the same level of protection as state dedicated Nature Preserves and Land and Water Reserves. EXTENT OF DEGRADED HISTORICAL HABITAT AVAILABLE FOR RESTORATION AND FEASIBILITY OF RESORATION Rural grassland, forested land, and agricultural land all have high potential for restoration as Blanding’s Turtle habitat through conversion to historical land-cover classes, including wetland, prairie, and savannah. Together, rural grassland, forested land, and agricultural land represent 65 (range =10-97), 66 (12-98), and 66 (10-99)% of the land cover within Priority Zones, Conservation Zones, and areas of concern for the 28 Rank 1 sites (Table 3, 4). Hydric soils are extensive within the range of Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois and represent areas of potential restoration as prairie, savannah, and marshland (Fig. 12). In contrast, urban and built-up land and barren and exposed land has low potential for restoration and together represent 16 (0-79), 21 (0-82), and 23 (0-84)% of the land cover within Priority Zones, Conservation Zones, and areas of concern for the 28 Rank 1 sites (Table 3, 4). Further restoration could be achieved by eliminating, rerouting or reducing traffic on roads and rails within Priority Zones, Conservation Zones, and areas of concern (Table 3, 4). Ideally, motorized traffic would be eliminated from Blanding’s Turtle Priority Zones and roads and rails within Conservation Zones would be equipped with permanent barriers to prevent traffic-caused mortality and passages to facilitate connectivity. UNOCCUPIED HABITAT AVAILABLE FOR REINTRODUCTION Reintroduction of Blanding’s Turtles into unoccupied habitat would require a formal assessment of potential habitat for reintroduction and must be compliant with the ESPB Policy for Translocation of Endangered and Threatened Animals. This policy identifies basic criteria relating to habitat suitability, potential negative impacts, required approvals, compatibility with state and federal recovery plans, monitoring and management methods and procedures,


47

historic status that must be met for translocation to be approved. Identification of unoccupied habitat available for reintroduction and mitigation of the original cause(s) of decline would be necessary were reintroduction to be used for Blanding’s Turtle recovery.

Figure 12. Distribution of hydric soils (left panel) and predicted native vegetation in Illinois (from http://www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils/Suite_Maps.html) PROPOSED TRIGGERS FOR LISTING STATUS RE-EVALUATION The proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation represent measures of distribution and abundance to prompt the Endangered Species Protection Board to review the listing status of the species and consider a change. Listing status re-evaluation triggers do not prompt an ‘automatic’ change in status, and the Endangered Species Protection Board may review the listing status or listing status review criteria of the species at any time. Endangered To Threatened. – State-wide total population of at least 1000 adults over 40 yr, including at least five populations at protected sites each exceeding 50 adults and together totaling at least 500 adults distributed across at least 2 geographic units and exhibiting natural recruitment. Threatened to Unlisted. – State-wide total population of at least 1500 adults over 40 yr, including at least ten populations each exceeding 50 adults at protected sites and together totaling at least 750 adults distributed across at least 3 geographic units and exhibiting natural recruitment.

http://www.il.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/soils/Suite_Maps.html


48

Rationale. – Proposed triggers for listing status evaluation have four components: adult population size, time-frame, geographic distribution, and recruitment. These proposed triggers reflect the need to balance objective criteria that can be achieved in a realistic time frame with the need for criteria that adequately ensure Blanding’s Turtle persistence in Illinois. Striking this balance is made difficult by the long time required for Blanding’s Turtles to reach sexual maturity (14-20 years, Congdon and van Loben Sels 1993) and their long generation time (37 years, Congdon et al. 1993). As a consequence, typical criteria for assessing risk status, couched in terms of generation time (e.g., “10 years or three generations, whichever is the longer;” “five years or two generations, whichever is longer, (up to a maximum of 100 years in the future)”as specified by the IUCN (2001) are impractical. As a compromise, proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation included here use a time-frame of 40 years or just over one Blanding’s Turtle generation time, recognizing that even this poses a significant challenge for those tasked with implementing recovery actions. Proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation also reflect the need to ensure that remaining populations are resilient to the effects of stochastic processes (chance fluctuations in survival, fecundity, and genetic composition) attributable to small population size. Efforts to develop quantitative population goals for conservation have resulted in a number of suggested rules of thumb. Among the first of these was the “50/500” rule proposed by Franklin (1980) and Soulé (1980), who suggested that an effective population size of 50 was necessary to prevent short-term consequences of inbreeding and an effective population size of 500 was necessary over the longer term to maintain sufficient genetic variability to respond to changing environmental conditions. Effective population size refers to the size of an ideal population in which mating is at random, adults have equal probability or reproducing, there is a 1:1 sex ratio, and population size is constant. When these conditions are not met, as is usually the case (Frankham 1995), a larger population size is necessary to achieve the goal of the 50/500 rule. Since the 50/500 rule was proposed, a large body of empirical data addressing minimum viable populations for conservation has accumulated that considers not only genetic consequences (the focus of the “50/500” rule) but also demographic consequences of small population size. Syntheses of these data (Traill et al. 2010; Rogstad and Pelikan 2011) suggest that markedly larger population targets are needed (e.g., a “500/5,000” rule) for short-term and long-term population viability. Proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation of Blanding’s Turtle are quite modest with respect to population size, ensuring that just five (proposed trigger for status re-evaluation from endangered to threatened) or ten (proposed trigger for status re-evaluation from threatened to unlisted) populations equal or exceed 50 adult individuals and that the total population in the state equal or exceed just 1,000 (proposed trigger for status re-evaluation from endangered to threatened) or 1,500 (proposed trigger for status re-evaluation from threatened to unlisted) adults. This minimal goal is justified given the time-frame of proposed triggers for status re-evaluation (40 years or just over one Blanding’s Turtle generation) and the requirement for regular review and revision of the plan. The population size component of the proposed triggers specified above could be met in several ways. For example, the proposed trigger for status re-evaluation from endangered to threatened would be met by five populations that each numbered at least 200 adults; by four


49

populations that numbered at least 50 adults and one population that numbered at least 800 adults; or by four populations that numbered at least 50 adults, one population that numbered 300 adults, and other populations (potentially with fewer than 50 adults each) that together numbered 750 adults. Proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation reflect the need for multiple populations in separate geographic regions of the state to reduce the likelihood that all populations might decline as the result of a single cause and to ensure that the historical distribution of Blanding’s Turtles within the state is at least partially represented among remaining populations. In the context of proposed status re-evaluation triggers, geographic units refer to northeastern Illinois (Lake, McHenry, Boone, Cook, DuPage, Kane, Will, and Grundy county), north-central Illinois (Ogle and Lee County), and northwestern Illinois (Jo Daviess, Carroll, and Whiteside County) although these may be modified if new information regarding the status of Blanding’s Turtles in other counties (e.g, counties where Blanding’s Turtle status is currently uncertain) is obtained. Proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation reflect the need for populations to persist through natural recruitment. Thus, populations that are managed using nest protection, captive incubation, or head-starting will not contribute to proposed status re-evaluation triggers until those interventions have ended. Evidence for natural recruitment includes the consistent presence of hatchling and juvenile age classes throughout the recovery period for each of the five or ten populations that meet the population size criteria of the proposed re-evaluation triggers. Proposed triggers for listing status re-evaluation reflect the need that a core of Blanding’s Turtle populations persist in large tracts of unfragmented protected habitat. OUTLINE OF PROPOSED RECOVERY ACTIONS Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board Note: Some proposed actions and guidelines are not compliant with current Illinois endangered species law, regulations, and policies (including, specifically the Board’s Policy for Translocation of Endangered and Threatened Animals). Their inclusion here does not imply endorsement or approval by the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board or Illinois Department of Natural Resources. At a time when the Board and Department develop a recovery plan for the species, the proposed actions and guidelines, or revised versions as appropriate, will be reviewed for possible incorporation. Blanding’s Turtle Inventory and Monitoring. – While valuable, Blanding’s Turtle EORs included in the Illinois Natural Heritage Database (Illinois Department of Natural Resources 2012), technical reports, and scientific publications represent a wide range of monitoring objectives, methods, and effort and, consequently, provide an incomplete assessment of the state-wide status of the Blanding’s Turtle. For example, detailed information, including Blanding’s Turtle population size and structure, is available for only a subset of the Rank 1 sites identified in this assessment. The status of Blanding’s Turtles at other Rank 1 sites and at all Rank 2 sites is less certain – some


50

may represent wetland/upland complexes inhabited by Blanding’s Turtles whereas others may represent locations of isolated individuals. As additional information becomes available, some of these might be reclassified as Rank 1 (e.g., one or more Rank 2 sites in Iroquois and Kankakee County, M. Redmer, pers. comm.) or Rank 3. Thus, an immediate priority is to assess the status of Blanding’s Turtles at Rank 1 and Rank 2 sites in Illinois. Currently, the most reliable methods for estimating Blanding’s Turtle population size make use of standard capture-mark-recapture techniques using baited traps. Capture rates are typically low and so monitoring is a time-consuming labor-intensive undertaking. Furthermore, meaningful population estimates are only possible through multi-year efforts. For example, existing population estimates for Blanding’s Turtle populations in Illinois are based on a minimum of four years of trapping (Dreslik et al. 2010) and even with 11 years of trapping at a site in Carroll and Whiteside County, resulting in 99 captures of 56 individuals, data were insufficient to estimate population size (Kasuga and Janzen 2008). As a consequence, documenting that the population size and time components of proposed listing status re-evaluation triggers have been met will likely require development of a plan in which monitoring is conducted episodically (e.g., for five consecutive years during each decade of recovery). An added benefit of such a strategy is that it provides data that can also be used to estimate annual survival and population growth, both of which are indicators of population recovery. Monitoring strategies might differ between populations that are part of the specific size requirements (50 or more adults) of proposed status re-evaluation triggers and those that contribute to the overall state-wide population goal. For these latter populations, estimates of the minimum known alive or of population size based on capture rate from shorter duration trapping efforts are sufficient. Monitoring efforts intended to provide estimates of adult population size should be designed to also document presence of hatchling and juvenile Blanding’s Turtles (through trap design and placement). This information is needed to meet the natural recruitment component of the proposed status re-evaluation triggers. Monitoring efforts will also provide an opportunity to collect tissue samples for genetic analysis. Although evidence of excessive inbreeding and loss of genetic variability is lacking for current Illinois Blanding’s Turtle populations (Table 9), periodic genetic monitoring should be conducted during the recovery period so that genetic effects of small population size and fragmentation can be detected as they arise. In addition, current genetic data are restricted to populations in northeastern Illinois and immediate genetic monitoring of north central and northwestern populations should be undertaken to provide baseline data for comparison with future analyses. Should losses of allelic richness and heterozygosity be evident from temporally separated assessments of genetic variability, the need for genetic management (through translocation of Blanding’s Turtles among populations) should be evaluated. Should translocation be anticipated, research designed to evaluate the efficacy of different translocation strategies (e.g., hatchling vs. juvenile vs. adult animals, soft vs. hard release) would be necessary.


51

Proposed Recovery Strategy 1. Design and implement an inventory and monitoring plan for Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois that results in refined site rankings.

Outputs: a. Design and implement an inventory and monitoring plan for Rank 1 and Rank 2 sites

through modification of the Coordinated Regional Monitoring Strategy for Blanding’s Turtle in the Northeastern United States (U.S.G.S. Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and the Northeast Blanding’s Turtle Working Group 2012).

b. Evaluate potential for habitat expansion and improvement (Recovery Strategies 2-10) for Rank 1 and Rank 2 sites.

c. Identify Rank 3 and Rank 4 sites where GIS land-cover data indicate that current land use practices (e.g., absence of wetland habitat) precludes the persistence of Blanding’s Turtles.

d. Contact land managers for each remaining Rank 3 and Rank 4 site to ensure that information on the status of Blanding’s Turtles at these sites is up-to-date.

Outcomes: a. Quantitative data on the status of Blanding’s Turtles at Rank 1 and Rank 2 sites

(annual). b. Reassessment of site rankings (annual). c. Identification of sites where Blanding’s Turtle inventory and monitoring efforts may

be suspended (annual). d. Identification of sites with highest potential to achieve proposed triggers for status

reevaluation.

Habitat management and enhancement. – Large protected wetland complexes and associated protected upland area are essential for Blanding’s Turtle recovery in Illinois. At present, even most Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites include large proportions of Urban and Built-up Land and Agricultural Land and extensive road and rail systems within their Priority Zones, Conservation Zones and areas of concern. As a consequence, Blanding’s Turtle abundance will most likely continue to decline. Actions necessary to reverse this trend include: Proposed Recovery Strategy 2. Expand protected habitat comprised of Surface Water, Wetland, Rural Grassland, and Forest Land within the Conservation Zone of at least five or at least ten Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites in two or three geographic regions to ≥1,000 ha per site (≥5,000 ha and ≥10,000 ha total) (numbers of sites and geographic regions correspond to proposed triggers for status reevaluation from endangered to threatened (five sites in two regions) and from threatended to unlisted (ten sites in three regions)).

