Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 15 Species on Hawaii Island as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 3 Species, 63927-64018 [2012-24550]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 201
October 17, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 15 Species on
Hawaii Island as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 3
Species; Proposed Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63928
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Number FWS–R1–ES–2012–0070:
4500030113]
RIN 1018–AY09
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Listing 15 Species on
Hawaii Island as Endangered and
Designating Critical Habitat for 3
Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list 15 species on the Hawaiian island
of Hawaii as endangered species under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), and to designate critical
habitat for 1 of these species. For the
remaining 14 species that we are
proposing to list in this rule, we find
that critical habitat is not determinable
at this time. We also propose to
designate critical habitat for two plant
species that were listed as endangered
species in 1986 and 1994. The proposed
critical habitat designation totals 18,766
acres (ac) (7,597 hectares (ha)), and
includes both occupied and unoccupied
habitat. Approximately 55 percent of the
area being proposed as critical habitat is
already designated as critical habitat for
42 plants and the Blackburn’s sphinx
moth (Manduca blackburni). In
addition, we propose a taxonomic
change for one endangered plant
species.
DATES: We will accept comments
received on or postmarked on or before
December 17, 2012. Please note that if
you are using the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (See ADDRESSES section below),
the deadline for submitting an
electronic comment is 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on this date. We must
receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
by December 3, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for
FWS¥R1–ES–2012–0070, which is the
docket number for this proposed rule.
You may submit a comment by clicking
on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
• U.S. Mail or Hand Delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–
ES–2012–0070; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both
from which the maps were generated are
included in the administrative record
for the proposed critical habitat
designation and are available at https://
www.fws.gov/pacificislands, https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–R1–ES–2011–0070, and at the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for
this critical habitat designation will also
be available at the above locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office,
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box 50088,
Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at
808–792–9400; or by facsimile at 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:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under
the Act, we are required to list a species
if we determine that it meets the
definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species as defined in the Act.
If this determination is made, we
publish a proposed rule in the Federal
Register, seek public comment on our
proposal, and issue a final rule. This
action consists of a proposed rule to list
15 species (13 plants, 1 insect (picturewing fly), and 1 crustacean (anchialine
pool shrimp)) from the Island of Hawaii
in the State of Hawaii, as endangered.
Further, under the Act, we are to
designate critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable concurrently with a listing
determination. We are proposing to
designate critical habitat concurrently
with listing for the plant Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, due to the
imminent threat of urban development
to 98 percent of the individuals known
for this species and its habitat within
the lowland dry ecosystem. In addition,
we are proposing to designate critical
habitat for two previously listed plant
species. Isodendrion pyrifolium, listed
as an endangered species on March 4,
1994 (59 FR 10305), and Mezoneuron
kavaiense, listed as an endangered
species on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24672).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
These species co-occur with Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in the same
lowland dry ecosystem, but do not have
designated critical habitat on Hawaii
Island. We are also correcting critical
habitat unit maps for Cyanea shipmanii,
Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia
velutina, and Plantago hawaiensis to
accurately reflect the designated critical
habitat units for those plant species.
These map corrections do not change
the designated critical habitat for these
plants. For the remaining 14 species that
we are proposing to list in this rule, we
find that critical habitat is not
determinable at this time. This proposed
rule is organized by ecosystem, which
will allow the Service to better
prioritize, direct, and focus conservation
and recovery actions on Hawaii Island.
The basis for our action. Under the
Endangered Species Act, a species may
be determined to be an endangered
species or a threatened species based on
any of five factors: (1) Destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (2) Overuse; (3) Disease
or predation; (4) Inadequate existing
regulations; or (5) Other natural or
manmade factors.
One or more of the species proposed
for listing in this rule face the following
threats related to these criteria:
• Habitat loss and degradation due to
agriculture and urban development;
nonnative feral ungulates (e.g., pigs,
goats) and plants; wildfire; hurricanes;
flooding; and drought.
• Predation or herbivory by nonnative
feral ungulates, rats, snails, and slugs.
• Inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms to prevent the introduction
and spread of nonnative plants and
animals.
• Small number of individuals and
populations, and lack of reproduction in
the wild.
This rule proposes to designate
critical habitat for 3 plant species.
• Approximately 18,766 acres (7,597
hectares) is being proposed as critical
habitat in seven multi-species critical
habitat units on lands owned by the
U.S. National Park Service, State of
Hawaii, County of Hawaii, and private
interests.
• Approximately 55 percent, or
10,304 acres (4,170 hectares), of the area
being proposed as critical habitat
overlaps with areas already designated
as critical habitat for previously listed
plant and animal species.
• Approximately 45 percent, or 8,464
acres (3,426 hectares), of the area does
not overlap with areas already
designated as critical habitat for
previously listed plant and animal
species.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
• The proposed critical habitat units
encompass areas containing physical
and biological features essential to the
conservation of these species and that
may require special management
considerations, or are otherwise
essential for the conservation of these
species.
• The proposed designation includes
both occupied and unoccupied critical
habitat for the three species for which
we are proposing to designate critical
habitat.
• The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
designation, unless the exclusion will
result in the extinction of the species.
We are considering excluding
approximately 4,102 acres of privately
owned and State lands from the critical
habitat designation.
We are preparing an economic
analysis of the proposed critical habitat
designation. To consider economic
impacts, we are preparing an analysis of
the economic impacts of the proposed
critical habitat designation and related
factors. We will announce the
availability of the draft economic
analysis as soon as it is completed, at
which time we will seek public review
and comment. We will use information
from this analysis to inform the
development of our final designation of
critical habitat for these species.
We will seek peer review. We will
obtain opinions from knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise
regarding our technical assumptions,
analysis, adherence to regulations, and
use of the best available information.
Public Comments
We intend that any final action
resulting from this proposal will be
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible.
Therefore, we solicit comments or
suggestions on this proposed rule from
other concerned governmental agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or
other interested parties concerning this
proposed rule. We are proposing to list
15 species (13 plants, 1 anchialine pool
shrimp, and 1 picture-wing fly) as
endangered species. We are also
proposing to designate critical habitat
for one of the proposed endangered
plant species and two plant species that
are already listed as endangered species,
but that do not have designated critical
habitat on Hawaii Island. We
particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or
other relevant data concerning threats
(or the lack thereof) to the 15 species
proposed for listing, and the adequacy
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
of the existing regulations that may be
addressing those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning
the range, distribution, and population
sizes of each of the 15 species proposed
for listing, including the locations of
any additional populations of these
species.
(3) Any information on the biological
or ecological requirements of the 15
species proposed for listing.
(4) Current or planned activities
within the area being proposed for
critical habitat and possible impacts to
these activities.
(5) The reasons why we should or
should not designate areas for Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Mezoneuron kavaiense (taxonomic
revision proposed for Caesalpinia
kavaiense to Mezoneuron kavaiense),
and Isodendrion pyrifolium as ‘‘critical
habitat’’ under section 4 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
We specifically seek information on any
threats to these species from human
activity, the degree of which can be
expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether the benefit of
designation would outweigh threats to
these species caused by the designation,
such that the designation of critical
habitat is prudent.
(6) Specific information on:
• The amount and distribution of
critical habitat for the species included
in this proposed rule;
• Areas that are currently occupied
and contain the necessary physical or
biological features essential for the
conservation of the species that we
should include in the designation, and
why;
• Whether special management
considerations or protections may be
required for the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species in this proposed rule; and
• What areas outside the geographical
area occupied at the time of listing are
essential to the conservation of the
species, and why.
(7) Any reasonably foreseeable
economic, national security, or other
relevant impacts of the proposed critical
habitat designation. We are particularly
interested in any impacts on small
entities, and the benefits of including or
excluding areas that may experience
these impacts.
(8) Whether the benefits of excluding
any particular area from critical habitat
outweigh the benefits of including that
area as critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering the
potential impacts and benefits of the
proposed critical habitat designation.
Under section 4(b)(2), the Secretary may
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63929
exclude an area from critical habitat if
he or she determines that the benefits of
such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
including that particular area as critical
habitat, unless failure to designate that
specific area as critical habitat will
result in the extinction of the species.
We request specific information on:
• The benefits of and supporting
rationale for including specific areas in
the final designation;
• The benefits of and supporting
rationale for excluding specific areas
from the final designation; and
• Whether any specific exclusions
may result in the extinction of the
species, and why.
(9) Whether the private and State
lands being considered for exclusion
from critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act should or
should not be excluded, and why.
(10) Information on the projected and
reasonably likely impact of climate
change on the species included in this
proposed rule, and any special
management needs or protections that
may be needed in the critical habitat
areas we are proposing.
(11) Whether we could improve or
modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for
greater public participation and
understanding, or to better
accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(12) Specific information on ways to
improve the clarity of this rule as it
pertains to completion of consultations
under section 7 of the Act.
(13) Comments on our proposal to
revise the taxonomic classification for
Caesalpinia kavaiense to Mezoneuron
kavaiense.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposed rule
by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We request that you
send comments only by the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your
comment, such as your street address,
phone number, or email address, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Please include sufficient information
with your comments to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial
information you include.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this proposed rule,
will be available for public inspection at
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63930
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
https://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
copies of the proposed rule by mail from
the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) or by visiting the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Background
Hawaii Island Species Addressed in
This Proposed Rule
Table 1 below provides the scientific
name, common name, listing status, and
critical habitat status for the species that
are the subjects of this proposed rule.
TABLE 1—THE HAWAIIAN ISLAND SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THIS PROPOSED RULE (NOTE THAT MANY OF THE SPECIES SHARE
A COMMON NAME. ‘‘E’’ DENOTES ENDANGERED STATUS UNDER THE ACT; ‘‘C’’ DENOTES A SPECIES CURRENTLY ON THE
CANDIDATE LIST.)
Scientific name
Common name(s)
Listing status
Critical habitat status
Plants
Bidens
hillebrandiana
ssp.
hillebrandiana.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla ........
Caesalpinia kavaiense (taxonomic revision proposed, to Mezoneuron
kavaiense).
Cyanea marksii ......................................
Cyanea tritomantha ...............................
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis ......................
Cyrtandra wagneri .................................
Isodendrion pyrifolium ...........................
Phyllostegia floribunda ..........................
Pittosporum hawaiiense ........................
Platydesma remyi ..................................
Pritchardia lanigera ................................
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei ..............
Schiedea hawaiiensis ............................
Stenogyne cranwelliae ..........................
kookoolau .............................................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Not determinable.
kookoolau .............................................
uhiuhi ....................................................
Proposed—Endangered (C) .................
Listed 1986—E .....................................
Proposed.
Proposed.
haha .....................................................
aku ........................................................
haiwale .................................................
haiwale .................................................
wahine noho kula .................................
no common name (NCN) .....................
hoawa, haawa ......................................
NCN ......................................................
loulu ......................................................
NCN ......................................................
NCN ......................................................
NCN ......................................................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Proposed—Endangered (C) .................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Listed 1994—E .....................................
Proposed—Endangered (C) .................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Proposed—Endangered (C) .................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Proposed—Endangered .......................
Proposed—Endangered (C) .................
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Proposed.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Not determinable.
Proposed—Endangered (C) .................
Proposed—Endangered (C) .................
Not determinable.
Not determinable
Animals
Drosophila digressa ...............................
Vetericaris chaceorum ...........................
picture-wing fly .....................................
anchialine pool shrimp .........................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
[NCN] = no common name.
Previous Federal Actions
Seven of the 15 species proposed for
listing are candidate species (76 FR
66370; October 26, 2011). Candidate
species are those taxa for which the
Service has sufficient information on
their biological status and threats to
propose them for listing as endangered
or threatened species under the Act, but
for which the development of a listing
regulation has been precluded to date by
other higher priority listing activities.
The current candidate species addressed
in this proposed listing rule include the
five plants Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Cyanea tritomantha,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Platydesma
remyi, and Stenogyne cranwelliae; and
the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris
chaceorum, and the picture-wing fly
Drosophila digressa. The candidate
status of all of these species was most
recently assessed and reaffirmed in the
October 26, 2011, Review of Native
Species that are Candidates for Listing
as Endangered or Threatened (CNOR)
(76 FR 66370).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
On May 4, 2004, the Center for
Biological Diversity petitioned the
Secretary of the Interior to list 225
species of plants and animals, including
the 7 candidate species listed above, as
endangered or threatened under the
provisions of the Act. Since then, we
have published our annual findings on
the May 4, 2004, petition (including our
findings on the 7 candidate species
listed above) in the CNORs dated May
11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), September 12,
2006 (71 FR 53756), December 6, 2007
(72 FR 69034), and December 10, 2008
(73 FR 75176), November 9, 2009 (74 FR
57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR
69222), and October 26, 2011 (76 FR
66370). This proposed rule constitutes a
further response to the 2004 petition.
In addition to the seven candidate
species, we are proposing to list four
plant species, Cyanea marksii,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, and Schiedea hawaiiensis,
that have been identified as the ‘‘rarest
of the rare’’ Hawaiian plant species in
need of immediate conservation under
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the multi-agency (Federal, State, and
private) Plant Extinction Prevention
Program (PEPP). The goal of PEPP is to
prevent the extinction of plant species
that have fewer than 50 individuals
remaining in the wild on the islands of
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Hawaii (PEPP 2012, in litt.). We have
determined that these four plant species
warrant listing under the Act for the
reasons discussed in the Summary of
Factors Affecting the 15 Species
Proposed for Listing section (below).
Because these 4 plant species occur
within 4 of the ecosystems identified in
this proposed rule, and share common
threats with the other 11 species
proposed for listing under the Act, we
have included them in this proposed
rule to provide them with protection
under the Act in an expeditious manner.
We are also proposing to list four
other plant species (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, and Pritchardia lanigera)
that occur on Hawaii Island. We have
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
determined that these four Hawaii
Island plant species warrant listing
under the Act for the reasons discussed
in the Summary of Factors Affecting the
15 Species Proposed for Listing section
(below). Because these 4 plant species
occur within 7 of the ecosystems
identified in this proposed rule, and
share common threats with the other 11
species proposed for listing under the
Act, we have included them in this
proposed rule to provide them with
protection under the Act in an
expeditious manner.
We are proposing critical habitat for
two endangered plant species,
Mezoneuron kavaiense (currently listed
as Mezoneuron kavaiense but listed in
error as Caesalpinia kavaiense in 50
CFR 17.12, see taxonomic change
discussion below) (51 FR 24672; July 8,
1986) and Isodendrion pyrifolium (59
FR 10305, March 4, 1994; 68 FR 39624,
July 2, 2003) for which critical habitat
has not been previously designated on
the island of Hawaii. We are also
proposing critical habitat for Bidens
microthia ssp. ctenophylla, a candidate
species proposed for listing in this rule
(76 FR 66370; October 26, 2011).
the species between the time of listing
and now has not changed. Therefore, we
propose to recognize the listed species
as Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Proposed Taxonomic Change Since
Listing for One Plant Species
We listed Mezoneuron kavaiense as
an endangered species in 1986 (51 FR
24672; July 8, 1986), based on the
taxonomic treatment of Hillebrand
(1888, pp. 110–111). Following the
reduction of Mezoneuron to Caesalpinia
by Hattink (1974, p. 5), Geesink et al.
(1990, pp. 646–647) changed the name
to Caesalpinia kavaiensis. In 1989, the
List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants was revised to identify the listed
entity as Caesalpinia kavaiense. Recent
phylogenetic studies support separation
of Mezoneuron from Caesalpinia
(Bruneau et al. 2008, p. 710). The
recognized scientific name for this
species is Mezoneuron kavaiense
(Wagner et al. 2012, p. 37). The range of
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to
Listing 15 Species on Hawaii Island
On the island of Hawaii, as on most
of the Hawaiian Islands, native species
that occur in the same habitat types
(ecosystems) depend on many of the
same biological features and the
successful functioning of that ecosystem
to survive. We have therefore organized
the species addressed in this proposed
rule by common ecosystem. Although
the listing determination for each
species is analyzed separately, we have
organized the individual analysis for
each species within the context of the
broader ecosystem in which it occurs to
avoid redundancy. In addition, native
species that share ecosystems often face
a suite of common factors that may be
a threat to them, and ameliorating or
Critical Habitat Unit Map Corrections
Critical habitat was designated for
Cyanea shipmanii, Phyllostegia
racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, and
Plantago hawaiensis in 2003 (68 FR
39624; July 2, 2003). In this proposed
rule, we are correcting critical habitat
unit maps published in 50 CFR
17.99(k)(1) for these four species to
accurately reflect their designated
critical habitat units. We are amending
50 CFR 17.99(k)(1) by removing four
maps (Map 97, Unit 30—Cyanea
stictophylla—d; Map 100, Unit 30—
Phyllostegia hawaiiensis—c; Map 101,
Unit 30—Phyllostegia racemosa—c; and
Map 102, Unit 30—Phyllostegia
velutina—b) that are either a duplicate
of another unit map or labeled with the
incorrect species name. We are
replacing these four maps, using the
same map numbers, with correctly
labeled maps that accurately represent
the geographic location of each species’
critical habitat unit.
63931
eliminating these threats for each
individual species often requires the
exact same management actions in the
exact same areas. Effective management
of these threats often requires
implementation of conservation actions
at the ecosystem scale to enhance or
restore critical ecological processes and
provide for long-term viability of those
species in their native environment.
Thus, by taking this approach, we hope
not only to organize this proposed rule
efficiently, but also to more effectively
focus conservation management efforts
on the common threats that occur across
these ecosystems. Those efforts would
facilitate restoration of ecosystem
functionality for the recovery of each
species, and provide conservation
benefits for associated native species,
thereby potentially precluding the need
to list other species under the Act that
occur in these shared ecosystems. In
addition, this approach is in accord
with the primary stated purpose of the
Act (see section 2(b)): ‘‘to provide a
means whereby the ecosystems upon
which endangered species and
threatened species depend may be
conserved.’’
We propose to list the plants Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea
marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, Schidea hawaiiensis, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae; and the animals
Drosophila digressa and Vetericaris
chaceorum, from Hawaii Island as
endangered species. These 15 species
(13 plants, 1 anchialine pool shrimp,
and 1 picture-wing fly) are found in 10
ecosystem types: anchialine pool,
coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet
cliff (Table 2).
TABLE 2—SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING ON HAWAII ISLAND AND THE ECOSYSTEMS UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND
Species
Ecosystem
Plants
Anchialine Pool ...................................................................
Coastal ................................................................................
Lowland Dry ........................................................................
Lowland Mesic ....................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Lowland Wet .......................................................................
Montane Dry ........................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Animals
.............................................................................................
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
Pittosporum hawaiiense .....................................................
Pritchardia lanigera
Cyanea marksii
Cyanea tritomantha
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis
Cyrtandra wagneri
Phyllostegia floribunda
Platydesma remyi
Pritchardia lanigera
Schiedea hawaiiensis
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Vetericaris chaceorum.
Drosophila digressa.
63932
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—SPECIES PROPOSED FOR LISTING ON HAWAII ISLAND AND THE ECOSYSTEMS UPON WHICH THEY DEPEND—
Continued
Species
Ecosystem
Plants
Montane Mesic ....................................................................
Montane Wet .......................................................................
Dry Cliff ...............................................................................
Wet Cliff ...............................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
For each species, we identified and
evaluated those factors that threaten the
species and that may be common to all
of the species at the ecosystem level. For
example, the degradation of habitat by
nonnative ungulates is considered a
threat to 14 of the 15 species proposed
for listing, and is likely a threat to many,
if not most or all, of the native species
within a given ecosystem. We consider
such a threat factor to be an ‘‘ecosystemlevel threat,’’ as each individual species
within that ecosystem faces a threat that
is essentially identical in terms of the
nature of the impact, its severity, its
timing, and its scope. Beyond
ecosystem-level threats, we further
identified and evaluated threat factors
that may be unique to certain species,
but do not apply to all species under
consideration within the same
ecosystem. For example, the threat of
predation by nonnative wasps is unique
to the picture-wing fly in this proposed
rule, and is not applicable to any of the
other species proposed for listing. We
have identified such threat factors,
which apply only to certain species
within the ecosystems addressed here,
as ‘‘species-specific threats.’’
