Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the Island of Hawaii, HI

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

[Federal Register: July 2, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 127)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39623-39672]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jy03-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AH02

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation
and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the
Island of Hawaii, HI

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 41 of 58 listed plant species known historically
from the island of Hawaii. A total of approximately 84,200 hectares
(208,063 acres) of land on the island of Hawaii fall within the
boundaries of the 99 critical habitat units designated for these 41
species. This critical habitat designation requires the Service to
consult 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. This rule also
determines that designating critical habitat would not be prudent for
four species, Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii, Ochrosia kilaueaensis,
Pritchardia affinis, and Pritchardia schattaueri. 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 August 1, 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:

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection
to Species

In 30 years of implementing the ESA, the Service has found that the
designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional
protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts
of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for
designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory
prescription into a process that provides little real conservation
benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology,
limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes
enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs.
The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our
focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to
the species most in need of protection.

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and
Implementing the Act

While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts
of conservation resources. [Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the ESA can
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation
requirements of section 7.''
Currently, only 306 species or 25% of the 1,211 listed species in
the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service have designated critical
habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,211 listed species
through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7
consultations, the Section 4 recovery planning process, the Section 9
protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, Section 6 funding to the
States, and the Section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service
believes that it is these measures that may make the difference between
extinction and survival for many species.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have
subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now
consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the
Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct
scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most
biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that
limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to
Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to
comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result,
listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list
critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on
existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left
the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public
participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before
making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the
risks associated with noncompliance with judicially-imposed deadlines.
This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who
fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those
designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little
additional protection to listed species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with NEPA,
all are part of the cost of critical habitat designation. None of these
costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded
by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly
reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation
actions. Sidle, J.G. 1987. Critical Habitat Designation: Is it Prudent?
Environmental Management 11(4):429-437.

Background

In the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants (50 CFR 17.12(h)),
there are 58 plant species that, at the time of listing, were reported
from the island of Hawaii.
Twenty-seven of these species are endemic to the island of Hawaii,
while 31 species are reported from the island of Hawaii and one or more
other

[[Page 39625]]

Hawaiian islands. Each of these species is described in more detail
below in the section named, ``Discussion of Plant Taxa.'' Although we
considered designating critical habitat on the island of Hawaii for
each of the 58 plant species, for reasons described below, the final
designation includes critical habitat for 41 of 58 plant species.
Species that also occur on other Hawaiian islands may have critical
habitat designated on those other islands in previous rulemakings.

The Island of Hawaii

This largest island of the Hawaiian archipelago comprises 10,458
square kilometers (sq km) (4,038 sq miles (mi)) or two-thirds of the
land area of the State of Hawaii, giving rise to its common name, the
``Big Island.'' We provided a detailed physical description for the
island of Hawaii in the proposed critical habitat designation (67 FR
36970).

Species Endemic to Hawaii

These species and their distribution by island are identified in
Table 1 in the Federal Register notice proposing this critical habitat
designation (67 FR 36969). However, it is important to note that in
this final rule we are using the word ``occurrence'' rather than
``population'' in most cases. This was done to avoid confusion
regarding the number of location occurrences for each species, which do
not necessarily represent viable populations, and the number of
recovery populations (e.g., 8 to 10 with 100, 300, or 500 reproducing
individuals). For those species where we have substantial new or
corrected information, including revisions to the number occurrence, we
list that information below by species. For all other species and
additional species specific background information on the species
listed below please refer to the proposed rule (May 28, 2002, 67 FR
36968).
A summary of occurrences and landownership for the 58 plant species
on the island of Hawaii appears given in Table 1.

Table 1.--Summary of Existing Occurrences on the Island of Hawaii and of Landownership for 58 Species Reported
From the Island of Hawaii
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landownership/jurisdiction
Species Number of current --------------------------------------------------
occurrences Federal State Private
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achyranthes mutica.................. 1...................... ............... ............... X
Adenophorus periens................. 4...................... X \1\ X X
Argyroxiphium kauense............... 4...................... X \1\ X X
Asplenium fragile var. insulare..... 36..................... X \1\ \2\ X X
Bonamia menziesii................... 2...................... ............... ............... X
Cenchrus agrimonioides.............. 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Clermontia drepanomorpha............ 2...................... ............... X X
Clermontia lindseyana............... 15..................... X \3\ X ...............
Clermontia peleana.................. 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Clermontia pyrularia................ 2...................... X \1\ X ...............
Colubrina oppositifolia............. 5...................... ............... X X
Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii... 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Ctenitis squamigera................. 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii... 4...................... X \3\ X ...............
Cyanea platyphylla.................. 6...................... ............... X X
Cyanea shipmanii.................... 3...................... X \3\ X X
Cyanea stictophylla................. 6...................... ............... X X
Cyrtandra giffardii................. 8...................... X \1\ X X
Cyrtandra tintinnabula.............. 4...................... ............... X X
Delissea undulata................... 2...................... ............... X ...............
Diellia erecta...................... 5...................... ............... X ...............
Flueggea neowawraea................. 12..................... ............... X X
Gouania vitifolia................... 4...................... ............... X ...............
Hedyotis cookiana................... 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Hedyotis coriacea................... 41..................... X \2\ ............... ...............
Hibiscadelphus giffardianus......... 1 (planted)............ X \1\ ............... ...............
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis........ 2 (planted)............ ............... X ...............
Hibiscus brackenridgei.............. 4...................... ............... X X
Ischaemum byrone.................... 6...................... X \1\ X X
Isodendrion hosakae................. 3...................... ............... ............... X
Isodendrion pyrifolium.............. 1...................... ............... X ...............
Mariscus fauriei.................... 2...................... ............... X X
Mariscus pennatiformis.............. 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Melicope zahlbruckneri.............. 3...................... X \1\ X ...............
Neraudia ovata...................... 9...................... X \1\ \2\ X X
Nothocestrum breviflorum............ 66..................... X \1\ \3\ X X
Ochrosia kilaueaensis............... 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Phlegmariurus mannii................ 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Phyllostegia parviflora............. 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Phyllostegia racemosa............... 6...................... X \1\ \3\ X X
Phyllostegia velutina............... 8...................... X \3\ X X
Phyllostegia warshaueri............. 7...................... ............... X X
Plantago hawaiensis................. 6...................... X \1\ X ...............
Plantago princeps................... 0...................... ............... ............... ...............
Pleomele hawaiiensis................ 22..................... X \1\ X X
Portulaca sclerocarpa............... 24..................... X \1\ \2\ X X
Pritchardia affinis................. unknown................ ............... ............... ...............

[[Page 39626]]

Pritchardia schattaueri............. 3...................... ............... ............... X
Sesbania tomentosa.................. 31..................... X \1\ \4\ X ...............
Sicyos alba......................... 5...................... X \1\ X ...............
Silene hawaiiensis.................. 156.................... X \1\ \2\ X X
Silene lanceolata................... 69..................... X \2\ ............... ...............
Solanum incompletum................. 1...................... X \2\ ............... ...............
Spermolepis hawaiiensis............. 30..................... X \1\ \2\ X
Tetramolopium arenarium............. 8...................... X \2\ ............... ...............
Vigna o-wahuensis................... 1...................... ............... ............... X
Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. 14..................... ............... X ...............
tomentosum.
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.............. 186.................... X \2\ X ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
\2\ PTA.
\3\ Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge.
\4\ Government Services Administration

Previous Federal Action

On May 28, 2002, we published the court-ordered proposed critical
habitat designations for 58 plant species from the island of Hawaii (67
FR 36968). In that proposed rule (beginning on page 36990), we included
a detailed summary of the previous Federal actions completed prior to
publication of the proposal. We now provide updated information on the
actions that we have completed since the proposed critical habitat
designation. In Table 2, we list the final critical habitat
designations or nondesignations previously completed for 46 of the 58
plant species from the island of Hawaii, some of which also occur on
other islands.

Table 2.--Summary of Critical Habitat Actions for 58 Plant Species From
the Island of Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final critical habitat
Species -----------------------------------------
Date(s) Federal Register
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achyranthes mutica............ NA NA
Adenophorus periens........... 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Argyroxiphium kauense......... NA NA
Asplenium fragile var. 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
insulare.
Bonamia menziesii............. 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Cenchrus agrimonioides........ 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Clermontia drepanomorpha...... NA NA
Clermontia lindseyana......... 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
Clermontia peleana............ NA NA
Clermontia pyrularia.......... NA NA
Colubrina oppositifolia....... 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Ctenitis squamigera........... 2/27/03 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Cyanea copelandii ssp. NA NA
copelandii.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. NA NA
carlsonii.
Cyanea platyphylla............ NA NA
Cyanea shipmanii.............. NA NA
Cyanea stictophylla........... NA NA
Cyrtandra giffardii........... NA NA
Cyrtandra tintinnabula........ NA NA
Delissea undulata............. 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
Diellia erecta................ 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Flueggea neowawraea........... 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949

[[Page 39627]]

Gouania vitifolia............. 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Hedyotis cookiana............. 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
Hedyotis coriacea............. 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Hibiscadelphus giffardianus... NA NA
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis.. NA NA
Hibiscus brackenridgei........ 3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Ischaemum byrone.............. 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
Isodendrion hosakae........... NA NA
Isodendrion pyrifolium........ 3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Mariscus fauriei.............. 3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
Mariscus pennatiformis........ 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
5/22/2003 68 FR 28054
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Melicope zahlbruckneri........ NA NA
Neraudia ovata................ NA NA
Nothocestrum breviflorum...... NA NA
Ochrosia kilaueaensis......... NA NA
Phlegmariurus mannii.......... 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
Phyllostegia parviflora....... 6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Phyllostegia racemosa......... NA NA
Phyllostegia velutina......... NA NA
Phyllostegia warshaueri....... NA NA
Plantago hawaiensis........... NA NA
Plantago princeps............. 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Pleomele hawaiiensis.......... NA NA
Portulaca sclerocarpa......... 1/09/2003 68 FR 1220
Pritchardia affinis........... NA NA
Pritchardia schattaueri....... NA NA
Sesbania tomentosa............ 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Sicyos alba................... NA NA
Silene hawaiiensis............ NA NA
Silene lanceolata............. 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Solanum incompletum........... NA NA
Spermolepis hawaiiensis....... 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Tetramolopium arenarium....... NA NA
Vigna o'wahuensis............. 5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
6/17/2003 68 FR 35949
Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. NA NA
tomentosum.
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense........ 2/27/2003 68 FR 9116
3/19/2003 68 FR 12982
5/14/2003 68 FR 25934
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For many of the 58 plant species from the island of Hawaii, the
issue of whether critical habitat would be prudent was discussed in
previous proposals and incorporated into the May 28 proposal (see 65 FR
79192; 65 FR 83158; 67 FR 3939; 67 FR 15856; 67 FR 9806; 67 FR 16492;
67 FR 36968; 67 FR 37108). We also proposed that critical habitat was
not prudent for Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii and Ochrosia
kilaueaensis because it would be of no benefit to these species. In the
May 28 proposal, we proposed that critical habitat was not prudent for
two

[[Page 39628]]

species of the native palm, Pritchardia affinis and Pritchardia
schattaueri, because it would increase the threat of vandalism or
collection of those species on the island of Hawaii. Critical habitat
was not proposed for seven species (Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis
squamigera, Hedyotis cookiana, Mariscus pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus
mannii, Phyllostegia parviflora, and Plantago princeps), which no
longer occur on the island of Hawaii, because we were unable to
identify any habitat essential to their conservation on the island.
Critical habitat for 47 (Achyranthes mutica, Adenophorus periens,
Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Bonamia
menziesii, Clermontia drepanomorpha, Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia
peleana, Clermontia pyrularia, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea
hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii,
Cyanea stictophylla, Cyrtandra giffardii, Cyrtandra tintinnabula,
Delissea undulata, Diellia erecta, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania
vitifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Hibiscadelphus giffardianus,
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone,
Isodendrion hosakae, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope
zahlbruckneri, Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum breviflorum, Phyllostegia
racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, Phyllostegia warshaueri, Plantago
hawaiensis, Pleomele hawaiiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania
tomentosa, Sicyos alba, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium arenarium, Vigna o-
wahuensis, Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense) of 58 plant species from the island of Hawaii was proposed
on approximately 176,968 ha (437,285 ac) of land on the island of
Hawaii (67 FR 36968).
The publication of the proposed rule opened a 60-day public comment
period, which closed on July 29, 2002. On July 11, 2002, we submitted
joint stipulations to the U.S. District Court 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 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 August 26, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 54766) reopening the
public comment period until September 30, 2002, on the proposal to
designate critical habitat for plants from the island of Hawaii. On
September 24, 2002, we published a notice (67 FR 59811) announcing the
reopening of the comment period until November 30, 2002, and a notice
of a public hearing. On October 8, 2002, we held a public information
meeting at the Hilo State Office Building, Hilo, Hawaii. On October 9,
2002, we held a public information meeting at Waimea Civic Center,
Waimea, Hawaii. On October 29, 2002, we held a public hearing at King
Kamehameha Hotel, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii. On October 30, 2002, we held a
public hearing at Hawaii Naniloa Resort, Hilo, Hawaii. On December 18,
2002, we published a notice (67 FR 77464) announcing the availability
of the draft economic analysis on the proposed critical habitat and
reopening the comment period until January 17, 2003.
In the final rule for Lanai plants (68 FR 1220), we found that
critical habitat was prudent for the following 16 multi-island species
that also occur on the island of Hawaii: Adenophorus periens, Bonamia
menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis squamigera, Diellia erecta,
Hedyotis cookiana, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
Mariscus fauriei, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene
lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. In the final rule for Kauai and
Niihau plants (68 FR 9116), we found that critical habitat was prudent
for the following seven multi-island species that are also found on the
island of Hawaii: Achyranthes mutica, Delissea undulata, Flueggea
neowawraea, Ischaemum byrone, Mariscus pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus
mannii, and Plantago princeps. In the final rule for Maui and Kahoolawe
plants (68 FR 25934), we found that critical habitat was prudent for
the following eight multi-island species that also occur on the island
of Hawaii: Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Clermontia lindseyana,
Clermontia peleana, Colubrina oppositifolia, Gouania vitifolia,
Hedyotis coriacea, Phyllostegia parviflora, and Tetramolopium
arenarium.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

In the proposed rule published on May 28, 2002 (67 FR 36968), 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. Two requests for public hearings were
received. We announced the date, time, and locations of the public
hearings in letters to all interested parties, appropriate State and
Federal agencies, county governments, and elected officials, and in
notices published in the Federal Register (67 FR 59811) on September
24, 2002, and in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on October 11, 2002.
Transcripts of the hearings held in Kailua-Kona and Hilo on October 29
and 30, 2002, respectively, are available for inspection (see ADDRESSES
section).
We received a total of 29 oral and 672 written comments during the
three comment periods on the proposal published on May 28, 2002 (67 FR
36968), and the draft economic analysis, including the public
information meetings and the public hearings held on October 29 and
October 30, 2002. These included responses from 12 State offices, the
Department of Defense (7 responses), and 10 designated peer reviewers.
Approximately 586 of these written comments were identical letters
submitted as part of a mailing campaign in support of the proposed
critical habitat designations. Of the 86 parties who did not respond as
part of the mailing campaign, 21 supported the proposed designation, 78
were opposed, and 16 provided information or expressed neither
opposition nor support for the proposed designation.
We reviewed all comments received for substantive issues and new
information regarding critical habitat for Achyranthes mutica,
Adenophorus periens, Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium fragile var.
insulare, Bonamia menziesii, Clermontia drepanomorpha, Clermontia
lindseyana, Clermontia peleana, Clermontia pyrularia, Colubrina
oppositifolia, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii, Cyanea platyphylla,
Cyanea shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla, Cyrtandra giffardii, Cyrtandra
tintinnabula, Delissea undulata, Diellia erecta, Flueggea neowawraea,
Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Hibiscadelphus giffardianus,
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone,
Isodendrion hosakae, Isodendrion

[[Page 39629]]

pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Melicope zahlbruckneri, Neraudia ovata,
Nothocestrum breviflorum, Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina,
Phyllostegia warshaueri, Plantago hawaiensis, Pleomele hawaiiensis,
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Sicyos alba, Silene
hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium arenarium, Vigna o-wahuensis, Zanthoxylum
dipetalum var. tomentosum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. Similar comments
were grouped into general issues and are addressed in the following
summary.

Peer Review

In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited independent opinions from 23 knowledgeable
individuals (``peer reviewers'') 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 10 of
these reviewers. All generally supported our methodology and
conclusions. Four of the peer reviewers supported the designation of
critical habitat on the island of Hawaii and the other six neither
specifically supported or opposed the designation. Comments received
from the peer reviewers are summarized in the following section and
were considered in developing this final rule.

Issue 1: Biological Justification and Methodology

(1) Comment: A peer reviewer commented on the configuration of the
units, stating that with irregular boundaries, the units will be
difficult to identify on the ground and that such boundaries will
complicate management and increase the risk of fragmentation and edge
effects on plant populations within the units. The reviewer also noted
that proposed units do not appear to be representative of known
geographic and elevation ranges for species and that unit boundaries
appear to encompass the minimum area needed to capture known site
localities, which may not provide the full spectrum of habitat
conditions necessary for long-term survival and recovery.
Our Response: The irregular boundaries are a result of attempting
to map the primary constituent elements for each species and of the
overlapping effect of multiple species' critical habitat. Universal
Transverse Mercator coordinates are given to help locate these
properties on the ground. We concur with the peer reviewer on the
importance of protecting the ecosystems on which these species depend,
as stated in the purpose of the Act (section 2(b)), and of conserving
areas large enough to maintain and expand populations. We considered
the importance of this, as well as the location of primary constituent
elements, when delineating the boundaries of critical habitat for these
final designations. While we acknowledge the potential negative impacts
of edge effects on small habitat fragments, we only included areas that
provide the biological and other processes that are essential for the
conservation of the species.
(2) Comment: We received several comments regarding the
incorporation of unoccupied habitat with critical habitat. A peer
reviewer commented on the incorporation of unoccupied habitat to allow
for the recovery of species that have been reduced to an unsustainable
number of populations and said that it is unclear whether sufficient
habitat is protected to provide the minimum populations needed for
recovery. Another commenter raised the issue that more acreage of
unoccupied habitat than occupied habitat was being proposed as critical
habitat. This commenter felt that critical habitat should encompass the
best populations of each species unless this is entirely impractical.
One peer reviewer stated that the Service relied too heavily on
currently occupied habitat and did not address potential habitat that
currently lacks rare species.
Our Response: The recovery plans for these species identify the
need to expand existing populations and re-establish wild populations
within the historical range of each species. Due to the extremely
limited extant range of many of these species, designation of only
occupied areas would not allow us to achieve the recovery goals
developed for the species. Occupied areas, as well as similar
contiguous or nearby habitat that occurs 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 (i.e., primary
constituent elements) of these species.
The protection of additional unoccupied critical habitat is
essential to ensure the recovery of these species through
reintroduction. Although propagation and reintroduction are difficult
for some species, both are vitally important to their recovery. Many
recovery plans therefore include research into best methods of
propagation and reintroduction as important tasks prior to attempting
reintroduction. Areas of unoccupied habitat are essential to the
conservation of the species because they provide habitat for the
establishment of new populations.
(3) Comment: Several commenters, including one peer reviewer,
expressed concern regarding the Service's decision to not propose
critical habitat for Pritchardia species. One reviewer concurred with
our finding that designation was not prudent, citing their knowledge of
theft and over-collection of the species; however, nine did not agree
with the Service's finding that critical habitat was not prudent
(particularly for P. affinis and P. schattaueri). Several commenters
disagreed with the Service's decision to not propose critical habitat
for P. affinis and P. schattaueri, stating that they felt the claim
that designation would increase threats to these species was
speculative.
Our Response: In this final rule to designate or not designate
critical habitat for 58 plants from the island of Hawaii, we have
incorporated new information, and we have addressed comments and new
information received during the comment periods. However, no additional
information was provided during the comment periods that demonstrates
that the threats to Pritchardia affinis and Pritchardia schattaueri
from vandalism or collection would not increase if critical habitat
were designated for these species on the island of Hawaii. We believe
that designation of critical habitat would likely increase the threat
from vandalism to or collection of these species of Pritchardia on the
island of Hawaii. First, they are easy to identify, and second, they
may be attractive to collectors of rare palms either for their personal
use or to trade or sell for personal gain (Johnson 1996). We believe
that the evidence shows that species of Pritchardia may be attractive
to such collectors. Several nurseries advertise and sell Pritchardia
palms, including these and other federally listed Pritchardia species.
(4) Comment: The majority of the peer reviewers supported the
multi-population approach and the Service's definition of a population
for purposes of recovery; however, several peer reviewers commented on
the recovery strategy of 8 to 10 populations for each species. Two peer
reviewers commented that it might be difficult to achieve recovery plan
goals of 8 to 10 populations for each species as some of these species
are rare, localized island endemics that likely never had 8 to 10

[[Page 39630]]

populations throughout their evolutionary history and that the Service
assumes that each population will be viable in the future when there is
no guarantee of this.
Our Response: The recovery objectives found in recovery plans for
these species state that 8 to 10 viable populations are required for
recovery of most of these species. 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 fires and nonnative plant invasions. There are
some specific exceptions to this general recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations for species that are believed to be very narrowly
distributed on a single island (e.g., Argyroxiphium kauense, for which
the recovery goal is 10 or more large, widespread populations of at
least 2,000 individuals each), and designation of critical habitat
reflects these exceptions. For the majority of the species, however,
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. Each recovery plan stated that these recovery
goals will be revised as more specific information becomes available
for each species.
(5) Comment: Several peer reviewers raised the issue of genetic
drift and the difficulty of measuring this phenomenon in terms of the 8
to 10 populations. One reviewer recommended that we consider the
consequences of this proposed population structuring on genetic drift
or inbreeding, and how this potential problem might be alleviated. One
peer reviewer commented that he did not believe that defining a
population on the basis of low/no gene flow would benefit the species.
One reviewer cautioned that for clonal species, the number (100, 300,
500) needs to reflect genetic individuals, not ramets. Another stated
that, ideally, every population should be genetically isolated from all
other conspecific populations.
Our Response: Many of the species have been reduced to such low
numbers that the recovery plans identify propagation and reintroduction
as a key step. While we do not have direct evidence for most species to
indicate that reduced reproductive vigor or inbreeding are problems, we
believe they should be considered, based on current conservation
biology theory and practice. This is particularly important to consider
when developing a propagation and reintroduction program, to ensure
that recovery efforts do not cause or exacerbate genetic issues. While
measures of genetic diversity do not directly measure relative fitness,
it is reasonable to assume that the two are correlated. The issue of
gene flow and genetic drift will be addressed through research actions
identified as needed in the recovery plans.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the 8 to 10 population
approach should not preclude the high priority of building large
populations both through population growth and the merger of multiple
small populations (which will require a breeding plan to conserve and
increase the genetic diversity of remnant populations).
Our Response: The areas designated as critical habitat in this rule
allow for merging of multiple, small populations (where they exist) and
the increase of population numbers as outlined in our recovery plans.
Because the general use of the word ``population'' in the proposed rule
caused some confusion, we replaced it with ``occurrence'' in this rule
when referring to existing locations of plants, and we use
``population'' only in the context of recovery guidelines.
(7) Comment: Several commenters, including two peer reviewers,
stated that the species' need for pollinators is important to consider.
One peer reviewer stated that designation of critical habitat needs to
consider the presence of appropriate pollinators for species that do
not self-pollinate or feasible, sustainable alternatives to key
pollinators that may be absent. The Service's consideration of this
issue did not appear to be explicitly listed in the proposed rule.
Our Response: Very little is known about the life histories of many
of these plant species. The species' accounts provided in the proposed
rule acknowledged that loss of pollinators, through habitat loss or
predation by nonnative insects, could be a factor in lack of species'
regeneration. As such, we created critical habitat units that were of
sufficient size to provide habitat for at least one population of the
target species in which the individuals could be regularly cross-
pollinated. We also recommend, as a management action, maintenance (to
the extent we have data) of natural pollinators and pollination
systems.
(8) Comment: Two commenters stated that the Service failed to
demonstrate that proposed critical habitat is essential to species
conservation.
Our Response: In order to be included in a critical habitat
designation, if within range occupied by the species at time of
listing, habitat must contain the biological or physical features
essential to the conservation of the species and may require
management. If outside the range at time of listing, it must be
essential to the conservation of the species.
(9) Comment: Several peer reviewers and other commenters, including
the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and
Wildlife, a State agency, expressed concern over the inclusion of
degraded habitat within critical habitat. Several peer reviewers stated
that as much habitat as possible, even degraded habitat, should be
protected as it has potential for reintroduction. One commenter noted
that while they felt that focusing conservation efforts on the most
pristine, least degraded sites is a logical, efficient, and cost-
effective strategy when possible, for many of the listed plant species
there is not enough suitable habitat remaining, and, as a result, it is
essential to include degraded areas for future restoration. One
commenter specifically requested that excessively degraded areas and
those dominated by nonnative plants be excluded from critical habitat
as these areas would not, or only have nominal value to, support the
taxa for which critical habitat is proposed.
Our Response: We agree that recovery of a species is more likely in
designated critical habitat in the least degraded areas containing
primary constituent elements. However, for some species, especially
those only known from low elevation areas, only degraded habitat
remains. Therefore, some units contain essential habitat that, while
currently degraded, is essential to the conservation of the species.
Management for the restoration of these habitats is addressed in the
species' recovery plans. However, we have excluded manmade features
that do not contain the primary constituent elements, and we have
revised this list based on information received during the public
comment periods.
(10) Comment: One peer reviewer commented on the omission of large
areas of high quality dry forest that contain key populations of
Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum brevifolium, and Pleomele hawaiiensis from
critical habitat. The commenter noted that hundreds of acres of the
best dry forest were not proposed to be included as critical habitat;
however, degraded shrublands (as low quality dry forest) were proposed
for inclusion. One peer reviewer commented that some lowland

