Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, HI

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

[Federal Register: March 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 42)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9805-9871]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04mr02-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AH10

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised
Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical
Habitat for Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, HI

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule and notice of determinations of whether
designations of critical habitat is prudent.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose
critical habitat for 32 of the 37 species listed under the Endangered
Species Act, known historically from the island of Lanai within 8
critical habitat units totaling approximately 7,853 hectares (ha)
(19,405 acres (ac)) on the island of Lanai.
If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that actions they carry out, fund, or
authorize do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat to the
extent that the action appreciably diminishes the value of the critical
habitat for the survival and recovery of the species. Section 4 of the
Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat.
We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this
proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of the
designations. We may revise or further refine this rule, including
critical habitat boundaries, prior to final designation based on
habitat and plant surveys, public comment on the revised proposed
critical habitat rule, and new scientific and commercial information.

DATES: We will accept comments until May 3, 2002. Public hearing
requests must be received by April 18, 2002.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
You may submit written comments and information to the Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300
Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
You may hand-deliver written comments to our Pacific Islands Office
at the address given above.
You may view comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific
Islands Office (see ADDRESSES section) (telephone 808/541-3441;
facsimile 808/541-3470).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 32 species for which we propose critical
habitat are Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana,
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos,
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia
lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi,
Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis. Critical habitat is not proposed for 4
(Mariscus fauriei, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) of the 37 species which no
longer occur on the island of Lanai, and for which we are unable to
identify any habitat that is essential to their conservation on the
island of Lanai. Prudency determinations for these species were
contained in previous proposals published in the Federal Register on
November 7, 2000, December 18, 2000, December 27, 2000, December 29,
2000, and January 28, 2002. Critical habitat is not proposed for
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, for which we determined that
critical habitat designation is not prudent because it has not been
seen recently in the wild, and no viable genetic material of this
species is known.

Background

In the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12),
there are 37 plant species that, at the time of listing, were reported
from the island of Lanai (Table 1). Seven of these species are endemic
to the island of Lanai, while 30 species are reported from one or more
other islands, as well as Lanai. Each of these species is described in
more detail below in the section, ``Discussion of Plant Taxa.''

Table 1.--Summary of Island Distribution of 37 Species From Lanai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Island Distribution
Species --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kauai Oahu Molokai Lanai Maui Hawaii NW. Isles, Kahoolawe Niihau
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum (NCN*)........... .......... .......... .......... C .......... .......... .....................................
Adenophorus periens (pendant kihi fern).. C H C R R C
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha H C
(kookoolau).
Bonamia menziesii (NCN).................. C C H C C C
Brighamia rockii (pua ala)............... C H H
Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano, C H C R NW Isles (H)
sandbur, agrimony).
Centaurium sebaeoides (awiwi)............ C C C C C
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis C C
(oha wai).
Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa).............. H C C C C H
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha). C C C C
Cyanea lobata (haha)..................... H C
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii (NCN)... C
Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa)........... C C H H Ni (C)
Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale)............... C C
Diellia erecta (NCN)..................... C C C H C C

[[Page 9807]]

Diplazium molokaiense (asplenium-leaved H H H H C
asplenium).
Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN).................. C
Hedyotis mannii (pilo)................... C C C
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi C
(kopa).
Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN).......... C C H C
Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele).... H C H C C C Ka (R)
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula) H H H H C Ni (H)
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis C
(kamakahala).
Mariscus fauriei (NCN)................... C H C
Melicope munroi (alani).................. H C
Neraudia sericea (NCN)................... C H C Ka (H)
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis (NCN) .......... .......... .......... H .......... .......... .....................................
Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe).............. .......... .......... .......... C .......... C .....................................
Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)................ C C C H C C Ni (H), ka (C), NW Isles (C)
Silene lanceolata (NCN).................. H C C H C
Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai)...... H H H H C
Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)............ C C C C C C
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum C H
(NCN).
Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)................ C H
Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN).................. H C C C C Ni (H), Ka (C)
Viola lanaiensis (NCN)................... C
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (ae).............. C C H C C
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY:
C (Current)--population last observed within the past 30 years.
H (Historical)--population not seen for more than 30 years.
R (Reported)--reported from undocumented observations.
* NCN--No Common Name.

We determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent for
six plants from the island of Lanai on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 82086).
These species are: Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia ssp.
gibsonii, Gahnia lanaiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Tetramolopium
remyi, and Viola lanaiensis. In proposals published on November 7, 2000
(65 FR 66808), and December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79192), we determined that
designation of critical habitat was prudent for ten plants that are
reported from Lanai as well as from Kauai, Niihau, Maui, or Kahoolawe.
These ten plants are: Bonamia menziesii, Centarium sebaeoides,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyrtandra munroi, Hedyotis mannii, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-wahuensis. In
addition, at the time we listed Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi,
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi, on September
3, 1999 (64 FR 48307), we determined that designation of critical
habitat was prudent for these three taxa from Lanai. No change is made
to these 19 prudency determinations in this revised proposal and they
are hereby incorporated by reference (64 FR 48307, 65 FR 66808, 65 FR
79192).
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that critical
habitat was not prudent for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a
species known only from Lanai, because it had not been seen in the wild
on Lanai since 1914 and no viable genetic material of this species is
known to exist. Therefore, such designation would not be beneficial to
this species. No change is made here to the December 27, 2000, not
prudent determination for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis and it is
hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 82086).
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we proposed designation of
critical habitat for 18 plants from the island of Lanai. These species
are: Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bonamia menziesii, Centaurium sebaeoides,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana
var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis,
Melicope munroi, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola lanaiensis. In this proposal we have
revised the proposed designations for these 18 plants based on new
information and to address comments received during the comment periods
on the December 27, 2000, proposal.
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we did not propose designation
of critical habitat for 17 species that no longer occur on Lanai but
are reported from one or more other islands. We determined that
critical habitat was prudent for 16 of these species (Adenophorus
periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta,
Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Mariscus faurei, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa,
Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) in
other proposed rules published on November 7, 2000 (Kauai), December
18, 2000 (Maui and Kahoolawe), December 29, 2000 (Molokai), and January
28, 2002 (Kauai revised proposal). No change is made to these prudency
determinations for these 16 species in this proposal and they are
hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR
83158, and 67 FR 3940). In this proposal, we propose designation of
critical habitat

[[Page 9808]]

for Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia
rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos,
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, and
Solanum incompletum on the island of Lanai, based on new information,
including information received during the comment periods on the
December 27, 2000, proposal. Critical habitat is not proposed for
Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the
island of Lanai because these plants no longer occur on Lanai and we
are unable to determine habitat which is essential to their
conservation on this island. However, proposed critical habitat
designations for these species may be included in other future Hawaiian
plants proposed critical habitat rules (Table 2).

Table 2.--List of Proposed Rules in Which Critical Habitat Decisions Will Be Made for Four Species for Which We
Are Unable To Determine Habitat Which Is Essential for Their Conservation on the Island of Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rules in which critical habitat designations will
Species be made
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mariscus fauriei.................................. Molokai, Hawaii.
Silene lanceolata................................. Molokai, Hawaii, and Oahu.
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum............ Oahu.
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense............................ Kauai, Maui, Molokai, and Hawaii.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this proposal, we determine that critical habitat is prudent for
one species (Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum) for which a
prudency determination has not been made previously, and that no longer
occurs on Lanai but is reported from one other island (Oahu). This
plant was listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act) in 1991. At the time this plant was listed, we
determined that designation of critical habitat was not prudent because
designation would increase the degree of threat to this species and
would not benefit the plant. We determine that designation of critical
habitat is prudent for Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum because
we now believe that such designation would be beneficial to this
species. Critical habitat is not proposed at this time for
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum on the island of Lanai because
the species no longer occurs on Lanai and we are unable to determine
habitat which is essential to its conservation on this island. However,
proposed critical habitat designation, or non-designation, for this
species will be included in other future Hawaiian plants proposed
critical habitat rules (Table 2).
Critical habitat for 32 of the 37 species from the island of Lanai
is proposed at this time. These species are: Abutilon eremitopetalum,
Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia
menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium
sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea
macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi,
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis
mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia
arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola
lanaiensis. Critical habitat is not proposed for four of the 37 species
(Mariscus fauriei, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) which no longer occur on the
island of Lanai, and for which we are unable to determine any habitat
that is essential to their conservation on the island of Lanai.
However, proposed critical habitat designations for these species may
be included in other future Hawaiian plants proposed critical habitat
rules (Table 2). Critical habitat is not proposed for Phyllostegia
glabra var. lanaiensis for which we determined, on December 27, 2000,
that critical habitat designation is not prudent because it had not
been seen recently in the wild, and no viable genetic material of this
species is known to exist. No change is made to this prudency
determination here, and it is hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR
82086).

The Island of Lanai

Lanai is a small island totaling about 360 square kilometers (sq
km) (139 square miles (sq mi)) in area. Hidden from the trade winds in
the lee or rain shadow of the more massive West Maui Mountains, Lanai
was formed from a single shield volcano built by eruptions at its
summit and along three rift zones. The principal rift zone runs in a
northwesterly direction and forms a broad ridge whose highest point,
Lanaihale, has an elevation of 1,027 meters (m) (3,370 feet (ft)). The
entire ridge is commonly called Lanaihale, after its highest point.
Annual rainfall on the summit of Lanaihale is 760 to 1,015 millimeters
(mm) (30 to 40 inches (in)), but is considerably less, 250 to 500 mm
(10 to 20 in), over much of the rest of the island (Department of
Geography 1998).
Geologically, Lanai is part of the four island complex comprising
Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kahoolawe, known collectively as Maui Nui
(Greater Maui). During the last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago when sea
levels were about 160 m (525 ft) less than their present level, these
four islands were connected by a broad lowland plain. This land bridge
allowed the movement and interaction of each island's flora and fauna
and contributed to the present close relationships of their biota
(Department of Geography 1998).
Changes in Lanai's ecosystem began with the arrival of the first
Polynesians about 1,500 years ago. In the 1800s, goats (Capra hircus)
and sheep (Ovis aries) were first introduced to the island. Native
vegetation was soon decimated by these non-native ungulates, and
erosion from wind and rain caused further damage to the native forests.
Formal ranching was begun in 1902, and by 1910, the Territory forester
helped to revegetate the island. By 1911, a ranch manager from New
Zealand, George Munro, instituted a forest management practice to
recover the native forests and bird species which included fencing and
eradication of sheep and goats from the mountains. By the 1920s, Castle
and Cooke had acquired more than 98 percent of the island and
established a 6,500 ha (16,000 ac) pineapple plantation

[[Page 9809]]

surrounding its company town, Lanai City. In the early 1990s, the
pineapple plantation closed, and luxury hotels were developed by the
private landowner, sustaining the island's economy today (Hobdy 1993).
There are no military installations on the island of Lanai.

Discussion of Plant Taxa

Species Endemic to Lanai

Abutilon eremitopetalum (NCN)

Abutilon eremitopetalum is a long-lived shrub in the mallow family
(Malvaceae) with grayish-green, densely hairy, and heart-shaped leaves.
It is the only Abutilon on Lanai whose flowers have green petals hidden
within the calyx (the outside leaf-like part of the flower) (Bates
1999).
Abutilon eremitopetalum is known to flower during February. Little
else is known about the life history of Abutilon eremitopetalum. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1995).
Historically, Abutilon eremitopetalum was found in small, widely
scattered colonies in the ahupuaa (geographical areas) of Kalulu,
Mahana, Maunalei, Mamaki, and Paawili on the northern, northeastern,
and eastern parts of Lanai. Currently, about seven individuals are
known from a single population on privately owned land in Kahea Gulch
on the northeastern part of the island (Caum 1933; Hawaii Natural
Heritage Program (HINHP) Database 2000; Service 1995; Geographic
Decision Systems International (GDSI) 2000).
Abutilon eremitopetalum is found in lowland dry forest at
elevations between 108 and 660 m (354 and 2,165 ft), on a moderately
steep north-facing slope on red sandy soil and rock. Erythrina
sandwicensis (wili wili) and Diospyros sandwichensis (lama) are the
dominant trees in open forest of the area. Other associated native
species include Psydrax odoratum (alahee), Dodonaea viscosa (aalii),
Nesoluma polynesicum (keahi), Rauvolfia sandwicensis (hao), Sida fallax
(ilima), and Wikstroemia sp. (akia) (Service 1995; HINHP Database
2000).
The threats to Abutilon eremitopetalum are habitat degradation and
competition by encroaching alien plant species such as Lantana camara
(lantana), Leucaena leucocephala (koa haole), and Pluchea carolinensis
(sourbush); browsing by axis deer (Axis axis); soil erosion caused by
feral ungulate grazing on grasses and forbs; and the small number of
extant individuals, as the limited gene pool may depress reproductive
vigor, or a single natural or man-caused environmental disturbance
could destroy the only known existing population. Fire is another
potential threat because the area is dry much of the year (HINHP
Database 2000; 56 FR 47686; Service 1995).

Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii (NCN)

Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, a long-lived perennial and a
member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a palm-like tree 1
to 7 m (3 to 23 ft) tall with elliptic or oblong leaves that have fine
hairs covering the lower surface. The following combination of
characters separates this taxon from the other members of the genus on
Lanai: calyx lobes are oblong, narrowly oblong, or ovate in shape; and
the calyx and corolla (petals of a flower) are both more than 0.5
centimeters (cm) (0.2 in) wide (Lammers 1999; 56 FR 47686).
Limited observations suggest Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii
flowers during the month of July. Pollination vectors, seed dispersal
agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental
requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Service 1995).
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii has been is documented from the
summit of Lanaihale and the upper parts of Mahana, Kaiholena, and
Maunalei Valleys of Lanai. There are currently only two populations
containing 74 individuals. One population is located north of Lanaihale
and the second population is north of Puu aalii on privately owned land
(Lammers 1999; 56 FR 47686; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
The habitat of Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii is lowland wet
Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) forest or Diplopterygium pinnatum (uluhe
lau nui)-Metrosideros polymorpha shrubland between elevations of 738
and 1,032 m (2,421 and 3,385 ft). It has been observed to grow on flat
to moderate or steep slopes, usually on lower gulch slopes or gulch
bottoms, often at edges of streambanks, probably due to vulnerability
to ungulate damage at more accessible locations. Associated vegetation
includes Dicranopteris linearis (uluhe), Perrottetia sandwicensis
(olomea), Scaevola chamissoniana (naupaka kuahiwi), Pipturus albidus
(mamaki), Antidesma platyphyllum (hame), Cheirodendron trigynum
(olapa), Freycinetia arborea (ieie), Psychotria sp. (kopiko), Cyrtandra
sp. (haiwale), Broussaisia arguta (kanawao), Clermontia sp. (oha wai),
Dubautia sp. (naenae), Hedyotis sp. (NCN), Ilex anomala (kawau),
Labordia sp. (kamakahala), Melicope sp. (alani), Pneumatopteris
sandwicensis (NCN), and Sadleria sp. (amau) (Service 1995; HINHP
Database 2000; Joel Lau, Hawaii Natural Heritage Program, pers. comm.,
2001).
The threats to Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii are browsing by
deer; competition with the alien plant Hedychium gardnerianum (kahili
ginger); and the small number of extant individuals, as the limited
gene pool may depress reproductive vigor, or any natural or man-caused
environmental disturbance could destroy the existing populations (HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN)

Gahnia lanaiensis, a short-lived perennial and a member of the
sedge family (Cyperaceae), is a tall (1.5 to 3 m (5 to 10 ft)), tufted,
grass-like plant. This sedge may be distinguished from grasses and
other genera of sedges on Lanai by its spirally arranged flowers, its
solid stems, and its numerous, three-ranked leaves. Gahnia lanaiensis
differs from the other members of the genus on the island by its
achenes (seed-like fruits), which are 0.36 to 0.46 cm (0.14 to 0.18 in)
long and purplish-black when mature (Koyama 1999).
July has been described as the ``end of the flowering season'' for
Gahnia lanaiensis. Plants of this species have been observed with fruit
in October. Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of
plants and seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other
limiting factors are unknown (Degener et al., 1964; 56 FR 47686).
Gahnia lanaiensis is known from one population containing 47
individuals on privately owned land along the summit of Lanaihale in
the Haalelepaakai area and on the eastern edge of Hauola Gulch. The
population is found between 915 and 1,030 m (3,000 and 3,380 ft) in
elevation. This distribution encompasses the entire known historic
range of the species (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
The habitat of Gahnia lanaiensis is lowland wet forest (shrubby
rainforest to open scrubby fog belt or degraded lowland mesic forest),
wet Diplopterygium pinnatum-Dicranopteris linearis-Metrosideros
polymorpha shrubland, or wet Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris
linearis shrubland at elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and
3,385 ft). It occurs on flat to gentle ridgecrest topography in moist
to wet clay or other soil substrate in open areas or in moderate shade.
Associated species include native mat ferns, Doodia sp.

[[Page 9810]]

(okupukupu laulii), Odontosoria chinensis (palaa), Ilex anomala
(kawau), Hedyotis terminalis (manono), Sadleria spp. (amau), Coprosma
sp. (pilo), Lycopodium sp. (wawaeiole), Scaevola sp. (naupaka), and
Styphelia tameiameiae (pukiawe) (Service 1995).
The primary threats to this species are the small number of plants
and their restricted distribution, which increase the potential for
extinction from naturally occurring events. In addition, Gahnia
lanaiensis is threatened by habitat destruction resulting from the
planned development of the island, and competition with Leptospermum
scoparium (manuka), a weedy tree introduced from New Zealand, which is
spreading along Lanaihale, but has not yet reached the area where
Gahnia is found (Service 1995; HINHP Database 2000).

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi (kopa)

Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, a short-lived perennial and
a member of the coffee family (Rubiaceae), is a few-branched subshrub
from 60 to 600 cm (24 to 240 in) long, with weakly erect or climbing
stems that may be somewhat square, smooth, and glaucous (with a fine
waxy coating that imparts a whitish or bluish hue to the stem). The
species is distinguished from others in the genus by the distance
between leaves and the length of the sprawling or climbing stems, and
the variety remyi is distinguished from Hedyotis schlechtendahliana
var. schlechtendahliana by the leaf shape, presence of narrow flowering
stalks, and flower color (Wagner et al., 1999).
Pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity of plants and
seeds, specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors
are unknown for Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi (Service 2001).
Historically, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi was known from
five locations on the northwestern portion of Lanaihale. Currently,
this species is known from eight individuals in two populations on
privately owned land on Kaiholeha-Hulupoe Ridge, Kapohaku drainage, and
Waiapaa drainage on Lanaihale (64 FR 48307; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database
2000).
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi typically grows on or near
ridge crests in mesic windswept shrubland with a mixture of dominant
plant species that may include Metrosideros polymorpha, Dicranopteris
linearis, or Styphelia tameiameiae at elevations between 558 and 1,032
m (1,830 and 3,385 ft). Associated plant species include Dodonaea
viscosa, Odontosoria chinensis, Sadleria spp., Dubautia spp., and
Myrsine sp. (kolea) (HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307).
The primary threats to Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi are
habitat degradation and destruction by axis deer; competition with
alien plant species, such as Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava),
Myrica faya (firetree), Leptospermum scoparium, and Schinus
terebinthifolius (christmasberry); and random environmental events or
reduced reproductive vigor due to the small number of remaining
individuals and populations (HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307).

Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis (kamakahala)

Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, a short-lived perennial in the
logan family (Loganiaceae), is an erect shrub or small tree 1.2 to 15 m
(4 to 49 ft) tall. The stems branch regularly into two forks of nearly
equal size. This subspecies differs from the other species in this
endemic Hawaiian genus by having larger capsules (a dry, generally many
seeded fruit) and smaller corollas (petals, whorl of flower parts)
(Wagner et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting
factors are unknown (Service 2001).
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis was historically known from the
entire length of the summit ridge of Lanaihale. Currently, Labordia
tinifolia var. lanaiensis is known from only one population on
privately owned land at the southeastern end of the summit ridge of
Lanaihale. This population totals 300 to 800 scattered individuals
(HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000; Service 2001).
The typical habitat of Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis is gulch
slopes in lowland mesic forest. Associated native species include
Diospyros sandwicensis, Bobea elatior (ahakea launui), Myrsine
lessertiana (kolea), Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum
(hoawa), Pleomele fernaldii (hala pepe), Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola
chamissoniana, Xylosma hawaiiense (maua), Cyrtandra grayii (haiwale)
and Cyrtandra grayana (haiwale), Diplopterygium pinnatum, Hedyotis
acuminata (au), Clermontia spp., Alyxia oliviformis (maile), Coprosma
spp., Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia arborea, Melicope spp.,
Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pouteria sandwicensis (alaa), and Psychotria
spp., Dicranopteris linearis, and Scaevola chamissoniana, at elevations
between 558 and 1,013 m (1,830 and 3,323 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; 64
FR 48307; Service 2001).
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis is threatened by axis deer and
several alien plant species. The species is also threatened by random
environmental factors because of the small population (64 FR 48307;
Service 2001).

Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis (NCN)

Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis is a robust, erect to decumbent
(reclining, with the end ascending), glabrous, short-lived perennial
herb in the mint family (Lamiaceae). Its leaves are thin, narrow,
lance-shaped, 8 to 24 cm (3.2 to 9.5 in) long and 1.6 to 2.5 cm (0.63
to 0.98 in) wide, often red-tinged or with red veins, and toothed at
the edges. The flowers are in clusters of six to ten per leaf axil,
mostly at the ends of branches. The flowers are white, occasionally
tinged with purple, and are variable in size, about 1 to 2.5 cm (0.39
to 0.98 in) long. The fruit consists of four small, fleshy nutlets.
This variety is very similar to Phyllostegia glabra var. glabra; it may
be difficult to differentiate between the two species without flowers
(Wagner et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Phyllostegia glabra var.
lanaiensis. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting
factors are unknown (Service 1995).
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis is known from only two
collections from Lanai (one near Kaiholena) and was last collected in
1914 (two fertile specimens). A report of this plant from the early
1980s probably was erroneous and should be referred to as Phyllostegia
glabra var. glabra (Robert Hobdy, DOFAW, pers. comm., 1992; Service
1995).
Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant
species associated with Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis on the
island of Lanai (Service 1995).
Nothing is known of the threats to Phyllostegia glabra var.
lanaiensis on the island of Lanai (Service 1995).

