[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63420-63442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25809]



[[Page 63419]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 197

October 12, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition 
Finding, Proposed Listing of Coqu[iacute] Llanero as Endangered, and 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Coqu[iacute] Llanero; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 197 / Wednesday, October 12, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 63420]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2009-0022]
RIN 1018-AX68


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Petition 
Finding, Proposed Listing of Coqu[iacute] Llanero as Endangered, and 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Coqu[iacute] Llanero

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; 12-month finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the coqu[iacute] llanero 
(Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi), an endemic Puerto Rican tree frog, as 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) 
and to designate critical habitat. After review of all available 
scientific and commercial information, we find that listing the 
coqu[iacute] llanero as an endangered species under the Act is 
warranted. Accordingly, we propose to list the coqu[iacute] llanero as 
an endangered species throughout its range and designate critical 
habitat for the species pursuant to the Act. In total, we propose 
approximately 615 acres (249 hectares) of a freshwater wetland for 
designation as critical habitat. The proposed critical habitat is 
located in Sabana Seca Ward, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. This proposed rule, 
if made final, would extend the Act's protections to this species. The 
Service seeks data and comments from the public on this proposed 
listing rule and the designation of critical habitat for the species.

DATES: We will consider comments received or postmarked on or before 
December 12, 2011. We must receive requests for a public hearing, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by November 28, 2011.

ADDRESSES: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
http://www.regulations.gov. Search for Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2009-0022, 
which is the docket number for this rulemaking.
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2009-0022; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This 
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide 
us (see the Information Requested section below for more details).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marelisa Rivera, Deputy Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological 
Services Field Office, P.O. Box 491, Road 301 Km 5.1, Boquer[oacute]n, 
Puerto Rico; by telephone, 787-851-7297, extension 206; or by 
facsimile, 787-851-7440. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Information Requested

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from other concerned Federal and State 
agencies, the scientific community, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    (1) Additional information concerning the historical and current 
status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, 
including the locations of any additional populations of this species.
    (2) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of 
the species, and ongoing conservation measures for the species and its 
habitat.
    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning 
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and regulations that may 
be addressing those threats.
    (4) Current or planned activities in the areas occupied by the 
species and possible impacts of these activities on this species.
    (5) Additional information regarding the threats to the species 
under the five listing factors, which are:
    (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (c) Disease or predation;
    (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
    (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    (6) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as 
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including the possible risks or benefits of designating critical 
habitat, including risks associated with publication of maps 
designating any area on which this species may be located, now or in 
the future, as critical habitat.
    (7) The following specific information on:
    (a) The amount and distribution of habitat for coqu[iacute] 
llanero;
    (b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are 
currently occupied) and that contain the physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of this species, should be 
included in a critical habitat designation and why;
    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be 
needed for the essential features in critical habitat areas, including 
managing for the potential effects of climate change; and
    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of this species and why.
    (8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
changing environmental conditions resulting from climate change on the 
species and its habitat.
    (9) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation; in particular, any impacts on small entities or families, 
and the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these 
impacts.
    (10) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    (11) Information on whether the benefits of an exclusion of any 
particular area outweigh the benefits of inclusion under section 
4(b)(2) of the Act.
    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or 
opposition to the action under consideration without providing 
supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in 
making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 
determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened 
species must be made ``solely on the basis of the best scientific and 
commercial data available.''
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit 
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the 
Web site. If your

[[Page 63421]]

submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying 
information, you may request at the top of your document that we 
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy 
submissions on http://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient 
information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or 
commercial information you include.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act requires that, for any petition to 
revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and 
Plants that contains substantial scientific or commercial information 
that listing a species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 
months of the date of receipt of the petition on whether the petitioned 
action is: (a) Not warranted; (b) warranted; or (3) warranted, but the 
immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action 
is precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether any 
species is endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being 
made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. In this document, we 
have determined that the petitioned action to list coqu[iacute] llanero 
is warranted, and we are publishing a proposed rule to list the species 
and to designate critical habitat for the species.

Previous Federal Actions

    On May 22, 2007, we received a petition, dated May 11, 2007, from 
the Caribbean Primate Research Center (CPRC) (CPRC 2007, pp. 1-29) 
requesting that coqu[iacute] llanero be listed as endangered under the 
Act. The petition also requested that we designate critical habitat 
concurrently with listing, if listing occurs. In a letter to the 
petitioner dated July 23, 2007, we acknowledged receipt of the petition 
and also stated that (1) We would not be able to address the petition 
until funding became available, and (2) actions requested by this 
petition were precluded by court orders and settlement agreements for 
other listing actions that required nearly all of our listing funds for 
the current (2007) fiscal year.
    On January 22, 2009, we received an amended petition dated and 
signed by the petitioner on January 13, 2009. The amended petition 
included updated information on current threats to the species and its 
habitat (CPRC 2009, pp. 1-19). On July 8, 2009, we published in the 
Federal Register (74 FR 32510) our finding that the petition to list 
coqu[iacute] llanero presented substantial information indicating that 
the requested action may be warranted, and we initiated a status review 
of the species.
    In this document, we present our 12-month finding on the petition, 
and we also propose listing the species as endangered and propose to 
designate critical habitat for the species.

Species Information

Species Biology
    Coqu[iacute] llanero is an endemic Puerto Rican tree frog. 
Coqu[iacute] llanero is the smallest and only known herbaceous wetland 
specialist within the taxonomic genus Eleutherodactylus in Puerto Rico 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 62). It has a mean snout-
vent length of 0.58 inches (in.) (14.7 millimeters (mm)) in males and 
0.62 in. (15.8 mm) in females. The nares (nasal passages) are prominent 
and a ridge connects them behind the snout tip, giving the tip a 
somewhat squared appearance. The species has well-developed glands 
throughout its body; its dorsal coloration is yellow to yellowish brown 
with a light, longitudinal, reversed comma mark on each side; and its 
mid-dorsal zone is broadly bifurcated (divided into two branches) 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 55). The species' 
communication call consists of a series of short, high-pitched notes 
with call duration varying from 4 to 21 seconds. The advertisement call 
has the highest frequency among all Puerto Rican Eleutherodactylus, 
between 7.38 and 8.28 kilohertz (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 
2007, p. 61). The calling activity starts at approximately 4:30 p.m. 
and decreases significantly before midnight.
    Coqu[iacute] llanero is insectivorous (feeds on small insects). The 
species has been observed to reproduce only on the plant Sagittaria 
lancifolia (CPRC 2009, p. 4). Egg clutches were found on leaf axils (21 
egg clutches) or leaf surfaces (3 egg clutches) of only S. lancifolia 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60) within the wetland 
area. Coqu[iacute] llanero has the lowest reproductive output of any 
coqu[iacute] species in Puerto Rico; egg clutches are comprised of one 
to five eggs and are found on leaf axils or leaf surfaces between 1.3 
feet (ft) (0.4 meters (m)) and 3.9 ft (1.2 m) above water level 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, pp. 53-62). Observers did 
not witness parental care in the field (CPRC 2009, p. 5).
Genetics and Taxonomy
    Coqu[iacute] llanero was first collected by Neftal[iacute] 
R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Richard Thomas in 2005. In 2007, 
coqu[iacute] llanero was described as a new species of the genus 
Eleutherodactylus, family Leptodactylidae. Although the coqu[iacute] 
llanero is similar to Eleutherodactylus gryllus, differences in 
morphological ratios, body coloration, call frequency and structure, 
DNA, and habitat association indicate that it is a well-differentiated 
species (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, pp. 53-60; CPRC 
2009, p. 1). Coqu[iacute] llanero is the only known herbaceous wetland 
specialist within the taxonomic genus Eleutherodactylus in Puerto Rico 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 62).
Distribution and Habitat
    The habitat of coqu[iacute] llanero is located within the 
subtropical moist forest life zone (tropical and subtropical forest 
ecosystems) (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, pp. 20-38). This life zone (areas 
with similar plant and animal communities) covers about 60.5 percent of 
the total area of Puerto Rico (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 9). The 
species appears to be an obligate marsh dweller (R[iacute]os-
L[oacute]pez 2007, p. 195). Coqu[iacute] llanero has been found only in 
freshwater, herbaceous, wetland habitat at 55.8-ft (17-m) elevation 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60). The National Wetland 
Inventory (NWI) classifies the majority of this wetland as palustrine. 
Palustrine wetlands are non-tidal wetlands, where the salinity due to 
ocean-derived salts is less than 0.5 [permil] parts per thousand (ppt) 
and the emergent vegetation is persistent seasonally flooded having 
surface water present for extended periods during the growing season. 
The soils of this wetland consist of swamp and marsh organic deposits 
from Pleistocene or recent origin or both (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and 
Thomas 2007, p. 60). The species' habitat may represent a relic of an 
endemic seasonally to permanently flooded, herbaceous, wetland habitat 
type (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 63). Herbaceous 
vegetation in this habitat shows a species composition consisting of 
Blechnum serrulatum (toothed midsorus fern), Thelypteris interrupta 
(willdenow's maiden fern), Sagittaria lancifolia (bulltongue 
arrowhead), Cyperus sp. (flatsedges), Eleocharis sp. (spike rushes), 
and vines and grasses

[[Page 63422]]

