[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 203 (Wednesday, October 21, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56128-56134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28189]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF00


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To 
Delist the Dismal Swamp Southeastern Shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to 
remove the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri 
Merriam) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The 
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew was listed as a threatened species in 
1986 under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). New 
data indicate that this species is more widely distributed than 
previously believed, is fairly abundant within its range, occurs in a 
wide variety of habitats, and is genetically secure. The Service 
concludes that the data supporting the original classification were 
incomplete and that the new data indicate removing the Dismal Swamp 
southeastern shrew from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
is warranted.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by 
December 21, 1998. Public hearing requests must be received by December 
7, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be 
sent to the Virginia Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. 
Box 99, 6669 Short Lane, Gloucester, Virginia 23061. The complete file 
for this rule is available for inspection by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia A. Schulz, Fish and Wildlife 
Biologist, at the above address (telephone 804/693-6694, extension 127; 
facsimile 804/693-9032).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew is a small, long-tailed shrew 
with a brown back, slightly paler underparts, buffy feet, and a 
relatively short, broad nose (Handley 1979a). It weighs 3 to 5 grams 
and measures up to 10 centimeters in length. The species was first 
described as Sorex fisheri by C.H. Merriam (Merriam 1895). Merriam's 
description was based on four specimens trapped near Lake Drummond, 
Virginia by A.K. Fisher of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Bureau 
of Biological Surveys. Rhoads and Young (1897) captured a specimen in 
Chapanoke, Perquimans County, North Carolina, that seemed intermediate 
between S. fisheri and the southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris 
Bachman) (Handley 1979b). Jackson (1928) subsequently reduced S. 
fisheri to a subspecies of S. longirostris. Three subspecies of 
southeastern shrew are now recognized--Sorex longirostris eionis, which 
occurs in the northern two-thirds of peninsular Florida (Jones et al. 
1991); S. l. fisheri, which occurs in southeastern Virginia and eastern 
North Carolina; and S. l. longirostris, which occurs in the rest of the 
range that extends through eastern Louisiana, eastern Oklahoma, and 
Missouri, then eastward through central Illinois and Indiana, southern 
Ohio, and Maryland. Jones et al. (1991) examined the taxonomic status 
of these three subspecies and verified substantial size differences 
among them. The authors found that S. l. eionis was significantly 
larger in four cranial measurements when compared with the other two 
subspecies; S. l. fisheri was significantly large in one cranial and 
one external measurement; and S. l. longirostris had a relatively short 
palate and rostrum, narrow skull, and short foot and tail. This study 
confirmed the subspecific status of S. l. fisheri.
    Apart from a litter of five young found in a nest in the Dismal 
Swamp in 1905, little is known about reproduction or other life history 
features of Sorex longirostris fisheri (Handley 1979b). However, more 
is known about the life history of other Sorex species, and this 
information may apply to S. l. fisheri. Sorex longirostris reproduces 
from March through October, and it is likely that two litters are born 
each year, with one to six young produced per litter (Webster et al. 
1985). Nests are shallow depressions lined with dried leaves and

[[Page 56129]]

