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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AB56

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Withdrawal of

Proposed Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Little Mariana

Fruit Bat, Mariana Fruit Bat, Guam Broadbill, Mariana Crow, Guam

Micronesian Kingfisher, and Guam Bridled White-Eye

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final decision; withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) withdraws the

proposal to designate critical habitat for six endangered forest

species on Guam: The little Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus tokudae),

Mariana fruit bat (Pteropus mariannus mariannus), Guam broadbill

(Myiagra freycineti), Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi), Guam Micronesian

kingfisher (Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina), and Guam bridled white-

eye (Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus). Most of the lands

proposed for critical habitat have now been protected by the inclusion

of these lands in the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. The Service finds

that designation of critical habitat is not prudent under the

Endangered species Act (Act).

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for public

inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, room 6307, P.O. Box

50167, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert P. Smith, at the above address

(808/541-2749).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In the final rule listing a number of Guam species, published

August 27, 1984, in the Federal Register (49 FR 33881), the Service

determined endangered status for seven birds and two mammals: Guam

broadbill (Myiagra freycineti), Mariana crow (Corvus kubaryi), Mariana

gallinule (moorhen) (Gallinula chloropus guami), Micronesian kingfisher

(Halcyon cinnamomina cinnamomina), Guam rail (Rallus owstoni), Vanikoro

swiftlet (Aerodramus vanikorensis bartschi), Guam bridled white-eye

(Zosterops conspicillatus conspicillatus), little Mariana fruit bat

(Pteropus tokudae), and the Guam population of Mariana fruit bat

(Pteropus mariannus mariannus). These species are found in the Mariana

Islands in the western Pacific in the Territory of Guam and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, both under the

jurisdiction of the United States.

The six species, along with three other species, were listed as

endangered on August 27, 1984. In a proposed rule published in the

Federal Register on June 14, 1991 (56 FR 115), critical habitat was

proposed for six of these endangered forest species on Guam: the little

Mariana fruit bat, Mariana fruit bat, Guam broadbill, Mariana crow,

Guam Micronesian kingfisher, and Guam bridled white-eye. Comments

related to the proposed critical habitat designation were solicited

during four public comment periods held: June 14, 1991, through August

13, 1991; October 15, 1991, through October 31, 1991; June 12, 1992,

through July 15, 1992; and March 1, 1993, through March 31, 1993. A

public hearing on the critical habitat proposal was held in Guam on

July 31, 1991.

The six species were once distributed in the forests throughout

Guam, but by the time they were listed in 1984, their ranges had been

severely reduced. The species continue to decline in the wild. The main

cause of the decline at the time of listing was not known with

certainty, but probable causes included predation by introduced animals

(most notably the brown tree snake), habitat loss, and, for the two

species of fruit bats, hunting. It has become increasingly clear that

predation by the introduced brown tree snake (Boiga irregularis) is the

primary cause of decline for the endangered birds (Savidge 1987). For

fruit bats, poaching is a serious threat along with predation by the

brown tree snake (DAWR 1993).

The Mariana crow is currently extant in the wild on Guam and the

neighboring island of Rota, 44 miles to the north of Guam. The

population on Rota has been relatively stable and, based on a 1982

survey, was believed to number about 1,300 individuals (Engbring et al.

1986). Additional surveys will be conducted on Rota, starting in 1994,

to acquire more current information. On Guam, the population has

declined and is now believed to number approximately 50 individuals

(DAWR 1993), with little or no successful reproduction since 1986.

Compared to other forest birds native to Guam, the Mariana crow

requires relatively large tracts of forest that do not have high levels

of human activity.

The Mariana fruit bat is found on all the major islands in the

Marianas. Only the Guam population is listed as endangered, although

populations on Saipan, Tinian, and Aguijan are considered category 1

candidate species, and the populations on Rota and the islands north of

Saipan are considered category 2 candidate species (56 FR 225).

Category 1 includes taxa for which information in the Service's

possession is sufficient to support a proposal to list. Category 2

includes species for which information in the Service's possession

indicates that listing is possibly appropriate, but is insufficient to

support a proposal to list as endangered or threatened at this time. On

Guam, the Mariana fruit bat was historically found throughout native

forests. By the 1980's, population numbers on Guam had dropped, and the

species was restricted to forests on the northern tip of the island

(USFWS 1990b), although there are occasional reports of bats from

southern Guam around Fena Reservoir. Various species of Pacific fruit

bats generally use a variety of forest types, including agricultural

forest in close proximity to residential areas. Adequate protection

from poaching has not been possible on Guam and bats have been

extirpated from residential areas on the island. This activity

continues despite the fact that it has been illegal to hunt fruit bat

species on Guam since 1966.

