[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53589-53605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7583]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AU32
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Rota Bridled White-Eye (Zosterops rotensis)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for the Rota Bridled White-eye (Zosterops
rotensis) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). In total, approximately 3,958 acres (ac) (1,602 hectares (ha))
fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation on the
Island of Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
DATES: This rule becomes effective on October 12, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this final rule, will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, Box 50088,
Honolulu, HI 96850 (telephone 808-792-9400). The final rule and
economic analysis will also be available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address
(telephone 808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9581). Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339, 7 days a week and 24
hours a day.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act
Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful
conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat
plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often
misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of
exclusions under the Act section 4(b)(2), there are significant
limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under the Act
section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) Designation provides additional
protection to habitat only where there is a Federal nexus; (2) the
protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation,
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would in
fact take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory
protections, policies, or other factors relevant to agency decision-
making would not prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and
(3) designation of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of
destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, but it does not
require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
Currently, only 475 species, or 36 percent of the 1,310 listed
species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service, have
designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,310
listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section
7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9
protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the
States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative,
nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The Service believes
that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas originally proposed for
designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004). In that case, the Ninth Circuit
invalidated the Service's regulation defining ``destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.'' In response, on December 9, 2004,
the Director issued guidance to be considered in making section 7
adverse modification determinations. This critical habitat designation
does not use the invalidated regulation in our consideration of the
benefits of including areas in this final designation. The Service will
carefully
[[Page 53590]]
manage future consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical
habitat, particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse
modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the
Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis
has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical
habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant
social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process
of designation of critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and
controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat,
combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make
critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result,
critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts
rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that
limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other
information required to make the designation most meaningful.
In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that
additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those
actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need
of protection.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply
with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing
petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically
imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing
proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left
the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or
to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on
listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated
with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn
fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse
impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless and is very
expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may
provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). These
costs, which are not required for many other conservation actions,
directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible
conservation actions.
Background
Our intent is to discuss only topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat in this final rule. For more
information on the Rota bridled white-eye, refer to the final listing
rule published in the Federal Register on January 22, 2004 (69 FR
3022).
Previous Federal Actions
On September 14, 2005, we published a proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye (70 FR 54335). The
public comment period was open for 60 days until November 14, 2005. On
May 4, 2006, we published a notice in the Federal Register and issued a
press release announcing the reopening of the public comment period and
the availability of the draft economic analysis for the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye (71 FR
26315). The comment period was open for an additional 30 days until
June 5, 2006. For more information on previous Federal actions
concerning the Rota bridled white-eye, refer to the final rule listing
this species as endangered, published in the Federal Register on
January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3022), and the proposed critical habitat rule
published in the Federal Register on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54335).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye that was
published on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54335). We also contacted
appropriate Federal, Commonwealth, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested parties and invited them to comment
on the proposed rule.
We received a total of 14 written comments during the 2 comment
periods on the proposal published on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54335),
and the draft economic analysis published on May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26315).
These included responses from eight designated peer reviewers, four
individuals or organizations (one organization provided comments during
both comment periods), and one from the CNMI Division of Fish and
Wildlife. We did not receive comments from any Federal agencies. Ten
commenters supported the proposed designation, two commenters provided
information and expressed neither opposition nor support for the
proposed designation, and one expressed concern regarding the size of
the proposed designation. We reviewed all comments received for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the Rota bridled white-eye. Substantive comments were grouped into
three general issues, are addressed in the following summary, and were
incorporated into this final rule as appropriate. We did not receive
any requests for a public hearing.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from 11 knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species,
the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation
biology principles. We received responses from eight of the peer
reviewers. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and
conclusions and provided additional information and suggestions to
improve the final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule
as appropriate.
Comments Related to Life History, Habitat Characteristics, and
Ecological Considerations
1. Comment: Three peer reviewers stated that there is limited
evidence to support the statement that black drongo and rat predation
are important threats to the Rota bridled white-eye. One peer reviewer
also stated that there is limited evidence to indicate that habitat
[[Page 53591]]
fragmentation is a threat to the Rota bridled white-eye.
Our Response: We agree that the available information on the
threats to the Rota bridled white-eye is limited and that there is not
strong evidence to indicate whether rat and black drongo predation and
habitat fragmentation are important threats to the Rota bridled white-
eye. However, introduced species and habitat fragmentation have both
been documented to be important threats to many species from the
islands in the Pacific. In the recovery outline (USFWS 2004, p. 11) and
draft recovery plan (USFWS 2006, p. 33-34) for the Rota bridled white-
eye, we recommend that additional research be conducted on these
potential threats and that appropriate management actions be undertaken
based on the results of this research.
2. Comment: Three peer reviewers stated that on-the-ground
conservation is needed, in addition to critical habitat designation, to
conserve the Rota bridled white-eye.
Our Response: We agree that on-the-ground management of the threats
and resource needs of the species is necessary for the long-term
conservation of the species. Management activities are described in the
recovery outline (USFWS 2004, p. 11) and draft recovery plan (USFWS
2006, pp. 39-51) for the species.
Comments Related to Critical Habitat, Primary Constituent Elements, and
Methodology
3. Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the population recovery
benchmark (16,000 Rota bridled white-eyes) may not be achievable
because the native forest canopy and available acreage have decreased.
Our Response: We agree that the quality of Rota bridled white-eye
habitat has diminished over the last several decades and currently may
not be sufficient to support a population of 16,000 Rota bridled white-
eyes. However, the amount of critical habitat designated was based on
the assumption that it could support a population of 16,000 Rota
bridled white-eyes with appropriate management activities, such as
restoration of degraded forest areas (see ``Special Management
Considerations or Protections'' section for details).
4. Comment: One peer reviewer noted that we did not utilize Rota
bridled white-eye densities reported by Engbring et al. (1986, p. 44)
to help identify the amount of land to designate as critical habitat
and that some unanalyzed survey data collected by the CNMI in 1992 and
1993 may also be available for estimating white-eye densities.
Our Response: We considered the density estimate provided by
Engbring et al. (1986, p. 44) in the preparation of the proposed rule,
but during development of the final rule, we determined that survey
work by Fancy and Snetsinger (2001, p. 276) and Amidon (2000, p. 68)
was the best available information for this purpose. The density
estimate calculated by Engbring et al. (1986, p. 44) was for a large
portion of Rota that included a wide variety of habitats of varying
quality. We believe this density estimate is too broad and does not
provide an accurate estimate of the number of Rota bridled white-eyes a
forested area can support if the threats to the species are controlled.
We also reviewed the CNMI reports by Lusk (1993, pp. 235-236) and
Worthington and Taisacan (1994, pp. 17-18) on Rota bridled white-eye
research during the 2 years identified by the peer reviewer.
Descriptions of the survey methodology in these two reports indicated
that surveys for Rota bridled white-eyes were conducted along two
transects. However, Rota bridled white-eye densities were not
calculated along these transects and we were unable to obtain density
data from these surveys. Therefore, we could not consider this
information in our analysis.
5. Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the designation of
critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye and Mariana crow will
lead to local hostility toward both species and their conservation. One
commenter suggested that there is no basis for the concern described in
the Draft Economic Analysis that designating critical habitat for the
Rota bridled white-eye might result in harm to the species due to
negative public sentiment.
Our Response: We acknowledge that, despite the Service's outreach
activities, considerable apprehension remains about the impacts of
critical habitat on land use on Rota. Nevertheless, without
documentation that the designation of critical habitat would increase
the threat to the Rota bridled white-eye or Mariana crow, we have no
basis for changing our prudency determination. The basis for disclosing
negative public sentiment and its possible effect on the Rota bridled
white-eye is presented in Section 1.2.3.3 of the Draft Economic
Analysis (p. 1-7). Public sentiment was offered in meetings with
various agencies, as cited in the Draft Economic Analysis, and
determined to be information for additional consideration and
appropriately labeled as such. This information is not qualitatively or
quantitatively defined in the economic impact section in Section 3.
6. Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that non-forested areas may
also need to be considered for designation due to loss and degradation
of native forest on the Sabana.
Our Response: We agree that reforestation may be an important tool
in the conservation of the Rota bridled white-eye. However, because
these non-forested areas were not occupied by Rota bridled white-eye at
the time of listing, do not contain the primary constituent elements,
and are not essential for the conservation of the white-eye, we did not
consider these areas for designation.
7. Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that additional information
be provided with Map 1 to explain why some areas surrounded by critical
habitat were not designated.
Our Response: We only designated areas that contain the primary
constituent elements for the Rota bridled white-eye. Many of the large
areas not designated that lie within the outer boundary of the
designation are composed of open fields or agricultural plots that do
not contain the primary constituent elements needed for the survival of
the species.
8. Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that the current designation
was based on the best available information but suggested that as
additional information is obtained about the habitat requirements of
the Rota bridled white-eye it may become necessary to modify the
designation in the future.
Our Response: If new information becomes available about the
habitat requirements of the Rota bridled white-eye which indicates that
the designation is not appropriate for the conservation of this
species, we will consider amending this critical habitat rule as
available resources allow.
9. Comment: Three commenters suggested that the forested areas
along the rivers in the upper reaches of the Talakhaya region be added
to the designation because Rota bridled white-eyes and their primary
constituent elements are currently found in these areas.
