Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation
of Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species From the Island of Lanai,
Hawaii
[Federal Register: January 9, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 6)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1219-1274]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09ja03-9]
[[Page 1219]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation of
Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species From the Island of Lanai,
Hawaii; Final Rule
[[Page 1220]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AH10
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation
of Critical Habitat for Three Plant Species From the Island of Lanai,
Hawaii
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), for three of the 37 species known historically from the
Hawaiian island of Lanai. The three species are Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Tetramolopium remyi. A total of
approximately 320 hectares (789 acres) of land on Lanai fall within the
boundaries of the six critical habitat units designated for the three
species. This critical habitat designation provides additional
protection under section 7 of the Act with regard to actions carried
out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act
requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts when
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicited data
and comments from the public on all aspects of the proposed rule,
including data on economic and other impacts of the designation.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on February 10, 2003.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation, used in the preparation of this final rule will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300
Ala Moana Blvd., Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850-0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Henson, Field Supervisor, Pacific
Islands Office at the above address (telephone 808/541-3441; facsimile
808/541-3470).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 the 37 species is described in
more detail below in the section, ``Discussion of Plant Taxa.''
Although we considered designating critical habitat on Lanai for each
of the 37 plant species, for the reasons described below, the final
designation includes critical habitat for only 3 of 37 plant species.
Species that also occur on other islands may have critical habitat
designated on other islands in subsequent rulemakings.
Table 1.--Summary of Island Distribution of 37 Species From Lanai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Island distribution
Species -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kauai Oahu Molokai Lanai Maui Hawaii N.W. Isles, Kahoolawe, Niihau
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum (NCN)....... ............ ............ ............ C
Adenophorus periens (pendant kihi C H C R R C
fern).
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha ............ ............ ............ C 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. ............ ............ ............ C C
mauiensis (oha wai).
Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)......... H C C C C H
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana ............ C C C C
(haha).
Cyanea lobata (haha)................ ............ ............ ............ H C ............ ..............................
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii ............ ............ ............ C
(NCN).
Cyperus trachysanthos (puukaa)...... C C H H ............ ............ Ni (C)
Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale).......... ............ ............ ............ C C
Diellia erecta (NCN)................ C C C H C C
Diplazium molokaiense (NCN)......... H H H H C
Gahnia lanaiensis (NCN)............. ............ ............ ............ C
Hedyotis mannii (pilo).............. ............ ............ C C C
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. ............ ............ ............ C
remyi (kopa).
Hesperomannia arborescens (NCN)..... ............ C C H C
Hibiscus brackenridgei (mao hau H C H C C C Ka (R)
hele).
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho ............ H H H H C Ni (H)
kula).
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis ............ ............ ............ C
(kamakahala).
Mariscus fauriei (NCN).............. ............ ............ C H ............ C
Melicope munroi (alani)............. ............ ............ H C
[[Page 1221]]
Neraudia sericea (NCN).............. ............ ............ C H C ............ Ka (H)
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis ............ ............ ............ H
(NCN).
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. ............ C ............ H
lepidotum (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)--occurrence last observed within the past 30 years.
H (Historical)--occurrence not seen for more than 30 years.
R (Reported)--reported from undocumented observations.
* NCN--No Common Name.
The Island of Lanai
Lanai is a small island totaling about 360 square kilometers (sq
km) (139 sq miles (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) below 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),
pigs (Sus scrofa), and sheep (Ovis aries) were first introduced to the
island. Native vegetation was soon decimated by these nonnative
ungulates, and erosion from wind and rain caused further damage to the
native forests. Formal ranching was begun in 1902, and by 1910, the
Territorial forester helped to revegetate the island. By 1911, a ranch
manager from New Zealand, George Munro, instituted forest management
practices to recover the native forests and bird species which included
fencing and eradication of sheep and goats from the mountains. Mouflon
sheep (Ovis musimon) and axis deer (Axis axis) were introduced to Lanai
in 1954 and 1920 respectively, leading to renewed impacts on the native
vegetation. 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 surrounding its company town, Lanai City. In the early
1990s, the pineapple plantation closed, and two 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 species 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 this species. 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 occurrence on privately owned land in Kahea Gulch
on the northeastern part of the island (Caum 1933; Geographic Decision
Systems International (GDSI) 2000; Hawaii Natural Heritage Program
(HINHP) Database 2000; Service 1995).
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, usually near gulch
bottoms. Erythrina sandwicensis (wiliwili) and Diospyros sandwicensis
(lama) are the dominant trees in open forest of the area. Other
associated native species include Dodonaea viscosa (aalii), Nesoluma
polynesicum (keahi), Psydrax odorata (alahee), Rauvolfia sandwicensis
(hao), Sida fallax (ilima), or Wikstroemia sp. (akia) (HINHP Database
2000; Service 1995).
The threats to Abutilon eremitopetalum are habitat degradation
[[Page 1222]]
and competition by encroaching nonnative plant species such as Lantana
camara (lantana), Leucaena leucocephala (koa haole), and Pluchea
carolinensis (sourbush); browsing by axis deer; 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 occurrence. Fire is another
potential threat because the area is dry much of the year (HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).
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 species 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 5 mm
(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 documented from the
summit of Lanaihale and the upper parts of Mahana, Kaiholena, and
Maunalei Valleys of Lanai. There are currently only two occurrences
containing 74 individuals. One occurrence is located north of Lanaihale
and the second occurrence is north of Puu Aalii (puu = summit or hill)
on privately owned land (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Lammers 1999;
56 FR 47686).
The habitat of Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii is lowland wet
Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) forest or Diplopterygium pinnatum (uluhe
lau nui)-M. 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
Antidesma platyphyllum (hame), Broussaisia arguta (kanawao),
Cheirodendron trigynum (olapa), Clermontia sp. (oha wai), Cyrtandra sp.
(haiwale), Dicranopteris linearis (uluhe), Dubautia sp. (naenae),
Freycinetia arborea (ieie), Hedyotis sp. (NCN), Ilex anomala (kawau),
Labordia sp. (kamakahala), Melicope sp. (alani), Perrottetia
sandwicensis (olomea), Pipturus albidus (mamaki), Pneumatopteris
sandwicensis (NCN), Psychotria sp. (kopiko), Sadleria sp. (amau), or
Scaevola chamissoniana (naupaka kuahiwi) (HINHP Database 2000; Service
1995; Joel Lau, HINHP, pers. comm., 2001).
The threats to Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii are browsing by
axis deer; competition with the nonnative 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
occurrences (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 3.6 to 4.6 mm (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 occurrence 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
occurrence 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 M. 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, Coprosma sp. (pilo), Doodia sp.
(okupukupu laulii), Hedyotis terminalis (manono), Ilex anomala,
Leptecophylla tameiameiae (pukiawe), Lycopodium sp. (wawaeiole),
Sadleria spp. (amau), Scaevola sp. (naupaka), or Sphenomeris chinensis
(palaa) (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 (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1995).
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 0.6 to 6 m (2 to 10 ft) 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 H. 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 occurrences on
privately owned land on Kaiholeha-Hulupoe Ridge, Kapohaku drainage, and
Waiapaa drainage on Lanaihale (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; 64 FR
48307).
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi typically grows on or near
ridge crests in mesic windswept shrubland
[[Page 1223]]
with a mixture of dominant plant species that may include Metrosideros
polymorpha, Dicranopteris linearis, or Leptecophylla tameiameiae at
elevations between 558 and 1,032 m (1,830 and 3,385 ft). Associated
plant species include Dodonaea viscosa, Dubautia spp., Myrsine sp.
(kolea), Sadleria spp., or Sphenomeris chinensis (HINHP Database 2000;
64 FR 48307).
The primary threats to Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi are
habitat degradation and destruction by axis deer; competition with
nonnative plant species, such as Leptospermum scoparium, Myrica faya
(firetree), Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava), or Schinus
terebinthifolius (Christmasberry); and random environmental events or
reduced reproductive vigor due to the small number of remaining
individuals and occurrences (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, L. tinifolia
var. lanaiensis is known from only one occurrence on privately owned
land at the southeastern end of the summit ridge of Lanaihale. This
occurrence totals 3 to 8 scattered individuals (GDSI 2000; HINHP
Database 2000; Service 2001).
The typical habitat of Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis is gulch
slopes in lowland mesic forest. Associated native species include
Alyxia oliviformis (maile), Bobea elatior (ahakea launui), Clermontia
spp., Coprosma spp., Cyrtandra grayana (haiwale), Dicranopteris
linearis, Diospyros sandwicensis, Diplopterygium pinnatum, Freycinetia
arborea, Hedyotis acuminata (au), Melicope spp., Myrsine lessertiana
(kolea), Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum
confertiflorum (hoawa), Pleomele fernaldii (hala pepe), Pouteria
sandwicensis (alaa), Psychotria spp., Sadleria cyatheoides (amau),
Scaevola chamissoniana, or Xylosma hawaiiense (maua) at elevations
between 550 and 1,013 m (1,804 and 3,323 ft) (HINHP Database 2000;
Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis is threatened by axis deer and
several nonnative plant species. The species is also threatened by
random environmental factors or reduced reproductive vigor because of
the small population (Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
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 and narrow,
often red-tinged or with red veins, and toothed at the edges. The
flowers are white, occasionally tinged with purple, and are variable in
size, about 1 to 2.5 centimeters (cm) (0.4 to 1.0 in) long. 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, Hawaii Division of Forestry and
Wildlife (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, 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 an occurrence of approximately 20 individuals flourished. That
occurrence has since disappeared due to habitat disturbance. Two
occurrences are currently known from privately owned land on southern
Lanai: In Kunoa Gulch, between Kunoa and Waialala Gulches; and in the
upper end of the northernmost drainage of Awehi Gulch, in Hauola Gulch
and along Hauola Trail. It is estimated that the occurrences total less
than 80 plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
The habitat of Viola lanaiensis is Metrosideros polymorpha-
Dicranopteris linearis lowland wet forest or lowland mesic shrubland.
The species 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 Antidesma spp. (hame), Carex sp. (NCN),
Coprosma spp., Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis centranthoides (NCN),
Hedyotis terminalis, Ilex anomala, Leptecophylla tameiameiae, Myrsine
spp., Nestegis sandwicensis (olopua), Psychotria spp., Scaevola
chamissoniana, or Xylosma sp. (Service 1995; 56 FR 47686).
The main threats to Viola lanaiensis include browsing and habitat
disturbance by axis deer; encroaching
[[Page 1224]]
nonnative 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 (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 (minute,
reproductive dispersal unit of ferns and fern allies) may be dispersed
by wind, water, or perhaps on the feet of birds or insects. Adenophorus
periens spores lack a thick resistant coat, which may indicate their
longevity is brief, probably measured in days at most. 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 (GDSI 2000; HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
This epiphytic species, 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 M.
polymorpha-Dicranopteris linearis-Diplopterygium pinnatum wet forests,
open M. polymorpha montane wet forest, or M. polymorpha-D. linearis
lowland wet forest at elevations between 763 and 1,032 m (2,503 and
3,385 ft). Associated native plant species include Broussaisia arguta,
Cheirodendron trigynum, Clermontia spp., Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis
terminalis, Machaerina angustifolia (uki), Melicope spp., Psychotria
spp., Sadleria spp., or Syzygium sandwicensis (ohia ha) (Linney 1989;
Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; Kenneth Wood, National Tropical Botanical
Garden, pers. comm., 2001).
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 (Ganders
and Nagata 1999; 57 FR 20772).
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 B. 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 species remains on East Maui and there is one
Lanai occurrence in the Waiapaa Gulch area on privately owned land
(Ganders and Nagata 1999; GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1997;
57 FR 20772; HINHP Database 2000; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2002).
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 include habitat destruction by
axis deer and mouflon sheep; competition from a variety of nonnative
plant species; depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene
pool; 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 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 occurrences,
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
sandwicensis forest and dry Dodonaea viscosa shrubland at elevations
between 315 and 885 m (1,033 and 2,903 ft). Associated species include
Bobea sp. (ahakea), Dianella sandwicensis (uki uki), Diospyros
sandwicensis, Erythrina sandwicensis, Hedyotis terminalis, Melicope
sp., Metrosideros polymorpha, Myoporum sandwicense (naio), Nesoluma
polynesicum, Nestegis sandwicensis (olopua), Pisonia sp. (papala
kepau), Pittosporum sp. (hoawa), Pouteria sandwicensis, Psydrax
odorata, or Rauvolfia sandwicensis (HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333).
The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat
degradation and possible predation by mouflon sheep and axis deer;
depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene pool;
competition with a variety of nonnative plant species, such as Lantana
camara, Leucaena leucocephala or Schinus terebinthifolius; and a
nonnative 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 male
flower parts are produced before female parts, in this case, separated
by several days; only five
[[Page 1225]]
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 of age. 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, may possibly have grown on Maui,
and was last seen on Lanai in 1911. Currently, it is extant only on
Molokai (HINHP Database 2000; Lammers 1999; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325;
K. Wood, in litt. 2000).
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 (Service 1996b;
57 FR 46325; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
Threats to Brighamia rockii on the island of Lanai included habitat
destruction from axis deer and mouflon sheep, competition with
nonnative plants, and depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited
local gene pool (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 what is now the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. This variety was never known
from the island of Lanai. Currently, Cenchrus agrimonioides var.
agrimonioides is known from Oahu and Maui. On Lanai it was last seen in
1915 (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; 61 FR 53108).
Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides was found on slopes in
mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forest or shrubland at elevations between
583 and 878 m (1,912 and 2,880 ft) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999;
61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
The major threats to Cenchrus agrimonioides var. agrimonioides on
Lanai included competition with nonnative plant species; browsing and
habitat degradation by axis deer, mouflon sheep, and cattle (Bos
taurus); and depressed reproductive vigor due to a limited local gene
pool (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. Occurrences 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
occurrence 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
nonnative plant species, grazing and habitat destruction caused by axis
deer and mouflon sheep, 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 (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; R. Hobdy in litt. 2002).
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 with 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. Clermontia oblongifolia
ssp. mauiensis is reported from Maui and Lanai, while the other two
subspecies of this species are only known from Oahu and 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 C.
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis. Its flowering cycles, pollination vectors,
seed dispersal agents, longevity, specific environmental requirements,
and limiting factors are unknown (Rock 1919; Service 1997).
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis was historically and is
currently known from Lanai and Maui. On Lanai, an unknown number of
individuals has been reported from Kaiholena Gulch on privately owned
land (HINHP Database 2000; Lammers 1999; 57 FR 20772).
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
axis deer and mouflon sheep (Service 1997; 57 FR 20772).
Ctenitis squamigera (pauoa)
Ctenitis squamigera is a short-lived perennial fern 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
[[Page 1226]]
of tan-colored scales on its frond (Wagner and Wagner 1992).
Little is known about the life history of Ctenitis squamigera. Its
reproduction cycles, 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, Molokai, Maui, and Lanai. On Lanai, there are two occurrences
totaling 42 individual plants on privately owned land in the Waiapaa-
Kapohaku area on the leeward (southwestern) side of the island, and in
the Lopa and Waiopa Gulches on the windward (northeastern) side (GDSI
2000; HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 49025).
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. Associated native plant species include
Alyxia oliviformis, Antidesma spp., Blechnum occidentale (NCN),
Boehmeria grandis (akolea), Carex meyenii (NCN), Coprosma spp.,
Cyrtandra spp., Doodia spp., Freycinetia arborea, Melicope spp.,
Metrosideros polymorpha, Microlepia sp. (NCN), Myrsine spp.,
Nephrolepis sp. (kupukupu), Nestegis sandwicensis, Peperomia sp. (ala
ala wai nui), Perrottetia sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum
spp., Pneumatopteris sandwicensis, Psychotria spp., Sadleria spp.,
Selaginella sp. (lepelepe a moa), Syzygium sandwicensis, Wikstroemia
spp., or Xylosma sp. (HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 49025).
The primary threats to this species on Lanai are habitat
degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep; competition with nonnative
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 (Culliney 1988; HINHP Database 2000;
Service 1998a; 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 occurrences with at least three individuals on privately owned land
in Kaiholena Gulch and Waiakeakua Gulch (HINHP Database 2000; Service
1999; 61 FR 53108;).
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 streambanks, at elevations
between 667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 ft). Associated native species
include Antidesma spp., Bobea spp., Myrsine spp., Nestegis
sandwicensis, Psychotria spp., or Xylosma sp. (Service 1999; 61 FR
53108).
The threats to this species on Lanai are habitat degradation and/or
destruction caused by axis deer and mouflon sheep; competition with
various nonnative plants; random naturally occurring events causing
extinction due to the small number of existing individuals; fire;
landslides; and predation by rats (Rattus rattus) and various species
of slugs (Service 1999; 59 FR 53108).
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 (Degener 1936; Rock
1919; 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).
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: Antidesma spp., Athyrium spp. (akolea); Cyrtandra spp.,
Freycinetia arborea, Metrosideros polymorpha, Morinda trimera (noni
kuahiwi), Peperomia spp., Pipturus albidus, Pleomele fernaldii
(halapepe), Psychotria spp., Touchardia latifolia (olona), or Xylosma
spp. (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1997; 57 FR 20772; J. Lau, pers.
comm., 2001; and R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2001).
The threats to this species on Lanai included habitat degradation
by axis deer and mouflon sheep (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
stems 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 (floral bracts), and
the length of the stems (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 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 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 (Koyama 1999; 61 FR 53108; J. Lau and K.
Wood, pers. comms., 2001).
On Lanai, the threats to this species included the loss of wetlands
and habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep (Service 1999;
61 FR 53108; R. Hobdy in litt. 2002).
Cyrtandra munroi (haiwale)
Cyrtandra munroi is a short-lived perennial and a member of the
African
[[Page 1227]]
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).
The reproductive biology of some species of Cyrtandra has been
studied, but not C. munroi specifically. The 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 occurrences
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 M. polymorpha forest,
typically on rich, moderately steep gulch slopes at elevations between
667 and 1,032 m (2,188 and 3,385 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 Alyxia oliviformis, Bobea elatior, Clermontia spp., Coprosma
spp., Cyrtandra grayana, Dicranopteris linearis, Diospyros
sandwicensis, Diplopterygium pinnatum, Freycinetia arborea, Hedyotis
acuminata (au), Melicope spp., Myrsine lessertiana, Perrottetia
sandwicensis, Pipturus albidus, Pittosporum confertiflorum, Pleomele
fernaldii, Pouteria sandwicensis, Psychotria spp., Sadleria
cyatheoides, Scaevola chamissoniana, or Xylosma hawaiiense (HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1995).
The threats to this species on Lanai are browsing and habitat
disturbance by axis deer; competition with the nonnative plant species
Leptospermum scoparium, Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass), Myrica
faya, Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass), Pluchea carolinensis, Psidium
cattleianum, or Rubus rosifolius (thimbleberry); 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
reproduction cycles, 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
Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and the island of Hawaii and was recently
rediscovered on Kauai. On Lanai it was last seen in 1929 (HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1999).
This species is found in brown granular soil with leaf litter and
occasional terrestrial moss on north-facing slopes in deep shade and 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 or ferns (HINHP Database 2000; Service
1999; J. Lau and K. Wood, pers. comms., 2001).
The major threats to Diellia erecta on Lanai included habitat
degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep, and competition with
nonnative plant species (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
Diplazium molokaiense (NCN)
Diplazium molokaiense, a short-lived perennial fern and a 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 reproduction cycles, dispersal agents, longevity, specific
environmental requirements, and limiting factors are unknown (Service
1998a).
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) (HINHP Database
2000; Service 1998a; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
The primary threats to Diplazium molokaiense on Lanai included
habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep, and competition
with nonnative plant species (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998a; 59 FR
49025).
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. It is distinguished from other species by its growth habit, its
quadrangular or winged stems, the shape, size, and texture of its
leaves, and its dry capsule, which opens when mature (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, an occurrence was
discovered on Maui and two occurrences, 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 streambanks in wet forests between 711 and 1,032 m (2,332
and 3,385 ft) in elevation. Associated plant species include Carex
meyenii, Dryopteris sandwicensis, Freycinetia arborea, Sadleria spp.,
or Scaevola chamissoniana (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996b; J. Lau,
pers. comm., 2001).
The primary threats to Hedyotis mannii are the limited number of
individuals which makes it extremely vulnerable to extinction from
random environmental events; habitat degradation caused by axis deer
and mouflon sheep; and nonnative plants, such as Melinis minutiflora,
Psidium cattleianum, and Rubus rosifolius (57 FR 46325).
[[Page 1228]]
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 in 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 Oahu, Molokai,
and Lanai. 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: Antidesma spp., Bobea spp., Cheirodendron spp. (olapa),
Cibotium spp. (hapuu), Clermontia spp., Coprosma spp., Dicranopteris
linearis, Freycinetia arborea, Isachne distichophylla (ohe), Machaerina
spp. (uki), Melicope spp., Metrosideros polymorpha, Myrsine
sandwicensis (kolea), Pipturus albidus, Psychotria spp., Sadleria spp.
(HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998b; 59 FR 14482; R. Hobdy, pers.
comm., 2001).
The major threats to Hesperomannia arborescens on Lanai included
habitat degradation by axis deer and mouflon sheep, and competition
with nonnative plant species (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998b; 59 FR
14482).
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 (leaf bracts) that
fall off, leaving an elliptical scar.
Two subspecies are currently recognized, Hibiscus 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 related 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, H.
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 occurrences
containing an unknown number of individuals on privately owned land;
one occurrence 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 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; Wesley Wong,
Jr., 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 Dodonaea viscosa, Isachne
distichophylla, Psydrax odorata, or Sida fallax (HINHP Database 2000;
Service 1999).