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to
Determining Primary Constituent
Elements of Critical Habitat
Under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act,
we are required to designate critical
habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable concurrently with the
publication of a final determination that
a species is an endangered or threatened
species. We are proposing to designate
critical habitat concurrently with listing
for the plant Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, and for two previously
listed plant species: Isodendrion
pyrifolium, which was listed as an
endangered species on March 4, 1994
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Phyllostegia floribunda .......................................................
Pittosporum hawaiiense
Cyanea marksii ...................................................................
Cyanea tritomantha
Phyllostegia floribunda
Pittosporum hawaiiense
Platydesma remyi
Pritchardia lanigera
Schiedea diffusa ssp.macraei
Stenogyne cranwelliae
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana
Cyanea tritomantha
Pritchardia lanigera
Stenogyne cranwelliae
(59 FR 10305), and Mezoneuron
kavaiense, which was listed as an
endangered species on July 8, 1986 (51
FR 24672). These two species are
included in this proposed rule because
they share proposed occupied and
unoccupied critical habitat with Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
In this proposed rule, we propose to
designate critical habitat for three
species in seven multiple-species
critical habitat units. Although critical
habitat is identified for each species
individually, we have found that the
conservation of each depends, at least in
part, on the successful functioning of
the physical or biological features of the
commonly shared ecosystem. Each
critical habitat unit identified in this
proposed rule contains the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of those individual species
that occupy that particular unit at the
time of listing, or contains areas
essential for the conservation of those
species identified that do not presently
occupy that particular unit. Where the
unit is not occupied by a particular
species, we believe it is still essential for
the conservation of that species because
the designation allows for the expansion
of its range and reintroduction of
individuals into areas where it occurred
historically, and provides area for
recovery in the case of stochastic events
that otherwise hold the potential to
eliminate the species from the one or
more locations where it is presently
found. Under current conditions, many
of these species are so rare in the wild
that they are at high risk of extirpation
or even extinction from various
stochastic events, such as hurricanes or
landslides. Therefore, building up
resilience and redundancy in these
species through the establishment of
PO 00000
Animals
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Drosophila digressa.
Drosophila digressa.
multiple robust populations is a key
component of recovery.
Each of the areas proposed for
designation represents critical habitat
for multiple species, based upon their
shared habitat requirements (i.e.,
physical or biological features) essential
for their conservation. The
identification of critical habitat also
takes into account any species-specific
conservation needs as appropriate.
The proposed species Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and the
listed species Isodendrion pyrifolium
and Mezoneuron kavaiense co-occur in
the same lowland dry ecosystem on the
island of Hawaii. These three species
(Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and
Mezoneuron kavaiense) share many of
the same physical or biological features
(e.g., elevation, annual rainfall,
substrate, associated native plant
genera), as well as the same threats from
development, fire, and nonnative
ungulates and plants. However, for the
remaining 14 species proposed for
listing in this rule, we do not have the
analysis necessary to refine the
identification of the physical and
biological features and delineate the
specific areas that contain those features
in the appropriate arrangement and
quantity or the specific unoccupied
areas essential to the species’
conservation. As a result, we find that,
for the remaining 14 species that we are
proposing to list in this rule, the
designation of critical habitat is not
determinable at this time.
The Island of Hawaii
The island of Hawaii, located
southeast of the islands of Maui and
Kahoolawe, is the largest, highest, and
youngest island of the Hawaiian
archipelago (Figure 1). At 4,038 square
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
63933
expected to erupt again); Hualalai at
8,271 ft (2,521 m) is dormant (an active
volcano that is not erupting, but
expected to erupt again); and Mauna
Loa at 13,677 ft (4,169 m) and Kilauea
at 4,093 ft (1,248 m) are both active
(volcanoes that are currently erupting or
showing signs of unrest, such as
significant new gas emission)
(McDonald et al. 1990, pp. 345–379; 59
FR 10305, March 4, 1994; USGS 2012,
pp. 1–2). Hawaii Island, with its greater
mass and higher elevations, has more
distinctive climatic zones and
ecosystems than can be found elsewhere
in the State (Juvik and Juvik 1998,
p. 22). The highest and lowest recorded
temperatures in the State occur on
Hawaii Island (USFWS 1996, p. 6;
Wagner et al. 1999a, p. 38).
The island of Hawaii lies within the
trade wind belt. Moisture derived from
the Pacific Ocean is carried to the island
by north-easterly trade winds. Heavy
rains fall when the moisture in clouds
makes contact with windward (the
direction upwind from the point of
reference, usually the more wet side of
an island) mountain slopes (Wagner et
al. 1999a, pp. 38–42). Considerable
moisture reaches the leeward (the
course in which the wind is blowing,
typically the dryer side of an island)
slopes of the saddle area between
Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, but dries
out rapidly as elevation increases. This
orographic (associated with or induced
by the presence of mountains) effect
reaches an elevation of about 2,000 to
3,000 m (6,500 to 9,850 ft) and tends to
go around rather than over the high
mountains. Thus, in the leeward saddle
area, and high-elevation areas of Mauna
Kea and Mauna Loa, dry or arid
conditions predominate (USFWS 1996,
p. 6; Mitchell et al. 2005a, pp. 6–71).
A rain shadow effect, created by
Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, on the
leeward side of the island prevents the
Kona (west side of the island) coast from
receiving precipitation from the
predominantly northeasterly trade
winds (Wagner et al. 1999a, pp. 36–44).
However, convection-driven onshore
breezes create upslope showers most
afternoons, resulting in greater than
expected annual rainfall (50 to more
than 100 inches (in) (1,270 to more than
2,540 millimeters (m)), which supports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.000</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
(sq) miles (mi) (10,458 sq kilometers
(km)) in area, it comprises
approximately two-thirds of the land
area of the State of Hawaii, giving rise
to its common name, the ‘‘Big Island.’’
Five large shield volcanoes make up the
island of Hawaii: Mauna Kea at 13,796
feet (ft) (4,205 meters (m)) and Kohala
at 5,480 ft (1,670 m) are both extinct
volcanoes (volcanoes that are not
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63934
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
a broad band of mesic forest on portions
of leeward Hawaii (Mitchell et al.
2005a, pp. 6–71–6–91). Another major
source of rainfall is provided by winter
(Kona) storms, which develop south of
the island, and impact the island when
trade winds subside during the winter
months. Kawaihae, in south Kohala (on
the northwest side of the island), is
effectively cut off from the northeasterly
tradewinds by the Kohala Mountains,
and from southerly and southwesterly
winds of winter storms by Mauna Loa
and Hualalai. It is the driest place in the
main (Hawaii, Kauai, Kahoolawe, Lanai,
Molokai, Maui, Niihau, and Oahu)
Hawaiian Islands, receiving only about
8 in (200 mm) of rain per year (Wagner
et al. 1999a, p. 39).
Due to its relatively young age (less
than 1 million years old), the island of
Hawaii is represented by fewer soil
types than the older main Hawaiian
Islands. Sizable areas of lava, cinder,
and rubble occur in the saddle between
Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, and on
recent lava flows originating from
Hualalai, Mauna Loa, and Kilauea (Juvik
and Juvik 1998, pp. 44–46; Mitchell et
al. 2005a, pp. 6–71–6–72). Other soil
types include: histosols, which are
characterized by a thin, well-drained,
organic layer and occur on younger lava
flows common in the Hilo and Kau
areas; andisols, which occur on
substrates older than 3,000 years, are
characterized by the ability to take up
large amounts of phosphorous and are
common on the east flank of Mauna Kea
and above Hilo; aridosols, which are
characterized by horizons with
accumulations of carbonates, gypsum,
or sodium chloride, and are found in the
dry soils of deserts or the dry leeward
sides of the island; and mollisols, which
are characterized by a distinct darkcolored surface horizon enriched with
organic matter, and are found under the
grasslands on the dry leeward areas of
the island (Gavenda et al. 1998, p. 94).
The vegetation on the island of
Hawaii continues to experience extreme
alterations due to ongoing volcanic
activity, past and present land use, and
other activities. Land with rich soils was
altered by the early Hawaiians and,
more recently, converted to agricultural
use in the production of sugar,
diversified agriculture, and pasture for
cattle (Bos taurus) ranching. For
example, large areas on the eastern
slopes of the Kohala Mountains, Mauna
Kea, and Mauna Loa were maintained in
sugarcane production until the late
1960s (Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 22).
Intentional and inadvertent introduction
of alien plant and animal species has
also contributed to the reduction in
range of native vegetation on the island
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
of Hawaii (throughout this rule, the
terms ‘‘alien,’’ ‘‘feral,’’ ‘‘nonnative,’’ and
‘‘introduced’’ all refer to species that are
not naturally native to the Hawaiian
Islands). Currently, most of the native
vegetation on the island persists on
upper elevation slopes, valleys, and
ridges; steep slopes; precipitous cliffs;
valley headwalls; and other regions
where unsuitable topography has
prevented urbanization and agricultural
development, or where inaccessibility
has limited encroachment by nonnative
plant and animal species.
Hawaii Island Ecosystems
There are 12 different ecosystems
(anchialine pool, coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet,
subalpine, alpine, dry cliff, and wet
cliff) recognized on the island of
Hawaii. The 15 species proposed for
listing occur in 10 of these 12
ecosystems (none of the 15 species are
reported in subalpine and alpine
ecosystems). The lowland dry
ecosystem supports the three species for
which critical habitat is proposed. The
10 Hawaii Island ecosystems that
support the 15 proposed species are
described in the following section; see
Table 2 (above) for a list of the species
that occur in each ecosystem type.
Anchialine Pools
The anchialine pool ecosystem has
been reported from Oahu, Molokai,
Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii Island.
Anchialine pools are land-locked bodies
of water that have indirect underground
connections to the sea, contain varying
levels of salinity, and show tidal
fluctuations in water level. Because all
anchialine pools occur within coastal
areas, they are technically a part of the
coastal ecosystem (see below) with
many of the same applicable and
overlapping habitat threats. However, in
this proposal, we are addressing this
unique ecosystem distinctly. Over 80
percent of the State’s anchialine pools
are found on the island of Hawaii, with
a total of approximately 600 to 650
pools distributed over 130 sites along all
but the island’s northernmost and
steeper northeastern shorelines.
Characteristic animal species include
crustaceans (e.g., shrimps, prawns,
amphipods, isopods, etc.), several fish
species, molluscs, and other
invertebrates adapted to the pools’
surface and subterranean habitats (The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2009, pp. 1–
3). Generally, vegetation within the
pools consists of various types of algal
forms (blue-green, green, red, and
golden-brown). The majority of Hawaii’s
anchialine pools occur in bare or
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sparsely vegetated lava fields, although
some pools occur in areas with various
groundcover, shrub, and tree species
(Chai 1989, pp. 2–24; Brock 2004, p. 35).
The anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris
chaceorum, which is proposed for
listing as an endangered species in this
rule, occurs in this ecosystem (Kensley
and Williams 1986, pp. 417–437).
Coastal
The coastal ecosystem is found on all
of the main Hawaiian Islands, with the
highest native species diversity
occurring in the least populated coastal
areas of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui,
Kahoolawe, Hawaii Island, and their
associated islets. On Hawaii Island, the
coastal ecosystem includes mixed
herblands, shrublands, and grasslands,
from sea level to 1,000 ft (300 m) in
elevation, generally within a narrow
zone above the influence of waves to
within 330 ft (100 m) inland, sometimes
extending farther inland if strong
prevailing onshore winds drive sea
spray and sand dunes into the lowland
zone (TNC 2006a, pp. 1–3). The coastal
ecosystem is typically dry, with annual
rainfall of less than 20 in (50 cm);
however, windward rainfall may be
high enough (up to 40 in (100
centimeters (cm)) to support mesicassociated and sometimes wetassociated vegetation (Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, pp. 54–66). Biological
diversity is low to moderate in this
ecosystem, but may include some
specialized plants and animals such as
nesting seabirds and the endangered
plant Sesbania tomentosa (ohai) (TNC
2006a, pp. 1–3). The plant Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
which is proposed for listing as an
endangered species in this rule, occurs
in this ecosystem on Hawaii Island
(Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping
Program Database (TNC 2007–
Ecosystem Database of ArcMap
Shapefiles, unpublished; HBMP
2010a)).
Lowland Dry
The lowland dry ecosystem includes
shrublands and forests generally below
3,300 ft (1,000 m) elevation that receive
less than 50 in (130 cm) annual rainfall,
or are in otherwise prevailingly dry
substrate conditions that range from
weathered reddish silty loams to stony
clay soils, rocky ledges with very
shallow soil, or relatively recent littleweathered lava (Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, p. 67). Areas consisting of
predominantly native species in the
lowland dry ecosystem are now rare;
however, this ecosystem is found on the
islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, Kahoolawe and Hawaii, and is
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
best represented on the leeward sides of
the islands (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p.
67). On leeward Hawaii Island, this
ecosystem occurs on the northwest flank
of Hualalai in north Kona and on Mauna
Loa in south Kona, but also occurs on
the eastern Hawaii Island in Puna and
Kau (within and adjacent to Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park (HVNP))
(Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 67; TNC
2006b, pp. 1–2). Overall native
biological diversity is low to moderate
in this ecosystem; however, tree species
exhibit a higher rate of diversity and
endemism (Pau et al. 2009, p. 3,167).
The lowland dry ecosystem includes
specialized animals and plants such as
the Hawaiian owl or pueo (Asio
flammeus sandwichensis) and Santalum
ellipticum (iliahialoe or coast
sandalwood) (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999,
pp. 45–114; TNC 2006b, pp. 1–2). The
plant Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, which is proposed for
listing as an endangered species in this
rule, occurs in this ecosystem on Hawaii
Island (TNC 2007–Ecosystem Database
of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished;
HBMP 2010b).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Lowland Mesic
The lowland mesic ecosystem
includes a variety of grasslands,
shrublands, and forests, generally below
3,300 ft (1,000 m) elevation, that receive
between 50 and 75 in (130 and 190 cm)
annual rainfall (TNC 2006c, pp. 1–2). In
the Hawaiian Islands, this ecosystem is
found on Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and Hawaii, on both windward
and leeward sides of the islands. On
Hawaii Island, this ecosystem is often
reduced to remnant occurrences, but
can be found in north Kohala, on the
southwest and southeast flanks of
Mauna Loa and Kilauea (Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, p. 75; TNC 2006c, pp. 1–
2). Native biological diversity is high in
this system (TNC 2006c, pp. 1–2). The
plants, Pittosporum hawaiiense and
Pritchardia lanigera, and the picturewing fly Drosophila digressa, which are
proposed for listing as endangered
species in this rule, occur in this
ecosystem on Hawaii Island (TNC 2007–
Ecosystem Database of ArcMap
Shapefiles, unpublished; Benitez et al.
2008, p. 58; HBMP 2010c; HBMP
2010d).
Lowland Wet
The lowland wet ecosystem is
generally found below 3,300 ft (1,000 m)
elevation on the windward sides of the
main Hawaiian Islands, except Niihau
and Kahoolawe (Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, p. 85; TNC 2006d, pp. 1–2). These
areas include a variety of wet
grasslands, shrublands, and forests that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
receive greater than 75 in (190 cm)
annual precipitation, or are in otherwise
wet substrate conditions (TNC 2006d,
pp. 1–2). On the island of Hawaii, this
system is best developed in north
Kohala, on the lower windward flanks
of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, as well
as leeward areas benefiting from
convection-driven upslope showers on
leeward Mauna Loa and Hualalai (TNC
2006d, pp. 1–2). Native biological
diversity is high in this system (TNC
2006d, pp. 1–2). The plants Cyanea
marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Platydesma
remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera, which
are proposed for listing as endangered
species in this rule, occur in this
ecosystem on Hawaii Island (Lorence
and Perlman 2007, pp. 357–361; TNC
2007–Ecosystem Database of ArcMap
Shapefiles, unpublished; HBMP 2010c;
HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP
2010g; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i).
Montane Dry
The montane dry ecosystem includes
grasslands, shrublands, and forests at
elevations between 3,300 and 6,600 ft
(1,000 and 2,000 m), that receive less
than 50 in (130 cm) of annual
precipitation, or are in otherwise dry
substrate conditions (TNC 2006e, pp. 1–
2). In the Hawaiian Islands, this
ecosystem is found on the islands of
Maui and Hawaii (Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, pp. 93–97). On Hawaii Island, this
ecosystem is best represented on the
upper slopes of Hualalai and the Mauna
Kea-Mauna Loa saddle area, and
includes specialized animals and plants
such as the elepaio (Chasiempis
sandwichensis) and Isodendrion
hosakae (aupaka) (Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, pp. 45–114; TNC 2006e, pp. 1–2).
The plant Schiedea hawaiiensis,
proposed for listing as an endangered
species in this rule, is found in this
ecosystem on Hawaii Island (U.S. Army
Garrison 2006, pp. 1–55).
Montane Mesic
The montane mesic ecosystem is
composed of natural communities
(forests and shrublands) found at
elevations between 3,300 and 6,600 ft
(1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where
annual precipitation is between 50 and
75 in (130 and 190 cm), or areas in
otherwise mesic substrate conditions
(TNC 2006f, pp. 1–2). This system is
found on Kauai, Molokai, Maui, and
Hawaii Island (Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, pp. 97–99; TNC 2007–Ecosystem
Database of ArcMap Shapefiles,
unpublished). Native biological
diversity is moderate (Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, pp. 98–99; TNC 2006f,
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63935
pp. 1–2). On Hawaii Island, specialized
plants and animals such as io or
Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) and
Pittosporum hosmeri (hoawa) occur in
the montane mesic ecosystem. The
plants Phyllostegia floribunda and
Pittosporum hawaiiense, and the
picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa,
which are proposed for listing as
endangered species in this rule, are
found in this ecosystem on Hawaii
Island (TNC 2007–Ecosystem Database
of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished;
Benitez et al. 2008, p. 58; HBMP 2010d;
HBMP 2010h).
Montane Wet
The montane wet ecosystem is
composed of natural communities
(grasslands, shrublands, forests, and
bogs) found at elevations between 3,300
and 6,600 ft (1,000 and 2,000 m), in
areas where annual precipitation is
greater than 75 in (191 cm) (TNC 2006g,
pp. 1–2). This system is found on all of
the main Hawaiian Islands except
Niihau and Kahoolawe, and only the
islands of Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii
have areas above 4,020 ft (1,225 m)
(TNC 2006g, pp. 1–2). On Hawaii Island,
the montane wet ecosystem occurs in
the Kohala Mountains, in the east flank
of Mauna Kea, in the Kau Forest Reserve
(FR) on windward Mauna Loa, and on
the upper slopes of leeward Mauna Loa
(TNC 2007–Ecosystem Database of
ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished).
Native biological diversity is moderate
to high (TNC 2006g, pp. 1–2). The
plants Cyanea marksii, C. tritomantha,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae, and the picture-wing fly
Drosophila digressa, which are
proposed for listing as endangered
species in this rule, occur in this
ecosystem on Hawaii Island (TNC 2007–
Ecosystem Database of ArcMap
Shapefiles, unpublished; Benitez et al.
2008, p. 58; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010d;
HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP
2010h; HBMP 2010i; HBMP 2010j;
HBMP 2010k).
Dry Cliff
The dry cliff ecosystem is composed
of vegetation communities occupying
steep slopes (greater than 65 degrees) in
areas that receive less than 75 in (190
cm) of rainfall annually, or that are in
otherwise dry substrate conditions (TNC
2006h, pp. 1–2). This ecosystem is
found on all of the main Hawaiian
Islands except Niihau, and is best
represented along portions of the eroded
cliffs of east Kohala on Hawaii Island
(TNC 2006h, pp. 1–2). A variety of
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63936
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
shrublands occur within this ecosystem
(TNC 2006h, pp. 1–2). Native biological
diversity is low to moderate (TNC
2006h, pp. 1–2). The plant Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
which is proposed for listing as an
endangered species in this rule, occurs
in this ecosystem on Hawaii Island
(TNC 2007–Ecosystem Database of
ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished;
HBMP 2010a).