The Micronesian kingfisher, a subspecies endemic to Guam, was at

one time found throughout most of Guam's forests (Jenkins 1983). Up to

3,000 might have survived in the wild when the species was listed in

1984, but the kingfisher declined rapidly and is extirpated from the

wild today. A captive population has been established and is maintained

at several mainland zoos including the Bronx, Philadelphia, and

National Zoos. Once the brown tree snake is brought under control, it

is hoped that the Guam Micronesian kingfisher can be reintroduced in

the wild using the progeny produced by these captive flocks.

Three of the six forest species, all endemic to Guam, have not been

observed in the wild for several years and are believed to be extinct:

the little Mariana fruit bat, Guam broadbill, and the Guam bridled

white-eye. No records of the little Mariana fruit bat exist after 1968.

In 1983, the Guam broadbill was restricted to a small area at the north

end of the island and the population was estimated to be under 100

individuals. Two sightings of individuals were made in 1984: One in

March in Northwest Field, and one in August adjacent to the Navy golf

course in Barrigada (USFWS 1990a). A single broadbill was possibly

heard in the Naval Communications area in 1988 (U.S. Navy 1989). Since

then, the broadbill has virtually disappeared from the island. Fewer

than 50 bridled white-eyes were thought to survive in 1983. The last

individual was observed in June of that year (Beck 1984).

The areas for which the Service proposed critical habitat

designation are those identified as ``high priority essential habitat''

and ``essential habitat'' in the two recovery plans for these species

(USFWS 1990a and USFWS 1990b). The total acreage of the proposed areas

is approximately 16,893 acres (6,837 hectares (ha)) in northern Guam

and 7,669 acres (3,104 ha) in southern Guam, for a total of 24,562

acres (9,944 ha) island wide. About 83 percent of the land within the

proposed critical habitat of the six forest species on Guam is in

Federal ownership and is predominantly under the jurisdiction of either

the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Air Force. Approximately 14.5 percent is

owned by the Government of Guam, while the remaining 3.5 percent is in

private ownership.

Certain forest areas on Guam must be given special management if

the remaining forest species are to survive. They consist of relatively

contiguous tracts of forest types, including mature limestone forests,

mixed woodlands, second growth stands, coastal strand forests, coconut

forests, and ravine forests. All are habitat types favored by Guam

forest species. When isolated from excessive human disturbance, such

forest types fulfill the habitat requirements of the Mariana crow and

Mariana fruit bat in providing relatively large, contiguous tracts of

forest with a minimum of human disturbance. The Service believes that

the Guam Micronesian kingfisher could be reintroduced to these

protected areas as well.

Protection of these areas would allow for the continued survival of

the species that are either currently restricted to a small fraction of

their former historical range or extirpated from the wild in Guam. A

key management consideration common to all of Guam's native terrestrial

species is control of the introduced brown tree snake, which was a

major factor in the population declines of these species. Conservation

of these species will be substantially enhanced through protection and

management of key portions of their historic range.

The endangered species problems on Guam are complex, and the

Service believes that a cooperative, proactive approach to species and

habitat management will yield the best chances for survival and

recovery of these species in the wild. The Government of Guam and the

Federal government share common goals for the recovery of endangered

and threatened species, protection of native flora and fauna,

conservation of unique ecosystems, and maintenance of native biological

diversity. The Government of Guam and the Federal government must

continue cooperative efforts to develop and implement programs for the

recovery of endangered and threatened species, and to protect key

habitats in perpetuity with the common goal of reversing the wildlife

extinction crisis facing Guam.

To meet these shared goals and to more effectively manage the

essential habitat needed for the recovery of all of Guam's endangered

species, the Service established the Guam National Wildlife Refuge on

certain lands and waters of Guam to be managed in a coordinated manner

by the Service, Government of Guam, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. The

purposes for establishing this refuge are: (1) To protect and restore

essential habitats and provide for recovery actions for Guam's

endangered and threatened species; (2) to conserve migratory species

and their habitats; (3) to protect and manage other native wildlife and

their habitats; (4) to control predation of native species,

particularly by the brown tree snake; (5) to complement ongoing

Government of Guam and Department of Defense (DOD) programs in natural

resource management, conservation, law enforcement, research, and

education; (6) to provide opportunities for public education, enjoyment

of wildlife, cultural use of resources, and scientific research; and

(7) to maintain the scenic values of the protected areas. The Guam

National Wildlife Refuge is established as an overlay refuge on 22,477

acres, through a memorandum of understanding and managed through

cooperative agreements among the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and