[[Page 39631]]

populations do not appear to have been included in the proposal. This
reviewer recommended that suitable areas in lowlands that still support
semi-natural plant communities and that have the potential to be
restored should be considered.
Our Response: This rule designates four critical habitat units for
Neraudia ovata for a total of six populations. In addition, four
populations of N. ovata occur on the excluded lands at PTA. Three
critical habitat units for Nothocestrum breviflorum are designated in
this rule for a total of nine populations. Four critical habitat units
for Pleomele hawaiiensis are designated in this rule for a total of
nine populations. In addition, excluded Kamehameha Schools land
provides habitat for one population of Pleomele hawaiiensis. Thus, we
have designated habitat for 8 to 10 populations for each of these
species as outlined in our recovery plans. We evaluated all suitable
habitat identified for each species under consideration in this rule,
but are designating only those areas deemed essential for the
conservation of these species. Nevertheless, the habitat outside of
these areas may contribute to the conservation of these species and are
subject to other provisions of the Act.
(11) Comment: One peer reviewer did not agree that critical habitat
should not be proposed for the seven plant species believed to be
extirpated on the island of Hawaii, stating that even if they are
believed extirpated, it is possible that some species may be found
during future surveys. Even if this is not the case, future restoration
efforts for these seven species may be more effective if currently
unoccupied habitat on the island of Hawaii is included in designated
critical habitat.
Our Response: Critical habitat is not designated for Cenchrus
agrimonioides, Ctenitis squamigera, Hedyotis cookiana, Mariscus
pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia parviflora, and
Plantago princeps on the island of Hawaii because these species no
longer occur on this island, and we are unable to determine habitat
essential to their conservation. There is an undocumented report of
Cenchrus agrimonioides on the island of Hawaii made in 1800. Ctenitis
squamigera was last collected on the island of Hawaii in 1909, at
``Kalua,'' an indeterminable place name. Hedyotis cookiana was last
collected on the island of Hawaii in 1816. Mariscus pennatiformis has
not been seen on the island of Hawaii since the middle of the 1800s.
Phlegmariurus mannii was last collected on the island of Hawaii in
1949. Phyllostegia parviflora has not been observed on the island of
Hawaii since the 1800s. Plantago princeps has not been seen on the
island of Hawaii since the 1860s. Until these species are rediscovered,
we are unable to identify habitat essential to their conservation due
to lack of information in the historical record. We chose not to
speculate on the needs of these species on the island of Hawaii.
Therefore, no change is made to our not prudent determinations here. If
these species are rediscovered on the island of Hawaii, we may propose
critical habitat for these species at that time.
(12) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the
Service's failure to propose critical habitat for Cyanea copelandii
ssp. copelandii and Ochrosia kilaueaensis ``because they have not been
seen recently in the wild and no viable genetic material is known to
exist.'' One commenter considered this finding to be the first step in
delisting the species.
Our Response: Historically, Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii was
found at two sites on the southeastern slope of Mauna Loa, near
Glenwood. Ochrosia kilaueaensis is known historically only from
Puuwaawaa and at Kipuka Puaulu in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
Neither of these species have been seen in the wild since 1957 and
1927, respectively. No viable genetic material is known to exist for
either species, so there is no possibility of propagation materials for
use in restoration efforts. For these reasons, critical habitat is not
designated, as it would be of no benefit.
(13) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that in order to fully
assess the validity of proposed critical habitat, an indication of the
uncertainties in the data used in its identification should be
included. This would include things such as whether expert opinion,
data from surrogate species, or direct quantitative assessments were
used and the relative reliability of those data sources. This type of
information could then serve as a guide for further data collection and
to highlight which critical habitat areas were likely to be modified
once new data become available.
Our Response: All data and information on species' status received
in preparation of this rule were equally weighted and considered to
come from reliable sources. Where discrepancies existed between
different data sources, the most current data were used. Changes in
this final rule that decrease the boundaries of many units are based on
additional information received during the public comment period and in
meetings with additional species experts and land managers.
(14) Comment: Several commenters stated that they did not concur
that the Service used the best available scientific information.
Our Response: In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we are required to base
critical habitat determinations on the best scientific and commercial
data available. The use of information gathered from reliable sources
determined which lands were proposed as critical habitat. Based upon
newly available information, coordination with landowners and
stakeholders, and input received during the public comment period, we
have made revisions to the areas designated as critical habitat, which
are reflected in this final rule. We are not aware of any reliable
information that is currently available to us that was not considered
in this designation process.
(15) Comment: One commenter noted that there are several listed
plants historically known from the Hawaiian Islands that are not
included in the proposals; they suggested that the proposals for
critical habitat should clearly state that only plants listed from 1990
to 1996 are included. Another commenter expressed concern over the
Service's failure to propose critical habitat for Cyrtandra crenata.
One peer reviewer commented that it was unclear why critical habitat
was not proposed for designation on the island of Hawaii for
Caesalpinia kavaiensis, Abutilon menziesii, Argyroxiphium sandwicense
ssp. sandwicense, Lipochaeta venosa, and Gardenia brighamii, especially
when A. sandwicense ssp. sandwicense and L. venosa are only known from
the island of Hawaii, and the recovery plan for Gardenia brighamii
calls for the establishment and maintenance of three populations on
this island. The same reviewer recommended that the Service discuss why
the above species are not included in the action and provide notice of
the subsequent action in which critical habitat for these species will
be addressed. The reviewer also noted that a discussion of the
relationship of other designated critical habitat (e.g., for Kokia
drynarioides) to the critical habitat proposed in this rule should have
been included.
Our Response: The species named by the commenters were not included
in the court order in Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2F.
Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Haw. 1998) and subsequent stipulations, and therefore
were not included in this rulemaking. We may consider critical habitat
for these species in the future if warranted and if funding and
resources are available.

[[Page 39632]]

(16) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service should consider
recovering threatened and endangered plant species in areas that are
already protected and managed (e.g., Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and
Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge) as these areas are pristine and free
of threats and are locations where native species have made a dramatic
recovery.
Our Response: We agree that these managed areas should be a focus
for recovery actions. We have included several such areas in critical
habitat on the island of Hawaii that contain the appropriate primary
constituent elements for each species. However, these areas alone do
not include all of the habitat essential for the conservation of the
species for which critical habitat is designated on the island of
Hawaii.
(17) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated that the
proposal did not provide information on the critical habitat proposed
on other islands, did not separately map or identify how much acreage
is needed for each of the populations, and did not specify how many
separate populations are within each unit. As such, it did not contain
enough information to evaluate the adequacy of the proposal.
Our Response: While the proposed rule for critical habitat on the
island of Hawaii did not repeat the information contained in the
critical habitat designations for the other islands, we made the data
available upon request. In this rule, we have mapped each species'
critical habitat and provide separate maps, acreage, and population
numbers. For multiple-island species, we have included information on
whether critical habitat has been designated on other islands and the
number of populations allowed for, both in critical habitat and in
excluded lands.
(18) Comment: One commenter stated that while the Navy will manage
endangered species found on its property, they would not agree to the
introduction of an endangered species to an area where it does not
occur.
Our Response: No Navy lands are included in critical habitat on the
island of Hawaii.

Issue 2: Site-Specific Biological Comments

(19) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, asked why units
Hawaii A1 and Hawaii A2 are separated.
Our Response: Hawaii A1 provides habitat for Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Three other critical habitat units for this species are designated in
this rule for a total of nine populations, and excluded Kamehameha
Schools lands provide habitat for one additional population (see
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). Unit Hawaii A2 was
proposed as critical habitat for one species, Nothocestrum breviflorum.
There is habitat designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for this
species, providing habitat for nine populations. The area between the
two units is not considered essential for the conservation of either of
these species.
(20) Comment: One commenter stated that proposed critical habitat
areas for Achyranthes mutica (unit Hawaii B) should be plotted using a
global positioning system and identified on the critical habitat maps,
with the subsequent removal of any other areas.
Our Response: We have revised the unit to include only the gulches
in this area. Ten critical habitat units, encompassing a total of 603
ha (1,491 ac), have been designated for this multi-island species. The
remaining area outside of the gulches has been removed.
(21) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated that unit
Hawaii C contains only planted individuals of Sesbania tomentosa and is
not considered to be critical habitat for this species. However,
Lapakahi State Park in North Kohala should be considered for critical
habitat.
Our Response: The entire area proposed for Sesbania tomentosa in
this unit was excluded, as it is not essential to the conservation of
this species because it has a lower proportion of associated native
species than other areas we consider to be essential to the
conservation of this species. There is critical habitat designated
elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for this species that provides
habitat for two populations. We have not included Lapakahi State Park
in the critical habitat designation for Sesbania tomentosa because it
was not deemed essential to the conservation of the species. There are
other locations that have been designated as critical habitat in order
to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout its
historical range on this and other islands.
(22) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, recommended that the
boundary for unit Hawaii B follow the Puu O Umi NAR boundary on the
northeast side, noting that the Kohala Forest Reserve is very degraded
and does not merit status as critical habitat. Another commenter noted
that unit Hawaii B contains prime and other important agricultural
lands along both sides of Kohala Mountain Road.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii B provides habitat for six populations of
Clermontia drepanomorpha and three populations of Phyllostegia
warshaueri within their historical ranges. Modifications were made to
this unit to exclude areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements for these species.
(23) Comment: One commenter suggested that unit Hawaii D be
expanded to include more endangered plant species and that perhaps this
could be accomplished by transferring some of the acreage allocated to
unoccupied habitat in unit Hawaii D3 to occupied habitat in unit Hawaii
D7. Several commenters provided information on species present within
unit Hawaii D, including: Portulaca sclerocarpa in unit Hawaii D1;
Lipochaeta venosa in unit Hawaii D2; Acacia koaia in unit Hawaii D4;
the largest known population of Lipochaeta venosa and unoccupied
habitat for Tetramolopium arenarium in unit Hawaii D4, and a very
extensive population of Portulaca sclerocarpa and two populations of
Isodendrion hosakae and Silene hawaiiensis in unit Hawaii D7.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii D1 through Hawaii D8 were proposed as
critical habitat for Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and
Vigna o-wahuensis. Habitat is provided for two populations of
Isodendrion hosakae and one population of Vigna o-wahuensis on the
excluded lands at PTA. Modifications were made to these units to
exclude areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements for
these species or were considered not essential to the conservation of
these species because they have a lower proportion of associated native
species than other areas we consider to be essential to the
conservation of these species, and there are at least eight other
locations that have been designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to
10 populations throughout their historical ranges on this and other
islands. Other endangered species in this area are not part of this
rulemaking.
(24) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, suggested removing
the northeast corner of unit Hawaii E that extends into Hawaiian Home
Lands property as it is degraded pasture land. If the unit followed the
Laupahoehoe section of the Hilo Forest Reserve boundary, it would be
more accurate.

[[Page 39633]]

Our Response: This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three
species: Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia pyrularia, and Phyllostegia
racemosa. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do
not contain the primary constituent elements for these species. The
unit now lies only in the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge and
the Hilo Forest Reserve.
(25) Comment: One commenter provided information for unit Hawaii F
regarding two populations of Cyrtandra tintinnabula (at Nauhi in the
Honohina Tract and in the Maulua Tract) occurring at the highest
elevation cutoff in this unit and in unit Hawaii E at about 5,000 feet
elevation.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii E was proposed as critical habitat for
three species: Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia pyrularia, and
Phyllostegia racemosa. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude
areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements for these
species. Unit Hawaii F was proposed as critical habitat for seven
species: Clermontia peleana, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii,
Cyrtandra giffardii, Cyrtandra tintinnabula, Phyllostegia racemosa, and
Phyllostegia warshaueri. Two critical habitat units are designated in
this rule with habitat for a total of nine populations of Cyrtandra
tintinnabula. Although the habitat in unit Hawaii E may be important
for the conservation of this species, we do not believe that it is
essential at this time.
(26) Comment: One commenter stated that he had not been provided
with specific information on how the decision to propose critical
habitat in unit Hawaii G was made. The Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated
that in unit Hawaii G, the area north of Stainback Highway that is
above 3,200 feet elevation should be added to this unit and the area
around Kulani, south of the highway, should be omitted, as it is
dominated by timber plantations.
Our Response: This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 12
species: Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium fragile var insulare,
Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia peleana, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea
shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla, Cyrtandra giffardii, Phyllostegia
racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, Plantago hawaiensis, and Sicyos alba.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species or were
considered not essential to the conservation of these species. Some
portions excluded were not essential to the conservation of these
species because they have a lower proportion of associated native
species than other areas we consider to be essential to the
conservation of these species, and there are at least eight other
locations that have been designated or proposed to meet the recovery
goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout these species' historical ranges
on this and other islands. We excluded the proposed critical habitat
for the multi-island species Asplenium fragile var. insulare in unit
Hawaii G because it is not essential to the conservation of this
species. Asplenium fragile var. insulare is historically known from
Maui, and we designated critical habitat for two populations of this
species on that island. There is also habitat for seven populations on
lands excluded from this final rule on the island of Hawaii in PTA (see
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''), and this rule
designates critical habitat for one population elsewhere on the island.
We excluded the proposed critical habitat on Kamehameha Schools lands
in this area because the benefits of excluding these lands outweighed
the benefits of including them in critical habitat (see ``Analysis of
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). Those excluded lands provide habitat
for recovery populations of Phyllostegia racemosa and Phyllostegia
velutina.
(27) Comment: One commenter stated that the lone justification for
unit Hawaii J is the presence of Adenophorus periens, which is
currently found on Kauai, Molokai, and Hawaii. Within this unit, that
species is threatened by volcanic emissions and acid precipitation,
feral pigs and goats, and competition from nonnative plants.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii J (now called unit Hawaii 28--Adenophorus
periens--a) is designated as critical habitat for Adenophorus periens
and provides habitat within its historical range for one population of
this multi-island species. This unit, along with designated critical
habitat for this species on Kauai (four populations), Oahu (one
population), and Molokai (four populations), is needed to help achieve
the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations of this multi-island species.
(28) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that unit Hawaii J should
be extended toward the coast to provide an elevation corridor with unit
Hawaii M5. This reviewer also asked why units Hawaii K and Hawaii H or
Hawaii J and Hawaii L were not linked and why unit Hawaii AA does not
include areas to the south. The Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency,
recommended that the boundary of Hawaii K should exclude the
plantations in the Waihaka Gulch area. Also, the commenter questioned
why a large section of the Waihaka and Kaalaala drainages is omitted
from this unit.
Our Response: The Act requires us to use the best available
scientific and commercial information in undertaking species listing
and recovery actions, including the designation of critical habitat as
set forth in this rule. In the proposed rule, we concluded that many
areas were not essential for the conservation of plant species on the
island of Hawaii, based on available information concerning status of
the species in specific areas and level of habitat degradation. Several
areas of the island were not included in the proposed rule, or are
excluded from this final rule, because they are not essential for the
conservation of the species. We determined them to be nonessential due
to their lacking primary constituent elements or lacking the primary
constituent elements and being more degraded when compared to other
areas.
(29) Comment: One commenter stated that they did not understand how
the Service could propose critical habitat in unit Hawaii L that is
used by the Volcano Wilderness Run (an annual sports event).
Our Response: Operation, use, and maintenance of existing manmade
features and structures adjacent to critical habitat, or where primary
constituent elements are absent, are not subject to consultation
pursuant to section 7 of the Act. The Volcano Wilderness Run uses
existing manmade structures and thus would not be affected by a
critical habitat designation in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, which
contains proposed unit Hawaii L unless there are impacts on adjacent
critical habitat.
(30) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, suggested that the
boundaries for units Hawaii N1 and Hawaii N2 should be closer to the
coast and include the coastline itself.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii N1 is situated along the coast and
includes the coastline from Keoneokanuku Bay to Kamilo Point. Unit
Hawaii N2 is also situated along the coast and includes the coastline
from Mahana Bay to Pohakea.
(31) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated that unit
Hawaii P should include the Hawaiian Ranchos subdivision and

[[Page 39634]]

be extended toward the ocean. Another commenter stated that this unit
was proposed due to the presence of one occurrence of Pleomele
hawaiiensis.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii P was proposed as critical habitat for
one species, Pleomele hawaiiensis; however, the entire area proposed
for this species has been removed. This change was made because we
determined that this unit is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species and because there are 10 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this island.
(32) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated that unit
Hawaii Q should be extended to match the Manuka NAR boundary, with the
southern boundary moved to the south-southeast (to the 200-meter
elevation contour) and concurrent with the Manuka NAR southeastern
boundary.
Our Response: This unit was proposed as critical habitat for six
species: Colubrina oppositifolia, Diellia erecta, Flueggea neowawraea,
Gouania vitifolia, Neraudia ovata, and Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Modifications were made to this unit to remove areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species. The
portions not included were not essential to the conservation of these
species because they have a lower proportion of associated native
species than other areas we consider to be essential to the
conservation of these species, and there are at least eight other
locations that have been designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to
10 populations throughout their historical ranges. We did not add any
area to this unit because there is enough habitat to provide 10
populations throughout the historical ranges of each of these species.
(33) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated that the
boundary of unit Hawaii R should be moved south to match up the with
the boundary of State lands at Honomalino.
Our Response: The northern boundary of unit Hawaii R was moved
south to include only the South Kona Forest Reserve.
(34) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, provided information
that unit Hawaii T contains habitat for Clermontia lindseyana, so
critical habitat for this species should be added the unit.
Our Response: Clermontia lindseyana is currently found on Maui and
the island of Hawaii. Critical habitat for two populations was
designated on Maui and habitat for eight populations is designated for
this species on the island of Hawaii in this rule. Therefore,
additional populations were not deemed essential.
(35) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, provided information
that unit Hawaii W is not currently occupied by wild individuals of
Delissea undulata but does contain historical habitat for this species
and for Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii W was proposed as critical habitat for
one species, Delissea undulata. The entire area proposed for this
species was excluded. Portions of this unit are not essential to the
conservation of this species. We excluded the proposed critical habitat
on Kamehameha Schools lands in this area because the benefits of
excluding these lands outweighed the benefits of including them in
critical habitat (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
These excluded lands are still essential and provide habitat for three
populations of Delissea undulata. There is habitat designated elsewhere
on the island of Hawaii for this species, providing habitat for two
populations. Delissea undulata is known historically on Maui and is
currently found on Kauai and the island of Hawaii. In addition to the
designation in this rule, we have also designated critical habitat on
Kauai (habitat for three populations). Zanthoxylum hawaiiense is known
historically on Lanai and is currently found on Kauai, Molokai, Maui,
and the island of Hawaii. We designated critical habitat for this
species on Kauai (habitat for two populations), Molokai (habitat for
one population), and Maui (habitat for one population). There is
additional habitat for six populations of Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the
island of Hawaii in the excluded PTA lands (see ``Analysis of Impacts
Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
(36) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, provided information
that unit Hawaii X contains Phyllostegia velutina (in Honuaula Forest
Reserve).
Our Response: Two critical habitat units for Phyllostegia velutina
are designated in this rule for a total of 10 populations. Although the
habitat in the Honuaula Forest Reserve may be important for the
conservation of this species, it is not considered to be essential.
(37) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, suggested that
Pleomele hawaiiensis be added to unit Hawaii Y1 and Caesalpinia
kavaiensis added to unit Hawaii Y2.
Our Response: Caesalpinia kavaiensis is not included in the court
order, and therefore was not included in this rulemaking. There is
habitat designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for Pleomele
hawaiiensis for 10 populations. Although the habitat in the Honuaula
Forest Reserve may be important for the conservation of this species,
it is not essential.
(38) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated that much of
unit Hawaii Z contains badly degraded areas, and these areas should be
excluded from designation, as they are currently being managed for
hunting, ranching, and other multiple use programs that may not be
compatible with plant critical habitat management.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii Z was proposed as critical habitat for 12
species: Bonamia menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea
stictophylla, Delissea undulata, Flueggea neowawraea, Hibiscadelphus
hualalaiensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Nothocestrum breviflorum,
Phyllostegia velutina, Plantago hawaiensis, Pleomele hawaiiensis, and
Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum. Modifications were made to this
unit to exclude areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements for these species or are not essential to the conservation of
these species. Some portions removed are not essential to the
conservation of these species because they have a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of these species, and there are at least 8 other
locations that have been designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to
10 populations throughout their historical ranges on this and other
islands.
(39) Comment: The Department of Land and Natural Resources,
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, a State agency, stated that much of
unit Hawaii AA is badly degraded; dominated by weedy, fire-prone
vegetation; and is currently being managed for hunting, which may not
be compatible with plant critical habitat management. The commenter
also suggested that the lower boundary of this unit be at the 3,500-
foot elevation level and configured in accordance with

[[Page 39635]]

the Service's map of the upper Puu Anahulu area in order to omit the
central portion, which is dominated by Pennisetum setaceum.
Our Response: This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 10
species: Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Neraudia
ovata, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata,
Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium arenarium,
and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. The entire area proposed for these species
was excluded (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
(40) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that the northern and
eastern portion of PTA be removed from critical habitat, even though
this area has numerous populations of Silene hawaiiensis, since there
are large populations of this species in other critical habitat units.
Our Response: All of PTA lands are being excluded from critical
habitat in this rule (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2)'').
(41) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat units
Hawaii B, D2, N, O, Z, and AA affect grazing lands; units M2 and M3
affect papaya orchards in mauka areas of Puna; and unit Q affects
macadamia nut orchards and livestock grazing.
Our Response: Modifications were made to units Hawaii B, D2, O, Q,
and Z to remove areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements. Units Hawaii N1, N2, M2, and M3 were all removed, as these
areas are not essential to the conservation of Sesbania tomentosa and
Ischaemum byrone. They are not essential because they have a lower
proportion of associated native species than other areas we consider to
be essential to the conservation of these species, and there are at
least 10 other locations that have been designated for each of these
species. In addition, Unit Hawaii AA was excluded (see ``Analysis of
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').

Issue 3: Species-Specific Biological Comments

(42) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the following should
be included in critical habitat: Cinder cone habitats in the Waimea
area for Isodendrion hosakae and Lipochaeta venosa; eastern Mauna Kea
wet forests, especially the areas downslope from Hakalau National
Wildlife Refuge; dry forests north of Kona (for Neraudia ovata,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Nothocestrum brevifolium); and dry and
mesic forests in south Kona.
Our Response: Lipochaeta venosa is not one of the species at issue
in the court order in Conservation Council of Hawaii v. Babbitt (D.
Hawaii 1998) and subsequent stipulations and therefore was not included
in this rulemaking. Critical habitat is designated elsewhere on the
island of Hawaii for Isodendrion hosakae (for eight populations). Four
other critical habitat units for Neraudia ovata are designated on the
island of Hawaii for a total of six populations, and habitat is
provided for four populations on the excluded lands at PTA (see
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). Isodendrion pyrifolium
is known historically on Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, and Maui and is
currently found on the island of Hawaii. We designated critical habitat
for this species on Oahu (habitat for three populations), Molokai
(habitat for one population), and Maui (habitat for two populations).
Habitat for two additional populations is in the lands excluded from
critical habitat on Lanai. Three critical habitat units for
Nothocestrum breviflorum are designated in this rule for a total of
nine populations. Although the habitat outside of these areas may be
important for the conservation of these species, it is not essential.
(43) Comment: Several commenters suggested that we update the
distribution of Cyrtandra tintinnabula by contacting a local expert;
another provided information that Hibiscus brackenridgei had recently
been located on Puuwaawaa.
Our Response: We have revised the designated critical habitat in
the final rule to incorporate new information and to address comments
and new information received during the comment periods, including
information on species occurrences and areas of potentially suitable
unoccupied habitat for some of these species.
(44) Comment: One commenter stated that the subdivisions of Kona
Coastview, Kona Wonderview, and Kona Highlands are not appropriate for
propagation of Pleomele hawaiiensis, as they are residential areas that
are covered with roads, driveways, houses, and lawns.
Our Response: The subdivisions of Kona Coastview, Kona Wonderview,
and Kona Highlands are not included in the proposed or final critical
habitat for Pleomele hawaiiensis.

Issue 4: Mapping and Primary Constituent Elements

(45) Comment: One peer reviewer suggested that it would be
informative to show State and Federal property boundaries as well as
roads and elevation contours.
Our Response: Depending on the scale of the map (which is dependent
on unit size), major roads, geographical landmarks, and elevation
contours were included in the maps. It would be cost-prohibitive and
make the rule unnecessarily large to include all the information
available. Specific maps, such as landownership and land use maps, are
available upon request.
(46) Comment: One commenter stated that most of the primary
constituent elements put forth by the Service are non-specific plant
community associations or general physical locations and lack a clear
and quantifiable relationship to the species, but this information will
be essential for future consultations with the Service.
Our Response: As described in the discussions for each of the 47
species for which critical habitat was proposed, very little is known
about the specific physical and biological requirements of these
species. As such, we defined the primary constituent elements on the
basis of the habitat features of the areas from which the plant species
are reported, such as the type of plant community, associated native
plant species, locale information (e.g., steep rocky cliffs, talus
slopes, stream banks), and elevation. The habitat features represent
the ecological components required by the plant. The type of plant
community and associated native plant species represent on specific
microclimate conditions, retention and availability of water in the
soil, soil microorganism community, and nutrient cycling and
availability. The locale indicates 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 and the
plant communities associated with the species represent the primary
constituent elements for these species.
(47) Comment: One commenter remarked that only a rudimentary map
was provided with no indication of the boundaries of the proposed
areas, acreage involved, nor any indication of how the Service
determined what lands were in or out of proposed critical habitat.
Our Response: The maps in the Federal Register provide the general
location and shape of critical habitat and are provided for reference
purposes to guide Federal agencies and other interested parties in
locating the general boundaries of the critical habitat (50 CFR 17.94).
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. Unit

[[Page 39636]]

boundaries were defined by giving the coordinates in UTM Zone 5 with
units in meters using North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). These
coordinates can be used to determine boundaries with some accuracy. At
the public hearing, the maps were expanded to wall-size to assist the
public in better understanding the proposed critical habitat. 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 critical habitat. Designated critical habitat in this final
rule consists of units separately mapped for each species and is more
true to the elevation contours, the distribution of habitat, and other
natural features while excluding, to the extent feasible, areas where
primary consistent elements are absent.
(48) Comment: The Department of Transportation, a State agency,
stated that designation of critical habitat would significantly
increase the costs of planning, design, construction, and maintenance
of a number of State highways and recommended that the buffer zones on
each side of the State highway right-of-way (minimum 100 feet), along
with all planned roads, be excluded from designation of critical
habitat.
Our Response: Operation and maintenance of existing manmade
features and structures adjacent to critical habitat would not be
subject to consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act because such
features or structures do not contain the PCEs, unless there are
effects to adjacent critical habitat. If regular maintenance of the
roads extends 100 feet from the road base, it is excluded from critical
habitat. Otherwise, areas that contain primary constituent elements and
which have been determined to be essential to the conservation of a
number of the plant species on the island of Hawaii are designated as
critical habitat.

Issue 5: Effects of Designation

(49) Comment: Several commenters, including the Department of Land
and Natural Resources, Land Division, a State agency, remarked on the
need for consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Act, which would be
triggered by designation of critical habitat, and the potentially
adverse effect such consultation could have on flexibility of land
management and activities such as water diversion projects,
manipulation of vegetation, grazing, applications for Federal loans or
grants (e.g., the NRCS), conservation district use applications,
property maintenance, and construction projects.
Our Response: Under section 7 of the Act, all Federal agencies must
consult with us to insure that any action that they authorize, fund, or
carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. If we find that the proposed
actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an
endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat, we suggest reasonable and prudent
alternatives that would allow the Federal agency to implement their
proposed action without such adverse consequences. Every consultation
is unique, and it is impossible to comment on what the results of a
future consultation would be without details of the proposed activity
and the status of the species and its critical habitat at the time of
the consultation.
(50) Comment: Several commenters stated that designation of
critical habitat would unnecessarily adversely affect military training
(some of which cannot be duplicated elsewhere) and may delay
construction of required training facilities.
Our Response: The potential direct and indirect costs to the Army
are discussed in detail in Chapter 3, section 3f, of the Draft Economic
Analysis (DEA) and in sections 3h and 4f of the Addendum. We have had
numerous discussions with the Army regarding these areas, and, as a
result, we have removed PTA, based on either the lack of primary
constituent elements or other reasons (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under
Section 4(b)(2)'').
(51) Comment: One commenter stated that all species should be
offered protection, but they cannot support protection for some and not
for others. They are concerned about the nonnative animals, whose fate
would be decided by agencies that consider them invasive and kill them.
The current interpretation of critical habitat in effect allows the
Federal government and its partners to utilize any methodology they
wish in dealing with feral animals with impunity, although such methods
may be cruel and environmentally unsound.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat does not give the
Federal government or its partners the authority to manage feral
animals. Any potential animal management program would be subject to
all applicable State, Federal, and local laws.
(52) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern over the effect
that designation of critical habitat would have on subsistence hunting
and gathering, particularly that the control of feral pigs and
ungulates would result in adverse economical and cultural effects to
Native Hawaiian people and the State's economy. Others stated that the
removal of ungulates from the forest would result in an increased
threat and frequency of fire.
Our Response: 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 affected
only where there is Federal involvement in the action and when the
action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Such
designation also does not require the State or a private landowner to
fence the designated area and/or remove game mammals. We also recognize
that under certain circumstances, removal of ungulates can result in an
increase in weedy growth and associated fire risk, and we recommend
that ungulate management programs assess and address this issue.
(53) Comment: The Department of Hawaiian Homelands, a State agency,
stated that Hawaiian home lands in the area of the Waimea and South
Point parcels have already been subdivided into individual lots. The
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does not have the authority to
retroactively impose management plans on individual lessees. Therefore,
any regulatory impact will fall on these lessees.
Our Response: A critical habitat designation does not constitute a
land management plan, does not mandate a management plan, and does not
mandate particular management actions. On State or private lands, there
is no direct Federal regulatory impact from a critical habitat
designation unless some sort of Federal permit, license, or funding is
involved. If there is a Federal nexus, the Federal agency granting or
issuing the permit, license, or funding, not an individual lessee, is
required to consult with the Service to ensure that the activity being
permitted, licensed, or funded is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. By consulting with the Service, the Federal
agency can usually minimize or avoid potential conflicts with listed
species and their critical habitat, and the proposed activity may be
undertaken.
(54) Comment: One commenter raised the issue of the number of fires
currently burning in the landfill at Keahuolu that have the potential
to explode and raised concerns that

[[Page 39637]]

designation of critical habitat could adversely affect plans for
remediation.
Our Response: The burning landfill is not within the final critical
habitat designation. Operation and maintenance of existing manmade
features and structures adjacent to critical habitat are not subject to
section 7 consultation. Unless a Federal action related to landfill
remediation activities directly or indirectly affects nearby habitat
containing the primary constituent elements, these activities would not
be affected by the designation of critical habitat.