Viola lanaiensis (NCN)

Viola lanaiensis, a short-lived perennial of the violet family
(Violaceae), is a small, erect, unbranched or little-branched subshrub.
The leaves, which are clustered toward the upper part of the stem, are
lance-shaped with a pair of narrow,

[[Page 9811]]

membranous stipules (leaf-like appendages arising from the base of a
leaf) below each leaf axis. The flowers are small and white with purple
tinged or purple veins, and occur singly or up to four per upper leaf
axil. The fruit is a capsule, about 1.0 to 1.3 cm (0.4 to 0.5 in) long.
It is the only member of the genus on Lanai (Wagner et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Viola lanaiensis. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1995).
Viola lanaiensis was known historically from scattered sites on the
summit, ridges, and upper slopes of Lanaihale (from near the head of
Kaiolena and Hookio Gulches to the vicinity of Haalelepaakai, a
distance of about 4 km (2.5 mi), at elevations of approximately 850 to
975 m (2,790 to 3,200 ft). An occurrence of V. lanaiensis was known in
the late 1970s along the summit road near the head of Waialala Gulch
where a population of approximately 20 individuals flourished. That
population has since disappeared due to habitat disturbance. Two
populations are currently known from privately owned land on southern
Lanai: in Kunoa Gulch; between Kunoa and Waialala Gulches; in the upper
end of the northernmost drainage of Awehi Gulch; in Hauola Gulch; and
along Hauola Trail. It is estimated that the populations total less
than 500 plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
The habitat of Viola lanaiensis is Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest or lowland mesic shrubland.
It has been observed on moderate to steep slopes from lower gulches to
ridgetops, at elevations between 639 and 1,032 m (2,096 and 3,385 ft),
with a soil and decomposed rock substrate in open to shaded areas. It
was once observed growing from crevices in drier soil on a mostly open
rock area near a recent landslide. Associated vegetation includes ferns
and short windswept shrubs or other diverse mesic community members,
such as Scaevola chamissoniana, Hedyotis terminalis, Hedyotis
centranthoides (NCN), Styphelia tameiameiae, Carex sp. (NCN), Ilex
anomala, Psychotria spp., Antidesma spp. (hame), Coprosma spp.,
Freycinetia arborea, Myrsine spp., Nestegis sp. (olopua), Psychotria
spp., and Xylosma sp. (maua) (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).
The main threats to Viola lanaiensis include browsing and habitat
disturbance by axis deer; encroaching alien plant species, such as
Leptospermum sp. (NCN); depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited
local gene pool; the probable loss of appropriate pollinators; and
predation by slugs (Midax gigetes) (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

Multi-Island Species

Adenophorus periens (pendent kihi fern)

Adenophorus periens, a member of the grammitis family
(Grammitidaceae), is a small, pendant, epiphytic (not rooted on the
ground), and short-lived perennial fern. This species differs from
other species in this endemic Hawaiian genus by having hairs along the
pinna (a leaflet) margins, pinnae at right angles to the midrib axis,
placement of the sori on the pinnae, and by the degree of dissection of
each pinna (Linney 1989).
Little is known about the life history of Adenophorus periens,
which seems to grow only in closed canopy dense forest with high
humidity. Its breeding system is unknown, but outbreeding is very
likely to be the predominant mode of reproduction. Spores may be
dispersed by wind, water, or perhaps on the feet of birds or insects.
Spores lack a thick resistant coat, which may indicate their longevity
is brief, probably measured in days at most. Due to the weak
differences between the seasons, there seems to be no evidence of
seasonality in growth or reproduction. Additional information on
reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements,
and limiting factors is not known (Linney 1989; Service 1999).
Historically, Adenophorus periens was known from Kauai, Oahu, and
the island of Hawaii, with undocumented reports from Lanai and Maui.
Currently, it is known from several locations on Kauai, Molokai, and
Hawaii. On Lanai, it was last seen in the 1860s (59 FR 56333; GDSI
2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999).
This species, an epiphyte (a plant that derives moisture and
nutrients from the air and rain) usually growing on Metrosideros
polymorpha trunks, is found in riparian banks of stream systems in
well-developed, closed canopy that provides deep shade or high humidity
in Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis-Diplopterygium
pinnatum wet forests, open Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forest,
or Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest at
elevations between 763 and 1,032 m (2,503 and 3,385 ft). Associated
native plant species include Machaerina angustifolia (uki),
Cheirodendron trigynum, Sadleria spp., Clermontia spp., Psychotria
spp., Melicope spp., Freycinetia arborea, Broussaisia arguta, Syzygium
sandwicensis (ohia ha), and Hedyotis terminalis (59 FR 56333; Linney
1989; Kennith Wood, National Tropical Botanical Garden, pers. comm.,
2001; Service 1999).
Nothing is known of the threats to Adenophorus periens on the
island of Lanai because the species was last seen there in the 1860s.

Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (kookoolau)

Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, a short-lived member of the aster
family (Asteraceae), is an erect perennial herb. This subspecies can be
distinguished from other subspecies by the shape of the seeds, the
density of the flower clusters, the numbers of ray and disk florets per
head, differences in leaf surfaces, and other characteristics (57 FR
20772; Ganders and Nagata 1999).
Bidens micrantha is known to hybridize with other native Bidens,
such as B. mauiensis and B. menziesii, and possibly B. conjuncta.
Little else is known about the life history of Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal
agents, longevity, and specific environmental requirements are unknown
(Ganders and Nagata 1999; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
Historically, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha was known from Lanai
and Maui. Currently, this taxon remains only on East Maui. It was last
seen on Lanai in the 1960s (Ganders and Nagata 1999; HINHP Database
2000; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
The habitat of Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha is gulch slopes in
dry Dodonaea viscosa shrubland at elevations between 409 and 771 m
(1,342 and 2,529 ft) (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
The threats to this species on Lanai included habitat destruction
by feral goats, pigs, and deer; competition from a variety of alien
plant species; and fire (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Bonamia menziesii (NCN)

Bonamia menziesii, a short-lived perennial and a member of the
morning-glory family (Convolvulaceae), is a vine with twining branches
that are fuzzy when young. This species is the only member of the genus
that is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and differs from other genera
in the family by its two styles (narrowed top of ovary), longer stems
and petioles (a stalk that supports a leaf), and rounder leaves (Austin
1999).
Little is known about the life history of Bonamia menziesii. Its
flowering

[[Page 9812]]

cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service
1999).
Historically, Bonamia menziesii was known from Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, West Maui, and Hawaii. Currently, this species is known from
Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, and Lanai. On Lanai, the three populations,
containing a total of 14 individual plants, are found on privately
owned land in the Ahakea and Kanepuu Units of Kanepuu Preserve, and on
Puhielelu Ridge (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
Bonamia menziesii is found in dry Nestegis sandwicensis-Diospyros
sp. (lama) forest and dry Dodonea viscosa shrubland at elevations
between 315 and 885 m (1,033 and 2,903 ft). Associated species include
Bobea sp. (ahakea), Nesoluma polynesicum, Erythrina sandwicensis,
Rauvolfia sandwicensis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Psydrax odoratum,
Dienella sandwicensis (uki uki), Diospyros sandwicensis (lama),
Hedyotis terminalis, Melicope sp., Myoporum sandwicense (naio),
Nestegis sandwicensis (olopua), Pisonia sp. (papala kepau), Pittosporum
sp. (hoawa), Pouteria sandwicensis, and Sapindus oahuensis (lonomea)
(HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333).
The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat
degradation and possible predation by feral pigs, goats, and axis deer;
competition with a variety of alien plant species, such as Lantana
camara, Leucaena leucocephala and Schinus terebinthifolius; and an
alien beetle (Physomerus grossipes) (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Brighamia rockii (pua ala)

Brighamia rockii, a long-lived perennial member of the bellflower
family (Campanulaceae), grows as an unbranched stem succulent with a
thickened stem that tapers from the base. This species is a member of a
unique endemic Hawaiian genus with only one other species, found on
Kauai, from which it differs by the color of its petals, its longer
calyx (fused sepals) lobes, and its shorter flower stalks (Lammers
1999).
Observations of Brighamia rockii have provided the following
information: the reproductive system is protandrous, meaning there is a
temporal separation between the production of male and female gametes,
in this case a separation of several days; only 5 percent of the
flowers produce pollen; very few fruits are produced per inflorescence;
there are 20 to 60 seeds per capsule; and plants in cultivation have
been known to flower at nine months. This species was observed in
flower during August. Little else is known about the life history of
Brighamia rockii. Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting
factors are unknown (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
Historically, Brighamia rockii ranged along the northern coast of
East Molokai from Kalaupapa to Halawa and may possibly have grown on
Maui, and it was last seen on Lanai in 1911 (Lammers 1999; HINHP
Database 2000; K. Wood, in litt. 2000; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
Currently, it is extant only on Molokai.
On Lanai, Brighamia rockii occurred on sparsely vegetated ledges of
steep, rocky, dry cliffs, at elevations between 119 and 756 m (390 and
2,480 ft) with native grasses, sedges, herbs and shrubs (J. Lau, pers.
comm., 2001; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
Threats to Brighamia rockii on the island of Lanai included habitat
destruction from deer and goats, and competition with alien plants
(Service 1996b).

Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano (= sandbur, agrimony))

Cenchrus agrimonioides is a short-lived perennial member of the
grass family (Poaceae) with leaf blades that are flat or folded and
have a prominent midrib. There are two varieties, Cenchrus
agrimonioides var. laysanensis and Cenchrus agrimonioides var.
agrimonioides. They differ from each other in that var. agrimonioides
has smaller burs, shorter stems, and narrower leaves. This species is
distinguished from others in the genus by the cylindrical to lance-
shaped bur and the arrangement and position of the bristles (O'Connor
1999).
Little is known about the life history of Cenchrus agrimonioides.
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown. This species has been observed to produce fruit year round
(Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
Historically, Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides was known
from Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and an undocumented report from the Island of
Hawaii. Historically, C. agrimonioides var. laysanensis was known from
Laysan, Kure, and Midway, all within the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
National Wildlife Refuge. This variety has not been seen since 1973.
Currently, Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides is known from Oahu
and Maui. On Lanai it was last seen in 1915 (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108;
HINHP Database 2000).
Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides was found on slopes in
mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forest and shrubland at elevations
between 583 and 878 m (1,912 and 2,880 ft) (Service 1999; 61 FR 53108;
HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy et al., pers. comm., 2001).
The major threats to Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides on
Lanai included competition with alien plant species, and browsing and
habitat degradation by goats and cattle (Bos taurus) (Service 1999; 61
FR 53108).

Centaurium sebaeoides (awiwi)

Centaurium sebaeoides, a member of the gentian family
(Gentianaceae), is an annual herb with fleshy leaves and stalkless
flowers. This species is distinguished from Centaurium erythraea, which
is naturalized in Hawaii, by its fleshy leaves and the unbranched
arrangement of the flower cluster (Wagner et al., 1999).
Centaurium sebaeoides has been observed flowering in April.
Flowering may be induced by heavy rainfall. Populations are found in
dry areas, and plants are more likely to be found following heavy
rains. Little else is known about the life history of Centaurium
sebaeoides. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting
factors are unknown (Service 1999).
Centaurium sebaeoides was historically and is currently known from
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. On Lanai, there is one
population containing between 20 and 30 individual plants in Maunalei
Valley on privately owned land (HINHP Database 2000).
This species is found on dry ledges at elevations between 39 and
331 m (128 and 1,086 ft). Associated species include Hibiscus
brackenridgei (HINHP Database 2000).
The major threats to this species on Lanai are competition from
alien plant species, depressed reproductive vigor, and natural or
human-caused environmental disturbance that could easily be
catastrophic to the only known population due to the small number of
remaining individuals and the limited and scattered distribution of the
species (Service 1999; HINHP Database 2000).

[[Page 9813]]

Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis (oha wai)

Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, a short-lived perennial and
a member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a shrub or tree
with oblong to lance-shaped leaves on leaf stalks (petioles).
Clermontia oblongifolia is distinguished from other members of the
genus by its calyx and corolla, which are similar in color and are each
fused into a curved tube that falls off as the flower ages. The species
is also distinguished by the leaf shape, the male floral parts, the
shape of the flower buds, and the lengths of the leaf and flower
stalks, the flower, and the smooth green basal portion of the flower
(the hypanthium). Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is reported
from Maui and Lanai, while Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. oblongifolia is
only known from Oahu, and Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes is only
known from Molokai (Lammers 1988, 1999; 57 FR 20772).
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis is known to flower from
November to July. Little else is known about the life history of
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis. Its flowering cycles,
pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service
1997; Rock 1919).
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis was historically and is
currently known from Lanai and Maui. On Lanai, an unknown number of
individuals are reported from Kaiholena Gulch on privately owned land
(Lammers 1999; 57 FR 20772; HINHP Database 2000).
This plant typically grows in gulch bottoms in mesic forests at
elevations between 700 and 1,032 m (2,296 and 3,385 ft) (HINHP Database
2000).
The threats to this species on Lanai are its vulnerability to
extinction from a single natural or human-caused environmental
disturbance; depressed reproductive vigor; and habitat degradation by
feral pigs (57 FR 20772; Service 1997).

Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)

Ctenitis squamigera is a short-lived perennial and a member of the
spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae). It has a rhizome (horizontal stem),
creeping above the ground and densely covered with scales similar to
those on the lower part of the leaf stalk. It can be readily
distinguished from other Hawaiian species of Ctenitis by the dense
covering of tan-colored scales on its frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).
Little is known about the life history of Ctenitis squamigera. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1998a).
Historically, Ctenitis squamigera was recorded from Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is found
on Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and Molokai. On Lanai, there are two populations
totaling 42 individual plants on privately owned land in the Waiapaa-
Kapohaku area on the leeward side of the island, and in the Lopa and
Waiopa Gulches on the windward side (59 FR 49025; GDSI 2000; HINHP
Database 2000).
This species is found in the forest understory at elevations
between 640 and 944 m (2,099 and 3,096 ft) in diverse mesic forest and
scrubby mixed mesic forest (HINHP Database 2000). Associated native
plant species include Nestegis sandwicensis, Coprosma spp., Sadleria
spp., Selaginella sp. (lepelepe a moa), Carex meyenii (NCN), Blechnum
occidentale (NCN), Pipturus spp., Melicope spp., Pneumatopteris
sandwicensis, Pittosporum spp., Alyxia oliviformis, Freycinetia
arborea, Antidesma spp., Cyrtandra spp., Peperomia sp. (ala ala wai
nui), Myrsine spp., Psychotria spp., Metrosideros polymorpha, Syzygium
sandwicensis, Wikstroemia spp., Microlepia sp. (NCN), Doodia spp.,
Boehmeria grandis (akolea), Nephrolepis sp. (kupukupu), Perrotettia
sandwicensis, and Xylosma sp. (HINHP Database 2000, 59 FR 49025).
The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat
degradation by feral pigs, goats, and axis deer; competition with alien
plant species, especially Psidium cattleianum and Schinus
terebinthifolius; fire; decreased reproductive vigor; and extinction
from naturally occurring events due to the small number of existing
populations and individuals (Service 1998a; Culliney 1988; HINHP
Database 2000; 59 FR 49025).

Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha)

Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, a short-lived perennial and a
member of the bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is a shrub with
pinnately divided leaves. This species is distinguished from others in
this endemic Hawaiian genus by the pinnately lobed leaf margins and the
width of the leaf blades. This subspecies is distinguished from the
other two subspecies by the shape and size of the calyx lobes, which
overlap at the base (Lammers 1999).
On Molokai, flowering plants have been reported in July and August.
Little else is known about the life history of Cyanea grimesiana ssp.
grimesiana. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal
agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting
factors are unknown (Service 1999).
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana was historically and is currently
known from Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. Currently, on Lanai there
are two populations with at least three individuals on privately owned
land in Kaiholena Gulch and Waiakeakua Gulch (61 FR 53108; Service
1999; HINHP Database 2000).
This species is typically found in mesic forest often dominated by
Metrosideros polymorpha or Metrosideros polymorpha and Acacia koa
(koa), or on rocky or steep slopes of stream banks, at elevations
between 667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 ft). Associated plants include
Antidesma spp., Bobea spp., Myrsine spp., Nestegis sandwicensis,
Psychotria spp., and Xylosma sp. (61 FR 53108; Service 1999).
The threats to this species on Lanai are habitat degradation and/or
destruction caused by feral axis deer, goats, and pigs; competition
with various alien plants; randomly naturally occurring events causing
extinction due to the small number of existing individuals; fire;
landslides; and predation by rats (Rattus rattus) and various slugs (59
FR 53108; Service 1999).

Cyanea lobata (haha)

Cyanea lobata, a short-lived member of the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is a sparingly branched perennial shrub with smooth to
somewhat rough stems and oblong, irregularly lobed leaves. This species
is distinguished from other species of Cyanea by the size of the flower
and the irregularly lobed leaves with petioles (Lammers 1990).
Cyanea lobata is known to flower from August to February, even in
individuals as small as 50 cm (20 in) in height. Little else is known
about the life history of Cyanea lobata. Flowering cycles, pollination
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Rock 1919; Degener
1936; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
Historically, Cyanea lobata was known from Lanai and West Maui. It
was last seen on Lanai in 1934 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service
1997; 57 FR 20772).

[[Page 9814]]

This species occurs in gulches in mesic to wet forest and shrubland
at elevations between 664 and 1,032 m (2,178 and 3,385 ft) and
containing one or more of the following associated native plant
species: Freycinetia arborea, Touchardia latifolia (olona), Morinda
trimera (noni kuahiwi), Metrosideros polymorpha, Clermontia kakeana
(oha wai), Cyrtandra spp., Xylosma spp., Psychotria spp., Antidesma
spp., Pipturus albidus, Peperomia spp., Pleomele spp. (halapepe), and
Athyrium spp. (akolea) (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; Service 1997; 57 FR
20772; HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy et al., pers. comm., 2001).
The threats to this species on Lanai included habitat degradation
by feral pigs (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).

Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa)

Cyperus trachysanthos, a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae),
is a short-lived perennial grass-like plant with a short rhizome. The
culms are densely tufted, obtusely triangular in cross section, tall,
sticky, and leafy at the base. This species is distinguished from
others in the genus by the short rhizome, the leaf sheath with
partitions at the nodes, the shape of the glumes, and the length of the
culms (Koyama 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Cyperus trachysanthos.
Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1999).
Historically, Cyperus trachysanthos was known on Niihau and Kauai,
and from scattered locations on Oahu, Molokai, and Lanai. Currently it
is found on Kauai, Niihau and Oahu. It was last observed on Lanai in
1919 (HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000).
Cyperus trachysanthos is usually found in seasonally wet sites (mud
flats, wet clay soil, or wet cliff seeps) on seepy flats or talus
slopes in Heteropogon contortus (pili) grassland at elevations between
0 and 46 m (0 and 151 ft). Hibiscus tiliaceus (hau) is often found in
association with this species (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; 61 FR 53108;
Koyama 1999; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
On Lanai, the threats to this species included the loss of wetlands
(61 FR 53108; Service 1999).

Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale)

Cyrtandra munroi is a short-lived perennial and a member of the
African violet family (Gesneriaceae). It is a shrub with opposite,
elliptic to almost circular leaves that are sparsely to moderately
hairy on the upper surface and covered with velvety, rust-colored hairs
underneath. This species is distinguished from other species of the
genus by the broad opposite leaves, the length of the flower cluster
stalks, the size of the flowers, and the amount of hair on various
parts of the plant (Wagner et al., 1999).
Some work has been done on the reproductive biology of some species
of Cyrtandra, but not on Cyrtandra munroi specifically. These studies
of other members of the genus suggest that a specific pollinator may be
necessary for successful pollination. Seed dispersal may be via birds,
which eat the fruits. Flowering time, longevity of plants and seeds,
specific environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are
unknown (Service 1995).
Cyrtandra munroi was historically and is currently known from Lanai
and Maui. Currently, on Lanai there are a total of two populations
containing 17 individuals on privately owned land in the Kapohaku/
Waiapaa area, and in the gulch between Kunoa and Waialala gulches (GDSI
2000; HINHP Database 2000).
The habitat of this species is diverse mesic forest, wet
Metrosideros polymorpha forest, and mixed mesic Metrosideros polymorpha
forest, typically on rich, moderately steep gulch slopes at elevations
between 667 and 1,016 m (2,188 and 3,332 ft). It occurs on soil and
rock substrates on slopes from watercourses in gulch bottoms and up the
sides of gulch slopes to near ridgetops. Associated native species
include, Diospyros sandwicensis, Bobea elatior, Myrsine lessertiana,
Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum, Pleomele fernaldii,
Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola chamissoniana, Xylosma hawaiiense,
Cyrtandra grayii, Cyrtandra grayana Diplopterygium pinnatum, Hedyotis
acuminata (au), Clermontia spp., Alyxia oliviformis, Coprosma spp.,
Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia arborea, Melicope spp., Perrottetia
sandwicensis, Pouteria sandwicensis, and Psychotria spp. (HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1995).
The threats to this species on Lanai are browsing and habitat
disturbance by axis deer; competition with the alien plant species
Psidium cattleianum, Myrica faya, Leptospermum scoparium, Pluchea
symphytifolia (sourbush), Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass), Rubus
rosifolius (thimbleberry), and Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass);
depressed reproductive vigor; and loss of appropriate pollinators
(Service 1995; 57 FR 20772).

Diellia erecta (NCN)

Diellia erecta, a short-lived perennial fern in the spleenwort
family (Aspleniaceae), grows in tufts of three to nine lance-shaped
fronds emerging from a rhizome covered with brown to dark gray scales.
This species differs from other members of the genus in having large
brown or dark gray scales, fused or separate sori along both margins,
shiny black midribs that have a hardened surface, and veins that do not
usually encircle the sori (Degener and Greenwell 1950; Wagner 1952).
Little is known about the life history of Diellia erecta. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1999).
Historically, Diellia erecta was known on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,
Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently, it is known from
Molokai, Maui, Oahu, and the island of Hawaii and was recently
rediscovered on Kauai. On Lanai it was last seen in 1929 (Service 1999;
HINHP Database 2000).
This species is found in brown granular soil with leaf litter and
occasional terrestrial moss on north facing slopes in deep shade on
steep slopes or gulch bottoms in Pisonia spp. forest at elevations
between 651 and 955 m (2,135 and 3,132 ft). Associated native plant
species include native grasses and ferns (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001;
Service 1999; HINHP Database 2000; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
The major threats to Diellia erecta on Lanai included habitat
degradation by pigs and goats, and competition with alien plant species
(59 FR 56333; Service 1999).

Diplazium molokaiense (asplenium-leaved asplenium)

Diplazium molokaiense, a short-lived perennial member of the
spleenwort family (Aspleniaceae), has a short prostrate rhizome and
green or straw-colored leaf stalks with thin-textured fronds. This
species can be distinguished from other species of Diplazium in the
Hawaiian Islands by a combination of characteristics, including
venation pattern, the length and arrangement of the sori, frond shape,
and the degree of dissection of the frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).
Little is known about the life history of Diplazium molokaiense.
Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1998a).