grasses and are usually associated with rotting logs (Webster et al. 
1985). Young shrews grow rapidly and are almost adult size when they 
leave the nest (Jackson 1928). Sorex longirostris forage on spiders, 
crickets, butterfly and moth larvae, slugs, snails, beetles, 
centipedes, and vegetation (Webster et al. 1985, Whitaker and Mumford 
1972). Little information is available about the daily activity 
patterns of S. longirostris. They forage intermittently throughout the 
day and night in all seasons, seem to be most active after rains and 
during periods of high humidity, and do much of their foraging in the 
leaf litter or in tunnels in the upper layers of the soil (Jackson 
1928).
    The Dismal Swamp, the type locality for Sorex longirostris fisheri, 
is a forested wetland with a mosaic of habitat types located in 
southeastern Virginia and adjacent North Carolina. Within the Dismal 
Swamp, S. l. fisheri has been found in a variety of habitat types 
including recent clearcuts, regenerating forests, young pine 
plantations, grassy and brushy roadsides, young forests with shrubs and 
saplings, and mature pine and deciduous forests (Padgett 1991, Rose 
1983). Sorex longirostris fisheri has also been collected in utility 
line rights-of-way. The highest densities of S. l. fisheri occur in 
early successional stage habitats and the lowest densities in mature 
forests (Everton 1985), although mature forests are likely to be 
important to the survival of the shrew during periods of drought or 
fire. Densities of southeastern shrews in early successional stages are 
10 to 30 per hectare (Rose 1995). Rose (1995) stated that, based on his 
previous studies, mature forests yield only about \1/4\ or less of the 
densities of S. longirostris compared with early successional stage 
habitats dominated by grasses and shrubs. Mature forests with closed 
canopies have densities of one to four shrews per hectare (Rose 1995). 
``Within two years of the cutting of a forest plot, and probably for 8-
12 years afterwards on such cutover plots, the densities of 
southeastern shrews are likely to be five or more times greater than in 
nearby mature forests. (The number of years depends, in part, on 
whether the trees on the sites regenerate naturally or are planted.)'' 
(Rose 1995).
    Until recently, the distribution of Sorex longirostris fisheri was 
considered coincidental with the historical boundaries of the Dismal 
Swamp (Handley 1979a, Hall 1981, Rose 1983). After collection of the 
original type series, additional S. l. fisheri specimens were collected 
from similar habitats in the Dismal Swamp between 1895 and 1902. Prior 
to 1980, only 19 specimens of S. l. fisheri were known. ``In addition 
to Young's (Rhoads and Young 1989) Chapanoke specimen in the Academy of 
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and one in the American Museum of 
Natural History that (W. J.) Daniel (Jr.) collected at Lake Drummond in 
1905, the National Museum has 16 from Lake Drummond collected in 1895 
and 1902 by Fisher, T. S. Palmer, (W. L.) Ralph, and Daniel, and one I 
collected near Wallaceton (at the eastern edge of the Dismal Swamp in 
Virginia) in 1953'' (Handley 1979b). In 1980, 15 S. longirostris were 
collected in pitfall traps in Suffolk, Virginia from the northwest 
section of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) 
(Rose 1981) that is located in North Carolina and Virginia. Based on 
their large size, the specimens were classified as S. l. fisheri.
    From December 1980 through July 1982, 37 pitfall grids were 
established in Currituck and Gates counties, North Carolina and the 
Cities of Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach and Isle of Wight and 
Surry counties, Virginia (Rose 1983). The results of this trapping were 
24 specimens from 10 populations classified as Sorex longirostris 
fisheri, 62 specimens from 9 populations classified as intergrades, and 