(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60). The majority of 
coqu[iacute] llaneros have been found perching and calling on the 
toothed midsorus fern and willdenow's maiden fern. At the time the 
species was first discovered, all the individuals collected were 
perching, sitting, or calling on herbaceous vegetation, mainly on 
ferns.
    Coqu[iacute] llanero was first collected by Neftal[iacute] 
R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Richard Thomas in 2005 from a freshwater, 
herbaceous wetland on the closed U.S. Naval Security Group Activity 
Sabana Seca (USNSGASS) property and the Caribbean Primate Research 
Center (CPRC) of Medical Sciences Campus, University of Puerto Rico, 
Toa Baja, Puerto Rico (PR). This wetland area is considered as the 
``type location'' (similar location) because the species was first 
collected and described from this area.
    At the time the frog was described, it was known to occur at the 
Ingenio Sector in the Sabana Seca Ward, Toa Baja, a municipality of 
Puerto Rico located on the northern coast, north of Toa Alta and 
Bayam[oacute]n, east of Dorado, and west of Cata[ntilde]o, 
approximately 12 miles (mi) (20 kilometers (km)) from San Juan, PR. The 
coqu[iacute] llanero is now documented on lands owned or managed by 
three entities. One area, the closed USNSGASS, is comprised of 
approximately 865 ac (350.1 ha). Of these 865 ac (350.1 ha), the 
coqu[iacute] llanero has been documented on 260 ac (105 ha) of wetlands 
within these lands. Further, coqu[iacute] llanero has been found in a 
wetland area that comprises approximately 258 ac (104 ha) and is 
currently military reservation lands adjacent to the closed military 
facility (Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, p. 3-1). In addition, 
approximately 97 ac (39 ha) of wetlands owned by the University of 
Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Land Authority have coqu[iacute] 
llanero present. Thus, at the present time, the coqu[iacute] llanero is 
known to occur on a total of 615 ac (249 ha) (Geo-Marine 2002, pp. 2-
13; R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60; Joglar 2007, p. 2; 
Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, p. 3-2; PR Land Authority 2011, 
unpublished data; Service 2011, unpublished data). The type locality 
(geographical location where species is known to occur) wetland where 
coqu[iacute] llanero occurred was an area used by the USNSGASS between 
the late 1930s and early 1940s for military purposes during World War 
II (U.S. Navy 2006, p. 3-2). Since then, the habitat of coqu[iacute] 
llanero within this area has experienced little disturbance due to 
restricted access of people and the limited development of military 
facilities (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2007, p. 196).
    Coqu[iacute] llanero's limited range may reflect a remnant 
population of a once widely distributed herbaceous wetland specialist 
whose habitat was decimated by historic land uses (R[iacute]os-
L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 62). During European colonization, 
land was extensively drained and modified for agricultural practices. A 
shift in the Puerto Rican economy from agriculture to industry led to 
land abandonment, and most of these lands were invaded by herbaceous 
vegetation or converted for urban development. R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 
and Thomas (2007, p. 63) indicated that recent surveys conducted in 
wetlands near the current known population of coqu[iacute] llanero 
failed to locate the species and that, apparently, there are few or no 
wetlands with plant composition similar to that found in the species' 
type locality wetland. R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez (2009, p. 4) also 
visited several nearby coastal palustrine wetlands in Cata[ntilde]o 
(Bacardi Factory area) to the east of the type locality wetland, all 
major regions of Toa Baja (within the same municipality of the type 
locality wetland), towards the west along several of the coastal 
municipalities (Dorado, Vega Alta, Manat[iacute], Vega Baja and Camuy), 
and Mayag[uuml]ez on the west side of the island. All of these areas 
were selected based on similar hydrogeological information provided by 
Geographic Information System experts from the Puerto Rico Department 
of Natural and Environmental Resources (PRDNER). Even though some of 
these wetlands would seem to provide suitable habitat for the 
coqu[iacute] llanero, the species was not detected in any of the 
locations. Joglar (2007, p. 1) also visited other areas outside of the 
known type locality wetland, including the North Tract in Sabana Seca 
(USNSGASS) and other localities in Toa Baja and Las Cucharillas in 
Cata[ntilde]o, all in northern Puerto Rico. Coqu[iacute] llanero was 
not detected at any of these locations.
    Using the NWI maps, EGIS, Inc. conducted a limited search for 
potential suitable coqu[iacute] llanero habitat outside of the type 
locality wetland, using Sagittaria lancifolia as an indicator (EGIS 
2007, p. 21). They selected 15 sites within the freshwater emergent and 
forested/shrub wetland designations. They found extensive growth of S. 
lancifolia in only one of these localities. Tortuguero Lagoon is 
another freshwater wetland also mentioned to contain S. lancifolia. 
R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez also searched for the coqu[iacute] llanero 
within this lagoon but found no coqu[iacute] llanero activity. In 
addition, EGIS included in their report a herbarium list from the 
University of Puerto Rico that specifies 11 localities where S. 
lancifolia was found (EGIS 2007, Appendix E). Some of these localities 
are within coqu[iacute] llanero's type locality wetland, and others 
have already been searched for coqu[iacute] llanero activity without 
positive results.
    Coqu[iacute] llanero was estimated to occur on approximately 445 ac 
(180 ha) when first discovered and described. Joglar (2007, p. 2) 
conducted additional surveys and estimated the distribution of the 
species to be approximately 504.5 ac (204 ha). The Service has 
estimated the palustrine herbaceous wetland area where the coqu[iacute] 
llanero is now found to be about 615 ac (249 ha) (Service 2011, 
unpublished data).
    Vega-Castillo (2011) conducted diurnal and nocturnal surveys in 
wetland areas and channels located between PR Road-867 and PR Road-165 
to the north of where coqu[iacute] llanero is currently found while 
evaluating the proposed alignment for a natural gas pipeline. These 
surveys were conducted during January 2011, using recorded male calling 
(Vega-Castillo 2011, pp. 9-12). During this period, Vega-Castillo 
(2011) detected at least 6 individuals of coqu[iacute] llanero 
vocalizing at the edge of a vegetated drainage channel that is a 
tributary of the Cocal River. The location where these individuals were 
reported is located about 1.7 mi (2.7 km) northwest from the area where 
coqu[iacute] llanero are known to currently inhabit. This area is 
mainly dominated by pasture (Vega-Castillo 2011, p. 12). In March 2011, 
Service biologists conducted several site visits to the area to confirm 
the report. In addition, the Service installed a recorder for a 24-hour 
period in March 2011, to detect individuals vocalizing in the area. 
However, the Service did not detect the species in this area. Based on 
the Service's observations, the area is highly degraded, is dominated 
by lands converted to pasture and burned, and is not considered in the 
total habitat occupied by coqu[iacute] llanero.
    Although the petition reports an average of 181 individuals per 
acre (450 individuals per hectare) (CPRC 2009, p. 5), at the present 
time, no current population estimates are available for the species.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Threat Factors

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more

[[Page 63423]]

of the following five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat 
factors, singly or in combination. Each of these factors is discussed 
below.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species, 
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor 
to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way 
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a 
factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat 
and, during our review, we attempt to determine how significant a 
threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes 
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species 
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined 
in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a 
species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the 
species warrants listing. The information must include evidence 
sufficient to suggest that these factors are operative threats that act 
on the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of 
endangered or threatened under the Act.

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

    The coqu[iacute] llanero was discovered in 2005. Additional on-the-
ground surveys based upon habitat characteristics revealed no 
additional populations. As a result, we do not know if the historical 
range of the species may be different from its present, known range. 
Thus, we are able to present and discuss only potential factors that 
may affect the current habitat or range of coqu[iacute] llanero in this 
section, including: (1) Urban development; (2) operation and possible 
expansion of a go-kart and motorbike race track in coqu[iacute] llanero 
wetland habitat; (3) contamination from the Toa Baja Municipal Landfill 
(TBML); (4) habitat degradation for flood control projects; and (5) 
competition from invasive wetland plant species.
Urban Development
    Coqu[iacute] llanero and its habitat are threatened by large-scale 
residential projects that are currently planned within and around the 
site where the species is known to occur (Gonz[aacute]lez 2010, pers. 
comm.; R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2010, pers. comm.). The most 
significant portion of this habitat falls within the southern portion 
of the USNSGASS. The USNSGASS land comprises approximately 2,195 ac 
(888 ha), which is divided into two large areas: the North and South 
Tracts. The North Tract accounts for approximately 1,330 ac (538 ha), 
with the majority of land currently leased to a local cattle farmer. 
The South Tract comprises approximately 865 ac (350 ha) and is where 
the coqu[iacute] llanero is known to occur on 260 ac (105 ha).
    The U.S. Navy (USNSGASS) is disposing the property in accordance 
with Section 2801 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 
Fiscal Year 1996 (FY1996), Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 186 (10 U.S.C. 
2871-2885), as amended. Section 2801 of NDAA provides the authority to 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to work with the private sector 
nationwide, in order to build and renovate family housing and ancillary 
facilities in key areas of need. The Navy is conveying approximately 
2,075 ac (840 ha) of the property to a private entity, Sabana Seca Land 
Management (SSLM), LLC, which is associated with the Navy's Public 
Private Venture partnership for military family housing (Tec Inc. and 
AH Environmental 2008, p. ES-1). SSLM will market and sell the closed 
Navy base property to non-Federal entities through Forest City 
Enterprises, Inc.
    The environmental assessment (EA) for the transfer-disposal of 
USNSGASS property states that the property disposed of by the Navy 
would be redeveloped in a manner similar to surrounding areas (Tec Inc. 
and AH Environmental 2008, p. 4-1). According to the EA, the preferred 
alternative for the wetland area that contains occupied coqu[iacute] 
llanero habitat is residential use (Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, 
p. 2-2). Furthermore, the coqu[iacute] llanero wetland habitat is not 
within the areas that would be zoned for conservation by the Toa Baja 
municipality, and, according to their land-use plan, they intend to 
zone the wetland area for residential development. Also, coqu[iacute] 
llanero wetland habitat is not within the parcels to be conveyed to the 
University of Puerto Rico to be protected in perpetuity.
    The ultimate reuse of the USNSGASS property would be determined by 
the non-Federal entities receiving the property from SSLM and Forest 
City Enterprises, Inc. The EA explains that the development within 
wetlands and the magnitude of the impacts that could occur, if such 
development was permitted, would be dependent upon the actual placement 
of new residential areas and the amount of wetland removal or 
alteration allowed for site development (Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 
2008, p. 4-15). Possible impacts (approximately 221 ac (89 ha) of 
palustrine emergent wetlands (Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, p. 4-
16)) could occur by draining and filling these wetlands, which are 
occupied by coqu[iacute] llanero, leaving little to no suitable habitat 
for coqu[iacute] llanero to carry out its life-history processes. In 
addition, filling the wetlands for future development could require 
Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) Section 404 permits from 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). If the species is listed, and 
the development would likely adversely affect the species, consultation 
under section 7 of the Act would be conducted between the Corps and the 
Service.
    Nevertheless, prior to the discovery of coqu[iacute] llanero, land 
use-history for this area has shown that urban and commercial 
development has adversely impacted wetland resources, and although not 
documented, presumably affected coqu[iacute] llanero individuals and 
its habitat. An example of those impacts is the fill of a freshwater 
emergent wetland for residential housing at the western end of current 
coqu[iacute] llanero habitat (Zegarra and Pacheco 2010, personal 
observation). The wetland where coqu[iacute] llanero is currently known 
to be present was previously impacted by the construction and 
maintenance of Redman Road. This road was constructed in an area 
identified in the NWI maps as freshwater emergent and forested shrub 
wetlands and its construction interrupted the natural flow of water and 
affected the hydrology of the wetland. Further adverse effects to the 
same wetland habitat can be observed in the residential community that 
exists on the boundary of the closed USNSGASS property near the 
intersection of PR Road-867 and Redman Road. This community has 
expanded over the past 40 years and presently consists of approximately 
50 houses, 20 of which are on Navy property (U.S. Navy 2000 in Tec Inc. 
and AH Environmental 2008, p. 3-4). Prior to the closure of the 
USNSGASS, the Navy was planning to construct a new fence on the 
property to eliminate further encroachment on its land

[[Page 63424]]

