49752 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 188 I Thursday, September29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR one of 19 recognized subspecies of the pocket mouse as a distinct species, he little pocket mouse (Perognathus subsequently concluded that P. Fish and Wildlife Service longimembris) (Hall 1981). This species pacificus represented two subspecies of is one of the smallestmembers of the the little pocket mouse, P. Iongirnembris 5OCFRPart17 ~ iLk; family Heteromyidae, which consists of pacificus and P. 1. cantwelli, after RIN 1018—AC39 spiny pocketmice (Heteroniys and examining additional specimens (von Liomys), pocket mice (Perognathus and Bloeker 1932). Subsequent toa Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Chaetodipus), kangaroo rats biometric analysis of 331 specimens of and Plants; Determination of (Dipodomys), and kangaroo mice the little pocketmouse, Huey (1939) Endangered Status for the Pacific (Microdipodops). Virtually all (if not all) recognized P. 1. pacificus tobe inclusive Pocket Mouse members of this family are nocturnal, of the two subspecies described by von granivorous and have external, deep, Bloeker (1932). Subsequent taxonomic AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, fur-lined cheek pouches (Ingles 1965; treatments (e.g., Hall 1981; Williams et Interior. Dr. P. Brylski, consulting mammalogist, al. 1993) haveretained the Pacific ACTION: Final rule. pers. comm., 1993). pocket mouse as a distinct subspecies. Perognathus longiniembris ranges in Although a taxonomic review of P. SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service size from about 110 to 151 millimeters longiniembris may be appropriate, the (Service) determines the Pacific pocket (mm) (4.3 to 5.9 inches) from nose to tip Pacific pocket mouse has been mouse (Perognath us Iongimembris of tail (Hall 1981) and weighs 7 to 9 pacificus) to be an endangered species described as distinct from related forms grams (1/4 to ½oz.) (Burt and (Dr. D. Williams, mammalogist, in iitt, throughout its range in coastal southern Grossenheider 1976). The body pelage is 1993). California, pursuant to the Endangered spineless,bristle-free, and Under section 3(15) of the Act (16 Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). predominately brown, pinkish buff or U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the term “species” Critical habitat is not being designated. ochraceousbuff aboveand light brown, is defined to include recognized Thissmall rodent is an obligate resident pale tawny, buff, or whitish below. subspecies. Therefore, throughout the of river and marinealluvium and There are typically two small patchesof remainder of this rule, Perognathus coastal sage scrub plant communities in lighter hairs at the base of the ear. The longimembris pacificus (hereafter the immediate vicinity of the coast. tail canbe either distinctly or referred to as the Pacific pocket mouse), Although the Pacific pocket mouse indistinctly bicolored. The little pocket is treated as a “species”. formerlyoccurred at a minimum of 8 mouse exhibits a high degree of The Pacific pocket mouse is endemic general locales encompassing some 29 geographic variation in pelage color to the immediate coast of southern sites from Los Angeles County southto (Hall 1981; see also Ingles 1965). California from Marina del Rey and El San Diego County,the onlyknown, Vocalizations of this species include a Segundo in Los Angeles County, south confirmed population extant occurs on high-pitched squeal. to the vicinity of the Mexicanborder in the Dana Point Headlands in Orange The Pacific pocket mouse is the San Diego County (Hall 1981, Williams County, California. A maximum of 36 smallestsubspecies of the little pocket 1986, Erickson 1993). The species has confirmed, individual Pacific pocket mouse, ranging up to 131 mm (5.2 not been recorded outside of California mice has beendetected on 3.75 acres of inches) in length from nose totip of the (Williams et al. 1993; Erickson 1993). identified occupied ha’bitat during the long tail. The tail, hind foot, and skull Erickson (1993) noted further that the last 20 years. The Pacific pocket mouse structures of Pacific pocket mice are Pacific pocketmouse has not been is threatened with extinction due to also the smallest of all little pocket reliably recorded more than - documented depredation by domestic mouse subspecies (Huey 1939). approximately 2 miles (3 kilometers) cats and habitat loss and fragmentation Stephens (1906) labeled the species an inland from the coast or above 600 feet as a result of past and continuingland * * exceedingly small [p]ocket (180 meters) in elevation. development projects. Thisrule Emlouse * * * “The Pacific pocket The habitat requirements of the implements and guarantees continued mouse is one of the smallest rodents in Pacific pocket mouse are not well Federal protection provided by the Act the world. understood, but they are known to occur for the Pacific pocket mouse, which was The Los Angeles pocket mouse on fine-grain, sandy substrates inthe emergency listed as endangered on (Perognathus Iongiinembris brevinczsus), immediate vicinity of the PacificOcean January 31, 1994 for a period of 240 which occurs mostly northeast of, and (Mearns 1898, von Bloeker 1931; days. well inland from, the Pacific pocket Grinnell 1933; Bailey 1939). The Pacific EFFECTIVE DATE: September 26, 1994. mouse, is the onlyother subspecies of pocket mouse is or was known to little pocket mouse that occurs in inhabit coastal strand, coastal dunes, ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, by southern California west of the deserts. river alluvium, and coastal sage scrub appointment, during normal business Individual Los Angelespocket mice growing on marine terraces (Grinnell hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife range in size from 125 to 145 mm (4.9 1933;Meserve 1972; Erickson 1993). Service, Carlsbad Field Office, 2730 to 5.7 inches) long. Overall, Los Angeles Stephens (1906) trapped a female Loker Avenue \Vest, Carlsbad, California pocket mice have longer tails, hind feet, “~ * * on a dry mesa a short distance skulls, and nasal bones than Pacific back from the seashore.” von Bloeker 92008. pocket mice (Huey 1939). (1931a) reported that Pacificpocket FOR FURThER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. The Pacific pocket mouse was mice detected near San Diego were Gail C. Kobetich, Field Supervisor, at originally described by Meamns (1898) as found only in open patches of ground the address listed above (telephone 619/ a distinct species, Perognathus that were otherwise surrounded by 431—9440). pacificus,based on the type specimen weedy growth. M’Closkey (1972) and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: that was collected on the shore of the Meserve (1972, 1976b) detected the Pacific Ocean at Mexican Boundary Pacific pocket mouse on sandy Background Monument 258 in San Diego County, substrates in coastal sage scrub habitats The Pacific pocket mouse California. Although von Bloeker in the San Joaquin Hills in Orange (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) is (1931a,b) initially recognized the Pacific County, California. Brylski (1993) Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 49753 detected the onlyknown, confirmed Pacificpocket mice primarily eat the “Spyglass Hill” inthe San Joaquin Hills population extant on the Dana Point seeds of grasses and forbs (von Bloeker from 1968 to 1971 (M’Closkey 1972; Headlands on loose sand substrates ina 1931; Meserve 1972, 1976a). Meserve Meserve 1972;R. MacMillan. pers. coastal sage scrub community (1976a) observed further that other plant comm., 1994). Forty-four specimens or dominated by California buckwheat materials were consumed, albeit in live captures from “Spyglass Hill” were (Enogonum fasicukztum) and California comparatively smaller quantities. P. recorded from 1968—1971 (see Erickson sage (Artemisia californica). Brylski Brylski (pers. comm., 1993) observed 1993). The only known, confirmed (1993) commented that the Pacific that “Pacific pocketmice foraged population extant of the Pacificpocket pocket mouse’s preferred habitat mainly on the seeds of grasses and,to mouse was rediscovered inJuly of 1993 “~ * * appears to be open coastal sage a lesser degree, on leafyvegetation.” on the Dana Point Headlands in Orange scrub on fine, sandy soil.” Jameson and Peeters (1988) reported County, California (Brylski 1993). C. Little quantitative information is that little pocket mice, like other pocket Cantwell had previously collected 10 available on the ecology and life history mice species, also eat soil-dwelling specimens of this species at this locale of the Pacific pocket mouse. However, insects. in May of 1932 (voucher specimens on the attributes of the little pocket mouse Relatively little is known of the deposit at the Natural History Museum and the available data that pertain tothe breedingbiology of Pacific pocket mice. of Los Angeles County). Pacific pocket mouse subspecies suggest Erickson (1993), relying largely on data Possible, recent records from Crystal that this small rodent is facultativelyor provided by Meserve (1972), noted that Cove State Park (approx. 16 kin (10 mi) partially fossorial, relatively sedentary, “[plregnant and lactating females have NW Dana Point) resulting from pitfall primarily granivorous, and able to been found from April through June trapping (see R. MacMillan, pers. become torpid, estivate, or hibernate in withimmatures noted from June comm., 1994) await confirmation given response to adverse environmental through September.” P. Brylski (pers. the uncertainty expressed by the conditions (e.g., Ingles 1965; Kenagy comm., 1993) observed lactating females observer and the negative results of 1973; Dr. P. Meserve, academic inJuly and noted that two litters were recent walk-over and trapping surveys mammalogist, pers. comm., 1994; Dr. R. produced that year. Limited there (see P. Brylski, in Iitt, 1994 and J. MacMillan, academic mamrnalogist, reproduction was attributed to juveniles Webb, in Iitt, 1994). in the Dana Point Headlands population San Diego County. The Pacific pocket pers. comm., 1994). mouse histortcally was confirmed at During those periods that they are not (P. Brylski,pars. comm., 1993). Jameson and Peeters (1988) described the little three general locales inSan Diego active on the surface of preferred pocket mouse as “rather prolific” and County—the San Onofre Area, Santa substrates or in preferredhabitats, indicated that “[piregnancies occur in Margarita River Estuary, and the lower Pacific pocket mice apparently dwell in spring and fall with a summer lull.” Tijuana River Valley. One specimenwas underground burrows. Erickson (1993) Historical records indicate that the obtained at San Onofre in 1903 and two noted that “ln)umerous small burrows Pacific pocket mouse occurred in B others were secured at that locale in revealed the presence of some colonies general areas encompassing some 29 1931. Seventy-one specimens or live to earlycollectors.” Kenagy (1973) separate trapping sites. Approximately captures were recorded for the Santa observed that little pocket mice may 80 percent of all Pacific pocketmouse Margarita River mouth area between stay in their burrows continuously for records are from 1931 or 1932 (Erickson 1931 and 1936, with the majority (50) of up to five months inwinter, alternating 1993). The following summary of these reported for “Oceanside”. One between periods of dormancy and records is organized by county: hundred and thirty-four specimens or feeding on stored seeds. Periods of Los Angeles County. The Pacific live captures havebeen recorded from dormancy apparently may be induced pocket mouse historically was detected the lower Tijuana River Valley, by, or correlated with, food shortage in threeareas—Marina del Rey/El including the type specimen. There has (Kenagy 1973). Ingles (1965) noted that Segundo, Wilmington, and Clifton. One notbeen a confirmed Pacific pocket [tlhe ability of the little pocket mouse hundred and eighteen specimens or live mouse record at these locales or to become dormant for only a few bad captures were recorded for the Marina elsewhere in San Diego County since nights is an important factor in its Del Rey/El Segundo area from 1918 to 1932 (see Erickson 1993). survival.” 