Wet Cliff
The wet cliff ecosystem is generally
composed of shrublands on nearvertical slopes (greater than 65 degrees)
in areas that receive more than 75 in
(190 cm) of annual precipitation, or that
are in otherwise wet substrate
conditions (TNC 2006i, pp. 1–2). This
system is found on the islands of Kauai,
Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Hawaii. On the island of Hawaii, this
system is found in windward Kohala
valleys and on the southeastern slope of
Mauna Loa (TNC 2006i, pp. 1–2). Native
biological diversity is low to moderate
(TNC 2006i, pp. 1–2). The plants
Cyanea tritomantha, Pritchardia
lanigera, and Stenogyne cranwelliae,
which are proposed for listing as
endangered species in this rule, are
found in this ecosystem on Hawaii
Island (TNC 2007–Ecosystem Database
of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished;
HBMP 2010d; HBMP 2010f; HBMP
2010k).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Description of the 15 Species Proposed
for Listing
Below is a brief description of each of
the 15 species proposed for listing,
presented in alphabetical order by
genus. Plants are presented first,
followed by animals.
Plants
In order to avoid confusion regarding
the number of locations of each species
(a location does not necessarily
represent a viable population), we use
the word ‘‘occurrence’’ instead of
‘‘population.’’ Each occurrence is
composed only of wild (i.e., not
propagated and outplanted) individuals.
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana (kookoolau), a perennial
herb in the sunflower family
(Asteraceae), occurs only on the island
of Hawaii (Ganders and Nagata 1999,
pp. 275–276). Historically, B.
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana was
known from two locations along the
windward Kohala coastline, in the
coastal and dry cliff ecosystems, often
along rocks just above the ocean
(Degener and Wiebke 1926, in litt.;
Flynn. 1988, in litt.). Currently, there
are two known occurrences of B.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana
totaling 40 or fewer individuals along
the windward Kohala coast, in the
coastal and dry cliff ecosystems. There
are 30 individuals on the Pololu
seacliffs, and 5 to 10 individuals on the
seacliffs between Pololu and Honokane
Nui (Perlman 1998, in litt.; Perlman
2006, in litt.). Biologists speculate that
this species may total as many as 100
individuals with further surveys of
potential habitat along the Kohala coast
(Mitchell et al. 2005b; PEPP 2006, p. 3).
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
(kookoolau), a perennial herb in the
sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs
only on the island of Hawaii (Ganders
and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273).
Historically, B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla was known from the north
Kona district, in the lowland dry
ecosystem (HBMP 2010b). Currently,
this subspecies is restricted to an area of
less than 10 sq mi (26 sq km) on the
leeward slopes of Hualalai volcano, in
the lowland dry ecosystem in 6
occurrences totaling fewer than 1,000
individuals. The largest occurrence is
found off Hina Lani Road with over 475
individuals widely dispersed
throughout the area (Zimpfer 2011, in
litt.). The occurrence at Kealakehe was
reported to have been abundant and
common in 1992, but by 2010 had
declined to low numbers (Whister 2007,
pp. 1–18; Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP
2010b; Whister 2008, pp. 1–11). In
addition, there are three individuals in
Kaloko–Honokohau National Historical
Park (NHP) (Beavers 2010, in litt.), and
three occurrences are found within
close proximity to each other to the
northeast: five individuals in an
exclosure at Puuwaawaa Wildlife
Sanctuary (HBMP 2010b); a few
scattered individuals at Kaupulehu; and
a few individuals on private land at
Palani Ranch (Whistler 2007, pp. 1–18;
Whistler 2008, pp. 1–11). Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla has also
been outplanted within fenced
exclosures at Kaloko–Honokohau NHP
(49 individuals), Koaia Tree Sanctuary
(1 individual), and Puuwaawaa (5
individuals) (Boston 2008, in litt.;
HBMP 2010b).
Cyanea marksii (haha), a shrub in the
bellflower family (Campanulaceae), is
found only on the island of Hawaii.
Historically, C. marksii was known from
the Kona district, in the lowland wet
and montane wet ecosystems (Lammers
1999, p. 457; HBMP 2010e). Currently,
there are 27 individuals distributed
among 3 occurrences in south Kona, in
the lowland wet and montane wet
ecosystems (PEPP 2007, p. 61). There is
an adult and 20 to 30 juveniles (each
approximately 1 in (2.54 cm tall)) in a
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
lava tube in the Kona unit of the
Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) (PEPP 2007, p. 61), one
individual in a pit crater in the South
Kona FR, and 25 individuals on private
land in south Kona (PEPP 2007, p. 61;
Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Fruit has been
collected from the individuals on
private land, and 11 plants have been
successfully propagated at the Volcano
Rare Plant Facility (VRPF) (PEPP 2007,
p. 61; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Cyanea tritomantha (aku), a palmlike
shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is known only from
the island of Hawaii (Pratt and Abbott
1997, p. 13; Lammers 2004, p. 89).
Historically, this species was known
from the windward slopes of Mauna
Kea, Mauna Loa, Kilauea, and the
Kohala Mountains, in the lowland wet,
montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems
(Pratt and Abbott 1997, p. 13).
Currently, there are 16 occurrences of
Cyanea tritomantha totaling fewer than
400 individuals in the lowland wet,
montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems:
10 occurrences (totaling fewer than 240
individuals) in the Kohala Mountains
(Perlman 1993, in litt.; Perlman 1995a,
in litt.; Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1–
14; HBMP 2010f; PEPP 2010, p. 60); 2
occurrences (totaling fewer than 75
individuals) in the Laupahoehoe
Natural Area Reserve (NAR) (HBMP
2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1
occurrence (20 adults and 30 juveniles)
at Puu Makaala NAR (Perlman and Bio
2008, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.;
HBMP 2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1
occurrence (a few scattered individuals)
off Tom’s Trail in the Upper Waiakea FR
(Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.); and 2
occurrences (totaling 11 individuals) in
Olaa Tract in HVNP (Pratt 2007a, in litt.;
Pratt 2008a, in litt). In 2003, over 75
individuals were outplanted in HVNP’s
Olaa Tract and Small Tract; however, by
2010, less than one third of these
individuals remained (Pratt 2011a, in
litt.). In addition, a few individuals have
been outplanted at Puu Makaala NAR
and Upper Waiakea FR (Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural
Resources (HDLNR) 2006; Belfield 2007,
in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). Cyanea
tritomantha produces few seeds, and
their viability tends to be low (Moriyasu
2009, in litt.)
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (haiwale), a
shrub or small tree in the African violet
family (Gesneriaceae), is known only
from the island of Hawaii (Wagner and
Herbst 2003, p. 29; Wagner et al.
2005a—Flora of the Hawaiian Islands
database). Historically, C.
nanawaleensis was known only from
the Nanawale FR and the adjacent
Malama Ki FR in the Puna district, in
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the lowland wet ecosystem (St. John
1987, p. 500; Wagner et al. 1988, in litt.;
HBMP 2010g; Pratt 2011b, in litt.).
Currently, C. nanawaleensis is known
from 4 occurrences with approximately
140 individuals in the lowland wet
ecosystem: 2 occurrences in Malama Ki
FR totaling 70 individuals (Lau 2011,
pers. comm.); 1 occurrence in
Keauohana FR (with 56 individuals)
(Magnacca 2011a, in litt.); and 1
occurrence in the Halepuaa section of
Nanawale FR (with 13 individuals)
(Johansen 2012, in litt.; Kobsa 2012, in
litt.). Conversion of areas within the
Halepuaa section of Nanawale FR to
papaya production over the past 25
years is thought to have contributed to
the decline of the species in this area
(Pratt 2011b, in litt.; Kobsa 2012, in litt.;
Pratt 2012, in litt.). Biologists report that
C. nanawaleensis is in decline
throughout its already limited range
(Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Kobsa 2012, in
litt.).
Cyrtandra wagneri (haiwale), a shrub
or small tree in the African violet family
(Gesneriaceae), occurs only on the
island of Hawaii (Lorence and Perlman
2007, p. 357). Historically, C. wagneri
was known from a few individuals
along the steep banks of the
Kaiwilahilahi Stream in the
Laupahoehoe NAR, in the lowland wet
ecosystem (Perlman et al. 1998, in litt.).
In 2002, there were 2 known
occurrences totaling fewer than 175
individuals in the Laupahoehoe NAR:
one occurrence (totaling 150 individuals
(50 adults and 100 juveniles)) along the
steep banks of the Kilau Stream
(Lorence et al. 2002, in litt.; Perlman
and Perry 2003, in litt.; Lorence and
Perlman 2007, p. 359), and a second
occurrence (with approximately 10
sterile individuals) along the slopes of
the Kaiwilahilahi stream banks (Lorence
and Perlman 2007, p. 359). Currently,
there are no individuals remaining at
Kaiwilahilahi Stream, and the
individuals at Kilau Stream appear to be
hybridizing with the endangered
Cyrtandra tintinnabula. Biologists have
identified only eight individuals at
Kilau Stream that express the true
phenotype of Cyrtandra wagneri, and
only three of these individuals are
reproducing successfully (PEPP 2010, p.
102; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Phyllostegia floribunda (NCN), a
perennial herb in the mint family
(Lamiaceae), is found only on the island
of Hawaii (Wagner 1999, p. 268; Wagner
et al. 1999b, p. 815). Historically, P.
floribunda was reported in the lowland
wet, montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems at scattered sites along the
slopes of the Kohala Mountains;
southeast through Hamakua,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Laupahoehoe NAR, Waiakea FR, and
Upper Waiakea FR; and southward into
Hilo, HVNP, and Puna. One report
exists of the species occurring from
north Kona and a few occurrences in
south Kona (Cuddihy et al. 1982, in litt.;
Wagner et al. 2005b—Flora of the
Hawaiian Islands database; Perlman et
al. 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010h; Bishop
Museum 2011—Herbarium Database).
Currently, there are 12 known
occurrences of P. floribunda totaling
fewer than 100 individuals, in the
lowland wet, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems (Bruegmann
1998, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in litt.; HBMP
2010h): 2 occurrences within HVNP, at
Kamoamoa (1 individual) (HBMP
2010h) and near Napau Crater (4
individuals) (Pratt 2005, in litt.; Pratt
2007b, in litt.; HBMP 2010h); 1
occurrence behind the Volcano solid
waste transfer station (10 to 50
individuals) (Flynn 1984, in litt.;
Perlman and Wood 1993–Hawaii Plant
Conservation Maps database; Pratt
2007b, in litt.; HBMP 2010h); 1
occurrence (with an unknown number
individuals) in the Wao Kele O Puna
NAR (HBMP 2010h); at least 1
occurrence each (with a few individuals
each) in the Puu Makaala NAR, Waiakea
FR, Upper Waiakea FR, and TNC’s Kona
Hema Preserve (PR) (Perry 2006, in litt.;
Perlman 2007, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in
litt.; PEPP 2008, pp. 106–107; Perlman
et al. 2008, in litt.; Pratt 2008a, in litt.;
Pratt 2008b, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in
litt.); 2 occurrences (each with an
unknown number of individuals) from
the South Kona FR; 1 occurrence (one
individual) in the Kipahoehoe NAR;
and, 1 occurrence (with an unknown
number of individuals) in the
Lapauhoehoe NAR (Moriyasu 2009, in
litt.; HBMP 2010h; Agorastos 2010, in
litt.). Since 2003, over 400 individuals
have been outplanted at HVNP, Waiakea
FR, Puu Makaala NAR, Honomalino in
TNC’s Kona Hema PR, and Kipahoehoe
NAR (Bruegmann 2006, in litt.; HDLNR
2006, p. 38; Tangalin 2006, in litt.;
Belfield 2007, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in
litt.; VRPF 2008, in litt.; VRPF 2010, in
litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; Agorastos 2010,
in litt.). However, for reasons unknown,
approximately 90 percent of the
outplantings experience high seedling
mortality (Pratt 2007b, in litt.; Van
DeMark et al. 2010, pp. 24–43).
Pittosporum hawaiiense (hoawa,
haawa), a small tree in the pittosporum
family (Pittosporaceae), is known only
from the island of Hawaii (Wagner et al.
1999c, p. 1,044). Historically, P.
hawaiiense was known from the
leeward side of the island, from the
Kohala Mountains south to Kau, in the
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63937
lowland mesic, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems (Wagner et
al.1999c, p. 1,044). Currently, there are
14 known occurrences totaling fewer
than 75 individuals, from HVNP to Puu
O Umi NAR, and south Kona, in the
lowland mesic, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems: 1 occurrence
in Puu O Umi NAR (several scattered
individuals) (Perlman 1995b, in litt.); 1
occurrence (with a least one individual)
in TNC’s Kona Hema PR (Oppenheimer
et al. 1998, in litt.); 1 occurrence (with
several individuals) at Kukuiopae
(Perlman and Perry 2002, in litt.); 1
occurrence (with a few individuals) in
the Manuka NAR (Perry 2011, in litt.);
8 occurrences (totaling fewer than 58
individuals) scattered within the
Kahuku unit of HVNP; 1 occurrence in
the Olaa FR (at least one individual),
just adjacent to the Olaa Tract in HVNP;
and 1 occurrence (with fewer than 6
individuals) at the Volcano solid waste
transfer station (Wood and Perlman
1991, in litt.; McDaniel 2011a, in litt.;
McDaniel 2011b, in litt.; Pratt 2011d, in
litt.). Biologists have observed very low
regeneration in these occurrences,
which is believed to be caused, in part,
by rat predation on the seeds (Bio 2011,
pers. comm.).
Platydesma remyi (NCN), a shrub or
shrubby tree in the rue family
(Rutaceae), occurs only on the island of
Hawaii (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210;
USFWS 2010, pp. 4-66–4-67, A–11, A–
74). Historically, P. remyi was known
from a few scattered individuals on the
windward slopes of the Kohala
Mountains and several small
populations on the windward slopes of
Mauna Kea, in the lowland wet and
montane wet ecosystems (Stone et al.
1999, p. 1210; HBMP 2010i). Currently,
P. remyi is known from 8 occurrences
totaling fewer than 40 individuals, all of
which are found in the Laupahoehoe
NAR or in closely surrounding areas, in
the lowland wet and montane wet
ecosystems: along the banks of
Kaiwilahilahi Stream in the
Laupahoehoe NAR (unknown number of
individuals) (Perlman and Perry 2001,
in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010i);
near the Spencer Hunter Trail in the
Laupahoehoe NAR (fewer than 17
individuals) (PEPP 2010, p. 102); the
central part of the Laupahoehoe NAR (5
to 6 scattered individuals) (HBMP
2010i); near Kilau (1 to 3 individuals)
and Pahale (1 to 3 individuals) Streams
in Laupahoehoe NAR; southeastern
region of Laupahoehoe NAR (1
individual); Hakalau unit of the Hakalau
NWR (1 individual) (USFWS 2010, p. 474–4-75); and the Humuula region of the
Hilo FR (2 individuals) (Bruegmann
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63938
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
1998, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; PEPP
2008, p. 107; HBMP 2010i). According
to field biologists, this species appears
to be declining with no regeneration
believed to be caused, in part, by rat
predation on the seeds (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). In 2009, 29 individuals of P.
remyi were outplanted in Laupahoehoe
NAR (Bio 2008, in litt.). Their current
status is unknown.
Pritchardia lanigera (loulu), a
medium-sized tree in the palm family
(Arecaceae), is found only on the island
of Hawaii (Read and Hodel 1999, p.
1,371; Hodel 2007, pp. 10, 24–25).
Historically, P. lanigera was known
from the Kohala Mountains, Hamakua
district, windward slopes of Mauna Kea,
and southern slopes of Mauna Loa, in
the lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems
(Read and Hodel 1999, p. 1,371; HBMP
2010c). Currently, P. lanigera is known
from 2 occurrences totaling fewer than
220 individuals scattered along the
windward side of the Kohala
Mountains, in the lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff
ecosystems. Approximately 100 to 200
individuals are scattered over 1 sq mi (3
sq km) in Waimanu Valley and
surrounding areas (Wood 1995, in litt.;
Perlman and Wood 1996, p. 6; Wood
1998, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2004, in litt.;
HBMP 2010c). There are at least five
individuals in the back rim of Alakahi
Gulch in Waipio Valley (HBMP 2010c).
According to field biologists, pollination
rates appear to be low for this species,
and the absence of seedlings and
juveniles at known locations suggests
that regeneration is not occurring
believed to be caused, in part, by beetle
and rat predation on the fruits and seeds
(Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei (NCN),
a perennial climbing herb in the pink
family (Caryophyllaceae), is reported
only from the island of Hawaii (Wagner
et al. 2005c—Flowering Plants of the
Hawaiian Islands database; Wagner et
al. 2005d, p. 106). Historically, S.
diffusa ssp. macraei was known from
the Kohala Mountains, the windward
slopes of Mauna Loa, and the Olaa Tract
of HVNP, in the montane wet ecosystem
(Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Wagner et
al. 2005d, p. 106; HBMP 2010j).
Currently, there is one individual of S.
diffusa ssp. macraei on the slopes of Eke
in the Kohala Mountains, in the
montane wet ecosystem (Wagner et al.
2005d, p. 106; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Schiedea hawaiiensis (NCN), a
perennial herb or subshrub in the pink
family (Caryophyllaceae), is known only
from the island of Hawaii (Wagner et al.
2005d, pp. 92–96). Historically, S.
hawaiiensis was known from a single
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
collection by Hillebrand (1888, p. 33)
from the Waimea region, in the montane
dry ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005d, pp.
92–96). Currently, S. hawaiiensis is
known from 25 to 40 individuals on the
U.S. Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area
(PTA) in the montane dry ecosystem, in
the saddle area between Moana Loa and
Mauna Kea (Gon III and Tierney 1996 in
Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 92; Wagner et al.
2005d, p. 92; Evans 2011, in litt.). In
addition, there are over 150 individuals
outplanted at PTA (Kipuka Alala and
Kalawamauna), Puu Huluhulu, Puu
Waawaa, and Kipuka Oweowe (Evans
2011, in litt.).
Stenogyne cranwelliae (NCN), a vine
in the mint family (Lamiaceae), is
known only from the island of Hawaii.
Historically, S. cranwelliae was known
from the Kohala Mountains, in the
montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems
(Weller and Sakai 1999, p. 837).
Currently, there are 6 occurrences of S.
cranwelliae totaling fewer than 160
individuals in the Kohala Mountains, in
the montane wet and wet cliff
ecosystems: roughly 1.5 sq mi (2.5 sq
km) around the border between the Puu
O Umi NAR and Kohala FR, near
streams and bogs (ranging from 3 to 100
scattered individuals) (Perlman and
Wood 1996, pp. 1–14; HBMP 2010k);
Opaeloa, in the Puu O Umi NAR (3
individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996,
pp. 1–14; HBMP 2010k); Puukapu, in
the Puu O Umi NAR (6-by 6-ft (2-by 2m) ‘‘patch’’ of individuals) (HBMP
2010k); the rim of Kawainui Gulch (1
individual) (Perlman and Wood 1996,
pp. 1–14; HBMP 2010k); along
Kohakohau Stream, in the Puu O Umi
NAR (a few individuals) (Perlman and
Wood 1996, pp. 1–14; HBMP 2010k);
and Waimanu Bog Unit in the Puu O
Umi NAR (a ‘‘patch’’ of individuals)
(Agorastos 2010, in litt.)
Animals
Drosophila digressa (picture-wing
fly), a member of the family
Drosophilidae, was described in 1968 by
Hardy and Kaneshiro and is found only
on the island of Hawaii (Hardy and
Kaneshiro 1968, pp. 180–1882; Carson
1986, p. 3–9). This species is small, with
adults ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.19
in (4.0 to 5.0 mm) in length. Adults are
brownish yellow in color and have
yellow-colored legs and hyaline (shinyclear) wings with prominent brown
spots. Breeding generally occurs year
round, but egg laying and larval
development increase following the
rainy season as the availability of
decaying matter, which picture-wing
flies feed on, increases in response to
heavy rains. In contrast to most
continental Drosophilidae, many
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
endemic Hawaiian species are highly
host-plant-specific (Magnacca et al.
2008, p. 1). Drosophila digressa relies
solely on the decaying stems of
Charpentiera spp. for oviposition (to
deposit or lay eggs) and larval substrate
(Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 11, 13). The
larvae complete development in the
decaying tissue before dropping to the
soil to pupate (Montgomery 1975, pp.
