Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13027 

3 72 FR 3507–3508. 

who have completed a comparable 

threat assessment, such as the threat 

assessment TSA conducts on 

commercial drivers with a hazardous 

materials endorsement, will pay the 

Reduced TWIC Fee. These applicants 

are not charged for the FBI Segment and 

pay a reduced fee for the Full Card 

Production/Security Threat Assessment 

Segment. 

In the preamble of the final rule, we 

discussed the potential range of fees that 

would be charged for each Segment but 

did not publish specific fees for each 

Segment in the final rule text because 

the contract for enrollment and card 

production services was not finalized at 

that time. We explained that when the 

contract was executed and final fee 

amounts determined, we would publish 

a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing them. TSA has executed the 

contract for TWIC enrollment and card 

production and, with this notice, 

announces the final fee amounts. The 

Enrollment Segment fee is $43.25, the 

Full Card Production/Security Threat 

Assessment Segment fee is $72, and the 

FBI Segment fee is $22. Therefore, the 

total Standard TWIC Fee is $137.25 

($43.25 + 72 + 22). For applicants who 

have completed a prior comparable 

threat assessment, there is no FBI 

Segment fee and the Card Production/ 

Security Threat Assessment Segment fee 

is $62. Therefore, the total Reduced 

TWIC Fee is $105.25 ($43.25 + 62). 

As stated in the final rule, the fee for 

a replacement credential is $36, but we 

do not believe that amount adequately 

funds TSA’s card replacement costs. 

Our calculations indicate that $60 is the 

correct amount for card replacement 

costs and invited comment on that 

issue.3 The comment period for 

increasing the card replacement fee 

closed on February 26, 2007. We will 

examine all comments received and 

determine the final card replacement 

fee. We will amend the rule text to 

include all of the fees discussed in this 

notice and the card replacement fee, so 

that they will appear in the Code of 

Federal Regulations, at 49 CFR 1572, 

subpart F, Fees for Security Threat 

Assessments for Transportation Worker 

Identification Credential (TWIC). 

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on March 14, 

2007. 

Kip Hawley, 

Assistant Secretary, Transportation Security 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 07–1328 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AI41 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Reclassification of the 

American Crocodile Distinct 

Population Segment in Florida From 

Endangered to Threatened 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are 

reclassifying the American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus) distinct vertebrate 

population segment (DPS) in Florida 

from endangered to threatened, under 

the authority of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The 

endangered designation no longer 

correctly reflects the current status of 

this DPS due to a substantial 

improvement in the species’ status. This 

action is based on a review of all 

available data, which indicate, for 

example, that 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. With this 

rule, we are designating the American 

crocodile in Florida as a DPS, and this 

DPS will remain protected as a 

threatened species under the Act. The 

status of the American crocodile 

throughout the remainder of its range, as 

described in our December 18, 1979, 

final rule, will remain endangered. 

DATES: This final rule is effective April 

19, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in the preparation 

of this final rule, are available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the South 

Florida Ecological Services Office, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1339 20th 

Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960. 

You may obtain copies of the final 

rule from the field office address above, 

by calling 772–562–3909, or from the 

Service’s Division of Policy and 

Directives Management Web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/frsystem/ 

default.cfm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Schulz, at the South Florida 

Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES) (telephone 772–562–3909, 

extension 305; facsimile 772–562–4288). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Note: Please refer to our March 24, 2005, 

proposed rule (70 FR 15052) for detailed 

information concerning the biology of the 

American crocodile. 

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 

south Florida. 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 in front of 

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. Another distinguishing 

feature is that in alligators the two 

nostrils are clearly separated by a bony 

septum covered in skin while in 

crocodiles the nostrils lie touching, 

close together in a single depression (P. 

Ross, 2005). In Florida, the 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, pp. 6–7). The largest 

specimens in Florida historically were 

reported to be up to 4.6 m (15.1 ft) in 

length (Service 1979, p. 3), and 

individuals as large as 6 to 7 m (19.7 to 

23.0 ft) have been reported outside the 

United States (Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 

228). 

The American crocodile occurs 

within the jurisdictional boundaries of 

many different countries in the western 

hemisphere, including Belize, 

Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican 

Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 

Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, 

Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, Peru, 

United States (Florida), and Venezuela. 

The species occurs in coastal regions of 

the Atlantic and Pacific, including the 

Pacific coast of Mexico, Central 

America, and northern South America, 

as well as the Greater Antilles (with the 

exception of Puerto Rico) 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13028 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 228; P. Ross, 

2005). It reaches the northern extent of 

its range in south Florida (Kushlan and 

Mazzotti 1989a, p. 5; Thorbjarnarson 

1989, p. 229). 

The first documented occurrence of a 

crocodile in the United States was in 

Florida from a collection in the Miami 

River off Biscayne Bay in 1869, although 

crocodiles were earlier suspected to 

occur there (Kushlan and Mazzotti 

1989a, p. 1). Within the United States, 

the historic core geographic range of 

crocodiles included Miami-Dade, 

Broward, and Monroe Counties, but 

reports indicated that they occupied 

areas as far north as Indian River County 

on the east coast of Florida (Kushlan 

and Mazzotti 1989a, pp. 1–2). 

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, p. 

2). 

The primary historic nesting area in 

Florida 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 

(ENP) (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 

2). Nesting was also historically well 

documented in the upper Keys from Key 

Largo south to Lower Matecumbe Key 

(Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 2). 

Crocodiles have probably nested 

regularly on northern Key Largo since 

the 1920s, when the borrow pits 

(excavated areas where material has 

been dug for use as fill at another 

location) and canals were created in 

early and unsuccessful attempts to 

develop north Key Largo during the 

‘‘boom’’ years preceding the 1929 

depression (Ogden 1978, p. 185). 

Today, the crocodile population in 

Florida has grown to an estimated 1,400 

to 2,000 individuals, not including 

hatchlings (P. Moler, 2005a; F. Mazzotti, 

2005). This estimate, developed by two 

established American crocodile experts, 

is based on a demographic 

characteristic, derived from both Nile 

crocodiles and American alligators, 

where breeding females make up 4 to 5 

percent of the non-hatchling population 

and where approximately 75 percent of 

reproductively mature females breed 

and nest each year. This estimate 

exhibits a large confidence interval, 

because the researchers used a range of 

70 to 80 crocodile nests in Florida in 

their calculations (P. Moler, 2005a; F. 

Mazzotti, 2005). We believe this is a 

reasonable but conservative estimate, 

because as described below, nesting has 

increased to between 91 and 94 

documented nests in 2005. 

The nesting range has also expanded 

on both the east and west coasts of the 

State, and crocodiles are frequently 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 Power Plant (TPPP) (Gaby 

et al. 1985, p. 197; Brandt et al. 1995, 

p. 29). Although crocodiles have been 

nesting on Marco Island since 1997, 

none of the nests have produced a 

viable clutch (S. Bertone, 2005). Based 

on peer review comments and because 

the relatedness and origin of these 

animals are unknown, we did not 

include the nesting attempts of these 

animals in estimating population size 

above (see ‘‘Peer Review Comments’’

below for further detail). Nesting has 

been increasing for several years (Brandt 

et al. 1995, p. 31; Mazzotti et al. 2000, 

p. 5; 2002, p. 14; Mazzotti and Cherkiss 

2001, pp. 4–5), and during 2005, 91 to 

94 crocodile nests were documented in 

south Florida (S. Klett, 2005; M. 

Cherkiss, 2005a; J. Wasilewski, 2005a). 

Surveyors detect approximately 80 to 90 

percent of nests (F. Mazzotti, 2005; J. 

Wasilewski, 2006) and are generally 

unable to distinguish those nests that 

contain more than one clutch of eggs 

from different females without 

excavating the nests. In some instances, 

surveyors are able to determine that 

more than one female has laid eggs at a 

communal nest by visiting the nest over 

a series of days and observing hatching 

of separate nests (J. Wasilewski, 2005b). 

In instances where communal nests are 

not distinguishable, we believe this 

lends to a possible underestimation of 

nests or females, because on occasion 

two females lay eggs in the same nest. 

The breeding range of the American 

crocodile is still restricted relative to its 

reported historic range (Kushlan and 

Mazzotti 1989a, p. 5), with most 

breeding occurring on the mainland 

shore of Florida Bay between Cape 

Sable and Key Largo (Mazzotti et al. 

2002, pp. 9–14). In the recent past, it 

was thought that crocodiles no longer 

regularly occur in the Keys south of Key 

Largo (Jacobsen 1983, p. 13; P. Moler, 

2002). However, confirmed sightings are 

occurring with increasing frequency in 

many of the lower Keys, and we believe 

that these observations may indicate 

that crocodiles are expanding their 

range back into the Keys. From 2003 to 

2005, one individual has successfully 

nested on Lower Matecumbe (M. 

Cherkiss, 2005a). A crocodile was also 

observed as far south as Fort Jefferson in 

the Dry Tortugas in May 2002 (O. Bass, 

2002); however, nesting has not been 

recorded at this location. In addition, a 

crocodile was documented as far north 

as Indian River County in October 2004. 

