[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 243 (Friday, December 18, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70053-70062]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33552]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE41
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for the St. Andrew Beach Mouse
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
[[Page 70054]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) determines the St.
Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) to be an
endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). This subspecies is restricted to coastal sand dunes and
had a historic distribution that included the northeast Florida
panhandle from Gulf County into portions of Bay County. Its current
range is limited to a portion of the St. Joseph Peninsula in Gulf
County. Habitat impacts causing loss of mice and the species'
capability to recover from such impacts within local populations are
primarily responsible for the range curtailment. Threats to beach mouse
habitat include severe storms, coastal land development and its
associated activities, and non-storm related, natural shoreline
erosion. Additional threats include predation by free-ranging domestic
cats and displacement by house mice. This action implements the
protection of the Act for this species.
DATES: This rule is effective January 19, 1999.
ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310, Jacksonville,
Florida 32216.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael M. Bentzien, at the above
address (telephone 904/232-2580, ext. 106; facsimile 904/232-2404).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus) occurs in northeastern
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. Beach mice
are coastal subspecies of the oldfield mouse restricted to beach and
sand dune habitat. Hall (1981) recognized eight coastal subspecies
whose common distinguishing characteristics include white feet, large
ears, and large black eyes. Their fur is variously patterned in shades
of white, yellow, brown, and grey. The head, back, and rump are darkly
patterned, though to a lighter and less extensive degree than inland
oldfield mice. The all-white underparts extend higher up to the sides
than on the inland subspecies (Sumner 1926, Bowen 1968). Howell (1939)
described the type (original) specimen of the St. Andrew beach mouse as
having a very pale, buff-colored head and back with extensive white
coloration underneath and along the sides. Bowen (1968) noted two
distinct rump color pigmentations, one a tapered and the other a
squared pattern, which extended to the thighs. Head and body lengths
average 75 millimeters (mm) (2.95 inches (in)), tail mean length 52 mm
(2.05 in), and hind foot mean length 18.5 mm (0.73 in) (James 1992).
Beach mice subspecies historically occurred on both the Atlantic
Coast of Florida from St. Johns through Broward counties and the
eastern Gulf of Mexico coast from Gulf County, Florida, to Baldwin
County, Alabama (Ivey 1949, Bowen 1968, James 1992, Stout 1992, Gore
and Schaefer 1993). The St. Andrew beach mouse is the easternmost of
the five Gulf Coast subspecies. Howell (1939) collected the type
specimen at St. Andrew Point on Crooked Island, Tyndall Air Force Base,
Bay County, Florida (type locality). Other historic collection records
for the subspecies include nine additional specimens from the type
locality, seven mice from St. Joseph Point and four mice from Cape San
Blas on the St. Joseph Peninsula in Gulf County, 48 individuals at or
near the town of Port St. Joe located on the central Gulf County
coastal mainland, and four specimens near Money Bayou in eastern Gulf
County (Bowen 1968). Based on these records, Bowen (1968) and James
(1992) described the former range of the St. Andrew beach mouse as
likely extending from the St. Joseph Spit (Peninsula) northwest along
the coastal mainland adjacent to St. Joseph Bay, to Crooked Island at
the East Pass of St. Andrews Bay. This range also included about 0.6
kilometer (km) (1 mile (mi)) of mainland sand dune habitat east of the
landward end of the St. Joseph Peninsula to Money Bayou on the Gulf of
Mexico. The absence of past collection records and lack of beach mouse
sign and trapping success in the area east of Money Bayou to the
southeastern corner of Gulf County (James 1987; J. Gore, Florida Game
and Fresh Water Fish Commission, in litt. 1994) suggest that this area
may not be part of the subspecies' historic range.
Coastal tidal marsh and upland habitat between the mainland city of
Port St. Joe and the St. Joseph Peninsula naturally divided the former
range of the St. Andrew beach mouse into two segments. Preliminary
genetic analysis of St. Andrew beach mice from the Port St. Joe area,
the St. Joseph Peninsula, and Crooked Island indicated that these
samples shared a similarity for at least one gene locus (site), and
that this locus differed distinctly in a sample of the Choctawhatchee
beach mouse (Moyers 1997).
Typical beach mouse habitat generally consists of several rows of
sand dunes paralleling the shoreline. Prevailing wind, beach sand, and
vegetation combine to form and shape coastal dunes. A common complex of
animal species, vegetation, and habitat types characterize the coastal
sand dune ecosystem. The types and amount of animals, vegetation, and
habitat may differ, however, among specific sites. The common types of
sand dune habitat include frontal dunes, primary dunes, secondary
dunes, inter and intradunal swales, and scrub dunes. Frontal dunes and
primary dunes are those closest to the shoreline, most recently formed,
and highly dynamic. The foreslope of primary dunes grades into the
developing frontal dunes on the open beach. Frontal dunes on the Gulf
Coast are sparsely vegetated, usually by sea oats (Uniola paniculata),
bluestem (Schizachyrium maritimum), beach grass (Panicum amarum), and
sea rocket (Cakile constricta). Primary dunes also support stands of
these species and include other broad-leaved plants such as seaside
pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensis), seashore elder (Iva imbricata),
and beach morning glory (Ipomea stolonifera) (Clewell 1985). Secondary
dunes consist of one or more dune lines landward of the primary dune
with a similar, though denser, vegetative cover. Interdunal swales are
wet or dry depressions between primary and secondary dunes, while
intradunal swales occur within primary dunes as a result of wave
action, storm surges, and wind erosion. Wet swales are those whose
water table is at or near the surface. Swale vegetation includes plants
found on primary and secondary dunes as well as salt meadow cordgrass
(Spartina patens), rushes (Juncus sp.), sedges (Cyperus sp.), and
saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). Scrub dunes are the oldest of the dune
habitat types and are dominated by woody plants including saw palmetto
(Serenoa repens), myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia), sand live oak (Q.
geminata), sand pine (Pinus clausa), slash pine (P. elliottii), seaside
rosemary (Ceratiola ericoides), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), and bush
goldenrod (Chrysoma pauciflosculosa). Reindeer moss (Cladonia leporina)
often covers otherwise bare dune surfaces. Some primary and secondary
dune vegetation is also present but at reduced densities (Blair 1951,
Gibson and Looney 1992). Size and density of understory and overstory
vegetation may vary.