The primary threats to Hibiscus brackenridgei ssp. brackenridgei on
Lanai are habitat degradation; possible predation by axis deer, mouflon
sheep, and rats; competition with nonnative plant species; fire; and
susceptibility to extinction caused by naturally occurring events or
reduced reproductive vigor (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy in
litt. 2002).
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 has moderately hairy
veins. Below the petiole are oval, hairy stipules. The fruit is a
three-lobed, oval capsule. 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, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and the island of
Hawaii. Currently it is found only on the island of Hawaii. It was last
seen on Lanai in 1870 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996a;
59 FR 10305).
On Lanai, Isodendrion pyrifolium occurred 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,
Heteropogon contortus, Lipochaeta or Melanthera spp. (nehe), or
Wikstroemia oahuensis (akia) (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; J. Lau and R.
Hobdy, pers. comms., 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. This species differs from others in the genus in Hawaii by
its smaller size and its more narrow, flattened, and more spreading
spikelets (flower clusters) (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 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database
2000; Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305).
Nothing is known of the preferred habitat of or native plant
species
[[Page 1229]]
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 has minute hairs. This species differs from other
Hawaiian members of the genus in the shape of the leaf and the length
of the inflorescence (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
occurrences totaling an estimated 35 individual plants on privately
owned land on the Lanaihale summit, head of Hauola gulch, Waialala
gulch, and the ridge of Waialala gulch (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000;
Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
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 Broussaisia arguta,
Cheirodendron trigynum, Coprosma spp., Dicranopteris linearis,
Diplopterygium pinnatum, Machaerina angustifolia, other Melicope spp.,
or Metrosideros polymorpha (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
nonnative plant species Leptospermum scoparium and Psidium cattleianum.
In addition, the limited number of individuals in the two remaining
occurrences makes it extremely vulnerable to extinction from random
environmental events (HINHP Database 2000; Service 2001; 64 FR 48307).
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 lower leaf surface is densely covered with
irregularly curved, silky gray to white hairs along the veins. Neraudia
sericea differs from the other four 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). Associated native species include Diospyros
sandwicensis, Dodonaea viscosa, Metrosideros polymorpha, or Nestegis
sandwicensis (HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333; J. Lau, pers. comm.,
2001).
The primary threats to Neraudia sericea on Lanai included habitat
degradation by pigs (Sus scrofa), and goats (currently axis deer and
mouflon sheep), and competition with nonnative 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 tuberous taproot and has stems up to
about 20 cm (8 in) long. The succulent, grayish-green leaves are almost
circular in cross-section. The petals are white, pink, or pink with a
white base. The hardened capsules open very late or not at all, and
contain 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 has been observed in flower during March, June, and
December. 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 Lanai occurrence on privately owned
land contains about 10 plants. Poopoo Islet is a small rocky outcrop, 1
ha (2.4 ac) in area and approximately 200 m (600 ft) from the south
shoreline, and is considered part of the island of Lanai (GDSI 2000;
HINHP Database 2000; Service 1996a).
This species grows on exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal
communities at elevations between 0 and 82 m (0 and 269 ft) (HINHP
Database 2000; Wagner et al., 1999).
The major threats to Portulaca sclerocarpa on Lanai are herbivory
by the larvae of a nonnative sphinx moth (Hyles lineata); competition
from nonnative plants; and fire (Service 1996a; 59 FR 10305; Frank
Howarth, Bishop Museum, in litt. 2000).
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 a 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 has been studied by
David Hopper, University of Hawaii. His 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 occurrences 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 those islands. It was last seen on Lanai in 1957 (GDSI 2000;
HINHP Database 2000; 59 FR 56333).
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
[[Page 1230]]
dry cliffs with the associated native plant species Chamaesyce
celastroides (akoko), Cuscuta sandwichiana (kaunaoa), Dodonaea viscosa,
Heteropogon contortus, Myoporum sandwicense, Nama sandwicensis
(hinahina kahakai), Scaevola sericea (naupaka kahakai), Sida fallax,
Sporobolus virginicus (akiaki), Vitex rotundifolia (kolokolo kahakai),
or Waltheria indica (uhaloa) (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; K.
Wood, pers. comm., 2001).
The primary threats to Sesbania tomentosa on Lanai included habitat
degradation caused by competition with various nonnative plant species;
lack of adequate pollination; seed predation by rats, mice (Mus
musculus) and, potentially, nonnative insects; and fire (Service 1999;
59 FR 56333).
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 flowers are white with
deeply lobed, clawed petals. This species is distinguished from S.
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 (Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
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 (GDSI 2000; Service 1996b; 57 FR 46325).
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.
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 (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333).
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 following
associated native plant species: Heteropogon contortus, Lipochaeta or
Melanthera spp., or Wikstroemia oahuensis (Service 1999; J. Lau, pers
comm., 2001).
On Lanai, the threats to Solanum incompletum included habitat
destruction by goats and pigs (more recently axis deer) and competition
with various nonnative 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 are dissected
into narrow, lance-shaped divisions. 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 those four islands, Molokai, and Maui. On Lanai,
this species is known from three occurrences 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 (HINHP
Database 2000; Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers. comm., 2000).
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 Nesoluma
polynesicum, Nestegis sandwicensis, Psydrax odorata, or Rauvolfia
sandwicensis (HINHP Database 2000; Service 1999; R. Hobdy, pers. comm.,
2000; J. Lau, pers. comm., 2001).
The primary threats to Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Lanai are habitat
degradation by axis deer, competition with various nonnative 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 (Service 1999; 59 FR 56333; R. Hobdy, pers.
comm., 2000).
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. The leaves are lance-shaped and
wider at the leaf tip. This species 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 flowers and fruit from April through
July. No further information is available on reproductive cycles,
longevity, specific environmental requirements, or limiting factors
(Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).
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 (Environmental Division of the Army Database 2001; GDSI
2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1998b; 56 FR 55770).
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 or
occasionally erect shrub up to about 38 cm (15 in) tall. The
[[Page 1231]]
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 four to 60
rather than one 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.
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 one occurrence on Lanai on
privately owned land near Awehi Road, with a total of approximately 150
plants (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000).
Tetramolopium remyi is found in red, sandy, loam soil in dry
Dodonaea viscosa-Heteropogon contortus communities at elevations
between 65 and 485 m (213 and 1,591 ft). Commonly associated native
species include Bidens mauiensis (kookoolau), Melanthera lavarum
(nehe), Waltheria indica, or Wikstroemia oahuensis (HINHP Database
2000).
Browsing by axis deer and mouflon sheep and competition from
nonnative species, primarily Andropogon virginicus (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).
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. 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 occurrence with at least one individual is known from
Kanepuu on privately owned land (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000;
Service 1999; J. Lau, in litt. 2000).
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; 59 FR 56333; J. Lau, pers.
comm., 2001).
Threats to Vigna o-wahuensis on Lanai include habitat degradation
by mouflon sheep and axis deer; competition with various nonnative
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, composed of three small leaflets. 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-shaped 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 (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database
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 occurrences and landownership for the 37 plant species
reported from the island of Lanai is given in Table 2.
Table 2.--Summary of Existing Occurrences on Lanai, and Landownership for 37 Species Reported From Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Landownership
Species current ---------------------------------------
occurrences Federal State Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum.................................... 1 ........... ........... X
Adenophorus periens........................................ 0 ........... ........... ............
Bidens micrantha........................................... 1 ........... ........... X
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
[[Page 1232]]
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..................................... 3 ........... ........... 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
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum..................... 0 ........... ........... ............
Tetramolopium remyi........................................ 1 ........... ........... 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 C.
baldwinii), Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii (as H. thyrsoidea var.
thyrsoidea), Hesperomannia arborescens (as H. arborescens var. bushiana
and var. swezeyi), Hibiscus brackenridgei (as H. brackenridgei var.
brackenridgei, var. mokuleianus, and var. ``from Hawaii''), Neraudia
sericea (as N. kahoolawensis), Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania
tomentosa (as S. hobdyi and S. tomentosa var. tomentosa), Silene
lanceolata, Solanum incompletum (as S. haleakalense and S. incompletum
var. glabratum, var. incompletum, and var. mauiensis), Tetramolopium
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, Vigna o-wahuensis (as V. sandwicensis var.
heterophylla and var. sandwicensis), Viola lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense (as Z. hawaiiense var. citiodora) were considered
endangered; Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense (as Z. hawaiiense var.
hawaiiense and var. velutinosum) were considered threatened; and
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (as B. distans
and B. micrantha ssp. 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). We listed the 37
species as endangered between 1991 and 1999. A summary of the listing
actions can be found in Table 3(a).
[[Page 1233]]
Table 3(a).--Summary of Listing Actions for 37 Plant Species From Lanai
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed rule Final rule Proposed designation or non-
Federal ---------------------------------------------------------------------- designation of critical 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 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/07/00, 12/29/ 65 FR 66808,
00. 65 FR 83158
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, 12/18/ 65 FR 66808,
00, 12/27/00, 01/ 65 FR 79192,
28/02. 65 FR 82086,
67 FR 3940
Brighamia rockii.............. E 09/20/91 56 FR 47718 10/08/92 57 FR 46325 12/29/00......... 65 FR 83158
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, 12/18/ 65 FR 66808,
00, 12/27/00, 12/ 65 FR 79192,
29/00, 01/28/02. 65 FR 82086,
65 FR 83158,
67 FR 3940
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. E 05/24/91 56 FR 23842 05/15/92 57 FR 20772 12/18/00, 12/27/ 65 FR 79192,
mauiensis. 00. 65 FR 82086
Ctenitis squamigera........... E 06/24/93 58 FR 34231 09/09/94 59 FR 49025 12/18/00, 12/27/ 65 FR 79192,
00, 12/29/00. 65 FR 82086,
65 FR 83158
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. E 10/02/95 60 FR 51417 10/10/96 61 FR 53108 12/18/00, 12/27/ 65 FR 79192,
grimesiana. 00, 12/29/00. 65 FR 82086,
65 FR 83158
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
gibsonii.
Cyperus trachysanthos......... E 10/02/95 60 FR 51417 10/10/96 61 FR 53108 11/07/00, 01/28/ 65 FR 66808,
02. 67 FR 3940
Cyrtandra munroi.............. E 05/24/91 56 FR 23842 05/15/92 57 FR 20772 12/18/00, 12/27/ 65 FR 79192,
00. 65 FR 82086
Diellia erecta................ E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/07/00, 12/18/ 65 FR 66808,
00, 12/29/00, 01/ 65 FR 79192,
28/02. 65 FR 83158,
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, 12/27/ 65 FR 79192,
00, 12/29/00. 65 FR 82086,
65 FR 83158
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, 12/29/ 65 FR 79192,
00. 65 FR 83158
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 83158
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, 12/29/ 65 FR 79192,
00. 65 FR 83158
Phyllostegia glabra var. E 09/17/90 55 FR 38236 09/20/91 56 FR 47686 12/29/00......... 65 FR 83158
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, 12/18/ 65 FR 66808,
00, 12/29/00, 01/ 65 FR 79192,
28/02. 65 FR 83158,
67 FR 3940
Silene lanceolata............. E 09/20/91 56 FR 47718 10/08/92 57 FR 46325 12/29/00......... 65 FR 83158
Solanum incompletum........... E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 01/28/02......... 67 FR 3940
[[Page 1234]]
Spermolepis hawaiiensis....... E 09/14/93 58 FR 48012 11/10/94 59 FR 56333 11/07/00, 12/18/ 65 FR 66808,
00, 12/27/00, 12/ 65 FR 79192,
29/00, 01/28/02. 65 FR 82086,
65 FR 83158,
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, 12/29/ 65 FR 79192,
00. 65 FR 83158
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, 12/18/ 65 FR 66808,
00, 12/29/00, 01/ 65 FR 79192,
28/02. 65 FR 83158,
67 FR 3940
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key: E= Endangered.
At the time each plant was listed, we found 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 findings for these species, along with
others, were challenged in Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt,
2F. 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 findings 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).
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 found that designation of critical habitat was prudent and stated
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
[[Page 1235]]
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
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 were sent to the
Federal Register by or on November 30, 2000, as required by the court
orders.
In those proposals, we proposed 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. We proposed
that critical habitat was not prudent for one species, Phyllostegia
glabra var. lanaiensis, because it had not been seen recently in the
wild, and no genetic material of this species is known to exist.
On December 27, 2000, we proposed designation of critical habitat
on approximately 1,953 ha (4,826 ac) of land on the island of Lanai.
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 Universal Tranverse Mercator (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
Earthjustice (representing the plaintiffs in Hawaii Conservation
Council v. Babbitt) requesting extension of the court order 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. The joint stipulation was
approved and ordered by the court on October 5, 2001. On January 28,
2002, in the Kauai revised proposal, we proposed 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.
On March 4, 2002, we published a revised proposed rule for the 37
plant species from Lanai (67 FR 9806). Critical habitat for 32
(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, and
Viola lanaiensis) of the 37 plant species from the island of Lanai was
proposed on approximately 7,853 ha (19,504 ac) of land (67 FR 9806).
Critical habitat was not proposed for Mariscus fauriei, Phyllostegia
glabra var. lanaiensis, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp.
lepidotum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the island of Lanai because
these plants no longer occur on Lanai and we were unable to determine
habitat which is essential to their conservation on this island.
The publication of the revised proposed rule opened a 60-day public
comment period, which closed on May 3, 2002. On July 15, 2002, we
published a notice (67 FR 46450) announcing the reopening of the
comment period until August 30, 2002, and a notice of a public hearing.
On July 16, 2002, we published a notice announcing the availability of
the draft economic analysis on the proposed critical habitat (67 FR
46626). On July 22, 2002, we held a public information meeting at the
Lanai Senior Center, Lanai. On August 1, 2002, we held a public hearing
at the Lanai Public Library Meeting Room, Lanai. On July 11, 2002, we
submitted joint stipulations with Earthjustice requesting extension of
the court orders for the final rules to designate critical habitat for
plants from Lanai (December 30, 2002), Kauai and Niihau (January 31,
2003), Molokai (February 28, 2003), Maui and Kahoolawe (April 18,
2003), Oahu (April 30, 2003), the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (April
30, 2003), and the island of Hawaii (May 30, 2003), citing the need to
conduct additional review of the proposals, address comments received
during the public comment periods, and to conduct a series of public
workshops on the proposals. The joint stipulations were approved and
ordered by the court on July 12, 2002. On November 15, 2002, we
published in the Federal Register (67 FR 69176) a notice reopening the
public comment period for the proposed rule.
[[Page 1236]]
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
In the proposed rule published on March 4, 2002 (67 FR 9806), we
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the
proposal. We also contacted all appropriate Federal, State, and local
agencies, scientific organizations, and other interested parties and
invited them to comment. We received one request for a public hearing.
We announced the date and time of the public hearing in letters to all
interested parties, appropriate State and Federal agencies, county
governments, and elected officials, and in notices published in the
Honolulu Advertiser and the Maui News on March 19, 2002. A transcript
of the hearing held in Lanai City, Lanai on August 1, 2002, is
available for inspection (see ADDRESSES section).
We received individually written letters from 19 parties, including
three designated peer reviewers, four State agencies, and 12
individuals, and testimony from three individuals at the August 1,
2002, public hearing. Approximately 275 additional letters were
submitted as part of a mailing campaign. Of the 22 parties who did not
respond as part of the mailing campaign, five supported the proposed
designation, eight were opposed, and nine expressed neither support nor
opposition. The eight commenters who opposed the proposal specifically
opposed designation of critical habitat on lands they own or manage,
and requested that these areas be excluded from critical habitat
designation.
We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new
information regarding critical habitat for 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, Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa,
Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, Tetramolopium
remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, Viola lanaiensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
Similar comments were grouped into general issues and are addressed in
the following summary.
Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology
(1) Comment: One reviewer questioned whether loss of wetlands is a
threat to Cyperus trachysanthos because wetlands are not known to exist
on Lanai.
Our Response: Because Cyperus trachysanthos requires seasonally wet
soils, we feel that the lack of such soils on Lanai does constitute a
threat to the species. However, based on information received during
the public comment period, we have revised the proposed critical
habitat for C. trachysanthos. We are no longer proposing critical
habitat for this species on Lanai because of the absence of wetland
habitat. Furthermore, we were able to locate sites on other islands
that: (1) Contain the primary constituent elements that are essential
to the conservation of the species, (2) are within historical range,
and (3) accommodate our recovery goals of 8-10 populations.
(2) Comment: One reviewer stated that deer and mouflon sheep are
threats to Centaurium sebaeoides, Cyperus trachysanthos, and Sesbania
tomentosa, and that mouflon sheep, not goats and pigs, are a threat to
Hibiscus brackenridgei.
Our Response: Goats and pigs were replaced with mouflon sheep and
axis deer as current threats throughout the ``Discussion of plant
taxa'' section. Goats and pigs are no longer present on Lanai and were
mistakenly included as current threats.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that high nutrient runoff
from a nearby golf course be included as a threat to Unit G.
Our Response: Unit G has been modified to exclude inland areas that
do not contain the primary constituent elements for Portulaca
sclerocarpa. Critical habitat is now proposed only for the cliff faces
along the shore. These areas are not at risk of nutrient runoff from
the nearby golf course.
(4) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that Phyllostegia
glabra var. lanaiensis be assumed extinct, as it is common for Hawaiian
plant species that have not been seen for decades to be rediscovered.
The recent rediscoveries of Asplenium fragile var. insulare on Maui and
of Phyllostegia waimeae on Kauai are cases in point. Critical habitat
should be designated for this species.
Our Response: We continue to believe that it would not be prudent
to designate critical habitat for Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis,
a species known only from Kaiholena on Lanai. The species has not been
seen on Lanai for over 80 years. This species was last observed on
Lanai at Kaiholena in 1914. A report of this plant from the early 1980s
was probably erroneous and should be referred to as P. 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 have determined that designation of critical habitat for P. glabra
var. lanaiensis is not prudent because such designation would not be
beneficial to the species. If this species is rediscovered, we may
reconsider designating critical habitat for this species as new
information becomes available (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(B); 50 CFR
424.13(f)).
(5) Comment: The Service should not designate critical habitat for
Adenophorus periens, which was last seen on Lanai in the 1860s, because
nothing is known about its threats. The Service must prove that the
designated areas for critical habitat are essential to the conservation
of A. periens before designating critical habitat.
Our Response: The Service believes that designation of critical
habitat for Adenophorus periens is prudent because information about
the habitat requirements of A. periens exists in the historical
literature and, unlike the case of Phyllostegia glabra, individuals of
this species are currently in cultivation, allowing populations to be
restored. According to recovery goals, reestablishment of wild
populations within historical range is essential to the recovery of
this species (USFWS 1999). However, the Service excluded proposed unit
Lanai D, proposed in part as critical habitat for A. periens because we
believe the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
The landowner has entered into a voluntary memorandum of agreement with
the Service to manage the lands in proposed Unit D, as well as adjacent
lands, for the conservation benefit of the 28 listed species for which
it was proposed as critical habitat. We believe the benefits of these
management actions would not occur if critical habitat is designated,
are greater than the benefits of including the area as critical
habitat. See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) for a more detailed
discussion of the exclusions. Critical habitat for A. periens has been
proposed within historical range on Kauai, Molokai, Hawaii, and Oahu.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that a recommendation to
[[Page 1237]]
discontinue federally supported hunting programs and remove nonnative
animals, particularly axis deer, be incorporated into the proposal.
Our Response: The Service recognizes that populations of many game
mammal species affect the distribution and abundance of many listed
endangered plant and animal species to varying degrees, either directly
or indirectly. We also recognize that game mammal hunting is a highly
valued activity to a portion of the present-day Hawaiian culture. We
recognize hunting as an important tool to manage wild populations of
game and support hunting as a recreational activity and the maintenance
of game mammal hunting programs within the state of Hawaii. However,
Federal and state law dictate that hunting programs must be designed
and executed in a way that is compatible with endangered species
conservation. Game mammal hunting programs must not only prevent
extinction, but allow for the recovery of federally listed endangered
and threatened species.
Under the Endangered Species Act, a critical habitat designation
establishes a geographic area that is important for the conservation of
a threatened or endangered species and may require special management
considerations. However, a designation does not affect land ownership
or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other special
conservation area. It does not allow government or public access to
private lands and will not result in closure of the area to all access
or use. A critical habitat designation does not constitute a land
management plan. Rather, it triggers the requirement that Federal
agencies must consult with the Service on activities they take or fund
that might affect critical habitat.
(7) Comment: Critical habitat designation should consider the
following: (1) The importance of designating the best remaining
elements of ecosystems for multi-species recovery, (2) the practicality
of managing and protecting scattered units without apparent physical
boundaries, and (3) the importance of public/private partnerships for
species recovery.
Our Response: We agree that all these factors are important for the
conservation of listed species. We have sought to designate only areas
that are essential for the conservation of the species, and which
contain primary constituent elements within the best remaining
habitats. We also agree that public/private partnerships are often
essential for species recovery. As an example, the Service is excluding
proposed unit Lanai D, an area proposed as critical habitat for 28
species, because the landowner has entered into a voluntary memorandum
of agreement with the Service to manage the lands for the conservation
benefit of 28 listed species. We believe there is a higher likelihood
of beneficial conservation activities occurring on Lanai without
designated critical habitat than there would be with designated
critical habitat in this location. See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
for a more detailed discussion of the excluded areas.
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the requirement that
1,000 m separate populations is adequate for small-scale disturbance
events, but is inadequate for large-scale disturbances. However, the
use of multiple populations with a 1,000-m separation is a good balance
between protecting against catastrophes and avoiding isolation of
populations. Another peer reviewer commented that although a 1,000-m
separation seems a bit arbitrary, it is workable. A third peer reviewer
disagreed with the identification of populations as discrete units due
to the lack of barriers to breeding on Lanai.
