[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7942]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 4, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB56

 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of 
Proposed Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Little Mariana 
Fruit Bat, Mariana Fruit Bat, Guam Broadbill, Mariana Crow, Guam 
Micronesian Kingfisher, and Guam Bridled White-Eye

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final decision; withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) withdraws the 
proposal to designate critical habitat for six endangered forest 
species on Guam: The little Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus tokudae), 
Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus), Guam broadbill 
(Myiagra freycineti), Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi), Guam Micronesian 
kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina), and Guam bridled white-
eye (Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus). Most of the lands 
proposed for critical habitat have now been protected by the inclusion 
of these lands in the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. The Service finds 
that designation of critical habitat is not prudent under the 
Endangered species Act (Act).

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, room 6307, P.O. Box 
50167, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert P. Smith, at the above address 
(808/541-2749).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In the final rule listing a number of Guam species, published 
August 27, 1984, in the Federal Register (49 FR 33881), the Service 
determined endangered status for seven birds and two mammals: Guam 
broadbill (Myiagra freycineti), Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi), Mariana 
gallinule (moorhen) (Gallinula chloropus guami), Micronesian kingfisher 
(Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina), Guam rail (Rallus owstoni), Vanikoro 
swiftlet (Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi), Guam bridled white-eye 
(Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus), little Mariana fruit bat 
(Pteropus tokudae), and the Guam population of Mariana fruit bat 
(Pteropus mariannus mariannus). These species are found in the Mariana 
Islands in the western Pacific in the Territory of Guam and the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, both under the 
jurisdiction of the United States.
    The six species, along with three other species, were listed as 
endangered on August 27, 1984. In a proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register on June 14, 1991 (56 FR 115), critical habitat was 
proposed for six of these endangered forest species on Guam: the little 
Mariana fruit bat, Mariana fruit bat, Guam broadbill, Mariana crow, 
Guam Micronesian kingfisher, and Guam bridled white-eye. Comments 
related to the proposed critical habitat designation were solicited 
during four public comment periods held: June 14, 1991, through August 
13, 1991; October 15, 1991, through October 31, 1991; June 12, 1992, 
through July 15, 1992; and March 1, 1993, through March 31, 1993. A 
public hearing on the critical habitat proposal was held in Guam on 
July 31, 1991.
    The six species were once distributed in the forests throughout 
Guam, but by the time they were listed in 1984, their ranges had been 
severely reduced. The species continue to decline in the wild. The main 
cause of the decline at the time of listing was not known with 
certainty, but probable causes included predation by introduced animals 
(most notably the brown tree snake), habitat loss, and, for the two 
species of fruit bats, hunting. It has become increasingly clear that 
predation by the introduced brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) is the 
primary cause of decline for the endangered birds (Savidge 1987). For 
fruit bats, poaching is a serious threat along with predation by the 
brown tree snake (DAWR 1993).
    The Mariana crow is currently extant in the wild on Guam and the 
neighboring island of Rota, 44 miles to the north of Guam. The 
population on Rota has been relatively stable and, based on a 1982 
survey, was believed to number about 1,300 individuals (Engbring et al. 
1986). Additional surveys will be conducted on Rota, starting in 1994, 
to acquire more current information. On Guam, the population has 
declined and is now believed to number approximately 50 individuals 
(DAWR 1993), with little or no successful reproduction since 1986. 
Compared to other forest birds native to Guam, the Mariana crow 
requires relatively large tracts of forest that do not have high levels 
of human activity.
    The Mariana fruit bat is found on all the major islands in the 
Marianas. Only the Guam population is listed as endangered, although 
populations on Saipan, Tinian, and Aguijan are considered category 1 
candidate species, and the populations on Rota and the islands north of 
Saipan are considered category 2 candidate species (56 FR 225). 
Category 1 includes taxa for which information in the Service's 
possession is sufficient to support a proposal to list. Category 2 
includes species for which information in the Service's possession 
indicates that listing is possibly appropriate, but is insufficient to 
support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened at this time. On 
Guam, the Mariana fruit bat was historically found throughout native 
forests. By the 1980's, population numbers on Guam had dropped, and the 
species was restricted to forests on the northern tip of the island 
(USFWS 1990b), although there are occasional reports of bats from 
southern Guam around Fena Reservoir. Various species of Pacific fruit 
bats generally use a variety of forest types, including agricultural 
forest in close proximity to residential areas. Adequate protection 
from poaching has not been possible on Guam and bats have been 
extirpated from residential areas on the island. This activity 
continues despite the fact that it has been illegal to hunt fruit bat 
species on Guam since 1966.
    The Micronesian kingfisher, a subspecies endemic to Guam, was at 
one time found throughout most of Guam's forests (Jenkins 1983). Up to 
3,000 might have survived in the wild when the species was listed in 
1984, but the kingfisher declined rapidly and is extirpated from the 
wild today. A captive population has been established and is maintained 
at several mainland zoos including the Bronx, Philadelphia, and 
National Zoos. Once the brown tree snake is brought under control, it 
is hoped that the Guam Micronesian kingfisher can be reintroduced in 
the wild using the progeny produced by these captive flocks.
    Three of the six forest species, all endemic to Guam, have not been 
observed in the wild for several years and are believed to be extinct: 