Trap surveys at Crooked Island and on the St. Joseph Peninsula
documented the presence of St. Andrew beach mouse on frontal dunes, as
well as on primary
[[Page 70055]]
and secondary dunes (James 1987; Gore in litt. 1990, 1994; Bates 1992,
Moyers et al. 1996, Mitchell et al. 1997). These results support other
surveys which found that the greatest concentration of most other beach
mice subspecies occurred in these habitat types (Blair 1951, Hill 1989,
Frank and Humphrey 1992, Holler 1992). This concentration is due in
part to a predominance of plants whose seeds and fruits are important
seasonal constituents of beach mouse diets (Moyers 1996).
Although beach mice occur on interdunal and intradunal swales,
studies of other beach mouse subspecies indicate that, in general, they
use this habitat type less frequently when compared to frontal,
primary, and secondary dunes (Blair 1951, Hill 1989, Gore and Schaefer
1993, Novak 1997). James (1987) only rarely observed St. Andrew beach
mouse tracks in the interdunal areas within St. Joseph Peninsula State
Park (T.H. Stone Memorial State Park), located within the northern 15
km (9 mi) of the peninsula.
Various researchers have also documented the occurrence of other
beach mouse subspecies within scrub dunes (Extine and Stout 1987, Hill
1989, Rave and Holler 1992, Gore and Schaefer 1993, Swilling et al.
1996, Moyers et al. 1996, Novak 1997). Blair (1951) believed that the
scrub dunes on Santa Rosa Island offered abundant food and cover for
the Santa Rosa beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus leucocephalus). Scrub
dunes may also function as refugia during and after storms and as a
source for recolonization of storm-damaged dunes (Moyers et al. 1996,
Swilling et al. 1996). Their use by the St. Andrew beach mouse is not
well documented. James (1987) noted the absence of tracks in scrub
dunes within St. Joseph Peninsula State Park (SJPSP), although she did
collect mice in 1986 from well-vegetated back dunes on Crooked Island
(James 1992). Moyers et al. (1996) captured beach mice within SJPSP in
secondary dunes immediately adjacent to scrub dunes.
Based on a study of other Gulf coast subspecies that included
habitat conditions following Hurricane Frederick, Meyers (1983)
reported that the minimum post-storm area needed to allow beach mice to
persist was 50 hectares (ha) (124 acres (ac)). He also determined that
a habitat size from 100 to 200 ha (247 to 494 ac) supporting a
population of 127 mice was optimal for that population to recover from
habitat impacts produced by a storm of comparable intensity. Meyer's
figures should be used with caution, however, since he did not know
pre-storm habitat conditions or population numbers within the study
area.
Beach mouse populations can at times undergo great seasonal
variations in numbers (Bowen 1968, Extine and Stout 1987). Prior to
human disturbance, hurricanes and tropical storms likely were the
dominant factors producing rapid and possible widespread impacts on
beach mice and their habitat. Because the St. Andrew beach mouse
evolved under adverse weather conditions, the subspecies developed the
capability to survive and recover from these periodic severe impacts to
its numbers and habitat. During this century, however, more rapid land
development, dune encroachment by pedestrians and vehicles, and
military activities began to contribute to these impacts (James 1992).
Bowen (1968) was unable to collect beach mice from one or more historic
sites during a 1961 field trip. Hurricane Eloise split Crooked Island
into east and west segments in 1975, and multiple attempts to collect
beach mice from the western segment during the early and mid-1980's
were unsuccessful (Gore in litt. 1987). During this same period, trap
surveys collected small numbers of beach mice on the eastern segment.
Limited trap and track surveys during the late 1980's found no evidence
of beach mice within undeveloped coastal mainland habitat between
Crooked Island and Money Bayou, as well as on the St. Joseph Peninsula
from near the southern border of SJPSP through Cape San Blas to the
northeastern end of the peninsula (Gore in litt. 1990, James 1987).
Both surveys revealed that mice still existed on Crooked Island East
and also occurred within SJPSP. Gore collected 3.6 mice per 100 trap
nights during his 1989 survey within the park. Based on her survey
results, James (1992) estimated the Crooked Island East population at
150 mice and the population within SJPSP at 500 mice. Gore speculated
that the range-wide population at its lowest contained several hundred
mice.
Extensive surveying of primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat
on Crooked Island East during the 1990's revealed that the beach mouse
population there no longer existed (Gore in litt. 1994, Holler in litt.
1994). Similar efforts at Cape San Blas on Eglin Air Force Base and
U.S. Coast Guard properties yielded no mice (Gore in litt. 1994). Bates
(1992) did capture 338 separate individuals within SJPSP at a rate of
26.64 mice per 100 trap nights. In 1993 and 1994, Gore (in litt. 1994)
again sampled habitat between SJPSP and Cape San Blas and trapped 9
beach mice for a capture rate of 7.56 mice per 100 trap nights. Based
on the survey findings to date, Gore (in litt 1994, 1995) assumed that
the St. Andrew beach mouse was then restricted to the northern 20 to 25
km (12.5 to 15.5 mi) of the St. Joseph Peninsula.