Females do not become 

reproductively active until they reach a 

total length of approximately 2.3 m (7.4 

ft) (Mazzotti 1983, p. 30, 33), which 

generally corresponds to an age of 10 to 

13 years (LeBuff 1957, p. 27; Moler 

1991a, p. 7). 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 DunbarCooper 1984, p. 153; Moler 1991b, p. 1, 

3). Female crocodiles nest only one time 

per year and may not nest every year 

after they reach sexual maturity. Studies 

conducted in Florida found that they lay 

an average of 38 eggs (Kushlan and 

Mazzotti 1989b, p. 14), which hatch 

after an incubation period of 

approximately 90 days (Mazzotti 1989, 

p. 221). Flooding, over-drying, and 

raccoon predation all pose threats to 

nests and developing eggs (Mazzotti et 

al. 1988, pp. 68–69; Mazzotti 1999, pp. 

557–558), and suitable nest sites that are 

protected from these threats may be 

limited. For the Florida population, the 

reported percentage of nests from which 

eggs successfully hatch in any 1 year 

ranges from 33 to 78 percent (Ogden 

1978, p. 190; Kushlan and Mazzotti 

1989b, p. 15; Moler 1991b, p. 4; 

Mazzotti et al. 2000, p. 4; Mazzotti and 

Cherkiss 2001, p. 4). Typically, a nest 

was considered successful if at least one 

hatched eggshell or hatchling crocodile 

was documented. However, Moler 

(1991b, p. 2) 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, p. 14). However, 

females remain near their nest sites and 

usually excavate young from the nest 

after hatching (Kushlan and Mazzotti 

1989b, p. 15). Kushlan (1988, p. 784) 

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. In Florida, 

female crocodiles show little parental 

care at hatching, and the young 

generally become independent shortly 

after hatching, although the duration or 

extent of maternal care can vary 

throughout the species’ range (J. 

Thorbjarnarson, 2005). Shortly after 

hatching, the hatchlings disperse from 

nest sites to nursery habitats that are 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13029 

generally more sheltered, have lower 

salinity (1 to 20 parts per thousand 

(ppt)), shallower water (generally), and 

more vegetation cover. Hatchlings 

remain in these nursery habitats until 

they grow larger. Growth during the first 

year can be rapid, and crocodiles may 

double or triple in size (Moler 1991a, p. 

6). 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, pp. 195–196). 

Land acquisition efforts by many 

agencies have provided protection for 

crocodiles and their habitat in south 

Florida. Approximately 95 percent of 

current nesting habitat for crocodiles in 

Florida is protected (F. Mazzotti, 2006). 

Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(CLNWR) was acquired in 1980 to 

provide over 2,205 ha (5,000 acres) of 

crocodile nesting and nursery habitat. In 

1980, ENP established a crocodile 

sanctuary in northeastern Florida Bay. A 

total of 46 public properties (including 

CLNWR and ENP), owned and managed 

by Federal, State, or county 

governments, as well as three privatelyowned properties (including TPPP), 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, 

ENP 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 TPPP. 

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 rule 

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 TPPP; 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 ENP, including northern Florida Bay 

to the west of the previously proposed 

area. 

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). We did not, 

however, publish a final rule for this 

action. 

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. 

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. 

On December 18, 1979, we published 

a final rule (44 FR 75074) that listed 

both 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. This action 

provided protection to these 

crocodilians worldwide. 

The first recovery plan for the 

American crocodile was approved 

February 12, 1979 (Service 1979). For a 

complete discussion, see ‘‘Recovery 

Accomplishments’’ below. On March 

24, 2005, we published a proposed rule 

to reclassify the American crocodile 

from endangered to threatened in 

Florida, and to designate crocodiles in 

Florida as a distinct population 

segment. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

In the March 24, 2005, proposed rule, 

we requested that all interested parties 

submit comments and information 

concerning the proposed reclassification 

of the American crocodile DPS in 

Florida (70 FR 15052). We also initiated, 

and requested information for 

incorporation into, a status review of the 

American crocodile in Florida. We 

contacted appropriate Federal and State 

agencies, scientific experts and 

organizations, and other interested 

parties and invited them to comment on 

the proposal. We provided notification 

of the publication of the proposed rule 

through e-mail, facsimile, telephone 

calls, letters, and news releases sent to 

the appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies, county governments, elected 

officials, media outlets, local 

jurisdictions, scientific organizations, 

interest groups, and other interested 

parties. We also posted the proposed 

rule on the Service’s South Florida 

Ecological Services Office Internet 

website following the rule’s publication. 

We accepted public comments on the 

proposed rule for 60 days, ending May 

23, 2005. By that date, we received 11 

written comments (including 3 from 

peer reviewers). Of the comments 

received, five supported reclassification 

of the American crocodile DPS in 

Florida from endangered to threatened, 

and four opposed the reclassification. 

The proponents of the reclassification 

included the International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN)—Species Survival 

Commission’s Crocodile Specialist 

Group. Two of the commenters did not 

state support or opposition to the 

proposed downlisting. No one 

expressed comments that the species 

was recovered or recommended that it 

should be delisted, and we received no 

public hearing requests. 

In accordance with our peer review 

policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we solicited independent 

opinions from three knowledgeable 

individuals who have expertise with the 

species and the geographic region where 

the species occurs, and are familiar with 

conservation biology principles. We 

received comments from all three of the 

peer reviewers, which are included in 

the summary below and incorporated 

into the final rule. The reviewers were 

affiliated with the State of Florida, a 

Florida university, and a nonprofit 

organization. Reviewers provided 

additional factual information, as well 

as minor corrections and input on our 

interpretation of existing information. In 

general, all peer reviewers supported or 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13030 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

concurred with the downlisting of the 

American crocodile DPS in Florida to 

threatened status. 

We reviewed all comments received 

from the peer reviewers and the public 

for substantive issues and new 

information regarding the proposed 

reclassification of the American 

crocodile DPS in Florida. Substantive 

comments received during the comment 

period have been addressed below and, 

where appropriate, incorporated 

directly into this final rule. The 

comments are grouped below according 

to peer review or public comments. 

Peer Review/State Comments 

(1) Comment: One reviewer expressed 

concern over current efforts to restore 

the hydrology in the Florida Everglades 

and the potential to increase the 

crocodile’s exposure to contaminants. 

Monitoring the population for nonlethal 

and endocrine disruptive effects of 

contaminants was recommended. 

Response: All properties being 

acquired for the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) are 

subject to a rigorous environmental site 

assessment for contaminants, using a 

protocol developed by the South Florida 

Water Management District (SFWMD) 

and the Service. Environmental Risk 

Assessments (ERAs) are also conducted 

if the Service deems it necessary. If any 

contaminant issues are identified, the 

Service works with the SFWMD to 

remediate the site. Before water is put 

on the site, the Service must be 

convinced that there are either no risks 

or insignificant risks to Service trust 

resources, including wildlife. If a 

contaminant problem is suspected, fish 

and wildlife are monitored at the project 

sites, where it would be easier to detect 

a problem than monitoring crocodiles 

located off-site. If a problem is found at 

these sites, then crocodiles may be 

added to the monitoring plan. 

Contaminants were evaluated from 

eggs in a sampling of nests in the early 

1970s through the early 1980s. Eggs 

were tested for organochlorines and 

heavy metals, and no exceptional levels 

were reported (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 

2003, p. 18). The Service is not aware 

of any studies regarding endocrinedisrupting chemicals and their effects 

on crocodiles. 

One contaminant that will be 

addressed by monitoring postconstruction (rather than prospective 

ERAs) is mercury. CERP projects have 

the potential to increase the 

bioavailability of mercury. As fisheaters, crocodiles could potentially be 

exposed to some mercury, although they 

are downstream from where mercury 

impacts would be greatest. The SFWMD 

has a monitoring plan in place with 

performance criteria. If the criteria were 

exceeded, the SFWMD would have to 

correct the problem. 

(2) Comment: The reviewer was 

concerned that specific information was 

not provided on road mortality, which 

this reviewer characterized as one of the 

sole remaining human influences of any 

significance on the crocodile 

population. The reviewer suggested that 

if mortality reaches levels of 5 to 15 

percent in subadult and adult size 

classes, then population growth and 

stability may be affected. 

Response: The Service, in cooperation 

with the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC), 

documents all reported mortalities, 

including road mortalities. From 1999 to 

2005, a total of 33 vehicle-related 

mortalities and 5 non-vehicle-related 

mortalities were documented with no 

consistent increase in mortalities 

occurring over the years. The largest 

number of reported mortalities we 

recorded was 11, in 2002 (nine vehiclerelated and two non-vehicle-related). 

We recorded seven vehicle-related 

mortalities and one non-vehicle-related 

mortality in 2005 (B. Muiznieks, 2005). 

The maximum number of recorded 

deaths for any given year has never 

exceeded 11 mortalities. 

For mortality to exceed the minimal 

threshold of 5 percent (P. Ross, 2005), 

the lowest point where recruitment and 

reproductive capacity could be 

compromised, more than 70 crocodile 

deaths would have to occur annually 

based on a population of 1,400 

individuals, which we consider to be a 

conservative population estimate. The 

actual population could be as high as 

2,000. Even with undocumented 

mortalities, we do not believe we are 

near this threshold of 70 even though 

we were conservative in all of our 

estimates. Despite all of the reported 

mortalities (not just vehicle collisions), 

total nesting effort has continued to 

increase in recent years. 

