[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46693-46701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-23533]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 226
[Docket No. 971124276-8202-02; I.D. No. 110797B]
RIN 0648-AH88
Designated Critical Habitat; Green and Hawksbill Sea Turtles
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), NOAA, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), NMFS is
[[Page 46694]]
designating critical habitat for the threatened green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) to include coastal waters surrounding Culebra Island,
Puerto Rico, and the endangered hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata) to include coastal waters surrounding Mona and Monito
Islands, Puerto Rico. This designation of critical habitat provides
explicit notice to Federal agencies and to the public that these areas
and features are vital to the conservation of the species.
DATES: Effective October 2, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this final rule and/or the
Environmental Assessment (EA) should be addressed to Barbara Schroeder,
National Sea Turtle Coordinator, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS,
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Rogers, 301-713-1401 or
Colleen Coogan, 727-570-5312.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Green and hawksbill turtles are largely restricted to tropical and
subtropical waters. Once abundant throughout the Caribbean, green and
hawksbill turtle populations have diminished significantly from
historic levels. In response to this decline, the green turtle was
listed as threatened under the ESA, except for the Florida and Pacific
coast of Mexico breeding populations, which are listed as endangered,
on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800), and the hawksbill turtle was listed as
endangered throughout its range on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495).
Green and hawksbill turtles, as well as other marine turtle
species, are also protected internationally under the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES). Without these protections, it is highly unlikely that either
species, traditionally highly prized in the Caribbean for their flesh,
fat, eggs, and shell, would exist today.
On February 14, 1997, NMFS announced the receipt of a petition
presenting substantial information to warrant a review (62 FR 6934) to
designate critical habitat for green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill
(Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles to include the coastal waters
surrounding the islands of the Culebra Archipelago. At that time, NMFS
also requested additional information concerning other areas in the
U.S. Caribbean where the designation of critical habitat for listed sea
turtles may be warranted.
On December 19, 1997, NMFS published a proposed rule (62 FR 66584)
to designate critical habitat for the green turtle to include coastal
waters out to 3 nautical miles (nm) surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto
Rico, and for the hawksbill turtle to include coastal waters out to 3
nm surrounding Mona and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico.
NMFS also completed an EA, pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act, to evaluate both the environmental and economic impacts of
the proposed critical habitat designation. The EA resulted in a finding
of no significant impact for the proposed action.
The proposed rule provided for a 60-day public comment period.
During the comment period, public hearings were held in Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico, on January 26, 1998, in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on January
27, 1998, and in Culebra, Puerto Rico, on January 29, 1998. After
consideration of the public comments, NMFS is designating critical
habitat for green and hawksbill turtles as described in the proposed
rule (see Proposed Critical Habitat; Geographic Extent section of this
rule).
In accordance with the July 18, 1977, Memorandum of Understanding
between NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NMFS was
given responsibility for sea turtles while in the marine environment.
Such responsibility includes proposing and designating critical
habitat. The designation of critical habitat for sea turtles while on
land is the jurisdiction of the USFWS; therefore, this rule includes
only marine areas.
Critical Habitat of the Green Turtle
Biological information for listed green turtles can be found in the
Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle (NMFS and
USFWS, 1991), the most recent green turtle status review (NMFS in
prep.), and the Federal Register documents of proposed and final
listing determination (see 40 FR 21982, May 20, 1975; 43 FR 32800, July
28, 1978). These documents include information on the status of the
species, its life history characteristics and habitat requirements, as
well as projects, activities, and other factors affecting the species.
Green turtles are primarily restricted to tropical and subtropical
waters. In U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters, green turtles are
found from Massachusetts to Texas and in the U.S. Virgin Islands and
Puerto Rico. Caribbean populations of green turtles have diminished
significantly from historical levels, primarily due to the directed
turtle fishery that existed prior to their listing under the ESA.
Additionally, researchers have documented that habitat loss is a
primary factor slowing the recovery of the species throughout its
range. Degradation of seagrass beds has slowed recovery of green
turtles in the Caribbean due to reduced carrying capacity of seagrass
meadows (Williams, 1988). Therefore, the extent of habitat required for
foraging green turtles is likely to be increasing due to the reduced
productivity of remaining seagrass beds.