Our Response: We agree that some of the forested areas in the
Talakhaya region are utilized by Rota bridled white-eyes and may
contain some of their primary constituent elements. However, since the
first island-wide forest bird survey in 1982, Rota bridled white-eyes
have been recorded primarily above 490 feet (ft; 150 meters (m))
elevation (Engbring et al. 1986, p. 77; Amidon 2000, p. 38; Fancy and
[[Page 53592]]
Snetsinger 2001, p. 278). Therefore, we utilized this elevation contour
as a criterion for delimiting critical habitat and listed forests above
this elevation contour as a primary constituent element for this
species (see ``Primary Constituent Elements'' for details). The
majority of the forested areas along the rivers in the Talakhaya region
are below this elevation so they were not considered in the
designation. We did, however, include Talakhaya region forested areas
above this elevation in the proposal and final designation. In
addition, one of our selection criteria for the designation was
sufficiently forested areas to meet the recovery goal of 16,000
individuals for the species (see the ``Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat'' section for details). Because sufficiently forested
areas above 490 ft (150 m) elevation (enough to attain the recovery
goal) were available for the designation, we did not include forested
areas below this elevation contour.
10. Comment: Two peer reviewers and one commenter stated that the
section of the proposed rule titled ``Designation of Critical Habitat
Provides Little Additional Benefit to the Species'' is political,
editorializing, and out of place in a proposal.
Our Response: The section referenced by the peer reviewers and
commenter is intended to be a general statement regarding our position
on the designation of critical habitat. As discussed in the preamble of
this and other critical habitat designation rules, we believe that, in
most cases, conservation mechanisms provided through section 7, the
section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective
prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, the
section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative programs
with private and public landowners provide greater incentives and
conservation benefits than the designation of critical habitat.
11. Comment: One commenter stated the Service's complaints
regarding accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations in the
section of the rule titled ``Designation of Critical Habitat Provides
Little Additional Benefit to the Species'' does not apply to the Rota
bridled white-eye proposal because the Service agreed to the timeline
in the settlement agreement.
Our Response: As stated above, the section referenced by the
commenter is intended to be a general statement regarding our position
on the designation of critical habitat. For some designations, the
schedules for completing these rules are not necessarily accelerated.
Comments Related to Economic Analysis and Other Relevant Impacts
1. Comment: One commenter stated that the draft wrongly attributed
costs related to restrictions on agricultural homestead development to
critical habitat designation, and that other factors are the causes.
Our Response: The moratorium associated with the agricultural
homestead program described in the draft Economic Analysis is a
moratorium on new agricultural homestead applications, not on the
development of agricultural homesteads. A backlog on existing
applications exists, and there is no moratorium on development
associated with the existing applications. The draft Economic Analysis
does not assume that the existing moratorium on new applications is
attributable to critical habitat designation for the Rota bridled
white-eye. The analysis does identify a percentage of land within the
critical habitat unit that has agricultural homestead development
potential, and identifies the cost associated with the loss of that
development potential. To estimate a range of costs, we presumed that
the current moratorium on new applications would be lifted because of
the importance of land to people of Northern Mariana Islands descent,
and the lack of information to suggest that the lifting of the
moratorium would be unlikely.
2. Comment: Three commenters stated that the analysis of lost
development value of critical habitat land in the draft economic
analysis does not accurately reflect potential development on Rota in
the next 20 years.
Our Response: As described in Section 3.2.2.3 of the Draft Economic
Analysis (pp. 3-15), the analysis does not presume the potentially
impacted acres will be developed in the next 20 years, but assumes that
value is lost associated with the lost option for development. The
estimated value of a parcel of land implicitly incorporates its
potential for future development. The methods and data used to estimate
the reduction in land value associated with restrictions on development
were peer reviewed.
3. Comment: The CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife stated that the
economic impact of the critical habitat designation of the Mariana Crow
on Rota was far less than that of the Rota bridled white-eye, and
another commenter stated that the draft economic analysis incorrectly
lumps the costs associated with critical habitat designation with costs
already triggered by the listing of the species.
Our Response: The economic analysis estimates the total cost of
species conservation activities without subtracting the impact of pre-
existing baseline regulations (i.e., the cost estimates are fully co-
extensive). In 2001, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals instructed
the Service to conduct a full analysis of all of the economic impacts
of proposed critical habitat designation, regardless of whether those
impacts are attributable co-extensively to other causes (New Mexico
Cattle Growers Ass'n v. USFWS, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001)). The
economic analysis complies with direction from the U.S. 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals. This analysis identifies those economic activities
believed to most likely threaten the Rota white-eye and its habitat
and, where possible, quantifies the economic impact to avoid, mitigate,
or compensate for such threats within the boundaries of the critical
habitat designation. Due to the difficulty in making a credible
distinction between listing and critical habitat effects within
critical habitat boundaries, this analysis considers all future
conservation-related impacts to be coextensive with the designation.
4. Comment: One commenter stated that the draft economic analysis
failed to analyze the benefits of critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary to
designate critical habitat based on the best scientific data available
after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, and any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. The Service's approach for estimating
economic impacts includes both economic efficiency and distributional
effects. The measurement of economic efficiency is based on the concept
of opportunity costs, which reflect the value of goods and services
foregone in order to comply with the effects of the designation (such
as lost economic opportunity associated with restrictions on land use).
Where data are available, the economic analyses do attempt to measure
the net economic impact. However, no data was found that enabled us to
measure beneficial impacts, nor was such information submitted during
the public comment period. Most of the other benefit categories
submitted by the commenter reflect broader social values, which are not
the same as economic impacts. While the Secretary must consider
economic and other relevant impacts as part of the final decision-
making process under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Act explicitly
states that it is the
[[Page 53593]]
government's policy to conserve all threatened and endangered species
and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Thus, we believe that
explicit consideration of broader social values for the subspecies and
its habitat, beyond the more traditionally defined economic impacts, is
not necessary as Congress has already clarified the social importance.
We note, as a practical matter, it is difficult to develop credible
estimates of such values, because they are not readily observed through
typical market transactions and can only be inferred through advanced,
tailor-made studies that are time consuming and expensive to conduct.
We currently lack both the budget and time needed to conduct such
research before meeting our court-ordered final rule deadline. In
summary, we believe that society places significant value on conserving
threatened and endangered species and the habitats they depend on, but
we need only to consider whether the economic impacts (both positive
and negative) are significant enough to merit exclusion of any
particular area without causing the species to go extinct.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for her failure to adopt
regulation consistent with the agency's comments or petition.''
Comments received from the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife regarding
the proposal to designate critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-
eye are addressed below.
1. State Comment: The CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife stated
that the forests in the As Rosalia area are severely degraded and
support very few Rota bridled white-eyes, and suggested that this area
be removed from the designation.
Our Response: We agree that the forests in the As Rosalia area are
degraded and likely support low numbers of Rota bridled white-eyes.
However, we estimated that approximately 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of forest
that contains features essential to the conservation of the Rota
bridled white-eye would be needed to support the long-term conservation
of the species (see the ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat''
section for details). Forests containing essential features are
primarily limited to the Sabana region, which includes the As Rosalia
area. The As Rosalia area is occupied, albeit by low numbers of Rota
bridled white-eyes (Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, p. 276), it still
contains features that are essential to the conservation of the species
(e.g., yoga, oschal, and kafu in the canopy or understory), and it has
the potential to be improved with appropriate management; therefore, we
have included this area in the final designation.
2. State Comment: The CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife stated
that the Sabana plateau is primarily grassland and agricultural land
and does not contain Rota bridled white-eyes or good habitat for the
species. Therefore, they recommend that this area be removed from the
designation.
Our Response: We agree that some of the Sabana plateau is not
forested, and we did not include these non-forested areas in the
proposal or in this final designation because they do not contain the
primary constituent elements. We also agree that some of the forested
areas on the Sabana plateau have sustained damage caused by typhoons,
deer browsing, and other factors. However, as stated above (see State
Comment 1), approximately 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of forest that contain
features essential to the conservation of the Rota bridled white-eye
would be needed to support the long-term conservation of the species
(see the ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' section for
details). Forests containing these essential features are primarily
limited to the Sabana region, which includes the Sabana plateau. The
Sabana plateau contains many of the features essential for the long-
term conservation of the Rota bridled white-eye (such as yoga, oschal,
and kafu in the canopy or understory), and with appropriate weed and
deer control measures we believe the forests can be managed to increase
Rota bridled white-eye numbers. We do not agree with the statement that
Rota bridled white-eyes are not found on the Sabana plateau. While the
central portion of the plateau is currently occupied at very low
population levels, the outer edges of the plateau contain high density
Rota bridled white-eye areas (Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, p. 276). We
did not remove the forested areas of the Sabana plateau from the final
designation because they contain documented occurrences of Rota bridled
white-eyes and their primary constituent elements.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In developing the final critical habitat designation for the Rota
bridled white-eye, we reviewed the comments received on our proposed
rule and draft economic analysis and conducted further evaluation of
lands included under the proposal. Based on our review, we have
determined that no changes to the proposed designation are warranted.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species, and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a 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 all methods and procedures necessary to bring any endangered
species 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 prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires formal consultation
on Federal actions that are likely to result in an adverse effect to
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 government or
public access to private lands.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species must first have features that
are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat
designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs
of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent
elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical
habitat only if its essential features may require special management
or protection. In addition, when the best available
[[Page 53594]]
scientific data demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species
do not require additional areas, we will not designate critical habitat
in areas not occupied by the species when it was listed. An area
currently occupied by the species that was not known to be occupied at
the time of listing will likely, but not always, be essential to the
conservation of the species and, therefore, typically included in the
critical habitat designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)
and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the
Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance
to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best
scientific data available. They require Service 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
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information is generally the listing package for the species.
