[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13027-13041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5037]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AI41
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassification
of the American Crocodile Distinct Population Segment in Florida From
Endangered to Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
reclassifying the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) distinct
vertebrate population segment (DPS) in Florida from endangered to
threatened, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act). The endangered designation no longer correctly
reflects the current status of this DPS due to a substantial
improvement in the species' status. This action is based on a review of
all available data, which indicate, for example, that since its listing
in 1975, the American crocodile population in Florida has more than
doubled and its distribution has expanded. Land acquisition has also
provided protection for many important nesting areas. We have
determined that the American crocodile in its range in Florida meets
the criteria of a DPS as stated in our policy of February 17, 1996.
With this rule, we are designating the American crocodile in Florida as
a DPS, and this DPS will remain protected as a threatened species under
the Act. The status of the American crocodile throughout the remainder
of its range, as described in our December 18, 1979, final rule, will
remain endangered.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, are available
for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at
the South Florida Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.
You may obtain copies of the final rule from the field office
address above, by calling 772-562-3909, or from the Service's Division
of Policy and Directives Management Web site at http://www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/default.cfm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Schulz, at the South Florida
Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES) (telephone 772-562-3909,
extension 305; facsimile 772-562-4288).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Note: Please refer to our March 24, 2005, proposed rule (70 FR
15052) for detailed information concerning the biology of the
American crocodile.
Background
The American crocodile is a large, greenish-gray reptile. It is one
of two native crocodilians (the other being the American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis)) that occur in the continental United
States, and is limited in distribution in the United States to south
Florida. At hatching, crocodiles are yellowish-tan to gray in color
with vivid dark bands on the body and tail. As they grow older, their
overall coloration becomes more pale and uniform, and the dark bands
fade. All adult crocodiles have a hump in front of the eye, and tough,
asymmetrical, armor-like scutes (scale-like plates) on their backs.
The American crocodile is distinguished from the American alligator
by a relatively narrow, more pointed snout and by an indentation in the
upper jaw that leaves the fourth tooth of the lower jaw exposed when
the mouth is closed. Another distinguishing feature is that in
alligators the two nostrils are clearly separated by a bony septum
covered in skin while in crocodiles the nostrils lie touching, close
together in a single depression (P. Ross, 2005). In Florida, the
crocodile ranges in size from 26.0 centimeters (cm) (10.3 inches (in))
at hatching, to an upper length of 3.8 meters (m) (12.5 feet (ft))
(Moler 1991a, pp. 6-7). The largest specimens in Florida historically
were reported to be up to 4.6 m (15.1 ft) in length (Service 1979, p.
3), and individuals as large as 6 to 7 m (19.7 to 23.0 ft) have been
reported outside the United States (Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 228).
The American crocodile occurs within the jurisdictional boundaries
of many different countries in the western hemisphere, including
Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Panama, Peru, United States (Florida), and Venezuela. The species
occurs in coastal regions of the Atlantic and Pacific, including the
Pacific coast of Mexico, Central America, and northern South America,
as well as the Greater Antilles (with the exception of Puerto Rico)
[[Page 13028]]
(Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 228; P. Ross, 2005). It reaches the northern
extent of its range in south Florida (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 5;
Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 229).
The first documented occurrence of a crocodile in the United States
was in Florida from a collection in the Miami River off Biscayne Bay in
1869, although crocodiles were earlier suspected to occur there
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 1). Within the United States, the
historic core geographic range of crocodiles included Miami-Dade,
Broward, and Monroe Counties, but reports indicated that they occupied
areas as far north as Indian River County on the east coast of Florida
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, pp. 1-2). Crocodiles were probably never
common on the west coast of Florida, but credible reports suggest that
they occurred at least periodically as far north as Sanibel Island and
Sarasota County (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 2).
The primary historic nesting area in Florida was on the mainland
shore of Florida and Biscayne Bays, including many of the small islands
near shore, in what is today Everglades National Park (ENP) (Kushlan
and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 2). Nesting was also historically well
documented in the upper Keys from Key Largo south to Lower Matecumbe
Key (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 2). Crocodiles have probably nested
regularly on northern Key Largo since the 1920s, when the borrow pits
(excavated areas where material has been dug for use as fill at another
location) and canals were created in early and unsuccessful attempts to
develop north Key Largo during the ``boom'' years preceding the 1929
depression (Ogden 1978, p. 185).
Today, the crocodile population in Florida has grown to an
estimated 1,400 to 2,000 individuals, not including hatchlings (P.
Moler, 2005a; F. Mazzotti, 2005). This estimate, developed by two
established American crocodile experts, is based on a demographic
characteristic, derived from both Nile crocodiles and American
alligators, where breeding females make up 4 to 5 percent of the non-
hatchling population and where approximately 75 percent of
reproductively mature females breed and nest each year. This estimate
exhibits a large confidence interval, because the researchers used a
range of 70 to 80 crocodile nests in Florida in their calculations (P.
Moler, 2005a; F. Mazzotti, 2005). We believe this is a reasonable but
conservative estimate, because as described below, nesting has
increased to between 91 and 94 documented nests in 2005.
The nesting range has also expanded on both the east and west
coasts of the State, and crocodiles are frequently seen throughout most
of their historical range. Nesting has extended back into Biscayne Bay
on Florida's east coast, and now commonly occurs at the Turkey Point
Power Plant (TPPP) (Gaby et al. 1985, p. 197; Brandt et al. 1995, p.
29). Although crocodiles have been nesting on Marco Island since 1997,
none of the nests have produced a viable clutch (S. Bertone, 2005).
Based on peer review comments and because the relatedness and origin of
these animals are unknown, we did not include the nesting attempts of
these animals in estimating population size above (see ``Peer Review
Comments'' below for further detail). Nesting has been increasing for
several years (Brandt et al. 1995, p. 31; Mazzotti et al. 2000, p. 5;
2002, p. 14; Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001, pp. 4-5), and during 2005, 91
to 94 crocodile nests were documented in south Florida (S. Klett, 2005;
M. Cherkiss, 2005a; J. Wasilewski, 2005a). Surveyors detect
approximately 80 to 90 percent of nests (F. Mazzotti, 2005; J.
Wasilewski, 2006) and are generally unable to distinguish those nests
that contain more than one clutch of eggs from different females
without excavating the nests. In some instances, surveyors are able to
determine that more than one female has laid eggs at a communal nest by
visiting the nest over a series of days and observing hatching of
separate nests (J. Wasilewski, 2005b). In instances where communal
nests are not distinguishable, we believe this lends to a possible
underestimation of nests or females, because on occasion two females
lay eggs in the same nest.
The breeding range of the American crocodile is still restricted
relative to its reported historic range (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p.
5), with most breeding occurring on the mainland shore of Florida Bay
between Cape Sable and Key Largo (Mazzotti et al. 2002, pp. 9-14). In
the recent past, it was thought that crocodiles no longer regularly
occur in the Keys south of Key Largo (Jacobsen 1983, p. 13; P. Moler,
2002). However, confirmed sightings are occurring with increasing
frequency in many of the lower Keys, and we believe that these
observations may indicate that crocodiles are expanding their range
back into the Keys. From 2003 to 2005, one individual has successfully
nested on Lower Matecumbe (M. Cherkiss, 2005a). A crocodile was also
observed as far south as Fort Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas in May 2002
(O. Bass, 2002); however, nesting has not been recorded at this
location. In addition, a crocodile was documented as far north as
Indian River County in October 2004.
Females do not become reproductively active until they reach a
total length of approximately 2.3 m (7.4 ft) (Mazzotti 1983, p. 30,
33), which generally corresponds to an age of 10 to 13 years (LeBuff
1957, p. 27; Moler 1991a, p. 7). Females construct earthen nests
(mounds or holes) on elevated, well-drained sites near the water, such
as ditch-banks and beaches. Nests have been reported in sand, marl, and
organic peat soils, and the nests constructed in these different soils
may be susceptible to different environmental conditions and different
threats (Lutz and Dunbar-Cooper 1984, p. 153; Moler 1991b, p. 1, 3).
Female crocodiles nest only one time per year and may not nest every
year after they reach sexual maturity. Studies conducted in Florida
found that they lay an average of 38 eggs (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b,
p. 14), which hatch after an incubation period of approximately 90 days
(Mazzotti 1989, p. 221). Flooding, over-drying, and raccoon predation
all pose threats to nests and developing eggs (Mazzotti et al. 1988,
pp. 68-69; Mazzotti 1999, pp. 557-558), and suitable nest sites that
are protected from these threats may be limited. For the Florida
population, the reported percentage of nests from which eggs
successfully hatch in any 1 year ranges from 33 to 78 percent (Ogden
1978, p. 190; Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, p. 15; Moler 1991b, p. 4;
Mazzotti et al. 2000, p. 4; Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001, p. 4).
Typically, a nest was considered successful if at least one hatched
eggshell or hatchling crocodile was documented. However, Moler (1991b,
p. 2) classified a nest as successful if ``it appeared to have been
opened by an adult crocodile. In all but one case, hatchling crocodiles
were tagged near each successful nest.''
Unlike alligators, female crocodiles do not defend nest sites
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, p. 14). However, females remain near their
nest sites and usually excavate young from the nest after hatching
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, p. 15). Kushlan (1988, p. 784) reported
that females may be very sensitive to disturbance at the nest site;
most females that were disturbed near their nests did not return to
excavate their young after hatching. In Florida, female crocodiles show
little parental care at hatching, and the young generally become
independent shortly after hatching, although the duration or extent of
maternal care can vary throughout the species' range (J.
