Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Federal Register
• FR Years
• FR Months
• FR Days
• FR Documents
• [[pp. 3989-4038]]

[[pp. 3989-4038]]

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

---

 
[Federal Register: January 28, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 18)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 3989-4038]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28ja02-20]
 
[[pp. 3989-4038]]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised 
Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical 
Habitat for Plant Species From the Islands of Kauai and Niihau, Hawaii

[[Continued from page 3988]]

[[Page 3989]]

because of the remote locations, lack of access, and rugged terrain, of 
the land, and their inclusion within the State Conservation District 
where State land-use controls severely limit development and most 
activities. The proposed critical habitat designations were expected to 
cause little or no increase in the number of section 7 consultations; 
and few, if any, increases in costs of projects or delays in, or 
modifications to planned projects, land uses and activities.

Issue 8: Economic Issues

    (27) Comment: We should have been directly contacted for our 
opinions on the economic impacts of critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The methodogy outlined in the economic analysis 
report relies primarily on information provided by the Service, the 
State of Hawaii's Department of Land and Natural Resources (DNLR), and 
the consultant, Decision Analysts Hawaii, Inc. (DAHI). To better 
understand the concerns of stakeholders, the Service solicited comments 
and suggestions from the public, other concerned government agencies, 
the scientific community, industry, and other interested parties 
concerning aspects of the proposed rule and the proposed critical 
habitat. These comments and suggestions were taken into consideration 
in conducting the economic analysis. Additional clarifications were 
obtained directly from landowners and other parties.
    In addition, we have revised the November 7, 2000, proposed 
designations to incorporate new information, and/or address comments 
and new information received during the three comment periods. In 
addition, we will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of 
designating these areas as critical habitat prior to a final 
determination and revise the economic analysis. When completed, we will 
announce the availability of the draft revised economic analysis with a 
notice in the Federal Register, and we will open a 30-day public 
comment period on the revised draft economic analysis and proposed rule 
at that time. In addition, we will mail letters to landowners and other 
interested parties and publish a notice in the Garden Island newspaper 
announcing the availability of and seeking public comment on the draft 
economic analysis and proposed rule. We would strongly encourage anyone 
who has information or opinions concerning the economic impacts of this 
proposal to provide them to us.
    (28) Comment: The Service failed to properly consider the economic 
(e.g., costs associated with hunting, costs associated with section 7 
consultation, etc.) and other impacts (e.g., special management 
protections on private lands, planned highway projects, diminished 
activities on military lands, etc.) of designating particular areas as 
critical habitat.
    Our Response: We originally proposed designation of critical 
habitat for 76 plants from the islands of Kauai and Niihau on November 
7, 2000. On March 7, 2001, we published a notice announcing the 
availability of the draft economic analysis on the November 7, 2000, 
proposal. That draft economic analysis concluded that for the most part 
the critical habitat designations for Kauai and Niihau generally will 
have modest economic impacts. They are expected to cause little or no 
increase in the number of section 7 consultations with the Service; 
few, if any, increases in costs associated with consultations; and few, 
if any delays in, or modifications to planned projects, land uses and 
activities. These findings reflect the following:

--Nearly all of the land within the critical habitat units is 
unsuitable for development as well as for most projects, land uses, and 
activities. This is due to the remote locations, lack of access, and 
rugged terrain.
--On Kauai, nearly all of this land (98.5 percent) is within the State 
Conservation District where State land-use controls, severely limits 
development and most activities.
--Very few of the current and planned projects, land uses, and 
activities that could affect the proposed critical habitat units have a 
federal involvement requiring section 7 consultations with the Service, 
so they are not restricted by the Service requirements.
--And most of the activities that do have federal involvement are 
operations and maintenance of existing facilities and structures, so 
they would not be impacted by the critical habitat designation.

    We have revised the proposed designations to incorporate new 
information, and/or address comments and new information received 
during the comment periods. In addition, we will conduct another 
analysis of the economic impacts of designating these areas as critical 
habitat prior to a final determination. When completed, we will 
announce the availability of the draft economic analysis with a notice 
in the Federal Register, and we will open a 30-day public comment 
period on the draft economic analysis and proposed rule at that time.

Summary of Changes From the Previous Proposal

    We originally determined that designation of critical habitat, for 
76 plants from the islands of Kauai and Niihau on November 7, 2000. 
These species are: Adenophorus periens, Alectryon macrococcus, 
Alsinidendron lychnoides, Alsinidendron viscosum, Bonamia menziesii, 
Brighamia insignis, Centaurium sebaeoides, Chamaesyce halemanui, Cyanea 
asarifolia, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyanea undulata, Cyperus 
trachysanthos, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Delissea 
rhytidosperma, Delissea rivularis, Delissea undulata, Diellia pallida, 
Dubautia latifolia, Dubautia pauciflorula, Euphorbia haeleeleana, 
Exocarpos luteolus, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania meyenii, Hedyotis 
cookiana, Hedyotis st.-johnii, Hesperomannia lydgatei, Hibiscadelphus 
woodii, Hibiscus clayi, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae, Isodendrion 
laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, Kokia kauaiensis, Labordia 
lydgatei, Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis, Lipochaeta fauriei, 
Lipochaeta micrantha, Lipochaeta waimeaensis, Lobelia niihauensis, 
Lysimachia filifolia, Melicope haupuensis, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope 
pallida, Munroidendron racemosum, Myrsine linearifolia, Nothocestrum 
peltatum, Panicum niihauense, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia 
knudsenii, Phyllostegia wawrana, Plantago princeps, Platanthera 
holochila, Poa mannii, Poa sandvicensis, Poa siphonoglossa, Pteralyxia 
kauaiensis, Remya kauaiensis, Remya montgomeryi, Schiedea apokremnos, 
Schiedea helleri, Schiedea kauaiensis, Schiedea membranacea, Schiedea 
nuttallii, Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda, Schiedea spergulina var. 
spergulina, Schiedea stellarioides, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
sandwicense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Stenogyne campanulata, Viola 
helenae, Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis, Wilkesia hobdyi, Xylosma 
crenatum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. No change is made to these 
prudency determinations in this revised proposal and they are hereby 
incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808). In this proposal we have 
revised the proposed designations for the 76 plants based on new 
information received during the comment periods. In addition, we 
incorporate new information, and/or address comments and new 
information received during

[[Page 3990]]

the comment periods on the November 7, 2000, proposal.
    In the November 7, 2000, proposal we did not propose critical 
habitat for three species of loulu palm, Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii, 
P. napaliensis, and P. viscosa. We determined that critical habitat 
designation was not prudent because it would likely increase the 
threats from vandalism or collection of these species on Kauai and 
Niihau. No change is made to these determinations here and they are 
hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808). In that proposal, we 
also determined that critical habitat was not prudent for Melicope 
quadrangularis and Phyllostegia waimeae, two species endemic to Kauai, 
because they had not been seen recently in the wild, and no viable 
genetic material of these species was known to exist. Due to new 
information received during the comment periods regarding the 
rediscovery of Phyllostegia waimeae on Kauai, we have reconsidered our 
earlier finding and determine that critical habitat is prudent for this 
species because we believe that such designation would be beneficial to 
this species. Designation of critical habitat is proposed for this 
species on Kauai. No change is made here to the November 7, 2000, not 
prudent determination for Melicope quadrangularis and it is hereby 
incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808).
    In the November 7, 2000, proposal we did not determine prudency nor 
propose designation of critical habitat for 14 species that no longer 
occur on Kauai and Niihau but are reported from one or more other 
islands. We determined that critical habitat was prudent and proposed 
designation of critical habitat for nine of these species (Ctenitis 
squamigera, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Mariscus pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus 
manni, Silene lanceolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis) in other proposed 
rules published on December 18, 2000 (Maui and Kahoolawe), on December 
27, 2000 (Lanai), and on December 29, 2000 (Molokai). In this proposal, 
no change is made to the earlier prudency determinations for these nine 
species and they are hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 79192, 65 
FR 82086, 65 FR 83158). In this proposal, we propose designation of 
critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Ischaemum byrone, and Mariscus pennatiformis on the island 
of Kauai, based on new information and information received during the 
comment periods on the November 7, 2000, proposal. Critical habitat is 
not proposed for Hibiscus brackenridgei, Phlegmariurus manni, Silene 
lanceolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis on the islands of Kauai and Niihau 
because we are unable to determine habitat which is essential to their 
conservation on these islands.
    No change is made here to the prudency determination for Acaena 
exigua, a species known only from Kauai and Maui, published in the 
proposed rule for Maui and Kahoolawe on December 18, 2000, and it is 
hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 79192). In that proposal, we 
determined that critical habitat was no prudent for Acaena exigua 
because it had not been seen recently in the wild, and no viable 
genetic material was known to exist.
    In this proposal, we determine that critical habitat is prudent for 
four other species (Achyranthes mutica, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
Phlegmariurus nutans, Solanum incompletum) for which prudency 
determinations have not been made previously, and that no longer occur 
on Kauai but are reported from one or more other islands. These four 
plants were listed as endangered species under the Act, between 1991 
and 1996. At the time each plant was listed, we determined that 
designation of critical habitat was not prudent because designation 
would increase the degree of threat to the species and/or would not 
benefit the plant. In this proposal, we determine that critical habitat 
is prudent for these four species because we believe that such 
designation would be beneficial to these species. Critical habitat is 
proposed at this time for Phlegmariurus nutans on Kauai based on new 
information and information received during the comment periods on the 
November 7, 2000, proposal. Critical habitat is not proposed for 
Achyranthes mutica, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Solanum incompletum on 
the islands of Kauai and Niihau because we are unable to determine 
habitat which is essential to their conservation on these islands.
    Based on a review of new biological information and public comments 
received we have revised our November 7, 2000, proposal to incorporate 
the following changes in addition to those described above: changes in 
our approach to delineating proposed critical habitat (see Criteria 
Used to Identify Critical Habitat); adjustment and refinement of 
previously identified critical habitat units to more accurately follow 
the natural topographic features and to avoid nonessential landscape 
features (agricultural crops, urban or rural development) without 
primary constituent elements; and, inclusion of new areas within the 
proposed critical habitat units that are essential for the conservation 
of one or more of the 83 plant species.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as--(i) the 
specific areas within the geographic 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 geographic 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'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are 
necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point 
at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    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 also requires conferences on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the added 
protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not 
provide other forms of protection to lands designated as critical 
habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply 
to activities on private or other non-Federal lands that do not involve 
a Federal nexus, critical habitat designation would not afford any 
additional regulatory protections under the Act.
    Critical habitat also provides non-regulatory benefits to the 
species by informing the public and private sectors of areas that are 
important for species recovery and where conservation actions would be 
most effective. Designation of critical habitat can help focus 
conservation activities for a listed species by identifying areas that 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential for the 
conservation of that species, and can alert the public as well as land-
managing agencies to the importance of those areas. Critical habitat 
also identifies areas that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and may help provide protection to areas 
where significant threats to the species have been identified to help 
to avoid accidental damage to such areas.