The majority of the road mortalities 

have occurred on U.S. 1 or Card Sound 

Road between Florida City and Key 

Largo. Currently, the Florida 

Department of Transportation (FDOT) is 

modifying/widening U.S. Route 1 

between Florida City and Key Largo. 

They will be installing 16, 6 foot by 10 

foot, box culverts in various locations 

along the project corridor. The box 

culverts will be installed in areas where 

vehicle-related mortality of crocodiles 

has occurred. To prevent crocodiles 

from entering the roadway, FDOT will 

install a continuous 6-foot-high fence 

along the western roadway shoulder 

from approximately Jewfish Creek to 

just south of the C–111 Canal. Along the 

eastern roadway shoulder, FDOT will 

install two, 100 foot long by 6-foot-high, 

wing fences in association with each 

box culvert. To further discourage 

crocodiles from entering the roadway, 

the roadside slopes in the vicinity of the 

box culverts and wildlife crossings will 

be as steep as practicable. The potential 

for vehicle-related crocodile mortality 

will also be reduced by the removal of 

the Lake Surprise Causeway and the 

construction of a new bridge over Lake 

Surprise. Moreover, signs will be posted 

on the new Lake Surprise and Jewfish 

Creek bridges alerting drivers to 

possibility of crocodiles crossing the 

roadway (J. Wrublik, 2005). 

(3) Comment: One of the reviewers 

cautioned that the future health of the 

crocodile population in Florida Bay is 

dependent on the restoration of a more 

natural freshwater flow to the area. The 

seasonal timing of nesting is determined 

to a large degree by the availability of 

fresh water, which improves the 

survivorship of young crocodiles by 

reducing the salinity and increasing the 

availability of invertebrate prey. 

Hatching of the nests coincides with the 

beginning of the annual wet season, 

ensuring that hatchlings emerge from 

the nests during a period of high fresh 

water availability. A reduction of 

freshwater flow into the area could have 

negative impacts on the younger age 

classes of crocodiles in Florida Bay. 

Response: Proposed restoration 

activities in and around Taylor Slough 

and the C–111 canal could increase the 

amount of fresh water entering the 

estuarine system, and extend the 

duration of freshwater flow into Florida 

Bay (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) and SFWMD 1999, p. 4–28, K–

135). Alternative D13R hydrologic plan 

simulation (Corps and SFWMD 1999, p. 

1–20) predicts that the addition of fresh 

water could 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. 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) (Corps and SFWMD 

1999, pp. D–24, D–A–81 to D–A–83, K–

135). 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, 

p. 7). 

While the overall volume of 

freshwater flow to Biscayne Bay will 

likely decrease as a result of CERP, 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13031 

substantial tracts of degraded coastal 

wetlands in central and southern 

Biscayne Bay will realize improvements 

in crocodile habitat quality because the 

fresh water that is currently discharged 

into the bay through conveyance canals 

will be redirected into the natural creek 

systems. The goal is to reestablish flow 

through a series of natural creek systems 

along this part of the coastline. If 

successful, the recreation of these 

natural creeks systems should 

significantly improve crocodile habitat 

along this part of Biscayne Bay. Even if 

the volume discharged into the 

wetlands is less than what is currently 

flowing through the canals, this should 

improve habitat for crocodiles in this 

area. One of the performance measures 

for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 

Project focuses on improvement of 

juvenile crocodile habitat. 

(4) Comment: A proactive approach 

should be undertaken to develop a 

sound strategy for ‘‘Living with 

Crocodiles’’ in south Florida. The 

development of a strong public 

education program alerting people to 

the growing presence of crocodiles is 

recommended. Strategies for dealing 

with ‘‘problem’’ crocodiles are needed. 

Response: While an informal 

education campaign is currently being 

implemented, we will continue to work 

with our State partners to develop a 

more formal, proactive education 

campaign for living with crocodiles. The 

FWC, with participation from the 

Service and the National Park Service, 

completed a human-crocodile 

interaction response plan in 2005, and 

through its implementation will 

continue gathering information on how 

crocodiles respond to translocation 

(FWC 2005, pp. 1–8). We agree that we 

need to conduct additional studies on 

habitat use and movement patterns with 

particular emphasis on translocation of 

individuals. We need to determine if 

translocating individuals meets the 

desired objectives. Some nuisance 

animals that have been translocated in 

the past have returned to their original 

capture location. 

(5) Comment: One of the reviewers 

commented that no successful nesting 

has occurred on the southwest coast 

north of the Ten Thousand Islands. 

Although several nests have been 

produced annually in the Marco Island 

area and occasional nests have been 

encountered near the Imperial River and 

on Sanibel Island, these nests have 

failed for unknown reasons. Also, 

preliminary genetics analysis suggests 

that at least some of these animals may 

not be of Florida origin. 

Response: Because of the uncertainty 

of the origin of these individuals and 

because none of these nests have ever 

produced a viable clutch (S. Bertone, 

2005), these crocodiles (i.e., their 

clutches) were not included in any 

population estimate calculations. At 

present, the origin of these animals is 

unknown. They may have originated 

from 1 to 2 clutches of Key Largo 

crocodiles that were released in the 

Naples area in the early 1970s, or from 

another release of crocodiles from 

Mexico, Jamaica, Panama, and Ecuador 

(Behler 1978, pp. 35–41; F. Mazzotti, 

2005). 

Public Comments 

The following public comments 

address issues that were not raised by 

the peer reviewers. If an issue brought 

up by a peer reviewer was also raised 

by the public, it is discussed above in 

the peer review comment section rather 

than below. 

(6) Comment: One commenter noted 

that the five factors under section 4(a)(1) 

of the Act that are considered when a 

species is listed must also be considered 

in this action to reclassify the American 

crocodile DPS in Florida. The 

commenter also noted that four of these 

five factors still affect the crocodile and 

therefore it must remain endangered. 

Response: We define an endangered 

species as one that is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range (50 CFR 424.02(e)). 

We believe that this designation no 

longer correctly reflects the current 

status of this taxon in Florida due to a 

substantial improvement in the species’

status. The population in Florida has 

increased from an estimated 10 to 20 

breeding females in 1975 (40 FR 17590) 

to an estimated 1400–2000 total 

individuals (not including hatchlings) 

(P. Moler, 2005a; F. Mazzotti, 2005) 

producing 91 to 94 nests in 2005 (S. 

Klett, 2005; M. Cherkiss, 2005a; J. 

Wasilewski, 2005a), the species 

distribution has expanded within its 

historic range, and occupied and 

potential crocodile habitat are now 

under public ownership. However, we 

believe that the status of the species still 

meets the definition of threatened 

because the species is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. As discussed by the 

commenter, the crocodile is still 

affected by some threats, such as 

development within coastal areas. The 

five factors are discussed in depth in the 

section titled ‘‘Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species.’’

(7) Comment: One commenter stated 

that many of the actions in the recovery 

plan for the American crocodile have 

yet to be conducted. 

Response: Recovery plans are not 

regulatory documents and are instead 

intended to provide guidance to the 

Service, States, and other partners on 

methods of minimizing threats to listed 

species and on criteria that may be used 

to determine when recovery is achieved. 

There are many paths to accomplishing 

recovery of a species, and recovery may 

be achieved without all criteria being 

fully met. For example, one or more 

criteria may have been exceeded while 

other criteria may not have been 

accomplished. In that instance, the 

Service may judge that over all criteria, 

the threats have been minimized 

sufficiently, and the species is robust 

enough, to reclassify the species from 

endangered to threatened or perhaps to 

delist the species. In other cases, 

recovery opportunities may have been 

recognized that were not known at the 

time the recovery plan was finalized. 

These opportunities may be used 

instead of methods identified in the 

recovery plan. Likewise, information on 

the species may be learned that was not 

known at the time the recovery plan was 

finalized. The new information may 

change the extent that criteria need to be 

met for recognizing recovery of the 

species. Overall, recovery of species is 

a dynamic process requiring adaptive 

management, and our assessment of 

recovery progress may, or may not, fully 

adhere to the guidance provided in a 

recovery plan depending on 

circumstances that may have changed 

since completion of the plan. 

In this particular instance, we have 

met the reclassification criteria outlined 

in the South Florida Multi-Species 

Recovery Plan (MSRP). Recovery actions 

will continue for the crocodile under 

the MSRP, and some actions, such as 

‘‘control human-induced crocodile 

mortality and disturbance,’’ remain to 

be completed. 

(8) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the potential effects of sea-level rise 

should be of concern because of the 

vulnerability of natural nest sites to 

increases in water levels. 

Response: The forecasted temperature 

increases and the associated sea-level 

rise over the next 100 years, based on 

climate models, have changed over time 

(Westbrook 1998, pp. 1–2). In the early 

1980s, forecasters were predicting a 100- 

year sea-level rise of 7 to 7.9 m (23 to 

26 feet) (Westbrook 1998, p. 1). By 1990, 

the predicted rise was less than 0.9 m 

(3 feet) (Westbrook 1998, p. 1). The 

current Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change forecasts are for a rise 

of about 0.46 m (1.5 feet), and other 

forecasts are even lower (Westbrook 

1998, p. 1). Recent reports of what many 

consider to be the best computer models 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13032 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

indicate a rise of about 3.1 degrees 

Fahrenheit with a sea level rise of 

approximately 20 cm (8 inches) 

(Westbrook 1998, p. 2). Depending upon 

the extent of sea-level rise, some nests 

on exposed shorelines and creek banks 

could potentially disappear. 

