15 



thoroughly sampled were conducted properly to derive population estimates; 



2) the morphological analysis of LGL was reasonable and appropriate; 



3) there had not been enough evidence presented to invalidate the trinomen 

 K. f. spooneri ; 4) it is possible to assume that more turtles may be 

 TndTcated as present at a site on the basis of a few observed specimens; 

 and 5) it is impossible to document a declining population although 

 habitat alteration is a problem. The panel emphasized that the number of 

 good habitats and their quality was declining. Three additional important 

 recommendations were made: 



"1) In view of the present rates of habitat destruction and the 

 population status of the Illinois Mud Turtle, there is a need 

 for protection of this subspecies, especially the populations 

 in Illinois. 



2) Careful consideration of the most appropriate and effective 

 strategies for protecting the Illinois Mud Turtle should be 

 made at the local, state and/or federal levels. There exist 

 several private and local efforts on behalf of this subspecies 

 to serve as models. 



3) There is a need for additional research to clarify the 

 remaining questions concerning the taxonomic and population 

 status of the Illinois Mud Turtle." 



On June 11, 1980, a memorandum written by Trauger but signed by 

 Richard N. Smith, Associate Director - Research, FWS, concluded: 



"Based on the report of the Review Panel, insufficient 

 information is available on the Illinois Mud Turtle to justify 

 listing it as a threatened or endangered species by the U.S. 

 Fish and Wildlife Service at this time. There is a need to 

 conduct further research to clarify the complex taxonomic 

 relationship and to estimate the total population of this 

 subspecies. The Illinois Mud Turtle is considerably more 

 abundant and widely distributed than previously thought. 

 Local and private efforts should be encouraged to promote 

 its conservation and to protect its habitat. The Panel 

 favored this strategy as the one most likely to succeed." 



This recommendation caused Director fireenwalt to withdraw the final 

 rule which had been waiting in FWS' Solicitors office pending a decision. 

 A notice withdrawing K. f. spooneri from consideration as a candidate for 

 endangered status was published August 14, 1980, (Opler, 1980), 38 days 

 after the proposal would have been withdrawn because of failure to comply 

 with the Amendments of 1978. Biologists at OES refused to approve the 

 withdrawal notice; indeed, a complete point by point refutation of Smith's 

 June 11 memorandum was sent to the Director on June 19, 1980, but was 

 ignored. 