Outputs: a. Restore Agricultural Land within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites through

conversion into Surface Water, Wetland, Rural Grassland, and Forest Land (250 ha per yr).

b. Enroll lands within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites into programs conferring protected status (250 ha per yr).


52

c. Elevate protected status of existing protected lands within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites (e.g., from Conservation Easement to Nature Preserve or Land and Water Reserve) (250 ha per yr).

Outcomes: a. Extent of Surface Water, Wetland, Rural Grassland, and Forest Land within the

Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites (annual). b. Extent of protected lands within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites (annual). c. Extent of lands protected in perpetuity (e.g., Nature Preserves, Land and Water

Reserves) within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 site (annual).

Proposed Recovery Strategy 3. Expand wetlands within the Conservation Zone Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites included in Recovery Strategy 2 to ≥250 ha per site (≥1,250 ha and ≥2,500 ha total).

Outputs: a. Create and enhance wetland habitat within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites

(100 ha per yr). Outcomes:

a. Extent of wetland within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites (annual). Proposed Recovery Strategy 4. Remove invasive plants and encroaching woody vegetation from the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites.

Outputs: a. Implement invasive plant species controls within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1

sites, targeting European Buckthorn, Autumn Olive, Phragmites, Reed Canary Grass, and other aggressively invasive species (500 ha per yr).

b. Implement removal of encroaching woody vegetation from the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites, giving priority to existing wetlands, grasslands, and potential Blanding’s Turtle nest sites (250 ha per yr).

Outcomes: a. Ha of invasive plant controls (annual). b. Ha of encroaching woody vegetation controls (annual).

Proposed Recovery Strategy 5. Assess hydrological conditions of Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites and develop strategies to ensure hydrological stability.

Outputs: a. Identify hydrological variables for monitoring. b. Install appropriate hydrological monitoring equipment at all Rank 1 sites. c. To the extent possible, obtain historical data on hydrological conditions at Rank 1

sites. d. Identify potential causes and likelihood of extreme hydrological events (flooding,

drying). e. Implement corrective measures to minimize the magnitude and frequency of extreme

hydrological events.


53

f. Examine hydrological control structures to ensure that they do not impede Blanding’s Turtle movements or represent a risk of entrapment and correct as needed.

Outcomes: a. Quantitative data on current hydrological conditions b. Quantitative data on past hydrological conditions c. Risk assessment of extreme hydrological events d. Hydrological stability e. Free movement around hydrological control structure without risk of entrapment

Reduction of adult mortality. – High adult survival is the strongest single contributor to population viability of Blanding’s Turtles (Heppell 1998, Congdon and Keinath 2006, Banning et al. 2006, Dreslik et al. 2007, Kuhns 2010) and as a consequence, effective management must address extrinsic sources of adult mortality, including vehicle strikes, elevated predation risk and physiological stress resulting exposure during overland movements, and stressors to wetland-upland complexes inhabited by Blanding’s Turtles (e.g., hydrological modifications, environmental contaminants, invasive species). Actions necessary to achieve this goal include: Proposed Recovery Strategy 6. Install fencing and passage systems to prevent road-associated vehicle strikes and promote connectivity within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites.

Outputs: a. Establish best management practices for Blanding’s Turtle fencing and passage

systems based on designs utilized at Valentine National Wildlife Refuge and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuge and distribute these to partner agencies (IDOT, county road commissions).

b. Install fencing and passage systems along high traffic volume roads (>1,000 vehicles per day) within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 sites (100 km per yr).

Outcomes: a. Partner agencies using best management practices b. Km of fencing, number of passages (annual).

Proposed Recovery Strategy 7. Modify railroad grades and tie and ballast placement to prevent train strikes and entrapment and promote connectivity within the Conservation Zone of Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites.

Outputs: a. Establish best management practices for railroad grades and tie and ballast

placement in Blanding’s Turtle habitat and distribute these to partner agencies. b. Modify railroad grades and tie and ballast placement within the Conservation Zone

of Rank 1 sites (10 km per yr). Outcomes:

a. Partner agencies using best management practices b. Km of modified rails (annual).


54

Reduction of egg and hatchling mortality. – For Blanding’s Turtles to be self sustaining successful recruitment of young turtles into the adult population is necessary and this requires at least modest egg and hatchling survival. Actions necessary to achieve this goal include: Proposed Recovery Strategy 8. Enhance nesting habitat access and quality at Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites.

Outputs: a. Create or enhance 3 ha patches of nesting habitat within the Conservation Zone of

Rank 1 sites following methodologies developed for Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge (http://www.fws.gov/northeast/assabetriver/pdf/BlandingWebsiteUpdateVegWork2011ASR1.pdf) (9 ha per yr).

b. Identify travel corridors between core wetlands and nesting sites and mitigate potential barriers and threats (cf. Recovery Strategy 6 and 7).

Outcomes: a. Ha of new or enhanced nesting habitat b. Km of improved travel corridors

Proposed Recovery Strategy 9. Reduce mesopredator populations at Rank 1 Blanding’s Turtle sites.

Outputs: a. Implement mesopredator removal at six Rank 1 sites paired with six no-removal sites

(minimum of 50 trap nights prior to Blanding’s Turtle nesting per site per yr for 3 yr). b. Estimate mesopredator density at removal and no-removal sites c. Monitor Blanding’s Turtle nest success

Outcomes: a. Numbers of mesopredators removed (annual) b. Difference in mesopredator density between removal and no-removal sites (annual). c. Difference in Blanding’s Turtle nest success between removal and no-removal sites

(annual). Proposed Recovery Strategy 10. Implement in situ nest protection at Rank 1 sites.

Outputs: a. Monitor nesting movements of female Blanding’s Turtles and cage nests immediately

following deposition b. Test the efficacy of electric fencing to reduce nest predation.

Outcomes: a. Increased nest success b. Difference in Blanding’s Turtle nest success between fenced and unfenced sites

(annual). Population interventions including ex situ incubation and head-starting, captive breeding and translocation, and protection of animals at risk. – Under Illinois law, all Blanding’s Turtles in the state receive the same protection and have conservation value. However, some Blanding’s

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/assabetriver/pdf/BlandingWebsiteUpdateVegWork2011ASR1.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/assabetriver/pdf/BlandingWebsiteUpdateVegWork2011ASR1.pdf


55

Turtles exist in situations where their survival and reproductive potential is unnaturally reduced compared to other individuals of the same sex and age class and so they contribute little to the long-term persistence of the species in the state. These include (1) animals in small isolated populations where risk of extinction due to stochastic events (e.g., a year with unusually high mortality rates) is elevated, (2) animals at sites where anthropogenic sources of mortality are high (e.g., due to proximity to high traffic volume roads), (3) animals at sites with unnaturally high nest and hatchling mortality (e.g., due to high mesopredator density) resulting in recruitment rates that are too low for population persistence, and (4) animals undertaking overland movements (i.e., nesting forays, inter-wetland migration) across exposed or inhospitable habitat (Agricultural Lands, Urban & Built-up Lands, roads, rails). To maximize the contribution that these Blanding’s Turtles make to the long-term persistence of the species in Illinois, active intervention may be necessary in which some animals are temporarily removed from natural populations to obtain eggs for ex situ incubation and subsequent release, translocation, or head-starting of hatchlings or permanently removed for translocation or placement into a captive breeding program. Interventional management for Blanding’s Turtles will be necessary in some cases because turtles are not mobile (as compared to grassland birds for example) and populations are usually restricted by surrounding habitat fragmentation. Additionally, these are extremely long-lived organisms that are slow to reach maturity and recruit between generations. As reviewed in this conservation assessment, the scientific literature and data strongly indicate that a combination of low juvenile recruitment and low adult survival are the most important factors contributing to declines in Illinois populations. Additionally, most remaining habitat tracts in the core of this species range in Illinois are located in urbanizing landscapes, and are much smaller than estimated habitat buffer requirements recommended by Congdon et al (2011). While measures to address adult mortality are addressed above, their implementation will in many cases be extremely expensive (e.g., road fencing and passage systems) and their success cannot be guaranteed. Thus, in order to ensure that individuals of this species persist for recovery purposes, a comprehensive approach that addresses habitat and spatial needs, as well as low recruitment and adult survival should be used in order to maximize likelihood of success of recovery. This should include the potential for Manipulative Strategies for Unnaturally High Nest and Juvenile Mortality, Manipulative Breeding Strategies, and Manipulative Release Strategies. Manipulative management strategies are widely used in marine, freshwater, and terrestrial turtle and tortoise management (e.g., ex situ incubation and head-starting of Western Pond Turtles, Burnett River Snapping Turtles, Arrau Turtles, European Pond Turtles; translocation of Gopher Tortoises, Spur-thighed Tortoises, Big-headed Turtles, Alligator Snapping Turtles, Ornate Box Turtles, Eastern Box Turtles, Three-toed Box Turtles; Table 12.A,B). In some cases, ex situ incubation, head-starting, or translocation are key management strategies in State and Federal recovery plans (e.g., Western Pond Turtle, Gopher Tortoise, Desert Tortoise, Plymouth Redbelly Turtle, Vermont Spiny Softshell Turtle, Bog Turtle; Table 12.C). Recovery of the Western Pond Turtle in Washington probably represents one of the most extensive and successful examples of turtle conservation involving a combination of captive breeding, ex situ


56

incubation and head-starting, and translocation (Hayes et al. 1999). As of 2008, more than 1000 head-started animals had been released at 5 sites, including two reintroduction sties (Van Leuven et al. 2006). The significance of zoos and captive breeding programs in biodiversity conservation is reviewed by Conde et al. (2011). In Illinois, ex situ incubation, head-starting, and translocation can occur only after consultation between local agencies and the State, as required under permitting procedures specified in appropriate Illinois Administrative Rules. Permit applications originate with local agencies or coalitions of agencies and shall conform to guidelines provided below. Furthermore, proposals for translocation must be compliant with the ESPB Policy for Translocation of Endangered and Threatened Animals. This policy identifies basic criteria relating to habitat suitability, potential negative impacts, required approvals, compatibility with state and federal recovery plans, monitoring and management methods and procedures, historic status that must be met for translocation to be approved. Because the effectiveness of management actions described in this section is somewhat uncertain, actions proposed in permit applications must meet the minimum requirement that they do no harm. For example, at some sites, Blanding’s Turtles may have become so reduced in number and rate of recruitment that they persist only because of the extreme longevity that characterizes adults of this species. However, objective criteria for assessing this condition with certainty are lacking. Likewise, the fate of wild-caught animals translocated to other sites is poorly known. Therefore, animals will be permanently removed from a site and translocated or placed in a captive breeding program only if imminent habitat loss or degradation precludes population persistence. Furthermore, if animals are to be temporarily removed to obtain eggs for ex situ incubation and subsequent release, translocation, or head-starting of hatchlings, they and at least 50% of the hatchlings or head-starts must be released at the source site unless objective evidence indicates that such releases have little probability of survival. Because ex situ hatching success and survival in captivity is enhanced relative to natural conditions (Table 8), this strategy ensures that the number of hatchlings (or juveniles in the case of head-started animals) entering source populations equals or exceeds that which would occur naturally. This strategy is identical to that adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish a new population of Blanding’s Turtles at Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts (K. Buhlmann, pers. comm.). Table 12. Use of ex situ incubation, head-starting or translocation in turtle recovery efforts. Species Source A. Turtle species in which management strategies include ex situ incubation, head-starting

Western Pond Turtle Spinks et al. 2003, Vander Haegen et al. 2009 Burnett River Snapping Turtles Eiby and Booth 2011 Arrau Turtles Mogollones et al. 2010 European Pond Turtles Mitrus 2005

B. Turtle species in which management strategies include translocation


57

Gopher Tortoises Degregorio et al. 2012, Riedl et al. 2008, Tuberville et al. 2005, 2008

Spur-thighed Tortoises Attum et al. 2011 Big-headed Turtles Shen et al. 2010 Alligator Snapping Turtles Bogosian 2010 Ornate Box Turtles Hatch 2000 Eastern Box Turtles Hester et al. 2008 Three-toed Box Turtles Rittenhouse et al. 2007, 2008

C. Turtle species in which captive breeding, ex situ incubation, head-starting or translocation are specified in State or Federal Recovery Plans. Western Pond Turtle Hays et al. 1999 Gopher Tortoise U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990; Desert Tortoise U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011; Plymouth Redbelly Turtle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994 Vermont Spiny Softshell Turtle Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department 2009 Bog Turtle U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001