Thorbjarnarson, 2005). Shortly after hatching, the hatchlings disperse
from nest sites to nursery habitats that are
[[Page 13029]]
generally more sheltered, have lower salinity (1 to 20 parts per
thousand (ppt)), shallower water (generally), and more vegetation
cover. Hatchlings remain in these nursery habitats until they grow
larger. Growth during the first year can be rapid, and crocodiles may
double or triple in size (Moler 1991a, p. 6). Growth rates in hatchling
crocodiles depend primarily on the availability of fresh water and food
in the nursery habitat they occupy and may also be influenced by
temperature (Mazzotti et al. 1986, pp. 195-196).
Land acquisition efforts by many agencies have provided protection
for crocodiles and their habitat in south Florida. Approximately 95
percent of current nesting habitat for crocodiles in Florida is
protected (F. Mazzotti, 2006). Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
(CLNWR) was acquired in 1980 to provide over 2,205 ha (5,000 acres) of
crocodile nesting and nursery habitat. In 1980, ENP established a
crocodile sanctuary in northeastern Florida Bay. A total of 46 public
properties (including CLNWR and ENP), owned and managed by Federal,
State, or county governments, as well as three privately-owned
properties (including TPPP), are managed at least partially or wholly
for conservation purposes and contain potential crocodile habitat
within the coastal mangrove communities in south Florida. For example,
in the early 1980s, ENP plugged canals, which allowed crocodiles to
begin nesting on the canal berms. In 1976, the C-107 canal was
completed and provides habitat for crocodiles at TPPP.
Previous Federal Action
We proposed listing of the United States population of the American
crocodile as endangered on April 21, 1975 (40 FR 17590). The proposed
rule stated that only an estimated 10 to 20 breeding females remained
in Florida, mostly concentrated in northern Florida Bay. The primary
threats cited included development pressures, lack of adequate
protection of crocodiles and their habitat, and the risk of extinction
inherent to a small, isolated population. Comments on the proposed rule
were received from 14 parties including representatives of the State of
Florida, and all supported listing the American crocodile as endangered
in Florida. We published a final rule on September 25, 1975, listing
the United States population of the American crocodile as endangered
(40 FR 44149).
On December 16, 1975, we published a proposal to designate critical
habitat for the American crocodile (40 FR 58308). The proposed critical
habitat included portions of Biscayne Bay south of TPPP; northeast
Florida Bay, including the Keys; and the mainland extending as far west
as Flamingo. We published a final rule designating critical habitat on
September 24, 1976 (41 FR 41914). The final rule expanded the critical
habitat to include a portion of ENP, including northern Florida Bay to
the west of the previously proposed area.
On April 6, 1977, we published a proposed rule to list as
endangered all populations of the American crocodile with the exception
of those in Florida, and all populations of the saltwater (estuarine)
crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) due to their similarity in appearance to
the American crocodile in Florida (42 FR 18287). We did not, however,
publish a final rule for this action.
On February 5, 1979, we provided notice in the Federal Register
that a status review was being conducted for the American crocodile
(outside of Florida) and the saltwater crocodile. The notice specified
that we had information to suggest that the American crocodile and the
saltwater crocodile may have experienced population declines and
extensive habitat loss during the previous decade (44 FR 7060).
On July 24, 1979, we published a proposed rule (44 FR 43442) that
recommended listing the American and saltwater crocodiles as endangered
throughout their ranges outside of Papua New Guinea, citing widespread
loss of habitat and extensive poaching for their hides. The Florida
population of the American crocodile was not included because it was
previously listed as endangered.
On December 18, 1979, we published a final rule (44 FR 75074) that
listed both the American crocodile (with the exception of the
previously listed population in Florida) and the saltwater crocodile
throughout its range (with the exception of the Papua New Guinea
population) as endangered. This action provided protection to these
crocodilians worldwide.
The first recovery plan for the American crocodile was approved
February 12, 1979 (Service 1979). For a complete discussion, see
``Recovery Accomplishments'' below. On March 24, 2005, we published a
proposed rule to reclassify the American crocodile from endangered to
threatened in Florida, and to designate crocodiles in Florida as a
distinct population segment.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the March 24, 2005, proposed rule, we requested that all
interested parties submit comments and information concerning the
proposed reclassification of the American crocodile DPS in Florida (70
FR 15052). We also initiated, and requested information for
incorporation into, a status review of the American crocodile in
Florida. We contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies,
scientific experts and organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment on the proposal. We provided notification of
the publication of the proposed rule through e-mail, facsimile,
telephone calls, letters, and news releases sent to the appropriate
Federal, State, and local agencies, county governments, elected
officials, media outlets, local jurisdictions, scientific
organizations, interest groups, and other interested parties. We also
posted the proposed rule on the Service's South Florida Ecological
Services Office Internet website following the rule's publication.
We accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days,
ending May 23, 2005. By that date, we received 11 written comments
(including 3 from peer reviewers). Of the comments received, five
supported reclassification of the American crocodile DPS in Florida
from endangered to threatened, and four opposed the reclassification.
The proponents of the reclassification included the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)--Species
Survival Commission's Crocodile Specialist Group. Two of the commenters
did not state support or opposition to the proposed downlisting. No one
expressed comments that the species was recovered or recommended that
it should be delisted, and we received no public hearing requests.
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited independent opinions from three
knowledgeable individuals who have expertise with the species and the
geographic region where the species occurs, and are familiar with
conservation biology principles. We received comments from all three of
the peer reviewers, which are included in the summary below and
incorporated into the final rule. The reviewers were affiliated with
the State of Florida, a Florida university, and a nonprofit
organization. Reviewers provided additional factual information, as
well as minor corrections and input on our interpretation of existing
information. In general, all peer reviewers supported or
[[Page 13030]]
concurred with the downlisting of the American crocodile DPS in Florida
to threatened status.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding the
proposed reclassification of the American crocodile DPS in Florida.
Substantive comments received during the comment period have been
addressed below and, where appropriate, incorporated directly into this
final rule. The comments are grouped below according to peer review or
public comments.
Peer Review/State Comments
(1) Comment: One reviewer expressed concern over current efforts to
restore the hydrology in the Florida Everglades and the potential to
increase the crocodile's exposure to contaminants. Monitoring the
population for nonlethal and endocrine disruptive effects of
contaminants was recommended.
Response: All properties being acquired for the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) are subject to a rigorous
environmental site assessment for contaminants, using a protocol
developed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and
the Service. Environmental Risk Assessments (ERAs) are also conducted
if the Service deems it necessary. If any contaminant issues are
identified, the Service works with the SFWMD to remediate the site.
Before water is put on the site, the Service must be convinced that
there are either no risks or insignificant risks to Service trust
resources, including wildlife. If a contaminant problem is suspected,
fish and wildlife are monitored at the project sites, where it would be
easier to detect a problem than monitoring crocodiles located off-site.
If a problem is found at these sites, then crocodiles may be added to
the monitoring plan.
Contaminants were evaluated from eggs in a sampling of nests in the
early 1970s through the early 1980s. Eggs were tested for
organochlorines and heavy metals, and no exceptional levels were
reported (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 18). The Service is not aware
of any studies regarding endocrine-disrupting chemicals and their
effects on crocodiles.
One contaminant that will be addressed by monitoring post-
construction (rather than prospective ERAs) is mercury. CERP projects
have the potential to increase the bioavailability of mercury. As fish-
eaters, crocodiles could potentially be exposed to some mercury,
although they are downstream from where mercury impacts would be
greatest. The SFWMD has a monitoring plan in place with performance
criteria. If the criteria were exceeded, the SFWMD would have to
correct the problem.
(2) Comment: The reviewer was concerned that specific information
was not provided on road mortality, which this reviewer characterized
as one of the sole remaining human influences of any significance on
the crocodile population. The reviewer suggested that if mortality
reaches levels of 5 to 15 percent in subadult and adult size classes,
then population growth and stability may be affected.
Response: The Service, in cooperation with the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), documents all reported
mortalities, including road mortalities. From 1999 to 2005, a total of
33 vehicle-related mortalities and 5 non-vehicle-related mortalities
were documented with no consistent increase in mortalities occurring
over the years. The largest number of reported mortalities we recorded
was 11, in 2002 (nine vehicle-related and two non-vehicle-related). We
recorded seven vehicle-related mortalities and one non-vehicle-related
mortality in 2005 (B. Muiznieks, 2005). The maximum number of recorded
deaths for any given year has never exceeded 11 mortalities.
For mortality to exceed the minimal threshold of 5 percent (P.
Ross, 2005), the lowest point where recruitment and reproductive
capacity could be compromised, more than 70 crocodile deaths would have
to occur annually based on a population of 1,400 individuals, which we
consider to be a conservative population estimate. The actual
population could be as high as 2,000. Even with undocumented
mortalities, we do not believe we are near this threshold of 70 even
though we were conservative in all of our estimates. Despite all of the
reported mortalities (not just vehicle collisions), total nesting
effort has continued to increase in recent years.
The majority of the road mortalities have occurred on U.S. 1 or
Card Sound Road between Florida City and Key Largo. Currently, the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is modifying/widening U.S.
