Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Species of Picture-Wing Flies From the Hawaiian Islands, 73794-73895 [E8-27664]
Download as PDF
73794
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Affairs, Washington Office, Bureau of
Land Management, and the Office of the
Solicitor, Department of the Interior.
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3800
Administrative practice and
procedure; Environmental protection;
Intergovernmental relations; Mines;
Public lands—mineral resources;
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements; Surety bonds; Wilderness
areas.
Dated: November 14, 2008.
C. Stephen Allred,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Land and
Minerals Management.
For the reasons stated in the Preamble,
and under the authorities stated below,
the BLM amends 43 CFR part 3800 as
follows:
■
PART 3800—MINING CLAIMS UNDER
THE GENERAL MINING LAWS
1. Revise the authority citation for part
3800 to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.; 30 U.S.C.
22–42, 181 et seq., 301–306, 351–359, and
601 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 40 U.S.C. 471 et
seq.; 42 U.S.C. 6508; 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.;
and Pub. L. No. 97–35, 95 Stat. 357.
Subpart 3800—General
■
2. Add § 3800.6 to read as follows:
§ 3800.6 Am I required to pay any fees to
use the surface of public lands for mining
purposes?
You must pay all processing fees,
location fees, and maintenance fees
specified in 43 CFR parts 3800 and
3830. Other than the processing,
location and maintenance fees, you are
not required to pay any other fees to the
BLM to use the surface of public lands
for mining purposes.
[FR Doc. E8–28741 Filed 12–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS–R1–ES–2007–0006; 92210–1117–
0000–B4]
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
RIN 1018–AU93
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for 12 Species of Picture-Wing
Flies From the Hawaiian Islands
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for 12
species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies
(Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D.
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D.
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
In total, approximately 8,788 acres (ac)
(3,556 hectares (ha)) fall within the
boundaries of the final critical habitat
designation. The critical habitat is
located in four counties (City and
County of Honolulu, Hawaii, Maui, and
Kauai) in Hawaii.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective
on January 5, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final
economic analysis, and map of critical
habitat are available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this final rule will be available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300
Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122,
P.O. Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850;
telephone 808–792–9400; facsimile
808–792–9580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES); telephone 808–792–
9400; facsimile 808–792–9581. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the
designation of critical habitat in this
final rule. For additional information on
the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies, refer
to the final listing rule published in the
Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR
26835), the revised proposed critical
habitat rule published in the Federal
Register on November 28, 2007 (72 FR
67428), and the recovery outline for the
12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies available
on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/
Pacific/ecoservices/endangered/
recovery/documents/
Drosophilarecoveryoutline-final.pdf.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 2007, we published
a revised proposed rule in the Federal
Register to designate critical habitat for
the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies (72
FR 67428). The publication of the
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
revised proposal opened a 60-day public
comment period, which closed on
January 28, 2008. On March 6, 2008, we
published a document in the Federal
Register announcing the reopening of
the public comment period until April
25, 2008, and a notice of two public
hearings (73 FR 12065). On April 4,
2008, we held a public hearing in Hilo,
Hawaii, and on April 10, 2008, we held
a public hearing in Honolulu, Hawaii.
On August 12, 2008, we published a
document in the Federal Register (73
FR 46860) announcing the availability
of the draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation
and reopening the public comment
period until September 11, 2008. For
more information on previous Federal
actions concerning the 12 species of
Hawaiian picture-wing flies, refer to the
proposed designation of critical habitat
published in the Federal Register on
August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46994), and the
final rule to list 11 picture-wing flies as
endangered and one picture-wing fly as
threatened published in the Federal
Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR 26835).
Summary of Comments and
Recommendations
During the comment period that
opened on November 28, 2007, and
closed on January 28, 2008 (72 FR
67428), we received 10 comments,
including 2 requests for public hearings.
Three comments were from peer
reviewers, three were from State of
Hawaii agencies, and four were from
nongovernmental organizations or
individuals. During the comment period
that opened on March 6, 2008, and
closed on April 25, 2008 (73 FR 12065),
we received nine comments from
organizations or individuals. We also
conducted public hearings in Hilo on
the Island of Hawaii and in Honolulu on
the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. During the
comment period that opened on August
12, 2008, and closed on September 11,
2008 (73 FR 46860), we received seven
comments. Three comments were from
individuals (which includes two
individuals that presented testimony at
the public hearing in Honolulu, Hawaii
on April 10, 2008), one comment was
from the U.S. Navy, and three comments
were received from the State of Hawaii
Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Office
of Hawaiian Affairs, and the State
Historic Preservation Office.
Twelve comments supported the
designation of critical habitat for the
Hawaiian picture-wing flies and four
opposed the designation. Two
comments were received from
individuals expressing general views on
the Endangered Species Act, but were
unrelated to the proposed designation of
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
critical habitat. We received two
comments objecting to the exemption of
military lands under section 4(a)(3) of
the Act, and one comment requesting
that we exclude a portion of one critical
habitat unit based on ongoing private
conservation activities. All comments
that we received were reviewed for
substantive issues and new information
regarding the proposed critical habitat
designation for the 12 Hawaiian picturewing fly species. All comments that we
received have been fully considered in
the final rule.
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy
published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions
from 15 knowledgeable individuals with
scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the
geographic region in which the species
occurs, and conservation biology
principles. We received responses from
four of the peer reviewers, as are
discussed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Three peer reviewers
recommended that the critical habitat
designation include additional areas for
7 of the 12 picture-wing fly species
(Drosophila hemipeza, D. heteroneura,
D. montgomeryi, D. neoclavisetae, D.
obatai, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia). The additional areas that
they recommended are either within
historical habitat, or within potentially
suitable habitat that has not been
surveyed that is located adjacent to
occupied habitat. These peer reviewers
stated that the amount of habitat or the
number of units we proposed is
insufficient to provide for conservation
of the species, and that the inclusion of
additional lands adjacent to the areas
proposed would improve the likelihood
of conserving the species. The peer
reviewers stated that for some species,
the lands adjacent to the proposed units
contain habitat that is known or likely
to contain relatively intact native forest.
Some peer reviewers stated that the
designation of additional lands adjacent
to the proposed critical habitat units
may help preserve the species’ historical
distribution or facilitate dispersal
between localized subpopulations.
Some peer reviewers also recommended
that we include unsurveyed areas
believed to support undocumented
populations of picture-wing species,
and that we include areas that are likely
to support host plant populations.
Our Response: The Act defines
critical habitat as:
• The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
species at the time it is listed on which
are found those physical and biological
features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) which may
require special management
considerations or protection; and
• Specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed upon a
determination by the Secretary that such
areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. The Act also states that
‘‘Except in those circumstances
determined by the Secretary, critical
habitat shall not include the entire
geographical area which can be
occupied by the threatened or
endangered species.’’
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that
we designate critical habitat on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial
data available. Although the peer
reviewers recommended areas to add to
the critical habitat designation, they did
not provide information on habitat
suitability or why they believed that the
recommended areas contained the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of these
species.
The areas recommended by the peer
reviewers are either unoccupied or they
have not been surveyed. We did not
include areas that were not occupied at
the time of listing because: (1) It is
unclear why the species were extirpated
from previously occupied areas; and (2)
we could not conclude from the
available data whether or not the
previously occupied areas currently
support, or even could support in the
future, the physical and biological
features (including their host plants)
essential for the conservation of the
species. Furthermore, some of the areas
recommended for inclusion have never
been surveyed for the flies, nor surveyed
for the presence of host plants.
Therefore based on the available
information, we are unable to conclude
that these areas were occupied at the
time of listing, or that they contain the
physical and biological features
essential for the conservation of the
species.
We used the best available, most
recent survey data for adult flies to
determine which sites we would
identify as occupied and which sites we
would identify as unoccupied. The
primary dataset we used to document
observations of these 12 picture-wing
flies spans the years 1965–1999 (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–16). We
also reviewed a variety of peer-reviewed
and other articles for this final rule,
which included background information
on the biology of each of the 12 species.
Additional data were obtained from
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73795
personal communications with
landowners, scientists, and land
managers familiar with particular
species and locations. Specific
information from all of these sources
included estimates of historic and
current distribution, abundance, and
territory sizes for the 12 species, as well
as information on habitat requirements.
The physical and biological features
essential to the conservation, or primary
constituent elements (PCEs), of the 12
picture-wing flies include both the host
plants used by the larvae, as well as the
native forest components used by
foraging adults. We used known adult
location data to identify each critical
habitat unit, and included the
surrounding area encompassing the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species. We did not include within this
critical habitat designation sites in
which a species had been observed
according to the most recent survey data
but that did not include the PCEs.
Based on the best available
information, we believe that our final
designation accurately encompasses
sufficient areas for the conservation of
the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly
species. Therefore, we have not
included the additional areas proposed
by the peer reviewers. However,
surveying historical habitat sites and
adjacent potentially suitable habitat for
extant populations of picture-wing flies
and host plants will be a high priority
during the recovery planning process,
and we may consider amending the
critical habitat designation at that time
if new information indicates that these
areas are essential to the recovery of
these species.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer
commented that the Waiea Tract, which
is adjacent to the proposed Drosophila
heteroneura—Unit 2—Kona Refuge on
the Island of Hawaii, contains higher
densities of Clermontia sp. (the species’
primary host plant) than the area that
we proposed as critical habitat. The peer
reviewer stated that the Waiea Tract
should therefore be a high priority for
conservation.
Our Response: The peer reviewer did
not present scientific data with which
we could evaluate whether the Waiea
Tract includes areas that contain the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of D.
heteroneura, or whether the areas
currently proposed for designation for
this species are inadequate. The Act
defines critical habitat in part as areas
containing the physical or biological
features (PCEs) essential to the
conservation of the species. To
determine what is essential, we
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73796
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
determine the amount and spatial
arrangement of PCEs necessary to
recover the species. We believe that the
areas designated in this rule will
adequately provide for the conservation
and recovery of the species; that is, the
currently designated areas provide the
PCEs in the quantity and configuration
sufficient to meet the conservation and
recovery needs of the species. Although
the Waiea Tract is known to be
occupied and contains high densities of
Clermontia species, we do not believe
this additional area is essential to the
conservation of D. heteroneura. We
proposed a total of 4,628 ac (1,855 ha)
of critical habitat for Drosophila
heteroneura, which includes 3,604 ac
(1,459 ha) of lands adjacent to the Waiea
Tract (Drosophila heteroneura—Unit
2—Kona Refuge). Based on the best
scientific data available, we believe
these areas accurately encompass the
areas necessary for the conservation of
D. heteroneura as required by the Act.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer
stated that the absence of nonnative
wasps (Vespula sp.) within suitable
habitat should be included as a primary
constituent element for Drosophila
heteroneura. This peer reviewer stated
that based on field surveys, nonnative
wasps are capable of entirely excluding
D. heteroneura from habitat that is
otherwise suitable.
Our Response: Primary constituent
elements are those physical and
biological features that are essential to
the conservation of a species and that
may require special management
considerations or protection (50 CFR
424.12(b)). Predation by nonnative
wasps has been identified as a
significant threat to the 12 picture-wing
fly species, and we intend to pursue
recovery actions to minimize the
impacts of nonnative wasps in currently
occupied habitat and in areas within the
flies’ historical range. However, we
disagree that the absence of predatory
wasps should be included as a primary
constituent element, since management
strategies to address this specific threat
remain to be developed.
(4) Comment: Two peer reviewers
stated that since each of the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies feed within
decomposing portions of their host
plants, critical habitat should
encompass all host plant life stages (e.g.,
from seedlings to senescent
individuals), and be large enough to
support healthy, reproducing host plant
populations. One peer reviewer also
recommended that reproducing host
plant populations be included as a
primary constituent element.
Our Response: Based on the best
scientific data available, we believe that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
the areas designated as critical habitat in
this final rule are large enough to
provide for all host plant life stages (see
our response to Comment (1), above, for
a discussion about the information we
used to designate critical habitat for the
12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies). We
agree with the peer reviewer that
including reproducing host plant
populations as an additional primary
constituent element for each of the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing fly species
would improve precision in identifying
the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of a species
in the field. Accordingly, we have
incorporated this recommendation into
this final rule, although the addition of
this new primary constituent element
did not result in any boundary changes
to any of the designated critical habitat
units.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer
emphasized that additional in-field
management activities are necessary on
the Island of Oahu to protect Urera
glabra and U. kaalae, which are host
plants for Drosophila aglaia, D.
hemipeza, and D. montgomeryi.
Our Response: We agree that
management of the remaining Urera
spp. populations on the Island of Oahu
is necessary to prevent their continued
decline and to support the long-term
conservation of Drosophila aglaia, D.
hemipeza, and D. montgomeryi. On a
broader scale, specific management
actions that relate to the conservation of
host plants for each of the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing fly species will likely be
an important recovery task as recovery
plans and other conservation programs
are developed. However, identifying
specific management is beyond the
scope of this final critical habitat
designation.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer
noted that the proposed rule lacks a
formal analysis of how the critical
habitat proposed for the 12 picture-wing
flies will function under different
scenarios of climate change. The
reviewer suggested that the designation
should take into account the potential
for shifting distributions of both the
picture-wing flies and their host plants
along natural temperature and moisture
gradients in response to climate change.
Our Response: Although we agree that
the impact of climate change to the
distribution of picture-wing flies and
their host plant populations is a
potential concern, the effects of climate
change are difficult to predict at the
local or regional level. In addition,
future changes in precipitation are
uncertain because they depend in part
˜
on how El Nino (a disruption of the
ocean atmospheric system in the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Tropical Pacific having important global
consequences for weather and climate)
might change, and reliable projections
˜
of changes in El Nino have yet to be
made (Hawaii Climate Change Action
Plan 1998, pp. 2–10). As such, we do
not have sufficient scientific
information with which to formally
analyze the potential effects of climate
change on the Hawaiian picture-wing
flies and their habitat at this time. To
the extent that climate change leads to
a future shift in the location of the PCEs
for these species, we would need to
address that in future critical habitat
revisions.
Federal Agency Comments
(7) Comment: The U.S. Navy, on
behalf of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration requested that we
exclude parts of Kokee Sites B and D
that intersect the proposed critical
habitat. They characterized the areas as
being fenced and developed, stating that
these areas would be unlikely to support
Hawaiian picture-wing flies. They also
advised that they planned to survey for
the endangered fly, Drosophila
musaphila, at the Kokee Sites to
determine its presence or absence, and
that measures to benefit the fly will be
included in the Pacific Missile Range
Facility Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan if the fly is
discovered.
Our Response: We have attempted to
exclude manmade structures using
aerial photos and other available
imagery. However, we were not always
able to successfully exclude these
structures from critical habitat maps
because the resolution of our imagery
does not allow us to locate small
structures. Existing manmade features
and structures within the boundaries of
the areas mapped as critical habitat,
such as buildings, roads, existing fences,
telecommunications equipment towers
and associated structures and
equipment, communication facilities
and regularly maintained associated
rights-of-way, radars, telemetry
antennas, paved areas, and other
landscaped areas, do not contain one or
more of the primary constituent
elements described for D. musaphilia.
Accordingly, the text of the rule makes
clear that these types of areas are not
included in the critical habitat
designation, even if they occur within
the boundary of the mapped critical
habitat unit Drosophila musaphilia—
Unit 1—Kokee.
Comments From the State of Hawaii
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the
Secretary shall submit to the State
agency a written justification for his
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
failure to adopt regulations consistent
with the agency’s comments or
petition.’’ Comments received from the
State regarding the proposal to designate
critical habitat for Drosophila aglaia, D.
differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura,
D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D.
musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai,
D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia are addressed below.
(8) Comment: The State of Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of Forestry and
Wildlife (DOFAW) supported the
critical habitat designations on private
lands, provided the designations have
landowner support. The DOFAW
commented that it supports the targeted
site-specific approach to designate
critical habitat within larger areas being
managed for watershed and native
species protection and restoration of
native ecosystems, and agrees with the
proposals for the islands of Kauai,
Oahu, and Molokai where designations
are proposed on DOFAW lands. It
requested additional review and
coordination on sites proposed on
DOFAW forest reserves on the Island of
Hawaii that are included in the TriMountain Watershed Partnership and
Kohala Mountain Watershed
Partnership for possible exclusion based
on their protected status and adequacy
of their management programs. It also
requested that site visits be conducted
for all areas proposed as critical habitat
to confirm the adequacy of the site, to
confirm appropriateness for exclusion,
and to locate boundaries. Finally, it
suggested that the critical habitat
designation process could be improved
if done concurrently with recovery
planning. In addition, DOFAW stated
that critical habitat designations for host
plants may be adequate to meet the
needs of the picture-wing flies.
Our Response: We appreciate and
commend the State’s implementation of
management plans that benefit the
Hawaiian picture-wing flies’ critical
habitat areas that we are designating in
this final rule. The Secretary has
discretion to exclude lands that have
been proposed under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act, upon a determination that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying a particular area
as part of the critical habitat (unless the
failure to designate such an area would
result in the extinction of the species).
We have fully considered the State’s
request that we exclude certain parts of
its lands from critical habitat
designation. However, the units we are
designating in this final rule meet the
definition of critical habitat, contain the
PCEs that are essential to the
conservation of these species, and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
require special management. In
addition, based on our economic
analysis and the best available
information, we are unaware of any
substantive economic or other relevant
impacts that would result from such
designation on State lands. Accordingly,
we have not excluded the State lands
from the designation of critical habitat.
On May 12, 2008, and September 17,
2008, we met with DOFAW personnel
regarding their comments on the
proposed critical habitat units on the
Island of Hawaii. The State provided us
with a copy of the 2008 Waiakea Timber
Management Map, which was
developed based on their 1997 timber
inventory. This map indicated that
portions of two units, (Drosophila
mulli—Unit 3—Waiakea Forest [373
acres/151 ha], and Drosophila mulli—
Unit 2—Stainback Forest [76 acres/31
ha]), were planted in the 1960s with
several timber crop species including
Eucalyptus sp., Flindersia brayleyana
(Queensland maple), and Toona ciliata
(Australia red cedar). The DOFAW staff
advised us that Drosophila mulli’s host
plant (Pritchardia beccariana) is
scattered within the timber-planted
areas and within the above critical
habitat units. Although the two critical
habitat units encompass areas planted
with Eucalyptus sp. and other nonnative
timber species, they contain the primary
constituent elements, are occupied by D.
mulli, and incorporate the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of this species.
We agree that the process of
designating critical habitat may be
improved if it were completed
concurrently with the development of a
recovery plan. However, the Act and its
implementing regulations require that
we specify critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time a species is
proposed for listing (50 CFR 424.12(a)).
In the case of the 12 picture-wing flies,
we are also under a court-ordered
deadline to complete the critical habitat
designations by November 15, 2008
(Center for Biological Diversity v. Allen,
CV–05–274–HA).
During the development of the revised
proposed rule, we aligned the proposed
critical habitat areas with areas that
were already designated as critical
habitat for other species to the
maximum extent practicable on State
and private lands. On the Island of
Oahu, critical habitat has only been
designated for one plant (Urera kaalae),
which is a host plant for Drosophila
hemipeza and D. montgomeryi. There is
no designated critical habitat for the
host plants of D. heteroneura, D. mulli,
and D. ochrobasis on the Island of
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73797
Hawaii. Therefore, we were not able to
align existing host plant critical habitat
with proposed critical habitat for the
picture-wing flies on the Island of
Hawaii. We believe that the lands
designated as critical habitat in this
final rule accurately represent areas that
will provide for the conservation of the
12 picture-wing flies.
(9) Comment: The State of Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of State Parks
commented that four areas within the
proposed unit Drosophila musaphilia—
Unit 1—Kokee, appeared to include
roads, lawns, and buildings, and other
structures. The State presented maps
depicting the areas in question, and
requested that we remove them from the
designation if the primary constituent
elements were not present.
Our Response: Our analysis of
satellite imagery determined that the
developed areas in question are not
within the Drosophila musaphilia—Unit
1—Kokee critical habitat unit.
Accordingly, the area in question is not
included in the area that we originally
proposed and are herein designating as
critical habitat.
(10) Comment: The State of Hawaii
Office of Hawaiian Affairs commented
that they support the reconsideration of
the Hawaiian picture-wing fly critical
habitat, and that the revised designation
more accurately reflects the best
scientific data available as required by
the Act. The State Historic Preservation
Office commented that the designation
of critical habitat does not affect historic
properties.
Our Response: Based on the best
scientific data available, we agree that
this final rule more accurately reflects
the physical and biological
requirements of the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies. We also agree that
the designation of critical habitat does
not affect historic properties.
Public Comments Related to the Military
and Exemption of Military Lands From
the Designation
(11) Comment: Four individuals or
non-governmental organizations
submitted written comments or
testimony at the public hearings stating
opposition to the exemption of Oahu
military lands from the designation.
They also requested that we provide
information on our finding that the
Oahu Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan will protect the two
picture-wing fly species involved
(Drosophila substenoptera and D.
aglaia), and that we justify the
exemption of military lands from the
critical habitat designation.
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73798
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Our Response: The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
(Pub. L. 108–136) amended the Act to
limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) states
that ‘‘The Secretary shall not designate
as critical habitat any lands or other
geographical areas owned or controlled
by the Department of Defense, or
designated for its use, that are subject to
an integrated natural resources
management plan prepared under
section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C.
670a), if the Secretary determines in
writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat
is proposed for designation.’’
Accordingly, those portions of the
Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (INRMP) applicable
to areas we were considering for critical
habitat designation for Drosophila
aglaia and D. substenoptera were
evaluated according to the requirements
of section 4(B)(i) of the Act.
The U.S. Army Oahu INRMP for the
West Range of the Schofield Barracks
Military Reservation was completed in
2000. This INRMP includes several
conservation measures that benefit
Drosophila aglaia and D. substenoptera.
The measures include: (1) Outplanting
of native plants, which provides for the
natural forest conditions necessary for
adult fly foraging by both species; (2)
feral ungulate control, which prevents
both direct loss of the larval stage host
plants and adult foraging substrate of
both species and prevents habitat
alteration by feral ungulates; (3)
wildland wildfire control, which
prevents both loss and alteration of
habitat for D. aglaia; and (4) nonnative
plant control, which prevents habitat
alteration for both species. Accordingly,
we determined that the plan provides a
benefit to D. aglaia and D. subsenoptera,
and we therefore did not designate
approximately 78 acres (31 ha) as
critical habitat for D. aglaia and D.
substenoptera under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act. However, since these areas
are important for the recovery of these
species, we intend to work closely with
the U.S. Army to identify recovery tasks
and implement recovery efforts for these
two species as recovery plans are
developed. The other 10 species of
picture-wing flies do not occur on Army
land.
(12) Comment: One individual
provided testimony at a public hearing
stating that the military is continually
expanding their presence in the
Hawaiian Islands at the expense of
environmental protection. This
commenter cited the recent expansion
of training activities by the U.S. Navy
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
and introduction of the U.S. Army’s
Stryker Brigade as examples.
Our Response: The Fish and Wildlife
Service is the principal Federal agency
responsible for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing fish, wildlife, and plants
and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people. In this
regard, it is paramount that we work
cooperatively with all partners
(including the military) to promote
environmental stewardship. Although
the U.S. Navy training activities and the
presence of the U.S. Army Stryker
Brigade are beyond the scope of this
final critical habitat designation, we
look forward to working with them to
improve the status of imperiled species
on their lands.
Public Comments Related to the Effects
of the Designation on Private
Landownership
(13) Comment: Two individuals
provided written comments stating
opposition to the designation because
they believe it will negatively impact
the rights of private landowners. One
commenter did not want tax money to
contribute to fruit flies stripping fellow
citizens of their property rights.
Our Response: The effect of a critical
habitat designation is that activities
authorized, funded, or carried out by a
Federal agency require consultation
with the Service under section 7 of the
Act to ensure they are not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. For example, 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
under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344 et seq.) or a section
10(a)(1)(B) permit from us, or activities
on private or State lands funded by a
Federal agency, such as the Federal
Highway Administration or Federal
Emergency Management Agency
funding, would be subject to the section
7 consultation process. Activities on
State, Tribal, local, or private lands that
are not carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency are not
subject to any regulatory requirements
as a result of critical habitat designation.
The designation of critical habitat does
not affect land ownership or establish a
refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area, and the
designation of critical habitat does not
allow government or public access to
private lands. Most activities that
require a Federal agency to consult with
us generally can proceed without
modification.
(14) Comment: One land manager
expressed opposition to the designation
of critical habitat on private lands
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
within the proposed Drosophila
neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu Kukui. This
commenter questioned whether the
current conservation program in place
for the Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve
by the Maui Land and Pineapple
Company might preclude the need for
designation in light of the perceived loss
of real property rights within the area.
Our Response: We agree with the
commenter that developing and
maintaining public and private
partnerships for species conservation
are important. After fully evaluating the
Puu Kukui conservation program, we
are excluding a portion of the proposed
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu
Kukui from the final designation, since
the private landowner is proactively
managing the area for the conservation
benefit of the D. neoclavisetae and
numerous other listed species. We
believe that there is a higher likelihood
that beneficial conservation activities
will continue if we do not include this
area in this critical habitat designation.
We have determined that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
including this area as critical habitat, as
is discussed in detail in the ‘‘Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act’’
section below.
Other Public Comments
(15) Comment: One individual
expressed opposition to the listing
process that determined Federal status
for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies,
and criticized the fact that
comprehensive surveys were not
conducted during the listing process.
Our Response: Our November 28,
2007, proposed rule (72 FR 67428)
specifically solicited comments on the
proposed critical habitat revision.
Comments relating to the May 9, 2006,
final listing rule (71 FR 26835) are
hereby acknowledged, but are beyond
the scope of this final critical habitat
designation.
Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat
designation for the 12 Hawaiian picturewing flies, we reviewed and considered
comments from the public and peer
reviewers on the November 28, 2007,
proposed designation of critical habitat
(72 FR 67428), the March 6, 2008,
document announcing the public
hearings and the reopening of the
comment period (73 FR 12065), and the
August 12, 2008, document announcing
the availability of the draft economic
analysis and an amended required
determinations section of the proposed
rule and the reopening of the comment
period (73 FR 46860). As a result of
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
comments received, we made the
following changes to our proposed
designation:
(1) The final designation includes the
following revision of the primary
constituent elements used to identify
critical habitat for each of the 12
picture-wing fly species: Populations of
the larval stage host plant(s) that exhibit
one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals). This change
does not affect the boundaries of the
proposed designation.