1938, withmost (86) of these records However, therehave been three While active and above ground, little coming from “Hyperion”; see Erickson recent, unconfirmed reports of the pocket mice have ranged up to 1,000 (1993). Three specimens were collected Pacific pocket mouse from San Diego feet (320 meters) from their burrows in in Wilmington in 1865 (voucher County. A document released by the a 24-hour period (Burt and specimens on deposit at the Museum of California Department of Fish and Game Grossenheider 1976). However, based Vertebrate Zoology, University of (Mudie et al. 1986) pertaining to the on his study from 1969—1973 in the California, Berkeley) and four were wildlife resources at the San Dieguito Owens Valley, California, Kenagy (1973) collected in “Cliffton” (sic] in 1931. Lagoon, Del Mar, and at least one concluded that “ * * * the maximum Four specimens from San Fernando in subsequent environmental “baseline distance moved during the night by this 1932 that were originallylabeled as P. study” pertaining to that locale (see S. little mouse was undoubtedly much less pacificusiP. cantwelliwere referred to Montgomery, consulting biologist, in than 50 m.” Reported little pocket as P. 1. brevinasus by von Blocker litt, 1994 and R. Erickson, consulting mouse home ranges ranged in size from (1932); see Erickson (1993). There have biologist, pers. comm., 1994) provide 0.12 to 0.56 hectares (0.30to 1.4 acres) been no records of Pacificpocket mice species lists that contain the little and populations ranged in density from from Los Angeles County since 1938 pocket mouse (Perognathus 1 to 5.5 individuals/hectare (0,4 to 2.2 (Erickson 1993; P. Brylski, in litt, 1993). longimembris). Given the location of the individuals/acre) in Joshua Tree Orange County. The Pacific pocket survey effort,it seems almost certain National Monument, California (Chew mouse has been confirmed at two that any and all little pocket mice and Butterworth 1964). Adult density at locales in Orange County: the San recorded at this locale would be Pacific Dana Point Headlands was estimated to Joaquin Hills and Dana Point. The pocket mice. However, it was be 5.9/hectare (2.4/acre) by Bryiski specieswas found in Buck Gully (P. subsequently ascertained that none of (1993). Meserve, pers. comm., 1994) and nearby the surveyors or report authors could 49754 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations recall capturinga little pocket mouse on potentially unique genetic stock. The the development of a final rule. The the site or reporting same (e.g., PacifIc pocketmouse’s adaptation to, news releasewas provided to media Montgomery in Iitt, 1994; it Erickson, and dependence on. coastal dune and throughout southern California and to consulting biologist, pars. comm., 1994). coastal alluvium substrates and coastal the national media. In addition, 3 Subsequent walk-over surveys of the sage scrub habitats have probably Federal agencies, 3 state agencies, 15 area in 1992 did notreveal the presence contributed to a genetic divergence from county and city governments, and 6 of the Pacificpocket mouse (Dr. P. other subspecies of the little pocket other potentially affected or interested Behrends, consulting mammalogist, mouse. Maintaining a broad genetic partieswere individually notified of the pers. comm., 1994). stock may be critically important to the promulgation of the emergency and A singlePacific pocket mouse was species ability to adapt to changing proposedrules. Representatives of reported from Lux Canyon, Encinitas, in environmental conditions. The apparent Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton; June 1989, The record is now sedentary nature of the Pacific pocket the County of Orange; the City of Dana considered only probableby the mouse (Meserve 1972; Meserve, pers. Point; and the Dana Point Headlands observer (Erickson 1993). comm., 1994) and the fragmentation of landowner, among others, were Most recently and since the this species’ potential habitat increase personally contacted by Service publishing ofthe proposed and the probability that localized personnel. Newspaper articles in the Los emergency rules, Mr. S. Tremor (in litt, extirpations caused by the destruction Angeles Times and Orange County 1994) reported what he believes to be a of habitat or movement corridors will be Register announcing the emergency single Pacific pocket mouse from a permanent. This could significantly listing of the Pacific pocket mouse and locale in Del Mar, California. However, reduce the extent of any possible scheduled public hearingappeared in the animal escaped before photographs introgression between subpopulations February and March 1994. or a pelage description could be and reducegenetic heterozygosityand The Service held a public hearing on obtained. Given these considerations, the overall fitness of the species. Such the proposed rule on March 24, 1994, in the Service concludes, in the present perturbationscould result in a San Clemente, Orange County, absence of definitive or additional permanent loss of genetic stock or, at California. Notification of the hearing information, that the Del Mar the extreme, result in the extinction of was published in the Federal Register observation, although certainly the Pacific pocket mouse. on March 1, 1994 (59 FR9720). deserving of further attentien and Newspaper notices specifically investigation, remains unconfirmed Previous Federal Action announcing the hearing and inviting until such timethat a positive species The Pacific pocket mouse was general public comment on the proposal identification can be made. P. Brylski designated by the Serviceas a category additionally were published in the (pers. comm., 1994) independently has 2 candidate species for Federal listing as Orange CountyRegister and San Diego arrived at the same conclusion. an endangered or threatened species in Union Tribune. Approximately 25 Accordingly, the only known, 1985 (50FR 37966). It was retained in people attended the hearing and seven recently confirmed population of the this category in subsequent notices of of these provided oral comments. Pacific pocket mouse extant remains on review published by the Service in the A total of 71 comments was received. the Dana Point Headlands. Between 25 Federal Register in 1989 and 1991 (54 Although the comment period to 36 individual Pacific pocket mice FR 554 and 56 FR 58804, respectively). technically closed on April 4, 1994, the were detected there by Bryiski (1993) Category 2 comprises taxa for which Service considered all comments during trapping surveys that extended information now in the possession of received through June 20. 1994. (Five into August. Prior to this recent the Serviceindicates that proposing to comments were receivedby the rediscovery of the Pacific pocket mouse list as endangered or threatened is Carlsbad Field Office after the deadline. at the Dana Point Headlands, the Pacific possibly appropriate, but for which including one from an interested and pocket mouse had not been positively conclusive data on biological potentially affected municipal observed since 1971 (see Erickson vulnerability and threat are not jurisdiction.) Multiple comments 1993). Numerous, relatively recent currently available to support proposed whether written or oral from the same small-mammal survey and trapping rules. party are regarded as one comment. efforts within the potential range ofthe Largely because of documented, Of the comments received, 48 persons Pacific pocket mouse (e.g., Salata 1981; imminent threats to the only known or organizations (68 percent) supported Jones and Stokes 1990; Taylor and population ofthe Pacific pocket mouse, listing; 10 (14 percent) urged the Tiszler 1991; D. Erickson, pers. comm. the Service published an emergency protection of the only confirmed, 1993: P. Brylski, in litt, 1993; P. rule to list the species as endangered on occupied habitat of the Pacific pocket Behreods, pers. comm., 1994; Dr. P. February 3, 1994 (59FR 5306). Interim mouse on the Dana Point Headlands; 3 Kelly, mammalogist. pers. comm., 1994; protection afforded the Pacific pocket (4 percent) were against the listing; 3 (4 R. MacMillan, pers. comm., 1994; Dr. R. mouse as the result of the promulgation percent) were in favor of the Dingman, mammalogist, pers. comm., of the emergency rule expires on development of the Dana Point 1994; Dr. J. Webb, biologist, in litt, 1994; September 28, 1994. A proposed rule to Headlands;4 (6 percent) urged the S. Montgomery, consulting biologist, in list the Pacificpocket mouse was application of sound science to the !itt, 1994; P. Brylski, in litt, 1994; United concurrently published withthe listing process; and 3 (4 percent) were States Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a; emergency rule (59 FR 5311). noncommittal. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Two Federal agencies and the sole 1994b) have failed to locate additional Summaryof Comments and city government responding were extant populations. Recommendations neutral on the issue of listing. The From a species perspective, the In the proposedrule and associated California Department of Fish and Game persistence of the Pacific pocket mouse news release announcing the previously had gone on record as is important, perhaps essential, in promulgation of the proposed rule and supporting a proposal to list the Pacific preserving an important and unique emergency rule, all interested parties pocket mouse (K. Berg, in lift, 1992). No portion of the historic habitat ofthe were requested to submit factual reports citizens groups or organizations little pocket mouse and in preserving or information that might contribute to opposed the proposed listing. Attorneys Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 49755 for one landowner voiced opposition to available scientific information pocket mice (which include the little both the emergency listing and regarding the taxonomy ofthe Pacific pocket mouse and Pacific pocket proposed listing. pocket mouse. mouse). The Service has reviewed all of the Despite a recent taxonomic treatment Mr. Collinshas informed the Service written and oral comments described of the rodent family Heteromyidae (pers. comm., 1994) that he has no above including those that were publishedby the American Society of alternative taxonomy to propose and is received outside of the formal comment Mammalogists (Society), the Service notnow, and will notbe in the periods. Based on this review, 11 nonetheless solicited the expert foreseeable future, investigating the relevant issueshave beenidentified and opinions and input of,among others, taxonomy of Perognathuslongimembris. are discussed below. The Service the President of the Society and the By