Our Response: We acknowledge the difficulty in identifying a
discrete, quantitative distance between populations, but in the absence
of more specific information indicating the appropriate distance to
assure limited cross-pollination, we believe that a distance of 1,000 m
(3,281 ft) is scientifically reasonable based on our review of current
literature (Barret and Kohn 1991; Fenster and Dudash 1994; Havens 1998;
Schierup and Christiansen 1996).
(9a) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented that the multi-
population approach is essential to the successful recovery of Hawaiian
species, but that 8 to10 populations may be too low a goal in some
cases. Eight to 10 populations should be considered the low end of what
is needed for recovery; species that characteristically have numerous
populations containing small numbers of individuals require special
consideration. (9b) Comment: Another peer reviewer suggested that 8 to
10 populations on each island would be most appropriate for multi-
island species.
Our Response: The Service acknowledges that, in general,
identification of more than 8 to 10 areas for recovery would improve
the likelihood of recovery. However, absent any quantitative scientific
modeling for the species, the service concludes that 8 to 10
populations is a goal that has a reasonable likelihood of meeting
recovery goals.
(10) Comment: It is difficult to comment in an informed manner on
critical habitat for species occurring on more than one island because
the proposed rule did not provide information on critical habitat
proposed on other islands for multi-island species.
Our Response: For this reason, the Service gave notice on August
20, 2002, reopening simultaneous comment periods for the proposed
designations and non-designations of critical habitat for plant species
on the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, and the
northwestern Hawaiian Islands until September 30, 2002, and for plant
species on the islands of Hawaii, and Oahu until November 30, 2002. The
new comment periods allowed all the interested parties to review all
the proposals together and submit written comments. The comment period
for the proposed designations and non-designations of critical habitat
for plant species on Lanai opened on August 15, 2002, and closed on
August 30, 2002, overlapping with the reopened comment periods for
Kauai, Niihau, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, the northwestern Hawaiian
Islands, Hawaii and Oahu.
(11a) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that degraded habitat
should only be excluded from critical habitat if it lacks the potential
to become appropriate habitat in the future or if enough less degraded
areas exist to make retention of degraded areas unnecessary. (11b)
Comment: A third peer reviewer feels that degraded sites should still
be included as critical habitat, at the very least as buffer zones and
ideally as areas for expansion. (11c) Comment: Two peer reviewers
commented that excluding degraded areas from critical habitat tends to
encourage landowners to let areas decline to the point where they will
not be selected as critical habitat.
Our Response: The Service agrees that ``degraded'' areas may be
necessary for recovery of the species. We have included areas that are
``degraded'' only if such areas contain the primary constituent
elements for the species; we considered if they are able to eventually
regain those missing primary constituent elements if properly managed
for restoration and no other suitable habitat for the species is
available. We revised proposed critical habitat for many species in the
proposed rule because we were able to reach our recovery goal of 8 to
10 populations for a species in intact areas within its
[[Page 1238]]
historical range that contain the primary constituent elements.
(12) Comment: One commenter was concerned about the designation of
units containing ``a badly degraded habitat.'' The reviewer criticizes
designation of such areas because it is not economically efficient to
control threats such as feral ungulates, weeds, and fire. Such
designation will create a regulatory burden and restrict future
management options for landowners and the State. Another suggested that
some species may be endangered because they exist in marginal habitat
and that designating more marginal habitat will not improve a species'
chance of survival.
Our Response: We agree that it is in a species' best interest to
designate critical habitat in the least degraded areas containing
primary constituent elements within historical range. However, in order
to reach our recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for a species within
historical range it was sometimes necessary to include ``degraded''
areas when other less degraded areas were not available for the
species.
(13a) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that it is unlikely that
enough land has been identified for the long-term conservation of
multiple populations; however, given the need to compromise, the
proposed units are reasonable. Peer reviewers stated that the areas
seem suitable in size and are ecologically appropriate, provided: (1)
They are protected from their primary threats, (2) excluded lands are
properly managed and of large enough size to be ecologically
sustainable, (3) proposed units E1-3 are consolidated into a single
unit and proposed unit D is retained as an entire unit, or the Service
can explain why fragmentation and edge-effects are not threats to the
species and why there is adequate mid-elevation habitat available in
other areas for target species. (13b) Comment: Critical habitat for
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Tetramolopium remyi, and Sesbania tomentosa
should be larger due to their formerly extensive range. (13c) Comment:
One peer reviewer stated that removal of significant portions of any of
the critical habitat units in the proposed rule is likely to prevent
the recovery of, or lead to the extinction of, listed species.
Our Response: We did not include additional lands in proposed
critical habitat because, at the time of the proposal and revised
proposal, we concluded that those lands were not essential for the
conservation of the 37 Lanai plant species, based on available
information concerning status of the species in specific areas and
level of habitat degradation. In this final rule, several units and
parts of units proposed as critical habitat have been excluded because
they are not essential for the conservation of the species or because
there are alternatives to a critical habitat designation. We determined
them to be non-essential due to their lacking primary constituent
elements, or having primary constituent elements but there are other
places for these species that have more primary constituent elements,
are less degraded, are already undergoing restoration, or are within a
partnership, Natural Area Reserve, TNCH preserve, or on a refuge. A
sufficient number (as defined in our recovery plans) of other, more
appropriate areas are being designated or proposed as critical habitat
within historical range on other islands. In other cases, the Service
decided that the benefits of excluding critical habitat outweighed the
benefits of including critical habitat. See the descriptions of
exclusion of critical habitat under Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2),
below.
(14) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that one of the keys to a
plant's survival is having the appropriate microclimate, which is
created by other plant species in a large enough aggregation to alter
the environment. Because of the strong, harsh winds on Lanai, it is
essential that critical habitat units, such as proposed units A, B, and
C, are large enough to provide habitat for a complete plant community
that can provide shelter from the winds.
Our Response: We agree and have sought to designate critical
habitat units that are large enough to accommodate the needs of the
species within those units. However, based on information received
during the public comment period, we have revised the proposed critical
habitat units and have excluded proposed units A, B, and C because they
are not essential for the conservation of Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Cyperus trachysanthos, Tetramolopium remyi, and Sesbania tomentosa.
Although they possess some of the primary constituent elements for
these species, their habitat is largely degraded. We were able to
identify an adequate number of sites within the historical range
containing more appropriate and less degraded habitat, and/or that are
already slated for conservation management and restoration.
(15a) Comment: Several commenters, including one peer reviewer,
felt that the proposed rule was improved by incorporating clear
methodology to designate appropriate unoccupied habitat for plant
recovery. (15b) Comment: The Service should not designate unoccupied
habitat. One commenter stated that the Service is acting outside its
authority in designating unoccupied habitat because almost any area in
Hawaii is capable of supporting one or more protected species, and the
entire State would have to be designated if unoccupied habitat is
included. (15c) Comment: Unoccupied habitat outside of the Conservation
District should not be designated because it is degraded.
Our Response: Our recovery plans for these species identify the
need to expand existing populations and reestablish wild populations
within the historical range. Because of the very limited current range
of these species, designating only occupied areas would not meet the
conservation requirements of the species. Occupied areas, as well as
the similar habitat around them within the designated units of critical
habitat that may be occupied in the future, provide the essential life-
cycle needs of the species and provide some or all of the habitat
components essential for the conservation (primary constituent
elements) of these species. We have revised the December 27, 2000,
proposal to designate critical habitat for 18 species from Lanai to
incorporate new information and/or address comments and new information
received during the comment periods, including information on areas of
potentially suitable unoccupied habitat for some of these species.
Expansion of some of these species to areas that were likely to have
been historically occupied is essential to the conservation of the
species.
When designating unoccupied habitat for these species, we first
evaluated lands that are suitable for each species. Of this suitable
habitat, we determined what areas are essential for the conservation of
each species using the guidelines outlined in the recovery plans (i.e.,
areas that contain one or more of the primary constituent elements, are
either in good condition for recovery efforts or could be made good
through appropriate management actions), and would provide space needed
by the species to reach our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations with
a minimum of 100 mature reproducing individuals per population for
long-lived perennials, 300 mature reproducing individuals per
populations for short-lived perennials, and 500 mature reproducing
individuals per population for annuals.
We disagree that all areas outside the Conservation District are
degraded and inappropriate for these species. Areas that contain one or
more of the primary constituent elements, are either in good
[[Page 1239]]
condition for recovery efforts or could be made good through
appropriate management actions, and would provide space needed by the
species to reach our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations with a
minimum number of mature reproducing individuals as specified above,
were determined to be essential for the conservation of each species,
regardless of land-use zoning.
(16a) Comment: One peer reviewer praised the Service for its
logical and reasonable methodology and for using the best available
science, including information such as elevation range, vegetation
type, associated species, physical location and community type for
determining critical habitat on Lanai. Another reviewer expressed
appreciation for the extensive work and review of Lanai data by the
Service.
(16b) Comment: Other reviewers felt that the Service did not
adequately consider recovery science and management in its proposed
critical habitat designations and did not have adequate information
relating to each species' primary constituent elements.
Our Response: When developing the proposed rule to designate
critical habitat for 32 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; the final listing rules for these species;
information received during the public comment periods and the
informational meetings and public hearings held on Lanai on July 22,
2002, and August 1, 2002; recent biological surveys and reports; our
recovery plans for these species; GIS information (e.g., vegetation,
soils, annual rainfall, elevation contours, landownership); 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 (CPC, in litt. 1999, HINHP database 2000; HPPRCC
1998; Service 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998a, 1998c, 1999).
In accordance with our policy on peer review published on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited the expert opinions of appropriate and
independent specialists regarding the proposed rule. The purpose of
this peer review was to ensure that our designation methodology of
critical habitat of Lanai plants was based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analysis. The comments of all of the peer
reviewers were taken into consideration in the development of this
final designation. We are required under a court-approved settlement
agreement to finalize this designation by December 30, 2002. If
provided with new information, we may revise the critical habitat
designation in the future.
(17) Comment: One commenter asked why other federally listed plants
on Lanai and historically listed plants were not included in the
critical habitat proposal. A peer reviewer asked why critical habitat
was not proposed for Gardenia mannii when it appears that the proposed
critical habitat may provide adequate habitat for the recovery of that
species.
Our Response: The proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
32 species found on Lanai was prepared in response to a lawsuit (see
``Previous Federal Action'' section above). Species listed prior to
1991, such as Gardenia mannii, were not covered by this lawsuit and
thus not addressed in the proposed rule. Additionally, certain species
were not included in the proposed rule because historical records were
incomplete and biological experts were unable to provide information
about their habitat requirements. These species are: Mariscus fauriei,
Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
(18) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat for
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum should be included in the final
rule, if such habitat is present on Lanai.
Our Response: Historical records are incomplete and biological
experts were unable to provide information about the habitat
requirements of Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum on Lanai.
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum is currently found on Oahu and
we have proposed critical habitat for this species on that island.
Issue 2: Effects of Designation
(19) Comment: One landowner commented that critical habitat should
be consistent with current and ongoing conservation efforts in priority
areas so that resources are not directed elsewhere in an uncoordinated
manner. This reviewer stated that the Service and landowner should work
together to develop an approach that is more likely to lead to species
recovery, rather than a passive designation lacking management.
Our Response: We agree and recognize that the ultimate purpose of
critical habitat is to contribute to the conservation of listed
species, a purpose that can be best reached by cooperation between the
Service and the community. As an example, the Service excluded proposed
unit D, proposed for 28 species, from critical habitat designation
because we believe the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion. The landowner entered into a voluntary memorandum of
agreement with the Service to manage the lands in proposed unit Lanai
D, as well as adjacent lands, for the conservation benefit of the 28
listed species for which it was proposed as critical habitat. We
believe the benefits of these management actions, which would not occur
if critical habitat is designated, are greater than the benefits of
including the area as critical habitat. See Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) for a more detailed discussion of the exclusions.
(20) Comment: One reviewer commented that the designation of
critical habitat alone will not prevent the loss of remaining natural
habitats and that funds would be better spent on natural resource
management activities. Another reviewer stated that if management is
not realistic, it makes little sense to designate critical habitat.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation is one of a number of
conservation tools established in the Act that can play an important
role in the recovery of a species. For a Federal action to adversely
modify critical habitat, the action would have to adversely affect the
critical habitat's constituent elements or their management in a manner
likely to appreciably diminish or preclude the conservation of the
species. Designation of critical habitat is a way to guide Federal
agencies in evaluating their actions, in consultation with the Service,
such that their actions do not hamper conservation of listed species.
There also are educational or informational benefits to the designation
of critical habitat. Educational benefits include the notification of
landowners, land managers, and the general public about the importance
of protecting the habitat of these species and dissemination of
information regarding their essential habitat requirements.
(21) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that it appears that there is
an assumption that ``natural'' areas in the recent past were not
impacted by humans. It is unlikely that there was any place in the
major Hawaiian Islands that was not at least nominally altered by
Hawaiians. There should therefore be a slated role for the Hawaiian
[[Page 1240]]
community in the proposed conservation zones.
Our Response: We agree that Hawaiians may have impacted natural
areas prior to European settlement. Further, we believe that native
Hawaiians can play an important role in species recovery. We do not
anticipate that the critical habitat designation will affect their role
in species recovery efforts, and we believe it is likely to be
compatible with many of the land management goals of native Hawaiians.
(22) Comment: Critical habitat must accommodate the traditional
cultural gathering rights of native Hawaiians as reflected in Article
XII of the State constitution and upheld by the Hawaii Supreme Court in
the Public Access Shoreline Hawaii and Ka Paakai o Ka Aina decisions.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation does not affect
activities, including human access, on State or private lands unless
some kind of Federal permit, license, or funding is involved and the
activities may affect the species. It imposes no regulatory
prohibitions on state or other non-Federal lands, nor does it impose
any restrictions on State or non-Federal activities that are not funded
or authorized by any Federal agencies. Access to Federal lands that are
designated as critical habitat is not restricted unless access is
determined to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat. If we determine that access will result in adverse
modification of the critical habitat, we will suggest reasonable or
prudent alternatives that allow the proposed activities to proceed.
Activities of the State or private landowner or individual, such as
farming, grazing, logging, and gathering generally are not affected by
a critical habitat designation, even if the property is within the
geographical boundaries of the critical habitat, unless there is
Federal nexus to the activity. A critical habitat designation has no
regulatory effect on access to State or private lands. Recreational,
commercial, and subsistence activities, including hunting, on non-
Federal lands are not regulated by this critical habitat designation,
and may be impacted only where there is Federal involvement in the
action and the action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat.
(23) Comment: One native Hawaiian commenter stated that the
critical habitat proposal is crucial in guardianship and preservation
of not only native plants, but the native species that thrive in such
protected habitat.
Our Response: We agree that conservation of native plants is
consistent with the land management goals of many native Hawaiians.
Though not intended to replace on the ground management, we agree that
critical habitat designation plays a role in the protection of native
species. Designation of critical habitat is a way to guide Federal
agencies in evaluating their actions, in consultation with the Service,
such that their actions do not hamper conservation of listed species.
There also are educational or informational benefits to the designation
of critical habitat. Education benefits include the notification of
landowners, land managers, and the general public of the importance of
protecting the habitat of these species and dissemination of
information regarding their essential habitat requirements.
Issue 3: Site-Specific Biological Comments
(24) Comment: The exclusion of Kanepuu Preserve needs to be
reassessed because the string of small preserves may not be adequate to
provide for the long-term maintenance of habitat. Critical habitat may
need to be established around these preserves in order to sustain
native plant communities. One peer reviewer was concerned that, given
the exclusion of Kanepuu Preserve, Bonamia menziesii may not have
enough suitable lowland dry forest designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: We reassessed the exclusion of Kanepuu Preserve and
determined that it should be excluded because, in addition to having
ongoing management, it is not essential for the conservation of Bonamia
menziesii or Hibiscus brackenridgei. We were able to locate sites on
other islands for those two species that: (1) Contain at least one of
the primary constituent elements that are essential to the conservation
of the species, (2) are within historical range, and (3) accommodate
our recovery goals of 8-10 populations.
(25a) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that as long as the units
are protected from major threats, adequate, although not ideal, habitat
is designated within proposed unit A for species recovery. (25b)
Comment: Other commenters recommended removing unit A from the proposed
designation, citing the following reasons: (1) Hibiscus brackenridgei
is represented by only one individual in the unit, the unit has a small
amount of suitable soil, it has habitat proposed in unit D, habitats
exist on other islands, and the species has been extensively cultivated
ex situ; (2) the physical attributes of Kaena Iki have changed
substantially over time, the ground water spring dried up and
seasonally wet soil habitat is no longer present, making it unsuitable
habitat for Cyperus trachysanthos; (3) the historical location for C.
trachysanthos is somewhat ambiguous because ``Kaena'' is also the name
of a locality 2.5 miles to the east-northeast outside proposed unit A;
and (4) the former population of C. trachysanthos within proposed unit
A was likely very small and may be considered an unusual occurrence.
(25c) Comment: Another reviewer suggested reducing the size of proposed
unit A to less than 275 acres in the upper portion of the site near the
existing populations of H. brackenridgei. The unit should be designed
to accommodate just one of the 8 to 10 populations needed statewide.
Our Response: Unit A was proposed as critical habitat for two
species, Cyperus trachysanthos and Hibiscus brackenridgei. We excluded
the proposed critical habitat for C. trachysanthos from the final rule
because this area no longer contains the suitable habitat of seasonally
wet soils. The water source has permanently dried up due to alterations
in the watershed properties of the island. Also, this area is not
essential for the conservation of C. trachysanthos, a multi-island
species, because were able to locate sites on other islands that: (1)
Contain at least one of the primary constituent elements that are
essential to the conservation of the species, (2) are within historical
range, and (3) accommodate our recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations.
Based on information received during the public comment period, we
have also excluded unit A as critical habitat for H. brackenridgei, a
multi-island species. We determined that this area is not essential for
the conservation of the species because there are at least eight other
places for this species that have more primary constituent elements,
are less degraded, are already undergoing restoration, or are within a
partnership, Natural Area Reserve, TNCH preserves, or on a refuge. More
appropriate areas on other islands, within historical range, and that
provide habitat for 10 populations, are proposed as critical habitat
for H. brackenridgei.
(26a) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that, as long as the units
are protected from major threats, adequate, though not ideal, habitat
is designated within proposed unit B for species recovery. (26b)
Comment: Proposed unit B should not be removed from critical habitat
designation because recent surveys found no individuals of
Tetramolopium remyi present in fenced areas, despite favorable
environmental conditions. (26c) Comment: Proposed unit B should be
reduced to less than
[[Page 1241]]
235 acres in the upper portion of the site near the existing
population. Proposed unit D provides better habitat for many
populations of T. remyi and recovery is much more likely in this unit.
Our Response: Unit B was proposed as critical habitat for
Tetramolopium remyi. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude
areas not essential to the conservation of this species. The area is
highly degraded and is in a game management area where one of the
threats (axis deer) is being managed for hunting purposes by the State.
The remaining area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island
species T. remyi provides habitat within its historical range for one
population of the 8 to 10 outlined in the recovery plan for this
species. The designated area is situated around the recently extirpated
known individuals, contains at least one of the primary constituent
elements, and most likely contains a viable seed bank due to the recent
existence of mature, seed-bearing individuals of this species in the
area. This unit was renamed Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi.
(27) Comment: Two commenters suggested that proposed unit C be
removed from critical habitat designation for Sesbania tomentosa,
citing the following reasons: (1) The species does not currently occur
on Lanai; (2) natural recruitment from inter-island dispersal is
unlikely; (3) it is not economically efficient to manage the threats in
these areas; (4) the historical Lanai population may have been
genetically distinct and propagules are not available from the
historical population; and (5) suitable unoccupied habitat exists in
proposed unit D.
Our Response: Unit C was proposed as critical habitat for the
multi-island species Sesbania tomentosa. We have excluded this unit
from critical habitat because it is not essential for the conservation
of the species because there are at least eight other places for this
species that have more primary constituent elements or are less
degraded, are already undergoing restoration, or are within a
partnership, Natural Area Reserve, TNCH preserve, or on a refuge. More
appropriate areas on other islands, within the historical range, and
that provide habitat for 10 populations, are proposed as critical
habitat for S. tomentosa.
(28a) Comment: Commenters, including peer reviewers, supported the
designation of critical habitat in proposed unit D because: (1) This
area contains the best remaining habitat on Lanai, (2) supports high
rare species diversity, and (3) has existing programs for native
species management at Lanaihale. (28b) Comment: One reviewer commented
that the extension of critical habitat for Centaurium sebaeoides into
the Lanai Cooperative Game Management Area is reasonable because the
habitat in this area is similar to the species' current habitat on
Lanai. (28c) Comment: Two peer reviewers questioned the removal of the
middle portion of proposed unit D, especially when edge effects should
be minimized. (28d) Comment: Proposed unit D should be divided into
three subunits (D-1, D-2, and D-3) in order to make the unit manageable
in a practical sense. (27e) Comment: D-1 (Lanaihale area) should be
removed from critical habitat designation because it is already being
managed in a cooperative agreement between the Service and Castle and
Cooke Resorts, LLC.
Our Response: Lanai D was proposed as critical habitat for 28
species: Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bonamia
menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Centaurium sebaeoides, Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea
macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium
molokaiensis, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis
schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Solanum incompletum,
Spermolepis hawaiiense, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis and
Viola lanaiensis.