Service. The Service owns an additional 371 acres in fee title. Of

these lands, 21,204 acres were proposed as critical habitat in the 1991

proposal.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the June 14, 1991, proposed rule and associated notifications,

all interested parties were requested to submit factual reports or

information that might contribute to the development of a final rule to

designate critical habitat on Guam. Appropriate State agencies, county

governments, Federal agencies, scientific organizations, and other

interested parties were contacted and requested to comment.

A public hearing on the proposed rule was announced in the Federal

Register on July 12, 1991, and was held on July 31, 1991 (56 FR 27485).

The initial comment period for the proposed rule ended August 13, 1991.

A request was received on August 8, 1991, by the Guam Urunao Resort

Corporation, to reopen the comment period. The Service reopened the

comment period from October 15, 1991, until October 31, 1991, to obtain

additional information on the economic impacts of the proposed

designation of critical habitat. This comment period was announced in

the Federal Register (56 FR 51668) and in the Pacific Daily News.

The comment period was reopened again from June 12, 1992, until

July 15, 1992, due to the availability of an Environmental Assessment

pertaining to the establishment of an overlay refuge on Guam and a

request to reopen the comment period by the National Wildlife

Federation. This comment period was announced in the Federal Register

(57 FR 25007) and advertised in the Pacific Daily News.

The Service reopened the comment period from March 1, 1993, until

March 31, 1993, based on the availability of a revised Environmental

Assessment pertaining to the establishment of an overlay refuge. This

comment period was announced in the Federal Register (58 FR 11821) and

also advertised in the Pacific Daily News.

Summary of Comments

The public comment period for the designation of critical habitat

for endangered species on Guam was open a total of 140 days. During

this time, a total of 85 comments were received from 75 commenters. Of

the 85 comments, 59 (70 percent) supported the designation of critical

habitat as proposed, 18 (21 percent) opposed the designation of

critical habitat, and 8 (9 percent) had various opinions that neither

expressly supported nor opposed the designation of critical habitat.

Also, of the 85 comments, 13 (15 percent) supported the establishment

of an overlay refuge, while 3 (4 percent) stated that an overlay refuge

alone would not be sufficient to protect endangered species on Guam.

Issue 1: Several respondents maintained that opposition to critical

habitat revolves around a few local families and their economic

interests in their property, that Guam's forests are worth more than

additional development, and that most of Guam's people support

protection of Guam's forests over commercial development.

Service Response: The endangered species problems on Guam are

complex, and the Service believes that a cooperative, proactive

approach to both species and habitat management will yield the best

chances for the long-term survival and recovery of these species in the

wild. To meet these shared goals and to more effectively manage the

essential habitat needed for the recovery of all of Guam's endangered

species, the Service established a National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) on

most of the Federal lands proposed as critical habitat and certain

waters of Guam to be managed by the Service, the Government of Guam,

U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. The Service believes that the

establishment of the Refuge adequately protects Guam's forests and the

species that depend on them.

Issue 2: Some respondents expressed the need for both the

designation of critical habitat and an overlay refuge to adequately

protect endangered species and their habitats on Guam. The overlay

refuge alone, they maintained, will not provide the controls necessary

to protect endangered species, and, at a minimum, critical habitat

needs to be designated.

Service Response: The designation of critical habitat would have

provided some extra assurances that actions funded, authorized, or

carried out by the Federal government would not destroy or adversely

modify habitat needed by Guam forest species. Unless there is such

Federal involvement, the designation of critical habitat does not

affect actions of private landowners or local government activities.

The establishment of a National Wildlife Refuge, on the other hand,

allows for the protection and active management of Refuge lands.

Therefore, the Service has determined that the designation of critical

habitat would yield no net benefits above those provided by the Refuge

and the designation of critical habitat in conjunction with the

establishment of the Refuge is not required for the protection of

Guam's endangered species.

Issue 3: Support was expressed for critical habitat as a deterrent

to development. Comments maintained that development has improved

Guam's economy and destroyed much of its ecology, that there is a huge

need to curtail development and military expansion on Guam and that

critical habitat designation will help indigenous people to protect

their natural heritage and honor the memory of their ancestors.