30 specimens from 7 populations classified as S. l. longirostris. Three 
grids each contained one specimen classified as S. l. longirostris, 
while the remaining specimens were classified as S. l. fisheri. The 
author determined that S. l. fisheri was associated with the Dismal 
Swamp proper, except for a population north of the Refuge and a 
population east of the Refuge. A narrow zone of hybridization (these 
populations contained specimens that represent the parent stocks and 
individuals that may be hybrids) was found to border the Dismal Swamp 
running approximately north/south along its western edge and running 
northwest/southeast adjacent to the southeastern corner of the Refuge. 
Sorex longirostris longirostris was found to the east and west of the 
Dismal Swamp with distinctive populations of S. l. longirostris 
occurring within 20 miles of the Dismal Swamp border (Rose 1983). The 
results of this analysis indicated that the largest Sorex were located 
within the Refuge and the smallest Sorex were located at greater 
distances from the Refuge, with specimens of intermediate size on the 
margins of the Refuge. This suggested that interbreeding of the two 
subspecies might be occurring, particularly at the margins of the 
Refuge. Rose (1983) tentatively recommended that S. l. fisheri be 
listed as threatened primarily because of the potential for contact and 
interbreeding with S. l. longirostris. ``If widespread, this 
interbreeding can result in an alteration of the gene pools of both 
subspecies in the zone of contact, and the integrity of both subspecies 
may be lost in the extreme'' (Rose 1983).
    Additional study of Sorex was conducted from October 1986 through 
June 1989, focusing within the Refuge but also including outlying areas 
of the historical Dismal Swamp (Padgett 1991). Particular emphasis was 
placed on determining whether the nominate subspecies might be 
expanding into the remaining Dismal Swamp proper and interbreeding with 
Sorex longirostris fisheri. The results of Padgett's (1991) study 
indicated that S. l. fisheri was restricted to the historic Dismal 
Swamp and that there was no strong evidence that S. l. longirostris was 
using roadways to enter the interior of the Refuge. Between 1989 and 
1991, Erdle and Pagels (1991) collected shrews to further delineate the 
distributions of S. l. fisheri and S. l. longirostris in Virginia. 
Sampling was conducted in much of the historic Dismal Swamp east of the 
Refuge and north of the Virginia-North Carolina State line. Shrews 
referable to both taxa and intergrades were represented in the 26 Sorex 
trapped. These findings supported the hypothesis that S. l. 
longirostris might be moving into areas of the historical Dismal Swamp. 
During the 1990s, many additional areas were surveyed within the 
historical Dismal Swamp in Virginia; the specimens found were referable 
to S. l. fisheri or S. l. longirostris or were of intermediate size.
    While a significant amount of study on the distribution of Sorex 
longirostris fisheri had taken place in Virginia, knowledge of the 
species in North Carolina was sparse. In the early 1980s, D. W. Webster 
from the University of North Carolina-Wilmington collected Sorex 
longirostris from southeastern North Carolina (D.W. Webster, University 
of North Carolina-Wilmington, pers. comm. 1997). Utilizing the existing 
range maps for S. longirostris, Webster determined that the specimens 
were S. l. longirostris. In the late 1980s, Webster collected S. 
longirostris from Beaufort County, North Carolina (located midway along 
the coast of North Carolina) and realized that those specimens looked 
just like those collected from southeastern North Carolina. Webster 
(pers. comm. 1997), still using the existing range maps, assumed these 
specimens were S. l. longirostris. Historical locations of S. l. 
fisheri in North Carolina were

