Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rota Bridled White-Eye (Zosterops rotensis, 53589-53605 [06-7583]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53589-53605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://
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 https://
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 d