Seagrasses are the principal dietary component of juvenile and
adult green turtles throughout the Wider Caribbean region (Bjorndal,
1995). The seagrass beds of Culebra consist primarily of turtle grass
(Thalassia testudinum). While seagrasses are distributed throughout
temperate and tropical latitudes, turtle grass beds are a tropical
phenomenon. In the Caribbean, turtle grass beds consist primarily of
turtle grass, but may include other species of seagrass, such as
manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), shoal grass (Halodule wrightii),
and sea vine (Halophila decipiens), as well as several species of algae
including green algae of the genera Halimeda, Caulerpa, and Udotea.
The natal beaches of Culebra's juvenile green turtles have not yet
been identified. After emerging from nests on natal beaches, post-
hatchlings may move into offshore convergence zones for an undetermined
length of time (Carr, 1986). Upon reaching approximately 25 to 35 cm
carapace length, juvenile green turtles enter benthic feeding grounds
in relatively shallow, protected waters (Collazo et al., 1992).
The importance of the Culebra archipelago as green turtle
developmental habitat has been well documented. Researchers have
established that Culebra coastal waters support juvenile and subadult
green turtle populations and have confirmed the presence of a small
population of adults (Collazo et al., 1992). These findings, together
with information obtained from studies conducted in the U.S. Virgin
Islands, have reaffirmed the importance of developmental habitats
throughout the eastern portion of the Puerto Rican Bank (Collazo et
al., 1992). Additionally, the coral reefs and other topographic
features within these waters provide green turtles with shelter during
interforaging periods that serve as refuge from predators.
The coastal waters of Culebra also provide habitat for hawksbill
and leatherback turtles. Hawksbill turtles forage extensively on the
nearby reefs, and both hawksbills and leatherbacks use Culebra's
coastal waters to access
[[Page 46695]]
nesting beaches. Culebra and St. Croix beaches have the greatest
density of leatherback nests within U.S. waters.
Culebra seagrasses provide foraging habitat for many valuable
species. In addition to green turtles, the commercially important queen
conch (Strombus gigas) and coral reef bony fishes (Class Osteichthyes),
such as parrotfish (Sparisoma spp.), grunts (Haemulon spp.), porgies or
sea breams (Archosargus rhomboidalis), and others, utilize this
important habitat. Culebra's seagrass beds also provide habitat for the
endangered west Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) and several species
of cartilaginous fishes (Class Chondrichthyes). Additionally, seagrass
beds beneficially modify the physical, chemical, and geological
properties of coastal areas. They provide nutrients, primary energy,
and habitats that help sustain coastal fisheries resources while
enhancing biological diversity and wildlife (Vicente and Tallevast,
1992).
Critical Habitat of the Hawksbill Turtle
Biological information for listed hawksbill turtles can be found in
the Recovery Plan for the Hawksbill Turtle in the U.S. Caribbean,
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico (NMFS and USFWS, 1993), the Hawksbill
Turtle Status Review (NMFS, 1995), and the Federal Register document of
final listing determination (see 35 FR 8495, June 2, 1970). These
documents include information on the status of the species, its life
history characteristics and habitat requirements, as well as projects,
activities, and other factors affecting the species.
The hawksbill turtle occurs in tropical and subtropical waters of
the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The species is widely
distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. Within the
United States, hawksbills are most common in Puerto Rico and its
associated islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Florida.
International commerce in hawksbill shell, or ``bekko,'' is
considered the most significant factor endangering hawksbill turtle
populations around the world. Despite international trade protections
under CITES, illegal trade in hawksbill shell continues. The illegal
take of hawksbills at sea has not yet been fully quantified, but it is
a continuing and serious problem.
Juvenile hawksbills are thought to lead a pelagic existence before
recruiting to benthic feeding grounds at a size of approximately 25 cm
straight carapace length (Meylan and Carr, 1982). Coral reefs, like
those found in the waters surrounding Mona and Monito Islands, are
widely recognized as the primary foraging habitat of juvenile,
subadult, and adult hawksbill turtles. This habitat association is
directly related to the species' highly specific diet of sponges
(Meylan, 1988). Gut content analysis conducted on hawksbills collected
from the Caribbean suggests that a few types of sponges make up the
major component of their diet, despite the prevalence of other sponges
on the coral reefs where hawksbills are found (Meylan, 1984). Vicente
(1993) observed similar feeding habits in hawksbills foraging
specifically in Puerto Rico. Additionally, the ledges and caves of the
reef provide shelter for resting and refuge from predators.