[[Page 56130]]

summarized by Webster (1992), indicating collection of S. l. fisheri 
from Camden, Currituck, and Gates counties. Webster (1992) indicated 
that S. l. fisheri probably inhabits parts of Chowan, Pasquotank, and 
Perquimans counties. Webster continued to collect shrews from coastal 
North Carolina throughout the early 1990s (D.W. Webster, pers. comm. 
1997).
    In January 1994, Webster visited the National Museum of Natural 
History and compared specimens he had collected from southeastern North 
Carolina and Beaufort and Gates counties, North Carolina, to the 
specimens at the Smithsonian and realized that his specimens were of 
the same size as the voucher specimen for Sorex longirostris fisheri 
from Lake Drummond (the type locality). Charles O. Handley, curator of 
mammals for the museum, agreed with Webster that these shrews were 
referable to S. l. fisheri based on size. Based on that information, 
Webster hypothesized that the ``dividing line'' between S. l. fisheri 
and S. l. longirostris may be somewhere between Wilmington, North 
Carolina and Charleston, South Carolina.
    In May 1994, Webster visited the North Carolina State Museum of 
Natural Sciences and found a series of relatively large Sorex 
longirostris (not identified to subspecies) from Croatan National 
Forest (Jones, Craven, and Carteret counties) in North Carolina (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). He presumed that this series of shrews 
was S. l. fisheri based on his trip to the Smithsonian (D.W. Webster, 
pers. comm. 1997). The State museum also had specimens of southeastern 
shrews from Chowan, Bladen, and Brunswick counties that Webster assumed 
were S. l. fisheri (D.W. Webster, pers. comm. 1997). In May and June 
1994, Webster collected S. longirostris near the town of Warsaw in 
Duplin County, midway between Wilmington and Raleigh, North Carolina. 
He determined that these specimens were referable to S. l. fisheri 
(D.W. Webster, pers. comm. 1997).
    Webster et al. (1996a, 1996b) compared Sorex longirostris specimens 
from east-central and southeastern North Carolina to specimens from the 
Dismal Swamp. They also examined specimens from Charleston County, 
South Carolina (near the type locality for S. l. longirostris) and 
Citrus County, Florida (the type locality for S. l. eionis), and 
representative samples of S. longirostris from throughout the 
southeastern U.S. They concluded that S. l. fisheri ``is much more 
widespread and ubiquitous than previously believed. From this, it was 
determined that morphometric characteristics would be used to better 
delineate the geographic distribution of S. l. fisheri in Virginia and 
North Carolina. The morphometric analysis used 626 S. longirostris from 
the southeastern U.S. (15 from Florida, 375 from North Carolina, 159 
from Virginia, and the remaining 77 from Alabama, District of Columbia, 
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, and 
Tennessee). The morphometric analysis included six cranial 
measurements, palatal length, and braincase length. If available from 
specimen tags, the total specimen length, tail length, hind foot 
length, and weight were also utilized. Head and body length or the 
difference between total length and tail length were determined where 
possible. There was significant geographic variation in all cranial 
measurements; samples from southeastern Virginia, eastern North 
Carolina, and southern Georgia and Florida had much larger cranial 
characteristics than samples from elsewhere in the range. The 
significant geographic variation in external measurements and weight 
typically followed the same pattern. A two-dimensional plot of the 
samples formed three clusters: (1) shrews from Georgia and Florida that 
have longer and overall much wider crania; (2) shrews from southeastern 
Virginia and eastern North Carolina that have longer crania with 
relatively narrower rostra; and (3) shrews from elsewhere in the range 
that were smaller in all cranial measurements. This plot explained 93.2 
percent of the total morphometric variation exhibited in S. 
longirostris crania. Shrews from the piedmont and mountains of Virginia 
and North Carolina were more similar to specimens from the Mississippi 
and Ohio River basins than they were to those from the mid-Atlantic 
coast.
    Webster et al. (1996a, 1996b) established 84 survey sites in a wide 
range of habitats throughout North Carolina and Virginia to ensure that 
both Sorex longirostris longirostris and S. l. fisheri would be 
captured. Of the 84 sites, 49 (58.3 percent) were located in abandoned 
fields and powerline rights-of-way that were dominated by herbaceous 
vegetation typical of early stages of succession. The other 35 sites 
(41.7 percent) were dominated by arborescent vegetation, including such 
forest types as longleaf pine/turkey oak, pocosin/bay, Atlantic white 
cedar, shortleaf pine, riparian hardwood, and cove hardwood. Eighteen 
species of small mammals were collected and S. longirostris was the 
most abundant and ubiquitous. When survey sites were divided into two 
groups, those occurring in the newly delineated range of S. l. fisheri 
or in that of S. l. longirostris, the results were similar. Within its 
geographic distribution, S. l. fisheri was the most abundant small 
mammal, or shared that distinction with other species at 31 of the 84 
sites sampled. Sorex longirostris fisheri was especially abundant in 
forested habitats in and adjacent to the Refuge, comprising 84 percent 
of the specimens taken. The only habitat sampled where S. l. fisheri 
was absent was xeric longleaf pine/turkey oak. Both taxa were found in 
a wide range of habitat types and moisture regimes, from early 
successional to mature second-growth forest and from well-drained 
uplands to seasonally-inundated wetlands. Webster (1996a, 1996b) 
concluded that ``* * * even the smallest specimens from relatively dry, 
upland sites in the Dismal Swamp region clearly are assignable to S. l. 
fisheri.
    Gurshaw (1996) examined allozyme variability in specimens of the 
southeastern shrew from North Carolina and Virginia to identify 
characters that differentiate Sorex longirostris fisheri and S. l. 
longirostris and to determine if there are similarities between shrews 
from the Dismal Swamp region and the coastal plain of southeastern 
North Carolina. She found that shrews from the coastal plain of 
southeastern North Carolina grouped most closely with those from the 
Dismal Swamp. The author found an allele in the shrews from the coastal 
plain that represents a genetic distinction from S. l. longirostris. 
Distribution of this allele appeared to follow the Fall Line, the 
boundary between the piedmont plateau and upper coastal plain in the 
southeastern U.S.
    Webster et al. (1996a, 1996b) concluded that Sorex longirostris 
fisheri ``* * * has a much broader geographic distribution than 
previously believed, extending from southeastern Virginia to 
southeastern North Carolina along the outer coastal plain. In Virginia, 
all specimens examined from Isle of Wight County, the City of 
Chesapeake, and the City of Virginia Beach are referable to S. l. 
fisheri, whereas those from Surry, Sussex, and Southampton counties are 
assignable to S. l. longirostris. In North Carolina, S. l. fisheri is 
distributed throughout the coastal counties as far south as New 
Hanover, Brunswick, and Columbus Counties.'' Since the conclusion of 
that study, S. l. fisheri has been documented in Hyde County, North 
Carolina (D.W. Webster, pers. comm. 1997). No trapping for S. 
longirostris has been conducted in Onslow, Martin, Pamlico, or Burtie