(2) We have excluded 450 ac (182 ha)
of lands owned by the Maui Land and
Pineapple Company (MLP) that we
proposed as critical habitat for
Drosophila neoclavisetae, within the
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu
Kukui, from the final designation (see
the ‘‘Exclusions under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act’’ section of this final rule for
further details on this exclusion).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features
(a) essential to the conservation of the
species and
(b) that may require special
management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Conservation, as defined under
section 3 of the Act, means the use of
all methods and procedures which are
necessary to bring any endangered
species or threatened species to the
point at which the measures provided
under the Act are no longer necessary.
Such methods and procedures include,
but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources
management such as research, census,
law enforcement, habitat acquisition
and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in
the extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
prohibition against destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat
with regard to actions carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires consultation on Federal actions
that may affect critical habitat. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
designation of critical habitat does not
affect land ownership or establish a
refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such
designation does not allow government
or public access to private lands. Such
designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by private
landowners. Where a landowner
requests Federal agency funding or
authorization for an activity that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat,
the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the
event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the landowner’s
obligation is not to restore or recover the
species, but to implement reasonable
and prudent alternatives to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
the critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat
designation, habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing must
contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species, and be included only if
those features may require special
management considerations or
protection. Critical habitat designations
identify, to the extent known using the
best scientific data available, habitat
areas that provide essential life cycle
needs of the species (i.e., areas on which
are found those physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species). Under the Act, we can
designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed
only when we determine that those
areas are essential for the conservation
of the species. For the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies, we have determined
that it is not necessary to designate
critical habitat in unoccupied areas, as
there are adequate occupied areas that
contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we
designate critical habitat on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data
available. Further, our policy on
Information Standards Under the
Endangered Species Act, published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59
FR 34271), the Information Quality Act
(section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R.
5658)), and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data
available. They require our biologists, to
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73799
the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific data
available, to use primary and original
sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When determining which areas
should be designated as critical habitat,
our primary source of information is
generally the information developed
during the listing process for the
species. Additional information sources
may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed
journals, conservation plans developed
by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species
may move from one area to another over
time. Furthermore, we recognize that
critical habitat designated at a particular
point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later
determine are necessary for the recovery
of the species. For these reasons, a
critical habitat designation does not
signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not
promote the recovery of the species.
Areas that support populations, but
are outside the critical habitat
designation, will continue to be subject
to conservation actions. They are also
subject to the regulatory protections
afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of
the best available information at the
time of the Federal agency action.
Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their
designated critical habitat areas may
require consultation under section 7 of
the Act and may still result in jeopardy
findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the
basis of the best available information at
the time of designation will not control
the direction and substance of future
recovery plans, habitat conservation
plans, or other species conservation
planning efforts if information available
at the time of these planning efforts calls
for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR
424.12, in determining which areas
occupied by the species at the time of
listing to designate as critical habitat,
we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species that may require special
management considerations or
protection. We consider the physical
and biological features to be the primary
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73800
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
constituent elements laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement for the conservation of the
species. These include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Space for individual and
population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or
other nutritional or physiological
requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction,
and rearing (or development) of
offspring;
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derived the specific primary
constituent elements required for the 12
species of picture-wing flies from their
biological needs, as described in the
revised proposed critical habitat rule
published in the Federal Register on
November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428), and
below.
As required by 50 CFR 424.12(b), we
are to list the known PCEs with our
description of critical habitat. The PCEs
provided by the physical and biological
features upon which the designation is
based may include, but are not limited
to, the following: Roost sites, nesting
grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites,
seasonal wetland or dryland, water
quality or quantity, host species or plant
pollinators, geological formations,
vegetation types, tides, and specific soil
types.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for
Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D.
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D.
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia
We identified the PCEs for the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies based on
our knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species, and
the physical and biological features of
the habitat necessary to sustain their
essential life history functions. To
determine what is essential for these
species, we determined the amount and
spatial arrangement of PCEs necessary
to provide for their conservation. Not all
areas that contain one or more of the
PCEs would necessarily be included in
the designation if those PCEs were not
in the quantity and configuration
requisite to meeting the conservation
needs of the species. For example, areas
may not be included in the designation
if they are in excess of the habitat that
has been determined to be sufficient to
meet the conservation and recovery
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
needs of the species. Additional
information about how we identified the
PCEs can also be found in the revised
proposed critical habitat rule published
on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428).
All areas designated as critical habitat
for the 12 picture-wing flies are
currently occupied, within the species’
historical geographic range, contain all
relevant PCEs, and support both the
larval and adult foraging stages of the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies.
Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior
The general life cycle of Hawaiian
Drosophilidae is typical of that of most
flies. After mating, females lay eggs from
which larvae (the immature stage)
hatch. As larvae grow, they molt (shed
their skin) through three successive
stages (instars). When they are fully
grown, the larvae change into pupae (a
transitional form) in which they
metamorphose and emerge as adults.
Breeding for each of the 12 species of
Hawaiian picture-wing flies included in
this final rule generally occurs yearround, but egg laying and larval
development increase following the
rainy season as the availability of
decaying matter, upon which the flies
feed, increases in response to the heavy
rains (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp.
1–2). In general, Drosophila lay between
50 and 200 eggs at a single time. Eggs
develop into adults in about a month,
and adults generally become sexually
mature 1 month later. Adults generally
live for 1 to 2 months (Science Panel
2005).
It is unknown how much space is
needed for these flies to engage in
courtship and territorial displays, and
mating activities. Adult behavior may be
disrupted or modified by less than ideal
conditions, such as decreased forest
cover or loss of suitable food material
(K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1–2).
Additionally, adult behavior may be
disrupted, and the flies themselves may
be susceptible to the hunting activities
of nonnative Hymenoptera, including
yellow jacket wasps and ants (Kaneshiro
and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 41–42). The
larvae generally pupate within the soil
located below their host plant material,
and it is presumed that they require
relatively undisturbed and unmodified
soil conditions to complete this stage
before reaching adulthood (Science
Panel 2005, p. 5). Lastly, it is wellknown that these 12 species and most
other picture-wing flies are susceptible
to even slight temperature increases, an
issue that may be exacerbated by loss of
suitable forest cover or the impacts from
drought (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp.
1–2).
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Food
Each of the 12 species of Hawaiian
picture-wing flies described in this
document is found on a single island,
and the larvae of each are dependent
upon only a single or a few related
species of plants. The adult flies feed on
a variety of decomposing plant matter.
The water or moisture requirements for
all 12 of these species is unknown;
however, during drier seasons or during
times of drought, it is expected that
available adult and larval stage food
material in the form of decaying plant
matter may decrease (K. Kaneshiro, in
litt. 2005b, pp. 1–2). Because the larval
stage of each of the 12 species feeds
only on the decomposing portions of
their specific host plants, designated
lands must encompass an area sufficient
to support healthy, reproducing host
plant populations exhibiting one or
more life stages (e.g., from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
Based on our current knowledge of
the life history, biology, and ecology of
each species, and the habitat
requirements to sustain the essential life
history functions of the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies, we provide the PCEs
for the larval and adult life stages of
Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D.
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D.
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia below:
Oahu Species
The PCEs for Drosophila aglaia are:
(1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia, koa, and
Diospyros sp., forest between the
elevations of 1,865–2,985 feet (ft) (568–
910 meters (m)); and (2) the larval stage
host plant Urera glabra, which exhibits
one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila hemipeza
are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
1,720–3,005 ft (524–916 m); and (2) the
larval stage host plants Cyanea
angustifolia, C. calycina, C. grimesiana
ssp. grimesiana (Endangered (E)), C.
grimesiana ssp. obatae (E), C.
membranacea, C. pinnatifida (E), C.
superba ssp. superba (E), Lobelia
hypoleuca, L. niihauensis (E), L.
yuccoides, and Urera kaalae (E), which
exhibit one or more life stages (from
seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila montgomeryi
are: (1) Mesic, lowland, diverse ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
1,720–2,985 ft (524–910 m); and (2) the
larval stage host plant Urera kaalae (E),
which exhibits one or more life stages
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila obatai are:
(1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and koa
forest between the elevations of 1,475–
2,535 ft (450–773 m); and (2) the larval
stage host plant Pleomele forbesii,
which exhibits one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila
substenoptera are: (1) Mesic to wet,
lowland to montane, ohia and koa forest
between the elevations of 1,920–4,030 ft
(585–1,228 m); and (2) the larval stage
host plants Cheirodendron
platyphyllum ssp. platyphyllum, C.
trigynum ssp. trigynum, Tetraplasandra
kavaiensis, and T. oahuensis, which
exhibit one or more of the life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila tarphytrichia
are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
1,720–2,985 ft (524–910 m); and (2) the
larval stage host plant Charpentiera
obovata, which exhibits one or more life
stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
Hawaii (Big Island) Species
The PCEs for Drosophila heteroneura
are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
2,980–5,755 ft (908–1,754 m); and (2)
the larval stage host plants
Cheirodendron trigynum ssp. trigynum,
Clermontia clermontioides, C.
clermontioides ssp. rockiana, C.
hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana
(E), C. montis-loa, C. parviflora, C.
peleana (E), C. pyrularia (E), and
Delissea parviflora, which exhibit one
or more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila mulli are: (1)
Wet, montane, ohia forest between the
elevations of 1,955–3,585 ft (596–1,093
m); and (2) the larval stage host plant
Pritchardia beccariana, which exhibits
one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila ochrobasis
are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia,
koa, and Cheirodendron sp. forest
between the elevations of 3,850–5,390 ft
(1,173–1,643 m); and (2) the larval stage
host plants Clermontia calophylla, C.
clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp.
rockiana, C. drepanomorpha (E), C.
hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana
(E), C. montis-loa, C. parviflora, C.
peleana (E), C. pyrularia (E), C.
waimeae, Marattia douglasii, Myrsine
lanaiensis, M. lessertiana, and M.
sandwicensis, which exhibit one or
more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
Kauai Species
The PCEs for Drosophila musaphilia
are: (1) Mesic, montane, ohia and koa
forest between the elevations of 3,310–
3,740 ft (1,009–1128 m); and (2) the
larval stage host plant Acacia koa,
which exhibits one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
Maui Species
The PCEs for Drosophila
neoclavisetae are: (1) Wet, montane,
ohia forest between the elevations of
3,405–4,590 ft (1,036–1,399 m), and (2)
the larval stage host plants Cyanea
kunthiana and C. macrostegia ssp.
macrostegia, which exhibit one or more
life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
Molokai Species
The PCEs for Drosophila differens are:
(1) Wet, montane, ohia forest between
the elevations of 3,645–4,495 ft (1,111–
1,370 m); and (2) the larval stage host
plants Clermontia arborescens ssp.
waihiae, C. granidiflora ssp. munroi, C.
kakeana, C. oblongifolia ssp. brevipes
(E), and C. pallida, which exhibit one or
more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
This final critical habitat designation
identifies the known physical or
biological features in the quantity and
spatial arrangement on the landscape
essential to support the life history
functions of the species. Each of the
areas designated in this rule contains
the PCEs to provide for one or more of
the life history functions of Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D.
heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli,
D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D.
obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera,
and D. tarphytrichia.
Special Management Considerations or
Protections
When designating critical habitat, we
assess whether the areas occupied at the
time of listing contain the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and
whether these features may require
special management considerations or
protections.
Nonnative plants and animals pose
the greatest threats to these 12 picturewing flies. In order to counter the
ongoing degradation and loss of habitat
caused by feral ungulates and invasive
nonnative plants, active management or
control of nonnative species is
necessary for the conservation of all
populations of the 12 picture-wing flies
(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 37–
38). Without active management or
control, native habitat containing the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73801
features that are essential for the
conservation of the 12 picture-wing flies
will continue to be degraded or
destroyed. In addition, habitat
degradation and destruction as a result
of wildfire, competition with nonnative
insects, and predation by nonnative
insects, such as the western yellowjacket wasp (Vespula pensylvanica),
may significantly threaten many of the
populations of the 12 picture-wing flies.
Active management is necessary to
control these threats, as well.
The threats to the physical and
biological features in the areas we are
designating as critical habitat for the 12
picture-wing flies that may require
special management considerations or
protection include feral ungulates, rats,
invasive nonnative plants, and yellowjacket wasps. In addition, the units in
dry or mesic habitats may also require
special management to address wildfire
and ants. Each of these threats is
summarized below. For a more detailed
discussion of each threat refer to the
proposed revised critical habitat rule
published in the Federal Register on
November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67434).
Feral Ungulates
Feral ungulates have devastated
native vegetation in many areas of the
Hawaiian Islands (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, pp. 60–66). Because the endemic
Hawaiian flora evolved without the
presence of browsing and grazing
ungulates, many plant groups have lost
their adaptive defenses such as spines,
thorns, stinging hairs, and defensive
chemicals (University of Hawaii
Department of Geography 1998, p. 138).
Pigs (Sus scrofa), goats (Capra hircus),
and cattle (Bos taurus) disturb the soil,
and readily eat native plants (including
the native host plants for 1 or more of
the 12 picture-wing flies), and distribute
nonnative plant seeds that can alter the
ecosystem. In addition, browsing and
grazing by feral ungulates in steep and
remote terrain causes severe erosion of
entire watersheds due to foraging and
trampling behaviors (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, pp. 60–64 and 66).
Rats (Rattus spp.)
Several species of nonnative rats,
including the Polynesian rat (Rattus
exulans), the roof rat (Rattus rattus), and
the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), are
present on the Hawaiian Islands and
cause considerable environmental
degradation (Staples and Cowie 2001).
The seeds, bark, and flowers of several
of the picture-wing flies’ host plants,
including Clermontia sp., Pleomele sp.,
and Pritchardia beccariana, are
susceptible to herbivory by all the rat
species (Science Panel 2005; K.
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73802
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Magnacca, in litt. 2005; S. Montgomery,
pers. comm. 2005b). The herbivory by
rats causes host plant mortality,
diminished vigor, and seed predation,
resulting in reduced host plant
fecundity and viability (Science Panel
2005; K. Magnacca, in litt. 2005; S.
Montgomery, pers. comm. 2005b).
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Nonnative Plants
The invasion of nonnative plants
contributes to the degradation of native
forests and the host plants of picturewing flies (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro
1995, pp. 38–39; Wagner et al. 1999, pp.
52–53 and 971; Science Panel 2005, p.
28), and threatens all populations of the
12 picture-wing flies. Some nonnative
plants form dense stands, thickets, or
mats that shade or out-compete native
plants. Nonnative vines cause damage
or death to native trees by overloading
branches, causing breakage, or forming
a dense canopy cover that intercepts
sunlight and shades out native plants
below. Nonnative grasses readily burn.
They often grow at the border of forests,
and carry wildfire into areas with
woody native plants (Smith 1985, pp.
228–229; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp.
88–94). The nonnative grasses are more
wildfire-adapted and can spread
prolifically after a wildfire, ultimately
creating a stand of nonnative grasses
where native forest once existed. These
nonnative plants cannot be used as host
plants by the flies. Some nonnative
plant species produce chemicals that
inhibit the growth of other plant species
(Smith 1985, p. 228; Wagner et al. 1999,
p. 971).
Wildfire
Wildfire threatens habitat of the
Hawaiian picture-wing flies in dry to
mesic grassland, shrubland, and forests
on the islands of Kauai (Drosophila
musaphilia), Oahu (D. aglaia, D.
hemipeza, D. mongomeryi, D. obatai,
and D. tarphytrichia), and Hawaii (D.
heteroneura). Dry and mesic regions in
Hawaii have been altered in the past 200
years by an increase in wildfire
frequency, a condition to which the
native flora is not adapted. The invasion
of wildfire-adapted alien plants,
facilitated by ungulate disturbance, has
contributed to wildfire frequency. This
change in wildfire regime has reduced
the amount of forest cover for native
species (Hughes et al. 1991, p. 743;
Blackmore and Vitousek 2000, p. 625)
and resulted in an intensification of fire
threat and feral ungulate disturbance in
the remaining native forest areas.
Habitat damaged or destroyed by
wildfire is more likely to be revegetated
by nonnative plants that cannot be used
as host plants by these picture-wing
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
flies (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p.
47).
Nonnative Insect Competitors
The Hawaiian Islands now support
several established species of nonnative
insects which compete with some of the
12 picture-wing flies within their larval
stage host plants. The most important
group of nonnative insect competitors
includes tipulid flies (crane flies, family
Tipulidae). The larvae of some species
within this group feed within the
decomposing bark of some of the host
plants utilized by picture-wing flies,
including Charpentiera, Cheirodendron,
Clermontia, and Pleomele spp. (Science
Panel 2005, p. 11; K. Magnacca, U.S.
Geological Survey, in litt. 2005, p. 1; S.
Montgomery, in litt. 2005a, p. 1). Each
of the picture-wing flies addressed in
this rule, except for Drosophila mulli, D.
musaphilia, and D. neoclavisetae, face
larval-stage resource competition from
nonnative tipulid flies. The Hawaiian
Islands also support several species of
nonnative beetles (family Scolytidae,
genus Coccotrypes), a few of which bore
into and feed on the nuts produced by
certain native plant species including
Pritchardia beccariana, the host plant of
Drosophila mulli. Affected Pritchardia
spp., including P. beccariana, drop their
fruit before the nuts reach maturity due
to the boring action of the scolytid
beetles. Little natural regeneration of
this host plant species has been
observed in the wild since the arrival of
this scolytid beetle (K. Magnacca, in litt.
2005, p. 1; Science Panel 2005, p. 11).
Compared to the host plants of the other
picture-wing flies, P. beccariana is long
lived (up to 100 years), but over time
scolytid beetles may have a significant
impact on the availability of habitat for
D. mulli.
Nonnative Insect Predators
Nonnative arthropods pose a serious
threat to Hawaii’s native Drosophila,
both through direct predation or
parasitism as well as competition for
food or space (Howarth and Medeiros
1989, pp. 82–83; Howarth and Ramsay
1991, pp. 80–83; Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40–45 and 47;
Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 41, 54–57).
Due to their large colony sizes and
systematic foraging habits, species of
social Hymenoptera (ants and some
wasps) and parasitic wasps pose the
greatest predation threat to the
Hawaiian picture-wing flies (Carson
1982, p. 1, 1986, p. 7; Gambino et al.
1987, pp. 169–170; Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40–45 and 47).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act, we used the best scientific and
commercial information available in
determining the specific areas within
the geographical occupied by each of
the picture-wing flies, Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D.
heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli,
D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D.
obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera,
and D. tarphytrichia at the time of
listing that (1) contain PCEs in the
quantity and spatial arrangement to
support life history functions essential
for the conservation of each of these
species; and (2) may require special
management considerations or
protection. We relied on information in
our prior rulemaking and new
information gained through the peer
review and public comment process.
Each area that we are designating as
critical habitat is occupied, contains the
PCEs, and supports both the larval and
adult foraging stages of the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing fly species. The discussion
below summarizes the criteria used to
identify critical habitat. For additional
information, refer to the proposed
critical habitat rule that was published
in the Federal Register on November 28,
2007 (72 FR 67435).
The following geospatial, tabular data
sets were used in preparing this final
critical habitat designation: (1)
Occurrence data for all 12 species (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–16); (2)
vegetation mapping data for the
Hawaiian Islands (Gap Analysis
Program (GAP) Data—Hawaiian Islands
2005); (3) color mosaic 1:19,000 scale
digital aerial photographs for the
Hawaiian Islands dated April to May
2005; and (4) 1:24,000 scale digital
raster graphics of U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic
quadrangles. Land ownership was
determined from geospatial data sets
associated with parcel data from Oahu
County (2006); Hawaii County (2005);
Kauai County (2005); and Maui County
(2004).
We also reviewed a variety of peerreviewed and other articles in preparing
this final rule, including: (1)
Background information on the biology
of each of the 12 species (e.g.,
Montgomery 1975, pp. 83, 94, 96–98,
and 100; Foote and Carson 1995, pp. 1–
4; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 1–
47); (2) plant ecology and biology
(Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 45, 52–53, 971,
1,314–1,315, and 1,351–1,352); and (3)
the ecology of the Hawaiian Islands and
the areas we are designating in this final
rule (e.g., Smith 1985, pp. 227–233;
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Stone 1985, pp. 251–253, 256, and 260–
263; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 59–
66, 73–76, and 88–94). Additional
information reviewed included: (1) The
October 29, 1991, final rule listing the
plant species Urera kaalae (a host plant
for two of the fly species) as endangered
(56 FR 55770); (2) the June 17, 2003,
final critical habitat designation for U.
kaalae (68 FR 35950); (3) the May 9,
2006, final listing rule for the 12 species
of picture-wing flies (71 FR 26835); (4)
the August 15, 2006, proposed critical
habitat designation for 11 species of
picture-wing flies (71 FR 46994); (5)
unpublished reports by The Nature
Conservancy of Hawaii (TNCH); and (6)
aerial photographs and satellite imagery
of the Hawaiian Islands.
We obtained additional information
through personal communications with
landowners, scientists, and land
managers familiar with the 12 species
and their habitats, including individuals
affiliated with the University of Hawaii,
University of California at Berkeley, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the Bishop
Museum, Hawaii State Department of
Land and Natural Resources, TNCH, and
the U.S. Army. Specific information
from these sources included estimates of
historic and current distribution,
abundance, and territory sizes for the 12
species, as well as data on resources and
habitat requirements.
The primary constituent elements of
this final critical habitat designation
include both the host plants used by the
larvae, as well as the native forest
components used by foraging adults. We
used known adult location data to
identify each critical habitat unit, and
included the surrounding area
encompassing the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species. While there
has been considerable survey work
conducted for Hawaiian picture-wing
flies in an overall sense, some areas
where these 12 species are found have
not been surveyed in many years. We
used the best available, most recent
survey data for adult flies to determine
which sites we would identify as
occupied and which sites we would
identify as unoccupied. We did not
designate critical habitat in areas where
a species had been observed, but where
the areas had either become degraded
(e.g., due to loss or degradation of native
vegetation, increase in nonnative
vegetation, or documented presence of
yellow-jacket wasps) and lacked PCEs,
or if multiple surveys over the course of
several years failed to detect the species.
The final critical habitat unit boundaries
included in this rule reflect the results
of this analysis, after taking into account
the presence of known developed areas,
as described below.
When determining critical habitat
boundaries, we made every effort to
avoid including developed areas such as
buildings, paved areas, and other
structures that lack PCEs within the 32
critical habitat units designated by this
final rule for Drosophila aglaia, D.
differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura,
73803
D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D.
musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai,
D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia. However, because of the
scale of the maps, the maps may not
reflect the exclusion of such developed
areas. Accordingly, any developed areas
that fall within the critical habitat
boundaries reflected on the maps in this
final rule have been excluded by text in
this rule, and are not included within
the critical habitat designation. Federal
actions limited to these areas would not
trigger section 7 consultation, unless
they affect the species or primary
constituent elements in adjacent critical
habitat.
Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 32 units as critical
habitat for Drosophila aglaia, D.
differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura,
D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D.
musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai,
D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia.
In total, approximately 8,788 ac (3,556
ha) occur within the boundaries of this
critical habitat designation. The critical
habitat areas described below constitute
our current best assessment of areas
determined to be occupied at the time
of listing, contain the primary
constituent elements essential for the
conservation of the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies, and may require
special management. The 32 areas
designated as critical habitat are:
TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND ISLAND
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Island
Unit name
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Oahu ...............................................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 1—Palikea.
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 2—Puu Kaua.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 2—Makaha Valley.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 3—Palikea.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 4—Puu Kaua.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 2—Palikea.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 3—Puu Kaua.
Drosophila obatai—Unit 1—Puu Pane.
Drosophila obatai—Unit 2—Wailupe.
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 1—Mt. Kaala.
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 2—Palikea.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 2—Palikea.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 3—Puu Kaua.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 1—Kau Forest.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 2—Kona Refuge.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 3—Lower Kahuku.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 4—Pit Crater.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 5—Waihaka Gulch.
Drosphila mulli—Unit 1—Olaa Forest.
Drosphila mulli—Unit 2—Stainback Forest.
Drosphila mulli—Unit 3—Waiakea Forest.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 1—Kipuka 9.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 2—Kipuka 14.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 3—Kohala Mountains East.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 4—Kohala Mountains West.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73804
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS AND ISLAND—Continued
Island
Unit name
Hawaii (Big Island) ..........................................................................................................
Kauai ...............................................................................................................................
Maui ................................................................................................................................
Molakai ............................................................................................................................
The areas identified as containing the
features essential to the conservation of
each of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing
flies for which we are designating
critical habitat include a variety of
Drosophila
Drosophila
Drosophila
Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit 5—Upper Kahuku.
musaphilia—Unit 1—Kokee.
neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu Kukui.
differens—Unit 1—Puu Kolekole.
private ownership. The approximate
area, land ownership, and area excluded
from each designated critical habitat
unit are shown in Table 2.
undeveloped, forested areas that are
used for larval stage development and
adult fly stage foraging. Designated
critical habitat includes land under
Federal, State, City and County, and
TABLE 2—DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR DROSOPHILA AGLAIA, D. DIFFERENS, D. HEMIPEZA, D.
HETERONEURA, D. MONTGOMERYI, D. MULLI, D. MUSAPHILIA, D. NEOCLAVISETAE, D. OBATAI, D. OCHROBASIS, D.
SUBSTENOPTERA, AND D. TARPHYTRICHIA.