In October 1995, Hurricane Opal caused extensive coastal damage to
the Florida panhandle. Habitat impacts within the St. Joseph Peninsula
appeared more extensive outside SJPSP boundaries (Gore in litt. 1995).
Using an average density estimate of 2.5 mice per hectare, Gore (in
litt. 1995) calculated that the total population of St. Andrew beach
mice remaining after the storm was around 190 individuals. Moyers et
al. (1996) trapped a total of about 5.25 km (3 mi) of habitat
throughout SJPSP in December 1995 and captured 62 individuals for a
rate of 3.44 mice per 100 trap nights. They estimated the population
size within the sampled area at 127, a figure which compared favorably
to Gore's post-hurricane estimate. Moyers (1996a) later collected an
additional 11 mice on William J. Rish State Park and on some private
parcels within the St. Joseph Peninsula immediately south of SJPSP. The
most recent trap survey within SJPSP (February 1997) collected 117 mice
for a capture rate of 9.00 mice per 100 trap nights (Mitchell et al.
1997). They estimated that SJPSP currently may support between 300 and
500 mice. The estimate represents a significant increase over the 1995
post-Hurricane Opal survey and is comparable to the last pre-Hurricane
Opal survey within the park (Bates 1992).
In November 1997 and January 1998, a total of 38 St. Andrew beach
mice, including mated pairs and pregnant females, were translocated
from SJPSP to East Crooked Island, Tyndall Air Force Base. Post-release
trapping and radio telemetry surveys revealed successful dispersal and
reproduction by these introduced beach mice. Track observations
indicated movement up to 2.5 km (1.6 mi) from one of the release sites.
Offspring of these founders colonized habitat outside the
reintroduction area (Moyers et al. in litt. 1998).
Definitive estimates of minimum viable population size for beach
mice are not yet available. Several recent estimates for small mammals
based on mass/population density relationships indicate that continued
survival of a self-sustaining population would require several thousand
individuals (Belovsky 1987, Silva and Downing 1994). These estimates
still may be low for beach mice since they reflect small rodent
populations in more stable environments. As mentioned previously, the
estimates of the
[[Page 70056]]
remaining numbers of St. Andrew beach mice do not approach these
figures.
Previous Federal Action
The Service included the St. Andrew beach mouse as a category 2
candidate species in its September 18, 1985, notice of review of
vertebrate wildlife (50 FR 37958). At that time, category 2 species
were defined as those for which information in possession of the
Service indicated that proposing to list as endangered or threatened
was possibly appropriate, but for which conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threat(s) were not currently available to support a
proposed rule. The Service published an updated, combined animal notice
of review (ANOR) on January 6, 1989, which retained the species'
category 2 classification (54 FR 554). In the November 21, 1991, ANOR
update, the St. Andrew beach mouse was designated a category 1
candidate for listing (56 FR 58804). A category 1 candidate was one for
which the Service had on file sufficient information to support
issuance of a proposed rule. The Service retained this classification
in the November 15, 1994, ANOR (59 FR 58982). Upon publication of the
February 18, 1996, notice of review (61 FR 7596), the Service ceased
using category designations and included the St. Andrew beach mouse as
a candidate species. Candidate species are those for which the Service
has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
threats to support proposals to list the species as threatened or
endangered. Candidate status for this animal was continued in the
September 19, 1997, NOR (62 FR 49398). The proposed rule to list the
St. Andrew beach mouse was published on October 17, 1997 (62 FR 54028).
The processing of this final rule conforms to the Service's final
listing priority guidance published in the Federal Register on May 8,
1998 (63 FR 25502). The guidance clarifies the order in which the
Service will process rulemakings. The highest priority is given to
handling emergency situations (Tier 1), second highest priority (Tier
2) to processing final decisions on proposed listings, resolving the
conservation status of candidate species, processing administrative
findings on petitions, and delisting or reclassifying actions, and
lowest priority (tier 3) to actions involving critical habitat
determinations. The processing of this final rule falls under tier 2.
At this time, the Southeast Region has no pending tier 1 actions.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the October 17, 1997, proposed rule (62 FR 54028) and through
associated notifications, the Service requested all interested parties
to submit factual reports or information that might contribute to the
development of a final rule for the St. Andrew beach mouse. Appropriate
Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific
organizations, and interested parties were contacted by letter or
facsimile and requested to provide comment. A summary of the proposed
regulation and other information was published in the Panama City
Herald on October 21, 1997, Port St. Joe Star on October 23, 1997, and
Florida Journal edition of the Wall Street Journal on November 26,
1997. At the request of the Gulf County Board of Commissioners, the
Service presented information and answered questions on the proposed
listing at the Board's monthly public meeting held on November 25,
1997, in Port St. Joe, Florida. Pertinent comments from meeting
attendees following conclusion of the meeting are included in the
administrative record for the final rule and addressed in this section.