[[Page 56131]]

Counties, North Carolina (D.W. Webster, pers. comm. 1997). Webster 
(pers. comm. 1997) does not have any records of S. l. fisheri from 
Pasquotank County, although surveys were conducted there in 1995. At 
the time of listing, Pasquotank County was listed as a county of 
occurrence for S. l. fisheri, however, the literature cited does not 
support this.
    At the time of listing, Sorex longirostris fisheri was believed to 
occur in only two cities in Virginia and four counties in North 
Carolina. Sorex longirostris fisheri is now known to occur in Beaufort, 
Bladen, Brunswick, Camden, Cateret, Chowan, Columbus, Craven, 
Currituck, Dare, Duplin, Gates, Greene, Hyde, Jones, Lenoir, New 
Hanover, Pender, Perquimans, Robeson, Scotland, Tyrrell, and Washington 
counties in North Carolina and Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach 
cities and Isle of Wight County in Virginia. Information gaps still 
exist in the distribution of S. l. fisheri in North Carolina and 
potentially South Carolina. Jones et al. (1991) noted a sample of Sorex 
specimens from coastal South Carolina that appeared to be similar to S. 
l. fisheri, but substantiation is needed regarding the taxonomy of 
these specimens.

Previous Federal Action

    On December 30, 1982, during its review of Vertebrate Wildlife (47 
FR 58454), the Service designated the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 
as a category 2 candidate species, meaning that a proposal to list the 
subspecies as threatened or endangered was possibly appropriate, but 
that substantial biological data were not available at that time to 
support such a proposal. Rose (1981, 1983) and Everton (1985) conducted 
pre-listing status surveys that documented large shrews within the 
Refuge, small shrews outside the Refuge, and intermediate-sized shrews 
near the Refuge boundaries.
    On July 16, 1985, the Service published a proposed rule to list the 
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew as a threatened species (50 FR 28821). 
The final rule to list the species was published in the Federal 
Register on September 26, 1986 (51 FR 34422), and became effective on 
October 27, 1986. The reasons for listing the Dismal Swamp southeastern 
shrew were habitat loss and alteration and possible loss of genetic 
integrity through interbreeding with S. l. longirostris.
    In the early 1990's, a group of biologists from Virginia held 
meetings to discuss information and issues related to the recovery of 
the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew. Initially, most of the effort was 
focused in Virginia because of the development pressure occurring 
there. In 1992, biologists from North Carolina were included in the 
group. The Service then convened an official recovery team, and the 
first meeting was held in February 1993.
    A draft recovery plan was completed in July 1994, and a notice of 
availability of the plan was published in the Federal Register (59 FR 
37260). The recovery plan was finalized on September 9, 1994, and 
updated on June 13, 1995.
    Based on questions raised by D.W. Webster, a member of the recovery 
team, about the shrew's distribution and taxonomy, in March 1995, 
studies were funded by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland 
Fisheries and the Service to determine if large shrews are distributed 
from the Dismal Swamp region southward throughout the coastal plain of 
North Carolina, and if the large shrews from coastal North Carolina are 
similar to S. l. fisheri from near the type locality. A combination of 
morphometric and genetic analyses was proposed to answer these 
questions. The results of the morphological and genetic analyses which 
followed are discussed in detail in the ``Background'' section of this 
rule.
    In May 1996, reports on morphometric variation among the three 
Sorex longirostris subspecies (Webster et al. 1996a) and protein 
electrophoresis and allozymic variation between S. l. fisheri and S. l. 
longirostris (Gurshaw 1996) were received by the Service and sent to 
the recovery team members. The recovery team convened in June 1996 to 
discuss the two reports. The consensus of the team was that the results 
of both the morphological and genetic analyses conclusively show that 
S. l. fisheri is widely distributed along the coastal plain of 
southeastern Virginia and eastern North Carolina at least as far south 
as Wilmington, North Carolina; that S. l. fisheri uses a wide variety 
of habitat types; and that S. l. fisheri is not in danger of genetic 
swamping by S. l. longirostris. However, the team agreed that the 
reports should be sent out for independent peer review before further 
action was taken. The Service sent the reports to independent peer 
reviewers in June 1996. Reviewers that responded concurred with the 
conclusions of the authors and were supportive of delisting, Based on 
comments provided by recovery team members, the Service, and peer 
reviewers, the original manuscripts were revised (Moncrief 1996, 
Webster et al. 1996b).
    Federal involvement with the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew after 
listing has included surveys for new locations and informal and formal 
section 7 consultations for activities (involving a Federal action) 
occurring in suitable habitat within the historical Dismal Swamp. No 
jeopardy biological opinions for this species have been issued.
    Processing of this proposed rule conforms with the Service's 
Listing Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, published on 
May 8, 1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order in which 
the Service will process rulemakings giving highest priority (Tier 1) 
to processing emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists); second priority (Tier 2) to 
processing final rules to add species to the Lists, processing proposed 
rules to add species to the Lists, processing administrative findings 
on petitions (to add species to the Lists, delist species, or 
reclassify listed species), and processing a limited number of proposed 
or final rules to delist or reclassify species; and third priority 
(Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rules to designate critical 
habitat. Processing of this proposed rule is a Tier 2 action.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Procedures found at section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act 
and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing 
provisions of the Act were followed. Regulations at 50 CFR 424.11 
require that certain factors be considered before a species can be 
listed, reclassified, or delisted. These factors and their application 
to the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris fisheri 
Merriam) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of its Habitat or Range