Hawksbills depend on coral reefs for food and shelter; therefore,
the condition of reefs directly affects the hawksbill's well-being.
Destruction of coral reefs due to deteriorating water quality and
vessel anchoring, striking, or grounding is a growing problem.
Mona and Monito Islands are uninhabited natural reserves managed by
the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. The
coral reefs of Mona and Monito Islands are among the few known
remaining locations in the Caribbean where hawksbill turtles occur with
considerable density (Diez and van Dam, 1996). Researchers have shown
that the large juvenile population of hawksbill turtles around Mona and
Monito are long-term residents, exhibiting strong site fidelity for
periods of at least several years (Diez, 1996). Recent genetic studies
indicate that this resident population comprises individuals from
multiple nesting populations in the Wider Caribbean. These data
indicate that the conservation of the juvenile population of hawksbill
turtles at Mona can contribute to sustaining healthy nesting
populations throughout the Caribbean Region (Bowen et al., 1996).
Additionally, data on hawksbill turtle diet composition and foraging
behavior suggest that this high-density hawksbill population may play a
significant role in maintaining sponge species diversity in the
nearshore benthic communities of Mona and Monito Islands (van Dam and
Diez, 1997).
Hawksbills utilize both low- and high-energy nesting beaches in
tropical oceans of the world. Both insular and mainland nesting sites
are known. Hawksbills will nest on small pocket beaches and, because of
their small body size and great agility, can traverse fringing reefs
that limit access to other species.
Nesting within the southeastern United States occurs principally in
Puerto Rico and in the U.S. Virgin Islands, with the most important
sites being Mona Island in Puerto Rico and Buck Island Reef National
Monument in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Mona Island supports the largest
population of nesting hawksbill turtles in the U.S. Caribbean.
Considerable nesting also occurs on the beaches of Culebra, Vieques,
and mainland Puerto Rico, as well as St. Croix, St. John, and St.
Thomas.
The waters surrounding Mona Island also support a small green
turtle population, which possibly is surviving only because of Mona's
remoteness and the full-time presence of Puerto Rico Department of
Natural and Environmental Resources fisheries/wildlife enforcement
personnel. Limited green turtle nesting still occurs on Mona Island.
Definition of Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
* * * on which are found those physical or biological features (I)
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon
a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). The term
``conservation,'' as defined in section 3(3) of the ESA, means ``* * *
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer
necessary.'' (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(3)).
In designating critical habitat, NMFS must consider the
requirements of the species, including (1) Space for individual and
population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing
of offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and
ecological distributions of the species (see 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
In addition to these factors, NMFS must focus on and list the known
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) within
the designated area(s) that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management
[[Page 46696]]
considerations or protection. These essential features may include, but
are not limited to, breeding/nesting areas, food resources, water
quality and quantity, and vegetation and soil types (see 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Need for Special Management Considerations or Protection
In order to assure that the essential areas and features described
in previous sections are maintained or restored, special management
measures may be needed. Activities that may require special management
considerations for listed green and hawksbill turtle foraging and
developmental habitats include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Vessel traffic--Propeller dredging and anchor mooring severely
disrupt benthic habitats by crushing coral, breaking seagrass root
systems, and severing rhizomes. Propeller dredging and anchor mooring
in shallow areas are major disturbances to even the most robust
seagrasses. Trampling of seagrass beds and live bottom, a secondary
effect of recreational boating, also disturbs seagrasses and coral.
(2) Coastal construction--The development of marinas and private or
commercial docks in inshore waters can negatively impact turtles
through destruction or degradation of foraging habitat. Additionally,
this type of development leads to increased boat and vessel traffic,
which may result in higher incidences of propeller- and collision-
related mortality.
(3) Point and non-point source pollution--Highly colored, low
salinity sewage discharges may provoke physiological stress upon
seagrass beds and coral communities and may reduce the amount of
sunlight below levels necessary for photosynthesis. Nutrient over-
enrichment caused by inorganic and organic nitrogen and phosphorous
from urban and agricultural run-off and sewage can also stimulate algal
growth that can smother corals and seagrasses, shade rooted vegetation,
and diminish the oxygen content of the water.