Fortunately, crocodiles will readily use 

artificial substrates for nests, providing 

a management option to compensate for 

negative impacts to existing nesting 

areas if the need arises (Mazzotti 1999, 

p. 558). The Service is aware of this 

issue and will continue to monitor it, 

but at present we do not believe it 

represents a significant threat to the 

crocodile population. 

(9) Comment: Three commenters 

expressed concern over poaching or 

illegal harvest. 

Response: With this final rule, the 

American crocodile DPS in Florida will 

remain protected as threatened under 

the Act. Our regulations at 50 CFR 

17.31, pursuant to section 4(d) of the 

Act, prohibit the take (harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct) of 

threatened species (without a special 

exemption). 

Only two potential incidences of 

illegal poaching/taking have been 

documented in recent years. One 

occurred in 2002 at the Sexton Cove 

Estates in Key Largo. A more recent 

incident of an illegally killed crocodile 

occurred at Manatee Bay Marina in 

Miami-Dade County in 2005. This 

incident is still under law enforcement 

investigation. 

(10) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned about depredation of nests by 

fire ants and raccoons. 

Response: The Service recognizes 

both of these issues and realizes that 

they have the potential to affect nesting 

success, but depredation of nests by fire 

ants and raccoons has not been 

documented on a regular basis and 

could vary from year to year. For 

example, in 2005, 13 nests were 

depredated in ENP by raccoons (M. 

Cherkiss, 2005c). We will continue to 

monitor nesting sites and attempt to 

appropriately manage for this concern. 

(11) Comment: One commenter asked 

if a long term assessment of pesticide 

and heavy metal contamination levels in 

crocodile eggs was being conducted. 

Response: Recovery actions will 

continue to be funded according to 

resource availability and the priority 

given to the recovery action. Long-term 

assessment of pesticide and heavy metal 

contamination is a recommended 

recovery action in the MSRP; however, 

no long-term assessment is currently 

being conducted. Contaminants were 

evaluated from eggs from a sampling of 

nests in the early 1970s through the 

early 1980s. Eggs were tested for 

organochlorines and heavy metals; 

however, no exceptional levels were 

reported (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 

18). 

(12) Comment: One commenter 

mentioned threats from introduced 

nonnative wildlife, particularly the Nile 

monitor (Varanus niloticus), a species 

known to be a predator on nests and 

young of the larger and more 

aggressively protective Nile crocodile 

(Crocodilus niloticus). 

Response: No adverse impacts on the 

American crocodile by the Nile monitor 

have been documented. Although 

Varanus spp. have been observed in 

Miami-Dade County, there is no 

evidence of reproducing populations 

(Enge et al. 2004, p. 572). If Nile 

monitors are documented in the vicinity 

of crocodile nesting areas, appropriate 

measures will need to be taken to 

eradicate them from the area. 

(13) Comment: With the rapidly 

growing human population in south 

Florida, anthropogenic threats to the 

crocodile will increase. Specific threats 

include vehicle collisions, boat 

propellers, and lead poisoning from 

fishing sinkers. 

Response: The Service documents all 

reported crocodile mortalities. From 

1999 to 2005, a total of 33 vehiclerelated mortalities and 5 non-vehiclerelated mortalities were documented, 

with no consistent increase in 

mortalities occurring over the years. See 

response to comment 2. Boat propellers 

and lead poisoning have accounted for 

only a small proportion of the 

documented mortalities. Given the 

annually increasing population size, we 

do not believe that the recruitment and 

reproductive capacity of the population 

is being compromised by these 

mortalities. 

(14) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that if the crocodile is 

reclassified to threatened there will not 

be as much pressure for continued and 

increased flows of fresh water to Florida 

and Biscayne Bays. 

Response: See response to comment 3 

above. 

(15) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned about the loss of nesting 

habitat due to invasive species, 

particularly tide-dispersed species such 

as beach naupaka (Scaevola taccada) 

and Asiatic Colubrina (Colubrina 

asiatica). 

Response: Although invasive plant 

species occur in crocodile nesting areas, 

invasive plant species have not been 

documented to negatively affect 

selection of nesting locations. Overall, 

land managers are concerned about the 

invasion of nonnative plants, but more 

for the conversion of native to nonnative 

habitats than for the direct loss of 

crocodile nesting habitat. 

Protection and enhancement of 

nesting habitat within each of the three 

primary crocodile nesting areas has 

been ongoing for many years. Land 

managers at the three primary nesting 

areas control exotic vegetation. 

Containment and elimination of 

invasive, exotic vegetation species is 

part of the ENP’s Strategic Plan. CLNWR 

has an exotic plant control program and 

has received additional funding in 

recent years from the Florida Keys 

Invasive Exotics Task Force. For 

instance, the swamp fern (Blechnum 

serrulatum), a native of Florida but not 

of the Keys, is removed from the 

crocodile nesting berms at CLNWR. 

Chemical and mechanical removal of 

the swamp fern is conducted on an asneeded basis. As another example, TPPP 

has designated nesting ‘‘sanctuaries’’

where habitat management includes 

exotic vegetation control (primarily 

Australian pine and Brazilian pepper) 

and encouragement of the growth of 

low-maintenance native vegetation. 

(16) Comment: Two commenters 

stated that the Service’s previous 

recovery documents identified recovery 

goals of 60 breeding females and 

therefore reclassifying the crocodile 

because 61 nests were documented in 

2003 is premature. One of these 

commenters also indicated that recovery 

criteria should be based on the present 

and future availability of suitable 

habitat. 

Response: Crocodile nest numbers 

have been steadily increasing since 

2001, and in the 2005 nesting year, nest 

numbers totaled 91 to 94 nests (S. Klett, 

2005; M. Cherkiss, 2005a; J. Wasilewski, 

2005a). The crocodile has been at or 

above the recovery criterion of 60 

breeding females for 3 consecutive 

years. Further, the population in Florida 

has more than doubled, and the species 

distribution has expanded within its 

historic range. In addition, 

approximately 95 percent of nesting 

habitat for crocodiles in Florida is under 

public ownership or otherwise 

protected (F. Mazzotti, 2006). The 

recommendation that recovery criteria 

should be based on suitable habitat will 

be considered in the next revision of the 

recovery plan for this species. 

(17) Comment: Another commenter 

recommended that we stop all surveys 

because they are harassment and 

constitute danger and injury for 

crocodiles. 

Response: For the surveys to be 

conducted, a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13033 

is required under the Act. Before such 

a permit can be issued, all activities 

must be justified in relation to 

enhancement of survival and recovery, 

effects to the species, and qualifications 

of permittees. By definition, authorized 

activities should benefit species’

recovery with minimal adverse effects 

by qualified permittees. None of the 

permitted activities, like surveys, are 

expected to result in death or injury to 

any individuals, and any injury or 

mortality will be incidental to other 

actions. By contrast, the information 

gained from permitted research is 

necessary for the conservation and 

management of the crocodile, which is 

needed to aid in the survival and 

recovery of the species in the wild. 

(18) Comment: One commenter 

recommended that reclassification 

should not occur until after the CERP 

fresh water restoration projects are 

completed, and 10 percent of the 

documented hatchlings in 2003 survive 

to become subadults. 

Response: We believe we have already 

met the reclassification criteria for the 

crocodile because the population in 

Florida has more than doubled, the 

species distribution has expanded 

within its historic range, and occupied 

and potential crocodile habitat is 

protected, as outlined in the ‘‘Summary 

of Factors Affecting the Species’’

section. 

Attempts were made to mark 

crocodiles hatched in 2003, but all 

hatchlings may not have been marked 

because dispersal may have occurred 

prior to the researchers arriving at the 

nest. A crocodile is considered a 

subadult from 2 to 6 years of age and 

can start breeding at 7 years of age. 

CERP projects, such as the C–111 canal 

(which is anticipated to have 

construction completed in 2012), will be 

completed after the hatchlings marked 

in 2003 become subadults. Therefore, 

we will have information on 

survivorship obtained through 

monitoring of any hatchling crocodiles 

marked in 2003 before CERP projects 

like the C–111 canal are completed. 

(19) Comment: One commenter noted 

that a population having 50 breeding 

females would be ranked as ‘‘critically 

endangered’’ under the IUCN criteria. 

Response: The comments the Service 

received on the proposed rule from the 

Co-Regional Chairman of the North 

American Region IUCN SSC Crocodile 

Special Group Steering Committee 

stated that ‘‘it is the opinion of the CSG 

[Crocodile Specialist Group] members 

familiar with the species in Florida, that 

criteria for reclassification, as outlined 

in the reclassification proposal have 

been met.’’ The Service has reviewed 

the IUCN definition of critically 

endangered and because the crocodile 

population in Florida has more than 

doubled, the species distribution has 

expanded within its historic range, and 

occupied and potential habitat are now 

under public ownership, the Service 

does not believe that the crocodile 

population in Florida meets this 

definition. 

(20) Comment: One commenter 

questioned the scientific veracity of data 

used in the proposed rule. 