[[Page 3991]]

    In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the 
habitat must be ``essential to the conservation of the species.'' 
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known and using 
the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that 
provide at least one of the physical or biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species (primary constituent elements, as 
defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)). Section 3(5)(C) of the Act states that 
not all areas that can be occupied by a species should be designated as 
critical habitat unless the Secretary determines that all such areas 
are essential to the conservation of the species. Our regulations (50 
CFR 424.12(e)) also state that, ``The Secretary shall designate as 
critical habitat areas outside the geographic area presently occupied 
by the species only when a designation limited to its present range 
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.''
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we take into consideration 
the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any 
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical 
habitat designation when the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of including the areas within critical habitat, provided the 
exclusion will not result in extinction of the species.
    Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species 
Act, published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), provides criteria, 
establishes procedures, and provides guidance to ensure that decisions 
made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data 
available. It requires that our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial 
data available, 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 should be the listing rule for the species. Additional 
information may be obtained from a recovery plan, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, 
scientific status surveys and studies, and biological assessments or 
other unpublished materials.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat 
based on what we know at the time of designation. 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 
outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to 
conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 
7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 prohibitions, as determined 
on the basis of the best available information at the time of the 
action. Federally funded or assisted 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, HCPs, or other species conservation planning 
efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls 
for a different outcome.
A. Prudency Redeterminations
    We originally determined that designation of critical habitat was 
prudent, and proposed designation of critical habitat for 76 plants 
from the islands of Kauai and Niihau on November 7, 2000. These species 
are: Adenophorus periens, Alectryon macrococcus, Alsinidendron 
lychnoides, Alsinidendron viscosum, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia 
insignis, Centaurium sebaeoides, Chamaesyce halemanui, Cyanea 
asarifolia, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyanea undulata, Cyperus 
trachysanthos, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Delissea 
rhytidosperma, Delissea rivularis, Delissea undulata, Diellia pallida, 
Dubautia latifolia, Dubautia pauciflorula, Euphorbia haeleeleana, 
Exocarpos luteolus, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania meyeniii, Hedyotis 
cookiana, Hedyotis st.-johnii, Hesperomannia lydgatei, Hibiscadelphus 
woodii, Hibiscus clayi, Hibiscus warmeae ssp. hannetae, Idsodendrion 
laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, Kokia kauaiensis, Labordia 
lydgatei, Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis, Lipochaeta fauriei, 
Lipochaeta micrantha, Lipochaeta waimeaensis, Lobelia niihauensis, 
Lysimachia filifolia, Melicope haupuensis, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope 
pallida, Munroidendron racemosum, Myrsine linearifolia, Nothocestrum 
peltatum, Panicum niihauense, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia 
knudsenii, Phyllostegia wawrana, Plantago princeps, Platanthera 
holochila, Poa mannii, Poa sandvicensis, Poa siphonoglossa, Pteralyxia 
kauaiensis, Remya kauaiensis, Remya montgomeryi, Schiedea apokremnos, 
Schiedea helleri, Schiedea kauaiensis, Schiendea membranacea, Schieda 
nuttallii, Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda, Schiedea spergulina var. 
spergulina, Schiedea stellarioides, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
sandwicense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Stenogyne campanulata, Viola 
helenae, Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis, Wilkesia hodbdvi, Xylosma 
crenatum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. No change is made to these 
prudency determinations in this revised proposal and they are hereby 
incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808).
    In the November 7, 2000, proposal we did not propose critical 
haibtat for three species of loulu palm, Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii, 
P. napalienses, and P. viscosa. Since publication of the listing rule 
for Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii, P. napalienses, and P. viscosa, we 
learned of instances of vandalism, collection, and commercial trade 
involving these three species of Pritchardia (65 FR 66808). In light of 
this information, we believed that the designation of critical habitat 
would likely increase the threat to these three species of Pritchardia 
on Kauai and Niihau from vandalism and collection. We determined that 
the benefits of designation critical habitat designation did not 
outweigh the potential increased threats from vandalism or collection. 
Given these considerations, we determined that designation of critical 
habitat for Pritcharida aylmer-robinsonii, P. napalienses, and P. 
viscosa was not prudent. During the public comment periods for the 
November 7, 2000, proposal two commenters suggested that critical 
habitat should be designated for these three species of palm if the 
units are of adequate ecological size or because the habitat is too 
inaccessible and remote for vandals. We also received comments that 
critical habitat should not be designated for these three species of 
palm because of previous acts of vandalism to listed plant species. 
Given the considerations described in the November 7, 2000, proposal 
regarding instances of vandalism, collection, and commercial trade of 
these species no change is made to the earlier prudency determinations 
for Pritcharida aylmer-robinsonii, P. napalienses, and P. viscosa in 
this proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 
66808).
    In the November 7, 2000, proposal, we determined that critical 
habitat was not prudent for Melicope

[[Page 3992]]

quadrangularis and Phyllostegia waimeae, two species endemic to Kauai, 
because they had not been seen recently in the wild, and no viable 
genetic material of these species was known to exist. Therefore, such 
designation would be of no benefit to these species. Since publication 
of the November 7, 2000, proposal we received new information during 
the comment periods regarding the rediscovery in August 2000 of six 
individuals of Phyllostegia waimeae in Kawaiiki Valley on Kauai, and 
have reconsidered our earlier prudency finding. We examined the 
evidence available for this species and have not, at this time, found 
specific evidence of taking, vandalism, collection or trade of this 
species or of similar species. Consequently, while we remain concerned 
that these activities could potentially threaten Phyllostegia waimeae 
in the future, consistent with applicable regulations (50 CFR 
424,12(a)(1)(i)) and the court's discussion of these regulations, we do 
not find that this species is currently threatened by taking or other 
human activity, which would be exacerbated by the designation of 
critical habitat. In the absence of finding that critical habitat would 
increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical 
habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential 
benefits include: (1) Triggering section 7 consultation in new areas 
where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has 
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 
conservation activities on the most essential areas; (3) providing 
educational benefits to State or county governments or private 
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to 
the species. In the case of Phyllostegia waimeae there would be some 
benefits to critical habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical 
habitat is the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from 
taking any action that destroys or adversely affects critical habitat. 
Phyllostegia waimeae does not occur on Federal lands on Kauai where 
actions are subject to section 7 consultation. This species is located 
exclusively on State land with limited Federal activities, though there 
could be Federal actions affecting this land in the future. While a 
critical habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by 
Phyllostegia waimeae would not likely change the section 7 consultation 
outcome, since an action that destroys or adversely modifies such 
critical habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the 
species, there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be 
triggered only if critical habitat were designated. There may also be 
some educational or informational benefits to the designation of 
critical habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of 
landowner(s), land managers, and the general public of the importance 
of protecting the habitat of these species and dissemination of 
information regarding their essential habitat requirements. Therefore, 
we propose that designation of critical habitat is prudent for 
Phyllostegia waimeae.
    No change is made here to the prudency determination for Melicope 
quadrangularis, a species known only from the Wahiawa drainage area on 
Kauai, published in the November 7, 2000, proposal and hereby 
incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808). Melicope quadrangularis was 
last observed in the Wahiawa drainage area in 1991 and has not been 
observed in this area in surveys following Hurricane Iniki in 1992 (S. 
Perlman and K. Wood, pers. comm., 2000). In addition, this species is 
not known to be in storage or under propagation. Given these 
circumstances, we determined that designation of critical habitat for 
Melicope quadrangularis was not prudent because such designation would 
be of no benefit to this species. If this species is rediscovered we 
may revise this proposal to incorporate or address new information as 
new data becomes available (See 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(B); 50 CFR 
424.13(f)).
    In November 7, 2000, proposal we did not determine prudency nor 
propose designation of critical habitat for 14 species that no longer 
occur on Kauai and Niihau but are reported from one or more other 
islands. We determined that critical habitat was prudent and proposed 
designation of critical habitat for nine of these species (Ctenitis 
squamigera, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Mariscus pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus 
manni, Silene lanceolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis) in other proposed 
rules published on December 18, 2000 (Maui and Kahoolawe), on December 
27, 2000 (Lanai), or on December 29, 2000 (Molokai). No change is made 
to these prudency determinations for these nine species in this 
proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 79192, 65 
FR 82086, 65 FR 83158). In this proposal, we propose designation of 
critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta, Diplazium 
molokaiense, Ischaemum byrone, and Mariscus pennatiformis on the island 
of Kauai, based on new information and information received during the 
comment periods on the November 7, 2000, proposal. Critical habitat is 
not proposed for Hibiscus brackenridgei, Phlegmariurus manni, Silene 
lanceolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis on the islands of Kauai and Niihau 
because we are unable to determine habitat which is essential to other 
conservation on these islands.
    No changes is made here to the prudency determination for Acaena 
exigua, a species known only from Kauai and Maui, published in the 
proposed rule for Maui and Kahoolawe on December 18, 2000 and hereby 
incorporated by reference (65 FR 79192). On Kauai, this species was 
only known from a collection made between 1869 and 1870 (Wagner et al. 
1999). On Maui, this species was last observed in 1997 and no 
individuals were observed during subsequent visits in 1998 and 1999 to 
the only known location (H. Oppenheimer and S. Perlman, pers. comm., 
2000). In addition, this species is not known to be in storage or under 
propagation. Given these circumstances, we determined that designation 
would be of no benefit to this species. If this species is rediscovered 
we may revise this proposal to incorporate or address new information 
as new data becomes available (See 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(B); 50 CFR 
424.13(f)).
    To determine whether critical habitat would be prudent for four 
other species (Achyranthes mutica, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
Phlegmariurus nutans, and Solanum incompletum) for which prudency 
determinations have not been made previously, and that no longer occur 
on Kauai but are reported from one or more other islands we analyzed 
the potential threats and benefits for each species in accordance with 
the court's order. These four plants were listed as endangered species 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 9Act) between 1991 
and 1996. At the time each plant was listed, we determined that 
designation of critical habitat was not prudent because designation 
would increase the degree of threat to the species and/or would not 
benefit the plant. We examined the evidence available for these four 
species and have not, at this time, found specific evidence of taking, 
vandalism, collection, or trade of these species or of similar species. 
Consequently, while we remain concerned that these activities could 
potentially threaten Achyranthes mutica, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
Phlegmariurus nutans, and Solanum incompletum in the future, consistent 
with applicable regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(i) and the court's 
discussion of these regulations, we do