contrast, P. Brylski has indicated (in considers these issues to be principal author of the published lift, 1993) that he and others are representative of the comments taxonomy (Williams et at. 1993) currently investigating the systematics questioning or opposing the proposed regarding the taxonomic validity of of Perognathus longimembris utilizing listing action. Perognathus Iongimembris pacificus. sequencing regions of mitochondrial Issue 1: One commenter noted that The Service considers the Society to be DNA and morphology. To date, no the listing action shouldnot occur a recognized authority on the taxonomy results from these studies havebeen because the Pacific pocket mouse and biology of North American published or are otherwise forthcoming. subspecies is not a valid taxon and the mammals. In the interim, P. Bryiski (in lift, 1994) subject of taxonomic controversy. The As is suggested by the commenter, the has most recently indicated that “Lalt commenter quotes a letter from Mr. P. Service does have significant concerns this time, there is no evidence that Collins, Associate Curator of the Santa regarding the appropriateness of listing contradicts the taxonomic Barbara Museum of Natural History, to any species and carefully considers its distinctiveness of P. Iongimembris D. Erickson, inwhich it is stated that mandate In that regard as set forth by pacificus.” “a * a think that it is imperative that section 4 ofthe Act. In the present case, The traditional scientificapproach to the taxonomic status of the various however, the Service cannot agree that defining vertebrate subspecies has been subspecies ofPerognathus longimembris there is, as suggested by the commenter, based almost exclusively on the in central and southern California be an absence of sufficient data pertaining identification ofmorphological reevaluated using modern systematic to the taxonomy of the Pacific pocket differences inbody measurements and techniques such as electrophoresis and mouse. other morphometric characters between multivariate morphometrics. The The Pacificpocket mouse was geographically distinct populations of a systematic questions will need tobe originally described by Mearns (1898) as species. Given its apparent, current answered before any populationof this a distinct species, Perognothus rarity, limited mobility, and distance species can be proposed for possible pacificus. Subsequent to several from other subspecies of the little listing status.” The commenter further intervening taxonomic treatments or pocket mouse (see, for instance, noted that “~ * Service officials investigations (e.g., Stephens 1906; von Meserve 1972; Hall 1981; P. Brylski, in appeared to have significant concerns Bloeker 1932; Grinnell 1933; Huey lift, 1993; Erickson 1993) and the regarding the appropriateness of listing 1939), Hall (1981) and others have definitionand expected course of the PPM IPacific pocket mouse] in the recognizedthe Pacificpocket mouse as speciation, it seems reasonable to absence of sufficient data on the a distinct subspecies of the little pocket assume that the Pacific pocket mouse is taxonomy issue—even as recently as mouse. Although the taxonomical now, or will be, a de facto “full” species November 1993. (ExhibitJ)” The Service history of this species spans some 90 or genetically-isolated taxonomic entity is obliged to consider available data years and there is a current, peer- unto itself. pertaining to the genetic relationship reviewed, published classification of the In the absence of current, definitive between the Pacific pocketmouse and heteromyid rodents Inclusive of the information to the contrary from an other groups of little pocket mice as pocket mice taxa (Williams et al. 1993), expert (or any other) source, the Service provided by Patton et al. (1981). The the Service nevertheless contacted Dr. presently concludes that the Pacific commenter added that the subspecies Williams to insure that there was no pocket mouse subspecies constitutes a designation is controversial and that doubt as to the current, correct valid taxon. * * * alleged morphological taxonomic treatment of the subject Issue 2: The same commenter characteristics could be the product of subspecies (see D. Williams, inlift, concluded that the proposed rule must seasonal or ecological variation among 1993, which is identical to the be withdrawn because the Service pocket mice. A proper resolution of the commenter’s Exhibit J). Dr. Williams(in improperly and secretly elevated the resolution of the PPM’s true status is lift, 1993) confirmed the taxonomic species to a category 1 candidate status required before the Service can act to validity and distinctness of the Pacific on the basis of new information that was list the PPM as a subspecies. * * ~“ pocket mouse. obtained in 1993. Service Response:Although the Although it is recognized that a Service Response: The three candidate Service initially and independently “~ * * modern revision of the levels (1—3) used by the Service are reviewed all available information longimembris complex might cause a re- administratively defined tà periodically relating to the taxonomy, ecology, evaluation of the various subspecies of qdvise the public on the status of biology, status and distribution of the this taxon”, the Service presently has no various taxa that might come under the Pacific pocket mouse, the Service also information or scientific basis torefute protection of the Act. The terms solicited comments or suggestions from a recognized authority’s assertion that “candidate” or “category 1” do not the public, other concerned * * there is certainly every reason to appear inthe Act or implementing governmental agencies, the scientific consider pacificus valid with current regulations in 50 CFR. The Servicehad community, Industry, and any other information” (Dr. J. L Patton, President previously notified the public in its interested party on these and all other of the American Society of candidate notices of review (e.g., 56 FR aspects of the proposed rule. In Mammalogists, in lift, 1994). Patton et 58805) that when sufficientinformation particular, the Service has madea al. (1981) didnot address the was available, a proposed rule might concerted effort toobtain the best biochemical systematics of perognathine result. Section 4(b)(7) of the Act 49756 Federal Register I VoL 59, No. 188 I Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations specifically authorizes the Service to perhaps a minimum of roughly 500— (1986), Williams et al. (1993), and promulgate emergency rules whenthe must be employed in.any surveyeffort Erickson (1993), the specimen records at well-being of a species is at significant deemed to have any relevance for institutions throughout California, and risk. A species need not be a previously reaching conclusions on presence/ the additional data, references, and declared category 1 candidate species to absence. Consistent with this need for records summarized herein meet the criteria for threatened or reliabledata, the M.H. Sherman demonstratesthat there in not a paucity endangered status and to be proposed Company conducted 643 trap nights of relevant information on the Pacific accordingly or to havean emergency during its survey efforts at the Dana pocket mouse or the small rodent rule promulgated. For reasons that are Headlands site.” The commenterfurther speciesof southern California in fully explored in the “Summary of argued that the majority of other recent general. Factors” portions of the February 3, surveys either were conducted An analysis of this very same 1994, emergency rule (59 FR 5306) and “~ * * when the PPM can be expected information reveals that credible this rule, the Service concludesthat the to be dormant* * ~“ (e.g., Taylor and determinations of presence/absence of Pacific pocket mouse fully met and still Tiszler 1991) or at “[slites for which no the Pacific pocket mouse (and many meets the criteria necessary to survey dates are provided (and thus other smallrodent species) depend on a promulgate a rule listing the species as cannot be considered to provide reliable number of factors that are not a function endangered. presenceor absence data)* * ~“ (e.g., of the number of survey trap nights. The new information obtained in the Santa Margarita River Mouth). “An Legitimate small mammal trappers in 1993 consists of all materialsand data examination of the data for just the eight California are all licensed by the that became available to the Service (8) locations historically known to have California Department of Fish and Game pertaining to, in part, the status, occupied habitat* * areveals a similar and many possess endangered species distribution, ecology, and biology of the lack of information upon which to draw permits from the Service. These Pacific pocket mouse. Included in these a conclusion about the appropriateness scientific surveyors are professionally submittals was an updated manuscript of listing. The Service’s own document obligated and charged with knowing the by R Erickson (1993). Accompanying indicates that a live trapping program is conditions and circumstances that will this manuscript were records of Pacific needed before the appropriateness of maximize the chances of detecting the pocket mouse museum or collection any listing can be made.” Another Pacific pocket mouse during focused specimens and related documentation. commenterencouraged the Service surveys or otherwise result in an raw data and notes reflecting searches * ato fully investigate all remaining adequate characterization of the rodent for additional Pacific pocket mice historic habitats as well as potential community at any given locale. An records, peer-review correspondence, habitat areas for the Pacific pocket adequate assessment of the appropriate communications with experts in the mouse before making a final number of trap nights and number of field, an updated bibliography, and determination on its status.” One trapping bouts during a given survey other, relevant materials. Alsoreceived commenter concluded that “[tlhe should reflect the experience of the in 1993 were Brylski’s (1993) reportand Service’s failure to establish and publish surveyorand will certainly incorporate, additional correspondence (P. Brylski. the accepted survey protocol for the at a minimum, the results of walk-over in lift, 1993) that confirmed the PPM prior to the close ofthe public surveys for small rodent sign and rediscovery of the Pacific pocket mouse comment period renders this rule- burrows, analyses of the size and on the Dana Point Headlands. During making process invalid.” physical characteristics of the area being the prescribed public comment period, Service Response:In response to surveyed, the adjudged. current the commenter viewed and similar comments regarding the trappability of the target species, photographed or otherwise received all proposed listing of three Gulf Coast apparent suitability or “quality” of site such materials. beach mice species (Peromyscus) , the habitat(s), time of year, phase of the Subsequent to an examination of all Service (June 6, 1985, 50 FR 23874) moon, and the climatic conditions. pro-existing information and important. argued that “lilt is not necessaryto have Thus, a given focused survey for the additional data received in 1993, the precise population numbers to Pacific pocket mouse may appropriately Service concluded that sufficient data determinethat the beach mice are require far less than, or far greaterthan, and information existed to list the endangered; indeed, it