Issue 6: Legal Issues

(55) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service cannot lawfully
exclude areas from critical habitat based on a finding that they
currently are adequately managed or protected. To do so would violate
the mandatory duty to designate critical habitat to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable. The commenter urges the Service not to
exclude any areas from designation on this basis (i.e., lands already
managed or protected), since doing so would violate the mandatory duty
to designate critical habitat ``to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable.''
Our Response: 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. If an
area is covered by a plan that meets our management criteria, we
believe it does not constitute critical habitat as defined by the Act
because the primary constituent elements found there are not considered
to be in need of special management or protection. For a detailed
explanation of this evaluation see the ``Analysis of Managed Lands
Under Section 3(5)(A)'' section below. However, to the extent that
special management considerations and protection may be required for
any of these areas and they, therefore, would meet the definition of
critical habitat according to section 3(5)(A)(i), they are also
properly excluded from designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
(see ``Analysis of Impacts under Section 4(b)(2)'' section below).
(56) Comment: Several commenters, including the Department of Land
and Natural Resources, Land Division, a State agency, stated that the
proposal appeared to not recognize the interplay in Hawaii between
Federal and State laws, particularly environmental laws. They stated
that harming endangered and threatened plants, even on private
property, is already prohibited under State law and that designation of
critical habitat duplicates existing regulations, zoning laws, and land
use laws, creating an additional unnecessary regulatory burden and
decrease in land values, thus resulting in ``taking.''
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat requires all
Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any
action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely
to result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. If, after consultation, our biological opinion
concludes that a proposed action is likely to result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat, we are required to suggest
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat (16 U.S.C.
1536(b)(3)(A)). If we cannot suggest acceptable reasonable and prudent
alternatives, the agency (or the applicant) may apply for an exemption
from the Endangered Species Committee under section 7(e) through (p) of
the Act. Possible effects resulting from interplay of the Federal
Endangered Species Act and Hawaii State law are also discussed in the
DEA and Addendum under indirect costs.
However, the mere promulgation of a regulation, like the enactment
of a statute, does not take private property unless the regulation on
its face denies the property owners all economically beneficial or
productive use of their land (Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255,
260-263 (1980); Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Ass'n,
452 U.S. 264, 195 (1981); Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505
U.S. 1003, 1014 (1992)). The Act does not automatically restrict all
uses of critical habitat, but only imposes restrictions under section
7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may result in destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Furthermore, as
discussed above, if a biological opinion concludes that a proposed
action is likely to result in destruction or modification of critical
habitat, we are required to suggest reasonable and prudent
alternatives. Finally, habitat value is only one factor among many that
State and local governments consider in making decisions on allowable
property uses, (See, e.g. HRS 205-17) and would not necessarily be
solely attributable to critical habitat.
(57) Comment: Several commenters, including the Department of Land
and Natural Resources, Land Division, a State agency, raised concerns
over the temporal relationship of the economic analysis relative to
designation of critical habitat. One commenter stated that economic
impacts should be considered concurrent with all other information and
objected to the disjointed process. Another commenter wanted to ensure
that the economic analysis be completed prior to the designation of
critical habitat to ensure the Service meets the ``prudent and
determinable'' standard for such designation.
Our Response: An economic analysis of the impact of critical
habitat cannot be performed without knowing the location of the
critical habitat. This fact is easily realized by considering the
difference of proposed critical habitat on land zoned for protective
conservation versus land zoned for urban development. These types of
zoning issues, as well as other issues, will greatly affect any
economic analysis of critical habitat and cannot be taken into
consideration until a proposal of critical habitat is put forth. The
proposed prudency finding is not a final prudency finding since it has
not considered the economic issues. The fact that the proposed critical
habitat is published in a proposed rule emphasizes that no final
decision has been made on location or extent of critical habitat. The
final designation of critical habitat occurs after public comments have
been taken into consideration and the economic analysis on the proposed
critical habitat has been completed. The effects of the public comments
and the economic analysis are then reflected in the final rulemaking.
(58) Comment: Several commenters stated that designation of
critical habitat could have an adverse affect on the voluntary
cooperation for species conservation between the private sector and the
Federal government and may actually result in less species recovery.
Several commenters suggested the use of alternatives to critical
habitat designation that would result in greater net benefits to the
species and recommended that the Service and landowners focus their
resources towards proactive cooperation between the Federal and State
agencies and private landowners, including the development of monetary
and other incentives to engage in species protection and recovery.

[[Page 39638]]

Our Response: We are required under section 4 of the Act to
designate critical habitat based on the best available information we
have at the time of designation. In addition, we are directed by the
Act to recover the species and the ecosystems on which they depend, not
just preserve them in a horticultural facility. We realize that
designation of critical habitat alone will not achieve recovery. Many
threatened and endangered species occur on private lands, and we
recognize the importance of conservation actions by private landowners.
Cooperation from private landowners is an important element of our
conservation efforts, and we have had considerable success in
developing partnerships with large and small landowners, government
agencies, and nongovernmental organizations for conservation activities
on the island of Hawaii, in the State of Hawaii, and throughout the
nation.
We administer several programs aimed at providing incentives to
landowners to conserve endangered and threatened species on their
lands. One of these programs is the Endangered Species Landowner
Incentive Program, which was first funded by Congress in fiscal year
1999. Under this program, we provide technical assistance and funding
to landowners for carrying out conservation actions on their lands. In
the first year alone, 145 proposals totaling $21.1 million competed for
$5 million in grant money. Additional information on landowner
incentive programs that we administer may be found on our Web site
(http://endangered.fws.gov/landowner/index.html).
(59) Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about the nature
of the public hearings. Several commenters requested that there be a
process that would reach the more rural areas, and others requested
that more public hearings be held, particularly after the economic
analysis was completed, to make the conclusions available to the
general public.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that a public
hearing be held if it is requested within 45 days of the publication of
a proposed rule. In response to two requests from recreational hunting
organizations, we published a notice of two public hearings on the
proposed critical habitat designations for 47 plants from the island of
Hawaii, and we reopened the comment period, which originally closed on
July 29, 2002. The two public hearings were held on the island of
Hawaii in Kailua-Kona and Hilo on October 29 and October 30, 2002,
respectively. These notices were advertised in the Honolulu Star-
Bulletin. We also held several informal meeting to discuss critical
habitat with a variety of groups, including trade organizations,
community associations, and hunting clubs. Although we did not have a
public hearing on the economic analysis, notice of its availability was
published in the Federal Register and comments were solicited.
(60) Comment: One commenter asked how long it would take to undo
designation of critical habitat if necessary to correct or adjust for
future conditions.
Our Response: If provided with new information, we may revise the
critical habitat designation at any time in the future. The time it
takes to produce a proposed rule, receive peer review and public
comment, and to publish a final rule varies with the situation.
(61) Comment: One commenter stated that, should current public use
of any area that is designated as critical habitat be reduced or
removed, the Service should provide in-kind mitigation.
Our Response: Possible effects resulting from interplay of the
Federal Endangered Species Act and Hawaii State law are discussed in
the DEA and Addendum under indirect costs (e.g., possible conservation
management mandate for the private landowner and reduction in game
mammals' population). Further, the DEA and Addendum discuss the
indirect impacts resulting from the possible redistricting of private
land into the Conservation District, noting that, under a most extreme
scenario, areas designated as critical habitat could be placed in the
Protective Subzone with the most severe restrictions, which could
restrict development or a new agricultural use, or interfere with
irrigation water development. As indicated in the Addendum, the
likelihood of mandated redistricting is undetermined but is expected to
be small.
(62) Comment: One commenter stated that the newly elected governor
and her staff be allowed time to comment, as she will need to deal with
any economic or social fallout from the designation of critical habitat
on the island of Hawaii. Another commenter stated that as more than 50
percent of the lands proposed for designation are State lands, the
Hawaii State legislature should have significant input into the
designation.
Our Response: All persons were invited to comment on the proposed
rule. Four public comment periods were open for this rule. The first
opened upon publication of the rule on May 28, 2002, for initial
comments on the rule, and remained open until July 29, 2002 (67 FR
36968). The second was open from August 26, 2002, until September 30,
2002 (67 FR 54766). The third was open from September 24, 2002, until
November 30, 2002 (67 FR 59811). The fourth opened on December 18,
2002, to allow comments on the DEA and closed on January 17, 2003 (67
FR 77464). Comments were received from representatives of various State
agencies.
(63) Comment: Several commenters stated that the designation of
critical habitat will result in a flood of lawsuits. One commenter was
concerned that if it is found that more critical habitat was designated
than is needed, it will be impossible to rescind the designation for
these areas.
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 impacts pursuant to the interplay with State law,
including the possibility of litigation. 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.
(64) Comment: One commenter stated that proposed critical habitat
on lands owned by the Queen Liliuokalani Trust at Keahuolu are
surrounded by urban development and have been designated for future
urban development by the State and County of Hawaii.
Our Response: We have excluded Queen Liliuokalani Trust lands and
other lands in this area (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2)''). We met with owners of land in the proposed critical habitat
in the Keahuolu area and have revised unit Hawaii Y2 based on new
information received during the public comment period.
(65) Comment: We received a comment letter on February 21, 2003
(after the close of the comment period), requesting additional time to
work with us to implement interim conservation measures believed to be
more beneficial to Neraudia ovata (and Blackburn's sphinx moth (Manduca
blackburni)) and their respective habitats on lands owned by TSA and
MID corporations. The landowner offered to: (1) Set aside 100 to 130
contiguous areas located in the proposed critical habitat unit Hawaii
Y1 (and proposed Blackburn's sphinx moth proposed critical habitat);
(2) Enter into

[[Page 39639]]

good faith negotiations with Federal, State, or county entities for
acquisition of the area; (3) Agree to enter into a Safe Harbor
Agreement with us to ensure the protection and management of a baseline
level of Neraudia ovata (and Blackburn's sphinx moth); and (4) Enter
into a memorandum of understanding or cooperative agreement that
addresses habitat protection, land access, and monitoring and
management actions.
Our Response: Unit Hawaii Y1 was proposed as critical habitat for
two species: Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata. We have
excluded lands in this area (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2)'').

Issue 7: Economic Issues

(66) Comment: One commenter expressed concern over the potential
for designation of critical habitat to have significant adverse effects
on private lands, both Agricultural and Urban Districts, due to
increased State regulatory implications.
Our Response: The potential adverse effect on private lands in both
the Agricultural and Urban Districts are discussed in the Indirect
Costs sections of the DEA and in the Addendum. The effects include
redistricting, conservation management, State and county development
approvals, reductions in property values, etc. The DEA and Addendum
estimate the costs of such impacts. For certain parcels, a reduction in
certain property values is reasonably foreseeable, but the magnitude
and duration of the loss is not known. As such, the Addendum estimates
these impacts to be some undetermined fraction of $71.2 million to
$124.4 million over 10 years.
(67) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the designation
of critical habitat would result in a lawsuit to remove game animals,
which would cause a tremendous financial burden on the State and
destroy traditional and cultural practices of its people.
Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 4.b.(3) of the DEA acknowledges
that, if it were to occur, the removal of game animals would result in
a loss in hunting activity, economic activity, hunter benefits,
consumption of hunting meat, and social and cultural value of hunting,
and it would increase State expenditures. However, the concern about
the removal of game animals is based in part on the premise that
critical habitat will require the State to undertake steps to avoid the
taking of a listed species. As stated in the Conservation Management
section of the Addendum, while critical habitat may provide information
to help a landowner identify where take may occur, take prohibitions--
to the extent they apply to listed plants--are triggered by the listing
of a species and would apply whether or not critical habitat is
designated. As such, designating critical habitat is not anticipated to
result in the removal of game animals.
(68) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the
designation of critical habitat would constrain community and
infrastructure growth, business growth, and development of affordable
housing.
Our Response: We have excluded lands in this area (see ``Analysis
of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
(69) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the
designation of critical habitat would constrain outdoor recreation and
subsistence hunting and gathering.
Our Response: The impacts to outdoor recreation and subsistence
hunting and gathering are discussed in the DEA and the Addendum.
Specifically, the Direct Costs section of the DEA, as amended by the
Addendum, discusses impacts to State-managed hunting, National Parks
and Wildlife Refuges, State-managed areas, and the State trail and
access system. The Indirect Costs section of the DEA, as amended by the
Addendum, discusses the impacts to management of game mammals and
hunting lands, and subsistence and Native Hawaiian practices. Potential
benefits to ecotourism and outdoor recreation are discussed in the
Benefits Section of the DEA. The impacts, if any, for each of these
activities are summarized below.
In summary, our final economic analysis estimates that the
probability of a major State-initiated change in game mammal
management, i.e., that the State would adopt a policy to substantially
reduce game mammal populations in critical habitat units that overlap
with State hunting units, is small. The probability that restriction of
access and prohibition of subsistence activities in all critical
habitat areas is undetermined but unlikely. It is more likely that
subsistence activities would be consistent with conservation
restrictions, should any be imposed. Thus it is anticipated that the
impact of critical habitat on subsistence activities will be minimal.
Ecotourism could benefit from project modifications, that may result
from critical habitat designation, that enhance the quality of the
ecosystem and expand the geographic scope of high-quality ecosystems,
thereby increasing the appeal of ecotourism tours to visitors.
(70) Comment: Some commenters raised concerns over the ability of
wildlife and other projects to receive Pittman-Robertson or other
Federal funding or grants.
Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 3.a. of the DEA discusses
Pittman-Robertson funding for wildlife projects. The State Department
of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) already consults with the Service
regarding projects that receive Pittman-Robertson funding. As stated in
the DEA, the designation of critical habitat may increase the level of
effort required to analyze the effects of feral ungulates, especially
in areas that are unoccupied by the listed plants. However, Hawaii
currently receives the minimum amount of Pittman-Robertson funds, so
the critical habitat designation would not impact the amount of
Pittman-Robertson funds the State receives.
Impacts to other projects that receive Federal funding or grants,
or have Federal involvement, are discussed in the Direct Costs section
of the DEA, as amended by the Addendum. As shown in Table Add-3, the
total direct costs range from $46.6 million to $62.7 million over 10
years.
(71) Comment: Two commenters had concerns regarding funding and
assistance to farmers and ranchers in the form of U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) loans, grants, subsidy payments, etc., or other
Federal funding such as Veterans Administration (VA) loans, Federal
Housing Administration (FHA) loans, NMHA loans or similar Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) programs.
Our Response: The impacts associated with USDA and HUD programs are
discussed in the Ranching Operations and Residential Development
sections of the Addendum. Potential impacts to ranching operations
include $38,800 to $82,400 in costs to ranchers, NRCS, and the Service
in section 7 consultation costs with no project modifications. The
Addendum anticipates no impacts to residential development because
areas planned for development are removed from the final designation
and other planned developments have no reasonably foreseeable Federal
involvement.
(72) Comment: One commenter was concerned that the designation of
critical habitat would adversely affect their sale of conservation
easements to the U.S. Forest Service.
Our Response: The commenter's land was not included in the proposed
designation and is also not included in the critical habitat
designation, so this analysis anticipates that the designation of
critical habitat will not impact the sale of conservation easements on
these parcels.

[[Page 39640]]

(73) Comment: One commenter had specific concerns about the effect
the designation of critical habitat would have relative to the
Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) homesteading program.
Our Response: As discussed in the Residential Development section
in the Addendum, there is no DHHL land within the critical habitat
designation that is planned to be developed within the next 20 years.
As such, any potential impacts to the DHHL homestead program are well
beyond the 10-year timeframe of this analysis.
(74) Comment: Several commenters commented that the economic
analysis did not thoroughly consider the nexus between the State of
Hawaii's environmental laws and the Federal Endangered Species Act and
other Federal laws (such as the Coastal Zone Management Act). At least
two commenters commented that these plant species are already protected
under State of Hawaii law, which virtually assures that a violation of
the Federal Endangered Species Act will also be a violation of the
State law prohibition on harm to federally listed and State-listed
plants.
Our Response: The nexus between the State of Hawaii's environmental
laws and Federal laws is discussed in detail in the Indirect Costs
section of the DEA, as amended by the Addendum. Specifically, impacts
associated with State redistricting, mandated conservation management,
State and county development approvals, and State and county
environmental review are considered.
The DEA and Addendum examine any indirect costs of critical habitat
designation, such as when critical habitat designation triggers the
applicability of a State or local statute. Prohibition of ``harm'' is
associated with State laws regarding the take of listed plants. Take
prohibitions are attributable to a listing decision and they are not
coextensive costs of critical habitat designations. There are no take
prohibitions associated with critical habitat. Other possible indirect
impacts, such as loss in property values due to State redistricting of
land from agricultural or rural to conservation were analyzed (see also
our response to Comment 81). However, there is considerable uncertainty
as to whether any or all of these indirect impacts may occur since they
depend on actions and decisions other than those required under the
ESA, and there is only limited history to serve as guidance.
The commenters' reference to the Coastal Zone Management Act
discusses the possibility of delays or denials of county Special
Management Area (SMA) Use Permits for development projects in critical
habitat. None of the planned development projects in the critical
habitat designation are located in the SMA, so this analysis
anticipates no impacts associated with SMA Use Permits.
(75) Comment: Several commenters, including the Department of Land
and Natural Resources, Land Division, a State agency, commented that
the economic analysis needs to take into consideration all economic
impacts, including those in addition to ``indirect'' effects, those
effects in the ``reasonably foreseeable'' future, or for those projects
that are expected to occur within the next 10 years. Several
commenters, including the Department of Agriculture, a State agency,
commented that the scope of the economic analysis was too narrow and
needed to go beyond those direct economic impacts associated with
project compliance with section 7 of the Act.
Our Response: Both direct and indirect impacts are analyzed in
Chapter VI of the DEA and in the Addendum, and both are summarized in
Table Add-3. Information is limited and unreliable for projects, land
uses, and activities that may occur at some time beyond the reasonably
foreseeable future, so in general, these projects, land uses, and
activities are not considered in the DEA or in the Addendum. A 10-year
time horizon is used because many landowners and managers do not have
specific plans for projects beyond 10 years. In addition, the forecasts
in the analysis of future economic activity are based on current
socioeconomic trends and the current level of technology, both of which
are likely to change over the long term.
(76) Comment: Several commenters commented that the economic
analyses should also include those significant beneficial economic
benefits that are provided by the designation of critical habitat,
particularly since the economic analysis provides text to this effect.
These benefits include, but are not necessarily limited to, things such
as groundwater recharge, maintenance of surface water quality, erosion
control, funding for research, development of nursery and landscape
products, volunteer conservation work, careers in biology, and
ecotourism. One commenter commented that protecting critical habitat is
essential not only for the recovery of threatened and endangered plants
but also to protect the ecosystems upon which they rely for long-term
survival and recovery.
Our Response: The Benefits sections of the DEA and the Addendum
discuss the benefits mentioned above. It is not feasible, however, to
fully describe and accurately quantify these benefits in the specific
context of the critical habitat designation because of the scarcity of
available studies and information relating to the size and value of
beneficial changes that are likely to occur as a result of designating
critical habitat. In particular, the following information is not
currently available: (1) Scientific studies on the magnitude of the
recovery and ecosystem changes resulting from the critical habitat
designation, and (2) economic studies on the per-unit value of many of
the changes.
(77) Comment: One commenter commented that the only benefit that
would arise from designation of critical habitat would be the
availability of funding for the DLNR that would be used for the
implementation of management plans prepared by The Nature Conservancy
to fence and eradicate all game mammals within these areas.
Our Response: As mentioned in the Indirect Costs section of the
DEA, the designation of critical habitat is not expected to change the
nature of the ongoing debate regarding the management of the game
mammal population in Hawaii, although it may expand or refine the
geographic focus. However, even with critical habitat, the DEA assumes
that the probability is small that the State DLNR would adopt a policy
to substantially reduce game mammal populations in critical habitat
units that overlap with State Hunting Units, even if critical habitat
caused an increase in funding. This judgment is based on discussions
with DLNR, others familiar with the subject, and a decade of public
testimony by hunters.
(78) Comment: One commenter stated that to avoid legal liability
(i.e., ``taking''), a landowner may have to incur substantial costs
associated with conservation management actions (e.g., fencing and
exotics control) on their lands that contain designated critical
habitat. Another commenter raised concerns over the amount of funds
necessary to manage all the lands proposed for critical habitat, citing
costs associated with a 15-acre restoration project in North Kona
(Kaupulehu) that was initiated in 1990, has used over $600,000, and
still continues to require management actions.
Our Response: Although the costs of conservation management were
presented in the DEA for the purposes of illustration, this analysis
assumes that these costs are not reasonably

[[Page 39641]]

foreseeable for the reasons explained in Section 4.b. of the Addendum.
(79) Comment: One commenter commented that the designation of
critical habitat on the majority of Hawaiian Home Lands at South Point
and Waimea, which would require beneficiaries to conduct environmental
assessments and consultations under section 7 of the Act in order to
build homes or commence farming, would represent a substantial economic
impact.
Our Response: Much of the DHHL land at South Point and Waimea is
not included in the final designation. North of Waimea, only gulches
that are not suitable for housing development are included in Hawaii
Unit 9. Near South Point, we have reduced the amount of DHHL land from
603 ha (1,490 ac) in the proposed designation to 126 ha (313 ac) in the
critical habitat designation. The 126 ha (313 ac) in Hawaii Unit 19 are
part of the Kamaoa-Puueo tract. As stated in the DEA, the 2002 DHHL
Hawaii Island Plan identifies the Kamaoa-Puueo tract as a non-priority
development, which means that its development is not likely in the next
20 years. There is no more DHHL land included in the critical habitat
designation. As such, this analysis estimates no impacts associated
with DHHL land within the 10-year timeframe of this analysis.
(80) Comment: One commenter commented that there are 23,000 hunters
in Hawaii who contribute an estimated $31 million annually to State
revenue. A disproportionately large percentage of these hunters live on
the Island of Hawaii, so, designation of critical habitat will have a
correspondingly adverse effect on the island's economic condition.
Our Response: For illustrative purposes, the loss in direct sales,
indirect sales, employment, and income associated with a loss of
hunting activity in critical habitat is presented in Chapter VI,
Section 4.b.(3) of the DEA. However, the DEA assumes that the
probability that the State will adopt a policy to remove game animals
from critical habitat is low. The Addendum makes no changes to this
conclusion.
(81) Comment: Several comments commented on how designation of
critical habitat would trigger the DLNR initiation of review, and
potential reclassification, of lands to the Conservation District
pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 195D-5.1. Costs associated
with this review were pointed out by another commenter who stated that
they needed to be factored into the economic analysis along with
reductions in tax revenues to Hawaii County, which would result from
these actions.
Our Response: HRS section 195D-5.1 states that the Department of
Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) ``shall initiate amendments to the
conservation district boundaries consistent with section 205-4 in order
to include high quality native forests and the habitat of rare native
species of flora and fauna within the conservation district.'' HRS
section 205-2(e) specifies that ``conservation districts shall include
areas necessary for * * * conserving indigenous or endemic plants, fish
and wildlife, including those which are threatened or endangered * *
*.'' Unlike the automatic conferral of State law protection for all
federally listed species (see HRS 195D-4(a)), these provisions do not
explicitly reference federally designated critical habitat and, to our
knowledge, DLNR has not proposed amendments in the past to include all
designated critical habitat in the Conservation District. Nevertheless,
according to the Land Division of DLNR, DLNR is required by HRS 195D-
5.1 to initiate amendments to reclassify critical habitat lands to the
Conservation District (Deirdre Mamiya, Administrator, Land Division, in
litt. 2002).
State law only permits other State departments or agencies, the
county in which the land is situated, and any person with a property
interest in the land to petition the State Land Use Commission (LUC)
for a change in the boundary of a district. HRS section 205-4. The
Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism's (DBEDT)
Office of Planning also conducts a periodic review of district
boundaries taking into account current land uses, environmental
concerns and other factors and may propose changes to the LUC.
The State Land Use Commission determines whether changes proposed
by DLNR, DBEDT, other state agencies, counties or landowners should be
enacted. In doing so, State law requires LUC to take into account
specific criteria, set forth at HRS 205-17. While the LUC is
specifically directed to consider the impact of the proposed
reclassification on ``the preservation or maintenance of important
natural systems or habitats,'' it is also specifically directed to
consider five other impacts in its decision: (1) ``Maintenance of
valued cultural, historical, or natural resources;'' (2) ``maintenance
of other natural resources relevant to Hawaii's economy, including, but
not limited to, agricultural resources;'' (3) ``commitment of state
funds and resources;'' (4) ``provision for employment opportunities and
economic development;'' and (5) ``provision for housing opportunities
for all income groups, particularly the low, low-moderate, and gap
groups.'' HRS 205.17. Approval of redistricting requires six
affirmative votes from the nine commissioners, with the decision based
on a ``clear preponderance of the evidence that the proposed boundary
is reasonable.'' HRS 205-4.
The costs associated with redistricting are discussed in detail in
the Indirect Costs sections of the DEA and the Addendum. As stated in
the Addendum, this analysis assumes that the probability is low that
land currently planned for development in Hawaii Units 12 and 13 will
be redistricted to the Conservation District, especially if landowners
agree to certain conditions to protect portions of the critical habitat
designation. This determination is the result of the requirements for
redistricting, including the requirement that the LUC consider
``provision for employment opportunities and economic development;''
``commitment of State funds and resources;'' the ``provision for
housing opportunities for all income groups, particularly the low, low-
moderate, and gap groups;'' and ``preservation or maintenance of
important natural systems or habitats'' when considering a petition for
redistricting (HRS 205-17).
However, it is reasonably foreseeable that certain other privately
owned parcels in the Agricultural District in the critical habitat
designation may be redistricted. Redistricting is more likely for these
parcels because there are no current plans for economic or community
development and they are not prime agricultural land. This
redistricting could be completed by State agencies or mandated as a
result of a third-party lawsuit. The economic costs associated with
redistricting these unplanned parcels are expressed in terms of a loss
in property values and a loss in agricultural activity as discussed in
the Indirect Costs section of the Addendum.
This analysis assumes that the impacts on county tax revenues as a
result of redistricting are expected to be small. Much of the land that
is at risk of redistricting is already assessed at a low agricultural
value. In many cases, the agricultural value is lower than the assessed
value for land in the Conservation District. This counter-intuitive
result reflects the tax break the State gives to encourage agriculture.
If the land is redistricted to a subzone other than the Protective
Subzone,