[[Page 9815]]

Historically, Diplazium molokaiense was found on Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui. Currently, this species is known only from
Maui. It was last seen on Lanai in 1914 (HINHP Database 2000).
This species occurs in shady, damp places in wet forests at
elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft) (J. Lau, pers.
comm., 2001; Service 1998a; HINHP Database 2000).
The primary threats to Diplazium molokaiense on Lanai included
habitat degradation by feral goats and pigs and competition with alien
plant species (59 FR 49025; Service 1998a; HINHP Database 2000).

Hedyotis mannii (pilo)

Hedyotis mannii is a short-lived perennial and a member of the
coffee family (Rubiaceae). It has smooth, usually erect stems 30 to 60
cm (1 to 2 ft) long, which are woody at the base and four-angled or -
winged. This species' growth habit; its quadrangular or winged stems;
the shape, size, and texture of its leaves; and its dry capsule, which
opens when mature, separate it from other species of the genus (Wagner
et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of this plant. Reproductive
cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting
factors are unknown (Service 1996b).
Hedyotis mannii was once widely scattered on Lanai, West Maui, and
Molokai. After a hiatus of 50 years, this species was rediscovered in
1987 by Steve Perlman on Molokai. In addition, a population was
discovered on Maui and two populations, now numbering between 35 and 40
individual plants, were discovered on Lanai in 1991 on privately owned
land in Maunalei and Hauola gulches (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000;
Service 1996b).
Hedyotis mannii typically grows on dark, narrow, rocky gulch walls
and on steep stream banks in wet forests between 711 and 1,032 m (2,332
and 3,385 ft) in elevation. Associated plant species include
Thelypteris sandwicensis, Sadleria spp., Cyrtandra grayii, Scaevola
chamissoniana, Freycinetia arborea, and Carex meyenii (J. Lau, pers.
comm., 2001; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b).
The limited number of individuals of Hedyotis mannii makes it
extremely vulnerable to extinction from random environmental events.
Feral pigs and alien plants, such as Melinis minutiflora, Psidium
cattleianum, and Rubus rosifolius, degrade the habitat of this species
and contribute to its vulnerability (57 FR 46325).

Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)

Hesperomannia arborescens, a long-lived perennial of the aster
family (Asteraceae), is a small shrubby tree that usually stands 1.5 to
5 m (5 to 16 ft) tall. This member of an endemic Hawaiian genus differs
from other Hesperomannia species in having the following combination of
characteristics: erect to ascending flower heads, thick flower head
stalks, and usually hairless and relatively narrow leaves (Wagner et
al., 1999).
This species has been observed in flower from April through June
and fruit during March and June. Little else is known about the life
history of Hesperomannia arborescens. Flowering cycles, pollination
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1998b; 59 FR
14482).
Hesperomannia arborescens was formerly known from Lanai, Molokai,
and Oahu. This species is now known from Oahu, Molokai, and Maui. It
was last seen on Lanai in 1940 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service
1998b; 59 FR 14482).
Hesperomannia arborescens is found on slopes or ridges in lowland
mesic or wet forest at elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and
3,385 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated native
plant species: Metrosideros polymorpha, Myrsine sandwicensis (kolea),
Isachne distichophylla, Pipturus spp., Antidesma spp., Psychotria spp.,
Clermontia spp., Cibotium spp. (hapuu), Dicranopteris linearis, Bobea
spp., Coprosma spp., Sadleria spp., Melicope spp., Machaerina spp.
(uki), Cheirodendron spp. (olapa), or Freycinetia arborea (HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482; R. Hobdy et al., pers.
comm., 2001).
The major threats to Hesperomannia arborescens on Lanai included
habitat degradation by feral pigs and goats, and competition with alien
plant species (Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482; HINHP Database 2000).

Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele)

Hibiscus brackenridgei, a short-lived perennial and a member of the
mallow family (Malvaceae), is a sprawling to erect shrub or small tree.
This species differs from other members of the genus in having the
following combination of characteristics: yellow petals, a calyx
consisting of triangular lobes with raised veins and a single midrib,
bracts attached below the calyx, and thin stipules that fall off,
leaving an elliptic scar.
Two subspecies are currently recognized, H. brackenridgei ssp.
brackenridgei and H. brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus (Bates 1999).
Hibiscus brackenridgei is known to flower continuously from early
February through late May, and intermittently at other times of year.
Intermittent flowering may possibly be tied to day length. Little else
is known about the life history of this plant. Pollination biology,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1999).
Historically, Hibiscus brackenridgei was known from the islands of
Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, and the island of Hawaii. Hibiscus
brackenridgei was collected from an undocumented site on Kahoolawe,
though the subspecies has never been determined. Currently, Hibiscus
brackenridgei ssp. mokuleianus is only known from Oahu. Hibiscus
brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei is currently known from Lanai, Maui,
and the island of Hawaii. On Lanai, there are two populations
containing an unknown number of individuals on privately owned land;
one population is known from Keamuku Road, one from a fenced area on
the dry plains of Kaena Point. Outplanted individuals that were
initially planted in Kanepuu Preserve now appear to be reproducing
naturally (Service 1999; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Wesley Wong,
Jr., formerly of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, in litt.
1998).
Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei occurs in lowland dry to
mesic forest and shrubland between 0 and 645 m (0 and 2,116 ft) in
elevation. Associated plant species include Dodonea viscosa, Psydrax
odoratum, Eurya sandwicensis (anini), Isachne distichophylla, and Sida
fallax (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999).
The primary threats to Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei on
Lanai are habitat degradation; possible predation by pigs, goats, axis
deer, and rats (Rattus rattus); competition with alien plant species;
fire; and susceptibility to extinction caused by naturally occurring
events or reduced reproductive vigor (59 FR 56333; Service 1999).

Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula)

Isodendrion pyrifolium, a short-lived perennial of the violet
family (Violaceae), is a small, branched shrub with elliptic to lance-
shaped leaf blades. The papery-textured blade is moderately hairy
beneath (at least on the veins) and stalked. The petiole (stalk) is
subtended

[[Page 9816]]

by oval, hairy stipules. Fragrant, bilaterally symmetrical flowers are
solitary. The flower stalk is white-hairy, and subtended by two bracts.
Bracts arise at the tip of the main flower stalk. The five sepals are
lance-shaped, membranous-edged and fringed with white hairs. Five
green-yellow petals are somewhat unequal, and lobed, the upper being
the shortest and the lower the longest. The fruit is a three-lobed,
oval capsule, which splits to release olive-colored seeds. Isodendrion
pyrifolium is distinguished from other species in the genus by its
smaller, green-yellow flowers, and hairy stipules and leaf veins
(Wagner et al., 1999).
During periods of drought, this species will drop all but the
newest leaves. After sufficient rains, the plants produce flowers with
seeds ripening one to two months later. Little else is known about the
life history of Isodendrion pyrifolium. Flowering cycles, pollination
vectors, seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental
requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a; 59 FR
10305).
Isodendrion pyrifolium was historically found on six of the
Hawaiian Islands: Niihau, Molokai, Lanai, Oahu, Maui, and the island of
Hawaii. Currently it is found only on the island of Hawaii. It was last
seen on Lanai in 1870 (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; GDSI 2000; HINHP
Database 2000).
On Lanai, Isodendrion pyrifolium occured in dry shrubland at
elevations between 132 and 574 m (433 and 1,883 ft) with one or more of
the following associated native plant species: Dodonaea viscosa,
Lipochaeta spp. (nehe), Heteropogon contortus, and Wikstroemia
oahuensis (akia) (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; Service 1996a; 59 FR
10305; R. Hobdy et al., pers. comm., 2001).
Nothing is known of the threats to Isodendrion pyrifolium on the
island of Lanai because the species was last seen there in 1870.

Mariscus fauriei (NCN)

Mariscus fauriei, a member of the sedge family (Cyperaceae), is a
short-lived perennial plant with somewhat enlarged underground stems
and three-angled, single or grouped aerial stems 10 to 50 cm (4 to 20
in) tall. It has leaves shorter than or the same length as the stems
and 1 to 3.5 mm (0.04 to 0.1 in) wide. This species differs from others
in the genus in Hawaii by its smaller size and its more narrow,
flattened, and more spreading spikelets (Koyama 1990; 59 FR 10305).
Little is known about the life history of Mariscus fauriei. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (USFWS 1996a).
Historically, Mariscus fauriei was found on Molokai, Lanai, and the
island of Hawaii. It currently occurs on Molokai and the island of
Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1929 (59 FR 10305; HINHP Database
2000; GDSI 2000; Service 1996a).
Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant
species associated with Mariscus fauriei on the island of Lanai
(Service 1996a).
Nothing is known of the threats to Mariscus fauriei on the island
of Lanai (Service 1996a).

Melicope munroi (alani)

Melicope munroi, a long-lived perennial of the rue (citrus) family
(Rutaceae), is a sprawling shrub up to 3 m (10 ft) tall. The new growth
of this species is minutely hairy. This species differs from other
Hawaiian members of the genus in the shape of the leaf and the length
of the inflorescence (a flower cluster) stalk (Stone et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Melicope munroi. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 2001).
Historically, this species was known from the Lanaihale summit
ridge of Lanai and above Kamalo on Molokai. Currently, Melicope munroi
is known only from the Lanaihale summit ridge on Lanai. There are two
populations totaling an estimated 300 to 800 individuals on privately
owned land on the Lanaihale summit, head of Hauola gulch, Waialala
gulch, and the ridge of Waialala gulch (HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR
48307; GDSI 2000; Service 2001).
Melicope munroi is typically found on slopes in lowland wet
shrublands, at elevations of 701 and 1,032 m (2,299 and 3,385 ft).
Associated native plant species include Diplopterygium pinnatum,
Dicranopteris linearis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron
trigynum, Coprosma spp., Broussaisia arguta, other Melicope spp., and
Machaerina angustifolia (HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001).
The major threats to Melicope munroi on Lanai are trampling,
browsing, and habitat degradation by axis deer and competition with the
alien plant species Leptospermum scoparium and Psidium cattleianum.
Random environmental events also threaten the two remaining populations
(HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR 48307; Service 2001).

Neraudia sericea (NCN)

Neraudia sericea, a short-lived perennial member of the nettle
family (Urticaceae), is a 3 to 5 m (10 to 16 ft) tall shrub with
densely hairy branches. The elliptic or oval leaves have smooth margins
or slightly toothed margins on young leaves. The upper leaf surface is
moderately hairy and the lower leaf surface is densely covered with
irregularly curved, silky gray to white hairs along the veins. The male
flowers may be stalkless or have short stalks. The female flowers are
stalkless and have a densely hairy calyx that is either toothed,
collar-like, or divided into narrow unequal segments. The fruits are
achenes with the apical section separated from the basal portion by a
deep constriction. Seeds are oval with a constriction across the upper
half. N. sericea differs from the other four closely related species of
this endemic Hawaiian genus by the density, length, color, and posture
of the hairs on the lower leaf surface and by its mostly entire leaf
margins (Wagner et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Neraudia sericea.
Flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
Neraudia sericea was historically found on Molokai, Lanai, Maui,
and Kahoolawe. Currently, this species is extant on Molokai and Maui.
It was last seen on Lanai in 1913 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000;
Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
Neraudia sericea generally occurs in gulch slopes or gulch bottoms
in dry-mesic or mesic forest at elevations between 693 and 869 m (2,273
and 2,850 ft) and containing one or more of the following associated
native plant species: Metrosideros polymorpha, Diospyros sandwicensis,
Nestegis sandwicensis, and Dodonaea viscosa (HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR
56333; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
The primary threats to Neraudia sericea on Lanai included habitat
degradation by feral pigs and goats, and competition with alien plant
species (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).

Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe)

Portulaca sclerocarpa of the purslane family (Portulacaceae) is a
short-lived perennial herb with a fleshy tuberous taproot, which
becomes woody and has stems up to about 20 cm (8 in) long. The
stalkless, succulent, grayish-green leaves are almost circular in
cross-

[[Page 9817]]

section. Dense tufts of hairs are located in each leaf axil (point of
divergence between a branch or leaf) and underneath the tight clusters
of three to six stalkless flowers grouped at the ends of the stems.
Sepals (one of the modified leaves comprising a flower calyx) have
membranous edges and the petals are white, pink, or pink with a white
base. The hardened capsules open very late or not at all, and contain
glossy, dark reddish-brown seeds. This species differs from other
native and naturalized species of the genus in Hawaii by its woody
taproot, its narrow leaves, and the colors of its petals and seeds. Its
closest relative, P. villosa, differs mainly in its thinner-walled,
opening capsule (Wagner et al., 1999).
This species was observed in flower during March 1977, December
1977, and June 1978. The presence of juveniles indicated that
pollination and germination were occurring. Pollination vectors, seed
dispersal agents, longevity of plants and seeds, specific environmental
requirements, and other limiting factors are unknown (Service 1996a).
Portulaca sclerocarpa was historically and is currently found on
the island of Hawaii, and on an islet (Poopoo Islet) off the south
coast of the island of Lanai. The population on privately owned land on
Poopoo Islet contains about 10 plants (HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000;
Service 1996a). Poopoo Islet is a small rocky outcrop, 1 ha (2.4 ac) in
area and approximately 200 m (600 ft) from the south shoreline of
Lanai, and is considered part of the island of Lanai.
This species grows on exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal
communities at elevations between 0 and 82 m (0 and 269 ft) (Wagner et
al., 1999; HINHP Database 2000).
The major threats to Portulaca sclerocarpa on Lanai are herbivory
(feeding on plants) by the larvae of an introduced sphinx moth (Hyles
lineata); competition from alien plants; and fire (Frank Howarth,
Bishop Museum, in litt. 2000; 59 FR 10305; Service 1996a).

Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)

Sesbania tomentosa, a member of the pea family (Fabaceae), is
typically a sprawling short-lived perennial shrub, but may also be a
small tree. Each compound leaf consists of 18 to 38 oblong to elliptic
leaflets, which are usually sparsely to densely covered with silky
hairs. The flowers are salmon color tinged with yellow, orange-red,
scarlet or, rarely, pure yellow. Sesbania tomentosa is the only endemic
Hawaiian species in the genus, differing from the naturalized S. sesban
by the color of the flowers, the longer petals and calyx, and the
number of seeds per pod (Geesink et al., 1999).
The pollination biology of Sesbania tomentosa is being studied by
David Hopper, a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa. His preliminary findings suggest that
although many insects visit Sesbania flowers, the majority of
successful pollination is accomplished by native bees of the genus,
Hylaeus, and that populations at Kaena Point on Oahu are probably
pollinator-limited. Flowering at Kaena Point is highest during the
winter-spring rains, and gradually declines throughout the rest of the
year. Other aspects of this plant's life history are unknown (Service
1999).
Currently, Sesbania tomentosa occurs on six of the eight main
Hawaiian Islands (Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Kahoolawe, Maui, and Hawaii)
and on two islands in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Nihoa and
Necker). Although once found on Niihau and Lanai, it is no longer
extant on these islands. It was last seen on Lanai in 1957 (59 FR
56333; HINHP Database 2000; GDSI 2000).
Sesbania tomentosa is found on sandy beaches, dunes, or pond
margins at elevations between 44 and 221 m (144 and 725 ft). It
commonly occurs in coastal dry shrublands or mixed coastal dry cliffs
with the associated native plant species Chamaesyce celastroides
(akoko), Cuscuta sandwichiana (kaunaoa), Dodonaea viscosa, Heteropogon
contortus, Myoporum sandwicense, Nama sandwicensis (nama), Scaevola
sericea (naupaka kahakai), Sida fallax, Sporobolus virginicus (akiaki),
Vitex rotundifolia (kolokolo kahakai) or Waltheria indica (uhaloa)
(Service 1999; HINHP Database 2000; K. Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
The primary threats to Sesbania tomentosa on Lanai included habitat
degradation caused by competition with various alien plant species;
lack of adequate pollination; seed predation by rats, mice (Mus
musculus) and, potentially, alien insects; and fire (59 FR 56333;
Service 1999).

Silene lanceolata (NCN)

Silene lanceolata, a member of the pink family (Caryophyllaceae),
is an upright, short-lived perennial plant with stems 15 to 51 cm (6 to
20 in) long, which are woody at the base. The narrow leaves are smooth
except for a fringe of hairs near the base. Flowers are arranged in
open clusters. The flowers are white with deeply lobed, clawed petals.
The capsule opens at the top to release reddish-brown seeds. This
species is distinguished from Silene alexandri by its smaller flowers
and capsules and its stamens, which are shorter than the sepals (Wagner
et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Silene lanceolata. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (57 FR 46325; Service 1996b).
The historical range of Silene lanceolata includes five Hawaiian
Islands: Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Hawaii. Silene lanceolata is
presently extant on the islands of Molokai, Oahu, and Hawaii. It was
last observed on Lanai in 1930 (57 FR 46325; GDSI 2000; Service 1996b).
Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant
species associated with Silene lanceolata on the island of Lanai
(Service 1996b).
Nothing is known of the threats to Silene lanceolata on the island
of Lanai (Service 1996b).

Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai)

Solanum incompletum, a short-lived perennial member of the
nightshade family (Solanaceae), is a woody shrub. Its stems and lower
leaf surfaces are covered with prominent reddish prickles or sometimes
with yellow fuzzy hairs on young plant parts and lower leaf surfaces.
The oval to elliptic leaves have prominent veins on the lower surface
and lobed leaf margins. Numerous flowers grow in loose branching
clusters with each flower on a stalk. This species differs from other
native members of the genus by being generally prickly and having
loosely clustered white flowers, curved anthers about 2 mm (0.08 in)
long, and berries 1 to 2 cm (0.4 to 0.8 in) in diameter (Symon 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Solanum incompletum. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (59 FR 56333; Service 1999).
Historically, Solanum incompletum was known on Lanai, Maui, and the
island of Hawaii. According to David Symon (1999), the known
distribution of Solanum incompletum also extended to the islands of
Kauai and Molokai. Currently, Solanum incompletum is only known from
the island of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1925 (HINHP Database
2000; Service 1999).
On Lanai, Solanum incompletum occurred on broad, gently sloping
ridges in dry, Dodonaea viscosa shrubland, at elevations between 151
and 372 m (495 and 1,220 ft) with one or more of the

[[Page 9818]]

following associated native plant species: Heteropogon contortus,
Lipochaeta spp., and Wikstroemia oahuensis (Service 1999; J. Lau pers
comm., 2001).
On Lanai, the threats to Solanum incompletum included habitat
destruction by goats and competition with various alien plants (Service
1999).

Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)

Spermolepis hawaiiensis, a member of the parsley family (Apiaceae),
is a slender annual herb with few branches. Its leaves, dissected into
narrow, lance-shaped divisions, are oblong to somewhat oval in outline
and grow on stalks. Flowers are arranged in a loose, compound umbrella-
shaped inflorescence arising from the stem, opposite the leaves.
Spermolepis hawaiiensis is the only member of the genus native to
Hawaii. It is distinguished from other native members of the family by
being a non-succulent annual with an umbrella-shaped inflorescence
(Constance and Affolter 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Spermolepis hawaiiensis.
Reproductive cycles, longevity, specific environmental requirements,
and limiting factors are unknown (Service 1999).
Historically, Spermolepis hawaiiensis was known from Kauai, Oahu,
Lanai, and the island of Hawaii. Based on recent collections it is now
known to be extant on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island
of Hawaii. On Lanai, this species is known from three populations of
570 to 620 individuals on privately owned land: in the southern edge of
Kapoho Gulch, Kamiki Ridge, and approximately 274 m (900 ft) downslope
of Puu Manu (59 FR 56333; HINHP Database 2000; R Hobdy, pers. comm.,
2000; Service 1999).
Spermolepis hawaiiensis is known from gulch slopes and ridge tops
in dry forests dominated by Diospyros sandwicensis, or shrublands
dominated by Dodonaea viscosa at elevations between 402 and 711 m
(1,319 and 2,332 ft). Associated native plant species include Nestegis
sandwicensis, Nesoluma polynesicum, Psydrax odorata, and Rauvolfia
sandwicensis (J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy,
pers. comm., 2000; Service 1999).
The primary threats to Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Lanai are habitat
degradation by feral goats, competition with various alien plants, such
as Lantana camara; and erosion, landslides, and rockslides due to
natural weathering, which result in the death of individual plants as
well as habitat destruction (59 FR 56333; Service 1999; R. Hobdy, pers.
comm., 2000; Service 1999).

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum (NCN)

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, a member of the aster
family (Asteraceae), is an erect shrub 12 to 36 cm (4.7 to 14 in) tall,
branching near the ends of the stems. Leaves of this taxon are lance-
shaped, wider at the leaf tip, and measure 1.0 to 1.8 in (25 to 45 mm)
long and 0.04 to 0.3 in (1 to 7 mm) wide. Flower heads are arranged in
groups of six to 12. The involucre is bell-shaped and less than 0.2 in
(4 mm) high. Florets are either female or bisexual, with both occurring
on the same plant. There are 21 to 40 white to pinkish-lavender ray
florets 0.04 to 0.08 in (1 to 2 mm) long on the periphery of each head.
In the center of each head there are four to eleven maroon to pale
salmon disk florets. The fruits are achenes, 0.06 to 0.1 in (1.6 to 2.5
mm) long and 0.02 to 0.03 in (0.5 to 0.8 mm) wide. This taxon can be
distinguished from the other extant species on Oahu by its
hermaphroditic disk flowers and its inflorescence of six to 12 heads
(Lowrey 1999).
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum is a short-lived perennial
that has been observed producing fruit and flowers from April through
July. No further information is available on reproductive cycles,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, or limiting factors (56
FR 55770; Service 1998b).
Historically, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum was known from
Oahu and Lanai. It currently occurs only on Oahu. It was last seen on
Lanai in 1928 (56 FR 55770; Service 1998b HINHP Database 2000; GDSI
2000; EDA Database 2001).
Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant
species associated with Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum on the
island of Lanai (Service 1998b).
Nothing is known of the threats to Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum on the island of Lanai (Service 1998b).

Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)

Tetramolopium remyi, a short-lived perennial member of the
sunflower family (Asteraceae), is a many branched, decumbent
(reclining, with the end ascending) or occasionally erect shrub up to
about 38 cm (15 in) tall. Its leaves are firm, very narrow, and with
the edges rolled inward when the leaf is mature. There is a single
flower head per branch. The heads are each comprised of 70 to 100
yellow disk and 150 to 250 white ray florets. The stems, leaves, flower
bracts, and fruit are covered with sticky hairs. Tetramolopium remyi
has the largest flower heads in the genus. Two other species of the
genus are known historically from Lanai, but both have purplish rather
than yellow disk florets and from 4 to 60 rather than 1 flower head per
branch (Lowrey 1999).
Tetramolopium remyi flowers between April and January. Field
observations suggest that the population size of the species can be
profoundly affected by variability in annual precipitation; the adult
plants may succumb to prolonged drought, but apparently there is a
seedbank in the soil that can replenish the population during favorable
conditions. Such seed banks are of great importance for arid-dwelling
plants to allow populations to persist through adverse conditions. The
aridity of the area, possibly coupled with human-induced changes in the
habitat and subsequent lack of availability of suitable sites for
seedling establishment, may be a factor limiting population growth and
expansion. Requirements of this taxon in these areas are not known, but
success in greenhouse cultivation of these plants with much higher
water availability implies that, although these plants are drought-
tolerant, perhaps the dry conditions in which they currently exist are
not optimum. Individual plants are probably not long-lived. Pollination
is hypothesized to be by butterflies, bees, or flies. Seed dispersal
agents, environmental requirements, and other limiting factors are
unknown (Lowrey 1986; Service 1995).
Historically, the species was known from Maui and Lanai. Currently,
Tetramolopium remyi is known only from two populations on Lanai on
privately owned land, one near Awalua Road and the other near Awehi
Road, with a total of approximately 66 plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP
Database 2000).
Tetramolopium remyi is found in red, sandy, loam soil in dry
Dodonea viscosa-Heteropogon contortus communities at elevations between
65 and 485 m (213 and 1,591 ft). Commonly associated native species
include Bidens mauiensis (kookoolau), Waltheria indica, Wikstroemia
oahuensis, and Lipochaeta lavarum (nehe) (HINHP Database 2000).
Browsing by deer and mouflon sheep (Ovis musimon) and competition
from alien species, primarily Andropogon viginicus (broomsedge) and
Panicum maximum (guinea grass), are the main threats to the species on
Lanai. Fire is also a potential threat (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).

[[Page 9819]]

Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN)

Vigna o-wahuensis, a member of the legume family (Fabaceae), is a
slender, twining, short-lived perennial herb with fuzzy stems. Each
leaf is made up of three leaflets, which vary in shape from round to
linear, and are sparsely or moderately covered with coarse hairs.
Flowers, in clusters of 1 to 4, have thin, translucent, pale yellow or
greenish-yellow petals. The two lowermost petals are fused and appear
distinctly beaked. The sparsely hairy calyx has asymmetrical lobes. The
fruits are long slender pods that may or may not be slightly inflated
and contain 7 to 15 gray to black seeds. This species differs from
others in the genus by its thin yellowish petals, sparsely hairy calyx,
and thin pods, which may or may not be slightly inflated (Geesink et
al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Vigna o-wahuensis. Its
flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1999).
Historically, Vigna o-wahuensis was known from Niihau, Oahu, and
Maui. Based on recent collections, Vigna o-wahuensis is now known to be
extant on the islands of Molokai, Maui, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii.
On Lanai, one population with at least one individual is known from
Kanepuu on privately owned land (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; J.
Lau, in litt. 2000; Service 1999).
On Lanai, Vigna o-wahuensis is found in Nestegis sandwicensis or
Diospyros sandwicensis dry forest at elevations between 98 and 622 m
(321 and 2,040 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001; 59
FR 56333).
Threats to Vigna o-wahuensis on Lanai include habitat degradation
by pigs and axis deer; competition with various alien plant species;
fire; and random naturally occurring events causing extinction and or
reduced reproductive vigor of the only remaining individual on Lanai
(Service 1999).

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (ae)

Zanthoxylum hawaiiense is a medium-sized tree in the rue (citrus)
family (Rutaceae) with pale to dark gray bark, and lemon-scented
leaves. Alternate leaves are composed of three small triangular-oval to
lance-shaped, toothed leaves (leaflets) with surfaces usually without
hairs. A long-lived perennial tree, Z. hawaiiense is distinguished from
other Hawaiian members of the genus by several characteristics: three
leaflets all of similar size, one joint on the lateral leaf stalk, and
sickle-shape fruits with a rounded tip (Stone et al., 1999).
Little is known about the life history of Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed dispersal agents,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, and limiting factors
are unknown (Service 1996a).
Historically, Zanthoxylum hawaiiense was known from five islands:
Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii. Currently,
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense is found on Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and the island
of Hawaii. It was last seen on Lanai in 1947 (HINHP Database 2000; GDSI
2000).
Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant
species associated with Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the island of Lanai
(Service 1996a).
Nothing is known of the threats to Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the
island of Lanai (Service 1996a).
A summary of populations and landownership for the 37 plant species
reported from the island of Lanai is given in Table 3.

Table 3.--Summary of Existing Populations Occurring on Lanai, and Landownership for 37 Species Reported From
Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Landownership
Species current -----------------------------------
populations Federal State Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum....................................... 1 .......... .......... X
Adenophorus periens........................................... 0 .......... .......... ..........
Bidens micrantha.............................................. 0 .......... .......... ..........
Bonamia menziesii............................................. 3 .......... .......... X
Brighamia rockii.............................................. 0 .......... .......... ..........
Cenchrus agrimonioides........................................ 0 .......... .......... ..........
Centaurium sebaeoides......................................... 1 .......... .......... X
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis........................ 1 .......... .......... X
Ctenitis squamigera........................................... 2 .......... .......... X
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana............................. 2 .......... .......... X
Cyanea lobata................................................. 0 .......... .......... ..........
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii.............................. 2 .......... .......... X
Cyperus trachysanthos......................................... 0 .......... .......... ..........
Cyrtandra munroi.............................................. 2 .......... .......... X
Diellia erecta................................................ 0 .......... .......... ..........
Diplazium molokaiense......................................... 0 .......... .......... ..........
Gahnia lanaiensis............................................. 1 .......... .......... X
Hedyotis mannii............................................... 2 .......... .......... X
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi........................ 2 .......... .......... X
Hesperomannia arborescens..................................... 0 .......... .......... ..........
Hibiscus brackenridgei........................................ 2 .......... .......... X
Isodendrion pyrifolium........................................ 0 .......... .......... ..........
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis............................ 1 .......... .......... X
Mariscus fauriei.............................................. 0 .......... .......... ..........
Melicope munroi............................................... 2 .......... .......... X
Neraudia sericea.............................................. 0 .......... .......... ..........
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis........................... 0 .......... .......... ..........
Portulaca sclerocarpa......................................... 1 .......... .......... X
Sesbania tomentosa............................................ 0 .......... .......... ..........
Silene lanceolata............................................. 0 .......... .......... ..........
Solanum incompletum........................................... 0 .......... .......... ..........
Spermolepis hawaiiensis....................................... 3 .......... .......... X

[[Page 9820]]

Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum........................ 0 .......... .......... ..........
Tetramolopium remyi........................................... 2 .......... .......... X
Vigna o-wahuensis............................................. 1 .......... .......... X
Viola lanaiensis.............................................. 2 .......... .......... X
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense........................................ 0 .......... .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Federal Action

Federal action on these plants began as a result of section 12 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), which directed the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to
prepare a report on plants considered to be endangered, threatened, or
extinct in the United States. This report, designated as House Document
No. 94-51, was presented to Congress on January 9, 1975. In that
document, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cyanea lobata (as Cyanea
baldwinii), Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii (as Hedyotis thyrsoidea
var. thyrsoidea), Hesperomannia arborescens (as Hesperomannia
arborescens var. bushiana and var. swezeyi), Hibiscus brackenridgei (as
Hibiscus brackenridgei var. brackenridgei, var. mokuleianus, and var.
``from Hawaii''), Neraudia sericea (as Neraudia kahoolawensis),
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa (as Sesbania hobdyi and
Sesbania tomentosa var. tomentosa), Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum (as Solanum haleakalense and Solanum incompletum var.
glabratum, var. incompletum, and var. mauiensis), Tetramolopium
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, Vigna o-wahuensis (as Vigna sandwicensis var.
heterophylla and var. sandwicensis), Viola lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense (as Zanthoxylum hawaiiense var. citiodora) were considered
endangered; Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (as Zanthoxylum hawaiiense var.
hawaiiense and var. velutinosum) were considered threatened; and,
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (as Bidens
distans and Bidens micrantha spp. kalealaha), Ctenitis squamigera,
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Diplazium molokaiense, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Melicope munroi (as Pelea munroi), Phyllostegia glabra var.
lanaiensis, and Tetramolopium remyi were considered to be extinct. On
July 1, 1975, we published a notice in the Federal Register (40 FR
27823) of our acceptance of the Smithsonian report as a petition within
the context of section 4(c)(2) (now section 4(b)(3)) of the Act, and
gave notice of our intention to review the status of the plant taxa
named therein. As a result of that review, on June 16, 1976, we
published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (41 FR 24523) to
determine endangered status pursuant to section 4 of the Act for
approximately 1,700 vascular plant taxa, including all of the above
taxa except Cyrtandra munroi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and
Melicope munroi. The list of 1,700 plant taxa was assembled on the
basis of comments and data received by the Smithsonian Institution and
the Service in response to House Document No. 94-51 and the July 1,
1975, Federal Register publication (40 FR 27823).
General comments received in response to the 1976 proposal were
summarized in an April 26, 1978, Federal Register publication (43 FR
17909). In 1978, amendments to the Act required that all proposals over
2 years old be withdrawn. A 1-year grace period was given to proposals
already over 2 years old. On December 10, 1979, we published a notice
in the Federal Register (44 FR 70796) withdrawing the portion of the
June 16, 1976, proposal that had not been made final, along with four
other proposals that had expired. We published updated Notices of
Review for plants on December 15, 1980 (45 FR 82479), September 27,
1985 (50 FR 39525), February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6183), September 30, 1993
(58 FR 51144), and February 28, 1996 (61 FR 7596). A summary of the
status categories for these 37 plant species in the 1980 through 1996
notices of review can be found in Table 4(a). We listed the 37 species
as endangered or threatened between 1991 and 1999. A summary of the
listing actions can be found in Table 4(b).

Table 4(a).--Summary of Candidacy Status for 37 Plant Species on Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register Notice of Review
Species -----------------------------------------------------------
12/15/80 9/27/85 2/20/90 9/30/93 2/28/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum............................. C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Adenophorus periens................................. C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Bidens micrantha.................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Bonamia menziesii................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Brighamia rockii.................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Cenchrus agrimonioides.............................. .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
Centaurium sebaeoides............................... .......... .......... C1 .......... ..........
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis.............. .......... .......... C1 .......... ..........
Ctenitis squamigera................................. C1* C1* C1* .......... ..........
Cyanea grimesiana ssp.grimesiana.................... C1 C1 .......... C2 ..........
Cyanea lobata....................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Cyperus trachysanthos............................... .......... .......... .......... C2 ..........
Cyrtandra munroi.................................... C2 C2 C1 .......... ..........
Diellia erecta...................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........

[[Page 9821]]

Diplazium molokaiense............................... C1* C1* C1 .......... ..........
Gahnia lanaiensis................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Hedyotis mannii..................................... C1* C1* C1 .......... ..........
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi.............. .......... .......... C2 C2 C
Hesperomannia arborescens........................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Hibiscus brackenridgei.............................. C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Isodendrion pyrifolium.............................. C1* C1* 3A .......... ..........
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis.................. C2 C2 3C 3C ..........
Mariscus fauriei.................................... .......... .......... C1 .......... ..........
Melicope munroi..................................... C1* C1* C2 C2 C
Neraudia sericea.................................... 3A 3A C1 .......... ..........
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis................. C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Portulaca sclerocarpa............................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Sesbania tomentosa.................................. C1* C1* C1 .......... ..........
Silene lanceolata................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Solanum incompletum................................. C1* C1* C1 .......... ..........
Spermolepis hawaiiensis............................. .......... .......... C1 .......... ..........
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum.............. C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Tetramolopium remyi................................. C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Vigna o-wahuensis................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Viola lanaiensis.................................... C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.............................. C1 C1 C1 .......... ..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
C: Taxa for which the Service has on file enough sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species.
C1: Taxa for which the Service has on file enough sufficient information on biological vulnerability and
threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species.
C1*: Taxa of known vulnerable status in the recent past that may already have become extinct.
C2: Taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support
listing proposals at this time.
3A: Taxa for which the Service has persuasive evidence of extinction. If rediscovered, such taxa might acquire
high priority for listing.
3C: Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or those that are not
subject to any identifiable threat. If further research or changes in habitat indicate a significant decline
in any of these taxa, they may be reevaluated for possible inclusion in categories C1 or C2.
Federal Register Notices of Review--
1980: 45 FR 82479 1985: 50 FR 39525 1990: 55 FR 6183 1993: 58 FR 51144 1996: 61 FR 7596

Table 4(b).--Summary of Listing Actions for 37 Plant Species From Lanai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Final rule Purdency and/or proposed critical
Federal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- habitat
Species status ----------------------------------------
Date Federal Register Date Federal Register Date Federal Register
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum....... E 09/17.90 55 FR 38236 09/20/91 56 FR 47686 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Adenophorus periens........... E 09/14/93 58 FR 48102 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/07/00 65 FR 66808
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Bidens micrantha ssp. E 05/24/91 56 FR 23842 05/15/92 57 FR 20772 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
kalealaha.
Bonamia menziesii............. E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/7/00 65 FR 66808
12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/27/00 65 FR 82086
01/28/02 67 FR 3940
Brighamia rockii.............. E 09/20/91 56 FR 47718 10/08/92 57 FR 46325 12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Cenchrus agrimonioides........ E 10/02/95 60 FR 51417 10/10/96 61 FR 53108 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
Centaurium sebaeoides......... E 09/28/90 55 FR 39664 10/29/91 56 FR 55770 11/07/00 65 FR 66808
12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/27/00 65 FR 82086
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
01/28/02 67 FR 3940
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. E 05/24/91 56 FR 23842 05/15/92 57 FR 20772 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
mauiensis. 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Ctenitis squamigera........... E 06/24/93 58 FR 34231 09/09/94 59 FR 49025 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/27/00 65 FR 82086
12/29/00 65 FR 8315
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. E 10/02/95 60 FR 51417 10/10/96 64 FR 53108 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
grimesiana. 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
12/29/00 65 FR 8315
Cyanea lobata................. E 05/24/91 56 FR 23842 05/15/92 57 FR 20772 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. E 09/17/90 55 FR 38236 09/20/91 56 FR 47686 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
gilsonii.
Cyperus trachysanthos......... E 10/02/95 60 FR 51417 10/10/96 61 FR 53108 11/07/0 65 FR 66808
01/28/02 67 FR 3940

[[Page 9822]]

Cyrtandra munroi.............. E 05/24/91 56 FR 23842 05/15/92 57 FR 20772 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Diellia erecta................ E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/07/00 65 FR 66808
12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
01/28/02 67 FR 3940
Diplazium molokaiense......... E 06/24/93 58 FR 34231 09/09/94 59 FR 49025 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
Gahnia lanaiensis............. E 09/17/90 55 FR 38236 09/20/91 56 FR 47686 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Hedyotis mannii............... E 09/20/91 56 FR 47718 10/08/92 57 FR 46325 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/27/00 65 FR 82086
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana E 05/15/97 62 FR 26757 09/03/99 64 FR 48307 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
var. remyi.
Hesperomannia arborescens..... E 10/14/92 57 FR 47028 03/28/94 59 FR 14482 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Hibiscus brackenridgei........ E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
Isodendrion pyrifolium........ E 12/17/92 57 FR 59951 03/04/94 59 FR 10305 01/28/02 67 FR 3940
Labordia tinifolia var. E 05/15/97 62 FR 26757 09/03/99 64 FR 48307 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
lanaiensis.
Mariscus fauriei.............. E 12/17/92 57 FR 59951 03/04/94 59 FR 10305 12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Melicope munroi............... E 05/15/97 62 FR 26757 09/03/99 64 FR 48307 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Neraudia sericea.............. E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Phyllostegia glabra var. E 09/17/90 55 FR 38236 09/20/91 56 FR 47686 12/29/00 65 FR 83157
lanaiensis.
Portulaca sclerocarpa......... E 12/17/92 57 FR 59951 03/04/94 59 FR 10305 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Sesbania tomentosa............ E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/07/00 65 FR 66808
12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
01/28/02 67 FR 3940
Silene lanceolata............. E 09/20/91 56 FR 47718 10/08/92 57 FR 46325 12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Solanum incompletum........... E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 01/28/02 67 FR 3940
Spermolepis hawaiiensis....... E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/07/00 65 FR 66808
12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/27/00 65 FR 82086
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
12/28/00 67 FR 3940
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. E 09/28/90 55 FR 39664 10/29/91 56 FR 55770
lepidotum.
Tetramolopium remyi........... E 09/17/90 55 FR 38236 09/20/91 56 FR 47686 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Vigna o-wahuensis............. E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
Viola lanaiensis.............. E 09/17/90 55 FR 38236 09/20/91 56 FR 47686 12/27/00 65 FR 82086
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense........ E 12/17/92 57 FR 59951 03/04/94 59 FR 10305 11/07/00 65 FR 66808
12/18/00 65 FR 79192
12/29/00 65 FR 83157
12/28/00 67 FR 3940
01/28/02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: E= Endangered, T= Threatened

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations
exist: (1) the species is threatened by taking or other human activity,
and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. At the time each plant
was listed, we determined that designation of critical habitat was
prudent for three of these plants (Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var.
remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi) and not
prudent for the other 34 plants because it would not benefit the plant
or would increase the degree of threat to the species.
The not prudent determinations for these species, along with
others, were challenged in Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt,
2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998). On March 9, 1998, the United States
District Court for the District of Hawaii, directed us to review the
prudency determinations for 245 listed plant species in Hawaii,
including 34 of the 37 species reported from Lanai. Among other things,
the court held that, in most cases we did not sufficiently demonstrate
that the species are threatened by human activity or that such threats
would increase with the designation of critical habitat. The court also
held that we failed to balance any risks of designating critical
habitat against any benefits (id. at 1283-85).

[[Page 9823]]

Regarding our determination that designating critical habitat would
have no additional benefits to the species above and beyond those
already provided through the section 7 consultation requirement of the
Act, the court ruled that we failed to consider the specific effect of
the consultation requirement on each species (id. at 1286-88). In
addition, the court stated that we did not consider benefits outside of
the consultation requirements. In the court's view, these potential
benefits include substantive and procedural protections. The court held
that, substantively, designation establishes a ``uniform protection
plan'' prior to consultation and indicates where compliance with
section 7 of the Act is required. Procedurally, the court stated that
the designation of critical habitat educates the public, State, and
local governments and affords them an opportunity to participate in the
designation (id. at 1288). The court also stated that private lands may
not be excluded from critical habitat designation even though section 7
requirements apply only to Federal agencies. In addition to the
potential benefit of informing the public, State, and local governments
of the listing and of the areas that are essential to the species'
conservation, the court found that there may be Federal activity on
private property in the future, even though no such activity may be
occurring there at the present (id. at 1285-88).
On August 10, 1998, the court ordered us to publish proposed
critical habitat designations or non-designations for at least 100
species by November 30, 2000, and to publish proposed designations or
non-designations for the remaining 145 species by April 30, 2002
(Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 24 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (D.
Haw. 1998)).
At the time we listed Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi,
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi (64 FR 48307),
we determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent and that
we would develop critical habitat designations for these three taxa,
along with seven others, by the time we completed designations for the
other 245 Hawaiian plant species. This timetable was challenged in
Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 99-00283 HG (D.
Haw. Aug. 19, 1999, Feb. 16, 2000, and March 28, 2000). The court
agreed, however, that it was reasonable for us to integrate these ten
Maui Nui (Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Kahoolawe) plant taxa into the
schedule established for designating critical habitat for the other 245
Hawaiian plants, and ordered us to publish proposed critical habitat
designations for the ten Maui Nui species with the first 100 plants
from the group of 245 by November 30, 2000, and to publish final
critical habitat designations by November 30, 2001.
On November 30, 1998, we published a notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comments on our reevaluation of whether designation
of critical habitat is prudent for the 245 Hawaiian plants at issue (63
FR 65805). The comment period closed on March 1, 1999, and was reopened
from March 24, 1999, to May 24, 1999 (64 FR 14209). We received more
than 100 responses from individuals, non-profit organizations, the
State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), county governments,
and Federal agencies (U.S. Department of Defense-Army, Navy, Air
Force). Only a few responses offered information on the status of
individual plant species or on current management actions for one or
more of the 245 Hawaiian plants. While some of the respondents
expressed support for the designation of critical habitat for 245
Hawaiian plants, more than 80 percent opposed the designation of
critical habitat for these plants. In general, these respondents
opposed designation because they believed it would cause economic
hardship, discourage cooperative projects, polarize relationships with
hunters, or potentially increase trespass or vandalism on private
lands. In addition, commenters also cited a lack of information on the
biological and ecological needs of these plants which, they suggested,
may lead to designation based on guesswork. The respondents who
supported the designation of critical habitat cited that designation
would provide a uniform protection plan for the Hawaiian Islands;
promote funding for management of these plants; educate the public and
State government; and protect partnerships with landowners and build
trust.
In early February 2000, we hand-delivered a letter to
representatives of the private landowner on Lanai requesting any
information considered germane to the management of any of the 37
plants on the island, and containing a copy of the November 30, 1998,
Federal Register notice, a map showing the general locations of the
plants on Lanai, and a handout containing general information on
critical habitat. On April 4, 2000, we met with representatives of the
landowner to discuss their current land management activities. In
addition, we met with Maui County DOFAW staff and discussed their
management activities on Lanai.
On December 27, 2000, we published the third of the court-ordered
prudency determinations and proposed critical habitat designations or
non-designations for 18 Lanai plants (65 FR 82086). The prudency
determinations and proposed critical habitat designations for Kauai and
Niihau plants were published on November 7, 2000 (65 FR 66808), for
Maui and Kahoolawe plants on December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79192), and for
Molokai plants on December 29, 2000 (65 FR 83158). All of these
proposed rules had been sent to the Federal Register by or on November
30, 2000, as required by the court orders. In those proposals we
determined that critical habitat was prudent for 33 species (Abutilon
eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium
sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea
macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi,
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis
mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia
arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea,
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata,
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola
lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) that are reported from Lanai as
well as on Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Molokai.
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that it was
prudent to designate approximately 1,953 ha (4,826 ac) on Lanai as
critical habitat. The publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day
public comment period, which closed on February 26, 2001. On February
22, 2001, we published a notice (66 FR 11133) announcing the reopening
of the comment period until April 2, 2001, on the proposal to designate
critical habitat for plants from Lanai and a notice of a public
hearing. On March 22, 2001, we held a public hearing at the Lanai
Public Library Meeting Room, Lanai. On April 6, 2001, we published a
notice (66 FR 18223) announcing corrections to the proposed rule. These
corrections included changes to the map of general locations of units
and new UTM coordinates and increased the total proposed critical
habitat to 2,034 ha (5,027 ac).
On October 3, 2001, we submitted a joint stipulation with Earth
Justice Legal Defense Fund requesting extension of the court order for
the final rules to