would probably fIve hundred trap nights. Pacific pocket mouse on an emergency be impossible to obtain such numbers.” All of the above considerations are basis pursuant to section 4 of the Act In that instance, the Service concluded factored into the Service’s guidelines for and implementing regulations that the three beach mice were surveying the Pacific pocket mouse pertaining thereto. Given the endangered after a thorough review of (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994c) information and data that has been adequate, relevant population data and and it is likely that the protocol will forthcoming since that time, the Service documentation of habitat loss or evolve pursuant to the concludesthat the emergency listing perturbation, documented depredation, recommendations of permitted was appropriate and that the species and other factors affecting the species. surveyors and expert sources. Although continues to meet the criteria as an In consistent fashion, the Service has the Service has stipulated a minimum of endangered species. made every attempt to obtain the best five trapping boutsat each site to reflect Issue 3: The same commenter scientific information and data relating the rarity and possible difficulty in observed that the “~ * *lpjroposed rule to the status of the Pacific pocket mouse locating or trapping thePacific pocket should be withdrawnbecause the and the factors affecting that species. mouse (e.g., Erickson 1993; Behrends, in Service lacks scientific data to support Subsequent toa thorough consideration lift, 1994), it is further stated that “lal a listing of the PPM as threatened or of these data and information, the lesser effort may be approved by the endangered.” The Service currently has Serviceconcludes that said data and Carlsbad Field Office on a case by case insufficient information to assess the information are adequate and basis.” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service status and distribution of the Pacific collectively support a listing as 1994c). If, for instance, the objective is pocket mouse. Specifically, the endangered. In particular, a composite to merely establish presence/absence at comnienter argued ‘.~ * athat a of the relevant data summarized and a given locale, then a lessereffort may substantial number of trap nights— reported by Hall (1981), Williams well he justifiedif Pacificpocket mice Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 188 I Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 49757 are detected in the first four trapping Base, Camp Pendleton, indune, speculation on the part of two bouts. The recent, successful trapping pickleweed/saltgrass, pickleweed, and individuals.” survey at the Dana Point Headlands is glasswort/upland grassland habitats Seivice Response:The Service a case in point. Although the Service during a survey effort inMarch 1981 considers Oberbauer and Vanderwier’s concedes that the 643 trap-night effort at that included 188 trap nights. Similarly, (1991) published evaluation of the that locale in 1993 was justified, in that the Service (1994a) reported no captures present, depleted status of vegetation particular instance, to establish the of the Pacific pocket mouse from June communities in San Diego County to be approximate range and extent of the 1986 intermittently to August 1990, amongst the best available scientific local Pacific pocket mouse population, during a study of the Santa Margarita information on the subject. Given the it is nonetheless true that 9 Pacific River Mouth that involved a totalof data base and expertise at the disposal pocket mice were discovered during the 11,380 trap nights and included surveys of The Department of Planning and fIrst night of trapping subsequent tothe of coastal strand, maritime scrub, salt Land Use for the County of San Diego, placement of 60 “effective” live traps at pan, Salicornia upland, Salicornial the Service has no reason to doubt the the site (Brylski 1993). Distichiis habitats, and Salicornia plots. validity of the presented data. No data Even though it is apparent that Pacific Repeated trapping bouts at optimum or analysis have been submitted to pocket mice have not been recorded in times and in documented Pacificpocket refute their findings. By contrast, the December, January, or February of any mice hahitats maximized the possibility data, analyses, and conclusions given year (see Erickson 1993) and that of detecting the species. From 1986 to presented by Soule et al. (1992), the species apparently is most 1987, for instance, coastal strand summarized by the Service (March 30, detectable from April to August (e.g., habitats were surveyed in June, May, 1993; 58 FR 16742), and the relevant Meserve 1972), it cannot be assumed and then again in August for a total of references cited therein are that the species is entirely undetectable 240 trap nights. In addition, potential corroborative. during winter months. Subsequent to habitat inmaritime scrub, Salicornia The Service further concludesthat the his long-term (1969—1973) study of the upland, Salicornia/Distichlis dominated reported, extreme reduction in the little pocket mouse at an elevation of areas, and Salicornia plots were potential range and extirpation of the approximately 1,220 meters (4,000 feet) surveyed during the same cal~ndar Pacific pocket mouse in Los Angeles in the Owens Valley, California, Kenagy months for a total of 2,040 trap nights. County is corroborated by a recent (1973) observed that ‘ (tjhe extent of Trappingbouts in all of the above- assessment of the land use status of low- winter activity in the population of P. mentioned habitats during October of elevation lands therein. In the final rule Iongimembris was different in each of 1986 and February of 1987 resulted in listing the coastal California gnatcatcher the three winters, ranging from zero to additional 1,320 trap nights of survey (Polioptila colifornica californica) as 5 months of activity.* * ~“ Thus, the data. threatened (March 30, 1993; 58 FR Service cannot automatically assume The Service document referenced by 16742), it was reported that over 96 that trapping surveys during winter the commenter, a draft proposal calling percent of the habitat below 250 meters months are of no value in determining for a live trapping program, is not on (800 feet) that might have supported the the presence/absence of the Pacific letterhead, not dated, and not signed by gnatcatcher have been largely or entirely pocket mouse. If Pacific pocket mice are a Service Field Sup~rvisoror person developed. Although the coastal active during a given period in winter, acting on his or herbehalf, Although the California gnatcatcher is sympatric with however, surface sign should be visible. date of the document is unknown, the only known, confirmed population In any case, a review of the Service staff recall that this document of Pacific pocket mouse on the Dana methodology employed by Taylor and has been in the files since at least Point Headlands (EDAW 1993), the Tiszler (1991) reveals that “[tirapping November 1991. Thus, this draft latter species has not been documented began in November of 1988 and was document predates the receipt or filing above approximately 180 meters (600 completed May 1989.” Thus, these of all of the substantive data and feet) (Erickson 1993) and apparently authors did conduct trapping in at least scientific papers that were received in does not extend nearly as far inland as portions of 4 calendar months during 1993 and 1994. the former species (summarized March which Pacific pocket mice have been Given all of the information that was 30, 1993; 58 FR 16742). Thus, given the recorded (Taylor and Tiszler 1991; see received in 1993 and the additional intense, almost completedevelopment also Erickson 1993). information and materials that have of the immediate coast in Los Angeles In the emergency rule, R. Zembal, been received since, the Service County, the Service believes that it is U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (pers. concludes that sufficient, adequate data reasonable to predict that the past comm., 1993), is cited as a source to are available to assess the likely status reduction in the range of the Pacific corroborate the statement that recent and distribution of Pacific pocket mice pocket mouse there exceeds the small trapping efforts at the Santa • at the remaining historic locales and corresponding reduction in the Los Margarita River Mouth have failed to elsewhere throughout its historic range. Angeles County range of the coastal detect the presence of the Pacific pocket The known present and past status and California gnatcatcher. mouse (59 FR 5307), As is reflected in distribution of the Pacific pocket mouse Issue 5: “The Service should explain the Pacific pocket mouse species file at at these historic locales are again that with only 8 known historic the Carlsbad Field Office, the referenced individually reviewed below in the locations of the PPM and considering communication was “[tihe Service has “Summaryof Factors Affecting the the available data on the animal, the looked repeatedly and intensively for Species” section of this rule. PPM may never have been abundant in the Pacific pocket mouse at the Santa Issue 4: The data used by the Service either the number of populations in the Margarita River Mouth in recent years to estimate the remaining potential United States or the number of with no success.” habitat of the Pacific pocket is individuals in those populations, at This statement is borne out by records inadequate. In particular, “~ * * the least for the last hundred years.” In of recent survey and trapping efforts at Service’s data for San Diego County, support of this position, the commenter that locale. Salata (1981) failed to detect Oberbauer and Vanderwier (1991), turns also notes that Stephens (1906) the Pacific pocket mouse at the Santa out, upon inspection, to consist of described the Pacific pocket mouse as Margarita River Mouth on Marine Corps nothing more than unsubstantiated “one of the rarest animals.” The 49758 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations commenteradditionally indicates that ameliorated by a listhg accordingly, wit: Perognathus baileyi. Perognathus “[tihe Service should also explain that the [e]mergeucy [r]ule is improper.” arenarius, Perogr,athusfailax, the PPM may be much more abundant Service Response:The Service Dipodomys agilis, Dipodomys merriami, and widespread than suggested in the acknowledges that the development of Dipodomys gravipes,Reithrodontomys [piroposed [riule.” the Dana Point Headlands currently is mego.lotis. Onochomvstorridus, Service Response: Because the Pacific notas imminent now as it appeared in Peromyscus caiifornicus.Pervmyscus pocket mouse range-wide has been February of 1994. Since the publishing maniculatus, Micmtus californicus, and variously described as “exceedingly of the emergency and proposed rules, Neotoma fuscipes. Consequently, the difficult to catch” with snap traps (von the citizens of Dana Point have forced best available data does notsupport the Bloeker 1931a) or “quite trappable” a referendum on the proposed project conclusion that the Pacific pocket once located (R. M’Closkey, pers. that apparently will be decided in mouse may occur inMexico. Delaying comm., 1994; P. Meserve,pets. comm., November of 1994. The referendum and listing until surveys outside ofthe 1994; R. MacMillan, pets. comm., 1994), subsequent possibleCity of Dana Point known range had been completed the Service