the little Mariana fruit bat, Guam broadbill, and the Guam bridled 
white-eye. No records of the little Mariana fruit bat exist after 1968. 
In 1983, the Guam broadbill was restricted to a small area at the north 
end of the island and the population was estimated to be under 100 
individuals. Two sightings of individuals were made in 1984: One in 
March in Northwest Field, and one in August adjacent to the Navy golf 
course in Barrigada (USFWS 1990a). A single broadbill was possibly 
heard in the Naval Communications area in 1988 (U.S. Navy 1989). Since 
then, the broadbill has virtually disappeared from the island. Fewer 
than 50 bridled white-eyes were thought to survive in 1983. The last 
individual was observed in June of that year (Beck 1984).
    The areas for which the Service proposed critical habitat 
designation are those identified as ``high priority essential habitat'' 
and ``essential habitat'' in the two recovery plans for these species 
(USFWS 1990a and USFWS 1990b). The total acreage of the proposed areas 
is approximately 16,893 acres (6,837 hectares (ha)) in northern Guam 
and 7,669 acres (3,104 ha) in southern Guam, for a total of 24,562 
acres (9,944 ha) island wide. About 83 percent of the land within the 
proposed critical habitat of the six forest species on Guam is in 
Federal ownership and is predominantly under the jurisdiction of either 
the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Air Force. Approximately 14.5 percent is 
owned by the Government of Guam, while the remaining 3.5 percent is in 
private ownership.
    Certain forest areas on Guam must be given special management if 
the remaining forest species are to survive. They consist of relatively 
contiguous tracts of forest types, including mature limestone forests, 
mixed woodlands, second growth stands, coastal strand forests, coconut 
forests, and ravine forests. All are habitat types favored by Guam 
forest species. When isolated from excessive human disturbance, such 
forest types fulfill the habitat requirements of the Mariana crow and 
Mariana fruit bat in providing relatively large, contiguous tracts of 
forest with a minimum of human disturbance. The Service believes that 
the Guam Micronesian kingfisher could be reintroduced to these 
protected areas as well.
    Protection of these areas would allow for the continued survival of 
the species that are either currently restricted to a small fraction of 
their former historical range or extirpated from the wild in Guam. A 
key management consideration common to all of Guam's native terrestrial 
species is control of the introduced brown tree snake, which was a 
major factor in the population declines of these species. Conservation 
of these species will be substantially enhanced through protection and 
management of key portions of their historic range.
    The endangered species problems on Guam are complex, and the 
Service believes that a cooperative, proactive approach to species and 
habitat management will yield the best chances for survival and 
recovery of these species in the wild. The Government of Guam and the 
Federal government share common goals for the recovery of endangered 
and threatened species, protection of native flora and fauna, 
conservation of unique ecosystems, and maintenance of native biological 
diversity. The Government of Guam and the Federal government must 
continue cooperative efforts to develop and implement programs for the 
recovery of endangered and threatened species, and to protect key 
habitats in perpetuity with the common goal of reversing the wildlife 
extinction crisis facing Guam.
    To meet these shared goals and to more effectively manage the 
essential habitat needed for the recovery of all of Guam's endangered 
species, the Service established the Guam National Wildlife Refuge on 
certain lands and waters of Guam to be managed in a coordinated manner 
by the Service, Government of Guam, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. The 
purposes for establishing this refuge are: (1) To protect and restore 
essential habitats and provide for recovery actions for Guam's 
endangered and threatened species; (2) to conserve migratory species 
and their habitats; (3) to protect and manage other native wildlife and 
their habitats; (4) to control predation of native species, 
particularly by the brown tree snake; (5) to complement ongoing 
Government of Guam and Department of Defense (DOD) programs in natural 
resource management, conservation, law enforcement, research, and 
education; (6) to provide opportunities for public education, enjoyment 
of wildlife, cultural use of resources, and scientific research; and 
(7) to maintain the scenic values of the protected areas. The Guam 
National Wildlife Refuge is established as an overlay refuge on 22,477 
acres, through a memorandum of understanding and managed through 
cooperative agreements among the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and 
Service. The Service owns an additional 371 acres in fee title. Of 
these lands, 21,204 acres were proposed as critical habitat in the 1991 
proposal.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the June 14, 1991, proposed rule and associated notifications, 
all interested parties were requested to submit factual reports or 
information that might contribute to the development of a final rule to 
designate critical habitat on Guam. Appropriate State agencies, county 
governments, Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and other 
interested parties were contacted and requested to comment.
    A public hearing on the proposed rule was announced in the Federal 
Register on July 12, 1991, and was held on July 31, 1991 (56 FR 27485). 
The initial comment period for the proposed rule ended August 13, 1991. 
A request was received on August 8, 1991, by the Guam Urunao Resort 
Corporation, to reopen the comment period. The Service reopened the 
comment period from October 15, 1991, until October 31, 1991, to obtain 
additional information on the economic impacts of the proposed 
designation of critical habitat. This comment period was announced in 
the Federal Register (56 FR 51668) and in the Pacific Daily News.
    The comment period was reopened again from June 12, 1992, until 
July 15, 1992, due to the availability of an Environmental Assessment 
pertaining to the establishment of an overlay refuge on Guam and a 
request to reopen the comment period by the National Wildlife 
Federation. This comment period was announced in the Federal Register 
(57 FR 25007) and advertised in the Pacific Daily News.
    The Service reopened the comment period from March 1, 1993, until 
March 31, 1993, based on the availability of a revised Environmental 
Assessment pertaining to the establishment of an overlay refuge. This 
comment period was announced in the Federal Register (58 FR 11821) and 
also advertised in the Pacific Daily News.