[[Page 39642]]

agriculture could continue in these areas, and the land would still be
assessed at a low agricultural value. Land that is not assessed at a
low agricultural value is assessed based on its future development
potential. However, a loss in development potential for land in the
critical habitat designation could result in an increase in the
development potential of land outside of the critical habitat
designation. This would result in little or no net change in the total
property values on the island of Hawaii. As such, while there may be a
positive or negative effect on county tax revenues associated with
redistricting, this analysis assumes that the net effect will be small.
(82) Comment: One commenter disagreed with the finding that any
redistricting of private lands would likely be limited for the
following reasons: (1) The DLNR mandate to initiate down-zone; (2) the
extensive amount of critical habitat proposed for designation; and (3)
the Service's efforts to document and justify critical habitat
boundaries.
Our Response: As mentioned in the Indirect Costs section of the
Addendum, even if DLNR initiates amendments to the Conservation
District boundaries based on critical habitat, or is forced to do so by
a third-party lawsuit, the LUC makes the final decision to redistrict a
parcel. State law requires the LUC to consider a variety of factors
when making this decision, including the ``maintenance of other
resources relevant to Hawaii's economy, including, but not limited to,
agricultural resources;'' ``provision for employment opportunities and
economic development;'' ``commitment of State funds and resources;''
``provision for housing opportunities for all income groups,
particularly the low, low-moderate, and gap groups;'' and ``the
preservation or maintenance of important natural systems or habitats''
when considering a petition for redistricting (HRS 205-17). Portions of
Hawaii Units 12 and 13 are planned for economic and community
development. Based on the LUC's criteria, this analysis assumes that
there is a low probability that the LUC will redistrict (either on its
own accord or as a result of a third-party lawsuit) these portions of
Hawaii Units 12 and 13 to the Conservation District.
Most of the land (approximately 104,288 ha (257,700 ac), or 95
percent) in the critical habitat designation is (1) already in the
Conservation District, or (2) owned by the State or Federal Government.
Much of the remaining land either (1) is planned for development and
thus not likely to be redistricted for the reasons mentioned above, or
(2) has little economic value because it is a cinder cone (puu), gulch,
or established endangered plant preserve. The remaining 3,806 ha (9,404
ac) of land are in the Agricultural District and are not currently
planned for economic or community development. It is reasonably
foreseeable that this land will be redistricted to the Conservation
District because of its importance to the conservation of the plant
species. The economic costs associated with redistricting this land are
presented in the State Redistricting of Land section of the Addendum.
Specifically, these costs and other costs associated with redistricting
are estimated to be $22.3 million to $27.9 million.
(83) Comment: One commenter commented that the figures for indirect
costs should be totaled in Table VI-3, as the commenter did not agree
with the Service's finding that these costs were ``speculative.''
Our Response: A total indirect costs figure is not presented in
Table VI-3 or in Table Add-3 because the probability that some of the
indirect costs will occur is undetermined and the magnitude of other
indirect costs is undetermined. Instead, the probabilities and
magnitudes of certain categories of indirect costs are presented in the
tables, with further discussion presented in the Indirect Costs
sections of the DEA and Addendum.
The probability that certain indirect costs will occur depends on
the interaction of Federal, State, and county officials; landowners;
and other interested parties. The outcome of these interactions will
depend on a variety of factors that are not subject to accurate
quantification or prediction. Furthermore, the probability that third
parties will file lawsuits and the probability that these lawsuits will
be successful is not known. Thus, the probability that certain indirect
costs will occur is undetermined.
(84) Comment: A reference to the Kaloko Town Center and Kaloko
Properties Development needs to be added to Table ES-1 under
``residential development.''
Our Response: The Kaloko Town Center and Kaloko Properties
development are referenced in Section 3.c. of the Addendum and are
included in the heading ``Other Residential Development'' in Table Add-
3.
(85) Comment: Text on page VI-9, Section 3.b (residential
development), needs to add a discussion regarding the proposed
residential development that would be part of the Kaloko Town Center
and Kaloko Properties Development.
Our Response: The Kaloko Town Center and Kaloko Properties
development are referenced in Section 3.c. of the Addendum; however,
there is no change in the DEA cost estimate.
(86) Comment: Text on page VI-16, Section 3.c (industrial,
commercial and other urban development), should include a discussion
regarding the proposed Kaloko Town Center office, commercial, retail,
school, and park uses.
Our Response: The Kaloko Town Center office, commercial, retail,
school, and park uses are referenced in Section 3.f. of the Addendum;
however, there is no change in the DEA cost estimate.
(87) Comment: Text on page VI-17, second paragraph under 3.c,
should be revised to reflect that the developer is TSA Corporation and
that a county zone change allowing for commercial industrial mixed use
development was granted.
Our Response: This information is included in Section 3.e. of the
Addendum; however, there is no change in the DEA cost estimate.
(88) Comment: Text on page VI-41, last paragraph, should be revised
to reflect the proposed Kaloko Town Center development and proposed
residential uses that would be affected. In addition, reference to the
donation of land to the National Park Service should be deleted.
Our Response: As discussed in Section 3.k. of the Addendum, since
the land is planned for development, this analysis estimates that the
conservation set-aside scenario for construction of the Main Street
Road project is no longer feasible. As such, the $10.7 million to $15.7
million total project modification cost for the K-to-K road projects
mentioned in the DEA is adjusted to $10.5 million to $15.3 million.
(89) Comment: Text on page VI-69 should add Kaloko Town Center and
Kaloko Properties development to the cost of development loss due to
redistricting.
Our Response: The economic cost of the loss of development
potential of the Kaloko Town Center is not discussed in the
redistricting section of the Addendum because the land is currently in
the Conservation District. Instead, the cost of development loss for
the Kaloko Town Center is included in the State and County Development
Approvals section of the Addendum.
As discussed in the State Redistricting of Land section in the
Addendum, the planned development in the portions of the Kaloko
Properties development that are included in critical habitat include

[[Page 39643]]

a golf course and single-family homes. The employment that could be
generated by this project is not known. However, construction of the
golf course and homes will generate employment on the island. Since the
LUC must consider factors such as the ``provision for employment
opportunities and economic development'' (HRS 205-17) when making
redistricting decisions, this analysis assumes there is a low
probability that the Kaloko Properties will be redistricted to the
Conservation District.
(90) Comment: Text on page VI-74 regarding the expansion of Kaloko
Industrial Park needs to be revised to reflect an economic loss of $33
million due to an estimated loss of 82 acres affecting 72 lots.
Our Response: As discussed in the State Redistricting of Land
section in the Addendum, the planned development in the portions of the
Kaloko Industrial Park expansion that are included in critical habitat
include light industrial development and industrial/commercial mixed
use development. Approximately 88 percent of the project is in Hawaii
Unit 12. The entire project is expected to generate 19,345 direct full-
time equivalent jobs during the build-out phase and 2,789 direct full-
time equivalent jobs upon full build-out (Wilson Okamoto & Associates,
Inc. 2000). Since the LUC must consider factors such as the ``provision
for employment opportunities and economic development'' (HRS 205-17)
when making redistricting decisions, this analysis assumes there is a
low probability the Kaloko Industrial Park expansion will be
redistricted to the Conservation District.
As mentioned in the State and County Development Approvals section
of the Addendum, all of the major discretionary approvals for the
Kaloko Industrial Park expansion have been obtained, so the designation
of critical habitat is expected to have little impact on development
approvals for the project. As such, this analysis anticipates there
will be no loss of development potential attributable to the critical
habitat designation.
(91) Comment: Text on pages VI-76 and VI-85 should add the proposed
Kaloko Town Center and Kaloko Properties development.
Our Response: These planned developments are considered in the
State Redistricting of Land and the Reduced Property Value sections of
the Addendum.
(92) Comment: Text on page VI-83, section 4e(3), needs to indicate
that the completed Environmental Impact Statement for Kaloko Town
Center will likely need to be updated and supplemented if that land is
included within designated critical habitat.
Our Response: This information is included and discussed in the
State and County Environmental Review section of the Addendum.
(93) Comment: If total economic loss of Kaloko Properties lands
resulted from designation of critical habitat, this loss would be an
estimated $390 million, which would be in addition to direct impacts to
three proposed roadway projects.
Our Response: As discussed in the State and County Development
Approvals section in the Addendum, the Kaloko Properties and Kaloko
Town Center developments (Kaloko Developments) will require major
discretionary approvals from the State and county. The commenter
estimates that the total economic impact if these developments do not
occur as an indirect result of the critical habitat designation will be
approximately $390 million, based on the allowable density; average
regional selling values of single-family and multi-family homes; the
development cost of office, commercial, and retail buildings; and the
development costs per acre of golf courses and parks.
However, the methodology used by the commenter to derive the
estimated economic impact of $390 million is not consistent with the
methodology presented in the DEA. The landowner's estimate is based on
selling values and development cost, not profits. As mentioned in the
DEA, only the previous expenditures (sunk costs) and future potential
profits to the landowner are considered an economic impact of critical
habitat designation. Additional construction and development costs are
not considered because it is assumed that if development cannot occur
in critical habitat, it will relocate elsewhere in the region. This
assumption is supported by the fact that a large area surrounding
critical habitat is planned for urban expansion in the County of
Hawaii's General Plan, and because there are other entitled projects
awaiting development (such as a 1,068 ha (2,640 ac) project on State
lands that is just north of Hawaii Unit 13 and planned for residential,
commercial, and light industrial development; parks; a golf course; and
other uses).
As estimated in the State and County Development Approvals section
in the Addendum, the sunk costs associated with the Kaloko Developments
in the critical habitat designation is $5.8 million, and the present
value of the future stream of profits ranges from $17 million to $34
million. Again, the specific likelihood that the Kaloko Developments
will not obtain State and county development approvals as a result of
the critical haibitat designation is unknown.
(94) Comment: The Department of Business, Economic Development and
Tourism, a State agency, commented that the designation of critical
habitat would compromise the financial feasibility of the VOLA (Village
of Laiopua) project should there be future Federal involvement. As
such, the commenter does not agree that the economic impacts of the
designation of critical habitat would be ``moderate'' or ``modest.''
Our Response: Section 3.b of the Addendum specifically addresses
the commenter's concerns. The State Housing and Community Development
Corporation of Hawaii (HCDCH) is the primary agency responsible for
planning the VOLA (Village of Laiopua) project. As a result of further
discussions with HCDCH and a review of the Service's record regarding
the VOLA project, this analysis concludes that no section 7
consultations are anticipated in the next 10 years. First, HCDCH is not
currently seeking Federal funding for the project and was unable to
identify specific potential Federal funding programs. Second, HUD
indicates that there are currently no competitive grant programs for
the development of affordable housing and that there are not likely to
be any in the near future (HUD 2003). Third, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Rural Housing Service (RHS) has a loan guarantee program
and a competitive loan program for the development of affordable
housing, but this program is used primarily by individual homeowners
and has never been used by State and county agencies in Hawaii (RHS
2003). Thus, because there is no reasonably foreseeable Federal
involvement for the VOLA development, no section 7 consultations are
anticipated.
(95) Comment: One commenter provided information on a proposed plan
for the rehabilitation of the landfill site at Keahuolu, which involves
development of a golf course to be used to teach children both a sport
and a skill, and commented that designation of critical habitat in this
area would adversely affect the proposal. The commenter also commented
that in the area currently occupied by the sewage plant, there was a
desire to build a wetlands endangered species park and designation of
critical habitat could affect potential Federal funding sources.
Our Response: Section 3.m of the Addendum discusses the K2020
project.

[[Page 39644]]

Specifically, due to likely Federal involvement, the K2020 project
would be subject to a section 7 consultation. As a result of the
consultation, the Service indicates that K2020 may have to obtain
funding for planned endangered plant preserves in Hawaii Unit 13 and
the restoration of the portions of critical habitat that are
temporarily disturbed.
The area currently occupied by the sewage plant and planned for a
wetlands endangered species park is not included in the critical
habitat designation and thus this analysis anticipates no costs
associated with this portion of the K2020 planned project.
(96) Comment: One commenter commented that the designation of
critical habitat would restrict the Department of Transportation's
options in the design, maintenance, and construction of highways in
affected areas and threaten the limited resources available to maintain
and improve State highways. This commenter also stated that the
designation of critical habitat would significantly increase the cost
of planning design, construction, maintenance, and repair of the
following roads: Saddle Road, Kohala Mountain Road, Kawaihae Road,
Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Mamalahoa Highway, Volcano Road, and Kealakehe
Parkway.
Our Response: The costs associated with planned road projects in
critical habitat are discussed in Chapter VI, Section 3.i. of the DEA
and in Sections 3.j. and 3.k. of the Addendum. These sections discuss
the Saddle Road Improvement and Realignment project and the planned
widening of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Kawaihae Road is not
included in the critical habitat designation. Within the 10-year
timeframe of this analysis, there are no known construction,
maintenance, and repair projects for the Kohala Mountain Road and the
Volcano Road that will impact the primary constituent elements for the
listed plants in the critical habitat designation.
The Mamalahoa Highway (Route 190) safety improvements in Hawaii
Unit 10 involve simple re-paving and resurfacing of the existing
roadway. As mentioned in the DEA, the critical habitat provisions of
section 7 do not apply to the operation and maintenance (O&M) of
existing manmade features and structures because these features do not
contain any primary constituent elements. Thus, the safety improvements
planned for Mamalahoa Highway in Hawaii Unit 10 would not be subject to
section 7 consultation because they involve operation and maintenance
activities rather than new construction.
Finally, while the widening of Kealakehe Parkway (Route 197) in
Hawaii Unit 13 is a long-term project, there is no timetable given for
the project. It is likely that extension of the Parkway (outside of the
critical habitat designated critical habitat area) would be required
before widening the existing portion of roadway; however, no timetable
is given for the completion of the extension. In addition, the State
DOT is working on several other widening projects in the area, with its
main focus on widening the Queen Kaahumanu Highway from downtown Kailua
to the Airport, that are not estimated to be completed until 2011.
Given the circumstances, it is unlikely that widening of Kealakehe
Parkway (Route 197) will occur within the next 10 years.
(97) Comment: Several commenters commented that the designation of
critical habitat on trust lands (e.g., the Queen Liliuokalani Trust and
Kamehameha Schools) could negate decades of planning as well as
millions of dollars of infrastructure investment. This, in turn, could
adversely affect future revenues that would be generated by these
entities and, therefore, their ability to carry out social and cultural
mandates to provide for their beneficiaries. One commenter specifically
referenced concerns over Keahuolu Ahupuaa being the last and only
future of producing lands owned by the Queen Liliuokalani Trust and the
need for those lands to continue the legacy left by the Queen.
Our Response: The economic, social, cultural, and political impacts
associated with the loss of the development potential on Queen
Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) land in Hawaii Unit 13 are discussed in detail
in Chapter VI, Section 4.c.(7) of the DEA and the State and County
Development Approvals section in the Addendum. Specifically, the
Addendum estimates that the critical habitat designation could lead to
a delay in State and county development approvals. This would delay
completion of the project and the associated lease-rent revenues for
QLT. This could have related social and cultural costs for the
community.
The portions of the parcel owned by Kamehameha Schools and leased
by PIA-Kona Limited Partnership that are planned for housing
development are not included in the final designation. The portions of
this parcel that are included in the critical habitat designation are
currently managed as an endangered plant preserve, and there are no
plans for a change in management. Kamehameha Schools did not identify
other lands in the critical habitat designation that are planned for
development or are likely to generate significant future revenues.
(98) Comment: One commenter commented on areas of the economic
analysis where they felt it both overestimated and underestimated
economic costs. The commenter requested that the DEA be revised to
reflect that QLT's own analysis did acknowledge that additional funds
would be expended to achieve build-out of Phases I and II. The
commenter also asked that the economic analysis include the increased
likelihood of loss of entitlements and revenue and increased costs
associated with permitting costs and development of infrastructure for
Phase III.
Our Response: Chapter VI, Section 4.c.(7) of the DEA discusses the
costs associated with the loss of development potential at the Keahuolu
project site. The DEA references an economic impact analysis supplied
by QLT that states the portions of the planned development in Phases I
and II in the proposed critical habitat would yield $44.2 million per
year in lease-rent revenue after the project is fully completed. The
DEA states that this estimate tends to overstate the total economic
impact because it does not include additional funds that would have to
be expended by QLT in order to reach full completed. The QLT analysis
acknowledges this fact, and thus the QLT analysis did not overstate the
total economic impact.
The economic impacts associated with a delay of entitlements, a
loss of revenue, and a potential modification to the development
approvals for Phase III of the Keahuolu Project are discussed in the
State and County Development Approvals section of the Addendum. In
particular, costs are anticipated to range from $14.1 million to $21.9
million.
(99) Comment: One commenter raised a specific concern about the
economic impact to Kamehameha Schools and PIA-Kona Limited Partnership.
Our Response: The portions of the parcel owned by Kamehameha
Schools and leased by PIA-Kona Limited Partnership that are planned for
housing development are not included in the final designation. The
portions of this parcel that are included in the critical habitat
designation are currently managed as an endangered plant preserve, and
there are no plans for a change in management. As such, this analysis
anticipates there will be no economic impact to the owners of this
parcel as a result of the critical habitat designation.
(100) Comment: Two commenters commented that critical habitat in
the Kailua to Keahole area of Kona is

[[Page 39645]]

proposed in a region that has been master-planned for urban expansion
by the State and county for over 30 years and for which $50 million of
infrastructure (e.g., Kealakehe Parkway and Kealakehe High School) is
already in place. This area also includes a currently undeveloped
portion of the State's Villages at Laiopua (VOLA) project that is
intended for affordable housing, although that project is currently
stalled in litigation. The commenter noted that this West Hawaii area
is one of the fastest growing regions in the State and there is no
other viable area for expansion.
Our Response: The direct and indirect impacts to the Kailua to
Keahole area of Kona within Hawaii Units 12 and 13 are discussed in
detail in the DEA and in the Addendum, including impacts to State VOLA
project, the Keahuolu Project, the Kaloko Industrial Park expansion,
the Kaloko Town Center, the Kaloko Properties development, three road
projects, and the K2020 county landfill project. However, Hawaii Units
12 and 13 cover a relatively small portion of the area planned for
urban expansion in the County of Hawaii General Plan. While the DEA and
the Addendum estimate the economic costs to landowners in areas
designated as critical habitat, it is estimated that any development
displaced by critical habitat will occur elsewhere on the island of
Hawaii, due to the availability of comparable land. Thus, the net
economic impacts to the economic development of the island of Hawaii
will be small.
(101) Comment: Several commenters commented regarding the potential
adverse effect that designation of critical habitat could have on the
military. Specifically, hindering the Army and Navy's (Marines')
ability to perform their missions because of the limitations imposed by
critical habitat would not only have an adverse effect on the nation's
military readiness but would also be a costly waste of fiscal resources
or an additional financial burden.
Our Response: The impacts on the readiness and budget of the
military are discussed in the Military Activities section in the Direct
Costs section of the Addendum and in the Military Readiness section in
the Indirect Costs section of the Addendum. Specifically, the direct
costs to military operations over the next 10 years range from $31
million to $40 million. The indirect costs include an undetermined
probability of a loss of $693 million in transformation projects and a
possible reduction in readiness.
(102) Comment: One commenter commented that designation of critical
habitat will cause private landowners to spend their own resources to
determine the possible consequences of such designation on their lands
(e.g., legal fees).
Our Response: The costs associated with determining the possible
consequences of critical habitat are included in the Investigating the
Implications of Critical Habitat section of the Addendum. Specifically,
approximately 19 private landowners may investigate the implications of
critical habitat on their lands at a cost of $50,000 to $181,000.

Summary of Changes From the 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) We have designated 99 single species critical habitat units for
41 plant species on the island of Hawaii instead of multi-species units
to clarify the exact location of critical habitat for each species.
(2) The scientific names were changed for the following associated
species found in the ``Supplementary Information: Discussion of the
Plant Taxa'' section: Cocculus trilobus changed to Cocculus orbiculatus
in the discussions of Neraudia ovata and Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Jacquemontia sandwicensis changed to Jacquemontia ovalifolia ssp.
sandwicensis in the discussion of Sesbania tomentosa. Scaevola sericea
changed to Scaevola taccada in the discussions of Ischaemum byrone and
Sesbania tomentosa. Styphelia tameiameiae changed to Leptecophylla
tameiameiae in the discussions of Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium
fragile var. insulare, Clermontia drepanomorpha, Clermontia lindseyana,
Colubrina oppositifolia, Hedyotis coriacea, Isodendrion hosakae,
Plantago hawaiensis, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene
lanceolata, and Tetramolopium arenarium. Wollastonia venosa changed to
Melanthera venosa in the discussions of Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, and Sesbania tomentosa. We replaced Passiflora mollissima
with Passiflora tarminiana in the discussions of Clermontia lindseyana,
Clermontia pyrularia, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii, Delissea
undulata, Phyllostegia racemosa, and Sicyos alba (Palmer 2003; Wagner
and Herbst 2002).
(3) In ``Supplementary Information: Discussion of the Plant Taxa'':
We removed Carex montis-eeka from the list of associated species for
Argyroxiphium kauense. We replaced Psychotria mariniana and Psychotria
greenwelliae with Psychotria spp. (because those two specific species
are not found on the island of Hawaii) in the discussion of Delissea
undulata. We replaced: Blechnum occidentale with Blechnum
appendiculatum in the discussion of Diellia erecta; Nototrichium
breviflorum with Nothocestrum breviflorum in the discussion of Hibiscus
hualalaiensis; Cyathea cooperi with Sphaeropteris cooperi in the
discussion of Phlegmariurus mannii; and Athyrium sandwicensis with
Diplazium sandwichianum in the discussions of Phyllostegia warshaueri.
(4) In order to avoid confusion regarding the number of location
occurrences for each species (that do not necessarily represent viable
populations) and the number of viable populations needed for recovery
(e.g., 8 to 10 with 100, 300, or 500 reproducing individuals), we
changed the word ``population'' to ``occurrence'' and updated the
number of occurrences for the following species found in the
``Supplementary Information: Discussion of the Plant Taxa'' section and
``Table 1.--Summary of existing occurrences on the island of Hawaii,
and landownership for 58 species reported from the island of Hawaii'':
Adenophorus periens changed from 13 populations to 4 occurrences;
Argyroxiphium kauense changed from 3 populations to 4 occurrences;
Asplenium fragile var. insulare changed from 17 populations to 36
occurrences; Bonamia menziesii and Clermontia drepanomorpha changed
from 1 population to 2 occurrences; Clermontia lindseyana changed from
17 populations to 15 occurrences; Clermontia pyrularia changed from 1
population to 2 occurrences; Colubrina oppositifolia changed from 8
populations to 5 occurrences; Cyanea platyphylla changed from 9
populations to 6 occurrences; Cyanea shipmanii changed from 5
populations to 3 occurrences; Cyanea stictophylla changed from 5
populations to 6 occurrences; Cyrtandra giffardii changed from 7
populations to 8 occurrences; Cyrtandra tintinnabula changed from 6
populations to 4 occurrences; Isodendrion hosakae changed from 2
populations to 3 occurrences; Diellia erecta changed from 3 populations
to occurrences; Flueggea neowawraea changed from 4

[[Page 39646]]

populations to 12 occurrences; Gouania vitifolia changed from 1
population to 4 occurrences; Hedyotis coriacea changed from 11
populations to 41 occurrences; Ischaemum byrone changed from 5
populations to 6 occurrences; Melicope zahlbruckneri changed from 2
populations to 3 occurrences; Neraudia ovata changed from 3 populations
to 9 occurrences; Nothocestrum breviflorum changed from 10 populations
to 66 occurrences; Phyllostegia racemosa changed from 7 populations to
6 occurrences; Phyllostegia velutina changed from 5 populations to 8
occurrences; Plantago hawaiensis changed from 8 populations to 6
occurrences; Pleomele hawaiiensis changed from 8 populations to 22
occurrences; Portulaca sclerocarpa changed from 19 populations to 20
occurrences; Sesbania tomentosa changed from 11 populations to 31
occurrences; Sicyos alba changed from 4 populations to 5 occurrences;
Silene hawaiiensis changed from 23 populations to 156 occurrences;
Silene lanceolata changed from 10 populations to 69 occurrences;
Spermolepis hawaiiensis changed from 4 populations to 30 occurrences;
Tetramolopium arenarium changed from 2 populations to 8 occurrences;
Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum changed from 1 population to 14
occurrences; and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense changed from 4 populations to
186 occurrences.
(5) We revised the list of excluded, manmade features in the
``Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat'' and Sec. 17.99 to
include additional features based on information received during the
public comment periods.
(6) 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,
areas were excluded based other impacts pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of
the Act (see ``Other Impacts'').
(7) In accordance with the revisions described in (1) through (6),
we revised Sec. 17.12 ``Endangered and threatened plants'' and Sec.
17.99 ``Critical Habitat; plants on the islands of Kauai, Niihau,
Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and Hawaii, Hawaii, and the
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands'', as appropriate.
A brief summary of the modifications made to each unit is given
below (see also Figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-PS4725

[[Page 39647]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-CS4700

Hawaii A1

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
Pleomele hawaiiensis. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude
areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements for this
species. The area designated as critical habitat for this endemic
species provides habitat within its historical range for one population
of Pleomele hawaiiensis. Three other

[[Page 39648]]

critical habitat units for this species are designated on the island of
Hawaii for a total of nine populations, and excluded Kamehameha Schools
lands provide habitat for one additional population (see ``Analysis of
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 719 ha (1,777
ac) to 677 ha (1,673 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 7--Pleomele
hawaiiensis--a.

Hawaii A2

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for Nothocestrum
breviflorum. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that
do not contain the primary constituent elements for this species. The
area designated as critical habitat for this endemic species provides
habitat within its historical range for four populations of
Nothocestrum breviflorum. There is habitat designated elsewhere on the
island of Hawaii for this species providing habitat for nine
populations.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 2,685 ha (6,635
ac) to 1,516 ha (3,744 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 5--
Nothocestrum breviflorum--a and Hawaii 6--Nothocestrum breviflorum--b.

Hawaii B

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Achyranthes mutica, Clermontia drepanomorpha, and Phyllostegia
warshaueri. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that
do not contain the primary constituent elements for these species.
The area designated as critical habitat for the two species endemic
to the island of Hawaii provides habitat for six populations of
Clermontia drepanomorpha and three populations of Phyllostegia
warshaueri within their historical ranges. One other critical habitat
unit for Phyllostegia warshaueri is designated on the island of Hawaii
for a total of 10 populations. The area designated as critical habitat
for the multi-island Achyranthes mutica species provides habitat for 10
populations within its historical range. Nine other critical habitat
units for this species are designated on the island of Hawaii. This
species is historically known from Kauai, but no critical habitat was
designated for it on that island (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003).
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 8,200 ha (20,263
ac) to 3,360 ha (8,304 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 9--Achyranthes
mutica--a, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--b, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes
mutica--c, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--d, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes
mutica--e, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--f, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes
mutica--g, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--h, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes
mutica--i, Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--j, Hawaii 8--Clermontia
drepanomorpha--a, and Hawaii 8--Phyllostegia warshaueri--b.