Service Response: The Service expects that the establishment of the

Refuge will be adequate to protect Guam's endangered forest species and

the habitats on which they depend. However, the establishment of the

Refuge will not affect the extent of development or the possibility of

military expansion outside of the areas designated for protection.

Issue 5: Opposition was expressed to the exclusion of private lands

from critical habitat designation.

Service Response: No lands on Guam are currently being considered

for critical habitat designation. Private lands were not included in

the Refuge because of prohibitive costs associated with land

acquisition. The Service believes that the Guam National Wildlife

Refuge provides for increased protection, management, and program

funding for the bulk of essential forest habitat on Guam, and that the

protection of endangered forest species' habitat on private lands would

best be accomplished through existing environmental compliance

processes.

Issue 6: Opposition to critical habitat designation was expressed

on the grounds that it would place serious economic and operational

constraints on potential military and private development activities.

The economic analysis pertaining to the proposed rule was criticized as

not adequately addressing real economic impacts.

Service Response: The purpose of the economic analysis on the

designation of critical habitat is to gather the best available data on

economic or other impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation

to assist in determining whether adjustments should be made before the

critical habitat designation is made final. The economic analysis

addressed the possible impacts of the critical habitat designation on

Federal, Territory of Guam, and local landowners and the regional and

national economies. The analysis was conducted by examining the

possible ways the designation of critical habitat might restrict the

use of Federal funds or permits for activities affecting or affected by

the designation. Use of private, Territory of Guam, or local funds for

activities that do not require a Federal permit is not restricted by a

critical habitat designation and was beyond the scope of the economic

analysis. The economic analysis was conducted using the best

information available, and it addressed the economic impacts to the

greatest extent possible.

The effects of establishing the Refuge on the economic environment

were also evaluated in the Environmental Assessment for the Guam

National Wildlife Refuge. Because the Service is only including Federal

lands within the Refuge, and given the restrictions of the Act upon

Federal lands, the potential development of important native forest

lands in Federal ownership, even without the establishment of a Refuge,

is not likely.

Issue 7: The opinion was expressed that critical habitat

designation alone does not adequately address endangered species

concerns on Guam. Development pressure and additional military uses

were predicted to take over, and concern was indicated that, unless

adequate, high quality, habitat is protected now, it will not be

available for reintroductions.

Service Response: The Service strongly agrees with these concerns

and, therefore, has established the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. The

purposes for establishing the Refuge are: (1) To protect and restore

essential habitats and provide for recovery actions for Guam's

endangered and threatened species (which include reintroductions); (2)

to conserve migratory species and their habitats; (3) to protect and

manage migratory species and other native wildlife and their habitats;

(4) to control predation upon native species, particularly by the brown

tree snake; (5) to complement ongoing Government of Guam and Department

of Defense (DOD) programs in natural resource management, conservation,

law enforcement, research, and education; (6) to provide opportunities

for public education, enjoyment of wildlife, cultural use of resources,

and scientific research; and, (7) to maintain the scenic values of the

protected areas. The Refuge has been established through a memorandum

of understanding and managed through cooperative agreements among the

U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and Service. The Service has determined that

the establishment of the Refuge adequately addresses the threats to the

endangered forest species on Guam and provides for the protection of

their habitat.

Issue 8: Critical habitat designation was opposed for including too

much land.

Service Response: No habitat is currently being considered for

designation as critical habitat on Guam and only Federal lands are

included in the Refuge. To determine which lands the Service should

include within the boundaries of the Refuge, habitat was evaluated on

the basis of its biological importance to endangered and threatened

species, migratory birds, other native wildlife, and the conservation

of biological diversity. Federal lands that were identified as

``essential habitat'' in published recovery plans for endangered forest

birds, waterbirds, and fruit bats were considered priority areas for

protection. Other areas with outstanding conservation values that were

considered for inclusion in the Refuge included wetlands, migratory

bird foraging and loafing areas, and sea turtle nesting beaches.

Issue 9: An overlay refuge was supported as the best method for the

protection and recovery of endangered species on Guam.

Service Response: The Service agrees with this statement and has

established the Guam National Wildlife Refuge.

Issue 10: Critical habitat designation was opposed as a Federal

condemnation of land and plot to steal lands from Guam's people.