These management actions carry with them a potential for unanticipated outcomes and may require modifications as these outcomes emerge. For this reason, these guidelines will be reviewed annually for the first 10 years that the plan is in place and modified as necessary. Furthermore, the State and local agencies may encounter situations that fall outside the conditions specified in these policies. In these situations, the relevant parties are expected to come to agreement on ‘one-time’ solutions that will be addressed more formally during the annual review process. Because many of the actions described in these policies will require several years to carry out, the State may approve plans and issue appropriate permits for multi-year periods with the recognition that permit holders will meet annual reporting requirements and that unanticipated outcomes may warrant modification to agreed-upon plans and permits. The guidelines provided here identify key elements that must be addressed in detail in permit applications. The plans themselves will be developed by a given local agency or coalitions of agencies in consultation with the State and it is anticipated that as individual plans are approved, they may be used as templates for other local agencies. 1. Proposed Guidelines for ex situ Incubation and Head-Starting. Managers in Illinois and elsewhere sometimes collect eggs from natural nests or hold adult females in captivity until oviposition (which may be induced using oxytocin) and then artificially incubate the eggs until hatching. Hatchlings are being released shortly after hatching, maintained in captivity and released the following spring, or maintained in captivity for longer periods prior to release. These efforts have provided needed information on egg and offspring characteristics (linear dimensions, mass, embryo survival) and female reproductive characteristics (clutch size-female size relationships, female reproductive frequency, multiple paternity). More importantly, ex situ incubation is a way to prevent nest predation, which in some populations approaches 100%. Protection of nests in situ, using wire mesh covers, has


58

been used in some Blanding’s Turtle populations but success requires discovering nests quickly (most nest predation occurs within 24 hours of oviposition) and is facilitated when females nest in known and clumped locations, something that appears not to occur in Illinois Blanding’s Turtle populations (S. Dunnham, pers. comm., A. Kuhns, pers. comm.). For example, A. Kuhns and coworkers had <50% annual success in documenting nests of known gravid females that were radio-equipped and tracked during the day and again at night despite having a crew of 2-3 technicians working >12 hour/days for ca. 4 weeks to determine when females were heading to nesting areas during the day and then again before dusk to early into the morning hours to observe if nesting occurred. In contrast, nest predation is nonexistent for females that oviposit in captivity and hatching success exceeds even that of protected nests in situ (Table 8). Maintaining and feeding hatchlings until the spring following hatching or longer further prevents mortality due to predation and, if growth is accelerated during captivity, allows turtles to be released at a greater size than that of similarly aged individuals in nature. This ‘headstart’ conferred on captive-reared animals has the potential to reduce time to reproductive maturity and accelerate population growth. Head-starting can also serve an educational and outreach function, providing members of the public with a better understanding of species biology and conservation challenges.

Direct evidence of the impact of nest predation is seen in the low success rate of unprotected nests (Table 8). Strongly adult-biased age structure provides additional, in direct, evidence of this impact (Table 13). For example, trapping efforts at Valentine National Wildlife Refuge in Nebraska, where Blanding’s Turtles are apparently thriving, typically result in captures of juveniles ≥ 30%. Similarly high proportions of juveniles have been reported for Illinois populations in Lake and Will County. In contrast, the proportions of juveniles for seven other Illinois populations are ≤ 18% and several (in DuPage, Carroll, and Jo Daviess Counties) are less than 10% (Table 13).


59

Table 13. Blanding’s Turtle population composition ranked from lowest to highest proportion juveniles.

State County/Location Sample

Size Proportion Juveniles Source

WI Burnett 51 0.02 Evrard & Canfield 2000 MN SW Minnesota 35 0.03 Lang 2006 IL DuPage 64 0.05 Thompson et. al. 2010 IL DuPage 38 0.08 Rubin 2000 IL DuPage 24 0.08 Rubin 2000

ME

36 0.08 Joyal et al. 2000 MN Wabasha 380 0.08 Lang 1999 IL Carroll/Jo Daviess 51 0.08 Kasuga & Janzen 2008 IL DuPage 28 0.11 Thompson et al. 2010

MN SW Minnesota 23 0.13 Lang 2006 IL Grundy 74 0.15 Dreslik et al. 2010

MN Morrison 79 0.16 Sajawj et al. 1998 NE

326 0.16 Ruane et al. 2008

WI Adams 32 0.16 Ross 1989 MN Crow Wing 60 0.18 Piepgras et al. 1998 IL Will/Cook 60 0.18 Dreslik et al. 2011

WI

105 0.19 Rubin 2000 MO Clark 76 0.20 Kofron & Schreiber 1985 MN SW Minnesota 107 0.21 Lang 2006 NE Valentine NWR Lakes 19 0.32 Bury & Germano 2003 WI

107 0.33 Tanck and Theil 1998

NE Valentine NWR 1247 0.36 Lang 2004 NE

70 0.43 Germano et al. 2000

IL Lake 175 0.43 Kuhns 2010 NE Valentine NWR Ponds/Marshes 58 0.45 Bury & Germano 2003 IL Will 76 0.46 Banning et al. 2006

In Illinois, ex situ incubation and head-starting has occurred or is on-going at sites in Will and Cook County (Banning et al. 2006, Dreslik et al. 2007, Dreslik et al., 2010, Dreslik et al. 2011), DuPage County (Thompson & Reklau 2005a, Thompson & Reklau 2005b, Thompson & Reklau 2005c, Thompson & Reklau 2005d, Thompson & Reklau 2007, Thompson et al. 2008, Thompson et al. 2009, Thompson et al. 2010, Thompson et al. 2011, Thompson et al. 2012), and Lake County (Kuhns 2010), McHenry County (Hayden 2007, Denham 2010). Artificial incubation and head-starting has also been used in Massachusetts (Windmiller and Berkholz 2010, Buhlmann et al. in review), Michigan (Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, Steven Kahl, pers. comm.), Nova Scotia (Arsenault et al. 2010; Herman et al. 2010), Ohio (Cleveland Metroparks, James C. Spetz and Richard Spence, pers. comm.), and Wisconsin (Bob Hay, pers. comm.).


60

Evidence of the success of these efforts is seen in the later recapture of head-started animals (Fig. 13).

• Of 13 juveniles captured at one head-starting release site in DuPage Co. in 2011, ten were of head-started animals (Thompson et al. 2012).

• Ten head-started animals have been recaptured 1-12 years following their release in McHenry Co. (S. Denham, pers. comm.). These recaptures were incidental to other activities during which just three non-head-started hatchlings were encountered suggesting a 3-fold advantage to head-starting.

• In Lake Co., of fourteen hatchlings incubated under controlled conditions, equipped with radio transmitters, released soon after hatching only two mortalities occurred, both within the first week after release (Kuhns 2010). Others were tracked for 36-61 days (mean = 51 days) with no further mortality.

• At a site in Will/Cook County, Illinois, 41 Blanding’s Turtles were released after one (n = 37) or two (n = 4) years of head-starting. Radio telemetry of four animals head-started for 1 year and four animals head-started for 2 yr provide estimates of annual survival of 0.22 and 1.00, respectively (Dreslik et al. 2010). Although sample sizes are very small, these estimates of survival roughly equal or exceed first year (0.26) and subsequent year (0.78) survival in naturally recruited animals in Michigan (Congdon et al. 1993).

• At a site in Lake County, Illinois, 39 Blanding’s Turtles hatched in fall 2006 were released in spring 2007 after a partial year of head-starting (Kuhns 2010). Fifteen of these animals were recaptured a total of 26 times during 2007 and 15 (including 6 animals not seen in 2007) were recaptured a total of 28 times in 2008. Annual survival of these head-started animals was estimated at 0.66.

Further evidence of the success of head-starting efforts is seen in a shift in population age-structure of DuPage Co. Blanding’s Turtle toward juveniles following annual releases of head-started animals (Table 14). Finally, models of extinction risk, parameterized using demographic characteristics of Illinois Blanding’s Turtle populations, predict reduced extinction risk with head-starting relative to non-intervention scenarios. The success of head-started animals, shifts in population age-structure, and results of models of extinction risk demonstrate that the the potential success of appropriately designed head-starting programs.

Figure 13. Head-started Blanding’s Turtle recaptured 12 years after its release in McHenry County, IL. As described by S. Denham, McHenry County Conservation District: “We have some exciting news from McHenry County. A 1999 hatchling from our head-starting program who was released in May of 2000 in Glacial Park was picked up in the park May 1st of this year. Attached is his current photo. He was 52 gm when released and now weighs 1878 gm. We identified him through his PIT tag.”


61

Table 14. Temporal changes in population composition of DuPage County Blanding’s Turtle populations based on numbers of captures of adult vs. hatchling, juvenile, and subadult animals. Data are from Thompson & Reklau 2005a, Thompson & Reklau 2005b, Thompson & Reklau 2005c, Thompson & Reklau 2005d, Thompson & Reklau 2007, Thompson et al. 2008, Thompson et al. 2009, Thompson et al. 2010, Thompson et al. 2011, Thompson et al. 2012.

Year Number of Captures

Proportion of Hatchlings, Juveniles, & Subadults

2002 163 0.00 2003 58 0.00 2004 39 0.03 2005 99 0.03 2006 100 0.04 2007 56 0.09 2008 48 0.31 2009 61 0.16 2010 69 0.28 2011 140 0.66

Unfortunately, quantitative measures of success are impeded by the challenge of marking hatchling and juvenile Blanding’s Turtles (D. Thompson, G. Glowacki, pers. comm.) and the effort required to monitor their fate. While marking hatchling and juvenile Blanding’s Turtles is difficult, is it necessary for unequivocal identification and can be accomplished successfully with some practice. At a Michigan study site, about 1,200 hatchlings have been marked over 33 years as follows:

“We used very fine scissors and notched the marginals trying to get the notch as anterior on the scute as we could without damaging any margins between scutes (excluding all scutes at the bridge). As the hatchling ages the marks rotate toward that posterior of the scute and fill in, but the marks result in scars that are visible for up to 15 years at least. It takes some experience to know what to look for, but the big issue is looking for the scars on all newly captured juves (sic) and young adults.” (J. Congdon, pers. comm.).

Radio frequency tags represent another means by which hatchlings and head-started animals can be marked (Buhlmann and Tuberville 1998, Guilhon et al. 2011, Rowe and Kelly 2005). A recent reduction in the size of these tags (from 12.5 to 8.4 mm; http://www.biomark.com/) enhances their utility in individually marking even hatchling turtles. At sites characterized by high nest predation and low recruitment, at sites where imminent habitat loss or degradation that precludes population persistence, and in cases where gravid females are found making risky overland movements > 1 km from a wetland-upland complex known to be occupied by Blanding’s Turtles, ex situ incubation of eggs (incubation under controlled conditions) alone or in combination with head-starting may be warranted. Identification of populations and individual Blanding’s Turtles targeted for such actions and the


62

fate of the animals involved will occur through consultation between local agencies and the State, as required under permitting procedures specified in appropriate Illinois Administrative Rules, using the following proposed guidelines: Ex situ incubation and head-starting will be guided by an agreed-upon plan in which detailed information regarding each of the following is provided:

• Housing and husbandry, including diet and environmental enrichment • Provisions for veterinary care, including disease prevention and monitoring • Justification for number of animals • Security and emergency planning • Record keeping • Individual marking methods • Incubation conditions (with special attention to temperature dependent sex

determination) • Transfers among facilities • Reporting

Furthermore, releases of animals at the end of ex situ incubation or head-starting must be compliant with the ESPB Policy for Translocation of Endangered and Threatened Animals and will be guided by an agreed-upon plan in which detailed information regarding each of the following is provided:

• Release site selection and justification (site history, area, land cover, protection status, past and current management actions, provisions for long-term management, nest site availability)

• Pre-release veterinary screening • Release strategies designed to ensure residency (e.g., soft-release) • Enhancements to increase nest, hatchling, juvenile, and adult survival (e.g., habitat

management, fencing to reduce road and rail mortality, mesopredator removal) • Marking and post-release monitoring (released animals shall be individually marked and,

if feasible, monitored via radiotelemetry) • Record keeping • Reporting

At a minimum, release sites will consist of wetland-upland complexes ≥ 500 ha of which ≥ 125 ha must be protect at the state (Nature Preserve, Land and Water Reserve) or county (Forest Preserve, Conservation District) level. 2. Proposed Guidelines for Removal of Animals from Native Habitat as Stock for Captive

Breeding. Captive breeding programs function to 1) provide an assurance colony should wild populations decline despite in situ management efforts and 2) provide stock for release programs. Captive breeding is not currently being used as a management tool for Illinois Blanding’s Turtle populations. However, at least two private individuals successfully breed Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois and others in Michigan and North Carolina using large outdoor enclosures (M. Redmer, pers. comm.). In some cases, captive bred Blanding’s Turtles produce two or even three


