[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 56 (Thursday, March 24, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15052-15063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5640]



[[Page 15052]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI41


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reclassifying the 
American Crocodile Distinct Population Segment in Florida From 
Endangered to Threatened and Initiation of a 5-Year Review

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and initiation of a 5-year review.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
reclassify the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) distinct 
vertebrate population segment (DPS) in Florida from its present 
endangered status to threatened status under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We believe that the 
endangered designation no longer correctly reflects the current status 
of this taxon within this DPS due to a substantial improvement in the 
species' status. Since its listing in 1975, the American crocodile 
population in Florida has more than doubled, and its distribution has 
expanded. Land acquisition has also provided protection for many 
important nesting areas. We have determined that the American crocodile 
in its range in Florida meets the criteria of a DPS as stated in our 
policy of February 17, 1996. If this proposal is finalized, the 
American crocodile DPS in Florida will continue to be federally 
protected as a threatened species. The American crocodile throughout 
the remainder of its range as described in our December 18, 1979, final 
rule would remain endangered. Because a status review is also required 
for the 5-year review of listed species under section 4(c)(2)(A) of the 
Act, we are electing to prepare these reviews simultaneously. We are 
seeking data and comments from the public on this proposal.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by May 23, 
2005. Public hearing requests must be received by May 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any 
one of the following methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to Cindy Schulz, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our 
South Florida Ecological Services Office, at the above address, or fax 
your comments to (772) 562-4288.
    3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected]. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of 
comments, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Schulz, at the above address 
(telephone (772) 562-3909, extension 305, facsimile (772) 562-4288).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We are requesting information for both the proposed rule and the 5-
year review, as we are conducting these reviews simultaneously.
    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed 
reclassification will be as accurate and as effective as possible. 
Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other 
concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or 
any other interested parties concerning this proposal. We particularly 
seek comments concerning:
    (1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
    (2) The location of any additional populations of the American 
crocodile within the extent of its range covered by this proposed rule;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and 
population size of this species in Florida;
    (4) Current management plans or anticipated plan development that 
incorporates actions that will benefit or impact the American crocodile 
in Florida;
    (5) Current or planned activities within the geographic area 
addressed by this proposal and their potential impact on this species; 
and
    (6) Whether the current status of this population of the American 
crocodile is more appropriately described as ``recovered,'' threatened 
due to similarity of appearance,'' or in some other way different than 
the proposal made here.
    Please submit electronic comments in ASCII file format and avoid 
the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include 
``Attn: [RIN 1018-AI41]'' and your name and return address in your e-
mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that 
we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling 
our South Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold 
also from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable 
by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you 
must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, 
we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions 
from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Background

    The American crocodile is a large greenish-gray reptile. It is one 
of two native crocodilians (the other being the American alligator 
(Alligator mississippiensis)) that occur in the continental United 
States, and is limited in distribution in the United States to the 
southern tip of mainland Florida and the upper Florida Keys (Kushlan 
and Mazzotti 1989a). At hatching, crocodiles are yellowish-tan to gray 
in color with vivid dark bands on the body and tail. As they grow 
older, their overall coloration becomes more pale and uniform and the 
dark bands fade. All adult crocodiles have a hump above the eye, and 
tough, asymmetrical armor-like scutes (scale-like plates) on their 
backs. The American crocodile is distinguished from the American 
alligator by a relatively narrow, more pointed snout and by an 
indentation in the upper jaw that leaves the fourth tooth of the lower 
jaw exposed when the mouth is closed. In Florida, the American 
crocodile ranges in size from 26.0 centimeters (cm) (10.3 inches (in)) 
at hatching, to an upper length of 3.8 meters (m) (12.5 feet (ft)) 
(Moler 1991a). Larger specimens in Florida were reported in the 1800s 
(Moler 1991a), and individuals as large as 6 to 7 m (19.7 to 23.0 ft) 
have been reported outside the United States (Thorbjarnarson 1989).
    The American crocodile occurs in coastal regions of both the 
Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in southern Mexico,

[[Page 15053]]

Central America, and northern South America, as well as the Caribbean 
islands (Thorbjarnarson 1989). It reaches the northern extent of its 
range in the southern tip of Florida (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, 
Thorbjarnarson 1989). The species occurs within the jurisdictional 
boundaries of many different governments in the western hemisphere, 
including Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador, El Salvador, Florida (USA), Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, 
Jamaica, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela.
    The first documented occurrence of a crocodile in the United States 
resulted from the collection of a crocodile in 1869 in the Miami River 
off Biscayne Bay, though crocodiles were earlier suspected to occur 
there (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a). Within the United States, the 
historic core geographic range of crocodiles includes Miami-Dade, 
Broward, and Monroe Counties in Florida, but reports indicate that they 
occupied areas as far north as Indian River County on the east coast 
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a). Crocodiles were probably never common on 
the west coast of Florida, but credible reports suggest that they 
occurred at least periodically as far north as Sanibel Island and 
Sarasota County (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a). The primary historic 
nesting area was on the mainland shore of Florida and Biscayne Bays, 
including many of the small islands near shore, in what is today 
Everglades National Park (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a). Nesting was also 
historically well-documented in the upper Keys from Key Largo south to 
Lower Matecumbe Key (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a). Reports of crocodile 
nests on Little Pine Key (Ogden 1978), and occurrences on Key West 
(Ogden 1978) suggest that crocodiles were once more common in the Keys 
than they are today.
    In 1976, the American crocodile population in Florida was estimated 
to be between 200 and 300 individuals (40 FR 58308), with only 10 to 20 
breeding females estimated in 1975 (40 FR 44149). Most of the remaining 
animals and known nesting activity during this time were concentrated 
in a small portion of their historic range in northeastern Florida Bay 
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a).
    Today, the population of American crocodiles in Florida has grown 
to an estimated 500 to 1,000 individuals, not including hatchlings (P. 
Moler, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), 
personal communication 2004; F. Mazzotti, University of Florida (UF), 
personal communication 2004). This estimate, developed by two 
established American crocodile experts, is based on a demographic 
characteristic that has proven true for both Nile crocodiles and 
American alligators. The characteristic is based on a generality from 
crocodilian research, that breeding females make up 4 to 5 percent of 
the non-hatchling population size. This estimate exhibits a large 
range, because the researchers used a range of 40 to 50 crocodile nests 
existing in Florida to do their calculations (P. Moler, FWC, personal 
communication 2004; F. Mazzotti, UF, personal communication 2004). We 
believe this is a reasonable but conservative estimate, because as 
stated below nesting has increased to 61 documented nests in 2003 and 
not all mature females breed and nest each year.
    The nesting range has also expanded on both the east and west 
coasts of the State, and crocodiles are frequently being seen 
throughout most of their historical range. Nesting has extended back 
into Biscayne Bay on Florida's east coast, and now commonly occurs at 
the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant (Brandt et al. 1995, Gaby et al. 1985). 
During 2003, 61 crocodile nests were discovered in south Florida (S. 
Klett, Service, personal communication 2003; M. Cherkiss, personal 
communication 2003; J. Wasilewski, Natural Selections Inc., personal 
communication 2003), and nesting has been increasing for several years 
(Ogden 1978, Brandt et al. 1995, Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, Moler 
1991b, Mazzotti et al. 2000, Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001, and Mazzotti 
et al. 2002). Approximately 75 percent of reproductively mature females 
breed and nest each year (F. Mazzotti, personal communication 2001), 
suggesting that the actual number of nesting females may be higher than 
the 61 nests recorded. Surveys detect approximately 80 to 90 percent of 
nests (F. Mazzotti, personal communication 2001; J. Wasilewski, 
personal communication 2002), and surveyors are generally unable to 
distinguish those nests that contain more than one clutch of eggs from 
different females without researchers excavating the nests. We believe 
this situation lends to a possible underestimation of nests or females, 
because on occasion 2 females lay eggs in the same nest.
    The breeding range of the American crocodile today is still 
restricted relative to its reported historic range (Kushlan and 
Mazzotti 1989a), with most breeding occurring on the mainland shore of 
Florida Bay between Cape Sable and Key Largo (Mazzotti et al. 2002). 
Crocodiles no longer regularly occur in the Keys south of Key Largo (P. 
Moler, personal communication 2002, Jacobsen 1983), though individuals 
have occasionally been observed in the lower Keys in recent years. An 
American crocodile was also observed for the first time near Fort 
Jefferson in the Dry Tortugas in May 2002 (O. Bass, Everglades National 
Park, personal communication 2002). We believe that these occasional 
observations may indicate that crocodiles are expanding their range 
back into the Keys, but Key Largo is the only nesting area currently 
known in the Florida Keys.
    Crocodiles live primarily in the sheltered, fresh, or brackish 
waters of mangrove-lined bays, mangrove swamps, creeks, and inland 
swamps (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b). Prolonged exposure to salinities 
similar to that of seawater (35 parts per thousand (ppt) of sodium) may 
lead to reduced growth rates, particularly for young crocodiles (Dunson 
1982, Dunson and Mazzotti 1989, Mazzotti et al. 1986). Availability of 
fresh water is a primary factor affecting growth and survival in young 
crocodiles (Dunson and Mazzotti 1989).
    American crocodiles are shy and secretive, and remain solitary for 
most of the year (Mazzotti 1983); however, they are usually tolerant of 
other crocodiles in the same general area. Individuals may travel 
widely throughout their range, but they are generally concentrated 
around the major nesting areas (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, Mazzotti 
1983). Prior to nesting season, males become more territorial, and 
dominant males may mate with several females (Thorbjarnarson 1989).
    Females do not become reproductively active until they reach a 
total length of approximately 2.3 m (7.4 ft) (Mazzotti 1983), and this 
generally corresponds to an age of 10 to 13 years (LeBuff 1957, Moler 
1991a). Females construct earthen nests (mounds or holes) on elevated, 
well-drained sites near the water, such as ditch-banks and beaches. 
Nests have been reported in sand, marl, and organic peat soils, and the 
nests constructed in these different soils may be susceptible to 
different environmental conditions and different threats (Lutz and 
Dunbar-Cooper 1984, Moler 1991b). Female crocodiles will only nest one 
time per year and may not nest every year after they reach sexual 
maturity. They lay an average of 38 eggs (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b), 
which will hatch after an incubation period of approximately 90 days 
(Mazzotti 1989). Flooding, over-drying, and raccoon predation all pose 
threats to nests and developing eggs (Mazzotti et al. 1988, Mazzotti 
1999), and suitable nest sites