(4) Fishing activities--Incidental catch during commercial and
recreational fishing operations is a significant source of sea turtle
mortality. Additionally, the increased vessel traffic associated with
fishing activities can result in the destruction of habitat due to
propeller dredging and anchor mooring.
(5) Dredge and fill activities--Dredging activities result in
direct destruction or degradation of habitat as well as incidental take
of turtles. Channelization of inshore and nearshore habitat and the
disposal of dredged material in the marine environment can destroy or
disturb seagrass beds and coral reefs.
(6) Habitat restoration--Habitat restoration may be required to
mitigate the destruction or degradation of habitat that can occur as a
result of the activities previously discussed. Additionally, habitat
degradation resulting from such episodic natural stresses as hurricanes
and tropical storms may require special mitigation measures.
Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat
A wide range of activities funded, authorized, or carried out by
Federal agencies may affect the critical habitat requirements of listed
green and hawksbill turtles. These include, but are not limited to,
authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for beach
renourishment, dredge and fill activities, coastal construction such as
the construction of docks and marinas, and installation of submerged
pipeline; actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
manage freshwater discharges into waterways; regulation of vessel
traffic by the U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Navy activities; authorization of
oil and gas exploration by the Minerals Management Service (MMS);
authorization of changes to state coastal zone management plans by
NOAA's National Ocean Service; and management of commercial fishing and
protected species by NMFS.
The Federal agencies that will most likely be affected by this
critical habitat designation include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the EPA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy, the MMS, and NOAA. This
designation provides clear notification to these agencies, private
entities, and the public of the existence of marine critical habitat
for listed green and hawksbill turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, the
boundaries of that habitat, and the protection provided for that
habitat by the interagency consultation process, pursuant to section 7
of the ESA. This designation will also assist these agencies and others
in evaluating the potential effects of their activities on listed green
and hawksbill turtles and their critical habitat and in determining
when consultation with NMFS would be appropriate.
Significance of Designating Critical Habitat
The designation of critical habitat does not, in and of itself,
restrict human activities within an area or mandate any specific
management or recovery action. A critical habitat designation
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying critically
important areas and by describing the features within those areas that
are essential to the species, thus alerting public and private entities
to the area's importance. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of
a critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7.
Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g.,
authorized, funded, conducted), and does not affect exclusively state
or private activities.
Under the section 7 provisions, a critical habitat designation
requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action they authorize,
fund, or carry out is not likely to adversely modify or destroy the
designated critical habitat. Activities that adversely modify or
destroy critical habitat are defined as those actions that
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Regardless
of a critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as
those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival
and recovery'' of the species (see 50 CFR 402.02). Using these
definitions, activities that destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the
protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally
duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy
provision.
A designation of critical habitat, in addition to emphasizing and
alerting public and private entities to the critical importance of said
habitat to listed species, provides a clear indication to Federal
agencies regarding when section 7 consultation is required,
particularly in cases where the action would not result in direct
mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species (e.g., an
action occurring within the critical area when a migratory species is
not present). The critical habitat designation, describing the
essential features of the habitat, also assists Federal action agencies
in determining which activities conducted outside the designated area
are subject to section 7 (i.e., activities that may affect essential
features of the designated area). For example, discharge of sewage or
disposal of waste material, or construction activities that could lead
to soil erosion and increased sedimentation in waters in, or adjacent
[[Page 46697]]
to, a critical habitat area may affect an essential feature of the
designated habitat (water quality) and would be subject to the
provisions of section 7 of the ESA.
A critical habitat designation also assists Federal agencies in
planning future actions since the designation establishes, in advance,
those habitats that will be given special consideration during section
7 consultations. With a designation of critical habitat, potential
conflicts between projects and endangered or threatened species can be
identified and possibly avoided early in the agency's planning process.
Another indirect benefit of a critical habitat designation is that
it helps focus Federal, state, and private conservation and management
efforts in such areas. Management efforts may address special
considerations needed in critical habitat areas, including conservation
regulations to restrict private as well as Federal activities. The
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the
time of those proposed regulations and, therefore, are not considered
in the critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state, and
local laws or regulations, such as zoning or wetlands protection, may
also provide special protection for critical habitat areas.