    Extensive habitat alteration has occurred within the area 
historically occupied by Dismal Swamp. At the beginning of the 
twentieth century, the Dismal Swamp occupied 2,000 to 2,200 square 
miles (sq mi) (5,200 to 5,700 square kilometers (sq km)). Currently, 
less than 320 sq mi (830 sq km) of the historical Dismal Swamp remain, 
189 sq mi (490 sq km) of which are protected within the Refuge and the 
Great Dismal Swamp State Park in North Carolina. Remnants of the 
historical Dismal Swamp outside Refuge and State Park boundaries and 
land beyond the historical Dismal Swamp boundaries are disappearing due 
to development associated with the rapid growth of the Hampton Roads 
metropolitan area of

[[Page 56132]]

southeastern Virginia. Agricultural and silvicultural conversions 
(especially in North Carolina) also contribute significantly to habitat 
loss. Habitat loss was a primary reason for listing the Dismal Swamp 
southeastern shrew, considered at the time to be endemic to the 
historical Dismal Swamp. However, because the species is now known to 
occur across a much larger area and in a wider variety of habitats (see 
the ``Background'' section of this rule), the threat of habitat loss is 
not as significant as was believed at the time of listing.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    At present, the only known method for studying or monitoring the 
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew involves lethal collection with pitfall 
traps. Researchers have been permitted to take individuals of the 
species to gain an understanding of its taxonomy, ecology, and 
distribution. However, because the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew has 
a high reproductive potential and a rapid maturation rate, limited 
collection of individuals is not considered detrimental to healthy 
populations. Utilization for commercial, recreational, or educational 
purposes is not known to occur.

C. Disease or Predation

    Southeastern shrews are subject to some predation, most frequently 
by owls, snakes, opossums, and domestic cats and dogs (French 1980, 
Webster et al. 1985). The number of dead shrews found in woods and on 
roads suggests that many predators reject the shrew, probably because 
of the bad taste associated with their musk glands (French 1980). There 
is no evidence that predation or disease is a significant threat to the 
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Wetland habitats for the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew will 
continue to receive protection indirectly under Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act which requires the Department of the Army, Corps of 
Engineers to regulate certain activities affecting ``waters of the 
United States'' including wetlands. However, delisting the Dismal Swamp 
southeastern shrew will remove Federal prohibitions against take and 
activities involving a Federal action which would jeopardize the 
continued existence of the species. However, because of its wide 
distribution and use of a wide variety of habitats, the removal of 
these protections afforded by the Act will not pose a significant 
threat to the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew.
    The Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew is listed as threatened by the 
State of Virginia. Virginia's Endangered Species Act of 1972, as 
amended (Code of Virginia Section 29.1-564-568) prohibits the taking, 
transportation, processing, sale, or offer for sale of endangered and 
threatened species except as permitted. The Virginia Department of Game 
and Inland Fisheries provides general protection to wildlife through 
State law Section 29.1-521, which prohibits their possession and 
capture including the attempt to capture, take, kill, possess, offer 
for sale, sell, offer for purchase, purchase, deliver for 
transportation, transport, cause to be transported, receive, export, 
import in any manner or in any quantity except as specifically 
permitted.
    The Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew is listed as threatened by the 
State of North Carolina. The species is protected by North Carolina 
general statute Article 25, section 113-337, which makes it unlawful to 
take, possess, transport, sell, barter, trade, exchange, export, or 
offer for sale, barter, trade, exchange, or export, or give away for 
any purpose including advertising or other promotional purpose any 
animal on a protected wild animal list, except as authorized according 
to the regulations of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
    All States will have the option of retaining the Dismal Swamp 
southeastern shrew on their various lists if it is removed from the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Both the States of 
Virginia and North Carolina support the delisting. The State of North 
Carolina plans to delist Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew if it is 
delisted at the Federal level (H. LeGrand, North Carolina Natural 
Heritage Program, pers. comm. 1997). However, because of its wide 
distribution and use of a wide variety of habitats, the removal of 
State protection will not constitute a significant threat to the 
species.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    One of the reasons for listing the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew 
was concern regarding the possible loss of genetic integrity through 
interbreeding with the nominate subspecies. Gurshaw (1996) examined 
allozyme variability in specimens of the southeastern shrew from North 
Carolina and Virginia. She found an allele in the shrews from the 
coastal plain that represents a genetic distinction from Sorex 
longirostris longirostris and that appeared to follow the Fall Line. 
The author stated, ``A cline for this allele may be shifted in the 
direction of dispersal in proportion to the direction of gene flow 
through barriers such as the Fall Line and population size. If the 
populations containing * * * (this) * * * allele are small, they will 
not have as many individuals dispersing * * * and gene flow may be 
restricted (Endler, 1977). In this study, however, the opposite appears 
to be happening. Populations with * * * (this allele)* * * are 
widespread in eastern North Carolina and southeastern Virginia, with 
gene flow carrying * * * (this) * *  * allele above the Fall Line in 
central North Carolina.'' She concluded that genetic swamping within 
the Dismal Swamp region was not evident.
    Webster et al. (1996a, 1996b) found that intergradation between 
Sorex longirostris fisheri and S. l. longirostris is evident in 
specimens from the inner coastal plain of Virginia and North Carolina. 
The zone of intergradation is relatively narrow in Virginia and 
relatively wide in North Carolina, commensurate with the relative size 
of the inner coastal plain. Shrews from samples immediately to the east 
and west of the present Dismal Swamp were slightly smaller than shrews 
from the Dismal Swamp in cranial and external measurements. This trend 
was noted by Padgett et al. (1987). However, when compared with 
specimens from throughout the range of the species, these shrews are 
referable to S. l. fisheri.
    The following summarizes available information regarding potential 
environmental contaminant threats to the Dismal Swamp southeastern 
shrew throughout its range. In 1987 and 1989, the Service conducted a 
preliminary study (Ryan et al. 1992) within the Refuge to determine if 
contaminants were impacting fish and small mammals. All water (metal-
laden leachate and groundwater) draining the Suffolk City Landfill, at 
the time a federally designated Superfund site, enters the Refuge. This 
landfill received industrial and domestic wastes, including 30 tons of 
organophosphate pesticides in the 1970s. Numerous automobile junkyards 
border the Refuge to the north and drain into the Dismal Swamp and the 
Refuge. Oil, grease, metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 
and alkanes (PAHs and alkanes are components of petroleum products) are 
common constituents of junkyard and roadway runoff. Agricultural fields 
to the north and west of the Refuge contribute surface runoff that may 
contain residual herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.