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries and are given in acres (ac) (hectares (ha)). Areas in parentheses overlap
with other units; therefore, the total area designated as critical habitat for each species will not equal the total area designated for the 12
species combined]
Land ownership [ac/ha]
Species—unit
Federal
City and
Co. of
Honolulu
State
Lands
meeting
the
definition
of critical
habitat
[ac/ha]
Private
Lands
excluded
[ac/ha]
208
84
87
35
527
213
111
45
(208)
(84)
(87)
(35)
(527)
(213)
(208)
(84)
(87)
(35)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
208
84
87
35
527
213
111
45
(208)
(84)
(87)
(35)
(527)
(213)
(208)
(84)
(87)
(35)
33
13
77
31
116
47
(208)
(84)
(527)
(213)
(208)
(84)
(87)
(35)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
13
77
31
116
47
(208)
(84)
(527)
(213)
(208)
(84)
(87)
(35)
125
51
3,604
1,459
687
278
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
51
3,604
1,459
687
278
Critical
habitat
[ac/ha]
Oahu Units
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 1—Palikea .....................................
0
0
0
4
2
0
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 2—Puu Kaua ................................
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch .....................
0
0
0
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 2—Makaha Valley ...................
0
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 3—Palikea ...............................
0
71
29
0
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 4—Puu Kaua ..........................
0
40
16
(4)
(2)
0
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch ...............
0
0
0
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 2—Palikea .........................
0
0
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 3—Puu Kaua .....................
0
(4)
(2)
0
Drosophila obatai—Unit 1—Puu Pane ................................
0
0
0
Drosophila obatai—Unit 2—Wailupe ...................................
0
0
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 1—Mt. Kaala ....................
0
32
13
0
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 2—Palikea .......................
0
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch .................
0
33
13
45
18
59
24
(4)
(2)
0
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 2—Palikea ...........................
0
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 3—Puu Kaua ......................
0
(4)
(2)
0
204
83
87
35
527
213
0
0
0
0
57
23
0
0
0
0
(204)
(83)
(87)
(35)
(527)
(213)
(204)
(84)
(87)
(35)
(204)
(83)
(527)
(213)
(204)
(83)
(87)
(35)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Big Island Units
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 1—Kau Forest .....................
0
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 2 Kona Refuge ....................
3,604
1,459
687
278
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 3—Lower Kahuku ...............
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
125
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73805
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR DROSOPHILA AGLAIA, D. DIFFERENS, D. HEMIPEZA, D.
HETERONEURA, D. MONTGOMERYI, D. MULLI, D. MUSAPHILIA, D. NEOCLAVISETAE, D. OBATAI, D. OCHROBASIS, D.
SUBSTENOPTERA, AND D. TARPHYTRICHIA.—Continued
[Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries and are given in acres (ac) (hectares (ha)). Areas in parentheses overlap
with other units; therefore, the total area designated as critical habitat for each species will not equal the total area designated for the 12
species combined]
Land ownership [ac/ha]
Species—unit
Federal
City and
Co. of
Honolulu
State
Lands
meeting
the
definition
of critical
habitat
[ac/ha]
Private
Lands
excluded
[ac/ha]
46
18
120
49
244
99
76
31
373
151
9
4
15
6
193
78
132
54
88
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
18
120
49
244
99
76
31
373
151
9
4
15
6
193
78
132
54
88
36
Critical
habitat
[ac/ha]
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 4—Pit Crater .......................
0
0
0
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 5—Waihaka Gulch ..............
0
0
Drosophila mulli—Unit 1—Olaa Forest ................................
0
0
0
Drosophila mulli—Unit 2—Stainback Forest .......................
0
0
0
Drosophila mulli—Unit 3—Waiakea Forest .........................
0
0
0
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 1—Kipuka 9 ..........................
0
0
0
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 2—Kipuka 14 ........................
0
0
0
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 3—Kohala Mountains East ...
0
0
0
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 4—Kohala Mountains West ..
0
0
91
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 5—Upper Kahuku .................
64
26
120
49
244
99
76
31
373
151
9
4
15
6
193
78
41
17
24
10
46
18
0
0
0
794
321
0
0
794
321
0
0
794
321
134
54
0
450
182
584
237
450
182
134
54
Kauai Unit
Drosophila musaphilia—Unit 1—Kokee ...............................
0
Maui Unit
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu Kukui ...................
0
Molokai Unit
Drosophila differens—Unit 1—Puu Kolekole .......................
0
0
0
988
400
988
400
0
0
988
400
Total (32 units) ..............................................................
4,356
1,763
2,331
943
128
52
2,424
981
9,238
3,738
450
182
8,788
3,556
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
The critical habitat areas described
below constitute our best assessment of
the physical and biological features
essential for the recovery and
conservation of the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies. Brief descriptions of
all units and the rationale for why each
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
unit meets the definition of critical
habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies are
presented below. Each of the designated
critical habitat units for the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies was occupied by the
species at the time of listing, contains
PCEs that provide for both the larval
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and adult life stage of one or more of the
12 species of picture-wing flies, and
may require special management
considerations or protection (see Table
3).
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73806
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—THREATS AND OCCUPANCY IN AREAS CONTAINING PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE
CONSERVATION OF DROSOPHILA AGLAIA, D. DIFFERENS, D. HEMIPEZA, D. HETERONEURA, D. MONTGOMERYI, D.
MULLI, D. MUSAPHILIA, D. NEOCLAVISETAE, D. OBATAI, D. OCHROBASIS, D. SUBSTENOPTERA, AND D.
TARPHYTRICHIA
Species—unit
Occupied
at the time
of listing
Threats requiring special management or protections
Currently
occupied
Oahu Units
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 1—Palikea ....
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 2—Puu Kaua
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 1—Kaluaa
Gulch.
Drosophila
hemipeza—Unit
2—
Makaha Valley.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 3—Palikea
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 4—Puu
Kaua.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 1—
Kaluaa Gulch.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 2—
Palikea.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 3—Puu
Kaua.
Drosophila obatai—Unit 1—Puu Pane
Drosophila obatai—Unit 2—Wailupe ...
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 1—
Mt. Kaala.
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 2—
Palikea.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 1—
Kaluaa Gulch.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 2—
Palikea.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 3—Puu
Kaua.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, nonnative plants,
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
Yes ..........
Yes.
and nonnative competitors ........................
Yes ..........
Yes.
Feral ungulates, nonnative plants, and nonnative competitors ........................
Yes ..........
Yes.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, ants, nonnative competitors, and
wildfire.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Big Island Units
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 1—Kau
Forest.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 2—
Kona Refuge.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 3—
Lower Kahuku.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 4—Pit
Crater.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 5—
Waihaka Gulch.
Drosophila mulli—Unit 1—Olaa Forest
Drosophila mulli—Unit 2—Stainback
Forest.
Drosophila mulli—Unit 3—Waiakea
Forest.
Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit
1—
Kipuka 9.
Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit
2—
Kipuka 14.
Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit
3—
Kohala Mountains East.
Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit
4—
Kohala Mountains West.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 5—Upper
Kahuku.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, ants, nonnative
competitors, and wildfire.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and nonnative competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73807
TABLE 3—THREATS AND OCCUPANCY IN AREAS CONTAINING PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES ESSENTIAL TO THE
CONSERVATION OF DROSOPHILA AGLAIA, D. DIFFERENS, D. HEMIPEZA, D. HETERONEURA, D. MONTGOMERYI, D.
MULLI, D. MUSAPHILIA, D. NEOCLAVISETAE, D. OBATAI, D. OCHROBASIS, D. SUBSTENOPTERA, AND D.
TARPHYTRICHIA—Continued
Species—unit
Occupied
at the time
of listing
Threats requiring special management or protections
Currently
occupied
Kauai Unit
Drosophila musaphilia—Unit 1—Kokee
Feral ungulates, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, ants, and wildfire .....
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Yes ..........
Yes.
Maui Unit
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit
Puu Kukui.
1—
Feral ungulates, nonnative plants, and yellow-jacket wasps ............................
Molokai Unit
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Drosophila
Kolekole.
differens—Unit
1—Puu
Feral ungulates, rats, nonnative plants, yellow-jacket wasps, and nonnative
competitors.
Oahu Units
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 1—Palikea
consists of 208 ac (84 ha) of lowland,
mesic, koa and ohia forest within the
southern Waianae Mountains of Oahu.
Ranging in elevation between 1,920–
2,985 ft (585–910 m), this unit is
privately and State-owned, and is part
of a larger area called the Honouliuli
Preserve, administered and managed by
TNCH. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1–10), this unit was occupied by D.
aglaia at the time of listing. This unit
includes the known elevation range,
moisture regime, and the native forest
components used by foraging adults and
identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of
Urera glabra, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila aglaia—Unit 2—Puu Kaua
consists of 87 ac (35 ha) of lowland,
diverse mesic, koa and ohia forest
within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,865–2,855 ft (570–870 m), this unit is
privately owned and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve,
which is administered and managed by
TNCH. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1–10), this unit was occupied by D.
aglaia at the time of listing. It includes
the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components
used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of
Urera glabra, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 1—
Kaluaa Gulch consists of 527 ac (213 ha)
of diverse, mesic forest within the
southern Waianae Mountains of Oahu.
Ranging in elevation between 1,720–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2,785 ft (525–850 m), this unit is
privately owned and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve,
administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–
10), this unit was occupied by D.
hemipeza at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Urera kaalae,
Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the larval
stage host plants associated with this
species.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 2—
Makaha Valley consists of 111 ac (45 ha)
of lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest
within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,995–3,005 ft (610–915 m), this unit is
owned by the City and County of
Honolulu and the State of Hawaii, and
is largely managed as a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 4–5), this unit was occupied by D.
hemipeza at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Urera kaalae,
Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the larval
stage host plants associated with this
species.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 3—
Palikea consists of 208 ac (84 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest
within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,920–2,985 ft (585–910 m), this unit is
privately and State-owned, and is part
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
of a larger area called the Honouliuli
Preserve, administered and managed by
TNCH. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1–10), this unit was occupied by D.
hemipeza at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Urera kaalae,
Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the larval
stage host plants associated with this
species.
Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 4—Puu
Kaua consists of 87 ac (35 ha) of
lowland, diverse, mesic, koa and ohia
forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in
elevation between 1,865–2,855 ft (570–
870 m), this unit is privately owned and
is part of a larger area called the
Honouliuli Preserve, administered and
managed by TNCH. According to the
most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–10), this unit was
occupied by D. hemipeza at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of Urera
kaalae, Cyanea sp., and Lobelia sp., the
larval stage host plants associated with
this species.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 1—
Kaluaa Gulch consists of 527 ac (213 ha)
of diverse, mesic forest within the
southern Waianae Mountains of Oahu.
Ranging in elevation between 1,720–
2,785 ft (525–850 m), this unit is
privately owned and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve,
administered and managed by TNCH.
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73808
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–
10), this unit was occupied by D.
montgomeryi at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Urera kaalae,
the larval stage host plant associated
with this species.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 2—
Palikea consists of 208 ac (84 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest
within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,920–2,985 ft (585–910 m), this unit is
both privately and State-owned, and is
part of a larger area called the
Honouliuli Preserve, administered and
managed by TNCH. According to the
most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–10), this unit was
occupied by D. montgomeryi at the time
of listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of Urera
kaalae, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit 3—
Puu Kaua consists of 87 ac (35 ha) of
lowland, diverse, mesic, koa and ohia
forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in
elevation between 1,865–2,855 ft (570–
870 m), this unit is privately owned and
is part of a larger area called the
Honouliuli Preserve, administered and
managed by TNCH. According to the
most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–10), this unit was
occupied by D. montgomeryi at the time
of listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of Urera
kaalae, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila obatai—Unit 1—Puu Pane
consists of 33 ac (13 ha) of lowland,
mesic, koa and ohia forest within the
northeastern Waianae Mountains of
Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,760–2,535 ft (535–770 m), this unit is
owned by the State of Hawaii and is
largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
p. 6), this unit was occupied by D.
obatai at the time of listing. This unit
includes the known elevation range,
moisture regime, and native forest
components used by foraging adults that
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
have been identified as the PCEs for this
species. This unit also includes
populations of Pleomele forbesii, the
larval stage host plant associated with
this species.
Drosophila obatai—Unit 2—Wailupe
consists of 77 ac (31 ha) of lowland,
mesic, koa and ohia forest within the
southeastern Koolau Mountains of
Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,475–2,155 ft (445–655 m), this unit is
privately and State-owned, and is
largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
p. 6), this unit was occupied by D.
obatai at the time of listing. This unit
includes the known elevation range,
moisture regime, and native forest
components used by foraging adults that
have been identified as the PCEs for this
species. This unit also includes
populations of Pleomele forbesii, the
larval stage host plant associated with
this species.
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 1—
Mt. Kaala consists of 116 ac (47 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest within the
northern Waianae Mountains of Oahu.
Ranging in elevation between 2,750–
4,030 ft (840–1,230 m), this unit is
owned by the City and County of
Honolulu and the State of Hawaii, and
is largely managed as part of a State
forest reserve and natural area reserve.
According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 7),
this unit was occupied by D.
substenoptera at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Cheirodendron
sp. and Tetraplasandra sp., the larval
stage host plants associated with this
species.
Drosophila substenoptera—Unit 2—
Palikea consists of 208 ac (84 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest
within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,920–2,985 ft (585–910 m), this unit is
privately and State-owned, and is part
of a larger area called the Honouliuli
Preserve, administered and managed by
TNCH. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1–10), this unit was occupied by D.
substenoptera at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Cheirodendron
sp. and Tetraplasandra sp., the larval
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
stage host plants associated with this
species.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 1—
Kaluaa Gulch consists of 527 ac (213 ha)
of diverse, mesic forest within the
southern Waianae Mountains of Oahu.
Ranging in elevation between 1,720–
2,785 ft (525–850 m), this unit is
privately owned and is part of a larger
area called the Honouliuli Preserve,
administered and managed by TNCH.
According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–
10), this unit was occupied by D.
tarphytrichia at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Charpenteira
obovata, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 2—
Palikea consists of 208 ac (84 ha) of
lowland, mesic, koa and ohia forest
within the southern Waianae Mountains
of Oahu. Ranging in elevation between
1,920–2,985 ft (585–910 m), this unit is
privately and State-owned, and is part
of a larger area called the Honouliuli
Preserve, administered and managed by
TNCH. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 1–10), this unit was occupied by D.
tarphytrichia at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Charpenteira
obovata, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit 3—
Puu Kaua consists of 87 ac (35 ha) of
lowland, diverse mesic, koa and ohia
forest within the southern Waianae
Mountains of Oahu. Ranging in
elevation between 1,865–2,855 ft (570–
870 m), this unit is privately owned and
is part of a larger area called the
Honouliuli Preserve, administered and
managed by TNCH. According to the
most recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro,
in litt. 2005a, pp. 1–10), this unit was
occupied by D. tarphytrichia at the time
of listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of
Charpenteira obovata, the larval stage
host plant associated with this species.
Hawaii (Big Island) Units
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 1—Kau
Forest consists of 125 ac (51 ha) of
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
montane, wet, ohia forest, and is located
on the southern flank of Mauna Loa on
the island of Hawaii. Ranging in
elevation between 5,215–5,510 ft
(1,590–1,680 m), this unit is owned by
the State of Hawaii, and is largely
managed as part of a State forest reserve.
According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 8),
this unit was occupied by D.
heteroneura at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Cheirodendron
trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 2—
Kona Refuge consists of 3,604 ac (1,459
ha) of montane, mesic, closed koa and
ohia forest, and is located on the
western flank of Mauna Loa on the
island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation
between 2,980–5,755 (910–1,755 m),
this unit is owned by the Service, and
is managed as part of the Kona Unit of
the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife
Refuge. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
p. 8), this unit was occupied by D.
heteroneura at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Cheirodendron
trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 3—
Lower Kahuku consists of 687 ac (278
ha) of montane, mesic to wet, ohia
forest, and is located on the southern
flank of Mauna Loa on the island of
Hawaii. Ranging in elevation between
3,705–4,685 ft (1,130–1,430 m), this unit
is owned and managed by the National
Park Service (NPS), Hawaii Volcanoes
National Park. According to the most
recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt.
2005a, p. 8), this unit was occupied by
D. heteroneura at the time of listing.
This unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Cheirodendron
trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 4—Pit
Crater consists of 46 ac (18 ha) of
montane, mesic, open ohia forest with
mixed grass species, and is located on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
the western flank of Hualalai and south
of the Kaupulehu lava flow on the
island of Hawaii. Ranging in elevation
between 3,835–4,525 ft (1,170–1,380 m),
this unit is privately owned and
managed. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
p. 8), this unit was occupied by D.
heteroneura at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Cheirodendron
trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 5—
Waihaka Gulch consists of 120 ac (49
ha) of montane, wet, koa and ohia forest,
and is located on the southern flank of
Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii.
Ranging in elevation between 4,065–
4,390 ft (1,240–1,340 m), this unit is
owned by the State of Hawaii, and is
largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
p. 8), this unit was occupied by D.
heteroneura at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Cheirodendron
trigynum, Clermontia sp., and Delissea
parviflora, the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
Drosophila mulli—Unit 1—Olaa
Forest consists of 244 ac (99 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest and is located
to the northeast of Kilauea Caldera on
the southeastern flank of Mauna Loa on
the island of Hawaii. Ranging in
elevation between 3,120–3,300 ft (950–
1,005 m), this unit is owned by the State
of Hawaii and is largely managed as part
of a State forest reserve. According to
the most recent survey data (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 10), this unit
was occupied by D. mulli at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of Pritchardia
beccariana, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila mulli—Unit 2—Stainback
Forest consists of 76 ac (31 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest, and is located
to the northeast of Kilauea Caldera on
the southeastern flank of Mauna Loa on
the island of Hawaii. Ranging in
elevation between 1,955–2,165 ft (595–
660 m), this unit is owned by the State
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73809
of Hawaii and is largely managed as part
of a State forest reserve. According to
the most recent survey data (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 10), this unit
was occupied by D. mulli at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of Pritchardia
beccariana, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila mulli—Unit 3—Waiakea
Forest consists of 373 ac (151 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest, and is located
to the northeast of Kilauea Caldera on
the southeastern flank of Mauna Loa on
the island of Hawaii. Ranging in
elevation between 3,130–3,585 ft (955–
1,095 m), this unit is owned by the State
of Hawaii and is largely managed as part
of a State forest reserve. According to
the most recent survey data (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 10), this unit
was occupied by D. mulli at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of Pritchardia
beccariana, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 1—
Kipuka 9 consists of 9 ac (4 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest with native
shrubs, and is located within the Saddle
Road area on the northeastern flank of
Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii.
Ranging in elevation between 5,075–
5,125 ft (1,545–1,560 m), this unit is
owned by the State of Hawaii and is
largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
p. 10), this unit was occupied by D.
ochrobasis at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Clermontia sp.,
Marattia douglasii, and Myrsine sp., the
larval stage host plants associated with
this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 2—
Kipuka 14 consists of 15 ac (6 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest with native
shrubs, and is located within the Saddle
Road area on the northeastern flank of
Mauna Loa on the island of Hawaii.
Ranging in elevation between 5,105–
5,145 ft (1,555–1,570 m), this unit is
owned by the State of Hawaii and is
largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73810
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
pp. 12–13), this unit was occupied by D.
ochrobasis at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Clermontia sp.,
Marattia douglasii, and Myrsine sp., the
larval stage host plants associated with
this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 3—
Kohala Mountains East consists of 193
ac (78 ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest
with native shrubs and mixed grass
species, and is located on the
southeastern flank of the Kohala
Mountains on the island of Hawaii.
Ranging in elevation between 3,850–
4,140 ft (1,175–1,260 m), this unit is
owned by the State of Hawaii and is
largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. According to the most recent
survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a,
pp. 12–13), this unit was occupied by D.
ochrobasis at the time of listing. This
unit includes the known elevation
range, moisture regime, and native
forest components used by foraging
adults that have been identified as the
PCEs for this species. This unit also
includes populations of Clermontia sp.,
Marattia douglasii, and Myrsine sp., the
larval stage host plants associated with
this species.
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 4—
Kohala Mountains West consists of 132
ac (54 ha) of montane, wet, ohia forest
with native shrubs and mixed grass
species, and is located on the
southwestern flank of the Kohala
Mountains on the island of Hawaii.
Ranging in elevation between 4,945–
5,325 ft (1,510–1,625 m), this unit is
privately and State-owned, and is
largely managed as part of a State forest
reserve. Drosophila ochrobasis was not
historically known from this area, but
was first observed here during field
surveys conducted in October of 2006
(K. Magnacca, in litt. 2006, p. 1), only
four months from the date of listing of
the species (June 2006). Given the fact
that this area was surveyed so soon after
the listing of the species, and contains
relatively intact, closed-canopy, native
forest, including the fly’s host plant
species, we have determined that it was
occupied by D. ochrobasis at the time of
the listing. This unit includes the
known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components
used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of
Clermontia sp., Marattia douglasii, and
Myrsine sp., the larval stage host plants
associated with this species.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 5—
Upper Kahuku consists of 88 ac (36 ha)
of montane, wet, ohia forest, and is
located on the southern flank of Mauna
Loa on the island of Hawaii. Ranging in
elevation between 5,235–5,390 ft
(1,595–1,645 m), this unit is owned by
the State of Hawaii and the NPS Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park. The area
within this unit is largely managed as
part of a State forest reserve and as a
national park. According to the most
recent survey data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt.
2005a, pp. 12–13), this unit was
occupied by D. ochrobasis at the time of
listing. This unit includes the known
elevation range, moisture regime, and
native forest components used by
foraging adults that have been identified
as the PCEs for this species. This unit
also includes populations of Clermontia
sp., Marattia douglasii, and Myrsine sp.,
the larval stage host plants associated
with this species.
Kauai Unit
Drosophila musaphilia—Unit 1—
Kokee consists of 794 ac (321 ha) of
montane, mesic, koa and ohia forest,
and is located in the Kokee region of
northwestern Kauai. Ranging in
elevation between 3,310–3,740 ft
(1,010–1,140 m), this unit is owned by
the State of Hawaii and occurs on lands
managed as part of a State park, forest
reserve, and natural area reserve.
According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 11),
this unit was occupied by D. musaphilia
at the time of listing. This unit includes
the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components
used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of
Acacia koa, the larval stage host plant
associated with this species.
Maui Unit
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit 1—
Puu Kukui consists of 584 ac (237 ha)
of montane, wet, ohia forest within the
west Maui mountains on the island of
Maui. Ranging in elevation between
3,405–4,590 ft (1,040–1,400 m), this unit
is both privately and State-owned. All of
the area within this unit occurs within
the boundary of the Puu Kukui
Watershed Preserve, lands jointly
managed by TNCH, the State of Hawaii,
and the MLP Company. According to
the most recent survey data (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 11), this unit
was occupied by D. neoclavisetae at the
time of listing. This unit includes the
known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components
used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
This unit also includes populations of
Cyanea kunthiana and C. macrostegia
ssp. macrostegia, the larval stage host
plant associated with this species. As
described below, we are excluding 450
ac (182 ha) of this unit from the critical
habitat designation for D. neoclavisetae
(see ‘‘Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act’’ section).
Molokai Unit
Drosophila differens—Unit 1—Puu
Kolekole consists of 988 ac (400 ha) of
montane, wet, ohia forest within the
eastern Molokai mountains on the
island of Molokai. Ranging in elevation
between 3,645–4,495 ft (1,110–1,370 m),
this unit is privately owned and is
managed by TNCH as part of the
Kamakou and Pelekunu preserves.
According to the most recent survey
data (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, p. 11),
this unit was occupied by D. differens
at the time of listing. This unit includes
the known elevation range, moisture
regime, and native forest components
used by foraging adults that have been
identified as the PCEs for this species.
This unit also includes populations of
Clermontia sp., the larval stage host
plant associated with this species.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that actions they fund,
authorize, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species or destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat.
Decisions by the Fifth and Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse
modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (see
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059
(9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d
434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not
rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions
of the Act, destruction or adverse
modification is determined on the basis
of whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain the current ability for the
primary constituent elements to be
functionally established) to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species.
If a species is listed or critical habitat
is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the species or to
destroy or adversely modify its critical
habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. As a result of this consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion (BO) for
Federal actions that may affect, but are
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat.
When we issue a BO concluding that
a project is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species
or destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat, we also provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if
any are identifiable. We define
‘‘Reasonable and prudent alternatives’’
at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions
identified during consultation that:
• Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action;
• Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction;
• Are economically and
technologically feasible; and
• Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid jeopardizing the continued
existence of the listed species or
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can
vary from slight project modifications to
extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with
implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is
subsequently designated that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action or such
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law. Consequently, some
Federal agencies may need to request
reinitiation of consultation with us on
actions for which consultation has been
completed, if those actions may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat in a manner
not previously analyzed.
Federal activities that may affect
Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D.
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D.
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia or their designated critical
habitat will require consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Activities on
State, local, or private lands requiring a
Federal permit, such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act, or involving some other Federal
action such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency are
examples of agency actions that may be
subject to the section 7 consultation
process. Federal actions not affecting
listed species or critical habitat, and
actions on State, Tribal, local, or private
lands that are not federally funded,
authorized, or permitted, do not require
section 7(a)(2) consultations.
Application of the Adverse Modification
Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would remain functional to
serve its intended conservation role for
the species. Activities that may destroy
or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for the 12
picture-wing flies.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, those
activities involving a Federal action that
may destroy or adversely modify such
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, may affect critical habitat and,
therefore, should result in consultation
for the 12 picture-wing flies include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Actions that may degrade or
remove host plant habitat or result in
the loss and degradation of the 12
picture-wing flies’ habitat. For example,
this could occur through activities such
as controlled burns, clearing or cutting
of native live trees and shrubs,
introducing or encouraging the spread
of nonnative plants, recreational use, or
the use of off-road vehicles in a manner
that degrades native vegetation.
(2) Actions that may result in the
removal, thinning, or other modification
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73811
of the 12 picture-wing flies’ host plants.
For example, this may occur through
plowing, grading, development, road or
fence building, burning or taking other
actions that pose a risk of fire,
mechanical weed control, herbicide
application, recreational use, and
activities associated with wildfire
fighting (e.g., staging areas, surface
disturbance).
(3) Actions that may affect habitat
value or quality through indirect effects
(e.g., outplanting efforts that enable the
spread of nonnative species or
fragmentation).