Consideration of Economic, Environmental, and Other Factors
The economic, environmental, and other impacts of a critical
habitat designation have been considered and evaluated. NMFS identified
present and anticipated activities that (1) may adversely modify the
areas being considered for designation and/or (2) may be affected by a
designation. An area may be excluded from a critical habitat
designation if NMFS determines that the overall benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion will result
in the extinction of the species (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental
impacts specifically resulting from the critical habitat designation,
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the
species or resulting from other authorities. Since listing a species
under the ESA provides significant protection to a species' habitat, in
many cases the economic and other impacts resulting from the critical
habitat designation, over and above the impacts of the listing itself,
are minimal (see Significance of Designating Critical Habitat section
of this final rule). In general, the designation of critical habitat
highlights geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive
protection resulting from the listing itself.
Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the
``take'' prohibitions contained in section 9 of the ESA and in
associated regulations. ``Take,'' as defined in the ESA, means to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (see 16 U.S.C.
1532(19)). Harm can occur through destruction or modification of
habitat (whether designated as critical or not) that significantly
impairs essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering.
Expected Economic Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat
The economic impacts to be considered in a critical habitat
designation are the incremental effects of critical habitat designation
above the economic impacts attributable to listing or attributable to
authorities other than the ESA (see Consideration of Economic,
Environmental and Other Factors section of this final rule).
Incremental impacts result from special management activities in areas
outside the present distribution of the listed species that have been
determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. However,
NMFS has determined that the present range of both species contains
sufficient habitat for their conservation. Therefore, NMFS finds that
there are no incremental economic impacts associated with this critical
habitat designation.
Summary of Comments Received in Response to the Proposed Rule
NMFS solicited information and comments from the public (62 FR
6934, February 14, 1997 and 62 FR 66584, December 19, 1997), and
considered all comments received during the public comment period
(ending on February 17, 1998) to make this final determination.
During the comment period, NMFS held three public hearings on the
proposed rule. During the public hearings, five oral testimonies and
nine written comments were received from private citizens, government
officials and environmental organizations. No comments were received on
the proposed rule outside the realm of the public hearings.
The testimony and comments received during the public hearings
generally fell into one of the following categories: (1) Those who were
in favor of the designation as proposed; (2) those who were in favor of
the designation as proposed, but recommended that additional areas be
considered for designation; and (3) those who were in favor of the
designation, but concerned about the possibility of future use
restrictions in the designated areas. Comments are addressed by
category as follows:
Category 1: Those who were in favor of the designation as proposed.
Several comments supported the designation as proposed, discussing the
importance of habitat protection in the proposed areas.
Response: NMFS agrees that habitat protection is vital to the
recovery and conservation of listed species and is, therefore,
designating critical habitat for green and hawksbill turtles as
proposed.
Category 2: Those who were in favor of the designation as proposed,
but recommended that additional areas be considered for designation.
Several commenters recommended that, in addition to the areas proposed
for designation, other areas in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean should be
considered for critical habitat designation as well. One commenter
recommended that Culebra, Mona, and Monito islands be designated for
both green and hawksbill turtles rather than as proposed, and another
commenter asked why NMFS had not considered protection for Vieques
Island, located approximately 9 miles south of Culebra.
Response: NMFS was originally petitioned to designate critical
habitat to include only the waters surrounding the Islands of the
Culebra Archipelago for both green and hawksbill turtles. In the
Federal Register document announcing receipt of the petition (62 FR
6934, February 14, 1997), NMFS requested additional information
regarding other areas in the Caribbean where the designation of
critical habitat for listed sea turtle species may be warranted. During
review of the petition, NMFS determined that there were not enough data
to support the inclusion of Culebra as critical habitat for hawksbill
turtles; however, NMFS determined that there was substantial
information, from other sources, to conclude that Mona and Monito
Islands warranted designation as critical habitat for this species.
NMFS does not have information to support the inclusion of other
areas in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean in this critical habitat
designation. However, when NMFS acquires information to support the
designation of critical habitat for green and hawksbill turtles in
areas not covered by this designation, that information will be
considered and, if warranted, NMFS will propose a modification to this
designation.
Category 3: Those who were in favor of the designation, but
concerned about
[[Page 46698]]
the possibility of future use restrictions in the designated areas. One
commenter expressed concern that future use of the designated areas by
the public, fisherman, and the tourism industry may be restricted.
