Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the Island of Hawaii, HI [[pp. 39673-39722]]

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 39673-39722]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02jy03-15]

[[pp. 39673-39722]]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Designation
and Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the
Island of Hawaii, HI
[[Continued from page 39672]]
[[Page 39673]]

``Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)'').
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--a: This unit contains most of Puu Pa
cinder cone and lies in the Pohakuloa watershed in the southwest and in
the Waikoloa/Waiulaula watershed in the northeast.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--b: This unit contains most of the
Holoholoku cinder cone and lies completely within the Pohakuloa
watershed.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--c: This unit contains most of the
Puu Makahalau cinder cone and lies completely within the Waipunahoe
watershed.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--d: This unit contains most of the
Puu Io and Puu Kekuakahea cinder cones and lies completely in the
Waipunahoe watershed.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--e: This unit contains most of the
Heihei cinder cone and lies completely within the Pohakuloa watershed.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--f: This unit contains upper portions
of an unnamed cinder cone in the Pohakuloa watershed. The unit is
currently occupied by 8 individuals of I. hosakae.
Hawaii 19--Mariscus fauriei--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Mariscus fauriei,
a short-lived perennial. This unit contains a portion of Kipuka Puu Kou
and lies completely within the South Point watershed. The unit provides
habitat for 1 population of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of M.
fauriei and is currently occupied by 12 individuals. It contains
habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not
limited to, Diospyros sandwicensis-Metrosideros polymorpha-Sapindus
saponaria dominated lowland dry forests, often on a lava substrate.
This unit is essential to the conservation of M. fauriei 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 M. fauriei on Molokai (67 FR 16492, March 19,
2003).
Hawaii 24--Melicope zahlbruckneri--a and Hawaii 26--Melicope
zahlbruckneri--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for M. zahlbruckneri,
a long-lived perennial. They contain habitat features that are
essential for this species including, but not limited to, Acacia koa-
Metrosideros polymorpha dominated montane mesic forest. 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
designated units identify habitat for recovery populations that is
geographically separated to reduce the likelihood of all recovery
populations being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic
event. The two critical habitat units designated for this species
provide habitat for a total of three populations, each with 100 mature,
reproducing individuals of M. zahlbruckneri.
Hawaii 24--Melicope zahlbruckneri--a: This unit is just north of
Uwewale gulch, it is completely within the Pahala watershed, and is
within the Kau Forest Reserve; provides habitat for 1 population of 100
individuals of M. zahlbruckneri; 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 26--Melicope zahlbruckneri--b
This unit contains portions of Kipuka Puaulu and Kipuka Ki and lies
completely within the Kapapala watershed and within HVNP. The unit
provides habitat for 2 populations of 100 individuals of M.
zahlbruckneri and is currently occupied by 31 to 36 individuals. This
unit is essential to the conservation of M. zahlbruckneri 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--Neraudia ovata--a through Hawaii 18--Neraudia ovata--d
We are designating two critical habitat units for Neraudia ovata, a
short-lived perennial. One of the units, ``Hawaii 18--Neraudia ovata--
d,'' currently is occupied. This unit is essential to the conservation
of N. ovata 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 remaining
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. It contains
habitat features that are essential for this species including, but not
limited to, open Metrosideros polymorpha-Sophora chrysophylla dominated
lowlands, montane dry forests, and Metrosideros-shrub woodland. Each
unit is geographically separated from other critical habitat for this
island-endemic species within its historical range in order to reduce
the likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one
naturally occurring catastrophic event. The two units for this species
that we are designating on the island of Hawaii provide for habitat for
a total of four populations, each with 300 mature, reproducing
individuals of the N. ovata. Habitat is also provided for four
populations on lands at the PTA that we are excluding from designation
(see ``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)'').
Hawaii 10--Neraudia ovata--a: This unit contains no named natural
features and lies completely within the Kiholo watershed. This unit,
plus the excluded Kamehameha Schools land (see ``Analysis of Impacts
Under 4(b)(2)''), provides habitat for 2 populations of 300 mature,
reproducing individuals of the N. ovata and is currently unoccupied.
This unit provides the northernmost critical habitat within the
species' historical range.
Hawaii 18--Neraudia ovata--d: This unit contains no named natural
features and is completely within the Kauna watershed. This unit
provides habitat for 2 populations of 300 individuals of N. ovata and
is currently occupied by one individual. The unit provides the
southernmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 5--Nothocestrum breviflorum--a through Hawaii 10--Nothocestrum
breviflorum--c
We are designating three critical habitat units for Nothocestrum
breviflorum, a long-lived perennial. Two of the units are currently
occupied. They contain habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, lowland and montane dry forest,
and montane mesic forest dominated by Metrosideros polymorpha, Acacia
koa, and/or Diospyros sandwicensis on aa lava substrates. Each unit is
geographically separated from other critical habitat for this island-
endemic species within its historical range in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event. The three

[[Page 39674]]

units we are designating for this species on the island of Hawaii
provide habitat to support a total of nine populations of N.
breviflorum, each with 100 mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 5--Nothocestrum breviflorum--a: This unit is the ridge
adjacent to Laupahoehoe Iki Cape between Waimanu Valley and Kaimu
Stream, bordered on the west by Kamu watershed, on the east by Waimanu
watershed, with the Pae watershed in between. The unit lies in the
Kohala Forest Reserve in the west and the Waimanu Estuarine Research
Reserve in the east. This unit provides habitat for 3 populations of
100 individuals of N. breviflorum 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
easternmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 6--Nothocestrum breviflorum--b: This unit contains portions
of Kalaikaula, Kamoloumi, Kolealiilii, Nakooko, Ohiahuea, Oniu, and
Waiapuka streams, and Paohia Gulch. It is bordered by the Honokea
watershed in the west, the Waikaloa watershed in the east. It contains
portions of the Honopue, Kalikaula, Kolealiilii, Nakookoo, Ohiahuea,
and Waiapuka watersheds. The unit lies completely within the Kohala
Forest Reserve; provides habitat for 1 population of 100 individuals of
N. breviflorum; and is currently occupied by 6 individuals. This unit
is essential to the conservation of N. breviflorum 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 northernmost critical
habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 10--Nothocestrum breviflorum--c: This unit contains Poohohoo
summit and is completely within the Kiholo watershed. This unit
provides habitat for 5 populations of 100 individuals of N. breviflorum
and is currently occupied by more than 165 individuals. This unit is
essential to the conservation of N. breviflorum because it supports an
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important
for the expansion of the present population. The unit provides the
southwesternmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 1--Phyllostegia racemosa--a through Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia
racemosa--c
We are designating three critical habitat units for Phyllostegia
racemosa, a short-lived perennial. Two of the units, ``Hawaii 1--
Phyllostegia racemosa--a'' and Hawaii 2--Phyllostegia racemosa--b,''
are currently occupied. This unit is essential to the conservation of
P. racemosa 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--Phyllostegia racemosa--c,'' is essential to the
conservation of P. racemosa because it supports an extant colony of
this species (12 individuals on the adjacent excluded Kamehameha
Schools lands) and includes habitat that is important for the expansion
of the present population, which is currently considered nonviable.
These units contain habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, Acacia koa, Metrosideros
polymorpha, and Cibotium dominated montane mesic or wet forests. Each
unit is geographically separated from other critical habitat for this
island-endemic species within its historical range in order to reduce
the likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one
naturally occurring catastrophic event. The three units being
designated for this species on the island of Hawaii provide for a total
of 10 populations, each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 1--Phyllostegia racemosa--a: This unit contains Puu Akala
and portions of Awehi, Honoliii, and Kapue streams. It is bordered by
the Kolekole watershed in the north and Wailuku watershed 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, each with 300 individuals of P. racemosa; and is currently
occupied by 2 individuals.
Hawaii 2--Phyllostegia racemosa--b: This unit contains a portion of
Nauhi Gulch, and the northern portion is in the Haakoa watershed, the
southern portion in the Umauma watershed, and the central portion in
the Waikaumalo watershed. The northern and southern portions of this
unit lie partly within Hakalau Forest NWR, and the central portion lies
in the Hilo Forest Reserve. This unit provides habitat for 2
populations of 300 individuals of P. racemosa and is currently occupied
by 31 to 41 individuals.
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia racemosa--c: This unit contains no named
natural features and is completely within the Kaahakini watershed. This
unit also lies completely within Olaa-Kilauea Partnership lands. The
unit provides, in combination with the adjacent excluded Kamehameha
Schools lands (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)''), habitat for
5 populations of 300 mature, reproducing individuals of the short-lived
perennial P. racemosa and is currently unoccupied.
Hawaii 24--Phyllostegia velutina--a and Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia
velutina--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Phyllostegia
velutina, a short-lived perennial. Both units are currently occupied.
They contain habitat features that are essential for this species
including, but not limited to, Metrosideros polymorpha-Acacia koa
dominated montane mesic and wet forests. Each unit is geographically
separated from other critical habitat for this island-endemic species
within its historical range in order to reduce the likelihood of all
recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally occurring
catastrophic event. The units we are designating for this species on
the island of Hawaii provide habitat to support a total of 10
populations of P. velutina, each with 300 mature, reproducing
individuals.
Hawaii 24--Phyllostegia velutina--a: This unit contains a portion
of Uwewale and Waihaka gulches and is completely within the Pahala
watershed. The unit also lies completely within the Kau Forest Reserve;
provides habitat for 4 populations of 300 individuals of P. velutina;
and is currently occupied by an unknown number of individuals. This
unit is essential to the conservation of P. velutina because it
supports an extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is
important for the expansion of the present population.
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia velutina--b: This unit contains the
northeastern portion of Kulani summit and lies completely within the
Kaahakini watershed. The unit also lies completely within Olaa-Kilauea
partnership lands. In combination with the adjacent excluded Kamehameha
Schools lands (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)''), this unit
provides habitat for 6 populations of 300 individuals of P. racemosa
and is currently occupied by 6 individuals (there also is 1 individual
in the excluded adjacent lands). This unit is essential to the
conservation of P. velutina because it supports an extant colony of
this species and includes habitat that is important for the

[[Page 39675]]

expansion of the present population, which is currently considered
nonviable.
Hawaii 3--Phyllostegia warshaueri--a and Hawaii 8--Phyllostegia
warshaueri--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Phyllostegia
warshaueri, a short-lived perennial. Both units are occupied. They
contain habitat features that are essential for this species including,
but not limited to, Metrosideros polymorpha and Cibotium montane and
lowland wet forest in which Acacia koa or Cheirodendron trigynum may
co-dominate. Each unit is essential to the conservation of P.
warshaueri 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 for this island-endemic species within its
historical range in order to reduce the likelihood of all recovery
populations being destroyed by one naturally occurring catastrophic
event. The two unit being designated for this species on the island of
Hawaii provide habitat for a total of 10 populations, each with 300
mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 3--Phyllostegia warshaueri--a: This unit contains portions
of Haakoa, Kilau, and Kawilahilahi streams and is bordered in the
northwest by the Kaiwiki and Kaula watersheds, in the southeast by the
Maulua watershed, and has portions of the Haakoa, Kaawali,
Kaiwilahilahi, Kilau, Laupahoehoe, Manowaiopae, and Pahala watersheds
in the central portion. This unit contains a portion of Hilo Forest
Reserve, Manowaialee Forest Reserve, and Laupahoehoe NAR. The unit
provides habitat for 7 populations of 300 individuals each of P.
warshaueri and is currently occupied by 13 individuals.
Hawaii 8--Phyllostegia warshaueri--b: This unit contains Kaiholena
summit and Puu Ohu, and the northern portion is in the Wailoa/Waipio
watershed, with the southern portion in the Waikoloa/Waiulaula
watershed. The unit is completely within the Kohala Forest Reserve;
provides habitat for 3 populations of 300 individuals of P. warshaueri;
and is currently occupied by 1 individual.
Hawaii 24--Plantago hawaiensis--a through Hawaii 30--Plantago
hawaiensis--c
We are designating three critical habitat units for Plantago
hawaiensis, a short-lived perennial. All three units are currently
occupied by the species. They contain habitat features that are
essential for this species including, but not limited to, montane wet
sedge land with mixed sedges and grasses, montane mesic forest, dry
subalpine woodland, or Metrosideros and native shrub. Each unit is
geographically separated from other critical habitat for this island-
endemic species within its historical range in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event. The three units we are designating for
this species on the island of Hawaii provide habitat for a total of 10
populations, each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals.
Hawaii 24--Plantago hawaiensis--a: This unit contains no named
natural features; the northern portion is in the Kapapala watershed,
and the southern portion is in the Pahala watershed, and the unit is
completely within the Kapapala Forest Reserve; provides habitat for 3
populations of 300 individuals of P. hawaiensis; and is currently
occupied by 5,000 individuals. This unit is essential to the
conservation of P. hawaiensis because it supports an extant colony of
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion
of the present population. This unit provides the southwesternmost
critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 25--Plantago hawaiensis--b: This unit contains a portion of
Kipuka Kulalio, it is completely within the Kapapala watershed. This
unit is completely within HVNP; provides habitat for 4 populations of
300 individuals of P. hawaiensis; and is currently occupied by more
than 630 individuals. This unit is essential to the conservation of P.
hawaiensis because it supports an extant colony of this species and
includes habitat that is important for the expansion of the present
population.
Hawaii 30--Plantago hawaiensis--c: This unit contains no named
natural features and is mostly in the Wailoa watershed, but it is
bordered in the south by the Kaahakini watershed. This unit is
completely within Olaa-Kilauea Partnership lands. The unit provides
habitat for 3 populations of 300 individuals of P. hawaiensis and is
currently occupied by 50 to 100 individuals. This unit is essential to
the conservation of P. hawaiensis 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 7--Pleomele hawaiiensis--a through Hawaii 23--Pleomele
hawaiiensis--d
We are designating 4 critical habitat units for Pleomele
hawaiiensis, a long-lived perennial. All of the units are currently
occupied by individuals of this species. They contain habitat features
that are essential for this species including, but not limited to, open
aa lava in diverse lowland dry forests and Metrosideros-Diospyros
lowland dry forest. Each unit is essential to the conservation of P.
hawaiiensis 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 island-
endemic species within its historical range in order to reduce the
likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by one naturally
occurring catastrophic event. The four units we are designating for
this species on the island of Hawaii provide habitat to support a total
of nine populations, each with 100 mature, reproducing individuals.
Kamehameha Schools land that we are excluding from this designation of
critical habitat provides habitat for one additional population (see
``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)'').
Hawaii 7--Pleomele hawaiiensis--a: This unit contains Kupenau
summit and the ridges around Pololu Valley, and is in the Pololu
watershed in the west and Honokane Nui watershed in the east. The west
side of the unit is in the Kohala Forest Reserve. This unit provides
habitat for 1 population of 100 individuals of P. hawaiiensis and is
currently occupied by 21 to 31 individuals. This unit provides the
northernmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 10--Pleomele hawaiiensis--b: This unit contains no named
natural features and is entirely in the Kiholo watershed. The unit
provides habitat for 1 population of 100 individuals of P. hawaiiensis
and is currently occupied by 50 to 100 individuals.
Hawaii 18--Pleomele hawaiiensis--c: This unit contains no named
natural features and is mostly in the Kauna watershed with a small
portion on the southwest side in the Kiilae watershed. The unit is
completely within Manuka NAR; provides habitat for 2 populations of 100
individuals of P. hawaiiensis; and is currently occupied by 5
individuals. This unit provides the southernmost critical habitat
within the species' historical range.

[[Page 39676]]

Hawaii 23--Pleomele hawaiiensis--d: This unit contains the Hilina
Pali, Holei Pali, Makahanu Pali, Poliokeawe Pali, Puueo Pali, the Keana
Bihopa summit, and portions of Kipuka Kaena Bihopa, Kipuka
Papalinamoku, and Kipuka Pepeiau. It is in the Kapala watershed in the
west and the Kilauea watershed in the east and lies completely within
HVNP. This unit provides habitat for 5 populations of 100 individuals
of P. hawaiiensis and currently is occupied by 9 to 10 individuals.
This unit provides the easternmost critical habitat within the species'
historical range.
Hawaii 27--Portulaca sclerocarpa--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Portulaca
sclerocarpa, a short-lived perennial. This contains the Keanakakoi,
Kokoolau, and Puhimau craters; Lele o Kalihipaa Pali; and a portion of
the lava flow of 1921. The unit lies completely within HVNP; provides
habitat for 5 populations of 300 individuals of the P. sclerocarpa; and
is currently occupied by more than 900 individuals. It contains habitat
features that are essential for this species including, but not limited
to, weathered Mauna Kea soils, cinder cones, or geologically young
lavas in montane dry shrubland, often on bare cinder, near steam vents,
and in open Metrosideros polymorpha dominated woodlands. This unit is
essential to the conservation of P. sclerocarpa because it supports an
extant colony of this species and includes habitat that is important
for the expansion of the present population. 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 designated critical
habitat for one population of P. sclerocarpa on Lanai (68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003). The inland habitat of populations on the island of
Hawaii differs from the coastal habitat provided for on Lanai. Land on
the PTA that was excluded from designation in this rule provides
habitat for four additional populations (see ``Analysis of Impacts
Under 4(b)(2)'').
Hawaii 20--Sesbania tomentosa--a and Hawaii 23--Sesbania tomentosa--b
We are designating two units of critical habitat for Sesbania
tomentosa, a short-lived perennial. Both units are occupied by this
species. Each unit is essential to the conservation of S. tomentosa
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. They contain habitat features
that are essential for this species including, but not limited to, dry
Metrosideros polymorpha forest with mixed native grasses, Scaevola
taccada coastal dry shrubland on windswept slopes, and weathered
basaltic slopes. Each 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 one population of S.
tomentosa on Nihoa, one population on Necker (68 FR 28054, May 22,
2003), two populations on Kauai (68 FR 9116, February 27, 2003), two
populations on Oahu (68 FR 35949, June 17, 2003), two populations on
Molokai (68 FR 12982, March 19, 2003), and two populations on Maui (68
FR 25934, May 14, 2003).
Hawaii 20--Sesbania tomentosa--a: This unit contains the area
inland of Waiwelawela Point, all of Halemaoli Point and it lies
entirely in the Pahala watershed. The unit also lies completely within
HVNP; provides habitat for 1 population of 300 individuals; and is
currently occupied by 10 to 15 individuals. This unit provides the
southernmost critical habitat within the species' historical range.
Hawaii 23--Sesbania tomentosa--b: This unit contains Kipuka Nene,
is entirely in the Kapapala watershed, and lies completely within HVNP.
The unit provides habitat for 1 population of 300 individuals of S.
tomentosa; and is currently occupied by 50 to 65 individuals. This unit
provides the easternmost critical habitat within the species'
historical range.
Hawaii 30--Sicyos alba--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Sicyos alba, a
short-lived perennial. This unit contains Puu Makaala and is entirely
in the Kaahakini watershed. This unit lies within HVNP, Puu Makaala
Natural Area Reserve, and Olaa-Kilauea Partnership lands. The unit
provides habitat for 10 populations of 300 mature, reproducing
individuals of the S. alba and is currently occupied by 4 individuals.
This unit contains habitat features that are essential for this species
including, but not limited to, Metrosideros polymorpha-Cibotium glaucum
dominated montane wet forests. This unit is essential to the
conservation of S. alba 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 unit is of an appropriate size so that each potential
recovery population within the unit is separated enough to avoid their
destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. Beyond the
10 populations provided for in this unit, no other critical habitat is
designated for this species.
Hawaii 25--Silene hawaiiensis--a and Hawaii 27--Silene hawaiiensis--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Silene
hawaiiensis, a short-lived perennial. Both units are currently occupied
by individuals of this species. These units contain habitat features
that are essential for this species including, but not limited to,
montane and subalpine dry shrubland on weathered lava, on variously
aged lava flows, and cinder substrates. Each unit is essential to the
conservation of S. hawaiiensis because it supports an extant colony of
this species and includes habitat that is important for the expansion
of the present population. Each unit provides habitat for a population
that is geographically separated from other recovery populations of
this island-endemic species within its historical range in order to
reduce the likelihood of all recovery populations being destroyed by
one naturally occurring catastrophic event. The two units we are
designating for S. hawaiiensis in this rule provide habitat for a total
of three populations, each with 300 mature, reproducing individuals.
The excluded lands at PTA provide habitat for seven additional
populations (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)'').
Hawaii 25--Silene hawaiiensis--a: This unit contains a portion of
Kipuka Kulalio, it is completely within the Kapapala watershed, and it
lies completely within HVNP. The unit provides habitat for 1 population
of 300 individuals of S. hawaiiensis, and is currently occupied by
about 1,800 individuals.
Hawaii 27--Silene hawaiiensis--b: This unit contains Uwekahuna
Bluff; portions of the lava flows of 1919, 1921, and 1961; a portion of
Kilauea Crater; and all of Halemaumau Crater. The unit is entirely in
the Kapapala watershed and lies completely within HVNP. This unit
provides habitat for 2 populations of 300 individuals of S. hawaiiensis
and is currently occupied by 3,851 to 3,951 individuals. This unit
provides the southeasternmost critical habitat within the species'
historical range.