All of the units designated as critical
habitat, including the Maui Land and
Pineapple Co. portion of the Drosophila
neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu Kukui,
which was excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, contain the physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of the 12 picture-wing
flies. Each of the 32 units that have been
designated as critical habitat are within
the geographic ranges of these species,
were known to be occupied by the
species at the time of listing, and are
currently occupied. Federal agencies
already consult with us on activities in
areas that are currently occupied by
these species in cases where they may
be affected, to ensure that their actions
do not jeopardize the continued
existence of the 12 picture-wing flies.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now states that: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographical areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73812
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
• An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need 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.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
We coordinate with the military on
the development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. INRMPs developed by military
installations located within the range of
the critical habitat designation for
Drosophila aglaia and D. substenoptera
were analyzed for purposes of section
4(a)(3) of the Act.
Approved INRMPs
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
West Range of Schofield Barracks
Military Reservation
The U.S. Army completed its Oahu
INRMP in 2000. Conservation measures
included in the INRMP that benefit
Drosophila aglaia and D. substenoptera
include (1) Outplanting of native plants,
which provides for the natural forest
conditions necessary for adult fly
foraging by both species; (2) feral
ungulate control, which prevents both
direct loss of the larval stage host plants
and adult foraging substrate of both
species and prevents habitat alteration
by feral ungulates; (3) wildland wildfire
control, which prevents both loss and
alteration of habitat for D. aglaia; and (4)
nonnative plant control, which prevents
habitat alteration for both species.
Based on the above considerations,
and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation efforts
identified in the U.S. Army Garrison
Hawaii Oahu Training Areas Natural
Resource Management Final Report
(U.S. Army, 2000(b)) and the 2002–2006
Oahu Integrated Natural Resources
Management Plan (U.S. Army, 2000(a))
provide benefits to Drosophila aglaia
and D. substenoptera where they occur
within or adjacent to the West Range of
Schofield Barracks Military Reservation.
Therefore, this installation is exempt
from critical habitat designation under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not
including approximately 78 ac (31 ha) of
habitat on Oahu in this final critical
habitat designation because of this
exemption. The other 10 species of
picture-wing flies do not occur on U.S.
Army land, and are not subject to
consideration under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act.
Recently, the Army informed us that
they are updating their 2000 INRMP and
incorporating the conservation measures
found in the 2002–2006 Oahu Integrated
Natural Resources Management Plan.
Revisions to the INRMP are expected to
be completed in 2009 (M. Mansker, in
litt. 2008).
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must designate and revise
critical habitat on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into
consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other
relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the legislative history is clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in
considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
must identify the benefits of including
the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If based on this
analysis we make this determination,
then we can exclude the area only if
such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
In the following sections, we address
a number of general issues that are
relevant to the exclusion considered in
this final critical habitat rule.
Benefits of Designating Critical Habitat
The process of designating critical
habitat as described in the Act requires
that the Service identify those lands on
which are found the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection, and those
areas outside the geographical area
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
occupied by the species at the time of
listing that are essential to the
conservation of the species. In
identifying those lands, the Service
must consider the recovery needs of the
species, such that, on the basis of the
best scientific and commercial data
available at the time of designation, the
habitat that is identified, if managed,
could provide for the survival and
recovery of the species.
The consultation provisions under
section 7(a) of the Act constitute the
regulatory benefits of critical habitat. As
discussed above, Federal agencies must
consult with us on actions that may
affect critical habitat and must avoid
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat. Federal agencies must
also consult with us on actions that may
affect a listed species and refrain from
undertaking actions that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
such species. The analysis of effects to
critical habitat is a separate and
different analysis from that of the effects
to the species. Therefore, the difference
in outcomes of these two analyses
represents the regulatory benefit of
critical habitat. For some species, and in
some locations, the outcome of these
analyses will be similar, because effects
on habitat will often result in effects on
the species. However, the regulatory
standard is different: The jeopardy
analysis looks at the action’s impact on
survival and recovery of the species,
while the adverse modification analysis
looks at the action’s effects on the
designated habitat’s contribution to the
species’ conservation. This will, in
many instances, lead to different results
and different regulatory requirements.
For 30 years prior to the Ninth
Circuit’s decision in Gifford Pinchot,
consistent with the 1986 regulations, we
essentially combined the jeopardy
standard with the standard for
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat when evaluating Federal
actions that affected currently occupied
critical habitat. However, the court of
appeals ruled that the two standards are
distinct and that adverse modification
evaluations require consideration of
impacts on species recovery. Thus, a
critical habitat designation may provide
greater regulatory benefits to the
recovery of a species than would listing
alone.
There are two limitations to the
regulatory effect of critical habitat. First,
a section 7(a)(2) consultation is required
only where there is a Federal nexus (an
action authorized, funded, or carried out
by any Federal agency)—if there is no
Federal nexus, the critical habitat
designation of private lands itself does
not restrict any actions that destroy or
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
adversely modify critical habitat.
Second, the designation only limits
destruction or adverse modification. By
its nature, the prohibition on adverse
modification is designed to ensure that
the conservation role and function of
those areas that contain the physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species or of
unoccupied areas that are essential to
the conservation of the species is not
appreciably reduced as a result of a
Federal action. Critical habitat
designation alone, however, does not
require property owners to undertake
specific steps toward recovery of the
species.
Once an agency determines that
consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act is necessary, the process may
conclude informally when we concur in
writing that the proposed Federal action
is not likely to adversely affect critical
habitat. However, if we determine
through informal consultation that
adverse impacts are likely to occur, then
we would initiate formal consultation,
which would conclude when we issue
a biological opinion on whether the
proposed Federal action is likely to
result in destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat.
For critical habitat, a biological
opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or
adverse modification may contain
discretionary conservation
recommendations to minimize adverse
effects to primary constituent elements,
but it would not suggest the
implementation of any reasonable and
prudent alternative. We suggest
reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the proposed Federal action only when
our biological opinion results in an
adverse modification conclusion.
As stated above, the designation of
critical habitat does not require that any
management or recovery actions take
place on the lands included in the
designation. Even in cases where
consultation has been initiated under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act, the end result
of consultation is to avoid jeopardy to
the species or adverse modification of
its critical habitat or both, but not
specifically to manage remaining lands
or institute recovery actions on
remaining lands. Conversely, voluntary
conservation efforts implemented
through management plans institute
proactive actions over the lands they
encompass and are put in place to
remove or reduce known threats to a
species or its habitat. We believe that in
many instances the benefit to a species
or its habitat or both realized through
the designation of critical habitat is low
when compared to the conservation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
benefit that can be achieved through
voluntary conservation efforts or
management plans. The conservation
achieved through implementing HCPs
or other habitat management plans can
be greater than what we achieve through
multiple site-by-site, project-by-project,
section 7(a)(2) consultations involving
consideration of critical habitat.
Management plans may commit
resources to implement long-term
management and protection to
particular habitat for at least one and
possibly additional listed or sensitive
species. Section 7(a)(2) consultations
commit Federal agencies to preventing
adverse modification of critical habitat
caused by the particular project only,
and not to providing conservation or
long-term benefits to areas not affected
by the proposed project. Thus,
implementation of any HCP or
management plan that considers
enhancement or recovery as the
management standard may often
provide as much or more benefit than a
consultation for critical habitat
designation.
Another benefit of including lands in
critical habitat is that designation of
critical habitat serves to educate
landowners, State and local
governments, and the public regarding
the potential conservation value of an
area. This helps focus and promote
conservation efforts by other parties by
clearly delineating areas of high
conservation value for the 12 picturewing flies. In general, critical habitat
designation always has educational
benefits, and may inform State agencies
and local governments about areas that
could be conserved under State laws or
local ordinances.
Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands
Most federally listed species in the
United States will not recover without
the cooperation of non-Federal
landowners. More than 60 percent of the
United States is privately owned (US
Department of Agriculture 2002), and at
least 80 percent of endangered or
threatened species occur either partially
or solely on private lands (Crouse et al.
2002, p. 720). Eighty-eight percent of the
State of Hawaii is made up of nonFederal lands. Stein et al. (1995, p. 400)
found that only about 12 percent of
listed species in the United States were
found almost exclusively on Federal
lands (90–100 percent of their known
occurrences restricted to Federal lands)
and that 50 percent of listed species are
not known to occur on Federal lands at
all.
Given the distribution of listed
species with respect to land ownership,
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73813
conservation of listed species in many
parts of the United States is dependent
upon working partnerships with a wide
variety of entities and the voluntary
cooperation of many non-Federal
landowners (Wilcove and Chen 1998, p.
1407; Crouse et al. 2002, p. 720; James
2002, p. 271). Building partnerships and
promoting voluntary cooperation of
landowners is essential to
understanding the status of species on
non-Federal lands and is necessary to
implement recovery actions such as
reintroducing listed species, habitat
restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive
satisfaction in contributing to
endangered species recovery, and the
Service promotes these private-sector
efforts. Conservation agreements with
non-Federal landowners (e.g., Habitat
Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor
Agreements, State and local regulations,
and other conservation agreements or
easements) enhance species
conservation by extending species
protections beyond those available
through section 7 consultations. We
encourage non-Federal landowners to
enter into conservation agreements,
based on a view that we can achieve
greater species conservation on nonFederal land through such partnerships
than we can through regulatory methods
(61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).
Many private landowners, however,
are wary of the possible consequences of
promoting endangered species
conservation on their property, and
there is mounting evidence that some
regulatory actions by the Federal
government, while well-intentioned and
required by law, can under certain
circumstances have unintended
negative consequences for the
conservation of species on private lands
(Wilcove et al. 1996, pp. 5–6; Bean
2002, pp. 2–3; Conner and Mathews
2002, pp. 1–2; James 2002, pp. 270–271;
Koch 2002, pp. 2–3; Brook et al. 2003,
pp. 1639–1643). Many landowners fear
a decline in the value of their property,
based on real or perceived restrictions
on land-use options where threatened or
endangered species occur.
Consequently, harboring endangered
species is viewed by many landowners
as a liability, resulting in anticonservation incentives because of a
perceived risk to future economic
opportunities (Main et al. 1999, pp.
1264–1265; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644–
1648).
Some researchers believe that the
designation of critical habitat on private
lands significantly reduces the
likelihood that landowners will support
and carry out conservation actions
(Main et al. 1999, p. 1263; Bean 2002,
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73814
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
p. 2; Brook et al. 2003, pp. 1644–1648).
The magnitude of this negative outcome
is amplified in situations where active
species conservation management
measures (e.g., reintroduction, wildfire
management, control of invasive
species) are necessary (Bean 2002, pp.
3–4). We believe that, in some instances,
the judicious exclusion of specific areas
of non-federally owned lands from
critical habitat designations can
contribute to species recovery and
provide a greater level of species
conservation than critical habitat
designation alone.
The purpose of designating critical
habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and
endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome
of the designation, triggering regulatory
requirements for actions funded,
authorized, or carried out by Federal
agencies under section 7(a)(2) of the
Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended
purpose on non-Federal lands. Thus the
benefits of excluding areas that are
covered by effective partnerships or
other conservation commitments can
often be high.
Benefits of Excluding Lands With
Approved Management Plans
The benefits of excluding lands
within approved long-term management
plans from critical habitat designation
include relieving landowners,
communities, and counties of any
additional regulatory burden that might
be imposed by critical habitat. Many
conservation plans provide conservation
benefits to unlisted sensitive species.
Imposing an additional regulatory
review as a result of the designation of
critical habitat may undermine
conservation efforts and partnerships in
many areas. Designation of critical
habitat within the boundaries of
management plans that provide
conservation measures for a species
could be viewed as a disincentive to
entities currently developing these
plans or contemplating them in the
future, because one of the incentives for
undertaking conservation is greater ease
of permitting where listed species will
be affected. Addition of a new
regulatory requirement would remove a
significant incentive for undertaking the
time and expense of management
planning.
A related benefit of excluding lands
within management plans from critical
habitat designation is the unhindered,
continued ability it gives us to seek new
partnerships with future plan
participants, including States, counties,
local jurisdictions, conservation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
organizations, and private landowners,
which together can implement
conservation actions that we would be
unable to accomplish otherwise.
Designating lands within approved
management plan areas as critical
habitat would likely have a negative
effect on our ability to establish new
partnerships to develop these plans,
particularly plans that address
landscape-level conservation of species
and habitats. By preemptively excluding
these lands, we preserve our current
partnerships and encourage additional
conservation actions in the future.
Furthermore, both HCP and Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP)HCP applications require consultation,
which would review the effects of all
HCP-covered activities that might
adversely impact the species under a
jeopardy standard, including possibly
significant habitat modification (see
definition of ‘‘harm’’ at 50 CFR 17.3),
even without the critical habitat
designation. In addition, Federal actions
not covered by the HCP in areas
occupied by listed species would still
require consultation under section
7(a)(2) of the Act, and we would review
these actions for possibly significant
habitat modification, in accordance with
the definition of harm referenced above.
The information provided in the
previous section applies to all the
following discussions of benefits of
inclusion or exclusion of critical habitat.
Areas Considered for Exclusion Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
evaluate the effectiveness of
management plans that address the
enhancement or recovery of listed
species when we weigh and balance the
benefits of inclusion or exclusion of a
particular area from critical habitat
designation. We consider the following
guidelines in evaluating the
management and protection provided by
such plans:
(1) The plan is complete and provides
for the conservation and protection of
the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species;
(2) There is a reasonable expectation
that the conservation management
strategies and actions will be
implemented for the foreseeable future,
based on past practices, written
guidance, or regulations; and
(3) The plan provides conservation
strategies and measures consistent with
currently accepted principles of
conservation biology.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Maui Land and Pineapple (MLP)
Company’s Puu Kukui Watershed
Preserve, Located in the West Maui
Mountains
Significant progress has been made in
habitat restoration on MLP lands within
the Puu Kukui Watershed Preserve
(PKWP), located in the West Maui
Mountains. We proposed to designate
approximately 450 ac (182 ha) within
MLP’s PKWP as critical habitat on Maui
for Drosophila neoclavisetae within
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu
Kukui (72 FR 67428). Since 1988, MLP
has proactively managed their 450 ac
(182 ha) within the PKWP and is
currently in its 15th year of contract
with the State of Hawaii’s Natural Area
Partnership (NAP) Program to preserve
the native biodiversity of the company’s
conservation lands. At slightly over
8,600 ac (3,483 ha), the PKWP is the
largest privately owned preserve in the
State.
In 1993, MLP became the first private
landowner participant in the NAP
program. They are pursuing four
management programs stipulated in
their PKWP Management Plan (2005)
that emphasize reducing nonnative
species that immediately threaten the
management area (MLP 1999). The
primary management goals within
PKWP are to: (1) Eliminate ungulate
activity in all Puu Kukui management
units; (2) reduce the range of habitatmodifying weeds and prevent
introduction of nonnative plants; (3)
reduce the negative impacts of
nonnative invertebrates and small
animals; (4) monitor and track biological
and physical resources in the watershed
in order to improve management
understanding of the watershed’s
resources; and (5) prevent the extinction
of rare species within the watershed.
Specific management actions that
address feral ungulates include the
construction of fences surrounding 10
management units and removal of
ungulates within the PKWP.
The nonnative plant control program
within PKWP focuses on weeds that
modify habitat, prioritizing weeds
according to the degree of threat to
native ecosystems, and preventing the
introduction of new weeds. The weed
control program includes mapping and
monitoring along established transects
and controlling weeds through manual
or mechanical means. Monitoring and
research activities conducted under the
plan track biological and physical
resources, and detect and evaluate
changes to these resources to guide
management programs. Vegetation is
monitored using permanent
photographic points. Nonnative species,
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
as well as rare, endemic, and indigenous
species, are monitored along permanent
transects. MLP also provides logistical
and other support for approved research
projects, interagency cooperative
agreements, and remote survey trips
within the watershed.
Benefits of Inclusion
The benefits of including lands in
critical habitat can be regulatory or
educational, which can aid in
promoting the recovery of species. The
principal regulatory benefit of
designating critical habitat in this area
would be that Federal actions affecting
D. neoclavisetae would require
consultation under section 7 of the Act.
Consultation would ensure that a
proposed action does not result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The most likely Federal
nexus would be associated with Service
funding for management activities that
target invasive species removal, and a
potential outcome of a section 7
consultation would be conservation
recommendations to avoid stands of
Cyanea kunthiana and Cyanea
macrostegia ssp. macrostegia when, for
example, constructing a new fence or
applying herbicides. However, these
conservation recommendations would
still be included within the PKWP
invasive species control program even
in the absence of critical habitat
designation. Accordingly, we believe
that few additional regulatory benefits
would be derived from including the
MLP lands within the area designated as
critical habitat for Drosophila
neoclavisetae beyond those
conservation benefits already being
achieved through the implementation of
the PKWP Management Plan (2005).
In addition, we conclude that few
regulatory benefits would be gained
from a designation of critical habitat on
these lands because the consultations
conducted under both the jeopardy and
adverse modification standards for this
species would not be likely to result in
materially different outcomes. The area
is occupied by the species, and the most
likely Federal nexus would be
management activities funded in part
through the Service’s Partners for Fish
and Wildlife and Private Stewardship
Grants programs. These programs have
historically contributed funds toward
the construction of fences to exclude
feral ungulates from the Preserve.
Service funds may also be provided for
new surveys of invasive, nonnative
weeds within the Puu Kukui Watershed
Preserve. While we acknowledge that
the legal standards for jeopardy and
adverse modification differ, with the
latter focused on effects to recovery, in
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
view of the nature of the actions likely
to be consulted on—programs to
enhance species habitat—the outcome
of consultation is likely to be the same.
There have been no section 7
consultations involving Drosophila
neoclavisetae or its host plants with the
PKWP to date. The economic analysis
anticipates that there will be two
informal consultations associated with
projects in the PKWP to remove
nonnative species over the next 13
years, although no formal consultations
would be likely to occur over the 20year timeframe of the analysis. The two
informal section 7 consultations
anticipated by the economic analysis
would occur based on the species’
presence in the area even if critical
habitat is not designated. We do not
foresee any additional consultations
beyond those anticipated by the
economic analysis, and predict that the
section 7 consultation process for
critical habitat would be unlikely to
result in any additional protections for
the species for the reasons discussed
above. Consequently, there is little
regulatory benefit of designating critical
habitat on the MLP lands within
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu
Kukui.
The final listing rule for the 12
picture-wing flies (71 FR 26835)
acknowledged the importance of this
area to the overall conservation of
Drosophila neoclavisetae (Service 2006).
Maui Land and Pineapple Co. is aware
of the areas where D. neoclavisetae
occurs on their property, and is
implementing conservation actions to
benefit the species (MLP 2008, p. 2).
Because of this proactive approach, we
believe that any additional educational
benefits resulting from the designation
of critical habitat on these lands would
be minimal. Although the designation of
critical habitat may provide benefits to
the recovery of a species, in this case the
MLP is already committed to
implementing conservation actions on
their lands under the existing PKWP
Management Plan (2005). Accordingly,
any additional benefits to the recovery
of this species beyond those already
being accrued would be limited.
Benefits of Exclusion
The continued implementation of the
PKWP Management Plan will provide
conservation benefits to Drosophila
neoclavisetae. Maui Land and Pineapple
Co. is currently managing D.
neoclavisetae habitat through the
control of invasive species and the
implementation of native species
restoration activities. Implementation of
the PKWP Management Plan also
provides a significant conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73815
benefit to D. neoclavisetae’s host plant
populations in the area.
Existing MLP conservation
agreements with Federal and State
agencies and other private organizations
advance their mission of practicing
prudent stewardship of their land and
water resources to ensure the protection
of rare and endangered plant and animal
species, and water resources that are
crucial to the community. Their
continued implementation of the PKWP
Management Plan will specifically
benefit Drosophila neoclavisetae
through actions that manage invasive
species and restore native species
habitat. The PKWP Management Plan
provides a significant conservation
benefit to D. neoclavisetae’s host plant
populations in the area, and we have a
reasonable expectation that the
strategies and measures will be
effective. We have been informed by
MLP that the area proposed for
designation of critical habitat is already
being preserved in perpetuity for the
conservation and protection of native
habitat for picture-wing flies and other
native Hawaiian biota, and they believe
that the designation of critical habitat is
unnecessary (MLP 2008, p. 2). In
addition, during an April 21, 2008,
meeting between MLP and Service staff,
MLP stated their objection to the
designation of critical habitat on their
lands (Scott McCarthy, Service, in litt.
2008).
Drosophila neoclavisetae is benefiting
substantially from MLP’s voluntary
management actions, which include
reducing ungulate browsing and habitat
conversion, reducing competition with
nonnative weeds, and reducing the risk
of wildfire. MLP’s management actions
also include the reintroduction of
currently extirpated native species into
restored habitats.
We believe that exclusion of
approximately 450 ac (182 ha) within
MLP’s portion of the proposed
Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu
Kukui will acknowledge this
conservation commitment and facilitate
their continued cooperation and
partnership with the Service. Since this
area has been actively managed as a
preserve since 1988, we have a
reasonable expectation that the
conservation management strategies and
actions will continue to be implemented
for the benefit of D. neoclavisetae and
its habitat in the future. There is a risk
that designating critical habitat on these
MLP lands could undermine our
existing conservation partnership,
remove MLP’s incentive to accept the
additional time and expense of
management planning, strain the
positive working relationship we share,
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73816
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
and hinder future cooperative
conservation projects with MLP and
other potential partners.
The economic analysis also identifies
some incremental economic impacts of
designating critical habitat in the
proposed Drosophila neoclavisetae—
Unit 1—Puu Kukui. These costs are
attributed to habitat preservation and
watershed management activities. The
expected post-designation incremental
cost of watershed management activities
is $18,150 using a 3 percent discount
rate and $14,430 using a 7 percent
discount rate. According to the
economic analysis, these costs would be
borne mostly by the MLP. While these
amounts are small, excluding critical
habitat from the MLP lands would
remove these costs, and thus is a benefit
of exclusion.
We believe that excluding this area
from critical habitat will help maintain
and improve our partnership
relationship with this landowner by
acknowledging their positive
contribution to conservation on Maui.
This recognition may provide other
landowners with a positive incentive to
undertake voluntary conservation
activities on their lands, particularly
where there is no regulatory
requirement to implement such actions.
We also note a small economic benefit
to excluding this area from critical
habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the
Benefits of Inclusion
We believe the proactive management
of Drosophila neoclavisetae habitat
provided under MLP’s PKWP
Management Plan (2005) provides
significant benefits to this species. Also,
excluding this area from critical habitat
will help maintain and improve our
partnership relationship with this
landowner. Furthermore, excluding this
area from critical habitat will have a
small economic benefit. In contrast, the
benefits of including MLP’s land as
critical habitat would likely be minor.
This determination is based on the fact
that: (1) There have been no section 7
consultations in the area since D.
neoclavisetae was listed in 2006; (2) we
anticipate few future consultations in
the PKWP management area; (3) any
future Federal actions would be subject
to section 7 consultation since the area
is occupied; and (4) future Federal
actions in this area are expected to be
beneficial to the species.
In conclusion, although there may be
some limited regulatory, educational, or
recovery benefits that would arise from
the inclusion of the MLP lands as
critical habitat, they are outweighed by
the benefits of excluding these lands
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
from the critical habitat designation.
The continued implementation of MLP’s
ongoing management programs will
provide comparable or greater net
conservation benefits than those that
would result from critical habitat
designation. The significant
conservation benefits that would result
from the exclusion of these lands relate
to MLP’s ongoing and continued actions
to control invasive species, protect and
restore host plant habitat, and monitor
native species. We, therefore, are
excluding 450 ac (182 ha) of Maui Land
and Pineapple Co.’s lands within the
proposed Drosophila neoclavisetae—
Unit 1—Puu Kukui from the critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
of the Species
We have determined that the
exclusion of MLP’s portion of the
proposed Drosophila neoclavisetae—
Unit 1—Puu Kukui from the final
designation of critical habitat will not
result in the extinction of D.
neoclavisetae. Maui Land and Pineapple
Co.’s management programs provide
tangible conservation benefits that
reduce the likelihood of extinction for
D. neoclavisetae and increase the
species’ recovery potential. Further, we
are unaware of any threats in the PKWP
associated with Federal actions that
would require section 7 consultation. As
such, extinction of the species as a
consequence of not designating critical
habitat is unlikely. In addition, since
this area is occupied by D.
neoclavisetae, consultations under
section 7 of the Act would be required,
and any Federal actions that may affect
the species would be evaluated under
the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the
Act. This evaluation provides
assurances that the species would not
become extinct as a result of those
actions.
With regard to other protections,
section 195D–4 of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (endangered species and
threatened species) stipulates that
species determined to be endangered or
threatened under the Federal Act shall
be deemed endangered or threatened
under the State law. It is unlawful under
the State law, with some exceptions, to
‘‘take’’ such species, or to possess, sell,
carry or transport them. The statutory
protections for this species under State
law provide additional assurances that
exclusion of this area from critical
habitat will not result in extinction of
Drosophila neoclavisetae.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Economic Analysis
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us
to designate critical habitat on the basis
of the best scientific information
available and to consider the economic
and other relevant impacts of
designating a particular area as critical
habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows
the Secretary to exclude areas from
critical habitat for economic reasons if
the Secretary determines that the
benefits of such exclusions exceed the
benefits of designating the area as
critical habitat. However, this exclusion
cannot occur if it will result in the
extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the
proposed critical habitat designation,
we conducted an economic analysis to
estimate the potential economic effects
of the designation. The draft analysis
addressed the economic impacts of
designating critical habitat for the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies, and was
made available for public review on
August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46860). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis
until September 11, 2008. Following the
close of the comment period, a final
analysis of the potential economic
effects of the designation was developed
taking into consideration the public
comments and any new information.
The primary purpose of the economic
analysis is to estimate the potential
economic impacts associated with the
designation of critical habitat for the 12
species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies
(Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D.
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D.