[[Page 3993]]

not find that these species are currently threatened by taking or other 
human activity, which would be exacerbated by the designation of 
critical habitat. In the absence of finding that critical habitat would 
increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical 
habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential 
benefits include (1) triggering section 7 consultation in new areas 
where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has 
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing 
conservation activities on the most essential areas; (3) providing 
educational benefits to State or county governments or private 
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to 
the species. In the case of Achyranthes mutica, Isodendrion pyrifolium, 
Phlegmariurus nutans, and Solanum incompletum there would be some 
benefits to critical habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical 
habitat is the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from 
taking any action that destroys or adversely affects critical habitat. 
None of these four species are reported from Federal lands on Kauai 
(the entire island of Niihau is privately-owned) where actions are 
subject to section 7 consultation. However, two of these species, 
Phlegmariurus nutans and Solanum incompletum, are reported from Federal 
lands or lands that are administered by a Federal agency on other 
islands (S. incompletum is reported from the United States Army's 
Pohakuloa Training Area on the island of Hawaii; Phlegmariurus nutans 
is reported from the United States Army's Schofield Barracks Military 
Reservation and Kawailoa Training Area, and the Service's Oahu Forest 
National Wildlife Refuge on Oahu). Although Achyranthes mutica and 
Isodendrion pyrifolium are located exclusively on non-Federal lands 
with limited Federal activities on the island of Hawaii, there could be 
Federal actions affecting these lands in the future. While a critical 
habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by Achyranthes 
mutica, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Phlegmariurus nutans, and Solanum 
incompletum would not likely change the section 7 consultation outcome, 
since an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical 
habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species, 
there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered 
only if critical habitat were designated. There may also be some 
educational or informational benefits to the designation of critical 
habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of landowner(s), 
land managers, and the general public of the importance of protecting 
the habitat of these species and dissemination of information regarding 
their essential habitat requirements. Therefore, we propose that 
designation of critical habitat is prudent for Achyranthes mutica, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Phlegmariurus nutans, and Solanum incompletum.
B. Methods
    As required by the Act (section 4(b)(2)) and regulations at 50 CFR 
424.12, we used the best scientific data available to determine areas 
that are essential to conserve Achyranthes mutica, Adenophorus periens, 
Alectryon macrococcus, Alsinidendron lychnoides, Alsinidendron 
viscosum, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia insignis, Centaurium sebaeoides, 
Chamaesyce halemanui, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea asarifolia, Cyanea 
recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyanea undulata, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra 
cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Delissea rhytidosperma, Delissea 
rivularis, Delissea undulata, Diellia erecta, Diellia pallida, 
Diplazium molokaiense, Dubautia latifolia, Dubautia pauciflorula, 
Euphorbia haeleeleana, Exocarpos luteolus, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania 
meyenii, Hedyotis cookiana, Hedyotis st.-johnii, Hesperomannia 
lydgatei, Hibiscadelphus woodii, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Hibiscus 
clayi, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion 
laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Kokia 
kauaiensis, Labordia lydgatei, Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis, 
Lipochaeta fauriei, Lipochaeta micrantha, Lipochaeta waimeaensis, 
Lobelia niihauensis, Lysimachia filifolia, Mariscus pennatiformis, 
Melicope haupuensis, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope pallida, 
Munroidendron racemosum, Myrsine linearifolia, Nothocestrum peltatum, 
Panicum niihauense, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phlegmariurus mannii, 
Phlegmariurus nutans, Phyllostegia knudsenii, Phyllostegia waimeae, 
Phyllostegia wawrana, Plantago princeps, Platanthera holochila, Poa 
mannii, Poa sandvicensis, Poa siphonoglossa, Pteralyxia kauaiensis, 
Remya kauaiensis, Remya montgomeryi, Schiedea apokremnos, Schiedea 
helleri, Schiedea kauaiensis, Schiedea membranacea, Schiedea nuttallii, 
Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda, Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina, 
Schiedea stellarioides, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum 
incompletum, Solanum sandwicense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Stenogyne 
campanulata, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola helenae, Viola kauaiensis var. 
wahiawaensis, Wilkesia hobdyi, Xylosma crenatum, and Zanthoxylum 
hawaiiense. This information included the known locations, site-
specific species information from the HINHP database and our own rare 
plant database; species information from the CPC's rare plant 
monitoring database housed at the University of Hawaii's Lyon 
Arboretum; island-wide GIS coverages (e.g. vegetation, soils, annual 
rainfall, elevation contours, land ownership); the final listing rules 
for these 90 species; the November 7, 2000, proposal; information 
received during the public comment periods and the public hearing; 
recent biological surveys and reports; our recovery plans for these 
species; information received in response to outreach materials and 
requests for species and management information we sent to all 
landowners, land managers, and interested parties on the islands of 
Kauai and Niihau; discussions with botanical experts; and 
recommendations from the HPPRCC (see also the discussion below)(Service 
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999; HPPRCC 1998; CPC, in 
litt. 1999; HINHP Database 2000; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001; M. Buck, 
in litt. 2001; 65 FR 66808).
    In 1994, the HPPRCC initiated an effort to identify and map habitat 
it believed to be important for the recovery of 282 endangered and 
threatened Hawaiian plant species. The HPPRCC identified these areas on 
most of the islands in the Hawaiian chain, and in 1999, we published 
them in our Recovery Plan for the Multi-Island Plants (Service 1999). 
The HPPRCC expects there will be subsequent efforts to further refine 
the locations of important habitat areas and that new survey 
information or research may also lead to additional refinement of 
identifying and mapping of habitat important for the recovery of these 
species.
    The HPPRCC identified essential habitat areas for all listed, 
proposed, and candidate plants and evaluated species of concern to 
determine if essential habitat areas would provide for their habitat 
needs. However, the HPPRCC's mapping of habitat is distinct from the 
regulatory designation of critical habitat as defined by the Act. More 
data has been collected since the recommendations made by the HPPRCC in 
1998. Much of the area that was identified by the HPPRCC as 
inadequately surveyed has now been surveyed in some way. New location 
data for many species has been

[[Page 3994]]

gathered. Also, the HPPRCC identified areas as essential based on 
species clusters (areas that included listed species as well as 
candidate species, and species of concern) while we have only 
delineated areas that are essential for the conservation of 83 listed 
species at issue. As a result, the proposed critical habitat 
designations in this proposed rule include not only some habitat that 
was identified as essential in the 1998 recommendation but also habitat 
that was not identified as essential in those recommendations.
C. 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 propose as critical 
habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the 
best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those 
physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that 
are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require 
special management considerations or protection. Such requirements 
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, or rearing of offspring, germination, 
or seed dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or 
are representative of the historic geographical and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    In the November 7, 2000, proposal we determined that the 
designation of critical habitat was prudent for 76 plant species known 
currently from the islands of Kauai or Niihau and in that proposal we 
identified the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential to the conservation of the 76 species on the islands of Kauai 
or Niihau (65 FR 66808). In other proposals published on December 18, 
2000, December 27, 2000, or on December 29, 2000, we determined that 
the designation of critical habitat was prudent for nine species 
(Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Hibiscus 
brackenridgei, Ishaemum byrone, Mariscus pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus 
manni, Silene laceolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis) that no longer occur on 
Kauai and Niihau but are reported from one or more other islands. Based 
on new information and information received during the comment periods 
on the November 7, 2000, proposal we have identified the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential to the conservation 
of five of these nine species (Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta, 
Diplazium molokaiense, Ischaemum byrone, and Mariscus pennatiformis) on 
the island of Kauai. We are unable to identify these features for 
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Phlegmariurus manni, Silene lanceolata, and 
Vigna o-wahuensis on the islands of Kauai and Niihau based on the 
information available at this time. Therefore, we were not able to 
identify the specific areas outside the geographic areas occupied by 
these species at the time of their listing (unoccupied habitat) that 
are essential for the conservation of Hibiscus brackenridgei, 
Phlegmariurus manni, Silene landeolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis on the 
islands of Kauai or Niihau. However, proposed critical habitat 
designations for Hibiscus brackenridgei, Phlegmariurus manni, Silene 
lanceolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis were included in proposals published 
on December 18, 2000, December 27, 2000, or December 29, 2000 (65 FR 
79192, 65 FR 82086, 65 FR 83158). In addition, we will consider 
proposing designation of critical habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei, 
Phlegmariurus manni, Silene lanceolata, and Vigna o-wahuensis within 
the historic range for each species on other Hawaiian islands.
    In this proposal, we determine that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for Phyllostegia waimeae based on new information 
received during the comment periods on the November 7, 2000, proposal 
regarding the rediscovery of this species on Kauai. Based on new 
information received during the comment periods we have identified 
physical and biological features that are considered essential to the 
conservation of Phyllostegia waimeae on the island of Kauai.
    In this proposal, we determine that the designation of critical 
habitat is prudent for four species (Achyranthes mutica, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, Phlegmariurus nutans, and Solanum incompletum) for which 
prudency determinations have not been made previously, and which no 
longer occur on Kauai but are reported from one or more other islands. 
Based on new information and information received during the comment 
periods on the November 7, 2000, proposal we have identified the 
physical and biological features that are considered essential to the 
conservation of Phlegmariurus nutans on the island of Kauai. We are 
unable to identify these features for Achyranthes muticca, Isodendrion 
pyrifolium, and Solanum incompletum on the islands of Kauai and Niihau 
based on the information available at this time. Therefore, we were not 
able to identify the specific areas outside the geographic areas 
occupied by these species at the time of their listing (unoccupied 
habitat) that are essential for the conservation of Achyranthes mutica, 
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Solanum incompletum on the islands of Kauai 
and Niihau. However, we will consider proposing designation of critical 
habitat for Achyranthes mutica, Isodendion pyrifolium, and Solanum 
incompletum within the historic range for each species on other 
Hawaiian Islands.
    All areas proposed as critical habitat are within the historical 
range of one or more of the 83 species at issue and contain one or more 
of these physical or biological features (primary constituent elements) 
essential for the conservation of one or more of the species.
    As described in the discussions for each of the 83 species for 
which we are proposing critical habitat, we are proposing to define the 
primary constituent elements on the basis of the habitat features of 
the areas in which the plant species are reported from, as described by 
the type of plant community, associated native plant species, locale 
information (e.g., steep rocky cliffs, talus slopes, stream banks), and 
elevation. The habitat features provide the ecological components 
required by the plant. The type of plant community and associated 
native plant species indicates specific microclimate conditions, 
retention and availability of water in the soil, soil microorganism 
community, and nutrient cycling and availability. The locale indicated 
information on soil type, elevation, rainfall regime, and temperature. 
Elevation indicates information on daily and seasonal termperature and 
sun intensity. Therefore, the descriptions of the physical elements of 
the locations of each of these species, including habitat type, plant 
communities associated with these species, location, and elevation, as 
described in the Supplementary Information: Discussion of the Plant 
Taxa section above, constitute the primary constituent elements for 
these species on the islands of Kauai and Niihau.
D. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
    In the November 7, 2000, proposal we defined the primary 
constituent elements based on the general habitat features of the areas 
in which the plants currently occur such as the type of plant community 
the plants are growing in, their physical location (e.g., steep rocky 
cliffs, talus slopes, stream banks), and