[[Page 39677]]

Hawaii 10--Solanum incompletum--a and Hawaii 11--Solanum incompletum--b
We are designating two critical habitat units for Solanum
incompletum, a short-lived perennial. Both units currently are
unoccupied by this species. Each 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. These units contain habitat features that are essential for this
species including, but not limited to, dry to mesic forest, diverse
mesic forest, and subalpine forest. Each 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. The two units we are designating for S. incompletum
in this rule provide habitat for a total of four populations, each with
300 mature, reproducing individuals. Lands at the PTA that we are
excluding from designation in this rule provide habitat for five
additional populations (see ``Analysis of Impacts Under 4(b)(2)''). In
addition, habitat for one population of S. incompletum is in the area
we excluded from critical habitat designations on Lanai (68 FR 1220,
January 9, 2003).
Hawaii 10--Solanum incompletum--a: This unit contains no named
natural features, it is entirely in the Kiholo watershed, and is
completely within the Puuwaawaaa Wildlife Sanctuary; provides habitat
for 3 populations of 300 individuals of S. incompletum; and is
currently unoccupied.
Hawaii 11--Solanum incompletum--b: This unit contains no named
natural features, it is entirely in the Waiaha watershed, and is
completely within the Honuaulu Forest Reserve; provides habitat for 1
population of 300 individuals of S. incompletum; and is currently
unoccupied. This unit provides the southernmost critical habitat within
the species' historical range.

Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--a through Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--c

We are designating three critical habitat units for Vigna o-
wahuensis, a short-lived perennial. None of the units is currently
occupied. Each unit provides habitat for 1 population of 300 mature,
reproducing individuals of V. o-wahuensis. Each 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. These units contain habitat features that are
essential for this species including, but not limited to, Dodonaea
viscosa lowland dry shrubland. Each 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 V. o-wahuensis on Oahu (68 FR
35949, June 17, 2003), and for one population on Maui (68 FR 25934, May
14, 2003). The four units for V. o-wahuensis that we are designating in
this rule provide habitat for a total of four populations.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--a: This unit contains most of Puu Pa
cinder cone and lies in the Pohakuloa watershed in the southwest and in
the Waikoloa/Waiulaula watershed in the northeast.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--b: This unit contains most of the
Holoholoku cinder cone and lies completely within the Pohakuloa
watershed. This unit provides the easternmost critical habitat within
the species' historical range.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--c: This unit contains the upper
portions of an unnamed cinder cone in the Pohakuloa watershed. This
unit provides the southernmost critical habitat within the species'
historical range.
Hawaii 10--Zanthoxylum dipetalum ssp. tomentosum--a
We are designating one critical habitat unit for Zanthoxylum
dipetalum ssp. tomentosum, a long-lived perennial. The unit contains
Puu Ike, Puu Paha, and Puuwaawaa and is in the Kiholo watershed. This
unit provides habitat for 7 populations of 100 mature, reproducing
individuals of the Z. dipetalum ssp. tomentosum and is currently
occupied by 8 to 10 individuals. It contains habitat features that are
essential for this species including, but not limited to, Metrosideros
polymorpha dominated montane mesic forest, often on aa lava. This unit
is essential to the conservation of Z. dipetalum ssp. tomentosum
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. 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 so that each of the seven potential recovery
populations within the unit is geographically separated enough to avoid
their destruction by one naturally occurring catastrophic event. No
other critical habitat for this species is designated on the island of
Hawaii.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. If a
Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal action agency must enter into consultation with us.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies (action agency) to
confer with us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat occurs when a
Federal action directly or indirectly alters critical habitat to the
extent that it appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for
the conservation of the species. Individuals, organizations, States,
local governments, and other non-Federal entities are directly affected
by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on
Federal lands; require a Federal permit, license, or other
authorization; or involve Federal funding.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions under certain
circumstances, including instances where critical habitat is
subsequently designated and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement, or control has been retained or is
authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request
reinitiation of consultation or conferencing with us on actions for
which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy
proposed critical habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we also provide ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' to the
project, if any are identifiable. Reasonable and prudent alternatives
are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during
consultation that can be

[[Page 39678]]

implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and
prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to
extensive redesign or relocation of the project.
Activities on Federal lands that may affect critical habitat of one
or more of the 41 plant species from the island of Hawaii will require
section 7 consultation. Activities on private or State lands requiring
a permit from a Federal agency, such as a permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344 et seq.), the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from us; or some other Federal action,
including funding (e.g., from the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or Department of
Energy); regulation of airport improvement activities by the FAA; and
construction of communication sites licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) may also be subject to the section 7
consultation process. Federal actions not affecting critical habitat
and actions on non-Federal lands that are not federally funded,
authorized, or permitted would not require section 7 consultation as a
result of this rule designating critical habitat.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly describe and
evaluate in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may adversely
modify such habitat or that may be affected by such designation. We
note that such activities may also jeopardize the continued existence
of the species.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may directly or indirectly destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat include, but are not limited to:
(1) Activities that appreciably degrade or destroy the primary
constituent elements including, but not limited to: Overgrazing;
maintenance of feral ungulates; clearing or cutting of native live
trees and shrubs, whether by burning or mechanical, chemical, or other
means (e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing, construction, road building,
mining, herbicide application); introducing or enabling the spread of
nonnative species; and taking actions that pose a risk of fire;
(2) Activities that alter watershed characteristics in ways that
would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural, dynamic
wetland or other vegetative communities. Such activities may include
water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping,
manipulation of vegetation such as timber harvesting, residential and
commercial development, and grazing of livestock that degrades
watershed values;
(3) Rural residential construction that includes concrete pads for
foundations and the installation of septic systems in wetlands where a
permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act would be required by
the Corps;
(4) Recreational activities that appreciably degrade vegetation;
(5) Mining of sand or other minerals;
(6) Introducing or encouraging the spread of nonnative plant
species into critical habitat units; and
(7) Importation of nonnative species for research, agriculture, and
aquaculture, and the release of biological control agents that would
have unanticipated effects on the listed species and the primary
constituent elements of their habitats.
If you have questions regarding whether specific activities will
likely constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, contact the
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations on listed
plants and animals, and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered
Species/Permits, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone
503/231-2063; facsimile 503/231-6243).

Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section 3(5)(A)

The need for ``special management considerations or protections''
of the essential habitat features (primary constituent elements)
included in a designation is required by the definition of critical
habitat in section 3(5)(A) of the Act. If the primary constituent
elements are being adequately managed, then they do not need ``special
management considerations or protections.'' Adequate management or
protection is provided by a legally operative plan that addresses the
maintenance and improvement of the essential elements and provides for
the long-term conservation of the species. We consider a plan adequate
when it: (1) Provides a conservation benefit to the species (i.e., the
plan must maintain or provide for an increase in the species'
population or the enhancement or restoration of its habitat within the
area covered by the plan); (2) provides assurances that the management
plan will be implemented (i.e., those responsible for implementing the
plan are capable of accomplishing the objectives, have an
implementation schedule, and have adequate funding for the management
plan); and, (3) provides assurances that the conservation plan will be
effective (i.e., it identifies biological goals, has provisions for
reporting progress, and lasts for a duration sufficient to implement
the plan and achieve the plan's goals and objectives). If an area is
covered by a plan that meets these criteria, it does not constitute
critical habitat as defined by the Act because the primary constituent
elements found there are not in need of special management or
protection.
Currently occupied and historically known sites containing one or
more of the primary constituent elements considered essential to the
conservation of these 47 plant species were examined to determine the
adequacy of special management considerations or protection and,
consequently, whether such areas meet the definition of critical
habitat under section 3(5)(A). We reviewed all available management
information on these plants at these sites, including published reports
and surveys, annual performance and progress reports, management plans,
grants, memoranda of understanding and cooperative agreements, DOFAW
planning documents, internal letters and memos, biological assessments
and environmental impact statements, and section 7 consultations. We
reviewed all biological information received during the public comment
periods, public meeting, and public hearing. When clarification was
required on the information provided to us, we followed up by
telephone. We also met with staff from the Hawaii District DOFAW office
to discuss management activities they are conducting on the island of
Hawaii.
In determining whether a management plan or agreement provides
adequate management or protection, we first consider whether that plan
provides a conservation benefit to the species. We considered the
following threats and associated recommended management actions:
(1) The factors that led to the listing of the species, as
described in the final rules for listing each of the species. Effects
of clearing and burning for agricultural purposes and of invasive

[[Page 39679]]

nonnative plant and animal species have contributed to the decline of
nearly all endangered and threatened plants in Hawaii (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990; Howarth 1985; Loope 1998; Scott et al. 1986; Service 1994,
1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999;
Smith 1985; Stone 1985; Vitousek 1992; Wagner et al. 1985).
Current threats to these species include nonnative grass- and
shrub-carried wildfire; browsing, digging, rooting, and trampling from
feral ungulates (including goats, cattle, and pigs); direct and
indirect effects of nonnative plant invasions, including alteration of
habitat structure and microclimate; and disruption of pollination and
gene-flow processes by adverse effects of mosquito-borne avian disease
on forest bird pollinators, direct competition between native and
nonnative insect pollinators for food, and predation of native insect
pollinators by nonnative hymenopteran insects (ants). In addition,
physiological processes such as reproduction and establishment,
continue to be negatively affected by fruit- and flower-eating pests
such as nonnative arthropods, mollusks, and rats, and photosynthesis
and water transport are affected by nonnative insects, pathogens, and
diseases. Many of these factors interact with one another, thereby
compounding effects. Such interactions include nonnative plant
invasions altering wildfire regimes; feral ungulates carrying weeds and
disturbing vegetation and soils, thereby facilitating dispersal and
establishment of nonnative plants; and numerous nonnative insect
species feeding on native plants, thereby increasing their
vulnerability and exposure to pathogens and disease (Bruegmann et al.
2001; Cuddihy and Stone 1990; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992; Howarth
1985; Mack 1992; Scott et al. 1986; Service 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a,
1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999; Smith 1985; Tunison et
al. 1992);
(2) The recommendations from the HPPRCC in its 1998 report to us
(``Habitat Essential to the Recovery of Hawaiian Plants''). As
summarized in this report, recovery goals for endangered Hawaiian plant
species cannot be achieved without the effective control of nonnative
species threats, wildfire, and land use changes; and
(3) The management actions needed for assurance of survival and
ultimate recovery of these plants. These actions are described in our
recovery plans for these 47 species (Service 1994, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b,
1996c, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999), in the 1998 HPPRCC report to
us, and in various other documents and publications relating to plant
conservation in Hawaii (Cuddihy and Stone 1990; Mueller-Dombois 1985;
Smith 1985; Stone 1985; Stone et al. 1992).
In general, taking all of the above recommended management actions
into account, the following management actions are important in
providing a conservation benefit to the species: feral ungulate
control; wildfire management; nonnative plant control; rodent control;
invertebrate pest control; maintenance of genetic material of the
endangered and threatened plant species; propagation, reintroduction,
and augmentation of existing populations into areas essential for the
recovery of the species; ongoing management of the wild, outplanted,
and augmented populations; maintenance of natural pollinators and
pollinating systems, when known; habitat management and restoration in
areas essential for the recovery of the species; monitoring of the
wild, outplanted, and augmented populations; rare plant surveys; and
control of human activities/access (Service 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a,
1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999). On a case-by-case
basis, these actions may rise to different levels of importance for a
particular species or area, depending on the biological and physical
requirements of the species and the location(s) of the individual
plants.
As shown in Table 2, the 47 species of plants are found on Federal,
State, and private lands on the island of Hawaii. Information received
in response to our public notices; meetings with Hawaii District DOFAW
staff; the May 28, 2002, proposal; public comment periods; and the
October 29 and 30, 2002, public hearings; as well as information in our
files, indicated that there is limited ongoing conservation management
action for these plants, except as noted below. Without management
plans and assurances that the plans will be implemented, we are unable
to find that the lands in question do not require special management or
protection.

Lands Under U.S. Army Jurisdiction

The Army has one installation under its jurisdiction on the island
of Hawai: Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). All of the PTA lands are
administered by the Army Garrison, Hawaii, for various types of routine
military training. The following discussion analyzes current management
plans for lands under U.S. Army jurisdiction on the island of Hawaii
and assesses whether they meet the Service's requirements for adequate
management or protection.
(1) Plan Provides Conservation Benefit to the Species
The Sikes Act Improvements Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) requires each
military installation that includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of natural resources starting November 17,
2001 to complete an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan
(INRMP). An INRMP integrates implementation of the military mission of
the installation with stewardship of the natural resources found there.
Each INRMP includes an assessment of the ecological needs on the
installation, including needs to provide for the conservation of listed
species; a statement of goals and priorities; a detailed description of
management actions to be implemented to provide for these ecological
needs; and a monitoring and adaptive management plan. Bases that have
completed and approved INRMPs that adequately address the needs of the
species may not meet the definition of critical habitat discussed
above, because they may not require special management or protection.
We would not include these areas in critical habitat designations if
they meet the following three criteria: (1) A current INRMP must be
complete and provide a conservation benefit to the species, (2) there
must be assurances that the conservation management strategies will be
implemented, and (3) there must be assurances that the conservation
management strategies will be effective, by providing for periodic
monitoring and revisions as necessary. If all of these criteria are
met, then the lands covered under the plan would not meet the
definition of critical habitat because special management is not
needed.
Critical habitat was proposed at PTA for 10 of the 47 species
addressed in this rule (Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Hedyotis
coriacea, Neraudia ovata, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis,
Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis,
Tetramolopium arenarium, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense). Critical habitat
was proposed for two additional species (Isodendrion hosakae and Vigna
o-wahuensis) on lands the Army is in the process of acquiring. The Army
has completed an INRMP (Army 2001) and an Ecosystem Management Plan
(Army 1998) for PTA. These plans encompass management actions that will
benefit the 10 listed plant species for which critical habitat has been
proposed on current Army lands and they have written a letter
committing to amend

[[Page 39680]]

their INRMP to cover the 3 species on lands the Army is in the process
of acquiring as part of the Transformation of the 2nd Brigade 25th
Infantry Division (Transformation). They have a completed Wildland Fire
Management Plan (WFMP) for MMR (Army 2000). The goal of the WFMP is to
reduce the threat of wildfire which adversely affects threatened and
endangered species on PTA. The Army also provides summary reports
regarding the natural resources management projects performed under the
Ecosystems Management Program for PTA (Evans 1998; Evans 1999; Schnell
1998; Schnell 1999; Sherry 1999; RCUH 1997; RCUH 1998; USAG-HI 2000).
These reports provide information on management actions which have been
implemented.
The INRMP describes specific actions for PTA, including anticipated
implementation schedules. It includes many ongoing and proposed actions
designed to address the variety of threats faced by these plant species
at appropriate scales: species-specific, small areas, and
installationwide. The list of ongoing and proposed actions detailed in
the INRMP focuses management activities into the areas of wildfire
management, nonmilitary human land use, feral ungulate control,
invasive plant control, and other nonnative species control. As an
example, some of the management actions that address feral ungulate
control include: (1) The establishment and evaluation of permanent
ungulate monitoring programs; (2) maintaining ungulate exclosure
fencing; (3) using small-scale fencing to protect individuals and
groupings of critically endangered plants; (4) removal of ungulates
from fenced areas; (5) continuing semiannual aerial censuses of
ungulates with support from the National Park Service; and (6) using
hunter-generated ungulate harvest data to monitor ungulate population
trends. In addition, management actions for control of nonnative plant
species include: (1) development of a Targeted Alien Plant Taxa list
used to prioritize control efforts; (2) control of Pennisetum setaceum
near rare plant locations; (3) control of Salsola kali (Russian
thistle) when infestations; (4) continuing to control of Solanum
pseudocapsicum (Jerusalem cherry); and (5) updating the Target Alien
Plant Taxa list as species and priorities change. The INRMP also
includes propagating and outplanting threatened and endangered plant
species back into areas that are managed for ungulates, weeds, and fire
(Army 2001). Other important activities in the INRMP include: (1)
Conducting field surveys to identify new populations of threatened and
endangered plant species in previously unsurveyed areas and areas of
suitable habitat; (2) maintaining a GIS database updated with results
of field surveys; (3) determining effects of military actions on
threatened and endangered plants species through monitoring known
populations of threatened and endangered plant species; (4) evaluating
and determining plant propagation needs and storage facilities; and (5)
identifying research needs regarding pollination biology and
establishment of a GIS database to store data to be used to monitor
threatened and endangered plant species (Army 2001).
In 1998 PTA constructed a greenhouse with automatic climate
controls affected by temperature and wind speed. Adjacent to the
greenhouse is a plant holding compound used to provide an opportunity
for plants scheduled for outplanting to adapt to conditions more
similar to those they will encounter when they are moved to completely
natural environments. All 12 of the listed species are being propagated
at the facility. More common native species are propagated for
revegetation projects. In addition to the propagation efforts, seeds
are collected for storage at the National Seed Storage Laboratory at
Colorado State University. These seeds will be critical to restoration
of listed species in the event none remain in the wild. PTA staff
periodically conduct germination tests on some of these seeds.
Currently there are several fenced areas on PTA that are managed
for threatened and endangered plants. These include 755 ha (1,864 ac)
of Kipuka Kalawamauna; 2,026 ha (5,004 ac) of Kipuka Alala; 202 ha (50
ac) of Puu Kapele; and 14 ha (33 ac) of Silene hawaiiensis habitat.
Temporary emergency exclosures have been placed around individuals of
Hedyotis coriacea, Neraudia ovata, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Schiedea
hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Tetramolopium
arenarium and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense.
The comprehensive list of ongoing and proposed management
activities detailed in the INRMP addresses each of the management
actions detailed above that the Service considers important in
providing a conservation benefit to the species; therefore, the plan
provides a conservation benefit to the species.
(2) Provides Assurance the Plan Will Be Implemented
In terms of providing assurances that the management plan will be
implemented, the INRMP provides implementation schedules and identifies
funding needs for each installation through the year 2006, when the 5-
year update is due. Examples of those programs identified for funding
include the Ecosystem Management Actions, Saddle Road Realignment
Support, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Integrity, Pest Management, and
Conservation Education and Outreach. The Army has committed to
increased funding for their wildland fire program to ensure proactive
fire management that will benefit threatened and endangered plant
species through increased protection of habitat on their lands. They
have also committed to continued funding of actions that benefit
habitat restoration, species stabilization, and threat abatement
(Anderson, in litt. 2003). Apart from these specific efforts, however,
the Army has a statutory obligation to manage its lands in accordance
with its INRMP, and we have no reason to believe that this will not
happen.
(3) Plan Provides Assurances That the Conservation Plan Will Be
Effective
The plan does provide assurances that the conservation effort will
be effective. The Army will fund and engage in activities that have
been demonstrated to benefit threatened and endangered species (e.g.,
ungulate and invasive weed control). In addition to the extensive
monitoring provisions contained in the INRMP and provided by the
reporting procedures, the Army has agreed to amend its existing INRMP
to include additional management actions for listed plants and their
habitat at PTA. Based upon this information, activities will be revised
to provide for the optimum conservation benefit to the listed plant
species and their habitat (Col. David L. Anderson, Army, in litt.
2003). Thus, the Army will monitor the effectiveness of its management
actions and modify them, as necessary, to ensure their effectiveness.
Thus, the Service has determined that lands on the island of Hawaii
which fall under U.S. Army jurisdiction do not meet the definition of
critical habitat in the Act. According to the Service's published
recovery plans, the major extinction threats to island of Hawaii plants
involve the persistent and expanding presence of alien species and
their associated impacts. In general, for most of these species there
is less relative concern associated with Federal activities or proposed
development. Recovery of these listed species will require active
management such as plant propagation and reintroduction, management of
fire risk, alien species

[[Page 39681]]

removal, and ungulate and rat management. Failure to implement these
management measures, all of which require active intervention and
participation, virtually assures the extinction of these species. The
Army is carrying out many of these actions on their lands, in some
cases to a degree that surpasses that of other Federal, State, and
private landowners in Hawaii. We are, therefore, not designating
critical habitat on these lands. Should the status of these commitments
change, the Service will reconsider whether these lands meet the
definition of critical habitat. If the definition is met, we have the
authority to propose to amend critical habitat to include identified
areas at that time (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B); 50 CFR 424.14(g)).
Although these areas are removed from the final critical habitat
designation, the number of populations for which habitat on PTA
provides is applied toward the overall conservation goal of 8 to10
populations for each species because these lands will be managed under
the INRMP consistent with recovery goals.

Analysis of Impacts Under Section 4(b)(2)

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, and to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas
from critical habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such
exclusions outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical
habitat. We cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such
exclusion will result in the extinction of the species concerned.