Route 1 between Florida City and Key Largo. They will be installing 16,
6 foot by 10 foot, box culverts in various locations along the project
corridor. The box culverts will be installed in areas where vehicle-
related mortality of crocodiles has occurred. To prevent crocodiles
from entering the roadway, FDOT will install a continuous 6-foot-high
fence along the western roadway shoulder from approximately Jewfish
Creek to just south of the C-111 Canal. Along the eastern roadway
shoulder, FDOT will install two, 100 foot long by 6-foot-high, wing
fences in association with each box culvert. To further discourage
crocodiles from entering the roadway, the roadside slopes in the
vicinity of the box culverts and wildlife crossings will be as steep as
practicable. The potential for vehicle-related crocodile mortality will
also be reduced by the removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway and the
construction of a new bridge over Lake Surprise. Moreover, signs will
be posted on the new Lake Surprise and Jewfish Creek bridges alerting
drivers to possibility of crocodiles crossing the roadway (J. Wrublik,
2005).
(3) Comment: One of the reviewers cautioned that the future health
of the crocodile population in Florida Bay is dependent on the
restoration of a more natural freshwater flow to the area. The seasonal
timing of nesting is determined to a large degree by the availability
of fresh water, which improves the survivorship of young crocodiles by
reducing the salinity and increasing the availability of invertebrate
prey. Hatching of the nests coincides with the beginning of the annual
wet season, ensuring that hatchlings emerge from the nests during a
period of high fresh water availability. A reduction of freshwater flow
into the area could have negative impacts on the younger age classes of
crocodiles in Florida Bay.
Response: Proposed restoration activities in and around Taylor
Slough and the C-111 canal could increase the amount of fresh water
entering the estuarine system, and extend the duration of freshwater
flow into Florida Bay (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and SFWMD
1999, p. 4-28, K-135). Alternative D13R hydrologic plan simulation
(Corps and SFWMD 1999, p. 1-20) predicts that the addition of fresh
water could occur throughout many of the tributaries and small natural
drainages along the shore of Florida Bay, instead of primarily from the
mouth of the C-111 canal. Salinities in nesting areas, including Joe,
Little Madeira, and Terrapin Bays, are projected to be lower for longer
periods than they currently are within this area (based on alternative
D13R hydrologic plan simulation) (Corps and SFWMD 1999, pp. D-24, D-A-
81 to D-A-83, K-135). This restoration project should increase the
amount and suitability of crocodile habitat in northern Florida Bay,
and increase juvenile growth rates and survival (Mazzotti and Brandt
1995, p. 7).
While the overall volume of freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay will
likely decrease as a result of CERP,
[[Page 13031]]
substantial tracts of degraded coastal wetlands in central and southern
Biscayne Bay will realize improvements in crocodile habitat quality
because the fresh water that is currently discharged into the bay
through conveyance canals will be redirected into the natural creek
systems. The goal is to reestablish flow through a series of natural
creek systems along this part of the coastline. If successful, the
recreation of these natural creeks systems should significantly improve
crocodile habitat along this part of Biscayne Bay. Even if the volume
discharged into the wetlands is less than what is currently flowing
through the canals, this should improve habitat for crocodiles in this
area. One of the performance measures for the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands Project focuses on improvement of juvenile crocodile habitat.
(4) Comment: A proactive approach should be undertaken to develop a
sound strategy for ``Living with Crocodiles'' in south Florida. The
development of a strong public education program alerting people to the
growing presence of crocodiles is recommended. Strategies for dealing
with ``problem'' crocodiles are needed.
Response: While an informal education campaign is currently being
implemented, we will continue to work with our State partners to
develop a more formal, proactive education campaign for living with
crocodiles. The FWC, with participation from the Service and the
National Park Service, completed a human-crocodile interaction response
plan in 2005, and through its implementation will continue gathering
information on how crocodiles respond to translocation (FWC 2005, pp.
1-8). We agree that we need to conduct additional studies on habitat
use and movement patterns with particular emphasis on translocation of
individuals. We need to determine if translocating individuals meets
the desired objectives. Some nuisance animals that have been
translocated in the past have returned to their original capture
location.
(5) Comment: One of the reviewers commented that no successful
nesting has occurred on the southwest coast north of the Ten Thousand
Islands. Although several nests have been produced annually in the
Marco Island area and occasional nests have been encountered near the
Imperial River and on Sanibel Island, these nests have failed for
unknown reasons. Also, preliminary genetics analysis suggests that at
least some of these animals may not be of Florida origin.
Response: Because of the uncertainty of the origin of these
individuals and because none of these nests have ever produced a viable
clutch (S. Bertone, 2005), these crocodiles (i.e., their clutches) were
not included in any population estimate calculations. At present, the
origin of these animals is unknown. They may have originated from 1 to
2 clutches of Key Largo crocodiles that were released in the Naples
area in the early 1970s, or from another release of crocodiles from
Mexico, Jamaica, Panama, and Ecuador (Behler 1978, pp. 35-41; F.
Mazzotti, 2005).
Public Comments
The following public comments address issues that were not raised
by the peer reviewers. If an issue brought up by a peer reviewer was
also raised by the public, it is discussed above in the peer review
comment section rather than below.
(6) Comment: One commenter noted that the five factors under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act that are considered when a species is listed
must also be considered in this action to reclassify the American
crocodile DPS in Florida. The commenter also noted that four of these
five factors still affect the crocodile and therefore it must remain
endangered.
Response: We define an endangered species as one that is in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (50
CFR 424.02(e)). We believe that this designation no longer correctly
reflects the current status of this taxon in Florida due to a
substantial improvement in the species' status. The population in
Florida has increased from an estimated 10 to 20 breeding females in
1975 (40 FR 17590) to an estimated 1400-2000 total individuals (not
including hatchlings) (P. Moler, 2005a; F. Mazzotti, 2005) producing 91
to 94 nests in 2005 (S. Klett, 2005; M. Cherkiss, 2005a; J. Wasilewski,
2005a), the species distribution has expanded within its historic
range, and occupied and potential crocodile habitat are now under
public ownership. However, we believe that the status of the species
still meets the definition of threatened because the species is likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. As discussed by the commenter, the
crocodile is still affected by some threats, such as development within
coastal areas. The five factors are discussed in depth in the section
titled ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species.''
(7) Comment: One commenter stated that many of the actions in the
recovery plan for the American crocodile have yet to be conducted.
Response: Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are
instead intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other
partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on
criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There
are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may
be achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or
more criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have
been accomplished. In that instance, the Service may judge that over
all criteria, the threats have been minimized sufficiently, and the
species is robust enough, to reclassify the species from endangered to
threatened or perhaps to delist the species. In other cases, recovery
opportunities may have been recognized that were not known at the time
the recovery plan was finalized. These opportunities may be used
instead of methods identified in the recovery plan. Likewise,
information on the species may be learned that was not known at the
time the recovery plan was finalized. The new information may change
the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing recovery of the
species. Overall, recovery of species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management, and our assessment of recovery progress may, or
may not, fully adhere to the guidance provided in a recovery plan
depending on circumstances that may have changed since completion of
the plan.
In this particular instance, we have met the reclassification
criteria outlined in the South Florida Multi-Species Recovery Plan
(MSRP). Recovery actions will continue for the crocodile under the
MSRP, and some actions, such as ``control human-induced crocodile
mortality and disturbance,'' remain to be completed.
(8) Comment: One commenter stated that the potential effects of
sea-level rise should be of concern because of the vulnerability of
natural nest sites to increases in water levels.
Response: The forecasted temperature increases and the associated
sea-level rise over the next 100 years, based on climate models, have
changed over time (Westbrook 1998, pp. 1-2). In the early 1980s,
forecasters were predicting a 100-year sea-level rise of 7 to 7.9 m (23
to 26 feet) (Westbrook 1998, p. 1). By 1990, the predicted rise was
less than 0.9 m (3 feet) (Westbrook 1998, p. 1). The current
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts are for a rise of
about 0.46 m (1.5 feet), and other forecasts are even lower (Westbrook
1998, p. 1). Recent reports of what many consider to be the best
computer models
[[Page 13032]]
indicate a rise of about 3.1 degrees Fahrenheit with a sea level rise
of approximately 20 cm (8 inches) (Westbrook 1998, p. 2). Depending
upon the extent of sea-level rise, some nests on exposed shorelines and
creek banks could potentially disappear. Fortunately, crocodiles will
readily use artificial substrates for nests, providing a management
option to compensate for negative impacts to existing nesting areas if
the need arises (Mazzotti 1999, p. 558). The Service is aware of this
issue and will continue to monitor it, but at present we do not believe
it represents a significant threat to the crocodile population.
(9) Comment: Three commenters expressed concern over poaching or
illegal harvest.
Response: With this final rule, the American crocodile DPS in
Florida will remain protected as threatened under the Act. Our
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31, pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act,
prohibit the take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct)
of threatened species (without a special exemption).
Only two potential incidences of illegal poaching/taking have been
documented in recent years. One occurred in 2002 at the Sexton Cove
Estates in Key Largo. A more recent incident of an illegally killed
crocodile occurred at Manatee Bay Marina in Miami-Dade County in 2005.
This incident is still under law enforcement investigation.
(10) Comment: One commenter was concerned about depredation of
nests by fire ants and raccoons.