Additional information sources 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, or other unpublished materials and
expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in
accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. 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, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical
habitat, we consider the physical and biological features (primary
constituent elements or PCEs) that are essential to the conservation of
the species, and within areas occupied by the species at the time of
listing, that may require special management considerations and
protection. These include, but are not limited to, space for individual
and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light,
minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or
shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development)
of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of the species, we have determined that the primary constituent
elements required by the Rota bridled white-eye for the biological
needs of foraging, sheltering, roosting, and nesting and rearing of
young are:
Forest above 490 ft (150 m) in elevation containing a midstory and
canopy layer, high epiphytic plant volume (typically 11 percent or
greater), Elatostema and Procris spp. on the ground, and yoga, oschal,
faniok, kafu, and/or ahgao trees as dominant forest components. In
addition, the habitat should contain specific forest components for
foraging, nesting, or both, as follows:
(1) Yoga, oschal, faniok, pengua, ahgao, amahadyan, avocado, hodda,
mapunyao, atoto, sosugi, and/or sumac-lada trees, and/or piao, in the
canopy or subcanopy for foraging; or
(2) Yoga, oschal, faniok, and/or sosugi trees 10 to 49 ft (3 to 15
m) tall and 1 to 24 in (2 to 60 cm) diameter at breast height for
nesting.
Because not all life history functions require all the primary
constituent elements, not all critical habitat will contain all the
primary constituent elements. However, the areas designated in this
rule have been determined to contain sufficient primary constituent
elements to provide for one or more of the life history functions of
the Rota bridled white-eye. For more information on the primary
constituent elements essential to the conservation of the Rota bridled
white-eye see the proposal to designate critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on September 14, 2005 (70 FR 54335).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We considered several factors in identifying and selecting lands
for designation as critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye.
First, we assessed the possible recovery goals for the species to help
determine the amount of habitat needed to conserve the species. The
recovery considerations are based on minimum viable population
information from Reed et al. (2003). Reed et al. (2003, p. 27) reviewed
minimum viable population sizes for 102 vertebrate species, including
one white-eye species, and estimated that 7,000 breeding adults had a
99 percent likelihood of persisting for 40 generations. We then used
data on Japanese white-eyes (Zosterops japonicus) (van Riper 2000, p.
10) and silvereyes (Zosterops lateralis) (Kikkawa and Wilson 1983, p.
189; Catterall et al. 1989, p. 559) to estimate the lifespan of the
Rota bridled white-eye and the percentage of its population that may be
breeding in order to apply Reed et al.'s findings to the Rota bridled
white-eye. We used the data on these two more closely related white-eye
species because similar population parameter estimates are not
available for the Rota bridled white-eye. The other species are similar
to the Rota bridled white-eye in size (Kikkawa 1980, p. 441; van Riper
2000, p. 2; Derrickson 1998), breeding biology (Amidon et al. 2004, p.
345), and social behavior (Catterall et al. 1982, p. 405; Amidon 2000,
pp. 33-34; van Riper 2000 pp. 6-7). Based on the information, a
potential benchmark for recovery of this species would be a single
population of at least 16,000 Rota bridled white-eyes on the island of
Rota. To determine the approximate quantity of habitat that would be
occupied by a population of this size, we reviewed Rota bridled white-
eye density estimates
[[Page 53595]]
from 1996 (Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, pp. 275-276) and 1999 (Amidon
2000, p. 68) surveys.
The maximum Rota bridled white-eye densities recorded by Fancy and
Snetsinger (2001, p. 276) in 1996, and Amidon (2000, p. 68) in 1999,
were approximately 3 and 4 white-eyes per ac (7 and 10 per ha),
respectively. The higher Rota bridled white-eye densities reported by
Amidon (2000) are likely a result of differing survey methods and not
an increase in Rota bridled white-eye densities over the years. The
Fancy and Snetsinger (2001, p. 276) estimates were based on a single
set of surveys in the Rota bridled white-eye's range involving area
searches. The Amidon estimates (2000, pp. 14-15) were based on multiple
point count surveys conducted in 1998 and 1999.
Based on these density estimates, we believe that 4 white-eyes per
ac (10 per ha) is a conservative estimate of the number of Rota bridled
white-eyes a forested area could support if the threats to the species
were controlled. Utilizing this density estimate, we then divided the
population recovery benchmark (16,000 Rota bridled white-eyes; see
discussion above) by 4 birds per ac (10 per ha) and estimated that
approximately 4,000 ac (1,600 ha) of forest would be needed to conserve
the Rota bridled white-eye. This was then used as a guideline for
selecting how much habitat was essential to the Rota bridled white-eye
for the critical habitat designation.
When selecting areas for designation, we first selected all of the
forested areas (approximately 638 ac (258 ha)) that contained high
densities of Rota bridled white-eyes in 1996 (Fancy and Snetsinger
2001, p. 276) and 1999 (Amidon 2000, pp. 68, 82). These areas are
primarily limestone forest or introduced forest with sosugi trees or
piao. We then selected low density areas that had large numbers of
white-eyes in 1982, 1987, 1989, and 1994, and large tracts of mature
limestone forest identified by Falanruw et al. (1989, pp. 2-3, 6-8).
These areas were prioritized because they contain the primary
constituent elements needed by the species and have supported larger
white-eye populations than other areas containing the white-eyes. When
defining critical habitat boundaries, we avoided areas not known to
contain primary constituent elements essential for Rota bridled white-
eye conservation, such as agricultural lands and other developed lands.
We are designating critical habitat on lands that contain the
features that are essential to the conservation of the Rota bridled
white-eye. These areas contain the primary constituent elements and
were considered to be occupied at the time the species was listed (69
FR 3022; January 22, 2004) (Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, p. 276). A brief
discussion of the area designated as critical habitat is provided in
the Critical Habitat Designation section below.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing and containing the
primary constituent elements may require special management
considerations or protections. As we undertake the process of
designating critical habitat for a species, we first evaluate lands
defined by the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species for inclusion in the designation pursuant
to section 3(5)(A) of the Act. Secondly, we evaluate lands defined by
those features to assess whether they may require special management
considerations or protection.
As stated in the final listing rule (69 FR 3022; January 22, 2004),
the available information indicates habitat loss and degradation and
predation by introduced rats (Rattus spp.) and birds (black drongos
(Dicrurus macrocercus)) are threats to the long-term conservation of
the Rota bridled white-eye. In addition, the small population size and
limited distribution of the species also make it vulnerable to
extinction from random environmental events (e.g., typhoons). To
address these threats and conserve the species, the following special
management actions may be needed: (1) Protection of the remaining
stands of mature limestone forest from clearing and modification; (2)
restoration of degraded areas; (3) invasive plant control; and (4) rat
and black drongo control. For additional information about the threats
to the Rota bridled white-eye, see the final listing rule (69 FR 3022;
January 22, 2004).
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating one unit of approximately 3,958 ac (1,602 ha) of
forested land for the Rota bridled white-eye as critical habitat (see
Map 1 in the rule portion of this document). This area contains
forested areas on 3,700 ac (1,498 ha) of public and 258 ac (104 ha) of
private lands along the slopes and top of the Sabana plateau.
Approximately 62 percent (2,292 ac; 928 ha) of the public land within
this proposed designation is within the Sabana Conservation Area. This
unit is composed of limestone forest, introduced forest, and secondary
vegetation that together contain the full range of primary constituent
elements needed for long-term conservation of the Rota bridled white-
eye. This area was considered occupied at the time the Rota bridled
white-eye was listed (69 FR 3022; January 22, 2004) (Fancy and
Snetsinger 2001, p. 276) and contains the high-density areas identified
by Fancy and Snetsinger (2001, p. 276); the only known nesting areas
for the Rota bridled white-eye (Pratt 1985, p. 93; Lusk and Taisacan
1997, p. 183; Amidon 2000, p. 109); and the areas where larger numbers
of Rota bridled white-eyes have been regularly observed during surveys
since 1982. This unit also contains the primary threats to the
conservation of the Rota bridled white-eye (introduced rats, black
drongos, and habitat degradation and loss [Engbring et al. 1986, pp.
10-11; Amidon 2000, pp. 41-43; Fancy and Snetsinger 2001, pp. 278-280])
and requires special management (see Special Management Considerations
or Protections above).
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' However, recent decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals have invalidated this definition. Pursuant to current
national policy and the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or
adverse modification is determined on the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the
primary constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve
the intended conservation role for the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, 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 proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency
[[Page 53596]]
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
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of proposed critical habitat. However, once a proposed species becomes
listed, or proposed critical habitat is designated as final, the full
prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The
primary utility of the conference procedures is to maximize the
opportunity for a Federal agency to adequately consider proposed
species and critical habitat and avoid potential delays in implementing
their proposed action as a result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance
process if those species are listed or the critical habitat is
designated.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, 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 a listed species or to destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. 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. As a result of this
consultation, the Service will issue: (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, but are likely to adversely
affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable.