Economic Impacts

Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation on May 28, 2002, a draft economic analysis was prepared to
estimate the potential direct and indirect economic impacts associated
with the designation, in accordance with the recent decision in N.M.
Cattlegrowers Ass'n v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 248 F.3d 1277
(10th Cir. 2001). The draft analysis was made available for review on
December 18, 2002 (67 FR 77464). We accepted comments on the draft
analysis until the comment period closed on January 17, 2003.
Our draft economic analysis evaluated the potential direct and
indirect economic impacts associated with the proposed critical habitat
designation for the 41 plant species from the island of Hawaii over the
next 10 years. Direct impacts are those related to consultations under
section 7 of the Act. They include the cost of completing the section 7
consultation process and potential project modifications resulting from
the consultation. Indirect impacts are secondary costs and benefits not
directly related to operation of the Act. Examples of indirect impacts
include potential effects to property values, redistricting of land
from agricultural or urban to conservation, and social welfare benefits
of ecological improvements.
The categories of potential direct and indirect costs considered in
the analysis included the costs associated with: (1) Conducting section
7 consultations, including incremental consultations and technical
assistance; (2) modifications to projects, activities, or land uses
resulting from the section 7 consultations; (3) uncertainty and public
perceptions resulting from the designation of critical habitat
including potential effects on property values and potential indirect
costs resulting from the loss of hunting opportunities and the
interaction of State and local laws; and (4) potential offsetting
beneficial costs associated with critical habitat, including
educational benefits. The most likely economic effects of critical
habitat designation are on activities funded, authorized, or carried
out by a Federal agency (i.e., direct costs).
Following the close of the comment period on the draft economic
analysis, an addendum was completed that incorporated public comments
on the draft analysis and made other changes as necessary. These
changes were primarily the result of modifications made to the proposed
critical habitat designation based on biological information received
during the comment periods.
The draft economic analysis and addendum addressed the impact of
the proposed critical habitat designation that may be attributable
coextensively to the listing of the species. Because of the uncertainty
about the benefits and economic costs resulting solely from critical
habitat designations, the Service believes that it is reasonable to
estimate the economic impacts of a designation utilizing this single
baseline. It is important to note that the inclusion of impacts
attributable coextensively to the listing does not convert the economic
analysis into a tool to be used in deciding whether or not a species
should be added to the Federal list of threatened and endangered
species.
Together, the draft economic analysis and the addendum constitute
our final economic analysis. The final economic analysis estimates
that, over the next 10 years, the designation (co-extensive with the
listing) may result in potential direct economic effects from
implementation of section 7 ranging from approximately $46.6 million to
$62.7 million in quantifiable costs. This decrease of approximately
$6.6 million to $9.1 million from the draft economic analysis's
estimated potential direct economic effects from implementation of
section 7 results primarily from the exclusion of proposed units Hawaii
C, D5, M1, M2, M3, M4, N1, N2, P, V, and BB from final designation and
the significant reduction in size of the remaining proposed units
because they lacked the primary constituent elements or were not
essential to the conservation of the species. Overall, the largest
portion of this estimate includes impacts on Army land that was
proposed as critical habitat but has been removed from the final
designation. Therefore, the direct cost of designating critical habitat
for these 41 plant species will be far less than this estimate.
While our final economic analysis includes an evaluation of
potential indirect costs associated with the designation of critical
habitat for 41 plant species on the island of Hawaii, some types of
costs are unquantifiable. The costs that are provided are speculative
in the sense that there is no certainty as to their being incurred, but
we believe the numbers represent a reasonable range of costs for the
specific actions in question, should they occur in whole or in part.
The final economic analysis concludes that efforts to redistrict land
as a result of this designation are likely to occur, but that there is
no way of determining in advance the outcome of this process with
respect to specific parcels, or of possible related litigation.
However, such landowners may have economic costs associated with
voluntary agreements to restrict development, and contesting
redistricting. For land not planned for development, the analysis
concluded that it is reasonably foreseeable that some landowners would
see lower property values, restrictions on agricultural activity and
costs to contest redistricting. In total, the costs associated with
redistricting or the threat of redistricting could range from $22 to 28
million. The final economic analysis also concludes there is an
undetermined probability of costs ranging from $48.9 to $96.5 million
associated with obtaining State and county development approvals, and
includes costs associated with a loss or delay of these approvals. Some
of these costs, however, may overlap with a portion of the
redistricting costs (i.e.,

[[Page 39682]]

agreements to voluntarily restrict development to avoid redistricting).
The final economic analysis estimates that landowners may spend between
$50,000 and $181,000 to investigate the implications of critical
habitat on their land. The economic analysis also estimates that the
critical habitat designation could cost between $175,000 and $525,000
for State and county environmental review (conducting a State
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) instead of an Environmental
Assessment), although some of these costs may be incurred in any case,
as some projects might require an EIS without critical habitat
designation.
The final economic analysis also discusses most economic benefits
in qualitative terms rather than providing quantitative estimates
because of the lack of information available to estimate the economic
benefits of endangered species preservation and ecosystem improvements.
While the quantitative estimates provided in the analysis are
speculative, the economic analysis estimates that federally funded
section 7 related project modifications could generate an undetermined
percentage of $83 million to $109 million over 10 years.
A more detailed discussion of our economic analysis is contained in
the draft economic analysis and the addendum. Both documents are
available for inspection at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
No critical habitat units in the proposed rule were excluded or
modified because of economic impacts because the cost of the
designation is not expected to be significant. The likely direct cost
impact of designating critical habitat on Hawaii for the 41 plant
species is estimated to be between $4.7 and $6.3 million per year over
the next 10 years. This estimate, however, includes areas that were
proposed as critical habitat but have been excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see below). Therefore, the anticipated direct costs
of designating critical habitat of these 41 species is less.
Approximately 337 ha (833 ac) of State and private lands within two
proposed critical habitat units (proposed Units Y1 and Y2) are excluded
because the economic impacts of their inclusion outweigh the benefits
provided by a designation of critical habitat. The economic analysis
indicates that activities already planned for these two proposed units,
including the State VOLA master planned community with over 1,000 units
of affordable housing, the Kaloko Properties projects and the Kealakahe
2020 environmental remediation project could incur direct costs of over
$5 million and indirect costs ranging between $87 and $104 million.
While there is no certainty that any or all of these indirect costs
would be incurred, these figures are illustrative of the order of
magnitude of the indirect impacts that could occur from the
designation.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
These areas proposed for development or other uses are within
proposed units Y1 and Y2. Proposed unit Y1 absent this exclusion would
consist of 426 acres of private land as critical habitat for
Isodendrion pyrifolium and 405 largely identical acres of private land
for Neraudia ovata. It is currently unoccupied by Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and contains 2 Neraudia ovata plants. Proposed unit Y2
absent this exclusion would consist of 406 acres of State land for
Isodendrion pyrifolium and 334 largely identical acres for Neraudia
ovata. It is currently occupied by 8 individual Isodendrion pyrifolium
plants, and is unoccupied by Neraudia ovata.
Critical habitat for I. pyrifolium was designated on Oahu (habitat
for three populations), Molokai (habitat for one population), Maui
(habitat for two populations); for N. ovata on two other locations in
Hawaii. Habitat is also provided for four populations of this species
on the excluded lands at PTA, as discussed later in this section. (See
``Descriptions of Critical Habitat Units'').
If these areas were designated as critical habitat, any Federal
agency which proposed to approve, fund or undertake any action which
might adversely modify the critical habitat would be required to
consult with us. This is commonly referred to as a ``Federal nexus''
for requiring the consultation. If the area in question were not
occupied by the plants, this consultation would not be required absent
the critical habitat designation. If the action affected an area
occupied by the plants, consultation would be required even without the
critical habitat designation. As indicated above, these two units are
each occupied by one small population of one species of the listed
plants.
The draft economic analysis and final addendum indicate only one
project associated with the exclusions within the pre-exclusion
boundaries of these proposed units that is likely to have the required
Federal nexus, environmental remediation of an old landfill by the non-
profit Kealakehe Ahupua'a 2020 organization (K2020). The landfill
adjoins the pre-exclusion boundaries of proposed unit Y2 on 3 sides,
and has internal fires. K2020 plans to secure Federal grants to
remediate the site, including extinguishing the fires.
This will require use of unoccupied habitat within the proposed
boundary of unit Y2 for the landfill material while the remediation is
conducted. The economic analysis further indicates that this project
will be to the long-term benefit to the listed plants by reducing the
possibilities of wildfires. However, it is anticipated that as
mitigation for the temporary loss of this portion of the critical
habitat, the K202 group would be required to obtain funding to manage
two preserves to be established elsewhere within this proposed unit
(see ``Benefits of Exclusion'' below) at a cost of $5.1 million over
the next 10 years.
Apart from this project a critical habitat designation will not
directly protect the areas proposed for exclusion from any planned
development, due to the lack of any known or anticipated ``Federal
nexus'' for such development. However, the plants themselves are
protected against ``take'' under State law, and thus the areas in which
the plants are currently found are unlikely to be developed.
Another possible benefit of a critical habitat designation is
education of landowners and the public regarding the potential
conservation value of these areas. This may focus and contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation values for certain species. However, we believe that
this educational benefit has largely been achieved. These units have
already been identified through the proposal and final designation. In
addition, the State has included a preserve for listed plants within
its VOLA development project which will contribute to the long-term
educational benefit of conserving the habitat of these species (see
``Benefits of Exclusion'' below).
In summary, we believe that a critical habitat designation for
these two plant species would provide relative low additional Federal
regulatory benefits. Except for the project discussed above, there is
no Federal activity which might trigger the section 7 consultation
process for these species known or anticipated for the lands to be
excluded. The additional educational benefits which might arise from
critical habitat designation are largely accomplished through the
notice and comments which accompanied the development of this
regulation, and the proposed critical habitat is known to the
landowners. In addition, the State is planning for a

[[Page 39683]]

preserve for the areas occupied by N. ovata in proposed Unit Y2, which
will provide ongoing educational benefits.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
There are three development projects currently planned within the
pre-exclusion boundaries of proposed Units Y1 and Y2 which could suffer
significant economic impacts due to indirect effects of the critical
habitat designation. In addition, the $5.1 million in project
modification costs to the K2020 landfill remediation project discussed
above would likely be shifted from the State or from housing developers
to the non-profit K2020 group.
The Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii has
since 1990 had a master-planned community development project known as
``Villages at Laiopua'' (VOLA), much of which is within the pre-
exclusion boundary of proposed unit Y2. This includes a planned 1,700
homes within the area proposed for designation, of which 1,020, or 60%,
would be classified as ``affordable housing''. The State of Hawaii has
already invested $30 million in infrastructure costs, including roads,
utilities, a High School, planning and expanding the local waste-water
treatment plant, and some of the project has been constructed.
The plan includes two areas totaling 38 acres to be set aside as
preserves for the listed plants. As noted above, the final addendum to
our economic analysis indicates it would likely cost $5.1 million over
the next 10 years to manage these preserves. Absent the development
being largely constructed, it is not likely that these plants would
benefit from the management envisioned for the preserves.
Critical habitat provides primarily prohibitive regulatory
benefits. But in Hawaii, simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will
not slow the extinction of listed plant species (see detailed
discussion under ``Queen Liliuokalani Trust'', below). Establishment of
plant preserves as planned here provide positive benefits to the
species. In addition, in June 2002, the State enacted legislation
allowing State entities to enter into Safe Harbor agreements and
Habitat Conservation Plans for three designated areas, including the
VOLA project. Absent the exclusion, it is unlikely the State would
pursue either of these conservation options.
In addition, there are real but undeterminable possibilities that
designation of these areas as critical habitat would lead to loss or
significant restriction of the project through actions not under the
control of the Federal government but resulting from the critical
habitat designation. These include redistricting of land, rezoning and
other regulatory approvals, and litigation related to both.
Hawaii has state-wide land classifications of Urban, Rural,
Agricultural and Conservation, with restrictions on what type of
activities can be conducted within the different classifications. The
State Department of Land and Natural Resources commented on this
proposal that they would be required to initiate rezoning of lands
designated as critical habitat into the ``Conservation''
classification, which prohibits development.
While there is a low probability that the State Land Use Commission
would finally vote to redistrict the lands proposed for the VOLA
project, that possibility exists. In addition, there could well be
litigation designed to either force the Commission to act or to have a
court make the decision.
If the project were unable to proceed, the Housing and Community
Development Corporation would lose the $30 million in sunk costs, and
the affordable housing units that would have been constructed. Although
the final addendum to the economic analysis assigns a cost to the loss
of the affordable units of $4.8 million, there could well be
considerable non-monetary social costs as well, particularly inasmuch
as the available information indicates that there are no other
affordable housing projects planned within the next 10 years.
The second project within the excluded areas is known as the Kaloko
Properties/Kaloko Town Center. This project has been underway since
1987, and covers 1,150 acres, of which 335, or 29%, is within the pre-
exclusion boundary of the proposed units. The developers have already
expended over $20 million for infrastructure improvements, engineering
and related costs, which approximately $5.8 (by percentage allocation)
is associated with the portion of the project within the proposed
critical habitat. This project will need both redistricting from the
State and rezoning from the county for portions of the land. The final
addendum to the economic analysis finds there is a reasonably
foreseeable chance that the designation of critical habitat would
affect this development.
In the worst-case scenario, the State or county might decide not to
grant the discretionary approvals needed for the project--redistricting
and rezoning--or might be prevented from doing so by litigation. This
could lead to loss of the $5.8 million in sunk costs for the portion of
the property within the proposed critical habitat, or of the entire $20
million investment. In addition, there would be an estimated loss of
future profits from the land proposed for inclusion within the critical
habitat of between $39 to $78 million. Using a present value discount,
this loss would range between $17 and $34 million. There could also be
the loss of all project revenues in the event the inability to utilize
the lands within the critical habitat designation caused the failure of
the entire project.
Alternatively, in an effort to avoid those situations, the
developer might offer additional restrictions on the development. The
final addendum estimates, with admitted imprecision, that these costs
might range from $1.1 to $2 million for the portion of the project
within the proposed designation.
The possibility of significant economic impacts to this project,
while not certain, clearly exist. As noted above, we cannot find
offsetting benefits from the designation of critical habitat in these
two units which exceed the benefits of avoiding these possible economic
costs.
The last project for which we are excluding areas for economic
reasons is the environmental remediation of an old landfill by the non-
profit K2020 organization discussed above. The landfill adjoins the
pre-exclusion boundaries of proposed unit Y2 on 3 sides, and has
internal fires. K2020 plans to secure Federal grants to remediate the
site, including extinguishing the fires.
This will require use of unoccupied habitat within the boundary of
proposed unit Y2 for the landfill material while the remediation is
conducted. The economic analysis further indicates that this project
will be to the long-term benefit to the listed plants by reducing the
possibilities of wildfires. However, it is anticipated that as
mitigation for the temporary loss of this portion of the critical
habitat, the K202 group would be required to obtain funding to manage
two preserves to be established in connection with the VOLA project, at
a cost of $5.1 million over the next 10 years. Requiring this non-
profit group to mitigate for use of unoccupied critical habitat to
remediate an environmental problem, when the remediation will
ultimately benefit the species, does not provide an overall
conservation benefit to the species. This funding could well come from
funds otherwise intended for conservation purposes in Hawaii, or the
cost could cause the group to abandon the project.

[[Page 39684]]

(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
The VOLA project has already been troubled by litigation and
defaulting developers; additional regulatory or legal uncertainties
arising from this designation could well cause further delays or kill
the project altogether. If this were to occur, the Housing and
Community Development Corporation would lose the $30 million in sunk
costs, and the affordable housing units that would have been
constructed. Although the final addendum to the economic analysis
assigns a cost to the loss of the affordable units of $4.8 million,
there could well be considerable non-monetary social costs as well,
particularly inasmuch as the available information indicates that there
are no other affordable housing projects planned within the next 10
years.
We do not find that the benefits from the designation of critical
habitat for lands within the VOLA project, as discussed above, exceed
the benefits of avoiding the possible economic and social costs which
could well arise from this designation.
For the Kaloko Properties/Kaloko Town Center, there is also the
real possibility that the designation of critical habitat could lead to
loss of necessary regulatory approvals. This in turn could lead to loss
of the $5.8 million in sunk costs for the portion of the property
within the proposed critical habitat, or of the entire $20 million
investment. In addition, there would be an estimated loss of future
profits from the land proposed for inclusion within the critical
habitat of between $39 to $78 million. Using a present value discount,
this loss would range between $17 and $34 million. (There could also be
the loss of all project revenues in the event the inability to utilize
the lands within the critical habitat designation caused the failure of
the entire project.) Alternatively, in an effort to avoid those
situations, the developer might offer additional restrictions on the
development. The final addendum estimates, with admitted imprecision,
that these costs might range from $1.1 to $2 million for the portion of
the project within the proposed designation.
We do not find that the benefits from the designation of critical
habitat for lands within the VOLA project, as discussed above, exceed
the benefits of avoiding the possible economic costs which could well
arise from this designation.
We note that the developers of this project contacted us after the
close of the comment period offering to undertake a number of actions
designed to provide conservation benefits to the species. Specifically,
the offer included: (1) To set aside 100 to 130 acres within the
proposed unit Y2; (2) enter into good faith negotiations with the
Federal, State or county entities for acquisition of the area; (3)
agree to enter into a Safe Harbor agreement with us; and (4) to enter
into a memorandum of understand or cooperative agreement to address
habitat protection, monitoring and management actions for the remainder
of their property relating to these species (and Blackburn's sphinx
moth).
Due to the court-ordered date by which this designation must be
completed, we were unable to conclude such an agreement prior to
issuing this notice and regulation. If we had been able to do so, this
is the type of agreement for which we have found in other cases that
the conservation benefits of the agreement exceed the benefits of
designation and thus warrant exclusion (See discussions below). We have
generally not made exclusions under section 4(b)(2) based on offers of
conservation agreements, and we are not doing so here. However, we do
believe the ability to pursue this proposal, and a Safe Harbor
agreement with the State, are secondary benefits of the exclusions, in
that neither would likely remain a possibility without the exclusions.
A decision by the State and the developers to follow through on this
offer might well be in both their and the species best interest.
We also note that while preparing an original critical habitat
proposal and designation is extremely costly and time-consuming, a
revision to a designation, where all of the appropriate biological and
economic information is already available, could be relatively easy. We
will closely monitor the status of the listed plants within this
exclusion and will be prepared to take necessary actions in the event
their situation warrants it.
For the non-profit K2020 organization, the designation of critical
habitat could add an additional $5.1 million in direct costs to their
effort to remediate a burning old landfill, as discussed above.
Requiring this non-profit group to raise and expend $5.1 million for
use of unoccupied critical habitat to remediate an environmental
problem, when the remediation will ultimately benefit the species, does
not provide an overall conservation benefit to the species. This
funding could well come from funds otherwise intended for conservation
purposes in Hawaii, or the cost could cause the group to abandon the
project. We accordingly believe the benefit of excluding the lands
needed for the remediation effort, thus saving the group the $5.1
million cost and making it more likely that the landfill will be
remediated, exceed the benefit of designating these lands as critical
habitat.
(4) Exclusion of These Units Will Not Cause Extinction of the Species
Proposed units Y1 and Y2 on State and private lands provide
occupied and unoccupied habitat for two species: Isodendrion pyrifolium
and Neraudia ovata. According to our published recovery plans, recovery
of these two species will require reproducing, self-sustaining
populations located in a geographic array across the landscape, with
population numbers and population locations of sufficient robustness to
withstand periodic threats caused by natural disaster or biological
threats (Service 1996, 1998). The highest priority recovery tasks
include active management, such as plant propagation and
reintroduction, fire control, nonnative species removal, and ungulate
fencing. Failure to implement these active management measures on this
and other units, all of which require voluntary landowner support and
participation, virtually assures the extinction of these species in the
wild. Many of these types of conservation actions in this area of the
island of Hawaii will be carried out as part of a partnership with the
Service and by actions taken on the landowner's initiative. These
activities, which are described in more detail below, require
substantial voluntary cooperation.
For both species, we conclude, based on all of the information
available to us, that the projects proposed for the areas to be
excluded will not adversely impact existing populations of either
listed species. In addition, the Hawaii Housing and Community
Development Corporation has proposed the creation of preserves for the
plant with the VOLA development, which would be actively managed for
the benefit of the plants. As noted below in detail, active management
is an essential need of these species, one which cannot be accomplished
through a critical habitat designation alone. Finally, we note that in
Hawaii State law protected Federally listed plants against direct take,
a protection not found in the ESA.
If a critical habitat designation reduces the likelihood that
voluntary conservation activities will be carried out on the island of
Hawaii, and at the same time fails to confer a counter-balancing
positive regulatory or educational benefit to the species, then the
benefits of excluding such areas

[[Page 39685]]

from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including them.
Although, the results of this type of evaluation will vary
significantly depending on the landowners, geographic areas, and
species involved, we believe the State and private lands in proposed
units Hawaii Y1 and Y2 merit this evaluation.