Hawaii C

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Sesbania tomentosa. The entire area proposed for this species
is eliminated from this final rule. This area is not essential to the
conservation of this species because it has a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of this species, and there are 12 other locations
that have been designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations throughout its historical range on this and other islands.
We designated critical habitat for this species on Nihoa (habitat for
one population), Necker (habitat for one population), Kauai (habitat
for two populations), Oahu (habitat for two populations), Molokai
(habitat for two populations), and Maui (habitat for two population)(68
FR 28054, May 22, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 35949,
June 17, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
There is habitat designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for this
species, providing habitat for two populations. Exclusion of this unit
from critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa resulted in the overall
reduction of 38 ha (94 ac) from critical habitat on the island of
Hawaii.

Hawaii D1

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Vigna o-wahuensis.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species.
In addition, we eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii
D1 for Portulaca sclerocarpa. The area proposed for this species is
eliminated from this final rule because it is not essential to the
conservation of this species due to its lower proportion of associated
native species than other areas we consider to be essential to the
conservation of Portulaca sclerocarpa. This species is currently found
on the islands of Lanai and Hawaii, and critical habitat for one
population was designated on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). This
rule designates critical habitat for a total of five populations. There
is habitat for four other populations on lands excluded from this final
rule in PTA (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic
species, Isodendrion hosakae, provides habitat for one population
within its historical range. There is habitat designated elsewhere on
the island of Hawaii for eight populations of Isodendrion hosakae. The
area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island species, Vigna
o-wahuensis, provides habitat for one population within its historical
range. Critical habitat was designated within its historical range on
Oahu (habitat for three populations) and Maui (habitat for one
population) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Habitat is designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for four
populations.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 55 ha (136 ac)
to 49 ha (121 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4--Isodendrion
hosakae--a and Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--a.

Hawaii D2

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Vigna o-wahuensis.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species.
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii D2 for
Portulaca sclerocarpa. The area proposed for this species is eliminated
from this final rule because it is not essential to the conservation of
this species because it has a lower proportion of associated native
species than other areas we consider to be essential to the
conservation of Portulaca sclerocarpa. This species is currently found
on the islands of Lanai and Hawaii, and critical habitat for one
population was designated on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). This
rule designates critical habitat for a total of five populations. There
is habitat for four other populations on lands excluded from this final
rule in PTA (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic
species, Isodendrion hosakae, provides habitat for one population
within its historical range. There is habitat designated elsewhere on
the island of Hawaii for eight populations of Isodendrion hosakae. The
area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island species,

[[Page 39649]]

Vigna o-wahuensis, provides habitat for one population within its
historical range. Critical habitat was designated within its historical
range on Oahu (habitat for three populations) and Maui (habitat for one
population) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Habitat is designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for four
populations.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 43 ha (107 ac)
to 35 ha (87 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--
b and Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--b.

Hawaii D3

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for Isodendrion hosakae.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for this species. The area
designated as critical habitat for this island-endemic species provides
habitat within its historical range for one population of Isodendrion
hosakae. There is habitat designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii
for eight populations of Isodendrion hosakae.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 257 ha (636 ac)
to 49 ha (121 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4--Isodendrion
hosakae--c and Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--d.

Hawaii D4

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Vigna o-wahuensis.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species.
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii D4 for
Portulaca sclerocarpa and Vigna o-wahuensis. The area proposed for
these species is eliminated from this final rule because it is not
essential to the conservation of these species because it has a lower
proportion of associated native species than other areas we consider to
be essential to the conservation of Portulaca sclerocarpa and Vigna o-
wahuensis. This rule designates critical habitat for a total of five
populations of Portulaca sclerocarpa. There is habitat for four other
populations of Portulaca sclerocarpa on lands excluded from this final
rule in PTA (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
Critical habitat for Vigna o-wahuensis was designated within its
historical range on Oahu (habitat for three populations) and Maui
(habitat for one population) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Habitat is designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii
for four populations. The area designated as critical habitat for the
island-endemic species, Isodendrion hosakae, provides habitat for one
population within its historical range. There is habitat designated
elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for Isodendrion hosakae (for eight
populations).
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 14 ha (34 ac) to
11 ha (26 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--e.

Hawaii D5

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Vigna o-wahuensis. The
entire area proposed for these species was eliminated. This area is
eliminated from this final rule because it is not essential to the
conservation of these species because it has a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of these species, and there are 10 other locations
that have been designated on this and other islands to meet the
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout the historical ranges
of Portulaca sclerocarpa and Vigna o-wahuensis. Portulaca sclerocarpa
is currently found on the islands of Lanai and Hawaii, and critical
habitat for one population was designated on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January
9, 2003). This rule designates critical habitat for a total of five
populations. There is habitat for four other populations on lands
excluded from this final rule in PTA (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under
Section 4(b)(2)''). Critical habitat for Vigna o-wahuensis was
designated on Oahu (habitat for three populations) and Maui (habitat
for one population) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). Habitat is designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for four
populations. There is habitat designated elsewhere on the island of
Hawaii for Isodendrion hosakae (for eight populations). Exclusion of
this unit from critical habitat for these three species resulted in the
overall reduction of 1 ha (2.5 ac) of critical habitat on the island of
Hawaii.

Hawaii D6

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Vigna o-wahuensis. The
entire unit was excluded from final critical habitat. We excluded the
proposed critical habitat on PTA lands for reasons described in
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'' for Isodendrion hosakae
and Vigna o-wahuensis. We also eliminated the proposed critical habitat
in Hawaii D6 for Portulaca sclerocarpa. The area proposed for this
species is eliminated from this final rule because it is not essential
to the conservation of this species because it has a lower proportion
of associated native plant species that other areas we consider to be
essential to the conservation of Portulaca sclerocarpa. This species is
currently found on the island of Lanai and Hawaii, and critical habitat
for one population was designated on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9,
2003). This rule designates habitat for a total of five populations.
There is habitat for four other populations on other lands excluded
from this final rule in PTA (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2)''). The area excluded for the island-endemic species,
Isodendrion hosakae, provides habitat for one population within its
historical range. There is habitat designated for six populations
elsewhere on the island of Hawaii in this rule. The area excluded for
the multi-island species, Vigna o-wahuensis, provides habitat for one
population within its historical range. Critical habitat was designated
on Oahu (habitat for three populations) and Maui (habitat for one
population) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Habitat is designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for three
populations in this rule. Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat
for these three species resulted in the overall reduction of 36 ha (89
ac) of critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii D7

[[Page 39650]]

``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic
species, Isodendrion hosakae, provides habitat for one population
within its historical range. There is habitat designated elsewhere on
the island of Hawaii for Isodendrion hosakae (for eight populations).
The area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island species,
Vigna o-wahuensis, provides habitat for one population within its
historical range. Critical habitat was designated on Oahu (habitat for
three populations) and Maui (habitat for one population) (68 FR 35949,
June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Habitat is designated
elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for four populations.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 112 ha (278 ac)
to 51 ha (127 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 4--Isodendrion
hosakae--f and Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--c.

Hawaii D8

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Isodendrion hosakae, Portulaca sclerocarpa, and Vigna o-wahuensis. The
entire area proposed for these species was eliminated from final
critical habitat. We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii
D6 for Portulaca sclerocarpa and Vigna o-wahuensis. The area proposed
for these species was determined to be not essential to the
conservation of this species because it has a lower proportion of
associated native plant species than other areas we consider to be
essential to the conservation of Portulaca sclerocarpa and Vigna o-
wahuensis. Portulaca sclerocarpa is currently found on the island of
Lanai and Hawaii, and critical habitat for one population was
designated on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). This rule designates
habitat for a total of five populations. There is habitat for four
other populations on other lands excluded from this final rule in PTA
(see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). Critical habitat
for Vigna o-wahuensis was designated within its historical range on
Oahu (habitat for three populations) and Maui (habitat for one
population) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Habitat is designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for three
populations in this rule.
We also excluded the proposed critical habitat on PTA lands (see
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'') for Isodendrion hosakae.
The area excluded for the island-endemic species, Isodendrion hosakae,
provides habitat for one population within its historical range. There
is habitat designated for six populations elsewhere on the island of
Hawaii in this rule. Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for
these three species resulted in the overall reduction of 8 ha (21 ac)
of critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii E

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for three species:
Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia pyrularia, and Phyllostegia racemosa.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species.
The area designated as critical habitat for the two island-endemic
species provides habitat for three populations of Clermontia pyrularia
and three populations of Phyllostegia racemosa within their historical
ranges. The area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island
species provides habitat for two populations of Clermontia lindseyana
within its historical range. Critical habitat for two additional
populations was designated for this species on Maui (68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003) and habitat is designated for a total of eight populations on
the island of Hawaii in this rule.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 2,992 ha (7,393
ac) to 2,189 ha (5,409 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 2--Clermontia
lindseyana--b, Hawaii 2--Clermontia pyrularia--b, and Hawaii 2--
Phyllostegia racemosa--b.

Hawaii F

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for seven species:
Clermontia peleana, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii, Cyrtandra
giffardii, Cyrtandra tintinnabula, Phyllostegia racemosa, and
Phyllostegia warshaueri. Modifications were made to this unit to
eliminate areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements
for these species or were considered not essential to the conservation
of these species because they have a lower proportion of associated
native species than other areas we consider to be essential to the
conservation of these species, and there are at least 8 other locations
that have been designated or are designated in this rule to meet the
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their historical ranges
on this and other islands.
The area designated as critical habitat for the six island-endemic
species provides habitat within their historical ranges for three
populations each of Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii, and Cyrtandra
giffardii; seven populations of Cyrtandra tintinnabula and Phyllostegia
warshaueri; and five populations of Phyllostegia racemosa. The area
designated as critical habitat for the multi-island species Clermontia
peleana provides habitat for six populations within its historical
range. Habitat for four additional populations of Clermontia peleana is
designated in this rule.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 13,906 ha
(34,363 ac) to 11,539 ha (28,513 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 1--
Clermontia lindseyana--a, Hawaii 1--Clermontia peleana--a, Hawaii 1--
Clermontia pyrularia--a, Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii--a, Hawaii 1--
Phyllostegia racemosa--a, Hawaii 3--Clermontia peleana--b, Hawaii 3--
Cyanea platyphylla--a, Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra giffardii--a, Hawaii 3--
Cyrtandra tintinnabula--a, and Hawaii 3--Phyllostegia warshaueri--a.

Hawaii G

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 12 species:
Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium fragile var insulare, Clermontia
lindseyana, Clermontia peleana, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii,
Cyanea stictophylla, Cyrtandra giffardii, Phyllostegia racemosa,
Phyllostegia velutina, Plantago hawaiensis, and Sicyos alba.
Modifications were made to this unit to eliminate areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species or were
considered not essential to the conservation of these species. Some
portions eliminated from this final rule were not essential to the
conservation of these species because they have a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of these species, and there are at least 8 other
locations that have been designated or are designated in this rule to
meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their
historical ranges on this and other islands.
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat for the multi-island
species, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, in Hawaii G because it is not
essential to the conservation of this species. Asplenium fragile var.
insulare is historically known from Maui and we have designated
critical habitat for two populations for this species on that island
(68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). There is also habitat for seven
populations on lands excluded from this final rule on the island of
Hawaii in PTA (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''), and
this rule

[[Page 39651]]

designates critical habitat for one additional population. We excluded
the proposed critical habitat on Kamehameha Schools lands in Hawaii G
because the benefits of excluding these lands outweighed the benefits
of including them in critical habitat (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under
Section 4(b)(2)''). Those excluded lands provide habitat for recovery
populations of Phyllostegia racemosa and Phyllostegia velutina, as
detailed below.
The area designated as critical habitat for the nine island-endemic
species provides habitat for 2 populations of Argyroxiphium kauense, 6
populations of Cyanea platyphylla, 4 populations of Cyanea shipmanii, 6
populations of Cyanea stictophylla, 7 populations of Cyrtandra
giffardii, 5 populations (in combination with Kamehameha Schools lands)
of Phyllostegia racemosa, 6 populations (in combination with Kamehameha
Schools lands) of Phyllostegia velutina, 3 populations of Plantago
hawaiensis, and 10 populations of Sicyos alba within their historical
ranges. The area designated as critical habitat for the two multi-
island species provides habitat for four populations each of Clermontia
lindseyana and Clermontia peleana within their historical ranges.
Critical habitat for two populations of Clermontia lindseyana was
designated on Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003) and is designated for a
total of eight populations in this rule. Clermontia peleana has
critical habitat designated for a total of 10 populations in this rule.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 32,286 ha
(79,781 ac) to 20,261 ha (50,066 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 29--
Clermontia peleana--c, Hawaii 29--Cyanea platyphylla--b, Hawaii 29--
Cyrtandra giffardii--b, Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra tintinnabula--b, Hawaii
30--Argyroxiphium kauense--d, Hawaii 30--Clermontia lindseyana--c,
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--b, Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--c, Hawaii
30--Cyanea stictophylla--d, Hawaii 30--Cyrtandra giffardii--c, Hawaii
30--Phyllostegia hawaiiensis--c, Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia racemosa--c,
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia velutina--b, and Hawaii 30--Sicyos alba--a.

Hawaii H

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for four island endemic
species: Argyroxiphium kauense, Phyllostegia racemosa, Plantago
hawaiensis, and Silene hawaiiensis. Modifications were made to this
unit to exclude areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements for these species or were considered not essential to the
conservation of these species. Some portions eliminated from this final
rule were not essential to the conservation of these species because
they have a lower proportion of associated native species than other
areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of these species,
and there are at least 8 other locations that have been designated or
are designated in this rule to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations throughout their historical ranges on the island of Hawaii.
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat for the endemic species
Phyllostegia racemosa in Hawaii H. The area proposed for this species
was eliminated from this final rule because it is not essential to the
conservation of this species. We have designated habitat within this
species' historical range in three other units, providing habitat for
10 populations on the island of Hawaii. The area designated as critical
habitat for the other three island-endemic species provides habitat for
one population of Argyroxiphium kauense, four populations of Plantago
hawaiensis, and one population of Silene hawaiiensis within their
historical ranges.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 5,322 ha (13,151
ac) to 2,433 ha (6,011 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 25--
Argyroxiphium kauense--c, Hawaii 25--Plantago hawaiensis--b, and Hawaii
25--Silene hawaiiensis--a.

Hawaii I

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two island-endemic
species: Hibiscadelphus giffardianus and Melicope zahlbruckneri.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for these species. The area
designated as critical habitat for these endemic species provides
habitat for one population of Hibiscadelphus giffardianus and two
populations of Melicope zahlbruckneri within their historical ranges.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 522 ha (1,290
ac) to 497 ha (1,228 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 26--
Hibiscadelphus giffardianus--a and Hawaii 26--Melicope zahlbruckneri--
b.

Hawaii J

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for Adenophorus periens.
Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas that do not
contain the primary constituent elements for this species. The area
designated as critical habitat for this multi-island species provides
habitat within its historical range for one population of Adenophorus
periens. We have designated critical habitat for this species for four
populations on Kauai, one population on Oahu, and four populations on
Molokai, in addition to the habitat for one population designated in
this rule (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003;
68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003).
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 5,065 ha (12,516
ac) to 2,733 ha (6,754 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 28--
Adenophorus periens--a.

Hawaii K

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for seven species:
Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Clermontia
lindseyana, Cyanea stictophylla, Melicope zahlbruckneri, Plantago
hawaiensis, and Phyllostegia velutina. Modifications were made to this
unit to exclude areas that do not contain the primary constituent
elements for these species. Some portions eliminated from this final
rule were not essential to the conservation of these species because
they have a lower proportion of associated native species than other
areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of these species.
We eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii K for
Clermontia lindseyana. The area proposed for this species was
eliminated from this final rule because it is not essential to the
conservation of this species because it has a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of Clermontia lindseyana, and there are at least 10
other locations for this species designated elsewhere on the islands of
Hawaii and Maui within its historical range. Critical habitat for two
populations was designated on Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003) and
habitat for eight populations is designated in this rule.
The area designated as critical habitat for the five island-endemic
species provides habitat for four populations of Argyroxiphium kauense,
two populations of Cyanea stictophylla, one population of Melicope
zahlbruckneri, four populations of Phyllostegia velutina, and three
populations of Plantago hawaiensis within their historical ranges. The
area designated as critical habitat for the multi-island species
provides habitat for one population of Asplenium fragile var. insulare
within its historical range.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 15,294 ha
(37,792 ac) to 10,961 ha (27,085 ac). This unit was

[[Page 39652]]

renamed Hawaii 24--Argyroxiphium kauense--b, Hawaii 24--Asplenium
fragile var. insulare--a, Hawaii 24--Cyanea stictophylla--c, Hawaii
24--Melicope zahlbruckneri--a, Hawaii 24--Phyllostegia velutina--a, and
Hawaii 24--Plantago hawaiensis--a.

Hawaii L

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for five species:
Ischaemum byrone, Pleomele hawaiiensis, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Sesbania
tomentosa, and Silene hawaiiensis. Modifications were made to this unit
to exclude areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements
for these species. In addition, some portions eliminated were not
essential to the conservation of these species because they have a
lower proportion of associated native species than other areas we
consider to be essential to the conservation of these species, and
there are at least 8 other locations that have been designated or are
designated in this rule to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations throughout their historical ranges.
The area designated as critical habitat for the two island-endemic
species provides habitat for five populations of Pleomele hawaiiensis
and one population of Silene hawaiiensis within their historical
ranges. The area designated as critical habitat for the three multi-
island species provides habitat for two populations each of Ischaemum
byrone and Sesbania tomentosa and five populations of Portulaca
sclerocarpa within their historical ranges. We designated critical
habitat for Ischaemum byrone on Kauai (habitat for three populations),
Molokai (habitat for two populations), and Maui (habitat for two
populations) (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR12982, March 19,
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). We are designating habitat for a
total of three populations on the island of Hawaii in this rule.
Portulaca sclerocarpa is currently found on the islands of Lanai and
Hawaii, and critical habitat for one population was designated on Lanai
(68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003). This rule designates critical habitat
for a total of five populations. There is habitat for four other
populations on lands excluded from this final rule in PTA (see
``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). We have designated
critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa on Nihoa (habitat for one
population), Necker (habitat for one population), Kauai (habitat for
two populations), Oahu (habitat for two populations), Molokai (habitat
for two populations), and Maui (habitat for two populations) (68 FR
28054, May 22, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June
17, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In
this rule, we are designating habitat for two populations of Sesbania
tomentosa.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 15,294 ha
(37,792 ac) to 14,841 ha (36,674 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 20--
Sesbania tomentosa--a, Hawaii 21--Ischaemum byrone--a, Hawaii 23--
Pleomele hawaiiensis--d, Hawaii 23--Sesbania tomentosa--b, Hawaii 27--
Portulaca sclerocarpa--a, and Hawaii 27--Silene hawaiiensis--b.

Hawaii M1

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Ischaemum byrone. The entire area proposed for this species
was eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 10 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this and other islands. We have designated
critical habitat for this species on Kauai (for three populations), and
Maui (for two populations) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 9116,
February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). In this rule we are designating habitat for three populations.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Ischaemum byrone
resulted in the overall reduction of 19 ha (46 ac) of critical habitat
on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii M2

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Ischaemum byrone. The entire area proposed for this species
was eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 10 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this and other islands. We have designated
critical habitat for this species on Kauai (for three populations) and
Maui (for two populations) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 9116,
February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). In this rule, we are designating habitat for three populations.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Ischaemum byrone
resulted in the overall reduction of 133 ha (328 ac) of critical
habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii M3

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Ischaemum byrone. The entire area proposed for this species
was eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 10 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this and other islands. We have designated
critical habitat for this species on Kauai (for three populations) and
Maui (for two populations) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 9116,
February 27, 2003; 69 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). In this rule, we are designating habitat for three populations.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Ischaemum byrone
resulted in the overall reduction of 141 ha (349 ac) of critical
habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii M4

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Ischaemum byrone. The entire area proposed for this species
was eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 10 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its' historical range on this and other islands. We have designated
critical habitat for this species on Kauai (for three populations) and
Maui (for two populations) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 9116,
February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). In this rule we are designating habitat for three populations.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Ischaemum byrone
resulted in the overall reduction of 141 ha (348 ac) of critical
habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii M5

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
Ischaemum byrone. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas
that do not contain the primary constituent elements for

[[Page 39653]]

this species. The area designated as critical habitat for this multi-
island species provides habitat within its historical range for one
population of Ischaemum byrone. We have designated critical habitat for
this species on Kauai (habitat for three populations), Molokai (habitat
for two populations), and Maui (habitat for two populations) (68 FR
9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003). In this rule, we are designating habitat for three
populations on the island of Hawaii.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 533 ha (1,316
ac) to 159 ha (393 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 22--Ischaemum
byrone--b.

Hawaii N1

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Sesbania tomentosa. The entire area proposed for this species
was eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 12 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this and other islands. We designated critical
habitat for this species on Nihoa (habitat for one population), Necker
(habitat for one population), Kauai (habitat for two populations), Oahu
(habitat for two populations), Molokai (habitat for two populations),
and Maui (habitat for two populations) (68 FR 28054, May 22, 2003; May
22, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68
FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In this rule, we
are designating habitat elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for two
populations. Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Sesbania
tomentosa resulted in the overall reduction of 35 ha (88 ac) of
critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii N2

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Sesbania tomentosa. The entire area proposed for this species
was eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 12 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this and other islands. We designated critical
habitat for this species on Nihoa (habitat for one population), Necker
(habitat for one population), Kauai (habitat for two populations), Oahu
(habitat for two populations), Molokai (habitat for two populations),
and Maui (habitat for two populations) (68 FR 28054, May 22, 2003; May
22, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68
FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In this rule, we
are designating habitat elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for two
populations. Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Sesbania
tomentosa resulted in the overall reduction of 441 ha (1,091 ac) of
critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii O

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
Mariscus fauriei. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas
that do not contain the primary constituent elements for this species.
The area designated as critical habitat for this multi-island
species provides habitat within its historical range for one population
of Mariscus fauriei. We designated critical habitat for this species on
Molokai (habitat for seven populations) (68 FR 12982, March 18, 2003).
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 215 ha (531 ac)
to 127 ha (313 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 19--Mariscus fauriei--
b.

Hawaii P

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species,
Pleomele hawaiiensis. The entire area proposed for this species was
eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 10 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this island. Three other critical habitat units
for this species are designated on the island of Hawaii for a total of
nine populations, and the excluded Kamehameha Schools lands provide
habitat for one population (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2)''). Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Pleomele
hawaiiensis resulted in the overall reduction of 547 ha (1,351 ac) of
critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii Q

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for six species:
Colubrina oppositifolia, Diellia erecta, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania
vitifolia, Neraudia ovata, and Pleomele hawaiiensis. Modifications were
made to this unit to exclude areas that do not contain the primary
constituent elements for these species. The portions eliminated from
this final rule were not essential to the conservation of these species
because they have a lower proportion of associated native species than
other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of these
species, and there are at least eight other locations that have been
designated or are being designated in this rule to meet the recovery
goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their historical ranges.
The area designated as critical habitat for the two island-endemic
species provides habitat for two populations each of Neraudia ovata and
Pleomele hawaiiensis within their historical ranges. The area
designated as critical habitat for the four multi-island species
provides habitat for two populations each of Colubrina oppositifolia
and Gouania vitifolia, and one population each of Diellia erecta and
Flueggea neowawraea, within their historical ranges. We designated
critical habitat for Colubrina oppositifolia on Oahu (habitat for three
populations) and Maui (habitat for three populations) (68 FR 35949,
June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003), and we are designating
habitat for a total of four populations on the island of Hawaii in this
rule. Critical habitat for one population each of Diellia erecta was
designated on Kauai, Oahu, and Molokai, and four populations on Maui
(68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR
12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In this rule,
habitat is designated for two populations on the island of Hawaii. We
designated critical habitat for Flueggea neowawraea on Kauai (habitat
for four populations), Molokai (habitat for one population), and Maui
(habitat for one population) (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR
12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In this rule we are
designating habitat for two populations. In addition, there is habitat
on Oahu for one population of Flueggea neowawraea on excluded lands (68
FR 35949, June 17, 2003). We designated critical habitat for Gouania
vitifolia on Oahu (habitat for seven populations) and Maui (habitat for
one population), as well as habitat for two populations in this rule
(68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).

[[Page 39654]]

These modifications resulted in the reduction from 15,294 ha
(37,792 ac) to 2,997 ha (7,406 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 18--
Colubrina oppositifolia--b, Hawaii 18--Diellia erecta--b, Hawaii 18--
Flueggea neowawraea--b, Hawaii 18--Gouania vitifolia--a, Hawaii 18--
Neraudia ovata--d, and Hawaii 18--Pleomele hawaiiensis--c.

Hawaii R

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species: Diellia
erecta and Flueggea neowawraea. Modifications were made to this unit to
eliminate areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements
for these species. The portions eliminated were not essential to the
conservation of these species because they have a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of these species, and there are at least 8 other
locations that have been designated or are designated in this rule to
meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their
historical ranges.
The area designated as critical habitat for these two multi-island
species provides habitat for one population each of Diellia erecta and
Flueggea neowawraea within their historical ranges. Critical habitat
for one population each of Diellia erecta was designated on Kauai,
Oahu, and Molokai, and four populations on Maui (68 FR 9116, February
27, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003). We are designating habitat for two populations
of Diellia erecta on the island of Hawaii in this rule. We designated
critical habitat for Flueggea neowawraea on Kauai (habitat for four
populations), Molokai (habitat for one population), and Maui (habitat
for one population) (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March
19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). In this rule, we are designating
habitat for two populations. In addition, there is habitat for on Oahu
for one population of Flueggea neowawraea on excluded lands (68 FR
35949, June 17, 2003).
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 387 ha (955 ac)
to 332 ha (819 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 17--Diellia erecta--a
and Hawaii 17--Flueggea neowawraea--a.

Hawaii S

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species: Cyanea
hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii and Cyanea stictophylla. Modifications were
made to this unit to eliminate areas that do not contain the primary
constituent elements for these species. Some portions eliminated were
not essential to the conservation of these species because they have a
lower proportion of associated native species than other areas we
consider to be essential to the conservation of these species, and
there are at least 8 other locations that are being designated in this
rule to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their
historical ranges. The area designated as critical habitat for these
two island-endemic species provides habitat for one population each of
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii and Cyanea stictophylla within their
historical ranges.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 383 ha (947 ac)
to 331 ha (819 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 16--Cyanea hamatiflora
ssp. carlsonii--d and Hawaii 16--Cyanea stictophylla--b.

Hawaii T

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species: Cyanea
hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii and Cyanea stictophylla. Modifications were
made to this unit to eliminate areas that do not contain the primary
constituent elements for these species. Some portions eliminated were
not essential to the conservation of these species because they have a
lower proportion of associated native species than other areas we
consider to be essential to the conservation of these species, and
there are at least 8 other locations that are being designated in this
rule to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout their
historical ranges. The area designated as critical habitat for these
two island-endemic species provides habitat for one population each of
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii and Cyanea stictophylla within their
historical ranges.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 1,489 ha (3,681
ac) to 1,264 ha (3,123 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 15--Cyanea
hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--c and Hawaii 15--Cyanea stictophylla--a.