[[Page 15054]]

that are protected from these threats may be limited. The reported 
percent of nests from which eggs successfully hatch in any one year 
range from 33 to 78 percent (Ogden 1978, Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, 
Moler 1991b, Mazzotti et al. 2000, Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001). 
Typically, a nest was considered successful if at least one hatched 
eggshell or hatchling crocodile was documented. However, Moler (19991b) 
classified a nest as successful if ``it appeared to have been opened by 
an adult crocodile. In all but one case, hatchling crocodiles were 
tagged near each successful nest.''
    Unlike alligators, female crocodiles do not defend nest sites 
(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b). However, females remain near their nest 
sites and must excavate young from the nest after hatching (Kushlan and 
Mazzotti 1989b). Kushlan (1988) reported that females may be very 
sensitive to disturbance at the nest site; most females that were 
disturbed near their nests did not return to excavate their young after 
hatching. Female crocodiles show little parental care, and young are 
generally independent shortly after hatching. Hatchlings disperse from 
nest sites to nursery habitats that are generally more sheltered, have 
lower salinity (1 to 20 ppt), shallower water (generally), and more 
vegetation cover, shortly after hatching, where they remain until they 
grow larger. Growth during the first year can be rapid, and crocodiles 
may double or triple in size (Moler 1991a). Growth rates in hatchling 
crocodiles depend primarily on the availability of fresh water and food 
in the nursery habitat they occupy and may also be influenced by 
temperature (Mazzotti et al. 1986).
    Adult crocodiles have few natural enemies, but hatchlings and young 
crocodiles are regularly eaten by a variety of wading birds, crabs, 
mammals, and reptiles, including larger crocodiles. As crocodiles grow, 
their former predators become prey. The diet of American crocodiles at 
all ages is varied, and crocodiles forage opportunistically. Fish, 
crabs, snakes, turtles, and a variety of other small prey compose the 
majority of their diet. Crocodiles are usually active at night, which 
is the primary time when they pursue prey.
    Land acquisition efforts by many agencies have continued to provide 
protection for crocodile habitat in south Florida. Crocodile Lake NWR 
was acquired in 1980 to provide over 2,205 ha (5,000 acres) of 
crocodile nesting and nursery habitat. In 1980, Everglades National 
Park established a crocodile sanctuary in northeastern Florida Bay. A 
total of 46 public properties (including Crocodile Lake NWR and 
Everglades National Park), owned and managed by Federal, State, or 
county governments, as well as 3 privately-owned properties (including 
Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant) are managed at least partially or 
wholly for conservation purposes and contain potential crocodile 
habitat within the coastal mangrove communities in south Florida. For 
example, in the early 1980s, Everglades National Park plugged canals 
which allowed crocodiles to begin nesting on the canal berms. In 1976 
the C-107 canal was completed and provides habitat for crocodiles at 
the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant. Approximately 95 percent of 
nesting habitat for crocodiles in Florida is under public ownership (F. 
Mazzotti, personal communication 2001).

Previous Federal Action

    We proposed listing of the United States population of the American 
crocodile as endangered on April 21, 1975 (40 FR 17590). The proposed 
listing stated that only an estimated 10 to 20 breeding females 
remained in Florida, mostly concentrated in northern Florida Bay. The 
primary threats cited included development pressures, lack of adequate 
protection of crocodiles and their habitat, and the risk of extinction 
inherent to a small, isolated population. Comments on the proposed rule 
were received from 14 parties including representatives of the State of 
Florida, and all supported listing the American crocodile as endangered 
in Florida. We published a final rule on September 25, 1975, listing 
the United States population of the American crocodile as endangered 
(40 FR 44149).
    On December 16, 1975, we published a proposal to designate critical 
habitat for the American crocodile (40 FR 58308). The proposed critical 
habitat included portions of Biscayne Bay south of Turkey Point, 
northeast Florida Bay, including the Keys, and the mainland extending 
as far west as Flamingo. We published a final rule designating critical 
habitat on September 24, 1976 (41 FR 41914). The final rule expanded 
the critical habitat to include a portion of Everglades National Park 
and northern Florida Bay to the west of the previously proposed area. 
The additional area lies entirely within Everglades National Park.
    On April 6, 1977, we published a proposed rule to list as 
endangered all populations of the American crocodile with the exception 
of those in Florida and all populations of the saltwater (estuarine) 
crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) due to their similarity in appearance to 
the American crocodile in Florida (42 FR 18287). Under the similarity 
of appearance clause of Section 4 of the Act, a species may be treated 
as endangered or threatened for the purposes of commerce or taking if 
it so closely resembles an endangered species that law enforcement 
personnel will be unable to distinguish between the listed and unlisted 
species. We did not finalize this proposed rule.
    On February 5, 1979, we provided notice in the Federal Register 
that a status review was being conducted for the American crocodile 
(outside of Florida) and the saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus). 
The notice specified that we had information to suggest that the 
American crocodile and the saltwater crocodile may have experienced 
population declines and extensive habitat loss during the previous 
decade (44 FR 7060).
    On July 24, 1979, we published a proposed rule (44 FR 43442) that 
recommended listing the American and saltwater crocodiles as endangered 
throughout their ranges outside of Papua New Guinea, citing widespread 
loss of habitat and extensive poaching for their hides. The Florida 
population of the American crocodile was not included because it was 
previously listed as endangered. Saltwater crocodiles were not listed 
within the jurisdictional boundaries of Papua New Guinea due to strict 
government control of crocodile farming and assurances that wild 
populations there were not being threatened.
    We listed the American crocodile, with the exception of the 
previously-listed population in Florida, and the saltwater crocodile 
throughout its range, with the exception of the Papua New Guinea 
population, as endangered on December 18, 1979 (44 FR 75074). This 
action provided protection to these crocodilians worldwide.
    Since the Florida population of the American crocodile was listed 
as endangered, we have conducted numerous consultations under section 7 
of the Act for actions that may affect crocodiles. Most potential 
conflicts have been resolved early in the informal consultation 
process, resulting in our concurrence with a determination of ``not 
likely to adversely affect.''
    One Federal prosecution occurred in the late 1970s for a dredge-
and-fill permit violation that affected crocodile habitat on Key Largo 
within the boundaries of the then-proposed Crocodile Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge (U.S. v. Joseph R. Harrison, Jr. Civil Action No. 84-
1465, Judge E.B. Davis, Final Consent Judgment on September