concludes that this anomaly actions could result in the delayed would notbe in keeping with the is generated as aresult of the patchy implementation of, or modifications to, purposes of the Act. distribution of the species and its the proposed project. The commenter Even if the Pacific pocket mouse ecological requirements (e.g., M’Closkey has agreed, however, that “~ * the occurs in coastal Baja California, it is 1972; Meserve 1976b; P. Meserve, pers. Dana Headlands site is the onlylocation likely that the species does not occur recently shown to contain PPM” and comm., 1994; R. M’Closkey, pets. southof 300 north latitude, which comm., 1994; R. MacMillan, pets. that the landowners are requesting represents an important transition zone comm., 1994; P. Bryiski, in iitt, 1994). approval of aspecific plan that includes for various birds, plants, land mammals, Apparently, the “~ * * rareness of the “* * * development on and near the and other animal taxa. If, in an extreme Pacificpocket mouse is not an artifact area where the PPM was trapped in case, it is true that the species is of low trappability * * ~“ (P. Bryiski, 1993.” patchily distributed southward to 30° in Iitt, 1994). Even in an area (the San The Service disagrees that the north latitude, the Service, pursuant to Joaquin Hills) where the Pacific pocket documented predation by domestic and analyses and subsequent conclusions mouse was repeatedly located and feral cats cannot be effectively reached prior to the listing of the coastal studied during two research ameliorated by a listing. The mission California gnatcatcher, presently investigations of the ecology of the local and mandateof the Service is to recover concludesthat the United States historic rodent community, the species was listed species utilizing the funds and distribution of the Pacific pocket mouse described there as rare (M’Closkey 1972) authority that Congress provides. A would represent a significant portion of or present in relatively low numbers (P. recovery plan for the Pacific pocket the species’ overall (hypothetical) range Meserve, pers. comm., 1994). mouse will almost certainly provide for Accordingly, given a composite of the means and measures to preventor (see 58 FR 16742). available information and data, the reduce the depredation of the species. Issue 8: “Although the Pacific pocket Service concludes that there are no data. The Service hopes and trusts that it will mouse is not one of the identified substantive or otherwise, that support be able to enlist the cooperation of all speciesin the State’s [Natural the hypothesis that the Pacific pocket landowners and cat owners in or near Communities Conservation Planning] mouse is much more abundant and occupied or suspected Pacific pocket program, it may be included in the widespread than suggested in the mouse habitat to prevent the continuing subregional NCCP for this area.” The proposed rule. Although the persistence endangerment or extinction of the County of Orange has been provided of the Pacific pocket mouse on 45 acres species. with updated habitat information and of occupied or potentially-occupied Issue 7: The same commenter the subregional plan is currently being habitat (Brylski 1993) suggeststhe real concluded that listing of thePacific prepared. Therefore, “~ * * the possibility that populations of the pocket mouse is not warranted because characterization of the NCCP program as species exist elsewhere, confirmed a comprehensive survey for the species ‘inadequate’ may be premature.” extant populations away from the Dana has not been done in Baja California, Seivice Response:The only use of the Point Headlands have not been found or Mexico. word “inadequate” in the proposed or rediscovered in over 20 years. Thus, Sen’ice Response:The Servicefinds emergency rules (59 FR 5306) refersto given the range-wide survey data and all no scientificbasis for concluding or the previously proposed program to other relevant information now speculating that a possible population control domestic cat predation on the available, the Service concludes that the or populations of Pacificpocket mice in Dana Point Headlands and not to the Pacific pocket mouse is a patchily Mexico preclude the need to list the State’s NCCP program. As currently distributed species that has been •species. Although the range map in Hall proposed, the NCCP program may, in described as locally abundant (Bailey (1981) suggests that the range of the fact, eventually result in the 1939) to rare on carefully studied plots. Pacific pocket mouse may extend into conservation of the Pacific pocket Further, this mouse has become northwestern Baja California, Mexico. mouse or the species’ potential habitat. increasingly rare as a result of human- there are no known records of the At the present time, however, it remains induced, direct impacts that are species outside of California and, thus, true that Pacific pocket mouse is not an presented and discussed in the the United States as a whole (Hall 1981; NCCP target speciesand no subregional “Summary of Factors Affecting the Erickson 1993; Williams et al. 1993). By plans or individual plans have been Species” section of this rule. contrast, an analysis of species limits completed or implemented that would Issue 6: The same commenter maps (Hall 1981) and composite of provide for the protection of the only observed that “ltlhe Service documented records (Hall 1981; known, confirmed population or the mischaracterizes the threat to the Dana Williams et al. 1993) reveals that at least conservation of the speciesas a whole. Headlands PPM population because the 12 small rodent species have been Issue 9: The proposed relocation of development of the site is not imminent historically recorded on the coast of the onlyconfirmed population extant is and any threat posed by feral or northwestern Baja California in San not a viable conservation alternative for domestic cats cannotbe effectively Quintin, Ensenada, or their environs, to the species. Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 49759

Service Response: Given the apparent In adding the word “solely” to the seealso EDAW 1993 and City of Dana rarity of the Pacific pocket mouse and statutory criteria for listing a species, Point, in litt, 1994). the experimental nature of relocation Congress specifically addressed this The recent status of the Pacific pocket programs. the Service would carefully issue in the 1982 amendments to the mouse and its habitat has been review any proposal to relocate—in Act. The addition of th~word“solely” summarized by Erickson (1993) based whole or in part—any population of the was intended to remove from the on a comprehensive search for museum Pacific pocket mouse. It remains true process of the listing or delisting of specimens and capture records and that one ofthe central purposes of the species any factor not related to the conversations with pocket mice Act is to protect the natural habitat of biological status of the species. It was researchers and recognized expert the listed species. However, if and when determined by a congressional sources. Other records and information Pacific pocket mouse population levels committee that economic considerations have been obtained by the Service and allow, the Service likely will investigate have no relevance to determinations made part of the public record the possibility and feasibility of regarding the status of species. The pertaining to this action. A composite of translocating animals to historically- application of economic criteria to the this information is arranged by county occupied locales or other areas with analysis of these alternatives and to any and summarized below: suitable habitat and attributes to affect phase of the species listing process is Los Angeles ~Jounty.The Pacific the recovery of the species or, in an applying economics to the pocket mouse historically was detected extreme case, prevent extinction. determinations made under section 4 of in three areas—Marina del Rey/El Pursuant to the requirements of the the Act and was specifically rejected by Segundo, Wilmington, and Clifton. Two purpose and section 7 of the Act, the the inclusion of the word “solely” in the of the three historic locales for the Service likely would solicit the legislation (see HR. Report No. 567, part Pacific pocket mouse (Clifton and cooperation and participation of all 1, 97th Congress, 2d Session 20 110821). Wilmington) in Los Angeles County Federal agencies and landowners in this Therefore, the Service concludes that have been developed (Erickson 1993). regard. it cannot consider a “TIA” until a final The Service is unaware of potential Issue 20: The listing of the Pacific decision has been made whether or not Pacific pocket mice habitat at these two pocket mouse may he in conflict with to list a proposed species. Ho~s’ever, locales; none was disclosed or revealed Federal statutory authority (22 U.S.C. with the signing and publication of this as a result of the Service’s request for 277d—32) and important Federal. nile in the Federal Register, the Service information. The third historic locale international wastewater treatment and will complete and consider a TIA. (Marina del Rey/El Segundo) apparently flood control projects along the Tijuana has been substantially altered since the Summary of Factors Affecting the River that will diminish threats to Species species was last detected there (Erickson puhlic health and safety. 1993; P. Bryiski, in litt, 1993). The Service Response: Several recent Aftera thorough review and Hyperion area, which formerly surveys conducted in the Tijuana River consideration ofall available contained relatively large expanses of Valley (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife information, the Service has determined coastal strand and wetland habitats, has Service 1994h) have not resulted in that the Pacific pocket mouse should he been extensively developed. Although detections of the Pacific pocket mouse. classified as an endangered species. potential habitat remains at the El Therefore, given the best scientific Procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of Segundo Dunes, walk-over and trapping information available, the listing of the the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and regulations surveys by J. Maldonado and P. Brylski, Pacific pocket mouse apparent]y will (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to including a 366-trap-night effort in July nut conflict with the proposed projects. iniplernent the listing provisions of the of 1993, have caused the latter surveyor Even if the Pacific pocket mouse is Act were followed. A species may he to conclude that is “unlikely” that the rediscovered in theTijuana River Valley determined to be endangered or Pacific pocket mouse occurs there (P. ur found elsewhere in Federal project threatened due to one or more of the Brylski, in litt, 1993). “action areas,’ as defined at 50 CFR five factors described in section 4(a)(1). Elsewhere in Los Angeles Count’s’, u 402.02, the Act provides, under These factors and their application to focused survey for the Pacific pocket prescribed circumstances involving the Pacific pocket mou~,e(Perognothu.s mouse in Culver City consisting of 601) public health and safety, for expedited iongiinemhris pacificus) are as fuliows: trap nights over three nights in June of emergency consultations. A. The present or threatened 1991 in remnants of appropriate habitat Issue ii: The Service must comply destruction, modification, or resulted in no detections