[[Page 56133]]

    The Service's study (Ryan et al. 1992) included analyses for 
contaminant residues in the short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda). 
Short-tailed shrews trapped near the East Ditch displayed elevated 
levels of lead, mercury, and several organochlorine pesticides. The 
lead levels for short-tailed shrews exceeded normal ranges and fell 
within the range for lead toxicosis according to Ma (1996). Small 
mammal lead toxicosis symptoms may include neurological dysfunction, 
reproductive disorders (including stillbirths), liver and kidney 
failure, etc. Apart from overt symptoms, asymptomatic effects may occur 
at lower levels and have significant effects on animal behavior, yet be 
difficult to evaluate and/or document. Ryan et al. (1992) found that 
mercury levels for short-tailed shrews collected at East Ditch, Badger 
Ditch, Railroad Ditch, and Pocosin Swamp were elevated in comparison to 
levels for short-tailed shrews collected from the study reference 
location and other sites within the Refuge. The mercury levels reported 
for short-tailed shrews, although elevated when compared within study 
area sites, were below those levels reported in the literature as 
causing observed adverse effects. Organochlorine pesticide levels of 
short-tailed shrews from the East Ditch were higher than those reported 
from all other study sites. However, the levels were below those 
documented in the literature for observed adverse effects. In summary, 
there may be a contaminant concern for the Dismal Swamp southeastern 
shrew near the East Ditch of the Refuge. However, no contaminant 
analysis has been conducted in Dismal Swamp southeastern shrews. 
Further monitoring has been recommended by the Service.
    Small mammals tend to have limited ranges, and, therefore, elevated 
levels of contaminants found in shrews from one location cannot be 
interpreted as a condition for shrews throughout the Refuge or range. 
Land uses such as agriculture, transportation, and urbanization with 
increased impervious surfaces contribute measurable levels of 
contaminants to the environment, and many persistent contaminants are 
passed through the food web. However, the Service does not have any 
information indicating that contaminants pose a significant threat to 
the continued existence of the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew.
    In developing this proposed rule, the Service has assessed the best 
available scientific and commercial information regarding the past, 
present, and future threats to the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew, as 
well as information on its distribution, its habitat use, and the 
security of its genetic integrity. Based on this evaluation, the Dismal 
Swamp southeastern shrew no longer meets the definition of 
``threatened'' under the Act, and the preferred action is to remove the 
species from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, thereby 
removing the protection afforded by the Act.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) state that a species may be 
delisted if (1) it becomes extinct, (2) it recovers, or (3) the 
original data for classification were in error. The Service has 
determined that the original data for classification of the Dismal 
Swamp southeastern shrew as a threatened species were in error. 
However, it is important to note that the original data for 
classification constituted the best available scientific and commercial 
information available at the time and were in error only in the sense 
that they were incomplete. Because Sorex longirostris from the Dismal 
Swamp were originally classified as S. l. fisheri based on 
morphological measurements from a limited number of specimens, and 
because specimens from areas bordering the Dismal Swamp did not have 
similar morphological measurements, taxonomists logically concluded 
that only the largest specimens were S. l. fisheri. It has been assumed 
since the early 1900s that small-sized shrews were S. l. longirostris, 
resulting in erroneous classification of shrews found outside, and 
sometimes within, the historical Dismal Swamp boundaries. Therefore, 
the perception of a restricted range for S. l. fisheri was not a 
misinterpretation on the part of the Service, but a longstanding 
scientific assumption. At the time of listing, no other interpretation 
could be reasonably construed from the available data. The Service 
concludes that the data supporting the original classification were 
incomplete and that new data indicate removing S. l. fisheri from the 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is warranted.
    The listing of the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew as a threatened 
species was based on the best information available and was thus a 
valid decision at the time; the data leading to a better understanding 
of S. longirostris taxonomy were derived incrementally as a direct 
result of the recovery program; and no preceding shrew research 
anticipated the outcome of the final morphometric and genetic analyses. 
The dual effort to increase the base of available information while 
addressing the perceived threats to this subspecies was thus both 
legally and scientifically justified up to the point when new 
information yielded a significant change in the knowledge of the Dismal 
Swamp southeastern shrew's status.
    The Service, after conducting a review of the species' status, 
determines that the species is not in danger of extinction throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become 
so within the foreseeable future. Based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available including information showing a wider 
distribution than previously believed, utilization of a wider variety 
of habitat types than previously believed, and genetic security, the 
Service concludes that the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew does not 
warrant the protection of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended. The information leading to this conclusion was derived through 
the recovery process, which included studies to verify the shrew's 
taxonomic status and to conclusively determine its distribution. In 
proposing delisting, the Service is conforming to the objectives stated 
in the recovery plan. Our ability to propose this subspecies for 
delisting is based on a very intentional strategy of conducting 
comprehensive studies that built on the incremental and cumulative 
insights of various experts. During this lengthy process, the 
dedication of recovery team members and other knowledgeable parties was 
invaluable in protecting the shrew when its status seemed much more 
precarious, and in furthering our knowledge of it.