[[Page 15055]]

22, 1984). This case was settled prior to trial.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis

    The Act defines ``species'' to include ``* * * any distinct 
population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which 
interbreeds when mature.'' On February 7, 1996, we published in the 
Federal Register our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segments (DPS Policy) (61 FR 4722). For a 
population to be listed under the Act as a distinct vertebrate 
population segment, three elements are considered--(1) The discreteness 
of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species 
to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the population segment to 
the species to which it belongs; and (3) the population segment's 
conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing 
(i.e., is the population segment endangered or threatened?). The best 
available scientific information supports recognition of the Florida 
population of the American crocodile as a distinct vertebrate 
population segment. We discuss the discreteness and significance of the 
DPS within this section; the remainder of the document discusses the 
species' status within the Florida DPS.
    Discreteness: The DPS policy states that vertebrate populations may 
be considered discrete if they are markedly separated from other 
populations of the same taxon as a consequence of physical, 
physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors; and/or they are 
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which 
significant differences exist in control of exploitation, management of 
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms.
    The Florida population segment represents the northernmost extent 
of the American crocodile's range (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, 
Thorbjarnarson 1989). It is spatially separated by approximately 90 
miles of open ocean from the nearest adjacent American crocodile 
population in Cuba (Kushlan 1988). The Gulf Stream, or the Florida 
Current (the southernmost leg of the Gulf Stream), flows through this 
90-mile gap. This strong current makes it unlikely that crocodiles 
would regularly, or even occasionally, move between Florida and Cuba. 
Behaviorally, American crocodiles are not predisposed to travel across 
open ocean. They prefer calm waters with minimal wave action, and most 
frequently occur in sheltered, mangrove-lined estuaries (Mazzotti 
1983). No evidence is available to suggest that crocodiles have crossed 
the Florida Straits. There are no other American crocodile populations 
in close proximity to Florida (Richards 2003) that would allow direct 
interaction of animals. The Florida DPS is effectively isolated from 
other American crocodile populations and functions as a single 
demographic unit. Consequently, we conclude that the Florida population 
of American crocodiles is separated from other American crocodile 
populations as a consequence of physical or behavioral factors.
    The genetic makeup of the Florida population of the American 
crocodile also is recognizably distinct from populations in other 
geographic areas within its range (M. Forstner, Southwest Texas State 
University, unpublished data), despite reported evidence of the 
introduction of genetic material from foreign crocodile populations (M. 
Forstner, personal communication 2002). Analysis of mitochondrial DNA 
suggests that the Florida DPS may be genetically more closely related 
to American crocodile populations in Central and South America than to 
those in Cuba and the Bahamas (M. Forstner, unpublished data). However, 
the Florida DPS remains genetically distinct and geographically distant 
from American crocodiles in central and south America.
    In addition to the effective spatial isolation of the Florida 
population, the regulatory mechanisms providing protection for the 
crocodile and the level of enforcement of protections are substantially 
different outside of Florida, across international government 
boundaries. The first listing of the American crocodile under the Act 
only included the Florida population, and protection under the Act was 
extended to populations outside of the United States several years 
later (see ``Previous Federal Actions'' section). Florida supports the 
only population of the American crocodile that is subject to the full 
jurisdiction of the Act. Though the American crocodile is protected 
from international commerce by the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), other countries 
have distinctly different regulatory mechanisms in place that do not 
provide the same level of protection from exploitation, disturbance, or 
loss of habitat within their jurisdictional boundaries for the American 
crocodile. Cuban laws provide protection to both crocodiles and 
crocodile habitat (Soberon 2000), and enforcement of those laws is 
reported to be good (P. Ross, International Union for the Conservation 
of Nature, Crocodile Specialists Group, personal communication 2002). 
However, the threats to crocodiles in Cuba are different than in the 
United States, with most human-caused mortality resulting from 
subsistence hunting due to a depressed economy. In the Dominican 
Republic, Jamaica, and Haiti, a wide variety of threats, conservation 
regulations, and levels of enforcement make the level of protection 
within these countries difficult to quantify or evaluate. Threats to 
American crocodile populations vary substantially throughout their 
range in Central and South America, with threats including malicious 
killing, illegal subsistence hunting in areas with a depressed economy, 
incidental mortality during legal caiman hunting, killing by fishermen, 
and incidental mortality in fishing nets (Ross 1998, Soberon 2000, 
Platt and Thorbjarnarson 2000, P. Ross personal communication, 2002). 
Therefore, significant differences do exist in control of exploitation, 
management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms in 
areas of the American crocodile's range outside of Florida.
    Significance: The DPS policy states that populations that are found 
to be discrete will then be examined for their biological or ecological 
significance. This consideration may include evidence that the loss of 
the population would create a significant gap in the range of the 
taxon. The Florida population of the American crocodile represents the 
northernmost portion of its range in the world (Kushlan and Mazzotti 
1989a, Thorbjarnarson 1989) and the only U.S. population. Loss of this 
population would result in a significant reduction of the extent of the 
species' range. Maintaining a species throughout its historic and 
current range is important to ensure its genetic diversity and 
population viability. While it is difficult to determine to what degree 
the Florida population of the American crocodile contributes 
substantially to the security of the species as a whole, the apparent 
isolation and evidence of genetic uniqueness (M. Forstner, Southwest 
Texas State University, unpublished data) suggest that the Florida 
population substantially contributes to the overall diversity within 
the species and is biologically or ecologically significant.