holdings (Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, p. 3-6).
    Implementing the preferred alternative of the EA for the disposal 
of the USNSGASS property may result in the destruction of approximately 
416 ac (168 ha) of wetlands, including coqu[iacute] llanero habitat 
(Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, p. 4-5). Additionally, 
implementing the preferred alternative would most likely result in new 
residential development (Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, p. 4-6). 
According to the Puerto Rican Planning Board (PRPB) Web site, 11 
development projects are under evaluation around the southern section 
of the wetland currently occupied by coqu[iacute] llanero, possibly 
impacting a total of 1,087 ac (440 ha) (http://www.jp.gobierno.pr, 
accessed online February 2010). Urban development adjacent to the 
wetland would fragment and directly impact coqu[iacute] llanero 
suitable habitat and would limit the species' population expansion in 
the area. In addition, with the creation of new residential projects, 
traffic would be expected to increase, and thus, the three primary 
roadways surrounding the USNSGASS would likely require some 
improvements (Tec Inc. and AH Environmental 2008, p. 4-6). Vehicle 
traffic on roads within the essential habitat of amphibian species can 
be a direct source of mortality and, in some instances, can be 
catastrophic and should not be underestimated (Glista et al. 2007, p. 
85). According to Janice Gonz[aacute]les, Director of the CPRC, 
approximately 30 CPRC employees drive vehicles on Redman Road daily as 
it is currently the main access road to the CPRC (Gonz[aacute]les 2010, 
pers. comm.). Any improvement of the road or increase in traffic may 
affect the suitability of the wetland. The biological effects to 
coqu[iacute] llanero from the existing road network around the southern 
section of the wetlands are not well understood. The combination of 
habitat fragmentation and high vehicle use of the roads may negatively 
impact coqu[iacute] llanero and its habitat through loss of habitat 
connectivity, degradation of water quality, direct mortality, edge 
effect of road and wetland, and changes in hydrology.
    For these reasons, we conclude that urban development and 
associated infrastructure and human use is a significant threat to 
coqu[iacute] llanero by direct mortality and due to permanent loss, 
fragmentation, or alteration of its habitat.
Go-Kart and Motorbike Race Track
    Although the Service does not have information regarding the 
specific date of the construction of the existing race track, we 
estimate that approximately 29 ac (12 ha) of freshwater emergent and 
forested shrub wetlands were impacted. These data were quantified using 
Geographic Information Systems analysis with aerial photography and the 
NWI layers. The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental 
Resources (PRDNER) provided a photograph of coqu[iacute] llanero 
habitat that was filled by the construction of the race track (PRDNER 
2007b, p. 25). It is also evident that the race track floods during 
heavy rain events and serves as a potential source of contamination 
with oil, gasoline, and other pollutants, affecting the suitability of 
adjacent coqu[iacute] llanero habitat (PRDNER 2007b, p. 25). The 
possible effects of waterborne contaminants on coqu[iacute] llanero are 
discussed under Factor E.
    Comments submitted by SSLM (2009, p. 4) expressed concern when the 
operators of the race track removed soil to expand the parking lot. The 
soil was deposited on the USNSGASS grounds, affecting coqu[iacute] 
llanero habitat by filling part of the wetland. Joglar (2007, p. 2) 
identified the wetland area contiguous to the race track as occupied by 
coqu[iacute] llanero.
    Therefore, we conclude that any further expansion of the race track 
or its operation may potentially impact coqu[iacute] llanero by 
permanent loss, alteration, or contamination of its habitat.
Toa Baja Municipal Landfill (TBML)
    The current operation of the Toa Baja Municipal Landfill (TBML) 
constitutes a threat to coqu[iacute] llanero. The landfill is located 
inland on top of a limestone hill 0.5 mi (0.8 km) south of known 
coqu[iacute] llanero habitat. The polluted discharge or run-off waters 
from the continued operation of the landfill may pose a serious threat 
to the species because underground contaminated waters and leachates 
reaching the wetlands may change water quality, soils, and consequently 
plant composition (CPRC 2009, pp. 6-9). See discussion below under 
Factor E.
    The legal representative for the Toa Baja Municipal Administration 
sent a letter to the Service dated September 8, 2009, supporting the 
listing of coqu[iacute] llanero as endangered and supporting the PRDNER 
Essential Critical Natural Habitat delineation except for one 83 ac 
(33.6 ha) parcel necessary for the implementation of the TBML closure 
activities ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
According to a PRDNER technical assistance letter dated February 26, 
2010 (PRDNER 2010, pp. 1-6), another area on the north side of the TBML 
is also being considered for use in the landfill closure activities. 
This area, identified as Area B by the Puerto Rico Environmental 
Quality Board (EQB), is located within the PRDNER's designated 
Essential Critical Natural Habitat for the coqu[iacute] llanero. 
Activities identified in the closure procedures will direct the TBML 
stormwater drainages towards the wetland. Stormwater that drains from 
the TBML currently flows into coqu[iacute] llanero habitat and is 
contaminated with leachate (see Factor E discussion). In addition, the 
TBML closure measures would modify the hydrology of the area and could 
adversely affect the hydrology of the coqu[iacute] llanero wetland by 
affecting part of the limestone hills, which supply water to the 
wetland and affect the suitability of habitat for the species.
    Therefore, we conclude that the current operation and the possible 
closure measures of the TBML are a threat to the coqu[iacute] llanero 
by potentially altering the hydrology of its wetland habitat and by 
contaminating the wetland with the landfill run-off.
Channel-Clearing Activities for Flood Control
    The municipality of Toa Baja periodically removes riparian 
vegetation along the main drainage channel within the wetland where the 
coqu[iacute] llanero is known to occur. These flood control measures 
are implemented during the rainy season to facilitate water flow and 
prevent flooding of nearby communities including Ingenio, Villas del 
Sol, and Brisas de Campanero. However, channel-clearing activities may 
facilitate drainage and drying of the wetland and accelerate 
colonization of invasive, herbaceous vegetation along the edges of the 
channel towards the wetland (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2009, p. 3). 
Preliminary studies on the reproductive biology of coqu[iacute] llanero 
suggest that wetland areas subjected to prolonged dry periods (e.g., 
towards the edges of wetland) are characterized by greater vegetation 
cover of grasses instead of the native ferns and arrowheads that the 
coqu[iacute] llanero depends on for reproduction and survival. These 
areas also have a disproportionate abundance of coqu[iacute] llanero 
egg clutch predators, both native and exotic mollusks and insects 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2009, pp. 3, 11).
    Therefore, we conclude that channel-clearing activities may be an 
indirect threat to the coqu[iacute] llanero because they prolong dryer 
conditions along the edges of the wetland, allowing invasive plants and 
predators to colonize the wetland.

[[Page 63425]]

Invasive Wetland Plant Species
    Invasive, native wetland plants such as Typha domingensis (Southern 
cattail) may invade and alter diverse native wetland communities, often 
resulting in plant monocultures that support few wildlife species 
(Houlahan and Findlay 2004, p. 1132). Southern cattail may alter the 
wetland attributes, including geomorphology, fire regime, hydrology, 
microclimate, nutrient cycling, and productivity (Woo and Zedler 2002, 
p. 509). Based on our previous experience in the Laguna Cartagena 
National Wildlife Refuge, the southern cattail colonized disturbed 
areas faster than other native wetland plants, thereby excluding the 
other native plants. The southern cattail is currently found in patches 
within the coqu[iacute] llanero wetland habitat (Service 2011, pers. 
obs.). If the southern cattail continues to spread and colonizes the 
coqu[iacute] llanero wetland habitat, it could replace all Sagittaria 
lancifolia and the ferns that the coqu[iacute] depends on for 
reproduction and normal behavior.
    Therefore, we conclude that invasive wetland species are a threat 
to the coqu[iacute] llanero due to changes in the wetland hydrology and 
plant species composition the coqu[iacute] llanero needs for survival.
Summary of Factor A
    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, 
we consider the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' habitat or range to be a high-magnitude and 
ongoing (imminent) threat to the coqu[iacute] llanero. We believe that 
the species is currently threatened by urban development, by the 
operation of the existing race track, by activities associated with the 
operation and future closure of the TBML, by channel-clearing 
activities for flood control, and by invasive plant species. The scope 
of this factor is exacerbated because the only known population of 
coqu[iacute] llanero occurs on land that is slated for development and 
surrounded by lands subject to urban development. Because these threats 
are already occurring on the extremely localized known range of the 
coqu[iacute] llanero, they are having or are likely to have a 
significant impact on the species.

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Coqu[iacute] llanero is not a commercially valuable species or a 
species sought after for recreational or educational purposes. However, 
this recently discovered tree frog species could be actively sought for 
scientific purposes. Forty-five coqu[iacute] llanero specimens were 
collected for scientific purposes in 2005, to describe the species, and 
some specimens have been deposited in universities and private 
collections (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 54). In 
addition, an undisclosed number of eggs and individuals were collected 
for scientific research of the species' reproductive biology, potential 
captive breeding capability, and pathogen sampling. While scientific 
collecting had been identified as a possible contribution to the 
decline of other coqu[iacute] species in Puerto Rico (Burrowes and 
Joglar 1991, p. 45), Commonwealth Law 241 and PRDNER Regulation 6766 
promulgated in 2007 have prohibited collection of coqu[iacute] llanero 
without authorization (PRDNER 2007a, p. 9). Currently, the species 
occurs in a closed area where access to the roads within the property 
is limited to Caribbean Primate Research Center (CPRC), University of 
Puerto Rico (U of PR), USNSGASS, and only permitted scientific research 
personnel (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2011, unpublished data).
    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, 
we do not consider overutilization for commercial, recreational, 
scientific or educational purposes to presently be a significant threat 
to coqu[iacute] llanero. Currently, only a few researchers are working 
with the species, and collection is regulated by PRDNER. Therefore, 
coqu[iacute] llanero is not threatened by overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

    The pathogenic chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), 
is a widespread pathogen that is hypothesized to be the cause of mass 
mortality in some amphibian populations (Pilliod et al., 2009, p. 
1260). Chytridiomycosis (disease cause by the fungus) results when Bd 
invades keratinized tissue (tissue that makes the outside of the skin 
tough and resistant to injury) of an amphibian, disrupting cutaneous 
functions, compromising the host's immune system, and affecting the 
amphibian's behavior (Pilliod et al., 2009, p. 1260). In Puerto Rico, 
it appears to be endemic above 1968.5 ft (600 m), occurring from 
eastern Luquillo Mountains (El Yunque National Forest), throughout the 
Central Cordillera up to Maricao (Burrowes et al. 2008, p. 322); 
however, this range is outside of the only known location where 
coqu[iacute] llanero occurs (see Species Information). Five 
coqu[iacute] llanero individuals have been sampled for Bd, with 
negative results (Burrowes et al. 2008, p. 323). Although Bd has been 
detected at lower elevations in other tropical environments, the best 
scientific and commercial information available for coqu[iacute] 
llanero indicates that Bd is not a current threat to this species nor 
is it likely to become so in the near future, even taking into 
consideration changing environmental conditions due to climate change 
(see discussion under Factor E).
    New information submitted by R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez (2009, p. 11) 
indicates that natural predation pressure may be strong and that 
interspecific competition for breeding sites may be significant. 
Preliminary data indicated that coqu[iacute] lanero has the lowest 
reproductive output of any coqu[iacute] species in Puerto Rico, 
averaging three eggs per clutch (PRDNER 2007a, p. 3; R[iacute]os-
L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60; R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2009, p. 
5). Egg predation by native and exotic invertebrates was observed, with 
some predators consuming entire egg masses in 3 days.
    We conclude that the best scientific and commercial information 
available indicates, at the present time, that coqu[iacute] llanero is 
not currently threatened by any disease. However, predation is a threat 
to coqu[iacute] llanero, particularly at the dryer edges of the 
wetland, and could be exacerbated by the destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of the species' habitat (see discussion under Factor A). 
The information available suggests that flooded conditions may limit 
predation pressure against coqu[iacute] llanero. Therefore, based on 
the best scientific and commercial information available to us, we 
conclude that predation is a threat to the continued existence of the 
species.

Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Puerto Rico DNER designated coqu[iacute] llanero as Critically 
Endangered and designated its habitat as Essential Critical Natural 
Habitat under Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 6766 in July 2007 
(PRDNER 2007a and 2007b). Article 2 of Regulation 6766 includes all 
prohibitions and states that the designation as ``critically 
endangered'' prohibits any person from taking the species; it prohibits 
harm, possession, transportation, destruction, or import or export of 
individuals, nests, eggs, or juveniles without previous authorization 
from the Secretary of PRDNER (PRDNER 2007a, p. 9). The Puerto Rico DNER 
also designated approximately 1,602 ac (648 ha) as ``essential critical 
natural habitat'' under Regulation 6766 (PRDNER 2007b, p. 28).