Response: The population and nesting 

data utilized by the Service were 

obtained from FWC crocodile experts, 

crocodile experts at State universities, 

and a Florida Power and Light (FPL) 

crocodile biologist. These individuals 

have been monitoring crocodiles and 

conducting research on the species for 

much of their careers. The population 

and nesting data we are relying on to 

make our decision in this instance were 

not published in a peer-reviewed 

journal; however, that is typical for most 

wildlife monitoring data. Our overall 

analyses and conclusions based on that 

data, combined with other information 

from peer-reviewed journal articles, 

were reviewed by three peer reviewers 

(see ‘‘Peer Review’’ comments above), 

all of whom concurred with proceeding 

with reclassification. The three peer 

reviewers agreed that the American 

crocodile DPS in Florida has 

significantly increased since listing and 

that the majority of the species’ habitat 

is protected or under special 

management consideration. We have 

used the best available scientific data in 

determining to reclassify the American 

crocodile DPS in Florida from 

endangered to threatened. 

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; (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 status of 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, p. 5; 

Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 229). It is 

spatially separated by approximately 90 

miles of open ocean from the nearest 

adjacent American crocodile population 

in Cuba (Kushlan 1988, pp. 777–778). 

The Gulf Stream, or the Florida Current 

(the southernmost leg of the Gulf 

Stream), flows through this 90-mile 

(145-km) 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, mangrovelined estuaries (Mazzotti 1983, p. 45). 

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, p. 

1) that would allow direct interaction of 

animals. The Florida population is 

effectively isolated from other crocodile 

populations and functions as a single 

demographic unit. Consequently, we 

conclude that the Florida population of 

the American crocodile is discrete from 

other crocodile populations as a 

consequence of physical and behavioral 

factors. 

The genetic makeup of the Florida 

population of the American crocodile is 

recognizably distinct from populations 

in other geographic areas within its 

range (M. Forstner, 1998). Analysis of 

mitochondrial DNA suggests that the 

Florida population may be genetically 

more closely related to American 

crocodile populations in Central and 

South America than to those in Jamaica 

and Hispaniola (P. Moler, 2005b). 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13034 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

the species’ range in the world (Kushlan 

and Mazzotti 1989a, p. 5; 

Thorbjarnarson 1989, p. 229) and the 

only population in the United States. 

Loss of this population would result in 

a significant reduction to the extent of 

the species( range and ecological 

variability. Maintaining this 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 

crocodile contributes substantially to 

the security of the species as a whole, 

the apparent isolation and evidence of 

genetic uniqueness (M. Forstner, 1998) 

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, pp. 1–

24). The recovery plan was revised on 

February 2, 1984 (Service 1984, pp. 1–

37). The recovery plan for the American 

crocodile was revised again and 

included as part of the MSRP, which 

was approved in May 1999 (Service 

1999, pp. 4–505 to 4–528); this version 

represents the current recovery plan for 

this species. 

The MSRP identifies 10 primary 

recovery actions for the crocodile. 

Species-focused recovery actions 

include: (1) Conduct surveys to 

determine the current distribution and 

abundance of crocodiles; (2) protect and 

enhance existing colonies of 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 

crocodiles in south Florida; (2) manage 

and restore suitable habitat of 

crocodiles; (3) conduct research on the 

habitat relationships of the 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. 

Nest surveys and subsequent 

hatchling surveys around nest sites are 

conducted in all areas where crocodiles 

are known to nest (Mazzotti et al. 2000, 

p. 3; Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 24). 

Nest monitoring has been conducted 

nearly continuously at each of the three 

primary nesting areas (CLNWR, ENP, 

and TPPP) since 1978. In addition, 

detailed surveys and population 

monitoring have been conducted 

annually since 1996 throughout the 

crocodile’s range in Florida. These 

surveys documented distribution, 

habitat use, population size, and age 

class distribution. During both surveys 

and nest monitoring, crocodiles of all 

age classes are captured and marked 

(Mazzotti and Cherkiss 2003, p. 24). 

These marked individuals provide 

information on survival, longevity, 

growth, and movements (Mazzotti and 

Cherkiss 2003, p. 24). 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, pp. 24–25). In addition, 

hatchlings at TPPP are marked with 

microchips placed under the skin. 

Ecological studies have been initiated 

or continued in recent years. Laboratory 

(e.g., Dunson 1982, p. 375; Richards 

2003, p. 29) and field (e.g., Mazzotti et 

al. 1986, p. 192) studies have continued 

on the effects of salinity on the growth 

rate and survival of crocodiles in the 

wild. Analyses of contaminants in 

crocodile eggs have been conducted in 

south Florida, and these analyses 

contribute to a record of contaminants 

data as far back as the 1970s (Hall et al. 

1979, p. 90; Stoneburner and Kushlan 

1984, p. 192). 

Protection and enhancement of 

habitat within each of the three primary 

American crocodile nesting areas have 

been ongoing for many years. TPPP 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 

CLNWR, 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 and encroaching 

vegetation in nesting areas has been 

removed. In ENP, management has 

included screening or barricades around 

active nest sites to prevent raccoon 

depredation or human disturbance of 

nest sites (M. Cherkiss, 2005b). 

Signs have been in place for several 

years along highways in the areas where 

most road kills have occurred to alert 

motorists to the presence of crocodiles. 

Fences were also erected along 

highways to prevent crocodiles from 

crossing, although several of these 

fences were later removed because they 

were ineffective when not properly 

maintained and may have contributed to 

additional road kills by trapping 

animals on the road. 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 returned to the areas from which 

they were removed (Mazzotti and 

Cherkiss 2003, p. 18, table 5). 

Translocation appears to be effective 

with small crocodiles (generally less 

than 6 ft total length), but may not 

completely resolve human-crocodile 

interactions involving larger, older 

animals. Developing an effective, 

proactive protocol to address humancrocodile interactions 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 their conservation. The 

FWC, with participation from the 

Service and National Park Service, 

completed a human-crocodile 

interaction response plan in 2005, and 

through its implementation will 

continue gathering information on how 

crocodiles respond to translocation. 

Recovery Plan Provisions 

The MSRP specifies a recovery 

objective of reclassifying the species to 

threatened, and describes recovery 

criteria as: 

Previous recovery efforts identified the 

need for a minimum of 60 breeding females 

within the population before reclassification 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13035 

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 these criteria outlined in the 

MSRP, the crocodile can be reclassified 

as threatened in Florida at this time 

because the species and its habitat are 

protected and management efforts 

continue to maintain or enhance the 

amount and quality of available habitat. 

In addition, the nesting range has 

expanded on both the east and west 

coasts of the State; crocodiles are 

frequently documented throughout most 

of their historical range; nesting has 

returned to Biscayne Bay on Florida’s 

east coast and now commonly occurs at 

TPPP; and nesting has been increasing 

for several years. Since 2001, when 

there were 50 known nests in Florida, 

the number of documented nests in 

Florida has continued to increase to 

between 91 and 94 in 2005, which 

satisfies the MSRP recommended 

minimum of having 60 breeding females 

before reclassification can be 

considered. 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 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 species on the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. These five 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 rule proposing listing (40 

FR 17590, April 12, 1975) identified 

intensive human development and 

subsequent loss of habitat as a primary 

threat to crocodiles. Since listing, much 

of the nesting habitat has remained 

intact and 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 are protected and 

under the management of ENP, which 

has consistently supported the largest 

number of nests and the largest 

population of American crocodiles in 

Florida. The habitat in ENP is protected 

and maintained for crocodiles, and 

ongoing hydrologic restoration efforts 

may improve the quality of the habitat 

in ENP. Managers at ENP emphasize 

maintaining high quality natural habitat 

that includes crocodile nesting areas. 

Restoration of disturbed sites, 

hydrologic restoration, and removal of 

exotic vegetation like Australian pine 

(Casuarina equisetifolia) and Brazilian 

pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) have 

improved 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: CLNWR on 

Key Largo. The acquisition of CLNWR 

in 1980 provided protection for over 

2,205 ha (5,000 acres) of crocodile 

nesting and nursery habitat. Habitat on 

CLNWR is protected and managed to 

support the local crocodile population. 

Almost all of the nesting on Key Largo 

occurs within CLNWR 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 nests each year. Nest success on 

CLNWR is strongly influenced by 

environmental factors, and typically 

only about half of the nests are 

successful (P. Moler, 2005b). 

The nesting substrate on CLNWR has 

begun to settle and, in an effort to 

maintain nesting habitat, the substrate 

has been augmented at two sites to 

return it to its original elevation. 

Nesting has been documented at both of 

the elevated sites. 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 levees needs to 

be controlled for these areas to remain 

suitable for nesting crocodiles and their 

young. In general, CLNWR is closed to 

public access; access is granted by 

special use permit only. 

Both CLNWR and ENP have 

implemented programs that provide for 

maintenance of natural conditions that 

will benefit the crocodile; ENP is in the 

process of preparing a General 

Management Plan that will formalize 

ongoing management actions and 

further protect crocodile habitat (S. 

Snow, 2006), and CLNWR has finalized 

their plan (Service 2006, pp. 1–127). A 

management plan as defined here and 

throughout this rule is not regulatory. 

These plans are developed by the 

property owners, and outline strategies 

and alternatives needed to conserve 

habitat and in some cases species on the 

property. Implementation of the plan is 

not mandatory. The plan should be 

updated on a regular basis so that 

managers and staff have the latest 

information and guidance for crocodile 

management. 