Service Response: Designation of critical habitat is a regulatory

exercise; it is not a Federal condemnation of land. Designation of

critical habitat does not result in additional legal restrictions on

private lands unless such lands are subject to actions that are

authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Non-Federal, as

well as Federal lands, with or without designated critical habitat, are

still subject to prohibitions against take of listed species on their

land, pursuant to section 9 of the Act. Designation of critical habitat

is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act for threatened and

endangered species whenever such designation is prudent and

determinable.

Finding and Withdrawal

The Service finds that designation of critical habitat is not

prudent. The constituent elements of the habitat will be protected on

an area sufficient to provide for the conservation of listed species

through refuge designation. A designation of critical habitat would

have provided some extra assurances that actions funded, authorized, or

carried out by the Federal government would not destroy or adversely

modify habitat needed by Guam forest species. Unless such Federal

involvement exists, the designation of critical habitat does not affect

actions of private landowners or local government activities. The

establishment of the Guam National Wildlife Refuge allows for the

protection and active management of refuge lands. Additionally, many

more of Guam's native species will directly benefit from management

provided by the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. By establishing a refuge

on Guam, most of the lands identified in the proposed rule for critical

habitat will benefit from active protection and wildlife management

programs as well as increased cooperation among the Service, Government

of Guam, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Air Force. A total of 21,204 acres

originally proposed as critical habitat are now in the refuge,

including all of the acreage actually occupied by the extant forest

species. The Service will maintain a resident staff on Guam to

coordinate and conduct wildlife management, research, and educational

and public use programs in cooperation and coordination with the

Government of Guam and the Service's military refuge partners.

Biological monitoring, wildlife and habitat enhancement and recovery

programs, and brown tree snake control programs have and will continue

to be developed, coordinated, and implemented by the cooperating

agencies within the framework of the refuge cooperative agreements.

Refuge establishment enables the Service to implement research and

endangered species recovery programs that could not be implemented by

designating critical habitat. Law enforcement will continue and will be

conducted in conjunction with DOD and the Government of Guam.

Although the proposed critical habitat included slightly different

military tracts than is designated in the Guam National Wildlife

Refuge, the benefits to endangered species will not decrease as a

result of this withdrawal. Some of the DOD lands that were proposed for

critical habitat included excess military lands. Also included were

operational areas, such as runways, industrial facilities, and

urbanized areas, which did not contain the constituent elements of the

habitat needed by listed species. Therefore, the proposed critical

habitat included more DOD land than was necessary to support recovered

populations of endangered species on Guam. The Service has determined

that elimination of these operational areas from the Guam National

Wildlife Refuge is appropriate and does not diminish the capability to

provide special management to endangered species habitat.

Private lands are not included in the Guam National Wildlife

Refuge. Even though these lands contain habitat for forest species, the

acquisition of private lands was not considered for the refuge because

of prohibitive costs associated with land acquisition. Because the Guam

National Wildlife Refuge provides for increased protection, management,

and program funding for 21,204 acres of essential forest habitat, the

protection of endangered forest species' habitat on private lands would

best be accomplished through existing environmental compliance

processes. In addition, lands owned by the Government of Guam were

excluded from the Guam National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 4,000

acres of land owned by the Government of Guam contain habitat for

listed species. Most of this land is currently contained in

conservation areas protected through local regulation. Should the

Service conclude that designation of critical habitat would be prudent

at some future time, a new proposal would be required with the

appropriate public comment and response. Among the circumstances which

could prompt such reconsideration would be a decision by the U.S. Navy

or Air Force to ``excess'' military lands which are now part of the

overlay refuge.

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16

U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) provides guidelines and directives for the

conservation of ``species threatened with extinction'' on all refuge

lands. In light of this and other legal mandates, the Guam National

Wildlife Refuge will provide special management and protection for

Guam's endangered species. Section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Endangered Species

Act defines ``critical habitat'', in part, as specific areas ``which

may require special management considerations or protection.'' Because

the designation of critical habitat would not yield any additional

benefits above those provided by the refuge, the designation of

critical habitat on Guam is found to be not prudent. In compliance with

4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act of 1973, as amended, the Service withdraws

its proposed rule of June 14, 1991, to designate critical habitat for

six endangered forest species on Guam.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon

request from the Service's Honolulu Field Office (see ADDRESSES above).

Author

The primary author of this withdrawal notice is Elizabeth Sharpe,

Ecological Services, Pacific Islands Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (see ADDRESSES section).

Authority

The authority for this action is section 4(b)(6)(B)(ii) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: March 29, 1994.

Robert P. Davison,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 94-7942 Filed 3-30-94; 12:17 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P