63

clutches per year (M. Redmer, pers. comm.). In addition, successful captive breeding programs for Blanding’s Turtles exist at a number of AZA Institutions, including Cleveland Zoo (ca. 150 captive bred animals), Toronto Zoo (ca. 50 animals), Toledo Zoo (ca. 50 animals), Detroit Zoo (<10 animals), Knoxville Zoo (<10 animals) and Shedd Aquarium (<10 animals) (F.W. Zeigler, pers. comm.). Stock for captive breeding sometimes includes individuals from sites with high probability of local extinction. Because objective criteria for determining that Blanding’s Turtles at a given site have a high probability of local extinction over the short term are lacking, animals will only be removed from their native habitat when imminent habitat loss or degradation (wetland drainage, urbanization) precludes population persistence (this section) or when found > 1 km from a Rank 1 or Rank 2 wetland-upland complex (see Proposed Guidelines for Protecting Animals Encountered Making Risky Overland Movements). Furthermore, because the fate of Blanding’s Turtles when translocated as juveniles or adults is unknown, current guidelines specify that animals removed from the wild be used as stock for captive breeding. The concern is that field-hatched Blanding’s Turtles (in contrast to animals incubated in the lab, and possibly head-started before release), may behave in an unnatural manner (e.g., possibly trying to “home”) and thus be at greater risk of mortality. It is noteworthy that this is not universally true of turtles and field-hatched individuals of a number of species are routinely translocated as a management strategy (Attum et al. 2011; Bogosian 2010; Degregorio et al. 2012; Hester et al. 2008; Hill et al. 2009; Riedl et al. 2008; Rittenhouse et al. 2007, 2008; Shen et al. 2010; Tuberville et al. 2005, 2008). Removal of animals for placement into a captive breeding program will be guided by an agreed-upon plan in which detailed information regarding each of the following is provided:

• Justification for removal from the wild • Housing and husbandry • Provisions for veterinary care, including disease prevention and monitoring • Justification for number of animals • Security and emergency planning (e.g., loss of power or water, husbandry during

weather emergencies, vandalism) • Record keeping • Individual marking methods • Breeding plan • Incubation conditions (with special attention to temperature dependent sex

determination) • Transfers among facilities • Release • Reporting


64

3. Proposed Guidelines for Protecting Animals Encountered Making Risky Overland Movements.

Overland movements by Blanding’s Turtles (i.e., nesting forays, inter-wetland migration) can place animals at elevated risk of injury or mortality from vehicle strikes or predation as they move across exposed or inhospitable habitat (Agricultural Lands, Urban & Built-up Lands, roads, rails). Simply moving these animals away from immediate harm (e.g., from a road right-of-way to an adjacent wetland or field) may provide little benefit because they soon resume their overland movement. Furthermore, individuals are sometimes found long distances from sites known to be inhabited by Blanding’s Turtles (e.g., Rank 3 EORs). Animals encountered making risky overland movements may require active intervention in which animals are moved to a safe location (possibly following temporary confinement until after egg deposition) and monitored or placed into a captive breeding program. In the guidelines below, a 1 km distance was selected because this distance encompasses 87% of nesting female movements (Congdon et al. 2011).

• Gravid females found ≤ 1 from a Rank 1 or Rank 2 wetland-upland complex should be released within that complex. If feasible, such females should be equipped with radio transmitters and their movements monitored at least daily to (1) ensure they do not again undertake risky overland movements and (2) gain information on nesting habitat (with the possibility of protecting resultant nests from predators).

• Gravid females found > 1 km from a Rank 1 or Rank 2 wetland-upland complex should be placed in temporary captivity at an authorized facility until egg deposition. Following egg deposition, these females will be placed into a captive breeding program. Eggs will be incubated and hatchlings will be placed into a captive breeding program, translocated, or headstarted and translocated as specified in the Guidelines for ex situ Incubation and Head-Starting.

• Blanding’s Turtles other than gravid females found ≤ 1 km from a Rank 1 or Rank 2 wetland-upland complex should be released within that complex.

• Blanding’s Turtles other than gravid females found > 1 km from a Rank 1 or Rank 2 wetland-upland complex will be placed into a captive breeding program

• All Blanding’s Turtles covered by this policy should be individually marked and photographed and appropriate records (date, time, location, GPS coordinates at capture and release; turtle sex, reproductive condition, carapace length and mass) maintained.

To ensure that these actions are carried out appropriately and in a timely fashion, it will be necessary to ensure that holders of Illinois Permits for Possession of Endangered or Threatened Species for Blanding’s Turtles are available and known to local land managers; that training in Blanding’s Turtle identification is provided to municipal, county, and state employees and others who, in the course of their official duties, may encounter Blanding’s Turtles (e.g., road construction and maintenance personnel, park and forest preserve personnel); and information is provided of whom to contact in their area should they observe Blanding’s Turtles at risk. Proposed Recovery Strategy 11. Conduct experimental translocations of adult animals to determine their fate under differing release scenarios (hard release, soft release). As an alternative to placement into a captive breeding program, adult Blanding’s turtles removed


65

from their native habitat due to imminent habitat loss or degradation (see Proposed Guidelines for Removal of Animals from Native Habitat as Stock for Captive Breeding ) or found > 1 km from a Rank 1 or Rank 2 wetland-upland complex (see Proposed Guidelines for Protecting Animals Encountered Making Risky Overland Movements) might be translocated to other sites to augment existing populations. However, there is a danger that these animals will attempt to “home,” putting themselves at elevated risk of mortality from vehicle strikes or predation (because they lack an established home range, this is not a concern for hatchlings). This risk might be mitigated by using an appropriate release strategy.

Outputs: a. Conduct experimental translocations of adult animals.

Outcomes: b. Fate of translocated animals.

Outreach. – Conservation and management of threatened and endangered species is facilitated by an informed public that understands the importance of biodiversity and is knowledgeable of local species and conservation challenges. Proposed Recovery Strategy 12. Develop outreach materials and presentation venues to inform the public about the biology and conservation status of Blanding’s Turtle, recovery strategies and their implementation and accomplishments, and means of public participation.

Outputs: a. conduct outreach about the species with land managers and interested citizens b. solicit reports from land managers and the public regarding Blanding’s Turtle

observations Outcomes:

a. number of website visits b. number of outreach events, number of participants c. number of Blanding’s Turtle reports

Recovery of Blanding's Turtle in Illinois will require a high degree of oversight and coordination and might be facilitated by the establishment of a recovery coordinator position with the ESPB or IDNR. ESTIMATE OF TIME REQUIRED FOR PROPOSED ACTIONS TO BE CARRIED OUT Based on the proposed triggers for status re-evaluation for Blanding’s Turtles in Illinois, recovery will require forty or more years. EFFECTS ON ANY OTHER SPECIES, HABITATS OR PROGRAMS Actions proposed here will contribute to the following actions in the Wetlands Campaign of the Illinois Wildlife Action Plan:


66

Actions

1. Improve the condition of existing natural and artificial wetlands. 2. Develop and manage additional wetland habitat. 3. Fill information gaps and develop conservation actions to address stresses. 4. Inter-agency cooperation and coordination to ensure wetland programs do not have

conflicting objectives. 5. Emphasize multiple-resource benefits of wetland conservation. 6. Increase water quality education efforts in areas under high development pressure

and/or within fragile geographic zones (i.e. karst terrain). Actions proposed here will benefit Species in Greatest Need of Conservation, including other Illinois endangered and threatened species. LIST OF AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS Richard B. King, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115 LIST OF RECOVERY PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS WHO ASSISTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONSERVATION PLAN Mike Dreslik, Illinois Natural History Survey Lisa Faust, Lincoln Park Zoo Gary Glowaki, Forest Preserve District of Lake County Dan Ludwig, Illinois Department of Natural Resources Anne Mankowski, Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board Mike Redmer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bill Zeigler, Brookfield Zoo ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Contributions to this conservation assessment by planning team members M. Dreslik, L. Faust, G. Glowacki, D. Ludwig, A. Mankowski, M. Redmer, and W. Zeigler are gratefully acknowledged. This conservation assessment benefited from discussions with and information from W. Anthonysamy, K. Buhlmann, J. Congdon, S. Denham, W. Graser, R. Hay, J. Herkert, F. Janzen, M. Jones, S. Kock, A. Kuhns, M. Lang, M. Lindval, A. Minson, M. Pappas, R. Spence, J. Spetz, D. Thompson, B. Towney, and L. Willey. P. Ruback was instrumental in generating GIS –based analyses.


67

LITERATURE CITED Allender, M. C., M. Abd-Eldaim, A. Kuhns, and M. Kennedy. 2009. Absence of Ranavirus and

Herpesvirus in a survey of two aquatic turtle species in Illinois. Journal of Herpetological Medicine and Surgery 19:16-20.

Allendorf, F. W., and G. Luikart. 2007. The Genetics of Populaitons. Blackwell Publising, Malden, MA.

Andrews, K. M., J. W. Gibbons, and D. M. Jochimsen. 2008. Ecological effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles: a literature review. Pages 121-143 in J. C. Michell, R. E. Jung Brown, and B. Bartholomew, editors. Urban Herpetology. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Anthonysamy, W. 2012. Spatial ecology, habitat use, genetic diversity, and reproductive success: measures of connectivity of a sympatric freshwater turtle assemblage in a fragmented landscape. PhD dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.

Anthonysamy, W., M. J. Dreslik, M. Douglas, N. Marioni, and C. A. Phillips. 2011. Mating system and reproductive success in Blanding's Turtels (Emys blandingii). Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Minneapolis.

Aresco, M. J. 2005. Mitigation measures to reduce highway mortality of turtles and other herpetofauna at a north Florida lake. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:549-560.

Arsenault, L., T. B. Herman, S. W. Mockford, M. Lawton, and J. A. McNeil. 2010. Post-release survival, growth, and movement patters of Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) headstarts in Nova Scotia. Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists.

Ashenden, J. E. 1983. Movements of nesting midland painted turtles and Blanding's turtles at Long Point, Ontario. Wilfred Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario.

Ashley, E. P. and J. T. Robinson. 1996. Road mortality of amphibians, reptiles and other wildlife on the long point causeway, Lake Erie, Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 110:403-412.

Attum, O., M. Otoum, Z. Amr, and B. Tietjen. 2011. Movement patterns and habitat use of soft-released translocated spur-thighed tortoises, Testudo graeca. European Journal of Wildlife Research 57:251-258.

Banning, W. J. 2007. Nesting ecology fo the Blanding's turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, at Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve, Will County, Illinios. Report to Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Grant Number RC07L27W.

Banning, W. J., M. J. Dreslik, and C. A. Phillips. 2006. Continued Study of the Ecology of the Freshwater Turtle Community at Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve: With Special Emphasis on the Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Report to Forest Preserve District of Will County. INHS Technical Report 2006(4):1–259 + iv.

Beaudry, F. 2007. Road mortality risk for spotted and Blanding's turtle populations. Ph.D. Dissertaton, University of Maine.

Beaudry, F., P. G. deMaynadier, and M. L. Hunter Jr. 2008. Identifying road mortality threat at multiple spatial scales for semi-aquatic turtles. Biological Conservation 141:2550-2563.

Beaudry, F., P. G. deMaynadier, and M. L. Hunter. 2010. Identifying hot moments in road-mortality risk for freshwater turtles. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:152-159.


68

Beckett, J. M. 2006. Genetic analysis of multiple paternity and male reproductive success in a small peripheral population of Blanding's turtle, Emydoidea blandingii. M.Sc. Acadia University.

Bickham, J. W., T. Lamb, P. Minx, and J. C. Patton. 1996. Molecular systematics of the genus Clemmys and the intergeneric relationships of emydid turtles. Herpetologica 52:89-97.

Bogosian, V. 2010. Natural history of resident and translocated alligator snapping turtles (Macrochelys temminckii) in Louisiana. Southeastern Naturalist 9:711-720.

Buhlmann, K. A., J. D. Congdon, J. W. Gibbons, J. L. Greene, and A. Mathes. 2009. Ecology of chicken turtles (Deirochelys reticularia) in a seasonal wetland ecosystem: exploiting resource and refuge environments. Herpetologica 65:39–53

Buhlmann, K. A. and J. W. Gibbons. 2001. Terrestrial habitat use by aquatic turtles from a seasonally fluctuating wetland: implications for wetland conservation boundaries. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:115-127.

Buhlmann, K. A., S. L. Koch, B. O. Buttler, T. D. Tuberville, V. J. Palermo, B. A. Bastarache, and S. D. Cava. submitted. Reintroduction and head-starting: tools for Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) conservation. Herpetological Conservation and Biology.

Buhlmann, K.A., and T.D. Tuberville. 1998. Use of passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags for marking small freshwater turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:102-104.

Bury, R. B. and D. J. Germano. 2003. Differences in habitat use by Blanding's turtles, Emydoidea blandingii, and painted turtles, Chrysemys picta, in the Nebraska sandhills. American Midland Naturalist 149:241-244.

Butler, B. O. and T. E. Graham. 1995. Early post-emergent behavior and habitat selection in hatchling Blanding's turtles, Emydoidea blandingii, in Massachusetts. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 1:187-196.

Cagle, F. R. 1944. Home range, homing behavior, and migration in turtles. Misc. Publ. Univ. Mich. Mus. Zool., No. 61:1-33.

Camaclang, A. 2007. Science, management, and policy in conservation biology: Protecting post-emergent hatchling Blanding's turtles in Nova Scotia. M.E.S. Dalhousie University.

Chandler, C. H., A. LeClare, S. Hayden, and F. Janzen. 2009. Final Report: Population genetics and related biology of the Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in McHenry County, Illinois. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology, Iowa State University.

Christiansen, J. L. and J. W. Bickham. 1989. Possible historic effects of pond drying and winterkill on the behavior of Kinosternon flavescens and Chrysemys picta. Journal of Herpetology 23:91-94.