65–103; Spieth 1986, p. 105). Pupae
develop into adults in approximately 1
month, and adults sexually mature 1
month later. Adults live for 1 to 2
months. The adult flies are generalist
microbivores (microbe eating) and feed
upon a variety of decomposing plant
material. Drosophila digressa occurs in
elevations ranging from approximately
2,000 to 4,500 ft (610 to 1,370 m), in the
lowland mesic, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems (Magnacca
2011a, pers. comm.). Historically,
Drosophila digressa was known from
five sites: Moanuiahea pit crater on
Hualalai, Manuka FR, Kipuka 9 and
Bird Park in HVNP, and Olaa FR
(Montgomery 1975, p. 98; Magnacca
2006, pers. comm.; HBMP 2010d;
Magnacca 2011b, in litt.). Currently, D.
digressa is known from only two
locations, one population in the Manuka
NAR within the Manuka FR, in the
lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems, and a second population in
the Olaa FR in the montane wet
ecosystem (Magnacca 2011b, in litt.).
The current number of individuals at
each of these locations is unknown
(Magnacca 2011b, in litt.).
Vetericaris chaceorum (anchialine
pool shrimp) is a member of the family
Procarididae and is considered one of
the most primitive shrimp species in the
world (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp.
428–429). Known only from the island
of Hawaii, the species is one of seven
known species of hypogeal
(underground) shrimp found in the
Hawaiian Islands that occur in
anchialine pools (Brock 2004, p. 6).
Anchialine pool habitats can be
distinguished from similar systems (i.e.,
tidal pools) in that they are land-locked
with no surface connections to water
sources either saline or fresh, but have
subterranean hydrologic connections
where water flows through cracks and
crevices, and yet remain tidally
influenced (Holthuis 1973, p. 3; Stock
1986, p. 91). Anchialine habitats are
ecologically distinct and unique, and
while widely distributed throughout the
world, they only occur in the United
States in the Hawaiian Islands (Brock
2004, p. i, 2, and 12). In the Hawaiian
Islands, there are estimated to be 600 to
700 anchialine pools, with the majority
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
occurring on the island of Hawaii (Brock
2004, p. i).
Relatively large in size for a hypogeal
shrimp species, adult Vetericaris
chaceorum measure approximately 2.0
in (5.0 cm) in total body length,
excluding the primary antennae, which
are approximately the same length as
the adult’s body length (Kensley and
Williams 1986,
p. 419). The species lacks large
chelapeds (claws) (Kensley and
Williams 1986, p. 426), which are a key
diagnostic characteristic of all other
known shrimp species. Vetericaris
chaceorum is largely devoid of pigment
and lacks eyes, although eyestalks are
present (Kensley and Williams 1986, p.
419).
Observations of V. chaceorum
indicate the species is a strong swimmer
and propels its body forward in an
upright manner with its appendages
held in a basket formation below the
body. Forward movement is produced
by a rhythmic movement of the thoracic
and abdominal appendages, and during
capture of some specimens, V.
chaceorum escape tactics included only
forward movement and a notable lack of
tail flicking, which would allow
backward movement and which is
common to other shrimp species
(Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 426). No
response was observed when the species
was exposed to light (Kensley and
Williams 1986, p. 418).
The feeding habits of V. chaceorum
are unknown, although Kensley and
Williams (1986, p. 426) reported that the
gut contents of a captured specimen
included large quantities of an orangecolored oil and fragments of other
crustaceans (including Procaris
hawaiana, a co-occurring anchialine
pool shrimp), indicating that the species
may be carnivorous upon its associated
anchialine pool shrimp species. In
general, hypogeal shrimp occur within
both the illuminated part of their
anchialine pool habitat as well as within
the cracks and crevices in the water
table below the surface (Brock 2004,
p. 6), and relative abundance of some
Hawaii species is directly tied to food
abundance (Brock 2004, p. 10).
Furthermore, studies indicate that the
lighted environment of anchialine pools
offers refugia of high benthic
productivity, resulting in higher
population levels for the shrimp
compared to the surrounding interstitial
spaces occupied by these species, albeit
in lower numbers (Brock 2004, p. 10).
Although over 400 anchialine pool
habitats have been surveyed on the
island of Hawaii, Vetericaris chaceorum
has to date only been documented from
Lua O Palahemo, which is a submerged
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
lava tube located on the southernmost
point of Hawaii Island in an area known
as Ka Lae (South Point) (Kensley and
Williams 1986, pp. 417–418; Brock
2004, p. 2; HBMP 2010). Age estimates
for Lua O Palahemo range from as young
as 11,780 years to a maximum of age of
25,000 years based upon radio carbon
data (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp.
417–418). Brock (2004, p. 18) states this
lava tube is the second most important
anchialine pool habitat in the State
because of its unique connection to the
ocean, the vertical size (i.e., depth), and
the presence of a total of five different
species including Halocaridina
palahemo, Halocaridina rubra, Procaris
hawaiiana, Calliasmata pholidota, and
Vetericaris chaceorum.
Lua O Palahemo itself is actually a
naturally occurring opening (surface
collapse) into a large lava tube below.
The opening measures approximately 33
ft (10 m) in diameter and is directly
exposed to sunlight. Unlike most
anchialine pools in the Hawaiian
Islands, which have depths less than 4.9
ft (1.5 m) (Brock 2004, p. 3), Lua O
Palahemo’s deep pool includes a deep
shaft with vertical sides extending
downward about 46 ft (14 m) into the
lava tube below, which then splits off
into two directions, both ending in
blockages (Holthuis 1974, p.11; Kensley
and Williams 1986, p. 418). The tube
runs generally north and south,
extending northward for 282 ft (86 m)
and southward for 718 ft (219 m) to a
depth of 108 ft (33 m) below sea level
(Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418).
We have information pertaining to
three distinct survey efforts at Lua O
Palahemo. The first survey occurred in
1972–1973 (Holthius 1973, pp. 10–12;
22; Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1–2;
17; 50); a second survey in May 1985
(Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417–
426; Bozanic 2004, p. 1); and a third
survey in July 2010 (Wada 2012, pers.
comm.). Descriptions of each survey
follow and are considered relevant
because each survey sheds light on the
decline of habitat available to
Vetericaris chaceorum.
Lua O Palahemo was first formally
surveyed as anchialine pool habitat
sometime between 1972–1973 (Maciolek
and Brock 1974, pp. 1–2; 17). During
this survey, which did not include
SCUBA methods, the following physical
characteristics and measurements of the
pond were noted: salinity ranged
between 18 to 22 parts per thousand
(ppt); the pool depth was recorded as
deep; the pool bottom was described as
rocky with a large accumulation of
sediment; and surrounding flora was
noted as minimal, but included vines
and succulents, grasses, and small trees
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63939
or shrubs (Maciolek and Brock 1974, p.
50). According to Maciolek and Brock’s
(1974, pp. 17, 50) report, hypogeal
shrimp species found at Lua O
Palahemo at that time included Procaris
hawaiiana (then, only the second
known location), Calliasmata pholidota,
Antecaridina lauensis, and
Halocaridina rubra. Maciolek and Brock
(1974, pp. 50) reported that Lua O
Palahemo was inhabited by the greatest
concentration of H. rubra ever observed
up to that time period (1972–1973), and
indeed, Holthius (1973, p. 22) reported
that the density of H. rubra swimming
in a swarm near the pool surface was
sufficiently high enough to cause the
water to appear blood red in color.
Although neither scientific article
written about this survey explicitly
describes water clarity at Lua O
Palahemo, both imply that the water
was clear enough to see the various
shrimp species from distances of several
meters within the pool and the area
directly below the pool.
In May of 1985, a second, more
thorough survey of Lua O Palahemo was
conducted by local biologists, a worldrenowned cave diver, and hypogeal
shrimp specialists (Kensley and
Williams 1986, pp. 417–426; Bozanic
2004, p. 1–2). Because this survey
included SCUBA methods, the full
extent of the submerged system was
explored, and physical characteristics,
dimensions, and water measurements
were completed for the pool as well as
the water column directly below and the
main lava tube. Pool surface
measurements revealed a temperature of
75.2 degrees Fahrenheit (24 degrees
Centigrade), salinity of 20 ppt, and
dissolved oxygen of 6.0 parts per
million (ppm) (Kensley and Williams
1986, p. 418). At a depth of 108 ft (33
m) (or 590 ft (180 m) from the pool
surface) in the southward or seaward
portion of the submerged lava tube
where Vetericaris chaceorum was
discovered and observed, measurements
revealed a salinity of 30 ppt and
dissolved oxygen at 0.3 ppm (Kensley
and Williams 1986, p. 418).
The 1985 survey team completed a
total of three dives within the Lua o
Palahemo lava tube during their 1985
exploration of the site (Kensley and
Williams 1986, pp. 417, 426). During
those dives, researchers made five
observations of Vetericaris chaceorum
in total darkness at a depth of 108 ft (33
m) and 590 ft (180 m) from the opening,
collecting two specimens. Kensley and
Williams (1986, p. 418) noted, however,
that the area surveyed directly beneath
the surface of the pool contained the
highest density of animals (e.g., shrimps
and crustaceans). In addition to the
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63940
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
discovery of V. chaceorum, a second
new species was discovered,
Halocaridina palahemo, and two known
species were observed including
Procaris hawaiiana and Calliasmata
pholidota. Calliasmata pholidota was
collected within the water column
below the pool at a depth of 15 m (49
ft), and its population was estimated at
less than 100. Both P. hawaiiana,
numbering in the thousands and H.
palahemo, numbering in the tens of
thousands of individuals, were collected
in the water column near the opening
into the lava tube below the pool surface
(Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418).
During their 1985 survey, Kensley and
Williams (1986 entire) did not observe
nonnative fish species within Lua O
Palahemo.
Regarding water clarity and
observation of sedimentation within Lua
O Palahemo during the 1985 survey,
both Kensley and Williams (1986, pp.
417–418) and Bozanic (2004, p. 1),
noted that water clarity was good with
visibility as great as 66 ft (20 m) during
initial entry into the water column and
the lateral lava tube below. However,
during the exit phase of the dive,
visibility diminished to a few
centimeters as exhalation bubbles from
the divers’ expired air tanks disturbed
sediment accumulated upon the ceiling
of the lava tube and clouded the water.
At the bottom of the water column
below the pool and within both
stretches of the lava tube, all surfaces
were observed to be covered in
sediment, which sometimes reached a
depth of 3.3 ft (1 m). The survey team
described the large mound located at the
bottom of the water column below the
pool opening as comprised of rock and
silty sediment reaching at a total height
of approximately 50 ft (15 m) (Kensley
and Williams 1986, pp. 417–418;
Bozanic 2004, p. 1). Foreign objects
discovered and removed from the
mound included bicycles, barbed wire,
random trash, and assorted cables and
lines (presumably fishing line) (Bozanic
2004, p. 1).
In July 2010, a team comprised of
Service and Hawaii State Division of
Aquatic Resources (DAR) biologists
conducted a third survey of Lua O
Palahemo. The survey team used
snorkeling techniques and an
underwater video camera as well as
numerous trapping devices to take
measurements, survey for shrimp
species, and record data within the
underwater site (Wada 2010, in litt., pp.
1–2). As noted during a brief 2005 U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service visit to the
site, the team described the immediate
area surrounding the depression above
the pool opening as greatly eroded,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
creating a large soil funnel with the pool
opening in the center of the funnel
(Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1). The area was
also described as dry and largely barren
with a few clumps of nonnative grass
species scattered throughout. The water
immediately within the pool area was
described as extremely low in clarity
with visibility estimated at 3 in (8 cm)
(Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1).
Snorkeling within the pool revealed
that a partial collapse of the pool walls
may have occurred in the past few years
as the team experienced difficulty in
locating an opening large enough for a
person to explore. Wada (2010, in litt.
p. 1) hypothesized that the collapse of
the lava tube rock walls above the pool
followed an earthquake of 6.7
magnitude (USGS 2010, in litt.) in
October 2006 on Hawaii Island. Despite
the blockages encountered, an
underwater video camera was
successfully deployed through a small
opening and dropped to a depth of just
over 100 ft (30 m) (Wada 2010, in litt.,
p. 1). The video footage showed a
continuous thick cloud of sediment and
detritus through the entire depth of the
water column (Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1).
After viewing photographs taken in
2005 of the pool and surrounding area
at Lua O Palahemo, anchialine pool
expert, Richard Brock (Brock 2012, pers.
comm.), stated that a very obvious
increase of sedimentation was occurring
at the site and within the pool compared
to conditions at the pool during the
1985 survey and other visits in the
1980s.
Of the five species of hypogeal shrimp
known from Lua O Palahemo, only
Procaris hawaiiana was observed. One
specimen was captured within the pool
and the underwater video camera
captured footage of seven individuals,
which were tentatively identified as P.
hawaiiana, based upon their bright
orange coloration (Wada 2010, in litt., p.
1). The survey team used standard and
accepted methods while attempting to
capture and survey for shrimp species.
Specific trap types used included soft
traps (i.e., traps using netting), bottle
traps, cylindrical traps, and specially
designed traps devised by State DAR
staff. Within the water column below
the pool opening, trapping measures
were employed at depths of 10 ft (3.04
m), 15 ft (4.57 m), 25 ft (7.62 m), 50 ft
(15.24 m), and 100 ft (30.48 m) (Wada
2010, in litt., p. 1). According to the
same report, no nonnative fish were
observed. Hypogeal shrimp species
known from Lua O Palahemo and
notably absent during the survey
included Calliasmata pholidota,
Antecaridina lauensis, Halocaridina
rubra, and Vetericaris chaceorum.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Regarding the latter species, it is
important to note that the survey team
did not survey as deeply (108 ft (33 m)
below sea level or 590 ft (180 m)) from
the pool surface) as was done during
1985 survey, in which the species was
first and last observed. Accordingly, it is
uncertain whether surveys conducted
after the 1985 effort would have
detected V. chaceorum, given the
different methods that were used. For
the other species, based on what is
known about the species’ behavior, their
presence would have been expected at
the depths and locations where trapping
was conducted; however, these species
were notably absent during this survey.
In June 2012, Service biologists briefly
revisited Lua O Palahemo to assess
current conditions there (Richardson
2012, in litt., pp. 1–2). During this visit,
we took measurements of the depression
surrounding the opening to the pool.
Roughly oval in shape, the depression
measured approximately 195 ft (65 m)
wide by 210 ft (70 m) long. We noted
that there is no outlet for runoff from
rain out of the depression other than
into the anchialine pool itself. A total of
7 distinct off-road vehicle tracks into the
depression surrounding the pool were
counted and photographed. Snorkeling
within the pool revealed no hypogeal
shrimp species, although a common
marine species, Palaemonella burnsi,
was abundant and numbered
approximately 1,000 individuals. No
nonnative fish were observed; however,
we noted approximately 10 mature and
young native Hawaiian gobies. Gobies
(family Gobiidae) are distinguished by
their fused pelvic fins that form a discshaped sucker. Hawaii has several
indigenous goby species, including the
species observed at Lua O Palahemo,
Bathygobius coalitus (Smith 2012, in
litt.). Visibility in the water was
estimated at approximately 4 ft (1.2 m),
and no trash or debris was seen in the
pool other than a large amount of grass
seeds floating on the surface of the
water. We did not dive deep enough to
ascertain the condition of the pool
bottom, however all submerged rock
surfaces were covered in a 1-in (2.54cm) thick layer of algae and mud, and
the water smelled strongly of soil,
similar to a smell encountered in wet
caves (Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1–
2). Lastly, the sign previously posted
above the opening of the pool, and
which included a warning and fine
against disturbance of the site, was
gone.
Our best understanding of hypogeal
shrimp population dynamics in Hawaii
and elsewhere is based upon studies of
the comparatively common species,
Halocaridina rubra. Studies and
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
anecdotal observations of that species
and others indicate shrimp density may
be very low in the water table (i.e.,
greater than 1 individual per 3,500
cubic ft (approximately 100 cubic m)),
compared to the anchialine pool areas,
where abundance may reach many
hundreds per square meter of bottom
(Brock and Bailey-Brock 1998, p. 65;
Brock 2004, p. 10).
Because of the ability of hypogeal
shrimp species to inhabit the interstitial
and crevicular spaces in the water table
bedrock surrounding anchialine pools,
it is very difficult to estimate population
size of a given species within a given
area (Brock 2004, pp. 10–11). Therefore,
based upon these considerations and the
fact that a total of five individuals have
been observed on three occasions during
one survey in 1985, we are unable to
estimate the population size of
Vetericaris chaceorum. Furthermore,
the methods used and depths explored
between the three surveys (in 1973,
1985, and 2010) of Lua O Palahemo
were not sufficiently comparable for us
to determine that there has been a
decline in V. chaceorum abundance.
Brock (2004, p. 7) estimated that there
are likely no more than a couple of
dozen individuals of this species
remaining in this pool; however, he
provided no basis for this statement.
Therefore, it is our opinion that
Vetericaris chaceorum is extant, albeit
in low numbers, and that additional
surveys using SCUBA methods and
conducted at the same depths explored
in 1985 are warranted. Despite the lack
of information regarding V. chaceorum
biology and population demographics,
the Service believes information from
the three surveys presents compelling
evidence of habitat decline at Lua O
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Palahemo. The other four hypogeal
shrimp species formerly known from
the site are either entirely absent or
present in very low numbers, and at
least three of those species are
considered likely food sources for V.
chaceorum. It is our opinion that these
shrimp species have experienced drastic
population decline due to degradation
of the water quality at Lua O Palahemo.
This degradation is a result of excessive
siltation and sedimentation of the
anchialine pool system at Lua O
Palahemo, combined with the
diminished ability of the system to
flush, which Brock (2004, pp. 11, 35–36)
described as necessary for a functioning
anchialine pool system.
Summary of Factors Affecting the 15
Species Proposed for Listing
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR part 424) set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above
threat factors, singly or in combination.
Each of these factors is discussed below.
In considering what factors might
constitute threats to a species; we must
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63941
look beyond the exposure of the species
to a particular factor to evaluate whether
the species may respond to that factor
in a way that causes actual impacts to
the species. If there is exposure to a
factor and the species responds
negatively, the factor may be a threat
and, during the status review, we
attempt to determine how significant a
threat it is. The threat is significant if it
drives, or contributes to, the risk of
extinction of the species such that the
species warrants listing as endangered
or threatened as those terms are defined
in the Act. However, the identification
of factors that could impact a species
negatively may not be sufficient to
warrant listing the species under the
Act. The information must include
evidence sufficient to show that these
factors are operative threats that act on
the species to the point that the species
meets the definition of endangered or
threatened under the Act.
If we determine that the level of threat
posed to a species by one or more of the
five listing factors is such that the
species meets the definition of either
endangered or threatened under section
3 of the Act, that species may then be
proposed for listing. The Act defines an
endangered species as ‘‘in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range,’’ and a threatened
species as ‘‘likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.’’ The
threats to each of the individual 15
species proposed for listing in this
document are summarized in Table 3,
and discussed in detail below.
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.001</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63942
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63943
EP17OC12.002</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.003</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63944
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
Assumptions
We acknowledge that the specific
nature of the threats to the individual
species being proposed for listing are
not completely understood. Scientific
research directed toward each of the
species proposed for listing is limited
because of their rarity and the
challenging logistics associated with
conducting field work in Hawaii (e.g.,
areas are typically remote, difficult to
access and work in, and expensive to
survey in a comprehensive manner).
However, there is information available
on many of the threats that act on
Hawaiian ecosystems, and, for some
ecosystems, these threats are well
studied and understood. Each of the
native species that occur in Hawaiian
ecosystems suffers from exposure to
those threats to differing degrees. For
the purposes of our listing
determination, our assumption is that
the threats that act at the ecosystem
level also act on each of the species that
occur in those ecosystems, although in
some cases we have additionally
identified species-specific threats, such
as predation by nonnative invertebrates.
Similarly, for the purposes of our
critical habitat determinations, our
assumption is that the physical or
biological features that support an
adequately functioning ecosystem
represent the physical or biological
features required by the species that
occur in those ecosystems (see Critical
Habitat section, below). The species
discussed in this proposed rule are the
components of the native ecosystems
that have shown declines in number of
individuals, number of occurrences, or
changes in species abundance and
species composition that can be
reasonably attributed to the threats
discussed below.