Based on additional information and discussions with the landowner,
the Service has decided not to designate critical habitat for these
species on Lanai. The unit was excluded from critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act because the landowner entered into a
voluntary memorandum of agreement with the Service to manage the lands
in proposed unit Lanai D, as well as adjacent lands, for the
conservation benefit of the 28 listed species for which it was proposed
as critical habitat. We believe the benefits of these management
actions, which would not occur if critical habitat is designated, are
greater than the benefits of including the area as critical habitat.
See Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) for a more detailed discussion of
the exclusions.
(29a) Comment: All commenters agreed that at least portions of
proposed units E1-3 are appropriate for critical habitat designation
due to the likely presence of many species within the unit. (29b)
Comment: One peer reviewer argued for consolidation of proposed units
E1-E3 in order to reduce edge effect and fragmentation, and remove
barriers to gene flow. (29c) Comment: Only the upper portions of
proposed units E should be included as critical habitat for Bidens
micrantha because the remainder of proposed unit E is not essential to
the conservation of the species.
Our Response: We acknowledge the potential negative impacts of edge
effects on the habitat for Bidens micrantha. However, this species'
primary constituent elements are found only within ridge habitat and
the three proposed E units are actually three ridges. Consolidating the
units would add the gulch areas between the ridges that lack the
primary constituent elements for B. micrantha.
No changes were made to these proposed units and they are
designated as critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha.
They have been renamed units Lanai 2--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--
North, Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--Middle, and Lanai 4--
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--South.
(30) Comment: Two reviewers suggested removing proposed unit F as
critical habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei due to its degraded
habitat, marginal soil and rainfall, and physical characteristics that
are different from those at currently extant populations. One reviewer
believed that designation of such sites is not economically efficient
and would create a regulatory burden and restrict future management
options for landowners and the State.
Our Response: This unit was proposed as critical habitat for the
multi-island species Hibiscus brackenridgei. Based on information
received during the public comment period, we have revised the proposed
critical habitat for this species. We have excluded proposed unit F
because it does not contain the primary constituent elements essential
for the conservation of this species. An adequate amount of critical
habitat for Hibiscus brackenridgei is proposed within historical range
on other islands.
(31) Comment: One peer reviewer expressed concern that proposed
unit G is downslope from a golf course and the high nutrient runoff
from the golf course may encourage nonnative plants and threaten the
survival of native species within the proposed unit. Three commenters
suggested removing proposed unit G as critical habitat for Portulaca
sclerocarpa because: (1) The species does not occur at this site
currently, (2) historical records of its
[[Page 1242]]
occurrence at this site are lacking, (3) since the species is confined
to vertical cliffs, habitat above the cliff is inappropriate, (4) few
available niches exist for this species along the cliffs, (5) the
species was likely always rare in this area, and (6) the cliffs are
already protected under applicable shoreline setback laws.
Our Response: Lanai G was proposed as critical habitat for the
multi-island species Portulaca sclerocarpa. Modifications were made to
this unit to exclude inland areas that do not contain the primary
constituent elements. Although there are no historical records for this
species on the main island of Lanai, we believe the species did
historically occur there as plants continue to survive just off shore
on Poopoo Islet. Poopoo Islet is a small rocky outcrop approximately
200 m (600 ft) from the south shoreline. It is likely that the species
disappeared from the main island Lanai as a result of the threats there
prior to adequate surveys being conducted. Further, the areas
designated as critical habitat on Lanai proper contain one or more of
the primary constituent elements and provide additional area for one of
the 8 to 10 populations needed for the recovery of this species as
outlined in the recovery plan. Critical habitat designated for P.
sclerocarpa includes only cliff faces along the shore. While it is true
the cliffs are already protected under applicable State shoreline
setback laws, the specific habitat features for this species are not
directly protected by those laws. Actions taken adjacent to the cliffs,
which may not be affected by State laws, could appreciable alter the
ability of the habitat to support a population of this species. This
unit was renamed Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Coast.
(32) Comment: Commenters supported the designation of critical
habitat for Portulaca sclerocarpa at proposed unit H. One commenter
noted that although surveys found no evidence of the species in
proposed unit H, the islets' cliff faces remain appropriate for a
species that was likely naturally rare due to the area's few suitable
niches.
Our Response: We agree this species is rare, but this unit
continues to support the one extant colony of this species on Lanai. No
changes were made to this unit and it is designated as critical habitat
for Portulaca sclerocarpa. It has been renamed Lanai 6--Portulaca
sclerocarpa--Isle.
Issue 4: Mapping
(33) Comment: The Service should define affected property lines in
a manner that allows for the descriptions to be used in real property
conveyance documents in the State of Hawaii.
Our Response: The maps in the Federal Register are meant to provide
the general location and shape of critical habitat. The legal
descriptions are readily plotted and transferable to a variety of
mapping formats and were made available electronically upon request for
use with GIS programs. At the public hearing, the maps were expanded to
wall-size to assist the public in better understanding the proposal.
These larger scale maps were also provided to individuals upon request.
Furthermore, we provided direct assistance in response to written or
telephone questions with regard to mapping and landownership within the
proposed designation.
(34) Comment: The final proposal should map or identify how many
populations are being accommodated in each unit and the acreage
allotted for each population.
Our Response: The final rule identifies the number of populations
accommodated in each unit. We do not have the scientific information to
precisely identify how many acres each population requires. We did,
however, ensure that each population is separated by 1,000 meters or by
some distinct geologic feature.
Issue 5: Economic Issues
(35) Comment: The Draft Economic Analysis (DEA) fails to consider
economic impacts of listing and critical habitat that result through
interaction with State law, specifically Hawaii's Endangered Species
Act. The commenter suggested that New Mexico Cattlegrowers Association
v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requires consideration of the impact
of listing as well as the impact of designating an area as critical
habitat. Instead, the analysis is expressly limited to the impact of
Federal agency consultation under the jeopardy standard. However, since
Federal listing triggers listing under State law, the Service must
consider the impact of take prohibitions under State law (and
consequently Federal law, which prohibits destruction of plants in
knowing violation of State law).
Our Response: Possible costs resulting from interplay of the
Federal Endangered Species Act and Hawaii State law are discussed in
the economic analysis under indirect costs (e.g., possible conservation
management mandate for the private landowner and reduction in game
mammal populations). The economic analysis considers the economic
impacts of section 7 consultations related to critical habitat even if
they are attributable co-extensively to the listed status of the
species. In addition, the economic analysis examines any indirect costs
of critical habitat designation, such as where critical habitat
triggers the applicability of a State or local statute. However, where
it is the listing of a species that prompts action at the State or
local level (e.g., further regulating the take of federally listed
species), the impacts are not attributable to critical habitat
designation and are not appropriately considered in the economic
analysis of critical habitat designation. Take prohibitions under
Hawaii law are tied to the Federal listing of the species and do not
co-extensively occur because of critical habitat designations. However,
our analysis did consider the other ways in which the Federal
Endangered Species Act and Hawaii State law may interplay.
(36) Comment: Two commenters stated that the DEA fails to consider
economic impacts of critical habitat that result through interaction
with Hawaii's Land Use Law. Critical habitat could result in changes to
zoning under State law. HRS Sec. 205-2(e) states that Conservation
Districts shall include areas necessary for conserving endangered
species. HRS 195D-5.1 states that DLNR shall initiate amendments in
order to include the habitat of rare species. Even if DLNR does not
act, the Land Use Commission may initiate such changes, or they may be
forced by citizen lawsuits. Areas for endangered species are placed in
the protected subzone with the most severe restrictions. While existing
uses can be grandfathered in, downzoning will prevent landowners from
being able to shift uses in the future, will reduce market value, and
make the land unmortgageable.
Our Response: As indicated in the final addendum to the DEA
(Addendum), about 362.4 ac of agricultural lands and 8 ac of rural
lands are included in the final designation. No agricultural or
ranching activities take place on these agricultural lands. Assuming a
worst-case scenario, one which is not envisioned, reduction in land
values due to redistricting land from the Agricultural or Rural
District to Conservation District could range from $50,736 to $163,080
($140 to $450 per acre) for agricultural lands and $1.3 million to $2.7
million ($160,000 to $334,000 per acre) for rural lands. Under this
scenario, even if a landowner has no plans to sell the land, the loss
in land value could reduce potential mortgage financing. However, the
likelihood of redistricting is not certain and could be small. The
State's history
[[Page 1243]]
supports the unlikelihood of rezoning or redistricting land based on
evaluations of biological value.
(37) Comment: The DEA fails to consider economic impacts of
critical habitat that result through interaction with State law,
specifically Hawaii's Environmental Impact Statement Law. HRS 343-5
applies to any use of conservation land, and a full Environmental
Impact Statement is required if any of the significance criteria listed
in HAR 11-200-12 apply. One of these criteria is that an action is
significant if it ``substantially affects a rare, threatened or
endangered species or its habitat.'' This will result in costly
procedural requirements and delays. However, the DEA does not
acknowledge that any impact on endangered species habitat will be
deemed to be ``significant.'' Multiple commenters stated that the DEA
fails to evaluate the practical effect critical habitat designation
will have on development. Special Management Area permits administered
by Maui County as required by Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Act,
will be harder to get, will result in delays, will cause a decline in
property values and may make land impossible to develop.
Our Response: Adverse impacts on development, including delays for
additional studies and agency reviews, increased costs for
environmental studies, increased risk of project denials, increased
risk of costly mitigation measures, and increased risk of litigation
over approvals, are not expected since no known development plans exist
for the areas proposed for designation, as modified. Furthermore, the
following factors make future development projects within critical
habitat highly unlikely: (1) As modified, approximately 53 percent of
the critical habitat is in the Conservation District where development
is severely limited; (2) approximately 46 percent of the critical
habitat is in the Agricultural District, but because the land includes
gulches, it does not host any ranching or agricultural activities; (3)
less than one percent of the proposed designation encompasses land in
the Rural District with no known development plans; and (4) as
modified, the cliffs along the southern shore are the only critical
habitat area that is in the Special Management Area. (The percentages
given here are different from those in the addendum because of the
Service's decision to exclude Lanai Unit D (see Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2))
(38) Comment: The DEA fails to consider economic impacts of
critical habitat that result through interaction with State law,
specifically the State Water Code. HRS 174C-2 states that ``adequate
provision shall be made for protection of fish and wildlife''. HRS
174C-71 instructs the Commission of Water Resource Management to
establish an instream use protection program to protect fish and
wildlife. Since landowners may depend on water pumped from other
watersheds, these effects can be far-reaching. It is impossible to tell
from the descriptions in the proposal whether any water diversions will
have to be reduced as a result of listing and critical habitat
designation. The Service has an obligation to thoroughly investigate
this issue and refrain from designating critical habitat until it has
determined whether its actions will affect water use and balance this
against any benefit to the species.
Our Response: No costs are expected to occur from such impacts,
because none of the listed plants are stream-dependent for their
survival and therefore critical habitat designation would not cause a
reduction in existing water diversions.
(39) Comment: One commenter stated that the cost of potential
citizen lawsuits preventing certain activities or requiring some sort
of management in critical habitat was not discussed in the DEA. Another
commenter stated that critical habitat designation will bring
unnecessary and costly litigation. One commenter stated that proposed
critical habitat could entail considerable cost to both the State and
private landowners. One commenter stated that critical habitat
designation could indirectly result in limitations or special
management requirements (such as fencing or control of invasive
species) being established on private lands. The DEA estimates that the
Palila court decision may be interpreted to mandate private
conservation and could cost Lanai landowners up to $800,000 per year,
or $8 million over ten years. However, Table VI-3 of the Addendum
dismisses these costs as minor and does not add them to the total cost
estimate. These costs should be considered.
Our Response: The Act does not obligate landowners to manage their
land to protect critical habitat, nor would landowners and managers be
obligated under the Act to participate in projects to recover a species
for which critical habitat has been designated. However, the DEA does
discuss the potential mandate for conservation management pursuant to
litigation and the resulting costs for the proposed designation on
Lanai. Specifically, adverse impacts on development, including delays
for additional studies and agency reviews, increased costs for
environmental studies, increased risk of project denials, increased
risk of costly mitigation measures, and increased risk of litigation
over approvals, are not expected since there are no known development
plans within the areas proposed for designation, as modified.
Furthermore, the following factors make future development projects
within critical habitat highly unlikely: (1) As modified, approximately
53 percent of the proposed critical habitat is in the Conservation
District where development is already limited; (2) approximately 46
percent of the critical habitat is in the Agricultural District, but
because the land includes gulches, it does not host any ranching or
agricultural activities; (3) less than one percent of the designation
encompasses land in the Rural District with no known development plans;
and (4) as modified, the cliffs along the southern shore are the only
critical habitat area that is in the Special Management Area.
Thus, while it is conceivable that there may initially be an
increase in subsequent lawsuits related to the critical habitat
designation, it is not possible to predict their number, degree of
complexity, or any other associated effect on project delays due to
scant historical evidence regarding the Lanai plants.
(40) Comment: One commenter stated that the DEA lacks a thorough
benefits analysis. It does not include the benefits of watershed
protection and improvement, protection of other stream and riparian
biota, and the value of the plants as an indicator of ecological
health. Other commenters stated that the DEA ignored the benefit of
keeping other native species off the endangered species list, of
maintaining water quality and quantity, of promoting ground water
recharge, and of preventing siltation of the marine environment, thus
protecting coral reefs. Another commenter noted that additional
benefits of critical habitat include combating global warming,
providing recreational opportunities, attracting ecotourism, and
preserving Hawaii's natural heritage. The Service must use the tools
available, such as a study by the University of Hawaii (UH) Secretariat
for Conservation Biology that estimated the value of ecosystem service,
to determine the benefits of critical habitat. Another commenter stated
that the DEA overestimates economic benefits and many of the alleged
benefits are entirely speculative, unquantifiable or lack any
commercial value.
Our Response: The DEA discussed these potential benefits. However,
the DEA also indicated that these benefits
[[Page 1244]]
are not quantified due to lack of information available on: (1)
Quantified data on the value of the Lanai species; and (2) quantified
data on the change in the quality of the ecosystem and the species as a
result of the designation. Although the UH study does value ecosystem
services, it has limited applicability for valuing the benefits of the
critical habitat designation for the plants for a number of reasons.
First, the UH study had a different purpose, which was to estimate the
total value of environmental benefits provided by the entire Koolau
Mountains on the island of Oahu. Consistent with its purpose, the UH
study provides no estimates of the changes in environmental conditions
resulting from changes in land and stream management due to critical
habitat designation. Furthermore, many of the assumptions and much of
the analysis in the UH study are not transferable to the economic
analysis for the critical habitat of the Lanai plants. For example, the
value of water recharge in the UH study reflects projected water supply
and demand conditions on Oahu, an island three times the size of Lanai,
but with a population of more than 360 times that of Lanai. Also, the
UH benefit analysis of reducing soil runoff is unique to three valleys
that drain through partially channelized streams in urban areas into
the manmade Ala Wai Canal. Since this canal was designed with
inadequate flushing from stream or ocean currents, it functions as an
unintended settling basin, so must be dredged periodically. In
addition, the recreational and ecotourism values provided in the UH
study apply to areas that are accessible to most hikers, which is not
the case with most of the Lanai critical habitat. Most of the critical
habitat units designated on Lanai are either in mountainous areas with
steep slopes and difficult access or on coastal cliffs.
(41) Comment: Existence values should be quantified. Studies
referenced in the DEA analysis contain information about how much
people would be willing to pay to save various species. Even assuming
plants are noncharismatic and therefore would justify lower values,
there would still be a value of $6 per household per year. If the study
is able to take values for a day of hunting from the State of Idaho and
apply them to Hawaii, it should be equally able to take values from
studies which have looked at other species to get some sense of what
people would pay to make sure these species recover and do not go
extinct.
Our Response: As discussed in the Addendum, when primary research
is not feasible, economists frequently rely on the method of benefits
transfer. Benefits transfer involves the application of results of
existing valuation studies to a new policy question. Two core
principals of defensible benefits transfer are: (1) The use of studies
that apply acceptable techniques to generate welfare values, and (2)
similarity between the good being valued in the literature and the good
being valued in the policy context to which the transfer is being made
(i.e., the protection afforded the Lanai plants by critical habitat).
As noted above, no known studies exist with quantified data on the
value of plants or the change in the quality of the ecosystem and the
species as a result of the designation. Therefore, applying results of
existing valuation studies on non-plants to Lanai plant critical
habitat is not feasible.
(42) Comment: The conclusion under E.O. 12866 that the rule will
not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect in a material way any sector of the economy or State
or local governments or communities, is flawed because it does not
consider the major adverse impacts from secondary effects.
Our Response: For the reasons explained in the DEA, this rule is
not expected to have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more.
Both the DEA and the Addendum provide analysis of the indirect costs
associated with designation of critical habitat for the Lanai plants in
terms of land management, loss in property values and investigative
costs. These indirect costs are considered and those costs that can be
quantitatively estimated are addressed in the DEA and Addendum. Some
potential costs are not estimated because the likelihood of actually
incurring the cost is considered to be extremely remote.
(43) Comment: The designation of critical habitat will have direct
and substantial impacts on private property because large areas will be
unavailable for productive use and land values will be substantially
diminished. The Service must take these into account and weigh them
against the speculative protections that would accrue from designation.
The DEA correctly recognizes that perceptions and uncertainty of the
economic impact of critical habitat designation can cause temporary
reductions in land value as long as those perceptions persist and until
information is distributed. These impacts, however, need to be
analyzed. The DEA should examine true appraised values, rather than
relying on ``GIS analysis of land value,'' which is not explained, with
and without critical habitat designation and as it may be perceived by
buyers and lenders. In addition to the reduction in land value itself,
the DEA should investigate whether these losses in property value may
be long-term, because the consequences of critical habitat are yet to
be determined and will likely be the subject of extensive and costly
litigation that will take years to resolve. The DEA should also
recognize that land use values may be used as collateral for loans
supporting commercial operations and assess the potential impact
critical habitat designations may have on these transactions.
Our Response: The DEA did indeed estimate land values associated
with the different land use districts using GIS analysis. This
technique assesses large parcels as a group, rather than as specific
parcels, due to lack of obtaining information on land values for
specific locations. However, during the comment period, Castle and
Cooke Resorts, LLC, provided location-specific land value information
for the areas in the proposed units. Therefore, the Addendum relied on
those figures to recalculate the decrease in property value in the
worst-case scenario. According to Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, the
agricultural lands included in the designation should be valued at $390
to over $1,000 per acre; rural lands at $160,000 to over $335,000 per
acre; and conservation lands at $250 to over $550 per acre (based on an
appraisal of similar lands). Based on these figures, the decrease in
property value of agricultural lands could range from $50,811 to
$163,323 million [(($390-$250)x362.94), (($1,000-$550)x362.94)]. The
decrease in value for rural lands may range from $1.2 million to $2.7
million [(($160,000-250)x8), (($335,000-550)x8)]. As noted above, this
scenario is not expected to occur, and ensuring that clear and correct
information is available to all potential buyers will further reduce
the potential for such a scenario.
(44) Comment: It is not adequate to state, without any analysis,
that any reduction in property value to agricultural lands proposed in
units E and F is expected to be small because many of the lands are
categorized as open space by the county to limit development.
Agricultural lands such as those on Lanai have been appraised from $390
to $1,000 an acre. The DEA should examine the effects by using
appraised values before and after critical habitat designation. The DEA
also states that rural land on Lanai is valued at approximately $44,000
per acre, even though nearby house lots in the Manele
[[Page 1245]]
Project district range up to $15 million. If the entire Manele Project
district is not excluded in the final rule, the DEA will have failed to
analyze one of the most substantial impacts of critical habitat on
Lanai. Even if excluded, proposed unit G includes approximately 110 ac
of rural lands, and the DEA has undervalued these lands greatly. The
undeveloped rural land in proposed unit G is adjacent to already
developed infrastructure in the Manele Project district.
Our Response: The Service has removed proposed unit F and modified
proposed unit G to exclude all but the cliffs in this final
designation. As modified, about 8 ac of rural lands remain in the
designation. However, no known plans exist for development on this
rural land and the cliff areas are likely unable to be developed. As
noted above, using figures provided by Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC,
the Addendum estimated that the decrease in value for those rural lands
may range from $1.2 million to $2.7 million.
(45) Comment: The DEA underestimates the economic costs because
they are limited to what is likely to occur within ten years even
though critical habitat designation is permanent and not automatically
revised if there is new evidence of the benefits of non-designation, or
if the species is delisted.
Our Response: As indicated by the DEA, the landowner does not have
specific development plans for the proposed designated areas for the
next ten years. As such, no maps, permit applications, or other
documents are available to serve as the basis for an estimate of
possible impact of the designation.
A listed species is delisted when it is recovered or has gone
extinct. Recovery is defined as no longer needing the protections
provided by the Act, including critical habitat. Thus, when a species
is delisted, critical habitat for that species would no longer be in
effect.
(46) Comment: The DEA grossly generalizes that all land in the
Conservation District is ``not suitable for development due to poor
access and terrain.'' This statement is not true for all or even most
of such lands. The DEA should have a unit-by unit review of the actual
lands designated to determine whether this is the case.
Our Response: In the final designation, only about 373 ac of
proposed unit B (now Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi) and the cliffs of
proposed unit G (now Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa-Coast) are lands in
the Conservation District. Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi is in the State
hunting unit on the mountain flanks. Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa-
Coast is limited to the steep cliffs of southern coast, only accessible
by a guided tour on a rocky trail. Therefore, we believe the lands in
the Conservation District that are included in this final designation
are in fact unsuitable for development. Other lands in the Conservation
District that were included in the proposed designation have not been
included in this final critical habitat designation.
(47) Comment: The economic analysis is wrong in identifying the
impacts on State and county development approvals as major. The
analysis completely fails to take into account the benefits of having
this information and enabling State and county agencies to make better
land use decisions. This benefit should be quantified and discussed in
the analysis.
