sign in sign up
<<
Home , Key Largo cotton mouse, Old Rhodes Key

34504 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 171 / Friday, August 31,1984 / Rules and Regulations

County, . Destruction and alternation of tropical hardwood hammock forest, to which both species are restricted, is a threat to their continued existence. Both were listed as endangered by an emergency rule on September Z&1983, but that rule expired on May 18,1994. This final rule restores the protection of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. DATES The effective date of this rule is August 3~1934 because the Service considers that the period between the expiration of the emergency rule covering the woodrat and , and the implementation of 50 CFR Part 17 this permanent final rule, should be as Endangered and Threatened Wildlife brief as possible because of the threats and Plants; Determination of facing these species. Endangered Status for the Key Large ADDRESSES: The complete file for this Woodrat and Key Largo Cotton Mouse rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. hours (7:00 a.m.--%30 p.m.) at the Service’s Endangered Species Field ACTION: Final rule. Station, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2747 Art Museum Drive, Jacksonville, SUMMARY: The Service determines endangered status for the Key Large Flordia 32207. woodrat and cotton mouse, two small FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACt: native to Key Large, Monroe Mr. David J. Wesley, Endangered Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 171 / Friday, August 31, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 34505 . Species Field Supervisor, at the above rubrum), and brittle thatch palm recently published (Barbour and ’ address (904/7%-2580 or FTS 9462580). (Thrinax microcurpo). Humphrey 1982). In the Federal Register SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Tropical hardwood hammocks of July 28,198O (45 FR 4996149962). the develop a closed canopy when they are Service published a notice of petition Background mature, providing a more moderate, acceptance and status review, and The Key Large woodrat (Neolumo humid environment than the announced its intention to propose floridano small]] was described by surrounding habitats. The Key Largo listing the two Key Large . In the Sherman (1955). It is a small , woodrat and cotton mouse are restricted Federal Register of December 30,1982 just over a foot in length including the to these hammocks. Tropical hardwood (47 FR 58454-584601, these two mammals haired tail, and the overall coloration is hammocks were originally found from were included in category 1 of the gray-brown above and white below. It is northward into the southern Service’s Review of Vertebrate Wildlife, the southernmost subspecies of woodrat peninsula of Florida.- Many of the meaning that there was sufficient in the U.S., and is separated by a SO- hardwood hammocks on the peninsula, information 03 hand to support the mile gap from other Flordia woodrat (A? however, have been destroyed due to bioiogical appropriateness of a listing f. floridano) populations. The Key Large human activities. This habitat is one of proposal. In the Federal Register of cotton mouse ( gossypinus the most limited and threatened September 21.1983 (48 FR 43040-430433, ’ allapaticola) was described by ecosystems in Florida. The hammocks the Service issued an emergency rule Schwartz (1952). It is about half as long on north Key Largo represent some of listing both species as endangered (for as the woodrat, and its coloration is the larges remaining tracts of this details, see below under “Available reddish brown above and white below. vegetation type. Based on work carried Conservation Measures”). The Both the woodrat and cotton mouse are out on Key Large from 1968 to 1973, emergency rule expired on May 18,1984. endemic to Key Large, Monroe County, Brown (1978) reported that the Key In the Federal Register of February 9, Florida, and originally occurred Largo woodrat had been extirpated by 1984 (49 FR 49514926). the Service throughout the hardwood hammocks on fires and development from the southern published a proposed permanent this Key, but have disappeared from two-thirds of Key Largo. determination of endangered status and most of their original range. Both species Hersh (1981) studied the ecology of critical habitat for the two species. were introduced to , the woodrat on north Key Largo. Monroe County, Florida, in 1970. The Woodrat densities on a 5.25-hectare [13- Summary of Comments and woodrat may have reached the carrying acre) study area varied between 2 and Recommendations capacity of the available habitat on this 2.5 woodrats per hectare (0.8-1.0 In the proposed rule of February 9, 90-hectare (220-acre) key, a State woodrat per acre). Mean home range 1984, and associated notifications, all botanical site, but the status of the was 0.2368 hectares (0.6 acre). Each interested parties were requested to woodrat used several stick nests (about cotton mouse there is miknown. The submit information that might contribute Florida Department of Parks and 