Response: The Service recognizes both of these issues and realizes
that they have the potential to affect nesting success, but depredation
of nests by fire ants and raccoons has not been documented on a regular
basis and could vary from year to year. For example, in 2005, 13 nests
were depredated in ENP by raccoons (M. Cherkiss, 2005c). We will
continue to monitor nesting sites and attempt to appropriately manage
for this concern.
(11) Comment: One commenter asked if a long term assessment of
pesticide and heavy metal contamination levels in crocodile eggs was
being conducted.
Response: Recovery actions will continue to be funded according to
resource availability and the priority given to the recovery action.
Long-term assessment of pesticide and heavy metal contamination is a
recommended recovery action in the MSRP; however, no long-term
assessment is currently being conducted. Contaminants were evaluated
from eggs from a sampling of nests in the early 1970s through the early
1980s. Eggs were tested for organochlorines and heavy metals; however,
no exceptional levels were reported (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p.
18).
(12) Comment: One commenter mentioned threats from introduced
nonnative wildlife, particularly the Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus),
a species known to be a predator on nests and young of the larger and
more aggressively protective Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus).
Response: No adverse impacts on the American crocodile by the Nile
monitor have been documented. Although Varanus spp. have been observed
in Miami-Dade County, there is no evidence of reproducing populations
(Enge et al. 2004, p. 572). If Nile monitors are documented in the
vicinity of crocodile nesting areas, appropriate measures will need to
be taken to eradicate them from the area.
(13) Comment: With the rapidly growing human population in south
Florida, anthropogenic threats to the crocodile will increase. Specific
threats include vehicle collisions, boat propellers, and lead poisoning
from fishing sinkers.
Response: The Service documents all reported crocodile mortalities.
From 1999 to 2005, a total of 33 vehicle-related mortalities and 5 non-
vehicle-related mortalities were documented, with no consistent
increase in mortalities occurring over the years. See response to
comment 2. Boat propellers and lead poisoning have accounted for only a
small proportion of the documented mortalities. Given the annually
increasing population size, we do not believe that the recruitment and
reproductive capacity of the population is being compromised by these
mortalities.
(14) Comment: One commenter was concerned that if the crocodile is
reclassified to threatened there will not be as much pressure for
continued and increased flows of fresh water to Florida and Biscayne
Bays.
Response: See response to comment 3 above.
(15) Comment: One commenter was concerned about the loss of nesting
habitat due to invasive species, particularly tide-dispersed species
such as beach naupaka (Scaevola taccada) and Asiatic Colubrina
(Colubrina asiatica).
Response: Although invasive plant species occur in crocodile
nesting areas, invasive plant species have not been documented to
negatively affect selection of nesting locations. Overall, land
managers are concerned about the invasion of nonnative plants, but more
for the conversion of native to nonnative habitats than for the direct
loss of crocodile nesting habitat.
Protection and enhancement of nesting habitat within each of the
three primary crocodile nesting areas has been ongoing for many years.
Land managers at the three primary nesting areas control exotic
vegetation. Containment and elimination of invasive, exotic vegetation
species is part of the ENP's Strategic Plan. CLNWR has an exotic plant
control program and has received additional funding in recent years
from the Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force. For instance, the
swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), a native of Florida but not of the
Keys, is removed from the crocodile nesting berms at CLNWR. Chemical
and mechanical removal of the swamp fern is conducted on an as-needed
basis. As another example, TPPP has designated nesting ``sanctuaries''
where habitat management includes exotic vegetation control (primarily
Australian pine and Brazilian pepper) and encouragement of the growth
of low-maintenance native vegetation.
(16) Comment: Two commenters stated that the Service's previous
recovery documents identified recovery goals of 60 breeding females and
therefore reclassifying the crocodile because 61 nests were documented
in 2003 is premature. One of these commenters also indicated that
recovery criteria should be based on the present and future
availability of suitable habitat.
Response: Crocodile nest numbers have been steadily increasing
since 2001, and in the 2005 nesting year, nest numbers totaled 91 to 94
nests (S. Klett, 2005; M. Cherkiss, 2005a; J. Wasilewski, 2005a). The
crocodile has been at or above the recovery criterion of 60 breeding
females for 3 consecutive years. Further, the population in Florida has
more than doubled, and the species distribution has expanded within its
historic range. In addition, approximately 95 percent of nesting
habitat for crocodiles in Florida is under public ownership or
otherwise protected (F. Mazzotti, 2006). The recommendation that
recovery criteria should be based on suitable habitat will be
considered in the next revision of the recovery plan for this species.
(17) Comment: Another commenter recommended that we stop all
surveys because they are harassment and constitute danger and injury
for crocodiles.
Response: For the surveys to be conducted, a section 10(a)(1)(A)
permit
[[Page 13033]]
is required under the Act. Before such a permit can be issued, all
activities must be justified in relation to enhancement of survival and
recovery, effects to the species, and qualifications of permittees. By
definition, authorized activities should benefit species' recovery with
minimal adverse effects by qualified permittees. None of the permitted
activities, like surveys, are expected to result in death or injury to
any individuals, and any injury or mortality will be incidental to
other actions. By contrast, the information gained from permitted
research is necessary for the conservation and management of the
crocodile, which is needed to aid in the survival and recovery of the
species in the wild.
(18) Comment: One commenter recommended that reclassification
should not occur until after the CERP fresh water restoration projects
are completed, and 10 percent of the documented hatchlings in 2003
survive to become subadults.
Response: We believe we have already met the reclassification
criteria for the crocodile because the population in Florida has more
than doubled, the species distribution has expanded within its historic
range, and occupied and potential crocodile habitat is protected, as
outlined in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species'' section.
Attempts were made to mark crocodiles hatched in 2003, but all
hatchlings may not have been marked because dispersal may have occurred
prior to the researchers arriving at the nest. A crocodile is
considered a subadult from 2 to 6 years of age and can start breeding
at 7 years of age. CERP projects, such as the C-111 canal (which is
anticipated to have construction completed in 2012), will be completed
after the hatchlings marked in 2003 become subadults. Therefore, we
will have information on survivorship obtained through monitoring of
any hatchling crocodiles marked in 2003 before CERP projects like the
C-111 canal are completed.
(19) Comment: One commenter noted that a population having 50
breeding females would be ranked as ``critically endangered'' under the
IUCN criteria.
Response: The comments the Service received on the proposed rule
from the Co-Regional Chairman of the North American Region IUCN SSC
Crocodile Special Group Steering Committee stated that ``it is the
opinion of the CSG [Crocodile Specialist Group] members familiar with
the species in Florida, that criteria for reclassification, as outlined
in the reclassification proposal have been met.'' The Service has
reviewed the IUCN definition of critically endangered and because the
crocodile population in Florida has more than doubled, the species
distribution has expanded within its historic range, and occupied and
potential habitat are now under public ownership, the Service does not
believe that the crocodile population in Florida meets this definition.
(20) Comment: One commenter questioned the scientific veracity of
data used in the proposed rule.
Response: The population and nesting data utilized by the Service
were obtained from FWC crocodile experts, crocodile experts at State
universities, and a Florida Power and Light (FPL) crocodile biologist.
These individuals have been monitoring crocodiles and conducting
research on the species for much of their careers. The population and
nesting data we are relying on to make our decision in this instance
were not published in a peer-reviewed journal; however, that is typical
for most wildlife monitoring data. Our overall analyses and conclusions
based on that data, combined with other information from peer-reviewed
journal articles, were reviewed by three peer reviewers (see ``Peer
Review'' comments above), all of whom concurred with proceeding with
reclassification. The three peer reviewers agreed that the American
crocodile DPS in Florida has significantly increased since listing and
that the majority of the species' habitat is protected or under special
management consideration. We have used the best available scientific
data in determining to reclassify the American crocodile DPS in Florida
from endangered to threatened.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis
The Act defines ``species'' to include `` * * * any distinct
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which
interbreeds when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, we published in the
Federal Register our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct
Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722). For a
population to be listed under the Act as a distinct vertebrate
population segment, three elements are considered: (1) The discreteness
of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species
to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to
the species to which it belongs; (3) the population segment's
conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing
(i.e., is the population segment endangered or threatened?). The best
available scientific information supports recognition of the Florida
population of the American crocodile as a distinct vertebrate
population segment. We discuss the discreteness and significance of the
DPS within this section; the remainder of the document discusses the
status of the Florida DPS.
Discreteness: The DPS policy states that vertebrate populations may
be considered discrete if they are markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical,
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors, and/or they are
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
significant differences exist in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms.
The Florida population segment represents the northernmost extent
of the American crocodile(s range (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 5;
Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 229). It is spatially separated by
approximately 90 miles of open ocean from the nearest adjacent American
crocodile population in Cuba (Kushlan 1988, pp. 777-778). The Gulf
Stream, or the Florida Current (the southernmost leg of the Gulf
Stream), flows through this 90-mile (145-km) gap. This strong current
makes it unlikely that crocodiles would regularly, or even
occasionally, move between Florida and Cuba. Behaviorally, American
crocodiles are not predisposed to travel across open ocean. They prefer
calm waters with minimal wave action, and most frequently occur in
sheltered, mangrove-lined estuaries (Mazzotti 1983, p. 45). No evidence
is available to suggest that crocodiles have crossed the Florida
Straits. There are no other American crocodile populations in close
proximity to Florida (Richards 2003, p. 1) that would allow direct
interaction of animals. The Florida population is effectively isolated
from other crocodile populations and functions as a single demographic
unit. Consequently, we conclude that the Florida population of the
American crocodile is discrete from other crocodile populations as a
consequence of physical and behavioral factors.