The following constitutes a list of
ecosystem-scale threats that affect the
species proposed for listing in 10 of the
described ecosystems on Hawaii Island:
(1) Foraging and trampling of native
plants by feral pigs (Sus scrofa), goats
(Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep
(Ovis aries), or mouflon sheep (Ovis
gmelini musimon), which can result in
severe erosion of watersheds because
these mammals inhabit terrain that is
often steep and remote (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 63). Foraging and
trampling events destabilize soils that
support native plant communities, bury
or damage native plants, and have
adverse water quality effects due to
runoff over exposed soils.
(2) Ungulate destruction of seeds and
seedlings of native plant species via
foraging and trampling (Cuddihy and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Stone 1990, pp. 63, 65) facilitates the
conversion of disturbed areas from
native to nonnative vegetative
communities.
(3) Disturbance of soils by feral pigs
from rooting can create fertile seedbeds
for alien plants (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 65), some of them spread by
ingestion and excretion by pigs.
(4) Increased nutrient availability as a
result of pigs rooting in nitrogen-poor
soils, which facilitates establishment of
alien weeds. Introduced vertebrates are
known to enhance the germination of
alien plants through seed scarification
in digestive tracts or through rooting
and fertilization with feces of potential
seedbeds (Stone 1985, p, 253). In
addition, alien weeds are more adapted
to nutrient-rich soils than native plants
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65), and
rooting activity creates open areas in
forests allowing alien species to
completely replace native stands.
(5) Rodent damage to plant
propagules, seedlings, or native trees,
which changes forest composition and
structure (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
67).
(6) Feeding or defoliation of native
plants from alien insects, which can
reduce geographic ranges of some
species because of damage (Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 71).
(7) Alien insect predation on native
insects, which affects pollination of
native plant species (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 71).
(8) Significant changes in nutrient
cycling processes because of large
numbers of alien invertebrates such as
earthworms, ants, slugs, isopods,
millipedes, and snails, resulting in
changes to the composition and
structure of plant communities
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73).
Each of the above threats is discussed
in more detail below, and summarized
in Table 3. The most-often cited effects
of nonnative plants on native plant
species are competition and
displacement. Competition may be for
water, light, or nutrients, or it may
involve allelopathy (chemical inhibition
of other plants). Alien plants may
displace native species of plants by
preventing their reproduction, usually
by shading and taking up available sites
for seedling establishment. Alien plant
invasions may also alter entire
ecosystems by forming monotypic
stands, changing fire characteristics of
native communities, altering soil-water
regimes, changing nutrient cycling, or
encouraging other nonnative organisms
(Smith 1989, pp. 61–69; Vitousek et al.
1987, pp. 224–227).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63945
Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Hawaiian Islands are located over
2,000 mi (3,200 km) from the nearest
continent. This isolation has allowed
the few plants and animals that arrived
in the Hawaiian Islands to evolve into
many highly varied and endemic
species (species that occur nowhere else
in the world). The only native terrestrial
mammals in the Hawaiian Islands are
two bat taxa, the extant Hawaiian hoary
bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) and an
extinct, unnamed insectivorous bat
(Ziegler 2002, p. 245). The native plants
of the Hawaiian Islands, therefore,
evolved in the absence of mammalian
predators, browsers, or grazers. As a
result, many of the native species have
lost unneeded defenses against threats
such as mammalian predation and
competition with aggressive, weedy
plant species that are typical of
continental environments (Loope 1992,
p. 11; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45;
Wagner et al. 1999d, pp. 3–6). For
example, Carlquist (in Carlquist and
Cole 1974, p. 29) notes that ‘‘Hawaiian
plants are notably free from many
characteristics thought to be deterrents
to herbivores (toxins, oils, resins,
stinging hairs, coarse texture).’’
Native Hawaiian plants are therefore
highly vulnerable to the impacts of
introduced mammals and alien plants.
In addition, species restricted and
adapted to highly specialized locations
(e.g., Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana) are particularly
vulnerable to changes (e.g., nonnative
species, hurricanes, fire, and climate
change) in their habitat (Carlquist and
Cole 1974, pp. 28–29; Loope 1992, pp.
3–6; Stone 1992, pp. 88–102).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Agriculture and Urban Development
The consequences of past land use
practices, such as agricultural or urban
development, have resulted in little or
no native vegetation below 2,000 ft (600
m) throughout the Hawaiian Islands
(TNC 2007—Ecosystem Database of
ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished),
largely impacting the coastal, lowland
dry, lowland mesic, and lowland wet
ecosystems. Although agriculture has
been declining in importance, large
tracts of former agricultural lands are
being converted into residential areas or
left fallow (TNC 2007—Ecosystem
Database of ArcMap Shapefiles,
unpublished). In addition, Hawaii’s
population has increased almost 7
percent in the past 10 years, further
increasing demands on limited land and
water resources in the islands (Hawaii
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63946
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Department of Business, Economic
Development and Tourism (HDBEDT)
2010).
Development and urbanization of the
lowland dry ecosystem on Hawaii
Island is a threat to one species
proposed for listing in this rule, Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is
dependent on this ecosystem. Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is currently
found in an area less than 10 sq mi (26
sq km) on the leeward slopes of Hualalai
volcano in the lowland dry ecosystem.
The leeward slopes of Hualalai volcano
encompass the increasingly urbanized
region of north Kona, where there is
very little undisturbed habitat (Pratt and
Abbott 1997, p. 25). Approximately 25
percent (119 individuals of 475) of the
largest of the 6 occurrences of this
species is in the right-of-way of the
proposed Ane Keohokalole Highway
Project (USFWS 2010, in litt.) and
Kaloko Makai Development, although
154 ac (62 ha) will be set aside as a
lowland dry forest preserve (Kaloko
Makai Dryland Forest Preserve) (see
Kaloko Makai Development, below) to
compensate for the loss of these
individuals as a result of highway
construction and prior to the Kaloko
Makai Development. In addition,
individuals of Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla occur in areas where the
development of the Villages of Laiopua
Development at Kealakehe (see
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands
(DHHL), below) and of the Keahuolu
affordable housing project (Whistler
2007, pp. 1–18; DHHL 2009, p. 15) is a
threat to the species.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Introduced Ungulates
Introduced mammals have greatly
impacted the native vegetation, as well
as the native fauna, of the Hawaiian
Islands. Impacts to the native species
and ecosystems of Hawaii accelerated
following the arrival of Captain James
Cook in 1778. The Cook expedition and
subsequent explorers intentionally
introduced a European race of pigs or
boars and other livestock, such as goats,
to serve as food sources for seagoing
explorers (Tomich 1986, p. 120–121;
Loope 1998, p. 752). The mild climate
of the islands, combined with the lack
of competitors or predators, led to the
successful establishment of large
populations of these introduced
mammals, to the detriment of native
Hawaiian species and ecosystems. The
presence of introduced alien mammals
is considered one of the primary factors
underlying the alteration and
degradation of native plant communities
and habitats on the island of Hawaii.
The destruction or degradation of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
habitat due to nonnative ungulates
(hoofed mammals), including pigs,
goats, cattle, sheep, and mouflon, is
currently a threat to the ten ecosystems
(lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane dry, montane mesic,
montane wet, coastal, anchialine pool,
dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island
and their associated species. Habitat
degradation or destruction by ungulates
is also a threat to all 13 plant species
(Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii, C.
tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
C. wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma
remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei, S. hawaiiensis, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae), the picturewing fly Drosophila digressa, and the
anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris
chaceorum, which are proposed for
listing in this rule (Table 3).
The destruction or degradation of
habitat due to pigs is currently a threat
to nine of the Hawaii Island ecosystems
(coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet
cliff) and their associated species. Feral
pigs are known to cause deleterious
impacts to ecosystem processes and
functions throughout their worldwide
distribution (Campbell and Long 2009,
p. 2319). In Hawaii, pigs have been
described as the most pervasive and
disruptive nonnative influence on the
unique native forests of the Hawaiian
Islands, and are widely recognized as
one of the greatest current threats to
forest ecosystems (Aplet et al. 1991, p.
56; Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195).
European pigs, introduced to Hawaii by
Captain James Cook in 1778, hybridized
with domesticated Polynesian pigs,
became feral, and invaded forested
areas, especially wet and mesic forests
and dry areas at high elevations. The
Hawaii Territorial Board of Agriculture
and Forestry started a feral pig
eradication project in the early 1900s
that continued through 1958, removing
170,000 pigs from forests Statewide
(Diong 1982, p. 63). Feral pigs are
currently present on Niihau, Kauai,
Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii.
These feral animals are extremely
destructive and have both direct and
indirect impacts on native plant
communities. While rooting in the earth
in search of invertebrates and plant
material, pigs directly impact native
plants by disturbing and destroying
vegetative cover, and trampling plants
and seedlings. It has been estimated that
at a conservative rooting rate of 2 sq
yards (yd) (1.7 sq m) per minute, with
only 4 hours of foraging a day, a single
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pig could disturb over 1,600 sq yd
(1,340 sq m) (or approximately 0.3 ac, or
0.12 ha) of groundcover per week
(Anderson et al. 2007, p. 2).
Pigs may also reduce or eliminate
plant regeneration by damaging or
eating seeds and seedlings (further
discussion of predation by nonnative
ungulates is provided under Factor C.
Disease or Predation, below). Pigs are a
major vector for the establishment and
spread of competing invasive, nonnative
plant species by dispersing plant seeds
on their hooves and fur, and in their
feces (Diong 1982, pp. 169–170), which
also serves to fertilize disturbed soil
(Matson 1990, p. 245; Siemann et al.
2009, p. 547). Pigs feed on the fruits of
many nonnative plants, such as
Passiflora tarminiana (banana poka) and
Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava),
spreading the seeds of these invasive
species through their feces as they travel
in search of food. Pigs also feed on
native plants, such as Hawaiian tree
ferns that they root up to eat the core of
the trunk (Baker 1975, p. 79). In
addition, rooting pigs contribute to
erosion by clearing vegetation and
creating large areas of disturbed soil,
especially on slopes (Smith 1985, pp.
190, 192, 196, 200, 204, 230–231; Stone
1985, pp. 254–255, 262–264; Medeiros
et al. 1986, pp. 27–28; Scott et al. 1986,
pp. 360–361; Tomich 1986, pp. 120–
126; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 64–
65; Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56; Loope et al.
1991, pp. 1–21; Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, p. 52; Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009,
pp. 3,677–3,682; Dunkell et al. 2011, pp.
175–177). Erosion impacts native plant
communities by watershed degradation
and alteration of plant nutrient status, as
well as damage to individual plants
from landslides (Vitousek et al. 2009,
pp. 3074–3086; Chan-Halbrendt et al.
2010, p. 252).
Pigs have been cited as one of the
greatest threats to the public and private
lands within the Olaa Kilauea
Partnership (an area of land that
includes approximately 32,000 ac
(12,950 ha) in the upper sections of the
Olaa and Waiakea forests above Volcano
village) that comprise the lowland
mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic,
and montane wet ecosystems that
support individuals of three of the plant
species proposed for listing (Cyanea
tritomantha, Phyllostegia floribunda,
and Pittosporum hawaiiense) (Olaa
Kilauea Partnership Area Feral Animal
Monitoring Report 2005, pp. 1–4;
Perlman 2007, in litt.; Pratt 2007a, in
litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; Benitez et al.
2008, p. 58; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010h;
PEPP 2010, p. 60, TNC 2012, in litt.).
Impacts from feral pigs are also a threat
to the coastal, lowland mesic, lowland
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet
cliff ecosystems in the northern Kohala
Mountains and adjacent coastline.
These ecosystems support occurrences
of seven of the plant species proposed
for listing (Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea tritomantha,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae) (Wood 1995, in litt.; Wood
1998, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.;
Wagner et al. 2005d, pp. 31–33; Kohala
Mountain Watershed Partnership
(KMWP) 2007, pp. 54–56; Lorence and
Perlman 2007, pp. 357–361; HBMP
2010a; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f;
HBMP 2010i; HBMP 2010j; HBMP
2010k; PEPP 2010, pp. 63, 101, 106; Bio
2011, pers. comm.). In addition, feral
pigs are a threat to the lowland wet and
montane wet ecosystems in south Kona
and the Puna district that support the
plants Cyanea marksii and Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis (Bio 2011, pers. comm.;
Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.; Maui
Forest Bird Recovery Project 2011, in
litt.). Feral pigs have also been reported
in the lowland dry ecosystem that
supports the plants Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.)
and the montane dry ecosystem that
supports habitat for the only known
occurrence of the plant Schiedea
hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al. 2005c; U.S.
Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34, 95–97,
100–107, 112.). Although we do not
have direct evidence of feral pigs
threatening the particular species on
Hawaii Island that are proposed for
listing in this proposed rule, those
threats have been documented on other
islands where pigs have been
introduced (Mitchell et al. 2005c; U.S.
Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34, 95–97,
100–107, 112). We believe it is
reasonable to infer that feral pig threats
to these species that have been observed
on other Hawaiian islands would act in
a similar manner on Hawaii Island,
where those species interact.
Many of the most important host
plants of Hawaiian picture-wing flies
(Charpentiera, Pleomele, Reynoldsia,
Tetraplasandra, Urera, and the
lobelioids (e.g., Cyanea spp.)) are also
among the most susceptible to damage
from feral ungulates, such as pigs (Foote
and Carson 1995, p. 370; Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 8, 39; Magnacca et
al. 2008, p. 32). Feral pig browsing alters
the essential microclimate in picturewing fly habitat by opening up the
canopy, leading to increased desiccation
of soil and host plants, which disrupts
the host plant life cycle and decay
processes, resulting in disruption of the
picture-wing fly life cycle, particularly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
oviposition and larvae substrate
(Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 1, 32). Foote
and Carson (1995, p. 369) have
experimentally demonstrated the above
detrimental effects of feral pigs on
Drosophila spp. in wet forest habitat on
the island of Hawaii. In addition,
Montgomery (2005, in litt.; 2007, in litt.)
and Foote (2005, pers. comm.) have
observed feral pig damage to host plants
(e.g., Charpentiera sp., Cheirodendron
sp., Pleomele sp., Tetraplasandra sp.,
Urera kaalae) of Hawaiian picture-wing
flies on the island of Hawaii (Foote
2005, pers. comm.) and throughout the
main Hawaiian Islands (Montgomery
2005, in litt.; 2007, in litt.). Magnacca
(2012, pers. comm.) has observed the
lack of regeneration of picture-wing fly
host plants due to destruction of
seedlings caused by pig rooting and
herbivory.
The destruction or degradation of
habitat due to goats is currently a threat
to all 10 of the described ecosystems on
Hawaii Island (anchialine pool, coastal,
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane dry, montane mesic,
montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff)
and their associated species. Goats,
native to the Middle East and India,
were also successfully introduced to the
Hawaiian Islands in the late 1700s.
Actions to control feral goat populations
began in the 1920s (Tomich 1986, pp.
152–153); however, goats still occupy a
wide variety of habitats on Hawaii
Island, where they consume native
vegetation, trample roots and seedlings,
accelerate erosion, and promote the
invasion of alien plants (van Riper and
van Riper 1982, pp. 34–35; Stone 1985,
p. 261; Kessler 2011, pers. comm.).
Goats are able to access, and forage in,
extremely rugged terrain, and they have
a high reproductive capacity (Clarke and
Cuddihy 1980, pp. C–19, C–20; Culliney
1988, p. 336; Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 64). Because of these factors, goats are
believed to have completely eliminated
some plant species from islands
(Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 21).
Goats can be highly destructive to
native vegetation, and contribute to
erosion by eating young trees and young
shoots of plants before they can become
established, creating trails that damage
native vegetative cover, promoting
erosion by destabilizing substrate and
creating gullies that convey water, and
dislodging stones from ledges that can
cause rockfalls and landslides and
damage vegetation below (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, pp. 63–64). A recent study
by Chynoweth et al. (2011, in litt.),
which deployed GPS (global positioning
system) satellite collars on 12 feral goats
to track movement patterns every 2
hours for 1 year in Pohakuloa Training
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63947
Area, found that goats prefer nativedominated shrublands in the montane
dry ecosystem during the day and
barren lava at night. Pohakuloa Training
Area supports one of the few montane
dry forest ecosystems on Hawaii Island
that supports native plants in the
montane dry ecosystem, including the
only occurrence of the plant Schiedea
hawaiiensis (U.S. Army Garrison 2006,
pp. 27, 34; Evans 2011, in litt.). In
addition, one of the two occurrences of
the proposed plant species Pritchardia
lanigera is known from an unfenced
area of the Kohala Mountains, where
herds of wild goats and other ungulates
occur (Maly and Maly 2004 in KMWP
2007, p. 55; KMWP 2007, pp. 54–55;
Warshauer et al. 2009, pp. 10, 24; Laws
et al. 2010, in litt.; Ikagawa 2011, in
litt.). Maly and Maly (2004 in KMWP
2007, p. 55) report that ‘‘herds of wild
goats roam throughout this region,
trampling, grubbing, and rending,
grinding the bark of old trees and eat the
young ones * * * which will destroy
the beauty and alter the climate of the
mountainous region of Hawaii.’’ There
are direct observations that goats are
also altering the coastal ecosystem along
the Kohala Mountains, the location of
the only known wild individuals of the
plant Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana (Warshauer et al. 2009,
p. 24; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Goats are
also found in North Kona and have been
observed browsing in the lowland dry
ecosystem that supports the plant B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011,
pers. comm.; Knoche 2011, in litt.).
Fresh seedlings from native plants
attract goats to the dry and rough lava
(Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Further, the
host plant (Charpentiera spp.) of the
proposed picture-wing fly appears to be
decreasing throughout its range due to
impacts from browsing goats (Foote and
Carson 1995, p. 369; Science Panel
2005, pp. 1–23; Magnacca et al. 2008, p.
32). Feral goat browsing alters the
picture-wing fly’s essential
microclimate by opening up the canopy
leading to increased desiccation of soil
and host plants, which disrupts the host
plant life cycle and decay processes,
resulting in the disruption of the
picture-wing fly life cycle, particularly
oviposition and larvae substrate
(Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 1, 32). Based
on observations of goats and their scat
(Magnacca 2012, pers. comm.) within
the Ka Lae region where the Lua O
Palahemo anchialine pool is located, the
Service believes that goats contribute to
the degradation of the anchialine pool
habitat and, thus, are a threat to
Vetericaris chaceorum. Feral goats
trample and forage on both native and
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63948
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
nonnative plants around and near the
pool opening at Lua O Palahemo, and
increase erosion around the pool and
sediment entering the pool.
The destruction or degradation of
habitat due to cattle is currently a threat
to five of the described ecosystems
(anchialine pool, lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane mesic, and
montane wet) on Hawaii Island and
their associated species. Cattle, the wild
progenitors of which were native to
Europe, northern Africa, and
southwestern Asia, were introduced to
the Hawaiian Islands in 1793. Large
feral herds (as many as 12,000 on the
island of Hawaii) developed as a result
of restrictions on killing cattle decreed
by King Kamehameha I (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 40). While small cattle
ranches were developed on Kauai,
Oahu, Molokai, west Maui, and
Kahoolawe, very large ranches of tens of
thousands of acres (thousands of
hectares) were created on east Maui and
Hawaii Island (Stone 1985, pp. 256, 260;
Broadbent 2010, in litt.). Logging of
native Acacia koa was combined with
establishment of cattle ranches, quickly
converting native forest to grassland
(Tomich 1986, p. 140; Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 47). Feral cattle can
presently be found on the islands of
Maui and Hawaii, where ranching is
still a major commercial activity.
Feral cattle eat native vegetation,
trample roots and seedlings, cause
erosion, create disturbed areas into
which alien plants invade, and spread
seeds of alien plants in their feces and
on their bodies. The forest in areas
grazed by cattle degrades to grassland
pasture, and plant cover is reduced for
many years following removal of cattle
from an area. In addition, several alien
grasses and legumes purposely
introduced for cattle forage have become
noxious weeds (Tomich 1986, pp. 140–
150; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 29).
The wet forests of the Kohala
Mountains are reported to have a feral
cattle population of at least 100
individuals that are causing forest
degradation by trampling and browsing,
which leads to subsequent increased
nitrogen availability through deposition
of feces (Stone 1985, p. 253), all of
which contribute to the influx of
nonnative plant and animal species
(KMWP 2007, pp. 54–55; Laws 2010, in
litt.). Feral cattle are reported from
remote regions on Hawaii Island,
including the back of both Pololu and
Waipio Valleys (KMWP 2007, p. 55).