In addition to the two primary, 

publicly-owned, crocodile nesting sites, 

additional nesting habitat has been 

created within the historic range on a 

site that may not have historically 

supported nesting. TPPP, owned and 

operated by FPL, contains an extensive 

network of cooling canals (built in 1974) 

that provides 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 

1981 (Gaby et al. 1985, p. 193), to 10 to 

15 nests per year in the 1990s (Brandt 

et al. 1995, p. 31; Cherkiss 1999, p. 15; 

J. Wasilewski, 1999, 2005a), and 

supported 25 nests in 2005 (J. 

Wasilewski, 2005a). This property now 

supports the second largest breeding 

aggregation of crocodiles in Florida. 

TPPP has developed and implemented a 

management plan that specifically 

addresses crocodiles. TPPP is also 

closed to access other than personnel 

who work at the facility. FPL personnel 

maintain the canals and crocodile 

habitat through activities like exotic 

vegetation control and planting of lowmaintenance native vegetation. FPL 

personnel also have supported an 

extensive crocodile monitoring program 

since 1976. Operation of the TPPP is 

licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission through 2032, and FPL 

plans to continue crocodile management 

and monitoring while the plant is in 

operation (B. Bertleson, 2002). 

FPL has also developed the 

Everglades Mitigation Bank along the 

western shore of Biscayne Bay 

immediately adjacent to the TPPP, 

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. As of 

November 2005, crocodile nesting has 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13036 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

not been recorded on this site, but it is 

anticipated that nesting will occur in 

the near future (J. Wasilewski, 2005b). It 

is difficult to estimate in advance how 

many potential nesting sites will occur 

here, but we believe that it will be 

roughly equivalent to the TPPP site. 

This area will be protected in perpetuity 

and may help offset any loss of the 

artificial habitat at TPPP if that site is 

modified after the current operating 

license expires in 2032. 

Even though nesting habitat at TPPP 

is created rather than natural, and all of 

the nesting at CLNWR and some areas 

of ENP is on artificial or created 

substrate, crocodiles have successfully 

moved into and used these habitats. 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 primary nesting habitat for 

crocodiles, land acquisition has 

provided protection to many other areas 

of potential habitat for crocodiles in 

Florida. A total of 44 public properties, 

owned and managed by Federal, State, 

or county governments, as well as two 

privately-owned properties managed at 

least partially or wholly for 

conservation purposes, contain 

potential habitat for crocodiles. Thirtyfive of these conservation lands operate 

under management plans (e.g., Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

2001, pp. 1–103). 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, and some plans (e.g., Rookery 

Bay National Estuarine Research 

Reserve, Collier-Seminole State Park) 

have goals to restore the natural 

freshwater flow patterns through 

hydrological restoration (e.g., Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

2000, p. 4). These 44 public properties 

contain about 28,330 ha (70,000 acres) 

of potential crocodile habitat, whereas 

together ENP and CLNWR contain about 

131,120 ha (324,000 acres). A total of 

approximately 166,000 ha (410,000 

acres) of mangrove-dominated 

vegetation communities are present in 

south Florida on public and private 

lands (i.e., TPPP) 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 

conservation lands. Only a small 

fraction (<5 percent) of known nests 

currently occur on unprotected sites 

(F. Mazzotti, 2006). 

With the majority of crocodile nesting 

habitat under protection for 

conservation purposes, the total Florida 

crocodile population estimated between 

1,400 and 2,000 individuals (not 

including hatchlings), the expansion of 

the nesting range on both the east and 

west coast of Florida, and with 

crocodiles seen throughout most of their 

historical range, we believe that the 

species now meets the definition of 

threatened. However, the rapid rate of 

development in coastal areas in south 

Florida will limit population future 

expansion through habitat loss, 

fragmentation, and interactions with 

humans (as discussed under Factor E) 

and therefore still poses a threat to full 

recovery of crocodiles in Florida 

because current populations are not 

sufficient to withstand habitat pressure. 

The current population size and 

distribution are not yet sufficient to 

consider the American crocodile in 

Florida free of threats, so additional 

habitat conservation will be necessary 

before the crocodile is ready for 

delisting. In addition, since most of the 

nesting occurs on artificial substrate that 

must be maintained through active 

management, recovery of the species 

will depend on continued maintenance 

of existing nesting areas and/or 

expansion of nesting into areas with 

natural substrates. 

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, 

p. 54) 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. Incidental and 

intentional killing by fishermen in 

Florida Bay was common (Moore 1953, 

pp. 55–56). At the time of listing in 

1975, the final rule stated that poaching 

for skins and eggs still sometimes 

occurred and crocodiles were 

occasionally shot for sport from passing 

boats. Ogden (1978, p. 193) reported 

that 4 of the 10 human-caused crocodile 

deaths he was aware of between 1971 

and 1975 resulted from shooting. 

Since listing in 1975, few malicious 

killings have been recorded (Kushlan 

1988, p. 784; Moler 1991a, pp. 3–4; P. 

Moler, 2006a). Kushlan (1988, p. 784) 

reported that only 3 of 13 human-caused 

mortalities between 1975 and 1984 

resulted from shooting (approximately 

23 percent). Moler (1991a, pp. 3–4) 

reported 27 human-caused mortalities 

from 1980 to 1991, of which 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 cases involving illegal 

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. 

CLNWR and TPPP both have 

restricted access and are in general 

closed to the public. ENP also restricts 

access to crocodile nesting areas during 

the breeding season. Adults and 

hatchlings produced in these areas are 

protected as a result of this restricted 

access. 

We only receive a few requests for 

recovery permits during any 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 poses a risk to the American 

crocodile population in Florida, and 

therefore, the best available information 

on this factor contributes to 

reclassification to threatened status. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Depredation of crocodile nests by 

raccoons was cited as a threat in the 

original listing. Nest predation in ENP 

has been variable with an increasing 

trend that has not been tested for 

statistical significance (F. Mazzotti, 

2004). For example, the majority of 

nests near Little Madeira Bay, within 

ENP, have been depredated by raccoons 

from year to year (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 

2001, p. 4). While a few years ago most 

of the predation in ENP was on nests in 

artificial substrates, now most is on 

nests at beach sites, which are 

historically the most productive in ENP 

(F. Mazzotti, 2004). This is of concern 

as these are the only nests on natural 

habitat left in the United States. On 

average, 20.1 percent of nest failures 

resulted from raccoon depredation in all 

areas where nesting surveys were 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13037 

conducted, including areas outside of 

ENP (Kushlan and Mazzotti 1989b, pp. 

14–15; Mazzotti 1989, p. 222; Mazzotti 

et al. 2000, p. 4, 8; Mazzotti and 

Cherkiss 2001, p. 4, 7). Of the 56 to 59 

nests at ENP in 2005, 13 (22 to 23 

percent) were depredated by raccoons 

(M. Cherkiss, 2005c). Predation of nests 

by raccoons at TPPP and CLNWR has 

not been observed (F. Mazzotti, 2004). 

Predation of nests by fire ants has 

occurred at ENP (one nest) and TPPP 

(several nests) (F. Mazzotti, 2004). No 

fire ant problems have been recorded at 

CLNWR. 

While depredation of nests has not 

prevented an increase in the crocodile 

population to date, the increasing 

incidence of predation on natural beach 

nesting sites indicates that a threat 

remains. 

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 will not be significantly 

reduced by this reclassification to 

threatened status. 

The State of Florida provides legal 

protection for the crocodile within its 

boundaries. In 1967, the State listed the 

crocodile as ‘‘protected.’’ This status 

was revised in 1972, when the crocodile 

was listed as ‘‘endangered’’ under 

Chapter 68A–27 of the Florida Wildlife 

Code. Chapter 68A–27.003 of the 

Florida Code, entitled ‘‘Designation of 

endangered species; prohibitions; 

permits’’ specifies that ‘‘no 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 is not reviewing the 

crocodile’s status, but a change in 

Federal status is likely to initiate a State 

review (P. Moler, 2006b). The FWC 

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 

the Convention on International Trade 

in Endangered Species of Wild Flora 

and Fauna (CITES). This designation 

reflected that the species, while not 

currently threatened with extinction, 

may become so without trade controls. 

On June 6, 1981, the crocodile was 

moved to Appendix I, indicating that it 

was considered to be in danger of 

extinction. Generally, no commercial 

trade is allowed for Appendix I species. 

Effective February 17, 2005, the Cuban 

population was downlisted to Appendix 

II. CITES is a treaty established to 

monitor international trade to prevent 

further decline in wild populations of 

plant and 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 crocodile in Florida from 

endangered to threatened will not affect 

the species’ CITES status. 

Several other Federal regulations may 

provide protection for 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 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 the 

Service if the issuance of a permit may 

affect listed species or their designated 

critical habitat, under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act (see ‘‘Available Conservation 

Measures’’ section below). 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act of 1958 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq., as 

amended) 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 crocodiles and their 

habitat are not degraded by water 

development projects and allows us to 

incorporate improvements to habitat 

whenever practicable. 

Additionally, ENP 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). CLNWR and TPPP do not have 

these issues as they are both generally 

closed to the public. The Service 

believes that the regulatory mechanisms 

in place have helped bring the species 

to the point where reclassification to 

threatened is appropriate and their 

continued implementation will aid in 

the species’ recovery. 