[[Page 3995]]

elevation. The areas we proposed to designate as critical habitat 
provided some or all of the habitat components essential for the 
conservation of the 76 plant species. Specific details regarding the 
delineation of the proposed critical habitat units were given in the 
November 7, 2000, proposal (65 FR 66808). In that proposal we did not 
include potentially suitable unoccupied habitat that is important to 
the recovery of the 76 species due to our limited knowledge of the 
historical range (the geographical area outside the area presently 
occupied by the species) and our lack of more detailed information on 
the specific physical or biological features essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Based on a review of new biological information and public comments 
received following publication of the four proposals to designate 
critical habitat for Hawaiian plants on Kauai and Niihau (65 FR 66808), 
Maui and Kahoolawe (65 FR 79192), Lanai (65 FR 82086), and Molokai (65 
FR 83158), we have reevaluated the manner in which we delineated 
proposed critical habitat. In addition, we met with members of the 
HPPRCC, and State, Federal, and private entities to discuss criteria 
and methods to delineate critical habitat units for these Hawaiian 
plants.
    We considered several factors in the selection and proposal of 
specific boundaries for critical habitat for these 83 species. For each 
of these species, the overall recovery strategy outlined in the 
approved recovery plans includes the following components: (1) 
stabilization of existing wild populations, (2) protection and 
management of habitat, (3) enhancement of existing small populations 
and reestablishment of new populations within historic range, and (4) 
research on species' biology and ecology (Service 1994, 1995, 1996, 
1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999). Therefore, the long-term recovery of 
these species is dependent upon the protection of existing population 
sites and potentially suitable unoccupied habitat within historic 
range.
    The overall recovery goal stated in the recovery plans for each of 
these species includes the establishment of 8 to 10 populations with a 
minimum of 100 mature individuals per population for long-lived 
perennials, 300 individuals per population for short-lived perennials, 
and 500 mature individuals per population for annuals. (However, there 
are some specific exceptions to this general recovery goal of 8 to 10 
populations for species that are believed to be very narrowly 
distributed on a single island (e.g., the Wahiawa plant cluster 
(Service 1994) and Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda), and the proposed 
critical habitat designations reflect this exception for these 
species.). To be considered recovered each population of a species 
endemic to the islands of Kauai or Niihau should occur on the island to 
which it is endemic, and likewise the populations of a multi-island 
species should be distributed among the islands of its known historic 
range (Service 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999). A 
population, for the purposes of this discussion and as defined in the 
recovery plans for these species, is defined as a unit in which the 
individuals within a population could be regularly cross-pollinated, 
individuals that could be influenced by the same small-scale events 
(such as landslides), and should be considered at recover-level numbers 
of individuals (e.g., 100-500 individuals) for each population (rather 
than current numbers).
    By adopting the specific recovery objectives enumerated above, the 
adverse effects of genetic inbreeding and random environmental events 
and catastrophes, such as landslides or hurricanes, that could destroy 
a large percentage of the species at any one time may be reduced 
(Menges 1990, Podolsky 2001). These recovery objectives were initially 
developed by the HPPRCC and are found in all of the recovery plans for 
these species, and are expected to be further refined as more 
information on the population biology of each species becomes 
available.
    The general justification for these objectives is found in the 
current conservation biology literature addressing the coonservation of 
rare and endangered plants and animals (Beissinger and Westphal 1998; 
Burgman et al. 2001; Falk et al. 1996; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Hendrix 
and Kyhl 2000; Karieva and Wennergren 1995; Luijten et al. 2000; Meffe 
and Carroll 1996; Podolsky 2000; Menges 1990; Murphy et al. 1990; 
Quintana-Ascencio and Menges 1996: Taylor 1995; Tear et al. 1995; Wolf 
and Harrison 2001). The overall goal of recovery and reintroduction in 
the short-term is a successful population that can carry on basic life-
history processes, such as establishment, reproduction, and dispersal, 
at a level where the probability of extinction is low. In the long-
term, the species and its populations should be at a reduced risk of 
extinction and be adaptable to environmental change through evolution 
and migration. The long-term objectives, as reviewed by Pavlik, range 
from 50 to 2,500 individuals per population, based largely on research 
and theoretical modeling on endangered animals. Many aspects of species 
life history are typically considered to determine guidelines for 
species interim stability and recovery, including longevity, breeding 
system, growth form, fecundity, ramet (a plant that is an independent 
member of a clone) production, survivorship, seed duration, 
environmental variation, and successional stage of the habitat. 
Hawaiian species are poorly studied, and the only one of the afore-
mentioned characteristics that can be uniformly applied to all species 
is longevity (i.e., long-lived perennial, short-lived perennial, and 
annual). In general, long-lived woody perennial species would be 
expected to be viable at population levels of 50 to 250 individuals per 
population, while short-lived perennial species would be viable at 
population levels of 1,500 to 2,500 individuals or more per population. 
These population numbers were refined for Hawaiian plant species by the 
HPPRCC (1994) due to the restricted distribution of suitable habitat 
typical of Hawaiian plants and the likelihood of smaller genetic 
diversity of several species that evolved from one single introduction. 
For recovery of Hawaiian plants, the HPPRCC recommended a general 
recovery guideline of 100 mature individuals per population for long-
lived perennial species, 300 individuals per population for short-lived 
perennial species, and 500 individuals per population for annual 
species. These guidelines are general and we expect to revise them for 
individual species to incorporate new data as it becomes available.
    The lack of detailed scientific data on the life history of these 
plant species makes it impossible for us to develop a robust 
quantitative model (e.g., population viability analysis (NRC 1995)) to 
identify the optimal number, size, and location of critical habitat 
units to achieve recovery (Beissinger and Westphal 1998; Burgman et al. 
2001; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Karieva and Wennergren 1995; Menges 1990; 
Murphy et al. 1990; Taylor 1995). At this time, and consistent with the 
listing of these species, the best available information leads us to 
conclude that the current size and distribution of the extant 
populations are not sufficient to expect a reasonable probability of 
long-term survival and recovery of these plant species. Therefore, we 
used available information, including expert scientific opinion and 
professional judgement of non-Service scientists and members of the 
HPPRCC, to identify

[[Page 3996]]

potentially suitable habitat within the known historic range of each 
species.
    The HPPRCC recommended the conservation and establishment of 8-10 
populations to address the numerous risks to the long-term survival and 
conservation of Hawaiian plant species. Although absent the detailed 
information inherent to the types of PVA models described above 
(Burgman et al. 2001), this approach nevertheless employs two widely 
recognized and scientifically accepted goals for promoting viable 
populations of listed species--(1) Creation or maintenance of multiple 
populations so that a single or series of catastrophic events cannot 
destroy the entire listed species (Luijten et al. 2000; Menges 1990; 
Quintana-Ascencio and Menges 1996); and (2) increasing the size of each 
population in the respective critical habitat units to a level where 
the threats of genetic, demographic, and normal environmental 
uncertainties are diminished (Hendrix and Kyhl 2000; Luijten et al. 
2000; Meffe and Carroll 1996; Podolsky 2000; Service 1997; Tear et al. 
1995; Wolf and Harrison 2001). In general, the larger the number of 
populations and the larger the size of each population, the lower the 
probability of extinction (Raup 1991; Meffe and Carroll 1996. This 
basic conservation principle of redundancy applies to Hawaiian plants. 
By maintaining 8 to10 viable populations in the several proposed 
critical habitat units, the threats represented by a fluctuating 
environment are alleviated and the species has a greater likelihood of 
achieving long-term survival and conservation. Conversely, loss of one 
or more of the plant populations within any critical habitat unit could 
result in an increase in the risk that the entire listed species may 
not survive and recover.
    Due to the reduced size of suitable habitat areas for these 
Hawaiian plant species, they are now more susceptible to the variations 
and weather fluctuations affecting quality and quantity of available 
habitat, as well as direct pressure from hundreds of species of non-
native plants and animals. Establishing and conserving 8 to 10 viable 
populations on one or more islands(s) within the historic range of the 
species will provide each species with a reasonable expectation of 
persistence and eventual recovery, even with the high potential that 
one or more of these populations will be eliminated by normal or random 
adverse events, such as hurricanes which occurred in 1982 and 1992 on 
Kauai, fires, and alien plant invasions (HPPRCC 1994; Luijten et al. 
2000; Mangel and Tier 1994; Pimm et al. 1998; Stacey and Taper 1992). 
We conclude that designation of adequate suitable habitat for 8 to 10 
populations as critical habitat--and implementation of recovery actions 
thereon--gives the species a reasonable likelihood of long-term 
survival and recovery, based on currently available information. These 
guidelines are general and we expect to revise for individual species 
to incorporate new data as it becomes available.
    In summary, the long-term survival and recovery requires the 
designation of critical habitat units on one or more of the Hawaiian 
islands with suitable habitat for 8 to 10 populations of each plant 
species. Some of this habitat is currently not known to be occupied by 
these species. To recover the species, it will be necessary to conserve 
suitable habitat in these unoccupied units, which in turn will allow 
for the establishment of additional populations through natural 
recruitment or managed reintroductions. Establishment of these 
additional populations will increase the likelihood that the species 
will survive and recover in the face of normal and stochastic events 
(e.g., hurricanes, fire, and non-native species introductions) (Pimm et 
al. 1998; Stacey and Taper 1992; Mangel and Tier 1994).
    Changes in our approach to delineate proposed critical habitat 
units were incorporated in the following manner:
    (1) We focused on designating units representative of the known 
current and historical geographic and elevational range of each 
species;
    (2) Proposed critical habitat units would allow for expansion of 
existing wild populations and reestablishment of wild populations 
within historic range, as recommended by the recovery plans for each 
species; and
    (3) Critical habitat boundaries were delineated in such a way that 
areas with overlapping occupied or suitable unoccupied habitat could be 
depicted clearly (multi-species units).
    We began by creating rough units for each species by screen 
digitizing polygons (map units) using ArcView (ESRI), a computer GIS 
program. The polygons were created by overlaying current and historic 
plant location points onto digital topographic maps of each of the 
islands.
    The resulting shape files (delineating historic elevational range 
and potential, suitable habitat) were then evaluated. Elevation ranges 
were further refined and land areas identified as not suitable for a 
particular species (i.e., not containing the primary constituent 
elements) were avoided. The resulting shape files for each species then 
were considered to define all suitable habitat on the island, including 
occupied and unoccupied habitat.
    These shape files of suitable habitat were further evaluated. 
Several factors were then used to delineate the proposed critical 
habitat units from these land areas. We reviewed the recovery 
objectives as described above and in recovery plans for each of the 
species to determine if the number of populations and population size 
requirements needed for full recovery would be available within the 
critical habitat units identified as containing the appropriate primary 
constituent elements for each species. If more than the area needed for 
the number of recovery populations was identified as potentially 
suitable, only those areas within the least disturbed suitable habitat 
were designated as proposed critical habitat. A population for this 
purpose is defined as a discrete aggregation of individuals located a 
sufficient distance from a neighboring aggregation such that the two 
are not affected by the same small-scale events and are not believed to 
be consistently cross-pollinated. In the absence of more specific 
information indicating the appropriate distance to assure limited 
cross-pollination, we are using a distance of 1,000 m (3,281 ft) based 
on two Service biologists review of current literature on gene flow 
(Havens 1998; Barret and Kohn 1991; M.H. Schierup and F.B. Christiansen 
1996; Fenster and Dudash 1994).
    Using the above criteria, we delineated the proposed critical 
habitat for each species. When species units overlapped, we combined 
units for ease of mapping. Such critical habitat units encompass a 
number of plant communities. Using satellite imagery and parcel data we 
then eliminated areas that did not contain the appropriate vegetation, 
associated native plant species, or elevations such as cultivated 
agriculture fields, housing developments or other areas that are 
unlikely to contribute to the conservation of one or more of the 83 
plant species. Geographic features (ridge lines, valleys, streams, 
coastlines, etc.) or man-made features (roads or obvious land use) that 
created an obvious boundary for a unit were used as unit area 
boundaries. We also used watershed delineations to dissect very large 
proposed critical habitat units in order to simplify the unit mapping 
and their descriptions.
    Within the critical habitat boundaries, adverse modification could 
occur only if the primary constituent elements are affected. Therefore, 
not all activities within critical habitat would trigger an adverse 
modification conclusion. In