The genetic makeup of the Florida population of the American
crocodile is recognizably distinct from populations in other geographic
areas within its range (M. Forstner, 1998). Analysis of mitochondrial
DNA suggests that the Florida population may be genetically more
closely related to American crocodile populations in Central and South
America than to those in Jamaica and Hispaniola (P. Moler, 2005b).
[[Page 13034]]
Significance: The DPS policy states that populations that are found
to be discrete will then be examined for their biological or ecological
significance. This consideration may include evidence that the loss of
the population would create a significant gap in the range of the
taxon. The Florida population of the American crocodile represents the
northernmost portion of the species' range in the world (Kushlan and
Mazzotti 1989a, p. 5; Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 229) and the only
population in the United States. Loss of this population would result
in a significant reduction to the extent of the species( range and
ecological variability. Maintaining this species throughout its
historic and current range is important to ensure its genetic diversity
and population viability. While it is difficult to determine to what
degree the Florida population of the crocodile contributes
substantially to the security of the species as a whole, the apparent
isolation and evidence of genetic uniqueness (M. Forstner, 1998)
suggest that the Florida population substantially contributes to the
overall diversity within the species and is biologically or
ecologically significant.
Recovery Accomplishments
The first recovery plan for the American crocodile was approved on
February 12, 1979 (Service 1979, pp. 1-24). The recovery plan was
revised on February 2, 1984 (Service 1984, pp. 1-37). The recovery plan
for the American crocodile was revised again and included as part of
the MSRP, which was approved in May 1999 (Service 1999, pp. 4-505 to 4-
528); this version represents the current recovery plan for this
species.
The MSRP identifies 10 primary recovery actions for the crocodile.
Species-focused recovery actions include: (1) Conduct surveys to
determine the current distribution and abundance of crocodiles; (2)
protect and enhance existing colonies of crocodiles; (3) conduct
research on the biology and life history of crocodiles; (4) monitor the
south Florida crocodile population; and (5) inform the public about the
recovery needs of crocodiles. Habitat-focused recovery actions include:
(1) Protect nesting, basking, and nursery habitat of crocodiles in
south Florida; (2) manage and restore suitable habitat of crocodiles;
(3) conduct research on the habitat relationships of the crocodile; (4)
continue to monitor crocodile habitat; and (5) increase public
awareness of the habitat needs of crocodiles. All of these primary
recovery actions have been initiated.
Nest surveys and subsequent hatchling surveys around nest sites are
conducted in all areas where crocodiles are known to nest (Mazzotti et
al. 2000, p. 3; Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 24). Nest monitoring has
been conducted nearly continuously at each of the three primary nesting
areas (CLNWR, ENP, and TPPP) since 1978. In addition, detailed surveys
and population monitoring have been conducted annually since 1996
throughout the crocodile's range in Florida. These surveys documented
distribution, habitat use, population size, and age class distribution.
During both surveys and nest monitoring, crocodiles of all age classes
are captured and marked (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 24). These
marked individuals provide information on survival, longevity, growth,
and movements (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 24). All captured
individuals are marked by clipping tail scutes in a prescribed manner
so that each crocodile is given an individual identification number
(Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, pp. 24-25). In addition, hatchlings at
TPPP are marked with microchips placed under the skin.
Ecological studies have been initiated or continued in recent
years. Laboratory (e.g., Dunson 1982, p. 375; Richards 2003, p. 29) and
field (e.g., Mazzotti et al. 1986, p. 192) studies have continued on
the effects of salinity on the growth rate and survival of crocodiles
in the wild. Analyses of contaminants in crocodile eggs have been
conducted in south Florida, and these analyses contribute to a record
of contaminants data as far back as the 1970s (Hall et al. 1979, p. 90;
Stoneburner and Kushlan 1984, p. 192).
Protection and enhancement of habitat within each of the three
primary American crocodile nesting areas have been ongoing for many
years. TPPP has implemented management actions to minimize disturbance
to crocodiles and their nesting habitat. This includes the designation
of nesting ``sanctuaries'' where access and maintenance activities are
minimized. Habitat management in these areas includes exotic vegetation
control and encouraging the growth of low-maintenance native
vegetation. On CLNWR, management has focused on maintaining suitable
nesting substrate. The organic soils that compose the nesting substrate
have subsided over time, leading to the potential for increased risk of
flooding or unfavorable microclimate. Nesting substrate has been
augmented and encroaching vegetation in nesting areas has been removed.
In ENP, management has included screening or barricades around active
nest sites to prevent raccoon depredation or human disturbance of nest
sites (M. Cherkiss, 2005b).
Signs have been in place for several years along highways in the
areas where most road kills have occurred to alert motorists to the
presence of crocodiles. Fences were also erected along highways to
prevent crocodiles from crossing, although several of these fences were
later removed because they were ineffective when not properly
maintained and may have contributed to additional road kills by
trapping animals on the road. The remaining sections of fence are
intended to funnel crocodiles to culverts where they can cross
underneath roads without risk. Other efforts to reduce human-caused
mortality include law enforcement actions and signs that inform the
public about crocodiles in areas where crocodiles and people are likely
to encounter each other, such as at fish cleaning stations along
Biscayne Bay.
The FWC established a standard operating protocol in 1988 to manage
crocodile-human interactions. This protocol established a standard
procedure that included both public education to encourage tolerance of
crocodiles and translocation of crocodiles in situations that may
threaten the safety of either crocodiles or humans. While the protocol
has led to the successful resolution of many complaints, many of the
large crocodiles that have been translocated under the protocol have
shown strong site fidelity and returned to the areas from which they
were removed (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 18, table 5).
Translocation appears to be effective with small crocodiles (generally
less than 6 ft total length), but may not completely resolve human-
crocodile interactions involving larger, older animals. Developing an
effective, proactive protocol to address human-crocodile interactions
is necessary to ensure the safety of crocodiles of all age groups near
populated areas and to help maintain a positive public perception of
crocodiles and their conservation. The FWC, with participation from the
Service and National Park Service, completed a human-crocodile
interaction response plan in 2005, and through its implementation will
continue gathering information on how crocodiles respond to
translocation.
Recovery Plan Provisions
The MSRP specifies a recovery objective of reclassifying the
species to threatened, and describes recovery criteria as:
Previous recovery efforts identified the need for a minimum of
60 breeding females within the population before reclassification
[[Page 13035]]
could be considered. Since these criteria were developed, new
information, based on consistent surveys, has indicated that the
total number of nesting females has increased substantially over the
last 20 years, from about 20 animals to about 50, and that nesting
has remained stable at the major nesting areas. Based on the fact
that the population appears stable, and that all of the threats as
described in the original listing have been eliminated or reduced,
reclassification of the crocodile will be possible, provided
existing levels of protection continue to be afforded to crocodiles
and their habitat, and that management efforts continue to maintain
or enhance the amount and quality of available habitats necessary
for all life stages.
Based on these criteria outlined in the MSRP, the crocodile can be
reclassified as threatened in Florida at this time because the species
and its habitat are protected and management efforts continue to
maintain or enhance the amount and quality of available habitat. In
addition, the nesting range has expanded on both the east and west
coasts of the State; crocodiles are frequently documented throughout
most of their historical range; nesting has returned to Biscayne Bay on
Florida's east coast and now commonly occurs at TPPP; and nesting has
been increasing for several years. Since 2001, when there were 50 known
nests in Florida, the number of documented nests in Florida has
continued to increase to between 91 and 94 in 2005, which satisfies the
MSRP recommended minimum of having 60 breeding females before
reclassification can be considered. The level of protection currently
afforded to the species and its habitat, as well as the status of
habitat management, are outlined in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species'' section of this rule.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations promulgated to implement
the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth five
criteria to be used in determining whether to add, reclassify, or
remove species on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. These five factors and their application to the American
crocodile are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The original rule proposing listing (40 FR 17590, April 12, 1975)
identified intensive human development and subsequent loss of habitat
as a primary threat to crocodiles. Since listing, much of the nesting
habitat has remained intact and been afforded some form of protection.
In addition, nesting activity that was concentrated in a small portion
of the historic range in northeastern Florida Bay at the time of
listing now occurs on the eastern, southern, and southwestern portions
of the Florida peninsula. The primary nesting areas in northern Florida
Bay that were active at the time of listing are protected and under the
management of ENP, which has consistently supported the largest number
of nests and the largest population of American crocodiles in Florida.
The habitat in ENP is protected and maintained for crocodiles, and
ongoing hydrologic restoration efforts may improve the quality of the
habitat in ENP. Managers at ENP emphasize maintaining high quality
natural habitat that includes crocodile nesting areas. Restoration of
disturbed sites, hydrologic restoration, and removal of exotic
vegetation like Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) and Brazilian
pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) have improved nesting sites, nursery
habitat, and other areas frequented by crocodiles.
Since the original listing, we have acquired and protected an
important nesting area for crocodiles: CLNWR on Key Largo. The
acquisition of CLNWR in 1980 provided protection for over 2,205 ha
(5,000 acres) of crocodile nesting and nursery habitat. Habitat on
CLNWR is protected and managed to support the local crocodile
population. Almost all of the nesting on Key Largo occurs within CLNWR
on artificial substrates composed of spoil taken from adjacent ditches
that were dredged prior to acquisition of the property. These sites and
the surrounding high quality nursery habitat consistently support five
to eight nests each year. Nest success on CLNWR is strongly influenced
by environmental factors, and typically only about half of the nests
are successful (P. Moler, 2005b).