In compliance with the Service's July 1, 1994, policy on
information standards under the Act (59 FR 34270), the Service
solicited the expert opinions of four appropriate and independent
specialists regarding the proposal's supportive scientific and
commercial data, and additional information and issues related to the
range and distribution, ecology, populations, threats to the continued
existence of the St. Andrew beach mouse, and the appropriateness of
critical habitat designation. All four solicited experts supported the
proposed listing action and generally found the accompanying data
accurate and objective. Additional information and suggested changes
provided by the reviewers were considered in developing this final
rule, and incorporated where applicable. Two of the reviewers provided
comments on critical habitat. Both of these reviewers agreed with the
Service that designation of critical habitat would not provide
additional conservation benefit to the St. Andrew beach mouse on
Federal lands beyond that afforded by the Act's Section 7(a)(2)
jeopardy standard or existing habitat conservation measures implemented
by the Federal landowners. However, they also believed some designation
of critical habitat on non-Federal lands might benefit the species. The
Service has addressed their comments in Issue 1 and in the ``Critical
Habitat'' section.
During the 60-day comment period, the Service received a total of
eight written and oral responses. All pertinent comments contained have
been considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in the formulation of
this final rule. The listing was supported by the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Apalachee Regional Planning
Council. The Washington Legal Foundation, Pacific Legal Foundation, and
one private citizen opposed the listing. Responses from the Florida
Department of Transportation and a private citizen were non-committal.
Comments, concerns, and questions of similar content have been
grouped together and referred to as ``Issues'' for the purposes of this
summary. The following is a summary of the issues and the Service's
response to each.
Issue 1: Critical habitat designation might benefit the species by
improving the uniformity and relevance of the Service's biological
opinions, providing better justification for requiring beach mouse
surveys on non-federally involved private lands, and identifying
habitat outside Federal lands for future beach mouse translocations
(taking mice out of the wild from one location and moving them to
different location).
Response: The Service believes that uniform and effective
biological opinions can be prepared for this species without critical
habitat designation (see ``Critical Habitat'' section). The designation
of critical habitat does not affect private landowners unless Federal
permitting or financing is involved with their property. In addition,
critical habitat designation does not enable the Service or other
parties to require landowner surveys for listed species. The Service
can identify potential translocation sites by habitat features without
a regulatory designation. For example, as part of recovery efforts for
various listed species, such as the black-footed ferret, Hawaiian crow,
and American burying beetle, the Service has conducted translocations
and reintroductions without designating critical habitat.
Issue 2: Potential interbreeding of the St. Andrew beach mouse with
other subspecies of oldfield mice will make it impossible to know what
species is being protected.
Response: The species' historic range is separated by approximately
5 km (3.1 mi.) at the point closest to habitat occupied by another
subspecies, the federally endangered Choctawhatchee beach mouse. This
geographic separation prevents intercrosses (interbreeding) between
these subspecies.
[[Page 70057]]
Inland oldfield mice typically occur in young grassland habitats
with dry, sandy to loamy soils, fallow fields, and similar locations
associated with sandhill and inland scrub habitats (Bowen 1968, King
1968, Hall 1981). With the exception of some scrub, these habitats
currently are not associated with the coastal strand, the physiographic
area that includes beach mouse habitat. The absence of most coastal
strand habitat and inland oldfield mice in beach mouse surveys suggest
that intercrosses between the St. Andrew beach mouse and inland
subspecies is unlikely.
Issue 3: The Service lacks the authority to regulate the St. Andrew
beach mouse under the Endangered Species Act, pursuant to the Commerce
Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The
Service failed to show in the proposed rule that regulation of this
species addresses activities that bear a substantial relation to, or
substantially affect interstate commerce.
Response: On June 22, 1998, the Supreme Court, without comment,
rejected the argument that using the Act to protect species that live
only in one State goes beyond Congress' authority to regulate
interstate commerce. This decision upholds a decision made by the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(National Association of Homebuilders vs. Babbitt, 97-1451) that
regulation under the Act is within Congress' Commerce Clause power and
that loss of animal diversity has a substantial effect on interstate
commerce. Thus, although the St. Andrew beach mouse is found only
within the State of Florida, the Service's application of the Act to
list this species is constitutional.
Issue 4: The Service should not list the St. Andrew beach mouse
because the proposed rule did not present clear scientific evidence
that the subspecies is a distinct taxon, or that there are current
threats to the continued existence of the subspecies.
Response: While few studies have addressed the relationship between
genetics and the taxonomy of beach mice and other oldfield mice, the
best available genetic information on the St. Andrew beach mouse does
not refute Howell's (1939) original classification of the subspecies
based on morphology, pelage (fur) color pattern, and distribution.
The best available information also indicates that loss and
modification of habitat was, and continues to be, the major factor
threatening the continued existence of the St. Andrew beach mouse
throughout its entire range. Severe storms and natural shoreline
erosion impact mainly frontal and primary dunes, while coastal
development and related activities mostly affect secondary and scrub
dunes. Information documenting the historic loss of St. Andrew beach
mouse from Crooked Island suggests that multiple habitat threats over a
relatively large area resulted in the extirpation of this local
population. Such multiple impacts currently exist or threaten
approximately two-thirds of the St. Joseph Peninsula and all mainland
areas within the species' historic range.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR
part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These
factors and their application to the St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus
polionotus peninsularis) are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. Using historic topographic maps
and their habitat references, the Service calculated that 66 km (41 mi)
of the estimated 86 km (53.5 mi) of linear area within the historic
range of the St. Andrew beach mouse contained sand dune habitat. From
field surveys, Gore (in litt. 1994, 1995) estimated the amount of
recently occupied habitat to be between 20 and 23 km (14.3 to 12.5 mi),
all within the northern two-thirds of the St. Joseph Peninsula. This
represents up to a 68 percent curtailment of historic sand dune habitat
within the subspecies' former range. The 1997-1998 translocation of
mice to Crooked Island East is not included in this assessment because
the full extent of habitat occupied, and stability and survivability of
this population cannot be reliably determined for a number of years.