Hawaii U

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species, Cyanea
hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii. Modifications were made to this unit to
eliminate areas that do not contain the primary constituent elements
for this species. Some portions eliminated were not essential to the
conservation of this species because they have a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of this species, and there are at least 5 other
locations with habitat for a total of 7 populations that are designated
in this rule to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations
throughout the species' historical range. The area designated as
critical habitat for this island-endemic species provides habitat for
one population of Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii within its
historical range.
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 615 ha (1,520
ac) to 597 ha (1,475 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 14--Cyanea
hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--b.

Hawaii V

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one species endemic
to the island of Hawaii, Nothocestrum breviflorum. The entire area
proposed for this species was eliminated. This area is not essential to
the conservation of this species because it has a lower proportion of
associated native species than other areas we consider to be essential
to the conservation of this species, and there are 3 other locations
that have been designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations throughout its historical range on this island. Habitat
designated elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for this species provides
habitat for nine populations. Exclusion of this unit from critical
habitat for Nothocestrum breviflorum resulted in the overall reduction
of 951 ha (2,351 ac) of critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii W

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Delissea undulata. The entire area proposed for this species
was excluded. Some of it was excluded because it is not essential to
the conservation of this species. We also excluded the proposed
critical habitat on Kamehameha Schools lands in Hawaii W because the
benefits of excluding these lands outweighed the benefits of including
them in critical habitat (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2)''). These excluded lands provide habitat for three recovery
populations of Delissea undulata. There is habitat designated elsewhere
on the island of Hawaii for this species providing habitat for two
populations. In addition, we have designated habitat on Kauai for three
populations (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003). Exclusion of this unit
from critical habitat for Delissea undulata resulted in the overall
reduction of 1,479 ha (3,654 ac) of critical habitat on the island of
Hawaii.

Hawaii X

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species: Cyanea

[[Page 39655]]

hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii and Solanum incompletum. Modifications were
made to this unit to eliminate areas that do not contain the primary
constituent elements for these species. Some portions eliminated were
not essential to the conservation of these species because they have a
lower proportion of associated native species than other areas we
consider to be essential to the conservation of these species, and
there are at least 8 other locations that have been designated or are
designated in this rule to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations throughout their historical ranges.
The area designated as critical habitat for the island-endemic
species provides habitat for one population of Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.
carlsonii within its historical range. The area designated as critical
habitat for the multi-island species provides habitat for one
population of Solanum incompletum within its historical range. This
rule designates critical habitat for four populations on the island of
Hawaii. There is also habitat for five populations on lands excluded
from this final rule in PTA (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section
4(b)(2)''). Habitat for one population is in the area excluded from
critical habitat on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003).
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 138 ha (340 ac)
to 92 ha (227 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 11--Cyanea hamatiflora
ssp. carlsonii--a and Hawaii 11--Solanum incompletum--b.

Hawaii Y1

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata. We excluded the proposed
critical habitat on these lands because the benefits of excluding these
lands outweighed the benefits of including them in critical habitat
(see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). Habitat for nine
populations of Neraudia ovata are designated in this rule. We
designated critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium on Oahu (habitat
for three populations), Molokai (habitat for one population), and Maui
(habitat for two populations) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Habitat for two additional
populations is in the land excluded from critical habitat on Lanai (68
FR 1220, January 9, 2003). Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat
for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata resulted in the overall
reduction of 212 ha (524 ac) of critical habitat on the island of
Hawaii.

Hawaii Y2

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for two species:
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata. We excluded the proposed
critical habitat on these lands because the benefits of excluding these
lands outweighed the benefits of including them in critical habitat
(see ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). Habitat for nine
populations of Neraudia ovata are designated in this rule. We
designated critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium on Oahu (habitat
for three populations), Molokai (habitat for one population), and Maui
(habitat for two populations) (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Habitat for two additional
populations is in the land excluded from critical habitat on Lanai (68
FR 1220, January 9, 2003). Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat
for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata resulted in the overall
reduction of 334 ha (826 ac) of critical habitat on the island of
Hawaii.

Hawaii Z

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 12 species: Bonamia
menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia, Cyanea stictophylla, Delissea
undulata, Flueggea neowawraea, Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, Hibiscus
brackenridgei, Nothocestrum breviflorum, Phyllostegia velutina,
Plantago hawaiensis, Pleomele hawaiiensis, and Zanthoxylum dipetalum
var. tomentosum. Modifications were made to this unit to exclude areas
that do not contain the primary constituent elements for these species.
We also eliminated the proposed critical habitat in Hawaii Z for Cyanea
stictophylla, Flueggea neowawraea, Phyllostegia velutina, and Plantago
hawaiensis. Areas proposed for these four species were eliminated
because they are not essential to the conservation of these species
because they had a lower proportion of associated native species than
other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of these
species, and there are at least nine other locations for each of these
species designated elsewhere within their historical ranges. We are
designating critical habitat elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for 10
populations each of Cyanea stictophylla, Phyllostegia velutina, and
Plantago hawaiensis, all island-endemic species. For the multi-island
species Flueggea neowawraea, we are designating critical habitat for
two populations elsewhere on the island of Hawaii, and we have
designated habitat for four populations on Kauai and one population on
Molokai and Maui (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19,
2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). Habitat for one additional population
of Flueggea neowawraea is on lands excluded from critical habitat on
Oahu (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003).
In addition, we excluded the proposed critical habitat on
Kamehameha Schools and National Tropical Botanical Garden lands in
Hawaii Z because the benefits of excluding these lands outweighed the
benefits of including them in critical habitat (see ``Analysis of
Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''). These excluded lands provide habitat
for one population of Pleomele hawaiiensis and, in combination with
land designated in this unit, one population of Bonamia menziesii.
The area designated as critical habitat for the four island-endemic
species in this unit provides habitat for eight populations of
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, five populations of Nothocestrum
breviflorum, one population of Pleomele hawaiiensis, and seven
populations of Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum within their
historical ranges. Elsewhere in this rule, we are designating habitat
for four populations of Nothocestrum breviflorum and eight populations
of Pleomele hawaiiensis. The area designated as critical habitat for
the four multi-island species in this unit provides habitat for one
population (in combination with excluded lands) of Bonamia menziesii,
two populations each of Colubrina oppositifolia and Delissea undulata,
and one population of Hibiscus brackenridgei within their historical
ranges. We have designated critical habitat for Bonamia menziesii on
Kauai (habitat for two populations), Oahu (habitat for four
populations), and Maui (habitat for one population), and elsewhere in
this rule are designating habitat for one population. Habitat for one
additional population of this species is in the land excluded from
critical habitat on Lanai. We have designated critical habitat for
Colubrina oppositifolia on Oahu (habitat for three populations) and
Maui (habitat for three populations), and elsewhere in this rule, we
are designating habitat for four populations on the island of Hawaii.
We have designated critical habitat for Delissea undulata on Kauai
(habitat for three populations). We have designated critical habitat
for Hibiscus brackenridgei on Oahu (habitat for three populations),
Molokai (habitat for one population), Maui (habitat for three
populations) and habitat for one additional population is in land
excluded from critical habitat on Lanai

[[Page 39656]]

(68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR
35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003).
These modifications resulted in the reduction from 10,738 ha
(26,535 ac) to 6,564 ha (16,221 ac). This unit was renamed Hawaii 10--
Bonamia menziesii--a, Hawaii 10--Colubrina oppositifolia--a, Hawaii
10--Delissea undulata--a, Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--b, Hawaii 10--
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis--a, Hawaii 10--Hibiscus brackenridgei--a,
Hawaii 10--Nothocestrum breviflorum--c, Hawaii 10--Pleomele
hawaiiensis--b, and Hawaii 10--Zanthoxylum dipetalum ssp. tomentosum--
a.

Hawaii AA

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for 10 species:
Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Neraudia ovata,
Portulaca sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium arenarium, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. The entire area proposed for these species,
which is located on PTA lands, was excluded for the reasons described
in ``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)''. As a result, no
critical habitat was designated for the five multi-island species
Hedyotis coriacea, Silene lanceolata, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
Tetramolopium arenarium, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on the island of
Hawaii because all of the habitat proposed for these species is within
these lands. These excluded lands provide habitat for six populations
of Hedyotis coriacea, six populations of Silene lanceolata, two
populations of Spermolepis hawaiiensis, seven populations of
Tetramolopium arenarium, and six populations of Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
We have designated critical habitat for Hedyotis coriacea on Oahu
(habitat for two populations) and Maui (habitat for two populations)
(68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). We designated critical habitat for Silene
lanceolata on Oahu (habitat for one population) and Molokai (habitat
for two populations) (68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003). We have designated
critical habitat for Spermolepis hawaiiensis on Kauai (habitat for two
populations), Oahu (habitat for two populations), Molokai (habitat for
one population), and Maui (habitat for two populations) (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Habitat for one additional population of Spermolepis
hawaiiensis is in the area excluded from critical habitat on Lanai (68
FR 1220, January 9, 2003). Tetramolopium arenarium is known
historically from Maui, but is currently only found on the island of
Hawaii. We have designated no critical habitat for this species. We
have designated critical habitat for Zanthoxylum hawaiiense on Kauai
(habitat for two populations), Molokai (habitat for one population),
and Maui (habitat for one population) (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003;
68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003).
These excluded lands also provide habitat for seven populations of
Asplenium fragile var. insulare, four populations of Neraudia ovata,
four populations of Portulaca sclerocarpa, seven populations of Silene
hawaiiensis, and four populations of Solanum incompletum. Asplenium
fragile var. insulare is historically known from Maui and we have
designated critical habitat for two populations for this species on
that island (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003) and habitat for one population
is designated in this rule. Neraudia ovata is endemic to the island of
Hawaii and habitat for six populations are designated in this rule. We
have designated critical habitat for one population of Portulaca
sclerocarpa on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003) and are designating
habitat for five populations in this rule. Silene hawaiiensis is
endemic to the island of Hawaii, and habitat for three populations is
designated in this rule. Habitat for one population of the multi-island
species Solanum incompletum is in the area excluded from critical
habitat on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003) and we are designating
habitat for four populations in this rule.
Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for Asplenium fragile
var. insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Neraudia ovata, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium arenarium, and
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense resulted in the overall reduction of 28,384 ha
(70,138 ac) of critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

Hawaii BB

This unit was proposed as critical habitat for one multi-island
species, Sesbania tomentosa. The entire area proposed for this species
was eliminated. This area is not essential to the conservation of this
species because it has a lower proportion of associated native species
than other areas we consider to be essential to the conservation of
this species, and there are 12 other locations that have been
designated to meet the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations throughout
its historical range on this and other islands. We designated critical
habitat for this species on Nihoa (habitat for one population), Necker
(habitat for one population), Kauai (habitat for two populations), Oahu
(habitat for two populations), Molokai (habitat for two populations),
and Maui (habitat for two populations) (68 FR 28054, May 22, 2003; 68
FR 9116, February 27, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR 12982,
March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). There is habitat designated
elsewhere on the island of Hawaii for this species, providing habitat
for two populations. Exclusion of this unit from critical habitat for
Sesbania tomentosa resulted in the overall reduction of 43 ha (106 ac)
of critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.

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.
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 ``* * * a
direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of
critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed
species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations
adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that
were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.'' However,
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

[[Page 39657]]

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, areas
within the geographical range of the species at the time of listing
must contain physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species or for an area outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time of listing, the area itself
must be essential to the conservation of the species, 16 U.S.C.
1532(5)(A).
Our regulations state that ``The Secretary shall designate as
critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied
by a 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.
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 we may inadvertently include areas that later will be
shown to be nonessential. Nevertheless, we are required to complete the
designation process, using the best information available to us. If new
information becomes available subsequent to the designation, we have
authority to revise the critical habitat at that time (16 U.S.C.
1533(a)(3)(B)).
Our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species
Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270),
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 section 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.

Prudency

Designation of critical habitat is not prudent when the species is
threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of such threat
to the species (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)).
To determine whether critical habitat would be prudent for each
species, we analyzed the potential threats and benefits for each
species in accordance with the court's order. Two species, Cyanea
copelandii ssp. copelandii and Ochrosia kilaueaensis, endemic to the
island of Hawaii, are no longer extant in the wild. Cyanea copelandii
ssp. copelandii was last seen in the wild in 1957, in the Glenwood
area. Ochrosia kilaueaensis was last observed in the wild in 1927, in
an area that is now part of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Neither of
these two species is known to be in storage or under propagation. Under
these circumstances, designation of critical habitat for Cyanea
copelandii ssp. copelandii and Ochrosia kilaueaensis is not prudent
because such designation would be of no benefit to these species. If
these species are rediscovered, we may revise these final prudency
determinations to incorporate or address new information as new data
become available (See 16 U.S.C. 1532 (5)(B); 50 CFR 424.13(f)).
Due to low numbers of individuals and populations and their
inherent immobility, the other 56 plant species may be vulnerable to
unrestricted collection, vandalism, or disturbance. However, we
examined the evidence currently available for each of these species and
found specific evidence of vandalism, disturbance, and the threat of
unrestricted collection only for two species of Pritchardia, the native
palm. At the time of listing, we determined that designation of
critical habitat was not prudent for Pritchardia affinis and
Pritchardia schattaueri because it would increase the degree of threat
from vandalism or collecting, and would provide no benefit (59 FR
10305, March 4, 1994; 61 FR 53137, October 10, 1996). Since publication
of the listing rule, we learned of specific instances of vandalism,
collection, and commercial trade involving these two species of
Pritchardia. In the 1990s, seeds of Pritchardia schattaueri were
removed from plants in two of the three locations where this species
was known at that time (L. Perry and Nick Agorastos, DOFAW pers. comm.
2000). We received information on the commercial trade in palms
conducted through the Internet (Grant Canterbury, Service in litt.
2000). Several nurseries advertise and sell seedlings and young plants,
including 13 species of Hawaiian Pritchardia. Seven of these species
are federally protected, including Pritchardia affinis and Pritchardia
schattaueri. In light of this information, we believe that designation
of critical habitat would likely increase the threat from vandalism to
or collection of to these two species of Pritchardia on the island of
Hawaii. First, these plants are easy to identify, and second, they may
be attractive to collectors of rare palms either for their personal use
or to trade or sell for personal gain (Johnson 1996). Although the
final listing rules for these two species of palm do not list vandalism
or overcollection as threats, in light of documented vandalism and
overcollection events on these species and on species in the same genus
on Kauai, we believe that Pritchardia affinis and P. schattaueri are
vulnerable to these threats (59 FR 10305; 61 FR 53137).
In addition, we believe that designation would not provide
significant benefits that would outweigh

[[Page 39658]]

these increased risks. First, Pritchardia affinis and Pritchardia
schattaueri do not occur on Federal lands. Pritchardia schattaueri is
reported on privately owned land that is zoned for agriculture, and 10
of the approximately 12 individuals have been fenced (Mick Castillo,
USFWS, pers. comm. 2003). In addition, the privately owned land is
currently farmed, with 10 of the plants located in pasture and 2
located in macadamia nut orchards, and this land is unlikely to be
developed. Pritchardia affinis occurs on State and privately owned
lands that are zoned for conservation and agriculture. Since there do
not appear to be any actions in the future that would likely involve a
Federal agency, designation of critical habitat would not provide any
protection to these species that they do not already have through
listing alone. If, however, in the future, any Federal involvement did
occur, such as through the permitting process or funding by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the
Corps through section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development, or the Federal Highway
Administration, the actions would be subject to consultation under
section 7 of the Act. We acknowledge that critical habitat designation,
in some situations, may provide some value to the species, for example,
by identifying areas important for conservation and calling attention
to those areas in need of special protection. However, for these two
species, we believe that the benefits of designating critical habitat
do not outweigh the potential increased threats from vandalism or
collection. Given all of the above considerations, we determine that
designation of critical habitat for Pritchardia affinis and P.
schattaueri is not prudent.
In the final rule for Lanai plants (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003),
we found that critical habitat was prudent for the following 16 multi-
island species that also occur on the island of Hawaii: Adenophorus
periens, Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis
squamigera, Diellia erecta, Hedyotis cookiana, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Portulaca sclerocarpa,
Sesbania tomentosa, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis
hawaiiensis, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense. In the
final rule for Kauai and Niihau plants (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003),
we found that critical habitat was prudent for the following seven
multi-island species that are also found on the island of Hawaii:
Achyranthes mutica, Delissea undulata, Flueggea neowawraea, Ischaemum
byrone, Mariscus pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus mannii, and Plantago
princeps. In the final rule for Maui and Kahoolawe plants (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003), we found that critical habitat was prudent for the
following eight multi-island species that also occur on the island of
Hawaii: Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Clermontia lindseyana,
Clermontia peleana, Colubrina oppositifolia, Gouania vitifolia,
Hedyotis coriacea, Phyllostegia parviflora, and Tetramolopium
arenarium.
We examined the evidence available for the other 23 species and
have not, at this time, found specific evidence of taking, vandalism,
collection, or trade of these species or of similar species.
Consequently, while we remain concerned that these activities could
potentially threaten these 23 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 would be exacerbated by the designation of critical habitat.
In the absence of finding that critical habitat would increase
threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat
designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential
benefits include: (1) Triggering section 7 consultation in new areas
where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing
conservation activities on the most essential areas; (3) providing
educational benefits to State or county governments or private
entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to
the species.
In the case of these 23 species, there would be some benefits to
critical habitat. The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is
the section 7 requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely affects critical habitat. Thirteen of
these species are reported on or near Federal lands (see Table 1
above), where actions are subject to section 7 consultation. Although
many of the species considered in this rule are located exclusively on
non-Federal lands with limited Federal activities, there could be
Federal actions affecting these lands in the future. While a critical
habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by these species
would not likely change the section 7 consultation outcome, since an
action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical habitat would
also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species, there may be
instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered only if
critical habitat were designated. There may also be some educational or
informational benefits to the designation of critical habitat.
Educational benefits include the notification of landowner(s), land
managers, and the general public of the importance of protecting the
habitat of these species and dissemination of information regarding
their essential habitat requirements. Therefore, we find that critical
habitat is prudent for these 23 plant species: Argyroxiphium kauense,
Clermontia drepanomorpha, Clermontia pyrularia, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.
carlsonii, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla,
Cyrtandra giffardii, Cyrtandra tintinnabula, Hibiscadelphus
giffardianus, Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, Isodendrion hosakae,
Melicope zahlbruckneri, Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum breviflorum,
Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, Phyllostegia warshaueri,
Plantago hawaiiensis, Pleomele hawaiiensis, Sicyos alba, Silene
hawaiiensis, and Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum.

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 Achyranthes mutica, Adenophorus
periens, Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium fragile var. insulare,
Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Clermontia drepanomorpha,
Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia peleana, Clermontia pyrularia,
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.
carlsonii, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla,
Cyrtandra giffardii, Cyrtandra tintinnabula, Delissea undulata, Diellia
erecta, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis cookiana,
Hedyotis coriacea, Hibiscadelphus giffardianus, Hibiscadelphus
hualalaiensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion
hosakae, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Mariscus
pennatiformis, Melicope zahlbruckneri, Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum
breviflorum, Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia parviflora,
Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, Phyllostegia warshaueri,
Plantago

[[Page 39659]]

hawaiensis, Plantago princeps, Pleomele hawaiiensis, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Sicyos alba, Silene hawaiiensis,
Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
Tetramolopium arenarium, Vigna o-wahuensis, Zanthoxylum dipetalum var.
tomentosum, 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 54 species; the May 28, 2002 proposal; information
received during the public comment periods and the public hearings;
recent biological surveys and reports; our recovery plans for these
species; information from landowners, land managers, and interested
parties on the island of Hawaii; discussions with botanical experts;
and recommendations from the Hawaii and Pacific Plant Recovery
Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC) (see also the discussion below) (GDSI
2000; HINHP Database 2000; Service 1994, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c,
1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999; 67 FR 36968; CPC, in litt. 1999; R.
Hobdy and S. Perlman, pers. comms. 2000; L. Pratt et al., pers. comm.
2001).
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.

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 the 54 species (Achyranthes mutica, Adenophorus
periens, Argyroxiphium kauense, Asplenium fragile var. insulare,
Bonamia menziesii, Cenchrus agrimonioides, Clermontia drepanomorpha,
Clermontia lindseyana, Clermontia peleana, Clermontia pyrularia,
Colubrina oppositifolia, Ctenitis squamigera, Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.
carlsonii, Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla,
Cyrtandra giffardii, Cyrtandra tintinnabula, Delissea undulata, Diellia
erecta, Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania vitifolia, Hedyotis cookiana,
Hedyotis coriacea, Hibiscadelphus giffardianus, Hibiscadelphus
hualalaiensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion
hosakae, Isodendrion pyrifolium, Mariscus fauriei, Mariscus
pennatiformis, Melicope zahlbruckneri, Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum
breviflorum, Phlegmariurus mannii, Phyllostegia parviflora,
Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, Phyllostegia warshaueri,
Plantago hawaiensis, Plantago princeps, Pleomele hawaiiensis, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Sicyos alba, Silene hawaiiensis,
Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
Tetramolopium arenarium, Vigna o-wahuensis, Zanthoxylum dipetalum var.
tomentosum, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) is described in the
``Background'' section of this final rule. We are unable to identify
these features for Cenchrus agrimonioides, Ctenitis squamigera,
Hedyotis cookiana, Mariscus pennatiformis, Phlegmariurus mannii,
Phyllostegia parviflora, and Plantago princeps, which no longer occur
on the island of Hawaii, because information on the physical and
biological features (i.e., the primary constituent elements) that are
considered essential to the conservation of these seven species on the
island of Hawaii is not known. Only scanty information based on old
collection records (mostly from the 1800s) exists. We are able to
identify these features for Hedyotis coriacea, Silene lanceolata,
Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium arenarium, and Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense, but we are not designating critical habitat for these
species on the island of Hawaii for the reasons given in the ``Analysis
of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'' section. Sufficient habitat to meet
the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for these 12 multi-island
species has either been designated on other islands within their
historical ranges or has been specifically identified in lands on this
or other islands (68 FR 1220, January 9, 2003; 68 FR 9116, February 27,
2003; 68 FR 28054, May 22, 2003; 68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003; 68 FR
12982, March 19, 2003; 68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
All areas designated as critical habitat are either within the
geographical range of the species at the time of listing and contain
one or more of the physical or biological features (primary constituent
elements) essential for the conservation of the species, or are
essential to the conservation of the species.
As described in the discussions for each of the 41 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

[[Page 39660]]

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, stream banks), and
elevation. The habitat features provide the ecological components
required by the plant. The type of plant community and associated
native plant species 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
Hawaii.

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 41 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 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2001).
Thus, the long-term recovery of these species is dependent upon the
protection of existing population sites and potentially suitable
unoccupied habitat within the species' 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 (e.g., the
recovery goal for Argyroxiphium kauense is 10 populations of more than
2,000 individuals), and the critical habitat designations reflect this
exception for these species. To be considered recovered, the
populations of a multi-island species should be distributed among the
islands of its known historic range (Service 1994, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b,
1996c, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999). 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, which
could destroy a large percentage of a species at any one time, may be
reduced (Menges 1990; Podolsky 2001). These recovery objectives were
initially developed by the HPPRCC and are found in all of the recovery
plans for these species. While they are expected to be further refined
as more information on the population biology of each species becomes
available, the justification for these objectives is found in the
current conservation biology literature addressing the conservation of
rare and endangered plants and animals (Beissinger and Westphal 1998;
Burgman et al. 2001; Falk et al. 1996; Ginzburg et al. 1990; Hendrix
and Kyhl 2000; Karieva and Wennergren 1995; Luijten et al. 2000; Meffe
and Carroll 1996; 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.
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 (1996) 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 a 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

[[Page 39661]]

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, a
basic conservation principle is that 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
nonnative 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 that occurred in 1982 and 1992
on Kauai, fires, and nonnative plant invasions (HPPRCC 1996; 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 nonnative
species introductions) (Mangel and Tier 1994; Pimm et al. 1998; Stacey
and Taper 1992).
Our approach to delineating critical habitat units was applied in
the following manner:
(1) Critical habitat was designated on an island-by-island basis
for ease of understanding for landowners and the public, for ease of
conducting the public hearing process, and for ease of conducting
public outreach. In Hawaii, landowners and the public are most
interested and affected by issues centered on the island on which they
reside;
(2) We focused on designating units representative of the known
current and historical geographic and elevational range of each
species; and
(3) We designated critical habitat units 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. We created the polygons by overlaying current and
historic plant location points onto digital topographic maps of each of
the islands.
We then evaluated the resulting shape files (delineating historic
elevational range and potential, suitable habitat). We refined
elevation ranges, and we avoided land areas identified as not suitable
for a particular species (i.e., not containing the primary constituent
elements). We then considered the resulting shape files for each
species to define all suitable habitat on the island, including
occupied and unoccupied habitat.
We further evaluated these shape files of suitable habitat. We used
several factors 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 proposed as
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). We further refined the
resulting critical habitat units 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 47 plant species for which critical habitat was proposed on May 28,
2002. We used geographic features (ridge lines, valleys, streams,
coastlines, etc.) or manmade features (roads or obvious land use) that
created an obvious boundary for a unit as unit area boundaries.
Following publication of the proposed critical habitat rules, some
of which were also published in revised form, for 255 Hawaiian plants
(67 FR 3940, January 28, 2002; 67 FR 9806, March 4, 2002; 67 FR 15856,
April 3, 2002; 67 FR 16492, April 5, 2002; 67 FR 34522, May 14, 2002;
67 FR 36968, May 28, 2002; 67 FR 37108, May 28, 2002), we reevaluated
proposed critical habitat, Statewide, for each species using the
recovery guidelines (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) to determine if we had inadvertently proposed for designation
too much or too little 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

[[Page 39662]]

Database 2000, 2001; Wagner et al. 1990, 1999).
Based on comments and information we received during the comment
periods, we assessed the proposed critical habitat in order to
ascertain which areas contained the highest quality habitat, had the
highest likelihood of species conservation, and were geographically
distributed within the species' historical range and distributed such
that all populations of a single species are unlikely to be impacted by
a single catastrophic event. We ranked areas of the proposed critical
habitat by the quality of the primary constituent elements (i.e.,
intact native plant communities, predominance of associated native
plants versus nonnative plants), potential as a conservation area
(e.g., whether the land is zoned for conservation; whether the
landowner is already participating in plant conservation or recovery
actions), and current or expected management of known threats (e.g.,
ungulate control; weed control; nonnative insect, slug, and snail
control). We ranked as most essential those areas that contain high
quality primary constituent elements, are zoned for conservation, and
have ongoing or expected threat abatement actions. This ranking process
also included determining which habitats were representative of the
historic geographical and ecological distributions of the species (see
``Primary Constituent Elements''). Areas that are zoned for
conservation or have been identified as a State Forest Reserve, NAR,
Wildlife Preserve, State Park, or are managed for conservation by a
private landowner have a high likelihood of providing conservation
benefit to the species and are therefore more essential than other
comparable habitat outside of those types of areas. Of these essential
areas, we selected adequate area to provide for 8 to 10 populations
distributed among the islands of each species' historical range. Of the
proposed critical habitat for a species, areas that provide habitat for
populations above the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations were
determined not essential for the conservation of the species and were
eliminated from the final designation.
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 41 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. Nevertheless, since manmade features and structures within the
boundaries of the mapped unit do not contain the primary constituent
elements, they are excluded by the terms of the final regulation such
areas include: 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, reservoirs, diversions, flumes, and wells; existing trails;
campgrounds and their immediate surrounding landscaped area; scenic
lookouts; remote helicopter landing sites; existing fences;
telecommunications towers and associated structures and equipment;
electrical power transmission lines and distribution and communication
facilities and regularly maintained associated rights-of-way and access
ways; radars; telemetry antennas; missile launch sites; arboreta and
gardens; heiau (indigenous places of worship or shrines) and other
archaeological sites; airports; other paved areas; and lawns and other
rural residential landscaped areas. 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 essential habitat on
the island of Hawaii to provide for the conservation of these 41
species.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment of the physical and biological features needed for the
conservation of the 41 plant species from the island of Hawaii 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 designated critical habitat by
landownership or jurisdiction are shown in Table 3. The approximate
final critical habitat area (ha (ac)), essential area, and excluded
area are shown in Table 4.