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal
authority and jurisdiction, are economically and technologically
feasible, and are actions that the Director believes would avoid
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification
of 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 a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the Rota bridled white-eye or
its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation
under the Act. Activities on non-Federal lands requiring a Federal
permit (such as a permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the
Service) or involving some other Federal action (such as funding from
the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or
the Federal Emergency Management Agency) will be subject to the section
7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or
critical habitat, and actions that are not federally funded,
authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7 consultations.
Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for
Actions Involving Effects to the Rota Bridled White-eye and its
Critical Habitat
Jeopardy Standard
Prior to and following designation of critical habitat, the Service
has applied an analytical framework for Rota bridled white-eye jeopardy
analyses that relies heavily on the importance of the core area
population to the survival and recovery of the Rota bridled white-eye.
The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on this population but
also on the habitat conditions necessary to support it.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of the Rota bridled white-eye in a qualitative fashion without
making distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is
necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action is
incompatible with the viability of the affected core area population,
inclusive of associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy finding may be
warranted because of the relationship of the core area population to
the survival and recovery of the species as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9,
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for
Federal actions affecting Rota bridled white-eye critical habitat. The
key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the
current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally
established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species.
Generally, the conservation role of the Rota bridled white-eye critical
habitat unit is to support a viable core area population.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value
of critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye is appreciably
reduced. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in
consultation for the Rota bridled white-eye include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Actions that would reduce the amount of limestone forest above
490 ft (150 m) elevation in the Sabana region. Such activities could
include vegetation clearing and fires. These activities could eliminate
or reduce foraging and breeding habitat.
(2) Actions that would increase the fragmentation of limestone
forest above 490 ft (150 m) elevation in the Sabana region. Such
activities could include vegetation clearing and burning. These
activities could reduce connectivity between areas utilized by Rota
bridled white-eyes for foraging and breeding and increase the amount of
forest edge exposed to the potential impacts of typhoons (e.g., tree
uprooting and limb damage), thereby further reducing the availability
of breeding and foraging habitat.
(3) Actions that would degrade limestone forest above 490 ft (150
m) elevation in the Sabana region. Such activities could include
spreading or
[[Page 53597]]
introducing invasive weed species, such as Coccina grandis (scarlet
gourd), that inhibit the natural regeneration of native forest utilized
by Rota bridled white-eyes for breeding and foraging.
The critical habitat unit contains the features essential to the
conservation of the Rota bridled white-eye. The unit is within the
geographic range of the species, was occupied by the species at the
time of listing (based on observations made within the last 25 years),
and is likely to be used by the Rota bridled white-eye. Federal
agencies are already required to consult with us on activities in areas
currently occupied by the Rota bridled white-eye to ensure that their
actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the Rota bridled
white-eye.
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
to consider economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion
will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was
made available for public review on May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26315). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis until June 5, 2006.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of critical
habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye. This information is intended to
assist the Secretary in making decisions about whether the benefits of
excluding particular areas from the designation outweigh the benefits
of including those areas in the designation. The economic analysis
considers the economic efficiency effects that may result from the
designation, including habitat protections that may exist due to the
listing of the species. It also addresses distribution of impacts,
including an assessment of the potential effects on small entities and
the energy industry.
This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
Pre-designation costs include conservation activities to protect
the Rota bridled white-eye and its habitat associated with sections 4,
7, and 10 of the Act that have accrued since the species was listed as
endangered on January 22, 2004 (69 FR 3022), but prior to the
designation of critical habitat. Total pre-designation costs associated
with lands designated as critical habitat are estimated to be $68,000
in 2005 dollars. These costs include species and habitat research and
planning efforts associated with a proposed island-wide habitat
conservation plan.
Post-designation effects would include likely future costs
associated with protecting the Rota bridled white-eye and its habitat
in the 20-year period following the designation of critical habitat
(effectively 2006 through 2025). Costs for this designation are
associated with public land management, such as species and habitat
research and development of habitat conservation plans associated with
agricultural homesteads, or the loss of development value of potential
agricultural homestead lands that are not developed in the critical
habitat unit. Three alternatives were assessed for determining the
potential cost of this designation. The first alternative was the
development of an island-wide habitat conservation plan. The second was
the development of a habitat conservation plan just for agricultural
homesteads within the critical habitat unit. The third was that no
habitat conservation plan would be developed, and the value of the
developable land within the critical habitat unit would be lost. The
future costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 are similar: Total undiscounted
costs were estimated to range from $1,301,000 to $1,328,000 over the
20-year forecast period. Assuming a 7 percent discount rate, costs for
Alternatives 1 and 2 were estimated to range from a present value of
$806,000 to $830,000 or an annualized value of $76,000 to $79,000 over
the 20-year forecast period. Assuming a 3 percent discount rate, total
costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 were estimated to range from a present
value of $1,034,000 to $1,059,000 or an annualized value of $69,000 to
$71,000 over the forecast period. Future undiscounted costs for
Alternative 3 were estimated to be $4,700,000. Assuming a 7 percent
discount rate, the cost for Alternative 3 was estimated to be
$4,465,000 or an annualized value of $421,000 over the 20-year forecast
period. Assuming a 3 percent discount rate, the cost for Alternative 3
was estimated to be $4,572,000 or an annualized value of $307,000 over
the 20-year forecast period.
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents is
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species (see
ADDRESSES section), or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacificislands.
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Our economic analysis indicates an overall low cost resulting from
the designation. However, pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
must consider relevant impacts in addition to economic ones. We
determined that the lands within the designation of critical habitat
for the Rota bridled white-eye are not owned or managed by the
Department of Defense, there are currently no habitat conservation
plans for the Rota bridled white-eye, and the designation does not
include any Tribal lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact to
national security, partnerships, or habitat conservation plans from
this critical habitat designation. Based on the best available
information, including the prepared economic analysis, we believe the
unit contains the features that are essential for the conservation of
this species. Therefore, we have found no areas for which the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, and so have not
excluded any areas from this designation of critical habitat for Rota
bridled white-eye based on economic or other impacts.
Clarity of the Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this final rule easier to understand, including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the final
rule clearly stated? (2) Does the final rule contain technical jargon
that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the final rule
(grouping and order of the sections, use of headings, paragraphing, and
so forth) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the
notice in the
[[Page 53598]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in
understanding the final rule? (5) What else could we do to make this
final rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments on how we could make this final rule
easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of
the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You
may e-mail your comments to this address: [email protected].
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal or policy issues, but
will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the tight timeline for
publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. As explained above,
we prepared an economic analysis of this action, which has assisted us
in meeting the requirements of E.O. 12866, as well as section 4(b)(2)
of the Act to determine the economic consequences of designating the
specific areas as critical habitat. We also used it to help determine
whether to exclude any area from critical habitat.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to 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
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an 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 statement of factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA also amended the RFA
to require a certification statement.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities potentially affected, we also
consider whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may
affect the Rota bridled white-eye. Federal agencies also must consult
with us if their activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of
critical habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic
impact on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing or future Federal activities.
In our draft economic analysis of this designation, we evaluated
the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting
from the protection of the Rota bridled white-eye and its habitat
related to the listing of the species and the proposed designation of
critical habitat. The estimated effects are anticipated to be borne by
the CNMI government (which includes both the Department of Land and
Natural Resources and Department of Public Lands) and the Service. The
CNMI government has 69,221 constituents and is not considered a small
entity.
Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in adverse
modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule and this critical habitat designation. Within the critical
habitat designation, the types of Federal actions or authorized
activities that we have identified as potential concerns are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Regulation of water flows, damming, diversion, and
channelization implemented or licensed by Federal agencies;
(3) Road construction and maintenance and right-of-way designation
funded by the Federal Highway Administration, and Federal regulation of
agricultural activities;
(4) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
(5) Activities funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Department of Energy, or any other Federal agency.
It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could
modify a project or take measures to protect the Rota bridled white-
eye. The kinds of actions that may be included if future
[[Page 53599]]
reasonable and prudent alternatives become necessary include
conservation set-asides, management of competing nonnative species,
restoration of degraded habitat, and regular monitoring. These are
based on our understanding of the needs of the species and the threats
it faces, as described in the final listing rule and this critical
habitat designation. These measures are not likely to result in a
significant economic impact to project proponents, because no small
businesses are involved and most land is managed by the CNMI
government.
In summary, we have considered whether designation of critical
habitat would result in a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities. We have determined, for the above reasons and
based on currently available information, that it is not likely to
affect a substantial number of small entities. Federal involvement, and
thus section 7 consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area
designated. The most likely Federal involvement could include Federal
Highway Administration funding for road improvements and Federal
Emergency Management Agency funding for utility and building repair. A
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et
seq.)
Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 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. This final rule to
designate critical habitat for the Rota bridled white-eye is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
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:
(a) This rule will 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: Medicaid; AFDC 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 who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or 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.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will 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. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this final critical habitat designation with
appropriate resource agencies in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the Rota bridled white-eye may impose some additional
regulatory restrictions to those currently in place, but only where
there is a Federal action, and, therefore, will likely have little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements
of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the species are
specifically identified. While making this definition and
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long-
range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We are
[[Page 53600]]
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies the primary constituent elements within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the Rota bridled white-eye.
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. 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
Outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental
analyses as defined by NEPA in connection with designating critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This determination
has been upheld in the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert. denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996).