Natural events and manmade activities that have impacted the St.
Andrew beach mouse and its habitat include severe storms, land
development, military exercises on Crooked Island, dune encroachment by
vehicles and pedestrians, and non-storm related shoreline erosion.
Between 1871 and 1995, nearly 50 hurricanes or tropical storms occurred
within 90 mi of St. Joe Bay, which is about midway within the historic
range of the species. In this century, storm strength, proximity to the
historic range, and degree of habitat impact have been especially
intense during the last 30 years (Doehring et al. 1994). In 1975,
Hurricane Eloise breached Crooked Island, dividing it into two segments
and severely eroding and fragmenting dunes, particularly within the
newly-formed western segment (R. Bates, pers. comm. 1995). In 1985,
Hurricane Kate scoured dunes within the entire range of the St. Andrew
beach mouse. These storms caused extensive blowouts in the high dunes
throughout the St. Joseph Peninsula (James 1992). In 1995, Hurricane
Opal, which made landfall 85 mi west of St. Joe Bay, severely damaged
and fragmented frontal and primary sand dunes within the historic range
of the beach mouse. The most seriously impacted areas were the
unoccupied habitat from Crooked Island to Mexico Beach. Gore (in litt.
1995) estimated an average loss of 52 percent of occupied area within
the St. Joseph Peninsula, with the greatest impacts occurring south of
SJPSP. Although the population within the SJPSP has since recovered,
the Service believes that, coupled with additional land development,
consecutive years of severe weather or a single season of intense
storms over, or in close proximity to, currently occupied habitat may
result in extinction of the subspecies.
Land development has been primarily responsible for the permanent
loss of St. Andrew beach mouse habitat. Historic maps suggest that
earlier construction of State Road 98 and incorporated development from
the vicinity of Port St. Joe to Mexico Beach occurred within one or
more types of coastal sand dune habitat. Little or no suitable habitat
currently occurs at the seaward side of some of these incorporated
areas (J. Danforth, Gulf County Division of Solid Waste, pers. comm.
1997). This density of development also tends to fragment remaining
undeveloped habitat. Meyers (1983) believed that intense development
could act as a barrier to migration, isolating mice within these
habitat segments and making them more vulnerable to local extinction
from one or more threats. Neither Gore (in litt. 1990) nor James (1987)
found evidence of beach mice within these fragmented parcels located
along the coast between Port St. Joe and Mexico Beach. The current
status of beach mice within these parcels is unknown.
Gore (in litt. 1994) ranked continued habitat loss on the St.
Joseph Peninsula as one of the most serious long-term threats to the
St. Andrew beach mouse outside of the State parks. He attributed beach
mouse presence in the area
[[Page 70058]]
between SJPSP and Cape San Blas in 1994 to the relatively low density
of housing compared to mainland areas, and the apparent low threat from
free-ranging domestic cats, which he believed was related to the
primary use of the residences as vacation homes. In addition, most
structures are set back from the frontal and primary dune lines. Since
1994, additional construction has occurred in this area, as well as
within unoccupied habitat on the remainder of the peninsula (J.
Danforth, pers. comm. 1997). The construction has proceeded despite the
unavailability of federally financed loans or flood insurance (see
Factor D.). The Service believes that continued construction may result
in intense development of secondary and scrub dunes, resulting in the
severe fragmentation or loss of these habitat types. These areas are
known to be important to other beach mice subspecies (see
``Background'' section). Intense impacts to these habitat types,
coupled with severe storms affecting frontal and primary dunes, may
contribute to the extinction of the St. Andrew beach mouse. Gulf County
has constructed snow fencing and planted dune vegetation to restore
frontal and primary dunes on the St. Joseph Peninsula and elsewhere
that were damaged as a result of Hurricane Opal (J. Danforth, pers.
comm. 1997).
Other human activities impact beach mouse habitat. Gore (in litt.
1994) described the sand dunes east of Cape San Blas as having little
vegetation and generally being of poor quality. He attributed this
situation to a combination of storm damage exacerbated by vehicular
traffic on the beach. Although Gulf County has updated its beach
driving ordinance in an attempt to eliminate dune impacts on the St.
Joseph Peninsula (Gulf County Commission 1997), some areas continue to
have problems with dune encroachment by all-terrain vehicles (D.
Wibberg, Office of the Gulf County Board of Commissioners, pers. comm.
1997). Prior to 1985, trial exercises with military hovercraft
contributed to habitat degradation on Crooked Island (James 1992). The
Department of Defense has since discontinued this practice (R. Bates,
Tyndall Air Force Base, pers. comm. 1995) and is restoring dune habitat
and has funded translocation of beach mice onto Crooked Island.
Severe natural erosion within a section of beach north of Cape San
Blas, primarily within U.S. Coast Guard property on the St. Joseph
Peninsula, has resulted in the loss of frontal, primary, and secondary
dunes (Gore in litt. 1994). Sporadic natural shoreline erosion of
frontal and primary dunes is also occurring north of this area to
SJPSP, as well as between Cape San Blas and Money Bayou. The principal
effect in the area of severe erosion has been to isolate occupied
habitat on the northern peninsula from unoccupied habitat between Cape
San Blas and Money Bayou. The additional natural erosion has resulted
in some habitat fragmentation.
B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. This factor is not now known to be applicable.