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia). This information is
intended to assist the Secretary in
making decisions about whether the
benefits of excluding particular areas
from the designation outweigh the
benefits of including those areas in the
designation. This economic analysis
addressed the distribution of any
potential impacts of the designation,
including an assessment of the potential
effects on small entities. This
information can be used by the
Secretary to assess whether the effects of
the designation might unduly burden a
particular group or economic sector.
This analysis focused on the direct
and indirect costs of the rule. However,
economic impacts to land use activities
can exist in the absence of critical
habitat. These impacts may result from,
for example, local zoning laws, State
and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans or best
management practices applied by State
and other Federal agencies. Economic
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
impacts that result from these types of
protections are considered to be part of
the regulatory and policy baseline. The
economic impacts that were evaluated
were divided into two periods: (1) Predesignation, covering the time period
from the date the picture-wing flies
were listed (May 9, 2006; 71 FR 26835)
to the date the final critical habitat
designation was expected to occur
(about year-end 2008), and (2) postdesignation, covering the 20-year period
following the designation (from about
2009 through 2028).
The economic analysis considers the
potential economic effects of all actions
relating to the conservation of the 12
picture-wing flies, including costs
associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of
the Act, as well as those attributable to
designating critical habitat. It further
considers the economic effects of
protective measures taken as a result of
other Federal, State, and local laws that
assist in habitat conservation for the 12
picture-wing flies in those areas that
contain the physical and biological
features essential to their conservation.
In the case of habitat conservation,
economic effects generally reflect costs
associated with committing resources to
comply with habitat protection
measures (such as lost economic
opportunities associated with
restrictions on land use).
The analysis quantifies the economic
impacts of picture-wing fly critical
habitat designation associated primarily
with the following activities: (1)
Preservation and watershed
management in all but the Pit Crater
unit on the Big Island; (2) game
management and public recreational
hunting in most of the units where land
is owned by the State; (3) potential
future development of approximately 3
acres (1.2 hectares) within the Pit Crater
unit on the Big Island; (4) harvesting of
commercial timber from portions of the
Stainback Forest and Waiakea Forest
units; and (5) section 7 consultation
administrative costs.
The total pre-designation baseline
costs during the period from 2006 to
2008 in the area proposed for critical
habitat designation are estimated to
range from $750,130 using a 3 percent
discount rate to $808,100 using a 7
percent discount rate. Because these
costs are projected to occur whether
critical habitat is designated or not, they
are not considered in the Service’s
determination of whether the benefits of
including an area as critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of excluding the
area. These costs are related to
preservation and watershed
management activities, and all or nearly
all of the pre-designation baseline costs
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
have been or will be borne by Federal
and State agencies. A portion of the
preservation and watershed
management costs has been borne by a
few private landowners.
The annualized post-designation
baseline costs during the period 2009 to
2028 for preservation and water
management activities are estimated to
range from $348,845 using a 3 percent
discount rate to $379,753 using a 7
percent discount rate. Because these
costs are projected to occur whether
critical habitat is designated or not, they
are not considered in the Service’s
determination of whether the benefits of
including an area as critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of excluding the
area. All or nearly all of the postdesignation baseline costs would be
borne by Federal and State agencies,
although a portion of the preservation
and watershed management costs would
be borne by a few private landowners.
The combined post-designation baseline
cost for these conservation activities is
estimated by the final economic analysis
(FEA) to be $5,345,730 at a 3 percent
discount rate, and $4,305,470 at a 7
percent discount rate.
The economic analysis estimates that
the annualized post-designation
incremental costs for the activities
described below during the period 2009
to 2028 may range from $44,733 using
a 3 percent discount rate to $46,916
using a 7 percent discount rate. The
activity having the highest incremental
cost ranking is preservation and
watershed management, with an
annualized value of approximately
$23,969 using a 3 percent discount rate
to $25,568 using a 7 percent discount
rate. The second highest cost reflects a
possible opportunity loss of harvesting
trees in Drosophila mulli—Unit 2—
Stainback Forest and Drosophila mulli—
Unit 3—Waiakea Forest, resulting in an
annualized value of approximately
$12,693 using a 3 percent discount rate
to $12,176 using a 7 percent discount
rate.
There may also be post-designation
incremental costs of $68,590 using a 3
percent discount rate to $56,000 using a
7 percent discount rate from 2009–2028,
related to future section 7 consultations
for preservation and watershed
management activities. All or nearly all
of the post-designation incremental
costs would be borne by Federal and
State agencies, although a portion of the
preservation and watershed
management costs would be borne by a
few private landowners. The combined
total present values of estimated postdesignation incremental impacts from
2009 through 2028 for all activities
considered in the analysis are about
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73817
$682,000 and $529,000, respectively, for
the 3 and 7 percent discount rates based
on the FEA (USFWS 2008, ES–4).
Only the incremental costs of
designating critical habitat, over and
above the costs associated with species
protection under the Act more
generally, are considered in determining
whether areas should be excluded under
section 4(b)(2). Therefore, the
methodology for distinguishing these
two categories of costs is important.
This is particularly true in the current
case, because approximately 90 percent
of the total costs of species conservation
over the next 20 years are projected to
be baseline costs, and 10 percent are
projected to be incremental costs
attributable to critical habitat
designation.
In the absence of critical habitat,
Federal agencies must ensure that any
actions they authorize, fund, or carry
out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species. Costs
associated with such actions are
considered baseline costs. Once an area
is designated as critical habitat,
proposed actions that have a Federal
nexus also require consultation and
potential revision to ensure that the
action does not result in the destruction
or adverse modification of designated
critical habitat. Costs associated with
these actions are considered
incremental costs. The economic
analysis explains that incremental
section 7 consultation that takes place
as a result of critical habitat designation
may fall into one of three categories: (1)
Additional effort to address adverse
modification in a consultation that also
involves jeopardy; (2) re-initiation of a
previously concluded consultation to
address adverse modification; and (3)
new consultation resulting entirely from
critical habitat designation (i.e., where a
proposed action may affect unoccupied
critical habitat). The economic analysis
estimates that there would be three
project-level informal consultations
related to Federal grants that would
need to be reinitiated in 2009 to address
picture-wing fly critical habitat. There
would also be one programmatic
consultation that would need to be
reinitiated in 2009 related to the Hawai’i
Volcano National Park management
plan, and subsequent programmatic
consultations every 5 years. The
economic analysis indicates that since
these consultations would be for
preservation and watershed
management activities, no or only
minimal project modifications would be
anticipated.
The final economic analysis is
available on the Internet at https://
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73818
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
www.regulations.gov and https://
www.fws.gov/ or upon request from the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES).
Required Determinations
In our November 28, 2007, proposed
rule (72 FR 67428), we indicated that we
would defer our determination of
compliance with several statutes and
Executive Orders until the information
concerning potential economic impacts
of the designation and potential effects
on landowners and stakeholders was
available in the draft economic analysis.
In this final rule, we affirm the
information contained in the proposed
rule concerning Executive Order (E.O.)
13132, E.O. 12988, the Paperwork
Reduction Act, and the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951).
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this rule under Executive Order 12866
(E.O. 12866). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four
criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(b) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 5
U.S.C. 802(2)), whenever an agency
must 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 government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required if the head of an
agency certifies the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
The SBREFA amended RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement
of the factual basis for certifying that the
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The SBREFA
also amended the RFA to require a
certification statement.
Small entities include small
organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small
governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town
governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
consider the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation, as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
To determine if the rule could
significantly affect a substantial number
of small entities, we consider the
number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities
(e.g., residential and commercial
development and agriculture). We apply
the ‘‘substantial number’’ test
individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate.
However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ‘‘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
an area. In some circumstances,
especially with critical habitat
designations of limited extent, we may
aggregate across all industries and
consider whether the total number of
small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities
potentially affected, we also consider
whether their activities have any
Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat affects
only activities conducted, funded, or
permitted by Federal agencies. Some
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
kinds of activities are unlikely to have
any Federal involvement and so will not
be affected by critical habitat
designation. In areas where the species
is present, Federal agencies already are
required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they
fund, permit, or implement that may
affect the 12 picture-wing flies. Federal
agencies also must consult with us if
their activities may affect critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat,
therefore, could result in an additional
economic impact on small entities due
to the requirement to reinitiate
consultation for ongoing Federal
activities.
In the final economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation,
we evaluated the potential economic
effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions
related to the listing of the 12 picturewing flies and proposed designation of
their critical habitat. This analysis
estimated prospective economic impacts
due to the implementation of the 12
picture-wing flies’ conservation efforts
for the following activities: (a)
Preservation and watershed
management in all but the Pit Crater
unit on the Big Island; (b) game
management and public recreational
hunting in most of the units where land
is owned by the State; (c) potential for
future development on about 3 acres
(1.2 hectares) of the Pit Crater unit on
the Big Island; (d) harvesting of
commercial timber from portions of
Drosophila mulli—Unit 2—Stainback
Forest and Drosophila mulli—Unit 3—
Waiakea Forest; and (e) section 7
consultation administrative costs.
Our economic analysis indicates that
all or nearly all of the post-designation
incremental costs would be borne by
Federal and State agencies, which are
not small entities. In addition, according
to our economic analysis, the following
agencies, organizations, and private
companies that may be impacted by the
designation of critical habitat are not
considered to be small entities: City and
County of Honolulu, Kamehameha
Schools, The Nature Conservancy,
Queen Emma Foundation, James
Campbell Co. LLC, MLP, and Molokai
Ranch. Accordingly, we are certifying
that this final designation of critical
habitat for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing
fly species will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. A regulatory
flexibility analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
E.O. 13211 on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain
actions. OMB has provided guidance for
implementing this E.O. that outlines
nine outcomes that may constitute ‘‘a
significant adverse effect’’ when
compared without the regulatory action
under consideration. The economic
analysis finds that none of these criteria
are relevant to this analysis. Thus, based
on information in the economic
analysis, energy-related impacts
associated with the 12 picture-wing
flies’ conservation activities within
critical habitat are not expected. As
such, the designation of critical habitat
is not expected to significantly affect
energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant
energy action, and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local,
Tribal governments, or the private sector
and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal governments’’
with two exceptions. It excludes ‘‘a
condition of federal assistance.’’ It also
excludes ‘‘a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal
program,’’ unless the regulation ‘‘relates
to a then-existing Federal program
under which $500,000,000 or more is
provided annually to State, local, and
tribal governments under entitlement
authority,’’ if the provision would
‘‘increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps upon, or
otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding’’ and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid to Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits, or
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat.
However, the legally binding duty to
avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests
squarely on the Federal agency.
Furthermore, to the extent that nonFederal entities are indirectly impacted
because they receive Federal assistance
or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large
entitlement programs listed above onto
State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because it will not
produce a Federal mandate 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. As such, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required. Based on the consultation
history and the economic analysis on
this critical habitat designation, we do
not foresee any significant impact to
small governments.
Executive Order 12630—Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(‘‘Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights’’), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of critical
habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies. The
takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of
critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing
flies does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected
by the designation.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this final rule does not
have significant Federalism effects. A
Federalism assessment is not required.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73819
In keeping with Department of Interior
and Department of Commerce policy,
we requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this final
critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in
Hawaii. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by
the 12 picture-wing flies is not likely to
impose any additional restrictions to
those currently in place and, therefore,
has little incremental impact on State
and local governments and their
activities. The designation may have
some benefit to these governments
because the areas that contain the
physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species are more clearly defined, and
the PCEs of the habitat necessary to the
conservation of the species are
specifically identified. This information
does not alter where and what federally
sponsored activities may occur.
However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform), the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule
does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the ESA. This final rule
uses standard property descriptions and
identifies the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species within the designated areas
to assist the public in understanding the
habitat needs of the 12 picture-wing
flies.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
Jurisdiction of the Tenth Federal
Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses as defined by
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73820
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
NEPA in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld by
the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore.
1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.1042
(1996)).
We have determined that there are no
tribal lands occupied at the time of
listing containing the features essential
for the conservation and no tribal lands
that are unoccupied areas that are
essential for the conservation of the 12
picture-wing flies. Therefore,
designation of critical habitat for the 12
picture-wing flies has not been
designated on Tribal lands.
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
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. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997, ‘‘American Indian
Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act,’’ we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rulemaking is available upon
request from the Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES), or on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and at
https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands.
Author(s)
The primary authors of this notice are
staff members of the Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
■
Species
Vertebrate
population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Common name
*
INSECTS
*
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
*
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Scientific name
*
*
*
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entries for
‘‘Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing’’
(Drosophila aglaia), ‘‘Fly, Hawaiian
picture-wing’’ (Drosophila differens),
‘‘Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing’’
(Drosophila hemipeza), ‘‘Fly, Hawaiian
picture-wing’’ (Drosophila heteroneura),
‘‘Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing’’
(Drosophila montgomeryi), ‘‘Fly,
Hawaiian picture-wing’’ (Drosophila
mulli), ‘‘Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing’’
(Drosophila musaphilia), ‘‘Fly,
Hawaiian picture-wing’’ (Drosophila
neoclavisetae), ‘‘Fly, Hawaiian picturewing’’ (Drosophila obatai), ‘‘Fly,
Hawaiian picture-wing’’ (Drosophila
ochrobasis), ‘‘Fly, Hawaiian picturewing’’ (Drosophila substenoptera), and
‘‘Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing’’
(Drosophila tarphytrichia), under
INSECTS in the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:
■
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
*
*
(h) * * *
Status
*
When listed
*
*
Critical
habitat
*
*
*
Drosophila aglaia ......
*
*
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
*
756
17.95(i)
NA
Drosophila differens ..
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
Drosophila hemipeza
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
Drosophila
heteroneura.
Drosophila
montgomeryi.
Drosophila milli .........
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
T
756
17.95(i)
NA
Drosophila musaphilia
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
Drosophila
neoclavisetae.
Drosophila obatai ......
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
U.S.A. (HI) ................
NA
E
756
17.95(i)
NA
Drosophila
ochrobasis.
Drosophila
substenoptera.
Drosophila
tarphytrichia.
*
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
*
PO 00000
*
Special
rules
*
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
*
04DER1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (i) by
adding entries for ‘‘Hawaiian picturewing fly (Drosophila aglaia),’’
‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
differens),’’ ‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing fly
(Drosophila hemipeza),’’ ‘‘Hawaiian
picture-wing fly (Drosophila
heteroneura),’’ ‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing
fly (Drosophila montgomeryi),’’
‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
mulli),’’ ‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing fly
(Drosophila musaphilia),’’ ‘‘Hawaiian
picture-wing fly (Drosophila
neoclavisetae),’’ ‘‘Hawaiian picturewing fly (Drosophila obatai),’’
‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
ochrobasis),’’ ‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing
fly (Drosophila substenoptera),’’ and
‘‘Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
tarphytrichia),’’ in the same alphabetical
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
■
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
order in which these species appear in
that table at § 17.11(h), to read as
follows:
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
(i) Insects.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
aglaia)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for County of Honolulu, island of Oahu,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila aglaia
are:
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, Diospyros
sp., ohia and koa forest between the
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73821
elevations of 1,865–2,985 ft (568–910
m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Urera glabra,
which exhibits one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila aglaia follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.000
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73822
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila aglaia—Unit 1—
Palikea, City and County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593529, 2367854; 593448,
2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242,
2367927; 593193, 2367967; 593165,
2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314,
2368283; 593399, 2368425; 593448,
2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2368833; 593703, 2368906; 593764,
2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901,
2369145; 594002, 2369262; 594079,
2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120,
2369485; 594124, 2369521; 594148,
2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310,
2369497; 594395, 2369473; 594399,
2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417,
2369313; 594461, 2369290; 594551,
2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559,
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73823
2369197; 594472, 2369183; 594391,
2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302,
2369072; 594257, 2369015; 594213,
2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083,
2368672; 594035, 2368550; 593966,
2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909,
2368259; 593792, 2368105; 593675,
2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila aglaia—
Unit 1—Palikea follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.001
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73824
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila aglaia—Unit 2—Puu
Kaua, City and County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 594166, 2370854; 594166,
2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122,
2370843; 594090, 2370815; 594040,
2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2370827; 593852, 2370875; 593778,
2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642,
2370999; 593602, 2371041; 593574,
2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539,
2371118; 593531, 2371121; 593534,
2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533,
2371375; 593552, 2371390; 593628,
2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794,
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73825
2371431; 593876, 2371437; 593974,
2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138,
2371415; 594190, 2371399; 594232,
2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239,
2371354; 594170, 2370879; 594172,
2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila aglaia—
Unit 2—Puu Kaua follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.002
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73826
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
differens)
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for
County of Maui, island of Molokai,
Hawaii, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
differens are:
(i) Wet, montane, ohia forest between
the elevations of 3,645–4,495 ft (1,111–
1,370 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Clermontia
arborescens ssp. waihiae, C. granidiflora
ssp. munroi, C. oblongifolia ssp.
brevipes, C. kakeana, and C. pallida,
which exhibit one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Drosophila differens—Unit 1—Puu
Kolekole, Maui County, island of
Molokai, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 718527, 2337536; 718533,
2337451; 718538, 2337370; 718543,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2337298; 718547, 2337236; 718551,
2337182; 718555, 2337138; 718560,
2337098; 718571, 2337055; 718586,
2337010; 718607, 2336962; 718632,
2336912; 718662, 2336860; 718698,
2336807; 718739, 2336754; 718784,
2336700; 718835, 2336646; 718892,
2336593; 718958, 2336551; 719034,
2336520; 719119, 2336502; 719215,
2336497; 719320, 2336503; 719420,
2336509; 719506, 2336508; 719579,
2336500; 719639, 2336484; 719685,
2336462; 719675, 2336394; 719613,
2336327; 718980, 2335781; 718332,
2335236; 718002, 2334953; 717930,
2334932; 717877, 2334988; 717855,
2335060; 717846, 2335123; 717848,
2335175; 717862, 2335217; 717888,
2335249; 717921, 2335272; 717946,
2335291; 717961, 2335308; 717965,
2335322; 717958, 2335333; 717942,
2335342; 717928, 2335356; 717919,
2335377; 717915, 2335404; 717916,
2335438; 717923, 2335478; 717935,
2335515; 717952, 2335542; 717974,
2335558; 718001, 2335564; 718034,
2335559; 718070, 2335550; 718107,
2335553; 718144, 2335567; 718182,
2335593; 718221, 2335630; 718257,
2335675; 718280, 2335710; 718286,
2335733; 718277, 2335745; 718253,
2335744; 718213, 2335731; 718166,
2335721; 718115, 2335717; 718060,
2335719; 718001, 2335728; 717937,
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73827
2335742; 717873, 2335764; 717812,
2335793; 717753, 2335829; 717697,
2335873; 717643, 2335924; 717591,
2335977; 717543, 2336020; 717499,
2336052; 717458, 2336073; 717420,
2336083; 717385, 2336085; 717351,
2336089; 717319, 2336098; 717288,
2336110; 717258, 2336127; 717230,
2336148; 717204, 2336180; 717183,
2336223; 717165, 2336280; 717151,
2336348; 717140, 2336429; 717130,
2336510; 717118, 2336579; 717103,
2336636; 717085, 2336680; 717065,
2336713; 717041, 2336739; 717009,
2336769; 716968, 2336806; 716919,
2336847; 716862, 2336894; 716800,
2336946; 716745, 2337000; 716702,
2337055; 716669, 2337112; 716647,
2337171; 716635, 2337231; 716632,
2337289; 716634, 2337341; 716644,
2337388; 716660, 2337430; 716683,
2337468; 716713, 2337497; 716751,
2337516; 716797, 2337523; 716850,
2337520; 716912, 2337507; 716976,
2337488; 717031, 2337481; 717077,
2337486; 717126, 2337542; 717183,
2337585; 718403, 2337817; 718484,
2337833; 718487, 2337824; 718499,
2337760; 718510, 2337691; 718519,
2337616.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
differens—Unit 1—Puu Kolekole
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.003
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73828
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
hemipeza)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for County of Honolulu, island of Oahu,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
hemipeza are:
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
1,720–3,005 ft (524–916 m); and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(ii) The larval host plants Cyanea
angustifolia, C. calycina, C. grimesiana
ssp. grimesiana, C. grimesiana ssp.
obatae, C. membranacea, C. pinnatifida,
C. superba ssp. superba, Lobelia
hypoleuca, L. niihauensis, L. yuccoides,
and Urera kaalae, which exhibit one or
more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73829
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila hemipeza follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.004
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73830
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 1—
Kaluaa Gulch, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593240, 2374436; 593231,
2374371; 593281, 2374410; 593315,
2374385; 593612, 2374173; 593656,
2374138; 593621, 2374096; 593641,
2374077; 593676, 2374072; 593703,
2374057; 593734, 2374039; 593758,
2374058; 593793, 2374029; 593779,
2373964; 593731, 2373894; 593660,
2373784; 593609, 2373702; 593592,
2373648; 593592, 2373594; 593598,
2373553; 593657, 2373561; 593770,
2373549; 593792, 2373496; 593797,
2373417; 593842, 2373411; 593842,
2373326; 593905, 2373404; 594053,
2373383; 594103, 2373292; 594134,
2373228; 594156, 2373250; 594194,
2373256; 594178, 2373323; 594196,
2373386; 594229, 2373390; 594312,
2373340; 594341, 2373350; 594339,
2373421; 594383, 2373487; 594381,
2373513; 594460, 2373552; 594496,
2373553; 594497, 2373518; 594526,
2373509; 594572, 2373460; 594632,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2373519; 594649, 2373523; 594699,
2373475; 594728, 2373476; 594762,
2373532; 594791, 2373529; 594828,
2373501; 594852, 2373465; 594903,
2373501; 594933, 2373500; 594952,
2373489; 594974, 2373334; 594800,
2373150; 594718, 2373120; 594718,
2373102; 594744, 2373091; 594710,
2372721; 594720, 2372686; 594716,
2372633; 594678, 2372623; 594566,
2372651; 594536, 2372666; 594506,
2372663; 594467, 2372672; 594395,
2372663; 594406, 2372650; 594546,
2372567; 594558, 2372553; 594551,
2372535; 594389, 2372452; 594395,
2372434; 594415, 2372428; 594511,
2372449; 594603, 2372437; 594614,
2372421; 594607, 2372385; 594593,
2372353; 594591, 2372317; 594618,
2372322; 594661, 2372357; 594700,
2372384; 594696, 2372334; 594697,
2372333; 594697, 2372283; 594652,
2372257; 594541, 2372266; 594454,
2372294; 594400, 2372294; 594293,
2372267; 594231, 2372261; 594168,
2372241; 594126, 2372258; 594075,
2372267; 594030, 2372303; 593999,
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73831
2372354; 593948, 2372388; 593889,
2372397; 593812, 2372413; 593781,
2372425; 593756, 2372442; 593742,
2372467; 593742, 2372490; 593736,
2372521; 593736, 2372560; 593757,
2372587; 593790, 2372662; 593663,
2372772; 593543, 2372859; 593558,
2372894; 593555, 2372910; 593526,
2372928; 593476, 2372912; 593422,
2372953; 593420, 2372976; 593403,
2372997; 593400, 2373025; 593373,
2373016; 593352, 2373044; 593328,
2373025; 593215, 2373118; 593230,
2373171; 593214, 2373176; 593163,
2373154; 593095, 2373213; 593091,
2373238; 593064, 2373243; 593019,
2373295; 592937, 2373388; 592889,
2373462; 592897, 2373535; 592908,
2373597; 592923, 2373668; 592914,
2373772; 592889, 2373866; 592868,
2373941; 592867, 2373950; 592894,
2374029; 592908, 2374120; 592894,
2374162; 592860, 2374213; 592854,
2374216; 593151, 2374494.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
hemipeza—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.005
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73832
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 2—
Makaha Valley, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 586712, 2378108; 586877,
2378091; 587049, 2378091; 587173,
2378087; 587333, 2378079; 587506,
2378079; 587592, 2378075; 587641,
2378046; 587641, 2378038; 587666,
2377980; 587543, 2377935; 587399,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2377931; 587243, 2377919; 587090,
2377906; 586794, 2377943; 586696,
2377943; 586597, 2377869; 586507,
2377767; 586449, 2377684; 586449,
2377458; 586408, 2377397; 586305,
2377368; 586206, 2377405; 586054,
2377643; 585968, 2377726; 585869,
2377775; 585803, 2377849; 585803,
2377915; 585869, 2377952; 585894,
2377956; 585956, 2377952; 586050,
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73833
2377923; 586120, 2377869; 586194,
2377824; 586317, 2377828; 586383,
2377878; 586391, 2377956; 586420,
2378034; 586461, 2378116; 586482,
2378174; 586552, 2378190; 586630,
2378149; 586655, 2378128.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
hemipeza—Unit 2—Makaha Valley
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.006
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73834
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(8) Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 3—
Palikea, City and County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593529, 2367854; 593448,
2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242,
2367927; 593193, 2367967; 593165,
2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314,
2368283; 593399, 2368425; 593448,
2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2368833; 593703, 2368906; 593764,
2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901,
2369145; 594002, 2369262; 594079,
2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120,
2369485; 594124, 2369521; 594148,
2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310,
2369497; 594395, 2369473; 594399,
2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417,
2369313; 594461, 2369290; 594551,
2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559,
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73835
2369197; 594472, 2369183; 594391,
2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302,
2369072; 594257, 2369015; 594213,
2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083,
2368672; 594035, 2368550; 593966,
2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909,
2368259; 593792, 2368105; 593675,
2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
hemipeza—Unit 3—Palikea follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.007
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73836
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(9) Drosophila hemipeza—Unit 4—
Puu Kaua, City and County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 594166, 2370854; 594166,
2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122,
2370843; 594090, 2370815; 594040,
2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2370827; 593852, 2370875; 593778,
2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642,
2370999; 593602, 2371041; 593574,
2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539,
2371118; 593531, 2371121; 593534,
2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533,
2371375; 593552, 2371390; 593628,
2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794,
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73837
2371431; 593876, 2371437; 593974,
2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138,
2371415; 594190, 2371399; 594232,
2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239,
2371354; 594170, 2370879; 594172,
2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
hemipeza—Unit 4—Puu Kaua follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.008
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73838
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
heteroneura)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for County of Hawaii, island of Hawaii,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
heteroneura are:
(i) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
2,908–5,755 ft (908–1,754 m); and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(ii) The larval host plants
Cheirodendron trigynum ssp. trigynum,
Clermontia clermontioides, C.