5.6 nests per woodrat). Woodrats fed on to the development of a final rule. Recreation had considered relocating leaves, buds, seeds, and flowers of a variety of plants. Appropriate State and Federal agencies, the woodrat and cotton mouse from county governments, scientific Lignumvitae Key, because neither Based on studies carried out on north organizations, and other interested species is native there. No such Key Large from January to August of parties were contacted and requested to translocation efforts are presently 1979, Earbour and Humphrey (1982) planned, however. found that the woodrat and cotton comment. Newspaper notices, inviting The upland areas that the woodrat mouse were most abundant in mature public comment, were published in the hammocks and were rare or absent in Miami Herald on February 29,19&Q, the and cotton mouse inhabit on north Key Marathon Keynoter on March 1,1984, Largo reach an elevation of about 4 young or recovering hammocks. Cotton and the Key West Citizen on March 2, meters (13 feet). The uplands support a mouse density was estimated to be 21.8 rich biota, including many rare plant mice per hectare (8.8 per acre) in mature 1984. On March 12,1984, the Service species. The climax vegetation type is a forest, but only 1.2 per hectare (0.5 per received a request for a public hearing hardwood hammock forest with close acre) in successional forest. About 463 on the proposal. The hearing was held floristic affinities to the West Indies, hectares (1144 acres) on north Key Large on April 24,1984. in the The hammocks are restricted to upland were occupied by woodrats. Stick nests Courthouse, Monroe County, Florida. areas because they do not tolerate the were absent from two hammocks During the comment period, 62 introsion of salt water in the tidal surveyed southwest of the U.S. l-State comments were received. The hearing lowland areas. Route 905 intersection. The total was attended by 118 persons; 33 Species associated with the north Key woodrat population on north Key Largo individuals made oral statements, and Large hammocks include the Schaus was estimated to be 654: the introduced 12 written statements were handed in. swallowtail butterfly (Papilio population on Lignumvitae Key was Official comment was received from the aristodemus ponceanus), federally estimated to be 85. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish threatened; and several Florida State- On May 19,1980, Dr. Stephen R. Commission, which supported the listed plant species: tamarindillo Humphrey of the Florida State Museum, proposal. (Acacia choriophyllo), powdery catopsis Gainesville, Florida, petitioned the A large number of comments or oral (Catopsis berteroniana), prickly apple Service to add the statements either supported or opposed (Cereus gracilis var. simpsonii, a cactus and cotton mouse to the U.S. List of listing these species, but provided no which the Service presently has under Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, substantive data. Support for the listing review (48 FR 53647, November 28,1983) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act proposal was voiced by six for possible listing as endangered or of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et environmental organizations. threatended), silver palm (Coccothrinax seq.). The petition included a status Opposition was generally received from argentato) lignum-vitae (Guaiacom report prepared under contract to the landowners, attorneys representing sanctum), illkwood [Hypelate trifuliata), Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish landowners. realtors, and businesses. mahogany mistletoe (Phorudendron Commission. Portions of the report were One individual also presented a petition 34506 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 171 / Friday, August 31, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

signed by 157 persons opposing the in the acquisition areas as hardwood the merit of any transplantation proposal. hammocks matured, the most favorable proposals, the Service can commit The opposing comments received can habitat is now outside the acquisition Endangered Species Act funding and be placed in a number of general groups, projects. manpower only for the recovery of listed depending on content. These categories Two commenters noted that Brown species. After a species is listed. the of comment?, and the Service response (1978) suggested that preservation of a Service prepares a recovery plan: to each, are listed below. few hundred acres of climax tropical recovery activities could include, but - 1. The Key Lsrgo woodrat and/or hammock on north Key Large would be would not ordinarily be restricted to, cotton mouse should not receive the sufficient to save the Key Large woodrat transplantation. protection of the Endangered Species and cotton mouse, and that, ftiiling this, 4. The Key Large woodrat and cotton Act because rodents are pest species introduction of both species could be mouse are adequately protected by and have no intrinsic value to mankind. made to Old Rhodes Key or existing local, State, and Federal Some persons