C. Disease or predation. The impact of parasites and pathogens on
beach mice populations and their potential contribution to the decline
of the St. Andrew beach mouse are unknown. Significant adverse impacts
from these factors might occur when combined with, or as a function of,
other threats. Studies and observations by various researchers strongly
suggest that predation, especially by free-ranging domestic cats, is an
important factor contributing to the loss of mice from local habitat
within or adjacent to developed areas (Blair 1951, Humphrey and Barbour
1981, Holliman 1983, Humphrey et al. 1987). Bowen (1968) provided an
anecdotal report on the complete absence of beach mouse sign on a 3.2
km (2 mi) stretch of beach having abundant cat tracks. Frank and
Humphrey (1992) noted a reduction of cat sign on dunes and an increase
in Anastasia Island beach mouse (P. p. phasma) numbers and mean
survivorship following removal of 15 to 20 cats from the camping area
at Anastasia State Recreation Area. Gore and Schaeffer (1993) found a
significant inverse relationship between the ratio of Santa Rosa beach
mice to cat tracks on sample transects within developed and undeveloped
dune areas on Santa Rosa Island. Their median transects in the
developed areas contained no mouse tracks and 13 cat tracks. Bates
(1992) found that predators in SJPSP did not appear to concentrate near
dunes and the infrequent house cat tracks observed occurred mainly near
structures. Although Bates failed to capture beach mice in dunes
adjacent to the camping areas, Moyers et al. (1996) did capture mice
and observe tracks in these areas. Gore (in litt. 1994) believed that
the house cat population on private lands south of SJPSP was less of a
problem than other developed areas because the residences there served
mainly as seasonal vacation homes. He nevertheless believed further cat
introductions associated with additional land development could pose a
serious threat to beach mouse populations.
Other mammalian predators occurring on sand dunes within SJPSP
include fox, bobcat, raccoon, and coyote (Bates 1992). Coyotes are
relatively recent migrants to SJPSP and Crooked Island, where they have
become predators on sea turtle nests (S. Shea, Tyndall Air Force Base,
pers. comm. 1994; J. Bente, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, pers. comm. 1995).
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The Federal
Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 and the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990 (CBRA) prohibit most new Federal expenditures
and financial assistance within Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS)
units. CBRA also prohibits the sale of new Federal flood insurance for
new construction or substantial improvements within otherwise protected
areas. There are two CBRS units and one otherwise protected area within
the historic range of the St. Andrew beach mouse. The Cape San Blas
Unit (P30) covers all of the St. Joseph Peninsula, while the otherwise
protected area (P30P) corresponds with the boundaries of St. Joseph
Peninsula State Park. Habitat west of the city of Mexico Beach,
including Crooked Island East and West, are part of the St. Andrew
Complex Unit (P31). CBRA does not prohibit use of non-Federal or
private funds to finance or insure projects within CBRS units or
otherwise protected areas. As a result, coastal construction may still
proceed within all remaining undeveloped parcels within the subspecies'
historic range.
Eglin Air Force Base currently allows beach driving through its
Cape San Blas property and adjacent property it leases from and manages
for the U.S. Coast Guard. However, the agreement with Gulf County
prohibits vehicles and pedestrians from encroaching on or near sand
dunes. Strict enforcement of this provision has been difficult due to
the distance of Eglin's main base from the Cape San Blas unit and the
lack of onsite enforcement personnel. The distance also hampers efforts
at evaluating and taking action on potential problems associated with
free-ranging domestic cats.
State laws protect sea oats, a critical component of the dune
vegetative community, from being picked on public land but do not
prohibit this activity on private land, nor their destruction during
construction activities. State-regulated Coastal Construction Control
Lines (CCCL) correspond to the limits of the coastal high hazard 100-
year storm event impact area. Construction seaward of the CCCL requires
permits whose stringent requirements generally result
[[Page 70059]]
in protection of beach, frontal dune, and primary dune habitats (G.
Chelicki, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, pers. comm.
1997). The same protections are not afforded to secondary and scrub
dune habitats occurring landward of the CCCL. The State has designated
Crooked Island East and West as critical wildlife areas, which would
protect plants and animals from take or disturbance by pedestrians,
vehicles, and dogs, but this designation does not address habitat
protection (S. Shea in litt. 1997).
The St. Andrew beach mouse is listed as a Florida State endangered
species. Chapter 39-27.002 of the Florida Administrative Code prohibits
the take, possession, or sale of endangered species except as
authorized by specific permit for the purpose of enhancing the survival
potential of the species. The law does not provide for the protection
or conservation of a listed species' habitat.
Bay County, Florida, restricts beach driving to permitted vendors.
State parks on the St. Joseph Peninsula do not generally permit beach
driving within their boundaries, although beach driving occurs on Rish
State Park because it is within the Aquatic Preserve driving management
plan area. Gulf County regulates beach driving on the peninsula between
Indian Pass and SJPSP by ordinance and permits. The ordinances restrict
the number of vehicle access points and prohibits driving in, on, or
over sand dunes or vegetated areas. They do not address pedestrian
encroachment. The most recent revised ordinance creates a 7.6 meter (25
foot) dune buffer zone within a portion of the St. Joseph Peninsula, in
which beach driving and parking are prohibited (Misty Nabers, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, pers. comm. 1997). This
revision does not apply to the section of the peninsula between about
3.2 km (2 mi) northwest of Cape San Blas to Money Bayou (D. Wibberg,
pers. comm. 1997).
Gulf County does not have any ordinances relating to the ownership,
control, and handling of free-ranging domestic cats.
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. In addition to severe storms, other widespread climatic
conditions that can occur within the range of the St. Andrew beach
mouse include periods of drought and freezing weather. The extent of
any direct or indirect impacts of these factors on beach mouse
survival, either alone or in combination with manmade threats, is not
known.