Table 3.--Approximate Critical Habitat Designated Area by Unit and Landownership or Jurisdiction, Hawaii County,
Hawaii \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit name State/local Private Federal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--a. 63 ha............. .................. .................. 63 ha
(157 ac).......... (157 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--b. 83 ha............. 41 ha............. .................. 125 ha
(205 ac).......... (101 ac).......... (306 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--c. 67 ha............. .................. .................. 67 ha
(166 ac).......... (166 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--d. 58 ha............. .................. .................. 58 ha
(143 ac).......... (143 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--e. 74 ha............. 23 ha............. .................. 96 ha
(182 ac).......... (56 ac)........... (238 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--f. 43 ha............. .................. .................. 43 ha
(105 ac).......... (105 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--g. 37 ha............. .................. .................. 37 ha
(92 ac)........... (92 ac)

[[Page 39663]]

Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--h. 46 ha............. 5 ha.............. .................. 51 ha
(115 ac).......... (12 ac)........... (127 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--i. <1 ha............. 30 ha............. .................. 31 ha
(1 ac)............ (75 ac)........... (76 ac)
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--j. 21 ha............. 12 ha............. .................. 33 ha
(52 ac)........... (29 ac)........... (81 ac)
Hawaii 28--Adenophorus periens-- .................. 2,733 ha.......... .................. 2,733 ha
a. (6,754 ac)........ (6, 754 ac)
Hawaii 10--Argyroxiphium 349 ha............ .................. .................. 349 ha
kauense--a. (861 ac).......... (861 ac)
Hawaii 24--Argyroxiphium 3,149 ha.......... 4,646 ha.......... .................. 7,795 ha
kauense--b. (7,780 ac)........ (11,481 ac)....... (19,261, ac)
Hawaii 25--Argyroxiphium .................. .................. 2,006 ha.......... 2,006 ha
kauense--c. (4,957 ac)........ (4,957 ac)
Hawaii 30--Argyroxiphium 4,281 ha.......... .................. .................. 4,281 ha
kauense--d. (10,578 ac)....... (10,578 ac)
Hawaii 24--Asplenium fragile 907 ha............ .................. .................. 907 ha
var. insulate--a. (2,241 ac)........ (2,241 ac)
Hawaii 10--Bonamia menziesii--a. 163 ha............ .................. .................. 163 ha
(402 ac).......... (402 ac)
Hawaii 8--Clermontia 1,906 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,906 ha
drepanomorpha--a. (4,709 ac)........ (4,709 ac)
Hawaii 1--Clermontia lindseyana-- .................. .................. 1,377 ha.......... 1,377 ha
a. (3,303 ac)........ (3,303 ac)
Hawaii 2--Clermontia lindseyana-- 371 ha............ .................. 891 ha............ 1,262 ha
b. (918 ac).......... (2,201 ac)........ (3,119 ac)
Hawaii 30--Clermontia 1,634 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,634 ha
lindseyana--c. (4,037 ac)........ (4,037 ac)
Hawaii 1--Clermontia peleana--a. 114 ha............ .................. 4,590 ha.......... 4,704 ha
(281 ac).......... (11,343 ac)....... (11,624 ac)
Hawaii 3--Clermontia peleana--b. 2,630 ha.......... .................. 1,468 ha.......... 4,128 ha
(6,498 ac)........ (3,627 ac)........ (10,126 ac)
Hawaii 29--Clermontia peleana--c 6,830 ha.......... .................. .................. 6,830 ha
(16,914 ac)....... (16,914 ac)
Hawaii 1--Clermontia pyrularia-- .................. .................. 1,378 ha.......... 1,378 ha
a. (3,405 ac)........ (3,405 ac)
Hawaii 2--Clermontia pyrularia-- 608 ha............ .................. 775 ha............ 1,383 ha
b. (1,502 ac)........ (1,916 ac)........ (3,418 ac)
Hawaii 10--Colubrina 1,918 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,918 ha
oppositifolia--a. (4,740 ac)........ (4,740 ac)
Hawaii 18--Colubrina 2,703 ha.......... <1 ha............. .................. 2,703 ha
oppositifolia--b. (6,712 ac)........ (1 ac)............ (6,713 ac)
Hawaii 11--Cyanea hamatiflora 92 ha............. .................. .................. 92 ha
ssp. carlsonii--a. (227 ac).......... (227 ac)
Hawaii 14--Cyanea hamatiflora .................. .................. 597 ha............ 597 ha
ssp. carlsonii--b. (1,475 ac)........ (1,475 ac)
Hawaii 15--Cyanea hamatiflora 741 ha............ 304 ha............ .................. 1,045 ha
ssp. carlsonii--c. (1,832 ac)........ (751 ac).......... (2,583 ac)
Hawaii 16--Cyanea hamatiflora 186 ha............ .................. .................. 186 ha
ssp. carlsonii--d. (459 ac).......... (459 ac)
Hawaii 3--Cyanea platyphylia--a. 1,403 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,403 ha
(3,467 ac)........ (3,467 ac)
Hawaii 29--Cyanea platyphylia--b 1,122 ha.......... 402 ha............ .................. 1,524 ha
(2,773 ac)........ (994 ac).......... (3,767 ac)
Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii--a... .................. .................. 1,557 ha.......... 1,557 ha
(3,898 ac)........ (3,898 ac)
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--b.. 62 ha............. .................. .................. 62 ha
(152 ac).......... (152 ac)
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--c.. 825 ha............ .................. .................. 825 ha
(2,038 ac)........ (2,038 ac)
Hawaii 15--Cyanea stictophylla-- 500 ha............ 185 ha............ .................. 685 ha
a. (1,235 ac)........ (457 ac).......... (1,693 ac)
Hawaii 16--Cyanea stictophylla-- 327 ha............ .................. .................. 327 ha
b. (809 ac).......... (809 ac)
Hawaii 24--Cyanea stictophylla-- 584 ha............ .................. .................. 584 ha
c. (1,443 ac)........ (1,443 ac)
Hawaii 30--Cyanea stictophylla-- 632 ha............ .................. .................. 632 ha
d. (91,539 ac)....... (91,539 ac)
Hawaii 3--Cytandra giffardii--a. 1,510 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,510 ha
(3,731 ac)........ (3,731 ac)

[[Page 39664]]

Hawaii 29--Cytandra giffardii--b 938 ha............ .................. .................. 938 ha
(2,319 ac)........ (2,319 ac)
Hawaii 30--Cytandra giffardii--c 2,673 ha.......... .................. 1,198 ha.......... 3,872 ha
(6,606 ac)........ (2,961 ac)........ (9,567 ac)
Hawaii 3--Cytandra tintinnabula-- 2,322 ha.......... .................. .................. 2,322 ha
a. (5,738 ac)........ (5.738 ac)
Hawaii 29--Cytandra 378 ha............ .................. .................. 378 ha
tintinnabula--b. (934 ac).......... (934 ac)
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--a. 93 ha............. .................. .................. 93 ha
(227 ac).......... (227 ac)
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--b. 379 ha............ .................. .................. 379 ha
(938 ac).......... (938 ac)
Hawaii 17--Diellia erecta--a.... 327 ha............ 2 ha.............. .................. 329 ha
(808 ac).......... (6 ac)............ (814 ac)
Hawaii 18--Diellia erecta--b.... 1,615 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,615 ha
(3,992 ac)........ (3,992 ac)
Hawaii 17--Flueggea neowawraea-- 324 ha............ 2 ha.............. .................. 327 ha
a. (801 ac).......... (6 ac)............ (807 ac)
Hawaii 18--Flueggea neowawraea-- 1,148 ha.......... <1 ha............. .................. 1,148 ha
b. (2,837 ac)........ (1 ac)............ (2,838 ac)
Hawaii 18--Gouania vitifolia--a. 1,785 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,785 ha
(4,412 ac)........ (4,412 ac)
Hawaii 26--Hibiscadelphus .................. .................. 149 ha............ 149 ha
giffardianus--a. (367 ac).......... (367 ac)
Hawaii 10--Hibiscadelphus 3,979 ha.......... .................. .................. 3,979 ha
hualalaiensis--a. (9,832 ac)........ (9,832 ac)
Hawaii 10--Hibiscus 196 ha............ .................. .................. 196 ha
brackenridgei--a. (485 ac).......... (485 ac)
Hawaii 21--Ischaemum byrone--a.. .................. .................. 206 ha............ 206 ha
(510 ac).......... (510 ac)
Hawaii 22--Ischaemum byrone--b.. .................. .................. 159 ha............ 159 ha
(393 ac).......... (393 ac)
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--a .................. 49 ha............. .................. 49 ha
(121 ac).......... (121 ac)
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--b .................. 35 ha............. .................. 35 ha
(87 ac)........... (87 ac)
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--c .................. 49 ha............. .................. 49 ha
(121 ac).......... (121 ac)
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--d .................. 49 ha............. .................. 49 ha
(121 ac).......... (121 ac)
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--e .................. 11 ha............. .................. 11 ha
(26 ac)........... (26 ac)
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--f .................. 51 ha............. .................. 51 ha
(127 ac).......... (127 ac)
Hawaii 19--Mariscus fauriei--a.. 127 ha............ .................. .................. 127 ha
(313 ac).......... (313 ac)
Hawaii 24--Melicope 434 ha............ .................. .................. 434 ha
zahlbruckneri--a. (1,072 ac)........ (1,072 ac)
Hawaii 26--Melicope .................. .................. 495 ha............ 495 ha
zahlbruckneri--b. (1,224 ac)........ (1,224 ac)
Hawaii 10--Neraudia ovata--a.... 1,859 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,859 ha
(4,493 ac)........ (4,493 ac)
Hawaii 18--Neraudia ovata--d.... 1,134 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,134 ha
(2,801 ac)........ (2,801 ac)
Hawaii 5--Nothocestrum 382 ha............ 21 ha............. .................. 403 ha
breviflorum--a. (944 ac).......... (51 ac)........... (995 ac)
Hawaii 6--Nothocestrum 1,113 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,113 ha
breviflorum--b. (2,749 ac)........ (2,749 ac)
Hawaii 10--Nothocestrum 3,627 ha.......... .................. .................. 3,627 ha
breviflorum--c. (8,964 ac)........ (8,964 ac)
Hawaii 1--Phyllostegia racemosa-- .................. .................. 938 ha............ 938 ha
a. (2,317 ac)........ (2,317 ac)
Hawaii 2--Phyllostegia racemosa-- 465 ha............ .................. 1,218 ha.......... 1,683 ha
b. (1,148 ac)........ (3,010 ac)........ (4,158 ac)
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia 267 ha............ .................. .................. 267 ha
racemosa--c. (659 ac).......... (659 ac)
Hawaii 24--Phyllostegia 2,466 ha.......... .................. .................. 2,466 ha
velutina--a. (6,093 ac)........ (6,093 ac)
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia 1,180 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,180 ha
velutina--b. (2,916 ac)........ (2,916 ac)

[[Page 39665]]

Hawaii 3--Phyllostegia 2,248 ha.......... 223 ha............ .................. 2,471 ha
warshaueri--a. (5,555 ac)........ (550 ac).......... (6,105 ac)
Hawaii 8--Phyllostegia 1,177 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,177 ha
warshaueri--b. (2,908 ac)........ (2,908 ac)
Hawaii 24--Plantago hawaiensis-- 1,348 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,348 ha
a. (3,330 ac)........ (3,330 ac)
Hawaii 25--Plantago hawaiensis-- .................. .................. 1,522 ha.......... 1,522 ha
b. (3,761 ac)........ (3,761 ac)
Hawaii 30--Plantago hawaiensis-- 1,219 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,219 ha
c. (3,012 ac)........ (3,012 ac)
Hawaii 7--Pleomele hawaiiensis-- 499 ha............ 178 ha............ .................. 677 ha
a. (1,233 ac)........ (440 ac).......... (1,673 ac)
Hawaii 10--Pleomele hawaiiensis-- 1,339 ha.......... <1 ha............. .................. 1,339 ha
b. (3,306 ac)........ (<1 ac)........... (3,306 ac)
Hawaii 18--Pleomele hawaiiensis-- 1,997 ha.......... <1 ha............. .................. 1,997 ha
c. (4,933 ac)........ (1 ac)............ (4,934)
Hawaii 23--Pleomele hawaiensis-- .................. .................. 8,943 ha.......... 8,943 ha
d. (22,097 ac)....... (22,097 ac)
Hawaii 27--Portulaca .................. .................. 4,390 ha.......... 4,390 ha
sclerocarpa--a. (10,848 ac)....... (10,848 ac)
Hawaii 20--Sesbania tomentosa--a .................. .................. 486 ha............ 486 ha
(1,201 ac)........ (1,201 ac)
Hawaii 23--Sesbania tomentosa--b .................. .................. 803 ha............ 803 ha
(1,984 ac)........ (1,984 ac)
Hawaii 30--Sicyos alba--a....... 2,776 ha.......... .................. 3,490 ha.......... 6,266 ha
(6,860 ac)........ (8,623 ac)........ (15,483 ac)
Hawaii 25--Silene hawaiiensis--a .................. .................. 854 ha............ 854 ha
(2,110 ac)........ (2,110 ac)
Hawaii 27--Silene hawaiiensis--b .................. .................. 1,942 ha.......... 1,942 ha
(4,798 ac)........ (4,798 ac)
Hawaii 10--Solanum incompletum-- 704 ha............ 1 ha.............. .................. 705 ha
a. (1,738 ac)........ (3 ac)............ (1,741 ac)
Hawaii 11--Solanum incompletum-- 57 ha............. .................. .................. 57 ha
b. (141 ac).......... (141 ac)
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--a.. .................. 49 ha............. .................. 49 ha
(121 ac).......... (121 ac)
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--b.. .................. 35 ha............. .................. 35 ha
(87 ac)........... (87 ac)
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--c.. .................. 51 ha............. .................. 51 ha
(127 ac).......... (127 ac)
Hawaii 10--Zanthoxylum dipetalum 1,685 ha.......... .................. .................. 1,685 ha
ssp. tomentosum--a. (4,164 ac)........ (4,164 ac)
Total *..................... 46,109 ha......... 6,482 ha.......... 31,600 ha......... 84,200 ha \1\
(114,356 ac)...... (16,025 ac)....... (78,085 ac)....... (208,063 ac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Area differences due to digital mapping discrepancies between TMK data (GDSI 2000) and USGS coastline, or
differences due to rounding.
* Total take into consideration overlapping individual species units.

Table 4.--Approximate Final Critical Habitat Area (ha (ac)), Essential
Area, and Excluded Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area considered essential.............. 118,444 ha
(292,679 ac)
Area not included because of special 19,239 ha
management or protection (Pohakuloa (47,540 ac)
Training Area).
Area excluded under 4(b)(2) (Kamehameha 5,860 ha
Schools, Queen Liliuokalani Trust, TSA/ (14,478 ac)
MID, State).
Final Critical Habitat................. 109,299 ha
(270,083 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lands designated as critical habitat for the 41 species on the
island of Hawaii have been divided into a total of 105 units. A brief
description of each unit is presented below.

Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units

Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--a through Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--j
We are designating 10 critical habitat units for Achyranthes
mutica, a short-lived perennial. Only unit ``Hawaii 9--Achyranthes
mutica--b'' currently supports an extant colony of this species. This
unit contains the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. It supports an extant colony and includes
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population.
The remaining nine unoccupied units are essential to the conservation
of the species because they support habitat that is necessary for the
establishment of additional populations in order to reach established
conservation goals. Each of the 10 units provides habitat for 1
population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of A. mutica. The
habitat features contained in these units that are essential for this
species include, but are not limited to, lowland dry forest, primarily
in gulches but also in remnant stands of forest. Each unit is
geographically separated from other critical habitat for this multi-
island species in order to reduce the likelihood of all recovery
populations on the island being destroyed by one naturally occurring
catastrophic event. Although this species is historically known from

[[Page 39666]]

Kauai, critical habitat was not designated for A. mutica on that
island. Ten critical habitat units for this species are designated on
the island of Hawaii, providing habitat for a total of 10 populations.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--a: This unit contains a portion of
Waipahoehoe Gulch in the Kawaihae watershed.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--b: This unit contains a portion of
Keauewai Stream and Kilohana Gulch in the Kawaihae watershed, and is
currently occupied by 25 to 50 individuals.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--c: This unit contains a portion of an
unnamed gulch adjacent to Puu Loa in the Kawaihae watershed.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--d: This unit contains a portion of an
unnamed gulch between Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--c and Lauhine Gulch
in the Kawaihae watershed.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--e: This unit contains a portion of
Lauhine Gulch and a gulch just east of Lauhine Gulch and west of Puu
Kawaiwai in the Kawaihae watershed.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--f: This unit contains a portion of
Umipoho Gulch in the Kawaihae watershed.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--g: This unit contains a portion of
Pauahi Gulch, straddling the Kawaihae and the Waikoloa/Waiulaula
watersheds.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--h: This unit contains a portion of
Momoualoa Gulch in the Waikoloa/Waiulaula watershed.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--i: This unit contains a portion of an
unnamed gulch between Puu Kamoa and Puu Lanikepu in the Waikoloa/
Waiulaula watershed.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--j: This unit contains a portion of
Waiaka Gulch in the Waikoloa/Waiulaula watershed. This unit provides
the easternmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 28--Adenophorus periens--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Adenophorus
periens, short-lived perennial. This unit straddles the Kaahakini and
Kilauea watersheds, and lies completely within the Kahaulea NAR. The
unit provides habitat for 1 population of 300 mature, reproducing
individuals of A. periens, and is currently occupied by an unknown
number of individuals. It contains habitat features essential for the
conservation of the species including, but not limited to, Metrosideros
polymorpha or Ilex anomala, or possibly other native trees large enough
to support epiphytic growth of this species, in Metrosideros
polymorpha-Cibotium glaucum lowland wet forest. This unit is essential
to the conservation of A. periens because it supports an extant colony
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the
expansion of the present population. This unit is geographically
separated from other critical habitat for this multi-island species in
order to reduce the likelihood of all recovery populations being
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. In addition to
this unit, critical habitat was designated for four populations A.
periens within its historical range on Kauai (68 FR 9116, February 27,
2003), for one population on Oahu (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003), and
four populations on Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003).
Hawaii 10--Argyroxiphium kauense--a through Hawaii 30--Argyroxiphium
kauense--d
We are designating four critical habitat units for Argyroxiphium
kauense, a long-lived perennial. Of the four units, only ``Hawaii 10--
Argyroxiphium kauense--a'' is currently unoccupied by the species. The
habitat features contained in these four units that are essential for
this species include, but are not limited to, subalpine forests, bogs,
and mountain parkland. The three occupied units contain the habitat
features essential to the conservation of A. kauense and each supports
at least one extant colony of the species and includes habitat that is
important for the expansion of present populations, which are currently
considered nonviable. The unoccupied unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because it supports habitat that is
necessary for the establishment of additional populations in order to
reach recovery goals. Each unit is geographically separated from other
critical habitat for this island-endemic species in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations on the island being destroyed by
one naturally occurring catastrophic event. The four units being
designated in this rule for A. kauense provide habitat to support a
total of eight populations.
Hawaii 10--Argyroxiphium kauense--a: This unit, which contains no
named natural features, lies in the Kiholo watershed and is completely
within the Puuwaawaa Wildlife Sanctuary. This unoccupied unit, in
combination with adjacent Kamehameha Schools land, provides habitat for
one population of 2,000 individuals. This unit provides the
northwesternmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 24--Argyroxiphium kauense--b: This unit contains the upper
portions of Hionamoa, Kauhuula, Moaula, Pikea, and Waihaka gulches,
Makaka Ravine, Puu Kinikini summit, and Maunaanu Waterhole. The
southern portion lies in the Hilea watershed, the northern portion in
Kapapala watershed, and the central portion in the Pahala watershed.
The northeast portion is in the Kapapala Forest Reserve. This unit
provides habitat for four populations of 2,000 individuals and is
currently occupied by about 1,130 individuals of A. kauense in three
locations. This unit provides the southernmost critical habitat within
the species' historical range.
Hawaii 25--Argyroxiphium kauense--c: This unit contains a portion
of Kipuka Kulalio and Kipuka Maunaiu in the Kapapala watershed. This
unit provides habitat for one population of 2,000 individuals and
currently is occupied by about 1,000 outplanted individuals of A.
kauense.
Hawaii 30--Argyroxiphium kauense--d: This unit contains portions of
the lava flows of 1852 and 1942 and lies mostly in the Wailoa
watershed, with the southern tip in the Kaahakini watershed. The upper
area of the unit lies in portions of Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve and
Mauna Loa Forest Reserve. The southern portion is part of the Olaa-
Kilauea Partnership. This unit provides habitat for two populations of
2,000 individuals of A. kauense and is currently occupied by fewer than
500 individuals. This unit provides the easternmost critical habitat
within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 24--Asplenium fragile var. insulare--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Asplenium fragile
var. insulare, a short-lived perennial, The unit contains no named
natural features and lies in the Pahala watershed, mostly in Kapapala
Forest Reserve, with the southern point in Kau Forest Reserve. This
unit provides habitat for 1 population of 300 mature, reproducing
individuals of A. fragile var. insulare and is currently occupied by 11
individuals. It contains habitat features essential for this species
including, but not limited to, Metrosideros polymorpha dry montane
forest, Dodonaea viscosa dry montane shrubland, Myoporum sandwicense-
Sophora chrysophylla dry montane forest, and Metrosideros polymorpha-
Acacia koa forest, as well as subalpine dry forest and shrubland. This
species grows almost exclusively in large, moist lava tubes (from 3 to
4.5

[[Page 39667]]

m (10 to 15 ft) in diameter), pits, deep cracks, and lava tree molds,
with at least a moderate soil or ash accumulation, associated with
mosses and liverworts. This unit is essential to the conservation of A.
fragile var. insulare because it supports an extant colony of this
species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the
present population, which is currently considered nonviable. This unit
provides the southernmost critical habitat within the species'
historical range. This unit is geographically separated from other
critical habitat for this multi-island species in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event. Habitat for another 7 populations is in
the PTA on this island that we are excluding from designation (see
``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)''). We previously designated
critical habitat for this species within its historical range for two
populations on Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14. 2003).
Hawaii 10--Bonamia menziesii--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for B. menziesii, a
short-lived perennial. This unit contains no named natural features and
lies completely within the Kiholo watershed just above the highway.
This unit, in combination with Kamehameha Schools land adjacent to the
unit, provides habitat for 1 population of 300 mature, reproducing
individuals of B. menziesii and is currently unoccupied (although the
adjacent, excluded Kamehameha Schools land is occupied by 6 to 8
individuals) (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)''). This unit is
essential to the conservation of B. menziesii because it is adjacent to
excluded land that supports an extant colony of this species and
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of that
population. The habitat features contained in this unit that are
essential for this species include, but are not limited to, dry forest.
It unit provides the southeasternmost critical habitat within the
species' historical range and is geographically separated from other
critical habitat for this multi-island species in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event. We previously designated critical habitat
for two populations of B. menziesii within its historical range on
Kauai (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003), for four populations on Oahu (68
FR 35949, June 17, 2003), and for one population on Maui (68 FR 25934,
May 14, 2003). Habitat for one population is in the lands we excluded
from designation as critical habitat on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9,
2003).
Hawaii 8--Clermontia drepanomorpha--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Clermontia
drepanomorpha, a short-lived perennial. This unit contains part of the
Kohala Mountains, Opaeloa summit, Puu O Umi, and Puu Pohoulaula. The
western portion of the unit is in the Honokane Nui watershed, the
eastern portion is in the Wailoa/Waipio watershed, and the southern
portion in the Waikoloa/Waiulaula watershed. The northern portion
contains the upper reaches of the Honopue, Nakooko, Ohiahuea, Waikaloa,
and Waimanu watersheds. The unit lies completely within the Kohala
Forest Reserve. This unit provides habitat for 6 populations of 300
mature, reproducing individuals of C. drepanomorpha; and is currently
occupied by about 200 individuals. It contains habitat features that
are essential for this species including, but not limited to, montane
wet forests dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron
trigynum, and Cibotium glaucum. This unit is essential to the
conservation of C. drepanomorpha because it supports an extant colony
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the
expansion of the present population, which is currently considered
nonviable. Although we do not believe enough habitat currently exists
to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-
endemic species, this unit is of an appropriate size such that each of
the 6 potential recovery populations within the unit is geographically
separated to a sufficient extent to be likely to avoid destruction of
all of the populations by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia lindseyana--a through Hawaii 30--Clermontia
lindseyana--c
We are designating three units of critical habitat for Clermontia
lindseyana, a short-lived perennial. All three units currently are
occupied. They contain habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, slightly open forest cover in
wet and mesic Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa forest, M. polymorpha
forest, and mixed montane mesic M. polymorpha-Acacia koa forest. Each
unit is essential to the conservation of C. lindseyana because it
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is
important for the expansion of the present population, which is
currently considered nonviable. Each unit is geographically separated
from other critical habitat for this multi-island species in order to
reduce the likelihood of all recovery populations on this and other
islands being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
We previously designated critical habitat to support two populations of
C. lindseyana within its historical range on Maui (67 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). In this rule, we are designating habitat for a total of eight
populations, each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals of C.
lindseyana.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia lindseyana--a: This unit contains the upper
portions of the Awehi, Hakalau, Honolili, and Kapue streams, and is in
the Honolii, Kapue, Kolekole, and Wailuku watersheds. The unit, which
lies completely within the Hakalau Unit of Hakalau Forest NWR; and
provides habitat for 2 populations of 300 individuals of C. lindseyana;
and is currently occupied by about 8 individuals. This unit provides
the easternmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 2--Clermontia lindseyana--b: This unit contains a portion of
Nauhi Gulch, and the northern portion is in the Haakoa watershed, the
southern portion in Umauma watershed, and the central portion in
Waikaumalo watershed. The northern and southern portions of this unit
lie partly in the Hakalau Forest NWR, and the central portion lies in
the Hilo Forest Reserve. The unit provides habitat for 2 populations of
300 individuals of C. lindseyana and is currently occupied by 5
individuals.
Hawaii 30--Clermontia lindseyana--c: This unit, which contains no
named natural features, lies just northeast of Puu Kipu. The northern
portion of this unit lies in the Wailoa watershed and the southern
portion is in the Kaahakini watershed. This unit is mostly within Olaa-
Kilauea Partnership lands with a small portion of the northeast section
lying in the upper Waiakea Forest Reserve. The unit provides habitat
for 4 populations of 300 individuals of C. lindseyana and is currently
occupied by 9 individuals. This unit provides the southernmost critical
habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia peleana--a through Hawaii 29--Clermontia peleana--
c
We are designating three units of critical habitat for Clermontia
peleana, a short-lived perennial. One unit, ``Hawaii 1--Clermontia
peleana--a,'' that currently is unoccupied is essential to the
conservation of the species