stated that Key Large in Key . The regulations [namely, designation of the woodrats had invaded their homes. Service believes that more than a few as an Area of Critical State Service response. Any species of hundred acres of hardwood hammock Concern, regulations affecting dredge native wildlife or plant (except a pest would be required for the long-term and fill activities, customer service insect) is eligible, under the appropriate survival and recovery of the Key Large policies of the Florida Keys Aqueduct circumstances, for the protection of the woodrat and cotton mouse. Authority, the Monroe County Land Endangered Species Act. Economic Transplanting is discussed below under Clearing Ordinance, and rules in the value to mankind is not a factor that the “3.” Although the Service provided part Florida Administrative Code affecting Service may consider in determining of the funding for the publication in John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park). whether to list endangered or threatened which Dr. Brown’s species aqcounts and Service response. Proposed principles species. The Key Largo woodrat and recommendations appeared (See cotton mouse are native rodents that “Literature Cited.” below). the for guiding development for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern generally avoid contact with humans. contributors to the public&ion did not (Florida Statute f 380.0552) contain They have not been implicated in represent the Service or its policies, and spreading disease to humans. The the Service is not in any way restricted provisions for the protection of upland comments referring to rat problems to the conservation recommendations resources. The proposed principles, if appear to involve the (Rattus made in the publication. adopted and rigorously enforced, would r~!tusJ. an introduced pest species that 3. The Lignumvitae Key State apparentiy provide considerable is common in and around human Botanical Site, as well as potnetial protection to hardwood hammocks. dwellings in the Keys. The black rat also introduction sites in Key Biscayne Designation of federally endangered and occurs in hardwood hammocks on norih National Park [or elsewhere in the threetened species would aid in the Key Large (Hersh. 1981). The Service Florida Keys) could provide adequate recognition and preservation of such has no documented evidence of habitat for the conservation of the Key areas, however, and would not duplicate woodrats invading human dweliings. Large woodrat and cotton mouse, the development guidelines. The Service 2. Sufficient habitat for theI negating the need io list them. cannot at the present time predict what -> conservation of the Key Large woodrat Service response. The seemingly the final form of the principles for and cotton mouse is included wi?hin successful introduction of the Key Large guiding development will be or assess areas scheduled for acquisition by the woodrat onto Lignumvitae Key-indicates the effectiveness of their enforcement. Federal (U.S. Fish and LI’ild!ife Service) that this species might be able to The Ser-dicecannot depend on these or Florida State (Department of Natural colonize other hardwood hammocks m proposals to adequately protect the Resources] governments. the upper Florida Keys. The principal rodents. The Service does not believe Service response. The Key Large hardwood hammocks remaining in the the regulations affecting dredge and fill woodrat and cotton mouse have already upper Keys, other than those on north activities and John Pennekamp State disappeared from most of their original Key Large, are those of Key Biscayne Ptlrk provide any specific protection to range. The scheduled acquisitions, if National Part in Dade County. However, the upland hardwood hammocks on completed, would improve the potential while transplantation to these areas north Key Largo. While the for conserving the surviving populations. may be a supplementary means of establishment of new access channels but would not eliminate the danger of helping the species to survive, the and marinas would increase the value of extinction. As proposed, these Service must also act to preserve the properties now lacking water access, the acquisitions would include about 630 ability of the species to exist in its lack of such access does not mean these ;I-res of hardwood hammocks current range. One of the primary areas will be impractical to develop. sllppcrting an estimated 318 woodrats. purposes of the Endangered Species Act Many “landlocked” properties on Key 49 percent of the total popula!ion of 654 is to provide a means whereby the Large have been intensively developed. rvoodrats estimated by Barbour and ecosystems upon which endangered The policies of the Florida Keys Humphrey (1982) for north Key Large. At species and threatened species depend Aqueduct Authority, contrary to one this time, acquisition of less than 150 may be conserved (16 USC. 1531(b)). In comment received, do not exclude water acres of hammock has taken place. accordance with this purpose. the delivery to all the hardwood hammocks Fifty-one percent of the estimated