Effects of the Rule

    This action, if enacted, will result in the removal of the Dismal 
Swamp southeastern shrew from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife. Federal agencies would no longer be required to consult with 
the Secretary of the Interior to insure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence 
of the species. There is no designated critical habitat for this 
species. Federal restrictions on taking would no longer apply. The 1988 
amendments to the Act require that all species that have been delisted 
due to recovery be monitored for at least 5 years following delisting. 
Since the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew is being proposed for 
delisting because of new information indicating it has an expanded 
distribution, is not under serious threat from habitat loss, and is 
genetically secure, and not because it has been recovered, the Service 
does not intend to monitor the species for 5 years following delisting. 
Within the Refuge

[[Page 56134]]

and the Great Dismal Swamp State Park in North Carolina, management 
will continue to focus on restoring the hydrological regime to as close 
to historical conditions as possible given the necessity for firebreaks 
and access roads. In addition, efforts are being made to restore or 
maintain the habitat mosaic through forestry practices. It is the 
opinion of the Service that sufficient habitat will remain over the 
long-term to allow for the continued viability of this subspecies.

Public Comments Solicited

    The Service intends that any final action resulting from this 
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments 
particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade (legal and illegal), or other 
relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to the Dismal 
Swamp southeastern shrew;
    (2) The location of any additional populations or occurrences of 
this species;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of this species;
    (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible impacts on this species; and
    (5) The number, origin, location and legal deposition of 
individuals of this species in captivity and/or trade.
    Promulgation of the final regulations on this species will take 
into consideration the comments and any additional information received 
by the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation 
that differs from this proposal.
    The Endangered Species Act provides for one or more public hearings 
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 
days of the date of publication of this proposal in the Federal 
Register. Such requests must be made in writing and addressed to the 
Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make 
this rule easier to understand including answers to questions such as 
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) 
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with 
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided 
into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type 
and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for 
example, Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.) (5) Is the 
description of the rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of 
the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do 
to make the rule easier to understand?

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that Environmental 
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be 
prepared in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to Section 
4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice 
outlining the Service's reasons for this determination was published in 
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

    This rule does not include any collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this document is Cynthia A. Schulz (see 
ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 Code of Federal Regulations, as set 
forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by removing the entry for ``Shrew, Dismal 
Swamp southeastern, Sorex longirostris fisheri'' under ``Mammals'' from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

    Dated: October 6, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-28189 Filed 10-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P