Our Response: The DEA concluded that the possible quarry site for
proposed unit F may undergo more stringent State and county development
approval because of the designation and, therefore, may result in major
impacts. However, such impacts are no longer expected since we have
removed proposed unit F from this final designation for scientific
reasons. In addition, State and county agencies may gain better
knowledge of land resources because of the critical habitat
designation. However, the extent to which this may help their land-use
decisions is unknown. For example, State and county agencies may need
to spend less time surveying lands for natural resources, but it is not
feasible to estimate to what extent the designation would reduce the
number of hours or the amount of effort involved in determining the
sensitivity of an area. Furthermore, it is also impossible to determine
how much of the benefit is attributable to the designation alone.
(48) Comment: Proposed critical habitat units A, B, C, F and a
small portion of D are in the Lanai Cooperative Game Management Area
lease. One commenter stated that critical habitat management and game
management activities are not compatible. As a result, the commenter
indicated that the worst-case scenario would be for the public hunting
program to be eliminated entirely, which would have an economic impact
on Lanai, and that this was not reflected in the DEA. Alternatively,
another commenter stated that the Service should not base its economic
analysis on unlikely worst-case scenarios, but, rather, on likely
scenarios. For example, this commenter indicated that the requirement
to fence all of the critical habitat areas within hunting management
areas is the worst case. Further it was noted, that the more likely
situation would be that the State would forego Federal funding for game
mammal programs on Lanai and use State funds, in which case fencing
would not be required. Therefore, the commenter indicated that at most,
the cost would be those portions of the program that the State would
not receive because of critical habitat. The commenter further
questioned how much of this to attribute to critical habitat, because
history shows us that the State has already foregone some funds due to
listing, not critical habitat. Lastly, the commenter noted that there
also may be some ecosystem benefits to the State from fencing that are
not reflected in the analysis.
Our Response: Although DLNR does discuss the possibility of
shutting down the State hunting program on Lanai in its comment to the
proposed rule, the agency also states that avoiding a Federal nexus is
the likely alternative. The DEA recognizes that DLNR is likely to avoid
a Federal nexus by finding alternative non-Federal funds to manage
State hunting units on Lanai. Therefore, in a conservative estimate of
possible impacts to game management activities on Lanai, the DEA
considered the worst-case scenario to be the building an exclosure
fence around the proposed critical habitat that overlaps with State
hunting units. It is important to note, however, that the Service has
removed and modified some of these units in this final rule. As such,
the Addendum has revisited the impacts on game management discussed in
the DEA and revised the estimated costs according to the modification.
(49) Comment: Given the size of the designated areas, the vagueness
of the regulatory exclusion, and the real costs of obtaining
development approvals, the estimate of 15 to 24 hours is too low.
Our Response: To address these concerns, the Addendum revisited the
hours estimates presented in the DEA. The DEA indicated that the
landowner may want to learn how the designation may affect: (1) The use
of his land (either through restrictions or new obligations) and (2)
the value of his land. Since commenters did not provide an estimate of
time or cost incurred in order to investigate the implications of
critical habitat, the Addendum conservatively doubled the hours spent
by the landowner and/or his attorneys or professional staff on
investigating the issues. As described in the Addendum, using these new
assumptions, the analysis estimated that total section 7
[[Page 1246]]
costs range from $4,900 to $11,500, all of which are attributable to
critical habitat.
(50) Comment: Designation will have a huge impact on a new quarry
site, the probable source for rock for improvements to the breakwater
at Kaumalapau Harbor by the Corps, which will in turn have a material
adverse impact on planned development of essential improvements to the
harbor. The Service cannot assume that the section 7 costs would be
minor because stone could be obtained from another location within the
quarry. Private actions in critical habitat within the Conservation
District, such as construction of a new quarry in proposed unit F,
could require a full EIS at an additional cost.
Our Response: Such impacts are not expected since the Service has
removed proposed unit F completely from this final rule.
(51) Comment: Designation will create uncertainties which will
deter investment and potential agricultural and irrigation water
resource development.
Our Response: As noted above, no agricultural or ranching
activities take place within the designated critical habitat.
Furthermore, potential agricultural or ranching activities on these
agricultural lands in the future are also unlikely due to their remote
location (mostly on gulch lands) and rugged terrain. Therefore, such
impacts are not expected to occur as a result of the designation.
(52) Comment: The DEA must take into account the unique local
circumstances of land ownership and limited economic base of Lanai,
which are especially susceptible to detrimental impacts of regulations.
Our Response: The DEA examined potential impacts on small entities
(small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions) under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996. The DEA concluded that a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities would not result from the proposed
critical habitat designation. However, the DEA also concluded that
small businesses on Lanai that cater to hunters could be indirectly
affected by the designation in the unlikely event that DLNR builds
exclosure fences around the designated critical habitat. As stated
above, this final rule designates fewer areas within State hunting
areas than did the proposed rule.
Issue 6: Policy and Regulations
(53) Comment: One commentor stated the proposal fails to properly
consider the importance of cooperation and goodwill between the Service
and private landowners, and the impact critical habitat designations
will have in discouraging voluntary partnerships on private lands.
Our Response: The Service recognizes the importance of landowner
cooperation for recovery of listed species. This is especially true for
the island of Lanai which is under private ownership. We also recognize
that critical habitat designations may have a negative impact on
voluntary partnerships with private landowners. Conservation of the
Lanai plant species requires control of threats from alien species and
fire, and translocation of species that have been extirpated from the
wild. Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, owner of the lands proposed as
critical habitat, has cooperated with the Service, the State of Hawaii,
and other organizations to implement voluntary conservation activities
on their lands that have resulted in tangible conservation benefits to
the species. In addition, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC has agreed to
expand the existing conservation measures to address the threats to all
of the species in proposed unit Lanai D. They also indicated that
including the area in a critical habitat designation would have a
negative impact on their existing and future voluntary conservation
efforts on Lanai. After weighing the benefits of including unit Lanai D
as critical habitat with the benefits of excluding it, we concluded
that the designation of critical habitat would have a net negative
conservation effect on the recovery and conservation of the species
included in the unit, and thus excluded unit Lanai D from the final
designation of critical habitat.
(54) Comment: The Service did not adequately address the takings of
private property as a result of designating critical habitat for
endangered plants on Lanai. If the critical habitat proposal would
require reducing water diversions from any stream, the Service should
investigate whether that would take anyone's vested water rights. In
addition, if the proposed designation of critical habitat precipitates
conversion of agricultural lands to conservation land that has no
economically beneficial use, then the Federal and State governments
will have taken private property.
Our Response: We have assessed the takings implications of this
rule in accordance with Executive Order 12630 and have concluded that
this rule does not pose significant takings implications. Because no
critical habitat unit boundaries are located in existing diversions, no
requirements to reduce out-of-stream water use will arise as a result
of this rule. Furthermore, none of the plants are stream-dependent for
their survival and therefore would not cause a reduction in water
diversion. According to the State, land classification would not be
changed based on the designation of critical habitat alone, and private
lands are rarely changed to conservation. In addition, although the 366
acres within unit Lanai E is zoned for agriculture, the land within
this unit is on and/or near mountain flanks lined with gulches, and
neither farming nor ranching takes place in the unit.
(55) Comment: Prudency cannot be determined without an analysis of
the economic impacts of critical habitat. The prudency of critical
habitat designation is a final conclusion based on weighing all
relevant factors, including economic factors. While the Service
promised to complete its economic impact analysis before it promulgates
its final determination of critical habitat, it risks putting the
decision before the analysis. The prior determination that critical
habitat is prudent and is therefore required, is treated as a given,
even though it ignored economic factors.
Our Response: First, the Service did not make a final conclusion
regarding prudency in the proposed rule; in fact, the proposed rule
specifically requested public comment on the reasons why habitat is
prudent or not prudent. Second, the commenter is conflating the two
steps of the process. As defined by regulation, prudency looks at
whether critical habitat would harm or benefit the species. See 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1). If critical habitat is prudent, we look at all of the
impacts of designating specific areas as critical habitat to see if the
benefits of designation outweigh the benefits of excluding an area from
critical habitat. Third, this does not mean we ignored the requirement
to consider economic and other impacts of critical habitat designation.
To the contrary, a draft economic analysis was prepared, comments were
solicited, and an addendum was completed. Furthermore, we have excluded
a significant portion of the proposed designation based on negative
impacts to important private conservation efforts.
(56) Comment: While the Service has stated that critical habitat
affects only activities that require Federal permits or funding, and
does not require landowners to carry out special
[[Page 1247]]
management or restrict use of their land, this fails to address the
breadth of federal activities that affect private property in Hawaii
and the extent to which private landowners are required to obtain
Federal approval before they can use their property. These requirements
extend to all State agencies using Federal funds in connection with a
proposed action and community actions for which Federal approval or
review is necessary. The requirements also extend to loan and grant
programs such as National Resources Conservation Service loans and
grants. In addition, the Service has taken the position in other States
that it has a right to intervene in local land use proceedings if they
affect endangered species on private property, as evidenced by the
Service petition to the local zoning board in Arizona to postpone
approval of a rezoning petition pending a survey to determine the
extent to which an endangered plant was present on the property even
though no Federal approval was being sought.
Our Response: Private landowners are not required to obtain Federal
approval before using their property. When State or private landowners
seek a Federal permit or Federal funding, the Federal agency must
consult with the Service on actions that may affect listed species or
designated critical habitat. The draft Economic Analysis identifies the
potential Federal actions that may result in consultations on listed
plants and critical habitat on Lanai over the next ten years. Finally,
the Service has never intervened in local land use proceedings in the
State of Hawaii and does not anticipate doing so in the future.
(57) Comment: One commenter said that the Service failed to give
the public adequate opportunity to comment on the memorandum of
agreement (MOA) draft being used to possibly form the basis of a
decision to exclude proposed unit Lanai D from the final critical
habitat.
Our Response: The Service posted a notice of availability of the
draft MOA in the Federal Register on November 15, 2002. Letters were
sent to interested parties that same day, notifying the recipients of
the availability of the draft MOA at the Honolulu office of the
Service. Electronic versions of the draft agreement were also available
upon request. The comment period was opened for 10 days to allow the
public to make comments.
(58) Comment: One commenter said that the draft MOA made available
for comment is non-binding and only in draft form with vague terms. He
said the draft does not make clear what the species in question would
receive in lieu of critical habitat protection. He also said that the
draft MOA does not require any real financial commitments on the part
of Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, relying, instead on in-kind
contributions, nor would any new funds be committed to conservation
efforts during the first nine years of the agreement.
Our Response: Much planning is necessary to execute successful
plant restoration efforts of the type and scale covered by the draft
MOA. The area covered by the draft MOA is a large, rugged terrain
covering thousands of acres where no one has worked before. The
development of precise propagation and planting plans will require
site-specific and species-specific evaluations and require consultation
and additional input of expert biologists. Some efforts will also
likely involve experimentation, for example investigating plant
survival in certain areas, the feasibility of providing water to a
particular site, or a test of deer hunting methods in different
terrains. It is difficult to set specific numeric targets of plants
propagated and reintroduced without first conducting the necessary
evaluation of specific landscape conditions and logistical constraints
and opportunities. More precise goal-setting is appropriate after these
more basic planning activities are completed. The draft MOA references
the Service's recovery plans and the actions called for therein; these
plans will provide the basic guidance for these draft MOA future
actions, with adaptive management. The draft MOA makes it clear that
the company will be implementing conservation actions that benefit all
these listed species, e.g. putting up exclosure fences around more than
just the proposed plant critical habitat area, they will be removing
ungulates, and they will be planting native plants (including listed
species). It is impossible to provide precise figures on these actions
at this point. But given the past positive record of action by the
company in fulfilling voluntary agreements, we believe it is reasonable
to expect these overall commitments will be met.
In reference to the funding portion of the draft MOA, it is a
longstanding policy of the Service to accept and encourage in-kind
contributions for our cost-share partnership programs. These type of
contributions provide local, on-the-ground expertise; they encourage
greater local ``ownership'' in a successful outcome; and many partners
often provide greater in-kind services than for which they receive
credit. The commenter is correct that there are no explicit guarantees
regarding exactly how much the company would spend over the life of
this agreement, but this is a voluntary agreement based on good faith,
past performance, and a reasonable expectation of future performance.
Preserving Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC's current commitment to
voluntary conservation is one of our fundamental goals in the critical
habitat exclusion. Regardless of any additional commitments from the
company, this accomplishment alone establishes an important benefit of
approval of the draft MOA and excluding proposed Lanai Unit D, when
compared with a critical habitat designation. In our opinion, loss of
these existing voluntary commitments, which is made more likely by a
critical habitat designation, would have a much greater negative impact
on these plants than would the proposed critical habitat exclusion.
These plants are benefitting more from these ongoing, interventionist
actions than they would from the critical habitat designation. We have
outlined our reasoning for excluding land from critical habitat below
(see Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)).
(59) Comment: One commenter stated that the draft MOA stipulation
that Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC would not seek Federal assistance
and/or authorization from any Federal agency for activities that may
adversely affect habitat found in some areas of proposed unit Lanai D
falls short of protection that critical habitat provides. He also
stated that even if Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC does not apply for
Federal assistance and/or authorization, that does not mean that the
Federal government would not initiate any projects on Lanai that may
affect the proposed critical habitat that may be excluded from final
designation and designation would provide more protection under the
Act.
Our Response: To improve the current condition of the endangered
and threatened species on Lanai, it is insufficient simply to prohibit
harmful activities. Rather, it is necessary to carry out active
management measures to confer a positive benefit on the species of
concern, such as habitat manipulation, exotic species control, or
simply allowing access for the purposes of reintroduction (Bean 2002).
We feel the likelihood of federally-initiated projects on Lanai that
may affect listed species is very low, and therefore critical habitat
would have little regulatory benefit to the species other than those
listed below in section Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2).
[[Page 1248]]
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited independent opinions from 12 knowledgeable
individuals with expertise in one or several fields, including
familiarity with the species, familiarity with the geographic region
that the species occurs in, and familiarity with the principles of
conservation biology. We received comments from three. All three
generally supported our methodology and conclusion, but none supported
or opposed the proposed critical habitat designations. Comments
received from the peer reviewers were summarized in the previous
section and considered in developing the final rule.
Summary of Changes From the Revised Proposed Rule
Based on a review of public comments received on the proposed
determinations of critical habitat, we have reevaluated our proposed
designations and included several changes to the final designations of
critical habitat. These changes include the following:
(1) The scientific names were changed for the following associated
species found in the ``Supplementary Information: Discussion of the
Plant Taxa'' section: Styphelia tameiameiae changed to Leptecophylla
tameiameiae in the discussion of Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis
schlechtendahliana var. remyi, and Viola lanaiensis; Odontosoria
chinensis changed to Sphenomeris chinensis in the discussion of G.
lanaiensis and H. schlechtendahliana var. remyi; Diospyros ferrea
changed to D. sandwicensis in the discussion of Abutilon
eremitopetalum.
(2) We removed Sapindus oahuensis from the list of associated
species in the ``Supplementary Information: Discussion of the Plant
Taxa'' section for Bonamia menziesii; added gulch bottoms to habitat in
the species description section for Abutilon eremitopetalum; and
throughout the species description section removed goats and pigs and
replaced them with mouflon sheep and axis deer as current threats.
Goats and pigs are no longer present on Lanai and were mistakenly
included as current threats.
(3) We received new information on the presence of Bidens micrantha
ssp. kalealaha in Waiapaa Gulch. For Tetramolopium remyi, we updated
the two occurrences to one occurrence, updated the number of plants to
150 and updated ``Table 2.--Summary of existing occurrences on Lanai,
and landownership for 37 species reported from Lanai.'' This new
information did not affect our decisions in designating critical
habitat for these species. Waipaa Gulch was proposed as critical
habitat for B. micrantha ssp. kalealaha and the loss of a population of
T. remyi is a recent extirpation and the habitat once occupied is still
considered essential to the recovery of that species. We believe that
its recent presence indicates a high likelihood of a seed bank in the
area.
(4) We changed ``flowering cycles, pollination vectors, seed
dispersal agents'' to ``reproduction cycles, dispersal agents'' in the
life history portion of the ``Supplementary Information: Discussion of
the Plant Taxa'' section for the fern species Ctenitis squamigera,
Diellia erecta, and Diplazium molokaiense.
(5) We revised the list of manmade features that are excluded from
the designation in order to exclude additional features based on
information received during the public comment periods. The revised
list is described in the ``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat''
and in regulatory language for section 17.96 ``Critical habitat--
plants'' described at the end of this document.
(6) We revised our decision on the essentiality of Kanepuu Preserve
for the conservation of Bonamia menziesii (see ``Managed Lands'').
(7) We made revisions to the unit boundaries based on information
supplied by commenters, as well as information gained from field visits
to some of the sites, that indicated that the primary constituent
elements were not present in certain portions of the proposed unit,
that certain changes in land use had occurred on lands within the
proposed critical habitat that would preclude those areas from
supporting the primary constituent elements, or that the areas were not
essential to the conservation of the species in question. In addition,
an area was excluded based on weighing the benefits of inclusion versus
exclusion pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Economic
Analysis'').
A brief summary of the modifications made to each unit is given
below (see also Figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 1249]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 1250]]
(8) In accordance with the revisions described in (7) above, we
revised section 17.12 ``Endangered and threatened plants'' to include
only Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and
Tetramolopium remyi (see ``Economic Analysis'').
(9) In accordance with the revisions described in (7) above, we
revised section 17.96 ``Critical Habitat--plants'' to include only
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and
Tetramolopium remyi and updated their elevation ranges, based on
information received during the public comment periods.
Lanai A
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species, Cyperus
trachysanthos and Hibiscus brackenridgei. We excluded the proposed
critical habitat for C. trachysanthos from the final rule because this
area no longer contains the suitable habitat of seasonally wet soils.
The water source has permanently dried up due to alterations in the
watershed properties of the island. Also, this area is not essential
for the conservation of C. trachysanthos, a multi-island species,
because we have proposed adequate habitat on other islands within its
historical range.
We excluded the proposed critical habitat for Hibiscus
brackenridgei, a multi-island species. This area is not essential for
the conservation of the species because the area lacks sufficient
suitable soil and there are at least eight other places for this
species that have the primary constituent elements, are less degraded,
are already undergoing restoration, or are within a partnership, TNCH
preserve or other reserve. Other areas on other islands within its
historical range are proposed as critical habitat that provide habitat
for 10 populations.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Cyperus
trachysanthos and Hibiscus brackenridgei resulted in the overall
reduction of 574 ha (1,418 ac) of critical habitat on the island of
Lanai.
Lanai B
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for Tetramolopium remyi,
a multi-island species. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude
areas not essential to the conservation of this species (i.e. areas
that are highly degraded). The area designated as critical habitat for
T. remyi provides habitat within its historical range for one
population. The designated area is situated around the recently
extirpated known individuals and contains the primary constituent
elements. In addition, this area most likely contains a viable seed
bank because of the recent existence of mature, seed-bearing
individuals in this area and because plants from drought-prone sites
tend to survive through the existence of seed banks. This modification
resulted in the reduction from 551 ha (1,363 ac) to 151 ha (373 ac).
This unit was renamed Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi.
Lanai C
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for the multi-island
species Sesbania tomentosa. This unit was excluded from critical
habitat because it is not essential for the conservation of the species
and there are at least eight other places for this species that have
more primary constituent elements, are less degraded, are already
undergoing restoration, or are within a partnership, TNCH preserve, or
other reserve. Other areas on other islands within the historical range
of S. tomentosa are being designated or proposed as critical habitat
and provide habitat for 10 populations.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa
resulted in the overall reduction of 222 ha (549 ac) of critical
habitat on the island of Lanai.
Lanai D
Lanai D was proposed as critical habitat for 28 species: Abutilon
eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia
rockii, Centaurium sebaeoides, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Clermontia
oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana
ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii,
Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis, Gahnia
lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi,
Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi,
Neraudia sericea, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiense,
Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis and Viola lanaiensis.
This unit was excluded from critical habitat under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act for the reasons described in the ``Economic Analysis''
section below. Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for the 28
species listed above resulted in the overall reduction of 5,861 ha
(14,482 ac) of critical habitat on the island of Lanai.
Lanai E1, E2 and E3
No changes were made to these units and they are designated as
critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha. They have been
renamed units Lanai 2--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--North (53 ha
(132 ac)), Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--Middle (60 ha (148
ac)), and Lanai 4--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--South (49 ha (120
ac)).
Lanai F
This unit was proposed as critical habitat for the multi-island
species Hibiscus brackenridgei. This unit was excluded from critical
habitat because it is not essential for the conservation of the species
because it is highly degraded. Other areas on other islands, within the
species' historical range, are being proposed as critical habitat that
provide habitat for 10 populations.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Hibiscus
brackenridgei resulted in the overall reduction of 331 ha (818 ac) of
critical habitat on the island of Lanai.
Lanai G
Lanai G was proposed as critical habitat for the multi-island
species Portulaca sclerocarpa. Modifications were made to this unit to
exclude inland areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements. Critical habitat for P. sclerocarpa includes only cliff faces
along the shore. This modification resulted in the reduction from 151
ha (373 ac) to 7 ha (17 ac). This unit was renamed Lanai 5--Portulaca
sclerocarpa--Coast.
Lanai H
No changes were made to this unit and it is designated as critical
habitat for Portulaca sclerocarpa. It has been renamed Lanai 6--
Portulaca sclerocarpa--Isle, consists of Poopoo Islet, and contains 1
ha (2 ac).
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,'' as defined by the Act, 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.