clermontioides ssp. rockiana, C.
hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana,
C. montis-loa, C. parviflora, C. peleana,
C. pyrularia, and Delissea parviflora,
which exhibit one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73839
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila heteroneura
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.009
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73840
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2130401; 858810, 2130412; 858577,
2130667; 858596, 2130918; 858800,
2131167; 858976, 2131240; 859117,
2131196; 859416, 2130970.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
heteroneura—Unit 1—Kau Forest
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.010
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 1—
Kau Forest, Hawaii County, island of
Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 859357, 2130685; 859117,
73841
73842
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 2—
Kona Refuge, Hawaii County, island of
Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 836880, 2145492; 836927,
2144316; 836473, 2144373; 835378,
2144516; 831663, 2144980; 31685,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2145029; 831718, 2145184; 831669,
2145289; 831669, 2145387; 831694,
2145557; 31685, 2145727; 831685,
2145882; 831677, 2146020; 831710,
2146149; 831767, 2146247; 31685,
2146482; 831572, 2146766; 831572,
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2146953; 831515, 2147156; 831442,
2147391; 31438, 2147486; 837419,
2147183.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
heteroneura—Unit 2—Kona Refuge
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73843
ER04DE08.011
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73844
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(8) Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 3—
Lower Kahuku, Hawaii County, island
of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 849578, 2119874; 849925,
2117860; 849842, 2117726; 849716,
2117636; 849492, 2117618; 49240,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2117726; 849114, 2118058; 848962,
2118723; 848953, 2119065; 848845,
2119720; 48728, 2120187; 848701,
2120646; 848638, 2120870; 848620,
2121095; 848692, 2121194; 48782,
2121292; 849007, 2121310; 849177,
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2121319; 849350, 2121233; 849475,
2120505; 49474, 2120484; 849447,
2120250; 849528, 2120044.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
heteroneura—Unit 3—Lower Kahuku
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73845
ER04DE08.012
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73846
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(9) Drosophila heteroneura—Unit 4—
Pit Crater, Hawaii County, island of
Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 821660, 2184453; 821670,
2184348; 821617, 2184279; 821490,
2184191; 821428, 2184164; 821304,
2184150; 821131, 2184187; 821052,
2184187; 821012, 2184150; 820889,
2184086; 820850, 2184076; 820824,
2184102; 820778, 2184164; 820705,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2184193; 820626, 2184233; 820610,
2184289; 820657, 2184318; 820673,
2184316; 820707, 2184310; 820723,
2184306; 820747, 2184293; 820790,
2184269; 820818, 2184247; 820832,
2184215; 820861, 2184180; 820905,
2184168; 820929, 2184191; 820939,
2184221; 820974, 2184255; 821024,
2184261; 821109, 2184261; 821206,
2184261; 821264, 2184269; 821282,
2184285; 821292, 2184322; 821254,
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2184360; 821232, 2184396; 821276,
2184404; 821341, 2184400; 821369,
2184431; 821363, 2184463; 821333,
2184499; 821345, 2184528; 821426,
2184550; 821531, 2184554; 821619,
2184513.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
heteroneura—Unit 4—Pit Crater
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73847
ER04DE08.013
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73848
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(10) Drosophila heteroneura—Unit
5—Waihaka Gulch, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 868924, 2138585; 868686,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2138463; 868564, 2138464; 868434,
2138482; 868325, 2138598; 868350,
2138841; 868378, 2138886; 868503,
2139088; 868720, 2139220; 868946,
2139193; 869076, 2139167; 869160,
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2139055; 869238, 2139018; 869248,
2138892.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
heteroneura—Unit 5—Waihaka Gulch
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73849
ER04DE08.014
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73850
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
montgomeryi)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for County of Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii,
on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
montgomeryi are:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(i) Mesic, lowland, diverse ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
1,720–2,985 ft (524–910 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Urera kaalae,
which exhibits one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila montgomeryi
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73851
ER04DE08.015
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73852
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit
1—Kaluaa Gulch, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593240, 2374436; 593231,
2374371; 593281, 2374410; 593315,
2374385; 593612, 2374173; 593656,
2374138; 593621, 2374096; 593641,
2374077; 593676, 2374072; 593703,
2374057; 593734, 2374039; 593758,
2374058; 593793, 2374029; 593779,
2373964; 593731, 2373894; 593660,
2373784; 593609, 2373702; 593592,
2373648; 593592, 2373594; 593598,
2373553; 593657, 2373561; 593770,
2373549; 593792, 2373496; 593797,
2373417; 593842, 2373411; 593842,
2373326; 593905, 2373404; 594053,
2373383; 594103, 2373292; 594134,
2373228; 594156, 2373250; 594194,
2373256; 594178, 2373323; 594196,
2373386; 594229, 2373390; 594312,
2373340; 594341, 2373350; 594339,
2373421; 594383, 2373487; 594381,
2373513; 594460, 2373552; 594496,
2373553; 594497, 2373518; 594526,
2373509; 594572, 2373460; 594632,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2373519; 594649, 2373523; 594699,
2373475; 594728, 2373476; 594762,
2373532; 594791, 2373529; 594828,
2373501; 594852, 2373465; 594903,
2373501; 594933, 2373500; 594952,
2373489; 594974, 2373334; 594800,
2373150; 594718, 2373120; 594718,
2373102; 594744, 2373091; 594710,
2372721; 594720, 2372686; 594716,
2372633; 594678, 2372623; 594566,
2372651; 594536, 2372666; 594506,
2372663; 594467, 2372672; 594395,
2372663; 594406, 2372650; 594546,
2372567; 594558, 2372553; 594551,
2372535; 594389, 2372452; 594395,
2372434; 594415, 2372428; 594511,
2372449; 594603, 2372437; 594614,
2372421; 594607, 2372385; 594593,
2372353; 594591, 2372317; 594618,
2372322; 594661, 2372357; 594700,
2372384; 594696, 2372334; 594697,
2372333; 594697, 2372283; 594652,
2372257; 594541, 2372266; 594454,
2372294; 594400, 2372294; 594293,
2372267; 594231, 2372261; 594168,
2372241; 594126, 2372258; 594075,
2372267; 594030, 2372303; 593999,
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2372354; 593948, 2372388; 593889,
2372397; 593812, 2372413; 593781,
2372425; 593756, 2372442; 593742,
2372467; 593742, 2372490; 593736,
2372521; 593736, 2372560; 593757,
2372587; 593790, 2372662; 593663,
2372772; 593543, 2372859; 593558,
2372894; 593555, 2372910; 593526,
2372928; 593476, 2372912; 593422,
2372953; 593420, 2372976; 593403,
2372997; 593400, 2373025; 593373,
2373016; 593352, 2373044; 593328,
2373025; 593215, 2373118; 593230,
2373171; 593214, 2373176; 593163,
2373154; 593095, 2373213; 593091,
2373238; 593064, 2373243; 593019,
2373295; 592937, 2373388; 592889,
2373462; 592897, 2373535; 592908,
2373597; 592923, 2373668; 592914,
2373772; 592889, 2373866; 592868,
2373941; 592867, 2373950; 592894,
2374029; 592908, 2374120; 592894,
2374162; 592860, 2374213; 592854,
2374216; 593151, 2374494.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
montgomery—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73853
ER04DE08.016
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73854
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit
2—Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593529, 2367854; 593448,
2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242,
2367927; 593193, 2367967; 593165,
2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314,
2368283; 593399, 2368425; 593448,
2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2368833; 593703, 2368906; 593764,
2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901,
2369145; 594002, 2369262; 594079,
2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120,
2369485; 594124, 2369521; 594148,
2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310,
2369497; 594395, 2369473; 594399,
2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417,
2369313; 594461, 2369290; 594551,
2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559,
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2369197; 594472, 2369183; 594391,
2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302,
2369072; 594257, 2369015; 594213,
2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083,
2368672; 594035, 2368550; 593966,
2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909,
2368259; 593792, 2368105; 593675,
2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
montgomeryi—Unit 2—Palikea follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73855
ER04DE08.017
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73856
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(8) Drosophila montgomeryi—Unit
3—Puu Kaua, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 594166, 2370854; 594166,
2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122,
2370843; 594090, 2370815; 594040,
2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930,
2370827; 593852, 2370875; 593778,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642,
2370999; 593602, 2371041; 593574,
2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539,
2371118; 593531, 2371121; 593534,
2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533,
2371375; 593552, 2371390; 593628,
2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794,
2371431; 593876, 2371437; 593974,
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138,
2371415; 594190, 2371399; 594232,
2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239,
2371354; 594170, 2370879; 594172,
2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
montgomeryi—Unit 3—Puu Kaua
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73857
ER04DE08.018
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73858
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
mulli)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for County of Hawaii, island of Hawaii,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila mulli
are:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(i) Wet, montane, ohia forest between
the elevations of 1,955–3,250 ft (596–
1,093 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Pritchardia
beccariana, which exhibits one or more
life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila mulli follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73859
ER04DE08.019
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila mulli—Unit 1—Olaa
Forest, Hawaii County, island of Hawaii,
Hawaii.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 898754, 2154890; 898225,
2154740; 898030, 2154878; 897846,
2155268; 897927, 2155578; 898328,
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
2155910; 898508, 2155922; 899064,
2155498; 899064, 2155268.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila mulli—
Unit 1—Olaa Forest follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.020
73860
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila mulli—Unit 2—
Stainback Forest, Hawaii County, island
of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 903259, 2169945; 903159,
2169907; 903080, 2169965; 902974,
2170089; 902953, 2170247; 903012,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2170346; 903101, 2170415; 903166,
2170439; 903245, 2170490; 903324,
2170521; 903420, 2170603; 903509,
2170651; 903636, 2170699; 903732,
2170771; 903849, 2170799; 903914,
2170789; 903955, 2170730; 903869,
2170662; 903866, 2170658; 903718,
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73861
2170579; 903653, 2170521; 903622,
2170487; 903441, 2170394; 903386,
2170322; 903399, 2170250; 903451,
2170133; 903403, 2170058.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila mulli—
Unit 2—Stainback Forest follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.021
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73862
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(8) Drosophila mulli—Unit 3—
Waiakea Forest, Hawaii County, island
of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 897021, 2168026; 896225,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2167587; 895745, 2167704; 895687,
2167996; 895745, 2168207; 896014,
2168335; 896480, 2168668; 896841,
2169108; 897302, 2169068; 897522,
2168908; 897482, 2168607.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73863
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila mulli—
Unit 3—Waiakea Forest follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.022
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73864
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
musaphilia)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for
County of Kauai, island of Kauai,
Hawaii, on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
musaphilia are:
(i) Mesic, montane, ohia and koa
forest between the elevations of 3,310–
3,740 ft (1,009–1,128 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Acacia koa,
which exhibits one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Drosophila musaphilia—Unit 1—
Kokee, Kauai County, island of Kauai,
Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 432035, 2448683; 432126,
2448510; 432111, 2448312; 432111,
2448119; 432106, 2447977; 432010,
2447906; 432025, 2447779; 431992,
2447749; 431962, 2447768; 431938,
2447766; 431926, 2447752; 431895,
2447719; 431861, 2447686; 431825,
2447651; 431786, 2447616; 431745,
2447581; 431701, 2447544; 431658,
2447505; 431616, 2447462; 431575,
2447417; 431535, 2447368; 431496,
2447318; 431457, 2447271; 431418,
2447231; 431379, 2447198; 431339,
2447172; 431299, 2447153; 431267,
2447131; 431247, 2447103; 431239,
2447068; 431244, 2447027; 431260,
2446979; 431278, 2446930; 431292,
2446881; 431300, 2446834; 431303,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2446788; 431302, 2446743; 431300,
2446700; 431301, 2446659; 431306,
2446621; 431252, 2446466; 431186,
2446345; 431181, 2446332; 430955,
2445963; 430860, 2445709; 430831,
2445664; 430760, 2445497; 430648,
2445441; 430416, 2445421; 430405,
2445422; 430396, 2445420; 430159,
2445358; 430153, 2445371; 430148,
2445402; 430150, 2445437; 430157,
2445475; 430170, 2445517; 430188,
2445562; 430212, 2445610; 430240,
2445660; 430270, 2445707; 430302,
2445754; 430335, 2445799; 430371,
2445842; 430407, 2445883; 430441,
2445921; 430474, 2445956; 430506,
2445988; 430535, 2446017; 430559,
2446044; 430567, 2446070; 430558,
2446095; 430533, 2446120; 430492,
2446144; 430441, 2446167; 430398,
2446193; 430363, 2446221; 430337,
2446252; 430320, 2446284; 430311,
2446319; 430309, 2446353; 430315,
2446388; 430327, 2446423; 430347,
2446457; 430373, 2446492; 430401,
2446525; 430430, 2446558; 430459,
2446589; 430489, 2446619; 430518,
2446649; 430531, 2446681; 430524,
2446716; 430497, 2446755; 430451,
2446797; 430387, 2446842; 430330,
2446887; 430288, 2446930; 430262,
2446971; 430250, 2447010; 430253,
2447047; 430263, 2447083; 430274,
2447118; 430288, 2447153; 430304,
2447187; 430323, 2447220; 430339,
2447254; 430350, 2447291; 430356,
2447331; 430358, 2447373; 430354,
2447418; 430351, 2447461; 430354,
2447496; 430361, 2447524; 430374,
2447545; 430392, 2447558; 430416,
2447567; 430445, 2447573; 430479,
2447576; 430518, 2447577; 430563,
2447574; 430609, 2447572; 430649,
2447573; 430684, 2447578; 430714,
2447587; 430737, 2447599; 430755,
2447616; 430767, 2447639; 430772,
2447667; 430772, 2447701; 430766,
2447740; 430756, 2447783; 430755,
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73865
2447821; 430762, 2447853; 430778,
2447879; 430802, 2447900; 430834,
2447916; 430864, 2447928; 430893,
2447937; 430920, 2447943; 430945,
2447947; 430968, 2447947; 430989,
2447952; 431007, 2447961; 431022,
2447974; 431035, 2447992; 431045,
2448014; 431049, 2448036; 431046,
2448057; 431036, 2448077; 431019,
2448096; 430996, 2448113; 430971,
2448128; 430946, 2448140; 430921,
2448149; 430896, 2448155; 430871,
2448158; 430849, 2448165; 430830,
2448179; 430815, 2448200; 430804,
2448228; 430796, 2448263; 430799,
2448299; 430816, 2448330; 430848,
2448356; 430894, 2448377; 430956,
2448393; 431018, 2448407; 431064,
2448423; 431094, 2448440; 431109,
2448459; 431107, 2448479; 431094,
2448502; 431076, 2448530; 431054,
2448563; 431027, 2448601; 430996,
2448643; 430967, 2448687; 430957,
2448722; 430966, 2448749; 430994,
2448766; 431042, 2448775; 431103,
2448778; 431162, 2448779; 431218,
2448779; 431269, 2448779; 431317,
2448777; 431361, 2448775; 431403,
2448767; 431443, 2448754; 431480,
2448736; 431515, 2448712; 431548,
2448685; 431579, 2448661; 431607,
2448643; 431633, 2448630; 431657,
2448622; 431678, 2448620; 431692,
2448631; 431697, 2448656; 431694,
2448695; 431683, 2448749; 431665,
2448816; 431657, 2448878; 431666,
2448928; 431692, 2448967; 431735,
2448994; 431795, 2449009; 431857,
2449019; 431913, 2449024; 431963,
2449027; 432008, 2449026; 432046,
2449022; 432076, 2449012; 432094,
2448996; 432100, 2448974; 432095,
2448945; 432078, 2448910; 432060,
2448872; 432053, 2448837; 432063,
2448834; 432035, 2448784.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
musaphilia—Unit 1—Kokee follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.023
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73866
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
neoclavisetae)
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for
County of Maui, island of Maui, Hawaii,
on the map below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
neoclavisetae are:
(i) Wet, montane, ohia forest between
the elevations of 3,405–4,590 ft (1,036–
1,399 m); and
(ii) The larval host plants Cyanea
kunthiana and C. macrostegia ssp.
macrostegia, which exhibit one or more
life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map unit.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Drosophila neoclavisetae—Unit
1—Puu Kukui, Maui County, island of
Maui, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 749957, 2315007; 750017,
2314927; 750054, 2314874; 750054,
2314874; 750070, 2314854; 750070,
2314854; 750070, 2314853; 750070,
2314853; 750095, 2314828; 750095,
2314828; 750095, 2314828; 750118,
2314807; 750118, 2314807; 750118,
2314806; 750119, 2314806; 750119,
2314806; 750137, 2314795; 750137,
2314795; 750137, 2314795; 750137,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2314795; 750138, 2314795; 750138,
2314795; 750172, 2314783; 750197,
2314770; 750214, 2314760; 750222,
2314756; 750222, 2314756; 750222,
2314756; 750231, 2314751; 750244,
2314735; 750244, 2314735; 750244,
2314735; 750245, 2314735; 750263,
2314718; 750263, 2314718; 750263,
2314718; 750283, 2314702; 750381,
2314361; 750381, 2314360; 750421,
2314232; 750421, 2314232; 750421,
2314232; 750421, 2314231; 750421,
2314231; 750421, 2314231; 750422,
2314231; 750422, 2314230; 750422,
2314230; 750402, 2314210; 750397,
2314126; 750357, 2314098; 750329,
2314098; 750312, 2314143; 750290,
2314227; 750239, 2314244; 750194,
2314227; 750133, 2314238; 750076,
2314255; 750009, 2314238; 749958,
2314259; 749885, 2314289; 749773,
2314435; 749721, 2314492; 749520,
2314710; 749515, 2314969; 749509,
2315036; 749509, 2315093; 749565,
2315087; 749649, 2315036; 749739,
2314991; 749756, 2315031; 749655,
2315132; 749599, 2315244; 749554,
2315340; 749458, 2315407; 749368,
2315480; 749254, 2315543; 749183,
2315602; 749145, 2315636; 749117,
2315676; 749125, 2315679; 749125,
2315679; 749125, 2315679; 749125,
2315679; 749125, 2315678; 749125,
2315678; 749126, 2315678; 749126,
2315678; 749126, 2315677; 749138,
2315668; 749138, 2315668; 749172,
2315644; 749172, 2315644; 749172,
2315644; 749172, 2315644; 749172,
2315644; 749186, 2315637; 749203,
2315624; 749221, 2315611; 749221,
2315611; 749221, 2315611; 749222,
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73867
2315611; 749222, 2315611; 749222,
2315611; 749243, 2315602; 749331,
2315566; 749351, 2315553; 749351,
2315553; 749383, 2315533; 749383,
2315533; 749383, 2315533; 749403,
2315522; 749419, 2315511; 749468,
2315475; 749476, 2315462; 749483,
2315449; 749483, 2315449; 749484,
2315449; 749484, 2315449; 749498,
2315429; 749498, 2315429; 749498,
2315428; 749522, 2315400; 749522,
2315400; 749522, 2315400; 749522,
2315400; 749523, 2315399; 749523,
2315399; 749523, 2315399; 749548,
2315382; 749548, 2315382; 749548,
2315382; 749570, 2315370; 749570,
2315370; 749570, 2315370; 749616,
2315349; 749626, 2315340; 749626,
2315340; 749627, 2315340; 749650,
2315324; 749664, 2315305; 749675,
2315287; 749679, 2315278; 749679,
2315278; 749679, 2315278; 749679,
2315278; 749680, 2315278; 749698,
2315255; 749698, 2315254; 749698,
2315254; 749718, 2315234; 749718,
2315234; 749718, 2315234; 749718,
2315233; 749718, 2315233; 749734,
2315222; 749779, 2315184; 749779,
2315184; 749780, 2315183; 749780,
2315183; 749780, 2315183; 749802,
2315170; 749831, 2315145; 749872,
2315096; 749872, 2315096; 749872,
2315096; 749872, 2315096; 749873,
2315095; 749873, 2315095; 749886,
2315085; 749931, 2315044; 749957,
2315008.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
neoclavisetae—Unit 1—Puu Kukui
follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
er04de08.024
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73868
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
obatai)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for
County of Honolulu, island of Oahu,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila obatai
are:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
1,475–2,535 ft (450–773 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Pleomele
forbesii, which exhibits one or more life
stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73869
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of the critical
habitat units for Drosophila obatai
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
er04de08.025
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73870
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila obatai—Unit 1—Puu
Pane, City and County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 591489, 2379704; 591662,
2379690; 591807, 2379704; 591822,
2379699; 591901, 2379571; 591871,
2379579; 591830, 2379596; 591830,
2379596; 591830, 2379596; 591830,
2379596; 591830, 2379596; 591830,
2379596; 591830, 2379596; 591791,
2379600; 591791, 2379600; 591791,
2379601; 591791, 2379600; 591791,
2379600; 591791, 2379600; 591766,
2379597; 591766, 2379597; 591766,
2379597; 591766, 2379597; 591766,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2379597; 591766, 2379597; 591766,
2379597; 591741, 2379583; 591741,
2379583; 591710, 2379565; 591672,
2379554; 591672, 2379554; 591635,
2379542; 591614, 2379537; 591614,
2379537; 591614, 2379537; 591582,
2379526; 591582, 2379526; 591582,
2379526; 591582, 2379526; 591582,
2379526; 591545, 2379500; 591523,
2379495; 591496, 2379495; 591461,
2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591461,
2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591461,
2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591461,
2379505; 591461, 2379505; 591461,
2379505; 591444, 2379502; 591444,
2379502; 591444, 2379502; 591444,
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73871
2379502; 591444, 2379502; 591432,
2379498; 591421, 2379497; 591421,
2379497; 591421, 2379497; 591421,
2379497; 591421, 2379497; 591420,
2379497; 591420, 2379497; 591420,
2379497; 591420, 2379497; 591420,
2379497; 591405, 2379487; 591405,
2379487; 591405, 2379487; 591405,
2379486; 591405, 2379486; 591405,
2379486; 591403, 2379483; 591354,
2379454; 591283, 2379460; 591240,
2379449; 591113, 2379474; 591116,
2379531; 591169, 2379618; 591284,
2379716; 591345, 2379723.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila obatai—
Unit 1—Puu Pane follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
er04de08.026
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73872
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila obatai—Unit 2—
Wailupe, City and County of Honolulu,
island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 629222, 2358352; 629208,
2358307; 629199, 2358225; 629147,
2358205; 629100, 2358307; 629048,
2358343; 629028, 2358316; 629023,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2358250; 629005, 2358174; 628908,
2358169; 628890, 2358110; 628922,
2358034; 628883, 2358011; 628795,
2358007; 628791, 2357939; 628753,
2357885; 628759, 2357799; 628705,
2357743; 628676, 2357619; 628606,
2357592; 628536, 2357607; 628552,
2357673; 628610, 2357731; 628574,
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73873
2357806; 628559, 2357874; 628619,
2357932; 628637, 2357973; 628635,
2358074; 628660, 2358185; 628735,
2358298; 628775, 2358411; 628936,
2358634; 629070, 2358711; 629243,
2358647; 629307, 2358506.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila obatai—
Unit 2—Wailupe follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
er04de08.027
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73874
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
ochrobasis)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for County of Hawaii, island of Hawaii,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
ochrobasis are:
(i) Mesic to wet, montane, ohia, koa,
and Cheirodendron sp. forest between
the elevations of 3,850–5,390 ft (1,173–
1,643 m); and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(ii) The larval host plants Clermontia
calophylla, C. clermontioides, C.
clermontioides ssp. rockiana, C.
drepanomorpha, C. hawaiiensis, C.
kohalae, C. lindseyana, C. montis-loa, C.
parviflora, C. peleana, C. pyrularia, C.
waimeae, Marattia douglasii, Myrsine
lanaiensis, M. lessertiana, and M.
sandwicensis, which exhibit one or
more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73875
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila ochrobasis follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(6) Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 1—
Kipuka 9, Hawaii County, island of
Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 884112, 2179392; 884090,
2179333; 884069, 2179303; 884023,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2179281; 883971, 2179292; 883936,
2179295; 883896, 2179273; 883855,
2179287; 883825, 2179319; 883828,
2179335; 883861, 2179349; 883869,
2179346; 883885, 2179346; 883888,
2179373; 883893, 2179409; 883896,
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2179441; 883934, 2179473; 883985,
2179484; 884036, 2179444; 884112,
2179409.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit 1—Kipuka 9 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
er04de08.028
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73876
(7) Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 2—
Kipuka 14, Hawaii County, island of
Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 884379, 2179103; 884375,
2179051; 884351, 2178992; 884320,
2178889; 884264, 2178832; 884236,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2178818; 884211, 2178834; 884141,
2178891; 884099, 2178924; 884064,
2178929; 884026, 2178959; 884026,
2178976; 884052, 2178983; 884071,
2179008; 884101, 2179013; 884137,
2179021; 884160, 2179035; 884148,
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73877
2179051; 884151, 2179065; 884210,
2179063; 884208, 2179084; 884242,
2179101; 884280, 2179131; 884323,
2179146; 884365, 2179146.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit 2—Kipuka 14 follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
er04de08.029
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(8) Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 3—
Kohala Mountains East, Hawaii County,
island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 848091, 2222077; 847912,
2222077; 847578, 2222142; 847461,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2222323; 847396, 2222654; 847508,
2222900; 847620, 2223146; 847773,
2223179; 848104, 2223079; 848172,
2222934; 848235, 2222798; 848327,
2222764; 848361, 2222693; 848350,
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2222595; 848317, 2222476; 848177,
2222184.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit 3—Kohala Mountains
East follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
er04de08.030
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73878
(9) Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 4—
Kohala Mountains West, Hawaii
County, island of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 841990, 2224000; 842156,
2223966; 842268, 2223966; 842486,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2223897; 842666, 2223757; 842803,
2223586; 842840, 2223426; 842812,
2223314; 842758, 2223157; 842584,
2223047; 842430, 2223096; 842355,
2223157; 842260, 2223278; 842154,
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
73879
2223345; 842020, 2223634; 841988,
2223746; 841967, 2223882.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit 4—Kohala Mountains
West follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.031
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(10) Drosophila ochrobasis—Unit 5—
Upper Kahuku, Hawaii County, island
of Hawaii, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 850211, 2124185; 849989,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2124179; 849874, 2124347; 849874,
2124516; 849975, 2124603; 850177,
2124724; 850332, 2124866; 850474,
2124900; 850589, 2124832; 850669,
2124785; 850690, 2124684; 850669,
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2124549; 850508, 2124448; 850339,
2124320.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
ochrobasis—Unit 5—Upper Kahuku
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.032
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
73880
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73881
ER04DE08.033
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73882
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
substenoptera)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat is depicted for
County of Honolulu, island of Oahu,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
substenoptera are:
(i) Mesic to wet, lowland to montane,
ohia and koa forest between the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
elevations of 1,920–4,030 ft (585–1,228
m); and
(ii) The larval host plants
Cheirodendron platyphyllum ssp.