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, 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. We have determined that
there are no tribal lands on the island of Rota. Therefore, no Tribal
lands were included in the designation of critical habitat for the Rota
bridled white-eye.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author(s)
The primary author of this package is the Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h), revise the entry for ``White-eye, Rota bridled''
under ``BIRDS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where When Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
BIRDS
* * * * * * *
White-eye, Rota bridled.......... Zosterops rotensis.. Western Pacific Entire............. E 741 17.95(b) NA
Ocean-U.S.A
(Commonwealth of
the Northern
Mariana Islands).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95(b) by adding critical habitat for the ``Rota
bridled white-eye (Zosterops rotensis)'' under ``BIRDS,'' in the same
order in which species are presented in Sec. 17.11(h), to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(b) Birds
* * * * *
Rota Bridled White-Eye (Zosterops rotensis)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Rota, Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
Rota bridled white-eye are the habitat components that provide forest
above 490 feet (ft) (150 meters (m)) in elevation containing a midstory
and canopy layer, high epiphytic plant volume (typically 11 percent or
greater), Elatostema and Procris spp. on the ground, and Elaeocarpus
joga (yoga), Hernandia labyrinthica (oschal), Merrilliodendron
megacarpum (faniok), Pandanus tectorius (kafu), and/or Premna
obtusifolia (ahgao) trees as dominant forest components for foraging,
sheltering, roosting, and nesting and rearing of young. In addition,
the habitat should contain the specific forest components for foraging,
nesting, or both, as follows:
(i) Yoga, oschal, faniok, Macaranga thompsonii (pengua), ahgao,
Pipturus argenteus (amahadyan), Persea americana (avocado), Ficus
tinctoria (hodda), Aglaia mariannensis (mapunyao), Eugenia thompsonii
(atoto), Acacia confusa (sosugi), and/or Tarenna sambucina (sumac-lada)
trees, and/or Bambusa vulgaris (piao, bamboo) in the canopy or
subcanopy for foraging; or
(ii) Yoga, oschal, faniok, and/or sosugi trees 10 to 49 ft (3 to 15
m) tall and 1 to 24 inches (2 to 60 centimeters) diameter at breast
height for nesting.
[[Page 53601]]
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing on the effective date of this
rule and not containing one or more of the primary constituent
elements.
Critical Habitat Map Unit
(4) Data layers defining the mapped unit were created on a base of
USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and the critical habitat unit was then mapped
using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Rota bridled white-eye critical habitat, Rota, Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands (3,958 ac; 1,602 ha).
(i) Unit consists of 346 points with following coordinates in UTM
Zone 55 with the units in meters using World Geodetic System 1984
(WGS84): 300742, 1565012, 300809, 1565217, 300840, 1565285, 300875,
1565341, 300962, 1565420, 300995, 1565444, 301061, 1565473, 301135,
1565490, 301186, 1565494, 301327, 1565491, 301531, 1565451, 301796,
1565425, 301905, 1565419, 301958, 1565425, 302030, 1565456, 302067,
1565466, 302205, 1565482, 302229, 1565471, 302272, 1565429, 302310,
1565416, 302852, 1565346, 302882, 1565343, 302932, 1565348, 302953,
1565356, 302986, 1565377, 303007, 1565407, 303005, 1565510, 302983,
1565616, 302978, 1565666, 302982, 1565740, 302990, 1565763, 303005,
1565777, 303103, 1565824, 303150, 1565828, 303223, 1565806, 303243,
1565792, 303284, 1565740, 303303, 1565731, 303315, 1565733, 303343,
1565752, 303500, 1565896, 303645, 1565995, 303813, 1566125, 303903,
1566164, 304054, 1566243, 304085, 1566255, 304155, 1566270, 304271,
1566306, 304326, 1566311, 304388, 1566328, 304494, 1566336, 304562,
1566352, 304700, 1566368, 304734, 1566365, 304760, 1566355, 304791,
1566336, 304835, 1566299, 304904, 1566293, 304977, 1566261, 305032,
1566256, 305110, 1566231, 305131, 1566220, 305152, 1566197, 305174,
1566158, 305197, 1566090, 305213, 1566016, 305244, 1565964, 305317,
1565923, 305417, 1565815, 305444, 1565800, 305461, 1565775, 305493,
1565766, 305608, 1565782, 305678, 1565798, 305840, 1565858, 305947,
1565890, 306134, 1565992, 306230, 1566039, 306271, 1566055, 306365,
1566071, 306500, 1566077, 306557, 1566089, 306588, 1566105, 306773,
1566245, 306819, 1566265, 307118, 1566324, 307158, 1566325, 307191,
1566320, 307249, 1566295, 307359, 1566230, 307407, 1566207, 307778,
1566099, 307843, 1566062, 307898, 1566047, 307941, 1566020, 307999,
1566003, 308109, 1565940, 308162, 1565898, 308260, 1565834, 308407,
1565674, 308437, 1565635, 308458, 1565596, 308529, 1565323, 308544,
1565200, 308543, 1565150, 308537, 1565112, 308472, 1564974, 308423,
1564834, 308409, 1564746, 308394, 1564555, 308385, 1564519, 308306,
1564339, 308149, 1563842, 308086, 1563674, 308065, 1563629, 308013,
1563560, 308004, 1563528, 307995, 1563514, 307953, 1563481, 307857,
1563392, 307835, 1563367, 307826, 1563347, 307816, 1563286, 307803,
1563028, 307795, 1562975, 307783, 1562966, 307725, 1562954, 307691,
1562925, 307691, 1562911, 307717, 1562869, 307712, 1562856, 307699,
1562846, 307656, 1562826, 307555, 1562804, 307518, 1562768, 307480,
1562756, 307447, 1562734, 307353, 1562655, 307323, 1562617, 307307,
1562586, 307300, 1562465, 307289, 1562432, 307266, 1562397, 307216,
1562348, 307176, 1562324, 307120, 1562306, 307027, 1562297, 307000,
1562286, 306970, 1562267, 306923, 1562220, 306885, 1562107, 306868,
1562080, 306853, 1562074, 306826, 1562082, 306799, 1562099, 306759,
1562155, 306731, 1562179, 306698, 1562219, 306678, 1562233, 306657,
1562234, 306620, 1562216, 306571, 1562209, 306513, 1562179, 306481,
1562177, 306476, 1562191, 306472, 1562272, 306434, 1562361, 306391,
1562443, 306373, 1562497, 306222, 1562602, 306206, 1562602, 306180,
1562585, 306166, 1562534, 306144, 1562526, 306121, 1562532, 306080,
1562567, 306054, 1562574, 305964, 1562570, 305912, 1562563, 305849,
1562573, 305808, 1562551, 305733, 1562553, 305722, 1562561, 305714,
1562595, 305698, 1562604, 305684, 1562596, 305672, 1562575, 305662,
1562500, 305655, 1562483, 305646, 1562484, 305635, 1562495, 305625,
1562531, 305615, 1562544, 305588, 1562564, 305567, 1562567, 305551,
1562561, 305517, 1562518, 305486, 1562501, 305461, 1562470, 305453,
1562465, 305438, 1562464, 305415, 1562480, 305407, 1562505, 305410,
1562537, 305422, 1562585, 305421, 1562606, 305413, 1562613, 305386,
1562616, 305373, 1562624, 305347, 1562674, 305328, 1562692, 305291,
1562716, 305257, 1562722, 305232, 1562721, 305219, 1562712, 305204,
1562692, 305189, 1562688, 305160, 1562698, 305110, 1562731, 305083,
1562735, 305065, 1562733, 305037, 1562717, 305006, 1562668, 304981,
1562647, 304958, 1562638, 304924, 1562635, 304890, 1562598, 304856,
1562597, 304819, 1562606, 304787, 1562629, 304737, 1562632, 304719,
1562648, 304811, 1562704, 304812, 1562719, 304793, 1562738, 304770,
1562750, 304721, 1562752, 304653, 1562789, 304603, 1562797, 304550,
1562793, 304520, 1562769, 304504, 1562762, 304464, 1562761, 304432,
1562770, 304403, 1562772, 304355, 1562769, 304332, 1562760, 304325,
1562751, 304323, 1562731, 304327, 1562719, 304343, 1562698, 304348,
1562679, 304349, 1562583, 304356, 1562513, 304351, 1562493, 304270,
1562434, 304223, 1562419, 304206, 1562376, 304186, 1562353, 304126,
1562326, 304055, 1562283, 303995, 1562276, 303953, 1562281, 303890,
1562321, 303864, 1562358, 303830, 1562380, 303825, 1562390, 303827,
1562400, 303835, 1562405, 303860, 1562408, 303865, 1562417, 303863,
1562438, 303826, 1562510, 303811, 1562567, 303783, 1562600, 303768,
1562605, 303669, 1562602, 303597, 1562589, 303549, 1562599, 303490,
1562569, 303399, 1562504, 303334, 1562463, 303311, 1562441, 303239,
1562346, 303088, 1562240, 303073, 1562218, 303048, 1562210, 303010,
1562207, 302957, 1562190, 302925, 1562192, 302908, 1562205, 302903,
1562216, 302906, 1562269, 302895, 1562348, 302883, 1562361, 302835,
1562375, 302814, 1562391, 302792, 1562456, 302766, 1562563, 302712,
1562684, 302665, 1562811, 302645, 1562883, 302595, 1563127, 302565,
1563228, 302535, 1563275, 302436, 1563381, 302380, 1563478, 302354,
1563506, 302333, 1563519, 302254, 1563541, 302185, 1563577, 302125,
1563592, 302080, 1563615, 302015, 1563692, 301971, 1563777, 301951,
1563806, 301890, 1563864, 301836, 1563908, 301750, 1563946, 301723,
1563952, 301650, 1563960, 301611, 1563981, 301594, 1564000, 301585,
1564023, 301584, 1564061, 301593, 1564112, 301585, 1564135, 301474,
1564241, 301450, 1564254, 301413, 1564259, 301352, 1564251, 301311,
1564237, 301295, 1564239, 301214, 1564294, 301096, 1564399, 300966,
1564483, 300945, 1564505, 300922, 1564541, 300892, 1564569, 300859,
1564634, 300808, 1564710, 300804, 1564729, 300806, 1564769, 300802,
1564795, 300740, 1564944, 300737, 1564975.