Other Impacts

U.S. Army Lands
As described in the ``Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section
3(5)(A)'' section above, based on our evaluation of the adequacy of
special management and protection that is provided in the Army's INRMP
for PTA (Department of the Army 2002) for the plant species addressed
in this proposal which are found on Army land, in accordance with
section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we have not included the Army's PTA in
this final designation of critical habitat. However, to the extent that
special management considerations and protection may be required for
this area and it would meet the definition of critical habitat
according to section 3(5)(A)(i), it is properly excluded from
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, based on the following
analysis.
As explained below, we believe the benefits of designating critical
habitat for the 12 species at PTA (Asplenium fragile var. insulare,
Hedyotis coriacea, Isodendrion hosakea, Neraudia ovata, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium arenarium, Vigna o-
wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) and the lands being acquired as
part of their ``Transformation'' to a Stryker Brigade Combat Team are
relatively low and outweighed by the benefits of excluding these lands
from critical habitat. We also have concerns that a critical habitat
designation may negatively impact the Army's ability to effectively
carry out a recently proposed training and equipment conversion program
on the island of Hawaii.
The Army's PTA, including the lands being acquired for
``Transformation,'' is occupied habitat for 12 species, as referenced
above. A total of 28,384 ha (70,138 ac) are excluded from final
critical habitat, all of which is considered occupied by one or more
listed species.
According to our published recovery plans, recovery of these 12
species will require reproducing, self-sustaining populations located
in a geographic array across the landscape, with population numbers and
population locations of sufficient robustness to withstand periodic
threats caused by to natural disaster or biological threats (Service
1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1996d, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b,
1998c, 1999). The highest priority recovery tasks include proactive
management such as plant propagation and reintroduction, fire control,
nonnative species removal, and ungulate fencing. Failure to implement
these active management measures, all of which require voluntary
landowner support and participation, increases the likelihood that
species will go extinct or not recover. The Army is undertaking many of
these types of conservation actions on their land on the island of
Hawaii as part of the implementation of the INRMP for PTA. These
activities, which are described in more detail in the ``Analysis of
Managed Lands Under Section 3(5)(A)'' section, require substantial
financial obligations by the Army and cooperation with other agencies,
landowners, and local residents.
The following analysis describes the likely positive and negative
impacts of a critical habitat designation on Army land compared to the
likely positive and negative impacts of a critical habitat exclusion of
that land. The Service paid particular attention to the following
issues: to what extent a critical habitat designation would confer
additional regulatory, educational, and social benefits; and to what
extent would critical habitat interfere with the Army's ongoing
proactive conservation actions.
(1) Benefits of Designating U.S. Army Lands as Critical Habitat
Pohakuloa Training Area contains habitat essential to the
conservation of the 12 species listed above. The primary regulatory
benefit provided by a critical habitat designation on Army land is the
requirement under section 7 of the Act that any actions authorized,
funded, or carried out by the Army would not destroy or adversely
modify any critical habitat, which includes an evaluation on the
effects of the action on recovery of the species. However, as discussed
above, all of the critical habitat proposed at PTA is occupied by
listed species and thus section 7 consultation would already be
required.
In addition, any net benefit of this aspect of critical habitat has
been significantly minimized by the Army's commitment to coordinate
with the Service on any of its activities that may adversely affect
areas whether occupied or unoccupied by listed species that are
considered essential to their conservation (i.e., proposed as critical
habitat) (Anderson, in litt. March 20, 2003). In fact, for the current
consultation at PTA, which includes the areas being acquired for
``Transformation,'' the Army is evaluating impacts of its ongoing and
future training activities on habitat considered essential to the
conservation, including habitat unoccupied by listed species.
Moreover, the section 7 mandate to avoid destroying critical
habitat does not extend to requiring plant reintroductions or other
proactive conservation measures (e.g., ungulate control) considered
essential to the conservation of the species. As discussed above, the
major threat to these species is the persistent and expanding presence
of alien species. Failure to implement proactive management measures
such as alien species removal and ungulate and rat management, as well
as management of fire risk and plant propagation and reintroduction,
may result in extinction of these species even with a critical habitat
designation. These actions are, however, included in the Army's INRMP
for PTA and will provide tangible benefits that will reduce the
likelihood of extinction and increase the chances of recovery.
Another potential benefit of a critical habitat designation on this
Army land is the education of the Army and the general public
concerning the conservation value of this land. While we believe these
educational benefits are important for the conservation of these
species, we believe it has already been achieved through the Army's
INRMP (for example, most of the INRMP's biologically sensitive areas
overlap with proposed critical habitat), publication of the proposed
critical habitat rule, the many public and interagency meetings that
have been held to discuss the proposal, and discussion contained in
this final rule.
In sum, the Army will manage for the conservation of all of these
species through their INRMP process; this management will confer
significant conservation benefits to the species that would not
necessarily result from the section 7 consultation process. In
addition, the Army has agreed to coordinate with the Service on any
actions that may affect essential habitat areas (whether occupied or
unoccupied by the listed species) even if these areas are not
designated as final critical habitat. Taken together, these two
management commitments by the Army lead the Service to conclude that
any additional incremental regulatory benefits provided by a final
critical habitat designation on Army lands would be relatively small.

[[Page 39686]]

(2) Benefits of Excluding U.S. Army Lands From Critical Habitat
When evaluating the potential negative impacts of a critical
habitat designation and the potential benefits of excluding Army land
from final critical habitat, the Service considered whether critical
habitat designation would affect Army's military mission at PTA.
As noted above, these plants will need actions that proactively
remove existing threats and that include propagation and reintroduction
into unoccupied areas if they are to recover. Neither section 7
consultations nor a critical habitat designation would necessarily
result in the implementation of actions needed for recovery of these
species.
The Army is engaged in or has committed to engage in a wide variety
of proactive conservation management activities that are set out in the
``Analysis of Managed Lands Under Section 3(5)(A)'' section of this
rule.
The Service also considered whether a final critical habitat
designation would negatively impact the Army's military mission.
Overall, the Service believes it has been able to work closely and in a
positive collaborative fashion with the Army to minimize potential
negative impacts to the Army's military training activities as a
consequence of Endangered Species Act regulation.
However, the 2nd Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division (Light)
based at PTA has recently been selected to participate in the
experimental ``Transformation'' of its force to a lighter rapidresponse
force known as a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The Army has stated that
a final critical habitat designation may lead to disruption in training
and a delay of construction of required training facilities if the Army
has to consult on the impacts to newly designated critical habitat. The
active training areas allow the troops to attain skills to respond to
enemy fire quickly and accurately and to train in offensive operations.
The natural and physical attributes of the training areas in Hawaii
realistically mirror the battlefield conditions found in other nations
in the Pacific region. As these training conditions are not found
anywhere else in the continental United States, the Army states that it
is imperative that the utilization of the military training
installations in Hawaii not be impeded by additional requirements
associated with section 7 consultations on critical habitat
designations.
(3) The Benefits of Excluding Army Lands From Critical Habitat Outweigh
the Benefits of Inclusion
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(b)(2) of the Act, we have determined that the benefits to national
security of excluding the Army's PTA from critical habitat, as set
forth above, outweigh the benefits of including this land in critical
habitat for the 12 species listed above. We have carefully weighed the
relative benefits of each option.
Although these areas within Army land are removed from the final
critical habitat designation, the Service still considers them
essential to the conservation of these species. The number of
populations for which the habitat on these installations provides is
applied towards the overall recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations for
each species (see discussion below), and it is anticipated that these
lands will be managed under the Army's INRMP for PTA consistent with
the conservation goals for these species.
(4) Exclusion of This Unit Will Not Cause Extinction of the Species
For both the three endemic (Isodendrion hosakea, Neraudia ovata,
and Silene hawaiiensis) and the nine multi-island species (Asplenium
fragile var. insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Silene
lanceolata, Solanum incompletum, Spermolepis hawaiiensis, Tetramolopium
arenarium, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense), the Service
concludes that the Army's mission and management plan (e.g., INRMP)
will provide more net conservation benefits than would be provided if
these areas were designated as critical habitat. This management plan,
which is described above, will provide tangible conservation benefits
that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for the listed plants in
these areas of the island of Hawaii and increase their likelihood of
recovery. Further, all of this area is occupied by all 12 species and
thereby benefits from the section 7 protections of the Act. The
exclusion of these areas will not increase the risk of extinction to
any of these species, and it may increase the likelihood these species
will recover by encouraging other landowners to implement discretionary
conservation activities as the Army has done.
In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of
the island of Hawaii for the three endemic species, and critical
habitat has been designated elsewhere on the island, and/or designated
or proposed on other islands, for eight of the remaining nine multi-
island species consistent with the guidance in recovery plans. These
other designations identify conservation areas for the maintenance and
expansion of the existing populations.
Critical habitat is not designated for Tetramolopium arenarium on
the island of Hawaii because the areas containing the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of this species are
on excluded lands at PTA. Critical habitat was not designated on Maui
because we were not able to identify the physical and biological
features that are considered essential to the conservation of this
species on the island of Maui.
In sum, the above analysis concludes that the exclusion of these
lands will not cause extinction and should in fact improve the chances
of recovery for all 12 species.

Private Lands

Kamehameha Schools
The portion of proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z on Kamehameha
Schools lands is occupied habitat for six species: Bonamia menziesii,
Cyanea stictophylla, Delissea undulata, Phyllostegia racemosa,
Phyllostegia velutina, and Pleomele hawaiiensis and unoccupied habitat
for three species: Argyroxiphium kauense, Cyanea shipmanii, and
Neraudia ovata. According to our published recovery plans, recovery of
these species will require reproducing, self-sustaining populations
located in a geographic array across the landscape, with population
numbers and population locations of sufficient robustness to withstand
periodic threats caused by natural disaster or biological threats
(Service 1994, 1995a, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c, 1997a, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c,
1999). The highest priority recovery tasks include active management
such as plant propagation and reintroduction, fire control, nonnative
species removal, and ungulate fencing. Failure to implement these
active management measures, all of which require voluntary landowner
support and participation, virtually assures the extinction of these
species. Many of these types of conservation actions in these areas of
the island of Hawaii are carried out as part of Kamehameha School's
participation with landowner incentive-based programs and by actions
taken on the landowner's initiative. These activities, which are
described in more detail below, require substantial voluntary
cooperation by Kamehameha Schools and other cooperating landowners and
local residents.

[[Page 39687]]

The following analysis describes the likely conservation benefits
of a critical habitat designation compared to the conservation benefits
without critical habitat designation. We paid particular attention to
the following issues: To what extent a critical habitat designation
would confer regulatory conservation benefits on these species; to what
extent the designation would educate members of the public such that
conservation efforts would be enhanced; and whether a critical habitat
designation would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on
voluntary conservation efforts on this privately owned land as well as
other non-Federal lands on the island of Hawaii that could contribute
to recovery.
If a critical habitat designation reduces the likelihood that
voluntary conservation activities will be carried out on the island of
Hawaii, and at the same time fails to confer a counter-balancing
positive regulatory or educational benefit to the species, then the
benefits of excluding such areas from critical habitat outweigh the
benefits of including them. Although the results of this type of
evaluation will vary significantly depending on the landowners,
geographic areas, and the species involved, we believe the Kamehameha
Schools lands on the island of Hawaii merit this evaluation.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
Critical habitat in the Kamehameha Schools portion of units Hawaii
G, W, and Z was proposed for the following species: Argyroxiphium
kauense, Bonamia menziesii, Cyanea shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla,
Delissea undulata, Neraudia ovata, Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia
velutina, and Pleomele hawaiiensis. The primary direct benefit of
inclusion of these lands as critical habitat would result from the
requirement under section 7 of the Act that Federal agencies consult
with us to ensure that any proposed Federal actions do not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
The benefit of a critical habitat designation would ensure that any
actions funded by or permits issued by a Federal agency would not
likely destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat. Without
critical habitat, some site-specific projects might not trigger
consultation requirements under the Act in areas where species are not
currently present; in contrast, Federal actions in areas occupied by
listed species would still require consultation under section 7 of the
Act.
Historically, we have conducted only two formal and 21 informal
consultations under section 7 on the island of Hawaii for any of the 41
plant species. Only two consultations involved Kamehameha Schools
lands, both of which were intra-Service consultations on conservation
projects. One consultation was regarding a project to restore Opaeula
Pond; however, none of the 47 species at issue were involved. The other
consultation was regarding restoring dryland forest. The proposed
restoration actions were found to benefit two species at issue here,
Bonamia menziesii and Nototrichium breviflorum. As a result of the low
level of previous Federal activity on Kamehameha Schools lands on the
island, and after considering that the likely future Federal activities
that might occur on these lands would be minimal and associated with
Federal funding for conservation activities, it is our opinion that
there is likely to be a low number of future Federal activities that
would negatively affect habitat on Kamehameha Schools lands. A Federal
nexus is anticipated in association with the finalization of a Safe
Harbor Agreement and issuance of an enhancement of survival permit;
however, these activities will have a net conservation benefit for the
species concerned. Therefore, we anticipate little additional
regulatory benefit from including this portion of units Hawaii G, W,
and Z in critical habitat beyond what is already provided for by the
existing section 7 nexus for habitat areas occupied by the listed
extant species.
Another possible benefit is that the designation of critical
habitat can serve to educate the public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area, and this may focus and contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation value for certain species. Information about the nine
species for which critical habitat was proposed in this portion of
units Hawaii G, W, and Z that reaches a wide audience, including other
parties engaged in conservation activities, could have a positive
conservation benefit. This result has been achieved through an
exhaustive process that involved dozens of public and interagency
meetings, media outreach including front-page articles in major
newspapers, and several publications in the Federal Register. Final
species-specific maps identifying habitat areas essential to the
conservation of these species on Kamehameha Schools lands have been
prepared and will be provided to Kamehameha Schools and other
interested parties. These maps will ensure Kamehameha Schools is
completely informed regarding what precise areas are important to which
species.
In addition, we believe that education of relevant sectors of the
public is being achieved through the existing management and education
efforts carried out by Kamehameha Schools and their conservation
partners. Kamehameha Schools participates in the Olaa-Kilauea
Management Partnership along with Federal and State agencies, along
with other private landowners, to protect the biological resources of
the Olaa-Kilauea area.
In sum, we believe that a critical habitat designation for listed
plants on Kamehameha Schools lands would provide a relatively low level
of additional regulatory conservation benefits to each of the plant
species beyond what is already provided by existing section 7
consultation requirements caused by the physical presence of the nine
listed species. Any regulatory conservation benefits would accrue
through the benefit associated with additional section 7 consultation
associated with critical habitat. Based on a review of past
consultations and consideration of the likely future activities in this
specific area, we expect little Federal activity that would trigger
section 7 consultation to occur on this privately owned land. We also
believe that critical habitat designation would provide little
additional educational benefit since the conservation value is already
known by the landowner, the State, Federal agencies, and private
organizations, and the area has been identified as essential to the
conservation of nine plant species through publication in the proposed
critical habitat rule and this final rule.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
Proactive voluntary conservation efforts are necessary to prevent
the extinction and promote the recovery of these species on the island
of Hawaii and other Hawaiian islands (Shogren et al. 1991; Wilcove and
Chen 1998; Wilcove et al. 1998). Consideration of this concern is
especially important in areas where species have been extirpated and
their recovery requires access and permission for reintroduction
efforts (Bean 2002; Wilcove et al. 1998). For example, three of the
nine species associated with proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z are
extirpated from Kamehameha Schools lands, and repopulation is likely
not possible without human assistance and landowner cooperation.
Kamehameha Schools is involved in several important voluntary
conservation agreements and is currently carrying out some of these

[[Page 39688]]

activities for the conservation of these species. They have developed
two programs that demonstrate their conservation commitments, Aina Ulu
and Malama Aina. The Aina Ulu program implements land based education
programs, whereas Malama Aina delivers focused stewardship of natural
resources.
Malama Aina has been focused in two distinct areas, Keauhou in Kau
District and North-South Kona, with a budget commitment in 2002 of
$1,000,000, not including staff expenses. Kamehameha Schools has more
than 25 years of stewardship experience at Keauhou in Kau District,
which includes the Olaa-Kilauea Management partnership project entered
into on July 6, 1994. This area is within proposed critical habitat
unit Hawaii G. The vision for Keauhou is to restore the native
ecosystems in order to utilize the entire area for education and
cultural enrichment by using sustainable economic ventures to support
these programs. Activities within this program include timber
certification, large and small mammal control, weed control, koa
thinning, propagation and outplanting of both rare and common native
plants, inventory, monitoring and data analysis of stewardship efforts,
access road improvement, refuse clean up, and the purchase of Keauhou
Ranch. Participating partners include: Cultural practitioners (the
Edith Kanakaole Foundation and the Polynesian Voyaging Society),
ranching and timber interests (Hawaii Forest Industry Association),
researchers and scientists (University of Hawaii at Manoa and Hilo, the
Zoological Society of San Diego, U.S. Forest Service, Hawaiian
Silversword Foundation, and USGS-BRD), educators (Nawahi Charter
School), natural resource managers (Olaa-Kilauea Management Group,
DOFAW, the Service, HVNP, and The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH)).
Malama Aina has allocated $681,000, and Aina Ulu has allocated $33,000.
Preservation of this area conserves critically endangered species of
plants and animals in a mix of ecosystems with microenvironments
required by some of Hawaii's rarest plants and animals, including
endangered forest birds and lobeliads (plants in the family
Campanulaceae). This management strategy is consistent with recovery of
these species.
Kamehameha's Schools North-South Kona natural resource conservation
efforts focus on three distinct areas: Honaunau Forest and Honaunau
Uka, Kaupulehu Kauila Lama Forest and Kaupulehu Uka, and Pulehua.
Kamehameha Schools started a weed control program in 2002 in Honaunau
Forest and Honaunau Uka. In both the Forest and Uka areas, they will
continue the weed control program, along with a timber certification
program to write certifiable plans and complete inventories. In the
Honaunau Uka area, they will construct an ungulate exclosure fence and
issue a contract for a botanical survey, and in the Honaunau Forest the
road will be maintained. Funds allocated for the implementation of
these projects total $52,500 to Honaunau Forest and $29,500 to Honaunau
Uka. Kaupulehu Kauila Lama Forest and Kaupulehu Uka lie within the
proposed critical habitat unit Hawaii Z. Conservation activities in the
Aina Ulu program at Kaupulehu Kauila Lama Forest include an intern
program, an outreach coordinator, multimedia curriculum development,
small mammal and weed control, road maintenance, installation of self-
composting toilets, and precious wood-gathering. Funds allocated for
these projects total $70,700. Malama Aina projects at Kaupulehu Uka
include timber certification, large mammal and weed control, ungulate
exclosure fencing, inventory, monitoring and data analysis of
conservation actions and road maintenance. Funds allocated for those
projects total $101,000. Partners include: Hawaii Forest Industry
Association, the Service, DOFAW, local residents, PIA Sports Properties
(lessee), U.S. Forest Service, National Tropical Botanical Garden
(lessee), and Honokaa High School. Pulehua lies within proposed
critical habitat unit Hawaii W. Conservation efforts at Pulehua are in
the beginning stages. Conservation projects in 2003 will focus on weed
control, with $7,500 allocated. In 2002, an ungulate control program
was initiated, which included $7,000 to study ungulate issues in Kona.
This year's budget includes $35,000 for ungulate control, with an
additional $40,000 to construct enclosures to measure the success of
the control efforts.
Because Kamehameha Schools' goal is to improve habitat for
threatened and endangered species, the district is developing a Safe
Harbor Agreement with the Service and the State through the Safe Harbor
program. The Safe Harbor program encourages proactive management to
benefit endangered and threatened species on non-Federal lands by
providing regulatory assurances to landowners that no additional
Endangered Species Act restrictions will be imposed on future land,
water, or resource use for enrolled lands. The Safe Harbor Agreement
would include lands within proposed critical habitat units W and Z. The
purpose of Kamehameha Schools' Safe Harbor Agreement is to encourage
voluntary restoration and enhancement of habitat for threatened and
endangered species, and to enable certain species to be reintroduced
onto Kamehameha Schools' lands where such species formerly occurred,
including the bird species palila (Loxoides bailleui), as well as
Argyroxiphium kauense and Delissea undulata. Some of the conservation
activities planned under this Agreement include fencing areas
containing mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), removal of ungulates, control
of ungulates in areas that are not fenced, removal of predators (e.g.,
rats), and the release of palila into the area. Currently, the
Agreement being developed includes only the palila. However, other
listed and candidate animal and plant species and other conservation
activities will be added in the future (Peter Simmons, Kamehameha
Schools, in litt. 2003).
As described earlier, Kamehameha Schools has a history of entering
into conservation agreements with various Federal and State agencies
and private organizations on biologically important portions of their
lands. These arrangements have taken a variety of forms. They include
partnership commitments such as the Olaa-Kilauea Partnership and the
Dryland Forest Working Group. The listed plant species originally
included within the Kamehameha Schools portion of proposed units Hawaii
G, W, and Z will benefit substantially from their voluntary management
actions because of a reduction in ungulate browsing and habitat
conversion, a reduction in competition with nonnative weeds, a
reduction in risk of fire, and the reintroduction of species currently
extirpated from various areas and for which the technical ability to
propagate these species currently exists or will be developed in the
near future.
The conservation benefits of critical habitat are primarily
regulatory or prohibitive in nature. But on the island of Hawaii,
simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will not slow the extinction
of listed plant species. Where consistent with the discretion provided
by the Act, we believe it is necessary to implement policies that
provide positive incentives to private landowners to voluntarily
conserve natural resources, and that remove or reduce disincentives to
conservation (Michael 2001; Michael, in press). Thus, we believe it is
essential for the recovery of these nine species to build on continued
conservation activities, such as these with a proven