Recovery Accomplishments

    The first recovery plan for the American crocodile was approved on 
February 12, 1979 (Service 1979). The recovery plan was revised on 
February

[[Page 15056]]

2, 1984 (Service 1984). The recovery plan for the American crocodile 
was revised again and included as part of the South Florida Multi-
Species Recovery Plan (MSRP) (Service 1999). The recovery plan for the 
crocodile in the MSRP, which was approved in May 1999, represents the 
current recovery plan for this species.
    The MSRP identifies 10 primary recovery actions for the American 
crocodile. Species-focused recovery actions include: (1) Conduct 
surveys to determine the current distribution and abundance of American 
crocodiles; (2) protect and enhance existing colonies of American 
crocodiles; (3) conduct research on the biology and life history of 
crocodiles; (4) monitor the south Florida crocodile population; and (5) 
inform the public about the recovery needs of crocodiles. Habitat-
focused recovery actions include: (1) Protect nesting, basking, and 
nursery habitat of American crocodiles in south Florida; (2) manage and 
restore suitable habitat of American crocodiles; (3) conduct research 
on the habitat relationships of the American crocodile; (4) continue to 
monitor crocodile habitat; and (5) increase public awareness of the 
habitat needs of crocodiles. All of these primary recovery actions have 
been initiated since the 1999 MSRP.
    American crocodile nest surveys and subsequent hatchling crocodile 
surveys around nest sites are conducted in all areas where crocodiles 
nest (Mazzotti et al. 2000, Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). Nest 
monitoring has been conducted nearly continuously at each of the 
primary nesting areas since 1978. Without these data, we would have 
little evidence to support reclassification. In addition, detailed 
surveys and population monitoring have been conducted annually since 
1996 throughout the American crocodile's range in Florida. These 
surveys documented distribution, habitat use, population size, and age 
class distribution of crocodiles. During both crocodile surveys and 
nest monitoring, crocodiles of all age classes are captured and marked 
(Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). These marked individuals continue to 
provide information on survival, longevity, growth, and movements 
(Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). All captured individuals are marked by 
clipping tail scutes in a prescribed manner so that each crocodile is 
given an individual identification number (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). 
In addition, hatchlings at Turkey Point are marked with microchips 
placed under the skin.
    Several ecological studies have been initiated or continued in 
recent years. Study has continued on the effects of salinity on growth 
rate and survival of American crocodiles in the wild. Previous 
laboratory studies provided a general relationship, but field data have 
improved our understanding of this relationship. In addition, analysis 
of contaminants in crocodile eggs has been conducted recently at 
Rookery Bay, and these analyses contribute to a record of contaminants 
data as far back as the 1970s.
    Protection and enhancement of nesting habitat within each of the 
three primary American crocodile nesting areas has also been ongoing 
for many years. Turkey Point Nuclear Plant has implemented management 
actions to minimize disturbance to crocodiles and their nesting 
habitat. This includes the designation of nesting ``sanctuaries'' where 
access and maintenance activities are minimized. Habitat management in 
these areas includes exotic vegetation control and encouraging the 
growth of low-maintenance native vegetation. On Crocodile Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge, management has focused on maintaining suitable nesting 
substrate. The organic soils that compose the nesting substrate have 
subsided over time, leading to the potential for increased risk of 
flooding or unfavorable microclimate. Nesting substrate has been 
augmented near nesting areas. Encroaching vegetation in nesting areas 
has also been removed. In Everglades National Park, management has 
included minimizing disturbance to crocodiles resulting from public 
use, and relocation of crocodile nests that were placed in recently-
excavated spoil material subject to disturbance and inhospitable 
environmental conditions.
    Signs have been in place for several years along highways to alert 
motorists to the presence of crocodiles in the areas where most 
crocodile road kills have occurred. Fences were also erected along 
highways to prevent crocodiles from crossing, although several of these 
fences were later removed because they were ineffective. The remaining 
sections of fence are intended to funnel crocodiles to culverts where 
they can cross underneath roads without risk. Other efforts to reduce 
human-caused mortality include law enforcement actions and signs that 
inform the public about crocodiles in areas where crocodiles and people 
are likely to encounter each other, such as at fish cleaning stations 
along Biscayne Bay.
    The FWC established a standard operating protocol in 1988 to manage 
crocodile-human interactions. This protocol established a standard 
procedure that included both public education to encourage tolerance of 
crocodiles and translocation of crocodiles in situations that may 
threaten the safety of either crocodiles or humans. While the protocol 
has led to the successful resolution of many complaints, many of the 
large crocodiles that have been translocated under the protocol have 
shown strong site fidelity and have returned to the areas from which 
they were removed (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). Translocation appears 
to be effective with small crocodiles (generally < 6 ft total length), 
but may not completely resolve human-crocodile conflicts involving 
larger, older animals. Developing an effective, proactive protocol to 
address human-crocodile conflicts is necessary to ensure the safety of 
crocodiles of all age groups near populated areas and to help maintain 
a positive public perception of crocodiles and crocodile conservation. 
We are working closely with FWC to continue development of an effective 
human-crocodile conflict management plan and to improve our 
understanding of how crocodiles respond to translocation.

Recovery Plan Provisions

    The MSRP (Service 1999) specifies a recovery objective of 
reclassifying the species to threatened, and lists recovery criteria 
as:

    ``Previous recovery efforts identified the need for a minimum of 
60 breeding females within the population before reclassification 
could be considered. Since these criteria were developed, new 
information, based on consistent surveys, has indicated that the 
total number of nesting females has increased substantially over the 
last 20 years, from about 20 animals to about 50, and that nesting 
has remained stable at the major nesting areas. Based on the fact 
that the population appears stable, and that all of the threats as 
described in the original listing have been eliminated or reduced, 
reclassification of the crocodile will be possible, provided 
existing levels of protection continue to be afforded to crocodiles 
and their habitat, and that management efforts continue to maintain 
or enhance the amount and quality of available habitats necessary 
for all life stages.''

    Based on the criteria outlined in the MSRP, we can consider the 
American crocodile for reclassification to threatened status in Florida 
at this time, because crocodiles and their habitat are still protected 
and management efforts continue to maintain or enhance the amount and 
quality of available habitat. In addition, for several reasons, we 
believe that we have surpassed what prior recovery plans outlined as 
necessary to reclassify the American crocodile: The nesting range has 
expanded on both the east and west coasts of the State; crocodiles are

[[Page 15057]]

frequently being seen throughout most of their historical range; 
nesting has extended back into Biscayne Bay on Florida's east coast and 
now commonly occurs at the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant; nesting has been 
increasing for several years; and during 2003, 61 crocodile nests were 
discovered in south Florida. The level of protection currently afforded 
to the species and its habitat, as well as the status of habitat 
management, are outlined in the ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species'' section of this proposed rule.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a)(1) of the Act and regulations promulgated to implement 
the listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth five 
criteria to be used in determining whether to add, reclassify, or 
remove a species from the list of threatened and endangered species. 
These factors and their application to the American crocodile are as 
follows:

