[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63420-63442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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