[[Page 63426]]

Article 4.05 of this regulation specifies that an area designated as 
Essential Critical Natural Habitat cannot be modified unless scientific 
studies determine that such designation should be changed. Because 
coqu[iacute] llanero habitat is the first to be designated as Essential 
Critical Natural Habitat under Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 
6766, the effective level of protection this law will provide is 
unknown. SSLM brought a lawsuit against the PRDNER for the critical 
habitat designation process of coqu[iacute] llanero. Although PRDNER's 
critical habitat designation process was upheld, the ruling is 
currently under review by Puerto Rico's Supreme Court. Presently, both 
of PRDNER's designations are valid and in regulation.
    Based on the best scientific and commercial information available 
and the uncertainty of the level of protection the existing laws will 
provide, we consider the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
to be a threat to coqu[iacute] llanero.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued 
Existence

    In the following section we discuss the highly specialized 
ecological requirements of the species, as well as water and soil 
pollution, use of herbicides, brush fires, competition, climate change, 
and human use and access of the wetland area.
Highly Specialized Ecological Requirements
    Because of its highly specialized ecological requirements for 
reproduction, coqu[iacute] llanero's vulnerability to other threats 
discussed in this rule is exacerbated. As mentioned in the Background 
section, coqu[iacute] llanero is known to exist in only one freshwater 
wetland in the municipality of Toa Baja, and after several searches in 
other similar locations (apparently there are few or no wetlands with 
similar plant composition), the species was not detected. R[iacute]os-
L[oacute]pez and Thomas (2007, p. 60) found that the breeding events of 
coqu[iacute] llanero were limited to one plant species, Sagittaria 
lancifolia. S. lancifolia is an obligate wetland species indicator, and 
a general description of the major substrate types of the wetland where 
the coqu[iacute] llanero currently inhabits indicates a 7.4 percent 
vegetation cover of S. lancifolia (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2009, p. 
9). Coqu[iacute] llanero may also be selecting an intermediate S. 
lancifolia size class for egg laying, which suggests further 
specialization (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2010, unpubl. data, p. 8). 
Also, current research by R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez (2010, unpubl. data, 
p. 11) suggests that reproduction may not occur randomly in space, but 
rather seems to be limited to plants located in areas of little 
disturbance, in areas that are permanently flooded, and in areas that 
are away from the wetland's edges.
    In summary, we believe that the highly specialized ecological 
requirements of coqu[iacute] llanero exacerbate its vulnerability to 
other threats, such that the continued existence of the species is 
likely to be impacted. Characteristics of the species, such as its 
limited distribution (currently found in only one freshwater wetland 
with a distinct vegetation composition) and the fact that it has the 
lowest reproductive output of all coqu[iacute] species in Puerto Rico 
heighten the effects of other threats as described in this rule. In 
addition, considering that coqu[iacute] llanero uses only the 
Sagittaria lancifolia for reproduction, it may limit the species' 
ability to expand to other wetland areas.
Water and Soil Pollution
    CPRC (2009, p. 6), PRDNER (2007b, p. 24), EGIS (2007, p. 4), and 
Joglar (2007, p. 6) identify the TBML leachates as a threat to 
coqu[iacute] llanero. This landfill is located on the limestone hills 
to the south of the wetland known to be occupied by coqu[iacute] 
llanero. CPRC submitted to EGIS a photograph of contaminated leachates 
draining towards the wetland habitat of coqu[iacute] llanero. The 
leachate study submitted by EGIS describes the hydrology of the area as 
typical of karst (an area of limestone terrene characterized by sinks, 
ravines, and underground streams) zones near the coast, in which the 
run-off generated in the limestone hills, including at the TBML, flows 
at or near the surface, through a series of channels and small valleys, 
until the flow reaches the marshes and wetlands areas (including 
coqu[iacute] llanero habitat) at the north (EGIS 2007, Appendix B, p. 
7). The study specifies that a dark-colored leachate is currently 
flowing from the TBML towards the closed USNSGASS property, and that 
even during periods of drought, the leachate flows continuously towards 
the USNSGASS property, with flows increasing during rain events (EGIS 
2007, Appendix B, p. 23). The leachate study identified high levels of 
arsenic, cyanide, sodium, lead, and chromium, among other elements. 
There does not seem to be much indication of petroleum-related 
concerns, although sampling more strategically near the race track 
facility could more accurately assess this contamination impact 
relative to coqu[iacute] llanero habitat (EGIS 2007, p. 5).
    Additional analytical laboratory results at other threat zones 
associated with the wetland indicate elevation of certain heavy metals, 
coliform bacteria, chemical oxygen demand, and pesticides (EGIS 2007, 
p. 18). High coliform bacteria counts could be from several sources, 
such as septic systems or the CPRC (EGIS 2007, p. 5). Of particular 
concern is the possibility of bioaccumulation of toxins throughout the 
wetland food chain (PRDNER 2007b, p. 24). It is highly probable that 
the contaminated conditions represented in the soil and standing water 
would not be hospitable to a sensitive amphibian species such as 
coqu[iacute] llanero that absorbs chemicals through the skin (EGIS 
2007, p. 5). Such chemicals could directly affect the coqu[iacute] 
llanero's development, cause abnormalities, or act indirectly by 
increasing the coqu[iacute] llanero's susceptibility to other 
environmental stressors such as infectious disease and predation 
(Taylor et al., 2005, p. 1497). We have no information indicating any 
negative response of the species to soil and water pollution; however, 
we consider water and soil pollution a potential threat to the species 
at this time.
Herbicides
    CPRC (2009, p. 7) identifies the use of herbicides in the closed 
USNSGASS, as part of the maintenance work on the grounds, as a current 
threat to the species. However, SSLM (2009, p. 9) claims that it does 
not use herbicides on the borders of the wetland as part of maintenance 
work on the USNSGASS property, and that the practice of using 
herbicides is not in accordance with its institutional environmental 
policies and the activities authorized to SSLM at the USNSGASS by the 
Navy. During a site visit, there were no signs that herbicides are 
being used along Redman Road within the area where coqu[iacute] llanero 
occurs on the USNSGASS, and a conversation with R[iacute]os-
L[oacute]pez (2011 pers. comm.) confirmed that the practice has 
apparently ceased.
    Nevertheless, herbicides may still be able to enter into the 
wetland because of possible herbicide use in the urban housing areas 
near coqu[iacute] llanero habitat. These herbicides could cause 
developmental abnormalities (e.g., limb malformations) to the 
coqu[iacute] llanero. In fact, pesticides have been known to be 
dispersed through precipitation and wind (Sparling et al. 2001, p. 
1595; Fellers et al. 2004, p. 2176). Other research suggests that 
important changes in an ecological community's food web result from 
pesticide and herbicide exposure, which influence the susceptibility of 
amphibian species to

[[Page 63427]]

contaminants (Boone and James 2003, p. 829). We have no information 
indicating any negative response of the species to herbicides; however, 
we consider the use of herbicides in the surrounding area as a 
potential threat to the species at this time.
Brush Fires
    Brush fires have been identified as a current threat to the species 
(CPRC 2009, p. 6). SSLM (2009, p. 9) mentioned that the only fire 
incidents reported since 2007 have occurred on the North Tract of the 
USNSGASS and were limited to two or three incidents per year during the 
drought season. Coqu[iacute] llanero habitat is surrounded by several 
developments (race track and urban housing) that facilitate exposure 
and invasion of any accidental or deliberate fires into the wetland 
footprint and adjacent forest. This could exacerbate the entrance of 
invasive plants such as southern cattail and change the vegetation 
composition of the wetland (see discussion under Factor A). In 
addition, these brush fires may encroach on the coqu[iacute] llanero's 
current limited habitat. A possibly extinct coqu[iacute] species in 
Puerto Rico (Eleutherodactylus jasperi) with limited distribution and 
highly specialized ecological requirements is known to have been 
adversely affected by fires in its type locality (D[iacute]az 1984, p. 
4).
    Therefore, we believe that brush fires may be a threat to the 
coqu[iacute] llanero and its habitat.
Competition
    A common, and more widespread, coqu[iacute] species of Puerto Rico 
(Eleutherodactylus cochranae) can utilize the same habitats as 
coqu[iacute] llanero, specifically the S. lancifolia egg-laying 
locations, displacing and damaging coqu[iacute] llanero eggs. These 
competitors rarely invade more permanently flooded areas of the 
wetland, suggesting a synergism between hydrology alteration and 
competition that may result in magnified, negative biological 
interactions against coqu[iacute] llanero (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 
2009, p. 4).
    Competition is a threat to coqu[iacute] llanero, particularly at 
the dryer edges of the wetland and this threat could be exacerbated by 
the destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species habitat 
(See discussion in Factor A). The information available suggests that 
flooded conditions may limit competition pressure against coqu[iacute] 
llanero. Therefore, based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available to us, we conclude that competition is a threat 
to the continued existence of the species.
Climate Change
    ``Climate'' refers to an area's long-term average weather 
statistics (typically for at least 20- or 30-year periods), including 
the mean and variation of surface variables such as temperature, 
precipitation, and wind; ``climate change'' refers to a change in the 
mean or variability or both of climate properties that persists for an 
extended period (typically decades or longer), whether due to natural 
processes or human activity (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) 2007a, p. 78). Although changes in climate occur continuously 
over geological time, changes are now occurring at an accelerated rate. 
For example, at continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, recent 
observed changes in long-term trends include: a substantial increase in 
precipitation in eastern parts of North American and South America, 
northern Europe, and northern and central Asia, and an increase in 
intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 
1970 (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); and an increase in annual average temperature 
of more than 2[deg] Fahrenheit (1.1[deg] Celsius) across the United 
States since 1960 (Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States 
(GCCIUS) 2009, p. 27). Examples of observed changes in the physical 
environment include: an increase in global average sea level, and 
declines in mountain glaciers and average snow cover in both the 
northern and southern hemispheres (IPCC 2007a, p. 30); substantial and 
accelerating reductions in Arctic sea-ice (e.g., Comiso et al. 2008, p. 
1); and a variety of changes in ecosystem processes, the distribution 
of species, and the timing of seasonal events (e.g., GCCIUS 2009, pp. 
79-88).
    The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models and 
various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to make projections of 
climate change globally and for broad regions through the 21st century 
(Meehl et al. 2007, p. 753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596-599), and 
reported these projections using a framework for characterizing 
certainty (Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 22-23). Examples include: (1) It is 
virtually certain there will be warmer and more frequent hot days and 
nights over most of the earth's land areas; (2) it is very likely there 
will be increased frequency of warm spells and heat waves over most 
land areas, and the frequency of heavy precipitation events will 
increase over most areas; and (3) it is likely that increases will 
occur in the incidence of extreme high sea level (excludes tsunamis), 
intense tropical cyclone activity, and the area affected by droughts 
(IPCC 2007b, p. 8, Table SPM.2). More recent analyses using a different 
global model and comparing other emissions scenarios resulted in 
similar projections of global temperature change across the different 
approaches (Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529).
    All models (not just those involving climate change) have some 
uncertainty associated with projections due to assumptions used, data 
available, and features of the models; with regard to climate change 
this includes factors such as assumptions related to emissions 
scenarios, internal climate variability, and differences among models. 
Despite this, however, under all global models and emissions scenarios, 
the overall projected trajectory of surface air temperature is one of 
increased warming compared to current conditions (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 
762; Prinn et al. 2011, p. 527). Climate models, emissions scenarios, 
and associated assumptions, data, and analytical techniques will 
continue to be refined, as will interpretations of projections, as more 
information becomes available. For instance, some changes in conditions 
are occurring more rapidly than initially projected, such as melting of 
Arctic sea-ice (Comiso et al. 2008, p. 1; Polyak et al. 2010, p. 1797), 
and since 2000 the observed emissions of greenhouse gases, which are a 
key influence on climate change, have been occurring at the mid- to 
higher levels of the various emissions scenarios developed in the late 
1990s and used by the IPPC for making projections (e.g., Raupach et al. 
2007, Figure 1, p. 10289; Manning et al. 2010, Figure 1, p. 377; Pielke 
et al. 2008, entire). Also, the best scientific and commercial data 
available indicate that average global surface air temperature is 
increasing and several climate-related changes are occurring and will 
continue for many decades even if emissions are stabilized soon (e.g., 
Meehl et al. 2007, pp. 822-829; Church et al. 2010, pp. 411-412; 
Gillett et al. 2011, entire).
    Changes in climate can have a variety of direct and indirect 
impacts on species, and can exacerbate the effects of other threats. 
Rather than assessing ``climate change'' as a single threat in and of 
itself, we examine the potential consequences to species and their 
habitats that arise from changes in environmental conditions associated 
with various aspects of climate change. For example, climate-related 
changes to habitats, predator-prey relationships, disease and disease 
vectors, or conditions that exceed the physiological tolerances of a 
species, occurring