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 can cause crocodiles to 

abandon habitat or nest sites (Kushlan 

and Mazzotti 1989b, p. 14). Acquisition 

of nesting, juvenile, and nursery sites 

and other crocodile habitat by Federal, 

State, and local governments and 

implementation of management plans 

on these properties have resulted in 

crocodile conservation. 

Of the three primary properties that 

support nesting (ENP, CLNWR, and 

TPPP), only CLNWR and TPPP have a 

management plan in place that 

specifically addresses the crocodile. 

This plan calls for activities such as 

road maintenance, vehicle access, and 

construction to be conducted in 

crocodile habitat only at certain times or 

locations based on the crocodile’s 

activity to reduce human disturbance. In 

addition, TPPP is closed to access other 

than personnel who work at the facility. 

ENP has established rules that provide 

protection from disturbance to benefit 

the crocodile, even without a speciesspecific management plan. At ENP, 

protection from disturbance is based on 

guidelines for general public use, such 

as instructions to stay on marked trails. 

CLNWR is generally closed to public 

access. Activities on or near the nesting 

sites are conducted during the nonbreeding season to minimize crocodile 

disturbance. CLNWR has finalized a 

management plan that formalizes 

ongoing actions and future projects and 

more specifically addresses crocodiles 

(Service 2006, p. 38), and ENP is 

preparing their General Management 

Plan (S. Snow, 2006). In addition, ENP 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13038 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

is preparing a draft plan that will benefit 

the crocodile mostly by general 

prescribed changes in public use in 

portions of ENP. 

In addition to these primary nesting 

sites, disturbance as a threat is also 

being addressed on approximately 44 

public properties, managed as 

conservation lands by Federal, State, or 

county governments, that provide 

potential habitat for crocodiles in south 

Florida. In addition, two other privatelyowned sites provide potential crocodile 

habitat that are maintained as 

conservation lands or that conduct 

natural lands management. Thirty-five 

of these properties operate under 

current management plans. Only two 

specifically mention management 

actions intended to benefit the 

crocodile. However, actions mentioned 

in the other 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. 

As the crocodile population and the 

human population in south Florida have 

grown, the number of human-crocodile 

interactions has increased (T. Regan, 

2006). The FWC’s response plan to 

manage these interactions both 

encourages tolerance of crocodiles and 

translocates crocodiles in situations that 

may threaten the safety of either 

crocodiles or humans. While this has 

led to the successful resolution of many 

complaints, it is likely that additional 

crocodiles will need to be translocated 

as development in south Florida 

continues. These human interactions 

may limit dispersal of individuals 

within the species’ historic range. In 

addition, large, mature individuals that 

cannot be effectively translocated may 

have to be removed from the wild. The 

FWC, with participation from the 

Service and National Park Service, will 

continue to address this threat. 

The original proposed listing cites the 

risk of a hurricane or another natural 

disaster as a serious threat to the 

crocodile (40 FR 17590, April 21, 1975). 

Hurricanes and freezing temperatures 

may kill some adults (Moler 1991a, p. 

4), 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. However, increased 

nesting activity in western Florida Bay, 

Cape Sable, and TPPP has 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 now less likely that the 

impact to all population segments 

would be severe. 

The original listing rule cited the 

restriction of the flow of fresh water to 

the Everglades because of increasing 

human development as a potential 

threat to the American crocodile. 

Ongoing efforts to restore the Everglades 

ecosystem and restore a more natural 

hydropattern to south Florida will affect 

the amount of fresh water entering the 

estuarine systems. Because growth rates 

of hatchling crocodiles are closely tied 

to the salinity in the estuaries (Mazzotti 

and Cherkiss 2003, p. 13), 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, as 

discussed in the Central and South 

Florida Project Comprehensive Review 

Study (Corps and SFWMD 1999, p. 4–

28, K–135), could increase the amount 

of fresh water entering the estuarine 

system and extend the duration of 

freshwater flow into Florida Bay. 

Alternative D13R hydrologic plan 

simulation (Corps and SFWMD 1999, p. 

1–20) predicts that the addition of fresh 

water could 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. 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) (Corps and SFWMD 

1999, pp. D–24, D-A–81 to D-A–83, K–

135). 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, 

p. 7). 

Hydrological restoration may also 

affect crocodile habitat in Biscayne Bay. 

Reductions in freshwater discharge will 

occur in the Miami River, Snake Creek, 

north and central Biscayne Bay, and 

Barnes Sound (extreme southern end of 

the Biscayne Bay system) (P. Pitts, 

Service, 2005). These projected changes 

will likely reduce habitat quality in the 

more urbanized northern half of 

Biscayne Bay. Freshwater flows to south 

Biscayne Bay are predicted to increase 

with CERP, thus increasing habitat 

quality in this area. More importantly, a 

primary objective of CERP’s Biscayne 

Bay Coastal Wetlands and C–111 

Spreader Canal projects is to rehydrate 

degraded coastal wetlands in south 

Biscayne Bay and Barnes Sound by 

redirecting fresh water from conveyance 

canals to wetlands. This will have the 

effect of lowering salinities in the 

wetlands, thus increasing habitat quality 

for crocodiles, particularly juveniles. 

Currently, the potential area affected by 

these projects in the Biscayne Bay 

system is on the order of 24,000 ha 

(60,000 acres). Considering the bay as a 

whole, Everglades restoration should 

increase the amount and suitability of 

crocodile habitat and benefit 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, p. 22, table 6). 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, p. 22, table 6). Signs cautioning 

drivers of the risk of colliding with 

crocodiles have been posted along the 

major highways throughout crocodile 

habitat. As discussed above, measures 

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. Many 

of the recorded crocodile road kills are 

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 assess the 

magnitude of this threat or its effect on 

the population. 

The success of 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 nests 

is typically attributed to desiccation due 

to low rainfall (Moler 1991b, p. 5). Data 

compiled by Mazzotti and Cherkiss 

(2003, p. 13, figure 5) document an 

average of 48 percent nest success from 

1978 through 1999 (excluding 1991 and 

1992 due to lack of data) at CLNWR on 

north Key Largo. Nest failures on the 

mainland may be associated with 

flooding or desiccation (Mazzotti et al. 

1988, pp. 68–69; Mazzotti 1989, pp. 

224–225). In certain areas, flooding and 

over-drying affect nest success. Data 

compiled by Mazzotti and Cherkiss 

(2003, p. 13, table 5, 7) document an 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13039 

average of 64.4 percent nest success 

from 1970 through 1999 at ENP 

(excluding 1975, 1976, 1983, 1984, and 

1996 due to lack of data) and 98 percent 

nest success from 1978 through 1999 at 

TPPP (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 1,400 to 2,000 

individuals and appears to be 

compensating for these threats. 

The final listing rule did not reference 

contaminants as a potential threat. 

Several studies have shown that 

contaminants occur in crocodiles and 

their eggs in south Florida (Hall et al. 

1979, p. 88; Stoneburner and Kushlan 

1984, pp. 192–193), including 

organochlorine pesticides (DDT, DDE, 

and dieldrin, among others), and PCBs, 

however, no exceptional levels have 

been reported (Mazzotti and Cherkiss 

2003, p. 18). Acute exposure to high 

levels of these contaminants may result 

in death, while prolonged exposure to 

lower concentrations may cause liver 

damage, reproductive failure, behavioral 

abnormalities, or deformities. Little 

information is known at this time about 

what constitutes dangerous levels of 

these contaminants in crocodiles or 

other crocodilians. Therefore, at this 

time we have no data to support a 

determination that contaminants pose a 

threat to further crocodile recovery. 

Protection and management of the 

three primary nesting areas and other 

potential habitat along with the 

anticipated outcome of Everglades 

restoration efforts and a reduction in 

threat from hurricanes and other natural 

disasters contributed to our 

determination to reclassify the 

American crocodile in Florida. 

However, human-crocodile interactions, 

vehicle strikes, and environmental 

contaminants remain as threats to the 

crocodile. 

Conclusion 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

threats faced by the crocodile in Florida 

in preparing this final rule. Based on 

this evaluation, we have determined 

that the crocodile in its range in Florida 

meets the criteria of a DPS as stated in 

our policy of February 17, 1996 (61 FR 

4722). In regard to its status, we 

designate the American crocodile in 

Florida as a DPS, and reclassify it 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 analysis of the 5 listing factors 

under the Act, that the Florida DPS of 

the American crocodile is no longer in 

danger of extinction, however, the 

crocodile continues to require 

protection under the Act as a threatened 

species because population size and 

distribution is insufficient to consider 

crocodiles free from threats. The 

following are still needed to avoid the 

threat of extinction: 

(1) Crocodile habitat in Florida 

continues to need maintainance and 

enhancement to provide protection for 

all life stages of the existing crocodile 

population and to ensure that available 

habitat can support population growth 

and expansion; and 

(2) Further acquisition of nesting and 

nursery sites and additional crocodile 

habitat by Federal, State, and local 

governments and implementation of 

management on these publicly-owned 

properties are necessary to ensure 

protection to crocodiles and their nests 

and enable expansion of populations 

size and distribution. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Two of the three primary nesting 

areas for 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 crocodile habitat is primarily 

wetlands also assures the opportunity 

for 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 

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 requires 

Federal agencies to evaluate their 

actions with respect to the crocodile and 

its designated critical habitat (41 FR 

41914, September 24, 1976). Regulations 

implementing this interagency 

cooperation provision of the Act are 

codified at 50 CFR part 402. If a Federal 

action may affect the crocodile or its 

designated critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency must consult 

with the Service to ensure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out 

by such agency is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

the crocodile or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of its critical 

habitat. Federal agency actions that may 

require consultation include the Corps’

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. Road 

construction activities funded or 

authorized by the Federal Highway 

Administration may require 

consultation. 