Christiansen, J. L. and B. J. Gallaway. 1984. Raccon removal, nesting success, and hatching emergence of Iowa turtles, with special reference to Kinosternon flavescens (Kinosternidae). Southwestern Naturalist 29.

Christoffel, R. and R. Hay. 1995. The effectiveness of placing turtle mortality barriers and crossing signs along highways to reduce turtle mortality. Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report #107.

[CITES] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 2012. Consideration of proposals for amendments to Appendices I and II. Sixteenth


69

Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (Bangkok, Thailand), March, 2013. CoP 16 Prop. Xx:1-13.

Compton, B. W. 2007. Status assessment for the Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in the Northeast. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Compton, B. W., F. Beaudry, K. McGarigal, and P. R. Sievert. 2007. Habitat modeling for Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in the northeast. Final Report. Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Conde, D. A., N. Flesness, F. Colchero, O. R. Jones, and A. Scheuerlein. 2011. An emerging role of zoos to conserve biodiversity. Science 331:1390-1391.

Congdon, J. D., A. E. Dunham, and R. C. V. Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographis of Blanding’s Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) – implications for conservation and managemetn of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7:826-833.

Congdon, J. D., T. E. Graham, T. B. Herman, J. W. Lang, M. J. Pappas, and B. J. Brecke. 2008. Emydoidea blandingii (Holbrook 1838) - Blading's turtle. In A. G. J. Rhodin, P. C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. B. Iverson, editors. Conservation biology of freshwater turtles and tortoises: a compilation project of the IUCN/SSC tortoise and freshwater turtle specialist group. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 5, pp 05.1-015.12. Chelonian Research Foundation.

Congdon, J. D. and D. A. Keinath. 2006. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/blandingsturtle.pdf.

Congdon, J. D., O. M. Kinney, and R. D. Nagle. 2011. Spatial ecology and core-area protection of Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Canadian Journal of Zoology 89:1098-1106.

Congdon, J. D., R. D. Nagle, O. M. Kinney, and R. C. van Loben Sels. 2000. Nesting ecology and embryo mortality: implications for hatchling success and demography of Blanding;s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii). Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:569-579.

Congdon, J. D., R. D. Nagle, O. M. Kinney, R. C. van Loben Sels, T. Quinter, and D. W. Tinkle. 2003. Testing hypotheses of aging in long-lived painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Experimental Gerontology 38:765-772.

Congdon, J. D., D. W. Tinkle, G. L. Breitenbach, and R. C. V. Sels. 1983. Nesting ecology and hatching success in the turtle Emydoidea blandingii. Herpetologica 39:417-429.

Congdon, J. D. and R. C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Relationships of reproductive traits and body-size with attainment of sexual maturity and age in Blanding’s Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 6:547-557.

COSEWIC 2005. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. viii + 40 pp. Available: www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm.

Crivelli, A.J. 1983. The destruction of aquatic vegetation by carp. Hydrobiologia, 106: 37–41. Crockett, T. 2008. Habitat selection and landscape ecology of Blanding's turtle in New York. MS

thesis. SUNY Brockport. Crother, B. I. 2008. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North

America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding, 6th edition. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.


70

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/wetloss/index.htm.

Degregorio, B. A., K. A. Buhlmann, and T. D. Tuberville. 2012. Overwintering of Gopher Tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) translocated to the northern limit of their geographic range: temperatures, timing, and survival. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 11:84-90.

Denham, S. 2010. Blanding’s Turtle Project 2010. McHenry County Conservation District. 17 pp. Dowling, Z., T. Hartwig, E. Kiviat, and F. Keesing. 2010. Experimental management of nesting

habitat for the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii). Ecological Restoration 28:154-159.

Dreslik, M. J., W. J. Banning, and D. Kirk. 2010a. Population Biology of the State Endangered Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) at Goose Lake Prairie State Natural Area. Report to Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board. UI Grant Code: D7779, IDNR RC08E09W. INHS Technical Report 2010 (11):1-50

Dreslik, M. J., W. J. Banning, N. Marioni, and C. A. Phillips. 2011. Monitoring of the Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) at the I-355 Des Plaines River Bridge Crossing: Final Report. UI Grant Code: D7882, Tollway No. RR-07-9915. INHS Technical Report 2010 (3):1-237.

Dreslik, M. J., W. J. Banning, C. Schmidt, L. Noffke, and C. A. Phillips. 2007. Spatial Ecology of the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) at Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve, Will County, Illinois. Report to IDNR Illinois Wildlife Preservation Fund, Grant Number: 597302 (D8350); Agreement: RC06L17W; INHS Technical Report 2007 (12): 1-157.

Dreslik, M. J., N. Marioni, W. J. Banning, and C. A. Phillips. 2010b. Monitoring of the Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) at the I-355 Des Plaines River Bridge Crossing: Phase III - Post-Construction Monitoring. UI Grant Code: D7882, Tollway No. RR-07-9915; INHS Technical Report 2010 (2):1-155.

Edge, C. B., B. D. Steinberg, R. J. Brooks, and J. D. Litzgus. 2010. Habitat selection by Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in a relatively pristine landscape. Ecoscience 17:90-99.

Eiby, Y. A. and D. T. Booth. 2011. Determining optimal incubation temperature for a head-start program: the effect of incubation temperature on hatchling Burnett River snapping turtles (Elseya albagula). Australian Journal of Zoology 59:18-25.

Engeman, R. M., R. E. Martin, H. T. Smith, J. Woolard, C. K. Crady, S. A. Shwiff, B. Constantin, M. Stahl, and J. Griner. 2005. Dramatic reduction in predation on marine turtle nests through imporved predator monitoring and management. Oryx 39:318-326.

Engeman, R. M., A. Duffiney, S. Braem, C. Olsen, B. Constantin, P. Small. J. Dunlap, and J. C. Griffin. 2010. Dramatic and immediate improvements in insular nesting success for threatened sea turtles and shorebirds following predator management. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 395:147-152.

Erb, L. and M.T. Jones. 2011. Can turtle mortality be reduce in managed fields? Northereastern Naturalist 18:489-496.

Esque, T.C., K. E. Nussear, K. K. Darake, A. D. Walde, K. H. Berry, R. C. Averill-Murray, A. P. Woodman, W. I. Boarman, P.A. Medica, J. Mack, and J. S. Heaton. 2010. Effects of subsidized predators, resource variability, and human population density on desert


71

tortoise populations in the Mojave Desert, USA. Endangered Species Research 12:167-177.

Evrard, J. O. and M. E. Canfield. 2000. Blanding's turtles in the Crex Meadows Wildlife Area. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Scienced, Arts and Letters 88:49-54.

Farrer, R. A., L. A. Weinert, J. Bielby, T. W. J. Garner, F. Balloux, F. Clare, J. Bosch, A. A. Cunningham, C. Weldon, L. H. du Preez, L. Anderson, S. L. K. Pond, R. Shahar-Golan, D. A. Henk, and M. C. Fisher. 2011. Multiple emergences of genetically diverse amphibian-infecting chytrids include a globalized hypervirulent recombinant lineage. PNAS 108:

18732–18736. Feldman, C. R. and J. F. Parham. 2002. Molecular phylogenetics of emydine turtles: taxonomic

revision and the evolution of shell kinesis. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 22:388-398.

Fletcher, A.R., A.K. Morrison, and D.J. Hume. 1985. Effects of carp, Cyprinus carpio L., on communities of aquatic vegetation and turbidity of waterbodies in the lower Goulburn River Basin. Marine and Freshwater Research 36: 311-327.

Frankham, R. R. 1995. Effective population-size:adult-population size ratios in wildlife - a review. Genetical Research 66:95-107.

Franklin, I. R. 1980. Evolutionary change in small populations. Pages 135-150 in M. E. Soule and B. A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation Biology: an Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates.

Fritz, U., C. Schmidt, and C. H. Ernst. 2011. Competing generic concepts for Blanding’s, Pacific and European pond turtles (Emydoidea, Actinemys and Emys)—Which is best? Zootaxa 2791:41-53.

Gehrt, S. D., G. F. Hubert, and J. A. Ellis. 2002. Long-term population trends of raccoons in Illinois. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:457-463.

Geller, G. A. 2012. Reducing predation of freshwater turtle nests with a simple electric fence. Herpetological Review 43:398-403.

Germano, D. J., R. B. Bury, M. Jennings. 2000. Growth and population structure of Emydoidea blandingii from western Nebraska. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:618-625.

Gibbons, J. W., J. L. Greene, and J. D. Congdon. 1983 Drought-related responses of aquatic turtle populations. Journal of Herpetology 17:242–246.

Gibbs, J. P. and W. G. Shriver. 2002. Estimating the effects of road mortality on turtle populations. Conservation Biology 16:1647-1652.

Gibbs, J. P. and D. A. Steen. 2005. Trends in sex ratios of turtles in the United States: implications of road mortality. Conservation Biology 19:552-556.

Gompper, M. E. and A. T. Vanak. 2008. Subsidized predators, landscapes of fear and disarticulated carnivore communities. Animal Conservation 11:13-14.

Graser, W. H., S. D. Gehrt, L. L. Hungerford, and C. Anchor. 2012. Variation in demographic patterns and population structure of raccoons across an urban landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:976-986.

Guilhon, A. V., R. C. Vogt, L. A. Schneider, and F. C. R. 2011. Assessment of turtle tracking technologies in the Brazilian Amazon. Herpetological Review 42:525-530.


72

Hadidian, J., S. Prange, R. Rosatte, S. P. D. Riley, and S. D. Gehrt. 2010. Raccoons (Procyon lotor). Pages 35-48 in S. D. Gehrt, S. P. D. Riley, and B. L. Cypher, editors. Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict and Conservation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Hamernick, M. G. 2000. Home ranges and habitat selection of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) at the Weaver Dunes, Minnesota. Department of Resource Analysis, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona, Minnesota

Hartwig, T. S. 2004. Habitat selection of Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii): a range-wide review and microhabitat study. M.S. Thesis. Bard College, Annadale-on-Husdon.

Hartwig, T. S. and E. Kiviat. 2007. Microhabitat association of blanding's turtles in natural and constructed wetlands in southeastern New York. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:576-582.

Hartwig, T. S., G. Stevens, J. Sullivan, and E. Kiviat. 2009. Blanding's turtle habitats in southern Dutchess County. Report to the Marilyn Milton Simpson Charitable Trusts and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River Estuary Program.

Hatch, K. 2000. Translocation and reintroduction of ornate box turtles in Wisconsin. Ecological Restoration 18: 130.

Hayden, S. 2007. Blanding’s Turtle Reintroduction Porject, 2007. McHenry County Conservation District. 8 pp.

Hays, D. W., K. R. McAllister, S. A. Richardson, and D. W. Stinson. 1999. Washington state recovery plan for the western pond turtle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Heppell, S. S. 1998. Application of life-history theory and population model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia:367-375.

Herman, T. B., S. W. Mockford, L. Arsenault, and J. A. McNeil. 2010. The headstarting program for Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Nova Scotia: from tenuous first steps. Abstract, Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists.

Hester, J. M., S. J. Price, and M. E. Dorcas. 2008. Effects of relocation on movements and home ranges of eastern box turtles. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:772-777.

Hill, E. C., H. J. Vogel, T. R. Rosburg, L. Lown, and K. S. Summerville. 2009. Response of a population of Terrapene ornata ornata to long distance relocation. Natural Areas Journal 29:311-316.

Holbrook, J. E., 1838. North American herpetology, or, A description of the reptiles inhabiting the United States. J. Dobson, Philadelphia.

Hoffmeister, D. R. 2002. Mammals of Illinois. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, IL. Huang, Y, X. Huang, H. Liu, J. Gong, Z. Ouyang, H.Cui, J. Cao, Y. Zhao, Y. Jiang, and Q. Qin. 2009.

Complete sequence determination of a novel reptile iridovirus isolated from soft-shelled turtle and evolutionary analysis of Iridoviridae. BMC Genetics 10:224.

Illinois Administrative Code. Conservation § 1010: Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened Fauna (1977 et seq.).

Illinois Administrative Code. Conservation § 1050: Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened Flora (1980 et seq.).

Illinois Administrative Code. Conservation § 1070: Possession of Specimens or Products of Endangered or Threatened Species (1989 et seq.).


73

Illinois Administrative Code. Conservation § 1075: Consultation Procedures for Assessing Impacts of Agency Actions on Endangered and Threatened Species and Natural Areas (1990 et seq.).

Illinois Administrative Code. Conservation § 1080: Incidental Taking of Endangered and Threatened Species (2001).

Illinios Department of Natural Resources 1994. The Changing Illinois Environment: Critical Trends. Available: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/creator/12150.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2012. Natural Heritage (Biotics 4) Database. Springfield, IL.

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland.

Jones, M. T. and P. R. Sievert. 2012. Elevated mortality of hatchling Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in residential landscapes. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 7:89-94.

Joyal, L. A., M. McCollough, and M. L. Hunter. 2000. Population structure and reporductive ecology of Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Maine, near the northeastern edge of its range. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:5780-588.