[[Page 63428]]

individually or in combination, may affect the status of a species. 
Vulnerability to climate change impacts is a function of sensitivity to 
those changes, exposure to those changes, and adaptive capacity (IPCC 
2007, p. 89; Glick et al. 2011, pp. 19-22). As described above, in 
evaluating the status of a species, the Service uses the best 
scientific and commercial data available, and this includes 
consideration of direct and indirect effects of climate change. As is 
the case with all potential threats, if a species is currently affected 
or is expected to be affected by one or more climate-related impacts, 
this does not necessarily mean the species is an endangered or 
threatened species as defined under the Act. If a species is listed as 
endangered or threatened, this knowledge regarding its vulnerability 
to, and impacts from, climate-associated changes in environmental 
conditions can be used to help devise appropriate strategies for its 
recovery.
    While projections from global climate model simulations are 
informative and in some cases are the only or the best scientific 
information available, various downscaling methods are being used to 
provide higher-resolution projections that are more relevant to the 
spatial scales used to assess impacts to a given species (see Glick et 
al. 2011, pp. 58-61). The effects of climate change on coastal wetlands 
could be significant if sea level rises. Changes in precipitation 
patterns and warmer temperatures can likewise have detrimental effects 
on wetland function (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007, p. 313). Climate-linked 
amphibian population declines in Puerto Rico have been explained by a 
possible synergistic interaction between drought and the pathological 
effect of the chytrid fungus (Burrowes et al. 2004, p. 141) (see Factor 
C discussion). While we do not have specific information for 
coqu[iacute] llanero and its habitat, information in the literature 
suggests that changes in environmental conditions that may result from 
climate change can influence the spread of nonnative, invasive species, 
fire, and precipitation levels, thereby potentially impacting 
coqu[iacute] llanero.
Human Access or Use
    Although we currently do not have any information on the visitor 
use of the wetland where coqu[iacute] llanero is known to occur, 
R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez (2009, p. 3) suggests that visitation for 
educational, research, or recreational purposes may have significant 
impact on the unique vegetation assemblage of the wetland. These 
activities could result in vegetation destruction from the development 
of research transects and observation trails. Up to a 4-month delay of 
vegetation regeneration was documented after a transect was established 
for these activities and up to an 8-month delay of vegetation 
regeneration after a helicopter hovered approximately 30 ft (9 m) above 
a section of the wetland. Afterwards, short-term results included 
reduced calling by male coqu[iacute] llanero and invasion by an edge-
associated species, Eleutherodactylus antillensis, another species of 
coqu[iacute], in the bent vegetation, which had formed a raft-like area 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2009, p. 3). However, because the wetland 
area is generally closed to visitor access, and research is by permit 
only and limited, human impact from these activities is expected to be 
minimal.
    Therefore, we conclude that human access or use is currently not a 
significant threat to coqu[iacute] llanero and its habitat.
Summary of Factor E
    In summary, coqu[iacute] llanero may be threatened by a variety of 
natural and manmade factors that may affect the continued existence of 
the species. The primary natural or manmade factors affecting the 
species are its highly specialized ecological requirements, which 
exacerbate the threats posed by other factors to coqu[iacute] llanero, 
and competition with other coqu[iacute] species for egg-laying sites. 
Other potential threats that may affect the species are landfill 
leachate pollution, the use of herbicides, the threat of fire to the 
species' habitat, and changes in environmental conditions resulting 
from climate change. We determined that human access or use is not 
currently a significant threat to coqu[iacute] llanero and its habitat. 
Based on the best available information, we conclude that coqu[iacute] 
llanero may be threatened by other natural or manmade factors affecting 
its continued existence. Factors including coqu[iacute] llanero's 
highly specialized ecological requirements, landfill leachate 
pollution, the use of herbicides, brush fires, competition, and 
environmental effects resulting from climate change are potential 
threats that may be expected to increase in the future depending on 
activities surrounding the species' habitat, placing coqu[iacute] 
llanero at risk.

Finding

    As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the 
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the 
coqu[iacute] llanero is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and 
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and 
future threats faced by the coqu[iacute] llanero. We reviewed the 
petition, information available in our files, and other available 
published and unpublished information, and we consulted with recognized 
coqu[iacute] llanero experts and other Federal and State agencies.
    The identified threats to the coqu[iacute] llanero are attributable 
to Factors A, C, D, and E identified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The 
primary threat to the species is from habitat modification (Factor A) 
in the form of urban development and ongoing threats of habitat 
destruction and modification. Coqu[iacute] llanero is endemic to Puerto 
Rico and has only been observed at one area, despite extensive survey 
efforts made by several researchers. Available information indicates 
that coqu[iacute] llanero habitat may represent a relic of an endemic 
habitat type. The only known population is threatened by a variety of 
factors that are expected to persist indefinitely and impact, or have 
the potential to impact, remaining coqu[iacute] llanero and their 
habitat. Additionally, predation may also present a current threat to 
coqu[iacute] llanero, particularly at the dryer edges of the wetland, 
and its isolation makes it particularly susceptible to disease or 
predation (Factor C). The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 
is a threat due to the uncertainty of the level of protection the 
existing laws will provide (Factor D), and other natural or manmade 
factors affecting its continued existence, particularly its specialized 
ecological requirements, also may be threats to the species (Factor E). 
In general, the majority of the factors mentioned in the five-factor 
analysis may adversely affect the only known population of coqu[iacute] 
llanero. Depending on the intensity and immediacy of such threats, 
these factors--either by themselves or combined--are operative threats 
that act on the species and its habitat.
    Based on our evaluation of all scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
faced by coqu[iacute] llanero, we have determined that the continued 
existence of coqu[iacute] llanero is threatened by urban development 
and associated activities, changes in hydrology, surface and ground 
water pollution, use of herbicides, invasion of nonnative species, 
predation, climate change, brush fires, competition, and inadequate 
regulatory mechanisms. Because the species faces these threats 
throughout its extremely limited range, we find that coqu[iacute] 
llanero is warranted for listing throughout its range.

[[Page 63429]]

Status Evaluation

    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. A threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range. Based on our evaluation of the best available scientific and 
commercial information related to the extremely restricted range of the 
species, significant threats to it and its habitat, and future 
potential threats, we have determined the species is in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range. Because the range of the 
species comprises a single occurrence location, and we have determined 
that the species is in danger of extinction in that location, we do not 
need to further analyze whether there may be a significant portion of 
the range of the species. As a result, we find that coqu[iacute] 
llanero meets the definition of an endangered species. Because the 
species is in danger of extinction now, as opposed to in the 
foreseeable future, coqu[iacute] llanero meets the definition of an 
endangered species rather than a threatened species.
    On the basis of our careful evaluation of the best available 
scientific and commercial information regarding the past, present, and 
future threats to the species as discussed above relative to the 
listing factors, we have determined that listing is warranted, and we 
propose to list coqu[iacute] llanero as an endangered species 
throughout its range.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information 
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate 
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to 
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species, 
measurable criteria that determine when a species may be downlisted or 
delisted, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans 
also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery 
efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery 
tasks. Recovery teams (comprised of species experts, Federal and State 
agencies, nongovernment organizations, and stakeholders) are often 
established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery 
outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be 
available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our 
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may also occur on non-Federal lands. 
To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation 
efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands.
    If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will become 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, 
under section 6 of the Act, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection and recovery of the coqu[iacute] llanero. Information on 
our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be 
found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include Federal activities that may affect coqu[iacute] 
llanero including, but not limited to, the carrying out or the issuance 
of permits for discharging fill material on wetlands for road or 
highway construction; installation of pipelines; development of 
residential, tourism, and commercial facilities; farming; channeling or 
stream alterations; discharge of contaminated waters; wastewater 
facility development; and renewable energy projects. Additional detail 
is provided below:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter the structure and 
function of the wetland. Such actions or activities could include, but 
are not limited to, the filling or excavation of the wetland. The 
filling or excavation of the wetland would alter the hydrology of the 
site and would destroy the vegetation where coqu[iacute] llanero spends 
all of its life stages. The filling or excavation of wetlands could 
result in the direct mortality of the species because it will destroy 
the only known population and locality where coqu[iacute] llanero is 
found.

[[Page 63430]]

    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the vegetation structure 
in and around the wetland. Such actions or activities could include, 
but are not limited to, vegetation cutting for expanding or maintaining 
roads, construction of new roads, development of new residences and 
commercial establishments. The alteration of the vegetation structure 
may change the wetland characteristics by changing the microhabitat 
(e.g., change in temperature and humidity levels) and could result in 
direct mortality of individuals and egg clutches through desiccation 
from sun exposure.
    (3) Actions that may alter the natural flow of water. Such actions 
or activities could include, but are not limited to, changes in the 
limestone hills located to the south of the wetland. The alteration of 
these limestone hills may affect the integrity of the wetland (e.g. 
change in hydrology, replenishment of water, sedimentation deposition 
or erosion). These activities could reduce the wetland composition 
including the vegetation and could result in direct or cumulative 
adverse effects to the species.
    (4) Actions that would significantly degrade water quality (for 
example, contaminants and excess nutrients). Such actions or activities 
could include, but are not limited to landfill discharges, heated 
effluents into surface water or connected groundwater, and the spill of 
petroleum-based products by the nearby go-kart race track. These 
activities could alter water conditions that can consequently alter the 
plant composition in the wetland by exposing the species to more 
competition and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to the 
species and their life cycles.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, 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. 
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-43; 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378), it is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species, and at 17.32 for threatened species. With 
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed 
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the 
species proposed for listing. The following activities could 
potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is 
not comprehensive:
    (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling, 
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import 
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for 
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years 
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
    (2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey 
upon the coqu[iacute] llanero, such as the introduction of competing, 
nonnative species to Puerto Rico;
    (3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that 
attack any life stage of this species;
    (4) Unauthorized modification of the vegetation composition or 
hydrology or violation of any discharge or water withdrawal permit that 
results in harm or death to any individuals of this species or that 
results in degradation of its occupied habitat to an extent that 
essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering are 
impaired;
    (5) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of their habitats (such 
as unpermitted channelization, or discharge of fill material) that 
impairs essential behaviors, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering, 
or results in killing or injuring coqu[iacute] llanero; and
    (6) Unauthorized discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals or other 
pollutants into the wetlands supporting coqu[iacute] llanero that kills 
or injures or otherwise impairs essential life-sustaining requirements, 
such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a 
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Caribbean 
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and 
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be addressed 
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Permits, 1875 
Century Blvd., NE., Atlanta, GA 30345 (telephone 404-679-7313; 
facsimile 404-679-7081).
    If coqu[iacute] llanero is listed under the Act, the Commonwealth 
of Puerto Rico's Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 6766 (PRDNER 2007a 
and 2007b) is automatically invoked, which would also prohibit take of 
these species and encourage conservation by Puerto Rico government 
agencies. Further, Puerto Rico may enter into agreements with Federal 
agencies to administer and manage any area required for the 
conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered 
species (Commonwealth Law 241 and Regulation 6766). Funds for these 
activities could be made available under section 6 of the Act 
(Cooperation with the States). Thus, the Federal protection afforded to 
these species by listing them as endangered species will be reinforced 
and supplemented by protection under State Commonwealth law.