Feral cattle are a threat to the lowland
wet and montane wet ecosystems in the
Kohala Mountains where individuals of
Cyanea tritomantha and Pritchardia
lanigera, and the last wild individual of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, are
reported (PEPP 2010, pp. 59–60; Bio
2011, pers. comm.). According to a 2010
Service report (USFWS 2010, pp. 3–15,
4–86), a herd of 200 to 300 feral cattle
roams the Kona unit of the Hakalau
Forest NWR (USFWS 2010, p. 3–15, 4–
86). Field biologists have observed
cattle-induced habitat degradation at all
elevations in this refuge unit, including
within the montane wet ecosystem that
supports individuals of Cyanea marksii
(PEPP 2007, p. 61; USFWS 2010, pp. 1–
15, 2–13, 4–10, 4–58–4–59, 4–82, 4–86;
Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Krauss 2012,
pers. comm.). In addition, the host plant
(Charpentiera spp.) of the proposed
picture-wing fly species (Drosophila
digressa) appears to be decreasing
throughout its range due to impacts
from cattle browsing in the lowland
mesic and montane mesic ecosystems
(Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–23;
Magnacca 2011b, in litt.). Feral cattle
browsing alters the picture-wing fly’s
essential microclimate by opening up
the canopy, leading to increased
desiccation of soil and host plants,
which disrupts the host plant life cycle
and decay processes, resulting in the
disruption of the picture-wing fly life
cycle, particularly oviposition and
larvae substrate (Magnacca et al. 2008,
pp. 1, 32). According to Palikapu
Dedman with the Pele Defense Fund,
observations of feral cattle in the Ka Lae
region where the Lua O Palahemo
anchialine pool is located contribute to
the degradation of the anchialine pool
habitat. We therefore conclude that feral
cattle are a threat to Vetericaris
chaceorum (Richardson 2012, in litt.,
pp. 1–2). Feral cattle trample and forage
on both native and nonnative plants
around and near the pool opening at
Lua O Palahemo, and increase erosion
around the pool and sediment entering
the pool.
The destruction or degradation of
habitat due to feral sheep is currently a
threat to the montane dry ecosystem on
Hawaii Island and its associated species.
Sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island
in 1791, when Captain Vancouver
brought five rams and two ewes from
California (Tomich 1986, pp. 156–163).
Soon after, stock was brought from
Australia, Germany, and the
Mediterranean for sheep production
(Tomich 1986, pp. 156–163; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 65–66). Feral sheep
became established on leeward Mauna
Kea by 1876 (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 65–66), and by the early 1930s,
reached close to 40,000 individuals
(Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, p. 627).
Acquiring the majority of their water
needs by consuming vegetation, sheep
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inhabited dry forests in remote regions
of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa,
including the saddle between the two
volcanoes. Feral sheep browse and
trample native vegetation and have
decimated large areas of native forest
and shrubland on Hawaii Island
(Tomich 1986, pp. 156–163; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 65–66). Browsing
erodes top soil, which alters moisture
regimes and micro-environments and
results in the loss of native plant and
animal taxa (Tomich 1986, pp. 156–163;
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65–66). In
addition, nonnative opportunistic plant
seeds get dispersed to disturbed forest
sites by adhering to sheep wool coats
(Hawaii Division of Forestry and
Wildlife (HDOFAW) 2002, p. 3).
In 1962, game hunters intentionally
crossbred feral sheep with mouflon
sheep and released them on Mauna Kea
(Tomich 1986, pp. 156–163). In Palila v.
Hawaii Department of Land and Natural
Resources (471 F. Supp. 985 (Haw.
1979)), the Federal court ordered
complete removal of feral sheep from
Mauna Kea in 1979, because they were
harming the endangered palila
(Loxioides bailleui) by degrading and
destroying palila habitat in the montane
dry ecosystem. Throughout the past 30
years, attempts to protect the vegetation
of Mauna Kea and the saddle from
sheep have only been sporadically
effective (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, p.
628). Currently, a large feral population
surrounds Mauna Kea and extends into
the saddle and northern part of Mauna
Loa, including the State forest reserves
where they trample and browse
endangered plants (Hess 2008, p. 1). At
the U.S. Army’s Pohakuloa Training
Area, located in the saddle area of the
island, biologists have reported that
feral sheep are a threat to the last
occurrence of the plant species
Schiedea hawaiiensis, which occurs in
the montane dry ecosystem (Mitchell et
al. 2005a; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp.
27, 34).
Five of the described ecosystems
(lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, and montane wet)
on Hawaii Island, and their associated
species are currently threatened by the
destruction or degradation of habitat
due to mouflon sheep. The mouflon
sheep (mouflon), native to Asia Minor,
was introduced to the islands of Lanai
and Hawaii in the 1950s, as a managed
game species, and has become widely
established on these islands (Tomich
1986, pp. 163–168; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 66; Hess 2008, p. 1). In 1968,
mouflon were introduced to Kahuku
Ranch (now a unit of HVNP) on Mauna
Loa for trophy hunting. By 2008,
mouflon ranged over the southern part
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of Mauna Loa in the Kahuku area on
adjacent public and private lands (Hess
2008, p. 1). According to Ikagawa (2011,
in litt.), mouflon are found on the slopes
of both Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea.
Ikagawa (2011, in litt.) also notes that
mouflon and mouflon-sheep hybrids are
found from sea level to over 3,280 ft
(1,000 m) elevation. Mouflon have high
reproduction rates; for example, the
original population of 11 individuals on
the island of Hawaii has increased to
more than 2,500 in 36 years, even
though mouflon are hunted as a game
animal (Hess 2008, p. 3). Mouflon only
gather in herds when breeding, thus
limiting control techniques and hunting
efficiency (Hess 2008, p. 3; Ikagawa
2011, in litt.). Mouflon are both grazers
and browsers, and have decimated vast
areas of native forest and shrubland
through browsing and bark stripping
(Stone 1985, p. 271; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, pp. 63, 66; Hess 2008, p. 3).
Mouflon also create trails and pathways
through thick vegetation, leading to
increased runoff and erosion through
soil compaction. In some areas, the
interaction of browsing and soil
compaction has led to a change from
native rainforest to grassy scrublands
(Hess 2008, p. 3). Field biologists have
observed habitat degradation in five of
the described ecosystems (lowland
mesic, lowland wet, montane dry,
montane mesic, and montane wet) that
support four plants proposed for listing
(Cyanea marksii, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Pritchardia lanigera, and
Schiedea hawaiiensis) (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.; Ikagawa 2011, in litt.; Pratt
2011d, in litt.), and the picture-wing fly
(Drosophila digressa) (Magnacca 2011b,
pers. comm.). Many of the current and
proposed fenced exclosures on Hawaii
Island are only 4 ft (1.3 m) in height, as
they are designed to exclude feral pigs,
goats, and sheep. However, a fence
height of at least 6 ft (2 m) is required
to exclude mouflon sheep, as they can
easily jump a 4-ft (1.3-m) fence (Ikagawa
2011, in litt.). The increased range of
mouflon, as well as the lack of
adequately protected habitat, increase
the threat of mouflon sheep to
additional ecosystems on Hawaii Island.
Axis deer (Axis axis) were first
introduced to Molokai in 1868, Lanai in
1920, and Maui in 1959 (Hobdy 1993, p.
207; Erdman 1996, pers. comm. cited in
Waring 1996, in litt., p. 2; Hess 2008, p.
2). Recently (2010–2011), unauthorized
introduction of axis deer to the island of
Hawaii as a game animal has occurred
(Kessler 2011, in litt.; Aila 2012a, in
litt.). They have been observed in the
regions of Kohala, Kau, Kona, and
Mauna Kea (HDLNR 2011, in litt.). The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
HDLNR–HDOFAW has developed a
response-and-removal plan, including a
partnership now underway between
HDLNR, Hawaii Department of
Agriculture (HDOA), the Big Island
Invasive Species Committee (BIISC),
Federal natural resource management
agencies, ranchers, farmers, private
landowners, and concerned citizens (Big
Island-Big Island.com, June 6, 2011).
The partnership is working with animal
trackers and game cameras to survey
locations where axis deer have been
observed in an effort to eradicate them
on the island (Big Island-Big Island.com,
June 6, 2011; Osher 2012, in litt.). There
is a high level of concern by the
partnership due to the negative impacts
of axis deer on agriculture and native
ecosystems on neighboring islands (e.g.,
Maui) (Aila 2011, in litt.; Schipper 2011,
in litt.; Aila 2012b, in litt.). In response
to the presence of axis deer on Hawaii
Island, the Hawaii Invasive Species
Council drafted House Bill 2593 (Draft
2), to amend House Revised Statutes
(Haw. Rev. Stat.) 91, which allowed
agencies to adopt emergency rules in
instances of imminent peril to the
public health, safety, or morals, or to
livestock and poultry health (Aila
2012a, in litt.). House Bill 2593 (Draft 2)
addresses the gap in the current
emergency rules authority, expanding
the ability of State agencies to adopt
emergency rules to address situations
that impose imminent threats to natural
resources (Aila 2012a, in litt.; Martin
2012, in litt.) (see Factor D. The
Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms, below). Emergency rules
are valid for 120 days after they are
registered and approved, and after 6
months a permanent rule can be enacted
(Cravalho 2012, pers. comm). On June
21, 2012, House Bill 2593 was enacted
into law as Act 149 (‘‘Relating to
Emergency Rules for Threats to Natural
Resources or the Health of the
Environment’’).
Axis deer are primarily grazers, but
also browse numerous palatable plant
species, including those grown as
commercial crops (Waring 1996, in litt.,
p. 3; Simpson 2001, in litt.). They prefer
the lower, more openly vegetated areas
for browsing and grazing; however,
during episodes of drought (e.g., from
1998–2001 on Maui (Medeiros 2010,
pers. comm.)), axis deer move into
urban and forested areas in search of
food (Waring 1996, in litt., p. 5;
Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.). Like goats,
axis deer can be highly destructive to
native vegetation and contribute to
erosion by eating young trees and young
shoots of plants before they can become
established, creating trails that can
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63949
damage native vegetative cover,
promoting erosion by destabilizing
substrate and creating gullies that
convey water, and by dislodging stones
from ledges that can cause rockfalls and
landslides and damage vegetation below
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63–64).
The unauthorized introduction of axis
deer on Hawaii Island is a concern due
to the devastating impacts of habitat
destruction by axis deer in nine
ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry
cliff, and wet cliff) on the islands of
Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Maui (Mehrhoff
1993, p. 11; Anderson 2002, poster;
Swedberg and Walker 1978, cited in
Anderson 2003, pp. 124–125 Perlman
2009, in litt., pp. 4–5; Hess 2008, p. 3;
Hess 2010, pers. comm.; Kessler 2010,
pers. comm.; Medeiros 2010, pers.
comm.). As reported on the islands of
Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Maui, the spread
of axis deer into nine of the described
ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry
cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island is
expected to lead to similar habitat
degradation and destruction if the deer
are not controlled. The results from the
studies above, in addition to the
confirmed sightings of axis deer on
Hawaii Island, suggest that axis deer can
significantly alter these ecosystems and
directly damage or destroy native
plants. Although habitat degradation
due to axis deer has not yet been
observed on Hawaii Island, we believe
it is reasonable to assume similar habitat
effects on this island. Based on the
prevailing evidence of the documented
impacts to native ecosystems and
individual plants on the other islands,
we determine that the expanding
population of axis deer on the Island of
Hawaii, while not currently resulting in
population-level effects to native plants,
is expected to do so in the future if the
deer are not managed or controlled. As
a result, we currently do not believe that
the existing population of axis deer on
Hawaii Island is a threat; however, we
expect that as the population of axis
deer expands, axis deer will become a
significant threat to the native plants
and ecosystems on Hawaii Island in the
future.
In summary, all of the 15 species
proposed for listing and that are
dependent upon the 10 ecosystems
(anchialine pool, coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry
cliff, and wet cliff) identified in this
proposed rule are exposed to the
ongoing threat of feral ungulates (pigs,
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63950
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
goats, cattle, sheep, and mouflon sheep).
Additionally, if not adequately managed
or controlled, impacts from axis deer
may also become a significant threat to
these ecosystems in the future. These
negative impacts result in the
destruction and degradation of habitat
for the native species on Hawaii Island.
The effects of these nonnative animals
include the destruction of vegetative
cover; trampling of plants and seedlings;
direct consumption of native vegetation;
soil disturbance and sedimentation;
dispersal of alien plant seeds on hooves
and coats, and through the spread of
seeds in feces; alteration of soil nitrogen
availability; and creation of open,
disturbed areas conducive to further
invasion by nonnative pest plant
species. All of these impacts lead to the
subsequent conversion of a plant
community dominated by native species
to one dominated by nonnative species
(see Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Nonnative Plants
below). In addition, because these
mammals inhabit terrain that is often
steep and remote (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 59), foraging and trampling
contributes to severe erosion of
watersheds and degradation of streams
(Dunkell et al. 2011, pp. 175–194). As
early as 1900, there was increasing
concern expressed about the integrity of
island watersheds, due to effects of
ungulates and other factors, leading to
the establishment of a professional
forestry program emphasizing soil and
water conservation (Nelson 1989, p. 3).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Nonnative Plants
Native vegetation on all of the main
Hawaiian Islands has undergone
extreme alteration because of past and
present land management practices,
including ranching, the deliberate
introduction of nonnative plants and
animals, and agricultural development
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 27, 58).
The original native flora of Hawaii
(species that were present before
humans arrived) consisted of about
1,000 taxa, 89 percent of which were
endemic (species that occur only in the
Hawaiian Islands). Over 800 plant taxa
have been introduced from elsewhere,
and nearly 100 of these have become
pests (e.g., injurious plants) in Hawaii
(Smith 1985, p. 180; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 73; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999,
p. 45). Of these 100 nonnative pest plant
species, over 35 species have altered the
habitat of 14 of the 15 species proposed
for listing (only the proposed anchialine
pool shrimp is not directly impacted by
nonnative plants (see Table 3)). Some of
the nonnative plants were brought to
Hawaii by various groups of people,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
including the Polynesians, for food or
cultural reasons. Plantation owners (and
the territorial government of Hawaii),
alarmed at the reduction of water
resources for their crops caused by the
destruction of native forest cover by
grazing feral and domestic animals,
introduced nonnative trees for
reforestation. Ranchers intentionally
introduced pasture grasses and other
nonnative plants for agriculture, and
sometimes inadvertently introduced
weeds as well. Other plants were
brought to Hawaii for their potential
horticultural value (Scott et al. 1986, pp.
361–363; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
73).
Nonnative plants impact native
habitat in Hawaii, including 9 of the
described Hawaii Island ecosystems that
support 14 of the 15 proposed species
(all except the anchialine pool shrimp),
and directly adversely impact the 13
proposed plant species, by: (1)
Modifying the availability of light
through alterations of the canopy
structure; (2) altering soil-water regimes;
(3) modifying nutrient cycling; (4)
altering the fire regime affecting native
plant communities (e.g., successive fires
that burn farther and farther into native
habitat, destroying native plants and
removing habitat for native species by
altering microclimatic conditions to
favor alien species); and (5) ultimately
converting native-dominated plant
communities to nonnative plant
communities (Smith 1985, pp. 180–181;
Cuddihy and Stone, 1990, p. 74;
D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73;
Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6). Below, we
have organized a list of nonnative plants
by their ecosystems, followed by a
discussion of the specific negative
effects of those nonnative plants on the
species proposed for listing here.
Nonnative Plants in the Coastal
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, the only plant species
proposed for listing in this rule that
inhabits the coastal ecosystem on
Hawaii Island, include the understory
and subcanopy species Pluchea
carolinensis (sourbush), P. indica
(Indian fleabane), Lantana camara
(lantana), and Melastoma spp. (Perlman
and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). Nonnative canopy species that
threaten B. hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana include Casuarina
equisetifolia (ironwood) (Perlman and
Wood 2006, in litt.). In addition, B.
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana is
threatened by the nonnative grass
Pennisetum setaceum (fountain grass)
(Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2011, pers. comm.). These nonnative
plant species pose serious and ongoing
threats to the species B. hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana, which depends on
this ecosystem (see Specific Nonnative
Plant Species Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Dry
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, the
only plant species proposed for listing
in this rule that inhabits the lowland
dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island include
the understory and subcanopy species
Lantana camara, Leucana leucocephala
(koa haole), Pluchea carolinensis, and P.
indica (HBMP 2010b). Nonnative
canopy species that are a threat to B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla include
Grevillea spp., Prosopis pallida (kiawe),
and Schinus terebinthifolius
(christmasberry) (HBMP 2010b). In
addition, B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
is threatened by the nonnative grasses
Melinis repens (natal redtop) and
Pennisetum setaceum (HBMP 2010b).
See Specific Nonnative Plant Species
Impacts below for specific threats each
of these nonnative plant species pose to
the species Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, which depends on this
ecosystem.
Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Mesic
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
two plant species (Pittosporum
hawaiiense and Pritchardia lanigera)
and the picture-wing fly proposed for
listing in this rule that inhabit the
lowland mesic ecosystem on Hawaii
Island include the understory and
subcanopy species Delairea odorata
(cape ivy), Hedychium gardnerianum
(kahili ginger), Lantana camara, and
Rubus rosifolius (thimbleberry)
(HDOFAW 1992, p. 11–22; Benitez et al.
2008, pp. 24–52; Pacific Islands
Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) 2012a).
Nonnative canopy species that are a
threat to the three species include
Omalanthus populifolius (Queensland
poplar), Psidium cattleianum, and
Schinus terebinthifolius (Benitez et al.
2008, pp. 24–58). Additional species
that are a threat to the three species are
the nonnative grasses Ehrharta stipoides
(meadow rice grass) and Paspalum
conjugatum (Hilo grass) (Denslow et al.
2006, p. 118). These nonnative plant
species pose serious and ongoing threats
to the three species that depend on this
ecosystem (see Specific Nonnative
Species Impacts below).
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Wet
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that are a
threat to the 7 of the 13 plant species
(Cyanea marksii, Cyaneatritomantha,
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra
wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda,
Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia
lanigera) proposed for listing in this rule
that inhabit the lowland wet ecosystem
on Hawaii Island include the understory
and subcanopy species Clidemia hirta
(Koster’s curse), Erigeron karvinskianus
(daisy fleabane), Hedychium
gardnerianum, Juncus effusus (Japanese
mat rush), J. ensifolius (dagger-leaved
rush), J. planifolius (bog rush),
Melastoma spp., Passiflora edulis
(passion fruit), P. tarminiana (banana
poka), Polygonum punctatum (water
smartweed), Rubus argutus (prickly
Florida blackberry), R. ellipticus (yellow
Himalayan raspberry), R. rosifolius,
Sphaeropteris cooperi (Australian tree
fern), Tibouchina herbacea (glorybush),
and T. urvilleana (princess flower)
(Wood 1995, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2001,
in litt.; Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.;
Perlman and Perry 2003, in litt.; Lorence
and Perlman 2007, pp. 357–361; PEPP
2007, pp. 1–65; PEPP 2008, pp. 87–111;
Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; Perlman
et al. 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP
2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g;
HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i; PEPP 2010,
pp. 33–121). Nonnative canopy species
that are a threat to the seven species
include Angiopteris evecta (mule’s foot
fern), Falcataria moluccana (albizia),
Miconia calvescens (miconia), Psidium
cattleianum, Schefflera actinophylla
(octopus tree) (Palmer 2003, p. 48;
HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010e; HBMP
2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP 2010h;
HBMP 2010i; PEPP 2010, p. 62; Lau
2011, in litt.; Magnacca 2011b, pers.
comm.; Pratt 2011a, in litt.; Price 2011,
in litt.). Nonnative grasses that threaten
this ecosystem are Ehrharta stipoides
and Setaria palmifolia (palmgrass)
(Lorence and Perlman 2007, pp. 357–
361; PEPP 2007, pp. 1–65; HBMP 2010c;
HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g). These
nonnative plant species pose serious
and ongoing threats to the seven species
that depend on this ecosystem (see
Specific Nonnative Plant Species
Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Montane Dry
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
the plant species Schiedea hawaiiensis
in the montane dry ecosystem on
Hawaii Island include the understory
and subcanopy species Heterotheca
grandiflora (telegraph weed) and
Senecio madagascariensis (Madagascar
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
fireweed) (Herbst et al. 2004, p. 4; Le
Roux et al. 2006, pp. 694–702; U.S.