(ii) Not including 13 areas:
(A) Bounded by the following 13 points (2 ac; 1 ha): 301307,
1564935; 301288, 1564908; 301291, 1564898; 301301, 1564889; 301354,
1564890; 301410, 1564877; 301424, 1564879; 301460, 1564899; 301472,
1564922; 301468, 1564941; 301452, 1564950; 301382, 1564933; 301335,
1564939.
[[Page 53602]]
(B) Bounded by the following 48 points (39 ac; 16 ha): 301471,
1564593; 301458, 1564567; 301463, 1564557; 301550, 1564532; 301578,
1564506; 301598, 1564501; 301639, 1564501; 301668, 1564487; 301760,
1564465; 301797, 1564449; 301803, 1564442; 301802, 1564433; 301789,
1564410; 301787, 1564397; 301798, 1564388; 301812, 1564387; 301824,
1564395; 301844, 1564426; 301857, 1564432; 301920, 1564441; 301980,
1564460; 302041, 1564447; 302081, 1564449; 302122, 1564459; 302169,
1564479; 302242, 1564523; 302338, 1564565; 302377, 1564592; 302400,
1564618; 302417, 1564647; 302427, 1564679; 302426, 1564699; 302418,
1564724; 302403, 1564740; 302363, 1564757; 302332, 1564757; 302269,
1564741; 302146, 1564681; 302059, 1564655; 302017, 1564655; 301908,
1564682; 301866, 1564674; 301831, 1564660; 301713, 1564582; 301660,
1564566; 301613, 1564561; 301554, 1564564; 301516, 1564572.
(C) Bounded by the following 47 points (58 ac; 23 ha): 301566,
1564945: 301569, 1564920; 301578, 1564904; 301624, 1564888; 301649,
1564857; 301660, 1564850; 301679, 1564850; 301706, 1564888; 301726,
1564892; 301744, 1564883; 301754, 1564864; 301759, 1564836; 301777,
1564825; 301824, 1564810; 301963, 1564798; 301986, 1564807; 302011,
1564845; 302030, 1564859; 302105, 1564881; 302150, 1564885; 302309,
1564864; 302407, 1564883; 302422, 1564895; 302444, 1564926; 302462,
1564938; 302486, 1564939; 302550, 1564927; 302646, 1564928; 302700,
1564940; 302712, 1564951; 302716, 1564964; 302713, 1564975; 302696,
1564984; 302614, 1564988; 302602, 1564995; 302592, 1565021; 302584,
1565102; 302572, 1565118; 302490, 1565138; 302195, 1565151; 302135,
1565146; 302088, 1565135; 301955, 1565082; 301722, 1565014; 301662,
1564986; 301608, 1564971.
(D) Bounded by the following 61 points (91 ac; 37 ha): 302150,
1564098; 302172, 1564039; 302208, 1564002; 302245, 1563984; 302303,
1563975; 302364, 1563928; 302390, 1563916; 302429, 1563913; 302494,
1563933; 302545, 1563926; 302576, 1563927; 302602, 1563941; 302629,
1563977; 302641, 1563982; 302686, 1563948; 302701, 1563945; 302715,
1563951; 302735, 1563975; 302766, 1564034; 302757, 1564078; 302769,
1564119; 302759, 1564172; 302762, 1564208; 302776, 1564221; 302822,
1564235; 302842, 1564246; 302867, 1564270; 302899, 1564315; 302905,
1564345; 302891, 1564382; 302917, 1564467; 302950, 1564548; 303012,
1564647; 303033, 1564728; 303060, 1564765; 303059, 1564787; 303044,
1564799; 303024, 1564795; 302973, 1564763; 302909, 1564709; 302872,
1564700; 302839, 1564684; 302751, 1564683; 302736, 1564669; 302709,
1564620; 302682, 1564601; 302570, 1564563; 302481, 1564539; 302458,
1564528; 302444, 1564509; 302424, 1564435; 302401, 1564389; 302386,
1564348; 302375, 1564301; 302378, 1564265; 302374, 1564251; 302287,
1564174; 302272, 1564172; 302224, 1564179; 302187, 1564171; 302176,
1564161.
(E) Bounded by the following 319 points (677 ac; 274 ha): 302943,
1564065; 302923, 1564061; 302919, 1564054; 302936, 1564038; 302987,
1564019; 303009, 1563991; 303047, 1563971; 303060, 1563954; 303062,
1563939; 303054, 1563879; 303060, 1563827; 303074, 1563808; 303107,
1563796; 303113, 1563780; 303110, 1563765; 303090, 1563727; 303109,
1563690; 303085, 1563639; 303085, 1563600; 303092, 1563584; 303116,
1563562; 303132, 1563539; 303131, 1563504; 303193, 1563466; 303207,
1563465; 303249, 1563476; 303272, 1563471; 303303, 1563452; 303334,
1563412; 303350, 1563400; 303360, 1563399; 303390, 1563413; 303410,
1563410; 303416, 1563402; 303410, 1563386; 303415, 1563373; 303455,
1563344; 303466, 1563282; 303479, 1563248; 303497, 1563232; 303553,
1563212; 303560, 1563195; 303565, 1563150; 303572, 1563128; 303595,
1563106; 303623, 1563095; 303655, 1563097; 303684, 1563125; 303721,
1563132; 303734, 1563152; 303740, 1563192; 303780, 1563201; 303789,
1563208; 303775, 1563236; 303772, 1563257; 303803, 1563373; 303799,
1563391; 303773, 1563433; 303765, 1563441; 303742, 1563447; 303671,
1563435; 303653, 1563441; 303652, 1563453; 303675, 1563474; 303807,
1563534; 303869, 1563577; 303897, 1563608; 303953, 1563714; 303979,
1563736; 304071, 1563770; 304155, 1563793; 304249, 1563795; 304335,
1563782; 304405, 1563794; 304429, 1563789; 304479, 1563751; 304493,
1563746; 304582, 1563737; 304624, 1563741; 304690, 1563727; 304750,
1563734; 304786, 1563719; 304794, 1563708; 304794, 1563686; 304765,
1563636; 304758, 1563605; 304723, 1563588; 304708, 1563573; 304683,
1563490; 304667, 1563465; 304657, 1563459; 304641, 1563459; 304611,
1563483; 304586, 1563482; 304570, 1563497; 304531, 1563517; 304489,
1563530; 304474, 1563529; 304461, 1563512; 304434, 1563423; 304413,
1563389; 304385, 1563357; 304367, 1563345; 304338, 1563334; 304314,
1563311; 304244, 1563308; 304171, 1563273; 304107, 1563257; 304013,
1563250; 303998, 1563253; 303964, 1563283; 303940, 1563294; 303926,
1563349; 303874, 1563345; 303858, 1563339; 303850, 1563329; 303844,
1563275; 303852, 1563237; 303892, 1563228; 303950, 1563198; 303968,
1563194; 303990, 1563158; 304018, 1563160; 304049, 1563155; 304099,
1563163; 304201, 1563127; 304213, 1563109; 304216, 1563048; 304223,
1563035; 304234, 1563028; 304252, 1563031; 304314, 1563067; 304321,
1563065; 304324, 1563051; 304332, 1563043; 304394, 1563024; 304397,
1563008; 304383, 1562960; 304388, 1562898; 304391, 1562885; 304406,
1562879; 304436, 1562896; 304481, 1562945; 304494, 1562947; 304563,
1562939; 304607, 1562972; 304674, 1563009; 304740, 1563024; 304799,
1563053; 304847, 1563054; 304864, 1563059; 304873, 1563073; 304875,
1563091; 304856, 1563155; 304857, 1563163; 304877, 1563174; 304911,
1563180; 304931, 1563177; 304955, 1563165; 304966, 1563164; 305029,
1563211; 305036, 1563224; 305037, 1563241; 305026, 1563279; 305044,
1563311; 305043, 1563342; 305006, 1563380; 304967, 1563439; 304948,
1563446; 304902, 1563445; 304892, 1563451; 304895, 1563457; 304926,
1563472; 304937, 1563482; 304942, 1563501; 304936, 1563514; 304918,
1563519; 304883, 1563494; 304868, 1563502; 304862, 1563511; 304865,
1563525; 304899, 1563563; 304894, 1563570; 304855, 1563591; 304847,
1563606; 304876, 1563674; 304887, 1563732; 304894, 1563743; 304911,
1563750; 304920, 1563748; 304943, 1563727; 304977, 1563752; 305046,
1563746; 305062, 1563751; 305081, 1563784; 305100, 1563805; 305149,
1563831; 305164, 1563844; 305205, 1563919; 305255, 1563967; 305269,
1563987; 305269, 1564034; 305279, 1564060; 305293, 1564075; 305325,
1564089; 305336, 1564100; 305325, 1564120; 305311, 1564131; 305291,
1564139; 305280, 1564149; 305266, 1564195; 305254, 1564212; 305201,
1564236; 305185, 1564253; 305176, 1564277; 305180, 1564335; 305176,
1564354; 305166, 1564368; 305130, 1564386; 305107, 1564406; 305061,
1564482; 304984, 1564553; 304979, 1564566; 304988, 1564594; 304985,
1564605; 304954, 1564615; 304930, 1564637; 304852, 1564669; 304771,
1564722; 304744, 1564766; 304716, 1564763; 304681, 1564794; 304673,
1564810; 304669, 1564832; 304689, 1564912; 304677, 1564981; 304665,
1564999; 304629, 1565015; 304614, 1565043; 304600, 1565052; 304583,
[[Page 53603]]
1565047; 304575, 1565037; 304569, 1565014; 304570, 1564995; 304579,
1564967; 304607, 1564940; 304613, 1564924; 304604, 1564909; 304581,
1564899; 304558, 1564896; 304503, 1564900; 304444, 1564919; 304385,
1564919; 304348, 1564928; 304331, 1564937; 304326, 1564948; 304338,
1565014; 304332, 1565017; 304322, 1565011; 304288, 1564957; 304280,
1564975; 304262, 1564978; 304255, 1564985; 304253, 1565027; 304242,
1565034; 304228, 1565035; 304220, 1565029; 304215, 1565012; 304207,
1565004; 304173, 1565015; 304109, 1565006; 304103, 1564998; 304090,
1564952; 304080, 1564937; 304053, 1564920; 303995, 1564904; 303967,
1564847; 303956, 1564836; 303943, 1564836; 303926, 1564850; 303913,
1564855; 303887, 1564852; 303868, 1564842; 303857, 1564820; 303859,
1564799; 303876, 1564791; 303945, 1564781; 303949, 1564777; 303946,
1564767; 303933, 1564756; 303912, 1564752; 303868, 1564759; 303849,
1564756; 303771, 1564713; 303710, 1564691; 303655, 1564659; 303564,
1564631; 303553, 1564633; 303546, 1564643; 303521, 1564743; 303499,
1564757; 303480, 1564756; 303454, 1564736; 303441, 1564711; 303404,
1564670; 303398, 1564657; 303436, 1564543; 303438, 1564509; 303429,
1564479; 303393, 1564423; 303296, 1564316; 303282, 1564278; 303250,
1564261; 303236, 1564193; 303175, 1564150; 303082, 1564137; 303062,
1564125; 303052, 1564107; 303036, 1564092.