Joyal, L. A., M. McCollough, and M. L. Hunter. 2001. Landscape ecology approaches to wetland species conservation: a case study of two turtle species in southern Maine. Conservation Biology 15:1755-1762.

Kasuga, L. 2007. Small and large-scale landscape approaches for conservation of the imperiled Blanding's turtle, Emys blandingii. M.S. Iowa State University.

Kasuga, L. M. C. and F. Janzen. 2008. Home range size, movement and habitat use for a population of Blanding's turtles (Emys Blandingii) in the Upper Mississippi River National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Report to Illinois Department of Natural Resources.

Kennett, R. M. and A. Georges. 1990. Habitat utilization and its relation- ship to growth and reproduction of the eastern long-necked turtle Chelodina longicollis (Testudinata: Chelidae) from Australia. Herpetologica 46:22-33.

Klut, G. 2011. Genetic homogeneity among Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) populations across the Chicago area. M.S. Western Illinois University.

Kofron, C. P. and A. A. Schreiber. 1985. Ecology of two endangered aquatic turtles in Missouri, Kinosternon flavescens and Emydoidea blandingii. Journal of Herpetology 19:27-40.

Kornilev, Y.V., S.J. Price, and M.E. Dorcas. 2006. Between a rock and a hard place: responses of eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) when trapped between railroad tracks. Herpetological Review 37: 145-148.

Kuhns, A. 2010. Recovery of the Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) at Spring Bluff Nature Preserve, Lake County Forest Preserves. Report to Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Federal Aid Project T-39-D-1. INHS Technical Report 2010 (38) 1-40.

Kuhns, A., W. J. Banning, M. J. Dreslik, and C. A. Phillips. 2007. Ecology of the state threatened Blanding's Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, in the Chicago wilderness area. Report to Chicago Wilderness. INHS Technical Report 2007 (23): 1-115 +ii.

Kuhns, A., C. D. Benda, M. J. Dreslik, and C. A. Phillips. 2006. Annual Report 2005: Status of Blanding's Turtles in Lake County Forest Preserve District and feasibility of initiating a


74

head-starting program at Rollins Savanna. Report to Lake County Forest Preserve District. INHS Technical Report 2006(3): 1-55.

Lang, J. W. 1999. Blanding’s Turtle research a Weaver Dunes – an overview of fieldwork in 1999. Draft report.

Land, J. W. 2004. Blanding’s Turtles on Valentine NWR, Nebraska: population status, estimate of population size, and road mortality. Report to Nebraska Department of Roads (Project EACNH-STPB-83-4(111), C.N. 80620) and USFWS (DDS Agreement #60181-2-J169, DCN 64520-J-0001, C.S. 64520-C691).

Lang, J. W. 2006. Conservation of Blanding’s Turtles in southwestern Minnesota. Report to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. State of Minnesota Professional and Technical Services contractDFMS #A59353.

Langen, T.A., K.E. Gunson, C.A. SCheiner, and J.T. Boulerice. 2012. Rode mortality in freshwater turtles: identifying causes of spatial patterns to optimize road planning and mitigation. Biodiversity and Conservation 21:3017-3034.

Lenk, P., U. Fritz, U. Joger, and M. Wink. 1999. Mitochondrial phylogeography of the European pond turtle, Emys orbicularis (Linnaeus 1758). Molecular Ecology 8:1911-1922.

Ligon, D. B. and P.A. Stone. 2003. Radiotelemetry reveals terrestrial estivation in Sonoran Mud Turtles (Kinosternon sonoriense). Journal of Herpetology 37:750-754.

Linck, M. and L. N. Gillette. 2009. Post-natal movements and overwintering sites of hatchling Blanding's turtles, Emydoidea blandingii, in east-central Minnesota. Herpetological Review 40:411-414.

Litvaitis, J. A. and J. P. Tash. 2008. An approach toward understanding wildlife-vehicle collisions. Environmental Management 42:688-697.

Lougheed, V.L. B. Crosbie, and P. Chow-Foster. 1998. Predictions on the effect of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) exclusion on water quality, zooplankton, and submergent macrophytes in a Great Lakes wetland. Canadian J. Fisheries and Aquatic Science 55: 1189-1197.

Ludwig, D., D. Thompson, and R. A. Reklau. 2005. Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2001 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of Lake County.

Mankowski, A. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Species of Illinois: Status and Distribution, Volume 4 - 2009 and 2010 Changes to the Illinois List of Endangered and Threatened Species. Springfield, IL.

Marchand, M. N. 2005. Species Profile: Blanding's Turtle Emydoidea blandingii. New Hampshire Wildife Action Plan, pp. A164-A175.

Marsack, K., and B.J. Swanson. 2009. A genetic analysis of the impact of generation time and road-based habitat fragmentation on eastern box turtles (Terrapene c. carolina). Copeia 2009: 647-652.

McCoy, C.J. 1973. Emydoidea, E. blandingii. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles 136:1-4.

McGuire, J., J. D. Congdon, and K. Scibner. 2011. Mating system, male reproductive success, and population connectivity of Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii). Abstract, Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Minneapolis.

McKinney, M. L. 2002. Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883-890.


75

Millar, C. 2010. The spatial ecology of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii): from local movement patterns, home ranges and microhabitat selection to Ontario-wide habitat suitability modelling. M.Sc. University of Ottawa.

Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune. 2005. Équipe de rétablissement de cinq espèces de tortues au Québec pour les années 2005 à 2010 : la tortue des bois (Glyptemys insculpta), la tortue géographique (Graptemys geographica), la tortue mouchetée (Emydoidea blandingii), la tortue musquée (Sternotherus odoratus) et la tortue ponctuée (Clemmys guttata). Ministère des Ressources naturelles et de la Faune, Québec. 57 pp.

Mitrus, S. (2005): Headstarting in European pond turtles (Emys orbicularis): Does it work? Amphibia Reptilia 26: 333-341.

Mockford, S. W., T. B. Herman, M. Snyder, and J. M. Wright. 2007. Conservation genetics of Blanding's turtle and its application in the identification of evolutionarily significant units. Conservation Genetics 8:209-219.

Mockford, S. W., L. McEachern, T. B. Herman, M. Synder, and J. M. Wright. 2005. Population genetic structure of a disjunct population of Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Nova Scotia, Canada. Biological Conservation 123:373-380.

Mogollones, S. C., D. J. Rodriguez, O. Hernandez, and G. R. Barreto. 2010. A Demographic Study of the Arrau Turtle (Podocnemis expansa) in the Middle Orinoco River, Venezuela. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 9:79-89.

MWPARC. 2010. Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Conservation Assessment Survey. http://www.mwparc.org/.

Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. 2007. Massachusetts forestry conservation management practices for Blanding's Turtles. Draft (August 2007). Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, Massachusetts, USA.

Nÿboer, R. W., J. R. Herkert, and J. E. Ebinger. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species of Illinois: Status and Distribution, Volume 2 - Animals. Springfield, IL.

Osentoski, M. F. 2001. Population genetic structure and male reproductive success of a Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) population in southeastern Michigan. Ph.D. University of Miami.

Ozgul, A., M. K. Oli, B. M. Bolker, and C. Perez-Heydrich. 2009. Upper respiratory tract disease, force of infection, and effects on survival of gopher tortoises. Ecological Applications 19:786-798.

Paterson, J.E., B.D. Steinberg, and J.D. Litzgus. 2012. Revealing a cryptic life-history stage: differences in habitat selection and survivorship between hatchlings of two turtle spcies at risk (Glyptemys insculpta and Emydoidea blandingii). Wildlife Research 39:408-418.

Patrick, D. A. and J. P. Gibbs. 2010. Population structure and movements of freshwater turtles across a road-density gradient. Landscape Ecology 25:791-801.

Phillips, C. A., R. A. Brandon, and E. O. Moll. 1999. Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey.

Piepgras, S., T. Sajwaj, M. Hamernick, and J. W. Lang. 1998. Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in theBrainerd/Baxter region: population status, distrbution and management recommendations. Report to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Nongame Wildlife Office.


76

Piepgras, S. A. and J. W. Lang. 2000. Spatial ecology of Blanding's Turtle in central Minnesota. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:589-601.

Prange, S., S. D. Gehrt, and E. P. Wiggers. 2003. Demographic factors contributing to high raccoon densities in urban landscapes. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:324-333.

Prugh, L. R., C. J. Stoner, C. W. Epps, W. T. Bean, W. J. Ripple, A. S. Laliberte, and J. S. Brashares. 2009. The Rise of the mesopredator. Bioscience 59:779-791.

Rees, M., J. H. Roe, and A. Georges. 2009. Life in the suburbs: behavior and survival of a freshwater turtle in response to drought and urbanization. Biological Conservation. 142:3172-3181.

Refsnider, J. and M. Linck. 2012. Habitat use and movement patterns of Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in Minnesota, USA: a landscape approach to species conservation. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 7:185-195.

Refsnider, J. M. 2009. High frequency of multiple paternity in Blanding's Turtle (Emys blandingii). Journal of Herpetology 43:74-81.

Riedl, S. C., H. R. Mushinsky, and E. D. McCoy. 2008. Translocation of the gopher tortoise: Difficulties associated with assessing success. Applied Herpetology 5:145-160.

Rittenhouse, C. D., J. J. Millspaugh, M. W. Hubbard, and S. L. Sheriff. 2007. Movements of translocated and resident three-toed box turtles. Journal of Herpetology 41:115-121.

Rittenhouse, C. D., J. J. Millspaugh, M. W. Hubbard, S. L. Sheriff, and W. D. Dijak. 2008. Resource selection by translocated three-toed box turtles in Missouri. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:268-275.

Roberts, J. A. Chick, L. Oswald, and P. Thompson. 1995. Effect of carp, Cyprinus carpio L., an exotic bethivorous fish, on aquatic plants and water quality in experimental ponds. Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 1171-1180.

Roe, J. H. and A. Georges. 2008. Maintenance of variable responses for coping with wetland drying in freshwater turtles. Ecology 89:485-494.

Rogstad, S. H. and S. Pelikan. 2011. The 50/500 – 100 – 1000 – 5000 Ne rules, actual population size and loss of diversity to random drift. Pages 205-208. Genetic Diversity in Establishing Plant Populations. Science Publishers.

Ross, D. A. 1989. Population ecology of painted and Blanding's turtles (Chrysemys picta and Emydoidea blandingii) in Central Wisconsin. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters 77:77-84.

Ross, D. A. and R. K. Anderson. 1990. Habitat use, movements, and nesting of Emydoidea blandingii in central Wisconsin. Journal of Herpetology 24:6-12.

Rowe, C. L. and Kelly, S. M. 2005. Marking hatchling turtles via intraperitoneal placement of PIT tags: implications for long-term studies. Herpetological Review 36:408-410.

Rowe, J. W. 1992. Diatary habits of the Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in northeastern Illinois. Journal of Herpetology 26:111-114.

Ruane, S., S. A. Dinkelacker, and J. B. Iverson. 2008. Demographic and reproductive traits of Blanding's Turtles, Emydoidea blandingii, at the western edge of the species' range. Copeia:771-779.

Rubin, C. S. 2000. Ecology and genetics of Blanding's turtles in an urban landscape. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.


77

Rubin, C. S., R. E. Warner, and D. R. Ludwig. 2001. Habitat use and movements of radiotagged Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in a suburban landscape. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4:136-141.

Rubin, C. S., R. E. Warner, D. R. Ludwig, and R. Thiel. 2004. Survival and population structure of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii) in two suburban Chicago forest preserves. Natural Areas Journal 24:44-48.

Sajwaj, T. D. 1998. Seasonal and daily patterns of body temperature and thermal behavior in a central Minnesota population of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii). M.S. Thesis. University of North Dakota.

Sajwaj, T. D., S. A. Piepgras, and J. W. Lang. 1998. Blanding’s Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) at Camp Ripley: critical habitats, population status and management guidelines. Report to Minnesota Department of Natrual Resources Nongame Wildlife Office.

Schmidt, K. A. 2003. Nest predation and population declines in Illinois songbirds: a case for mesopredator effects. Conservation Biology 17:1141-1150.

Schuler, M. and R. P. Thiel. 2008. Annual vs. multiple-year home range sizes of individual Blanding's Turtles, Emydoidea blandingii, in central Wisconsin. Canadian Field-Naturalist 122:61-64.

Seburn, D. C. 2010. Blanding's Turtle, Emydoidea blandingii, habitat use during hibernation in Eastern Ontario. Canadian Field-Naturalist 124:263-265.

Shen, J-W, D. A. Pike, and W-G Du.2010.Movements and microhabitat use of translocated big-headed turtles (Platysternon megacephalum) in southern China. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 9:154-161.

Smith, H. T. and R. M. Engeman. 2002. An extraordinary raccoon, Procyon lotor, density at an urban park. Canadian Field-Naturalist 116:636-639.

Smith, P. W. 1961. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey. Soule, M. E. 1980. Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. Pages

151-169 in M. E. Soule and B. A. Wilcox, editors. Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

Spetz, J. C. 2008. Diet, habitat use, and reproduction characteristics of an Ohio population of Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in a Lake Erie coastal plains marsh. M.S. thesis. John Carroll University.