Critical Habitat

Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the designation of critical habitat for coqu[iacute] 
llanero in this section of the proposed rule.
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features:
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species; and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an

[[Page 63431]]

endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation 
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is 
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect 
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government 
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require 
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by 
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal 
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed 
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction 
or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action 
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but 
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction 
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed 
must contain physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. Critical habitat designations identify, 
to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data 
available, those physical or biological constituent elements (primary 
constituent elements) within an area that are essential to the 
conservation of the species (such as roost sites, nesting grounds, 
seasonal wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type). Primary constituent 
elements are the elements of physical and biological features that, 
when laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to 
provide for a species' life-history processes, are essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    We can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic 
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a 
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the 
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but 
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the 
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat 
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographic area occupied by a species only when a designation limited 
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines 
provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure 
that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. 
They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and 
with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat.
    When we are determining which areas should be designated as 
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the 
information developed during the listing process for the species. 
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the 
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans 
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and 
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or 
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another 
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a 
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that 
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species. 
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that 
habitat outside the designated area is unimportant or may not be needed 
for recovery of the species. Areas that are important to the 
conservation of the species, both inside and outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory 
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act 
for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions 
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to 
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat 
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the 
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of 
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other 
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at 
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected 
to increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) such 
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(2)) further state that critical 
habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (1) Information sufficient to perform required 
analysis of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (2) the 
biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to 
permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
    As we have discussed above under the Factor B analysis, there is 
currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection (for 
scientific or educational purposes) for this species. Moreover, there 
is no information to indicate that identification of critical habitat 
is

[[Page 63432]]

expected to create such a threat to the species.
    Critical habitat designation identifies those physical and 
biological features of the habitat essential to the conservation of 
coqu[iacute] llanero that may require special management and 
protection. Accordingly, this designation will provide information to 
individuals, local and Commonwealth governments, and other entities 
engaged in activities or long-range planning in areas essential to the 
conservation of the species. Conservation of coqu[iacute] llanero and 
essential features of its habitat will require habitat management, 
protection, and restoration, which will be facilitated by knowledge of 
habitat locations and the physical and biological features of the 
habitat. Based on this information, we believe critical habitat would 
be beneficial to this species. Therefore, we have determined that the 
designation of critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero is prudent. 
Delineation of critical habitat requires identification of the physical 
and biological habitat features that are essential to the conservation 
of the species. We have reviewed the available information pertaining 
to the known distribution of coqu[iacute] llanero and the 
characteristics of the habitat currently occupied. This and other 
information represent the best scientific and commercial data available 
and lead us to conclude that, although limited, available information 
is sufficient to identify specific areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat. Therefore, we have found that critical habitat is 
determinable for coqu[iacute] llanero.
    We have done a preliminary evaluation to determine if the 
designation of critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero is prudent and 
determinable at this time. On the basis of that evaluation, we have 
determined that the designation of critical habitat is prudent and 
determinable for this species.

Physical or Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to 
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological 
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may 
require special management considerations or protection. These include, 
but are not limited to:
    (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 (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derive the specific physical and biological features required 
for coqu[iacute] llanero from studies of this species' habitat, 
ecology, and life history as described below. Unfortunately, little is 
known of the specific habitat requirements for coqu[iacute] llanero 
other than it requires a palustrine herbaceous wetland and a specific 
vegetation composition. To identify the physical and biological needs 
of the species, we have relied on current conditions at locations where 
the species exists and the limited information available on this 
species.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Coqu[iacute] llanero is currently known from palustrine herbaceous 
wetlands located on both Commonwealth and Federal lands in the Sabana 
Seca Ward, municipality of Toa Baja (see description above under the 
``Distribution and Habitat'' section). The Service has estimated the 
palustrine herbaceous wetland area occupied by the species to cover 
approximately 615 ac (249 ha).
    These wetland areas are within the subtropical moist forest life 
zone (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 72). The variables used to delineate 
any given life zone are mean annual precipitation and mean annual 
temperature. The life zones and associations of which they are composed 
only define the potential vegetation or range of vegetation types that 
might be found in an area (Ewel and Whitmore 1973, p. 5). The mean 
annual precipitation for Puerto Rico is about 55 to 65 in (21.7 to 25.6 
cm) a year (NOAA Web site 2009, http://www.srh.noaa.gov/sju/?n=climo_annual01) and the temperature is 79.4 [deg]F (26.3 [deg]C) (Geo-Marine 
2002, p. 2-1). The palustrine herbaceous wetland is where the non-tidal 
water regime may be seasonal to permanently flooded (NWI Maps, Cowardin 
et al. 1979, pp. 10-22) and found at low elevations up to approximately 
56 ft (17 m) (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 61). It 
appears that coqu[iacute] llanero is an obligate marsh-dwelling species 
because it has not been found in areas outside the marsh (R[iacute]os-
L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 62).
    The current herbaceous vegetation in these wetlands consists of 
Blechum serrulatum and Thelypteris interrupta (ferns), Sagittaria 
lancifolia (bulltongue arrowhead), Cyperus sp. (flatsedges), Eleocharis 
sp. (spike rushes), and vines and grasses. Although several of these 
plants have been documented at other sites in Puerto Rico, the 
vegetation composition (combination and abundance of each plant) is a 
unique ecosystem not found in other places in Puerto Rico (PRDNER 
2007b, p. 11). Studies indicate that coqu[iacute] llanero perch, sit, 
or call on or from the herbaceous vegetation and mainly on the ferns 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60; PRDNER 2007b, p. 9). 
Wetlands are maintained by water quantity, channel slope, and sediment 
input to the system through periodic flooding. Changes in one or more 
of these parameters can result in changes in the wetland function and 
vegetation composition, with serious effects to coqu[iacute] llanero. 
In addition, hydrology (the occurrence, circulation, and distribution 
of waters) is also an important factor to the wetland because it will 
connect areas that are separated by roads and other structures, hence 
making available nearby habitats for coqu[iacute] llanero.
    Hydrology connects the areas of currently known habitat of the 
species. Although the areas have several manmade drainage ditches used 
for agricultural purposes in the past, this has not modified the 
watershed boundaries (G.L. Morris Eng. 2007, p. 3; PRDNER 2007b, p. 
19). The topography of the Sabana Seca--Ingenio area, in general, has 
an east to west inclination where the surface and ground water from the 
limestone hills found south of PR Road-867 discharges into the wetland, 
which goes north and northwest connecting to Ca[ntilde]o 
Campa[ntilde]ero, and then to Cocal River, and ends at the Atlantic 
Ocean (PRDNER 2007b, p. 15). Factors that might threaten the water 
quality or the water flow of these drainages may affect the currently 
known population of coqu[iacute] llanero.
    Hydrologic conditions are important for the maintenance of a 
wetland structure and function. Hydrology includes the transport of 
energy (water) and nutrients to and from wetlands through pathways such 
as precipitation, surface run-off, groundwater, tides, and flooding 
rivers. This could affect species composition and richness, primary 
conductivity (salinity), organic accumulation, and nutrient cycling 
within the wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007, p. 107). Wetlands are 
sometimes referred to as ``the kidneys of

[[Page 63433]]

the landscape'' because they filter the downstream waters and waste 
received from natural and human sources (Mitsch and Gosselink 2007, p. 
4). Polluted waters that enter the wetland through its hydrology may 
affect the habitat of coqu[iacute] llanero. For example, an increase in 
the current polluted waters from the continued operation of the 
landfill pose a threat to the species and its habitat because 
underground contaminated waters and leachates may change water quality, 
soils, and consequently plant composition in the wetland. In addition, 
nonpoint source run-off from adjacent land surfaces (for example, 
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and sediments), and random spills 
or unregulated discharge events (for example, petroleum base substances 
from the nearby go-kart race track) may threaten the species and its 
habitat (see discussion under Factor A above). This could be 
particularly harmful during drought conditions when water flows are low 
and pollutants are more concentrated.
    On the basis of the information above, the palustrine herbaceous 
wetland located in the Sabana Seca--Ingenio area provides space for 
normal behaviors of coqu[iacute] llanero. In addition, hydrology is 
essential to the maintenance, structure, and function of the wetland. 
The water quality and water flow that discharges onto the wetland 
allows the growth of the required vegetation composition on which 
coqu[iacute] llanero depends for normal behavior, growth, and viability 
during most of its life stages. Therefore, we have identified the 
palustrine herbaceous wetland, and particularly the hydrology and 
vegetation of this area, to be physical or biological features for this 
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Although the life history of coqu[iacute] llanero has not been 
studied, the life histories of other amphibians in the 
Eleutherodactylus genus indicate that amphibians are opportunistic 
feeders where diets reflect the availability of food of appropriate 
size (Duellman and Trueb 1994, p. 229; Joglar, 2005, p. 73). The 
wetland provides a variety of food sources (insects) for coqu[iacute] 
llanero. Food availability might be affected by water quality and 
contamination of the wetland. Contaminated waters may change water 
quality, soils, and consequently plant composition in the wetland. 
These changes can open an opportunity to other species (plants or 
animals) to overshadow the current species present in the wetland, 
making coqu[iacute] llanero compete more for the available food sources 
or move the species to other, less competitive sites.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify food 
availability provided by the palustrine herbaceous wetland to be a 
physical or biological feature for this species.
Cover or Shelter
    Coqu[iacute] llanero appears to be an obligate marsh-dwelling 
species because it has not been found in areas outside the marsh 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 62). The palustrine 
herbaceous wetland provides cover and shelter for coqu[iacute] llanero. 
The vegetation found in the palustrine wetland consists of herbaceous 
emergent vegetation characterized by erect, rooted herbaceous 
hydrophytes usually dominated by perennial plants (Cowardin et al. 
1979, p. 19), like ferns, Sagittaria lancifolia, flatsedges, spike 
rushes, vines, and grasses (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, 
p. 60; PRDNER 2007b, p. 9). Studies on the species show normal behavior 
(for example, perching, sitting, or calling) occurs on the herbaceous 
vegetation (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60; PRDNER 
2007b, p. 9) (see ``Space for Individual and Population Growth and for 
Normal Behavior'').
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the 
vegetation (plant species, structure, and composition) of the 
palustrine herbaceous wetland located in the Sabana Seca--Ingenio area 
to be a physical or biological feature for this species.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of 
Offspring
    Callings or sound production by animals is a method of advertising 
the presence of one individual to others of the same species. It is 
common in animals that have low density dispersal and in animals that 
jump or fly. Anurans (any amphibian of the Order Anura, comprising the 
frogs and toads) have well-developed vocal structures capable of 
producing sounds that serve to attract mates, advertise territories, or 
express distress (Duellman and Trueb 1994, p. 87). It has been 
documented that coqu[iacute] llanero uses the herbaceous vegetation in 
the wetland, especially the ferns, as calling areas.
    In addition, it has been determined that the species deposits their 
egg clutches only in the leaf axis of Sagittaria lancifolia, and it 
appears that the species does not provide parental care (R[iacute]os-
L[oacute]pez and Thomas 2007, p. 60; PRDNER 2007b, pp. 5, 9). Also, 
coqu[iacute] llanero has direct development (embryos do not have an 
intermediate phase like tadpoles or aquatic larvae) where they develop 
directly to terrestrial amphibians (miniatures of the adults); hence 
the vegetation provides the only protection that egg clutches and the 
offspring might receive.
    Therefore, based on the information above, we identify the 
herbaceous vegetation, especially Sagittaria lancifolia and the ferns 
of the palustrine wetland, to be an important physical or biological 
feature for this species.
Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the 
Historical, Geographical, and Ecological Distributions of the Species
    The palustrine herbaceous wetland area where coqu[iacute] llanero 
currently exists consists of lands previously managed by the U.S. Naval 
Security Group Activity (NSGA) and areas owned by the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico (University of Puerto Rico, PR Land Authority). The area 
previously managed by the NSGA had restricted access to people; thus, 
coqu[iacute] llanero had experienced little disturbance from the 
military operations. The NSGA was managed as a high-frequency, 
direction-finding facility, and to the facility provided communications 
and related support, including communications relay, communications 
security, and communication manpower assistance, to components of the 
U.S. Navy and other Department of Defense elements (Geo-Marine 2002, p. 
1-3). All DOD installations have to complete and implement an 
integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) to ensure that all 
natural resources are managed on the site. However, the NSGA ceased 
operations in 2005, when technological advances and changes eliminated 
the need to continue the operations at the site. The area is no longer 
managed as a military base, and the INRMP implementation does not apply 
anymore. At present time, the area is proposed for transfer or disposal 
or a combination of both, and is currently leased to a private party 
for selling the area for private development (see Exemptions below).
    In 2007, the Puerto Rico DNER (PRDNER) designated Essential 
Critical Natural Habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero that includes the 
palustrine herbaceous wetland and the limestone hills found south of 
the wetland area. As part of the designation process, PRDNER conducted 
a hydrological evaluation of the area and concluded that the limestone 
hills located south of the palustrine wetland contribute to the 
hydrology that maintains the wetland (PRDNER 2007b, p. 28). The 
limestone hills are important for the water supply