total Service ‘s poiicy is to attempt to of the Keys. but only to selected areas. woodrat population on north Key Large conserve and recover endangered and The areas denied delivery on north Key j336 woodrats) occurs in areas outside threatened species within their known Large i;rc nearly all within proposed the proposed acquisition projects. These historic ranges. While transplantation of Federal or State acquisition projects, nreas represent nlos; of the highest species may be a valuable conservation mainly west of State Route 905. None of density popuiations of the woodrat. measure, it is not an acceptable the gbove-mentioned regulations, either Simi!ar population percentages procedure to preclude listing. individually or in concert, duplicate the presumably apply to the cotton mouse. Furthermore, any Service recovery protection afforded endangered or -Although populations of both species .efforts for these species could only take threatened species by tne Endangered would probably reach higher densities place if they were listed. Regardless of Species Act. Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 171 / Friday, August 31, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 34507

5. The Key Large woodrat and cotton 8. Dr. Earl R. Rich, a biologist retained preliminary or final approval or are mouse are not valid species or by attorneys representing several under construction in areas near to or subspecies and are not native to Key landowners, proposed that the Key within habitat of the Key Large woodrdt Large; they are, therefore, ineligible for Large woodrat was introduced to Key and cotton mouse. The Service assumes the protection of the Endangered Large by coastal trading vessels in the that in the foreseeable future north Key Species Act. Mr. Alan B. Maxwell, of early part of the twentieth century, and Large will continue to be an area subject Sea Critters, Inc., submitted that the Key that the introduced woodrat population to development pressures. The final Large woodrat and cotton mouse were was derived from north Florida, Georgia, constraints on development in the area not valid subspecies because the or South Carolina populations of will depend on the Monroe County Land woodrat could only be differentiated Neotoma floridano floridano. Dr. Rich Use Plan, currently ucder revision. from mainland Florida populations by concluded that morphometric study of Additional details on development an internal (skull] character, and the coastal plain populations of N. f: activities on north Key Large and the cotton mouse was characterized by a floridano would be likely to show these need for Federal protection of these trait (red pelage) also expressed to a populations to be more closely related to species are discussed below under lesser degree by cotton mice the Key Largo woodrat than are “Summary of Factors Affecting the (Peram.vscus gossypinus palmarius) peninsular Florida populations. Species” and “Available Conservation from the southeastern Florida mainland. Service response. The Florida Keys Measures.” Mr. Maxwell indicated direct contact support many endemic mammal species 9. Development design and had taken place between the Key Large or subspecies that are derived from management criteria, rather than cotton mouse and mainland forms of mainland populations. but that diverged !irniting the availability of utilities. this species. He fur!her s?ated that on the Keys. There is no evidence to would be a useftll approach in electrophoretic or immunological studies suggest that woodrats did not colonize nlini.mizing impacts on the Key Lago might confirm whether or not the Key the Florida Keys in the same manner as woodrst and cotton mouse. The South Large woodrat or cotton mouse are true the rest of the terrestrial vertebrate Florida Regional Planning Council subspecies. Mr. Maxwell also suggested fauna there.‘Unlike the introduced black suggested that an example of this that these species could be reared in and Norway rats, woodrats are not approach was the development order captivity in any numbers desired and human commensals and are not likely issued with respect to the Port their survivability could be improved by stowaways on ships. Sherman (19%) did Bougainville Development on north Key hybridizing them with cotton mice and examine some specimens of il;eotoma Largo. woodrats from mainland Florida. fIoridana from the coastal plain of north Service response. The Service agrees Service response. The characters used Florida [New Berlin, Duval County), and that design of developments and to distinguish the Key Large woodrat they were less similar to the Key Large management requirements could reduce and cotton mouse are typical of woodrat than were some of the the effects of development on the anatomical features used in specimens taken farther to the south on hardwood hammocks on which the Key taxonomy to recognize species or the mainland peninsula (Gainesville and Large woodrat and cotton mouse subspecies. While additional Gulf Hammock). depend. However, the Endangered electrophoretic or immunological data 7. The Key Large woodrat and cotton