[[Page 9824]]

designate critical habitat for plants from Kauai and Niihau (July 30,
2002), Maui and Kahoolawe (August 23, 2002), Lanai (September 16,
2002), and Molokai (October 16, 2002), citing the need to revise the
proposals to incorporate or address new information and comments
received during the comment periods. The joint stipulation was approved
and ordered by the court on October 5, 2001. On January 28, 2002, in
the Kauai revised proposal, we determined that designation of critical
habitat was prudent for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Solanum incompletum,
two species reported from Lanai as well as Kauai, Maui, and Molokai.
The designation of critical habitat is proposed for both of these
species on Lanai. Publication of this revised proposal for plants from
Lanai is consistent with the court-ordered stipulation.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the December 27, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR 82086), we requested
all interested parties to submit comments on the specifics of the
proposal, including information, policy, and proposed critical habitat
boundaries as provided in the proposed rule. The first comment period
closed on February 26, 2001. We reopened the comment period from
February 22, 2001, to April 2, 2001 (66 FR 11133), to accept comments
on the proposed designations and to hold a public hearing on March 22,
2001, in Lanai City, Lanai.
We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county
governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment. In addition, we invited public comment through
the publication of notices in the following newspapers: the Honolulu
Advertiser on January 8, 2001, and the Maui News on January 4, 2001. We
received one request for a public hearing. We announced the date and
time of the public hearing in letters mailed to all interested parties,
appropriate State and Federal agencies, county governments, and elected
officials, and in notices published in the Honolulu Advertiser and in
the Maui News newspapers on March 2, 2001. A transcript of the hearing
held in Lanai City, Lanai on March 22, 2001, is available for
inspection (see ADDRESSES section).
We requested three botanists who have familiarity with Lanai plants
to peer review the proposed critical habitat designations. One peer
reviewer submitted comments on the proposed critical habitat
designations, providing updated biological information, critical
review, and editorial comments.
We received a total of two oral comments, three written comments,
and two comments both in written and oral form during the two comment
periods. These included responses from one State office, and six
private organizations or individuals. We reviewed all comments received
for substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat
and the Lanai plants. Of the seven comments we received, five supported
designation, one was opposed and one provided information and declined
to oppose or support the designation. Similar comments were grouped
into eight general issues relating specifically to the proposed
critical habitat determinations. These are addressed in the following
summary.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

(1) Comment: The designation of critical habitat for these plant
species in unoccupied habitat is particularly important, since this may
be the only mechanism available to ensure that Federal actions do not
eliminate the habitat needed for the conservation of these species.
Our Response: We agree. Our recovery plans for these species
(Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001) identify
the need to expand existing populations and reestablish wild
populations within their historical range. We have revised the December
27, 2000, proposal to include areas of unoccupied habitat for some of
the species from Lanai.
(2) Comment: The proposal provides very limited information on the
criteria and data used to determine the areas proposed as critical
habitat. For example, some of the data used by the Service was 30 years
old or older.
Our Response: When developing the December 27, 2000, proposal to
designate critical habitat for 18 plants from Lanai, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available at the time, including but not
limited to information from the known locations, site-specific species
information from the HINHP database and our own rare plant database;
species information from the Center for Plant Conservation's (CPC) rare
plant monitoring database housed at the University of Hawaii's Lyon
Arboretum; the final listing rules for these species; 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 island of Lanai; discussions with botanical
experts; and recommendations from the Hawaii Pacific Plant Recovery
Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC) (Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997,
1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; HPPRCC 1998; HINHP Database 2000; CPC in
litt. 1999).
We have revised the proposed designations to incorporate new
information, and address comments and new information received during
the comment periods. This additional information comes from Geographic
Information System (GIS) coverages (e.g., vegetation, soils, annual
rainfall, elevation contours, land ownership), and information received
during the public comment periods and the public hearing (R. Hobdy, in
litt. 2001; Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999,
2001).
(3) Comment: The proposed critical habitat designations should be
delayed until a coordinated plan with public input is coordinated.
Our Response: We must comply with the orders of the Federal courts.
As stated earlier, on August 10, 1998, the Court ordered us to publish
proposed critical habitat designations or non-designations for at least
100 species by November 30, 2000, and to publish proposed designations
or non-designations for the remaining 145 species by April 30, 2002 (24
F. Supp. 2d 1074). On March 28, 2000, the Court ordered us to integrate
10 Maui Nui (Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Kahoolawe) plant taxa into the
schedule for designating critical habitat for the other 245 Hawaiian
plants.
On December 27, 2000, we published the third of the court-ordered
prudency determinations and/or proposed critical habitat designations,
for 18 Lanai plants (65 FR 82086). On October 5, 2001, the joint
stipulation with Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund requesting extension
of the court orders for the final rules to designate critical habitat
for plants from Kauai and Niihau (July 30, 2002), Maui and Kahoolawe
(August 23, 2002), Lanai (September 16, 2002), Molokai (October 16,
2002) was approved and ordered by the court.
Publication of this revised proposed critical habitat designations
for Lanai plants is consistent with the court-ordered stipulation.

Issue 2: Site-specific Biological Comments

(4) Comment: Critical habitat should be designated for Phyllostegia
glabra var. lanaiensis because habitats have not been adequately
surveyed and this species may still be extant in the wild.
Our Response: No change is made here to the prudency determination
for

[[Page 9825]]

Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a species known only from
Kaiholena on Lanai, published in the December 27, 2000, proposal (65 FR
82086). Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis has not been seen on Lanai
for over 80 years. This species was last observed at Kaiholena on Lanai
in 1914 and has not been observed since. A report of this plant from
the early 1980s probably was erroneous and should be referred to as
Phyllostegia glabra var. glabra (R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 1992). 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 Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis 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)).

Issue 3: Legal Issues

(5) Comment: The Service failed to comply with court deadlines set
forth in both Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 24 F. Supp.
1074 (D.Haw. 1998), and Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt,
Civ. No. 99-00283 (D.Haw. Mar. 28, 2000).
Our Response: The proposed rules for plants from Kauai, Niihau,
Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Molokai were sent to the Federal Register
by or on November 30, 2000, as required by the court orders. On October
3, 2001, we submitted a joint stipulation with Earth Justice Legal
Defense Fund requesting extension of the court orders for the final
rules to designate critical habitat for plants from Kauai and Niihau
(July 30, 2002), Maui and Kahoolawe (August 23, 2002), Lanai (September
16, 2002), and Molokai (October 16, 2002), citing the need to revise
the proposals to incorporate or address new information and comments
received during the comment periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal
for plants from Lanai. The joint stipulation was approved and ordered
by the court on October 5, 2001. Publication of this revised proposal
for plants from Lanai is consistent with the joint stipulation.
(6) Comment: The Service should designate critical habitat on the
Kanepuu Preserves since excluding them potentially violates the
mandatory duty to designate critical habitat ``to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)).
Our Response: Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act
as: (i) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the
conservation of the species and (II) that may require special
management consideration or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside
the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed,
upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened
species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer
necessary.
The Service found that the plants and their habitats within the
Kanepuu Preserve receive long-term protection and management and, thus
these lands are not in need of special management considerations or
protection. In our December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that the
lands within the Kanepuu Preserve do not meet the definition of
critical habitat in the Act, and we did not propose designation of
these lands as critical habitat. No change is made to this
determination in this revised proposal. Should the status of this
preserve change, for example by non-renewal of a partnership agreement
or termination of funding, we will reconsider whether the lands within
Kanepuu Preserve meet the definition of critical habitat. If so, we
have the authority to propose to amend critical habitat to include such
area at that time 50 CFR 424.12(g).

Issue 4: Mapping and Primary Constituent Elements

(7a) Comment: The designated areas are too large. (7b) Comment: The
units are not large enough, and don't allow for changes that occur
during known environmental processes. (7c) Comment: Make units B, C, D,
E, F, H, I , and J smaller. (7d) Comment: The highly irregular and
fragmented shape of proposed units make it difficult to determine if
projects are within critical habitat.
Our Response: We have revised the proposed designations published
in the December 27, 2000, proposal for Lanai plants to incorporate new
information, and address comments and new information received during
the comment periods. Areas that contain habitat necessary for the
conservation of the species were identified and delineated on a species
by species basis. When species units overlapped, we combined units for
ease of mapping (see also Methods section). The areas we are proposing
to designate as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat
components essential for the conservation of 32 plant species from
Lanai.

Issue 5: Effects of Designation

(8) Comment: Designation of critical habitat will result in
restrictions on subsistence hunting and State hunting programs funded
under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program (Pittman-
Robertson Program).
Our Response: We believe that game bird and mammal hunting in
Hawaii is an important recreational and cultural activity, and we
support the continuation of this tradition. The designation of critical
habitat requires Federal agencies to consult under section 7 of the Act
with us on actions they carry out, fund, or authorize that might
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. This requirement applies
to us and includes funds distributed by the Service to the State
through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program (Pittman-
Robertson Program). Under the Act, activities funded by us or other
Federal agencies cannot result in jeopardy to listed species, and they
cannot adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. It is well
documented that game mammals affect listed plant and animal species. In
such areas, we believe it is important to develop and implement sound
land management programs that provide both for the conservation of
listed species and for continued game hunting. We are committed to
working closely with the State and other interested parties to ensure
that game management programs are implemented consistent with this
need.
(9) Comment: Critical habitat could be the first step toward making
the area a national park or refuge.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation does not in any way
create a wilderness area, preserve, national park, or wildlife refuge,
nor does it close an area to human access or use. Its regulatory
implications apply only to activities sponsored at least in part by
Federal agencies. Land uses such as logging, grazing, and recreation
that may require Federal permits may take place if they do not
adversely modify critical habitat. Critical habitat designations do not
constitute land management plans.

Summary of Changes From the Previous Proposal

[[Page 9826]]

island of Lanai on December 27, 2000. In proposals published on
November 7, 2000, and December 18, 2000, we determined that designation
of critical habitat was prudent for ten plants that are reported from
Lanai as well as from Kauai and Niihau, and Maui and Kahoolawe. These
ten plants are: Bonamia menziesii, Centarium sebaeoides, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana
ssp. grimesiana, Cyrtandra munroi, Hedyotis mannii (we incorrectly
determined prudency for this species in the December 27, 2000, proposal
as well), Hibiscus brackenridgei, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-
wahuensis. In addition, at the time we listed Hedyotis
schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and
Melicope munroi, on September 3, 1999, we determined that the
designation of critical habitat was prudent for these three taxa from
Lanai. No change is made to these 19 prudency determinations in this
revised proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference (64 FR
48307, 65 FR 82086, 65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192).
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we determined that critical
habitat was not prudent for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a
species endemic to Lanai, because it had not been seen since 1914 and
no viable genetic material of this species is known to exist. No change
is made here to the December 27, 2000, prudency determination for
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis and it is hereby incorporated by
reference (65 FR 82086).
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we proposed designation of
critical habitat for 18 plants from the island of Lanai. These species
are: Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bonamia menziesii, Centaurium sebaeoides,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana
var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis,
Melicope munroi, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola lanaiensis. In this proposal, we have
revised the proposed designations for these 18 plants based on new
information received during the comment periods. In addition, we
incorporate new information, and address comments and new information
received during the comment periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal.
In the December 27, 2000, proposal, we did not propose designation
of critical habitat on Lanai for 17 species that no longer occur on
Lanai but are reported from one or more other islands. We determined
that critical habitat was prudent for 16 of these species (Adenophorus
periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta,
Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Mariscus faurei, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa,
Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) in
other proposed rules published on November 7, 2000 (65 FR 66808),
December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79192), December 29, 2000 (65 FR 83157), and
January 28, 2002 (67 FR 3940). In this proposal we incorporate the
prudency determinations for these 16 species and propose designation of
critical habitat for Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata,
Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea,
Sesbania tomentosa, and Solanum incompletum on the island of Lanai,
based on new information and information received during the comment
periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal. Critical habitat is not
proposed on Lanai for Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense because they no longer occur on Lanai and we are
unable to identify habitat which is essential to their conservation on
this island.
In this proposal, we determine that critical habitat is prudent for
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum for which a prudency
determination has not been made previously, and that no longer occurs
on Lanai but is reported from one other island (Oahu). However,
critical habitat for this species is not included in this proposal
because it no longer occurs on Lanai and we are unable to identify
habitat which is essential to its conservation on this island.
Based on a review of new biological information and public comments
received we have revised our December 27, 2000, proposal to incorporate
the following additional changes: 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, such as Hawaiilanui
Gulch within unit Lanai C and Paliamano Gulch within unit Lanai F, that
are essential for the conservation of one or more of the 32 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

[[Page 9827]]

significant threats to the species have been identified to help to
avoid accidental damage to such areas.
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 for six plants (Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia
ssp. gibsonii, Gahnia lanaiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Tetramolopium
remyi, and Viola lanaiensis) from the island of Lanai on December 27,
2000. In proposals published on November 7, 2000, and December 18,
2000, we determined that designation of critical habitat was prudent
for ten plants that are reported from Lanai as well as from Kauai and
Niihau, and Maui and Kahoolawe. These ten plants are: Bonamia
menziesii, Centarium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana,
Cyrtandra munroi, Hedyotis mannii, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-wahuensis. In addition, at the time we listed
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi, on September 3, 1999, we determined
that the designation of critical habitat was prudent for these three
taxa from Lanai. No change is made to these 19 prudency determinations
in this revised proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference
(64 FR 48307, 65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR 82086).
No change is made here to the prudency determination for
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, a species known only from Lanai,
published in the December 27, 2000, proposal and hereby incorporated by
reference (65 FR 82086). Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis has not
been seen on Lanai since 1914. In addition, this plant is not known to
be in storage or under propagation. Given these circumstances, we
determined that designation of critical habitat for Phyllostegia glabra
var. lanaiensis was not prudent because such designation would be of no
benefit to this taxon. 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 the December 27, 2000, proposal, we did not determine prudency
nor propose designation of critical habitat for 17 species that no
longer occur on Lanai but are reported from one or more other islands.
We determined that critical habitat was prudent for 16 of these species
(Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Brighamia
rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Cyperus trachysanthos,
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Hesperomannia arborescens,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Neraudia sericea, Sesbania
tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense) in other proposed rules published on November 7, 2000
(Kauai and Niihau), December 18, 2000 (Maui and Kahoolawe), December
29, 2000 (Molokai), and January 28, 2002 (Kauai reproposal). No change
is made to these prudency determinations for these 16 species in this
proposal and they are hereby incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808, 65
FR 79192, 65 FR 83158, 65 FR 83157, 67 FR 3940). Critical habitat is
not proposed for Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense on the island of Lanai because we are unable to identify
habitat which is essential to their conservation on this island.
To determine whether critical habitat would be prudent for
Tetramolopium lepidotum spp. lepidotum, a species for which a prudency
determination has not been made previously, and that no longer occurs
on Lanai but is reported from one other island (Oahu) we analyzed the
potential threats and benefits for this species in accordance with the
court orders. This plant was listed as an endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) in 1991. At that time,
we determined that designation of critical habitat for Tetramolopium
lepidotum spp. lepidotum was not prudent because

[[Page 9828]]

designation would increase the degree of threat to this species and/or
would not benefit the plant. 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 T. lepidotum ssp. lepidotum 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 T.
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum 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.
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum is reported from Federal lands
on Oahu (the U.S. Army's Schofield Barracks Military Reservation) where
actions are subject to section 7 consultation, as well as on State and
private lands. Although currently there may be limited Federal
activities on these State and private lands, there could be Federal
actions affecting these lands in the future. While a critical habitat
designation for habitat currently occupied by T. lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum 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 this species and dissemination of information regarding
its essential habitat requirements. Therefore, we propose that
designation of critical habitat is prudent for Tetramolopium lepidotum
ssp. lepidotum.

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 Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus
periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia
rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana
ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii,
Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium
molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis
schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea,
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola lanaiensis,
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 36 species; the December 27, 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 island of
Lanai; discussions with botanical experts; and recommendations from the
HPPRCC (see also the discussion below) (Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b,
1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; HPPRCC 1998; HINHP Database 2000, CPC
in litt. 1999; 65 FR 82086; GDSI 2000).
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 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 the 32 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

[[Page 9829]]

protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic
geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we identified the physical and
biological features that are considered essential to the conservation
of the 19 species on the island of Lanai (65 FR 82086). Based on new
information and information received during the comment periods on the
December 27, 2000, proposal we have revised our description of these
physical and biological features in this proposal.
In the December 27, 2000, proposal we did not propose designation
of critical habitat for the 16 species that no longer occur on Lanai
but are reported from one or more other islands and for which we had
determined, in other rules, that designation of critical habitat was
prudent. Based on new information and information received during the
comment periods on the December 27, 2000, proposal, we have identified
the physical and biological features on Lanai that are considered
essential to the conservation of 13 of the 16 species. We are unable to
identify these features for Mariscus faurei, Silene lanceolata, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense, which no longer occur on the island of Lanai,
because information on the physical and biological features (i.e., the
primary constituent elements) that are considered essential to the
conservation of these three species on Lanai is not known. Mariscus
faurei and Silene lanceolata have not been observed on Lanai since 1930
while Zanthoxylum hawaiiense has not been observed on Lanai since 1947,
and we are not able to identify the primary constituent elements that
are considered essential to their conservation on Lanai from the
historical records. 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 these species on the island of Lanai. However,
proposed critical habitat designations for Mariscus fauriei, Silene
lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense were included in proposals
published on November 7, 2000, December 18, 2000, or on December 29,
2000 (65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR 83158). In addition, we will
consider proposing designation of critical habitat for Mariscus
fauriei, Silene lanceolata, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense 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 one species (Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum) for which a prudency determination has not been made
previously, and that no longer occurs on Lanai but is reported from one
other island (Oahu). We are unable to identify the physical and
biological features that are considered essential for the conservation
of Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, which no longer occurs on
the island of Lanai, because information on the physical and biological
features (i.e., the primary constituent elements) that are considered
essential to the conservation of this species on Lanai is not known.
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum has not been observed on Lanai
since 1928, and we are not able to identify the primary constituent
elements that are considered essential to its conservation on Lanai
from the historical record. Therefore, we are not able to identify the
specific areas outside the geographic areas occupied by this species at
the time of its listing (unoccupied habitat or where the species is not
present) that are essential for the conservation of Tetramolopium
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum on the island of Lanai. However, we will
consider proposing designation of critical habitat for Tetramolopium
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum within the historic range for this species on
other Hawaiian islands.
All areas proposed as critical habitat are within the historical
range of one or more of the 32 species at issue and contain one or more
of the 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 32 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 from which the plant species are reported, 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 indicates
information on soil type, elevation, rainfall regime, and temperature.
Elevation indicates information on daily and seasonal temperature 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 the 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 island of Lanai.

D. Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

In the December 27, 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 elevation. The areas we
proposed to designate as critical habitat provide some or all of the
habitat components essential for the conservation of the 18 plant
species. Specific details regarding the delineation of the proposed
critical habitat units are given in the December 27, 2000, proposal (65
FR 82086). In that proposal we did not include potentially suitable
unoccupied habitat that is important to the conservation of the 18
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.
However, following publication of the December 27, 2000 (65 FR
82086) proposal we received new information regarding the physical and
biological features that are considered essential for the conservation
of many of these 32 species and information on potentially suitable
habitat within the historical range for many of these species. Based on
a review of this new biological information and public comments
received following publication of the other three proposals to
designate critical habitat for Hawaiian plants on Kauai and Niihau (65
FR 66808), Maui and Kahoolawe (65 FR 79192), 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.
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;

[[Page 9830]]

Murphy et al. 1990; Taylor 1995). At this time, and consistent with the
listing of these species and their recovery plans, 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, to identify potentially suitable habitat within the known
historic range of each species.
We considered several factors in the selection and proposal of
specific boundaries for critical habitat for these 32 species. For each
of these species, the overall recovery strategy outlined in the
approved recovery plans includes: (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 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001). Thus, the
long-term recovery of these species is dependent upon the protection of
existing population sites and potentially suitable unoccupied habitat
within their 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. 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., Gahnia lanaiensis and Viola
lanaiensis), and the proposed critical habitat designations reflect
this exception for these species. To be considered recovered each
population of a species endemic to the island of Lanai 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 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b,
1999, 2001). A population, for the purposes of this discussion and as
defined in the recovery plans for these species, is a unit in which the
individuals could be regularly cross-pollinated and influenced by the
same small-scale events (such as landslides), and which contains 100,
300, or 500 individuals, depending on whether the species is a long-
lived perennial, short-lived perennial, or annual.
By adopting the specific recovery objectives enumerated above, the
adverse effects of genetic inbreeding and random environmental events
and catastrophes, such as landslides, hurricanes or tsunamis, that
could destroy a large percentage of a 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. While they are expected to be further refined
as more information on the population biology of each species becomes
available, the justification for these objectives is found in the
current conservation biology literature addressing the conservation 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 2001; 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 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 (1996), require
from 50 to 2,500 individuals per population, based largely on research
and theoretical modeling on endangered animals, since much less
research has been done on endangered plants. 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 these
characteristics that can be uniformly applied to all Hawaiian plant
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.
The HPPRCC also recommended the conservation and establishment of 8
to 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 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 2001; 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 plant
species. By maintaining 8 to 10 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

[[Page 9831]]

species of non-native plants and animals. Establishing and conserving 8
to 10 viable populations on one or more island(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 is essential give the
species a reasonable likelihood of long-term survival and recovery,
based on currently available information.
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).
In this proposal, we have defined the primary constituent elements
based on the general habitat features of the areas in which the plants
are reported from such as the type of plant community, the associated
native plant species, the physical location (e.g., steep rocky cliffs,
talus slopes, streambanks), and elevation. The areas we are proposing
to designate as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat
components essential for the conservation of the 32 plant species.
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 conservation 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 our review of current literature on gene flow (Barret and Kohn 1991;
Fenster and Dudash 1994; Havens 1998; M.H. Schierup and F.B.
Christiansen 1996). For each multi-island species we evaluated areas
that have been proposed as critical habitat for each species in other
published critical habitat proposals to determine if additional areas
were essential on Lanai for the conservation of the species. If
additional areas, on Lanai, were determined to be essential for the
species' conservation we then followed the afore-mentioned protocol to
delineate proposed critical habitat for the species.
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
or associated native plant species, as well as features such as
cultivated agriculture fields, housing developments, and other areas
that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of one or more of
the 32 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 for some larger
proposed critical habitat units in order to simplify the unit mapping
and their descriptions.
Within the critical habitat boundaries, section 7 consultation is
generally necessary and 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 defining critical habitat boundaries, we
made an effort to avoid developed areas, such as towns and other
similar lands, that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of
the 32 species. However, the minimum mapping unit that we used to
approximate our delineation of critical habitat for these species did
not allow us to exclude all such developed areas. In addition, existing
man-made features and structures within the boundaries of the mapped
unit, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts, telecommunications
equipment, radars, telemetry antennas, missile launch sites, arboreta
and gardens, heiau (indigenous places of worship or shrines), airports,
other paved areas, and other rural residential landscaped areas do not
contain one or more of the primary constituent elements and would be
excluded under the terms of this proposed regulation. Federal actions
limited to those areas would not trigger a section 7 consultation
unless they affect the species or primary constituent elements in
adjacent critical habitat.
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. Based on the

[[Page 9832]]

best available information, we believe these areas constitute the
habitat necessary on Lanai to provide for the recovery of these 32
species.