Summary of Comments

    The public comment period for the designation of critical habitat 
for endangered species on Guam was open a total of 140 days. During 
this time, a total of 85 comments were received from 75 commenters. Of 
the 85 comments, 59 (70 percent) supported the designation of critical 
habitat as proposed, 18 (21 percent) opposed the designation of 
critical habitat, and 8 (9 percent) had various opinions that neither 
expressly supported nor opposed the designation of critical habitat. 
Also, of the 85 comments, 13 (15 percent) supported the establishment 
of an overlay refuge, while 3 (4 percent) stated that an overlay refuge 
alone would not be sufficient to protect endangered species on Guam.
    Issue 1: Several respondents maintained that opposition to critical 
habitat revolves around a few local families and their economic 
interests in their property, that Guam's forests are worth more than 
additional development, and that most of Guam's people support 
protection of Guam's forests over commercial development.
    Service Response: The endangered species problems on Guam are 
complex, and the Service believes that a cooperative, proactive 
approach to both species and habitat management will yield the best 
chances for the long-term survival and recovery of these species in the 
wild. To meet these shared goals and to more effectively manage the 
essential habitat needed for the recovery of all of Guam's endangered 
species, the Service established a National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) on 
most of the Federal lands proposed as critical habitat and certain 
waters of Guam to be managed by the Service, the Government of Guam, 
U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. The Service believes that the 
establishment of the Refuge adequately protects Guam's forests and the 
species that depend on them.
    Issue 2: Some respondents expressed the need for both the 
designation of critical habitat and an overlay refuge to adequately 
protect endangered species and their habitats on Guam. The overlay 
refuge alone, they maintained, will not provide the controls necessary 
to protect endangered species, and, at a minimum, critical habitat 
needs to be designated.
    Service Response: The designation of critical habitat would have 
provided some extra assurances that actions funded, authorized, or 
carried out by the Federal government would not destroy or adversely 
modify habitat needed by Guam forest species. Unless there is such 
Federal involvement, the designation of critical habitat does not 
affect actions of private landowners or local government activities. 
The establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge, on the other hand, 
allows for the protection and active management of Refuge lands. 
Therefore, the Service has determined that the designation of critical 
habitat would yield no net benefits above those provided by the Refuge 
and the designation of critical habitat in conjunction with the 
establishment of the Refuge is not required for the protection of 
Guam's endangered species.
    Issue 3: Support was expressed for critical habitat as a deterrent 
to development. Comments maintained that development has improved 
Guam's economy and destroyed much of its ecology, that there is a huge 
need to curtail development and military expansion on Guam and that 
critical habitat designation will help indigenous people to protect 
their natural heritage and honor the memory of their ancestors.
    Service Response: The Service expects that the establishment of the 
Refuge will be adequate to protect Guam's endangered forest species and 
the habitats on which they depend. However, the establishment of the 
Refuge will not affect the extent of development or the possibility of 
military expansion outside of the areas designated for protection.
    Issue 5: Opposition was expressed to the exclusion of private lands 
from critical habitat designation.
    Service Response: No lands on Guam are currently being considered 
for critical habitat designation. Private lands were not included in 
the Refuge because of prohibitive costs associated with land 
acquisition. The Service believes that the Guam National Wildlife 
Refuge provides for increased protection, management, and program 
funding for the bulk of essential forest habitat on Guam, and that the 
protection of endangered forest species' habitat on private lands would 
best be accomplished through existing environmental compliance 
processes.
    Issue 6: Opposition to critical habitat designation was expressed 
on the grounds that it would place serious economic and operational 
constraints on potential military and private development activities. 
The economic analysis pertaining to the proposed rule was criticized as 
not adequately addressing real economic impacts.
    Service Response: The purpose of the economic analysis on the 
designation of critical habitat is to gather the best available data on 