[[Page 39689]]

partner, and to provide incentives for other private landowners on the
island of Hawaii who might be considering implementing voluntary
conservation activities but have concerns about incurring incidental
regulatory or economic impacts.
Approximately 80 percent of imperiled species in the United States
occur partly or solely on private lands where the Service has little
management authority (Wilcove et al. 1996). In addition, recovery
actions involving the reintroduction of listed species onto private
lands require the voluntary cooperation of the landowner (Bean 2002;
James 2002; Knight 1999; Main et al. 1999; Norton 2000; Shogren et al.
1999; Wilcove et al. 1998). Therefore, ``a successful recovery program
is highly dependent on developing working partnerships with a wide
variety of entities, and the voluntary cooperation of thousands of non-
Federal landowners and others is essential to accomplishing recovery
for listed species'' (Crouse et al. 2002). Because large tracts of land
suitable for conservation of threatened and endangered species are
mostly owned by private landowners, successful recovery of listed
species on the island of Hawaii is especially dependent upon working
partnerships and the voluntary cooperation of private landowners.
Kamehameha Schools owns over 6,800 acres of land proposed as
critical habitat in the Agricultural District. According to the final
economic analysis, if this land were redistricted to the Conservation
District, the total potential loss in property value could be more than
approximately $1,997,000. They could also spend over $50,000 contesting
a proposed redistricting. Thus, designation of critical habitat on
Kamehameha Schools land could result in an economic impact to the Trust
of over $2 million.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
Based on the above considerations, we have determined that the
benefits of excluding the Kamehameha Schools lands in proposed units
Hawaii G, W, and Z as critical habitat outweigh the benefits of
including them as critical habitat for Argyroxiphium kauense, Bonamia
menziesii, Cyanea shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla, Delissea undulata,
Neraudia ovata, Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, and
Pleomele hawaiiensis.
This conclusion is based on the following factors:
1. A substantial amount of the Kamehameha Schools lands in proposed
units Hawaii G, W, and Z is currently being managed by the landowner on
a voluntary basis in cooperation with us, cultural practitioners (the
Edith Kanakaole Foundation and the Polynesian Voyaging Society),
ranching and timber interests (Hawaii Forest Industry Association),
researchers and scientists (UH Manoa and Hilo, the Zoological Society
of San Diego, U.S. Forest Service, Silversward Foundation, and USGS-
BRD), educators (Nawahi Charter School), and natural resource managers
(Olaa-Kilauea Management Group, DOFAW, HVNP, National Tropical
Botanical Garden, and TNCH) to achieve important conservation goals.
2. In the past, Kamehameha Schools has cooperated with Federal and
State agencies and private organizations to implement voluntary
conservation activities on their lands that have resulted in tangible
conservation benefits.
3. Simple regulation of ``harmful activities'' is not sufficient to
conserve these species. Landowner cooperation and support is required
to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of all of the listed
species on this island, because of the need to implement proactive
conservation actions such as ungulate management, weed control, fire
suppression, plant propagation, and outplanting. This need for
landowner cooperation is especially acute because the proposed units
Hawaii G, W, and Z are unoccupied by three of the nine species. Future
conservation efforts, such as translocation of these three plant
species back into unoccupied habitat on these lands, will require the
cooperation of Kamehameha Schools. Exclusion of Kamehameha Schools
lands from this critical habitat designation will help the Service
maintain and improve this partnership by formally recognizing the
positive contributions of Kamehameha Schools to plant recovery, and by
streamlining or reducing unnecessary oversight.
4. Especially given the current partnership agreements between
Kamehameha Schools and many other organizations, we believe the
benefits of including Kamehameha Schools lands as critical habitat are
relatively small. The designation of critical habitat can serve to
educate the general public as well as conservation organizations
regarding the potential conservation value of an area, but this goal is
already being accomplished through the identification of this area in
the management agreements described above. Likewise, there will be
little Federal regulatory benefit to the species because: (a) There is
a low likelihood that these proposed critical habitat units will be
negatively affected to any significant degree by Federal activities
requiring section 7 consultation, and (b) these areas are already
occupied by six listed species and a section 7 nexus already exists. We
are unable to identify any other potential benefits associated with
critical habitat for these portions of the proposed units.
5. We believe it is necessary to establish positive working
relationships with representatives of the Native Hawaiian community.
This approach of excluding critical habitat and entering into a
mutually agreeable conservation partnership strengthens this
relationship and should lead to conservation benefits beyond the
boundaries of Kamehameha Schools land. It is an important long term
conservation goal of the Service to work cooperatively with the Native
Hawaiian community to help recover Hawaii's endangered species. This
partnership with Kamehameha Schools is an important step forward toward
this goal.
6. While we didn't find that designating critical habitat on
Kamehameha Schools land would have a significant economic impact on
them, the potential cost of over $1.65 million could affect Kamehameha
Schools' willingness to continue their conservation partnerships. Even
if they did continue to implement conservation activities on their
Kamehameha Schools' land, this potential cost may result in a reduction
of the amount of funding they would commit to conservation activities.
7. It is well documented that publicly owned lands and lands owned
by private organizations alone are too small and poorly distributed to
provide for the conservation of most listed species (Bean 2002; Crouse
et al. 2002). Excluding these Kamehameha Schools lands from critical
habitat may, by way of example, provide positive social, legal, and
economic incentives to other non-Federal landowners on the island of
Hawaii who own lands that could contribute to listed species recovery
if voluntary conservation measures on these lands are implemented
(Norton 2000; Main et al. 1999; Shogren et al. 1999; Wilcove and Chen
1998). As resources allow, the Service would be willing to consider
future revisions or amendments to this final critical habitat rule if
landowners affected by this rule develop conservation programs or
partnerships (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements,
conservation agreements) on their lands that outweigh the regulatory
and other benefits of a critical habitat designation.
In conclusion, we find that the exclusion of critical habitat in
the Kamehameha Schools portions of

[[Page 39690]]

proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z would most likely have a net positive
conservation effect on the recovery and conservation of these nine
plant species when compared to the positive conservation effects of a
critical habitat designation. As described above, the overall benefits
to these species of a critical habitat designation on Kamehameha
Schools lands are relatively small. In contrast, we believe this
exclusion will enhance our existing partnership with Kamehameha
Schools, and it will set a positive example and provide positive
incentives to other non-Federal landowners who may be considering
implementing voluntary conservation activities on their lands. We
conclude there is a greater likelihood of beneficial conservation
activities occurring in these and other areas of the island of Hawaii
without designated critical habitat than there would be with designated
critical habitat on these Kamehameha Schools lands.
(4) Exclusion of This Unit Will Not Cause Extinction of the Species
In considering whether or not exclusion of Kamehameha Schools lands
in proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z might result in the extinction of
any of these nine species, we first considered the impacts to the seven
species endemic to the island of Hawaii (Argyroxiphium kauense, Cyanea
shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla, Neraudia ovata, Phyllostegia racemosa,
Phyllostegia velutina, and Pleomele hawaiiensis), and second to the two
species known from the island of Hawaii and one or more other Hawaiian
islands (Bonamia menziesii and Delissea undulata).
These agreements, which are described above, will provide tangible
proactive conservation benefits that will reduce the likelihood of
extinction for both the seven endemic and the two multi-island species
in these areas of the island of Hawaii and increase their likelihood of
recovery. Extinction for any of these species as a consequence of this
exclusion is unlikely because there are no known threats in these
portions of proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z due to any current or
reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be regulated under
section 7 of the Act. Further, these areas are already occupied by six
of the nine species and thereby benefit from the section 7 protections
of the Act, should such an unlikely Federal threat actually
materialize. The exclusion of these Kamehameha Schools lands will not
increase the risk of extinction to any of these species, and it may
increase the likelihood these species will recover by encouraging other
landowners to implement voluntary conservation activities as Kamehameha
Schools has done.
In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of
the island of Hawaii for all seven of the endemic species (units Hawaii
10--Argyroxiphium kauense--a, Hawaii 24--Argyroxiphium kauense--b,
Hawaii 25--Argyroxiphium kauense--c, Hawaii 30--Argyroxiphium kauense--
d, Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii--a, Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--b,
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii--c, Hawaii 15--Cyanea stictophylla--a,
Hawaii 16--Cyanea stictophylla--b, Hawaii 24--Cyanea stictophylla--c,
Hawaii 30--Cyanea stictophylla--d, Hawaii 10--Neraudia ovata--a, Hawaii
18--Neraudia ovata--d, Hawaii 1--Phyllostegia racemosa--a, Hawaii 2--
Phyllostegia racemosa--b, Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia racemosa--c, Hawaii
24--Phyllostegia velutina--a, Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia velutina--b,
Hawaii 7--Pleomele hawaiiensis--a, Hawaii 10--Pleomele hawaiiensis--b,
Hawaii 18--Pleomele hawaiiensis--c, and Hawaii 23--Pleomele
hawaiiensis--d). Critical habitat has also been designated elsewhere on
the island of Hawaii (Hawaii 10--Bonamia menziesii--a, Hawaii 10--
Delissea undulata--a, and Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata--b) and
designated on other islands for the remaining two multi-island species
within their historical range consistent with the guidance in recovery
plans. Critical habitat has been designated for Bonamia menziesii on
Kauai (habitat for two populations), Oahu (habitat for four
populations), and Maui (habitat for one population) (68 FR 9116; 68 FR
35949; 68 FR 25934). Habitat for one population is in the excluded
lands on Lanai (68 FR 1220). We have designated critical habitat for
Delissea undulata on Kauai (habitat for three populations) (68 FR
9116). These other designations identify conservation areas for the
maintenance and expansion of the existing populations.
In sum, the above analysis concludes that an exclusion of
Kamehameha Schools lands within proposed units Hawaii G, W, and Z from
final critical habitat on the island of Hawaii will have a net
beneficial impact with little risk of negative impacts. Therefore, the
exclusion of the Kamehameha Schools portions of proposed units Hawaii
G, W, and Z will not cause extinction and should in fact improve the
chances of recovery for Argyroxiphium kauense, Bonamia menziesii,
Cyanea shipmanii, Cyanea stictophylla, Delissea undulata, Neraudia
ovata, Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, and Pleomele
hawaiiensis.

Queen Liliuokalani Trust

The southwestern portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 on Queen
Liliuokalani Trust land is unoccupied habitat for two species:
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata. According to our published
recovery plans, recovery of these two species will require reproducing,
self-sustaining populations located in a geographic array across the
landscape, with population numbers and population locations of
sufficient robustness to withstand periodic threats caused by natural
disaster or biological threats (Service 1996, 1998). The highest
priority recovery tasks include active management, such as plant
propagation and reintroduction, fire control, nonnative species
removal, and ungulate fencing. Failure to implement these active
management measures on this and other units, all of which require
voluntary landowner support and participation, virtually assures the
extinction of these species in the wild. Many of these types of
conservation actions in this area of the island of Hawaii will be
carried out as part of Queen Liliuokalani Trust's partnership with the
Service and by actions taken on the landowner's initiative. These
activities, which are described in more detail below, require
substantial voluntary cooperation by Queen Liliuokalani Trust.
The following analysis describes the likely conservation benefits
of a critical habitat designation compared to the conservation benefits
without critical habitat designation. We paid particular attention to
the following issues: To what extent a critical habitat designation
would confer regulatory conservation benefits on these species; to what
extent the designation would educate members of the public such that
conservation efforts would be enhanced; and whether a critical habitat
designation would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on
voluntary conservation efforts on this privately owned land as well as
other non-Federal lands on the island of Hawaii that could contribute
to recovery.
If a critical habitat designation reduces the likelihood that
voluntary conservation activities will be carried out on the island of
Hawaii, and at the same time fails to confer a counter-balancing
positive regulatory or educational benefit to the species, then the
benefits of excluding such areas from critical habitat outweigh the
benefits of including them. Although, the results of this type of
evaluation will vary significantly depending on the

[[Page 39691]]

landowners, geographic areas, and species involved, we believe the
Queen Liliuokalani Trust lands in proposed unit Hawaii Y2 merit this
evaluation.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion
Critical habitat in the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of
proposed unit Hawaii Y2 was proposed for Isodendrion pyrifolium and
Neraudia ovata. The primary direct benefit of inclusion of this portion
of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 as critical habitat would result from the
requirement under section 7 of the Act that Federal agencies consult
with us to ensure that any proposed Federal actions do not destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat.
Historically, we have conducted two formal and 21 informal
consultations under section 7 on the island of Hawaii for any of the 47
plant species. None were for Queen Liliuokalani Trust land. As a result
of the low level of previous Federal activity on Queen Liliuokalani
Trust land, and after considering the likely low probability of Federal
activities that might occur on this land (no anticipated Federal
permits or funding), we think that there is likely to be a low number
of future Federal activities that would negatively affect habitat on
the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed critical habitat (DEA
2002). Therefore, there is a low regulatory benefit of a critical
habitat designation in this area.
Another possible benefit is that the designation of critical
habitat can serve to educate the public regarding the potential
conservation value of an area, and this may focus and contribute to
conservation efforts by other parties by clearly delineating areas of
high conservation value for certain species. Any information about
these two species and their habitats that reaches a wide audience,
including other parties engaged in conservation activities, could have
a positive conservation benefit.
While we believe this educational outcome is important for
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata, we believe it has mostly
been achieved. Through the proposal of critical habitat, proposed unit
Hawaii Y2, including the portion that lies within Queen Liliuokalani
Trust land, has been identified as essential to the conservation of two
of the 47 plant species addressed in this rule. In addition, the
proposed conservation activities to be conducted within proposed unit
Hawaii Y2, assisted by the Service, demonstrates that the landowner is
already aware of the importance of this area for the conservation of
these two species. It is anticipated that other portions of the general
public will likewise be better informed of the value of this area as
Queen Liliuokalani Trust implements conservation activities on this
land.
In sum, we believe that a critical habitat designation for listed
plants on Queen Liliuokalani Trust land would provide a relatively low
level of additional regulatory conservation benefits to Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata. Any regulatory conservation benefits
would accrue through the benefit associated with section 7 consultation
associated with critical habitat. Based on a review of past
consultations and consideration of the likely future activities in this
specific area, we determined that there is little Federal activity
expected to occur on this privately owned land that would trigger
section 7 consultation.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion
While the economic analysis concludes the designation of critical
habitat on Queen Liliuokalani Trust land would not prevent them from
developing their property, the analysis assumes it is reasonably
foreseeable that the designation could cause a delay in development
approvals as additional environmental studies may be conducted, and
State and county officials investigate the implications of critical
habitat on the property. The value of the loss of this potential delay
is estimated to be between $13.8 and $21.6 million.
In addition, proactive voluntary conservation efforts are necessary
to prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of these listed
plant species on the island of Hawaii and other Hawaiian islands
(Shogren et al. 1999; Wilcove and Chen 1998; Wilcove et al. 1998).
Consideration of this concern is especially important in areas where
species have been extirpated and their recovery requires access and
permission for reintroduction efforts (Bean 2002; Wilcove et al. 1998).
For example, since both species associated with proposed unit Y2 are
extirpated from Queen Liliuokalani Trust land, repopulation is likely
not possible without human assistance and landowner cooperation.
Under the terms of its January 17, 2003, proposal to the Service,
Queen Liliuokalani Trust has agreed to implement a voluntary
conservation partnership with the Service which will benefit these
species. The conservation partnership includes the following: (1) The
Trust is willing to partner with us on a propagation project for the
Isodendrion pyrifolium under a Service cost-sharing agreement. The
Trust will contribute up to $10,000 toward the propagation research
project to be conducted by an expert acceptable to both Queen
Liliuokalani Trust and the Service. The trust will also integrate this
effort with its cultural and educational programs with children and
develop a curriculum similar to one at Kaala Farms in Waianae on Oahu,
an island where Isodendrion pyrifolium was historically found; (2) the
Trust agrees to set aside for outplanting 21 ha (53 ac) of land,
consisting of 10 ha (25 ac) in the northern portion of the Queen
Liliuokalani Trust property and 11 ha (28 ac) in the southeast portion.
The Trust will also allow for the reintroduction of Isodendrion
pyrifolium, Neraudia ovata, and other endangered species that may be
found and/or reintroduced on the property into the designated 22 ha (53
ac). These conservation measures are consistent with recovery of these
species.
We believe that both of the species for which proposed unit Hawaii
Y2 was originally proposed will benefit from these management actions.
The primary benefits are the voluntary propagation and eventual
reintroduction of species currently extirpated from this area.
The conservation benefits of critical habitat are primarily
regulatory or prohibitive in nature. But, on the island of Hawaii,
simply preventing ``harmful activities'' will not slow the extinction
of listed plant species (Bean 2002). Where consistent with the
discretion provided by the Act, we believe it is necessary to implement
policies that provide positive incentives to private landowners to
voluntarily conserve natural resources, and that remove or reduce
disincentives to conservation (Wilcove et al. 1998). We believe that a
voluntary conservation agreement has the highest likelihood of success
if critical habitat is not designated as currently proposed because the
landowner believes there is an unacceptable risk that the critical
habitat designation will result in a decrease in Queen Liliuokalani
Trust's ability to remain economically viable. If so, they would lose
the ability to generate enough income for programs that benefit orphan
and destitute Hawaiian children. We believe that the landowner's
concerns over these potential negative impacts, should critical habitat
be designated, would affect its voluntary conservation efforts, which
we believe are necessary to conserve these species.
Thus, we believe it is essential for the recovery of Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata to instigate voluntary conservation
activities such as these that would otherwise not have occurred

[[Page 39692]]

on this property and to provide positive incentives for other private
landowners on the island of Hawaii who might be considering
implementing voluntary conservation activities but have concerns about
incurring incidental regulatory or economic impacts. Approximately 80
percent of imperiled species in the United States occur partly or
solely on private lands where the Service has little management
authority (Wilcove et al. 1996). In addition, recovery actions
involving the reintroduction of listed species onto private lands
require the voluntary cooperation of the landowner (Bean 2002; James
2002; Knight 1999; Main et al. 1999; Norton 2000; Shogren et al. 1999;
Wilcove et al. 1998). Therefore, ``a successful recovery program is
highly dependent on developing working partnerships with a wide variety
of entities, and the voluntary cooperation of thousands of non-Federal
landowners and others is essential to accomplishing recovery for listed
species' (Crouse et al. 2002). Because large tracts of land suitable
for conservation of threatened and endangered species are owned by
private landowners, successful recovery of listed species on the island
of Hawaii is especially dependent upon working partnerships and the
voluntary cooperation of non-Federal landowners. Without additional
voluntary conservation efforts for these two species, recovery will not
occur.
(3) The Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
Based on the above considerations, we have determined that the
benefits of excluding the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed
unit Hawaii Y2 from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including
it as critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata.
This conclusion is based on the following factors:
1. The Queen Liliukolani Trust has agreed to implement voluntary
conservation measures for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata on
currently unoccupied habitat within Queen Liliuokalani Trust's portion
of proposed unit Hawaii Y2.
2. Simple regulation of ``harmful activities'' is not sufficient to
conserve these species. Critical habitat designation would not
encourage, and may discourage, reintroductions of these species to
these lands. Landowner cooperation and support will be required to
prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of all of the listed
island-endemic species caused by the need to implement proactive
conservation actions such as ungulate management, weed control, fire
suppression, plant propagation, and outplanting. This need for
landowner cooperation is especially acute because proposed unit Hawaii
Y2 is unoccupied by both of these species. Future conservation efforts,
such as reintroduction of these plant species back onto these lands,
will require the cooperation of Queen Liliuokalani Trust. Exclusion of
Queen Liliuokalani Trust's land from this critical habitat designation
will help the Service maintain and improve the voluntary cooperation of
Queen Liliuokalani Trust by formally recognizing the positive
contributions of Queen Liliuokalani Trust to plant conservation, and by
streamlining or reducing unnecessary regulatory oversight. A critical
habitat designation absent this cooperation would provide little
meaningful conservation benefit to these species because the land would
likely remain unoccupied.
3. Given the agreement between the landowner and us, as well as
other planned conservation activities on their property, we believe the
overall regulatory and educational benefits of including this portion
of the unit as critical habitat are relatively small. The designation
of critical habitat can serve to educate the general public as well as
conservation organizations regarding the potential conservation value
of an area, but this goal has been effectively accomplished through the
identification of this area in the January 17, 2003, proposal described
above. Likewise, there will be little Federal regulatory benefit to the
species because (a) there is a low likelihood that this proposed
critical habitat unit will be negatively affected to any significant
degree by Federal activities requiring section 7 consultation, and (b)
the fear that a critical habitat designation on this property will harm
the ability of this landowner to generate funds to benefit orphan and
destitute Hawaiian children, and any positive educational benefit of
designation is negatively impacted when the impression is given that
conservation goals can undermine the philanthropic goals of the
landowner. We are unable to identify any other potential benefits
associated with critical habitat for this portion of the proposed unit.
4. We believe it is necessary to establish positive working
relationships with representatives of the Native Hawaiian community.
This approach of excluding critical habitat and entering into a
mutually agreeable conservation partnership strengthens this
relationship and should lead to conservation benefits beyond the
boundaries of Queen Liliuokalani Trust land. The Service has an
important long term conservation goal to work cooperatively with the
Native Hawaiian community to help recover Hawaii's endangered species.
The partnership with Queen Liliuokalani Trust, as articulated in the
Trust's letter to us, is an important step forward toward this goal.
5. While we didn't find designating critical habitat on Queen
Lilioukolani Trust land would prevent the Trust from proceeding with
their proposed development or have a significant economic impact on
them, the potential cost of up to $21.6 million due to possible delays
in obtaining State and county approvals and completing the development
could affect their willingness to continue their conservation
partnerships. Even if they did continue to implement conservation
activities on their land, this potential cost may result in a reduction
of the amount of funding available for implementing conservation
activities. In addition, Queen Lilioukolani Trust uses revenue from its
land holding to provide care for orphans and destitute children (with a
preference to children of Native Hawaiian ancestry). This potential
reduction in revenue could have significant social and cultural impacts
on the community.
6. It is well documented that publicly owned lands, lands owned by
conservation organizations and privately owned lands alone, are too
small and poorly distributed to provide for the conservation of most
listed species (Bean 2002, Crouse et al. 2002). Excluding these
privately owned lands from critical habitat may, by way of example,
provide positive social, legal, and economic incentives to other non-
Federal landowners on the island of Hawaii who own lands that could
contribute to listed species recovery if voluntary conservation
measures on these lands are implemented (Norton 2000; Main et al. 1999;
Shogren et al. 1999; Wilcove and Chen 1998).
In conclusion, we find that the exclusion of critical habitat in
the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 would
have a net positive conservation effect on the recovery and
conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata when compared
to the conservation effects of a critical habitat designation. As
described above, the overall benefits to these species of a critical
habitat designation on the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed
unit Hawaii Y2 are relatively small. We conclude there is a greater
likelihood of beneficial conservation

[[Page 39693]]

activities occurring in this area of the island of Hawaii without
designated critical habitat than there would be with designated
critical habitat in this location. We reached this conclusion because
the landowner has agreed to implement voluntary conservation efforts on
their lands without critical habitat designation. Therefore, we
conclude that the benefits of excluding this portion of proposed unit
Hawaii Y2 from critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia
ovata outweigh the benefits of including it.
(4) Exclusion of This Unit Will Not Cause Extinction of the Species
In considering whether or not exclusion of the Queen Liliuokalani
Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 might result in the extinction
of either of these two species, we first considered the impacts to the
species endemic to the island of Hawaii, Neraudia ovata, and second to
Isodendrion pyrifolium, which is known from the island of Hawaii and
other Hawaiian islands.
For both the endemic and the multi-island species, we conclude that
the voluntary conservation measures to be provided by Queen
Liliuokalani Trust and the Service will provide more net conservation
benefits than would be provided by designating the portion of proposed
unit Hawaii Y2 as critical habitat. These conservation measures, which
are described above, will provide tangible proactive conservation
benefits that will reduce the likelihood of extinction for the two
listed plants in this area of the island of Hawaii and increase their
likelihood of recovery. Extinction for either of these species as a
consequence of this exclusion is unlikely because there are no known
threats in this portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 due to any current
or reasonably anticipated Federal actions that might be regulated under
section 7 of the Act. Implementation of the conservation measures by
Queen Liliuokalani Trust, and the exclusion of their portion of
proposed unit Hawaii Y2, have the greatest likelihood of preventing
extinction of these two species, especially Neraudia ovata, which is
endemic to the island of Hawaii.
In addition, critical habitat is being designated on other areas of
the island of Hawaii for Neraudia ovata (Hawaii 10--Neraudia ovata--a
and Hawaii 18--Neraudia ovata--d), and critical habitat has been
designated elsewhere in the state for Isodendrion pyrifolium. We have
designated critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium within its
historical range 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). In addition, habitat for two populations is within the
area excluded from critical habitat on Lanai (68 FR 1220, January 9,
2003). These other designations identify conservation areas for the
maintenance and expansion of the existing populations.
In sum, the above analysis concludes that an exclusion of Queen
Liliuokalani Trust land within proposed unit Hawaii Y2 from final
critical habitat on the island of Hawaii will have a net beneficial
impact with little risk of negative impacts. Therefore, the exclusion
of the Queen Liliuokalani Trust portion of proposed unit Hawaii Y2 will
not cause extinction and should in fact improve the chances of recovery
for Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata.