E. Managed Lands

Currently occupied and historically known sites containing one or
more of the primary constituent elements considered essential to the
conservation of these 32 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, we contacted the major private landowner on Lanai by mail
and we met with the landowner's representatives in April 2000 to
discuss their current management for the plants on their lands. We also
met with Maui County DOFAW office staff to discuss management
activities they are conducting on Lanai. 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 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 whether a management plan or agreement provides a
conservation benefit to the species, 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 1995, 1996a, 1996b,
1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; 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 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; 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; and
(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 32 species (Service 1995,
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001), 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.
1992). In addition to monitoring the plant populations, these actions
include, but are not limited to: (1) Feral ungulate control; (2)
nonnative 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 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 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999,
2001): 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 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. 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

[[Page 9833]]

requirements of the species and the location(s) of the individual
plants.
As shown in Table 3, the proposed critical habitat designations for
32 species of plants are found on private lands on the island of Lanai.
Information received in response to our public notices, meetings with
representatives of the landowner and Maui County, DOFAW staff, the
December 27, 2000, proposal, public comment periods, and the March 22,
2001, public hearing, as well as information in our files, indicated
that there is little on-going conservation management action for these
plants, except as noted below. Without management plans and assurances
that the plans will be implemented, we are unable to find that the land
in question does not require special management or protection.

Private Lands

One species (Bonamia menziesii) is reported from The Nature
Conservancy of Hawaii's Kanepuu Preserve which is located in the
northeast central portion of Lanai (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; The
Nature Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH) 1997). This preserve was
established by a grant of a perpetual conservation easement from the
private landowner to TNCH and is included in the State's Natural Area
Partnership (NAP) program, which provides matching funds for the
management of private lands that have been permanently dedicated to
conservation (TNCH 1997).
Under the NAP program, the State of Hawaii provides matching funds
on a two-for-one basis for management of private lands dedicated to
conservation. In order to qualify for this program, the land must be
dedicated in perpetuity through transfer of fee title or a conservation
easement to the State or a cooperating entity. The land must be managed
by the cooperating entity or a qualified landowner according to a
detailed management plan approved by the Board of Land and Natural
Resources. Once approved, the 6-year partnership agreement between the
State and the managing entity is automatically renewed each year so
that there is always 6 years remaining in the term, although the
management plan is updated and funding amounts are re-authorized by the
board at least every 6 years. By April 1 of any year, the managing
partner may notify the State that it does not intend to renew the
agreement; however, in such case the partnership agreement remains in
effect for the balance of the existing 6 year term, and the
conservation easement remains in full effect in perpetuity. The
conservation easement may be revoked by the landowner only if State
funding is terminated without the concurrence of the landowner and
cooperating entity. Prior to terminating funding, the State must
conduct one or more public hearings. The NAP program is funded through
real estate conveyance taxes which are placed in a Natural Area Reserve
Fund. Participants in the NAP program must provide annual reports to
the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), and DLNR
makes annual inspections of the work in the reserve areas. See Haw.
Rev. Stat. Secs. 195-1-195-11, and Hawaii Administrative Rules Sec. 13-
210.
The management program within the preserve is documented in long-
range management plans and yearly operational plans. These plans detail
management measures that protect, restore, and enhance the rare plant
and its habitat within the preserve (TNCH 1997, 1998, 1999). These
management measures address the factors which led to the listing of
this species including control of non-native species of ungulates,
rodents, and weeds; and fire control. In addition, habitat restoration
and monitoring are also included in these plans.
The primary goals within Kanepuu Preserve are to: (1) Control non-
native species; (2) suppress wildfires; and (3) restore the integrity
of the dryland forest ecosystem through monitoring and research.
Specific management actions to address feral ungulates include the
replacement of fences around some of the management units with
Benzinal-coated wire fences as well as staff hunting and implementation
of a volunteer hunting program with the DLNR. Additionally, a small
mammal control program has been established to prevent small mammals
from damaging rare native species and limit their impact on the
preserve's overall native biota.
To prevent further displacement of native vegetation by non-native
plants, a non-native plant control plan has been developed, which
includes monitoring of previously treated areas, and the control of
non-native plants in management units with restoration projects.
The fire control program focuses on suppression and pre-
suppression. Suppression activities consist of coordination with State
and county fire-fighting agencies to develop a Wildfire Management Plan
for the preserve (TNCH 1998). Pre-suppression activities include mowing
inside and outside of the fence line to minimize fuels.
A restoration, research, and monitoring program has been developed
at Kanepuu to create a naturally regenerating Nestegis sandwicensis-
Diospyros sandwicensis dryland forest, and expand the current range of
native-dominated vegetation. Several years of casual observation
indicate that substantial natural regeneration is occurring within
native forest patches in the deer-free units (TNCH 1999). A draft of
the Kanepuu Restoration Plan was completed in June 1999. This plan
identifies sites for rare plant outplanting and other restoration
activities. Monitoring is an important component to measure the success
or failure rate of the animal and weed control programs. Management of
these non-native species control programs is continually amended to
preserve the ecological integrity of the preserve.
Because this plant and its habitat within the preserve is protected
and managed, this area is not in need of special management
considerations or protection. Therefore, we have determined that the
private land within Kanepuu Preserve does not meet the definition of
critical habitat in the Act, and we are not proposing to designate this
land as critical habitat. Should the status of this reserve change, for
example, by non-renewal of the partnership agreement or termination of
NAP funding, we will reconsider whether it meets the definition of
critical habitat, and if so, we may propose to amend critical habitat
to include the preserve at that time (50 CFR 424.12(g)).
We believe that Kanepuu Preserve is the only potential critical
habitat area on Lanai at this time that does not require special
management considerations or protection. However, we are specifically
soliciting comments on the appropriateness of this approach. 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 32 listed species at issue in this
proposed designation, in accordance with long term conservation
management 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. We are also soliciting comments on whether future development
and approval of conservation measures (e.g., 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 areas described below constitute our
best

[[Page 9834]]

assessment of the physical and biological features needed for the
conservation of the 32 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 have incomplete information regarding
many of the primary biological and physical requirements for these
species. However, both the Act and the relevant court orders require 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 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.
Proposed critical habitat includes habitat for these 32 species
predominantly on the eastern side of Lanai in the Lanaihale area. Lands
proposed as critical habitat have been divided into 8 units (Lanai A
through Lanai H). A brief description of each unit is presented below.

Table 5.--Approximate Proposed Critical Habitat Area by Unit and Land Ownership or Jurisdiction, Maui County,
Hawaii.\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit name State/Local Private Federal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanai A......................... .................. 574 ha (1,418 ac). .................. 574 ha (1,418 ac)
Lanai B......................... .................. 551 ha (1,363 ac). .................. 551 ha (1,363 ac)
Lanai C......................... .................. 222 ha (549 ac)... .................. 222 ha (549 ac)
Lanai D......................... .................. 5,861 ha (14,482 .................. 5,861 ha (14,482
ac). ac)
Lanai E......................... .................. 162 ha (400 ac)... .................. 162 ha (400 ac)
Lanai F......................... .................. 331 ha (818 ac)... .................. 331 ha (818 ac)
Lanai G......................... .................. 151 ha (373 ac)... .................. 151 ha (373 ac)
Lanai H......................... .................. 1 ha (2 ac)....... .................. 1 ha (2 ac)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................. .................. 7,853 ha (19,405 .................. 7,853 ha (19,405
ac). ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Area differences due to digital mapping discrepancies between TMK data (GDSI 2000) and USGS coastline, or
difference due to rounding.

Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units

Lanai A

The proposed unit Lanai A provides occupied habitat for one
species, Hibiscus brackenridgei. It is proposed for designation because
it contains the physical and biological features that are considered
essential for its conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to
support one or more of the 8 to10 populations and 300 mature
individuals per population for Hibiscus brackenridgei, throughout its
known historical range considered by the recovery plan to be necessary
for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai A below).
This unit provides unoccupied habitat for one species, Cyperus
trachysanthos. 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 Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or more additional
populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives for this species
of 8 to 10 populations, with 300 mature individuals per population,
throughout its known historical range considered by the recovery plan
to be necessary for the conservation of this species (see the
discussion of conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai
A below).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9835]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9836]]

The unit contains a total of 574 ha (1,418 ac) on privately owned
land. It is bounded on the north by Puumaiekahi watershed and on the
south by Kaapahu watershed. The natural features include: Kaea, Kaena
Point, Kaenaiki Cape, and Keanapapa Point.

Lanai B

The proposed unit Lanai B provides occupied habitat for one
species, Tetramolopium remyi. It is proposed for designation because it
contains the physical and biological features that are considered
essential for its conservation on Lanai and provides habitat to support
one or more of the 8 to10 populations of 300 mature individuals per
population for Tetramolopium remyi, throughout its known historical
range considered by the recovery plan to be necessary for the
conservation of this species (see the discussion of conservation
requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai B below).
The unit contains a total of 551 ha (1,363 ac) on privately owned
land. It is bounded on the west by Puumaiekahi watershed and on the
east by Lapaiki watershed. The natural features include: Puumaiekahi
Gulch and Lapaiki Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9837]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9838]]

Lanai C

The proposed unit Lanai C provides unoccupied habitat for one
species, Sesbania tomentosa. Designation of this unit is essential to
the conservation of S. tomentosa because it contains the physical and
biological features that are considered essential for its conservation
on Lanai, and it provides habitat to support one or more additional
populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives, throughout its
known historical range, of 8 to 10 populations with 300 mature
individuals per population considered by the recovery plan to be
necessary for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai C below).
The unit contains a total of 222 ha (549 ac) on privately owned
land. It is bounded on the west by Lapaiki watershed and on the east by
Hawaiilanui watershed. The natural features include: Hawaiilanui Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9839]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9840]]

Lanai D

The proposed unit Lanai D provides occupied habitat for 17 species:
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bonamia menziesii, Centaurium sebaeoides,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana
var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis,
Melicope munroi, Spermolepis hawaiiense, Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola
lanaiensis. It is proposed for designation because it contains the
physical and biological features that are considered essential for
their conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or
more of the 8 to 10 populations of 100 mature individuals per
population for Abutilon eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia ssp.
gibsonii, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, and Melicope munroi, or
300 mature individuals per population for Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana
ssp. grimesiana, Cyrtandra munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii,
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Tetramolopium remyi, and Viola lanaiensis, or 500 mature individuals
per population for Centaurium sebaeoides and Spermolepis hawaiiense
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) (see Table Lanai
D below). This unit provides unoccupied habitat for 11 species:
Adenophorus periens, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea
lobata, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis, Hesperomannia
arborescens, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, Solanum
incompletum, and Vigna o-wahuensis. 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 Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or
more additional populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives
of 8 to 10 populations for each species of 100 mature individuals per
population for Brighamia rockii and Hesperomannia arborescens, or 300
mature individuals per population for Adenophorus periens, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Neraudia sericea, Solanum incompletum, and
Vigna o-wahuensis 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) (see
Table Lanai D below).
The unit contains a total of 5,861 ha (14,482 ac) on privately
owned land. It is in portions of the Awehi, Halulu, Haua, Hauola, Kaa,
Kahea, Kapoho, Kapua, Kuahua, Lopa, Maunalei, Naha, Nahoko, Palawai
Basin, Poaiwa, Wahane, and Waiopa watersheds. The natural features
include: Haalelepaakai (summit), Hookio Gulch, Kaaealii (summit),
Kaapahu (summit), Kahinahina Ridge, Kamiki Ridge, Kaonohiokala Ridge,
Kauiki (summit), Lanaihale (summit), Naio Gulch, Palea Ridge, Puhielelu
Ridge, Puu Aalii, Puu Alii, Puu Kole, Puu Nene, Umi, Mauna o (summit),
Waialala Gulch, and Wawaeku (summit).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9841]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.003
[[Page 9842]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.004
[[Page 9843]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.005
[[Page 9844]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.006
[[Page 9845]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.007
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9846]]

Lanai E

The proposed unit Lanai E (units E1, E2, and E3) provides
unoccupied habitat for one species, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha.
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 Lanai, and provides
habitat to support one or more additional populations necessary to meet
the recovery objectives of 8 to 10 populations of 300 mature
individuals per population, throughout its known historical range
considered by the recovery plan to be necessary for the conservation of
this species (see the discussion of conservation requirements in
Section D) (see Table Lanai E below).
The unit cluster contains a total of 162 ha (400 ac) on privately
owned land. It is contained in the Palawai Basin watershed. The natural
features include: in E1, Kapohaku Gulch; in E2, Waiakaiole Gulch and
Waipaa Gulch; and in E3, Palikoae Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9847]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.008
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9848]]

Lanai F

The proposed unit Lanai F provides unoccupied habitat for one
species, Hibiscus brackenridgei. 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 Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or more
additional populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives of 8
to 10 populations of 300 mature individuals per population, throughout
its known historical range considered by the recovery plan to be
necessary for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai F below).
The unit contains a total of 331 ha (818 ac) on privately owned
land. It is completely within the Paliamano watershed. The natural
features include: Paliamano Gulch.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9849]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.009
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9850]]

Lanai G

The proposed unit Lanai G provides unoccupied habitat for one
species, Portulaca sclerocarpa. 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 Lanai, and provides habitat to support one or more
additional populations necessary to meet the recovery objectives of 8
to 10 populations of 300 mature individuals per population, throughout
its known historical range considered by the recovery plan to be
necessary for the conservation of this species (see the discussion of
conservation requirements in Section D) (see Table Lanai G below).
The unit contains a total of 151 ha (373 ac) on privately owned
land. It is bounded on the west by Anapuka watershed and on the east by
Manele watershed. The natural features include: Huawai Bay, Kaluakoi
Point, and the western portion of Kapihua Bay.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9851]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.010
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9852]]

Lanai H

The proposed unit Lanai H provides occupied habitat for one
species, Portulaca sclerocarpa. It is proposed for designation because
it contains the physical and biological features that are considered
essential for its conservation on Lanai, and provides habitat to
support one or more of the 8 to 10 populations of 300 mature
individuals per population, throughout its known historical range
considered by the recovery plan to be necessary for the conservation of
the species (see the discussion of conservation requirements in Section
D) (see Table Lanai H below).
The unit contains a total of 1 ha (2 ac) on privately owned land.
The natural features include: Poopoo Islet.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 9853]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.011
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 9854]]

Key for Tables Lanai A-H
Not all suitable habitat is proposed to be
designated, only those areas essential to the conservation of the
species.
1. This unit is needed to meet the recovery plan objectives of 8
to 10 viable populations (self-perpetuating and sustaining for at
least 5 years) with 100 to 500 mature, reproducing individuals per
species throughout its historical range as specified in the recovery
plans.
2. Island endemic.
3. Multi-island species with current locations on other islands.
4. Multi-island species with no current locations on other
islands.
5. Current locations do not necessarily represent viable
populations with the required number of mature individuals.
6. Several current locations may be affected by one naturally
occurring, catastrophic event.
7. Species with variable habitat requirements, usually over wide
areas. Wide ranging species require more space per individual over
more land area to provide needed primary constituent elements to
maintain healthy population size.
8. Not all currently occupied habitat was determined to be
essential to the recovery of the species.
9. Life history, long-lived perennial--100 mature, reproducing
individuals needed per population.
10. Life history, short-lived perennial--300 mature, reproducing
individuals needed per population.
11. Life history, annual--500 mature, reproducing individuals
needed per population.
12. Narrow endemic, the species probably never naturally
occurred in more than a single or a few populations.
13. Species has extremely restricted, specific habitat
requirements.
14. Hybridization is possible so distinct populations of related
species should not overlap, requiring more land area.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out, do
not destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. Destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a Federal action
directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent it
appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the
conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States, local
governments, and other non-Federal entities are affected by the
designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on Federal
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or
involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened, and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated or proposed. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. Conference reports
provide conservation recommendations to assist the agency in
eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The
conservation measures in a conference report are advisory.
We may issue a formal conference report, if requested by the
Federal action agency. Formal conference reports include an opinion
that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14 as if a species was listed
or critical habitat was designated. We may adopt the formal conference
report as the biological opinion when the species is listed or critical
habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or changes in
the action alter the content of the opinion. (See 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the
Federal action agency would ensure that the permitted actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement, or control has been retained or is
authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request
reinitiation of consultation or conferencing with us on actions for
which formal consultation has been completed if those actions may
affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy
proposed critical habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during
consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of
the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director
believes would avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight
project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect critical habitat of one
or more of the 32 plant species will require Section 7 consultation.
Activities on private or State lands requiring a permit from a Federal
agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.), or a
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from us, or some other Federal action,
including funding (e.g. from the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)), permits from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, activities funded by the EPA, Department of Energy, or any
other Federal agency; regulation of airport improvement activities by
the FAA; and construction of communication sites licensed by the
Federal Communication Commission will also continue to be subject to
the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting
critical habitat and actions on non-Federal lands that are not
federally funded, authorized, or permitted do not require section 7
consultation.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. We
note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence
of the species.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat include, but are not limited to--
(1) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy the primary
constituent elements including, but not limited to: overgrazing;
maintenance of feral

[[Page 9855]]

ungulates; clearing or cutting of native live trees and shrubs, whether
by burning or mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., woodcutting,
bulldozing, construction, road building, mining, herbicide
application); introducing or enabling the spread of non-native species;
and taking actions that pose a risk of fire;
(2) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural, dynamic
wetland or other vegetative communities. Such activities may include
water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping,
manipulation of vegetation such as timber harvesting, residential and
commercial development, and grazing of livestock or horses that
degrades watershed values;
(3) Rural residential construction that includes concrete pads for
foundations and the installation of septic systems in wetlands where a
permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required by
the Corps;
(4) Recreational activities that appreciably degrade vegetation;
(5) Mining of sand or other minerals;
(6) Introducing or encouraging the spread of non-native plant
species into critical habitat units; and
(7) Importation of non-native species for research, agriculture,
and aquaculture, and the release of biological control agents that
would have unanticipated effects on the listed species and the primary
constituent elements of their habitat.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed
plants and animals, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered
Species/Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
(telephone 503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

Economic and Other Relevant Impacts

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned. We
will conduct an analysis of the economic impacts of designating these
areas as critical habitat in light of this new proposal and in
accordance with recent decisions in the N.M. Cattlegrowers Ass'n v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001) prior to a
final determination. The economic analysis will include detailed
information on the baseline costs and benefits attributable to listing
these 32 plant species, where such estimates are available. This
information on the baseline will allow a fuller appreciation of the
economic impacts associated with listing and with critical habitat
designation. When completed, we will announce the availability of the
draft economic analysis with a notice in the Federal Register, and we
will open a public comment period on the draft economic analysis and
reopen the comment period on the proposed rule at that time.
We will utilize the final economic analysis, and take into
consideration all comments and information regarding economic or other
impacts submitted during the public comment period to make final
critical habitat designations. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as part of critical
habitat; however, we cannot exclude areas from critical habitat when
such exclusion will result in the extinction of the species.

Public Comments Solicited

It is our intent that any final action resulting from this proposal
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule.
We invite comments from the public that provide information on
whether lands within proposed critical habitat are currently being
managed to address conservation needs of these listed plants. As stated
earlier in this revised proposed rule, if we receive information that
any of the areas proposed as critical habitat are adequately managed,
we may delete such areas from the final rule, because they would not
meet the definition in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. In determining
adequacy of management, we must find that the management effort is
sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective so as to
contribute to the elimination or adequate reduction of relevant threats
to the species.
We are soliciting comment in this revised proposed rule on whether
current land management plans or practices applied within areas
proposed as critical habitat adequately address the threats to these
listed species.
We are aware that the State of Hawaii and the private landowner is
considering the development and implementation of land management plans
or agreements that may promote the conservation and recovery of
endangered and threatened plant species on the island of Lanai. We are
soliciting comments in this proposed rule on whether current land
management plans or practices applied within the areas proposed as
critical habitat provide for the conservation of the species by
adequately addressing the threats. We are also soliciting comments on
whether future development and approval of conservation measures (e.g.,
HCPs, Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements) should be
excluded from critical habitat and if so, by what mechanism.
In addition, we are seeking comments on the following:
(1) The reasons why critical habitat for any of these species is
prudent or not prudent as provided by section 4 of the Act and 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1), including those species for which prudency determinations
have been published in previous proposed rules and which have been
incorporated by reference;
(2) The reasons why any particular area should or should not be
designated as critical habitat for any of these species, as critical
habitat is defined by section 3 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532 (5));
(3) Specific information on the amount and distribution of habitat
for the 32 species, and what habitat is essential to the conservation
of the species and why;
(4) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(5) Any economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed
designations of critical habitat, including any impacts on small
entities or families;
(6) Economic and other potential values associated with designating
critical habitat for the above plant species such as those derived from
non-consumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, birding, enhanced
watershed protection, increased soil retention, ``existence values,''
and reductions in administrative costs); and
(7) The methodology we might use, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act,
in

[[Page 9856]]

determining if the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law.
There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold
your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at
the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous
comments. To the extent consistent with applicable law, we will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address (see ADDRESSES section).
The comment period closes on May 3, 2002. Written comments should
be submitted to the Service Office listed in the ADDRESSES section. We
are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned
governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the proposed rule.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose
of such a review is to ensure listing and critical habitat decisions
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We
will send copies of this proposed rule to these peer reviewers
immediately following publication in the Federal Register. We will
invite the peer reviewers to comment, during the public comment period,
on the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed
designations of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and data received during the 60-day
comment period on this revised proposed rule during preparation of a
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this
proposal.

Clarity of the Rule

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations and
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to
make this proposed rule easier to understand including answers to
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain
technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does
the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the
description of the proposed rule in the ``Supplementary Information''
section of the preamble helpful in understanding the document? (5) What
else could we do to make the proposed rule easier to understand?
Please send any comments that concern how we could make this notice
easier to understand to the Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Office
(see ADDRESSES).