[[Page 39668]]

because it supports habitat that is necessary for the establishment of
additional populations in order to reach recovery goals. Each of the
two occupied units is essential to the conservation of C. peleana
because each supports an extant colony of this species and includes
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population,
which is currently considered nonviable. They contain habitat features
that are essential for this species including, but not limited to,
montane wet Metrosideros-Cibotium forest. Each unit is geographically
separated from other critical habitat for this multi-island species in
order to reduce the likelihood of all recovery populations on the
island being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event.
C. peleana is historically known from Maui, but no critical habitat was
designated for it on that island (68 FR 25934, May 14, 2003). The
critical habitat we are designating in this rule provides for a total
of 10 populations, each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia peleana--a: This unit contains a portion of
Honohina and Nauhi gulches, and Hakalau, Kapue, and Kolekole streams.
The unit is bordered on the north by the Nanue watershed and on the
south by the Honolii and Pahoehoe watersheds. It also contains portions
of the Kapue, Kolekole, and Umauma watersheds. This unit lies mostly
within Hakalau Forest NWR and is intersected by a small section of the
Hilo Forest Reserve. This unit provides habitat for 3 populations of
300 individuals of C. peleana and is currently unoccupied.
Hawaii 3--Clermontia peleana--b: This unit contains a portion of
Kaiwilalilahi, Haakoa, and Waikaumalo streams and is bordered on the
northwest by the Kaawalii and Laupahoehoe watersheds, in the south by
the Waikaumalo watershed, and contains portions of the Haakoa,
Kaiwilahilahi, Kilau, Manowaiopae, Maulua, Ninole, Pahale, and
Pohakupuka watersheds. This unit lies partly, in the northwest portion,
in the Hilo Forest Reserve; in the central portion in Laupahoehoe NAR;
and in the southern portion in the Hakalau Forest NWR. The unit
provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 individuals of C. peleana and
is currently occupied by 1 individual.
Hawaii 29--Clermontia peleana--c: This unit contains a portion of
Waipahoehoe Gulch and a portion of the lava flows of 1881 and 1852, and
the northern portion is in the Wailuku watershed, while the southern
portion in the Wailoa watershed. The unit contains about half of the
Waiakea 1942 Lava Flow NAR, the main part of the unit lying, in the
south, in the Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve and in the north in the Hilo
Forest Reserve. This unit provides habitat for 4 populations of 300
individuals of C. lindseyana and is currently occupied by 3
individuals.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia pyrularia--a and Hawaii 2--Clermontia pyrularia--b
We are designating two units of critical habitat for Clermontia
pyrularia, a short-lived perennial. One of the units, ``Hawaii 2--
Clermontia pyrularia--b,'' is currently occupied. The two units provide
habitat for combined total of six populations, each with 300 mature,
reproducing individuals. The units are geographically separated.
Although we do not believe enough habitat currently exists to reach the
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species,
the two units are of an appropriate size so that each potential
recovery population within the unit is geographically separated enough
to be likely to avoid both units being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia pyrularia--a: This unit contains Kaloaloa
summit and portions of Hakalau, Honolii, and Kapue streams. It is
bordered in the north by Kolekole watershed and in the south by Wailuku
watershed, and it contains portions of the Kapue and Honolii
watersheds. The unit lies completely within Hakalau Forest NWR;
provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 individuals; and is currently
unoccupied. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species
because it supports habitat that is necessary for the establishment of
additional populations in order to reach recovery goals. It contains
habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not
limited to, wet and mesic montane forest dominated by Acacia koa or
Metrosideros polymorpha, and subalpine dry forest dominated by
Metrosideros polymorpha.
Hawaii 2--Clermontia pyrularia--b: This unit contains a portion of
Nauhi Gulch and is bordered in the north by Kaawalii watershed; and in
the south by Umauma watershed. It also contains portions of Haakoa,
Kaiwilahilahi, and Waikaumalo watersheds. The unit lies partly in the
Hilo Forest Reserve in the north and south-central portion of the unit
and in Hakalau Forest NWR in the south and north-central portion of the
unit. This unit provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 individuals
of C. pyrularia and is currently occupied by 4 individuals. It contains
habitat features that are essential for this species include, but not
limited to, montane wet Metrosideros-Cibotium forest. This unit is
essential to the conservation of C. pyrularia because it supports an
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important
for the expansion of the present population, which is currently
considered nonviable.
Hawaii 10--Colubrina oppositifolia--a and Hawaii 18--Colubrina
oppositifolia--b
We are designating two units of critical habitat for Colubrina
oppositifolia, a long-lived perennial. Each unit is currently occupied,
and each provides habitat to support two populations with 100 mature,
reproducing individuals of C. oppositifolia. They contain habitat
features that are essential for this species include, but not limited
to, lowland dry and mesic forests dominated by Diospyros sandwicensis
or Metrosideros polymorpha. Each units is essential to the conservation
of C. oppositifolia because it supports an extant colony of this
species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the
present population (the present population within ``Hawaii 18--
Colubrina oppositifolia--b'' is currently considered nonviable). The
units are geographically separated from other critical habitat for this
multi-island species in order to reduce the likelihood of all recovery
populations being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic
event. We have designated critical habitat for for three populations of
C. oppositifolia within its historical range on Oahu (68 FR 35949, June
17, 2003) and for three populations on Maui (67 FR 25934, May 14,
2003), and in this rule the units we are designating provide habitat
for a total of four populations on the island of Hawaii.
Hawaii 10--Colubrina oppositifolia--a: This unit contains no named
natural features and lies completely within the Kiholo watershed. It is
currently occupied by several hundred individuals of C. oppositifolia.
Hawaii 18--Colubrina oppositifolia--b: This unit contains no named
natural features and lies almost completely within the Kauna watershed,
with a small portion lying in the Kiilae watershed on the southwestern
side of the unit. This unit is currently occupied by 10 to 50
individuals, and is currently considered nonviable. This unit provides
the southernmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.

[[Page 39669]]

Hawaii 11--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--a through Hawaii 16--
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--d
We are designating four units of critical habitat for Cyanea
hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii, a short-lived perennial. They contain
habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not
limited to, mesic montane forest dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha
or Acacia koa. Two of the units, ``Hawaii 11--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp.
carlsonii--a'' and ``Hawaii 16--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--d''
currently are occupied. These two units are each essential to the
conservation of C. hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii because each supports an
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important
for the expansion of the present population, which is currently
considered nonviable. Each of the two currently unoccupied units is
essential to the conservation of the species because each supports
habitat that is necessary for the establishment of additional
populations in order to reach recovery goals. The four critical habitat
units are geographically separated in order to avoid destruction of
habitat for all populations by one naturally occurring catastrophic
event. The designation of these four units provides habitat for a total
of eight populations of C. hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii, each with 300
mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 11--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--a: This unit contains
no named natural features and lies completely within the Waiaha
watershed. The unit, which is completely within the Honuaula Forest
Reserve, provides habitat for 1 population of 300 individuals and is
currently occupied by about 14 individuals. This unit provides the
northernmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 14--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--b: This unit contains
no named natural features and lies completely within the Kiilae
watershed. The unit, which is completely within the Kona Unit of
Hakalau Forest NWR, provides habitat for 2 populations of 300
individuals and is currently unoccupied.
Hawaii 15--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--c: This unit contains
no named natural features, lies completely within the Kiilae watershed,
and contains portions of the South Kona Forest Reserve. The unit
provides habitat for 4 populations of 300 individuals and is currently
unoccupied.
Hawaii 16--Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii--d: This unit contains
no named natural features, it lies completely within the Kiilae
watershed, and is completely within Kipahoehoe NAR. The unit provides
habitat for 1 population of 300 individuals is currently occupied by 1
individual. This unit provides the southernmost critical habitat within
the species' historical range.
Hawaii 3--Cyanea platyphylla--a and Hawaii 29--Cyanea platyphylla--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Cyanea
platyphylla, a short-lived perennial. Both units are currently
occupied. They contain habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, open Metrosideros polymorpha-
Acacia koa lowland and montane wet forests. Each unit is essential to
the conservation of C. platyphylla because it supports an extant colony
of this island-endemic species and includes habitat that is important
for the expansion of the present population, which is currently
considered nonviable. This units are geographically separated to avoid
their destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. This
rule designates critical habitat for a total of nine populations of
this species, each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 3--Cyanea platyphylla--a: This unit contains a portion of
Haakoa, Kaiwilahilahi, and Kilau streams and is bordered in the
northwest by Laupahoehoe watershed and in the southeast by Maulua
watershed. It also contains portions of Haakoa, Kaiwilahilahi, Kilau,
Manowaiopae, and Pahale watersheds. The unit lies almost completely
within Laupahoehoe NAR with a small portion in the northwest in the
Hilo Forest Reserve. This unit provides habitat for three populations
of 300 individuals of C. platyphylla and is currently occupied by 57
individuals.
Hawaii 29--Cyanea platyphylla--b: This unit contains Waterhole
Spring, a portion of the Wailuku River, and a branch of the
Kalohewahewa Stream. It lies completely within the Wailuku watershed.
The unit also lies almost completely within the Hilo Forest Reserve.
This unit provides habitat for 6 populations of 300 individuals of C.
platyphylla; and is currently occupied by 1 individual.
Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii--a through Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--c
We are designating three critical habitat units for Cyanea
shipmanii, a short-lived perennial. Two of the units, ``Hawaii 1--
Cyanea shipmanii--a'' and ``Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--b,'' are
currently occupied. Each of these two units is essential to the
conservation of C. shipmanii because it supports an extant colony of
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion
of the present population, which is currently considered nonviable. The
unoccupied unit, ``Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--c,'' is essential to
the conservation of the species because it supports habitat that is
necessary for the establishment of additional populations in order to
reach recovery goals. They contain habitat features that are essential
for this species including, but not limited to, mesic forest dominated
by Acacia koa-Metrosideros polymorpha. Although we do not believe
enough habitat currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations for this island-endemic species, the three units are
geographically separated to reduce the likelihood of their destruction
by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. Within the three units,
habitat is provided for a total of seven populations, each with 300
mature, reproducing individuals of C. shipmanii.
Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii--a: This unit contains Puu Akala and
portions of Awehi, Honoliii, and Kapue streams. It is bordered by
Kolekole watershed in the north and Wailuku in the south, with Honolii
and Kapue watersheds in the central portion. The unit is completely
within Hakalau Forest NWR; provides habitat for 3 populations of 300
individuals of C. shipmanii; and is currently occupied by 1 individual.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--b: This unit contains no named natural
features, lies completely within the Wailoa watershed, and is
completely within the Mauna Loa Forest Reserve. The unit provides
habitat for 1 population of 300 individuals of C. shipmanii; and is
currently occupied by 1 individual.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--c: This unit, which contains no named
natural features, lies almost completely within the Wailoa watershed
with a small segment of the southern portion lying in the Kaahakini
watershed. The unit is completely within the Olaa-Kilauea Partnership.
This unit provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 individuals of C.
shipmanii; and is currently unoccupied.
Hawaii 15--Cyanea stictophylla--a through Hawaii 30--Cyanea
stictophylla--d
We are designating four units of critical habitat for Cyanea
stictophylla, a short-lived perennial. Two of the units, ``Hawaii 15--
Cyanea stictophylla--a'' and ``Hawaii 16--

[[Page 39670]]

Cyanea stictophylla--b'' currently are occupied by individuals of this
species. These two units are each essential to the conservation of C.
stictophylla because each supports an extant colony of this species and
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present
population, which is currently considered nonviable. Each of the two
unoccupied units are essential to the conservation of the species
because each supports habitat that is necessary for the establishment
of additional populations in order to reach recovery goals. The four
units contain habitat features that are essential for this species
including, but not limited to, Acacia koa or wet Metrosideros
polymorpha forests. Each unit is geographically separated from others
on this island to reduce the likelihood of the destruction of all the
units by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. Within the 4 units
we are designating for C. stictophylla in this rule, habitat is
provided for a total of 10 populations, each with 300 mature,
reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 15--Cyanea stictophylla--a: This unit contains no named
natural features and lies completely within the Kiilae watershed. The
unit is almost completely within the South Kona Forest Reserve. This
unit provides habitat for 1 population of 300 individuals of C.
stictophylla and is currently occupied by 1 individual.
Hawaii 16--Cyanea stictophylla--b: This contains no named natural
features and lies completely within the Kiilae watershed. The unit also
lies completely within Kipahoehoe NAR. This unit provides habitat for 1
population of 300 individuals of C. stictophylla and is currently
occupied by 1 individual. This unit provides the southernmost critical
habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 24--Cyanea stictophylla--c: This unit is just north of, but
does not include, Uwewale Gulch, it lies completely within the Pahala
watershed, and also lies completely within Kau Forest Reserve; provides
habitat for 2 populations of 300 individuals of C. stictophylla; and is
currently unoccupied.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea stictophylla--d: This unit straddles the Kulani
summit but otherwise has no named natural features, and it lies
completely within the Kaahakini watershed. The unit also is completely
within the Olaa-Kilauea Partnership lands; provides habitat for 6
populations of 300 individuals of C. stictophylla; and is currently
unoccupied.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra giffardii--a through Hawaii 30--Cyrtandra
giffardii--c
We are designating three critical habitat units for Cyrtandra
giffardii, a short-lived perennial. Two of the units, ``Hawaii 3--
Cyrtandra giffardii--a'' and ``Hawaii 30--Cyrtandra giffardii--c,''
currently are occupied by this species. They contain habitat features
that are essential for this species including, but not limited to, wet
montane forest dominated by Cibotium sp. or Metrosideros polymorpha and
M. polymorpha-Acacia koa lowland wet forests. Each unit is
geographically separated from other units on this island to avoid their
destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. Within the 3
units we are designating for Cyrtandra giffardii in this rule, habitat
is provided for a total of 10 populations, each with 300 mature,
reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra giffardii--a: This unit contains a portion of
Haakoa, Kawilahilahi, and Kilau streams and is bordered in the
northwest by Laupahoehoe watershed with a small overlap into Kaawali
watershed, in the southeast by Haakoa and Pahala watersheds, and with
the Kaiwilahilahi, Kilau, and Manowaiopae watersheds in the central
portion. The unit is almost completely within Laupahohoe NAR with a
small overlap into the Hilo Forest Reserve. This unit provides habitat
for 3 populations of 300 individuals of C. giffardii and is currently
occupied by more than 245 individuals. This unit is essential to the
conservation of this species because it supports an extant colony of
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion
of the present population.
Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra giffardii--b: This unit contains portions of
two forks of the Wailuku River and two forks of Kalohewahewa Stream and
lies completely within the Wailuku watershed. The unit also is
completely within the Hilo Forest Reserve; provides habitat for 2
populations of 300 individuals of C. giffardii; and is currently
unoccupied. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species
because it supports habitat that is necessary for the establishment of
additional populations in order to reach recovery goals.
Hawaii 30--Cyrtandra giffardii--c: This unit contains Puu Makaala
and lies completely within the Kaahakini watershed. It also lies
completely within the Olaa-Kilauea Partnership lands. This unit
provides habitat for 5 populations of 300 individuals of C. giffardii
and is currently occupied by one individual. This unit is essential to
the conservation of C. giffardii because it supports an extant colony
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the
expansion of the present population, which is currently considered
nonviable.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra tintinnabula--a and Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra
tintinnabula--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Cyrtandra
tintinnabula, a short-lived perennial. One of the units, ``Hawaii 3--
Cyrtandra tintinnabula--a,'' currently is occupied by individuals of
this species. They contain habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, lowland wet forest dominated by
dense Acacia koa, Metrosideros polymorpha, and Cibotium spp. The units
are geographically separated to avoid their destruction by one
naturally occurring catastrophic event. Within the two units, habitat
is provided for a total of nine populations, each with 300 mature,
reproducing individuals of C. tintinnabula.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra tintinnabula--a: This unit contains a portion
of Haakoa, Kilau, and Kawilahilahi streams and is bordered on the
northwest by Kaawali and Laupahoehoe watersheds, and on the southeast
by Maulua and Pahala watersheds. It also contains portions of the
Haakoa, Kaiwilahilahi, Kilau and Manowaiopae watersheds in the central
portion. The unit is almost completely within Laupahohoe NAR with a
very small overlap into the Hilo Forest Reserve. This unit provides
habitat for 7 populations, each with 300 individuals of C.
tintinnabula, and the unit is currently occupied by 18 individuals.
This unit is essential to the conservation of C. tintinnabula because
it supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that
is important for the expansion of the present population, which is
currently considered nonviable.
Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra tintinnabula--b: This unit contains portions
of two forks of the Wailuku River, it lies completely within the
Wailuku watershed, and also lies completely within the Hilo Forest
Reserve; provides habitat for 2 populations of 300 individuals of C.
tintinnabula; and is currently unoccupied. This unit is essential to
the conservation of the species because it supports habitat that is
necessary for the establishment of additional populations in order to
reach recovery goals.

[[Page 39671]]

Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--a and Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Delissea
undulata, a short-lived perennial. They contain habitat features that
are essential for this species including, but not limited to, dry
cinder cones and open Sophora chrysophylla and Metrosideros polymorpha
forest. The units are geographically separated from other critical
habitat for this multi-island species in order to reduce the likelihood
of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally occurring
catastrophic event. We previously designated critical habitat for three
populations on Kauai (68 FR 9116). The units we are designating in this
rule provide habitat for two populations on Hawaii, each with 300
mature, reproducing individuals of D. undulata. In addition, Kamehameha
Schools land excluded from designation in this rule provides habitat
for another three populations of D. undulata (see ``Analysis of Impacts
Under 4(b)(2)'').
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--a: This unit lies on the northwest
slopes of Puuwaawaa and is completely within the Kiholo watershed. The
unit provides habitat for 1 population of 300 individuals of D.
undulata and is currently unoccupied. This unit is essential to the
conservation of the species because it supports habitat that is
necessary for the establishment of additional populations in order to
reach recovery goals.
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--b: This unit lies on the northwest
slopes of Puuwaawaa between the Poohohoo summit and Potato Hill and is
completely within the Kiholo watershed. The southern portion of this
unit lies in Puuwaawaa Wildlife Sanctuary. The unit provides habitat
for 1 population of 300 individuals of D. undulata and is currently
occupied by one individual. This unit is essential to the conservation
of D. undulata because it supports an extant colony of this species and
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present
population, which is currently considered nonviable.
Hawaii 17--Diellia erecta--a and Hawaii 18--Diellia erecta--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Diellia erecta, a
short-lived perennial. Both units currently are occupied. They contain
habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not
limited to, Metrosideros polymorpha-Nestegis sandwicensis lowland mesic
forest. Each unit is essential to the conservation of D. erecta because
it supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that
is important for the expansion of the present population, which is
currently considered nonviable. The units are geographically separated
from other critical habitat for this multi-island species in order to
reduce the likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by
one naturally occurring catastrophic event. We designated critical
habitat for one population each on Kauai (68 FR 9116, February 27,
2003), Oahu (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003), and Molokai (67 FR 16492,
March 19, 2003), and four populations on Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). The two critical habitat units we are designating for D. erecta
in this rule provide babitat for a total of two populations, each with
300 mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 17--Diellia erecta--a: This unit contains no named natural
features, it lies completely within the Kiilae watershed, and is also
completely within the South Kona Forest Reserve; provides habitat for
one population of 300 individuals of D. erecta; and is currently
occupied by 22 individuals.
Hawaii 18--Diellia erecta--b: This unit contains no named natural
features, it lies completely within the Kauna watershed, and is also
completely within the Manuka NAR; provides habitat for 1 population of
300 individuals of D. erecta; and is currently occupied by 2
individuals. This unit provides the southernmost critical habitat
within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 17--Flueggea neowawraea--a and Hawaii 18--Flueggea neowawraea--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Flueggea
neowawraea, a long-lived perennial. Both units are occupied by
individuals of this species. They contain habitat features that are
essential for this species including, but not limited to, mesic
Metrosideros polymorpha forest. Each unit is essential to the
conservation of F. neowawraea because it supports an extant colony of
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion
of the present population, which is currently considered nonviable. The
units are geographically separated from other critical habitat for this
multi-island species within its historical range in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event. We previously designated critical habitat
for four populations of this species on Kauai (68 FR 9116), for one
poulation on Molokai (67 FR 16492), and for one population on Maui (68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003). There is habitat for one additional population
on lands excluded from critical habitat on Oahu (68 FR 35949, June 17,
2003). The two units we are designating for F. neowawraea in this rule
provide habitat for a total of 2 populations, each with 100 mature,
reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 17--Flueggea neowawraea--a: This unit contains no named
natural features, it lies completely within the Kiilae watershed, and
is completely within the South Kona Forest Reserve. The unit provides
habitat for 1 population of 100 individuals of F. neowawraea, and is
currently occupied by 10 individuals.
Hawaii 18--Flueggea neowawraea--b: This unit contains no named
natural features and lies completely within the Kauna watershed. The
unit also lies almost completely within Manuka NAR except for one
State-owned inholding that is nonmanaged land within the conservation
district. This unit provides habitat for 1 population of 100
individuals of F. neowawraea and is currently occupied by 5 to 11
individuals. This unit provides the southernmost critical habitat
within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 18--Gouania vitifolia--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Gouania vitifolia,
a short-lived perennial. This unit contains no named natural features,
it lies completely within the Kauna watershed, and is completely within
Manuka NAR; provides habitat for 2 populations of 300 mature,
reproducing individuals of G. vitifolia; and is currently occupied by 4
individuals. It contains habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, dry, rocky ridges and slopes in
dry shrubland or dry to mesic Nestegis-Metrosideros forests on old
substrate kipuka. This unit is essential to the conservation of G.
vitifolia because it supports an extant colony of this species and
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present
population, which is currently considered nonviable. This unit provides
the southeasternmost critical habitat within the species' historical
range. This unit is geographically separated from other critical
habitat for this multi-island species within its historical range in
order to reduce the likelihood of all recovery populations being
destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. We previously
designated critical habitat for seven populations of this species on

[[Page 39672]]

Oahu (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003) and for one population on Maui (68 FR
25934, May 14, 2003).
Hawaii 26--Hibiscadelphus giffardianus--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Hibiscadelphus
giffardianus, a long-lived perennial. The unit contains portions of
Kipuka Puaulu and Kipuka Ki, and also lies completely within the
Kapapala watershed, and is completely within HVNP; provides habitat for
1 population of 100 mature, reproducing individuals of the H.
giffardianus; and is currently occupied by 100 individuals. It contains
habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not
limited to, mixed montane mesic forest. This unit is essential to the
conservation of H. giffardianus because it supports an extant colony of
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion
of the present population, which is currently considered nonviable.
Although we do not believe enough habitat currently exists to reach the
recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for this island-endemic species,
we could not identify any other areas as suitable for H. giffardianus
based upon what currently is known about this species. Only one tree
has ever been known in the wild, and the species is a very narrow
endemic that probably never naturally occurred in more than a single or
a few populations.
Hawaii 10--Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Hibiscadelphus
hualalaiensis, a long-lived perennial. This unit contains Puu Iki and
Puuwaawaa summits and is completely within the Kiholo watershed. The
unit provides habitat for 8 populations, each with 100 mature,
reproducing individuals of H. hualalaiensis, and is currently occupied
by 12 individuals. It contains habitat features that are essential for
this species including, but not limited to, dry mesic to dry
Metrosideros forest on rocky substrate in deep soils. This unit is
essential to the conservation of H. hualalaiensis because it supports
an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important
for the expansion of the present population, which is currently
considered nonviable. This unit provides enough space within the
historical range of this island-endemic species for the geographic
separation of the eight populations to reduce the likelihood of all
recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally occurring
catastrophic event. No other critical habitat has designated previously
for this species. It has a limited known historical range, and there is
little information available about this species.
Hawaii 10--Hibiscus brackenridgei--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Hibiscus
brackenridgei, a short-lived perennial. This unit contains Puu Huluhulu
and lies completely within the Kiholo watershed. The unit provides
habitat for 1 population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of H.
brackenridgei and is currently occupied by 5 individuals. It contains
habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not
limited to, Acacia koa lowland mesic forest. This unit is essential to
the conservation of H. brackenridgei because it supports an extant
colony of this species and includes habitat that is important for the
expansion of the present population, which is currently considered
nonviable. This unit provides the easternmost critical habitat within
the species' historical range. The unit is geographically separated
from other critical habitat for this multi-island species in order to
reduce the likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by
one naturally occurring catastrophic event. We previously designated
critical habitat for three populations of H. brackenridgei on Oahu (68
FR 35949, June 17, 2003), for one population on Molokai (67 FR 16492,
March 19, 2003), and for three populations on Maui (68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003).
Hawaii 21--Ischaemum byrone--a and Hawaii 22--Ischaemum byrone--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Ischaemum byrone,
a short-lived perennial. They contain habitat features that are
essential for this species including, but not limited to, coastal wet
to dry shrubland, near the ocean, among rocks or on pahoehoe lava in
cracks and holes. Each unit is geographically separated from other
critical habitat for this multi-island species in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations on the island being destroyed by
one naturally occurring catastrophic event. We previously designated
critical habitat for three populations of this species on Kauai (68 FR
9116, February 27, 2003), for two populations on Molokai (67 FR 16492,
March 19, 2003), and for two populations on Maui (68 FR 25934, May 14,
2003). Within the two units we are designating for I. byrone on the
island of Hawaii in this rule, habitat is provided for a total of three
populations, each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 21--Ischaemum byrone--a: This unit lies along the coast from
just east of Keauhou Point, running west. The unit is bordered by the
Kapapala watershed in the east and the Kilauea watershed in the west
and lies completely within the HVNP. This unit provides habitat for 2
populations of 300 individuals of I. byrone and is currently
unoccupied. This unit is essential to the conservation of the species
because it supports habitat that is necessary for the establishment of
additional populations in order to reach recovery goals. This unit
provides the southernmost critical habitat within the species'
historical range.
Hawaii 22--Ischaemum byrone--b: This unit lies along the coast from
just east of Ka Lae Apuki to just east of Puu Manawalea and is
completely within the HVNP. The unit provides habitat for 1 population
of 300 individuals of I. byrone and is currently occupied by 200
individuals. This unit is essential to the conservation of I. byrone
because it supports an extant colony of this species and includes
habitat that is important for the expansion of the present population,
which is currently considered nonviable.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--a through Hawaii 4--Isodendrion
hosakae--f
We are designating six critical habitat units for Isodendrion
hosakae, a short-lived perennial. One of the six units, ``Hawaii 4--
Isodendrion hosakae--f,'' currently is occupied. This unit is essential
to the conservation of I. hosakae because it supports an extant colony
of this species and includes habitat that is important for the
expansion of the present population, which is currently considered
nonviable. The five unoccupied units are essential to the conservation
of the species because they support habitat that is necessary for the
establishment of additional populations in order to reach recovery
goals. They contain habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, cinder cones with montane dry
shrubland. Each unit is geographically separated from other critical
habitat for this island-endemic species in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event. Within the six units, habitat is provided
on the island of Hawaii for a total of six populations of I. hosakae,
each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals. There also is habitat
for two other populations on lands in PTA that we excluded from
designation in this final rule (see

[[Continued on page 39673]]

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

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the Island of Hawaii, HI

Local Navigation