economic or other impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation 
to assist in determining whether adjustments should be made before the 
critical habitat designation is made final. The economic analysis 
addressed the possible impacts of the critical habitat designation on 
Federal, Territory of Guam, and local landowners and the regional and 
national economies. The analysis was conducted by examining the 
possible ways the designation of critical habitat might restrict the 
use of Federal funds or permits for activities affecting or affected by 
the designation. Use of private, Territory of Guam, or local funds for 
activities that do not require a Federal permit is not restricted by a 
critical habitat designation and was beyond the scope of the economic 
analysis. The economic analysis was conducted using the best 
information available, and it addressed the economic impacts to the 
greatest extent possible.
    The effects of establishing the Refuge on the economic environment 
were also evaluated in the Environmental Assessment for the Guam 
National Wildlife Refuge. Because the Service is only including Federal 
lands within the Refuge, and given the restrictions of the Act upon 
Federal lands, the potential development of important native forest 
lands in Federal ownership, even without the establishment of a Refuge, 
is not likely.
    Issue 7: The opinion was expressed that critical habitat 
designation alone does not adequately address endangered species 
concerns on Guam. Development pressure and additional military uses 
were predicted to take over, and concern was indicated that, unless 
adequate, high quality, habitat is protected now, it will not be 
available for reintroductions.
    Service Response: The Service strongly agrees with these concerns 
and, therefore, has established the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. The 
purposes for establishing the Refuge are: (1) To protect and restore 
essential habitats and provide for recovery actions for Guam's 
endangered and threatened species (which include reintroductions); (2) 
to conserve migratory species and their habitats; (3) to protect and 
manage migratory species and other native wildlife and their habitats; 
(4) to control predation upon native species, particularly by the brown 
tree snake; (5) to complement ongoing Government of Guam and Department 
of Defense (DOD) programs in natural resource management, conservation, 
law enforcement, research, and education; (6) to provide opportunities 
for public education, enjoyment of wildlife, cultural use of resources, 
and scientific research; and, (7) to maintain the scenic values of the 
protected areas. The Refuge has been established through a memorandum 
of understanding and managed through cooperative agreements among the 
U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and Service. The Service has determined that 
the establishment of the Refuge adequately addresses the threats to the 
endangered forest species on Guam and provides for the protection of 
their habitat.
    Issue 8: Critical habitat designation was opposed for including too 
much land.
    Service Response: No habitat is currently being considered for 
designation as critical habitat on Guam and only Federal lands are 
included in the Refuge. To determine which lands the Service should 
include within the boundaries of the Refuge, habitat was evaluated on 
the basis of its biological importance to endangered and threatened 
species, migratory birds, other native wildlife, and the conservation 
of biological diversity. Federal lands that were identified as 
``essential habitat'' in published recovery plans for endangered forest 
birds, waterbirds, and fruit bats were considered priority areas for 
protection. Other areas with outstanding conservation values that were 
considered for inclusion in the Refuge included wetlands, migratory 
bird foraging and loafing areas, and sea turtle nesting beaches.
    Issue 9: An overlay refuge was supported as the best method for the 
protection and recovery of endangered species on Guam.
    Service Response: The Service agrees with this statement and has 
established the Guam National Wildlife Refuge.
    Issue 10: Critical habitat designation was opposed as a Federal 
condemnation of land and plot to steal lands from Guam's people.
    Service Response: Designation of critical habitat is a regulatory 
exercise; it is not a Federal condemnation of land. Designation of 
critical habitat does not result in additional legal restrictions on 
private lands unless such lands are subject to actions that are 
authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Non-Federal, as 
well as Federal lands, with or without designated critical habitat, are 
still subject to prohibitions against take of listed species on their 
land, pursuant to section 9 of the Act. Designation of critical habitat 
is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act for threatened and 
endangered species whenever such designation is prudent and 
determinable.