[[Page 3997]]

addition, existing features and structures within proposed areas, such 
as buildings, roads, aqueducts, telecommunications equipment, telemetry 
antennas, radars, missile launch sites, arboreta and gardens, heiau 
(indigenous places of worship or shrines), and other man-made features 
do not contain, and are not likely to develop, constituent elements and 
would be excluded under the terms of this proposed regulation. 
Therefore, unless a Federal action related to such features or 
structures indirectly affected nearby habitat containing the primary 
constituent elements, operation and maintenance of such features or 
structures generally would not be impacted by the designation of 
critical habitat. When delineating critical habitat units, we made an 
effort to avoid developed areas such as towns, agricultural lands, and 
other lands unlikely to contribute to the conservation of the 83 
species.
    In summary, for most of these species we utilized the approved 
recovery plan guidance to identify appropriately sized land units 
containing suitable occupied and unoccupied habitat. These areas are 
the Service's best estimation of the habitat necessary to provide for 
the recovery of these species.

E. Managed Lands

    Currently occupied or historically known sites containing one or 
more of the primary constituent elements considered essential to the 
conservation of these 83 plant species were examined to determine if 
additional special management considerations or protection are required 
above those currently provided. We reviewed all available management 
information on these plants at these sites, including published reports 
and surveys; annual performance and progress reports; management plans; 
grants; memoranda of understanding and cooperative agreements; DOFAW 
planning documents; internal letters and memos; biological assessments 
and environmental impact statements; and section 7 consultations. 
Additionally, each public (i.e., county, State, or Federal government 
holdings) and private landowner on the islands of Kauai and Niihau with 
a known occurrence of one of the 83 species was contacted by mail. We 
reviewed all information received in response to our landowner mailing 
and open houses held at three locations (Waimea, Lihue, and Kilauea) on 
the island of Kauai from October 19 to 21, 1999. When clarification was 
required on the information provided to us, we followed up with a 
telephone contact. Because of the large amount of land on the island of 
Kauai under State of Hawaii jurisdiction, we met with staff from 
Kauai's DOFAW office and Kauai State Parks to discuss their current 
management for the plants on their lands. And, we contacted the State's 
DHHL regarding management for the plants on lands under their 
jurisdiction (any species of aquatic life, wildlife, or plant that is 
federally listed as endangered or threatened is State listed as well). 
In addition, we reviewed new biological information and public comments 
received during the public comment periods and at the public hearing.
    Pursuant to the definition of critical habitat in section 3 of the 
Act, the primary constituent elements as found in any area so 
designated must also require ``special management considerations or 
protections.'' Adequate special management or protection is provided by 
a legally operative plan that addresses the maintenance and improvement 
of the essential elements and provides for the long-term conservation 
of the species. We consider a plan adequate when it:
    (1) Provides a conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the plan 
must maintain or provide for an increase in the species' population or 
the enhancement or restoration of its habitat within the area covered 
by the plan);
    (2) Provides assurances that the management plan will be 
implemented (i.e., those responsible for implementing the plan are 
capable of accomplishing the objectives, have an implementation 
schedule and/or have adequate funding for the management plan); and,
    (3) Provides assurances the conservation plan will be effective 
(i.e., it identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting 
progress, and is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan and 
achieves the plan's goals and objectives). If an area is covered by a 
plan that meets these criteria, it does not constitute critical habitat 
as defined by the Act because the primary constituent elements found 
there are not in need of special management.
    In determining and weighing the relative significance of the 
threats that would need to be addressed in management plans or 
agreements, we considered the following:
    (1) The factors that led to the listing of the species, as 
described in the final rules for listing each of the species. Effects 
of clearing and burning for agricultural purposes and of invasive non-
native plant and animal species have contributed to the decline of 
nearly all endangered and threatened plants in Hawaii (Smith 1985; 
Howarth 1985; Stone 1985; Wagner et al. 1985; Scott et al. 1986; 
Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Vitousek 1992; Service 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 
1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999; Loope 1998).
    Current threats to these species include non-native grass and 
shrub-carried wildfire; browsing, digging, rooting, and trampling from 
feral ungulates (including goats, deer, and pigs); direct and indirect 
effects of non-native plant invasions, including alteration of habitat 
structure and microclimate; and disruption of pollination and gene-flow 
processes by adverse effects of mosquito-borne avian disease on forest 
bird pollinators, direct competition between native and non-native 
insect pollinators for food, and predation of native insect pollinators 
by non-native hymenopteran insects (ants). In addition, physiological 
processes such as reproduction and establishment continue to be stifled 
by fruit and flower eating pests such as non-native arthropods, 
mollusks, and rats, and photosynthesis and water transport affected by 
non-native insects, pathogens and diseases. Many of these factors 
interact with one another, thereby compounding effects. Such 
interactions include non-native plant invasions altering wildfire 
regimes, feral ungulates vectoring weeds and disturbing vegetation and 
soils thereby facilitating dispersal and establishment of non-native 
plants, and numerous non-native insects feeding on native plants, 
thereby increasing their vulnerability and exposure to pathogens and 
disease (Howarth 1985; Smith 1985; Scott et al. 1986; Cuddihy and Stone 
1990; Mack 1992; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Tunison et al. 1992; 
Service 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999; Bruegmann et 
al. 2001).
    (2) The recommendations from the HPPRCC in their 1998 report to us 
(``Habitat Essential to the Recovery of Hawaiian Plants''). As 
summarized in this report, recovery goals for endangered Hawaiian plant 
species cannot be achieved without the effective control of non-native 
species threats, wildfire, and land use changes.
    (3) The management actions needed for assurance of survival and 
ultimate recovery of Hawaii's endangered plants. These actions are 
described in our recovery plans for these 83 species (Service 1994, 
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999), in the 1998 HPPRCC report 
to us (HPPRCC 1998), and in various other documents and publications 
relating to plant conservation in Hawaii (Mueller-Dombois 1985; Smith 
1985; Stone 1985; Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Stone et al.

[[Page 3998]]

1992). In addition to monitoring the plant populations, these actions 
include, but are not limited to: (1) feral ungulate control; (2) non-
native plant control; (3) rodent control; (4) invertebrate pest 
control; (5) fire management; (6) maintenance of genetic material of 
the endangered and threatened plants species; (7) propagation, 
reintroduction, and/or augmentation of existing populations into areas 
deemed essential for the recovery of these species; (8) ongoing 
management of the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; and (9) 
habitat management and restoration in areas deemed essential for the 
recovery of these species.
    In general, taking all of the above recommended management actions 
into account, the following management actions are ranked in order of 
importance (Service 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999). 
It should be noted, however, that, on a case-by-case basis, some of 
these actions may rise to a higher level of importance for a particular 
species or area, depending on the biological and physical requirements 
of the species and the location(s) of the individual plants: feral 
ungulate control; wildfire management; non-native plant control; rodent 
control; invertebrate pest control; maintenance of genetic material of 
the endangered and threatened plant species; propagation, 
reintroduction, and/or augmentation of existing populations into areas 
deemed essential for the recovery of the species; ongoing management of 
the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; maintenance of natural 
pollinators and pollinating systems, when known; habitat management and 
restoration in areas deemed essential for the recovery of the species; 
monitoring of the wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; rare 
plant surveys; and control of human activities/access.
    As shown in Table 3, the proposed critical habitat designations for 
83 species of plants are found on Federal, State, and private lands on 
the islands of Kauai and Niihau. In response to our public notices; 
letters to landowners; open houses; meetings; the November 7, 2000, 
proposal; public comment periods; the March 7, 2001, draft economic 
analysis; and the February 6, 2001, public hearing along with 
information in our files, we received varying amounts and various types 
of information on the conservation management actions occurring on 
these lands. Some landowners reported that they are not conducting 
conservation management actions on their lands while others provided 
information on various activities such as fencing, weeding, ungulate 
control, hunting, control of human access, scientific research, fire 
control, and propagation and/or planting of native plants.