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

    The original listing proposal (40 FR 17590) identified intensive 
human development and subsequent loss of American crocodile habitat as 
a primary threat to crocodiles. Since listing, much of the nesting 
habitat in Florida for crocodiles remains and has been afforded some 
form of protection. In addition, nesting activity that was concentrated 
in a small portion of the historic range in northeastern Florida Bay at 
the time of listing now occurs on the eastern, southern, and 
southwestern portions of the Florida peninsula. The primary nesting 
areas in northern Florida Bay that were active at the time of listing 
in 1975 remain protected and under the management of Everglades 
National Park, which has consistently supported the largest number of 
nests and the largest population of American crocodiles in Florida. The 
habitat in Everglades National Park is protected and maintained for 
crocodiles, and ongoing hydrologic restoration efforts may improve the 
quality of the habitat in the Park. Park managers emphasize maintaining 
a high-quality natural habitat that includes natural crocodile nesting 
areas. Restoration of disturbed sites, hydrologic restoration, and the 
removal of exotic vegetation like Australian pine and Brazilian pepper 
have improved crocodile nesting sites, nursery habitat, and other areas 
frequented by crocodiles.
    Since the original listing, we have acquired and protected an 
important nesting area for crocodiles, Crocodile Lake National Wildlife 
Refuge on Key Largo. The acquisition of the Crocodile Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge in 1980 provided protection for over 2,205 ha (5,000 
acres) of crocodile nesting and nursery habitat on Key Largo. The 
habitat on Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge is protected and 
managed to support the local crocodile population. All of the nesting 
on Key Largo occurs within Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge on 
artificial substrates composed of spoil taken from adjacent ditches 
that were dredged prior to acquisition of the property. These sites and 
the surrounding high-quality nursery habitat consistently support five 
to eight successful crocodile nests each year. The artificial substrate 
at nesting sites on the Refuge has begun to settle, and in an effort to 
continue maintenance of crocodile nesting habitat, the Refuge staff 
recently has augmented the substrate at certain sites to bring it back 
to its original elevation. Nesting has been documented at both of the 
elevated mounds. In order for these areas to remain as nesting and 
nursery sites, they need to be cleared of invasive exotics. 
Encroachment of native and exotic plants along the levies needs to be 
controlled in order for them to remain suitable for nesting crocodiles 
and their young. In general, Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge is 
closed to public access. Access is granted by special use permit only. 
Both of these sites (Crocodile Lake NWR and Everglades National Park) 
have already implemented programs that provide for maintenance of 
natural conditions that will benefit the crocodile and are in the 
process of preparing management plans that will formalize ongoing 
management actions and further protect crocodile habitat (S. Klett, 
Service, personal communication 2002, Skip Snow, Everglades National 
Park, personal communication 2002). A management plan as defined here 
and throughout this proposal is not regulatory. These plans are 
developed by the property owners, and they outline strategies and 
alternatives believed to be necessary to conserve important habitat and 
in some cases species on the property. Implementation of the plan is 
not mandatory, but it should be updated on a regular basis so managers 
and staff on site have available the latest information and guidance 
for crocodile management.
    In addition to these two primary core sites of publicly owned 
active nesting habitat for crocodiles, additional nesting habitat has 
been created within the historic range of the crocodile, but on a site 
that may not have historically supported nesting. The Turkey Point 
Nuclear Power Plant site, owned and operated by Florida Power and Light 
(FPL), contains an extensive network of cooling canals (built in 1974) 
that appear to provide good crocodile habitat in Biscayne Bay. The site 
is approximately 1,214 ha (3,000 acres), and the majority is considered 
crocodile habitat. The number of nests at this site has risen from 1 to 
2 per year between 1978 and 1980 (Gaby et al. 1985) to 10 to 15 nests 
per year in the late 1990s (Brandt et al. 1995, Cherkiss 1999, J. 
Wasilewski personal communication 2002). This property now supports the 
second largest breeding aggregation of American crocodiles in Florida. 
The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant site, privately owned by FPL, has 
developed and implemented a management plan for their property that 
specifically addresses crocodiles for many years. Turkey Point is also 
closed to access other than personnel who work at the facility. FPL 
personnel maintain the canals and crocodile habitat at Turkey Point, by 
activities like exotic vegetation control and planting of low-
maintenance native vegetation. They also have supported an extensive 
crocodile monitoring program since 1976. Operation of the Turkey Point 
Nuclear Power Plant is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
through 2032, and FPL plans to continue crocodile management and 
monitoring while the plant is in operation (J. Wasilewski, FPL, 
personal communication 2003).
    FPL has also developed the Everglades Mitigation Bank along the 
western shore of Biscayne Bay and immediately adjacent to the Turkey 
Point Nuclear Power Plant, which may help bolster the crocodile 
population in Biscayne Bay in coming years. This site is a wetlands 
mitigation bank, approximately 5,665 ha (14,000 acres) in size, of 
which about 5,050 ha (10,000 acres) is crocodile habitat. To date, 
crocodile nesting has not been recorded on this site (J. Wasilewski, 
personal communication 2002); however, habitat restoration and 
management actions intended to improve nesting habitat may provide 
three additional nesting areas, each capable of supporting multiple 
nests (J. Wasilewski, personal communication 2002). It is difficult to 
estimate in advance how many potential nesting sites will occur in 
these three nesting areas, but we believe that it will be roughly 
equivalent to the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant site. This area will 
be protected in perpetuity and may help offset any loss of the 
artificial habitat at Turkey Point Nuclear Power

[[Page 15058]]

Plant if that site is modified after the current operating license 
expires in 2032. Even though the nesting habitat at Turkey Point has 
been created and all of the nesting at Crocodile Lake National Wildlife 
Refuge and some areas of Everglades National Park is on artificial or 
created substrate, crocodiles have successfully moved into and used 
this habitat. We believe that it is important to continue to provide 
protection for the artificial habitats that crocodiles 
opportunistically use within their current range.
    Outside of these areas that now comprise the core of nesting 
habitat for American crocodiles in Florida, land acquisitions have also 
provided protection to many other areas of potential habitat for 
crocodiles. A total of 44 different public properties, owned and 
managed by Federal, State, or county governments, as well as 2 
different privately owned properties managed at least partially or 
wholly for conservation purposes, contain potential habitat for 
crocodiles in Florida. A total of 35 of the publicly-owned or private 
conservation lands operate under current management plans (e.g., 
Florida Department of Natural Resources 1991). All of the plans 
prescribe management actions that will provide conditions beneficial 
for crocodiles and maintain or improve crocodile habitat and potential 
nesting sites. A common action called for in many of the plans is 
exotic vegetation control. Sites including Rookery Bay National 
Estuarine Research Reserve, Collier-Seminole State Park, and others 
list goals to restore the natural freshwater flow patterns through 
hydrological restoration (e.g., Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection 2000). The 44 other public properties contain about 28,330 
ha (70,000 acres) of potential crocodile habitat, whereas together 
Everglades National Park and Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge 
contain alone about 131,120 ha (324,000 acres). A total of 
approximately 166,000 ha (410,000 acres) of mangrove-dominated 
vegetation communities are currently present in south Florida on public 
and private lands that are managed at least partially for conservation 
purposes. Approximately 10,117 ha (25,000 acres) of mangrove habitat 
occurs in south Florida outside of public or privately-owned 
conservation lands. Only a small fraction (< 5 percent) of known nests 
currently occur on unprotected sites (F. Mazzotti, personal 
communication 2001), and these sites are probably less secure than 
sites on properties under public ownership.
    Construction and development within coastal areas continues to 
grow, and still poses a threat to remaining crocodile habitat that is 
not protected. However, each year only a few nests may occur on 
privately-owned, unprotected sites (F. Mazzotti, personal communication 
2001). With virtually all known crocodile habitat under protection for 
conservation purposes, the total Florida crocodile population now 
believed to be estimated between 500 and 1,000 individuals (not 
including hatchlings), the expansion of the crocodile's nesting range 
to both the east and west coast of Florida, and with crocodiles 
frequently being seen throughout most of their historical range, we 
believe that the amount and quality of crocodile habitat in south 
Florida will continue to be maintained or enhanced sufficiently in 
order to provide protection for all life stages of the existing 
crocodile population. We also believe that available habitat can 
support population growth and expansion.