The nesting substrate on CLNWR has begun to settle and, in an
effort to maintain nesting habitat, the substrate has been augmented at
two sites to return it to its original elevation. Nesting has been
documented at both of the elevated sites. In order for these areas to
remain as nesting and nursery sites, they need to be cleared of
invasive exotics. Encroachment of native and exotic plants along the
levees needs to be controlled for these areas to remain suitable for
nesting crocodiles and their young. In general, CLNWR is closed to
public access; access is granted by special use permit only.
Both CLNWR and ENP have implemented programs that provide for
maintenance of natural conditions that will benefit the crocodile; ENP
is in the process of preparing a General Management Plan that will
formalize ongoing management actions and further protect crocodile
habitat (S. Snow, 2006), and CLNWR has finalized their plan (Service
2006, pp. 1-127). A management plan as defined here and throughout this
rule is not regulatory. These plans are developed by the property
owners, and outline strategies and alternatives needed to conserve
habitat and in some cases species on the property. Implementation of
the plan is not mandatory. The plan should be updated on a regular
basis so that managers and staff have the latest information and
guidance for crocodile management.
In addition to the two primary, publicly-owned, crocodile nesting
sites, additional nesting habitat has been created within the historic
range on a site that may not have historically supported nesting. TPPP,
owned and operated by FPL, contains an extensive network of cooling
canals (built in 1974) that provides good crocodile habitat in Biscayne
Bay. The site is approximately 1,214 ha (3,000 acres), and the majority
is considered crocodile habitat. The number of nests at this site has
risen from 1 to 2 per year between 1978 and 1981 (Gaby et al. 1985, p.
193), to 10 to 15 nests per year in the 1990s (Brandt et al. 1995, p.
31; Cherkiss 1999, p. 15; J. Wasilewski, 1999, 2005a), and supported 25
nests in 2005 (J. Wasilewski, 2005a). This property now supports the
second largest breeding aggregation of crocodiles in Florida. TPPP has
developed and implemented a management plan that specifically addresses
crocodiles. TPPP is also closed to access other than personnel who work
at the facility. FPL personnel maintain the canals and crocodile
habitat through activities like exotic vegetation control and planting
of low-maintenance native vegetation. FPL personnel also have supported
an extensive crocodile monitoring program since 1976. Operation of the
TPPP is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission through 2032, and
FPL plans to continue crocodile management and monitoring while the
plant is in operation (B. Bertleson, 2002).
FPL has also developed the Everglades Mitigation Bank along the
western shore of Biscayne Bay immediately adjacent to the TPPP, which
may help bolster the crocodile population in Biscayne Bay in coming
years. This site is a wetlands mitigation bank, approximately 5,665 ha
(14,000 acres) in size, of which about 5,050 ha (10,000 acres) is
crocodile habitat. As of November 2005, crocodile nesting has
[[Page 13036]]
not been recorded on this site, but it is anticipated that nesting will
occur in the near future (J. Wasilewski, 2005b). It is difficult to
estimate in advance how many potential nesting sites will occur here,
but we believe that it will be roughly equivalent to the TPPP site.
This area will be protected in perpetuity and may help offset any loss
of the artificial habitat at TPPP if that site is modified after the
current operating license expires in 2032.
Even though nesting habitat at TPPP is created rather than natural,
and all of the nesting at CLNWR and some areas of ENP is on artificial
or created substrate, crocodiles have successfully moved into and used
these habitats. We believe that it is important to continue to provide
protection for the artificial habitats that crocodiles
opportunistically use within their current range.
Outside of these areas that now comprise primary nesting habitat
for crocodiles, land acquisition has provided protection to many other
areas of potential habitat for crocodiles in Florida. A total of 44
public properties, owned and managed by Federal, State, or county
governments, as well as two privately-owned properties managed at least
partially or wholly for conservation purposes, contain potential
habitat for crocodiles. Thirty-five of these conservation lands operate
under management plans (e.g., Florida Department of Environmental
Protection 2001, pp. 1-103). All of the plans prescribe management
actions that will provide conditions beneficial for crocodiles and
maintain or improve crocodile habitat and potential nesting sites. A
common action called for in many of the plans is exotic vegetation
control, and some plans (e.g., Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research
Reserve, Collier-Seminole State Park) have goals to restore the natural
freshwater flow patterns through hydrological restoration (e.g.,
Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2000, p. 4). These 44
public properties contain about 28,330 ha (70,000 acres) of potential
crocodile habitat, whereas together ENP and CLNWR contain about 131,120
ha (324,000 acres). A total of approximately 166,000 ha (410,000 acres)
of mangrove-dominated vegetation communities are present in south
Florida on public and private lands (i.e., TPPP) that are managed at
least partially for conservation purposes. Approximately 10,117 ha
(25,000 acres) of mangrove habitat occurs in south Florida outside of
conservation lands. Only a small fraction (<5 percent) of known nests
currently occur on unprotected sites (F. Mazzotti, 2006).
With the majority of crocodile nesting habitat under protection for
conservation purposes, the total Florida crocodile population estimated
between 1,400 and 2,000 individuals (not including hatchlings), the
expansion of the nesting range on both the east and west coast of
Florida, and with crocodiles seen throughout most of their historical
range, we believe that the species now meets the definition of
threatened. However, the rapid rate of development in coastal areas in
south Florida will limit population future expansion through habitat
loss, fragmentation, and interactions with humans (as discussed under
Factor E) and therefore still poses a threat to full recovery of
crocodiles in Florida because current populations are not sufficient to
withstand habitat pressure. The current population size and
distribution are not yet sufficient to consider the American crocodile
in Florida free of threats, so additional habitat conservation will be
necessary before the crocodile is ready for delisting. In addition,
since most of the nesting occurs on artificial substrate that must be
maintained through active management, recovery of the species will
depend on continued maintenance of existing nesting areas and/or
expansion of nesting into areas with natural substrates.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Prior to listing in 1975, crocodiles were frequently collected for
museums and zoos, and at least occasionally shot for sport. Though it
is difficult to estimate the magnitude of collection and sport hunting,
several lines of evidence suggest that they may have significantly
impacted the Florida population prior to listing. Moore (1953, p. 54)
reported on a collector who advertised that he would pay for any live
crocodiles anywhere in south Florida; these were added to his
collection at a zoological garden. This collector claimed to have the
largest collection of American crocodiles in the United States.
Incidental and intentional killing by fishermen in Florida Bay was
common (Moore 1953, pp. 55-56). At the time of listing in 1975, the
final rule stated that poaching for skins and eggs still sometimes
occurred and crocodiles were occasionally shot for sport from passing
boats. Ogden (1978, p. 193) reported that 4 of the 10 human-caused
crocodile deaths he was aware of between 1971 and 1975 resulted from
shooting.
Since listing in 1975, few malicious killings have been recorded
(Kushlan 1988, p. 784; Moler 1991a, pp. 3-4; P. Moler, 2006a). Kushlan
(1988, p. 784) reported that only 3 of 13 human-caused mortalities
between 1975 and 1984 resulted from shooting (approximately 23
percent). Moler (1991a, pp. 3-4) reported 27 human-caused mortalities
from 1980 to 1991, of which only one shooting was reported
(approximately 4 percent of human-caused mortalities). Since 1991, no
crocodile mortalities resulting from shooting have been recorded. This
declining trend in the number of recorded shootings suggests reduced
risk to crocodiles from this threat. The few cases involving illegal
take of crocodiles in south Florida have been publicized and may have
deterred poaching and killing of crocodiles. Stories in newspapers and
other popular press, as well as radio and television reports and
documentaries, have aided in informing residents and visitors about the
status and legal protection of American crocodiles.
CLNWR and TPPP both have restricted access and are in general
closed to the public. ENP also restricts access to crocodile nesting
areas during the breeding season. Adults and hatchlings produced in
these areas are protected as a result of this restricted access.
We only receive a few requests for recovery permits during any
given year for commercial or scientific purposes related to the
crocodile in Florida. We have no reason to believe that trade or any
other type of current or future utilization poses a risk to the
American crocodile population in Florida, and therefore, the best
available information on this factor contributes to reclassification to
threatened status.
C. Disease or Predation
Depredation of crocodile nests by raccoons was cited as a threat in
the original listing. Nest predation in ENP has been variable with an
increasing trend that has not been tested for statistical significance
(F. Mazzotti, 2004). For example, the majority of nests near Little
Madeira Bay, within ENP, have been depredated by raccoons from year to
year (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001, p. 4). While a few years ago most of
the predation in ENP was on nests in artificial substrates, now most is
on nests at beach sites, which are historically the most productive in
ENP (F. Mazzotti, 2004). This is of concern as these are the only nests
on natural habitat left in the United States. On average, 20.1 percent
of nest failures resulted from raccoon depredation in all areas where
nesting surveys were
[[Page 13037]]
conducted, including areas outside of ENP (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b,
pp. 14-15; Mazzotti 1989, p. 222; Mazzotti et al. 2000, p. 4, 8;
Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001, p. 4, 7). Of the 56 to 59 nests at ENP in
2005, 13 (22 to 23 percent) were depredated by raccoons (M. Cherkiss,
2005c). Predation of nests by raccoons at TPPP and CLNWR has not been
observed (F. Mazzotti, 2004).