Storms and residential and commercial development can fragment and
isolate beach mouse habitat. This isolation precludes movement and gene
flow among other habitat blocks. In smaller blocks, the lack of gene
flow may result in a loss of genetic diversity, which can reduce the
population's fitness. Increased predation pressure and competition for
available food and cover may further weaken populations through direct
mortality and reduced reproductive success. The combined threats may
result in a severe decline leading to extinction of these isolated
populations (Caughley and Gunn 1996).
The ecological similarity of house mice and oldfield mice (Gentry
1966, Briese and Smith 1973) suggests that competition and aggression
may occur between these species. An inverse relationship appears to
exist between the population densities of the house mouse and inland
oldfield mice (Caldwell 1964, Caldwell and Gentry 1965, Gentry 1966).
Humphrey and Barbour (1981) documented mutually exclusive distribution
patterns of house mice and other Gulf coast beach mice, a pattern
similar to that observed by Frank and Humphrey (1992) for the Anastasia
Island beach mouse, and by Gore (in litt. 1987, 1990, 1994) and Holler
(in litt. 1994) for the St. Andrew beach mouse. The significance of
competition to the observed patterns is not clear. In general, the
observations suggest that where conditions favor one of the two
species, that species will predominate or exclude the other species.
Briese and Smith (1973) noted that house mice primarily invade
disturbed areas, such as when development occurs, and are able to
establish themselves in these and adjacent habitats occupied by low
densities of oldfield mice. They also noted that house mice seem to be
less affected by predation from house cats than oldfield mice.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by this species in determining to make this rule
final. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the
St. Andrew beach mouse as endangered. The primary threats to the
continued existence of the species are habitat impacts from periodic
severe weather and land development, which result in direct loss of
mice and the capability of remaining mice to recover from such impacts.
Other potentially significant threats include predation by free-ranging
domestic cats and possible competitive displacement by the house mouse.
The Service considers the threat of extinction to be high magnitude and
imminent because of the more than two-thirds estimated range
curtailment, the species' restriction to a single land unit, and the
recent high frequency of severe storms occurring within or in close
proximity to the species' historic range.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing
under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be threatened or endangered. Service
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations
exist: (i) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (ii) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. The Service finds that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the St. Andrew beach
mouse at this time.
Designated critical habitat is protected by the Act only under
section 7(a)(2), which provides that activities that are federally
funded, permitted, or carried out may not destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. However, this section, which also prohibits Federal
activities likely to jeopardize listed species, provides substantial
protection to the habitat of listed species, even if critical habitat
is not designated. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer
informally with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a proposed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. For
most species, including the St. Andrew beach mouse, the protection
afforded the species'
[[Page 70060]]
habitat through application of the no jeopardy standard is so strong,
the Service believes there would be no direct net conservation benefit
from designating critical habitat.
Regulations (50 CFR part 402.02) define ``jeopardize the continued
existence of'' as meaning to engage in an action that would reasonably
be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the
likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the
wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that
species. ``Destruction or adverse modification'' is defined as a direct
or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed
species. The St. Andrew beach mouse is restricted to coastal sand dunes
that consist of several rows paralleling the shoreline. The common
types of sand dune habitat include frontal dunes, primary dunes,
secondary dunes, inter and intradunal swales, and scrub dunes. Beach
mice occur mostly in frontal, primary, and secondary dunes due in part
to the predominance of plants whose seeds and fruits are important
seasonal constituents of beach mouse diets. Further, scrub dunes may
function as refugia during and after storms and as a source for
recolonization of storm-damaged dunes. Because of the highly precarious
status of the St. Andrew beach mouse, destruction or adverse
modification of any of these habitat features to the point of
appreciably diminishing habitat value for recovery and survival would
also jeopardize the species' continued existence by reducing its
reproduction, numbers, or distribution.
For the St. Andrew beach mouse, therefore, the Service has
determined that designation of critical habitat would not add any
protection over that afforded by the jeopardy standard. Any appreciable
diminishment of habitat sufficient to appreciably reduce the value of
the habitat for survival and recovery would also appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery by reducing reproduction, numbers,
or distribution. The Service has found this to be the case for several
listed species, for which an appreciable reduction in habitat value
would trigger the jeopardy standard, for example the Appalachian elktoe
mussel, listed as endangered on November 23, 1994 (59 FR 60324), and
three Texas aquatic invertebrates, listed as endangered on June 5, 1995
(60 FR 29537).
Within unoccupied lands under Federal management, both Eglin and
Tyndall Air Force bases are actively involved in conservation of sand
dune habitat. Eglin Air Force Base does not allow dune encroachment by
vehicles and pedestrians within its Cape San Blas unit boundaries and
closely reviews mission-related activities for potential habitat
impacts (R. McWhite, Eglin Air Force Base, pers. comm. 1997). Eglin
recently completed an ecological survey of Cape San Blas that will
assist them in deciding how best to manage the natural resources within
the unit. On Crooked Island, Tyndall Air Force Base restricts beach
access on both east and west segments to pedestrians and authorized
vehicles, and also prohibits dune encroachment. Natural resource
personnel review all requests for military operations to minimize or
eliminate potential habitat disturbances. Because of these current
conditions, the Service believes that a designation of Crooked Island
or Cape San Blas as critical habitat is not prudent because it would
not result in any additional benefit to the species.