Species Act does not give the Service might aid in understanding taxnnomic mouse are not qualified for the any jurisdiction over such local or State relationships in these species. such data pratection of the Endangered Species planning. The Service’s involvement is would not provide a definitive decision Act because they are not in danger of generally through Section 7 of the on whether or not the Key Largo extinction throughhout a!1 or a significant Endangered Species Act, affecting only woodrat and cotton mouse should be portion of their range. Federal agencies. Federal participation, considered distinct subspecies. Though Service r+spolise. The Key Large for example funding. often takes place present-day contact between the Key woodrat and cotton mouse have been long before specific development Lago cotton mouse and mainland largely or completely extirpated from planning is carried out. After the Federal cotton mice is unlikely, the Key Largo their former range on Key Largo south of action has taken place, the Service cotton mvJse was probably derived the U.S. l-State Route 905 intersection. would have no further jurisdiction over from the nearby mainland populations. The Service’s evaluation of pottantial specific planning or management Subspecies generally share many future habitat destruction and requirements for any developinent. morphological characters, and development is discussed below under 10. The Key Largo woodrat and cotton intergrades between subspecies often “Factors Affecting the Species.” mouse occur much more widely in cannot be identified tb the subspecific 8. Development is not imminent on Monroe County, and therefore should level. This is the inevitable result of the north Key Large; therefore there is no not be listed. fact that conspecific subspecies usually immediate need to list these spr,cies. Service response. Three comments interbreed in areas of contact. While Service response. The Service agrees indicated that woodrats occurred in captive breeding is a possible Service that imminent development appears less areas from which they were not recovery action. it is not a substitute for like!y now than at the time it w:ss reported by Barbour and Humphrey maintenance of sufficient populations of petitioned to list these species. This is (1982). These sites, each involving a few the species of concern in natural due to proposed Federal and State nests. were near or adjacent to occupied habitats. With regard to hybridization, it acquisition, a moratorium on the habitat documented by Barbour and is against Service policy to hybridize acceptance of new major development Humphrey. No significant range listed species with other li:

the presentation of additional scientific A. The present or threatened the surviving Key Large woodrat and data. destruction. modification, or curtailment cotton mouse populations. Only a small Service response. All notification of its habitat or mnge. The Key Large proportion of the proposed upland areas requirement8 of the Endangered Species woodrat and cotton mouse formerly has yet been acquired. Many of the Act regarding comment period8 and occurred throunhout the hardwood acquisition area8 are also denied access hearing8 were met during the proposal hammock fore& of Key Large, Monroe to fresh water by the customer service of these species (see beginning of County, Florida (Schwartz, 1952; policies of the Florida Key8 Aqueduct “Summary of Comments and Sherman, 1955:Brown,1978). These Authority (Sections 7.01 and 7.02). The Recommendations.” above). Extensive specie8 are presently restricted to the principal protection for hardwood notification8 were also made following northern portion of Key Large. except hammocks outside the proposed the emergency listing of September 21, for an introduced population of the acquisition areas derives from section 1983. The Service recognize8 that the woodrat (and possibly the cotton 18-23 of the Monroe County Code, Key Large woodrat and cotton mouse mouse) on Lignumvitae Key, Monroe which require8 protection of tropical are not well known biologically, but County [Barbour and Humphrey, 1982). hardwood hammock communities to the such is often true of endangered and The area of Key Large north of the U.S. maximum extent possible in the course threatened species. Section 4(b)(l)(A) of I-State Route intersection-is the site of land clearing. The past application the Endangered Specie8 Act require8 of the following ongoing or approved and enforcement of this ordinance has that listing decisions be made on the residential projects: under construction. been’largely ineffective in preserving basis of the best avoifable scientific and Port Bougainville-2.806 units, Large hammocks, although individual tree8 commercial data. Recovery measure8 Beach and Tennis Club, 224 units; may be saved. A proposed amendment may well include research on the preliminary approval, Anchor Bay-159 of 8 360.0552 of the Florida Statutes, ecology, distribution, and population units, Nichols Subdivision-22 units, Florida Keys Area a8 an Area of Critical dynamics of these species. The present Garden Cove-366 