Other Private Landowners

As resources allow, the Service would be willing to consider future
revisions or amendments to this final critical habitat rule if other
landowners affected by this rule develop conservation programs or
partnerships (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements,
conservation agreements, etc.) on their lands that outweigh the
regulatory and educational benefits of a critical habitat designation.

Taxonomic Changes

At the time we listed Delissea undulata, Hibiscus brackenridgei,
Mariscus fauriei, Mariscus pennatiformis, and Phyllostegia parviflora,
we followed the taxonomic treatments in Wagner et al. (1990), the
widely used and accepted Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii.
Subsequent to the final listing, we became aware of new taxonomic
treatments of these species. Also, in the recently published Hawaii's
Ferns and Fern Allies (Palmer 2003), Asplenium fragile var. insulare
has undergone a taxonomic revision. Due to the court-ordered deadlines,
we are required to publish this final rule to designate critical
habitat on the island of Hawaii before we can prepare and publish a
notice of taxonomic changes for these six species. We plan to publish a
taxonomic change notice for these six species after we have published
the final critical habitat designation on the island of Hawaii.

Summary of Recovery Populations for 255 Hawaiian Plants

During the public comment periods on the proposed designations and
nondesignations of critical habitat for plants from the islands of
Kauai, Niihau, Lanai, Maui, Molokai, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands,
Oahu, and the island of Hawaii, we received several comments regarding
the difficulty of commenting in an informed manner on critical habitat
for species occurring on more than one island because the proposed
rules did not provide information on critical habitat proposed on other
islands for multi-island species. To address this concern, on August
20, 2002, we reopened simultaneous comment periods for the proposed
designations and nondesignations of critical habitat for plant species
on the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Maui, Molokai, and the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands until September 30, 2002, and for plant species on the
islands of Hawaii and Oahu until November 30, 2002. The new comment
periods allowed all interested parties to review all the proposals
together and submit written comments. A comment period for the proposed
designations and nondesignations of critical habitat for plant species
on Lanai opened on July 15, 2002, and closed on August 30, 2002,
overlapping with the reopened comment periods for the islands mentioned
above.
As outlined in the above section ``Criteria Used to Identify
Critical Habitat,'' 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. To be considered recovered, the
populations of a multi-island species should be distributed among the
islands of its known historic range. In this final critical habitat
rule, we include a table that summarizes the distribution of recovery
populations by island for each of the 255 species at issue (Table 5).

[[Page 39694]]

Table 5.--Summary of Island Distribution of Recovery Populations for 255 Listed Hawaiian Plants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Island Distribution
Species ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals
Kauai Oahu Molokai Lanai Maui Hawaii Niihau Kahoolawe NWHI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abutilon eremitopetalum...................... ....... ....... ......... *8 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Abutilon sandwicense......................... ....... 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Acaena exigua[dagger]........................ 0 ....... ......... ....... 0 ........ ...................................... 0
Achyranthes mutica........................... \2\ 0 ....... ......... ....... ....... 10 ...................................... 10
Adenophorus periens.......................... 4 1 4 *1 \2\ 0 1 ...................................... 11
Alectryon macrococcus........................ 2 2 1 *4 ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Alsinidendron lychnoides..................... 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Alsinidendron obovatum....................... ....... *\1\ 8 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 8
Alsinidendron trinerve....................... ....... *\1\ 7 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Alsinidendron viscosum....................... 9 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Amaranthus brownii........................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ \1\ 1 (Nihoa)......................... 1 8 1
Argyroxiphium kauense........................ ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... *1 8 ...................................... 1 7 8
Argyroxiphium sandwicense ssp. macrocephalum. ....... ....... ......... ....... \5\ 1 ........ ...................................... \5\ 1
Asplenium fragile var. insulare.............. ....... ....... ......... ....... *2 *8 ...................................... 10
Bidens micrantha ssp. kalealaha.............. ....... ....... ......... 3 7 ........ ...................................... 10
Bidens wiebkei............................... ....... ....... *9 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Bonamia menziesii............................ 2 4 \2\ 0 *1 1 1 ...................................... 9
Brighamia insignis........................... 9 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ 1 (Niihau)............................ 10
Brighamia rockii............................. ....... ....... 4 *3 3 ........ ...................................... 10
Canavalia molokaiensis....................... ....... ....... *10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cenchrus agrimonioides....................... ....... 7 ......... *1 2 \2\ 0 0 (NWHI).............................. 10
Centaurium sebaeoides........................ 4 2 1 *1 2 ........ ...................................... 10
Chamaesyce celastroides var. kaenana......... ....... \1\ 7 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Chamaesyce deppeana.......................... ....... \1\ 2 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 2
Chamaesyce halemanui......................... 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Chamaesyce herbstii.......................... ....... \1\ 7 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Chamaesyce kuwaleana......................... ....... \1\ 7 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Chamaesyce rockii............................ ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Clermontia drepanomorpha..................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... \1\ 6 ...................................... \1\ 6
Clermontia lindseyana........................ ....... ....... ......... ....... 2 8 ...................................... 10
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. brevipes........ ....... ....... 7 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 7
Clermontia oblongifolia ssp. mauiensis....... ....... ....... ......... *3 7 ........ ...................................... 10
Clermontia peleana........................... ....... ....... ......... ....... \2\ 0 10 ...................................... 10
Clermontia pyrularia......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... \1\ 6 ...................................... \1\ 6
Clermontia samuelii.......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... \1\ 5 ........ ...................................... \1\ 5
Colubrina oppositifolia...................... ....... 3 ......... ....... 3 4 ...................................... 10
Ctenitis squamigera.......................... 1 1 1 *1 *5 \2\ 0 ...................................... 9
Cyanea acuminata............................. ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea asarifolia............................ 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea copelandii ssp. copelandii[dagger].... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 0 ...................................... 0
Cyanea copelandii ssp. haleakalaensis........ ....... ....... ......... ....... 8 ........ ...................................... 8
Cyanea crispa................................ ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea dunbarii.............................. ....... ....... 10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea glabra................................ ....... ....... ......... ....... 10 ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. grimesiana............ ....... *4 2 *2 ....... ........ 10....................................
Cyanea grimesiana ssp. obatae................ ....... *8 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii............ ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... \1\ 8 ...................................... \1\ 8
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. hamatiflora.......... ....... ....... ......... ....... 8 ........ ...................................... 8
Cyanea humboltiana........................... ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea koolauensis........................... ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea lobata................................ ....... ....... ......... *3 7 ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea longiflora............................ ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea macrostegia ssp. gibsonii............. ....... ....... ......... *8 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Cyanea mannii................................ ....... ....... *10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea mceldowneyi........................... ....... ....... ......... ....... \1\ 5 ........ ...................................... \1\ 5
Cyanea pinnatifida........................... ....... \1\ 4 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 4
Cyanea platyphylla........................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 9 ...................................... 9
Cyanea procera............................... ....... ....... *10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea recta................................. 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea remyi................................. 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea shipmanii............................. ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... \1\ 7 ...................................... \1\ 7
Cyanea stictophylla.......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 10 ...................................... 10
Cyanea st.-johnii............................ ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea superba............................... ....... 8 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Cyanea truncata.............................. ....... 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyanea undulata.............................. \1\ 5 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 5
Cyperus trachysanthos........................ 6 3 \2\ 0 \2\ 0 ....... ........ \3\ 0 (Niihau)........................ 9
Cyrtandra crenata............................ ....... 0 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 0

[[Page 39695]]

Cyrtandra cyaneoides......................... 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyrtandra dentata............................ ....... *8 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Cyrtandra giffardii.......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 10 ...................................... 10
Cyrtandra limahuliensis...................... 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Cyrtandra munroi............................. ....... ....... ......... *3 7 ........ ...................................... 10
Cyrtandra polyantha.......................... ....... \1\ 5 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 5
Cyrtandra subumbellata....................... ....... \1\ 7 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Cyrtandra tintinnabula....................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 9 ...................................... 9
Cyrtandra viridiflora........................ ....... *8 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Delissea rhytidosperma....................... \1\ 6 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Delissea rivularis........................... \1\ 3 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 3
Delissea subcordata.......................... ....... 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Delissea undulata............................ 3 ....... ......... ....... \2\ 0 *5 \2\ 0 (Niihau)........................ 8
Diellia erecta............................... 1 1 1 *1 3 2 ...................................... 9
Diellia falcata.............................. ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Diellia pallida.............................. \1\ 3 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 3
Diellia unisora.............................. ....... \1\ 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Diplazium molokaiense........................ 1 1 1 *1 6 ........ ...................................... 10
Dubautia herbstobatae........................ ....... \1\ 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Dubautia latifolia........................... \1\ 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Dubautia pauciflorula........................ \1\ 4 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1,6\ 4
Dubautia plantaginea ssp. humilis............ ....... ....... ......... ....... \1\ 6 ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Eragrostis fosbergii......................... ....... \1\ 1 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 1
Eugenia koolauensis.......................... ....... *6 2 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Euphorbia haeleeleana........................ 6 4 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Exocarpos luteolus........................... 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Flueggea neowawraea.......................... 4 *2 1 ....... *1 2 ...................................... 10
Gahnia lanaiensis............................ ....... ....... ......... *8 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Gardenia mannii.............................. ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Geranium arboreum............................ ....... ....... ......... ....... \1\ 7 ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Geranium multiflorum......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... *8 ........ ...................................... 8
Gouania meyenii.............................. 5 *5 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Gouania vitifolia............................ ....... 7 ......... ....... 1 2 ...................................... 10
Hedyotis cookiana............................ \1\ 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... \2\ 0 ...................................... \1\ 7
Hedyotis coriacea............................ ....... 2 ......... ....... 2 *6 ...................................... 10
Hedyotis degeneri............................ ....... 9 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Hedyotis mannii.............................. ....... ....... * 4 * 2 2 ........ ...................................... 8
Hedyotis parvula............................. ....... * 9 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Hedyotis schlechtendahliana var. remyi....... ....... ....... ......... * 8 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Hedyotis st.-johnii.......................... \1\ 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Hesperomannia arborescens.................... ....... * 6 2 * 1 * 2 ........ ...................................... 11
Hesperomannia arbuscula...................... ....... 5 ......... ....... 5 ........ ...................................... 10
Hesperomannia lydgatei....................... \6\ 5 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \6\ 5
Hibiscadelphus giffardianus.................. ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... \1\ 1 ...................................... \1\ 1
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis................. ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 8 ...................................... 8
Hibiscadelphus woodii........................ \1\ 5 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 5
Hibiscus arnottianus ssp. immaculatus........ ....... ....... \1\ 6 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Hibiscus brackenridgei....................... \2\ 0 3 1 * 1 3 1 \3\ 0 (Kahoolawe)..................... 9
Hibiscus clayi............................... \1\ 6 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Hibiscus waimeae ssp. hannerae............... 8 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Ischaemum byrone............................. 3 ....... 2 ....... 2 3 ...................................... 10
Isodendrion hosakae.......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 8 ...................................... 8
Isodendrion laurifolium...................... 4 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Isodendrion longifolium...................... 6 4 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Isodendrion pyrifolium....................... \2\ 0 3 1 * 2 2 0 \2\ 0 (Niihau)........................ 8
Kanaloa kahoolawensis........................ ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ \1\ 6 (Kahoolawe)..................... \1\ 6
Kokia kauaiensis............................. 8 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Labordia cyrtandrae.......................... ....... * 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Labordia lydgatei............................ 6 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \6\ 6
Labordia tinifolia var. lanaiensis........... ....... ....... ......... * 8 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Labordia tinifolia var. wahiawaensis......... \1\ 4 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 4
Labordia triflora............................ ....... ....... * 8 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Lepidium arbuscula........................... ....... * 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Lipochaeta fauriei........................... \1\ 6 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Lipochaeta kamolensis........................ ....... ....... ......... ....... * \1\ 6 ........ ...................................... \1\ 6
Lipochaeta lobata var. leptophylla........... ....... 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Lipochaeta micrantha......................... \1\ 4 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 4

[[Page 39696]]

Lipochaeta tenuifolia........................ ....... * \1\ 5 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 5
Lipochaeta waimeaensis....................... \1\ 1 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 1
Lobelia gaudichaudii ssp. koolauensis........ ....... * 9 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Lobelia monostachya.......................... ....... \1\ 7 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Lobelia niihauensis.......................... 7 * 3 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Lobelia oahuensis............................ ....... 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Lysimachia filifolia......................... 4 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Lysimachia lydgatei.......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... * 8 ........ ...................................... 8
Lysimachia maxima............................ ....... ....... 10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Mariscus fauriei............................. ....... ....... 7 \2\ 0 ....... 1 ...................................... 8
Mariscus pennatiformis....................... 3 4 ......... ....... 2 \2\ 0 1 (NWHI).............................. 10
Marsilea villosa............................. ....... 4 \4\ 0 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \6\ 4
Melicope adscendens.......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... * \1\ 1 ........ ...................................... \1\ 1
Melicope balloui............................. ....... ....... ......... ....... * \1\ 3 ........ ...................................... \1\ 3
Melicope haupuensis.......................... \1\ 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Melicope knudsenii........................... \1\ 5 ....... ......... ....... * \1\ 2 ........ ...................................... \1\ 7
Melicope lydgatei............................ ....... * 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Melicope mucronulata......................... ....... ....... * 7 ....... * 2 ........ ...................................... 9
Melicope munroi.............................. ....... ....... \2\ 0 * 8 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Melicope ovalis.............................. ....... ....... ......... ....... 3 ........ ...................................... 3
Melicope pallida............................. 3 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Melicope reflexa............................. ....... ....... 8 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Melicope quadrangularis [dagger]............. 0 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ 0.....................................
Melicope saint-johnii........................ ....... 1 3 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 3
Melicope zahlbruckneri....................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 1 3 ...................................... 1 3
Munroidendron racemosum...................... 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Myrsine juddii............................... ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Myrsine linearifolia......................... 9 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Neraudia angulata............................ ....... *10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Neraudia ovata............................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... *8 ...................................... 8
Neraudia sericea [dagger].................... ....... ....... 6 *1 7 ........ 2 0 (Kahoolawe)....................... 14
Nothocestrum breviflorum..................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 9 ...................................... 9
Nothocestrum peltatum........................ 9 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Nototrichium humile.......................... ....... *8 ......... ....... 2 ........ ...................................... 10
Ochrosia kilaueaensis [dagger]............... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 0 ...................................... 0
Panicum niihauense........................... 1 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 7
Peucedanum sandwicense....................... 4 *2 3 ....... 2 ........ ...................................... 11
Phlegmariurus mannii......................... 2 0 ....... ......... ....... *8 2 0 ...................................... 8
Phlegmariurus nutans......................... 3 *7 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Phyllostegia glabra var. lanaiensis [dagger]. ....... ....... ......... 0 ....... ........ ...................................... 0
Phyllostegia hirsuta......................... ....... *9 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Phyllostegia kaalaensis...................... ....... 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Phyllostegia knudsenii....................... 1 3 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 3
Phyllostegia mannii.......................... ....... ....... *8 ....... 2 ........ ...................................... 10
Phyllostegia mollis.......................... ....... *4 *3 ....... 3 ........ ...................................... 10
Phyllostegia parviflora...................... ....... 9 ......... ....... 2 0 2 0 ...................................... 9
Phyllostegia racemosa........................ ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... *10 ...................................... 10
Phyllostegia velutina........................ ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... *10 ...................................... 10
Phyllostegia waimeae......................... 1 1 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 1
Phyllostegia warshaueri...................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 10 ...................................... 10
Phyllostegia wawrana......................... 8 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Plantago hawaiensis.......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 10 ...................................... 10
Plantago princeps............................ 4 3 1 ....... 2 2 0 ...................................... 10
Platanthera holochila........................ 4 2 *2 ....... 2 ........ ...................................... 10
Pleomele hawaiiensis......................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... *10 ...................................... 10
Poa mannii................................... 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Poa sandvicensis............................. 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 7
Poa siphonoglossa............................ 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Portulaca sclerocarpa........................ ....... ....... ......... 1 ....... *9 ...................................... 10
Pritchardia affinis [dagger]................. ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 0 ...................................... 0
Pritchardia aylmer-robinsonii [dagger]....... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ 0 (Niihau)............................ 0
Pritchardia kaalae [dagger].................. ....... 0 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 0
Pritchardia munroi [dagger].................. ....... ....... 0 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 0
Pritchardia napaliensis [dagger]............. 0 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 0
Pritchardia remota........................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ 1 2 (NWHI)............................ 1,8 2
Pritchardia schattaueri [dagger]............. ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 0 ...................................... 0
Pritchardia viscosa [dagger]................. 0 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 0

[[Page 39697]]

Pteralyxia kauaiensis........................ 9 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Pteris lidgatei.............................. ....... *4 3 ....... 3 ........ ...................................... 10
Remya kauaiensis............................. 10 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Remya mauiensis.............................. ....... ....... ......... ....... *1 6 ........ ...................................... 1 6
Remya montgomeryi............................ 1 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 7
Sanicula mariversa........................... ....... 1 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 6
Sanicula purpurea............................ ....... *6 ......... ....... 4 ........ ...................................... 10
Schiedea apokremnos.......................... 9 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Schiedea haleakalensis....................... ....... ....... ......... ....... 1 2 ........ ...................................... 1 2
Schiedea helleri............................. 1 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 7
Schiedea hookeri............................. ....... *10 ......... ....... 2 0 ........ ...................................... 10
Schiedea kaalae.............................. ....... 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Schiedea kauaiensis.......................... 1 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 7
Schiedea kealiae............................. ....... 1 4 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 4
Schiedea lydgatei............................ ....... ....... 10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Schiedea membranacea......................... 7 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 7
Schiedea nuttallii........................... 2 6 2 ....... 2 0 ........ ...................................... 10
Schiedea sarmentosa.......................... ....... ....... 10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Schiedea spergulina var. leiopoda............ 1 1 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 1
Schiedea spergulina var. spergulina.......... 1 6 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 6
Schiedea stellarioides....................... 1 6 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 6
Schiedea verticillata........................ ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ 1 1(NWHI)............................. 1 8 1
Sesbania tomentosa........................... 2 2 2 3 0 2 2 3 0 (Kahoolawe) 2 (NWHI).............. 12
Sicyos alba.................................. ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 10 ...................................... 10
Silene alexandri............................. ....... ....... * 10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Silene hawaiiensis........................... ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... * 10 ...................................... 10
Silene lanceolata............................ 0 * 2 2 0 ....... * 6 ...................................... 10
Silene perlmanii............................. ....... 1 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 6
Solanum incompletum.......................... 0 ....... 0 * 1 0 * 9 ...................................... 10
Solanum sandwicense.......................... 6 * 4 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Spermolepis hawaiiensis...................... 2 2 1 * 1 2 * 2 ...................................... 10
Stenogyne bifida............................. ....... ....... * 10 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Stenogyne campanulata........................ 1 3 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 3
Stenogyne kanehoana.......................... ....... * 1 5 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 5
Tetramolopium arenarium...................... ....... ....... ......... ....... 2 0 * 1 7 ...................................... * 1 7
Tetramolopium capillare...................... ....... ....... ......... ....... 1 6 ........ ...................................... 1 6
Tetramolopium filiforme...................... ....... * 1 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 6
Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. lepidotum....... ....... 8 ......... 2 0 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Tetramolopium remyi.......................... ....... ....... ......... * 6 3 ........ ...................................... 9
Tetramolopium rockii......................... ....... ....... 1 4 ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 4
Tetraplasandra gymnocarpa.................... ....... * 9 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Trematolobelia singularis.................... ....... 1 6 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 6
Urera kaalae................................. ....... * 9 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Vigna o-wahuensis............................ 0 3 * 1 * 1 1 4 3 0 (Kahoolawe)....................... 10
Viola chamissoniana ssp. chamissoniana....... ....... * 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... * 10
Viola helenae................................ 6 5 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 6 5
Viola kauaiensis var. wahiawaensis........... 1 5 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 5
Viola lanaiensis............................. ....... ....... ......... * 8 ....... ........ ...................................... 8
Viola oahuensis.............................. ....... * 10 ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 10
Wilkesia hobdyi.............................. 9 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 9
Xylosma crenatum............................. 1 5 ....... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 1 5
Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. tomentosum........ ....... ....... ......... ....... ....... 1 7 ...................................... 1 7
Zanthoxylum hawaiiense....................... 2 ....... 1 0 1 * 6 ...................................... 10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Including on lands excluded under 4(b)(2)).
[dagger]
Critical habitat not prudent.
\1\ We do not believe that sufficient suitable habitat currently exists to reach the recovery goal of 8 to 10 populations.
\2\ We are unable to identify any habitat essential to its conservation on the island.
\3\ Habitat not essential to the conservation of the species.
\4\ We plan to publish a separate rule to designate critical habitat for the species.
\5\ Only one population of greater than 50,000 mature individuals is required for recovery of this species.
\6\ Five to six populations required for recovery.
\7\ At least 10 populations of 2,000 individuals are required for recovery of this species.
\8\ At least five populations on Nihoa and one to three additional populations on another island.