of Pacific with Executive Order No. 12630 and curtailment of ifs habitat or range. The pocket mice (P. Kelly, pers. comm., conduct a takings analysis before Pacific pocket mouse historically was 1994). Although patches of suitable reaching any final decision on listing recorded and confirmed at eight locales habitat apparently remain on the Palos the Pacific pocket mouse. The encompassing some 29 specific trapping Verdes Peninsula and trapping surveys cornmenter noted that the executive stations or sites (see Erickson 1993). of at le~sttwo sites are recommended, order ~ * * requires the preparation Currently, however, the Pacific pocket walk-over surveys of two other areas and consideration of a Takings mouse is known to exist at only one site with suitable habitat by P. Brylski and Implication Assessment (‘TIA’J by a on the Dana Point Headlands, Cit~’of S. Dodd revealed no pocket mouse United States executive agency before Dana Point, Orange County, California. burrows or diggings (P. Brylski, in lilt, that agency takes actions which may Although the Dana Point Headlands 1993). result in a taking of private property for have not been deve]oped or significantly It remains true that there have been which compensation may be due under altered since the Pacific pocket mouse no records of the Pacific pocket mouse the Fifth Amendment of the was detected at this locale, the “ * * in Los Angeles County since 1938 Constitution.” landowners are requesting approval on (Erickson 1993; see also Brylski, in litt, Service Response: In accordance with a specific plan from the City of Dana 1993). Given the available information 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A) and 50 CFR Point, which plan envisions at that time, Williams (1986) concluded 424.11(h), listing decisions are made development on and near the area that it was probable that all populations solely on the basis of the best scientific where PPM were trapped in 1993” (A. north of the San Joaquin Hills in Orange and (;omlnercial data available. Harizeli, Attorney-at-Law in lilt, 1904; County were extirpated. 49760 Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

Orange Counly. The Pacific pocket coastal Orange County. Given the data percent of all specimen records mouse has been confirmed at two and analysis presented by Brylski (Erickson 1993), evidently supported a locales in Orange County: the San (1993). it is apparent that 25 to 36 relatively large population of the Pacific Joaquin Hills and Dana Point. Pacific pocket mice occupied pocket mouse in historic times (e.g.. von Development of the “Spyglass Hill” area approximately 3.75 acres of habitat Bloeker 1931b). Citing two recent, in the San Joaquin Hills began in 1972 within a coastal sage scrub community unsuccessful trapping efforts (Taylor and has resulted in the destruction of at that locale in 1993. As is discussed and Tiszler 1991; R.T. Miller, pers. the site where the Pacific pocketmouse above, this population is located on comm., 1993), Erickson (1993) and a number of other small rodent land that is under consideration for commented that the remaining habitat species were studied for a three-year development (City of Dana Point, in Jitt, there is possibly insufficient to support period (P. Meserve, pers. comm., 1994; 1994; EDAW 1994). the species. Most recently, the U.S. Fish R. M’Closkey. pers. comm., 1994; It San Diego County. The Pacific pocket and Wildlife Service (1994b) conducted MacMillan, pers. comm., 1994; see also mouse historically has been detected at a focused survey for the Pacific pocket M’Closkey 1972 and Meserve 1972). three general locales in San Diego mouse in the Tijuana RiverValley from Prior to the rediscovery of the Pacific County: the San Onofre area, Santa April 18, 1994 to May 13, 1994. Despite pocket mouse in 1993 on the Dana Point Margarita River Estuary, and the lower walk-over surveys of the area, four or Headlands (Bryiski 1993), the last Tijuana River Valley. Although portions five trapping bouts in each of eight record of the species was from of the San Onofre area are relatively separate locales, and a total of 4,242 trap “Spyglass Hill” inthe San Joaquin Hills undisturbed and deserving of further nights of survey effort, no Pacific pocket in 1971 (see Erickson 1993). Recent June attention (e.g., P. Brylski, in litt, 1994), mice were detected. to October trapping efforts totaling 1197 recent small mammal trapping efforts at Elsewhere in San Diego County. a trap nights in the San joaquin Hills and thelocale failed to detect the presence small mammal trapping program that adjacent Laguna Canyon were of the Pacificpocket mouse (Erickson began in 1987 is continuing at Torrey unsuccessful in detecting the Pacific 1993; R. Erickson, pers.comm., 1993). Pines State Park in habitats that have pocket mouse (Erickson, pers. comm., As is reflected in the Service’s ranged from maritime chaparral to open 1993). response to “Issue 3” in the “Summary (barren) areas as a result of two Elsewhere, extensive, recent small of Comments and Recommendations” prescribed burns in the project area. mammal surveys of the coast of Orange section of this rule, recent, intense Since 1988, 88 traps have been set every County away from the Dana Point survey efforts at the Santa Margarita other week from mid-March to October Headlands have not resulted in the River Mouth similarly have not resulted during the study period. Despite an detection of the Pacific pocket mouse. in any Pacific pocket mouse detections effort that now exceeds 7,500 trap For instance, no Pacific pocket mice (Salata 1981; U.S. Fish and Wildlife nights, no Pacific pocket mice have been were detected during 54 trapping bouts Service 1994a; see also Zembal 1984). detected (it Dingman, pers. comm.. conducted from 1979 to 1994 during Although the relatively undisturbed 1994). calendar months from March to October coastline of Marine Corps Base Camp Analysis of the relevant data reveals at atotal of 24 different locales in Pendleton “i’ * probably provides the that the habitat and potential range of coastal Orange County, including areas best chance for the survival of the the Pacific pocket mouse apparently in or near Corona delMar, Crystal Cove subspecies” (Erickson 1993), the Base have been significantly reduced in the State Park, Laguna Beach, and San Environmental and Natural Resources recent past. Opportunities to find Clemente (J. Webb, in litt, 1994). Management Office has indicated that additional populations ofthe Pacific Additional trapping efforts during late “[o]ther than the recorded pocket mouse apparently are limited as fall or winter months at some of these documentation of this species in the a result of the extent of land same locales resulted in the capture of vicinity of San Onofre and the Santa development in coastal southern a variety of other native small rodent Margarita Estuary in the 1930’s * * California (Service files). species but no Pacific pocket mice. we have no information regarding the Based on the best available scientific A focused trapping survey of occurrence of this species aboard information, the Service considers the appropriate habitats involving a total Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton. To historic, known range of the Pacific effort of 558 trap nights during April of date, none of the environmental studies pocket mouse to encompass a 3.2-km (2- 1990 did not result in the detection of which have occurred aboard the Base mile) wide band along the immediate the Pacific pocket mouse along Aliso since that time have identified this coast of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Creek (Jones and Stokes 1990). R. species.” (L. Armas, in litt, 1994). Diego Counties from Marina Del Roy/El MacMillan (pers. comm., 1994) also did During the 1930’s, Camp Pendleton Segundo south to the international not detect the Pacific pocket mouse MarineCorps Base did not exist and the border. Most native habitats within 3 during a June, 60-trap night, survey of city of Oceanside was immediately km (2 miles) of the coast in Los Angeles, suitable habitat in South Laguna Beach adjacent to the Santa Margarita River Orange and San Diego counties have and mentioned that an additional Estuary. Much of the southern half of been converted to urban and survey in Alta i.aguna conducted for the the Santa Margarita River Estuary was agricultural uses (Service files). City of Laguna Beach was unsuccessful. destroyed in the early 1940’s during the Specifically, less than 400 hectares Surveys contributing to a total effort of establishment of Marine Corps Base (1,000 acres) or 1 percent of 1067 trap nights conducted elsewhere Camp Pendleton and the related approximately 28,000 hectares (69,000 within the potential Orange County construction of a boat basin and harbor acres) that encompass the projected range of the Pacific pocket mouse facilities. In addition, the Oceanside range of the Pacific pocket mouse in Los during calendar months from April area has been extensively developed Angeles County are undeveloped through November resulted in no since the Pacific pocket mouse was last (Service files). In Orange County, about detections of the species (Erickson. pers. recorded there in 1931 and the Service 17,600 hectares (43,500 acres) or 81 comm., 1993). is aware of Little, ifany, remaining percent of approximately 21,600 The only known population of the suitable habitat in that jurisdiction. hectares (53,500 acres) encompassing Pacific pocket mouse has persisted on The lower Tijuana River Valley, the projected range of the species have the DanaPoint Headlands in southern, which accounts for approximately 35 been developed (Service files). Federal Regster / VoL 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 49761

Oberbauer and Vanderwier (1991) species. More recently,the Service Bolger et al. (1994, in press) reported that 72 percent of the original (1994b) reported that habitats or lands concluded that “Eflragments support coastal sage scrub, 94 percent of native in a historically-occupied Pacific pocket fewer species (of native rodentsl than grasslands, 88 percent of coastal mixed mouse locale apparently have been equivalently sized plots in large plots of chaparral, 88 percent of coastal salt impacted by artificial lighting, disking unfragmented chaparral indicating that marsh, 100 percent of coastal strand, or blading, the presence of non-native local extinctions have occurred and 92 percent of maritime sage scrub rodent species (see also Soule et al. followinginsularization.” Given a habitats in San Diego County had been 1992), and pedestrian and horse traffic. composite of the available data on the converted to urban and agricultural uses The Pacific pocket mouse, as a local status and distribution of select by 1988. representative heteromyid rodent, may species within the study area in coastal Although the historic distribution of be more susceptible to the adverse San DiegoCounty, Soule et al. (1992) the coastal sage scrub element of Pacific effects of the human presence than remarked that it was possibleto assess pocket mouse habitat was undoubtedly cricetid rodents (R. MacMillan, pers. with reasonable accuracy the date that patchy to some degree, this condition comm., 1994). a particular habitat remnant became evidently has been greatly exacerbated Although it is possible that lIre may isolated. by urban and agricultural development. intermittently createor sustain Pacific Soule et al. (1992) further noted that All of the published literature on the pocket mouse habitat mosaics, it