units; final approval. State Concern, may, if adopted, increase scientific data available for the Key Carysfort Yacht Club-512 unit8 (Status the amount of protection given Large woodrat and cotton mouse, of Major Development Projects in hardwood hammocks in the Keys. however, indicate that they are Monroe. County, Florida, Department of Permit8 for clearing small area8 of endangered, in accordance with the five Community Affairs report, lanuary 20. hammock continue to be given by factor8 specified in section 4(a)(l) of the 1964). Approximately one-half of the Monroe County, however. No existing Act. This determination qccords with Key Largo woodrat and cotton mou8e regulations duplicate the protective and the State of Florida, whose Game and habitat is contained in proposed Federal recovery provisions of the Endangered Fresh Water Fish Commission ha8 and State land acquisition projects, but Species Act, as amended. The Act will recognized these species as endangered. only a smah proportion of these areas impose conservation requirements on 12. Several comment8 specifically has yet been acquired. If these Federal agencies carrying out activities addressed the shape and size of the acquisitions were completed, about 50 on north Key Largo, and requires the critical habitat for these species, or percent of Key Largo woodrat and Service to develop a recovery plan for addressed potential economic effects of cotton mou8e population8 would be the Key Large woodrat and cotton designating critical habitat. protected. This would include only mouse (see “Available Conservation Service response. These comment8 about 318 woodrats. however, based on Measures”). The Key Large woodrat and will be considered in a final regulation the estimates of density provided by cotton mouse are considered designating critical habitat for the Key Barbour and Humphrey (1982). Most of endangered by the State of Florida Largo woodrat and cotton mouse [see the mature Key Large hammock8 with (Administrative Code Chapter 39-27.031, “Critical Habitat,” below). the highest woodrat and cotton mouse but this statute doe8 not protect the densities lie outside the proposed habitat of these species. Summary of Factor8 Affecting the acquisition boundaries. The future of E. Other natural or manmade factors Species these area8 will depend on planning effecting its continued existence. The After a thorough review and decision8 of Monroe County and the Key Large woodrat may be at the consideration of all information State of Florida, a8 well as the demand carrying capacity of the available available, the Service has determined for residential and commercial habitat on Lignumvitae Key. The status that the Key Largo woodrat and the Key development on north Key Largo. The of the cotton mouse on this Key is Large cotton mou8e should be classified Service believes that north Key Largo unknown. The apparent extirpation of as endangered species. Procedures will continue to be an attractive area for the Key Large woodrat and cotton found at section 4(a)(l) of the residential development, even if such moune from the southern portion of Key Endangered Species Act (16 USC. 1531 development is slowed by the present Large indicate8 that these species are et seq.) and regulations promulgated to major development proposal not tolerant of fragmented, highly implement the listing provision8 of the moratorium, by current economic disturbed hammocks. Act [codified at 50 CFR Part 424; under conditions, and by more restrictive’local The decision to determine endangered revision to accommodate the 1982 or State regulations. status for the Key Large woodrat and Amendments to the Act--see proposal B. Overutilization for commercial, cotton mou8e was based on an at 48 FR 36062, August 8.1983) were recreational, scienti’ic, or educationat assessment of the best available followed. A species may be determined purposes. Not now know&to be scientific information and of past. to be an endangered or threatened applicable. present. and probable future threats to species due to one or more of the five C. Disease orpredation. Not now these species. Because of the need to factors described in section 4(a][l). known to be applicable. promptly publish these determinations, These factors and their application to D. The inadequacy of existing no determination of critical habitat can the Key Largo woodrat (Neotomo regulatory mechanisms. The proposed be made at this time. A decision to floridano smalli) and the Key Largo Federal and State acquisition project8 determine only threatened status would cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus on north Key Large would provide not be justified given the current low ollapaticola) are as follows: protection to an estimated one-half of population levels, restricted range. and Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 171 / Friday, August 31, 1984 / Rules and Regulations 34509 potential jeopardy from habitat Available Conservation Measures Restoration of protection for these destruction of the Key Large woodrat Conservation measures provided to species pursuant to section 7 of the