[[Page 1251]]
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. In our regulations at 50 CFR
402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as ``* * * the
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' The
relationship between a species survival and its recovery has been a
source of confusion to some in the past. We believe that a species'
ability to recover depends on its ability to survive into the future
when its recovery can be achieved; thus, the concepts of long-term
survival and recovery are intricately linked. However, in the March 15,
2001, decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit (Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d
434) regarding a not prudent finding, the Court found our definition of
destruction or adverse modification as currently contained in 50 CFR
402.02 to be invalid. In response to this decision, we are reviewing
the regulatory definition of adverse modification in relation to the
conservation of the species.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the
habitat must first be ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known, using the
best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that
provide essential life-cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR
424.12(b)).
Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat for a
species, to the extent such habitat is determinable, at the time of
listing. When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or
under short court-ordered deadlines, we may not have sufficient
information to identify all the areas essential for the conservation of
the species or alternatively, we may inadvertently include areas that
later will be shown to be nonessential. Nevertheless, we are required
to designate those areas we know to be critical habitat, using the best
information available to us.
Within the geographic areas occupied by the species, we will
designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas
should already have some of the features and habitat characteristics
that are necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about
what areas might be found to be essential if better information became
available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the
information available at the time of designation does not show that an
area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area
should not be included in the critical habitat designation.
Our regulations state that ``The Secretary shall designate critical
habitat outside the geographic areas presently occupied by the species
only when a designation limited to its present range would be
inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species' (50 CFR
424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and
commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied
areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographic area occupied by the species.
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271),
provides criteria, establishes procedures, and provides guidance to
ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific and commercial
data available. It requires our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial
data available, to use primary and original sources of information as
the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When
determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of
information should be the listing package for the species. Additional
information may be obtained from recovery plans, articles in peer-
reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties,
scientific status surveys and studies, and biological assessments or
other unpublished materials.
It is important to clearly understand that 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) and
to the regulatory protections afforded by the Act's 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard and section 9 prohibitions, as determined on the basis of the
best available information at the time of the action. We specifically
anticipate that 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, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if new information available to these
planning efforts calls for a different outcome. 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.
A. Prudency
We originally proposed 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 (65 FR 82086). In that same proposal, we incorporated by reference
the proposed prudency analysis for 13 other plants (Bonamia menziesii,
Centaurium sebaeoides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis
squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyrtandra munroi,
Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi,
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, and Vigna o-wahuensis) that are reported from
Lanai as well as from Kauai, Niihau, Maui, or Kahoolawe (64 FR 48307,
65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, and 65 FR 82086). No change was made to the
proposed prudency findings for the 19 plants in the revised proposal
published on March 4, 2002, and they were incorporated by reference (67
FR 9806). In addition, in the December 27, 2000, proposal, we proposed
that designation of critical habitat was not prudent for Phyllostegia
glabra var. lanaiensis, and no change was made to this proposed
prudency finding in the March 4, 2002, revised proposal (65 FR 82086
and 67 FR 9806). In the March 4, 2002, revised proposal no change was
made to the proposed prudency analysis published in other proposed
rules for 16 plants (Adenophorus periens, Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Brighamia rockii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Cyanea lobata,
Cyperus trachysanthos, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiense,
[[Page 1252]]
Hesperomannia arborescens, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei,
Neraudia sericea, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) that no longer occur on Lanai
but are reported from one or more other islands, and they were
incorporated by reference (65 FR 66808, 65 FR 79192, 65 FR 83158, 67 FR
3940, and 67 FR 9806). In the March 4, 2002, revised proposal, we
proposed that designation of critical habitat was prudent for
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum, a species for which a prudency
finding had not been made previously, and that no longer occurs on
Lanai but is reported only from Oahu (67 FR 9806).
We believe that designation of critical habitat is prudent for 36
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, 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)
from the island of Lanai.
We analyzed the potential threats and benefits for each species in
accordance with the court's order and have not, at this time, found
specific evidence of taking, vandalism, collection, or trade of these
species or of similarly situated species. Consequently, while we remain
concerned that these activities could potentially threaten these 36
plant species 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 any of these species are currently threatened by
taking or other human activity, which threats would be exacerbated by
the designation of critical habitat. The potential benefits to
designation of critical habitat for these 36 species include: (1)
Triggering section 7 consultation in new areas it would not otherwise
occur; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential area;
(3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or
private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent
harm to the species. Therefore we believe that the designation of
critical habitat for these 36 species is prudent because the potential
benefits of critical habitat designation outweigh the potential
threats.
Designation of critical habitat is not prudent for Phyllostegia
glabra var. lanaiensis because such designation would be of no benefit
to this species. 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. If this species is relocated, we may
revise this final rule to incorporate or address new information
becomes available (see 16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(B); 50 CFR 424.13(f)).
B. Methods
As required by the Act and regulations (section 4(b)(2) and 50 CFR
424.12) we used the best scientific information available to determine
areas that contain the physical and biological features that are
essential for the conservation of 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 Center
for Plant Conservation's (CPC's) rare plant monitoring database housed
at the University of Hawaii's Lyon Arboretum; island-wide Geographic
Information System (GIS) coverages (e.g., vegetation, soils, annual
rainfall, elevation contours, landownership); the final listing rules
for these 36 species; the December 27, 2000, proposal; the March 4,
2002, revised proposal; information received during the public comment
periods and public hearings; 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
that we sent to all landowners, land managers, and interested parties
on the island of Lanai; discussions with botanical experts; and
recommendations from the Hawaii and Pacific Plant Recovery Coordinating
Committee (HPPRCC) (see also the discussion below) (CPC in litt. 1999;
GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; HPPRCC 1998; Service 1995, 1996a,
1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; 65 FR 82086).
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 have 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 to some degree. New
location data for many species have 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 specific listed species at issue. As a result, the
critical habitat designations in this rule include not only some
habitat that was identified as essential in the 1998 recommendations
but also habitat that was not identified as essential in those
recommendations.
[[Page 1253]]
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. These features
include, but are not limited to: Space for individual and population
growth, and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter;
sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing of offspring, germination,
or seed dispersal; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or
are representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
Much of what is known about the specific physical and biological
requirements of 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 is described above in the
``Background'' section of this final rule. We are unable to identify
these features for Mariscus fauriei, Silene lanceolata, Tetramolopium
lepidotum ssp. lepidotum 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 four species on Lanai
is not known (see 67 FR 9806).
All areas designated as critical habitat are within the historical
range of the three species at issue and contain one or more of the
physical or biological features (primary constituent elements)
essential for the conservation of the species.
As described in the discussions for each of the three species for
which we are designating critical habitat, we are defining 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 (e.g., mesic Metrosideros polymorpha forest),
associated native plant species, locale information (e.g., steep rocky
cliffs, talus slopes, gulches, streambanks), and elevation. The habitat
features provide the ecological components required by the plant. The
type of plant community and associated native plant species indicate
specific microclimate (localized climatic) 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
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 (National
Research Council 1995)) to identify the optimal number, size, and
location of critical habitat units to achieve recovery (Beissinger and
Westphal 1998; Burgman et al. 2001; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Karieva and
Wennergren 1995; Menges 1990; Murphy et al. 1990; Taylor 1995). At this
time, and consistent with the listing of these species 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 three 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, 1997). 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, reproducing individuals per population for long-
lived perennials; 300 mature, reproducing individuals per population
for short-lived perennials; and 500 mature, reproducing 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, but that
does not apply to the three species. To be considered recovered, the
populations of a multi-island species should be distributed among the
islands of its known historic range (Service 1995, 1996a, 1997). 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 a minimum of 100,
300, or 500 mature, reproducing 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
[[Page 1254]]
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; Menges
1990; Murphy et al. 1990; Podolsky 2001; 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 longevity,
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, reproducing
individuals per population for long-lived perennial species, 300
mature, reproducing individuals per population for short-lived
perennial species, and 500 mature, reproducing 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 Population Viability
Analysis 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 (Meffe and Carroll
1996; Raup 1991). This basic conservation principle of redundancy
applies to Hawaiian plant species. By maintaining 8 to 10 viable
populations in several 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 recovery.
Conversely, loss of one or more of the plant populations within any
critical habitat unit could result in an increase in the risk that the
entire listed species may not survive and recover.
Due to the reduced size of suitable habitat areas for these
Hawaiian plant species, they are now more susceptible to the variations
and weather fluctuations affecting quality and quantity of available
habitat, as well as direct pressure from hundreds of species of non-
native plants and animals. Establishing and conserving 8 to 10 viable
populations on one or more islands 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 the hurricanes which occurred in 1982 and 1992
on Kauai, fires, and nonnative 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 to 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 of Hawaiian plant
species 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
is essential 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) (Mangel and Tier 1994; Pimm et al. 1998; Stacey
and Taper 1992).
In this rule, we have defined the primary constituent elements
based on the general habitat features of the areas from which the
plants are reported, 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 designating as critical habitat provide some or all of the habitat
components essential for the conservation of the three plant species.
Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in
the following manner:
1. We focused on designating units representative of the known
current and historical geographic and elevational range of each
species; and
2. Critical habitat units were designed to allow for expansion of
existing wild populations and reestablishment of wild populations
within the historic range, as recommended by the recovery plans for
each species.
The proposed critical habitat units were delineated by creating
rough units for each species by screen digitizing polygons (map units)
using ArcView (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), 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
[[Page 1255]]
for a particular species (i.e., not containing the primary constituent
elements) were avoided. The resulting shape files for each species were
then 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 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 suitable 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 (3,280 ft) based on our
review of current literature on gene flow (Barret and Kohn 1991;
Fenster and Dudash 1994; Havens 1998; Schierup and Christiansen 1996).
The resulting critical habitat units were further refined by using
satellite imagery and parcel data to eliminate 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 for which critical
habitat was proposed on March 4, 2002. Geographic features (e.g., ridge
lines, valleys, streams, coastlines, etc.) or manmade features (e.g.,
roads or obvious land use) that created an obvious boundary for a unit
were used as unit area boundaries.
Following publication of the proposed critical habitat rules for
255 Hawaiian plants (67 FR 3940, 67 FR 9806, 67 FR 15856, 67 FR 16492,
67 FR 34522, 67 FR 36968, 67 FR 37108), we reevaluated proposed
critical habitat, State-wide, for each of the multi-island species
using the recovery guidelines (8 to 10 populations with a minimum of
100 mature, reproducing individuals per population for long-lived
perennial species; 300 mature, reproducing individuals per population
for short-lived perennial species; and 500 mature, reproducing
individuals per population for annual species) to determine if we had
inadvertently proposed for designation too much or not enough habitat
to meet the essential recovery goals of 8 to 10 populations per species
distributed among the islands of the species' known historic range
(HINHP Database 2000, 2001; Wagner et al. 1990, 1999). For each multi-
island species, we then further evaluated areas of the proposed
critical habitat for the existing quality of the primary constituent
elements (i.e., intact native plant communities, predominance of
associated native plants versus nonnative plants) and potential as a
recovery area. We selected adequate area for our recovery goals of 8 to
10 populations distributed among the islands of each species'
historical range. Of the proposed critical habitat for a species, areas
that did not meet these criteria and that may provide habitat for
populations above the recovery goal of 8 to 10, were determined not
essential for the conservation of the species and were excluded from
the final designation.
For the species endemic to Lanai, we modified the boundaries of
proposed critical habitat using additional information from botanical
experts and comments on the proposed rule. We excluded areas that do
not contain one or more of the primary constituent elements or were not
essential for the conservation of the species because: (1) The area is
highly degraded and may not be restorable; (2) the area has some of the
primary constituent elements but there are at least eight other places
for the species that have more primary constituent elements or are less
degraded or are already undergoing restoration or are within a
partnership, Natural Area Reserve, TNCH preserve, or refuge; or (3) the
threats to the species are uncontrollable in this area. In addition,
some areas were excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act for economic
or other reasons (See ``Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)''). The
specific modifications are described above in the ``Summary of Changes
from the Revised Proposed Rule.'' The boundaries of the final critical
habitat units are described by their UTMs.
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 selecting areas of designated critical
habitat, 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 three 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 from
the maps. In addition, existing manmade features and structures within
the boundaries of the mapped unit, such as buildings; roads; aqueducts
and other water system features--including, but not limited to, pumping
stations, irrigation ditches, pipelines, siphons, tunnels, water tanks,
gaging stations, intakes, and wells; telecommunications towers and
associated structures and equipment; electrical power transmission
lines and associated rights-of-way; 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 are therefore excluded under the terms of this 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 these species we utilized the approved recovery
plan guidance to identify appropriately sized land units containing
essential occupied and unoccupied habitat. Based on the best available
information, we believe these areas constitute the habitat necessary on
Lanai to provide for the recovery of Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha,
Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Tetramolopium remyi.
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
[[Page 1256]]
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 and August 2002 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 hearings.
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
that 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 achieve 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 (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990; Howarth 1985; Loope 1998; Scott et al. 1986; Service 1995,
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; Smith 1985; Stone 1985;
Vitousek 1992; Wagner et al. 1985).
Current threats to these species include non-native grass- and
shrub-carried wildfire; browsing, digging, rooting, and trampling from
feral ungulates (including axis deer and mouflon sheep); 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 negatively affected by fruit- and flower-eating pests such as
non-native arthropods, mollusks, and rats, and photosynthesis and water
transport are 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 carrying weeds and disturbing
vegetation and soils, thereby facilitating dispersal and establishment
of non-native plants, and numerous non-native insect species feeding on
native plants, thereby increasing their vulnerability and exposure to
pathogens and disease (Bruegmann et al. 2001; Cuddihy and Stone 1990;
D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Howarth 1985; Mack 1992; Scott et al.
1986; Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001; Smith
1985; Tunison et al. 1992);
(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, and in various other documents and publications relating
to plant conservation in Hawaii (Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Mueller-
Dombois 1985; Smith 1985; Stone 1985; 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
plant 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: 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 (Service 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b,
1999, 2001). On a case-by-case basis, some of these actions may rise to
a higher level of importance for a particular species or area,
depending on the biological and physical requirements of the species
and the location(s) of the individual plants.
As shown in Table 2, the 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, and March 4, 2002,
proposals; public comment periods; and the March 22, 2001, and August
1, 2002, public hearings, as well as information in our files,
indicated that there is limited 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
Two species (Bonamia menziesii and Hibiscus brackenridgei) are
reported from The Nature Conservancy of
[[Page 1257]]
Hawaii's (TNCH) Kanepuu Preserve, which is located in the northeast-
central portion of Lanai (GDSI 2000; HINHP Database 2000; 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-to-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 six-year partnership agreement between
the State and the managing entity is automatically renewed each year so
that there are always six years remaining in the term, although the
management plan is updated and funding amounts are re-authorized by the
board at least every six 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 six-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 Kanepuu 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 Bonamia menzeisii and Hibiscus brackenridgei including control of
non-native species of ungulates, rodents, 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 nonnative
mammals (e.g., rats) 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 for fires.
A restoration, research, and monitoring program has been developed
at Kanepuu Preserve 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 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 regularly amended to
preserve the ecological integrity of the preserve.
Comments received on the proposed rule and a site visit by Service
staff revealed that Kanepuu Preserve does not contain as many of the
primary constituent elements for Bonamia menzeisii and Hibiscus
brackenridgei as previously thought or that exist in other areas of the
State of Hawaii proposed as critical habitat for these species. The
other areas proposed for these species are occupied, contain intact
native habitat, are being managed for these species, and provide
adequate area for the 8 to 10 populations needed to reach our recovery
goals for these species. It is our belief that this area is not
essential for the conservation of these species for the above stated
reasons. We were able to find enough better quality habitat for 8 to 10
populations needed to reach our recovery goals on this and other
Hawaiian islands. Though it is occupied by Bonamia menziesii and
Hibiscus brackenridgei and should continue to be managed for these and
other species, this area was not considered essential to the
conservation of any of the 37 species covered by this rule.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment of the physical and biological features needed for the
conservation of Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa,
and Tetramolopium remyi, and the special management needs of these
species, and are based on the best scientific and commercial
information available and described above. We publish this final rule
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 consider reevaluating the
boundaries of areas that warrant critical habitat designation.
The approximate areas of the designated critical habitat by
landownership or jurisdiction are shown in Table 4.
Critical habitat includes habitat for these three species in the
northwestern, central, and southern portions of Lanai. Lands designated
as critical habitat have been divided into six units. A brief
description of each unit is presented below.
[[Page 1258]]
Table 4.--Approximate Critical Habitat Designated Area by Unit and Landownership or Jurisdiction, Maui County,
Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit name State/local Private Federal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi.... .................. 151 ha (373 ac)... .................. 151 ha (373 ac)
Lanai 2--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................. 53 ha (131 ac).... .................. 53 ha (131 ac)
kalealaha--North.
Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................. 60 ha (148 ac).... .................. 60 ha (148 ac)
kalealaha--Middle.
Lanai 4--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................. 48 ha (118 ac).... .................. 48 ha (118 ac)
kalealaha--South.
Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa-- .................. 7 ha (17 ac)...... .................. 7 ha (17 ac)
Coast.
Lanai 6--Portulaca sclerocarpa-- .................. 1 ha (2 ac)....... .................. 1 ha (2 ac)
Isle.
---------------------
Grand Total................. .................. 320 ha (789 ac)... .................. 320 ha (789 ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units
Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi
This unit is critical habitat for Tetramolopium remyi and is 151 ha
(373 ac) on privately owned land. It lies approximately between 182 m
(600 ft) and 274 m (900 ft) elevation, is slightly east of Puumaiekahi
Gulch, contains a portion of Lapaiki Gulch and is completely in a
conservation district (limited use). Awalua Road runs through the
western portion of this unit. This unit provides habitat for one
population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived
perennial and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features contained
in this unit that are important for this species include, but are not
limited to, predominantly red sandy loam in a Dodonaea viscosa-
Heteropogon contortus community. In addition, this area is the most
likely to contain a viable seed bank on the north side of the island
because of the existence within the past year of mature, seed-bearing
individuals in this area and because plants from drought-prone sites
tend to survive through the existence of seed banks. The State of
Hawaii is managing a small portion of this unit by fencing the area to
control feral ungulates around the recently extirpated known
individuals. This unit provides for one population within this multi-
island species' historical range on Lanai.
Lanai 2--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--North
This unit is critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha
and is 53 ha (131 ac) on privately owned land. This unit lies west of
Lanai 3 and includes most of Kapohaku Gulch. This unit provides habitat
for one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of this
short-lived perennial and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features
contained in this unit that are important for this species include, but
are not limited to, gulch slopes in dry Dodonaea viscosa shrubland.
This critical habitat unit provides area for one population within the
historical range of this multi-island species and is in the gulch
adjacent to the occupied unit Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha ssp kalealaha--
Middle. It is geographically separated (by a ridge) from other
designated critical habitat units on this and other islands in order to
avoid all populations from being destroyed by one naturally occurring
catastrophic event.
Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--Middle
This unit is critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha
and is 60 ha (148 ac) on privately owned land. This unit lies between
Lanai 2 and Lanai 4 and includes most of Waiapaa Gulch and Waiakaiole
Gulch. This unit provides habitat for one population of 300 mature,
reproducing individuals of this short-lived perennial and is currently
occupied by less than 20 individuals. This unit is important to the
conservation of the species because it supports the one extant colony
of this species on Lanai. This unit also includes habitat that is
important for the expansion of the present population. The habitat
features contained in this unit that are important for this species
include, but are not limited to, gulch slopes in dry Dodonaea viscosa
shrubland. This critical habitat unit provides area for one population
within the historical range of this multi-island species. It is
geographically separated by a ridge from other designated critical
habitat units on this and other islands in order to avoid all
populations from being destroyed by one naturally occurring
catastrophic event.
Lanai 4--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--South
This unit is critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha
and is 48 ha (118 ac) on privately owned land. This unit lies east of
Lanai 3 and includes most of Paliakoae Gulch. This unit provides
habitat for one population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of
this short-lived perennial and is currently unoccupied. The habitat
features contained in this unit that are important for this species
include, but are not limited to, gulch slopes in dry Dodonaea viscosa
shrubland. This critical habitat unit provides area for one recovery
population within the historical range of this multi-island species and
is in a gulch adjacent to the occupied unit Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha
ssp. kalealaha--Middle. It is geographically separated by a ridge from
other designated critical habitat units on this and other islands in
order to avoid all populations from being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event.
Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Coast
This unit is critical habitat for Portulaca sclerocarpa and is 7 ha
(17 ac) on privately owned land. This unit lies along the shore between
Anapuka in the west and Huawai Bay in the east. This unit provides
habitat for one population (combined with Lanai 6--Portulaca
sclerocarpa--Isle) of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of this
short-lived perennial and is currently unoccupied. The habitat features
contained in this unit that are important for this species include, but
are not limited to, exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal communities.
This coastal habitat is unique to Lanai for this species; on the island
of Hawaii, this species grows on weathered soils, cinder cones, or
geologically young lava; in montane dry shrubland; often on bare
cinder; near steam vents; or in open Metrosideros polymorpha-dominated
woodlands, away from coastal areas. This critical habitat unit provides
area for one recovery population within the historical range of this
multi-island
[[Page 1259]]
species and is adjacent to the currently occupied habitat in Unit 6--
Portulaca sclerocarpa--Isle. It is geographically separated from other
designated critical habitat on the island of Hawaii in order to avoid
all populations from being destroyed by one naturally occurring
catastrophic event.