has ~ * * urban barriers including status of coastal sage scrub vegetation in been reported that increased fire highways, streets, and structures, California supports the conclusion that frequency may contribute to the type impose a very high degree of isolation.” this plant community is one of the most conversion ofcoastal sage scrub to Similarly, Ehnlich and Ehrlich (1981) depleted habitat types in the United grassland habitats (Service files). In observed that “smaller animals may also States (Service files). In a broader addition, the Service acknowledges that suffer fragmentation of their populations context, the California floristic province, the protection of lives and property may by highways, railways, canals, etc., which is recognized as a separate require fire prevention strategies that do changing population structures and evolutionary center by botanists, is not necessarily result in the making the remaining populations identified by Wilson (1992) as one ofthe maintenance or creation of potential smaller and more subject to random recognized world “hot spots,” which are Pacificpocket mouse habitat. extinction. One study has indicated that defined to be “~ * * habitats with Accordingly, the Service concludes that a four-lane divided highway may be a many species found nowhere else and fireprevention measures and barrier to the movement of small forest in greatest danger of extinction from unnaturally high fire frequencies mammals equivalent to a river twice as human activity.” The California floristic resulting from anthropogenic ignitions wide.” (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981). province is the only designated “hot may directly or indirectly impact the Although not a forest animal, the Pacific spot” in North America and Mexico Pacific pocket mouse. pocket mouse must be now considered (Wilson 1992). rare by any standard and, therefore, The available information further Equally, if not more, problematical particularly vulnerable to the effects of than habitat disturbance or destruction, suggests that the quantity of potential continuing habitat destruction and Pacific pocket mouse river alluvium however, has been an increasing degree fragmentation (see Terborgh and Winter substrates have significantly declined of habitat fragmentation in coastal 1980). since the species was last recorded in southern California (e.g., Soule et al. Largely on the bases of significant numbers in the 1930’s. With few 1992; Service files), which is known habitat loss and fragmentation in coastal exceptions (such as the Santa Margarita generally to reduce habitat quality and California, the Service has listed several River), essentially all of the rivers and promote increased levels of local other species of plants and animals as creeks within its historic range are now extinction (e.g., Terborgh and Winter endangered or threatened, including the partially or completely channelized. In 1980; Wilcox 1980; Ehrlich and Ehrlich California least tern (Sterna antillarum many cases (e.g., Los Angeles River,San 1981; Wilson 1992; Bolger et al. 1994 in browni), light-footed clapper rail (Raflus Gabriel River, Santa Ana River)stream press). Given the location of the Iongirostris Ievipes), the Palos Verdes and sediment flows are regulated or research areas and thrust and direction blue butterfly (Glaucopsychelygdamus inhibited by dams, reservoirs or other of the investigations, the research and palosvei-desensis), El Segundo blue water conservation or impoundment findings of Soule et al. (1992) are butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni), facilities (see also Erickson 1993). particularly relevant to a discussion of and, most recently, the coastal Although some suitable Pacific pocket fragmentation effects on the Pacific California gnatcatcher (58FR 16742; mouse habitat apparently remains in pocketmouse. Service files). The Service listed the San Onofre and contiguous coast of Based on studies of native bird, coastal California gnatcatcher, because Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, the rodent and flowering plant species of, in part, the significant and ongoing San Joaquin Hills, the Palos Verdes persistence in chaparral and coastal sage destruction, perturbation, or Peninsula, the El Segundo Dunes and at scrub habitat remnants in coastal San fragmentation of that species’ coastal scattered locales elsewhere in the Diego County, California, Soule et al. sage scrub habitat (58 FR 16742). historic range of the species, this habitat (1992) concluded that “[tihe effects of B. Overutilizationfor commercial, is becoming increasingly scarce and fragmentation in a scrub habitat in recreational, scientific, or educational likely will continue to be destroyed, California on three taxa (plants, birds, purposes. Although the existing disturbed or otherwise impacted as a and rodents) are concordant. Extinctions information and data are not conclusive, manifest result of human activities. within the habitat remnants occur P. Brylski (pers. comm., 1994) has Williams (1986) concluded that habitat quickly and the sequenceof species commented that scientific collecting in losses resulting from off-road vehicle disappearances of birds and rodents is the 1930’s may have substantially activities, highways, and urbanization predictable based on population density impacted the Pacific pocket mouse likely were extensive. Erickson (1993) in undisturbed habitat.” Terborgh and population in the El Segundo area. observed that industrial and agricultural Winter (1980) observed previously that Erickson (1993) reported the existence development likely were additional ‘irlarity proves to be the best index of of 78 specimens collected in factors contributing to the decline of the vulnerability.” ‘Hyperion” (now Marina del Rey/El 49762 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 188 I Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

Segundo) during the fall of 1931 and mechanisms could possibly provide the decision makers. Given a composite spring of 1932. Otherwise, there is no some protection for the species. These of the best available scientific substantive information that this factor include—(1) the Act if the species were information,it is clear that these is applicable. to occur sympatrically with a listed statutes have not adequately protected C. Disease orpredation. The species, (2) the California Natural the Pacific pocket mouse or its habitat. expressed, perhaps synergistic effects of Community Conservation Planning Prior to the emergency-listing of the habitat fragmentation and the proximity effort, (3) the California Environmental Pacific pocket mouse as endangered, a of urban environments to Pacific pocket Quality Act, (4) land acquisition and relocation program and predator mouse habitats are likely toincrease the management by Federal, State, or local management program were proposed to rate of depredation on that species. Most agencies or by private groups and mitigate impacts to the Pacific pocket recently, Soule et al. (1992) has organizations, and (5) local laws and mouse on the Dana Point Headlands confirmed earlier conclusions by noting regulations. (EDAW 1993). More recently, the City of that “[t]here is evidence that large The Pacific pocket mouse is currently Dana Point (City) (in Iitt, 1994) has predators retard the biotic collapse of recognized as a Species of Special indicated that the project applicant these [habitat) remnants by controlling Concern “OfHighest Priority” by the must, if the Pacific pocket mouse is populations of smaller, semi-commensal California Department of Fish and listed, obtain a take permit for the predators. including domestic cats Game. Ifemergency protection afforded Pacific pocket mouse prior to the thePacific pocket mouse pur’suant to issuance ofany city permits * * that Several species have been reported as theAct were to be removed prior to the would allow activity that would harm or potential or documented predators of promulgation of a final rule listing the harass the Pacific pocket mouse * * the Pacific pocket mouse, including the species as endangered, the species Because the Service has not received red fox ( Vulpes vulpes). The explosive would ret~inits status as a proposed a formal, detailed mitigation proposal proliferation ofnon-native populations species under the Act. from the City or project proponent, the of red foxes in coastal southern The only known, confirmed Service cannot presently assess the California is well documented (e.g.. population of thePacific pocket mouse merits of said proposal or render a Lewis et al., 1993). Given the relative does occur sympatrically with a judgment as to whether or not the abundance of the red fox in coastal population of the threatened coastal proposed impact avoidance and southern California (Lewiset al. 1993) California gnatcatcher (Bryiski 1993; mitigation measures will prevent and the fact that descriptions of the diet EDAW 1993). Under provisions of jeopardy to the Pacific pocket mouse, of red foxes invariably include mice section 10(a) of the Act, the Service may Although the Service notes and (Ingles 1965; Janieson and Peeters 1988: permit the incidental take of the coastal appreciates the fact that it would be Burkett and Lewis 1992; Lewis et al. California gnatcatcher during the course given the opportunity to review the 1993), it seems reasonable to assume of an otherwise legal activity, provided relocation program if the Pocket mouse that “feral” foxes similarly could that the species’ survival and recovery is not listed (City of Dana Point, in Iitt, substantially impact populations of in the wild is not precluded. The 1994), the Service has concluded that Pacific pocket mice if and when the issuance of section 10(a) permit to take the potential effects of translocation are species overlap. Erickson (1993) has the coastal California gnatcatcher on the not relevant to a decision on whether to commented that the red fox * * may Dana Point Headlands could result in list a species. Under section 4 of the have hastened the demise of pacificus” the extinction of the Pacific pocket Act, if data warrant listing, the Service in the El Segundo area, a locale that mouse. must proceed to list the species. The previously and historically In 1991,the State of California Service (59 FR 5308) and the California accommodated the Pacific pocket mouse commenced the Natural Communities Department of Fish and Game (in litt, ~nnumbers. Conservation Planning (NCCP) program 1993) both have independently In addition, feral and domestic cats to address the conservation needs of concluded that the relocation program (Fells cotus) are known to be formidable natural ecosystems throughout the State. previously outlined (EDAW 1993) is predators of native rodents (e.g., Hubbs The initial focus of that program is the inadequate. 1951; George 1974; Frank 1992). Pearson coastal sage scrub community, which is E. Other natural or man-made factors (1964) concluded that the removal of occupied. in part, by the Pacific pocket affecting its continued existence. 