Taxonomic Changes

At the time we listed Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana and Cyanea
lobata we followed the taxonomic treatments in Wagner et al. (1990),
the widely used and accepted Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii.
Subsequent to the final listing we became aware of new taxonomic
treatments of these species. Due to the court-ordered deadlines we are
required to publish this proposal to designate critical habitat on
Lanai before we can prepare and publish a notice of taxonomic changes
for these two species. We plan to publish a taxonomic change notice for
these two species after we have published the final critical habitat
designations on Lanai. At that time we will evaluate the critical
habitat designations on Lanai for these two species in light of any
changes that may result from taxonomic changes in each species current
and historical range and primary constituent elements.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule and was reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in accordance with the four criteria discussed below. We
are preparing an economic analysis of this proposed action, which will
be available for public comment, to determine the economic consequences
of designating the specific areas identified as critical habitat. The
availability of the draft economic analysis will be announced in the
Federal Register so that it is available for public review and comment.
a. We will prepare an economic analysis to assist us in considering
whether areas should be excluded pursuant to section 4 of the Act, we
do not believe this rule will have an annual economic effect of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a
sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or State or local governments or
communities. Therefore, at this time, we do not believe a cost benefit
and economic analysis pursuant to Executive Order 12866 is required. We
will revisit this if the economic analysis indicates greater impacts
than currently anticipated.
The dates for which the 32 plant species were listed as threatened
or endangered can be found in Table 4(b). Consequently, and as needed,
we will conduct formal and informal section 7 consultations with other
Federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the
continued existence of these species. Under the Act, critical habitat
may not be adversely modified by a Federal agency action. Critical
habitat does not impose any restrictions on non-Federal persons unless
they are conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored,
authorized, or permitted by a Federal agency (see Table 6).

[[Page 9857]]

Table 6.--Impacts of Critical Habitat Designation for 32 Plants From the Island of Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional activities
Activities potentially affected by species potentially affected by
Categories of activities listing only critical habitat
designation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal activities potentially Activities the Federal Government (e.g., Army These same activities
affected.\2\. Corps of Engineers, Department of carried out by Federal
Transportation, Department of Defense, Agencies in designated
Department of Agriculture, Environmental areas where section 7
Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management consultations would
Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, not have occurred but
Federal Communications Commission, Department for the critical
of the Interior) carries out or that require a habitat designation.
Federal action (permit, authorization, or
funding) and may remove or destroy habitat for
these plants by mechanical, chemical, or other
means (e.g., overgrazing, clearing, cutting
native live trees and shrubs, water diversion,
impoundment, groundwater pumping, road
building, mining, herbicide application,
recreational use etc.) or appreciably decrease
habitat value or quality through indirect
effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of exotic
plants or animals, fragmentation of habitat)..
Private or other non-Federal Activities that require a Federal action These same activities
Activities Potentially Affected.\3\. (permit, authorization, or funding) and may carried out by Federal
remove or destory habitat for these plants by agencies in desgianted
mechanical, chemical, or other means (e.g., areas where section 7
overgrazing, clearing, cutting native live consultations would
trees and shrubs, water diversion, impoundment, not have occurred but
groundwater pumping, road building, mining, for the critical
herbicide application, recreational use etc.) habitat designation.
or appreciably decrease habitat value or
quality through indirect effects (e.g., edge
effects, invasion of exotic plants or animals,
fragmentation of habitat).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This column represents activities potentially affected by the critical habitat designation in addition to
those activities potentially affected by listing the species.
\2\ Activities initiated by a Federal agency.
\3\ Activities initiated by a private or other non-Federal entity that may need Federal authorization or
funding.

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that they
do not jeopardize the continued existence of these species. Based on
our experience with these species and their needs, we conclude that
most Federal or federally-authorized actions that could potentially
cause an adverse modification of the proposed critical habitat would
currently be considered as ``jeopardy'' under the Act in areas occupied
by the species because consultation would already be required due to
the presence of the listed species, and the duty to avoid adverse
modification of critical habitat would not trigger additional
regulatory impacts beyond the duty to avoid jeopardizing the species.
Accordingly, we do not expect the designation of currently occupied
areas as critical habitat to have any additional incremental impacts on
what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons that receive Federal authorization or funding.
The designation of areas as critical habitat where section 7
consultations would not have occurred but for the critical habitat
designation (that is, in areas currently unoccupied by listed species),
may have impacts that are not attributable to the species listing on
what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-
Federal persons who receive Federal authorization or funding. We will
evaluate any impact through our economic analysis (under section 4 of
the Act; see Economic Analysis section of this rule). Non-Federal
persons who do not have a Federal nexus with their actions are not
restricted by the designation of critical habitat.
b. We do not expect this rule to create inconsistencies with other
agencies' actions. As discussed above, Federal agencies have been
required to ensure that their actions not jeopardize the continued
existence of the 32 plant species since their listing between 1991 and
1999. For the reasons discussed above, the prohibition against adverse
modification of critical habitat would be expected to impose few, if
any, additional restrictions to those that currently exist in the
proposed critical habitat on currently occupied lands. However, we will
evaluate any impact of designating areas where section 7 consultations
would not have occurred but for the critical habitat designation
through our economic analysis. Because of the potential for impacts on
other Federal agency activities, we will continue to review this
proposed action for any inconsistencies with other Federal agency
actions.
c. We do not expect this proposed rule, if made final, to
significantly affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies are
currently required to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize
the continued existence of a listed species, and, as discussed above,
we do not anticipate that the adverse modification prohibition,
resulting from critical habitat designation will have any incremental
effects in areas of occupied habitat on any Federal entitlement, grant,
or loan program. We will evaluate any impact of designating areas where
section 7 consultation would not have occurred but for the critical
habitat designation through our economic analysis.
d. OMB has determined that this rule may raise novel legal or
policy issues and, as a result, this rule has undergone OMB review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA also amended the RFA to require a certification
statement. In today's rule, we are certifying that the rule will not
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities

[[Page 9858]]

because the lands which are proposed for critical habitat designation
are solely owned by one landowner, Castle and Cooke Resorts, which is
not a small entity as defined below. However, should our economic
analysis provide a contrary indication, we will revisit this
determination at that time. The following discussion explains our
rationale.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
non-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer
than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we consider the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing development,
grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting, etc.). We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their
activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are
not affected by the designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies are already required to consult with us under section
7 of the Act on activities that they fund, permit, or implement that
may affect Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana,
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos,
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia
lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi,
Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis. If these critical habitat designations
are finalized, Federal agencies must also consult with us if their
activities may affect designated critical habitat. However, in areas
where the species is present, we do not believe this will result in any
additional regulatory burden on Federal agencies or their applicants
because consultation would already be required due to the presence of
the listed species, and the duty to avoid adverse modification of
critical habitat likely would not trigger additional regulatory impacts
beyond the duty to avoid jeopardizing the species.
Even if the duty to avoid adverse modification does not trigger
additional regulatory impacts in areas where the species is present,
designation of critical habitat could result in an additional economic
burden on small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal activities. However, since these 32
plant species were listed (between 1991 and 1999), there have been no
formal consultations and seven informal consultations, in addition to
consultations on Federal grants to State wildlife programs, which would
not affect small entities. Two informal consultations were conducted on
behalf of a private consulting firm, representing Maui Electric
Company, who requested species lists for a proposed generating station
at Miki Basin. None of the 32 species were reported from this area. Two
informal consultations were conducted on behalf of the Federal Aviation
Administration for airport navigational or improvement projects. None
of the 32 species were reported from the project areas. One informal
consultation was conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Navy
regarding nighttime, low-altitude terrain flights and confined area
landings over and on limited areas of northwestern Lanai by the Marine
Corps. None of the 32 species were reported from the project area. One
informal consultation was conducted on behalf of NRCS for the
construction of a wildlife exclusion fence and removal of alien
ungulates from the enclosure, control of invasive alien plants within
the enclosure, and outplanting of native plants in the Lanaihale
watershed area. Thirty of the 32 species, Adenophorus periens, Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana,
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos,
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia
lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia
var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola
lanaiensis were reported from the project area. Funding for the project
will be provided by NRCS, through their Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program, to Castle and Cooke Resorts. One informal consultation was
conducted on behalf of the Service, for the effects of fencing and
replanting on listed and endangered species within Awehi Gulch. None of
the 32 species were reported from the Awehi Gulch project area. In
addition, we are in the early stages of defining a project area in the
Lanaihale watershed for fencing and restoration of native vegetation.
Funding for the project will be provided by the Service to Castle and
Cooke Resorts, in partnership with the State Department of Land and
Natural Resources.
We have determined that Maui Electric Company is not a small entity
because it is not an independent non-profit organization, small
governmental jurisdiction, nor a small business. The Federal Aviation
Administration, U.S. Department of the Navy, and NRCS are not small
entities. The informal consultations on the Lanaihale watershed area
project and the Awehi Gulch project indirectly affected or concerned
the major landowner on Lanai, Castle and Cooke Resorts. We have
determined that Castle and Cooke Resorts is not a small entity because
it is not a small retail and service business with less than $5 million
in annual sales nor is it a small agricultural business with annual
sales less than $750,000.

[[Page 9859]]

We concurred with NRCS's determination that the Lanaihale watershed
area project, as proposed, and the only project in which any of the
plant species at issue were reported in, was not likely to adversely
affect listed species. At this time, only the Lanaihale watershed area
project is ongoing. Therefore, the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing projects will not affect a substantial number
of small entities on Lanai.
In areas where the species is clearly not present, designation of
critical habitat could trigger additional review of Federal activities
under section 7 of the Act, that would otherwise not be required.
However, there will be little additional impact on State and local
governments and their activities because all but one of the proposed
critical habitat areas are occupied by at least one species. Other than
the Federally funded habitat restoration projects in the Lanaihale
watershed area, we are aware of relatively few activities in the
proposed critical habitat areas for these 32 plants that have Federal
involvement, and thus, would require consultation for on-going
projects. As mentioned above, currently we have conducted only seven
informal consultations under section 7 on Lanai, and only one
consultation involved any of the 32 species. As a result, we can not
easily identify future consultations that may be due to the listing of
the species or the increment of additional consultations that may be
required by this critical habitat designation. Therefore, for the
purposes of this review and certification under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, we are assuming that any future consultations in the
area proposed as critical habitat will be due to the critical habitat
designations.
On Lanai, all of the proposed designations are on private land
under one landowner. Nearly all of the land within the critical habitat
units is unsuitable for development, land uses, and activities. This is
due to their remote locations, lack of access, and rugged terrain. The
majority of this land (about 71 percent) is within the State
Conservation District where State land-use controls severely limit
development and most activities. Approximately 27 percent of this land
is within the State Agricultural District, approximately less than one
percent is within the State Urban District and approximately less than
one percent is within the State Rural District. On non-Federal lands,
activities that lack Federal involvement would not be affected by the
critical habitat designations. However, activities of an economic
nature that are likely to occur on non-Federal lands in the area
encompassed by these proposed designations consist of improvements in
communications and tracking facilities; ranching; road improvements;
recreational use such as hiking, camping, picnicking, game hunting,
fishing; botanical gardens; and, crop farming. With the exception of
communications and tracking facilities improvements by the Federal
Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, these
activities are unlikely to have Federal involvement. On lands that are
in agricultural production, the types of activities that might trigger
a consultation include irrigation ditch system projects that may
require section 404 authorizations from the Corps, and watershed
management and restoration projects sponsored by NRCS. However the NRCS
restoration projects typically are voluntary, and the irrigation ditch
system projects within lands that are in agricultural production are
rare, and would likely affect only the major landowner on the island
(who is not a small entity), within these proposed critical habitat
designations.
Lands that are within the State Urban District are located within
undeveloped coastal areas. The types of activities that might trigger a
consultation include shoreline restoration or modification projects
that may require section 404 authorizations from the Corps or FEMA,
housing or resort development that may require permits from the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and activities funded or
authorized by the EPA. However, we are not aware of a significant
number of future activities that would be federal funds, permits, or
authorizations in these coastal areas.
Lands that are within the State Rural District are primarily
located within undeveloped coastal areas. The types of activities that
might trigger a consultation include shoreline restoration or
modification projects that may require section 404 authorizations from
the Corps or FEMA, housing or resort development that may require
permits from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, small
farms that may receive funding or require authorizations from the
Department of Agriculture, watershed management and restoration
projects sponsored by NRCS, and activities funded or authorized by the
EPA. However, we are not aware of a significant number of future
activities that would require federal funds, permits, or authorizations
in these coastal areas.
Even where the requirements of section 7 might apply due to
critical habitat, based on our experience with section 7 consultations
for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those that,
in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse
modification determinations under section 7--can be implemented
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent
alternatives. These measures must be economically feasible and within
the scope of authority of the Federal agency involved in the
consultation. As we have a very limited consultation history for these
32 species from Lanai, we can only describe the general kinds of
actions that may be identified in future reasonable and prudent
alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs of
these species and the threats they face, especially as described in the
final listing rules and in this proposed critical habitat designation,
as well as our experience with similar listed plants in Hawaii. In
addition, all of these species are protected under the State of
Hawaii's Endangered Species Act (Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chap. 195D-
4). Therefore, we have also considered the kinds of actions required
under the State licensing process for these species. The kinds of
actions that may be included in future reasonable and prudent
alternatives include conservation set-asides, management of competing
non-native species, restoration of degraded habitat, propagation,
outplanting and augmentation of existing populations, construction of
protective fencing, and periodic monitoring. These measures are not
likely to result in a significant economic impact to a substantial
number of small entities because any measure included as a reasonable
and prudent alternative would have to be economically feasible to the
individual landowner, and because as discussed above, we do not believe
there will be a substantial number of small entities affected by Act's
consultation requirements.
As required under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we will conduct an
analysis of the potential economic impacts of this proposed critical
habitat designation, and will make that analysis available for public
review and comment before finalizing these designations.
In summary, as stated above, this proposed rule would not affect
small entities because all of the designations are on lands under one
landownership. The landowner is not a small entity and, therefore, this
proposed rule would not affect a substantial number of small entities
and would not result in a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities. Most of this private land within the

[[Page 9860]]

proposed designation is currently being used for recreational or
conservation purposes, and therefore, not likely to require any Federal
authorization. In the remaining areas, Federal involvement--and thus
section 7 consultations, the only trigger for economic impact under
this rule--would be limited to a subset of the area proposed. The most
likely future section 7 consultations resulting from this rule would be
for informal consultations on federally funded land and water
conservation projects, species-specific surveys and research projects,
and watershed management and restoration projects sponsored by NRCS.
These consultations would likely occur on only a subset of the total
number of parcels, all under one ownership, and, therefore, would not
affect a substantial number of small entities. This rule would result
in project modifications only when proposed Federal activities would
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. While this may occur, it
is not expected frequently enough to affect the single landowner. Even
when it does occur, we do not expect it to result in a significant
economic impact, as the measures included in reasonable and prudent
alternatives must be economically feasible and consistent with the
proposed action. Therefore, we are certifying that the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the following species: Abutilon
eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium
sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea
macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra munroi,
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis
mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia
arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola
lanaiensis will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. However, should the economic analysis of this
rule indicate otherwise, or should landownership change on the island
of Lanai, we will revisit this determination.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
a. We believe this rule, as proposed, will not ``significantly or
uniquely'' affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is
not required. Small governments will not be affected unless they
propose an action requiring Federal funds, permits or other
authorizations. Any such activities will require that the Federal
agency ensure that the action will not adversely modify or destroy
designated critical habitat. However, as discussed above, these actions
are currently subject to equivalent restrictions through the listing
protections of the species, and no further restrictions are anticipated
to result from critical habitat designation of occupied areas. In our
economic analysis, we will evaluate any impact of designating areas
where section 7 consultations would not have occurred but for the
critical habitat designation.
b. This rule, as proposed, will not produce a Federal mandate on
State or local governments or the private sector of $100 million or
greater in any year, that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of
critical habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the 32 species from Lanai in a
preliminary takings implication assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this proposed rule does not pose significant
takings implications. Once the economic analysis is completed for this
proposed rule, we will review and revise this preliminary assessment as
warranted.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of Interior policy, we requested
information from appropriate State agencies in Hawaii. The designation
of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by one or more of the
32 plant species imposes no additional restrictions to those currently
in place, and, therefore, has little incremental impact on State and
local governments and their activities. The designation of critical
habitat in unoccupied areas may require section 7 consultation on non
Federal lands (where a Federal nexus occurs) that might otherwise not
have occurred. However, there will be little additional impact on State
and local governments and their activities because only 4 of 8 areas
are occupied by at least one species. The designations may have some
benefit to these governments in that the areas essential to the
conservation of these species are more clearly defined, and the primary
constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival of the
species are specifically identified. While this definition and
identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist these local governments in long
range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7
consultation to occur.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and does meet the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We are proposing to designate critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The rule
uses standard property descriptions and identifies the primary
constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the public
in understanding the habitat needs of the 32 plant species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of

[[Page 9861]]

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with
regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reason for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This proposed determination does not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) Executive Order 13175 and 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have
determined that there are no Tribal lands essential for the
conservation of these 32 plant species. Therefore, designation of
critical habitat for these 32 species has not been proposed on Tribal
lands.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available upon request from the Pacific Islands Office (see ADDRESSES
section).

Authors

The primary authors of this notice are Marigold Zoll, Christa
Russell, Michelle Stephens, and Gregory Koob (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In Sec. 17.12(h) revise the entries for Abutilon eremitopetalum,
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii,
Cenchrus agrimonioides, Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. mauiensis, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata,
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyperus trachysanthos, Cyrtandra
munroi, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana
var. remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope
munroi, Neraudia sericea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa,
Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium remyi,
Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' and
Adenophorus periens, Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta, and Diplazium
molokaiense under ``FERNS AND ALLIES'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
-------------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When Critical Special
Scientific name Common name listed habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants

* * * * * * *
Abutilon eremitopetalum.......... none................ U.S.A (HI)......... Malvaceae.......... E 435 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha.. Kookoolau........... U.S.A (HI)......... Asteraceae......... E 467 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Bonamia menziesii................ none................ U.S.A (HI)......... Convolvulaceae..... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Brighamia rockii................. Pua ala............. U.S.A (HI)......... Campanulaceae...... E 530 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Cenchrus agromonioides........... Kamanomano U.S.A (HI)......... Poaceae............ E 592 17.96(a) NA
(=sandbur,
agrimony).

* * * * * * *
Centaurium sebaeoides............ Awiwi............... U.S.A (HI)......... Gentianaceae....... E 448 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. Oha wai............. U.S.A (HI)......... Campanulaceae...... E 467 17.96(a) NA
mauiensis.

* * * * * * *
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana Haha................ U.S.A (HI)......... Campanulaceae...... E 592 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Cyanea lobata.................... Haha................ U.S.A (HI)......... Campanulaceae...... E 467 17.96(a) NA

[[Page 9862]]

* * * * * * *
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii. none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Campanulaceae...... E 592 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Cyperus trachysanthos............ Puukaa.............. U.S.A. (HI)........ Cyperaceae......... E 592 17.96(a) (NA)

* * * * * * *
Cyrtandra munroi................. Haiwale............. U.S.A. (HI)........ Gesneriaceae....... E 467 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Gahnia lanaiensis................ none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Cyperaceae......... E 435 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Hedyotis mannii.................. Pilo................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Rubiaceae.......... E 480 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Hedyotis sclechtendahliana var. Kopa................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Rubiaceae.......... E 441 17.96(a) NA
remyi.

* * * * * * *
Hesperomannia arborescens........ none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Asteraceae......... E 536 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Hibiscus brackenridgei........... Mao hau hele........ U.S.A. (HI)........ Malvaceae.......... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Isodendrion pyrifolium........... Wahine noho kula.... U.S.A. (HI)........ Violaceae.......... E 532 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Labordia tinifolia var. Kamakahala.......... U.S.A. (HI)........ Loganiaceae........ E 666 17.96(a) NA
lanaiensis.

* * * * * * *
Melicope munroi.................. Alani............... U.S.A. (HI)........ Rutaceae........... E 666 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Neraudia sericea................. none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Urticaceae......... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Portulaca sclerocarpa............ Poe................. U.S.A. (HI)........ Portulacaceae...... E 432 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Sesbania tomentosa............... Ohai................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Fabaceae........... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Solanum incompletum.............. Popolo ku mai....... U.S.A. (HI)........ Solanaceae......... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Spermolepis hawaiiensis.......... none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Apiaceae........... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Tetramalopium remyi.............. none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Asteraceae......... E 435 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Vigna o-wahuensis................ none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Fabaceae........... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Viola lanaiensis................. none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Violaceae.......... E 435 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Ferns and Allies

Adenophorus periens.............. Pendant kihi fern... U.S.A. (HI)........ Grammitidaceae..... E 559 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Ctenitis squamigera.............. Pauoa............... U.S.A. (HI)........ Aspleniaceae....... E 553 17.96(a) NA

* * * * * * *
Diellia erecta................... Asplenium-leaved U.S.A. (HI)........ Aspleniaceae....... E 559 17.96(a) NA
diellia.

[[Page 9863]]

* * * * * * *
Diplazium molokiaense............ none................ U.S.A. (HI)........ Aspleniaceae....... E 553 17.96(a) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Section 17.96, as proposed to be amended at 65 FR 66865
(November 7, 2000), 65 FR 79192 (December 18, 2000), 65 FR 82086
(December 27, 2000), 65 FR 83193 (December 29, 2000), and 67 FR 4072
(January 28, 2002) is proposed to be further amended as follows:
a. Revise the heading of paragraph (a) to read ``Critical habitat
unit descriptions and maps by State'';
b. Revise the heading of paragraph (b) to read ``All other critical
habitat unit descriptions and maps by Family'';
c. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1)(i);
d. Add paragraph (a)(1)(i)(E);
e. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii).
The revised and added text reads as follows:

Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.