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

    Prior to listing in 1975, crocodiles were frequently collected for 
museums and zoos, and at least occasionally shot for sport. Though it 
is difficult to estimate the magnitude of collection and sport hunting, 
several lines of evidence suggest that they may have significantly 
impacted the Florida population prior to listing. Moore (1953) reported 
on a collector who advertised that he would pay for any live crocodiles 
anywhere in south Florida; these were added to his collection at a 
zoological garden. This collector claimed to have the largest 
collection of American crocodiles in the United States. Shooting for 
sport was also common, as was both incidental and intentional killing 
by fishermen in Florida Bay (Moore 1953). At the time of listing in 
1975, our final rule stated that poaching for skins and eggs still 
sometimes occurred and crocodiles were occasionally shot for sport from 
passing boats. Ogden (1978) reported that half of the human-caused 
crocodile deaths recorded between 1971 and 1975 resulted from shooting.
    Since listing in 1975, collection of wild American crocodiles has 
ceased, and few shootings have been reported (Kushlan 1988, Moler 
1991a, P. Moler personal communication 2001). Kushlan (1988) reported 
that only 3 of 13 human-caused mortalities between 1975 and 1984 
resulted from shooting (approximately 23 percent). Moler (1991a) 
reported 27 recorded human-caused mortalities from 1980 to 1991. During 
this period, only one shooting was reported (approximately 4 percent of 
human-caused mortalities). Since 1991, no crocodile mortalities 
resulting from shooting have been recorded. This declining trend in the 
number of recorded shootings suggests reduced risk to crocodiles from 
this threat. The few legal cases involving take of crocodiles in south 
Florida have been publicized and may have deterred poaching and killing 
of crocodiles. Stories in newspapers and other popular press, as well 
as radio and television reports and documentaries, have aided in 
informing residents and visitors about the status and legal protection 
of American crocodiles.
    We receive no to few requests for recovery permits during a given 
year for commercial or scientific purposes related to the crocodile in 
Florida. We have no reason to believe that trade or any other type of 
current or future utilization pose a risk to the American crocodile 
population in Florida.

C. Disease or Predation

    Depredation of American crocodile nests by raccoons was cited in 
the original listing of crocodiles as a threat to the population. 
However, predation on nests by raccoons at Turkey Point Nuclear Power 
Plant or Crocodile Lake NWR has not been observed (F. Mazzotti, 
personal communication 2004). Predation on nests has been caused by 
fire ants in Everglades National Park (one nest) and Turkey Point 
Nuclear Power Plant (several nests) (F. Mazzotti, personal 
communication 2004). Monitoring of nest sites throughout the range of 
the crocodile in Florida has shown that depredation is not a major 
cause of nest loss. On average, 20.1 percent (range 2.8 to 45.0 
percent) of nest failures resulted from depredation (Kushlan and 
Mazzotti 1989b, Mazzotti 1989, Moler 1991b, Mazzotti et al. 2000, 
Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001).
    Predation on nests in Everglades National Park has been variable 
with an increasing trend that has not been tested for statistical 
significance (F. Mazzotti, personal communication 2004). For example, 
the majority of nests near Little Madeira Bay, within Everglades 
National Park, have been depredated by raccoons in recent years 
(Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2001). While a few years ago, most of the 
predation in Everglades National Park was on nests in artificial 
substrates, now most of the predation is on nests at beach nest sites 
which are historically the most productive in Everglades National Park 
(F. Mazzotti, personal communication 2004). This is of concern as these 
are the only nests on

[[Page 15059]]

natural habitat left in the U.S. Nest depredation may become an 
increasing problem as the density of crocodile nests increases, 
allowing for raccoons and other nest predators to become specialized in 
locating nests (Mazzotti 1999). However, localized efforts to control 
raccoons may boost productivity rates in areas where raccoon 
depredation has become problematic.
    There is no evidence of disease in the American crocodile 
population in Florida. Therefore, disease does not present a known 
threat to the crocodile in Florida.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The Act currently provides protection for the American crocodile as 
an endangered species, and these protections would not be significantly 
reduced if it were reclassified to threatened. A more complete 
discussion of applicable Federal regulations is included below (see 
``Available Conservation Measures'' section). In addition to the 
Federal regulations described below, the National Park Service has 
established regulations for general wildlife protection in units of the 
National Park System that prohibit the taking of wildlife; the feeding, 
touching, teasing, frightening or intentional disturbing of wildlife 
nesting, breeding, or other activities; and possessing unlawfully taken 
wildlife or portions thereof (36 CFR 2.2).
    The State of Florida provides legal protection for the American 
crocodile within the State. In 1967, the State of Florida listed the 
crocodile as ``protected.'' This status was revised in 1972, when the 
American crocodile was listed as ``endangered'' under Chapter 68A-27 of 
the Florida Wildlife Code. Chapter 68A-27.003 of the Florida Code, 
entitled ADesignation of endangered species; prohibitions; permits' 
specifies that Ano person shall pursue, molest, harm, harass, capture, 
possess, or sell'' any of the endangered species that are listed. 
Violation of these prohibited acts can be considered a third degree 
felony, and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine 
(Florida Statute 372.0725). At this time, the FWC has no immediate 
plans to change the American crocodile's status, regardless of whether 
or not the Service reclassifies the species to threatened (P. Moler, 
FWC, personal communication 2004). The FWC also currently operates 
under a cooperative agreement with us under section 6 of the Act that 
formalizes a cooperative approach to the development and implementation 
of programs and projects for the conservation of threatened and 
endangered species.
    On June 28, 1979, the American crocodile was added to Appendix II 
of CITES. This designation reflected that the species, while not 
currently threatened with extinction, may become so without trade 
controls. On June 6, 1981, the American crocodile was moved to Appendix 
I, indicating that it was considered to be threatened with extinction. 
Generally, no commercial trade is allowed for Appendix I species. CITES 
is a treaty established to monitor international trade to prevent 
further decline in wild populations of plant or animal species. CITES 
permits may not be issued if import or export of the species may be 
detrimental to the species' survival, or if specimens are not legally 
acquired. CITES does not regulate take or domestic trade, so it would 
not apply to take within Florida or the United States. Reclassification 
of the American crocodile in Florida from endangered to threatened will 
not affect the species' CITES status.
    Several other Federal regulations may provide protection for 
American crocodiles or their habitat. Section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) requires the issuance of a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for the discharge of any dredged 
or fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps may deny 
the issuance of a permit if the project might adversely affect wildlife 
and other natural resources. Also, sections 401 and 403 of the Rivers 
and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 304 et seq.) prohibit the construction of 
bridges, roads, dams, docks, weirs, or other features that would 
inhibit the flow of water within any navigable waterway. The Rivers and 
Harbors Act ensures the protection of estuarine waters from impoundment 
or development and indirectly protects natural flow patterns that 
maintain crocodile habitat. In addition, the Federal agencies 
responsible for ensuring compliance with the Clean Water Act and the 
Rivers and Harbors Act are required to consult with us if the issuance 
of a permit may affect endangered species or their designated critical 
habitat, under section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act (see 
``Available Conservation Measures'' section below). This requirement 
remains the same whether a species is listed as endangered or 
threatened.
    The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (as amended), 
codified at 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. requires equal consideration and 
coordination of wildlife conservation with other water resources 
development. This statute allows us and State fish and game agencies to 
review proposed actions and address ways to conserve wildlife and 
prevent loss of or damage to wildlife resources. The Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act allows us to help ensure that American crocodiles and 
their habitat are not degraded by water development projects and allows 
us to incorporate improvements to habitat whenever practicable.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    As explained in the original listing (40 FR 44149), crocodile nest 
sites were vulnerable to disturbance from increasing human activity 
because of the remoteness and difficulty of patrolling nesting areas. 
Human disturbance of crocodiles can cause them to abandon suitable 
habitat or disrupt reproduction activities (i.e., females abandoning 
their nest sites). As the American crocodile population and the human 
population in south Florida both grow, the number of human-crocodile 
interactions has increased (Tim Regan, FWC, personal communication 
2002). However, ongoing acquisition of important nesting and nursery 
sites and other additional crocodile habitat by Federal, State, or 
local governments and implementation of management plans on these 
publicly-owned properties have improved protection to crocodile nests.
    Of the three core properties that support crocodile nesting 
(Everglades National Park, Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and 
Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant), only Turkey Point has a management 
plan in place that specifically addresses the American crocodile. This 
plan calls for activities like road maintenance, vehicle access, and 
construction to be conducted in important crocodile habitat only at 
certain times or locations based on the crocodile's activity in order 
to reduce human disturbance at Turkey Point. In addition, Turkey Point 
is closed to access other than personnel who work at the facility. Both 
Everglades National Park and Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 
even without species-specific management plans, have established rules 
that provide protection from disturbance to benefit the crocodile. At 
Everglades National Park, protection from disturbance is based on 
guidelines for general public use, such as instructions to stay on 
marked trails. Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge is generally 
closed to public access. However, personnel conduct necessary 
activities on the property in consideration of crocodiles to reduce 
disturbance. Activities conducted on or near the nesting sites are 
conducted