Lanai 6--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Isle
This unit is critical habitat for Portulaca sclerocarpa and is 1 ha
(2 ac) on privately owned land. This unit comprises all of Poopoo
Islet. This unit provides habitat for one population (combined with
Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Coast) of 300 mature, reproducing
individuals of this short-lived perennial and is currently occupied by
about 10 plants. This unit is important to the conservation of the
species because it supports the one extant colony of this species on
Lanai. This unit also includes habitat that is important for the
expansion (combined with Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Coast) of the
present population. The habitat features contained in this unit that
are important for this species include, but are not limited to, exposed
ledges in thin soil in coastal communities. This coastal habitat is
unique to Lanai for this species; on the island of Hawaii, this species
grows on weathered soils, cinder cones, or geologically young lava; in
montane dry shrubland; often on bare cinder; near steam vents; or in
open Metrosideros polymorpha-dominated woodlands, away from coastal
areas. This critical habitat unit provides area for one population
within the historical range of this multi-island species. It is
geographically separated from other designated critical habitat units
on the island of Hawaii to prevent all populations from being destroyed
by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a Federal
action directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the extent
that 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 when their actions occur on Federal
lands, require a Federal permit, license, or other authorization, or
involve Federal funding.
Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to use their authorities to carry out programs for the
conservation of any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or
threatened. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies
(action agency) 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. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation
provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
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 action agency must
enter into consultation with us. Through this consultation, the 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
formal 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 the likelihood of the 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
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa, or
Tetramolopium remyi 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.), the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, or an incidental take permit under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act 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), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or Department of
Energy); regulation of airport improvement activities by the FAA; and
construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal
Communications 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 (whether public or private) 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 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;
[[Page 1260]]
(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
manipulation of vegetation such as timber harvesting, residential and
commercial development, and grazing of livestock 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 habitats.
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, OR 97232-4181 (telephone
503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
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 areas from critical habitat when the
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Economic Impacts
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, a draft economic analysis was conducted to estimate the
potential economic impact of the designation, in accordance with the
recent decision in the N.M. Cattlegrowers Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001). The draft analysis was
made available for review on August 16, 2002 (67 FR 46626). We accepted
comments on the draft analysis until the comment period closed on
August 30, 2002, and again from November 15, 2002 to November 25, 2002
(67 FR 69176).
We have not excluded or modified critical habitat units from the
proposed rule based on economic impacts. Our draft economic analysis
evaluated the potential future section 7 effects, including indirect
effects, associated with designating critical habitat for 32 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) on Lanai. However, given the difficulty of determining
precisely what section 7 impacts should be attributed alone to critical
habitat, we have analyzed the total section 7 impacts as well.
The categories of potential costs considered in the analysis
included the costs associated with: (1) Conducting section 7
consultations associated with the listing or with the critical habitat,
including incremental consultations and technical assistance; (2)
modifications to projects, activities, or land uses resulting from the
section 7 consultations; (3) potential delays associated with
reinitiating completed consultations after critical habitat is
finalized; (4) uncertainty and public perceptions resulting in loss of
land value from the designation of critical habitat; (5) potential
effects on property values including potential indirect costs resulting
from the loss of hunting opportunities and increased regulation related
costs due to the interaction of State and local laws; and (6) potential
offsetting benefits associated with critical habitat, including
educational benefits. The most likely economic effects of critical
habitat designation are on activities funded, authorized, or carried
out by a Federal agency.
Following the close of the comment period on the draft economic
analysis, a final addendum was completed that incorporated public
comments on the draft analysis and made other changes in the draft, for
example, to account for changes in unit boundaries due to the receipt
of information during the comment period indicating that certain areas
do not contain the necessary primary constituent elements or were not
essential to the conservation of the species. Together, the draft
analysis as modified by the addendum constitute our final economic
analysis. The final economic analysis estimates that, over the next 10
years, the designation may result in potential economic effects ranging
from approximately $450,000 to $530,000 in quantifiable costs, and
concludes that economic impacts from the designation of critical
habitat would not be significant. This is a reduction of approximately
$1.7 million from the costs estimated in the draft economic analysis,
and is due to the exclusion of proposed units Lanai A, Lanai C, and
Lanai F from final designation and the significant reduction in size to
proposed units Lanai B and Lanai G (designation of 6,181 ha (15,271 ac)
versus the 7,853 ha (19,405 ac) proposed as critical habitat, a
reduction of approximately 1,672 ha (4,134 ac)). As described in the
analysis, direct costs result from conservation projects and secondary
costs result from investigations of the implications of critical
habitat designation. Indirect costs attributed to critical habitat that
were considered major in the draft economic analysis are avoided by the
modifications made to units based on new biological information (i.e.,
excluding unit F and removing much of the land zoned as rural). The
Addendum to the economic analysis states that the indirect cost of
reduction in property values is not expected to occur, and ensuring
that clear and correct information on the effects of a critical habitat
designation is available to all potential buyers will further reduce
the potential for such a scenario. A more detailed discussion of our
economic analysis is contained in the draft economic analysis and the
addendum. Both documents are included in our administrative record and
are available for inspection at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Other Impacts
As described above, section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to
consider other relevant impacts, in addition to economic impacts, of
designating
[[Page 1261]]
critical habitat. A proposed critical habitat unit, Lanai D, located on
the central-eastern side of the island, was excluded from designation
because we believed that doing so would further the goal of encouraging
private landowners to undertake voluntary conservation activities,
which will be necessary to achieve species recovery. The proposed 5,861
ha (14,482 ac) unit is on private lands owned by Castle and Cooke
Resorts, LLC. Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC--which owns 99 percent of
the island--is currently undertaking voluntary conservation activities
within and adjacent to this unit, and has recently entered into an
agreement with the Service for future activities (MOA, 2002), as well.
The proposed unit Lanai D is 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 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.
According to our published recovery plans, recovery of these
species will require reproducing, self-sustaining populations located
in a geographic array across the landscape, with population numbers and
population locations of sufficient robustness to withstand periodic
threats due to natural disaster or biological threats (Service 1995,
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001). The highest priority
recovery tasks include active management such as plant propagation and
reintroduction, fire control, alien species removal, and ungulate
fencing. Failure to implement these active management measures, all of
which require voluntary landowner support and participation, virtually
assures the extinction of these species. Many of these types of
conservation actions in this area of Lanai are carried out as part of
the Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership and by actions taken on the
landowner's initiative in areas outside the watershed partnership area.
These activities, which are described in more detail below, require
substantial voluntary cooperation by Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC.
The following analysis describes the likely conservation benefits
of a critical habitat designation compared to the negative impacts of a
critical habitat designation. The Service paid particular attention to
the following issues: Whether critical habitat designation would confer
regulatory conservation benefits on these species; whether the
designation would educate members of the public such that conservation
efforts would be enhanced; and whether a critical habitat designation
would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on voluntary
conservation efforts on this privately-owned island.
If excluding an area from a critical habitat designation will
provide substantial conservation benefits, and at the same time
including the area fails to confer a counter-balancing positive
regulatory or educational benefit to the species, then the benefits of
excluding the area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including it. The results of this type of evaluation will vary
significantly depending on the landowners, geographic areas, and
species involved.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
Critical habitat in Lanai D was proposed for the following species:
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii,
Brighamia rockii, Centaurium sebaeoides, Cenchrus agrimonioides,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp.
gibsonii, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis,
Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var.
remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi,
Neraudia sericea, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiense,
Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis. The
primary direct benefit of inclusion of the proposed unit Lanai D as
final critical habitat would result from the requirement under section
7 of the Act that Federal agencies consult with us to ensure that any
proposed Federal actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat.
Historically, we have conducted only seven informal consultations
under section 7 on Lanai, and only one consultation involved any of the
28 species associated with proposed unit D. We do not expect further
consultations in unit Lanai D for several reasons. Unit Lanai D is
privately owned and does not contain any wetlands (the major reason for
Federal permits). The landowner does not plan on applying for Federal
funds (other than for habitat restoration) and does not foresee any
reason to obtain federal permits that may create a federal nexus. Any
funds received by the landowner for habitat restoration will require
internal consultations, but will not likely adversely affect listed
plant species or involve other Federal agencies. The majority of the
land in proposed unit Lanai D is zoned as Conservation \1\ (71
percent). Any lands zoned as Agriculture \2\ (27 percent) in this area
are not currently used for agricultural purposes and are currently
fallow. Likely future use by the landowner of this area is as watershed
protection (MOA, 2002). As stated in the economic analysis, future
development in this area is not expected over the long term. Past uses
of this area include marginal agriculture (primarily grazing). For
these specific reasons, we do not expect future consultations in
proposed unit Lanai D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conservation-zoned land is designated to conserve, protect
and preserve the State's important natural resources through
appropriate management in order to promote the long-term
sustainability of these natural resources, and to promote public
health, safety and welfare. Only limited development and commercial
activity are allowed in the Conservation District.
\2\ Agricultural-zoned land is a catch-all category that
includes all lands not otherwise categorized, regardless of the
agricultural quality of the land. Crops, livestock, and grazing are
permitted in the zone, as are accessory structures and farmhouses.
Although land in this zoning is not meant to be urbanized, it is, in
practice, sometimes used for large-lot subdivisions. Listed species
are found in some parts of this zoning, particularly in gulches, on
hillsides, and on some of the land that is used for low-intensity
grazing. In many cases, the fact that the land is Agricultural
District indirectly protects listed species by limiting urban
sprawl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although we believe the likelihood of a consultation is small, in
the unlikely event that the landowner began using Federal funds or
permits for projects, consultation requirements under section 7 of the
Act would be triggered as a result of the funding or permitting
processes administered by the Federal agency involved. The benefit of
critical habitat designation would ensure that any actions funded by or
permits given by a Federal agency would not likely destroy or adversely
modify any critical habitat. Without critical habitat, some site-
specific projects might not trigger consultation requirements under the
Act in areas where species are not currently present; in contrast,
Federal project areas with listed species present would still be
covered under section 7. Given the overall low likelihood of Federal
[[Page 1262]]
projects being proposed in the area of proposed unit D, the Service
believes there is low potential for negative impacts to unoccupied
habitat as a consequence of Federal activities, and thus a low
regulatory benefit of a critical habitat designation in this area. We
believe there is a low likelihood of negative impacts because of
reasons stated above (i.e., land use and zoning, land use history).
Another reason that the benefits of including Lanai D in the
critical habitat designation is small is that, even if the area is not
included in the designation, the conservation agreement (MOA, 2002)
will provide conservation benefits to the target species. The
management actions as outlined will remove threats (e.g. axis deer,
mouflon sheep, rats, invasive nonnative plants) from the Lanaihale and
East Lanai Regions, engage in fire control measures, engage in nursery
propagation of native flora (including the target species) and planting
of such flora. These actions will significantly improve the habitat for
all currently occurring 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) and
will provide suitable habitat for reintroduction of extirpated 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).
Another possible benefit is that the designation of critical
habitat can serve to educate the public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area, and this may focus and contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation value for certain species. This outcome would be
important for these 28 species. Any information about the species and
their habitats that reaches a wide audience, including other parties
engaged in conservation activities, would be considered valuable.
However, only one landowner would be affected directly by including
Lanai D in the designation, and that landowner is already working with
the Service to address the habitat needs of the species. Further, this
area was included in the proposed designation, which itself has reached
a wide audience, and has thus provided information to the broader
public about the conservation value of the area. For these reasons, we
would expect that including Lanai D in the designation would provide at
most moderate educational benefits to the species.
To be inclusive, we have considered some of these unlikely
assumptions in this benefits of inclusion section. The economic
analysis also identifies indirect impacts to landowners and other
affected parties, and some of these impacts could result in benefits to
the species. For example, the critical habitat designation could
encourage the State to take measures to manage the populations of feral
ungulates by fencing off portions of the State hunting areas (Economic
Analysis section 4.b.). Such measures could result in preserving
significant populations of the plants within the enclosed areas, and
further the recovery of the species. The economic analysis concluded,
however, that this result would be unlikely, because closing off
portions of the State hunting areas would be vigorously protested by
hunters. The economic analysis also stated that there is a possibility,
of undetermined likelihood, that private landowners could be required
by courts to take specific management actions if failing to take the
action is a ``taking'' of the species (Economic Analysis section 4.c.).
Management actions could include such activities as control of feral
ungulates, non-native plants, rodents, and invertebrate pests; fire
management; maintenance of plant genetic material; propagation; or
management of the habitat or the plant populations. Each of these
actions would provide commensurate benefits to the species, and
designation of a particular area as critical habitat could further
define and expand the scope of the management actions and resulting
benefits. Many of these actions will be species-specific and benefit
species as well as the island's watershed. Also, these types of
management actions would ensure these areas continue to provide habitat
for the seven island endemics as well as for reintroduction of several
species including Solanum incompletum and Isodendrion pyrifolium which
are no longer found on the island. We believe, however, that many of
these same benefits would result from the agreement the Service has
recently entered into with the landowner (MOA, 2002). Finally, the
Economic Analysis discusses the possibility that designation could make
development more difficult and/or costly (Economic Analysis sections
4.d. and 4.f.). The State or Counties could require developers to
prepare a State EIS instead of a less burdensome EA in order to obtain
development approvals, and may ultimately require additional project
modifications; in addition, landowners could perceive that development
in rural and agricultural areas is limited. Preparation of an EIS would
presumably result in decisionmaking that is more informed and that is
better able to provide for the protection of the species. Similarly, to
the extent that designation of critical habitat would result in
additional or more finely tuned project modifications, it would further
the conservation of the species. The final designation together with
the excluded Unit D contain less than 6 ha (15 ac) of land designated
as Rural lands. Of these, over half 3.4 ha (8.3 ac) are mountainous and
the rest are coastal 2.4 ha (6 ac). In the unlikely event that land
values are decreased or economic activities are slowed, these plant
species would benefit from the resulting decreased level of invasive
activities. For example, the Rural lands in Unit D provide habitat for
two multi-island species, Centaurium sebaeoides and Brighamia rockii.
For both species, the Lanai populations are the only non-coastal
populations of the species that are known to exist. This makes
protecting the Lanai populations and their habitat from harmful
activities particularly important. The only anticipated development
project identified in the Economic Analysis is the planned construction
of a new quarry, and this does not fall within Unit D and has been
dropped from the analysis.
In sum, the Service believes that a critical habitat designation
for listed plants on Lanai would provide a relatively low level of
additional regulatory conservation benefits to each of the plant
species. Any regulatory conservation benefits would accrue through the
benefit associated with section 7 consultation. Based on a review of
past consultations and consideration of the likely future activities in
the area, there is little Federal activity expected to occur on this
privately-owned island that would trigger section 7 consultation. The
Service believes that critical habitat proposal and final designation
provides some conservation benefits by educating the public on the
site-specific areas on Lanai essential to the recovery of the extant
and extirpated species.
[[Page 1263]]
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
Proactive voluntary conservation efforts are necessary to prevent
the extinction and promote the recovery of these species on Lanai and
other Hawaiian islands (Shogren et al. 1999, Wilcove and Chen 1998,
Wilcove et al. 1998). Consideration of this concern is especially
important in areas where species have been extirpated and their
recovery requires access and permission for reintroduction efforts. For
example, eleven of the 28 species associated with proposed unit D are
extirpated from Lanai, and natural repopulation is likely not possible
without human assistance and landowner cooperation.
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, is involved in several important
voluntary conservation agreements and is currently carrying out some of
these activities for conservation and watershed protection purposes.
For example, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Awehi Gulch agreement
was entered into in fiscal year 1998 with the stated purpose of
restoring and protecting a mesic to dry forest community including a
population of the endangered Gardenia brighamii. The strategy to be
employed for this project was to construct a three-acre deer-proof
fenced exclosure, ensure that all deer were removed from the fenced
area, plant and water G. brighamii within the fenced area, and control
invasive alien plants in areas around the out-planted individuals. The
agreement is between Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, the State Division
of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW), and the USFWS. The USFWS provided
funding for fence materials ($24,000), DOFAW provided the labor to
construct the fence, and Castle and Cooke provided the labor and
materials needed to plant, water, and weed the area. The fence was
completed and no deer were left within the exclosure. Shortly
thereafter, Castle and Cooke planted 150 G. brighamii, planted other
native species (50 individuals) appropriate to the area within the
Awehi exclosure, conduced alien plant removal above the level agreed
upon, and set up a watering system (tank and delivery lines) that will
be used for establishing more that just the original gardenia plants in
the exclosure.
Another important voluntary project undertaken in partnership with
the landowner is the Lanaihale Summit Forest Restoration Project. This
is a very large and ambitious project (approximately 5,800 acres)
within the area of proposed unit D, for which the USFWS has obligated a
total of $177,500 to date. The landowner is matching that amount with
at least $143,266 of in-kind cost-share in the form of fence-line
clearing and native-plant restoration (growing, planting, and weed
control). It is understood that these amounts will not be sufficient to
complete the summit fence but will allow the project to get started
with the assumption that the partnership will be able to secure
additional funding from various sources to help complete the project.
Castle and Cooke has entered into other agreements with agencies
besides the Service, such as the Hawaii Division of Forestry and
Wildlife and Hawaii Department of Health for additional funds to assist
with completion of this project. The agreement documenting this project
lists 10 of the proposed critical habitat plant species (among others)
that will benefit from its completion. The project is currently
ongoing. Castle and Cooke's Conservation Department has almost
completed clearing the fence line for the first (Unit 1) of three
exclosure units that will make up the summit fence project. They have
also obtained bids from private contractors for construction of this
first phase of fencing.
A third voluntary partnership project undertaken in cooperation
with this landowner is the Lanai Cloud Forest Exclosure project. For
this much smaller exclosure project, the Service provided $27,500 to be
matched by in-kind services valued at $9,213 to be provided by the
company. The purpose of this project is to provide an area protected by
a fence that excluded not only deer and sheep, but predators (rats and
feral cats) as well. The exact size and location for this project have
not yet been finalized, but will be selected to provide the greatest
protection and restoration potential for listed plants and two species
of imperilled tree snails. This project is yet to get underway due to
the higher priority of the summit fence. The Service and the landowner
are planning to complete this project by the end of fiscal year 2003.
Another noteworthy voluntary agreement is the Lanai Forest and
Watershed Partnership. While this multi-party agreement does not commit
the company (or any party) to complete any conservation actions, it
does demonstrate the willingness of the company to work cooperatively
with all involved parties toward landscape-scale conservation efforts.
In addition to the projects described above, to address the
conservation needs of all of the listed species associated with
proposed unit D and to cover a larger landscape area, Castle and Cooke
Resorts, LLC, has recently entered into an agreement with the Service
to voluntarily manage proposed unit D and some adjacent lands for the
conservation benefit of all of the listed species from Lanai. This
agreement includes the following important voluntary commitments by
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC:
1. Construction of exclosure fencing around large portions of
Lanaihale and East Lanai (proposed unit D and adjacent lands); this
fencing would expand upon the Lanaihale summit fence described above
and protect a much larger area.
2. Active management of feral ungulates that are negatively
affecting listed plants within the fenced areas; through a combination
of public hunting and staff hunting, feral ungulates will be eliminated
or controlled to allow for the restoration of listed plant species
within fenced areas.
3. Active management of nonnative grasses and other fire hazards,
and development of fire control measures;
4. Nursery propagation and planting of native flora, including
these listed species, within the fenced areas;
5. In the unlikely event that future Federal projects occur on
Lanai in the most important portions of proposed unit D (e.g.,
Lanaihale and some adjacent areas), the landowner has agreed to have
these projects reviewed by the Service to a standard similar to that
required by section 7 consultation for designated critical habitat.
These areas were identified by the company's contract botanist as
having the highest conservation value for these listed species. They
include the Lanaihale area (2,339 ha (5,781 ac)), an adjacent area to
the north (702 ha (1,734 ac)), and an area east of the Lanaihale area
(1,082 ha (2,674 ac)).
The Service believes that each of the listed species originally
included within proposed unit D will benefit substantially from this
agreement due to a reduction in ungulate browsing and habitat
conversion, a reduction in competition with nonnative weeds, a
reduction in risk of fire, and the reintroduction of species currently
extirpated from various areas and for which the technical ability to
propagate these species currently exists or will be developed in the
near future.
On Lanai, simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will not slow
the extinction of listed plant species. Where consistent with the
discretion provided by the Act, the Service believes it is necessary to
implement policies that provide positive incentives to private
landowners to voluntarily conserve natural resources and that remove or
reduce disincentives to conservation. While the impact of providing
these incentives may be modest in economic terms, they can be
significant in terms
[[Page 1264]]
of conservation benefits that can stem from the cooperation of the
landowner. The continued participation of Castle and Cooke Resorts,
LLC, in the existing Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership and other
voluntary conservation agreements will greatly enhance the Service's
ability to further the recovery of these endangered plants.
Approximately 27 percent of the proposed critical habitat on Lanai,
including portions of proposed unit D, are zoned Agriculture. Although
the Service's economic analysis did not find it likely, the landowner
and other commenters nevertheless believe that there is a risk that the
critical habitat designation will result in the rezoning of lands, that
State and county permits will contain additional requirements and
expense for protection of lands designated as critical habitat, and
that there is an increased risk of third-party litigation. We believe
that the landowner's concerns over these potential negative impacts
would affect its voluntary conservation efforts, which we believe are
necessary to conserve these species.
As described earlier, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, has a history
of entering into conservation agreements with various Federal and State
agencies and nongovernmental organizations on important portions of
their lands. These arrangements have taken a variety of forms. They
include partnership commitments such as the Awehi Gulch Partners for
Fish and Wildlife project, Puhielelu Exclosure (funded through section
6 of the Act), Lanai Summit Fence project in concert with NRCS and the
Service, Lanai Snail Fence, Lanai Forest Stewardship Project, Lanai
Forest and Watershed Partnership, and the Kanepuu Preserve (perpetual
easement to TNCH).
Thus, we believe it is essential for the recovery of these 28
species to build on the previous voluntary conservation efforts.