(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Maps and critical habitat unit descriptions. The following
sections contain the legal descriptions of the critical habitat units
designated for each of the Hawaiian Islands. Existing man-made 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), airports, other paved areas, lawns, and other
rural residential landscaped areas do not contain one or more of the
primary constituent elements described for each species in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(E) of this section and therefore, are not included in the
critical habitat designations.
* * * * *
(E) Lanai. Critical habitat units are described below. Coordinates
in UTM Zone 4 with units in meters using North American Datum of 1983
(NAD83). The following map shows the general locations of the eight
critical habitats units designated on the island of Lanai.
(1) Note: Map 1--Index map follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.012

(2) Lanai A (574 ha; 1,418 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 17 boundary points and the
intermediate coastline: 702882, 2313787; 702921, 2313674; 702928,
2313512; 702871, 2313459; 703058, 2313104; 703357, 2312863; 703811,
2312361; 704081, 2312052; 704342, 2311956; 704525, 2311656; 704439,
2311405; 704381,

[[Page 9864]]

2310990; 704197, 2310846; 703888, 2310749; 703155, 2310797; 702024,
2310634; 702882, 2313787.
(ii) Note: Map 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.013

(3) Lanai B (551 ha; 1,363 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: 706438,
2313925; 707201, 2314002; 709962, 2313947; 710017, 2313829; 710177,
2312823; 710191, 2312372; 709303, 2312524; 708179, 2312600; 706722,
2312579; 706452, 2312496; 706382, 2312524; 706348, 2312801; 706202,
2313190; 706091, 2313773; 706438, 2313925.
(ii) Note: Map 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.014

(4) Lanai C (222 ha; 549 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 22 boundary points: 711188,
2313923; 711429, 2313965; 711487, 2314003; 711749, 2314015; 712049,
2314065; 712768, 2314082; 712814, 2314057; 712797, 2313974; 712980,
2313641; 713013, 2313458; 712922, 2313100; 712777, 2312897; 712693,
2312660; 712477, 2312701; 712377, 2312693; 711683, 2312780; 711596,
2312768; 711159, 2312834; 711147, 2312926; 711209, 2313662; 711163,
2313815; 711188, 2313923.
(ii) Note: Map 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.015

(5) Lanai D (5861 ha; 14,482 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 50 boundary points: 721080,
2302560; 720773, 2302431; 720277, 2303011; 719410, 2303246; 718032,
2304246; 718198, 2304371; 717783, 2304820; 717871, 2304936; 718055,
2304902; 718572, 2304638; 718670, 2304691; 718422, 2304982; 718181,
2305085; 718055, 2305246; 718157, 2305319; 718468, 2305154; 718652,
2305154; 718870, 2305453; 719006, 2305448; 718885, 2305755; 718957,
2305935; 718018, 2307384; 717926, 2307299; 717586, 2307403; 717484,
2307510; 717654, 2307744; 717302, 2308086; 718137, 2309521; 718547,
2309943; 716674, 2311623; 716648, 2312011; 717399, 2312731; 719438,
2310984; 722501, 2308704; 724829, 2306647; 726262, 2304867; 726648,
2303344; 726728, 2302198; 725517, 2299595; 725216, 2299615; 724348,
2298741; 723596, 2299480; 724115, 2300023; 723526, 2300379; 723832,
2301639;

[[Page 9865]]

722680, 2301793; 722544, 2301470; 721858, 2302099; 721339, 2302216;
721080, 2302560.
(ii) Excluding one area as follows: Bounded by the following 20
boundary points (218 ha; 539 ac): 722030, 2305656; 721281, 2304684;
721384, 2304179; 721361, 2304053; 721278, 2303995; 721137, 2304078;
721051, 2304305; 720895, 2304397; 720500, 2304833; 720511, 2305106;
720570, 2305199; 720608, 2305397; 720431, 2305786; 720064, 2306027;
719647, 2305891; 719553, 2306068; 719613, 2306239; 721002, 2306152;
721675, 2305940; 722030, 2305656.
(iii) Note: Map 5 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.016

[[Page 9866]]

(6) Lanai E1 (53 ha; 132 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 21 boundary points: 718727,
2301883; 718642, 2302092; 718720, 2302377; 718928, 2302637; 719228,
2302896; 719550, 2302974; 719799, 2303078; 719975, 2303021; 720193,
2302917; 720261, 2302858; 719948, 2302788; 719846, 2302865; 719474,
2302802; 719277, 2302635; 719253, 2302561; 719078, 2302494; 719042,
2302419; 719144, 2302231; 719136, 2302009; 719078, 2301859; 718727,
2301883.
(ii) Note: See Map 6.
(7) Lanai E2 (60 ha; 148 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 19 boundary points: 719586,
2301160; 719361, 2301274; 719868, 2302031; 719968, 2302070; 720134,
2302344; 720198, 2302369; 720411, 2302710; 720524, 2302530; 720933,
2302146; 720741, 2302073; 720699, 2302012; 720600, 2302026; 720464,
2301954; 720259, 2301901; 720187, 2301857; 720106, 2301890; 719937,
2301876; 719749, 2301413; 719586, 2301160.
(ii) Note: See Map 6.
(8) Lanai E3 (49 ha; 120 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 12 boundary points: 721435,
2301743; 721647, 2301574; 720952, 2301142; 720824, 2300969; 720507,
2300707; 720411, 2300796; 720164, 2300917; 720283, 2301104; 720513,
2301353; 721094, 2301439; 721161, 2301532; 721435, 2301743.
(ii) Note: Map 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.017

(9) Lanai F (331 ha; 818 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 41 boundary points: 710563,
2301975; 710554, 2302948; 710511, 2303264; 710389, 2303545; 710194,
2303783; 710165, 2303941; 710864, 2304323; 711181, 2304676; 711332,
2304712; 711678, 2304619; 711836, 2304655; 711905, 2304708; 712023,
2304705; 712031, 2304626; 712016, 2304532; 711452, 2304254; 711367,
2304099; 711491, 2303913; 711735, 2303942; 711836, 2303985; 711951,
2304107; 712084, 2304075; 712196, 2303949; 712190, 2303878; 712098,
2303861; 712028, 2303760; 711793, 2303659; 711717, 2303473; 711745,
2303370; 711818, 2303354; 711800, 2303250; 711710, 2303264; 711442,
2303104; 711423, 2303022; 711564, 2302535; 711901, 2302580; 711959,
2302361; 712182, 2302292; 712225, 2302156; 712115, 2301973; 710563,
2301975.
(ii) Note: Map 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.018

(10) Lanai G (151 ha; 373 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the following 16 boundary points and the
intermediate coastline: 714418, 2294529; 714470, 2294599; 715200,
2294703; 716591, 2294709; 716742, 2294778; 716997, 2294784; 717130,
2294726; 717425, 2294738; 717964, 2294819; 718219, 2294773; 718433,
2294804; 718534, 2294660; 718604, 2294694; 718611, 2294686; 714408,
2294259; 714418, 2294529.
(ii) Note: Map 8 follows:

[[Page 9867]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.019

(11) Lanai H (1 ha; 2 ac).
(i) Unit consists of the entire offshore island, located at:
716393, 2294216.
(ii) Note: Map 9 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP04MR02.020

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Table (a)(1)(i)(E).--Protected Species Within Each Critical Habitat Unit
for Lanai
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit name Species occupied Species unoccupied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanai A Hibiscus brackenridgei.... Cyperus trachysanthos.
Lanai B Tetramolopium remyi.......
Lanai C .......................... Sesbania tomentosa.
Lanai D Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens,
Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii,
Centaurium sebaeoides, Cenchrus agrimonioides,
Clermontia oblongifolia Cyanea lobata, Diellia
ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis erecta, Diplazium
squamigera, Cyanea molokaiensis,
grimesiana ssp Hesperomannia
grimesiana, Cyanea arborescens, Isodendrion
macrostegia ssp. pyrifolium, Neraudia
gibsonii, Cyrtandra sericea, Solanum
munroi, Gahnia incompletum, and Vigna o-
lanaiensis, Hedyotis wahuensis.
mannii, Hedyotis
schlechtendahliana var.
remyi, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Labordia
tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, Melicope
munroi, Spermolepis
hawaiiense, Tetramolopium
remyi, and Viola
lanaiensis.
Lanai E .......................... Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha.
Lanai F .......................... Hibiscus brackenridgei.
Lanai G .......................... Portulaca sclerocarpa.
Lanai H Portulaca sclerocarpa.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 9868]]

(ii) Hawaiian plants--Constituent elements.
(A) Flowering plants.

Family Apiaceae: Spermolepis hawaiiensis (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Lanai.
Within this unit the currently known primary constituent elements of
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Gulch slopes and ridge tops in dry forests dominated by
Diospyros sandwicensis, or shrublands dominated by Dodonaea viscosa,
with one or more of the following native plant species: Nestegis
sandwicensis, Nesoluma polynesicum, Psydrax odorata, or Rauvolfia
sandwicensis; and
(2) Elevations between 402 and 711 m (1,319 and 2,332 ft).

Family Asteraceae: Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (kookoolau)

Lanai E, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha on
Lanai. Within this unit the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Gulch slopes in dry Dodonaea viscosa shrubland; and
(2) Elevations between 409 and 771 m (1,342 and 2,529 ft).

Family Asteraceae: Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Hesperomannia arborescens on Lanai.
Within this unit the currently known primary constituent elements of
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Slopes or ridges in lowland mesic or wet forest containing one
or more of the following associated native plant species: Metrosideros
polymorpha, Myrsine sandwicensis, Isachne distichophylla, Pipturus
spp., Antidesma spp., Psychotria spp., Clermontia spp., Cibotium spp.,
Dicranopteris linearis, Bobea spp., Coprosma spp., Sadleria spp.,
Melicope spp., Machaerina spp., Cheirodendron spp., or Freycinetia
arborea; and
(2) Elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft).

Family Asteraceae: Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)

Lanai B and D, identified in the legal descriptions in
(a)(1)(i)(E), constitute critical habitat for Tetramolopium remyi on
Lanai. Within these units the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Red, sandy, loam soil in dry Dodonea viscosa-Heteropogon
contortus communities with one or more of the following associated
native species: Bidens mauiensis, Waltheria indica, Wikstroemia
oahuensis, or Lipochaeta lavarum; and
(2) Elevations between 65 and 485 m (213 and 1,591 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Brighamia rockii (pua ala)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Brighamia rockii on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Sparsely vegetated ledges of steep, rocky, dry cliffs, with
native grasses, sedges, herbs or shrubs; and
(2) Elevations between 119 and 756 m (390 and 2,480 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis (oha
wai)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis
on Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Gulch bottoms in mesic forests; and
(2) Elevations between 700 and 1,032 m (2,296 and 3,385 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (haha)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana on
Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Mesic forest often dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha or
Metrosideros polymorpha and Acacia koa, or rocky or steep slopes of
stream banks, with one or more of the following associated native
plants: Antidesma spp., Bobea spp., Myrsine spp., Nestegis
sandwicensis, Psychotria spp., or Xylosma spp.; and
(2) Elevations between 667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Cyanea lobata (haha)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Cyanea lobata on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Gulches in mesic to wet forest and shrubland containing one or
more of the following associated native plant species: Freycinetia
arborea, Touchardia latifolia, Morinda trimera, Metrosideros
polymorpha, Clermontia kakeana, Cyrtandra spp., Xylosma spp.,
Psychotria spp., Antidesma spp., Pipturus albidus, Peperomia spp.,
Touchardia latifolia, Freycinetia arborea, Pleomele spp., or Athyrium
spp.; and
(2) Elevations between 664 and 1,032 m (2,178 and 3,385 ft).

Family Campanulaceae: Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii (haha)

Lanai D, identified in (a)(1)(i)(E), constitutes critical habitat
for Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii on Lanai. Within this unit, the
currently known primary constituent elements of critical habitat are
the habitat components provided by:
(1) Flat to moderate or steep slopes, on lower gulch slopes or
gulch bottoms, at edges of streambanks in lowland wet Metrosideros
polymorpha forest or Diplopterygium pinnatum-Metrosideros polymorpha
shrubland with one or more of the following associated native plants:
Dicranopteris linearis, Perrottetia sandwicensis, Scaevola
chamissoniana, Pipturus albidus, Antidesma platyphyllum, Cheirodendron
trigynum, Freycinetia arborea, Psychotria spp., Cyrtandra spp.,
Broussaisia arguta, Clermontia spp., Dubautia spp., Hedyotis spp., Ilex
anomala, Labordia spp., Melicope spp., Pneumatopteris sandwicensis, or
Sadleria spp.; and
(2) Elevations between 738 and 1,032 m (2,421 and 3,385 ft).

Family Convolvulaceae: Bonamia menziesii (NCN)

Lanai D identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Bonamia menziesii on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Dry Nestegis sandwicensis-Diospyros spp. forest or dry Dodonea
viscosa shrubland with one or more of the following associated native
plants: Bobea spp., Nesoluma polynesicum, Erythrina sandwicensis,
Rauvolfia sandwicensis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Psydrax odorata,
Dienella sandwicensis, Diospyros sandwicensis, Hedyotis terminalis,
Melicope spp., Myoporum sandwicense, Nestegis sandwicense, Pisonia
spp., Pittosporum

[[Page 9869]]

spp., Pouteria sandwicensis, or Sapindus oahuensis; and
(2) Elevations between 315 and 885 m (1,033 and 2,903 ft).

Family Cyperaceae: Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa)

Lanai A, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Cyperus trachysanthos on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Seasonally wet sites (mud flats, wet clay soil, or wet cliff
seeps) on seepy flats or talus slopes in Heteropogon contortus
grassland with Hibiscus tiliaceus; and
(2) Elevations between 0 and 46 m (0 and 151 ft).

Family Cyperaceae: Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Gahnia lanaiensis on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Flat to gentle ridgecrests in moist to wet clay in open areas
or in moderate shade within lowland wet forest (shrubby rainforest to
open scrubby fog belt or degraded lowland mesic forest), wet
Diplopterygium pinnatum-Dicranopteris linearis-Metrosideros polymorpha
shrubland, or wet Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis
shrubland with one or more of the following associated native species:
mat ferns, Doodia spp., Odontosoria chinensis, Ilex anomala, Hedyotis
terminalis, Sadleria spp., Coprosma spp., Lycopodium spp., Scaevola
spp., or Styphelia tameiameiae; and
(2) Elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft).

Family Fabaceae: Sesbania tomentosa (ohai)

Lanai C, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Sandy beaches, dunes, or pond margins in coastal dry shrublands
or mixed coastal dry cliffs with one or more of the following
associated native plant species: Chamaesyce celastroides, Cluscuta
sandwichiana, Dodonaea viscosa, Heteropogon contortus, Myoporum
sandwicense, Nama sandwicensis, Scaevola sericea, Sida fallax,
Sporobolus virginicus, Vitex rotundifolia or Waltheria indica; and
(2) Elevations between 44 and 221 m (144 and 725 ft).

Family Fabaceae: Vigna o-wahuensis (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal descriptions in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Vigna o-wahuensis on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Nestegis sandwicensis or Diospyros sandwicensis dry forest; and
(2) Elevations between 98 and 622 m (321 and 2,040 ft).

Family Gentianaceae: Centaurium sebaeoides (awiwi)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Centaurium sebaeoides on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) The dry ledges which may or may not contain Hibiscus
brackenridgei; and
(2) Elevations between 39 and 331 m (128 and 1,086 ft).

Family Gesneriaceae: Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Cyrtandra munroi on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Soil and rock substrates on slopes from watercourses in gulch
bottoms and up the sides of gulch slopes to near ridgetops in rich,
diverse mesic forest, wet Metrosideros polymorpha forest, and mixed
mesic Metrosiderospolymorpha forest, with one or more of the following
native plant species: Diospyros sandwicensis, Bobea elatior, Myrsine
lessertiana, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum, Pleomele
fernaldii, Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola chamissoniana, Xylosma
hawaiiense, Cyrtandra grayii, Cyrtandra grayana Diplopterygium
pinnatum, Hedyotis acuminata, Clermontia spp., Alyxia oliviformis,
Coprosma spp., Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia arborea, Melicope
spp., Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pouteria sandwicensis, or Psychotria
spp.; and
(2) Elevations between 667 and 1,016 m (2,188 and 3,332 ft).

Family Loganiaceae: Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis (kamakahala)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis on
Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Gulch slopes in lowland mesic forest with one or more of the
following associated native plant species: Diospyros sandwicensis,
Bobea elatior, Myrsine lessertiana, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum
confertiflorum, Pleomele fernaldii, Sadleria cyatheoides, Scaevola
chamissoniana, Xylosma hawaiiense, Cyrtandra grayii, Cyrtandra grayana,
Diplopterygium pinnatum, Hedyotis acuminata, Clermontia spp., Alyxia
oliviformis, Coprosma spp., Dicranopteris linearis, Freycinetia
arborea, Melicope spp., Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pouteria
sandwicensis, Psychotria spp., Dicranopteris linearis, or Scaevola
chamissoniana; and
(2) Elevations between 558 and 1,013 m (1,830 and 3,323 ft).

Family Malvaceae: Abutilon eremitopetalum (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Abutilon eremitopetalum on Lanai.
Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Open lowland dry Erythrina sandwicensis or Diospyros ferrea
forest on moderately steep north-facing slopes on red sandy soil and
rock with one or more of the following native plant species: Psydrax
odorata, Dodonaea viscosa, Nesoluma polynesicum, Rauvolfia
sandwicensis, Sida fallax, or Wikstroemia spp.; and
(2) Elevations between 108 and 660 m (354 and 2,165 ft).

Family Malvaceae: Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau hele)

Lanai A, D and F, identified in the legal descriptions in
(a)(1)(i)(E), constitute critical habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei on
Lanai. Within these units, the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Lowland dry to mesic forest and shrubland with one or more of
the following associated native plant species: Dodonea viscosa, Psydrax
odorata, Eurya sandwicensis, Isachne distichophylla, or Sida fallax;
and
(2) Elevations between 0 and 645 m (0 and 2,116 ft).

[[Page 9870]]

Family Poaceae: Cenchrus agrimonioides (kamanomano (= sandbur,
agrimony))

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Cenchrus agrimonioides on Lanai.
Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Slopes in mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forest and shrubland;
and
(2) Elevations between 583 and 878 m (1,912 and 2,880 ft).

Family Portulacaceae: Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe)

Lanai G and H, identified in the legal descriptions in
(a)(1)(i)(E), constitute critical habitat for Portulaca sclerocarpa on
Lanai. Within these units, the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal communities; and
(2) At elevations between 0 and 82 m (0 and 269 ft).

Family Rubiaceae: Hedyotis mannii (pilo)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Hedyotis mannii on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Dark, narrow, rocky gulch walls and steep stream banks in wet
forests with one or more of the following associated native plant
species: Thelypteris sandwicensis, Sadleria spp., Cyrtandra grayii,
Scaevola chamissoniana, Freycinetia arborea, or Carex meyenii; and
(2) Elevations between 711 and 1,032 m (2,332 and 3,385 ft).

Family Rubiaceae: Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi (kopa)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi
on Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent
elements of critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Ridge crests in mesic windswept shrubland with a mixture of
dominant plant taxa that may include Metrosideros polymorpha,
Dicranopteris linearis, or Styphelia tameiameiae with one or more of
the following associated native plant species: Dodonaea viscosa,
Odontosoria chinensis, Sadleria spp., Dubautia spp., or Myrsine spp.;
and
(2) Elevations between 558 and 1,032 m (1,830 and 3,385 ft).

Family Rutaceae: Melicope munroi (alani)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Melicope munroi on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Slopes in lowland wet shrublands with one or more of the
following associated native plant species: Diplopterygium pinnatum,
Dicranopteris linearis, Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron
trigynum, Coprosma spp., Broussaisia arguta, other Melicope spp., or
Machaerina angustifolia; and
(2) Elevations between 701 and 1,032 m (2,299 and 3,385 ft).

Family Solanaceae: Solanum incompletum (popolo ku mai)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Solanum incompletum on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Broad, gently sloping ridges in dry, Dodonaea viscosa shrubland
with one or more of the following associated native plant species:
Heteropogon contortus, Lipochaeta spp., or Wikstroemia oahuensis; and
(2) Elevations between 151 and 372 m (495 and 1,220 ft).

Family Urticaceae: Neraudia sericea (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Neraudia sericea on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat for Neraudia sericea are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Gulch slopes or gulch bottoms in dry-mesic or mesic forest
containing one or more of the following associated native plant
species: Metrosideros polymorpha, Diospyros sandwicensis, Nestegis
sandwicensis, or Dodonaea viscosa; and
(2) Elevations between 693 and 869 m (2,273 and 2,850 ft).

Family Violaceae: Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium on Lanai.
Within this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of
critical habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Dry shrubland with one or more of the following associated
native plant species: Dodonaea viscosa, Lipochaeta spp., Heteropogon
contortus, or Wikstroemia oahuensis; and
(2) Elevations between 132 and 574 m (433 and 1,883 ft).

Family Violaceae: Viola lanaiensis (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Viola lanaiensis on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Soil and decomposed rock substrate in open to shaded areas on
moderate to steep slopes from lower gulches to ridgetops in
Metrosideros polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest or
lowland mesic shrubland with one or more of the following associated
native plants: ferns and short windswept shrubs, Scaevola
chamissoniana, Hedyotis terminalis, Hedyotis centranthoides, Styphelia
tameiameiae, Carex spp., Ilex anomala, Psychotria spp., Antidesma spp.,
Coprosma spp., Freycinetia arborea, Myrsine spp., Nestegis spp.,
Psychotria spp., or Xylosma spp.; and
(2) Elevations between 639 and 1,032 m (2,096 and 3,385 ft).
(B) Ferns and Allies.

Family Aspleniaceae: Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Ctenitis squamigera on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Forest understory in diverse mesic forest and scrubby mixed
mesic forest with one or more of the following native plant species:
Nestegis sandwicensis, Coprosma spp., Sadleria spp., Selaginella spp.,
Carex meyenii, Blechnum occidentale, Pipturus spp., Melicope spp.,
Pneumatopteris sandwicensis, Pittosporum spp., Alyxia oliviformis,
Freycinetia arborea, Antidesma spp., Cyrtandra spp., Peperomia spp.,
Myrsine spp., Psychotria spp., Metrosideros polymorpha, Syzygium
sandwicensis, Wikstroemia spp., Microlepia spp., Doodia spp., Boehmeria
grandis, Nephrolepis spp., Perrotettia sandwicensis, or Xylosma spp.;
and
(2) Elevations between 640 and 944 m (2,099 and 3,096 ft).

[[Page 9871]]

Family Aspleniaceae: Diellia erecta (NCN)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Diellia erecta on Lanai. Within this
unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Brown granular soil with leaf litter and occasional terrestrial
moss on north facing slopes in deep shade on steep slopes or gulch
bottoms in Pisonia spp. forest with one or more native grasses or
ferns; and
(2) Elevations between 651 and 955 m (2,135 and 3,132 ft).

Family Aspleniaceae: Diplazium molokaiense (asplenium-leaved
asplenium)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Diplazium molokaiense on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Shady, damp places in wet forests; and
(2) Elevations between 737 and 1,032 m (2,417 and 3,385 ft).

Family Grammitidaceae: Adenophorus periens (pendant kihi fern)

Lanai D, identified in the legal description in (a)(1)(i)(E),
constitutes critical habitat for Adenophorus periens on Lanai. Within
this unit, the currently known primary constituent elements of critical
habitat are the habitat components provided by:
(1) Riparian banks of streams in well-developed, closed canopy
areas of deep shade or high humidity in Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis-Diplopterygium pinnatum wet forests, open
Metrosideros polymorpha montane wet forest, or Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest with one or more of the
following associated native plant species: Machaerina angustifolia,
Cheirodendron trigynum, Sadleria spp., Clermontia spp., Psychotria
spp., Melicope spp., Freycinetia arborea, Broussaisia arguta, Syzygium
sandwicensis, or Hedyotis terminalis; and
(2) Elevations between 763 and 1,032 m (2,503 and 3,385 ft).

Dated: February 19, 2002.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 02-4335 Filed 3-1-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Determinations of Prudency and Proposed Designations of Critical Habitat for Plant Species From the Island of Lanai, HI

Local Navigation