[[Page 15060]]

during the non-breeding season in order to minimize crocodile 
disturbance. Both Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge and 
Everglades National Park are preparing management plans that will 
formalize ongoing actions and more specifically address American 
crocodiles (S. Klett, personal communication 2002, Skip Snow, 
Everglades National Park, personal communication 2002). In addition, 
Everglades National Park has been preparing a draft wilderness plan 
that will benefit the crocodile mostly by general prescribed changes in 
public use in portions of the Park.
    In addition to these core nesting sites, approximately 44 public 
properties, managed as conservation lands by Federal, State, or county 
governments, provide potential habitat for crocodiles in south Florida. 
In addition, two other privately-owned sites that are maintained as 
conservation lands or that conduct natural lands management provide 
potential crocodile habitat. A total of 35 of these 46 properties 
operate under current management plans. Only two specifically mention 
management actions intended to benefit the American crocodile. However, 
other actions mentioned in management plans that will reduce 
disturbance to crocodiles include restrictions on public use, 
implementation of boat speed limits (including areas of no-wake zones), 
and prohibition of wildlife harassment. Managing potential 
human'crocodile conflicts remains an important factor in providing 
adequate protection for and reducing disturbance to crocodiles.
    The original proposed listing cites the risk of a hurricane or 
another natural disaster as a serious threat to the American crocodile 
population (40 FR 17590). Hurricanes and freezing temperatures may also 
kill some adult crocodiles (Moler 1991a), but their susceptibility to 
mortality from extreme weather is poorly documented. These events still 
have the potential to threaten the historically restricted nesting 
distribution of the American crocodile in south Florida. However, 
increased nesting activity in western Florida Bay, Cape Sable, and 
Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant have broadened the nesting range. 
Nesting now occurs on the eastern, southern, and southwestern portions 
of the Florida peninsula. While a single storm could still easily 
affect all portions of the population, it is less likely now that the 
impact to all population segments would be severe.
    The original listing rule cited the restriction of the flow of 
freshwater to the Everglades because of increasing human development as 
a potential threat to the American crocodile population in Florida. 
Ongoing efforts to restore the Everglades ecosystem and restore a more 
natural hydropattern to south Florida will affect the amount of 
freshwater entering the estuarine systems. Because growth rates of 
hatchling crocodiles are closely tied to the salinity in the estuaries, 
restoration efforts will affect both quality and availability of 
suitable nursery habitat. Decreased salinity should increase growth 
rates and survival among hatchling crocodiles. Proposed restoration 
activities in and around Taylor Slough and the C-111 canal are 
projected to increase the amount of fresh water entering the estuarine 
system, and extend the duration of freshwater flow into Florida Bay (T. 
Dean, H. McSarry, P. Pitts, Service, personal communication 2004). The 
addition of fresh water will also occur throughout many of the 
tributaries and small natural drainages along the shore of Florida Bay, 
instead of primarily from the mouth of the C-111 canal (T. Dean, H. 
McSarry, P. Pitts, Service, personal communication 2004). Salinities in 
nesting areas, including Joe, Little Madeira, and Terrapin Bays, are 
projected to be lower for longer periods than they currently are within 
this area (based on alternative D13R hydrologic plan simulation--U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District 
1999). This restoration project should increase the amount and 
suitability of crocodile habitat in northern Florida Bay, and increase 
juvenile growth rates and survival (Mazzotti and Brandt 1995).
    Hydrological restoration may also affect crocodile habitat in 
Biscayne Bay. Reductions in freshwater discharge will occur in the 
Miami River, Snake Creek, and central and south Biscayne Bay (H. 
McSharry, Service, personal communication 2004). These projected 
changes would appear to reduce habitat quality in a portion of Biscayne 
Bay. Consequently, the effect of the proposed hydrological 
modifications on the crocodile population in Biscayne Bay is likely 
negative. However, over the entire range of crocodile habitat that will 
be affected by Everglades restoration, we expect a benefit to the 
species.
    Mortality of crocodiles on south Florida roads has consistently 
been the primary source of adult mortality, and this trend has not 
changed (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). Road kills have occurred 
throughout the crocodile's range in Florida, but most have occurred on 
Key Largo and around Florida Bay, especially around Card and Barnes 
Sounds (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003). Many of the recorded crocodile 
road kills are of adults, which may result from the increased 
likelihood of large individuals being reported. We cannot accurately 
estimate the proportion of road-killed crocodiles that are reported. 
Therefore, it is difficult to accurately estimate the magnitude of this 
source of mortality or its effect on the population. However, all 
segments of the crocodile population in Florida have continued to grow 
despite this continuing mortality factor. Signs cautioning drivers of 
the risk of colliding with crocodiles have been posted along the major 
highways throughout crocodile habitat in south Florida. As discussed 
above, measures that have been identified to help reduce road kill 
mortality include installing fencing in appropriate places to prevent 
crocodiles from entering roadways and installation of box culverts 
under roadways so that crocodiles can safely cross roads.
    As the MSRP details, the success of American crocodile nesting is 
largely dependent on the maintenance of suitable egg cavity moisture 
throughout incubation, and flooding may also affect nest success. On 
Key Largo and other islands, failure of crocodile nests is typically 
attributed to desiccation due to low rainfall (Moler 1991b). Data 
compiled by Mazzotti and Cherkiss (2003) document an average of 47.5 
percent nest success from 1978 through 1999 (excluding 1991 and 1992 
due to lack of data) at Crocodile Lake NWR on north Key Largo. Nest 
failures on the mainland may be associated with flooding or desiccation 
(Mazzotti et al. 1988, Mazzotti 1989). In certain areas, flooding and 
over-drying affect nest success. Data compiled by Mazzotti and Cherkiss 
(2003) document an average of 64.4 percent nest success from 1970 
through 1999 at Everglades National Park (excluding 1975, 1976, 1983, 
1984, and 1996 due to lack of data) and 98 percent nest success from 
1978 through 1999 at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant (excluding 1980 
and 1982 due to lack of data). However, overall, the crocodile 
population in Florida has more than doubled its size since it was 
listed to an estimated 500 to 1,000 individuals and appears to be 
compensating for these potential threats.
    The final rule listing crocodiles did not reference contaminants as 
a potential threat. However, several studies have shown that 
contaminants occur in American crocodiles in south Florida (Hall et al. 
1979, Stoneburger and Kushlan 1984, Mazzotti unpublished data). Though 
we have no evidence that contaminants have affected the crocodile 
population, we recognize that contaminants have been