4200 mice from a 14-hectare (35-acre) mouse. At the present time, however, no Considering theextremely small test plot was accomplished largely by 6 program plans have been completed or population size and current range of the cats over 8 months. implemented. and no protection is Pacific pocket mouse (no more than 36 Feral or domestic cats are threatening currently in place or proposed to reduce individuals have been detected in the ;he only known, confirmed population or eliminate possible, future impacts to last 22 years), the current extent of the ofPacific pocket mouse. Specifically. a habitat occupied in 1994 by the Pacific coastal strand, coastal dune, river resident living immediately adjacent to pocket mouse on the Dana Point alluvium, and coastal sage scrub the Dana Point Headlands population Headlands, which is the only known. habitats upon which it depends, further reported that domestic cats had recently confirmed refugium for the species. losses of habitat will have significant and repeatedly brought in a number of In many instances, land-use planning adverse effects on any extant “tiny gray mice.” One such specimen decisions in southern California have populations of this species. Given all was retrieved and confirmed to be a been made and continue to he made on relevant data and considerations, it is Pacific pocket mouse (P. Bryiski, in Iitt, the basis of environmental review apparent that the species is highly 1991). documents prepared in accordance with susceptible to extinction as a result of D. The inadequacy of existing California Environmental Quality Act environmental or demographic factors regulatory mechanisms. Should and theNational Environmental Policy alone (e.g., Mace and Lande 1991). protection afforded the Pacific pocket Act. Although impacts to sensitive The Service has carefully assessed the mouse pursuant to the emergency rule species and habitats must be disclosed best scientific and commercial under the Act (59 FR 5306) lapse or pursuant to these statutes, the information available regarding the past, otherwise be removed, other select protection or conservation of the species present, and future threats faced by this existing regulatory or conservation or their habitats are at the discretion of species in determining to make this rule Federal Register I Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 I Rules and Regulations 49763 final. Based on this evaluation, the only known, confirmed population of critical habitat. IfaFederal action may Service finds that the Pacific pocket the species. Thisthreat was received affect a listedspecies or its critical mouse warrants protection under the from an individual who was apparently habitat, the responsible Federal agency Act on the basis of continuing threats to incensed at the emergency and must enter into formal consultation with the species, which include substantial proposed listings of the species. On the the Service. Federal agencies that may habitat loss and fragmentation and basis of this kind of activity, the Service be involved through activities they depredation. Therefore, the preferred finds that publication of critical habitat authorize, fund, or carry out that may and only possible action is to list the descriptions and maps would likely affectthe Pacificpocket mouse or its Pacific pocket mouse as endangered, make the species more vulnerable to historical habitat include the Army which is defined in section 3(6) of the activities prohibited under section-9 of Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Act as a species “which is in danger of the Act. Administration, the Department of the extinction throughout all or asignificant Secondly, the only known, confirmed Navy (including Marine Corps Base portion of its range * * population of the Pacific pocket mouse Camp Pendleton). As provided by 5 U.S.C. 553(d). the is found on private property where The Act and implementing Service has determined that good cause Federal involvement in land-use regulations set forth a series of general exists to make the effective date of this activities is not expected to occur. prohibitions and exceptions that apply rule immediate. Delay in Protection resulting from critical habitat to all endangq~edwildlife. The implementation of the effective date designation is largely achieved through prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17, in would place the remaining Pacific the Federal consultation process part, make it illegal for any person pocket mice and habitat of the species pursuant to section 7 of the Act and the subject to the jurisdiction of the United at risk (see relevant discussion below implementing regulations pertaining States to take (including harass, harm, under the heading of “Critical Habitat”). thereto (50 ~FR 402). Because section 7 pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, Critical habitat is not being designated would not apply to many, if any, of the or collect; or attempt any such conduct), at this time for the reasons discussed majority ofland-use activities occurring import or export, ship in interstate below. within thespecies’ known habitat, its commerce in the course of commercial Critical Habitat designation would not appreciably activity, or sell or offer for sale in benefit the species. interstate or foreign commerce any Critical habitat is defined in section 3 listed species. The term “harm” asit of the Act as: (i) the specific areas Available Conservation Measures applies to the take prohibition is within the geographical area occupied Conservation measures provided to defined in 50 CFR 17.3 to include an act by a species, at the time it is listed in species listed as endangered or that actually kills or injures listed accordance with the Act, on which are threatened under the Endangered wildlife. Such act may include found those physical or biological Species Act include recognition, significant habitat modification or features (I) essential to the conservation recovery actions, requirements for degradation where it actually kills or of the species and (II)that may require Federal protection, and prohibitions Injures listed wildlife by significantly special management considerations or against certain activities. Recognition impairing essential behavioral patterns, protection and; (ii) specific areas through listing encourages and results including breeding, feeding or outside the geographical area occupied in conservation actions by Federal, sheltering. It also is illegal to possess, by a species at the time it is listed, upon State, and local agencies, private sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship a determination that such areas are organizations, and individuals. The Act any such wildlife that has been taken essential for the conservation of the provides for possible land acquisition illegally. Certain exceptions apply to species. “Conservation” means the use and cooperation with the States and agents of the Service and State of all methods and procedures needed requires that recovery actions be carried conservation agencies. to bring the species to the point at out for all listed species. The protection Permits may be issued to carry out which listing under the Act is no longer required of Federal agencies and the otherwise prohibited activities necessary. prohibitions against taking and harm are involving endangered wildlife species Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as discussed, in part, below. under certain circumstances, amended, requires critical habitat to be Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, Regulations governing permits are designated to the maximum extent requires Federal agencies to evaluate codified at 50 GFR 17.22, and 17.23. prudent and determinable at the time a their actions with respect to any species Such permits are available for scientific species is listed as endangered or that is proposed or listed as endangered purposes, to enhance the propagation or threatened. The Service has concluded or threatened and with respect to its survival of the species, and/or for that designation of critical habitat is not critical habitat, if any is being incidental take in connection with prudent for the Pacific pocket mouse at designated. Regulations implementing otherwise lawful activities. this time. The Service’s regulations (50 this interagency cooperation provision Requests for copies of the regulations CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part on listed wildlife and inquiries about of critical habitat is not prudent when 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires prohibitions and permits may be one or both of the following situations Federal agencies to confer informally addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife exist—(1) the species is threatened by with the Service on any action that is Service, Permits Branch, 911 N.E. 11th taking or other human activity, and likely to jeopardize the continued Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232—4181 identification of critical habitat canbe existence of a proposed species or result (telephone 503/231—6241, facsimile expected to increase the degree of such in destruction or adverse modification 503/231—6243). threat to the species, or (2) such of proposed critical habitat. Ifa species designation of critical habitat would not is subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2) National Environmental Policy Act be beneficial to the species. requires Federal agencies to insure that The Fish and Wildlife Service has In the case of the Pacific pocket activities they authorize, fund, or carry determined that Environmental mouse, both criteria are met. A out are not likely to jeopardize the Assessments and Environmental Impact communication has been received oy continued existence of such a species or Statements, as defined under the the Servicethat effectively threatens the to destroy or adversely modifyits authority of the National Environmental 49764 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 188 / Thursday, September 29, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

Policy Act of 1969. need notbe Author PART 17—[AMENDED] prepared in connection with regulations The primary authorof this final rule adopted pursuant to section (4)(a) of the is Loren it Hays, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1. The authority citation for part 17 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Service, Carlsbad Field Office (see continues to read as follows: amended. A notice outlining the ADDRESSES section). Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361—1407; 16 U.S.C. Service’s reasons forthis determination 1531—1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201—4245; Pub. L. 99— was published in the Federal Register List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 625, 100 Stat 3500; unless otherwise noted. on October25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). Endangered and threatened species, 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by Exports, Imports, Reporting and - References Cited recordkeeping requirements, and revisingand making permanentthe Transportation. entry for the “Mouse, Pacific pocket” A completelist of all references cited under MAMMALS to read as follows: herein is available upon request from Regulation Promulgation the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Accordingly, part 17, subchapter B of § 17.11 Endangeredand threatened Carlsbad Field Office (see ADDRESSES wildlife. chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal * * * * * section). Regulations, is amended as set forth below: (h) * * * . Species vertebrate popu- Historic range 0hereth~~l Status When listed Common name scientwic

Mammals

Mouse, Pacific pock- Perognathus U.S.A. (CA) Entire , E 526, 554 NA NA et. langirnembris paciflcus.

Dated: September 23, 1994. Mollie H. Beattie, l)irector. US. Fish and Wildlife Service. IFR Doc. 94—24065 Filed 9—26—94; 11:01 aml BuUNO CODE 4310.65-P