Army Garrison 2009, p. 5; Bio 2011,
pers. comm.; Evans 2011, pers. comm.;
HISC 2012; Jepson eFlora 2012–Jepson
Herbarium Database). The nonnative
grass Pennisetum setaceum also
threatens Schiedea hawaiiensis (U.S.
Army Garrison 2009, p. 5; Bio 2011,
pers. comm.; Evans 2011, pers. comm.).
These nonnative plant species pose
serious and ongoing threats to the
proposed species Schiedea hawaiiensis,
which depends on this ecosystem (see
Specific Nonnative Plant Species
Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Montane Mesic
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
two plant species (Phyllostegia
floribunda and Pittosporum hawaiiense)
and the picture-wing fly proposed for
listing in this rule that inhabit the
montane mesic ecosystem on Hawaii
Island include the understory and
subcanopy species Anemone
hupehensis var. japonica (Japanese
anemone), Buddleia asiatica (dog tail),
Clidemia hirta, Hedychium
gardnerianum, Rubus argutus, and
Rubus rosifolius (HDOFAW 1992, p. 17;
Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 24–53; PEPP
2008, pp. 106–107; Perlman et al. 2008,
in litt.; HBMP 2010h; PIER 2011a).
Canopy species that threaten the three
species include Psidium cattleianum
and Schinus terebinthifolius (Benitez et
al. 2008, pp. 29–30; Perlman et al. 2008,
in litt.). Nonnative grasses that threaten
this ecosystem are Andropogon
virginicus (broomsedge), Ehrharta
stipoides, Pennisetum setaceum, and
Setaria palmifolia (HDOFAW 1992, p.
17; Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 24–53; PEPP
2008, pp. 106–107; HBMP 2010c). These
nonnative plant species pose serious
and ongoing threats to the species that
depend on this ecosystem (see Specific
Nonnative Plant Species Impacts
below).
Nonnative Plants in the Montane Wet
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
8 of the 13 plant species (Cyanea
marksii, C. tritomantha, Phyllostegia
floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae), and the picturewing fly proposed for listing in this rule
that inhabit the montane wet ecosystem
on Hawaii Island include the understory
and subcanopy species Clidemia hirta,
Erigeron karvinskianus, Hedychium
coronarium (white ginger), H.
gardnerianum, Juncus spp., Lantana
camara, Passiflora edulis, P.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63951
tarminiana, Polygonum punctatum,
Rubus argutus, R. ellipticus, R.
rosifolius, Tibouchina herbacea, T.
urvilleana, and Ulex europaeus (gorse)
(Wood 1995, in litt.; Benitez et al. 2008,
pp. 1–118; Perlman and Bio 2008, in
litt.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010d;
HBMPe; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010h;
HBMPi; HMBP 2010j; HBMP 2010k;
USFWS 2010, pp. 4–74—4–75).
Nonnative canopy species that threaten
the nine proposed species include
Sphaeropteris cooperi and Psidium
cattleianum (HBMP 2010c; HBMP
2010h; HBMP 2010i). Nonnative grasses
that threaten this ecosystem are
Andropogon ssp., Axonopus fissifolius
(carpetgrass), Ehrharta stipoides,
Paspalum conjugatum, and Setaria
palmifolia (Wood 1995, in litt.; Perlman
and Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010c;
HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i). These
nonnative plant species pose serious
and ongoing threats to nine proposed
species that depend on this ecosystem
(see Specific Nonnative Plant Species
Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Dry Cliff
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, the only plant species
proposed for listing in this rule that
inhabits the dry cliff ecosystem on
Hawaii Island, include the understory
and subcanopy species Lantana camara,
Melastoma spp., and Pluchea
carolinensis (Perlman and Wood 2006,
in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Nonnative canopy species that threaten
B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana
include Casuarina equisetifolia and
Psidium cattleianum (Perlman and
Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). Nonnative grasses that threaten
this ecosystem include Digitaria setigera
and Pennisetum setaceum (Perlman and
Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). These nonnative plant species
pose serious and ongoing threats to all
three of the species proposed for listing
that depend on this ecosystem (see
Specific Nonnative Plant Species
Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Wet Cliff
Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten
the three plant species (Cyanea
tritomantha, Pritchardia lanigera, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae) proposed for
listing in this rule that inhabit the wet
cliff ecosystem on Hawaii Island
include the understory and subcanopy
species Hedychium coronarium, H.
gardnerianum, Juncus effusus,
Passiflora tarminiana, Rubus rosifolius,
Tibouchina herbacea, and T. urvilleana
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63952
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
(HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP
2010k). The three species in this
ecosystem are also threatened by the
nonnative grasses Axonopus fissifolius,
Ehrharta stipoides, Paspalum
conjugatum, and Setaria palmifolia
(HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP
2010k). These nonnative plant species
pose serious and ongoing threats to the
three species that depend on this
ecosystem (see Specific Nonnative Plant
Species Impacts below).
Specific Nonnative Plant Species
Impacts
Nonnative plants pose serious and
ongoing threats to 14 of the 15 species
proposed for listing (all except the
anchialine pool shrimp) in this rule
throughout their ranges by destroying
and modifying habitat. They can
adversely impact microhabitat by
modifying the availability of light and
nutrient cycling processes, and by
altering soil-water regimes. They can
also alter fire regimes affecting native
plant habitat, leading to incursions of
fire-tolerant nonnative plant species
into native habitat. Alteration of fire
regimes clearly represents an ecosystemlevel change caused by the invasion of
nonnative grasses (D’Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass life
form supports standing dead material
that burns readily, and grass tissues
have large surface-to-volume ratios and
can dry out quickly (D’Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The flammability
of biological materials is determined
primarily by their surface-to-volume
ratio and moisture content, and
secondarily by mineral content and
tissue chemistry (D’Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The finest size
classes of material (mainly grasses)
ignite and spread fires under a broader
range of conditions than do woody fuels
or even surface litter (D’Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass life
form allows rapid recovery following
fire; there is little above-ground
structural tissue, so almost all new
tissue fixes carbon and contributes to
growth (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992,
p. 73). Grass canopies also support a
microclimate in which surface
temperatures are hotter, vapor pressure
deficits are larger, and the drying of
tissues more rapid than in forests or
woodlands (D’Antonio and Vitousek
1992, p. 73). Thus, conditions that favor
fire are much more frequent in
grasslands (D’Antonio and Vitousek
1992, p. 73).
Nonnative plants outcompete native
plants by growing faster, and some may
release chemicals that inhibit the
growth of other plants. Nonnative plants
may also displace native species by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
preventing their reproduction, usually
by shading and taking up available sites
for seedling establishment (Vitousek et
al. 1987, pp. 224–227). These
competitive advantages allow nonnative
plants to convert native-dominated
plant communities to nonnative plant
communities (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33–35). The
following list provides a brief
description of the nonnative plants that
pose a threat to 14 of the 15 species (all
except the anchialine pool shrimp)
proposed for listing here. The HawaiiPacific Weed Risk Assessment is cited
in many of the brief descriptions of the
nonnative plants below. This
assessment was created as a research
collaboration between the University of
Hawaii and the U.S. Forest Service for
use in Hawaii and other high Pacific
islands (i.e., volcanic in origin, as
opposed to low-lying atolls) and is an
adaptation of the Australian-New
Zealand Weed Risk Assessment protocol
developed in the 1990s (Denslow and
Daehler 2004, p. 1). The Australian-New
Zealand protocol was developed to
screen plants proposed for introduction
into those countries, while the HawaiiPacific Weed Risk Assessment was
developed to evaluate species already
used in landscaping, gardening, and
forestry, and is used to predict whether
or not a nonnative plant species is likely
to become invasive. Not all nonnative
plant species present in Hawaii have
been assessed, and information on
species invasiveness is lacking or absent
from some of the descriptions below. In
general, all nonnative plant species
displace native Hawaiian plants; here
we describe other specific negative
impacts of individual alien plant
species when known.
• Andropogon virginicus
(broomsedge) is a perennial bunchgrass
native to northeastern America, now
naturalized along roadsides and in
disturbed dry to mesic forest and
shrubland (O’Connor 1999, p. 1,497).
Seeds are easily distributed by wind,
clothing, vehicles, and feral animals
(Smith 1989, pp. 60–69). Andropogon
virginicus may release allelopathic
substances that dramatically decrease
native plant reestablishment (Rice 1972,
pp. 752–755). This species has become
dominant in areas subjected to natural
or human-induced fires (Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, p. 77). Andropogon
virginicus is on the Hawaii State
noxious weed list (Hawaii
Administrative Rules (H.A.R.) Title 4,
Subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
• Anemone hupehensis var. japonica
(Japanese anemone) is native to China,
and is naturalized and locally common
in open, wet, disturbed areas along
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
roadsides and in wet forest in Hawaii.
The species has wind-distributed seeds,
and resists grazing because of toxic
chemicals that induce vomiting when
ingested. It was designated as a high risk
invasive species in the Pacific Islands
Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) project.
• Angiopteris evecta (mule’s foot
fern) is native throughout much of the
South Pacific, including Australia and
New Guinea, and has established
invasive populations throughout the
Hawaiian Islands (Global Invasive
Species Database (GISD) 2011a).
Rhizomes form a massive, almost
spherical trunk, 5 in (12 cm) high and
39 in (100 cm) in diameter, and fronds
may grow up to 20 ft (6 m) long and 8
to 10 ft (2.5 to 3 m) broad, allowing this
species to form dense stands that
displace and shade out native plants
(GISD 2011a).
• Axonopus fissifolius (carpetgrass) is
a pasture grass that forms dense mats
with tall foliage. This species does well
in soils with low nitrogen levels, and
can outcompete other grasses in wet
forests and bogs. In addition, A.
fissifolius outcompetes native plants for
moisture, an impact accentuated by
drought (Olaa Kilauea Partnership 2007,
p. 3). This species is not subject to any
major diseases or insect pests, and
recovers quickly from fire. The seeds are
readily spread by water, vehicles, and
grazing animals (O’Connor 1999, pp.
1,500–1,502; Cook et al. 2005, p. 4).
• Buddleia asiatica (dog tail) is a
shrub or small tree that can tolerate a
wide range of habitats, forms dense
thickets, and is rapidly spreading into
wet forest and lava and cinder substrate
areas in Hawaii, displacing native
vegetation (Wagner et al. 1999e, p. 415;
PIER 2011a).
• Casuarina equisetifolia (ironwood),
native to Australia (Wagner et al. 1999f,
p. 528–529), is a tree 33 to 66 ft (10 to
20 m) tall (Cronk & Fuller 2001, p. 144
in PIER 2011b). This species is a
pioneer, salt-resistant tree that forms
monotypic stands under which little
else grows (PIER 2011b). It is thought
that the roots and needle litter exude a
chemical that kills other plants.
Ironwood trees are fire resistant, and the
seeds of this species are wind- and
water-dispersed, further contributing to
its advantage over native species
(Staples & Herbst, 2005, p. 229).
• Clidemia hirta (Koster’s curse), a
noxious shrub in the Melastoma family,
forms a dense understory, shades out
native plants, and prevents their
regeneration (Wagner et al. 1985, p. 41;
Smith 1989, p. 64). All plants in the
Melastoma family are on the Hawaii
State noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4,
Subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• Delairea odorata (cape ivy), a
rapidly growing perennial bushy vine
native to South Africa, covers and
suppresses growth and germination of
native species by carpeting the ground
and rooting down at leaf nodes. This
species can also grow in the canopy,
where it smothers native trees, often to
the point of death (Benitez et al. 2008,
pp. 1–115; PIER 2012a; Weeds of Blue
Mountain Bushlands 2011).
• Digitaria setigera (East Indian
crabgrass) is native to tropical Asia from
India to Sri Lanka, and the Pacific
Islands. The species propagates by seeds
and runners, a single flowering stem
produces hundreds of seeds. This
species is a serious weed, which was
accidently introduced to Hawaii and
first collected around 1864.
• Ehrharta stipoides (meadow rice
grass) is a grass that creates a thick mat
in which other species cannot
regenerate; its seeds are easily dispersed
by awns (slender, terminal bristle-like
process found at the spikelette in many
grasses) that attach to fur or clothing
(U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 2–1–20).
• Erigeron karvinskianus (daisy
fleabane) is a sprawling, perennial herb
that reproduces and spreads rapidly by
stem layering and regrowth of broken
roots to form dense mats. This species
crowds out and displaces ground-level
plants (Weeds of Blue Mountains
Bushland 2008).
• Falcataria moluccana (albizia),
native to Moluccas, New Guinea, New
Britain, and the Solomon Islands, is a
tree that can reach up to 131 ft (40 m)
tall with wide-spreading branches.
Albizia is commonly used as a shade
plant for coffee plants in plantations in
many parts of the world. This species
grows very rapidly. Albizia can quickly
establish in disturbed and nondisturbed
mesic to wet areas (PIER 2011c; GISD
2011b). Its rapid growth habit enables it
to outcompete slow-growing native trees
by reducing light availability, and its
abundant, high-quality litter alters
nutrient dynamics in the soil (GISD
2011b). Increased nitrogen in the soil
may favor nonnative plant species
(GISD 2011b).
• Grevillea spp. are medium to large
evergreen trees native to Australia. Over
two million Grevillea robusta trees were
planted in the Hawaii Islands between
1919 and 1959, in an effort to reduce
erosion and to provide timber. The
leaves produce an allelopathic
substance that inhibits the
establishment of all other plant species
underneath the canopy (Smith 1985, p.
191). This species has been documented
in dry and moist forests, and open areas
in Hawaii (Smith 1985, p. 191).
Grevillea banksii is similar to G. robusta
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
in most features and is considered a
major infestation in the Kau district on
Hawaii Island.
• Hedychium spp. (ginger) are native
to India and the Himalayas (Nagata
1999, p. 1,623; Motooka et al. 2003a).
Hedychium gardnerianum (kahili
ginger) and H. coronarium (white
ginger) are both showy gingers
introduced for ornamental purposes.
Hedychium gardnerianum was first
collected in 1954, at HVNP (Wester
1992, pp. 99–154; Nagata 1999, p.
1,623). This species grows over 3 ft (1
m) tall in open, light environments;
however it will readily grow in full
shade beneath a forest canopy (Smith
1985, pp. 191–192). It forms vast, dense
colonies, displacing other plant species,
and reproduces by rhizomes where
already established. The conspicuous,
fleshy, red seeds are dispersed by fruiteating birds as well as humans.
Hedychium coronarium is a herbaceous
perennial that grows 3 to 7 ft (1 to 2 m)
tall and favors wet habitats (GISD 2011c;
PIER 2012b). This species is shade
tolerant but can grow in exposed full
sun (Csurhes and Hannan-Jones 2008, p.
7). Similar to H. gardnerianum, the
creeping growth habit of H. coronarium
overwhelms low-growing native plants,
and this species is difficult to control
due to the presence of rhizomes
(Csurhes and Hannan-Jones 2008, p. 7;
GISD 2011c). In addition to
outcompeting native plants, Hedychium
spp. reduce the amount of nitrogen in
the Metrosideros forest canopy in
Hawaii, thus impacting the availability
of nutrients for native plants (Asner and
Vitousek 2005, in litt.; Jordan et al.
2008, pp. 177–190). It may also block
stream edges, altering water flow (GISD
2011c), which can subsequently lead to
watershed degradation and decline in
moisture regimes that are necessary to
support native plants.
• Heterotheca grandiflora (telegraph
weed) is an annual or biennial herb
native to California and Mexico, as well
as a common weed of dry, disturbed
areas on Hawaii Island (PIER 2011d).
This species is an opportunistic
colonizer that grows quickly, forms
dense stands, and inhibits recruitment
of native plants (Csurhes 2009, p. 2;
PIER 2011d).
• Juncus effusus (Japanese mat rush)
is a perennial herb widely distributed in
temperate regions and naturalized in
Hawaii in ponds, streams, and open
boggy sites. It was brought to Hawaii as
a source of matting material, but grew
too slowly to be of commercial value
(Coffey 1999, p. 1,453). This plant
spreads by seeds and rhizomes, and
forms dense mats that crowd-out native
plants (United States Department of
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63953
Agriculture—Agricultural Research
Division—National Genetic Resources
Program (USDA–ARS–NGRP) 2011—
Germplasm Resources Information
Network (GRIN) Online Database;
USDA–Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) 2012a—Plants
database).
• Juncus ensifolius (dagger-leaved
rush), a perennial herb native to the
western United States, is naturalized in
Hawaii and occurs in standing water of
marshy areas (Coffey 1999, p. 1,453).
This weedy colonizer can tolerate
environmental stress and outcompete
native species (USDA–NRCS 2012b—
Plants Database).
• Juncus planifolius (bog rush) is a
perennial herb that is naturalized in
Hawaii in moist, open, disturbed
depressions on margins of forests and in
bogs (Coffey 1999, pp. 1,453–1,454).
This species forms dense mats and has
the potential to displace native plants
by preventing establishment of native
seedlings (Medeiros et al. 1991, pp. 22–
23).
• Lantana camara (lantana), a
malodorous, branched shrub up to 10 ft
(3 m) tall, was brought to Hawaii as an
ornamental plant. Lantana is aggressive,
thorny, and forms thickets, crowding
out and preventing the establishment of
native plants (Davis et al. 1992, p. 412;
Wagner et al. 1999g, p. 1,320).
• Leucana leucocephala (koa haole),
a shrub native to the neotropics, is a
nitrogen-fixer and an aggressive
competitor that often forms the
dominant element of the vegetation in
low-elevation, dry, disturbed areas in
Hawaii (Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 679–
680).
• Plants in the genus Melastoma are
ornamental shrubs native to southeast
Asia and all species are on the Hawaii
State noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4,
Subtitle 6, Chapter 68). Melastoma
species have high germination rates,
rapid growth, early maturity, ability of
fragments to root, possible asexual
reproduction, and efficient seed
dispersal (especially by birds that are
attracted by copious production of
berries) (Smith 1985, p. 194; University
of Florida Herbarium 2008, pp. 1–2).
These characteristics enable the plants
to be aggressive competitors in
Hawaiian ecosystems.
• Melinis repens (natal redtop), a
perennial grass native to Africa, is now
widely naturalized in the tropics and in
Hawaii. It invades disturbed dry areas
from coastal regions to subalpine forest
(Gould 1977–Desert Museum database;
O’Connor 1999, p. 1,588). Dense stands
of this species can contribute to
recurrent fires (Gould 1977–Desert
Museum database).
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63954
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
• Miconia calvescens (miconia), a tree
native to the neotropics, first appeared
on Oahu and the island of Hawaii as an
introduced garden plant, and has
escaped from cultivation (Almeda 1999,
p. 903). Miconia is remarkable for its 2to 3-ft (70-cm) long, dark purple leaves.
It reproduces in dense shade, eventually
shading out all other plants to form a
monoculture. A single mature plant
produces millions of seeds per year,
which are spread by birds, ungulates,
and humans (Motooka et al. 2003b).
According to the Hawaii Weed Risk
Assessment for M. calvescens, this
species has a high risk of invasiveness
or a high risk of becoming a serious pest
(PIER 2010). This species, as well all
plants in the Melastoma family, are on
the Hawaii State noxious weed list
(H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
• Omalanthus populifolius
(Queensland poplar) is a large shrub
native to Australia that is now
naturalized in disturbed mesic forests
up to 3,280 ft (1,000 m) elevation on
Hawaii Island (Starr et al. 2003, in litt.).
Seeds of this species are spread by
birds, water, and machinery-such as
roadside mowers (PIER 2011e).
Omalanthus populifolius has the
potential to colonize entire gulches,
displacing and inhibiting the
regeneration of native plants
(Oppenheimer 2004, p. 11).
• Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass)
is a perennial grass that is found in wet
habitats and forms a dense ground
cover. Its small, hairy seeds are easily
transported on humans and animals, or
are carried by the wind through native
forests, where it establishes and
displaces native vegetation (Tomich
1986, p. 125; Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 83; Motooka et. al. 2003c; PIER
2008a).
• Passiflora edulis (passion fruit),
native to South America, is a vigorous
vine that can reach up to 49 ft (15 m)
in length. In Hawaii, its seeds are spread
by feral pigs, and it can be found in
agricultural areas, natural forests,
disturbed sites, and shrublands (GISD
2012a). Passiflora edulis overgrows and
smothers the forest canopy, and its fruit
encourages rooting and trampling by
feral pigs.