[[Page 15061]]

documented in crocodile eggs. Contaminants such as pesticides and heavy 
metals may pose a threat to crocodiles in south Florida at some levels, 
but we have not yet detected them at the population level. A variety of 
organochlorine pesticide residues (DDT, DDE, and Dieldrin, among 
others), and PCBs have been documented in crocodile eggs collected from 
south Florida (Hall et al. 1979). Acute exposure to pesticides and 
heavy metals may result in death, while prolonged exposure to lower 
concentrations of organochlorines include liver damage, reproductive 
failure, behavioral abnormalities, or deformities. Despite the fact 
that contaminants have been documented in crocodile eggs in south 
Florida, the crocodile population and nesting are increasing. Little 
information is known at this time about what constitutes dangerous 
levels of these contaminants in crocodiles or other crocodilians.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by the American crocodile in Florida in determining this proposed 
rule. Based on this evaluation, we have determined that the American 
crocodile in its range in Florida meets the criteria of a DPS as stated 
in our policy of February 17, 1996 (61 FR 4722), and in regard to its 
status, the preferred action is to reclassify the American crocodile in 
the Florida DPS from an endangered species to a threatened species. The 
recovery plan for the crocodile states that, ``Based on the fact that 
the population appears stable, and that all of the threats as described 
in the original listing have been eliminated or reduced, 
reclassification of the crocodile will be possible, provided existing 
levels of protection continue to be afforded to crocodiles and their 
habitat, and that management efforts continue to maintain or enhance 
the amount and quality of available habitats necessary for all life 
stages.'' We believe based on our evaluation that the criteria for 
downlisting the American crocodile in the Florida DPS have been met 
because:
    (1) The amount and quality of crocodile habitat in Florida will 
continue to be maintained or enhanced sufficiently in order to provide 
protection for all life stages of the existing crocodile population and 
available habitat can support population growth and expansion; and
    (2) Acquisition of important nesting and nursery sites and other 
additional crocodile habitat by Federal, State, or local governments 
and implementation of management on these publicly-owned properties 
have improved protection to crocodiles and crocodile nests.

Available Conservation Measures

    Two of the three primary nesting areas for American crocodiles in 
Florida occur on Federal conservation lands and are consequently 
afforded protection from development and large-scale habitat 
disturbance. Crocodiles also occur on a variety of State-owned 
properties, and existing State and Federal regulations provide 
protection on these sites. The fact that American crocodile habitat is 
primarily wetlands also assures the opportunity for conference or 
consultation on most projects that occur in crocodile habitat under the 
authorities described below.
    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing increases public awareness of 
threats to the American crocodile, and promotes conservation actions by 
Federal, State, and local agencies, private organizations, and 
individuals. The Act provides for possible land acquisition and 
cooperation with the State, and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out. The protection required of Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against taking and harm are discussed, in part below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to the American crocodile and its 
designated critical habitat (41 FR 41914). Regulations implementing 
this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 
CFR part 402. If a Federal action may affect the American crocodile or 
its designated critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must 
enter into formal consultation with us. Federal agency actions that may 
require consultation with us include Corps of Engineers involvement in 
projects such as residential development that requires dredge/fill 
permits, the construction of roads and bridges, and dredging projects. 
Power plant development and operation under license from the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission/Nuclear Regulatory Commission may also 
require consultation with respect to licensing and re-licensing.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened 
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 50 CFR 17.31, 
in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of 
the United States to take (includes harass, harm, and pursue, hunt, 
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of 
these), import or export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of 
commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign 
commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, 
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been 
taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to our agents and agents of 
State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations 
governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32. Such permits are 
available for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or 
survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in the course of 
otherwise lawful activities. For threatened species, permits also are 
available for zoological exhibition, educational purposes, or special 
purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to Cindy Schulz of the South 
Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES section). Requests 
for copies of the regulations regarding listed species and inquiries 
about prohibitions and permits may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Division, 1875 Century Boulevard, 
Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (telephone 404/679-4176, facsimile 
404/679-7081).
    This proposed rule recommends a change in status of the American 
crocodile at 50 CFR 17.11, from endangered to threatened. If made 
final, this rule would formally recognize that this species is no 
longer in imminent danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range in Florida. However, this reclassification would 
not significantly change the protection afforded this species under the 
Act. Anyone taking, attempting to take, or otherwise possessing an 
American crocodile, or parts thereof, in violation of section 9 would 
still be subject to a penalty under section 11 of the Act. Section 7 of 
the Act would still continue to protect the American crocodile from 
Federal actions that might jeopardize its continued existence or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.
    If the crocodile is listed as threatened, recovery actions directed 
at the crocodile would continue to be implemented as outlined in the 
MSRP.

[[Page 15062]]

The MSRP identifies actions that will result in the recovery of the 
American crocodile, including--(1) Determining the current distribution 
and abundance; (2) protecting and enhancing existing crocodile 
colonies; (3) conducting research on the American crocodile's biology 
and life history; (4) monitoring the south Florida crocodile 
population; and (5) informing the public about the recovery needs of 
crocodiles. The MSRP also outlines restoration activities that should 
be undertaken to adequately restore the mangrove community that the 
crocodile occupies. These actions include--(1) Protecting crocodile 
nesting, basking, and nursery habitat; (2) managing and restoring 
suitable crocodile habitat; (3) conducting research on the habitat 
relationships of the crocodile; (4) continuing to monitor crocodile 
habitat; and (5) increasing public awareness of the habitat needs of 
the crocodile.
    Finalization of this proposed rule would not constitute an 
irreversible commitment on our part. Reclassification of the American 
crocodile in Florida to endangered status would be possible if changes 
occur in management, population status, and habitat or other actions 
detrimentally affect the population or increase threats to its 
survival.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate 
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose 
of this review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send 
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following 
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment, during the comment period, on the specific 
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed reclassification of 
the American crocodile in Florida.
    The final decision on this proposed rule will take into 
consideration the comments and any additional information we receive, 
and such communications may lead to a final regulation that differs 
from this proposal.
    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. We must receive requests within 45 days of the date of 
publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must 
be made in writing and be sent to the South Florida Ecological Services 
Office, 1339 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.

Executive Order 12866

    Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that 
are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this 
rule easier to understand including answers to the following: (1) Is 
the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble 
helpful in understanding the proposal?; (2) does the proposal contain 
technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?; (3) 
does the format of the proposal (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity; and (4) what else could we 
do to make the rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
proposed rule easier to understand to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 
20240.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information for 
which Office of Management and Budget Approval is required under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, 
unless it displays a currently valid control number. For additional 
information concerning permit and associated requirements for 
threatened species, see 50 CFR 17.72.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment, 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. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this document, as well 
as others, is available upon request from the South Florida Ecological 
Services Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this document is Tylan Dean, Fish and 
Wildlife Biologist (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

    We propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
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 revising the entry in the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife for ``Crocodile, American'' under 
REPTILES to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Species                                                Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------                      population where                                      Critical       Special
                                                       Historic range       endangered or       Status       When  listed       habitat         rules
          Common name              Scientific name                           threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            Reptiles
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Crocodile, American............  Crocodylus acutus.  U.S.A. (FL),        Entire, except in   E             10, 87, --       NA                        NA
                                                      Mexico,             U.S.A. (FL).
                                                      Caribbean,
                                                      Central and South
                                                      America.

[[Page 15063]]

 
 Do............................  ......do..........  ......do..........  U.S.A. (FL).......  T             10, 87, --       17.95(c)                  NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: January 28, 2005.
Marshall P. Jones,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-5640 Filed 3-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P