[[Page 39698]]

This table includes the following information: (1) The number of
populations on each island we believe the designated critical habitat
or other habitat essential for the conservation of the species can
provide for; (2) the species for which we are unable to identify any
habitat essential to their conservation (e.g., Adenophorus periens on
Maui); (3) the species for which sufficient habitat essential to their
conservation is not available for at least eight populations (e.g.,
Alsinidendron obovatum on the island of Oahu); the species for which we
determined the designation of critical habitat is not prudent (e.g.,
Pritchardia kaalae); proposed critical habitat identified as not
essential during the public comment periods and removed from final
designation (e.g., proposed critical habitat for Sesbania tomentosa on
Kahoolawe); the species for which the general recovery goal of 8 to 10
populations does not apply (e.g., Hesperomannia lydgatei); and the
species whose population recovery goals include habitat that has been
excluded from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) has determined that this critical habitat designation
is not a significant regulatory action. This rule will not have an
annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any
economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or
other units of government. This designation will not create
inconsistencies with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency. It will not
materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of their recipients. Finally, this
designation will not raise novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly,
OMB has not formally reviewed this final critical habitat designation.

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

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis
for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the information in our economic analysis (draft economic
analysis and addendum), we are certifying that the critical habitat
designation for 41 island of Hawaii plant species will not have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities because a
substantial number of small entities are not affected by the
designation.
SBREFA does not explicitly define either ``substantial number'' or
``significant economic impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a
``substantial number'' of small entities is affected by this
designation, this analysis considers the relative number of small
entities likely to be impacted in the area. Similarly, this analysis
considers the relative cost of compliance on the revenues/profit
margins of small entities in determining whether or not entities incur
a ``significant economic impact.'' Only small entities that are
expected to be directly affected by the designation are considered in
this portion of the analysis. This approach is consistent with several
judicial opinions related to the scope of the RFA (Mid-Tex Electric Co-
Op, Inc. v. F.E.R.C. and America Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA.)
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer
than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses. By this definition,
Federal and State governments and Hawaii County are not a small
governmental jurisdictions because its population was 148,677 in 2000.
SBREFA further defines ``small organization'' as any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field. TNCH is a large organization that is dominant in the
conservation and land management field on the Big Island. Thus,
according to RFA/SBREFA definitions, TNCH is not likely to be
considered a small organization. Kamehameha Schools is the largest
charitable trust in Hawaii, as well as the State's largest private
landowner; it also has a substantial investment in securities and owns
real estate in other states. In 2001, Kamehameha Schools had over $1
billion in revenues, gains, and other support (Kamehameha Schools
2001). Thus, it is not likely to be considered a small organization.
To determine if the rule would affect a substantial number of small
private entities, we consider the number of small entities affected
within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting) in
this particular area/market affected by the regulation. We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small
entities potentially affected, we also consider whether their
activities have any Federal involvement. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement, and so will not be affected
by critical habitat designation.
The primary projects and activities by private entities that might
be directly affected by the designation that could affect small
entities include farming and ranching operations and lending
institutions. Based on our draft economic analysis and addendum, there
were 1,400 diversified farmers and 470 ranchers in Hawaii County in
2000. The 2000 average annual sales for diversified farmers on the
island of Hawaii were $59,600 per farmer, and the average annual sales
for ranchers were $30,100 per rancher (DBEDT 2002). Since $8,700 is 15
percent of the average annual sales for a diversified farmer and 29
percent of the average annual sales for a rancher, it is assumed that
critical habitat will have a significant economic impact (i.e., 3
percent or more of a business's annual sales) on the farmers or
ranchers. However, there are 1,400 diversified farmers and 470 ranchers
on the island of Hawaii. Based on the annual sales figures, we can
define most of these farmers and ranchers as small businesses (i.e.,
less than $750,000 in annual sales). Five farmers or ranchers represent
0.3 percent of the number of diversified farmers and 1 percent of the
number of ranchers on the island of Hawaii. This does not equal a
substantial number of the small businesses in either the diversified
farming or ranching industries.
Our economic analysis also found there are between two and three
small lending institutions on the island of Hawaii that may be involved
in section 7 consultations regarding HUD loan

[[Page 39699]]

programs. Participation in the consultation was estimated to cost
$1,400, and conducting the biological survey was estimated to cost
$3,900, so the total impact was estimated to be $5,300 per lending
institution. The average annual revenues for the two to three small
lending institutions is unknown. If they each earn less than $176,700
in annual sales ($5,300 divided by 3 percent), the economic impact
attributable to critical habitat would be a significant economic impact
to the lending institutions (i.e., greater than 3 percent of annual
sales). There are currently 26 mortgage lending institutions on the
island of Hawaii. Of these, 23 meet the SBA definition of a small
business (i.e., less that $6 million in annual sales) (Dun & Bradstreet
2002). Two to three lending institutions out of 23 (9 to 13 percent)
will potentially be subject to a significant economic impact. This does
not equal a substantial number of the small lending institutions on the
island of Hawaii.
The actual impacts of the final rule may even be smaller. These
estimates were based on the proposed designations. However, this final
rule designates 92,737 ha (229,147 ac) less than had been proposed, or
a 52 percent reduction.
These conclusions are supported by the history of consultations on
the island of Hawaii. Since these 41 plant species were listed (between
1991 and 1996), we have conducted 21 informal consultations and only
two formal consultations on the island of Hawaii, 11 of which concerned
PTA, in addition to consultations on Federal grants to State wildlife
programs, which also do not affect small entities. The 21 informal
consultations have concerned 10 of the 41 species (Asplenium fragile
var. insulare, Mariscus fauriei, Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum
breviflorum, Plantago hawaiensis, Pleomele hawaiiensis, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Sesbania tomentosa, Silene hawaiiensis, and Solanum
incompletum).
One of the two formal consultations involving the 41 species was
conducted with the Army regarding the addition of two firing lanes to
Range 8 at PTA. Silene hawaiiensis, one of the 41 species, was the only
listed species addressed in the biological opinion, which concluded
that with implementation of the preferred alternative and accompanying
mitigation procedures, the project was not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species. The other formal consultation was
with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on realignment of and
improvements to Saddle Road. Silene hawaiiensis and the palila (or
honeycreeper, Loxioides bailleui), a listed bird, were the two species
addressed in the biological opinion, which concluded that with the
conservation and mitigation measures built into the project by FHWA,
the project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
two species and was not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for
the palila. Neither of the two formal consultations directly affected
or concerned small entities. In both consultations, we concluded that
the preferred alternative for the project, with accompanying
conservation and mitigation procedures, was not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of the species. The only ongoing project is the
Saddle Road realignment, which does not directly affect small entities.
Neither of these formal consultations directly affected or concerned
small entities, nor does the ongoing project directly affect small
entities. As a result, the requirement to reinitiate consultation for
ongoing projects will not affect a substantial number of small entities
on the island of Hawaii.
Three of the 21 informal consultations that have been conducted on
the island of Hawaii concern the National Park Service's Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park: One on fence construction for the purpose of
excluding ungulates and regarding three of the 41 species (Asplenium
fragile var. insulare, Plantago hawaiensis, and Silene hawaiiensis) as
well as 1 listed bird and 2 listed plants not included in the 41
species in today's rule; 1 on use of the Marsokhod planetary rover at
Kilauea Volcano's summit regarding Silene hawaiiensis; and 1 on
outplanting food plants for the endangered Hawaiian nene goose
regarding Sesbania tomentosa and 2 listed birds. Four informal
consultations were conducted with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE): 1
for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program on removal of
unexploded ordnance from the former Waikoloa Maneuver Area regarding
Portulaca sclerocarpa; 1 on the Alenaio Stream flood control project in
Hilo regarding Asplenium fragile var. insulare as well as several
listed birds and a listed plant not included in today's rule; 1 for the
Multi-Purpose Range Complex at PTA regarding Asplenium fragile var.
insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, and
1 listed plant not in today's rule; and 1 consultation for the
Endangered Species Management Plan for PTA regarding 8 of the 41
species (Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, Tetramolopium arenarium, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) and 3
listed plants not in today's rule. Eleven informal consultations were
conducted with the Army concerning PTA: 3 on archery hunts regarding
Silene hawaiiensis and 3 listed plants not in today's rule; 1 on a
grenade machine gun range regarding Asplenium fragile var. insulare and
Silene hawaiiensis; 1 on a quarry rock crusher regarding Silene
hawaiiensis and a listed plant not in today's rule; 1 on the proposed
acquisition of a Parker Ranch parcel regarding Silene lanceolata and a
listed plant not in today's rule; 1 on military training regarding
Hedyotis coriacea, Portulaca sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene
lanceolata, Tetramolopium arenarium, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense; 2 on
threats to rare plants from feral ungulates regarding 8 of the 41
species (Asplenium fragile var. insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Portulaca
sclerocarpa, Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum
incompletum, Tetramolopium arenarium, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) as
well as 3 listed plants not in today's rule; 1 on the Ecosystem
Management Plan regarding 9 of the 41 species (Asplenium fragile var.
insulare, Hedyotis coriacea, Neraudia ovata, Portulaca sclerocarpa,
Silene hawaiiensis, Silene lanceolata, Solanum incompletum,
Tetramolopium arenarium, and Zanthoxylum hawaiiense) as well as the
listed Hawaiian hoary bat and 2 listed plants not in today's rule; and
1 consultation concerning PTA's Ecosystem Management Plan, Endangered
Species Management Plan, and Fire Management Plan regarding the same 9
species, bat, and 2 listed plants referred to just above. Two informal
consultations were conducted with the FHWA on Kealakehe Parkway
construction regarding 3 of the 41 species (Mariscus fauriei,
Nothocestrum breviflorum, and Pleomele hawaiiensis) as well as 1 listed
plant not included in the 41 species in today's rule, and Pritchardia
affinis, for which we determine that the designation of critical
habitat is not prudent in today's rule.
None of these informal consultations directly affected or concerned
small entities. In all 21 informal consultations, we concurred with
each agency's determination that the project, as proposed or modified,
was not likely to adversely affect listed species. The only ongoing
projects are Kealakehe Parkway and those concerning military training

[[Page 39700]]

and management plans at PTA, which do not directly affect small
entities. None of these consultations directly affected or concerned
small entities, and none of the ongoing projects directly affect small
entities. As a result, the requirement to reinitiate consultation for
ongoing projects will not affect a substantial number of small entities
on the island of Hawaii.
Even where the requirements of section 7 might apply due to
critical habitat, based on our experience with section 7 consultations
for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those that,
in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse
modification determinations under section 7--can be implemented
successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and prudent
alternatives. These measures by definition must be economically
feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal agency
involved in the consultation.
For these reasons, we are certifying that the designation of
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, Hibiscadelphus giffardianus, Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis,
Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone, Isodendrion hosakae, 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,
Solanum incompletum, Vigna o-wahuensis, and Zanthoxylum dipetalum ssp.
tomentosum will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis
is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5
U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation are described in
the draft economic analysis and the final addendum to the economic
analysis. Based on the effects identified in these documents, we
believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; will not cause a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based
enterprises. Refer to the final addendum to the economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211, on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Although this rule is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not
expected to significantly affect energy production supply and
distribution facilities because no significant energy production,
supply, and distribution facilities are included within designated
critical habitat. Further, for the reasons described in the economic
analysis, we do not believe that designation of critical habitat for
the 41 species on the island of Hawaii will affect future energy
production. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action,
and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

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

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.):
(a) This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small
governments will not be affected unless they propose an action
requiring Federal funds, permits, or other authorizations. Any such
activities will require that the Federal agency ensure that the action
will not adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.
(b) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State or local
governments or the private sector of $100 million or greater in any
year; that is, it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat
imposes no obligations on State or local governments.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the 41 species from the island of
Hawaii in a takings implications assessment. The takings implications
assessment concludes that this final rule does not pose significant
takings implications.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this final rule does not
have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of Interior policy, we requested
information from appropriate State agencies in Hawaii. This rule
imposes no regulatory requirements unless an agency is seeking Federal
funding or authorization, so it does not have Federal implications. In
addition, this rule will not have substantial direct compliance costs
because many of the planned projects that could affect critical habitat
have no Federal involvement.
The designations may have some benefit to these governments, in
that the areas essential to the conservation of these species are more
clearly defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat
necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified.
While this definition and identification do not alter where and what
federally sponsored activities may occur, they may assist these local
governments in long-range planning, rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultation to occur.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does
not unduly burden the judicial system and does meet the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act. The rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies the
primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the 41 plant species from
the island of Hawaii.

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

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
for which OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond

[[Page 39701]]

to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control
number.

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) Executive Order 13175 and the Department of
the Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no Tribal lands essential for the conservation of these 41
plant species. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for these 41
species does not involve any Tribal lands.

References Cited

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

Authors

The primary authors of this final rule are staff of the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

? 2. Amend Sec. 17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened Plants,
as set forth below:
? a. Under the table's heading FLOWERING PLANTS, by revising the entries
for Achyranthes mutica, Argyroxiphium kauense, 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,
Flueggea neowawraea, Gouania vitifolia, Hibiscadelphus giffardianus,
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, Hibiscus brackenridgei, Ischaemum byrone,
Isodendrion hosakae, 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, Solanum incompletum, Vigna o-wahuensis, and
Zanthoxylum dipetalum ssp. tomentosum to read as follows; and

? b. Under the table's heading FERNS AND ALLIES, by revising the entries
for Adenophorus periens, Asplenium fragile var. insulare, and Diellia
erecta to read as follows.

Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

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

* * * * * * *
Achyranthes mutica.......... None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Amaranthaceae............... E 592 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Argyroxiphium kauense....... Mauna Loa U.S.A. (HI)......... Asteraceae.................. E 497 17.99(k)....... NA
silversword.

* * * * * * *
Bonamia menziesii........... None........... U.S.A. (HI)......... Convolvulaceae.............. E 559 17.99(a)(1), NA
(e)(1), (i),
and (k).

* * * * * * *
Clermontia drepanomorpha.... Oha wai........ U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA
Clermontia lindseyana....... Oha wai........ U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 532 17.99(e)(1) and NA
(k).

* * * * * * *
Clermontia peleana.......... Oha wai........ U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 532 17.99(k)....... NA
Clermontia pyrularia........ Oha wai........ U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 532 17.99(k)....... NA

[[Page 39702]]

* * * * * * *
Colubrina oppositifolia..... Kauila......... U.S.A. (HI)......... Rhamnaceae.................. E 532 17.99(e)(1), NA
(i), and (k).

* * * * * * *
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. Haha........... U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 532 17.99(k)....... NA
carlsonii.

* * * * * * *
Cyanea platyphylla.......... Haha........... U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Cyanea shipmanii............ Haha........... U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 532 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Cyanea stictophylla......... Haha........... U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 532 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Cyrtandra giffardii......... Haiwale........ U.S.A. (HI)......... Gesneriaceae................ E 532 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Cyrtandra tintinnabula...... Haiwale........ U.S.A. (HI)......... Gesneriaceae................ E 532 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Delissea undulata........... None........... U.S.A. (HI)......... Campanulaceae............... E 593 17.99(a)(1) and NA
(k).

* * * * * * *
Flueggea neowawraea......... Mehamehame..... U.S.A. (HI)......... Euphorbiaceae............... E 559 17.99(a)(1), NA
(c), (e)(1),
(i) and (k).

* * * * * * *
Gouania vitifolia........... None........... U.S.A. (HI)......... Rhamnaceae.................. E 541 17.99(e)(1), NA
and (k).

* * * * * * *
Hibiscadelphus giffardianus. Hau kuahiwi.... U.S.A. (HI)......... Malvaceae................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis Hau kuahiwi.... U.S.A. (HI)......... Malvaceae................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Hibiscus brackenridgei...... Mao hau hele... U.S.A. (HI)......... Malvaceae................... E 559 17.99(c), NA
(e)(1), (i),
and (k).

* * * * * * *
Ischaemum byrone............ Hilo ischaemum. U.S.A. (HI)......... Poaceae..................... E 532 17.99(a)(1), NA
(c), (e)(1),
and (k).
Isodendrion hosakae......... Aupaka......... U.S.A (HI).......... Violaceae................... T 414 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Mariscus fauriei............ None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Cyperaceae.................. E 532 17.99(c) and NA
(k).

* * * * * * *
Melicope zahlbruckneri...... Alani.......... U.S.A (HI).......... Rutaceae.................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Neraudia ovata.............. None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Urticaceae.................. E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Nothocestrum breviflorum.... Aiea........... U.S.A (HI).......... Solanaceae.................. E 532 17.99(k)....... NA

[[Page 39703]]

* * * * * * *
Phyllostegia racemosa....... Kiponapona..... U.S.A (HI).......... Lamiaceae................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Phyllostegia velutina....... None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Lamiaceae................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Phyllostegia warshaueri..... None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Lamiaceae................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Plantago hawaienis.......... Laukahi kuahiwi U.S.A (HI).......... Plantaginaceae.............. E 532 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Pleomele hawaiiensis........ Hala pepe...... U.S.A (HI).......... Liliaceae................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Portulaca sclerocarpa....... Poe............ U.S.A (HI).......... Portulacaceae............... E 532 17.96(b) and NA
17.99(k).

* * * * * * *
Sesbania tomentosa.......... Ohai........... U.S.A (HI).......... Fabaceae.................... E 559 17.99(a)(1), NA
(c), (e)(1),
(g), (i), and
(k).

* * * * * * *
Sicyos alba................. Anunu.......... U.S.A (HI).......... Cucurbitaceae............... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Silene hawaiiensis.......... None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Caryophyllaceae............. T 532 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Solanum incompletum......... Popolo ku mai.. U.S.A (HI).......... Solanaceae.................. E 559 17.99(k)....... NA

* * * * * * *
Vigna o-wahuensis........... None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Fabaceae.................... E 559 17.99(e)(1), NA
(i), and (k).

* * * * * * *
Zanthoxylum dipetalum var. Ae............. U.S.A (HI).......... Rutaceae.................... E 595 17.99(k)....... NA
tomentosum.

* * * * * * *
Ferns and Allies
Adenophorus periens......... Pendent kihi U.S.A (HI).......... Grammitidaceae.............. E 559 17.99(a)(1), NA
fern. (c), (i), and
(k).

* * * * * * *
Asplenium fragile var. None........... U.S.A (HI).......... Aspleniaceae................ E 553 17.99(e)(1) and NA
insulare. (k).

* * * * * * *
Diellia erecta.............. Asplenium- U.S.A (HI).......... Aspleniaceae................ E 559 17.99(a)(1), NA
leaved diellia. (c), (e)(1),
(i), and (k).

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 39704]]

? 3. Amend Sec. 17.99 as set forth below:
? a. By revising the section heading to read as follows; and
? b. By adding new paragraphs (k) and (l) to read as follows.