[[Page 63434]]

of the wetland; however, they are not the only water source feeding the 
wetland. The hills do not provide habitat for the coqu[iacute] llanero. 
The hills, although important for contributing to the hydrology of the 
wetland, are not essential for the conservation of the species. In 
addition, the hills are conservation lands protected in perpetuity and 
managed by the University of Puerto Rico because other Federal and 
Commonwealth-designated threatened and endangered species are found 
there.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Coqu[iacute] Llanero
    Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to 
identify the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of coqu[iacute] llanero in areas occupied at the time of 
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We 
consider primary constituent elements to be the elements of physical 
and biological features that, when laid out in the appropriate quantity 
and spatial arrangement to provide for a species' life-history 
processes, are essential to the conservation of the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological 
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' 
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent 
elements specific to coqu[iacute] llanero are:
    (1) Primary Constituent Element 1- Palustrine herbaceous wetland. 
Palustrine emergent persistent wetlands that are seasonally to 
permanently flooded. Ocean-derived salts need to be less than 0.5 
[permil] parts per thousand (ppt) salinity.
    (2) Primary Constituent Element 2- Vegetation and vegetation 
composition of the palustrine herbaceous wetland. Emergent vegetation 
characterized by erect, rooted herbaceous hydrophytes usually dominated 
by perennial plants like ferns, Sagittaria lancifolia, flatsedges, 
spike rushes, vines, and grasses. In addition to the combination of 
vegetation, at least 25 percent of the vegetation should be ferns and 
S. lancifolia.
    (3) Primary Constituent Element 3- Hydrology. A hydrologic flow 
regime (the pathways of precipitation, surface run-off, groundwater, 
tides, and flooding of rivers and canals (manmade ditches)) that 
transports water to and from and maintains the palustrine herbaceous 
wetland.
    With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to 
identify the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, through the identification of the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the primary constituent 
elements sufficient to support the life-history processes of the 
species. The proposed unit to be designated as critical habitat is 
currently occupied by coqu[iacute] llanero and contains essential 
physical and biological features composed of the primary constituent 
elements in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement sufficient 
to support the life-history needs of the species.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain features which are essential to the conservation of 
the species, which may require special management considerations or 
protection.
    We find that the essential features within the area occupied at the 
time of listing may require special management consideration or 
protection due to threats to coqu[iacute] llanero and or its habitat. 
The proposed unit is adjacent to roads, homes, or other manmade 
structures in which various activities in or adjacent to the critical 
habitat unit may affect one or more of the primary constituent 
elements. The features essential to the conservation of this species 
may require special management considerations or protection to reduce 
the following threats or potential threats that may result in changes 
in the composition and abundance of vegetation inside the wetland: fill 
of wetlands for development projects, degradation of water quality from 
underground contaminated waters and leachates from the nearby landfill, 
residential uses (e.g., use of pesticides and fertilizers), and road 
maintenance (e.g., use of herbicides).
    Management activities that could ameliorate these threats or 
potential threats include but are not limited to: establishing 
permanent conservation easements or land acquisition to protect the 
species on private lands; establishing conservation agreements on 
private and Federal lands to identify and reduce threats to the species 
and its features; minimizing habitat disturbance, fragmentation, and 
destruction; preventing the destruction of the limestone hills that 
supply water to the wetland; minimizing water quality degradation of 
the wetland; and minimizing the effects of fires and droughts.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best 
scientific data available to designate critical habitat. We review 
available information pertaining to the habitat requirements of the 
species.
    We have defined occupied critical habitat as palustrine emergent 
persistent wetland with an herbaceous vegetation composition dominated 
by perennial plants like ferns, Sagittaria lancifolia, flatsedges, 
spike rushes, vines and grasses occupied by the coqu[iacute] llanero at 
the time of listing. We used information from site visits to the area, 
researchers, reports prepared the DNER, and consultants to identify the 
specific locations occupied by coqu[iacute] llanero. All occurrence 
records of coqu[iacute] llanero were plotted on maps in geographic 
information system as points and polygons. Once we determined which 
area of the wetland was occupied, we focused on aerial photographs of 
the area and the NWI maps to delineate the palustrine emergent 
persistent wetlands used by coqu[iacute] llanero. We estimated the area 
using the limits of the boundaries of the palustrine emergent 
persistent wetland.
    In accordance with the Act and its implementing regulation at 50 
CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating additional areas--
outside those currently occupied as well as those occupied at the time 
of listing--are necessary to ensure the conservation of the species. 
Our evaluation of areas outside the geographic area currently occupied 
by coqu[iacute] llanero did not result in locating any areas essential 
for the conservation of the species. For instance, we stayed within the 
boundaries of the palustrine emergent wetland because the coqu[iacute] 
llanero has extremely limited dispersal ability due to lack of habitat 
connectivity and does not occur in nearby closed canopy forests 
(R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 2009, p. 5). Therefore, we are not currently 
proposing to designate any areas outside the geographical area occupied 
by the species because occupied areas are sufficient for the 
conservation of the species.
    In summary, we propose designating critical habitat in one area 
that we determine is occupied and contains sufficient and all primary 
constituent elements to support the life history functions essential to 
the conservation of the species and that require special management.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed

[[Page 63435]]

areas such as lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other 
structures because such lands lack physical or biological features for 
coqu[iacute] llanero. The scale of the map we prepared under the 
parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may 
not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule 
and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if 
the critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action 
involving these lands would not trigger a section 7 consultation with 
respect to critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse 
modification unless the specific action would affect the physical or 
biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
    We are proposing for designation of critical habitat lands that we 
have determined are occupied at the time of listing and contain 
sufficient elements of physical or biological features to support life-
history processes essential for the conservation of the species.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing one unit as critical habitat for coqu[iacute] 
llanero. The critical habitat area we describe below constitutes our 
current best assessment of the areas that meet the definition of 
critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero. The one area we propose as 
critical habitat is Sabana Seca, and it is occupied by coqu[iacute] 
llanero.

   Table 1--Proposed Critical Habitat Unit for Coqu[iacute] Llanero Area Estimates Reflect All Land Within the
                                         Critical Habitat Unit Boundary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Critical habitat unit                Land ownership by type         Size of unit in acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sabana Seca Unit........................  Commonwealth of Puerto Rico      97 ac (39 ha).
                                           (University of PR and PR Land
                                           Authority).
                                          Department of Defense (closed    518 ac (209 ha).
                                           NSGA Sabana Seca and open Navy
                                           property).
                                                                          --------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ...............................  615 ac (249 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.

    We present a brief description of the unit, and reasons why it 
meets the definition of critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero. 
State Plane NAD 83 coordinates and a more precise legal description of 
the unit are provided in the Proposed Regulation Promulgation section.

Sabana Seca Unit, Toa Baja Puerto Rico

    The unit includes approximately 615 ac (249 ha) located south of 
State Road PR-867, west of Ram[oacute]n R[iacute]os Rom[aacute]n 
Avenue, east of Jos[eacute] Juli[aacute]n Acosta Road, and north of the 
limestone hills located north of Highway PR-22 in the municipality of 
Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. This unit contains a palustrine herbaceous 
wetland with emergent vegetation that includes ferns, Sagittaria 
lancifolia, flatsedges, spike rushes, vines, and grasses. This unit is 
known to be occupied at the time of listing (R[iacute]os-L[oacute]pez 
and Thomas 2005; PRDNER 2007b; Service 2011, unpublished data). All the 
essential physical and biological features are found within the unit, 
and the presence of the species and the physical and biological 
features at the site were confirmed by the Service during site visits 
conducted in January and March of 2011.
    The essential features within this unit may require special 
management considerations or protection to insure maintenance or 
improvement of, and to address any changes that could affect, the 
existing palustrine herbaceous wetland, such as filling in of the 
wetland to develop the land; water diversion or water withdrawal; 
alteration of water hydrology or degradation of water quality; and 
changes in vegetation composition that might be caused by changes in 
hydrology or development, inappropriate management practices on the 
farmlands, and contamination from the underground polluted waters and 
leachates from the landfill.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the 
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out 
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In 
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed 
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
proposed critical habitat.
    Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have 
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra 
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th 
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when 
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify 
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we 
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether, 
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected 
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role 
for the species.
    If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical 
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into 
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the 
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or 
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10 
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding 
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation 
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal 
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions 
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded 
or authorized do not require section 7 consultation.
    As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with 
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or 
are likely to

[[Page 63436]]

adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and 
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that 
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent 
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified 
during consultation that:
    (1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action;
    (2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction;
    (3) Are economically and technologically feasible; and
    (4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of 
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid 
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or 
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or 
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero. As 
discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical 
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or 
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such 
designation.
    Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out, 
funded, or authorized by a federal agency, should result in 
consultation for the coqu[iacute] llanero. These activities include, 
but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter the structure and 
function of the wetland. Such actions or activities could include, but 
are not limited to, the filling and/or excavation of the wetland. The 
filling or excavation of the wetland could alter the hydrology of the 
site and destroy or remove the vegetation where the only known 
population of coqu[iacute] llanero is found. The filling or excavation 
of wetlands could result in elimination or alteration of coqu[iacute] 
llanero habitat necessary for all life stages of the species.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the vegetation structure 
in and around the wetland. Such actions or activities could include, 
but are not limited to, removing or cutting the vegetation for 
expanding or maintaining roads, construction of new roads, development 
of new or maintenance of residences, and commercial establishments. The 
alteration of the vegetation structure may change the wetland 
characteristics by changing the microhabitat (e.g., change in 
temperature and humidity levels) and thereby negatively affect whether 
the coqu[iacute] llanero is able to complete all normal behaviors and 
necessary life functions and/or allow invasion of competitors or 
predators.
    (3) Actions that may alter the natural flow of water to the 
wetlands occupied by coqu[iacute] llanero. Such actions or activities 
could include, but are not limited to, changes in the limestone hills 
located to the south of the wetland. The alteration of these limestone 
hills may affect the integrity of the wetland (e.g., change in 
hydrology, replenishment of water, sedimentation deposition or 
erosion). These activities could reduce the natural cycling and 
functioning of the wetland; change its composition, including the 
vegetation types the species depends on; and result in direct or 
cumulative adverse effects to the species from the alteration of the 
wetland's hydrology.
    (4) Actions that would significantly degrade water quality (for 
example, actions that would add contaminants and excess nutrients). 
Such actions or activities could include, but are not limited to, 
landfill discharges or leachates from landfill, heated effluents into 
surface water or connected groundwater, or the spill of petroleum-based 
products at the nearby go-kart race track. These activities could alter 
water conditions that can consequently alter the plant composition in 
the wetland and result in less suitable habitat for coqu[iacute] 
llanero and the opening of the wetland to coqu[iacute] llanero 
competitors.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    (1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    (2) A statement of goals and priorities;
    (3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
    (4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural

[[Page 63437]]

resources management plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act 
(16 U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines in writing that such plan 
provides a benefit to the species for which critical habitat is 
proposed for designation.''
    Approximately 865 ac (350 ha) of the proposed critical habitat 
resides in a closed military installation formerly managed by the NSGA, 
and the land had an INRMP (Geo-Marine 2002, pp. 1-5-4), which provided 
for the conservation of the natural resources inside the installation. 
The property was declared excess to the Navy in 2001, and the 
installation ceased operations in 2005, before the discovery of the 
species. Currently, the land is being leased to a private entity by the 
Military Housing Privatization Initiative as part of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Public Law 104-106, 
Section 2801, 110 Stat. 186 (10 U.S.C. 2871-2885), as amended. 
Currently there is no INRMP in place that would provide a benefit to 
coqu[iacute] llanero occurring in habitats within or adjacent the 
closed NSGA of Sabana Seca. Thus, there are no Department of Defense 
lands with a completed INRMP within the proposed critical habitat 
designation.
    Based on the above, we have determined that the identified lands 
are not subject to the exemptions under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the best 
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic 
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact of 
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may 
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the 
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on 
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such 
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. 
In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well as the 
legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad discretion 
regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any 
factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, and any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify 
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the 
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate 
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. 
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to 
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the 
extinction of the species.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts 
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to 
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the economic 
impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and related 
factors.
    On the basis of the development of our proposal, we have identified 
certain sectors and activities that may potentially be affected by a 
designation of critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero. These sectors 
include commercial development and urbanization, along with the 
accompanying infrastructure associated with such projects such as road, 
storm water drainage, bridge and culvert construction and maintenance. 
We recognize that not all of these sectors may qualify as small 
business entities. However, while recognizing that these sectors and 
activities may be affected by this designation, we are collecting 
information and initiating our analysis to determine (1) Which of these 
sectors or activities are or involve small business entities and (2) to 
what extent the effects are related to coqu[iacute] llanero being 
listed as an endangered species under the Act (baseline effects) or 
whether the effects are attributable to the designation of critical 
habitat (incremental). We believe that the potential incremental 
effects resulting from a designation will be small. However, we will be 
conducting a thorough analysis to determine if this may in fact be the 
case. As such, we are requesting any specific economic information 
related to small business entities that may be affected by this 
designation and how the designation may impact small businesses.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as 
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and 
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be 
available for downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Caribbean Ecological Services 
Field Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section). 
During the development of a final designation, we will consider 
economic impacts, public comments, and other new information, and areas 
may be excluded from the final critical habitat designation under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a 
national security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we 
have determined that some of the lands within the proposed designation 
of critical habitat for the coqu[iacute] llanero are lands being 
disposed of by the U.S. Navy, and therefore, we anticipate no impact to 
national security. Consequently, the Secretary does not propose to 
exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation 
based on impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national 
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the 
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In 
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    In preparing this proposal, we have determined that there are 
currently no HCPs or other management plans for coqu[iacute] llanero, 
and the proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or trust 
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or 
HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the 
Secretary does not propose to exert his discretion to exclude any areas 
from the final designation based on other relevant impacts.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule.

[[Page 63438]]

The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our determination of 
status for this species and critical habitat designation is based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited 
these peer reviewers to comment during this public comment period on 
our specific assumptions and conclusions in this proposed listing 
determination and designation of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information we receive during 
this comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a 
final determination. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from 
this proposal.

Public Hearings

    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date 
of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register. Such 
requests must be sent to the address shown in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section. We will schedule public hearings on this 
proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and 
places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable 
accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 
15 days before the hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under 
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its 
determination upon the following four criteria:
    (1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must 
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must 
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility 
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities 
(small businesses, small organizations, and small government 
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required 
if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a 
certification statement of the factual basis for certifying that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    On the basis of the development of our proposal, we have identified 
certain sectors and activities that may potentially be affected by a 
designation of critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero. These sectors 
include commercial development and urbanization along with the 
accompanying infrastructure associated with such projects such as road, 
storm water drainage, bridge and culvert construction and maintenance. 
We recognize that not all of these sectors may qualify as small 
business entities. However, while recognizing that these sectors and 
activities may be affected by this designation, we are collecting 
information and initiating our analysis to determine (1) Which of these 
sectors or activities are or involve small business entities and (2) 
what extent the effects are related to coqu[iacute] llanero being 
listed as an endangered species under the Act (baseline effects) or 
whether the effects are attributable to the designation of critical 
habitat (incremental). We believe that the potential incremental 
effects resulting from a designation will be small. As a consequence, 
following an initial evaluation of the information available to us, we 
do not believe that there will be a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small business entities resulting from this designation of 
critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero. However, we will be 
conducting a thorough analysis to determine if this may in fact be the 
case. As such, we are requesting any specific economic information 
related to small business entities that may be affected by this 
designation and how the designation may impact their business.
    Upon completion of the draft economic analysis, we will announce 
the availability of the draft economic analysis of the proposed 
designation in the Federal Register and reopen the public comment 
period for the proposed designation. We will include with this 
announcement a more thorough evaluation of potential effects of this 
designation on small businesses and, as appropriate, a revised 
certification statement.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
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. 
We do not expect the designation of this proposed critical habitat to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. The 
proposed Sabana Seca unit is located approximately 1.4 mi (2.3 km) away 
from the proposed alignment of a natural gas pipeline project. Thus, 
possible construction and operation of the proposed energy project will 
not be affected by the proposed designation of critical habitat. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required. However, we will further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis, and review and 
revise this assessment as warranted.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (1) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal 
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were:

[[Page 63439]]

Medicaid; Aid to Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child 
Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational 
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and 
Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support 
Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation 
that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except 
(i) A condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. 
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must 
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical 
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above on to State governments.
    (2) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal 
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on 
State or local governments. In addition, adjacent upland properties are 
owned by private entities or State partners. Therefore, a Small 
Government Agency Plan is not required. However, we will further 
evaluate this issue as we conduct our economic analysis and revise this 
assessment if appropriate.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), 
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating 
critical habitat for coqu[iacute] llanero in a takings implications 
assessment. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner 
actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it 
preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of 
incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal 
funding or permits to go forward. The takings implications assessment 
concludes that this proposed designation of critical habitat for 
coqu[iacute] llanero does not pose significant takings implications for 
lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the proposed 
rule does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism impact 
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the 
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information 
from, and coordinated development of, this proposed critical habitat 
designation with appropriate State resource agencies in Puerto Rico. 
The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the 
coqu[iacute] llanero imposes no additional restrictions to those 
currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on 
State and local governments and their activities. The critical habitat 
designation may have some benefit to this government because the areas 
that contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements 
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the 
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter 
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it 
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having 
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), 
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not 
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of 
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating 
critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This 
proposed rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the 
elements of physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the coqu[iacute] llanero within the designated areas to 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.

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

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection 
with listing a species as endangered or threatened under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare 
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) in connection with designating critical habitat under the 
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination 
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 
position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the 
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain 
language. This means that each rule we publish must:

[[Page 63440]]

    (1) Be logically organized;
    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us 
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To 
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as 
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections 
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences 
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be 
useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes.
    The commonwealth of Puerto Rico does not harbor any tribal lands. 
Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat for 
coqu[iacute] llanero on tribal lands.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon 
request from the Deputy Field Supervisor, Caribbean Ecological Services 
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

    The primary authors of this package are staff members of the 
Caribbean Ecological Services Field Office (see FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to 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.

    2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by adding an entry for ``Coqu[iacute] 
llanero'' to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in 
alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species
------------------------------------------------     Historic range     Vertebrate population where      Status       When listed     Critical   Special
         Common name            Scientific name                           endangered or threatened                                    habitat     rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
          Amphibians
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Coqu[iacute] llanero.........  Eleutherodactylu  U.S.A. (PR)..........  Entire.....................  E.............  .............     17.95(d)  NA
                                s juanariveroi.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (d) by adding an entry for 
``Coqu[iacute] llanero (Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi),'' in the same 
alphabetical order that the species appears in the table at Sec.  
17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Coqu[iacute] llanero (Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi)
    (1) One critical habitat unit is depicted for Toa Baja, Puerto 
Rico, on the map below.
    (2) Within this area, the primary constituent elements of the 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
coqu[iacute] llanero consist of three components:
    (i) Palustrine herbaceous wetland. Palustrine emergent persistent 
wetlands that are seasonally to permanently flooded. Ocean-derived 
salts need to be less than 0.5 [permil] parts per thousand (ppt) 
salinity.
    (ii) Vegetation and vegetation composition of the palustrine 
herbaceous wetland. Emergent vegetation characterized by erect, rooted 
herbaceous hydrophytes usually dominated by perennial plants like 
ferns, Sagittaria lancifolia, flatsedges, spike rushes, vines, and 
grasses. In addition to the combination of vegetation, at least 25 
percent of the vegetation should be ferns and S. lancifolia.
    (iii) Hydrology. A hydrologic flow regime (the pathways of 
precipitation, surface run-off, groundwater, tides, and flooding of 
rivers and canals (manmade ditches)) that transports water to and from 
and maintains the palustrine herbaceous wetland.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat unit map. Data layers defining the map unit 
were created by delineating habitats that contained at least one or 
more of the primary constituent elements defined in paragraph (2) of 
this entry, over a base of USGS digital topographic map

[[Page 63441]]

quadrangle (Bayam[oacute]n) and a USDA 2007 digital ortho-photo mosaic, 
in addition to the National Wetland Inventory Maps. The resulting 
critical habitat unit was then mapped using State Plane North American 
Datum (NAD) 83 coordinates.
    (5) Sabana Seca Unit, Toa Baja, Puerto Rico.
    (i) General Description: The Sabana Seca Unit consists of 
approximately 615 ac (249 ha) located south of State Road PR-867, west-
southwest of Ram[oacute]n R[iacute]os Rom[aacute]n Avenue, east of 
Jos[eacute] Juli[aacute]n Acosta Road, and north of the limestone hills 
located north of Highway PR-22 in the municipality of Toa Baja, Puerto 
Rico.
    (ii) Note: Map of Sabana Seca Unit, critical habitat for 
coqu[iacute] llanero (Eleutherodactylus juanariveroi), Toa Baja, Puerto 
Rico, follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12OC11.023


[[Page 63442]]


* * * * *

     Dated: September 29, 2011.
Michael J. Bean,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-25809 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C