and cotton mouse. A decision to take no species listed as endangered or Endangered Species Act will assure that action would exclude both species from threatened pursuant to the Act include they are considered in REA’s needed protection pursuant to the recognition, recovery actions, formulation of loan conditions relating Endangered Species Act. Therefore, no requirements for Federal protection, and to increased electrical delivery on north action or listing as threatened would be prohibitions against certain practices. Key Large. contrary to the Act’s intent. Recognition through listing encourages A previous Service consultation and results in conservation actions by pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Critical Habitat Federal, State, and private agencies, Species Act occurred in relation to the Section 4(a)(3) of the Endangered groups, and individuals. The Act Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Species Act, as amended, requires that provides for possible land acquisition funding of the Florida Keys Aqueduct “critical habitat” be designated, “to the and cooperation with the States and Authcrity’s new aqueduct in the Florida maximum extent prudent and requires that recovery actions be carried Keys. The Service’s concern was that determinable,” concurrent with the out for all listed species. Such actions the new pipeline would facilitate determination that a species is are initiated by the Service following development, thereby adversely endangered or threatened. Section listing. The protection required of affecting lis!ed species. FmHA entered 4(b)(S)(C) further indicates that a Federal agencies and the prohibitions into consultation with the Fish and concurrent critical habitat determination against taking and harm are discussed, Wildlife Service on February 4,19&J. is not required if the Service finds that a in part, below. The consultation involved one prompt determination of endangered or Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, endangered species, the American requires Federal agencies to evaluate crocodile, and one threatened species, threatened status is essential to the their actions with respect to any species cohservation of the involved species. the Schaus swallowtail butterfly, on that is proposed or listed as endangered north Key Largo. A biological opinion In the case of the Key Large woodrat or threatened. Regulations implementing and cotton mouse, the Service believes issued by the Service on May 29.1980, this interagency cooperation provision indicated that these species would be that a prompt determination of of the Act are codified at 50 CFR Part endangered status is essential. An jeopardized by the project. FmHA 402 and are now under revision (see agreed to condition its loan to restrict emergency listing of both species as proposal in Federal Register of June 29, endangered was published in the water delivery on north Key Largo, thus 1983,48 FR 29990). Section 7 requires avoiding a violation of section 7(a)(Z) of Federal Register on September 2X1983 Federal agencies to ensure that (48 FR 43040-43043), but expired on May the Endangered Species Act. The areas activities they authorize, fund, or carry thus excluded from water deliver? were 18,1984. A permanent final out are not likely to jeopardize the determination of endangered status is continued existence of a listed species. within the proposed boundaries of the Croccdile Lake National Wildlife Refuge now necessary to restore the If a Federal action may affect a listed as well as uplands of several sections of appropriate legal classifications. lo species or critical habitat, the land east of the refuge. About 45 percent provide the protection of the Act, and to responsible Federal agency must enter of the total Key Largo woodrat and maintain the effectiveness of a relevant into consultation with the Service. cotton mouse population on north Key biological opinion issued by the Service On June 27,1983, the Service entered into formal section 7 consultation with Lago occurs in hammocks as a result of pursuant to section 7. This opinion is the existing biological opinion. Much of that a loan by the Rural Electrification REA concerning financing of an electric substation and system expansion by the the densely occupied habitat, however, Administration (REA), for the financing lies outside these areas. Since the of increased electrical delivery on north FKEC. The system expansion would potentially allow about 6,000 more FmHA is not involved with the Key Large by the Florida Keys Electric construction and operation of the Cooperative (FKEC) would result in electric drops in the north Key Largo area. The Key Largo woodrat and cotton pipeline, no future Federal involvement development that would jeopardize the with this project is aniicipated. Because survival of the two species. If the Key mouse were listed by an emergency rule on September 21, 1983, to allow ;hem to of the high-cost nature of housing Large woodrat and cotton mouse were development anticipated for north Key only proposed, but not listed, they be considered in the consultation, which