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 Service 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. 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
13040 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final rule formally recognizes 

that the American crocodile DPS in 

Florida is no longer in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. This reclassification 

does 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 is subject to a 

penalty under section 11 of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 7 of the Act, all 

Federal agencies must ensure that any 

actions they authorize, fund or carry out 

are not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the American 

crocodile or destroy or adversely modify 

its critical habitat. 

Recovery actions directed at the 

crocodile will continue to be 

implemented as outlined in the MSRP, 

including: (1) Determining the current 

distribution and abundance; (2) 

protecting and enhancing existing 

crocodile colonies; (3) conducting 

research on biology and life history; (4) 

monitoring the population; and (5) 

informing the public about recovery 

needs of crocodiles. The MSRP also 

outlines restoration activities that 

should be undertaken to adequately 

restore the mangrove community 

occupied by the crocodile. These 

actions include: (1) Protecting nesting, 

basking, and nursery habitat; (2) 

managing and restoring suitable habitat; 

(3) conducting research on the habitat 

relationships of the crocodile; (4) 

continuing to monitor habitat; and (5) 

increasing public awareness of habitat 

needs of the crocodile. 

This final rule does not constitute an 

irreversible commitment on our part. 

Reclassification of the American 

crocodile in Florida to endangered 

status would be investigated if changes 

occur in management, population 

status, habitat, or other actions that 

detrimentally affect the population or 

increase threats to its survival. 

Required Determinations 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, 

which implement provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.), require that Federal 

agencies obtain approval from OMB 

before collecting information from the 

public. This rule does not contain any 

new collections of information that 

require approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule will 

not impose recordkeeping or reporting 

requirements on State or local 

governments, individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. 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 OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that we do not 

need to prepare an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement, as defined in the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in 

connection with regulations adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act. We published 

a notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). 

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 

13211) 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. This rule is 

not expected to significantly affect 

energy supplies, distribution, and use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited is 

available upon request from the South 

Florida Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this document 

is the South Florida Ecological Services 

Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ For the reasons given in the preamble, 

we amend part 17, subchapter B of 

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

entry in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife for ‘‘Crocodile, 

American’’ under REPTILES to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

SPECIES 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

REPTILES

* * * * * * * 

Crocodile, American Crocodylus acutus .. U.S.A. (FL), Mexico, 

Caribbean, Central and South 

America.

Entire, except in 

U.S.A. (FL).

E 87 NA NA 

Do ............................ do ............................ do ............................ U.S.A. (FL) ............. T 10,l 17.95(c) NA 

* * * * * * * 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 53 / Tuesday, March 20, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 13041 

Dated: February 22, 2007. 

Kenneth Stansell, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–5037 Filed 3–19–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 229 

[Docket No. 030221039–7060–44; I.D. 

031307D] 

Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental 

to Commercial Fishing Operations; 

Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction 

Plan 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries (AA), NOAA, announces 

temporary restrictions consistent with 

the requirements of the Atlantic Large 

Whale Take Reduction Plan’s 

(ALWTRP) implementing regulations. 

These regulations apply to lobster trap/ 

pot and anchored gillnet fishermen in 

an area totaling approximately 1,631 

nm 2 (5,594 km 2) in March and 

approximately 832 nm 2 (2854 km 2) in 

April, southeast of Boston, MA, for 15 

days. The purpose of this action is to 

provide protection to an aggregation of 

northern right whales (right whales). 

DATES: Effective beginning at 0001 hours 

March 22, 2007, through 2400 hours 

April 5, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed and 

final Dynamic Area Management (DAM) 

rules, Environmental Assessments 

(EAs), Atlantic Large Whale Take 

Reduction Team (ALWTRT) meeting 

summaries, and progress reports on 

implementation of the ALWTRP may 

also be obtained by writing Diane 

Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast Region, 

One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Borggaard, NMFS/Northeast 

Region, 978–281–9300 x6503; or Kristy 

Long, NMFS, Office of Protected 

Resources, 301–713–2322. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

Several of the background documents 

for the ALWTRP and the take reduction 

planning process can be downloaded 

from the ALWTRP web site at http:// 

www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/. 

Background 

The ALWTRP was developed 

pursuant to section 118 of the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to 

reduce the incidental mortality and 

serious injury of three endangered 

species of whales (right, fin, and 

humpback) due to incidental interaction 

with commercial fishing activities. In 

addition, the measures identified in the 

ALWTRP would provide conservation 

benefits to a fourth species (minke), 

which are neither listed as endangered 

nor threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). The ALWTRP, 

implemented through regulations 

codified at 50 CFR 229.32, relies on a 

combination of fishing gear 

modifications and time/area closures to 

reduce the risk of whales becoming 

entangled in commercial fishing gear 

(and potentially suffering serious injury 

or mortality as a result). 

On January 9, 2002, NMFS published 

the final rule to implement the 

ALWTRP’s DAM program (67 FR 1133). 

On August 26, 2003, NMFS amended 

the regulations by publishing a final 

rule, which specifically identified gear 

modifications that may be allowed in a 

DAM zone (68 FR 51195). The DAM 

program provides specific authority for 

NMFS to restrict temporarily on an 

expedited basis the use of lobster trap/ 

pot and anchored gillnet fishing gear in 

areas north of 40° N. lat. to protect right 

whales. Under the DAM program, 

NMFS may: (1) require the removal of 

all lobster trap/pot and anchored gillnet 

fishing gear for a 15-day period; (2) 

allow lobster trap/pot and anchored 

gillnet fishing within a DAM zone with 

gear modifications determined by NMFS 

to sufficiently reduce the risk of 

entanglement; and/or (3) issue an alert 

to fishermen requesting the voluntary 

removal of all lobster trap/pot and 

anchored gillnet gear for a 15-day period 

and asking fishermen not to set any 

additional gear in the DAM zone during 

the 15-day period. 

A DAM zone is triggered when NMFS 

receives a reliable report from a 

qualified individual of three or more 

right whales sighted within an area (75 

nm 2 (139 km 2)) such that right whale 

density is equal to or greater than 0.04 

right whales per nm 2 (1.85 km 2). A 

qualified individual is an individual 

ascertained by NMFS to be reasonably 

able, through training or experience, to 

identify a right whale. Such individuals 

include, but are not limited to, NMFS 

staff, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy 

personnel trained in whale 

identification, scientific research survey 

personnel, whale watch operators and 

naturalists, and mariners trained in 

whale species identification through 

disentanglement training or some other 

training program deemed adequate by 

NMFS. A reliable report would be a 

credible right whale sighting. 

On March 9, 2007, an aerial survey 

reported two sightings of right whales in 

two different areas: the first location is 

in the proximity of 41° 37′ N lat. and 69° 

32′ W long. (7 whales), and the second 

is in the proximity of 41° 31′ N lat. and 

69° 21′ W long. (3 whales). Both 

positions lie southeast of Boston, MA. 

After conducting an investigation, 

NMFS ascertained that the reports came 

from a qualified individual and 

determined that the report was reliable. 

Thus, NMFS has received a reliable 

report from a qualified individual of the 

requisite right whale density to trigger 

the DAM provisions of the ALWTRP. 

Once a DAM zone is triggered, NMFS 

determines whether to impose 

restrictions on fishing and/or fishing 

gear in the zone. This determination is 

based on the following factors, 

including but not limited to: the 

location of the DAM zone with respect 

to other fishery closure areas, weather 

conditions as they relate to the safety of 

human life at sea, the type and amount 

of gear already present in the area, and 

a review of recent right whale 

entanglement and mortality data. 

NMFS has reviewed the factors and 

management options noted above 

relative to the DAM under 

consideration. As a result of this review, 

NMFS prohibits lobster trap/pot and 

anchored gillnet gear in this area during 

the 15-day restricted period unless it is 

modified in the manner described in 

this temporary rule. In March, the DAM 

Zone is bound by the following 

coordinates: 

41° 57′ N., 69° 24′ W (NW Corner) 

41° 57′ N., 69° 07′ W 

41° 50′ N., 69° 07′ W 

41° 50′ N., 68° 57′ W 

41° 13′ N., 68° 57′ W 

41° 13′ N., 69° 46′ W 

41° 17′ N., 69° 46′ W 

41° 17′ N., 69° 58′ W 

41° 40′ N., 69° 58′ W and follow the 

coastline north to 

41° 45′ N., 69° 56′ W 

41° 45′ N., 69° 33′ W 

41° 49′ N., 69° 24′ W 

41° 57′ N., 69° 24′ W (NW Corner) 

In April, when the restrictions on 

anchored gillnet and lobster trap/pot 

fishing gear become effective in the 

Great South Channel and overlap a 

portion of the DAM zone, the DAM zone 

is divided into a northern and southern 

sector. Special note for gillnet and 

lobster trap/pot fishermen: This DAM 


erjones on PRODPC74 with RULES