(F) Bounded by the following 26 points (20 ac; 8 ha): 304256,
1565414; 304308, 1565357; 304346, 1565330; 304472, 1565298; 304590,
1565251; 304620, 1565250; 304645, 1565261; 304690, 1565255; 304727,
1565280; 304777, 1565289; 304783, 1565297; 304763, 1565363; 304744,
1565464; 304735, 1565486; 304715, 1565507; 304686, 1565508; 304660,
1565521; 304578, 1565501; 304541, 1565485; 304509, 1565451; 304503,
1565402; 304498, 1565394; 304485, 1565388; 304457, 1565388; 304410,
1565414; 304382, 1565421.
(G) Bounded by the following 35 points (11 ac; 4 ha): 305091,
1563607; 305046, 1563577; 305022, 1563553; 305015, 1563522; 305001,
1563499; 305002, 1563487; 305012, 1563476; 305061, 1563454; 305086,
1563459; 305114, 1563484; 305141, 1563495; 305168, 1563525; 305195,
1563534; 305247, 1563543; 305243, 1563575; 305278, 1563639; 305274,
1563687; 305262, 1563722; 305263, 1563729; 305291, 1563736; 305355,
1563721; 305372, 1563721; 305382, 1563732; 305381, 1563761; 305368,
1563775; 305332, 1563784; 305308, 1563782; 305274, 1563768; 305234,
1563743; 305202, 1563707; 305158, 1563671; 305150, 1563657; 305149,
1563633; 305132, 1563611; 305115, 1563602.
(H) Bounded by the following 18 points (9 ac; 4 ha):305348,
1565123; 305320, 1565080; 305322, 1565051; 305361, 1565002; 305416,
1564959; 305431, 1564953; 305452, 1564953; 305503, 1564970; 305537,
1564975; 305554, 1564987; 305570, 1565010; 305577, 1565037; 305570,
1565071; 305550, 1565102; 305523, 1565121; 305499, 1565129; 305412,
1565142; 305390, 1565140.
(I) Bounded by the following 96 points (52 ac, 21 ha):305681,
1564571; 305654, 1564580; 305620, 1564578; 305565, 1564595; 305547,
1564592; 305537, 1564571; 305532, 1564484; 305527, 1564469; 305511,
1564467; 305502, 1564474; 305486, 1564499; 305467, 1564500; 305456,
1564489; 305453, 1564478; 305455, 1564431; 305458, 1564418; 305469,
1564405; 305527, 1564420; 305567, 1564424; 305612, 1564419; 305641,
1564401; 305646, 1564382; 305644, 1564358; 305620, 1564264; 305626,
1564238; 305640, 1564232; 305731, 1564234; 305750, 1564230; 305757,
1564225; 305745, 1564207; 305722, 1564193; 305699, 1564192; 305645,
1564203; 305623, 1564195; 305619, 1564181; 305622, 1564158; 305646,
1564097; 305677, 1564083; 305781, 1564061; 305789, 1564055; 305793,
1564024; 305819, 1563988; 305881, 1563974; 305897, 1563964; 305938,
1563897; 305946, 1563858; 305951, 1563774; 305948, 1563696; 305939,
1563637; 305922, 1563609; 305861, 1563583; 305831, 1563543; 305806,
1563520; 305798, 1563498; 305837, 1563315; 305862, 1563291; 305893,
1563286; 305902, 1563291; 305907, 1563301; 305906, 1563358; 305950,
1563453; 305953, 1563477; 305949, 1563508; 305954, 1563523; 305960,
1563526; 305994, 1563522; 306046, 1563531; 306057, 1563540; 306063,
1563555; 306110, 1563573; 306118, 1563592; 306118, 1563606; 306105,
1563642; 306071, 1563662; 306059, 1563682; 306062, 1563709; 306080,
1563772; 306077, 1563819; 306064, 1563889; 306006, 1564047; 306002,
1564117; 305990, 1564133; 305961, 1564145; 305848, 1564153; 305822,
1564158; 305803, 1564170; 305793, 1564191; 305793, 1564205; 305832,
1564256; 305838, 1564283; 305835, 1564313; 305821, 1564340; 305807,
1564356; 305712, 1564414; 305673, 1564451; 305665, 1564483.
(J) Bounded by the following 134 points (92 ac; 37 ha):306267,
1565331; 306353, 1565325; 306341, 1565326; 306400, 1565325; 306433,
1565329; 306453, 1565341; 306484, 1565382; 306514, 1565388; 306559,
1565384; 306598, 1565356; 306621, 1565346; 306716, 1565329; 306720,
1565333; 306720, 1565374; 306729, 1565422; 306716, 1565443; 306684,
1565448; 306681, 1565467; 306688, 1565481; 306699, 1565487; 306755,
1565496; 306816, 1565485; 306955, 1565429; 307014, 1565397; 307111,
1565330; 307119, 1565340; 307118, 1565350; 307055, 1565408; 307034,
1565438; 307017, 1565445; 307005, 1565460; 306968, 1565468; 306955,
1565488; 306957, 1565495; 306969, 1565498; 307025, 1565488; 307029,
1565496; 307026, 1565526; 307050, 1565540; 307066, 1565542; 307204,
1565460; 307258, 1565412; 307269, 1565394; 307276, 1565368; 307288,
1565356; 307369, 1565327; 307451, 1565259; 307509, 1565229; 307537,
1565210; 307570, 1565178; 307610, 1565126; 307746, 1565004; 307839,
1564896; 307872, 1564877; 307878, 1564878; 307882, 1564884; 307884,
1564905; 307873, 1564932; 307783, 1565058; 307734, 1565112; 307580,
1565259; 307319, 1565473; 307080, 1565610; 307035, 1565624; 307014,
1565621; 306976, 1565592; 306934, 1565568; 306887, 1565525; 306868,
1565520; 306815, 1565528; 306718, 1565559; 306626, 1565562; 306510,
1565585; 306399, 1565586; 306337, 1565579; 306331, 1565589; 306345,
1565658; 306354, 1565736; 306349, 1565806; 306352, 1565829; 306383,
1565896; 306399, 1565902; 306440, 1565898; 306438, 1565928; 306417,
1565948; 306391, 1565949; 306277, 1565911; 306256, 1565896; 306205,
1565844; 306173, 1565823; 306154, 1565817; 306115, 1565820; 306094,
1565817; 306042, 1565781; 305989, 1565708; 305972, 1565692; 305953,
1565683; 305910, 1565671; 305870, 1565667; 305844, 1565673; 305795,
1565705; 305766, 1565717; 305719, 1565718; 305693, 1565710; 305684,
1565703; 305674, 1565679; 305677, 1565641; 305689, 1565625; 305724,
1565609; 305766, 1565605; 305890, 1565626; 305937, 1565602; 305969,
1565601; 305988, 1565595; 306002, 1565572; 305991, 1565555; 305968,
1565549; 305920, 1565551; 305909, 1565543; 305911, 1565530; 305918,
1565520; 305951, 1565499; 305972, 1565493; 306026, 1565498; 306076,
1565493; 306107, 1565505; 306133, 1565507; 306178, 1565494; 306219,
1565475; 306231, 1565463; 306221, 1565427; 306232, 1565386; 306235,
1565356; 306242, 1565346.