Spinks, P. Q., G. B. Pauly, J. J. Crayon, and H. B. Shaffer. 2003. Survival of the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) in an urban California environment. Biological Conservation 113:257-267.

Spinks, P. Q. and H. B. Shaffer. 2005. Range-wide molecular analysis of the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata): cryptic variation, isolation by distance, and their conservation implications. Molecular Ecology 14:2047-2064.

Spinks, P. Q. and H. B. Shaffer. 2009. Conflicting mitochondrial and nuclear phylogenies for the widely disjunct Emys (Testudines: Emydidae) species complex, and what they tell us about biogeography and hybridization. Systematic Biology 58:1-20.

Standing, K. L., T. B. Herman, M. Shallow, T. Power, and I. P. Morrison. 2000. Results of the nest protection program for Blanding's Turtle in Kejimkujik National Park, Canada: 1987-1997. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:637-642.


78

Standing, K. L., T. B. Herman, and I. P. Morrison. 1999. Nesting ecology of Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Nova Scotia, the northeastern limit of the species' range. Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 77:1609-1614.

Steen, D. A., M. J. Aresco, S. G. Beilke, B. W. Compton, E. P. Condon, K. C. Dodd, H. Forrester, J. W. Gibbons, J. L. Greene, G. Johnson, T. A. Langen, M. J. Oldham, D. N. Oxier, R. A. Saumure, F. W. Schueler, J. M. Sleeman, L. L. Smith, J. K. Tucker, and J. P. Gibbs. 2006. Relative vulnerability of female turtles to road mortality. Animal Conservation 9:269-273.

Steen, D.A., and J.P. Gibbs. 2004. Effects of roads on the structure of freshwater turtle populations. Cons. Bio. 18: 1143-1148.

Steen, D. A., J. P. Gibbs, K. A. Buhlmann, J. L. Carr, B. W. Compton, J. D. Congdon, J. S. Doody, J. C. Godwin, K. L. Holcomb, D. R. Jackson, F. J. Janzen, G. Johnson, M. T. Jones, J. T. Lamer, T. A. Langen, M. V. Plummer, J. W. Rowe, R. A. Saumure, J. K. Tucker, and D. S. Wilson. 2012. Terrestrial habitat requirements of nesting freshwater turtles. Biological Conservation 150:121-128.

Tanck, J. D., and R. P. Thiel. 1998. Blanding's turtle population studies; Sandhill Wildlife Area, Wood County, Wisconsin. Proceedings of the Blanding's Turtle Workshop, Minneapolis, MN,

The Blanding's Turtle Recovery Team. 2002. National recovery plan for the Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) Nova Scotia population.

Thiel, R. P. and T. T. Wilder. 2010. Over-wintering characteristics of west-central Wisconsin Blanding's Turtles, Emydoidea blandingii. Canadian Field-Naturalist 124:134-138.

Thompson, D. and R. A. Reklau. 2005a. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2002 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

Thompson, D. and R. A. Reklau. 2005b. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2003 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

Thompson, D. and R. A. Reklau. 2005c. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2004 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

Thompson, D. and R. A. Reklau. 2005d. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2005 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

Thompson, D. and R. A. Reklau. 2007. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2006 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

Thompson, D., R. A. Reklau, R. Augustine, and A. Dosch. 2008. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2007 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.


Thompson, D., R. A. Reklau, R. Augustine, C. Pawlicki, and A. Dosch. 2010. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2009 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.


Thompson, D., R. A. Reklau, R. Augustine, J. Nevis, and A. Dosch. 2011. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) 2010 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.


79

Thompson, D., R. A. Reklau, R. Augustine, J. Nevis, E. woolridge, s. Wahlgren, A. Dosch, C. Troon, J. Stuis, G. Granat, P. Otto, and L. Kulinski. 2012. Blanding's Turtle 2010 Program Summary. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County.

Traill, L. W., B. W. Brook, R. R. Frankham, and C. J. A. Bradshaw. 2010. Pragmatic population viability targets in a rapidly changing world. Biological Conservation 143:28-34.

Tuberville, T. D., E. E. Clark, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. W. Gibbons. 2005. Translocation as a conservation tool: site fidelity and movement of repatriated gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus). Animal Conservation 8:349-358.

Tuberville, T. D., T. M. Norton, B. D. Todd, and J. S. Spratt. 2008. Long-term apparent survival of translocated gopher tortoises: A comparison of newly released and previously established animals. Biological Conservation 141:2690-2697.

Urban, M. A. 2005. An uninhabited waste: transforming the Grand Prairie in nineteenth century Illinois, USA. Journal of Historical Geography 31:647-665.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Gopher tortoise recovery plan. Jackson, MS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Plymouth redbelly turtle (Pseudernys rubriventris) recovery

plan, second revision. Hadley, MA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; definition

of 'harm'. Federal Register 64:60727-60731. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), northern population,

recovery plan. Hadley, MA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the

desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Sacramento, CA. U.S.G.S. Massachuesetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Group and the Northeast

Blanding's Turtle Working Group. 2012. Coordinated regional monitoring strategy for Blanding's Turtle in the Northeastern United States: project overview and implementation protocols. Available from Michael T. Jones, [email protected], and Lisabeth Willey, [email protected].

USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 2003. Conservation assessment for Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii).

Van Leuven, S., H. L. Allen, K. Slavens, and D. Anderson. 2006. Western pond turtle head-starting and reintroduction. Project ID 200102700. Available: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/budget/2010/presentations/200102700.pdf.

Vander Haegen, W. M., S. L. Clark, K. M. Perillo, D. P. Anderson, and H. L. Allen. 2009. Survival and causes of mortality of head-started Western Pond Turtles on Pierce National Wildlife Refuge, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1402-1406.

Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department. 2009. Vermont eastern spiny softshell turtle recovery plan. Waterbury, VT.

Vernon, K. 2003. Scraps from a journal out west in 1838 by William Blanding, M.D. Bulletin of the Chicago Herpetological Society 38:30-31.

Walston, L. J. J. and K. E. LaGory. 2010. Options to reduce road mortality of Blanding's turtle at New Boston Air Force Station, New Hampshire. Report to 23 SOPS/CEN, U.S. Department of the Air Force, New Boston Air Force Station, New Hampshire. Available: http://www.osti.gov/bridge.

mailto:[email protected]


80

Warnecke, L., J. M. Turner, T. K. Bollinger, J. M. Lorch, V. Misra, P. M. Cryan, G. Wibbelt, D. S. Blehert, and C. K. R. Willis. 2012. Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces destructans supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose syndrome. PNAS 109:6999-7003.

Windmiller, B. and J. Berkholz. 2010. Nest protection and headstarting as tools to aid in recovery of a declining Blanding's Turtle population. Abstract, Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists.

Wirsing, A.J., J.R. Phillips, M.E. Obbard, and D.L. Murray. 2012. Incidental nest predation in freshwater turtles: inter- and intraspecific differences in vulnerability are explained by relative crypsis. Oecologia 168:977-988.

Woltz, H. W., J. P. Gibbs, and P. K. Ducey. 2008. Road crossing structures for amphibians and reptiles: Informing design through behavioral analysis. Biological Conservation 141:2745-2750.

Zhao, Z., Y. Teng, H. Liu, X. Lin, K. Wang, Y. Jiang, and H. Chen. 2007. Characterization of a late gene encoding for MCP in softshelled turtle iridovirus (STIV). Virus Research 129:135–144.


81

Appendix 1. Museum collections queried for Illinois Blanding’s Turtle specimens. A. Museums queried via HerpNet (http://www.herpnet.org/) Arizona State University, Global Institute for Sustainability - Arizona State University Amphibian and Reptile Collection Borror Laboratory of Bioacoustics (BLB) University of Louisiana at Monroe Arctos - MVZ Milton Hildebrand Collection Georgia Museum of Natural History (GMNH) - Herpetology Collection http://mlbean.byu.edu:80/digir///DiGIR.php?resource=Herpetology CollectionDwC2 American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) - Herps University of Alberta - University of Alberta Museums, Amphibian and Reptile Collection Utah Museum of Natural History (UMNH) - Herp Collection James R. Slater Museum (PSM) - Terrestrial vertebrates Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Department of Natural Sciences - Bishop Museum Natural Sciences Data Arctos - Amphibians and reptiles at the University of Alaska Museum of the North. San Diego Natural History Museum - Herp specimens University Museum of Zoology Cambridge (UMZC) - Zoological specimens Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History (LACM) - Vertebrate specimens University of Alabama, Alabama Museum of Natural History - Herp Specimens Senckenberg DiGIR Provider - herpnet Redpath Museum, McGill University - Herpetological specimens University of Texas at El Paso - Herps Specimens University of Nebraska State Museum - UNSM Vertebrate Specimens Zoological Institute RAS - Amphibian specimens Yale University Peabody Museum - Peabody Herpetology DiGIR Service University of Arizona Museum of Natural History - Herpetology Collection Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) - Herps Specimens Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research (RBMR) - Herp Collection Auburn University Museum - Herpetology Collection Academy of Natural Sciences - Herpetology Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico - IBiologia - CNAR/Coleccion Nacional de Anfibios y Reptiles Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History - Tissues Specimens National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution - NMNH Vertebrate Zoology Herpetology Collections Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates (CUMV) - Amphibians and Reptiles Collection Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History - Santa Barbara Musem of Natural History University of Colorado Museum of Natural History - CUMNH Herpetology Collection Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History - Herps Specimens Royal Ontario Museum - Herp specimens California Academy of Sciences (CAS) - CAS Herpetology Collection Catalog Museum of Natural Science (LSUMZ) - Herp specimens Museum of Southwestern Biology (MSB) at The University of New Mexico - Division of Amphibians and Reptiles database Staatliches Museum fÃ¼r Naturkunde Stuttgart - Staatliches Museum fÃ¼r Naturkunde Stuttgart University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute - Herpetology Collection Field Museum - FMNH Herpetology Collections Arctos - MVZ Herp Catalog Milwaukee Public Museum - Milwaukee Public Museum Michigan State University Museum (MSUM) - Vertebrate specimens Carnegie Museum of Natural History - Amphibians and Reptiles


82

OZCAM Provider - Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums Royal Museum For Central Africa (Tervuren - Belgium) - Royal Museum for Central Africa - Herpetology Florida Mus Nat Hist (UF) - Herpetology specimens Texas Cooperative Wildlife Collection (TCWC) - TCWC Herpetology Collection MCZ-Harvard University Provider - MCZ Herpetology Collection B. Museums queried directly American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA Austin Peay State University, Museum, Clarkesville, TN University of Arkansas, Museum, Fayetteville Monte L. Bean Museum, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT Chicago Academy of Sciences, Chicago, IL Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Vertebrate Zoology, Cleveland, OH Clemson University, Department of Biological Sciences, Vertebrate Collections, Clemson, SC Field Museum of Natural History, Zoology Department, Chicago, IL Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign-Urbana, IL Illinois State Museum, Springfield, IL James Ford Bell Museum of Natural History, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Sternberg Museum of Natural History , Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS Museum of Natural History and Science, Cincinnati Museum Center at Union Terminal, Cincinnati, OH North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL Ohio State University, Museum of Biological Diversity, Museum of Zoology, Columbus, OH Ohio University, Vertebrate Collection, Athens, OH Texas Natural History Collections, Texas Natural Science Center, Texas Memorial Museum, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX University of Alabama Herpetological Collection, Tuscaloosa, AL University of Florida, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, FL University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, MI University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln, NE Amphibian and Reptile Diversity Research Center, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX Richter Museum of Natural History, University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, WI University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Museum of Natural History, Stevens Point, WI University of Wisconsin Zoological Museum, Madison, WI State Museum of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA


83

Appendix 2. Museum specimens of Blanding’s Turtles from Illinois (Institutional abbreviations: AMNH – American Museum of Natural History, CAS – Chicago Academy of Sciences Peggy Notebaert Museum, Clemson – Clemson University, FMNH – Field Museum of Natural History, ISM – Illinois State Museum, INHS – Illinois Natural History Survey, LACM – Los Angeles County Museum, LSU – Louisiana State University, MCZ – Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, MSUM – Michigan State University Museum, NIU – Northern Illinois University, SDNHM – San Diego Natural History Museum, USNM – US National Museum, YPM – Yale Peabody Museum).

Catalog# Institution Locality County Year Remarks INHS 3218 INHS 2 mi S Thomson Carroll 1948 plastron only INHS 3419 INHS 2 mi S Thomson, Carroll-

Whiteside county line Carroll 1948

INHS 3420 INHS 2 mi S Thomson, Carroll-Whiteside county line

Carroll 1948

INHS 3599 INHS 2 mi S Thomson Carroll 1948 INHS 4277 INHS 2 mi S Thomson Carroll 1949 Originally listed as Whiteside

Co. Changed to Carroll Co. 17 March 1998.

INHS 4278 INHS 2 mi S Thomson Carroll 1949 Originally listed as Whiteside Co. Changed to Carroll Co. 17 March 1998.