Response: NMFS has not proposed any special management actions for
the designated critical habitat areas. If NMFS determines that certain
management considerations, such as those listed in the Need for Special
Management Considerations or Protections section of this final rule,
are necessary to sufficiently protect the designated habitat areas,
NMFS will propose a separate regulation, which will include a public
comment period and public hearings.
Critical Habitat; Geographic Extent
NMFS is designating the waters surrounding Culebra, Mona, and
Monito Islands, Puerto Rico, as critical habitat necessary for the
continued survival and recovery of green and hawksbill turtles in the
region. Critical habitat for listed green turtles includes waters
extending seaward 3 nm (5.6 km) from the mean high water line of
Culebra Island, Puerto Rico. These waters include Culebra's outlying
Keys, including Cayo Norte, Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniqui, Isla
Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo de Luis Pena, Las Hermanas, El
Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los Gemelos,
and Piedra Steven (see Figure 1). Culebra Island lies approximately 16
nm (29.7 km) east of the northeast coast of mainland Puerto Rico. The
area in general is bounded north to south by 18 deg.24' North to
18 deg.14' North and east to west by 65 deg.11' West and 65 deg.25'
West.
Critical habitat for listed hawksbill turtles includes waters
extending seaward 3 nm (5.6 km) from the mean high water line of Mona
and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico. (see Figure 2). Mona Island lies
approximately 39 nm (72 km) west of the southwest coast of mainland
Puerto Rico. The area in general is bounded north to south by
18 deg.13' North to 18 deg.00' North and east to west by 67 deg.48'
West and 68 deg.01' West.
Note: Figures 1 and 2 will not be published in the Code of
Federal Regulations.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 46699]]
Figure 1--Critical Habitat for Green Turtles. Critical Habitat
Includes Waters Extending Seaward 3 nm (5.6 km) From the Mean High
Water Line of Isla de Culebra (Culebra Island), Puerto Rico
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02SE98.000
[[Page 46700]]
Figure 2--Critical Habitat for Hawksbill Turtles. Critical Habitat
Includes Waters Extending Seaward 3 nm (5.6 km) From the Mean High
Water Line of Isla de Mona (Mona Island) and Isla Monito (Monito
Island), Puerto Rico
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR02SE98.001
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
[[Page 46701]]
Classification
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA) has determined
that this rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order
(E.O.) 12866.
This rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement
for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
NMFS is designating only areas within the current range of these
sea turtle species as critical habitat; therefore, this designation
will not impose any additional requirements or economic effects upon
small entities, beyond those which may accrue from section 7 of the
ESA. Section 7 requires Federal agencies to insure that any action they
carry out, authorize, or fund is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat (ESA Sec. 7(a)(2)). The consultation
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with
NMFS and ensure their actions do not jeopardize a listed species,
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of habitat
areas outside either species' current range is necessary for
conservation and recovery, NMFS will analyze the incremental costs of
that action and assess its potential impacts on small entities, as
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Accordingly, the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and
Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that the proposed
rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact of a
substantial number of small entities, as described in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. No comments were received regarding this
certification. As a result, no regulatory flexibility analysis was
prepared.
NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 states that critical habitat
designations under the ESA are categorically excluded from the
requirement to prepare an EA or an environmental impact statement.
However, in order to more clearly evaluate the impacts of the critical
habitat designation, NMFS prepared an EA. Copies of the assessment are
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).
References
The complete citations for the references used in this document can
be obtained by contacting Michelle Rogers, NMFS (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226
Endangered and threatened species.
Dated: August 26, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is
amended as follows:
PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
2. Sections 226.72 and 226.73 are added to subpart D to read as
follows:
Sec. 226.72 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas).
(a) Culebra Island, Puerto Rico--Waters surrounding the island of
Culebra from the mean high water line seaward to 3 nautical miles (5.6
km). These waters include Culebra's outlying Keys including Cayo Norte,
Cayo Ballena, Cayos Geniqui, Isla Culebrita, Arrecife Culebrita, Cayo
de Luis Pena, Las Hermanas, El Mono, Cayo Lobo, Cayo Lobito, Cayo
Botijuela, Alcarraza, Los Gemelos, and Piedra Steven.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 226.73 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata).
(a) Mona and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico--Waters surrounding the
islands of Mona and Monito, from the mean high water line seaward to 3
nautical miles (5.6 km).
(b) [Reserved].
[FR Doc. 98-23533 Filed 9-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P