Finding and Withdrawal

    The Service finds that designation of critical habitat is not 
prudent. The constituent elements of the habitat will be protected on 
an area sufficient to provide for the conservation of listed species 
through refuge designation. A designation of critical habitat would 
have provided some extra assurances that actions funded, authorized, or 
carried out by the Federal government would not destroy or adversely 
modify habitat needed by Guam forest species. Unless such Federal 
involvement exists, the designation of critical habitat does not affect 
actions of private landowners or local government activities. The 
establishment of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge allows for the 
protection and active management of refuge lands. Additionally, many 
more of Guam's native species will directly benefit from management 
provided by the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. By establishing a refuge 
on Guam, most of the lands identified in the proposed rule for critical 
habitat will benefit from active protection and wildlife management 
programs as well as increased cooperation among the Service, Government 
of Guam, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. A total of 21,204 acres 
originally proposed as critical habitat are now in the refuge, 
including all of the acreage actually occupied by the extant forest 
species. The Service will maintain a resident staff on Guam to 
coordinate and conduct wildlife management, research, and educational 
and public use programs in cooperation and coordination with the 
Government of Guam and the Service's military refuge partners. 
Biological monitoring, wildlife and habitat enhancement and recovery 
programs, and brown tree snake control programs have and will continue 
to be developed, coordinated, and implemented by the cooperating 
agencies within the framework of the refuge cooperative agreements. 
Refuge establishment enables the Service to implement research and 
endangered species recovery programs that could not be implemented by 
designating critical habitat. Law enforcement will continue and will be 
conducted in conjunction with DOD and the Government of Guam.
    Although the proposed critical habitat included slightly different 
military tracts than is designated in the Guam National Wildlife 
Refuge, the benefits to endangered species will not decrease as a 
result of this withdrawal. Some of the DOD lands that were proposed for 
critical habitat included excess military lands. Also included were 
operational areas, such as runways, industrial facilities, and 
urbanized areas, which did not contain the constituent elements of the 
habitat needed by listed species. Therefore, the proposed critical 
habitat included more DOD land than was necessary to support recovered 
populations of endangered species on Guam. The Service has determined 
that elimination of these operational areas from the Guam National 
Wildlife Refuge is appropriate and does not diminish the capability to 
provide special management to endangered species habitat.
    Private lands are not included in the Guam National Wildlife 
Refuge. Even though these lands contain habitat for forest species, the 
acquisition of private lands was not considered for the refuge because 
of prohibitive costs associated with land acquisition. Because the Guam 
National Wildlife Refuge provides for increased protection, management, 
and program funding for 21,204 acres of essential forest habitat, the 
protection of endangered forest species' habitat on private lands would 
best be accomplished through existing environmental compliance 
processes. In addition, lands owned by the Government of Guam were 
excluded from the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 4,000 
acres of land owned by the Government of Guam contain habitat for 
listed species. Most of this land is currently contained in 
conservation areas protected through local regulation. Should the 
Service conclude that designation of critical habitat would be prudent 
at some future time, a new proposal would be required with the 
appropriate public comment and response. Among the circumstances which 
could prompt such reconsideration would be a decision by the U.S. Navy 
or Air Force to ``excess'' military lands which are now part of the 
overlay refuge.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) provides guidelines and directives for the 
conservation of ``species threatened with extinction'' on all refuge 
lands. In light of this and other legal mandates, the Guam National 
Wildlife Refuge will provide special management and protection for 
Guam's endangered species. Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Endangered Species 
Act defines ``critical habitat'', in part, as specific areas ``which 
may require special management considerations or protection.'' Because 
the designation of critical habitat would not yield any additional 
benefits above those provided by the refuge, the designation of 
critical habitat on Guam is found to be not prudent. In compliance with 
4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act of 1973, as amended, the Service withdraws 
its proposed rule of June 14, 1991, to designate critical habitat for 
six endangered forest species on Guam.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from the Service's Honolulu Field Office (see ADDRESSES above).

Author

    The primary author of this withdrawal notice is Elizabeth Sharpe, 
Ecological Services, Pacific Islands Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

    The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: March 29, 1994.
Robert P. Davison,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 94-7942 Filed 3-30-94; 12:17 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P