Predation of nests by fire ants has occurred at ENP (one nest) and
TPPP (several nests) (F. Mazzotti, 2004). No fire ant problems have
been recorded at CLNWR.
While depredation of nests has not prevented an increase in the
crocodile population to date, the increasing incidence of predation on
natural beach nesting sites indicates that a threat remains.
There is no evidence of disease in the American crocodile
population in Florida. Therefore, disease does not present a known
threat to the crocodile in Florida.
D. The Inadequacy Of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The Act currently provides protection for the American crocodile as
an endangered species, and these protections will not be significantly
reduced by this reclassification to threatened status.
The State of Florida provides legal protection for the crocodile
within its boundaries. In 1967, the State listed the crocodile as
``protected.'' This status was revised in 1972, when the crocodile was
listed as ``endangered'' under Chapter 68A-27 of the Florida Wildlife
Code. Chapter 68A-27.003 of the Florida Code, entitled ``Designation of
endangered species; prohibitions; permits'' specifies that ``no person
shall pursue, molest, harm, harass, capture, possess, or sell'' any of
the endangered species that are listed. Violation of these prohibited
acts can be considered a third degree felony, and is punishable by up
to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine (Florida Statute 372.0725). At
this time, the FWC is not reviewing the crocodile's status, but a
change in Federal status is likely to initiate a State review (P.
Moler, 2006b). The FWC currently operates under a cooperative agreement
with us, under section 6 of the Act that formalizes a cooperative
approach to the development and implementation of programs and projects
for the conservation of threatened and endangered species.
On June 28, 1979, the American crocodile was added to Appendix II
of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES). This designation reflected that the species,
while not currently threatened with extinction, may become so without
trade controls. On June 6, 1981, the crocodile was moved to Appendix I,
indicating that it was considered to be in danger of extinction.
Generally, no commercial trade is allowed for Appendix I species.
Effective February 17, 2005, the Cuban population was downlisted to
Appendix II. CITES is a treaty established to monitor international
trade to prevent further decline in wild populations of plant and
animal species. CITES permits may not be issued if import or export of
the species may be detrimental to the species' survival, or if
specimens are not legally acquired. CITES does not regulate take or
domestic trade, so it would not apply to take within Florida or the
United States. Reclassification of the crocodile in Florida from
endangered to threatened will not affect the species' CITES status.
Several other Federal regulations may provide protection for
crocodiles or their habitat. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) requires the issuance of a permit from the Corps
for the discharge of any dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States. The Corps may deny the issuance of a permit if the
project might adversely affect wildlife and other natural resources.
Also, sections 401 and 403 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 304
et seq.) prohibit the construction of bridges, roads, dams, docks,
weirs, or other features that would inhibit the flow of water within
any navigable waterway. The Rivers and Harbors Act ensures the
protection of estuarine waters from impoundment or development and
indirectly protects natural flow patterns that maintain crocodile
habitat. In addition, the Federal agencies responsible for ensuring
compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act are
required to consult with the Service if the issuance of a permit may
affect listed species or their designated critical habitat, under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act (see ``Available Conservation Measures''
section below).
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661 et
seq., as amended) requires equal consideration and coordination of
wildlife conservation with other water resources development. This
statute allows us and State fish and game agencies to review proposed
actions and address ways to conserve wildlife and prevent loss of or
damage to wildlife resources. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
allows us to help ensure that crocodiles and their habitat are not
degraded by water development projects and allows us to incorporate
improvements to habitat whenever practicable.
Additionally, ENP has established regulations for general wildlife
protection in units of the National Park System that prohibit the
taking of wildlife; the feeding, touching, teasing, frightening, or
intentional disturbing of wildlife nesting, breeding, or other
activities; and possessing unlawfully taken wildlife or portions
thereof (36 CFR 2.2). CLNWR and TPPP do not have these issues as they
are both generally closed to the public. The Service believes that the
regulatory mechanisms in place have helped bring the species to the
point where reclassification to threatened is appropriate and their
continued implementation will aid in the species' recovery.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
As explained in the original listing (40 FR 44149), crocodile nest
sites were vulnerable to disturbance from increasing human activity
because of the remoteness and difficulty of patrolling nesting areas.
Human disturbance can cause crocodiles to abandon habitat or nest sites
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, p. 14). Acquisition of nesting, juvenile,
and nursery sites and other crocodile habitat by Federal, State, and
local governments and implementation of management plans on these
properties have resulted in crocodile conservation.
Of the three primary properties that support nesting (ENP, CLNWR,
and TPPP), only CLNWR and TPPP have a management plan in place that
specifically addresses the crocodile. This plan calls for activities
such as road maintenance, vehicle access, and construction to be
conducted in crocodile habitat only at certain times or locations based
on the crocodile's activity to reduce human disturbance. In addition,
TPPP is closed to access other than personnel who work at the facility.
ENP has established rules that provide protection from disturbance to
benefit the crocodile, even without a species-specific management plan.
At ENP, protection from disturbance is based on guidelines for general
public use, such as instructions to stay on marked trails. CLNWR is
generally closed to public access. Activities on or near the nesting
sites are conducted during the non-breeding season to minimize
crocodile disturbance. CLNWR has finalized a management plan that
formalizes ongoing actions and future projects and more specifically
addresses crocodiles (Service 2006, p. 38), and ENP is preparing their
General Management Plan (S. Snow, 2006). In addition, ENP
[[Page 13038]]
is preparing a draft plan that will benefit the crocodile mostly by
general prescribed changes in public use in portions of ENP.
In addition to these primary nesting sites, disturbance as a threat
is also being addressed on approximately 44 public properties, managed
as conservation lands by Federal, State, or county governments, that
provide potential habitat for crocodiles in south Florida. In addition,
two other privately-owned sites provide potential crocodile habitat
that are maintained as conservation lands or that conduct natural lands
management. Thirty-five of these properties operate under current
management plans. Only two specifically mention management actions
intended to benefit the crocodile. However, actions mentioned in the
other plans that will reduce disturbance to crocodiles include
restrictions on public use, implementation of boat speed limits
(including areas of no-wake zones), and prohibition of wildlife
harassment. Managing potential human-crocodile conflicts remains an
important factor in providing adequate protection for and reducing
disturbance to crocodiles.
As the crocodile population and the human population in south
Florida have grown, the number of human-crocodile interactions has
increased (T. Regan, 2006). The FWC's response plan to manage these
interactions both encourages tolerance of crocodiles and translocates
crocodiles in situations that may threaten the safety of either
crocodiles or humans. While this has led to the successful resolution
of many complaints, it is likely that additional crocodiles will need
to be translocated as development in south Florida continues. These
human interactions may limit dispersal of individuals within the
species' historic range. In addition, large, mature individuals that
cannot be effectively translocated may have to be removed from the
wild. The FWC, with participation from the Service and National Park
Service, will continue to address this threat.
The original proposed listing cites the risk of a hurricane or
another natural disaster as a serious threat to the crocodile (40 FR
17590, April 21, 1975). Hurricanes and freezing temperatures may kill
some adults (Moler 1991a, p. 4), but their susceptibility to mortality
from extreme weather is poorly documented. These events still have the
potential to threaten the historically restricted nesting distribution
of the American crocodile. However, increased nesting activity in
western Florida Bay, Cape Sable, and TPPP has broadened the nesting
range. Nesting now occurs on the eastern, southern, and southwestern
portions of the Florida peninsula. While a single storm could still
easily affect all portions of the population, it is now less likely
that the impact to all population segments would be severe.
The original listing rule cited the restriction of the flow of
fresh water to the Everglades because of increasing human development
as a potential threat to the American crocodile. Ongoing efforts to
restore the Everglades ecosystem and restore a more natural
hydropattern to south Florida will affect the amount of fresh water
entering the estuarine systems. Because growth rates of hatchling
crocodiles are closely tied to the salinity in the estuaries (Mazzotti
and Cherkiss 2003, p. 13), restoration efforts will affect both quality
and availability of suitable nursery habitat. Decreased salinity should
increase growth rates and survival among hatchling crocodiles. Proposed
restoration activities in and around Taylor Slough and the C-111 canal,
as discussed in the Central and South Florida Project Comprehensive
Review Study (Corps and SFWMD 1999, p. 4-28, K-135), could increase the
amount of fresh water entering the estuarine system and extend the
duration of freshwater flow into Florida Bay. Alternative D13R
hydrologic plan simulation (Corps and SFWMD 1999, p. 1-20) predicts
that the addition of fresh water could occur throughout many of the
tributaries and small natural drainages along the shore of Florida Bay,
instead of primarily from the mouth of the C-111 canal. Salinities in
nesting areas, including Joe, Little Madeira, and Terrapin Bays, are
projected to be lower for longer periods than they currently are within
this area (based on alternative D13R hydrologic plan simulation) (Corps
and SFWMD 1999, pp. D-24, D-A-81 to D-A-83, K-135). This restoration
project should increase the amount and suitability of crocodile habitat
in northern Florida Bay, and increase juvenile growth rates and
survival (Mazzotti and Brandt 1995, p. 7).