platyphyllum, C. trigynum ssp.
trigynum, Tetraplasandra kavaiensis,
and T. oahuensis, which exhibit one or
more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
land on which they are located existing
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila substenoptera
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73883
ER04DE08.034
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73884
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila substenoptera—Unit
1—Mt. Kaala, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 588692, 2378661; 588740,
2378622; 588806, 2378595; 588799,
2378573; 588790, 2378564; 588785,
2378562; 588776, 2378565; 588776,
2378565; 588776, 2378565; 588776,
2378565; 588776, 2378565; 588776,
2378565; 588776, 2378566; 588766,
2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766,
2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766,
2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766,
2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766,
2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766,
2378566; 588766, 2378566; 588766,
2378566; 588765, 2378566; 588765,
2378566; 588765, 2378566; 588753,
2378551; 588731, 2378529; 588722,
2378520; 588722, 2378520; 588722,
2378520; 588714, 2378509; 588660,
2378470; 588660, 2378470; 588660,
2378470; 588660, 2378470; 588617,
2378429; 588584, 2378412; 588563,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2378405; 588530, 2378398; 588530,
2378398; 588484, 2378387; 588466,
2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588466,
2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588466,
2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588466,
2378384; 588466, 2378384; 588459,
2378380; 588459, 2378380; 588459,
2378380; 588459, 2378380; 588459,
2378379; 588459, 2378379; 588459,
2378379; 588459, 2378379; 588395,
2378293; 588361, 2378254; 588361,
2378254; 588361, 2378254; 588361,
2378254; 588361, 2378254; 588349,
2378234; 588349, 2378234; 588349,
2378234; 588349, 2378234; 588349,
2378234; 588349, 2378234; 588344,
2378210; 588344, 2378210; 588344,
2378210; 588344, 2378210; 588344,
2378210; 588344, 2378210; 588344,
2378186; 588344, 2378186; 588344,
2378186; 588344, 2378186; 588349,
2378161; 588349, 2378161; 588349,
2378161; 588349, 2378161; 588373,
2378097; 588385, 2378041; 588384,
2378026; 588380, 2378003; 588364,
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2377972; 588364, 2377972; 588364,
2377972; 588351, 2377941; 588351,
2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351,
2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351,
2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351,
2377941; 588351, 2377941; 588351,
2377941; 588354, 2377924; 588354,
2377924; 588354, 2377923; 588354,
2377923; 588354, 2377923; 588362,
2377904; 588362, 2377904; 588362,
2377904; 588362, 2377904; 588362,
2377904; 588369, 2377893; 588369,
2377893; 588369, 2377893; 588369,
2377893; 588369, 2377893; 588369,
2377893; 588376, 2377888; 588308,
2377906; 588255, 2377885; 588156,
2377924; 588103, 2377905; 588064,
2377903; 587879, 2378062; 587792,
2378228; 587806, 2378342; 587939,
2378515; 588067, 2378659; 588232,
2378655; 588363, 2378748; 588503,
2378737; 588614, 2378668.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
substenoptera—Unit 1—Mt. Kaala
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73885
ER04DE08.035
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73886
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila substenoptera—Unit
2—Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593529, 2367854; 593448,
2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242,
2367927; 593193, 2367967; 593165,
2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314,
2368283; 593399, 2368425; 593448,
2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2368833; 593703, 2368906; 593764,
2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901,
2369145; 594002, 2369262; 594079,
2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120,
2369485; 594124, 2369521; 594148,
2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310,
2369497; 594395, 2369473; 594399,
2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417,
2369313; 594461, 2369290; 594551,
2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559,
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2369197; 594472, 2369183; 594391,
2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302,
2369072; 594257, 2369015; 594213,
2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083,
2368672; 594035, 2368550; 593966,
2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909,
2368259; 593792, 2368105; 593675,
2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
substenoptera—Unit 2—Palikea follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73887
ER04DE08.036
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73888
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Hawaiian picture-wing fly (Drosophila
tarphytrichia)
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for County of Honolulu, island of Oahu,
Hawaii, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for Drosophila
tarphytrichia are:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
(i) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia and
koa forest between the elevations of
1,720–2,985 ft (524–910 m); and
(ii) The larval host plant Charpentiera
obovata, which exhibits one or more life
stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the
land on which they are located existing
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
within the legal boundaries on the
effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units.
Coordinates are in Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 with units in
meters using North American Datum of
1983 (NAD83).
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat
units for Drosophila tarphytrichia
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73889
ER04DE08.037
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73890
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(6) Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit
1—Kaluaa Gulch, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593240, 2374436; 593231,
2374371; 593281, 2374410; 593315,
2374385; 593612, 2374173; 593656,
2374138; 593621, 2374096; 593641,
2374077; 593676, 2374072; 593703,
2374057; 593734, 2374039; 593758,
2374058; 593793, 2374029; 593779,
2373964; 593731, 2373894; 593660,
2373784; 593609, 2373702; 593592,
2373648; 593592, 2373594; 593598,
2373553; 593657, 2373561; 593770,
2373549; 593792, 2373496; 593797,
2373417; 593842, 2373411; 593842,
2373326; 593905, 2373404; 594053,
2373383; 594103, 2373292; 594134,
2373228; 594156, 2373250; 594194,
2373256; 594178, 2373323; 594196,
2373386; 594229, 2373390; 594312,
2373340; 594341, 2373350; 594339,
2373421; 594383, 2373487; 594381,
2373513; 594460, 2373552; 594496,
2373553; 594497, 2373518; 594526,
2373509; 594572, 2373460; 594632,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2373519; 594649, 2373523; 594699,
2373475; 594728, 2373476; 594762,
2373532; 594791, 2373529; 594828,
2373501; 594852, 2373465; 594903,
2373501; 594933, 2373500; 594952,
2373489; 594974, 2373334; 594800,
2373150; 594718, 2373120; 594718,
2373102; 594744, 2373091; 594710,
2372721; 594720, 2372686; 594716,
2372633; 594678, 2372623; 594566,
2372651; 594536, 2372666; 594506,
2372663; 594467, 2372672; 594395,
2372663; 594406, 2372650; 594546,
2372567; 594558, 2372553; 594551,
2372535; 594389, 2372452; 594395,
2372434; 594415, 2372428; 594511,
2372449; 594603, 2372437; 594614,
2372421; 594607, 2372385; 594593,
2372353; 594591, 2372317; 594618,
2372322; 594661, 2372357; 594700,
2372384; 594696, 2372334; 594697,
2372333; 594697, 2372283; 594652,
2372257; 594541, 2372266; 594454,
2372294; 594400, 2372294; 594293,
2372267; 594231, 2372261; 594168,
2372241; 594126, 2372258; 594075,
2372267; 594030, 2372303; 593999,
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2372354; 593948, 2372388; 593889,
2372397; 593812, 2372413; 593781,
2372425; 593756, 2372442; 593742,
2372467; 593742, 2372490; 593736,
2372521; 593736, 2372560; 593757,
2372587; 593790, 2372662; 593663,
2372772; 593543, 2372859; 593558,
2372894; 593555, 2372910; 593526,
2372928; 593476, 2372912; 593422,
2372953; 593420, 2372976; 593403,
2372997; 593400, 2373025; 593373,
2373016; 593352, 2373044; 593328,
2373025; 593215, 2373118; 593230,
2373171; 593214, 2373176; 593163,
2373154; 593095, 2373213; 593091,
2373238; 593064, 2373243; 593019,
2373295; 592937, 2373388; 592889,
2373462; 592897, 2373535; 592908,
2373597; 592923, 2373668; 592914,
2373772; 592889, 2373866; 592868,
2373941; 592867, 2373950; 592894,
2374029; 592908, 2374120; 592894,
2374162; 592860, 2374213; 592854,
2374216; 593151, 2374494.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
tarphytrichia—Unit 1—Kaluaa Gulch
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73891
ER04DE08.038
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73892
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(7) Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit
2—Palikea, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 593529, 2367854; 593448,
2367801; 593302, 2367874; 593242,
2367927; 593193, 2367967; 593165,
2368065; 593217, 2368150; 593314,
2368283; 593399, 2368425; 593448,
2368578; 593505, 2368716; 593622,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2368833; 593703, 2368906; 593764,
2368963; 593832, 2369044; 593901,
2369145; 594002, 2369262; 594079,
2369331; 594104, 2369396; 594120,
2369485; 594124, 2369521; 594148,
2369525; 594213, 2369525; 594310,
2369497; 594395, 2369473; 594399,
2369392; 594396, 2369356; 594417,
2369313; 594461, 2369290; 594551,
2369278; 594579, 2369250; 594559,
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2369197; 594472, 2369183; 594391,
2369179; 594354, 2369153; 594302,
2369072; 594257, 2369015; 594213,
2368914; 594136, 2368809; 594083,
2368672; 594035, 2368550; 593966,
2368417; 593966, 2368324; 593909,
2368259; 593792, 2368105; 593675,
2368000.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
tarphytrichia—Unit 2—Palikea follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
73893
ER04DE08.039
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
73894
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
(8) Drosophila tarphytrichia—Unit
3—Puu Kaua, City and County of
Honolulu, island of Oahu, Hawaii.
(i) Land bounded by the following
coordinates: 594166, 2370854; 594166,
2370853; 594164, 2370854; 594122,
2370843; 594090, 2370815; 594040,
2370789; 593996, 2370789; 593930,
2370827; 593852, 2370875; 593778,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
2370907; 593716, 2370947; 593642,
2370999; 593602, 2371041; 593574,
2371067; 593558, 2371095; 593539,
2371118; 593531, 2371121; 593534,
2371173; 593519, 2371375; 593533,
2371375; 593552, 2371390; 593628,
2371404; 593716, 2371426; 593794,
2371431; 593876, 2371437; 593974,
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2371435; 594036, 2371431; 594138,
2371415; 594190, 2371399; 594232,
2371385; 594246, 2371359; 594239,
2371354; 594170, 2370879; 594172,
2370877; 594170, 2370855.
(ii) Note: Map of Drosophila
tarphytrichia—Unit 3—Puu Kaua
follows:
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 234 / Thursday, December 4, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 14, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. E8–27664 Filed 12–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Dec 03, 2008
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04DER1.SGM
04DER1
ER04DE08.040
erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES
*
73895
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 234 (Thursday, December 4, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73794-73895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27664]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R1-ES-2007-0006; 92210-1117-0000-B4]
RIN 1018-AU93
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for 12 Species of Picture-Wing Flies From the Hawaiian
Islands
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
designating critical habitat for 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing
flies (Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D.
montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D.
ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total,
approximately 8,788 acres (ac) (3,556 hectares (ha)) fall within the
boundaries of the final critical habitat designation. The critical
habitat is located in four counties (City and County of Honolulu,
Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai) in Hawaii.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective on January 5, 2009.
ADDRESSES: The final rule, final economic analysis, and map of critical
habitat are available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Supporting documentation we used in preparing this final rule will be
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, P.O. Box 50088,
Honolulu, HI 96850; telephone 808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Leonard, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone
808-792-9400; facsimile 808-792-9581. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this final rule. For additional
information on the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies, refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71 FR
26835), the revised proposed critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428), and the recovery
outline for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies available on the
Internet at https://www.fws.gov/Pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/
documents/Drosophilarecoveryoutline-final.pdf.
Previous Federal Actions
On November 28, 2007, we published a revised proposed rule in the
Federal Register to designate critical habitat for the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies (72 FR 67428). The publication of the revised
proposal opened a 60-day public comment period, which closed on January
28, 2008. On March 6, 2008, we published a document in the Federal
Register announcing the reopening of the public comment period until
April 25, 2008, and a notice of two public hearings (73 FR 12065). On
April 4, 2008, we held a public hearing in Hilo, Hawaii, and on April
10, 2008, we held a public hearing in Honolulu, Hawaii. On August 12,
2008, we published a document in the Federal Register (73 FR 46860)
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and reopening the public comment
period until September 11, 2008. For more information on previous
Federal actions concerning the 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing
flies, refer to the proposed designation of critical habitat published
in the Federal Register on August 15, 2006 (71 FR 46994), and the final
rule to list 11 picture-wing flies as endangered and one picture-wing
fly as threatened published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2006 (71
FR 26835).
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
During the comment period that opened on November 28, 2007, and
closed on January 28, 2008 (72 FR 67428), we received 10 comments,
including 2 requests for public hearings. Three comments were from peer
reviewers, three were from State of Hawaii agencies, and four were from
nongovernmental organizations or individuals. During the comment period
that opened on March 6, 2008, and closed on April 25, 2008 (73 FR
12065), we received nine comments from organizations or individuals. We
also conducted public hearings in Hilo on the Island of Hawaii and in
Honolulu on the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. During the comment period that
opened on August 12, 2008, and closed on September 11, 2008 (73 FR
46860), we received seven comments. Three comments were from
individuals (which includes two individuals that presented testimony at
the public hearing in Honolulu, Hawaii on April 10, 2008), one comment
was from the U.S. Navy, and three comments were received from the State
of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, and the State Historic Preservation Office.
Twelve comments supported the designation of critical habitat for
the Hawaiian picture-wing flies and four opposed the designation. Two
comments were received from individuals expressing general views on the
Endangered Species Act, but were unrelated to the proposed designation
of
[[Page 73795]]
critical habitat. We received two comments objecting to the exemption
of military lands under section 4(a)(3) of the Act, and one comment
requesting that we exclude a portion of one critical habitat unit based
on ongoing private conservation activities. All comments that we
received were reviewed for substantive issues and new information
regarding the proposed critical habitat designation for the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing fly species. All comments that we received have been fully
considered in the final rule.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we solicited expert opinions from 15 knowledgeable individuals
with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species,
the geographic region in which the species occurs, and conservation
biology principles. We received responses from four of the peer
reviewers, as are discussed below.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Three peer reviewers recommended that the critical
habitat designation include additional areas for 7 of the 12 picture-
wing fly species (Drosophila hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi,
D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia).
The additional areas that they recommended are either within historical
habitat, or within potentially suitable habitat that has not been
surveyed that is located adjacent to occupied habitat. These peer
reviewers stated that the amount of habitat or the number of units we
proposed is insufficient to provide for conservation of the species,
and that the inclusion of additional lands adjacent to the areas
proposed would improve the likelihood of conserving the species. The
peer reviewers stated that for some species, the lands adjacent to the
proposed units contain habitat that is known or likely to contain
relatively intact native forest. Some peer reviewers stated that the
designation of additional lands adjacent to the proposed critical
habitat units may help preserve the species' historical distribution or
facilitate dispersal between localized subpopulations. Some peer
reviewers also recommended that we include unsurveyed areas believed to
support undocumented populations of picture-wing species, and that we
include areas that are likely to support host plant populations.
Our Response: The Act defines critical habitat as:
The specific areas within the geographical area occupied
by the species at the time it is listed on which are found those
physical and biological features (I) essential to the conservation of
the species and (II) which may require special management
considerations or protection; and
Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time it is listed upon a determination by the
Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. The Act also states that ``Except in those circumstances
determined by the Secretary, critical habitat shall not include the
entire geographical area which can be occupied by the threatened or
endangered species.''
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. Although the peer reviewers recommended areas to add to the
critical habitat designation, they did not provide information on
habitat suitability or why they believed that the recommended areas
contained the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of these species.
The areas recommended by the peer reviewers are either unoccupied
or they have not been surveyed. We did not include areas that were not
occupied at the time of listing because: (1) It is unclear why the
species were extirpated from previously occupied areas; and (2) we
could not conclude from the available data whether or not the
previously occupied areas currently support, or even could support in
the future, the physical and biological features (including their host
plants) essential for the conservation of the species. Furthermore,
some of the areas recommended for inclusion have never been surveyed
for the flies, nor surveyed for the presence of host plants. Therefore
based on the available information, we are unable to conclude that
these areas were occupied at the time of listing, or that they contain
the physical and biological features essential for the conservation of
the species.
We used the best available, most recent survey data for adult flies
to determine which sites we would identify as occupied and which sites
we would identify as unoccupied. The primary dataset we used to
document observations of these 12 picture-wing flies spans the years
1965-1999 (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1-16). We also reviewed a
variety of peer-reviewed and other articles for this final rule, which
included background information on the biology of each of the 12
species. Additional data were obtained from personal communications
with landowners, scientists, and land managers familiar with particular
species and locations. Specific information from all of these sources
included estimates of historic and current distribution, abundance, and
territory sizes for the 12 species, as well as information on habitat
requirements. The physical and biological features essential to the
conservation, or primary constituent elements (PCEs), of the 12
picture-wing flies include both the host plants used by the larvae, as
well as the native forest components used by foraging adults. We used
known adult location data to identify each critical habitat unit, and
included the surrounding area encompassing the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. We did not
include within this critical habitat designation sites in which a
species had been observed according to the most recent survey data but
that did not include the PCEs.
Based on the best available information, we believe that our final
designation accurately encompasses sufficient areas for the
conservation of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species. Therefore, we
have not included the additional areas proposed by the peer reviewers.
However, surveying historical habitat sites and adjacent potentially
suitable habitat for extant populations of picture-wing flies and host
plants will be a high priority during the recovery planning process,
and we may consider amending the critical habitat designation at that
time if new information indicates that these areas are essential to the
recovery of these species.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer commented that the Waiea Tract,
which is adjacent to the proposed Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--Kona
Refuge on the Island of Hawaii, contains higher densities of Clermontia
sp. (the species' primary host plant) than the area that we proposed as
critical habitat. The peer reviewer stated that the Waiea Tract should
therefore be a high priority for conservation.
Our Response: The peer reviewer did not present scientific data
with which we could evaluate whether the Waiea Tract includes areas
that contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of D. heteroneura, or whether the areas currently proposed
for designation for this species are inadequate. The Act defines
critical habitat in part as areas containing the physical or biological
features (PCEs) essential to the conservation of the species. To
determine what is essential, we
[[Page 73796]]
determine the amount and spatial arrangement of PCEs necessary to
recover the species. We believe that the areas designated in this rule
will adequately provide for the conservation and recovery of the
species; that is, the currently designated areas provide the PCEs in
the quantity and configuration sufficient to meet the conservation and
recovery needs of the species. Although the Waiea Tract is known to be
occupied and contains high densities of Clermontia species, we do not
believe this additional area is essential to the conservation of D.
heteroneura. We proposed a total of 4,628 ac (1,855 ha) of critical
habitat for Drosophila heteroneura, which includes 3,604 ac (1,459 ha)
of lands adjacent to the Waiea Tract (Drosophila heteroneura--Unit 2--
Kona Refuge). Based on the best scientific data available, we believe
these areas accurately encompass the areas necessary for the
conservation of D. heteroneura as required by the Act.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the absence of nonnative
wasps (Vespula sp.) within suitable habitat should be included as a
primary constituent element for Drosophila heteroneura. This peer
reviewer stated that based on field surveys, nonnative wasps are
capable of entirely excluding D. heteroneura from habitat that is
otherwise suitable.
Our Response: Primary constituent elements are those physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of a species
and that may require special management considerations or protection
(50 CFR 424.12(b)). Predation by nonnative wasps has been identified as
a significant threat to the 12 picture-wing fly species, and we intend
to pursue recovery actions to minimize the impacts of nonnative wasps
in currently occupied habitat and in areas within the flies' historical
range. However, we disagree that the absence of predatory wasps should
be included as a primary constituent element, since management
strategies to address this specific threat remain to be developed.
(4) Comment: Two peer reviewers stated that since each of the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies feed within decomposing portions of their
host plants, critical habitat should encompass all host plant life
stages (e.g., from seedlings to senescent individuals), and be large
enough to support healthy, reproducing host plant populations. One peer
reviewer also recommended that reproducing host plant populations be
included as a primary constituent element.
Our Response: Based on the best scientific data available, we
believe that the areas designated as critical habitat in this final
rule are large enough to provide for all host plant life stages (see
our response to Comment (1), above, for a discussion about the
information we used to designate critical habitat for the 12 Hawaiian
picture-wing flies). We agree with the peer reviewer that including
reproducing host plant populations as an additional primary constituent
element for each of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species would
improve precision in identifying the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of a species in the field. Accordingly,
we have incorporated this recommendation into this final rule, although
the addition of this new primary constituent element did not result in
any boundary changes to any of the designated critical habitat units.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer emphasized that additional in-field
management activities are necessary on the Island of Oahu to protect
Urera glabra and U. kaalae, which are host plants for Drosophila
aglaia, D. hemipeza, and D. montgomeryi.
Our Response: We agree that management of the remaining Urera spp.
populations on the Island of Oahu is necessary to prevent their
continued decline and to support the long-term conservation of
Drosophila aglaia, D. hemipeza, and D. montgomeryi. On a broader scale,
specific management actions that relate to the conservation of host
plants for each of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly species will likely
be an important recovery task as recovery plans and other conservation
programs are developed. However, identifying specific management is
beyond the scope of this final critical habitat designation.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer noted that the proposed rule lacks a
formal analysis of how the critical habitat proposed for the 12
picture-wing flies will function under different scenarios of climate
change. The reviewer suggested that the designation should take into
account the potential for shifting distributions of both the picture-
wing flies and their host plants along natural temperature and moisture
gradients in response to climate change.
Our Response: Although we agree that the impact of climate change
to the distribution of picture-wing flies and their host plant
populations is a potential concern, the effects of climate change are
difficult to predict at the local or regional level. In addition,
future changes in precipitation are uncertain because they depend in
part on how El Nino (a disruption of the ocean atmospheric system in
the Tropical Pacific having important global consequences for weather
and climate) might change, and reliable projections of changes in El
Nino have yet to be made (Hawaii Climate Change Action Plan 1998, pp.
2-10). As such, we do not have sufficient scientific information with
which to formally analyze the potential effects of climate change on
the Hawaiian picture-wing flies and their habitat at this time. To the
extent that climate change leads to a future shift in the location of
the PCEs for these species, we would need to address that in future
critical habitat revisions.
Federal Agency Comments
(7) Comment: The U.S. Navy, on behalf of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration requested that we exclude parts of Kokee Sites
B and D that intersect the proposed critical habitat. They
characterized the areas as being fenced and developed, stating that
these areas would be unlikely to support Hawaiian picture-wing flies.
They also advised that they planned to survey for the endangered fly,
Drosophila musaphila, at the Kokee Sites to determine its presence or
absence, and that measures to benefit the fly will be included in the
Pacific Missile Range Facility Integrated Natural Resources Management
Plan if the fly is discovered.
Our Response: We have attempted to exclude manmade structures using
aerial photos and other available imagery. However, we were not always
able to successfully exclude these structures from critical habitat
maps because the resolution of our imagery does not allow us to locate
small structures. Existing manmade features and structures within the
boundaries of the areas mapped as critical habitat, such as buildings,
roads, existing fences, telecommunications equipment towers and
associated structures and equipment, communication facilities and
regularly maintained associated rights-of-way, radars, telemetry
antennas, paved areas, and other landscaped areas, do not contain one
or more of the primary constituent elements described for D.
musaphilia. Accordingly, the text of the rule makes clear that these
types of areas are not included in the critical habitat designation,
even if they occur within the boundary of the mapped critical habitat
unit Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee.
Comments From the State of Hawaii
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his
[[Page 73797]]
failure to adopt regulations consistent with the agency's comments or
petition.'' Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to
designate critical habitat for Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D.
hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D.
neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D.
tarphytrichia are addressed below.
(8) Comment: The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) supported the
critical habitat designations on private lands, provided the
designations have landowner support. The DOFAW commented that it
supports the targeted site-specific approach to designate critical
habitat within larger areas being managed for watershed and native
species protection and restoration of native ecosystems, and agrees
with the proposals for the islands of Kauai, Oahu, and Molokai where
designations are proposed on DOFAW lands. It requested additional
review and coordination on sites proposed on DOFAW forest reserves on
the Island of Hawaii that are included in the Tri-Mountain Watershed
Partnership and Kohala Mountain Watershed Partnership for possible
exclusion based on their protected status and adequacy of their
management programs. It also requested that site visits be conducted
for all areas proposed as critical habitat to confirm the adequacy of
the site, to confirm appropriateness for exclusion, and to locate
boundaries. Finally, it suggested that the critical habitat designation
process could be improved if done concurrently with recovery planning.
In addition, DOFAW stated that critical habitat designations for host
plants may be adequate to meet the needs of the picture-wing flies.
Our Response: We appreciate and commend the State's implementation
of management plans that benefit the Hawaiian picture-wing flies'
critical habitat areas that we are designating in this final rule. The
Secretary has discretion to exclude lands that have been proposed under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act, upon a determination that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying a particular area as
part of the critical habitat (unless the failure to designate such an
area would result in the extinction of the species). We have fully
considered the State's request that we exclude certain parts of its
lands from critical habitat designation. However, the units we are
designating in this final rule meet the definition of critical habitat,
contain the PCEs that are essential to the conservation of these
species, and require special management. In addition, based on our
economic analysis and the best available information, we are unaware of
any substantive economic or other relevant impacts that would result
from such designation on State lands. Accordingly, we have not excluded
the State lands from the designation of critical habitat. On May 12,
2008, and September 17, 2008, we met with DOFAW personnel regarding
their comments on the proposed critical habitat units on the Island of
Hawaii. The State provided us with a copy of the 2008 Waiakea Timber
Management Map, which was developed based on their 1997 timber
inventory. This map indicated that portions of two units, (Drosophila
mulli--Unit 3--Waiakea Forest [373 acres/151 ha], and Drosophila
mulli--Unit 2--Stainback Forest [76 acres/31 ha]), were planted in the
1960s with several timber crop species including Eucalyptus sp.,
Flindersia brayleyana (Queensland maple), and Toona ciliata (Australia
red cedar). The DOFAW staff advised us that Drosophila mulli's host
plant (Pritchardia beccariana) is scattered within the timber-planted
areas and within the above critical habitat units. Although the two
critical habitat units encompass areas planted with Eucalyptus sp. and
other nonnative timber species, they contain the primary constituent
elements, are occupied by D. mulli, and incorporate the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of this species.