Federal Lands

    The PMRF at Barking Sands and Makaha Ridge, both on Kauai's west 
side, are on federally owned or State leased lands administered by the 
Navy for instrumented and multi-environment weapon testing and 
tracking. Wilkesia hobdyi occurs on lands at the Makaha Ridge Facility 
while Sesbania tomentosa and Panicum niihauense are reported from the 
dunes on State lands adjacent to the Barking Sands Facility at Polihale 
State Park. The dune system extends from Polihale State Park through 
the Barking Sands Facility to State-owned lands at Kekaha, and may be 
one of the best intact coastal dune systems remaining on the main 
Hawaiian Islands. We evaluated the dune habitat at the Barking Sands 
Facility for Sesbania tomentosa and Panicum niihauense and determined 
that these lands are not essential for the conservation of Sesbania 
tomentosa though they are essential for Panicum niihauense. The Navy is 
currently engaged in discussions with us to identify training-related 
impacts to Wilkesia hobdyi and Panicum niihauense and to develop an 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP 2001) that will 
identify measures that will address the maintenance and improvement of 
the essential elements for these two plant species and provide for 
their long-term conservation.
    Management at the Barking Sands and Makaha Ridge Facility lands 
currently consists of restricting human access and mowing landscaped 
areas. These actions alone are not sufficient to address the factors 
inhibiting the long-term conservation of Panicum niihauense and 
Wilkesia hobdyi. Therefore, we can not at this time find that 
management on these lands under Federal jurisdiction is adequate to 
preclude a proposed designation of critical habitat. If the Navy 
completes and implements an INRMP or other endangered species 
management plans that addresses the maintenance and improvement of the 
essential elements for these two plant species and provides for their 
long-term conservation we will reassess the critical habitat boundaries 
in light of these management plans. We will solicit specific comments 
from the Navy on their concerns on our proposed designation on military 
lands, and its effect of military activities. We will give full 
consideration to their comments, and after completing our analysis of 
public comments, we may exclude some or all of these Navy lands under 
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.

State of Hawaii Lands

    The State lands on the island of Kauai include ceded and leased 
lands, and those that are administered by the Department of Land and 
Natural Resources (DLNR). DLNR lands are made up of State Parks, which 
are administered by the State Division of State parks; and Forest 
Reserves, Natural Area Reserves, and the Alakai Wilderness Preserve 
which are administered by the DOFAW. The DLNR also manages DHHL lands 
on the island of Kauai. We determined that habitat that is essential to 
the conservation of 74 of the 83 federally threatened or endangered 
plant species is found on State lands: Adenophorus periens, Alectryon 
macrococcus, Alsinidendron lychnoides, Alsinidendron viscosum, Bonamia 
menziesii, Brighamia insignis, Centaurium sebaeoides, Chamaesyce 
halemanui, Cyanea asarifolia, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyperus 
trachysanthos, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Delissea 
rhytidosperma, Delissea rivularis, Delissea undulata, Diellia erecta, 
Diellia pallida, Dubautia latifolia, Dubautia pauciflorula, Euphorbia 
haeleeleana, Exocarpos luteolus, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania meyenii, 
Hedyotis cookiana, Hedyotis st.-johnii, Hesperomannia lydgatei, 
Hibiscadelphus woodii, Hibiscus clayi, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae, 
Isodendrion laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, Kokia kauaiensis, 
Labordia lydgatei, Lipochaeta fauriei, Lipochaeta micrantha, Lipochaeta 
waimeaensis, Lobelia niihauensis, Lysimachia filifolia, Melicope 
haupuensis, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope pallida, Munroidendron 
racemosum, Myrsine linearifolia, Nothocestrum peltatum, Panicum 
niihauense, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia knudsenii, 
Phyllostegia waimeae, Phyllostegia wawrana, Plantago princeps, 
Platanthera holochila, Poa mannii, Poa sandvicensis, Poa siphonoglossa, 
Pritchardia napaliensis, Pritchardia viscosa, Pteralyxia kauaiensis, 
Remya kauaiensis, Remya montgomeryi, Schiedea apokremnos, Schiedea 
helleri, Schiedea kauaiensis, Schiedea membranacea, Schiedea spergulina 
var. spergulina, Schiedea stellarioides, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum 
sandwicense, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Stenogyne campanulata, Wilkesia 
hobdyi, Xylosma crenatum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. 

[[Page 3999]]

    Although the State conducts some conservation management actions on 
these lands and provides access to others who are conducting such 
activities, these programs do not adequately address the threats to 
these listed plant species on their lands. In addition, there are no 
comprehensive management plans for the long-term conservation of 
endangered and threatened plants on these lands, no updated detailed 
reports on management actions conducted, and no assurances that 
management actions will be implemented. Therefore, we cannot, at this 
time, find that management on these State lands is adequate to preclude 
a proposed designation of critical habitat. However, we will work with 
the State in developing conservation planning efforts.

Private Lands

    We determined that habitat that is essential to the conservation of 
32 of the 83 federally listed plant species is found on privately owned 
lands on Kauai and Niihau: Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii, 
Brighamia insignis, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyanea undulata, 
Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, 
Delissea rhytidosperma, Dubautia pauciflorula, Exocarpos luteolus, 
Flueggea neowawraea, Hesperomannia lydgatei, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. 
hannerae, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion longifolium, Labordia lydgatei, 
Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis, Lipochaeta micrantha, Lobelia 
niihauensis, Munroidendron racemosum, Myrsine linearifolia, Peucedanum 
sandwicense, Phyllostegia wawrana, Plantago princeps, Schiedea 
membranacea, Schiedea nuttallii, Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda, 
Solanum sandwicense, and Viola helenae, and Viola kauaiensis var. 
wahiawaensis.
    We received 25 responses from the over 160 private landowners who 
received letters inquiring about management actions on their lands. The 
main activities being conducted by several of these landowners are 
weeding, control of human access, and planting of native species. In 
addition, responses and comments we received during the three comment 
periods and the public hearing, and new information used in preparing 
this revised proposal did not adequately address the threats to these 
listed plant species on private lands on Kauai and Niihau. We are aware 
of only a few private landowners who are drafting management plans for 
their areas. Without such plans and assurances that the plans will be 
implemented, we are unable to find that the lands in question do not 
require special management or protection.
    If we receive information during the public comment period that any 
of the lands within the proposed designations are actively managed to 
promote the conservation and recovery of the 83 listed species at issue 
in this revised proposed designation, in accordance with long term 
conservation plans or agreements, and there are assurances that the 
proposed management actions will be implemented and effective, we can 
consider this information when making a final determination of critical 
habitat.
    In addition, we are aware that other private landowners and the 
State of Hawaii are considering the development of land management 
plans or agreements that may promote the conservation and recovery of 
endangered and threatened plant species on the island of Kauai. We 
support these efforts and provide technical assistance whenever 
possible. We are also soliciting comments on whether future development 
and approval of conservation measures (e.g. HCPs, Conservation 
Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements) should trigger revision of 
designated critical habitat to exclude such lands, and if so, by what 
mechanism.
    The proposed critical habitat units described below constitute our 
best assessment of the physical and biological features needed for the 
conservation of the 83 plant species, and the special management needs 
of these species, and are based on the best scientific and commercial 
information available and described above. We put forward this revised 
proposal acknowledging that we may have incomplete information 
regarding many of the primary biological and physical requirements for 
these species. However, both the Act and the relevant court order 
requires us to proceed with designation at this time based on the best 
information available. As new information accrues, we may reevaluate 
which areas warrant critical habitat designation. We anticipate that 
comments received through the public review process and from the public 
hearing will provide us with additional information to use in our 
decision making process and in assessing the potential impacts of 
designating critical habitat for one or more of these species.
    The approximate areas of proposed critical habitat by landownership 
or jurisdiction are shown in Table 5.

  Table 5.--Approximate Proposed Critical Habitat Area by Unit and Land
           Ownership or Jurisdiction, Kauai County, Hawaii \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 State/
          Unit name              local     Private    Federal     Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kauai A1.....................  .........  2 ha (6    .........  2 ha (6
                                           ac)                   ac)
Kauai A2.....................  .........  6 ha (16   .........  6 ha (16
                                           ac)                   ac)
Kauai A3.....................  .........  6 ha (16   .........  6 ha (16
                                           ac)                   ac)
Kauai B......................  271 ha     .........  .........  271 ha
                                (669 ac)                         (669
                                                                 ac)
Kauai C......................  0.5 ha (1  97 ha      .........  97 ha
                                ac)        (239 ac)              (239
                                                                 ac)
Kauai D1.....................  2 ha (4    13 ha (31  .........  15 ha
                                ac)        ac)                   (35 ac)
Kauai D2.....................  .........  240 ha     .........  240 ha
                                           (594 ac)              (594
                                                                 ac)
Kauai E......................  .........  563 ha     .........  563 ha
                                           (1,390                (1,390
                                           ac)                   ac)
Kauai F......................  .........  5 ha (12   .........  5 ha (12
                                           ac)                   ac)
Kauai G......................  317 ha     .........  .........  317 ha
                                (784 ac)                         (784
                                                                 ac)
Kauai H1.....................  67 ha      .........  71 ha      138 ha
                                (165 ac)              (176 ac)   (341
                                                                 ac)
Kauai H2.....................  3 ha (7    .........  104 ha     107 ha
                                ac)                   (258 ac)   (265
                                                                 ac)
Kauai H3.....................  42 ha      .........  42 ha      84 ha
                                (103 ac)              (103 ac)   (206
                                                                 ac)
Kauai I......................  8,226 ha   12 ha (29  .........  8,237 ha
                                (20,326    ac)                   (20,355
                                ac)                              ac)
Kauai J......................  363 ha     5,173 ha   .........  5,536 ha
                                (898 ac)   (12,783               (13,681
                                           ac)                   ac)
Kauai K......................  718 ha     1,034 ha   .........  1,752 ha
                                (1,774     (2,556                (4,330
                                ac)        ac)                   ac)
Kauai L......................  3,372 ha   35 ha (85  .........  3,407 ha
                                (8,333     ac)                   (8,418
                                ac)                              ac)
Kauai M......................  1,459 ha   1,843 ha   .........  3,302 ha
                                (3,606     (4,554                (8,160
                                ac)        ac)                   ac)
Kauai N......................  2,713 ha   3,886 ha   .........  6,599 ha
                                (6,704     (9,603                (16,307
                                ac)        ac)                   ac)

[[Page 4000]]

Kauai O......................  9,451 ha   11 ha (27  .........  9,462 ha
                                (23,355    ac)                   (23,382
                                ac)                              ac)
Kauai Total..................  27,004 ha  12,926 ha  217 ha     40,147
                                (66,728    (31,941    (537 ac)   ha
                                ac)        ac)                   (99,206
                                                                 ac)
Niihau A.....................  .........  282 ha     .........  282 ha
                                           (697 ac)              (697
                                                                 ac)
      Grand Total............  27,004 ha  13,208 ha  217 ha     40,429
                                (66,728    (32,638    (537 ac)   ha
                                ac)        ac)                   (99,903
                                                                 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Area differences due to digital mapping discrepancies between TMK
  data (GDSI 2000) and USGS coastline, or differences due to rounding.

    Proposed critical habitat includes habitat for 83 species under 
private, State, and Federal jurisdiction (owned and leased lands), with 
Federal lands including lands managed by the Department of Defense. 
Lands proposed as critical habitat have been divided into 15 units 
(Kauai A through Kauai O) on the island of Kauai, and one unit on the 
island of Niihau (Niihau A). A brief description of each unit is 
presented below.

Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units

Kauai A

    The proposed unit Kauai A (units A1 through A3) provides occupied 
habitat for one species: Ischaemum byrone. It is proposed for 
designation because it contains the physical and biological features 
that are considered essential for its conservation on Kauai and 
provides habitat to support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations and 
300 mature individuals per population for Ischaemum byrone, throughout 
its known historical range considered by the recovery plan to be 
necessary for the conservation of this species. This unit also provides 
unoccupied habitat for one species: Centaurium sebaeoides. Designation 
of this unit is essential to the conservation of this species because 
it contains the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential for its conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to 
support one or more additional populations necessary to meet the 
recovery objectives for this species of 8 to 10 populations and 500 
mature individuals per population for Centaurium sebaeoides, throughout 
its known historical range (see the discussion of conservation 
requirements in Section D, and in the table for Kauai A).

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 4001]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.000

    This unit (Kauai A) cluster contains a total of 15 ha (38 ac) on 
privately owned land. It is bordered on the northeast by the coastline 
and on the west by Princeville or Kilauea Point. Areas of dense 
development and subdivisions are excluded. It is within portions of the 
Anini and Kauapea watersheds. The natural features include: In unit A1, 
inland of the beach north of Princeville and north of Princeville Makai 
Golf Courses; unit A2, inland of the beach

[[Page 4002]]

north of Princeville, including Kaweonui Point; and in unit A3, inland 
of Kauapea Beach, between Niu flat and Kilauea Point.

Kauai B

    The proposed unit Kauai B provides occupied habitat for two 
species: Hibiscus clayi, and Munroidendron racemosum. It is proposed 
for designation because it contains the physical and biological 
features that are considered essential for their conservation on Kauai, 
and provides habitat to support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations 
and 100 mature individuals per population for Hibiscus clayi, or 300 
mature individuals per population for Munroidendron racemosum, 
throughout their known historical range considered by the recovery 
plans to be necessary for the conservation of each species (see the 
discussion of conservation requirements in Section D, and in the table 
for Kauai B).

[[Page 4003]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.001

    The unit (Kauai B) contains a total of 271 ha (669 ac) on State 
owned land. It is bounded on the south by the Wailua watershed and on 
the north by the Waiakaea watershed. It contains the Nonou Forest 
Reserve. The natural features found in this unit are the Nonou summit, 
and the Nonou Mountain or Sleeping Giant.

[[Page 4004]]

Kauai C

    The proposed unit Kauai C provides occupied habitat for two 
species: Brighamia insignis and Lobelia niihauensis. It is proposed for 
designation because it contains the physical and biological features 
that are considered essential for their conservation on Kauai, and 
provides habitat to support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations and 
100 mature individuals per population (Brighamia insignis) or 300 
mature individuals per population (Lobelia niihauensis), throughout 
their known historical range considered by the recovery plans to be 
necessary for the conservation of each species (see the discussion of 
conservation requirements in Section D, and in the table for Kauai C).

[[Page 4005]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.002

    This unit (Kauai C) contains a total of 97 ha (239 ac) on State and 
privately owned lands. It is within the Huleia watershed. The natural 
features found in this unit are the cliffs north of Keopaweo and 
Kalanipuu summits and south of Huleia Stream (as it empties into 
Nawiliwili Harbor).

Kauai D

    The proposed unit Kauai D (units D1 and D2) provides unoccupied 
habitat for one species: Sesbania tomentosa.

[[Page 4006]]

Designation of this unit is essential to the conservation of this 
species because it contains the physical and biological features that 
are considered essential for its conservation on Kauai, and provides 
habitat to support one or more additional populations necessary to meet 
the recovery objectives for this species of 8 to 10 populations and 300 
mature individuals per population, throughout its known historical 
range (see the discussion of conservation requirements in Section D, 
and in the table for Kauai D).

[[Page 4007]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.003

[[Page 4008]]

    This unit (Kauai D) cluster contains a total of 255 ha (629 ac) on 
State and privately owned lands. It is within the Mahaulepu and Kipu 
Kai watersheds. The natural features include: in unit D1, Haula bay, 
Kamala Point, Kawailoa Bay, Kawelikoa Point, Kuahonu Point, Makawehi 
beach, Molehu cape, Naakea cape, Pakamoi bay, Paoo Point, and Puu 
Pihakapuu and in unit D2, Kaneaukai cape, Keoniloa Bay and Makahuena 
Point.

Kauai E

    The proposed unit Kauai E provides occupied habitat for eight 
species: Brighamia insignis, Delissea rhytidosperma, Isodendrion 
longifolium, Lipochaeta micrantha, Munroidendron racemosum, Peucedanum 
sandwicense, Pteralyxia kauaiensis and Schiedea nuttallii. It is 
proposed for designation because it contains the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for their 
conservation on Kauai and provides habitat to support one or more of 
the 8 to 10 populations for each species and 100 mature individuals per 
population for Brighamia insignis, Munroidendron racemosum, Pteralyxia 
kauaiensis, and Schiedea nuttallii, or 300 mature individuals per 
population for Delissea rhytidosperma, Isodendrion longifolium, 
Lipochaeta micrantha, and Peucedanum sandwicense throughout their known 
historical range considered by the recovery plans to be necessary for 
the conservation of each species. This unit also provides unoccupied 
habitat for two species: Melicope haupuensis and Myrsine linearifolia. 
Designation of this unit is essential to the conservation of these 
species because it contains the physical and biological features that 
are considered essential for their conservation on Kauai, and provides 
habitat to support one or more additional populations necessary to meet 
the recovery objectives for these species of 8 to 10 populations and 
100 mature individuals per population for each species, throughout 
their known historical range (see the discussion of conservation 
requirements in Section D, and in the table for Kauai E).

[[Page 4009]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.004

[[Page 4010]]

    This unit (Kauai E) contains a total of 563 ha (1,390 ac) on 
privately owned land. It is within the Huleia, Mahaulepu and Kipu Kai 
watersheds. The natural features include: the Haupu summit, Hokulei 
Peak, Naluakeina summit, and Queen Victoria's Profile (a natural stone 
pillar).

Kauai F

    The proposed unit Kauai F provides occupied habitat for one 
species: Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda. It is proposed for 
designation because it contains the physical and biological features 
that are considered essential for its conservation on Kauai, and 
provides habitat to support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations and 
300 mature individuals per population, throughout its known historical 
range considered by the recovery plans to be necessary for the 
conservation of the species (see the discussion of conservation 
requirements in Section D, and in the table for Kauai F).

[[Page 4011]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.005

[[Page 4012]]

    The unit (Kauai F) contains a total of 5 ha (12 ac) on privately 
owned land. It is within the Lawai watershed. The natural features 
include: the north-eastern facing cliffs above Lawai Stream within the 
NTBG property and just below the Luawai Reservoir.

Kauai G

    The proposed unit Kauai G provides occupied habitat for two 
species: Lipochaeta waimeaensis and Spermolepis hawaiiensis. It is 
proposed for designation because it contains the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for their 
conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to support one or more of 
the 8 to 10 populations for each species and 300 mature individuals per 
population (Lipochaeta waimeaensis), or 500 mature individuals per 
population (Spermolepis hawaiiensis), throughout their known historical 
range considered by the recovery plans to be necessary for the 
conservation of each species. This unit also provides unoccupied 
habitat for one species: Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina. 
Designation of this unit is essential to the conservation of this 
species because it contains the physical and biological features that 
are considered essential for its conservation on Kauai, and provides 
habitat to support one or more additional populations necessary to meet 
the recovery objectives for this species of 8 to 10 populations and 300 
mature individuals per population, throughout its known historical 
range (see the discussion of conservation requirements in Section D, 
and in the table for Kauai G).

[[Page 4013]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.006

[[Page 4014]]

    This unit (Kauai G) contains a total of 317 ha (784 ac) on State 
owned land. It is within the Waimea watershed. The natural features 
include the east-facing cliffs of Waimea Canyon.

Kauai H

    The proposed unit Kauai H (units H1 through H3) provides occupied 
habitat for two species: Panicum niihauense and Sesbania tomentosa. It 
is proposed for designation because it contains the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for their 
conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to support one or more of 
the 8 to 10 populations for each species and 300 mature individuals per 
population for each species, throughout their known historical range 
considered by the recovery plans to be necessary for the conservation 
of each species (see the discussion of conservation requirements in 
Section D, and in the table for Kauai H).

[[Page 4015]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.007

[[Page 4016]]

    This unit (Kauai H) cluster contains a total of 329 ha (812 ac) on 
Federal and State owned lands. It is within the Nohomalu, Kaawaloa, 
Niu, and Hoea watersheds. The natural features include: in unit H1, 
inland and along the beach in the Polihale State Park and PMRF from 
Barking Sands up to Nohili Point; unit H2, inland and along the beach 
in the PMRF including the geographic features Mana Point and Waieli 
Draw stream; and in H3, inland and along the beach, partially in the 
PMRF, including Kokole Point and up to Second Ditch next to the drag 
strip.