Hydrological restoration may also affect crocodile habitat in
Biscayne Bay. Reductions in freshwater discharge will occur in the
Miami River, Snake Creek, north and central Biscayne Bay, and Barnes
Sound (extreme southern end of the Biscayne Bay system) (P. Pitts,
Service, 2005). These projected changes will likely reduce habitat
quality in the more urbanized northern half of Biscayne Bay. Freshwater
flows to south Biscayne Bay are predicted to increase with CERP, thus
increasing habitat quality in this area. More importantly, a primary
objective of CERP's Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands and C-111 Spreader
Canal projects is to rehydrate degraded coastal wetlands in south
Biscayne Bay and Barnes Sound by redirecting fresh water from
conveyance canals to wetlands. This will have the effect of lowering
salinities in the wetlands, thus increasing habitat quality for
crocodiles, particularly juveniles. Currently, the potential area
affected by these projects in the Biscayne Bay system is on the order
of 24,000 ha (60,000 acres). Considering the bay as a whole, Everglades
restoration should increase the amount and suitability of crocodile
habitat and benefit the species.
Mortality of crocodiles on south Florida roads has consistently
been the primary source of adult mortality, and this trend has not
changed (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 22, table 6). Road kills have
occurred throughout the crocodile's range in Florida, but most have
occurred on Key Largo and around Florida Bay, especially around Card
and Barnes Sounds (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 22, table 6). Signs
cautioning drivers of the risk of colliding with crocodiles have been
posted along the major highways throughout crocodile habitat. As
discussed above, measures identified to help reduce road kill mortality
include installing fencing in appropriate places to prevent crocodiles
from entering roadways and installation of box culverts under roadways
so that crocodiles can safely cross roads. Many of the recorded
crocodile road kills are adults, which may result from the increased
likelihood of large individuals being reported. We cannot accurately
estimate the proportion of road-killed crocodiles that are reported.
Therefore, it is difficult to accurately assess the magnitude of this
threat or its effect on the population.
The success of crocodile nesting is largely dependent on the
maintenance of suitable egg cavity moisture throughout incubation, and
flooding may also affect nest success. On Key Largo and other islands,
failure of nests is typically attributed to desiccation due to low
rainfall (Moler 1991b, p. 5). Data compiled by Mazzotti and Cherkiss
(2003, p. 13, figure 5) document an average of 48 percent nest success
from 1978 through 1999 (excluding 1991 and 1992 due to lack of data) at
CLNWR on north Key Largo. Nest failures on the mainland may be
associated with flooding or desiccation (Mazzotti et al. 1988, pp. 68-
69; Mazzotti 1989, pp. 224-225). In certain areas, flooding and over-
drying affect nest success. Data compiled by Mazzotti and Cherkiss
(2003, p. 13, table 5, 7) document an
[[Page 13039]]
average of 64.4 percent nest success from 1970 through 1999 at ENP
(excluding 1975, 1976, 1983, 1984, and 1996 due to lack of data) and 98
percent nest success from 1978 through 1999 at TPPP (excluding 1980 and
1982 due to lack of data). However, overall, the crocodile population
in Florida has more than doubled its size since it was listed to an
estimated 1,400 to 2,000 individuals and appears to be compensating for
these threats.
The final listing rule did not reference contaminants as a
potential threat. Several studies have shown that contaminants occur in
crocodiles and their eggs in south Florida (Hall et al. 1979, p. 88;
Stoneburner and Kushlan 1984, pp. 192-193), including organochlorine
pesticides (DDT, DDE, and dieldrin, among others), and PCBs, however,
no exceptional levels have been reported (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003,
p. 18). Acute exposure to high levels of these contaminants may result
in death, while prolonged exposure to lower concentrations may cause
liver damage, reproductive failure, behavioral abnormalities, or
deformities. Little information is known at this time about what
constitutes dangerous levels of these contaminants in crocodiles or
other crocodilians. Therefore, at this time we have no data to support
a determination that contaminants pose a threat to further crocodile
recovery.
Protection and management of the three primary nesting areas and
other potential habitat along with the anticipated outcome of
Everglades restoration efforts and a reduction in threat from
hurricanes and other natural disasters contributed to our determination
to reclassify the American crocodile in Florida. However, human-
crocodile interactions, vehicle strikes, and environmental contaminants
remain as threats to the crocodile.
Conclusion
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the
crocodile in Florida in preparing this final rule. Based on this
evaluation, we have determined that the crocodile in its range in
Florida meets the criteria of a DPS as stated in our policy of February
17, 1996 (61 FR 4722). In regard to its status, we designate the
American crocodile in Florida as a DPS, and reclassify it from an
endangered species to a threatened species. The recovery plan for the
crocodile states that, ``Based on the fact that the population appears
stable, and that all of the threats as described in the original
listing have been eliminated or reduced, reclassification of the
crocodile will be possible, provided existing levels of protection
continue to be afforded to crocodiles and their habitat, and that
management efforts continue to maintain or enhance the amount and
quality of available habitats necessary for all life stages.'' We
believe, based on our analysis of the 5 listing factors under the Act,
that the Florida DPS of the American crocodile is no longer in danger
of extinction, however, the crocodile continues to require protection
under the Act as a threatened species because population size and
distribution is insufficient to consider crocodiles free from threats.
The following are still needed to avoid the threat of extinction:
(1) Crocodile habitat in Florida continues to need maintainance and
enhancement to provide protection for all life stages of the existing
crocodile population and to ensure that available habitat can support
population growth and expansion; and
(2) Further acquisition of nesting and nursery sites and additional
crocodile habitat by Federal, State, and local governments and
implementation of management on these publicly-owned properties are
necessary to ensure protection to crocodiles and their nests and enable
expansion of populations size and distribution.
Available Conservation Measures
Two of the three primary nesting areas for crocodiles in Florida
occur on Federal conservation lands and are consequently afforded
protection from development and large-scale habitat disturbance.
Crocodiles also occur on a variety of State-owned properties, and
existing State and Federal regulations provide protection on these
sites. The fact that crocodile habitat is primarily wetlands also
assures the opportunity for consultation on most projects that occur in
crocodile habitat under the authorities described below.
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
practices. Recognition through listing increases public awareness of
threats to the crocodile, and promotes conservation actions by Federal,
State, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The
Act provides for possible land acquisition and cooperation with the
State, and requires that recovery actions be carried out. The
protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against
taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their
actions with respect to the crocodile and its designated critical
habitat (41 FR 41914, September 24, 1976). Regulations implementing
this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50
CFR part 402. If a Federal action may affect the crocodile or its
designated critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must
consult with the Service to ensure that any action authorized, funded,
or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the crocodile or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of its critical habitat. Federal agency actions that may
require consultation include the Corps' involvement in projects such as
residential development that requires dredge/fill permits, the
construction of roads and bridges, and dredging projects. Power plant
development and operation under license from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission/Nuclear Regulatory Commission may also require
consultation with respect to licensing and re-licensing. Road
construction activities funded or authorized by the Federal Highway
Administration may require consultation.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 50 CFR 17.31,
in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of
the United States to take (includes harass, harm, and pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of
these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of
commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign
commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to Service agents and agents
of State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of
otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, permits also are
available for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special
purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
[[Page 13040]]
Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a
violation of section 9 should be directed to Cindy Schulz of the South
Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests
for copies of the regulations regarding listed species and inquiries
about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard,
Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (telephone 404/679-4176, facsimile
404/679-7081).
This final rule formally recognizes that the American crocodile DPS
in Florida is no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. This reclassification does not
significantly change the protection afforded this species under the
Act. Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing an
American crocodile, or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 is
subject to a penalty under section 11 of the Act. Pursuant to section 7
of the Act, all Federal agencies must ensure that any actions they
authorize, fund or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the American crocodile or destroy or adversely modify its
critical habitat.
Recovery actions directed at the crocodile will continue to be
implemented as outlined in the MSRP, including: (1) Determining the
current distribution and abundance; (2) protecting and enhancing
existing crocodile colonies; (3) conducting research on biology and
life history; (4) monitoring the population; and (5) informing the
public about recovery needs of crocodiles. The MSRP also outlines
restoration activities that should be undertaken to adequately restore
the mangrove community occupied by the crocodile. These actions
include: (1) Protecting nesting, basking, and nursery habitat; (2)
managing and restoring suitable habitat; (3) conducting research on the
habitat relationships of the crocodile; (4) continuing to monitor
habitat; and (5) increasing public awareness of habitat needs of the
crocodile.
This final rule does not constitute an irreversible commitment on
our part. Reclassification of the American crocodile in Florida to
endangered status would be investigated if changes occur in management,
population status, habitat, or other actions that detrimentally affect
the population or increase threats to its survival.
Required Determinations
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part
1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that Federal agencies obtain approval
from OMB before collecting information from the public. This rule does
not contain any new collections of information that require approval by
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement, as defined in the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available upon request from
the South Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this document is the South Florida Ecological
Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B
of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entry in the List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife for ``Crocodile, American'' under REPTILES to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIES Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Reptiles
* * * * * * *
Crocodile, American............. Crocodylus acutus.. U.S.A. (FL), Entire, except in E 87 NA NA
Mexico, Caribbean, U.S.A. (FL).
Central and South
America.
Do............................... do.................. do................. U.S.A. (FL)....... T 10,-- 17.95(c) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13041]]
Dated: February 22, 2007.
Kenneth Stansell,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E7-5037 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P