We agree that the process of designating critical habitat may be
improved if it were completed concurrently with the development of a
recovery plan. However, the Act and its implementing regulations
require that we specify critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable at the time a species is proposed for listing (50 CFR
424.12(a)). In the case of the 12 picture-wing flies, we are also under
a court-ordered deadline to complete the critical habitat designations
by November 15, 2008 (Center for Biological Diversity v. Allen, CV-05-
274-HA).
During the development of the revised proposed rule, we aligned the
proposed critical habitat areas with areas that were already designated
as critical habitat for other species to the maximum extent practicable
on State and private lands. On the Island of Oahu, critical habitat has
only been designated for one plant (Urera kaalae), which is a host
plant for Drosophila hemipeza and D. montgomeryi. There is no
designated critical habitat for the host plants of D. heteroneura, D.
mulli, and D. ochrobasis on the Island of Hawaii. Therefore, we were
not able to align existing host plant critical habitat with proposed
critical habitat for the picture-wing flies on the Island of Hawaii. We
believe that the lands designated as critical habitat in this final
rule accurately represent areas that will provide for the conservation
of the 12 picture-wing flies.
(9) Comment: The State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources, Division of State Parks commented that four areas within the
proposed unit Drosophila musaphilia--Unit 1--Kokee, appeared to include
roads, lawns, and buildings, and other structures. The State presented
maps depicting the areas in question, and requested that we remove them
from the designation if the primary constituent elements were not
present.
Our Response: Our analysis of satellite imagery determined that the
developed areas in question are not within the Drosophila musaphilia--
Unit 1--Kokee critical habitat unit. Accordingly, the area in question
is not included in the area that we originally proposed and are herein
designating as critical habitat.
(10) Comment: The State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs
commented that they support the reconsideration of the Hawaiian
picture-wing fly critical habitat, and that the revised designation
more accurately reflects the best scientific data available as required
by the Act. The State Historic Preservation Office commented that the
designation of critical habitat does not affect historic properties.
Our Response: Based on the best scientific data available, we agree
that this final rule more accurately reflects the physical and
biological requirements of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies. We also
agree that the designation of critical habitat does not affect historic
properties.
Public Comments Related to the Military and Exemption of Military Lands
From the Designation
(11) Comment: Four individuals or non-governmental organizations
submitted written comments or testimony at the public hearings stating
opposition to the exemption of Oahu military lands from the
designation. They also requested that we provide information on our
finding that the Oahu Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan will
protect the two picture-wing fly species involved (Drosophila
substenoptera and D. aglaia), and that we justify the exemption of
military lands from the critical habitat designation.
[[Page 73798]]
Our Response: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for
designation as critical habitat. Section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) states that ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.'' Accordingly, those portions of the Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan (INRMP) applicable to areas we were
considering for critical habitat designation for Drosophila aglaia and
D. substenoptera were evaluated according to the requirements of
section 4(B)(i) of the Act.
The U.S. Army Oahu INRMP for the West Range of the Schofield
Barracks Military Reservation was completed in 2000. This INRMP
includes several conservation measures that benefit Drosophila aglaia
and D. substenoptera. The measures include: (1) Outplanting of native
plants, which provides for the natural forest conditions necessary for
adult fly foraging by both species; (2) feral ungulate control, which
prevents both direct loss of the larval stage host plants and adult
foraging substrate of both species and prevents habitat alteration by
feral ungulates; (3) wildland wildfire control, which prevents both
loss and alteration of habitat for D. aglaia; and (4) nonnative plant
control, which prevents habitat alteration for both species.
Accordingly, we determined that the plan provides a benefit to D.
aglaia and D. subsenoptera, and we therefore did not designate
approximately 78 acres (31 ha) as critical habitat for D. aglaia and D.
substenoptera under section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act. However, since
these areas are important for the recovery of these species, we intend
to work closely with the U.S. Army to identify recovery tasks and
implement recovery efforts for these two species as recovery plans are
developed. The other 10 species of picture-wing flies do not occur on
Army land.
(12) Comment: One individual provided testimony at a public hearing
stating that the military is continually expanding their presence in
the Hawaiian Islands at the expense of environmental protection. This
commenter cited the recent expansion of training activities by the U.S.
Navy and introduction of the U.S. Army's Stryker Brigade as examples.
Our Response: The Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal
Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing
fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people. In this regard, it is paramount that we
work cooperatively with all partners (including the military) to
promote environmental stewardship. Although the U.S. Navy training
activities and the presence of the U.S. Army Stryker Brigade are beyond
the scope of this final critical habitat designation, we look forward
to working with them to improve the status of imperiled species on
their lands.
Public Comments Related to the Effects of the Designation on Private
Landownership
(13) Comment: Two individuals provided written comments stating
opposition to the designation because they believe it will negatively
impact the rights of private landowners. One commenter did not want tax
money to contribute to fruit flies stripping fellow citizens of their
property rights.
Our Response: The effect of a critical habitat designation is that
activities authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency
require consultation with the Service under section 7 of the Act to
ensure they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. For example, 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 under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344
et seq.) or a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit from us, or activities on
private or State lands funded by a Federal agency, such as the Federal
Highway Administration or Federal Emergency Management Agency funding,
would be subject to the section 7 consultation process. Activities on
State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are not carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency are not subject to any
regulatory requirements as a result of critical habitat designation.
The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area, and the designation of critical habitat does not
allow government or public access to private lands. Most activities
that require a Federal agency to consult with us generally can proceed
without modification.
(14) Comment: One land manager expressed opposition to the
designation of critical habitat on private lands within the proposed
Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui. This commenter questioned
whether the current conservation program in place for the Puu Kukui
Watershed Preserve by the Maui Land and Pineapple Company might
preclude the need for designation in light of the perceived loss of
real property rights within the area.
Our Response: We agree with the commenter that developing and
maintaining public and private partnerships for species conservation
are important. After fully evaluating the Puu Kukui conservation
program, we are excluding a portion of the proposed Drosophila
neoclavisetae--Unit 1--Puu Kukui from the final designation, since the
private landowner is proactively managing the area for the conservation
benefit of the D. neoclavisetae and numerous other listed species. We
believe that there is a higher likelihood that beneficial conservation
activities will continue if we do not include this area in this
critical habitat designation. We have determined that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including this area as critical
habitat, as is discussed in detail in the ``Exclusions Under Section
4(b)(2) of the Act'' section below.
Other Public Comments
(15) Comment: One individual expressed opposition to the listing
process that determined Federal status for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing
flies, and criticized the fact that comprehensive surveys were not
conducted during the listing process.
Our Response: Our November 28, 2007, proposed rule (72 FR 67428)
specifically solicited comments on the proposed critical habitat
revision. Comments relating to the May 9, 2006, final listing rule (71
FR 26835) are hereby acknowledged, but are beyond the scope of this
final critical habitat designation.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
In preparing the final critical habitat designation for the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies, we reviewed and considered comments from
the public and peer reviewers on the November 28, 2007, proposed
designation of critical habitat (72 FR 67428), the March 6, 2008,
document announcing the public hearings and the reopening of the
comment period (73 FR 12065), and the August 12, 2008, document
announcing the availability of the draft economic analysis and an
amended required determinations section of the proposed rule and the
reopening of the comment period (73 FR 46860). As a result of
[[Page 73799]]
comments received, we made the following changes to our proposed
designation:
(1) The final designation includes the following revision of the
primary constituent elements used to identify critical habitat for each
of the 12 picture-wing fly species: Populations of the larval stage
host plant(s) that exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings to
senescent individuals). This change does not affect the boundaries of
the proposed designation.
(2) We have excluded 450 ac (182 ha) of lands owned by the Maui
Land and Pineapple Company (MLP) that we proposed as critical habitat
for Drosophila neoclavisetae, within the Drosophila neoclavisetae--Unit
1--Puu Kukui, from the final designation (see the ``Exclusions under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section of this final rule for further
details on this exclusion).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) that may require special management considerations or
protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area
occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods
and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
consultation on Federal actions that may affect critical habitat. The
designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or
establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other
conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public
access to private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
private landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding
or authorization for an activity that may affect a listed species or
critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the landowner's obligation is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of the
critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing must
contain the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may
require special management considerations or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found those
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species). Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas
outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is
listed only when we determine that those areas are essential for the
conservation of the species. For the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies, we
have determined that it is not necessary to designate critical habitat
in unoccupied areas, as there are adequate occupied areas that contain
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When determining which areas should be designated as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the species. Additional
information sources may include the recovery plan for the species,
articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by
States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological
assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or
personal knowledge.
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to
another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designation is
unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the species.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions. They are also subject to the regulatory protections afforded
by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of
the best available information at the time of the Federal agency
action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species
outside their designated critical habitat areas may require
consultation under section 7 of the Act and may still result in
jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species
conservation planning efforts if information available at the time of
these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs)
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied by the species at
the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, we consider the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
species that may require special management considerations or
protection. We consider the physical and biological features to be the
primary
[[Page 73800]]
constituent elements laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial
arrangement for the conservation of the species. These include, but are
not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development)
of offspring;
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historic geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derived the specific primary constituent elements required for
the 12 species of picture-wing flies from their biological needs, as
described in the revised proposed critical habitat rule published in
the Federal Register on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428), and below.
As required by 50 CFR 424.12(b), we are to list the known PCEs with
our description of critical habitat. The PCEs provided by the physical
and biological features upon which the designation is based may
include, but are not limited to, the following: Roost sites, nesting
grounds, spawning sites, feeding sites, seasonal wetland or dryland,
water quality or quantity, host species or plant pollinators,
geological formations, vegetation types, tides, and specific soil
types.
Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for Drosophila aglaia, D.
differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D.
musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia
We identified the PCEs for the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies based
on our knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the
species, and the physical and biological features of the habitat
necessary to sustain their essential life history functions. To
determine what is essential for these species, we determined the amount
and spatial arrangement of PCEs necessary to provide for their
conservation. Not all areas that contain one or more of the PCEs would
necessarily be included in the designation if those PCEs were not in
the quantity and configuration requisite to meeting the conservation
needs of the species. For example, areas may not be included in the
designation if they are in excess of the habitat that has been
determined to be sufficient to meet the conservation and recovery needs
of the species. Additional information about how we identified the PCEs
can also be found in the revised proposed critical habitat rule
published on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67428). All areas designated as
critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies are currently occupied,
within the species' historical geographic range, contain all relevant
PCEs, and support both the larval and adult foraging stages of the 12
Hawaiian picture-wing flies.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The general life cycle of Hawaiian Drosophilidae is typical of that
of most flies. After mating, females lay eggs from which larvae (the
immature stage) hatch. As larvae grow, they molt (shed their skin)
through three successive stages (instars). When they are fully grown,
the larvae change into pupae (a transitional form) in which they
metamorphose and emerge as adults. Breeding for each of the 12 species
of Hawaiian picture-wing flies included in this final rule generally
occurs year-round, but egg laying and larval development increase
following the rainy season as the availability of decaying matter, upon
which the flies feed, increases in response to the heavy rains (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2). In general, Drosophila lay between
50 and 200 eggs at a single time. Eggs develop into adults in about a
month, and adults generally become sexually mature 1 month later.
Adults generally live for 1 to 2 months (Science Panel 2005).
It is unknown how much space is needed for these flies to engage in
courtship and territorial displays, and mating activities. Adult
behavior may be disrupted or modified by less than ideal conditions,
such as decreased forest cover or loss of suitable food material (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2). Additionally, adult behavior may
be disrupted, and the flies themselves may be susceptible to the
hunting activities of nonnative Hymenoptera, including yellow jacket
wasps and ants (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 41-42). The larvae
generally pupate within the soil located below their host plant
material, and it is presumed that they require relatively undisturbed
and unmodified soil conditions to complete this stage before reaching
adulthood (Science Panel 2005, p. 5). Lastly, it is well-known that
these 12 species and most other picture-wing flies are susceptible to
even slight temperature increases, an issue that may be exacerbated by
loss of suitable forest cover or the impacts from drought (K.
Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2).
Food
Each of the 12 species of Hawaiian picture-wing flies described in
this document is found on a single island, and the larvae of each are
dependent upon only a single or a few related species of plants. The
adult flies feed on a variety of decomposing plant matter. The water or
moisture requirements for all 12 of these species is unknown; however,
during drier seasons or during times of drought, it is expected that
available adult and larval stage food material in the form of decaying
plant matter may decrease (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005b, pp. 1-2).
Because the larval stage of each of the 12 species feeds only on the
decomposing portions of their specific host plants, designated lands
must encompass an area sufficient to support healthy, reproducing host
plant populations exhibiting one or more life stages (e.g., from
seedlings to senescent individuals).
Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and
ecology of each species, and the habitat requirements to sustain the
essential life history functions of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing flies,
we provide the PCEs for the larval and adult life stages of Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D.
mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia below:
Oahu Species
The PCEs for Drosophila aglaia are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland,
ohia, koa, and Diospyros sp., forest between the elevations of 1,865-
2,985 feet (ft) (568-910 meters (m)); and (2) the larval stage host
plant Urera glabra, which exhibits one or more life stages (from
seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila hemipeza are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland,
ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,720-3,005 ft (524-916
m); and (2) the larval stage host plants Cyanea angustifolia, C.
calycina, C. grimesiana ssp. grimesiana (Endangered (E)), C. grimesiana
ssp. obatae (E), C. membranacea, C. pinnatifida (E), C. superba ssp.
superba (E), Lobelia hypoleuca, L. niihauensis (E), L. yuccoides, and
Urera kaalae (E), which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila montgomeryi are: (1) Mesic, lowland,
diverse ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,720-2,985 ft
(524-910 m); and (2) the larval stage host plant Urera kaalae (E),
which exhibits one or more life stages
[[Page 73801]]
(from seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila obatai are: (1) Dry to mesic, lowland, ohia
and koa forest between the elevations of 1,475-2,535 ft (450-773 m);
and (2) the larval stage host plant Pleomele forbesii, which exhibits
one or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila substenoptera are: (1) Mesic to wet,
lowland to montane, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of
1,920-4,030 ft (585-1,228 m); and (2) the larval stage host plants
Cheirodendron platyphyllum ssp. platyphyllum, C. trigynum ssp.
trigynum, Tetraplasandra kavaiensis, and T. oahuensis, which exhibit
one or more of the life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila tarphytrichia are: (1) Dry to mesic,
lowland, ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 1,720-2,985 ft
(524-910 m); and (2) the larval stage host plant Charpentiera obovata,
which exhibits one or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
Hawaii (Big Island) Species
The PCEs for Drosophila heteroneura are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane,
ohia and koa forest between the elevations of 2,980-5,755 ft (908-1,754
m); and (2) the larval stage host plants Cheirodendron trigynum ssp.
trigynum, Clermontia clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp. rockiana,
C. hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C. lindseyana (E), C. montis-loa, C.
parviflora, C. peleana (E), C. pyrularia (E), and Delissea parviflora,
which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings to senescent
individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila mulli are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia forest
between the elevations of 1,955-3,585 ft (596-1,093 m); and (2) the
larval stage host plant Pritchardia beccariana, which exhibits one or
more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
The PCEs for Drosophila ochrobasis are: (1) Mesic to wet, montane,
ohia, koa, and Cheirodendron sp. forest between the elevations of
3,850-5,390 ft (1,173-1,643 m); and (2) the larval stage host plants
Clermontia calophylla, C. clermontioides, C. clermontioides ssp.
rockiana, C. drepanomorpha (E), C. hawaiiensis, C. kohalae, C.
lindseyana (E), C. montis-loa, C. parviflora, C. peleana (E), C.
pyrularia (E), C. waimeae, Marattia douglasii, Myrsine lanaiensis, M.
lessertiana, and M. sandwicensis, which exhibit one or more life stages
(from seedlings to senescent individuals).
Kauai Species
The PCEs for Drosophila musaphilia are: (1) Mesic, montane, ohia
and koa forest between the elevations of 3,310-3,740 ft (1,009-1128 m);
and (2) the larval stage host plant Acacia koa, which exhibits one or
more life stages (from seedlings to senescent individuals).
Maui Species
The PCEs for Drosophila neoclavisetae are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia
forest between the elevations of 3,405-4,590 ft (1,036-1,399 m), and
(2) the larval stage host plants Cyanea kunthiana and C. macrostegia
ssp. macrostegia, which exhibit one or more life stages (from seedlings
to senescent individuals).
Molokai Species
The PCEs for Drosophila differens are: (1) Wet, montane, ohia
forest between the elevations of 3,645-4,495 ft (1,111-1,370 m); and
(2) the larval stage host plants Clermontia arborescens ssp. waihiae,
C. granidiflora ssp. munroi, C. kakeana, C. oblongifolia ssp. brevipes
(E), and C. pallida, which exhibit one or more life stages (from
seedlings to senescent individuals).
This final critical habitat designation identifies the known
physical or biological features in the quantity and spatial arrangement
on the landscape essential to support the life history functions of the
species. Each of the areas designated in this rule contains the PCEs to
provide for one or more of the life history functions of Drosophila
aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D. heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D.
mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae, D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D.
substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
occupied at the time of listing contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, and whether
these features may require special management considerations or
protections.
Nonnative plants and animals pose the greatest threats to these 12
picture-wing flies. In order to counter the ongoing degradation and
loss of habitat caused by feral ungulates and invasive nonnative
plants, active management or control of nonnative species is necessary
for the conservation of all populations of the 12 picture-wing flies
(Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 37-38). Without active management or
control, native habitat containing the features that are essential for
the conservation of the 12 picture-wing flies will continue to be
degraded or destroyed. In addition, habitat degradation and destruction
as a result of wildfire, competition with nonnative insects, and
predation by nonnative insects, such as the western yellow-jacket wasp
(Vespula pensylvanica), may significantly threaten many of the
populations of the 12 picture-wing flies. Active management is
necessary to control these threats, as well.
The threats to the physical and biological features in the areas we
are designating as critical habitat for the 12 picture-wing flies that
may require special management considerations or protection include
feral ungulates, rats, invasive nonnative plants, and yellow-jacket
wasps. In addition, the units in dry or mesic habitats may also require
special management to address wildfire and ants. Each of these threats
is summarized below. For a more detailed discussion of each threat
refer to the proposed revised critical habitat rule published in the
Federal Register on November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67434).
Feral Ungulates
Feral ungulates have devastated native vegetation in many areas of
the Hawaiian Islands (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 60-66). Because the
endemic Hawaiian flora evolved without the presence of browsing and
grazing ungulates, many plant groups have lost their adaptive defenses
such as spines, thorns, stinging hairs, and defensive chemicals
(University of Hawaii Department of Geography 1998, p. 138). Pigs (Sus
scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), and cattle (Bos taurus) disturb the
soil, and readily eat native plants (including the native host plants
for 1 or more of the 12 picture-wing flies), and distribute nonnative
plant seeds that can alter the ecosystem. In addition, browsing and
grazing by feral ungulates in steep and remote terrain causes severe
erosion of entire watersheds due to foraging and trampling behaviors
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 60-64 and 66).
Rats (Rattus spp.)
Several species of nonnative rats, including the Polynesian rat
(Rattus exulans), the roof rat (Rattus rattus), and the Norway rat
(Rattus norvegicus), are present on the Hawaiian Islands and cause
considerable environmental degradation (Staples and Cowie 2001). The
seeds, bark, and flowers of several of the picture-wing flies' host
plants, including Clermontia sp., Pleomele sp., and Pritchardia
beccariana, are susceptible to herbivory by all the rat species
(Science Panel 2005; K.
[[Page 73802]]
Magnacca, in litt. 2005; S. Montgomery, pers. comm. 2005b). The
herbivory by rats causes host plant mortality, diminished vigor, and
seed predation, resulting in reduced host plant fecundity and viability
(Science Panel 2005; K. Magnacca, in litt. 2005; S. Montgomery, pers.
comm. 2005b).
Nonnative Plants
The invasion of nonnative plants contributes to the degradation of
native forests and the host plants of picture-wing flies (Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 38-39; Wagner et al. 1999, pp. 52-53 and 971;
Science Panel 2005, p. 28), and threatens all populations of the 12
picture-wing flies. Some nonnative plants form dense stands, thickets,
or mats that shade or out-compete native plants. Nonnative vines cause
damage or death to native trees by overloading branches, causing
breakage, or forming a dense canopy cover that intercepts sunlight and
shades out native plants below. Nonnative grasses readily burn. They
often grow at the border of forests, and carry wildfire into areas with
woody native plants (Smith 1985, pp. 228-229; Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
pp. 88-94). The nonnative grasses are more wildfire-adapted and can
spread prolifically after a wildfire, ultimately creating a stand of
nonnative grasses where native forest once existed. These nonnative
plants cannot be used as host plants by the flies. Some nonnative plant
species produce chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plant
species (Smith 1985, p. 228; Wagner et al. 1999, p. 971).
Wildfire
Wildfire threatens habitat of the Hawaiian picture-wing flies in
dry to mesic grassland, shrubland, and forests on the islands of Kauai
(Drosophila musaphilia), Oahu (D. aglaia, D. hemipeza, D. mongomeryi,
D. obatai, and D. tarphytrichia), and Hawaii (D. heteroneura). Dry and
mesic regions in Hawaii have been altered in the past 200 years by an
increase in wildfire frequency, a condition to which the native flora
is not adapted. The invasion of wildfire-adapted alien plants,
facilitated by ungulate disturbance, has contributed to wildfire
frequency. This change in wildfire regime has reduced the amount of
forest cover for native species (Hughes et al. 1991, p. 743; Blackmore
and Vitousek 2000, p. 625) and resulted in an intensification of fire
threat and feral ungulate disturbance in the remaining native forest
areas. Habitat damaged or destroyed by wildfire is more likely to be
revegetated by nonnative plants that cannot be used as host plants by
these picture-wing flies (Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, p. 47).
Nonnative Insect Competitors
The Hawaiian Islands now support several established species of
nonnative insects which compete with some of the 12 picture-wing flies
within their larval stage host plants. The most important group of
nonnative insect competitors includes tipulid flies (crane flies,
family Tipulidae). The larvae of some species within this group feed
within the decomposing bark of some of the host plants utilized by
picture-wing flies, including Charpentiera, Cheirodendron, Clermontia,
and Pleomele spp. (Science Panel 2005, p. 11; K. Magnacca, U.S.
Geological Survey, in litt. 2005, p. 1; S. Montgomery, in litt. 2005a,
p. 1). Each of the picture-wing flies addressed in this rule, except
for Drosophila mulli, D. musaphilia, and D. neoclavisetae, face larval-
stage resource competition from nonnative tipulid flies. The Hawaiian
Islands also support several species of nonnative beetles (family
Scolytidae, genus Coccotrypes), a few of which bore into and feed on
the nuts produced by certain native plant species including Pritchardia
beccariana, the host plant of Drosophila mulli. Affected Pritchardia
spp., including P. beccariana, drop their fruit before the nuts reach
maturity due to the boring action of the scolytid beetles. Little
natural regeneration of this host plant species has been observed in
the wild since the arrival of this scolytid beetle (K. Magnacca, in
litt. 2005, p. 1; Science Panel 2005, p. 11). Compared to the host
plants of the other picture-wing flies, P. beccariana is long lived (up
to 100 years), but over time scolytid beetles may have a significant
impact on the availability of habitat for D. mulli.
Nonnative Insect Predators
Nonnative arthropods pose a serious threat to Hawaii's native
Drosophila, both through direct predation or parasitism as well as
competition for food or space (Howarth and Medeiros 1989, pp. 82-83;
Howarth and Ramsay 1991, pp. 80-83; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp.
40-45 and 47; Staples and Cowie 2001, pp. 41, 54-57). Due to their
large colony sizes and systematic foraging habits, species of social
Hymenoptera (ants and some wasps) and parasitic wasps pose the greatest
predation threat to the Hawaiian picture-wing flies (Carson 1982, p. 1,
1986, p. 7; Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169-170; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro
1995, pp. 40-45 and 47).
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial information available in determining the
specific areas within the geographical occupied by each of the picture-
wing flies, Drosophila aglaia, D. differens, D. hemipeza, D.
heteroneura, D. montgomeryi, D. mulli, D. musaphilia, D. neoclavisetae,
D. obatai, D. ochrobasis, D. substenoptera, and D. tarphytrichia at the
time of listing that (1) contain PCEs in the quantity and spatial
arrangement to support life history functions essential for the
conservation of each of these species; and (2) may require special
management considerations or protection. We relied on information in
our prior rulemaking and new information gained through the peer review
and public comment process. Each area that we are designating as
critical habitat is occupied, contains the PCEs, and supports both the
larval and adult foraging stages of the 12 Hawaiian picture-wing fly
species. The discussion below summarizes the criteria used to identify
critical habitat. For additional information, refer to the proposed
critical habitat rule that was published in the Federal Register on
November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67435).
The following geospatial, tabular data sets were used in preparing
this final critical habitat designation: (1) Occurrence data for all 12
species (K. Kaneshiro, in litt. 2005a, pp. 1-16); (2) vegetation
mapping data for the Hawaiian Islands (Gap Analysis Program (GAP)
Data--Hawaiian Islands 2005); (3) color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital
aerial photographs for the Hawaiian Islands dated April to May 2005;
and (4) 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics of U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles. Land ownership was determined
from geospatial data sets associated with parcel data from