also dealt with the federally endangered Largo, other Federal subsidies are not would be e!igible only for the likely in this area. consideration given under the American crocodile and the federally threatened Schaus swallowtail butterfly. The Act and its implementing conference requirement of section On October 27,1983, the Service’s regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set 7(a)(4) of the Act, as amended. This Regional Director in Atlanta, Georgia, forth a series of general prohibitions and does not require a limitation on the issued a biological opinion concerning exceptions that apply to all endangered commitment of resources on the part of the American crocodile, the Schaus wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, the concerned Federal agency. swallowtail butterfly. and the Key Largo make it il!egal for any person subject to Therefore, in order to ensure that the full woodrat and cotton mouse. The opinion the jurisdiction of the United States to benefits of section 7 will apply to the indicated that the construction of the take, import or export, ship in interstate Key Largo woodrat and cotton mouse, substation would not jeopardize any commerce in the course of a commercial prompt determination of endangered listed species. but expansion of the activity. or sell or offer for sale in status is essential. The Service is, electric delivery capability would interstate or foreign commerce any however, currently performing the facilitate development that would listed species. It also is illegal to economic and other impact analyses jeopardize the continued survival of the possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or required for a determination of critical Key Large woodrat and cotton mouse. ship any such wildlife that had been habitat for the two species, and does The REA has not yet responded to the taken illegally: Certain exceptions apply plan to make such a determination in Service’s findings and recommendations to agents of the Service and State the near future. in the October 27, biological opinion. conservation agencies. 34510 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 171 / Friday, August 31, 1984 / Rules and Regulations

Permits may be issued to carry out Literature Cited List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 otherwise prohibited activities involving Barbour. D.B.. and S.R. Humphrey. 1982. Endangered and threatened wildlife. endangered species under Status and habitat of the Key Large Fish. Marine mammals, Plants certain circumstances. Regulations woodrat and cotton mouse (Neotomo [agriculture). governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22 floridana smalli and Peromyscus Regulations Promulgation and 17.23. Such permits are available for gossypinus a/ia@icola]. J. Mamm. +X3:144- scientific purposes, to enhance the 148. PART 17-[AMENDED] propagation or survival of the species, Brown, L.N. 1978. Key Large cotton mouse: and/or for incidental take in connection Key Large woodrat. In Layne. J.N. (ed.), Accordingly, Part 17. Subchapter B of with otherwise lawful activities. In some Rare and endangered biata of Florida, Vol. Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of Federal instances, permits may be issued during I. Mammals. Florida Game and Fresh Regulations. is amended as set forth a specified period of time to relieve Water Fish &mm. pp. lC&X? below: undue economic hardship that would be Hersh. S.L. 1981. Ecology of the Key Largo I. The authority citation for Part 17 suffered if such relief were nzt woodrat (hotoma floridano .smolI~]. J. reads as follows: alxiiable. Mamm. 62:u)l-206. Authority: Pub. L. 93405.87 Stat. 8&k Pub. National Environmental Policy Act Schwartz. A. 1952. Three new mammals from L. 94359,90 Stat. 911: Pub. L. 95-6X2.92 Stat. souihern Florida. J. Mamm. 33:381-385. 3751: Pub. L. 96159.93 Stat. 1225: pub. L. 9:- The Fish and Wildlife Service has Sherman, H.B. 1955. Description of a new 304.96 Stat. 1411 (16 USC. 1531 et seq.). determined !hat an Environmental race of woodrats from Key Large, Florida. J. 2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by Assessment, as defined by the National Mamm. 36:113-120. adding the following two entries, in Environmental Policy Act of 1969. need Author alphabetical order, to the List of not be prepared in connection with Endangered and Threatened Wild!ife regulations adopted pursuant to section The primary author of this final rule is under “MAh?MALS:” 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of Dr. Michael M. Bentzien, US. F&h and 1973. as amended. A notice outlining the Wildlife Service, 2747 Art Museum 5 17.11 Endangered and threatened Service’s reasons for this determination Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. wildlife. was published in the Federal Register on . t l l t October 25,1983 (48 FR 492443. (h)’ * l

Mammals

MWJSB. Key Lago mttcm Prmnrvscus gosjyprnus alkpatr- iJ S A. (FL).. ,.. En!se .__...... E 13’E. 160 NA NA cd9 . h~xtral. Key Lag0 Neotoma Ilmdma smafk. USA (FL).. ._., ..,...... , ._..... EnWe ..,...... ,...... E 131E. 160 NA NA . . . .