INHS 10937 INHS 1 mi S Beardstown Cass 1951 shell parts only INHS 6785 INHS 1 mi S Beardstown Cass 1952

INHS 10930 INHS 1 mi S Beardstown Cass 1954 skull only INHS 7670 INHS 1 mi S Beardstown Cass 1954 INHS 7671 INHS 1 mi S Beardstown Cass 1954

INHS 15452 INHS Honey Point, E Meredosia Lake near Arenzville

Cass 1973 female

INHS 6999 INHS Urbana Champaign 1953 may be "transport" 9934 USNM Chicago Cook 1878 9935 USNM Chicago Cook 1878

21180 USNM Chicago, Calumet Lake Cook 1893 3247 FMNH Cook 1922 Cook Co added to locallity

after original cataloging. Juv. 15696 FMNH Cook 1931 19191 FMNH Cook 1933 Exchanged to University of

Illinois, Feb 1969. Cook Co added to locality after original cataloging

5074 CAS Homewood Cook 1938 date- prior to Jul 1938 31017 FMNH Cook 1939 34355 FMNH Cook 1939 Cook Co added to locality

after original cataloging. 166551 FMNH Cook 1946


84

Catalog# Institution Locality County Year Remarks 15231 CAS 4 mi NE of Dundee Cook 1948

15232 CAS 4 mi NE of Dundee Cook 1948 15233 CAS 4 mi NE of Dundee Cook 1948 INHS 8486 INHS 1 mi S Willow Springs Cook 1951 skeleton only

47152 SDNHM Brookfield, near river Cook 1962 552 Clemson Cook 1982

INHS 17759 INHS NE edge of Powderhorn Lake Cook 2001 Found dead, RR right-of-way at shoreline

R-42202 MCZ Chicago: Illinois Cook HERR.010558 YPM Cook

37929 FMNH Cumberland 1940 Exchanged to University of Illinois, Feb 1969

37930 FMNH Cumberland 1940 INHS 2170 INHS Toledo Cumberland 1947 juveniles INHS 9473 INHS 6 mi N Dekalb DeKalb 1960 5 mi. N. Dekalb, Wilkinson

Marsh, along bank 1622 NIU K-Mart Shopping Area,

crossing road DeKalb 1993

22576 FMNH Du Page 1932 Muddy backwaters of Du Page River

203760 FMNH Du Page 1963 HE.14321 MSUM unspecified Du Page 1989

INHS 14286 INHS Goose Lake Prairie State Park along W edge of nature preserve boundary

Grundy 1998

INHS 6654 INHS Oquawka Henderson 1952 UIMNH

50661 INHS 2 mi E Colona Henry 1953

INHS 15641 INHS Iroquois County Conservation Area

Iroquois 1979 Hatched August 1979. Died 18 January 1980













INHS 17493 INHS Hooper Branch Savanna Nature Preserve, SSW of Leesville

Iroquois 2001 Carapace and plastron.

78579 LSU 3/4 mi S Carbondale (one of 5 collected in same creek- there are probably releases)

Jackson 1955

107595 CM SAVANNAH ARMY DEPOT Jo Daviess 1971


85

Catalog# Institution Locality County Year Remarks INHS 15453 INHS Savanna Army Depot Jo Daviess 1971 Male

13450 CAS Dundee Game Farm Kane 1946 45819 FMNH Kane 1946

INHS 20140 INHS Salamander Springs, Carpentersville

Kane 2006 Seasonally wet slope less than 100 m from degraded wetland; shell and pelvis

15670 FMNH Kankakee 1931 Kankakee Co added to locality after original cataloging

15673 FMNH Kankakee 1931 INHS 7667 INHS S Kankakee Kankakee 1954

2245 FMNH Lake 1907 On shore near lagoon, 7 eggs, not hard shelled

2435 FMNH Lake 1907 Lake Co added to locality after original data capture

5953 FMNH Lake 1907 Lake Co added to locality after original data capture

UIMNH 46 INHS Lake 1929 15910 FMNH Lake 1931

1356 CAS Beach Lake 1932 2504 CAS Beach Lake 1934 date-1934

1830 CAS Beach Lake 1935 1831 CAS Pistakee Lake Lake 1935 1876 CAS Beach Lake 1935 1981 CAS Beach Lake 1935 1985 CAS Beach Lake 1935 2130 CAS Waukegan, Dead River Lake 1937 date of collection "1937"

4952 CAS Waukegan Flats Lake 1938 5480 CAS Waukegan Flats Lake 1938 44999 FMNH Lake 1946

INHS 7666 INHS Volo Lake 1954 276103 FMNH Beach Street Park Lake 1964 Leg. Parmalee 107594 CM ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK,

ZION Lake 1971

107596 CM ILLINOIS BEACH STATE PARK, ZION

Lake 1972 Preserved skin

INHS 18580 INHS Zion, Hosah Prairie Lake 2000 Female found dead as shell INHS 18581 INHS Marina access rd. NE Spring

Bluff Nature Preserve North Point Marina, Winthrop Harbor

Lake 2002 Female

INHS 21591 INHS Spring Bluff Nature Preserve Lake 2005 shell, found on land 5m from wetland

INHS 20473 INHS Illinois Beach Nature Preserve, Illinois Beach State Park; 10 m N of Johns Manville boundary fence

Lake 2006 Dry sand prairie near drainage swale; shell and other bones

1358 CAS Beach Lake 1359 CAS Beach Lake 1847 CAS Volo Lake


86

Catalog# Institution Locality County Year Remarks SH.2133 MSUM Illinois Beach State Park Lake

1034 NIU 3 mi. N. Sheridan, farm marsh LaSalle 1962 UIMNH 2289 INHS Havana Mason 1931

37997 FMNH Mason 1941 288146 USNM Chautauqua Waterfowl

Refuge, south levee Mason 1941

INHS 6655 INHS 2 mi N Havana Mason 1952 plastron & head INHS 7384 INHS 2 mi S Topeka Mason 1954

INHS 21092 INHS Matansas Prairie Mason 1987 Few bones and some scutes UIMNH 2288 INHS Havana, Illinois River at Mason

UIMNH 33100

INHS Havana Mason

1578 CAS Woodstock McHenry 1931 13686 CAS 2 mi NW of McHenry McHenry 1946 13687 CAS 2 mi NW of McHenry McHenry 1946 INHS 3217 INHS 2.5 mi S Marengo McHenry 1948 plastron only

3427 FMNH Morgan 1922 Morgan Co added to locality after original data capture.

121009 AMNH Illinois River at Meredosia Morgan 1933 Alvin R. Cain R-1504 MCZ Peoria,Ala Peoria

INHS 3912 INHS 1.5 mi SE Oakwood, Pollywogs Park

Vermilion 1948

INHS 5012 INHS 1.5 mi SE Oakwood, Pollywogs Park

Vermilion 1950

UIMNH 50662

INHS 2 mi N Fulton Whiteside 1953

INHS 18021 INHS E of Rock Creek, S of Pilgrim Rd. (Co. Rd. 2200N) and W of Yorktown Rd. (Co. Rd. 2000E), NE of White Pigeon

Whiteside 2002 Shell

28499 FMNH Will 1937 15286 CAS Romeo Will 1949

INHS 18544 INHS RR tracks N side of Division St. at Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve, ca. 150 ft. N of first concrete box culvert underneath RR tracks

Will 2002 adult female found dead between rails on RR tracks

INHS 18545 INHS RR tracks N side of Division St. at Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve, ca. 150 ft. S of first concrete box culvert underneath RR tracks

Will 2002 adult male found dead between rails of RR tracks

INHS 18546 INHS RR tracks N side of Division St. at Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve, near first concrete box culvert underneath RR tracks

Will 2002

INHS 19137 INHS Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve, W rail of RR tracks ca. 100 ft. N of first concrete box culvert on N side Division

Will 2003 shell remains of adult female


87

Catalog# Institution Locality County Year Remarks St.

269487 FMNH Will 2006 Incomplete carapace only. INHS 20196 INHS IL Rt. 53 near int. with

Division St.; W edge of Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve

Will 2006 Adult hit by vehicle - barely alive; euthanized

INHS 21128 INHS Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve- East pond

Will 2007 Headstarted hatchling radio telemetry subject found depredated.

INHS 21134 INHS Keepataw Prairie Forest Preserve

Will 2007 Hatchlings(4) from caged nest; killed by ants that invaded nest

INHS 21590 INHS Romeoville Prairie, S. Meadow

Will 2007 shell

INHS 21195 INHS Lockport Prairie Nature Preserve

Will 2008 headstarted hatchling; possibly died due to handling or housing stress.


Will 2008 female, subject; drowned after tracking device became entangled in vegetation.

INHS 21197 INHS East side of Route 53, approx. 100m north of Material services entrance, South of Romeoville.

Will 2008 gravid female DOR

INHS 21198 INHS Romeoville Prairie Nature Preserve

Will 2008 2 hatchlings from a protected nest that flooded


Will 2008 2 hatchlings from incubated clutch


Will 2008 hatchling from incubated clutch



INHS 21202 INHS Keepataw Prairie Nature Preserve






INHS 21483 INHS Keepataw/BP Forest Preserve Will 2008 Hatched from incubated clutch, euthanized due to deformities




88

Catalog# Institution Locality County Year Remarks INHS 21486 INHS Keepataw/BP Forest Preserve Will 2008 Hatched from incubated

clutch, euthanized due to deformities

INHS 21699 INHS Keepataw Prairie Nature Preserve

Will 2009 Headstart; cause of death unk, found emaciated

INHS 21701 INHS Keepataw Forest Preserve Will 2009 Depredated headstart


Will 2009 Depredated headstart














Will 2009 2 died egg bound


Will 2009 2 died egg bound and didn't absorb yolk

INHS 21713 INHS Channahon Park District Will 2009 DOR - found on south side of Bluff Rd

INHS 21648 INHS Romeoville Prairie NP Will 2010 Head started turtle, died in captivity

INHS 7142 INHS 1 mi E Perryville Winnebago 1953 INHS 7167 INHS 3 mi W Rockton Winnebago 1953 INHS 7168 INHS Winnebago

SH.2254 MSUM Dune State Park 1965 620708 ISM central Illinios 172525 LACM Holbrook, Central Illinois Shell only

R-42347 MCZ Kankee River, Illinois No further locality data 7551 USNM Northern Illinois Locality In multiple counties

220869 USNM No further locality data


89

Appendix 3. Illinois Blanding’s Turtle ArcGIS Maps

Patty Ruback & Richard King Department of Biological Sciences

Northern Illinois University DeKalb, IL 60115

As a potential tool for assessing management potential and identifying management strategies for Illinois Blanding’s Turtle populations, GIS-based maps of sites corresponding to Blanding’s Turtle occurrences were generated as described in the draft recovery plan. Description of GIS Data Layers:

Element Occurrence Record (point, line, and polygon): These data represent disjunction locations of a single population (EOR) of Blanding’s Turtle. This data was obtained from the Illinois Natural Heritage Database (Illinois Department of Natural Resouces 2012).

Core Habitat: Core Blanding’s Turtle wetland habitat (= Core Wetland Habitat) was defined as those wetlands, excluding lakes and rivers, that intersected merged polygons or were within 1 km of points comprising a given EOR (Illinois National Wetland Inventory 2010).

Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern: For each Core Wetland Habitat, a Priority Zone, Conservation Zone, and Area of Concern by adding 200 m, 1000 m, and 2000 m buffers around the Core Wetland Habitat.

Conservation Areas: These represent a combination of several separate layers. The Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) sites and the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (INPC) land protection programs were obtained from the Illinois Natural Heritage Database. Illinois State Parks were acquired from ESRI Data and Maps 10. Cook County Forest Preserve was obtained via their county GIS website. DuPage County Forest Preserve was obtained via Dan Thompson, Ecologist with the DuPage County Office of Natural Resources. Note: Forest preserve and conservation district boundaries for other counties are not included.

Roads: The Illinois Department of Transportation Average Annual Daily Traffic 2010 layer. This coverage contains a highway Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) subset of the information included in the IDOT Illinois Highway Information System (IHIS) -- Illinois Roadway Information System (IRIS). Information is collected for all public highways as defined in Illinois

Railroads: ESRI Data and Maps 10 County boundaries: Obtained through the Geo Community website (www.geocomm.com).

Originator of the layer was the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Illinois National Wetland Inventory: GLARO GIS: NWI Update Data

Source: Ducks Unlimited 2010. Updating the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for Illinois. Report submitted to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources State Wildlife Grant Program (Project Number: T-52-D-1).

http://www.geocomm.com/


90

Illinois GAP Analysis Land Cover Classification: Obtained from the Illinois Department of Agriculture Source: Illinois Natural History Survey's 1999-2000 1:100 000 Scale Illinois Gap Analysis Land Cover Classification, Raster Digital Data, Version 2.0, September 2003.

Sample Maps

Included here is a sample map for a hypothetical Rank 1 (shades of green) and Rank 2 (shades of yellow) Blanding’s Turtle site. Numbers adjacent to roads represent estimated traffic volumes (vehicles per day).


91

illinois conservation assessment for the …...illinois blanding’s turtle conservation assessment...

Documents