(K) Bounded by the following 207 points (355 ac, 144 ha):305824,
[[Page 53604]]
1565279; 305789, 1565258; 305784, 1565251; 305785, 1565239; 305801,
1565217; 305929, 1565095; 305932, 1565086; 305918, 1565072; 305912,
1565059; 305919, 1565045; 306024, 1564981; 306114, 1564950; 306143,
1564935; 306189, 1564892; 306228, 1564832; 306234, 1564811; 306232,
1564774; 306229, 1564764; 306218, 1564755; 306172, 1564745; 306107,
1564754; 306095, 1564751; 306119, 1564647; 306140, 1564643; 306179,
1564618; 306271, 1564573; 306302, 1564551; 306326, 1564524; 306369,
1564511; 306391, 1564451; 306411, 1564417; 306416, 1564385; 306451,
1564361; 306476, 1564320; 306512, 1564285; 306520, 1564269; 306525,
1564238; 306571, 1564226; 306588, 1564168; 306658, 1564143; 306684,
1564127; 306701, 1564108; 306706, 1564092; 306702, 1564075; 306686,
1564051; 306674, 1564042; 306639, 1564039; 306558, 1564052; 306546,
1564039; 306554, 1564023; 306591, 1564006; 306708, 1563983; 306772,
1563964; 306791, 1563953; 306807, 1563932; 306831, 1563941; 306861,
1563968; 306910, 1563986; 306925, 1563998; 306936, 1564022; 306933,
1564035; 306884, 1564066; 306859, 1564062; 306794, 1564101; 306774,
1564120; 306763, 1564146; 306750, 1564158; 306777, 1564193; 306784,
1564210; 306782, 1564217; 306757, 1564222; 306745, 1564235; 306741,
1564248; 306773, 1564278; 306794, 1564357; 306816, 1564376; 306835,
1564377; 306852, 1564364; 306910, 1564341; 306916, 1564308; 306925,
1564297; 307000, 1564277; 307031, 1564262; 307039, 1564252; 307050,
1564208; 307116, 1564160; 307174, 1564088; 307185, 1564080; 307219,
1564074; 307238, 1564065; 307248, 1564043; 307255, 1564008; 307253,
1563934; 307259, 1563908; 307274, 1563879; 307331, 1563809; 307374,
1563769; 307448, 1563710; 307474, 1563696; 307493, 1563692; 307505,
1563698; 307521, 1563719; 307540, 1563768; 307549, 1563778; 307559,
1563772; 307590, 1563724; 307608, 1563710; 307626, 1563711; 307655,
1563727; 307685, 1563724; 307698, 1563711; 307703, 1563696; 307696,
1563628; 307702, 1563589; 307723, 1563542; 307734, 1563528; 307744,
1563523; 307756, 1563524; 307765, 1563534; 307774, 1563582; 307787,
1563600; 307825, 1563608; 307844, 1563604; 307852, 1563596; 307861,
1563558; 307867, 1563553; 307889, 1563564; 307923, 1563593; 307927,
1563604; 307921, 1563627; 307936, 1563675; 307930, 1563733; 307920,
1563742; 307883, 1563736; 307879, 1563783; 307884, 1563800; 307893,
1563814; 307944, 1563854; 307971, 1563870; 307982, 1563901; 307992,
1563990; 307991, 1564149; 307988, 1564195; 307974, 1564273; 307965,
1564280; 307951, 1564281; 307936, 1564279; 307930, 1564273; 307920,
1564120; 307913, 1564102; 307888, 1564066; 307881, 1564043; 307884,
1564018; 307901, 1563976; 307896, 1563936; 307882, 1563914; 307855,
1563892; 307833, 1563882; 307738, 1563862; 307724, 1563851; 307698,
1563804; 307679, 1563790; 307668, 1563794; 307660, 1563807; 307651,
1563877; 307626, 1563911; 307620, 1563912; 307613, 1563901; 307620,
1563870; 307614, 1563851; 307589, 1563831; 307560, 1563832; 307551,
1563859; 307524, 1564171; 307536, 1564245; 307536, 1564274; 307529,
1564301; 307479, 1564419; 307468, 1564503; 307434, 1564587; 307418,
1564611; 307388, 1564640; 307359, 1564686; 307320, 1564721; 307306,
1564740; 307271, 1564752; 307259, 1564762; 307248, 1564802; 307235,
1564826; 307155, 1564929; 307101, 1565031; 306941, 1565211; 306880,
1565237; 306617, 1565317; 306574, 1565313; 306447, 1565277; 306389,
1565255; 306296, 1565255; 306259, 1565250; 306194, 1565223; 306169,
1565231; 306155, 1565256; 306145, 1565262; 306028, 1565253; 305991,
1565246; 305927, 1565246; 305867, 1565253.
(L) Bounded by the following 107 points (81 ac, 33 ha):306372,
1562797; 306403, 1562764; 306427, 1562755; 306453, 1562754; 306508,
1562763; 306586, 1562785; 306716, 1562834; 306746, 1562833; 306800,
1562809; 306806, 1562794; 306805, 1562779; 306797, 1562766; 306785,
1562758; 306715, 1562738; 306706, 1562725; 306708, 1562711; 306724,
1562696; 306753, 1562687; 306769, 1562689; 306785, 1562702; 306796,
1562704; 306807, 1562695; 306827, 1562660; 306836, 1562654; 306883,
1562662; 306923, 1562677; 306933, 1562691; 306933, 1562707; 306939,
1562720; 306971, 1562743; 306951, 1562767; 306947, 1562793; 306958,
1562864; 306987, 1562890; 306977, 1562913; 306976, 1562986; 306970,
1563033; 306978, 1563053; 307007, 1563079; 307014, 1563093; 306993,
1563114; 306991, 1563142; 307005, 1563172; 307041, 1563196; 307061,
1563224; 307109, 1563376; 307115, 1563433; 307101, 1563555; 307090,
1563605; 307081, 1563625; 307041, 1563678; 306975, 1563692; 306968,
1563704; 306961, 1563741; 306940, 1563760; 306895, 1563780; 306846,
1563792; 306781, 1563803; 306764, 1563798; 306762, 1563787; 306773,
1563735; 306750, 1563589; 306754, 1563583; 306775, 1563588; 306787,
1563583; 306803, 1563565; 306805, 1563550; 306795, 1563527; 306784,
1563519; 306758, 1563521; 306724, 1563550; 306718, 1563548; 306714,
1563525; 306726, 1563496; 306757, 1563475; 306774, 1563453; 306785,
1563420; 306786, 1563371; 306775, 1563350; 306757, 1563337; 306692,
1563316; 306669, 1563300; 306622, 1563226; 306605, 1563190; 306604,
1563169; 306612, 1563144; 306622, 1563134; 306639, 1563129; 306654,
1563136; 306676, 1563170; 306707, 1563193; 306752, 1563216; 306766,
1563218; 306780, 1563215; 306800, 1563165; 306808, 1563115; 306774,
1562987; 306764, 1562973; 306739, 1562961; 306723, 1562946; 306693,
1562893; 306677, 1562877; 306629, 1562869; 306539, 1562836; 306441,
1562823; 306394, 1562826; 306382, 1562817.
(M) Bounded by the following 69 points (47 ac, 30 ha):306858,
1566129; 306891, 1566009; 306917, 1565936; 306929, 1565916; 306982,
1565882; 307028, 1565864; 307063, 1565860; 307180, 1565888; 307248,
1565881; 307286, 1565897; 307298, 1565886; 307308, 1565851; 307318,
1565838; 307332, 1565837; 307358, 1565846; 307377, 1565842; 307505,
1565779; 307601, 1565717; 307612, 1565701; 307601, 1565695; 307534,
1565713; 307503, 1565714; 307484, 1565702; 307479, 1565684; 307498,
1565657; 307547, 1565628; 307571, 1565607; 307606, 1565538; 307618,
1565489; 307628, 1565475; 307745, 1565409; 307789, 1565409; 307829,
1565429; 307844, 1565447; 307857, 1565486; 307858, 1565512; 307852,
1565527; 307805, 1565571; 307794, 1565595; 307797, 1565619; 307825,
1565662; 307834, 1565689; 307808, 1565748; 307802, 1565778; 307813,
1565781; 307892, 1565745; 307958, 1565725; 307992, 1565724; 308008,
1565734; 308007, 1565752; 307998, 1565762; 307875, 1565825; 307834,
1565866; 307814, 1565879; 307743, 1565910; 307628, 1565928; 307491,
1565976; 307455, 1565998; 307428, 1566032; 307412, 1566044; 307254,
1566105; 307143, 1566130; 307118, 1566145; 307054, 1566200; 307032,
1566199; 306993, 1566178; 306951, 1566179; 306896, 1566171; 306871,
1566153.
(iii) Note: Map 1 of the critical habitat for Rota bridled white-
eye follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 53605]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12SE06.000
* * * * *
Dated: September 5, 2006.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-7583 Filed 9-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P