Sec. 17.99 Critical habitat; plants on the islands of Kauai, Niihau,
Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, Oahu, and Hawaii, HI, and on the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands.

(k) Maps and critical habitat unit descriptions for the island of
Hawaii, HI. The following sections contain the legal descriptions of
the critical habitat units designated for the island of Hawaii.
Existing manmade features and structures within the boundaries of the
mapped unit, such as buildings, roads, aqueducts and other water system
features (including but not limited to pumping stations, irrigation
ditches, pipelines, siphons, tunnels, water tanks, gaging stations,
intakes, 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 do not contain the primary
constituent elements described for each species in paragraph (l) of
this section and therefore are not included in the critical habitat
designations. Coordinates are in UTM Zone 5 with units in meters using
North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The following map shows the
general locations of the 99 critical habitat units designated on the
island of Hawaii.
(1) Note: Map 1--Index map follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 39705]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.001

(2) Hawaii 1--Clermontia lindseyana--a (1,337 ha, 3,303 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 18 boundary points: Start at
259287, 2189980; 258514, 2190124; 258227, 2189531; 257076, 2189405;
256231, 2189611; 256096, 2190304; 256159, 2190978; 256258, 2191715;
256132, 2192452; 256438, 2193135; 257202, 2193171; 258074, 2192865;
259566, 2192515; 260015, 2192551; 260564, 2192488; 260937, 2192137;
260600, 2191095; 260195, 2190187; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 2 follows:

[[Page 39706]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.002

(3) Hawaii 1--Clermontia peleana--a (4,704 ha, 11,624 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following seven boundary points: Start at
261799, 2189905; 259290, 2190265; 259437, 2191186; 260905, 2197592;
263380, 2198183; 264962, 2199047; 266443, 2189598; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.003

(4) Hawaii 1--Clermontia pyrularia--a (1,378 ha, 3,405 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 21 boundary points: Start at
258551, 2191038; 258529, 2189991; 258210, 2188565; 257890, 2188331;
257487, 2188365; 256896, 2188490; 256215, 2188925; 255931, 2188918;
255675, 2189060; 255456, 2189333; 255283, 2189470; 255306, 2189929;
255346, 2190140; 255408, 2190618; 255387, 2191557; 255496, 2193031;
255782, 2193009; 256122, 2193173; 256270, 2193339; 257054, 2193360;
258360, 2192915; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 4 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.004

(5) Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii--a (1,577 ha, 3,898 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at
258782, 2190167; 258548, 2189979; 258183, 2188260; 257434, 2188452;
256928, 2188480; 256188, 2188929; 255258, 2189156; 255505, 2193009;
255781, 2192991; 256152, 2193174; 256156, 2193377; 257053, 2193355;
259425, 2192593; 259263, 2191816; 259174, 2191010; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 5 follows:

[[Page 39707]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.005

(6) Hawaii 1--Phyllostegia racemosa--a (938 ha, 2,317 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 14 boundary points: Start at
258101, 2190453; 257892, 2189913; 256913, 2188486; 256656, 2188640;
256222, 2188920; 255488, 2189023; 255638, 2189438; 256199, 2190746;
256201, 2190776; 256355, 2192927; 256193, 2193388; 257046, 2193366;
258868, 2192771; 258286, 2190933; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 6 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.006

(7) Hawaii 2--Clermontia lindseyana--b (1,262 ha, 3,119 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 11 boundary points: Start at
257292, 2195256; 256959, 2195939; 256806, 2197162; 256815, 2198142;
256627, 2199661; 256609, 2200056; 259081, 2200802; 259908, 2197800;
259126, 2196047; 257939, 2196380; 257957, 2195319; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 7 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.007

(8) Hawaii 2--Clermontia pyrularia--b (1,383 ha, 3,418 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 20 boundary points: Start at
255651, 2196455; 255597, 2196941; 255516, 2197725; 255512, 2197761;
255468, 2198050; 255421, 2198130; 255299, 2198552; 255372, 2199203;
256335, 2199414; 256242, 2200024; 255213, 2199704; 254946, 2201156;
255168, 2201360; 256079, 2201937; 256430, 2201672; 257336, 2200280;
257616, 2199751; 257968, 2196298; 258088, 2195186; 255745, 2195208;
return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 8 follows:

[[Page 39708]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.008

(9) Hawaii 2--Phyllostegia racemosa--b (1,683 ha, 4,158 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 13 boundary points: Start at
258723, 2200661; 258940, 2200060; 259480, 2196687; 259164, 2195977;
257990, 2196313; 258115, 2195161; 255794, 2195189; 255648, 2196936;
255554, 2197804; 255334, 2198495; 255397, 2199185; 256317, 2199426;
256234, 2199928; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 9 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.009

(10) Hawaii 3--Clermontia peleana--b (4,098 ha, 10,126 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 16 boundary points: Start at
265536, 2206014; 265870, 2201356; 264628, 2199741; 260958, 2198980;
260785, 2200155; 262026, 2204132; 261185, 2204813; 260398, 2204759;
259170, 2203211; 258222, 2203945; 258477, 2204289; 259386, 2206126;
259977, 2206520; 260443, 2206955; 261652, 2208710; 262533, 2208323;
return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 10 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.010

(11) Hawaii 3--Cyanea platyphylla--a (1,403 ha, 3,467 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following eight boundary points: Start at
261936, 2208604; 263321, 2207740; 265617, 2206104; 265417, 2204172;
264174, 2203283; 260750, 2206482; 260875, 2207122; 261952, 2208637;
return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 11 follows:

[[Page 39709]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.011

(12) Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra giffardii--a (1,510 ha, 3,731 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 22 boundary points: Start at
263977, 2204191; 263091, 2203511; 262736, 2203406; 261836, 2204431;
261358, 2204610; 261162, 2204774; 261114, 2204782; 260137, 2205484;
260269, 2205773; 260727, 2206307; 260808, 2207135; 261955, 2208667;
262335, 2208492; 262457, 2208405; 262682, 2208256; 262829, 2208171;
263062, 2208031; 264606, 2206914; 264702, 2206732; 265162, 2206251;
265443, 2205871; 264381, 2205051; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 12 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.012

(13) Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra tintinnabula--a (2,322 ha, 5,738 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at
261996, 2208648; 262049, 2208624; 263522, 2207698; 265651, 2206158;
265754, 2204527; 265122, 2203759; 262570, 2202152; 261169, 2201554;
261944, 2204127; 261158, 2204766; 260467, 2204723; 260185, 2204367;
260136, 2204327; 260129, 2204298; 259641, 2203682; 259436, 2203822;
258995, 2204073; 259216, 2204499; 259562, 2204625; 259924, 2205129;
260239, 2205570; 260255, 2205790; 260539, 2206042; 260743, 2206373;
260822, 2206782; 260854, 2207176; 261184, 2207475; 261515, 2208026;
261720, 2208326; 261972, 2208593; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 13 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.013

(14) Hawaii 3--Phyllostegia warshaueri--a (2,471 ha, 6,105 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 21 boundary points: Start at
257006, 2207522; 257019, 2207554; 257990, 2209960; 258969, 2210027;
258996, 2210030; 259000, 2210028; 259841, 2209621; 260070, 2208710;
261086, 2208085; 261545, 2208642; 262022, 2208476; 262839, 2208040;
263330, 2207359; 264502, 2206514; 265710, 2205217; 265744, 2204501;
265526, 2204234; 263864, 2203016; 263466, 2203598; 261804, 2205478;
259132, 2206487; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 14 follows:

[[Page 39710]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.014

(15) Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--a (49 ha, 121 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at
216918, 2213235; 217016, 2213305; 217029, 2213274; 217005, 2213247;
217021, 2213158; 217073, 2213172; 217095, 2213120; 217071, 2213088;
217094, 2213045; 217129, 2213041; 217123, 2212977; 217141, 2212945;
217161, 2212966; 217207, 2212974; 217303, 2213051; 217353, 2212944;
217455, 2212885; 217511, 2212825; 217544, 2212704; 217624, 2212704;
217658, 2212443; 217423, 2212270; 217284, 2212268; 217105, 2212451;
216974, 2212346; 216772, 2212797; 216900, 2213009; 216946, 2212994;
216966, 2213060; 216928, 2213088; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 15 follows:

[[Page 39711]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.015

(16) Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--b (35 ha, 87 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 32 boundary points: Start at
223492, 2211567; 223608, 2211572; 223691, 2211528; 223727, 2211464;
223811, 2211316; 223763, 2211291; 223859, 2211232; 223887, 2211182;
223881, 2211116; 223938, 2211006; 223918, 2210977; 223876, 2210984;
223832, 2210851; 223809, 2210816; 223729, 2210799; 223636, 2210739;
223556, 2210796; 223552, 2210877; 223614, 2210869; 223630, 2210891;
223572, 2210924; 223506, 2210932; 223418, 2210946; 223338, 2210965;
223296, 2211003; 223244, 2211091; 223188, 2211145; 223294, 2211291;
223359, 2211352; 223406, 2211368; 223414, 2211415; 223415, 2211453;
return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 16 follows:

[[Page 39712]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.016

(17) Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--c (49 ha, 121 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 15 boundary points: Start at
230256, 2210857; 230438, 2210998; 230517, 2211001; 230682, 2211057;
230897, 2211021; 231011, 2210874; 231090, 2210642; 231078, 2210504;
230899, 2210322; 230783, 2210259; 230543, 2210360; 230357, 2210475;
230289, 2210576; 230244, 2210644; 230224, 2210817; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 17 follows:

[[Page 39713]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.017

(18) Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--d (49 ha, 121 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following nine boundary points: Start at
231266, 2211631; 231267, 2211631; 231537, 2212023; 232139, 2211722;
231979, 2211293; 231830, 2211149; 231774, 2211152; 231436, 2211271;
231277, 2211485; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 18 follows:

[[Page 39714]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.018

(19) Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--e (11 ha, 26 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 39 boundary points: Start at
222273, 2208478; 222265, 2208455; 222245, 2208415; 222245, 2208393;
222331, 2208332; 222330, 2208290; 222311, 2208248; 222279, 2208219;
222256, 2208215; 222254, 2208246; 222251, 2208259; 222230, 2208261;
222222, 2208286; 222213, 2208303; 222225, 2208306; 222227, 2208316;
222214, 2208320; 222209, 2208331; 222194, 2208337; 222189, 2208329;
222194, 2208324; 222202, 2208299; 222198, 2208283; 222219, 2208259;
222244, 2208216; 222238, 2208183; 222198, 2208149; 222045, 2208166;
222020, 2208212; 221971, 2208225; 221966, 2208306; 221969, 2208396;
221963, 2208440; 221988, 2208483; 222015, 2208509; 222077, 2208552;
222199, 2208535; 222218, 2208498; 222247, 2208498; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 19 follows:

[[Page 39715]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.019

(20) Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae--f (51 ha, 127 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at
221456, 2205056; 221315, 2205089; 220996, 2205294; 220895, 2205435;
220799, 2205324; 220680, 2205394; 220645, 2205535; 220550, 2205636;
220701, 2205687; 220754, 2205770; 220904, 2205756; 220861, 2205816;
221058, 2205989; 221139, 2205911; 221195, 2205756; 221253, 2205717;
221216, 2205641; 221179, 2205613; 221095, 2205611; 221197, 2205553;
221326, 2205451; 221675, 2205188; 221929, 2204996; 221948, 2204869;
221871, 2204802; 221737, 2204828; 221610, 2204957; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 20 follows:

[[Page 39716]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.020

(21) Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--a (49 ha, 121 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at
216918, 2213235; 217016, 2213305; 217029, 2213274; 217005, 2213247;
217021, 2213158; 217073, 2213172; 217095, 2213120; 217071, 2213088;
217094, 2213045; 217129, 2213041; 217123, 2212977; 217141, 2212945;
217161, 2212966; 217207, 2212974; 217303, 2213051; 217353, 2212944;
217455, 2212885; 217511, 2212825; 217544, 2212704; 217624, 2212704;
217658, 2212443; 217423, 2212270; 217284, 2212268; 217105, 2212451;
216974, 2212346; 216772, 2212797; 216900, 2213009; 216946, 2212994;
216966, 2213060; 216928, 2213088; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 21 follows:

[[Page 39717]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.021

(22) Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--b (35 ha, 87 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 32 boundary points: Start at
223492, 2211567; 223608, 2211572; 223691, 2211528; 223727, 2211464;
223811, 2211316; 223763, 2211291; 223859, 2211232; 223887, 2211182;
223881, 2211116; 223938, 2211006; 223918, 2210977; 223876, 2210984;
223832, 2210851; 223809, 2210816; 223729, 2210799; 223636, 2210739;
223556, 2210796; 223552, 2210877; 223614, 2210869; 223630, 2210891;
223572, 2210924; 223506, 2210932; 223418, 2210946; 223338, 2210965;
223296, 2211003; 223244, 2211091; 223188, 2211145; 223294, 2211291;
223359, 2211352; 223406, 2211368; 223414, 2211415; 223415, 2211453;
return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 22 follows:

[[Page 39718]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.022

(23) Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis--c (51 ha, 127 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at
221456, 2205056; 221315, 2205089; 220996, 2205294; 220895, 2205435;
220799, 2205324; 220680, 2205394; 220645, 2205535; 220550, 2205636;
220701, 2205687; 220754, 2205770; 220904, 2205756; 220861, 2205816;
221058, 2205989; 221139, 2205911; 221195, 2205756; 221253, 2205717;
221216, 2205641; 221179, 2205613; 221095, 2205611; 221197, 2205553;
221326, 2205451; 221675, 2205188; 221929, 2204996; 221948, 2204869;
221871, 2204802; 221737, 2204828; 221610, 2204957; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 23 follows:

[[Page 39719]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.023

[[Page 39720]]

(24) Hawaii 5--Nothocestrum breviflorum--a (403 ha, 995 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 10 boundary points: Start at
223325, 2230961; 223717, 2230611; 223961, 2230395; 224099, 2230006;
222943, 2227775; 221847, 2228401; 221769, 2228638; 221914, 2229066;
222052, 2229490; 222606, 2230217; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 24 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.024

(25) Hawaii 6--Nothocestrum breviflorum--b (1,113 ha, 2,750 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 29 boundary points: Start at
217283, 2233128; 217629, 2233499; 218093, 2234242; 218828, 2233584;
218277, 2231773; 218266, 2231685; 218291, 2231675; 219411, 2233375;
219521, 2233443; 219655, 2233414; 220288, 2233050; 220656, 2232834;
221080, 2232612; 220999, 2232500; 220822, 2232233; 220802, 2231818;
220498, 2230963; 220529, 2230813; 220350, 2230453; 220296, 2229915;
220205, 2229697; 220190, 2229504; 220122, 2229416; 218354, 2230452;
216792, 2231049; 216919, 2231470; 217150, 2231890; 217026, 2232314;
217214, 2232981; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 25 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.025

(26) Hawaii 7--Pleomele hawaiiensis--a (677 ha, 1,673 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 92 boundary points: Start at
213884, 2231521; 213842, 2231562; 213785, 2231427; 213666, 2231261;
213601, 2230893; 213453, 2230596; 213305, 2230350; 213204, 2230269;
213030, 2230210; 212859, 2230290; 212807, 2230381; 212812, 2230467;
212835, 2230541; 212877, 2230637; 212939, 2230736; 213011, 2230905;
213041, 2231129; 212997, 2231275; 213007, 2231651; 213147, 2232011;
213409, 2232858; 213387, 2233177; 213269, 2233218; 213462, 2233730;
213453, 2233976; 213443, 2234090; 213442, 2234162; 213373, 2234284;
213315, 2234388; 213271, 2234480; 213320, 2234721; 213371, 2234760;
213429, 2234835; 213464, 2234878; 213513, 2234943; 213559, 2235003;
213642, 2235106; 213659, 2235121; 213685, 2235147; 213724, 2235205;
213745, 2235328; 213734, 2235407; 213765, 2235497; 213747, 2235588;
213771, 2235662; 213817, 2235706; 213849, 2235729; 213891, 2235850;
213906, 2235884; 213908, 2235940; 213886, 2235998; 213892, 2236033;
214009, 2236115; 214062, 2236170; 214080, 2236202; 214083, 2236227;
214091, 2236260; 214140, 2236304; 214165, 2236296; 214069, 2236123;
213954, 2236053; 214016, 2235921; 213862, 2235537; 213901, 2235357;
213770, 2235029; 213484, 2234675; 213587, 2234485; 213891, 2234567;
213773, 2233608; 214112, 2233331; 214183, 2233458; 214141, 2233713;
214320, 2234212; 214483, 2234338; 214390, 2234581; 214802, 2235593;
214978, 2235684; 215037, 2235434; 215190, 2235808; 215483, 2235675;
215479, 2235179; 215269, 2234894; 215127, 2234463; 215158, 2234131;
214937, 2233848; 215182, 2233321; 214973, 2232427; 215018, 2231531;
214640, 2231432; 214495, 2231365; 214382, 2231329; 214332, 2231335;
return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 26 follows:

[[Page 39721]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.026

(27) Hawaii 8--Clermontia drepanomorpha--a (1,906 ha, 4,709 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 30 boundary points: Start at
214766, 2225082; 215176, 2225539; 215405, 2225905; 215716, 2226097;
216131, 2226318; 217035, 2226328; 218354, 2225470; 219286, 2224824;
219895, 2223228; 218899, 2220922; 218806, 2219907; 218769, 2219298;
218197, 2219271; 217672, 2220036; 217653, 2220562; 217819, 2221512;
217520, 2221821; 217378, 2221880; 217229, 2221937; 217063, 2221937;
216768, 2222158; 216463, 2222582; 215919, 2223071; 215956, 2223348;
215550, 2223643; 215070, 2223892; 214393, 2224156; 214299, 2224261;
214335, 2224407; 214570, 2224647; return to starting point.
(ii) Note: Map 27 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.027

(28) Hawaii 8--Phyllostegia warshaueri--b (1,177 ha, 2,908 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 27 boundary points: Start at
218326, 2219182; 218265, 2219899; 218572, 2220103; 219186, 2220554;
218961, 2221066; 218183, 2222274; 217900, 2223294; 218531, 2223871;
219842, 2223011; 220052, 2222981; 220255, 2223197; 220513, 2223371;
220883, 2223437; 221142, 2223301; 221469, 2222879; 221431, 2222712;
221443, 2222484; 221956, 2222124; 221860, 2221917; 221276, 2221939;
221020, 2221746; 220775, 2221645; 220679, 2221263; 221125, 2220585;
221255, 2220003; 220857, 2218373; 220445, 2219168; return to starting
point.
(ii) Note: Map 28 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.028

(29) Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica--a (63 ha, 157 ac)
(i) Unit consists of the following 82 boundary points: Start at
211908, 2224450; 211840, 2224339; 211562, 2224160; 211477, 2224142;
211418, 2224067; 211356, 2224034; 211319, 2223969; 211271, 2223951;
211220, 2223903; 211172, 2223900; 211144, 2223870; 211106, 2223860;
211053, 2223873; 210980, 2223837; 210916, 2223837; 210864, 2223788;
210802, 2223764; 210694, 2223796; 210650, 2223761; 210578, 2223756;
210489, 2223646; 210425, 2223652; 210359, 2223635; 210254, 2223626;
210218, 2223598; 210154, 2223584; 210056, 2223595; 209922, 2223585;
209805, 2223507; 209521, 2223432; 209365, 2223366; 209228, 2223347;
208930, 2223267; 208835, 2223286; 208830, 2223355; 208907, 2223389;
209205,

[[Page 39722]]

2223465; 209333, 2223482; 209483, 2223546; 209548, 2223555; 209606,
2223568; 209652, 2223593; 209761, 2223619; 209887, 2223699; 209956,
2223703; 209996, 2223703; 210057, 2223716; 210148, 2223704; 210219,
2223742; 210431, 2223770; 210529, 2223870; 210603, 2223875; 210683,
2224047; 210751, 2224079; 210773, 2224145; 210846, 2224182; 210875,
2224212; 210992, 2224241; 211084, 2224220; 211131, 2224248; 211225,
2224269; 211290, 2224395; 211339, 2224415; 211428, 2224394; 211464,
2224477; 211515, 2224517; 211607, 2224525; 211733, 2224561; 211824,
2224547; 211926, 2224590; 211986, 2224640; 212066, 2224670; 212094,
2224717; 212088, 2224750; 212115, 2224806; 212108, 2224823; 212219,
2224872; 212243, 2224820; 212243, 2224778; 212216, 2224731; 212213,
2224684; 212160, 2224595; return to starting point.
(ii) Excluding one area bounded by the following 31 points (8 ha,
19 ac): Start at 211235, 2224062; 211172, 2224016; 211129, 2224012;
211093, 2223986; 211042, 2223992; 210945, 2223954; 210872, 2223952;
210792, 2223885; 210751, 2223908; 210770, 2223960; 210841, 2223994;
210870, 2224063; 210928, 2224102; 210992, 2224116; 211080, 2224094;
211174, 2224135; 211293, 2224156; 211335, 2224196; 211345, 2224253;
211373, 2224282; 211439, 2224272; 211501, 2224297; 211562, 2224404;
211619, 2224407; 211657, 2224425; 211731, 2224441; 211766, 2224436;
211506, 2224267; 211403, 2224240; 211340, 2224159; 211274, 2224128;
return to starting point.
(iii) Note: Map 29 follows:
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TR02JY03.029

[[Continued on page 39723]]

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 [[pp. 39673-39722]]

Local Navigation