Recovery of the St. Andrew beach mouse will require the
establishment of stabilized beach mouse populations wherever suitable
habitat exists within the historic range of the species. The section 7
consultation requirements do not apply to private lands unless there
are actions that are authorized, funded, or carried out by the Federal
government. Critical habitat designation on unoccupied private lands
might provide minimal benefit to the St. Andrew beach mouse by alerting
permitting agencies to potential sites for translocation. Based on the
existing protections for sand dune habitat by Gulf and Bay counties and
State-regulated Coastal Construction Control Lines (see Factor D.), the
Service believes that most mouse habitat should remain relatively
intact for translocation and recolonization of mice. Thus, any benefit
that might be provided by designation of unoccupied habitat can be more
effectively accomplished through the recovery process and coordination
with the county governments. In addition, sand dune habitat can change
rapidly during severe storms making potential translocation areas
unsuitable for mice. Thus, the current recovery and coordination
process is a preferable means for identifying potential areas for mice
translocations.
Based on the above discussion, the Service has determined that the
lack of additional conservation benefit from critical habitat
designation for this species makes such designation not prudent.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibition against certain
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are
discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical
habitat if any is being designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a
species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
Federal agency actions that are expected to require consultation
include mission-related activities authorized or carried out by Tyndall
Air Force Base on Crooked Island and by Eglin Air Force Base at the
Cape San Blas unit, following any translocation of beach mice to these
locations. The Service's experience with other beach mice indicates
that, with planning, beach mouse conservation and military activities
are compatible.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides flood
insurance for completed structures through the National Flood Insurance
Program. Section 7 of the Act normally would require FEMA to consider
consultation with the Service where the agency provides flood insurance
to private landowners with structures located in occupied habitat. In
this case,
[[Page 70061]]
private property occupied by the beach mouse within the St. Joseph
Peninsula is also located within a CBRS unit and subject to the CBRA
prohibitions against the acquisition of new federally-funded coastal
flood insurance for new construction or substantial improvements (see
Factor D. under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species''). The
Service, therefore, believes the listing will have no additional impact
on the application of FEMA's flood insurance program.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers involvement in the section 7
consultation process may result from the issuance of permits for the
filling of wet interdunal swales subject to section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.). Consultation will be required
should the Corps determine that such permit issuance may affect the St.
Andrew beach mouse.
The Service may undertake internal consultations when carrying out
recovery activities such as dune restoration and construction of
pedestrian crossovers or when reviewing incidental take permit
applications under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
Actions taken and in progress for the St. Andrew beach mouse
include updated status surveys within a portion of the historic range;
a population genetics analysis; population viability modeling;
distribution of outdoor interpretive habitat signs; reconstruction of a
dune boardwalk at SJPSP; sand dune restoration at Crooked Island,
SJPSP, and other Gulf County areas; and translocation of beach mice
from SJPSP to Crooked Island. The Service plans to continue pursuing
conservation actions to reduce threats to the species' continued
existence.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, in part, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import or export,
ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or
sell or offer for sale in interstate or any foreign commerce any listed
species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
The prohibitions of section 9 will not apply to St. Andrew Beach
mice which were held in captivity or a controlled environment on the
date of publication in the Federal Register of this final rulemaking,
provided that such holding and any subsequent holding of such mice is
not in the course of a commercial activity (purchase or sale).
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. Such permits are
available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or
survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of
otherwise lawful activities.
It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent
practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that
would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The
intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of
this listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the species'
range. The Service believes that, based on the best available
information, the following actions will not result in a violation of
section 9:
(1) Beneficial activities whose implementation does not result in
take of beach mice. Such activities include, but are not limited to,
boardwalk construction on or over dunes, use of snow fencing and
planting of local, native dune vegetation to accelerate dune
restoration, and dune reconstruction using beach quality sand.
(2) Normal residential activities on unoccupied habitat that would
not result in take of beach mice, such as, landscape maintenance,
private development and dune access by vehicles and pedestrians.
(3) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal
agency when the action is conducted in accordance with any measures
required under section 7 of the Act.
Potential activities involving the St. Andrew beach mouse that the
Service believes will likely be considered a violation of section 9
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Take of St. Andrew beach mouse without a permit.
(2) Possession, sale, delivery, carrying, transportation, or
shipping of illegally taken St. Andrew beach mice.
(3) Destruction or alteration of occupied habitat such as
unpermitted development or habitat modification that results in the
death of or injury to the St. Andrew beach mouse through the
significant impairment of essential behaviors including breeding,
feeding, or sheltering.
For questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute
a violation of section 9 or to obtain approved guidelines for actions
within beach mouse habitat, contact the Field Supervisor of the
Service's Panama City Field Office, 1612 June Avenue, Panama City,
Florida 32405-3721 (telephone 850/769-0552). Requests for copies of the
regulations concerning listed animals and inquiries regarding
prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, Permit Coordinator, 1875 Century
Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (telephone 404/679-7110;
facsimile 404/679-7081).
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 Act. A notice outlining the Service's reasons for this
determination was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983
(48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. is required. An
information collection related to the rule pertaining to permits for
endangered and threatened species has OMB approval and is assigned
clearance number 1018-0094. This rule does not alter that information
collection requirement. For additional information concerning permits
and associated requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.22.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Jacksonville Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Author
The primary author of this document is John F. Milio (see ADDRESSES
section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service amends part 17, subchapter B of chapter I,
title 50 of
[[Page 70062]]
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
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.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under MAMMALS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Mouse, St. Andrew beach...... Peromyscus U.S.A. (FL)........ Entire............. E 655 NA NA
polionotus
peninsularis.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: December 7, 1998.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 98-33552 Filed 12-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P