Because the Federal government owns no land on Lanai, and because large
tracts of land suitable for conservation of threatened and endangered
species are owned by one private landowner, successful recovery of
listed species on Lanai is especially dependent upon working
partnerships and the voluntary cooperation of this landowner. Without
additional voluntary conservation efforts for these 28 species,
recovery will not occur.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined
that the benefits of excluding proposed unit Lanai D as critical
habitat outweigh the benefits of including it as critical habitat for
Abutilon eremitopetalum, Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii,
Brighamia rockii, Centaurium sebaeoides, Cenchrus agrimonioides,
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea
grimesiana ssp. grimesiana, Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp.
gibsonii, Cyrtandra munroi, Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis,
Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var.
remyi, Hesperomannia arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi,
Neraudia sericea, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiense,
Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis.
This conclusion is based on the following factors:
1. Large portions of proposed unit D (Lanaihale area) are currently
being managed under the Lanai Forest and Watershed Partnership by the
landowner on a voluntary basis in cooperation with us and the State of
Hawaii to achieve important conservation goals. Building on this
partnership approach, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, has entered into a
long-term agreement with the Service to manage the area within proposed
unit D and adjacent areas for conservation. In the past, Castle and
Cooke Resorts, LLC, has cooperated with us, the State, and other
organizations to implement voluntary conservation activities on their
lands that have resulted in tangible conservation benefits.
2. Simple regulation of ``harmful activities'' is not sufficient to
conserve these species. Landowner cooperation and support will be
required to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of all of
the listed species on this island due to the need to implement
proactive conservation actions such as ungulate management, weed
control, fire suppression, and plant propagation. This need for
landowner cooperation is especially acute because the proposed unit
Lanai D is unoccupied by eleven of the 28 species. Future conservation
efforts, such as translocation of these eleven plant species back into
unoccupied habitat on the island, will require the cooperation of
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC.
3. Excluding proposed unit Lanai D will foster participation in
ongoing and future voluntary conservation efforts on the island. We
believe the memorandum of agreement with Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC,
documents this commitment to voluntary conservation efforts on their
lands on Lanai. This cooperation is essential to the conservation of
the species.
4. Given the current watershed partnership and recent conservation
agreements between the Service and the landowner, the Service believes
the overall regulatory and educational benefits of including this unit
as critical habitat are relatively small in comparison. The designation
of critical habitat can serve to educate the general public as well as
conservation organizations regarding the potential conservation value
of an area, but this goal will be effectively accomplished through the
identification of this area in the management agreements described
above. Likewise, there will be little Federal regulatory benefit to the
species because, as described in the economic analysis and in this
rule, there is a low likelihood that this proposed critical habitat
unit will be negatively affected to any significant degree by Federal
activities requiring section 7 consultation. The Service is unable to
identify any other potential benefits associated with critical habitat
for this proposed unit.
In conclusion, we find that the net benefits of excluding proposed
unit Lanai D from critical habitat for these species outweigh the
benefits of including it. As described above, the overall benefits to
these species of a critical habitat designation for this unit are
relatively small. We conclude there is a higher likelihood of
beneficial conservation activities occurring on this portion of Lanai
without designated critical habitat than there would be with designated
critical habitat in this location. We reached this conclusion because
active management is integral to the recovery of these species, which
are found almost entirely on private land. The landowner is more likely
to continue and increase their ongoing voluntary conservation efforts
on the island if this area is not designated as critical habitat.
(4) Exclusion of This Unit Will Not Cause Extinction of the Species
In considering whether or not exclusion of proposed unit D might
result in the extinction of any of these 28 species, the Service first
considered the impacts to the seven species endemic to Lanai (Abutilon
eremitopetalum, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Gahnia lanaiensis,
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Labordia tinifolia var.
lanaiensis, Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis, and Viola lanaiensis),
and second to the 21
[[Page 1265]]
species known from Lanai and one or more other Hawaiian islands.
For both the seven endemic and the 21 ``multi-island'' species, it
is the Service's conclusion that the conservation agreement developed
by Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, and agreed to by the Service will
provide more net conservation benefits than would be provided by
designating proposed unit D as critical habitat. This agreement, which
is described above, will provide tangible proactive conservation
benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for all Lanai's
listed plants and increase their likelihood of recovery. We believe
that extinction of any these species as a consequence of this exclusion
is unlikely because there are no known threats in proposed unit D due
to any current or reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be
regulated under section 7 of the Act. Implementation of the
conservation agreement between the landowner and the Service, and the
exclusion of proposed unit D, has the highest likelihood of preventing
extinction of these species, especially the species endemic to the
island of Lanai.
In addition, critical habitat is being designated on another area
of Lanai for one species (Unit 1--Tetramolopium remyi), and critical
habitat has been proposed and is likely to be designated on other
islands for the remaining 20 multi-island species consistent with the
guidance in recovery plans. These other designations identify
conservation areas for the maintenance and expansion of the existing
populations.
In sum, the above analysis indicates there is a much greater
likelihood of the landowner undertaking conservation actions on Lanai
to prevent extinction without the proposed unit Lanai D being
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, the exclusion of the
proposed unit Lanai D will not cause extinction and should in fact
improve the chances of recovery for Abutilon eremitopetalum,
Adenophorus periens, Bonamia menziesii, Brighamia rockii, Centaurium
sebaeoides, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Clermontia oblongifolia ssp.
mauiensis, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana,
Cyanea lobata, Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii, Cyrtandra munroi,
Diellia erecta, Diplazium molokaiensis, Gahnia lanaiensis, Hedyotis
mannii, Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi, Hesperomannia
arborescens, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Labordia
tinifolia var. lanaiensis, Melicope munroi, Neraudia sericea, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiense, Tetramolopium remyi, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Viola lanaiensis.
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. Also, the soon-to-be-published book
Hawaii's Ferns and Fern Allies (Palmer, in press) has changed the
family name for Ctenitis squamigera from Aspleniaceae to
Dryopteridaceae. Due to the court-ordered deadlines, we are required to
publish this final rule to designate critical habitat on Lanai before
we can prepare and publish a notice of taxonomic changes for these
three species. We plan to publish a taxonomic change notice for these
three species after we have published the final critical habitat
designations on Lanai.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review
In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined that this is a significant regulatory
action because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. As required
by the executive order, we have provided a copy of the rule, which
describes the need, for this action and how designation meets that need
and the economic analysis, which assesses the costs and benefits of
this critical habitat designation, to OMB for review. OMB did not
recommend or make any changes in this regulatory action.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement with the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities.
As discussed in our Draft Economic Analysis, we are certifying that
the critical habitat designation for the three Lanai species will not
have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities
because the lands designated as critical habitat are owned solely by
one landowner, Castle and Cooke Resorts, LCC, which is not a small
entity as defined by RFA, as amended by the SBREFA. The following
discussion explains our rationale.
The regulatory flexibility analysis determines whether this
critical habitat designation potentially affects a ``substantial
number'' of small entities in counties supporting critical habitat
areas. It also quantifies the probable number of small businesses
likely to experience a ``significant effect.'' While SBREFA does not
explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or ``significant
effect,'' the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal
agencies have interpreted these terms to represent an impact on 20
percent or more of the small entities in any industry and an effect
equal or greater than three percent or more of a business' annual
revenues. In both tests, this analysis conservatively examines the
total estimated section 7 costs calculated in the Draft Economic
Analysis, including those impacts that may be ``attributable co-
extensively'' with the listing of the species.
The RFA/SBREFA defines ``small governmental jurisdiction'' as the
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000. By this definition,
Maui County is not a small governmental jurisdiction because its
population was 128,100 in 2000. Although certain State agencies, such
as DLNR, may be affected by the proposed critical habitat designation,
State governments are considered independent sovereigns, not small
governments, for the purposes of the RFA.
No primary projects or activities that might be affected by the
proposed critical habitat are expected to affect small businesses.
Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, the sole owner of the lands on which
critical habitat is designated, may be adversely affected by a decrease
in property values. However, this is a company that received over $13.5
million in net income in 1999 (Lynch. February 7, 2000). It is
therefore not considered to be a small business. Thus, the proposed
critical habitat designation is not likely to affect small businesses
on Lanai.
[[Page 1266]]
Our Draft Economic Analysis does mention that some small businesses
may be adversely affected if, in the unlikely event that the Department
of Land and Natural Resources builds fences around the critical
habitat, some businesses that cater to the hunting community may be
adversely affected. However, courts have indicated that an RFA/SBREFA
analysis is properly limited to the impacts on entities directly
regulated by the regulation. American Trucking Ass'ns v. U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, 178 F.3d 1027, 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Mid-Tex Elec.
Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 88 F.3d 1105,1170 (D.C. Cir.
1996). In this instance, that would mean that the RFA/SBREFA analysis
should consider impacts on entities subject to section 7 consultation
requirements, not entities regulated indirectly because of affiliation
or relationship to a directly regulated entity. Thus entities that are
not directly regulated by the critical habitat designation, such as
businesses that supply hunters on Lanai, are not considered in this
analysis.
Since these three plant species were listed (between 1991 and
1994), there have been no formal section 7 consultations and only seven
informal section 7 consultations on Lanai, in addition to consultations
on Federal grants to State wildlife programs. None of these
consultations affected 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 three species were reported from
this area. Two informal consultations were conducted on behalf of the
FAA for airport navigational or improvement projects. None of the three
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 three species were reported from the project area. One informal
consultation was conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) for the
construction of a wildlife exclusion fence and removal of nonnative
ungulates from the enclosure, control of invasive nonnative plants
within the enclosure, and outplanting of native plants in the Lanaihale
watershed area. Two species, Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha and
Tetramolopium remyi, 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, LLC. One informal
consultation was conducted on behalf of the Service, for the effects of
fencing and replanting of listed and endangered species within Awehi
Gulch. None of the three species were reported from the Awehi Gulch
project area. In addition, we are in the process of determining 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, LLC, in partnership with the State
DLNR. Only one of the three species (Tetramolopium remyi) is reported
from the project area.
We have determined that Maui Electric Company is not a small entity
because it is not an independent non-profit organization, small
governmental jurisdiction, or a small business. The FAA, 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, LLC. As stated above, we have
determined that Castle and Cooke Resorts, LLC, 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. We concurred with the NRCS's
determination that the Lanaihale watershed area project, as proposed,
was not likely to adversely affect listed species. At this time, the
Lanaihale watershed area projects are 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, that would otherwise not be required. However, there
will be little additional impact on State and local governments and
their activities because two 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 designated critical habitat
areas for these three plants that have Federal involvement and thus
would require consultation for ongoing projects. As mentioned above, we
have conducted only seven informal consultations under section 7 on
Lanai to date, and only one consultation involved any of the three
species. As a result, we cannot 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 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
the units remote locations, lack of access, and rugged terrain. The
majority of this land is within the State Conservation District, where
State land-use controls severely limit development and most activities.
Approximately 46 percent of this land is within the State Agricultural
District, and 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 designations consist of
improvements in communications and tracking facilities; ranching; road
improvements; recreational use, such as hiking, camping, picnicking,
game hunting, and fishing; botanical gardens; and crop farming. With
the exception of communications and tracking facilities improvements by
the FAA 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 critical habitat designations.
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
[[Page 1267]]
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, by definition, 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 three species from Lanai, we can describe only 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 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 the
Act's consultation requirements.
In summary, we have determined that, because all of the critical
habitat designations are on lands under one landownership and because
that landowner is not a small entity, this 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 areas being designated as critical
habitat is currently being used for recreational or conservation
purposes, and therefore is 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 being designated.
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 and
the Service. 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 designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Tetramolopium remyi will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))
In the economic analysis, we determined whether designation of
critical habitat would cause: (a) Any effect on the economy of $100
million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. Refer to the final addendum to the economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination.
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy production supply and
distribution facilities. No energy production, supply, and distribution
facilities are included within designated critical habitat. Further,
for the reasons described in the economic analysis, we do not believe
the designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Tetramolopium remyi on Lanai will
affect future energy production. 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) This rule 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.
(b) This rule 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 three species from Lanai in a
takings implication assessment. The takings implications assessment
concludes that this final rule does not pose significant takings
implications.
[[Page 1268]]
Federalism
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final 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 the two areas currently occupied by one or more
of the three plant species imposes no additional restrictions beyond
those currently in place; and, therefore, has little incremental impact
on State and local governments and their activities. The designation of
critical habitat in the remaining four unoccupied areas may require
section 7 consultation on non-Federal lands (where a Federal nexus
occurs) that might otherwise not have occurred. In these cases, the
most likely scenario would be section 7 consultation on Federal funding
for State game management programs. However, of the four unoccupied
areas, only the Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi unit falls within a State
Game Management Area (GMA), and the area in which the recently
extirpated Tetramolopium remyi population occurred within the unit has
already been fenced by the State for protection against damage by
ungulates. Therefore, there will be little additional impact on State
and local governments and their activities as a result of the
designation of critical habitat in currently unoccupied areas on Lanai.
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 consultations to occur.
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this 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 have designated 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 three plant species
from Lanai.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
that require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control
number.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that 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. We published a notice outlining our reason for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This
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 the Department of
the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no Tribal lands essential for the conservation of these three
plant species. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for these
three species does not involve any Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is
available upon request from the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this final rule are the staff of the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby 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. Amend Sec. 17.12(h) by revising the entries for Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Tetramolopium
remyi under ``FLOWERING PLANTS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
---------------------------------------------------- Historic range Family Status When listed Critical habitat Special
Scientific name Common name rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
* * * * * * *
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha Kookoolau......... U.S.A. (HI)....... Asteraceae........ E 467 17.96(b).......... NA
* * * * * * *
Portulaca sclerocarpa.......... Poe............... U.S.A. (HI)....... Portulacaceae..... E 532 17.96(b).......... NA
[[Page 1269]]
* * * * * * *
Tetramolopium remyi............ None.............. U.S.A. (HI)....... Asteraceae........ E 435 17.96(b).......... NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.96 by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 17.96 Critical habitat--plants.
* * * * *
(b) Critical habitat; plants on the island of Lanai, Hawaii.
(1) Maps and critical habitat unit descriptions. The following
paragraphs contain the legal descriptions of the critical habitat units
designated for the island of Lanai, Hawaii. Existing manmade features
and structures within proposed areas, such as buildings, roads,
aqueducts, reservoirs, diversions, flumes, telecommunications
equipment, telemetry antennas, radars, missile launch sites, arboreta
and gardens, heiau (indigenous places of worship or shrines), airports,
other paved areas, lawns, other rural residential landscaped areas,
electrical transmission and distribution, and communication facilities
and regularly maintained associated rights-of way and access ways do
not contain one or more of the primary constituent elements described
for each species in paragraph (b)(2) of this section and therefore, are
not included in the critical habitat designations. 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 six critical habitat units
designated on the island of Lanai.
(i) Note: Map 1--Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 1270]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 1271]]
(ii) Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi (151 ha; 373 ac).
(A) Unit consists of the following nine boundary points: 708156,
2313405; 709229, 2313365; 709970, 2313244; 710178, 2312821; 710182,
2312686; 709754, 2312448; 708741, 2312566; 708241, 2312691; 708156,
2313405.
(B) Note: Map 2 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.002
(iii) Lanai 2--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--North (53 ha; 131
ac)
(A) Unit consists of the following 20 boundary points: 718727,
2301883; 718642, 2302092; 718720, 2302377; 718928, 2302637; 719228,
2302896; 719550, 2302974; 719799, 2303078; 720193, 2302917; 720260,
2302858; 719948, 2302788; 719846, 2302865; 719474, 2302802; 719277,
2302635; 719253, 2302561; 719078, 2302494; 719042, 2302419; 719144,
2302231; 719136, 2302009; 719078, 2301859; 718727, 2301883.
(B) Note: Map 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.003
(iv) Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--Middle (60 ha; 148
ac)
(A) Unit consists of the following 19 boundary points: 719582,
2301162; 719361, 2301274; 719868, 2302031; 719968, 2302070; 720134,
2302344; 720198, 2302369; 720411, 2302710; 720524, 2302530; 720931,
2302147; 720741, 2302073; 720699, 2302012; 720600, 2302026; 720464,
2301954; 720259, 2301901; 720187, 2301857; 720106, 2301890; 719937,
2301876; 719749, 2301413; 719582, 2301162.
(B) Note: Map 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.004
(v) Lanai 4--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--South (48 ha; 118 ac)
(A) Unit consists of the following 11 boundary points: 721438,
2301740; 721647, 2301574; 720952, 2301142; 720824, 2300969; 720507,
2300707; 720411, 2300796; 720164, 2300917; 720513, 2301353; 721094,
2301439; 721161, 2301532; 721438, 2301740.
(B) Note: Map 5 follows:
[[Page 1272]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.005
(vi) Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Coast (7 ha; 17 ac).
(A) Area consists of the following 109 boundary points and the
intermediate coastline: 716811, 2294534; 714416, 2294262; 714411,
2294277; 714422, 2294291; 714456, 2294290; 714473, 2294280; 714478,
2294247; 714484, 2294226; 714558, 2294267; 714568, 2294317; 714590,
2294331; 714662, 2294292; 714689, 2294248; 714719, 2294280; 714735,
2294279; 714745, 2294295; 714745, 2294323; 714766, 2294357; 714795,
2294361; 714829, 2294349; 714833, 2294329; 714834, 2294305; 714838,
2294281; 714832, 2294257; 714855, 2294254; 714880, 2294241; 714901,
2294221; 714907, 2294204; 714937, 2294195; 714949, 2294166; 714960,
2294158; 714995, 2294154; 715038, 2294145; 715070, 2294126; 715089,
2294125; 715107, 2294172; 715130, 2294182; 715151, 2294225; 715167,
2294229; 715188, 2294229; 715221, 2294240; 715245, 2294248; 715267,
2294269; 715290, 2294289; 715314, 2294291; 715335, 2294295; 715357,
2294305; 715377, 2294327; 715415, 2294331; 715439, 2294357; 715477,
2294353; 715496, 2294344; 715533, 2294357; 715564, 2294356; 715580,
2294347; 715605, 2294340; 715615, 2294316; 715619, 2294292; 715644,
2294298; 715659, 2294286; 715669, 2294259; 715670, 2294239; 715660,
2294219; 715671, 2294213; 715692, 2294216; 715715, 2294212; 715735,
2294242; 715758, 2294268; 715763, 2294284; 715770, 2294312; 715799,
2294336; 715787, 2294371; 715800, 2294392; 715821, 2294402; 715849,
2294396; 715860, 2294364; 715893, 2294324; 715983, 2294259; 716003,
2294252; 716014, 2294216; 716064, 2294227; 716070, 2294286; 716106,
2294307; 716142, 2294307; 716174, 2294283; 716210, 2294248; 716239,
2294258; 716264, 2294284; 716262, 2294373; 716275, 2294406; 716412,
2294390; 716458, 2294326; 716484, 2294363; 716529, 2294395; 716585,
2294452; 716619, 2294499; 716658, 2294508; 716683, 2294499; 716719,
2294550; 716756, 2294581; 716802, 2294587; 716811, 2294534.
(B) Note: Map 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.006
(vii) Lanai 6--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Isle (1 ha; 2 ac)
(A) Area consists of the entire offshore island located at
approximately: 716391, 2294222.
(B) Note: Map 7 follows:
[[Page 1273]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR09JA03.007
(viii) Protected Species Within Each Critical Habitat Unit for Lanai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit name Species occupied Species unoccupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi...... .................... Tetramolopium remyi.
Lanai 2--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................... Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha.
kalealaha--North.
Lanai 3--Bidens micrantha ssp. Bidens micrantha
kalealaha--Middle. ssp. kalealaha.
Lanai 4--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................... Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha.
kalealaha--South.
Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa-- .................... Portulaca sclerocarpa.
Coast.
Lanai 6--Portulaca sclerocarpa-- Portulaca
Isle. sclerocarpa.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Hawaiian plants--Constituent elements; Flowering plants.
Family Asteraceae: Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha (kookoolau)
Lanai 2--Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha--North, Lanai 3--Bidens
micrantha ssp. kalealaha--Middle, and Lanai 4--Bidens micrantha ssp.
kalealaha--South, identified in the legal descriptions in (b)(1)(iii),
(b)(1)(iv), and (b)(1)(v) of this section, constitute critical habitat
for Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha on Lanai. Within these units, the
currently known primary
[[Page 1274]]
constituent elements of critical habitat include, but are not limited
to, the habitat components provided by:
(i) Gulch slopes in dry Dodonaea viscosa shrubland; and
(ii) Elevations between 409 and 691 m (1,342 and 2,267 ft).
Family Asteraceae: Tetramolopium remyi (NCN)
Lanai 1--Tetramolopium remyi, identified in the legal descriptions
in (b)(1)(ii) of this section, constitutes critical habitat for
Tetramolopium remyi on Lanai. Within this unit, the currently known
primary constituent elements of critical habitat include, but are not
limited to, the habitat components provided by:
(i) Red, sandy, loam soil in dry Dodonaea viscosa-Heteropogon
contortus communities with one or more of the following associated
native species: Bidens mauiensis, Waltheria indica, Wikstroemia
oahuensis, or Melanthera lavarum; and
(ii) Elevations between 90 and 481 m (295 and 1,578 ft).
Family Portulacaceae: Portulaca sclerocarpa (poe)
Lanai 5--Portulaca sclerocarpa--Coast and Lanai 6--Portulaca
sclerocarpa--Isle, identified in the legal descriptions in (b)(1)(vi)
and (b)(1)(vii) of this section, constitute critical habitat for
Portulaca sclerocarpa on Lanai. Within these units, the currently known
primary constituent elements of critical habitat include, but are not
limited to, the habitat components provided by:
(i) Exposed ledges in thin soil in coastal communities; and
(ii) Elevations between 0 and 30 m (0 and 98 ft).
Dated: December 27, 2002.
David P. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-130 Filed 1-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}