Kauai I

    The proposed unit Kauai I provides occupied habitat for 49 species: 
Adenophorus periens, Alectryon macrococcus, Alsinidendron lychnoides, 
Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia insignis, Centaurium sebaeoides, 
Chamaesyce halemanui, Cyperus trachysanthos, Delissea rhytidosperma, 
Delissea rivularis, Delissea undulata, Diellia pallida, Dubautia 
latifolia, Euphorbia haeleeleana, Exocarpos luteolus, Flueggea 
neowawraea, Gouania meyenii, Hedyotis cookiana, Hedyotis st.-johnii, 
Hibiscadelphus woodii, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae, Isodendrion 
laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, Kokia kauaiensis, Lipochaeta 
fauriei, Lobelia niihauensis, Melicope haupuensis, Melicope knudsenii, 
Melicope pallida, Munroidendron racemosum, Myrsine linearifolia, 
Nothocestrum peltatum, Peucedanum sandwicense, Phyllostegia wawrana, 
Plantago princeps, Poa mannii, Poa sandvicensis, Poa siphonoglossa, 
Pteralyxia kauaiensis, Remya kauaiensis, Remya montgomeryi, Schiedea 
apokremnos, Schiedea kauaiensis, Schiedea membranacea, Schiedea 
spergulina var. spergulina, Solanum sandwicense, Stenogyne campanulata, 
Wilkesia hobdyi, and Xylosma crenatum. It is proposed for designation 
because it contains the physical and biological features that are 
considered essential for their conservation on Kauai, and provides 
habitat to support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations for each 
species and 100 mature individuals per population for Alectryon 
macrococcus, Alsinidendron lychnoides, Brighamia insignis, Flueggea 
neowawraea, Hibiscadelphus woodii, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae, 
Kokia kauaiensis, Melicope haupuensis, Melicope knudsenii, Melicope 
pallida, Munroidendron racemosum, Myrsine linearifolia, Nothocestrum 
peltatum, Pteralyxia kauaiensis, and Xylosma crenatum, or 300 mature 
individuals per population for Bonamia menziesii, Chamaesyce halemanui, 
Cyperus trachysanthos, Delissea rhytidosperma, Delissea rivularis, 
Delissea undulata, Diellia pallida, Dubautia latifolia, Euphorbia 
haeleeleana, Exocarpos luteolus, Gouania meyenii, Hedyotis cookiana, 
Hedyotis st.-johnii, Isodendrion laurifolium, Isodendrion longifolium, 
Lipochaeta fauriei, Lobelia niihauensis, Peucedanum sandwicense, 
Phyllostegia wawrana, Plantago princeps, Poa mannii, Poa sandvicensis, 
Poa siphonoglossa, Remya kauaiensis, Remya montgomeryi, Schiedea 
apokremnos, Schiedea kauaiensis, Schiedea membranacea, Schiedea 
spergulina var. spergulina, Solanum sandwicense, Stenogyne campanulata, 
and Wilkesia hobdyi, or 500 mature individuals per population for 
Centaurium sebaeoides, throughout their known historical range 
considered by the recovery plans to be necessary for the conservation 
of each species.
    This unit also provides unoccupied habitat for eleven species: 
Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyrtandra 
limahuliensis, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia lydgatei, Ischaemum 
byrone, Labordia lydgatei, Panicum niihauense, Platanthera holochila, 
and Sesbania tomentosa. Designation of this unit is essential to the 
conservation of these species because it contains the physical and 
biological features that are considered essential for their 
conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to support one of more 
additional populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives of 8 
to 10 populations for each species and 100 mature individuals per 
population for Hesperomannia lydgatei, or 300 mature individuals per 
population for Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, 
Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Diplazium molokaiense, Ischaemum byrone, 
Labordia lydgatei, Panicum niihauense, Platanthera holochila, and 
Sesbania tomentosa, throughout their known historical range (see the 
discussion of conservation requirements in Section D, and in the table 
for Kauai I).

[[Page 4017]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.008

[[Page 4018]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.009

[[Page 4019]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.010

[[Page 4020]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.011

[[Page 4021]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.012

[[Page 4022]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.013

[[Page 4023]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.014

[[Page 4024]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.015

[[Page 4025]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.016

[[Page 4026]]

    This unit (Kauai I) contains a total of 8,238 ha (20,355 ac) on 
State and privately owned lands. It is bordered by the Kaulaula 
watershed in the west and Maunapuluo watershed in the east and includes 
the Awaawapuhi, Haeleele, Hanakapiai, Hanakoa, Hikimoe, Honopu, 
Hoolulu, Kaaweiki, Kalalau, Kauhao, Limahuli, Makaha, Milolii, 
Nahomalu, Nakeikionaiwi, Nualolo, Pohakuao, Waiahuakua, Waimea, 
Wainiha, and Waiolaa watersheds. The natural features include: Alapii 
Point, Alealau summit, Awaawapuhi Valley, Haeleele Valley, Hanakapiai 
Stream, Hanakoa Stream, Honopu Valley, Hoolulu Stream, Kaaalahina 
Ridge, Kaahole Valley, Kainamanu summit, Kalahu summit, Kalalau Beach, 
Kalalau Stream, Kalalau Trail, Kalalau Valley, Kalepa Ridge, Kanakou 
summit, Kauhao Ridge, Kauhao Valley, Kaunuohua Ridge, Kawaiula Valley, 
Keanapuka summit, Kopakaka Ridge, Kuia Valley, Mahanaloa Valley, Makaha 
Ridge, Makaha Valley, Manono Ridge, Milolii Ridge, Milolii Valley, 
Moaalele summit, Mukuaiki Point, Na Pali, Nianiau summit, Nualolo 
Valley, Paaiki Valley, Pihea summit, Pohakea summit, Poopooiki Valley, 
Puanaiea Point, Puu Ki summit, Puu o Kila summit, Waiahuakua summit, 
and Waiahuakua Stream. This unit contains portions of Haena State Park, 
Kokee State Park, Na Pali-Kona Forest Reserve, Polihale State Park, Puu 
Ka Pele Forest Reserve, and Waimea Canyon State Park and all of the 
Hono o Na Pali Natural Area Reserve, Kuia Natural Area Reserve, Na Pali 
Coast State Park, and the PMRF Makaha Ridge Facility.

Kauai J

    The proposed unit Kauai J provides occupied habitat for 14 species: 
Adenophorus periens, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, 
Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Hesperomannia lydgatei, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. 
hannerae, Isodendrion longifolium, Labordia lydgatei, Lobelia 
niihauensis, Myrsine linearifolia, Peucedanum sandwicense, Plantago 
princeps, and Schiedea membranacea. It is proposed for designation 
because it contains the physical and biological features that are 
considered essential for their conservation on Kauai, and provides 
habitat to support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations for each 
species and 100 mature individuals per population for Hesperomannia 
lydgatei, Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae, and Myrsine linearifolia, or 
300 mature individuals per population for Adenophorus periens, Cyanea 
recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, 
Isodendrion longifolium, Labordia lydgatei, Lobelia niihauensis, 
Peucedanum sandwicense, Plantago princeps, and Schiedea membranacea, 
throughout their known historical range considered by the recovery 
plans to be necessary for the conservation of each species.
    This unit also provides unoccupied habitat for 12 species: 
Alsinidendron lychnoides, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia insignis, 
Delissea rivularis, Delissea undulata, Euphorbia haeleeleana, Exocarpos 
luteolus, Munroidendron racemosum, Phyllostegia wawrana, Platanthera 
holochila, Remya montgomeryi, and Schiedea kauaiensis. Designation of 
this unit is essential to the conservation of these species because it 
contains the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential for their conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to 
support one or more additional populations necessary to meet the 
recovery objectives of 8 to 10 populations and 100 mature individuals 
per population for Alsinidendron lychnoides, Brighamia insignis, and 
Munroidendron racemosum, or 300 mature individuals per population for 
Bonamia menziesii, Delissea rivularis, Delissea undulata, Euphorbia 
haeleeleana, Exocarpos luteolus, Phyllostegia wawrana, Platanthera 
holochila, Remya montgomeryi, and Schiedea kauaiensis, throughout their 
known historical range (see the discussion of conservation requirements 
in Section D, and in the table for Kauai J).

[[Page 4027]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.017

[[Page 4028]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.018

[[Page 4029]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.019

[[Page 4030]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.020

[[Page 4031]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.021

[[Page 4032]]

    This unit (Kauai J) contains a total of 5,536 ha (13,681 ac) on 
State and privately owned lands. It is bordered by the Limahuli 
watershed in the north, the Wainiha watershed in the south and contains 
a portion of the Manoa watershed. The natural features include: 
Hinalele Falls, Hono o Na Pali, Kilohana summit, Kulanaililia summit, 
Limahuli Falls, Mahinakehau Ridge, Makana summit, Maunahina Stream, 
Maunapuluo summit, Pali Eleele summit, Pohakukane cliff, Puu Iliahi, 
Puwainui Falls, Waikanaloa Wet Cave, Waikapalae Wet Cave, and Wainiha 
Pali. It contains portions of the Halelea Forest Reserve.

Kauai K

    The proposed unit Kauai K provides occupied habitat for ten 
species: Adenophorus periens, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyrtandra 
cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Hesperomannia lydgatei, 
Isodendrion longifolium, Labordia lydgatei, Myrsine linearifolia, and 
Plantago princeps. It is proposed for designation because it contains 
the physical and biological features that are considered essential for 
their conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to support one or 
more of the 8 to 10 populations for each species and 100 mature 
individuals per population for Hesperomannia lydgatei and Myrsine 
linearifolia, or 300 mature individuals per population for Adenophorus 
periens, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra 
limahuliensis, Isodendrion longifolium, Labordia lydgatei, and Plantago 
princeps, throughout their known historical range considered by the 
recovery plans to be necessary for the conservation of each species. 
This unit also provides unoccupied habitat for three species: 
Alsinidendron lychnoides, Bonamia menziesii, and Schiedea membranacea. 
Designation of this unit is essential to the conservation of these 
species because it contains the physical and biological features that 
are considered essential for their conservation on Kauai and provides 
habitat to support one or more additional populations necessary to meet 
the recovery objectives of 8 to 10 populations for each species and 100 
mature individuals per population for Alsinidendron lychnoides, or 300 
mature individuals per population for Bonamia menziesii, and Schiedea 
membranacea, throughout their known historical range (see the 
discussion of conservation requirements in Section D, and in the table 
for Kauai K).

[[Page 4033]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.022

[[Page 4034]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.023

[[Page 4035]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.024

[[Page 4036]]

    This unit (Kauai K) contains a total of 1,752 ha (4,330 ac) on 
State and privately owned lands. It is bordered on the west by the 
Lumahai watershed and on the east by Waioli watershed and contains a 
portion of the Waipa watershed. The natural features include: Hihimanu 
summit, Mamalahoa summit, Namolokama Mountain, and Puu Manu. The 
westernmost portion of this unit is in the Halelea Forest Reserve.

Kauai L

    The proposed unit Kauai L provides occupied habitat for one 
species: Plantago princeps. It is proposed for designation because it 
contains the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential for its conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to 
support one or more of the 8 to10 populations and 300 mature 
individuals per population, throughout its known historical range 
considered by the recovery plan to be necessary for the conservation of 
this species. This unit also provides unoccupied habitat for 12 
species: Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii, Cyanea recta, Cyanea 
remyi, Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Hesperomannia 
lydgatei, Isodendrion longifolium, Labordia lydgatei, Lysimachia 
filifolia, Myrsine linearifolia, and Platanthera holochila. Designation 
of this unit is essential to the conservation of these species because 
it contains the physical and biological features that are considered 
essential for their conservation on Kauai, and provides habitat to 
support one or more additional populations necessary to meet the 
recovery objectives of 8 to 10 populations for each species and 100 
mature individuals per population for Hesperomannia lydgatei and 
Myrsine linearifolia, or 300 mature individuals per population for 
Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii, Cyanea recta, Cyanea remyi, 
Cyrtandra cyaneoides, Cyrtandra limahuliensis, Isodendrion longifolium, 
Labordia lydgatei, Lysimachia filifolia, and Platanthera holochila, 
throughout their known historical range (see the discussion of 
conservation requirements in Section D, and in the table for Kauai L).

[[Page 4037]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.025

[[Page 4038]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP28JA02.026

[[Continued on page 4039]] 

Local Navigation

• FR Home
• About the Site
• FR Listserv
• FR Search
• Selected Electronic Dockets
• Regulatory Agenda
• Executive Orders
• Current Laws and Regulations

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us