• Passiflora tarminiana (banana
poka), a vine native to South America,
is widely cultivated for its fruit (Escobar
1999, pp. 1,010–1,012). First introduced
to Hawaii in the 1920s, it is now a
serious pest in mesic forest, where it
overgrows and smothers the forest
canopy. Seeds are readily dispersed by
humans, birds, and feral pigs (La Rosa
1992, pp. 281–282). Fallen fruit
encourage rooting and trampling by pigs
(Diong 1982, pp. 157–158). Field
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
releases of biocontrol agents to control
the spread of this species have not been
successful to date.
• Pennisetum setaceum (fountain
grass) is a grass that is an aggressive
colonizer that outcompetes most native
species by forming widespread, dense,
thick mats. This species is also fireadapted and burns swiftly and hot,
causing extensive damage to the
surrounding habitat (O’Connor 1999, p.
1,581). Fountain grass occurs in dry,
open places; barren lava flows; and
cinder fields, and it is estimated to
cover hundreds of thousands of acres on
the island of Hawaii (O’Connor 1999, p.
1,578; Fox 2011, in litt.).
• Pluchea spp. are 3- to 6-ft (1- to 2m) tall, fast-growing shrubs that form
thickets in dry habitats and can tolerate
saline conditions. Pluchea carolinensis
(sourbush) is native to Mexico, the West
Indies, and South America (Wagner et
al. 1999h, p. 351), and Pluchea indica
(Indian fleabane), is native to southern
Asia (Wagner et al. 1999h, p. 351). The
seeds are wind-dispersed (Francis 2004,
pp. 577–579). Both species are adapted
to a wide variety of soils and sites,
tolerate excessively well-drained to
poorly-drained soil conditions, the full
range of soil textures, acid and alkaline
reactions, salt and salt spray, and
compaction. They quickly invade
burned areas, but being early
successional, they are soon replaced by
other species. These adaptive
capabilities increase the species’
competitive abilities over native plants.
• Polygonum punctatum (water
smartweed), native to North America,
South America, and the West Indies, is
a naturalized, aquatic species found
along streambeds, in wet areas, in
running or standing water, and in
disturbed forest sites on Hawaii Island
(Wagner et al. 1999i, p. 1064). This
species is fast-growing but short-lived,
and has long-lived seeds and
allelopathic properties (Gutscher 2007,
in litt.). Loh and Tunison (1998, p. 5)
found that in pig-disturbed sites, P.
punctatum expanded from 25 percent to
62.5 percent cover in 2 years. The
combination of rapid growth, long-lived
seeds, and allelopathic properties
allows this species to form dense
patches that prohibit the establishment
of native plants after disturbance events.
• Prosopis pallida (kiawe), a large
tree up to 30 ft (9 m) tall, was
introduced to Hawaii from northwestern
South America in 1828, and its seeds
were used as fodder for ranch animals
(Motooka et al. 2003d). This species is
now a dominant component of the
vegetation in low-elevation disturbed
sites, and it is well adapted to dry
habitats. It overshadows other
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
vegetation and has deep tap roots that
significantly reduce available water for
native dryland plants. This plant fixes
nitrogen and can outcompete native
species (Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 692–
693; Obiri 2011, p. 421). This species is
on the U.S. Federal noxious weed list
(USDA–NRCS 2012c–Plants database).
• Psidium cattleianum (strawberry
guava) is a tall shrub or tree that forms
dense stands in which few other plants
can grow, displacing native vegetation
through competition. The fruit is eaten
by feral pigs and birds that disperse the
seeds throughout the forest (Smith 1985,
p. 200; Wagner et al. 1985, p. 24).
• Rubus argutus (prickly Florida
blackberry) is a prickly bramble with
long-arching stems, and reproduces both
vegetatively and by seed. It readily
sprouts from underground runners, and
is quickly spread by frugivorous (fruiteating) birds (Tunison 1991, p. 2;
Wagner et al. 1999j, p. 1,107; U.S. Army
Garrison 2006, pp. 2–1–21–2–1–22).
This species, which displaces native
vegetation through competition, is on
the Hawaii State noxious weed list
(H.A.R. Title 4, subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
• Rubus ellipticus (yellow Himalayan
raspberry), native to India, is a prickly
bramble with long arching stems up to
13 ft (4 m) long that smother smaller
plants, including native species. This
species occurs in wet areas in the
Volcano and Laupahoehoe areas on
Hawaii Island (Motooka et al. 2003e).
• Rubus rosifolius (thimbleberry) is
an erect to trailing shrub that forms
dense thickets and outcompetes native
plant species. It easily reproduces from
roots left in the ground, and seeds are
spread by birds and feral animals (GISD
2008; PIER 2008b).
• Schefflera actinophylla (octopus
tree) is a tree native to Australia and
New Guinea, is found in low-elevation,
disturbed and undisturbed, mesic and
wet habitats in Hawaii (Lowry 1999, p.
232; Motooka et al. 2003f). This species
is shade tolerant and can spread deep
into undisturbed forests, forming dense
thickets, as its numerous seeds are
readily dispersed by birds (Motooka et
al. 2003f; PIER 2012c). Schefflera
actinophylla grows epiphytically,
strangling its host tree (PIER 2012c).
• Schinus terebinthifolius
(christmasberry, also known as Brazilian
pepper), native to South America, forms
dense thickets in all habitats, and its red
berries are attractive to and dispersed by
birds (Smith 1989, p. 63). Schinus
seedlings grow very slowly and can
survive in dense shade, exhibiting
vigorous growth when the canopy is
opened after a disturbance (Brazilian
Pepper Task Force 1997). Because of
these attributes, S. terebinthifolius is
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
able to displace native vegetation
through competition.
• Senecio madagascariensis
(Madagascar fireweed), native to
Madagascar and South Africa, is a shortlived perennial plant that is on the State
of Hawaii’s noxious weed list (PIER
2011f). Each S. madagascariensis plant
can produce abundant seeds each year
that are easily distributed by wind (The
State of Queensland, Department of
Employment, Economic Development
and Innovation 2011, pp. 1–4). This
combination of long-range dispersal of
its seeds and its allelopathic properties
enables this species to successfully
outcompete native plants (Daehler 2011,
in litt.)
• Setaria palmifolia (palmgrass),
native to tropical Asia, was first
collected on Hawaii Island in 1903
(O’Connor 1999, p. 1,592). A largeleafed perennial herb, this species
reaches approximately 6.5 ft (2 m) in
height at maturity, and shades out
native vegetation. Palmgrass is resistant
to fire and recovers quickly after being
burned (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
83).
• Sphaeropteris cooperi (Australian
tree fern) is a tree fern native to
Australia that was brought to Hawaii for
use in landscaping (Medeiros et al.
1992, p. 27). It can achieve high
densities in native Hawaiian forests,
grows up to 1 ft (0.3 m) in height per
year (Jones and Clemesha 1976, p. 56),
and can displace native species.
Understory disturbance by feral pigs
facilitates the establishment of this
species (Medeiros et al. 1992, p. 30), and
it has been known to spread over 7 mi
(12 km) through windblown dispersal of
spores from plant nurseries (Medeiros et
al. 1992, p. 29).
• Tibouchina species are herbs,
shrubs, or trees native to South
America. All members of this genus are
on the Hawaii State noxious weed list
(H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
Tibouchina herbacea (glorybush), an
herb or shrub up to 3 ft (1 m) tall, is
native to southern Brazil, Uruguay, and
Paraguay. In Hawaii, it is naturalized
and abundant in disturbed mesic to wet
forest on the islands of Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and Hawaii (Almeda 1999, p.
915). It forms dense thickets, crowding
out all other plant species and inhibits
regeneration of native plants (Motooka
et al. 2003g). Tibouchina urvilleana
(princess flower), a shrub or small tree
up to 3-to 14-ft (1-to 4-m) tall, is native
to southern Brazil (Almeda 1999, p.
916). Naturalized on Kauai, Oahu, Maui,
and Hawaii, this species forms dense
thickets in disturbed areas of wet forest,
crowding out all other plant species and
inhibiting regeneration of native plants.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
• Ulex europaeus (gorse), a woody
legume up to 12 ft (4 m) tall and covered
with spines, is native to Western Europe
(Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 715–716). It is
cultivated as a hedge and fodder plant,
and was inadvertently introduced to
Hawaii before 1910, with the
establishment of the wood industry
(Tulang 1992, pp. 577–583; Geesink et
al. 1999, pp. 715–716). Gorse spreads
numerous seeds by explosive opening of
the pods (Mallinson 2011, pp. 1–2). It
can rapidly form extensive dense and
impenetrable infestations, and competes
with native plants, preventing their
establishment. Dense patches can also
present a fire hazard (Mallinson 2011,
pp. 1–2). Over 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) are
infested by gorse on the island of
Hawaii, and over 15,000 ac (6,070 ha)
are infested on Maui (Tulang 1992, pp.
577–583). Gorse is on the Hawaii State
noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4,
Subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Fire
Fire is an increasing, humanexacerbated threat to native species and
native ecosystems in Hawaii. The
historical fire regime in Hawaii was
characterized by infrequent, low
severity fires, as few natural ignition
sources existed (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 91; Smith and Tunison 1992,
pp. 395–397). It is believed that prior to
human colonization, fuel was sparse
and inflammable in wet plant
communities and seasonally flammable
in mesic and dry plant communities.
The primary ignition sources were
volcanism and lightning (Baker et al.
2009, p. 43). Natural fuel beds were
often discontinuous, and rainfall in
many areas on most islands was, and is,
moderate to high. Fires inadvertently or
intentionally ignited by the original
Polynesians in Hawaii probably
contributed to the initial decline of
native vegetation in the drier plains and
foothills. These early settlers practiced
slash-and-burn agriculture that created
open lowland areas suitable for the later
colonization of nonnative, fire-adapted
grasses (Kirch 1982, pp. 5–6, 8; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, pp. 30–31). Beginning
in the late 18th century, Europeans and
Americans introduced plants and
animals that further degraded native
Hawaiian ecosystems. Pasturage and
ranching, in particular, created high
fire-prone areas of nonnative grasses
and shrubs (D’Antonio and Vitousek
1992, p. 67). Although fires were
historically infrequent in mountainous
regions, extensive fires have recently
occurred in lowland dry and lowland
mesic areas, leading to grass-fire cycles
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63955
that convert forest to grasslands
(D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 77).
Because several Hawaiian plants
show some tolerance of fire, Vogl
proposed that naturally occurring fires
may have been important in the
development of the original Hawaiian
flora (Vogl 1969 in Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 91; Smith and Tunison 1992, p.
394). However, Mueller-Dombois (1981
in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91)
points out that most natural vegetation
types in Hawaii would not carry fire
before the introduction of alien grasses,
and Smith and Tunison (1992, p. 396)
state that native plant fuels typically
have low flammability. Because of the
greater frequency, intensity, and
duration of fires that have resulted from
the introduction of nonnative plants
(especially grasses), fires are now
destructive to native Hawaiian
ecosystems (Brown and Smith 2000, p.
172), and a single grass-fueled fire can
kill most native trees and shrubs in the
burned area (D’Antonio and Vitousek
1992, p. 74).
Fire represents a threat to four of the
species proposed for listing (the plants
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea
hawaiiensis; and the picture-wing fly)
found in the lowland dry, lowland
mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, and
montane mesic ecosystems addressed in
this proposed rule (see Table 3). Fire
can destroy dormant seeds of these
species as well as plants themselves,
even in steep or inaccessible areas.
Successive fires that burn farther and
farther into native habitat destroy native
plants and remove habitat for native
species by altering microclimate
conditions favorable to alien plants.
Alien plant species most likely to be
spread as a consequence of fire are those
that produce a high fuel load, are
adapted to survive and regenerate after
fire, and establish rapidly in newly
burned areas. Grasses (particularly those
that produce mats of dry material or
retain a mass of standing dead leaves)
that invade native forests and
shrublands provide fuels that allow fire
to burn areas that would not otherwise
easily burn (Fujioka and Fujii 1980 in
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 93;
D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70,
73–74; Tunison et al. 2002, p. 122).
Native woody plants may recover from
fire to some degree, but fire shifts the
competitive balance toward alien
species (National Park Service (NPS)
1989, in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
93). On a post-burn survey at
Puuwaawaa on Hawaii Island, an area of
native Diospyros forest with
undergrowth of the nonnative grass
Pennisetum setaceum, Takeuchi noted
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63956
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
that ‘‘no regeneration of native canopy
is occurring within the Puuwaawaa
burn area’’ (Takeuchi 1991, p. 2).
Takeuchi (1991, pp. 4, 6) also stated that
‘‘burn events served to accelerate a
decline process already in place,
compressing into days a sequence that
would ordinarily take decades,’’ and
concluded that in addition to increasing
the number of fires, the nonnative
Pennisetum acted to suppress the
establishment of native plants after a
fire.
For decades, fires have impacted rare
or endangered species and areas
previously designated or proposed for
critical habitat designation in this rule
(HDOFAW 2002, pp. 1, 4–6; Dayton
2007, in litt.; Joint Fire Science Program
(JFSP) 2009, pp. 1–12; Weise et al. 2010,
pp. 199–220; Kakesako 2011, in litt.).
On the island of Hawaii, wildfires are
caused primarily by lava flows, humans,
and lightning, all of which are
exacerbated by severe drought and
nonnative grasses (e.g., Pennisetum
setaceum) (Dayton 2007, in litt.; JFSP
2009, pp. 1–6; Armstrong and Media
2010, in litt.; Weise et al. 2010, pp. 199–
216; Adkins et al. 2011, p. 17; Hawaii
County Major.com–accessed September
7, 2011; Burnett 2010, in litt.; KHON2,
June 6, 2011). Between 2002 and 2003,
three successive lava-ignited wildfires
in the east rift zone of HVNP affected
native forests in lowland dry, lowland
mesic, and lowland wet ecosystems
(JFSP 2009, p. 3), cumulatively burning
an estimated 11,225 ac (4,543 ha)
(Wildfire News, June 9, 2003; JFSP
2009, p. 3). These fires destroyed over
95 percent of the canopy cover in the
burned areas and encroached upon
rainforests (i.e., forests in the lowland
wet ecosystem) that were previously
thought to have low susceptibility or
even be relatively immune to wildfires
(JFSP 2009, pp. 2–3; Wildfire News,
June 9, 2003). After the fires, nonnative
ferns were reported in the higher
elevation rainforests where they had not
previously been observed, and were
believed to inhibit the ability of the
dominant native Metrosideros
polymorpha (ohia) trees to recover (JFSP
2003, pp. 1–2). Nonnative flammable
grasses also spread in the area, under
the dead ohia trees (Ainsworth 2011, in
litt.), increasing the risk of fire in
surrounding native forested areas. In
2011, the Napau Crater wildfire, ignited
by an eruption at the Kamoamoa fissure
in HVNP, consumed over 2,076 ac (840
ha), including 100 ac (40 ha) of the
2,750 ac (1,113 ha) east rift zone’s
special ecological area (Ainsworth 2011,
in litt.; Kakesako 2011, in litt.). Special
ecological areas (SEA) are HVNP’s most
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
intact and intensively managed natural
systems (Tunison and Stone 1992, pp.
781–798). The plant Phyllostegia
floribunda, proposed for listing in this
rule, is known from the east rift zone’s
Napau Crater, in the lowland wet
ecosystem (Belfield 1998, pp. 9, 11–13,
23; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; HBMP 2010h).
In addition, historical records report
that the plant Cyanea tritomantha,
proposed for listing in this rule, also
occurred in this area, in the same
ecosystem; however the last survey that
reported this occurrence was over 25
years ago (Lamoureux et al. 1985, pp.
105, 107–108; HBMP 2010h).
Fire is a threat to the Kona (leeward)
side of Hawaii Island. In the past 50
years, there have been three wildfires
that burned 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) or
more: (1) 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) burned at
Puuwaawaa Ranch in 1985; (2) 20,000
acres (8,094 ha) burned at PTA in 1994;
and (3) 25,000 ac (10,117 ha) burned in
Waikoloa in 2005 (Thompson 2005, in
litt.). The only known occurrence (25 to
40 individuals) of the plant Schiedea
hawaiiensis, proposed for listing in this
rule, is found on the U.S. Army’s
Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), and the
1994 fire burned to within 2 mi (4 km)
of this species (U.S. Army Garrison
2006, p. 34; Evans 2011, in litt.).
Although this fire may seem relatively
distant from S. hawaiiensis, wildfires
can travel from 4 to 8 miles per hour
(mph) (6.5 to 13 kilometers per hour
(kph)), and burn 2.5 ac (1 ha) to 6 ac (2.5
ha) per minute (the equivalent of 6 to 8
football fields per minute), depending
on the fuel type, wind, and slope of land
(Burn Institute 2009, p. 4). In 2011, a
500-ac (202-ha) wildfire ignited by
lightning and fueled by nonnative
Pennisetum setaceum burned within the
State’s Puu Anahulu Game Management
Area (GMA) and encroached within a
quarter-mile (0.5 km) of PTA (KHON2,
June 6, 2011). The Puu Anahulu GMA
lies just 3 mi (5 km) northwest of the
only known occurrence of S.
hawaiiensis in the montane dry
ecosystem. Also in 2011, a 120-ac (49ha) wildfire broke out near Kaiminani
Street (Jensen 2011, in litt.), just north
of Hina Lani Road, in the lowland dry
ecosystem, where the largest occurrence
of the plant species Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, proposed for listing in
this rule, is found. In addition, the
threat of fire to this species is increased
by its occurrence in areas bordered by
residential developments, schools, and
roads, which provide numerous ignition
sources from the high volume of human
traffic. A recent fire at the Villages of
Laiopua subdivision at Kealakehe,
known to have been intentionally set,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
threatened to burn an area that supports
B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Knoche
2012, in litt.). Although no B. micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla individuals were
burned, the immediate proximity of the
fire to occupied and unoccupied habitat
for this species demonstrates the threat
of fire to B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
in the lowland dry ecosystem at
Kealakehe.
Fire is also a threat to the picturewing fly, proposed for listing in this
rule, at one of its two known locations
(the Manuka NAR) due to the ongoing
extreme drought conditions in this
region and the resulting accumulation of
dead trees (i.e., fuel load), in the
lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems (Magnacca 2011b, pers.
comm.).
Throughout the Hawaiian Islands,
increased fuel loads and human-ignited
fires caused the average acreage burned
to increase five-fold from the early
1900s (1904 to 1939) to the mid-1900s
(1940 to 1976) (La Rosa et al. 2008, p.
231). In HVNP, fires were three times
more frequent and 60 times larger, on
average, from the late 1960s to 1995,
when compared to data spanning 1934
to the late 1960s (Tunison et al. 2001 in
La Rosa et al. 2008, p. 231). The
historical fire regimes have been altered
from typically rare events to more
frequent events, largely a result of
continuous fine fuel loads associated
with the presence of the fire-tolerant,
nonnative fountain grass and the grassfire feedback cycle that promotes its
establishment (La Rosa et al. 2008, pp.
240–241; Pau 2009, in litt.). Extreme
drought conditions are also contributing
to the number and intensity of the
wildfires on Hawaii Island (Armstrong
and Media 2010, in litt.; Loh 2010, in
litt.). In addition, the combination of El
˜
Nino conditions (see ‘‘Habitat
Destruction and Modification by
Climate Change,’’ below) in the Pacific,
a half-century decline in annual rainfall,
and intermittent dry spells have fueled
wildfires throughout all of the main
Hawaiian Islands (Marcus 2010, in litt.).
The entire State is experiencing dry
conditions, but Hawaii Island appears to
be significantly impacted (Kodama
2010, in litt.; USDA–FSA 2012, in litt.).
Fire is a threat to three plant species
(Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea
hawaiiensis), and the picture-wing fly
(Drosophila digressa), reported from
Hawaii Island’s lowland dry, lowland
mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, and
montane mesic ecosystems, because
individuals of these species or their
habitat are located in or near areas that
were burned in previous fires or in areas
at risk for fire due to volcanic activity,
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
drought, or the presence of highly
flammable nonnative grasses and
shrubs.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Hurricanes
Hurricanes adversely impact native
Hawaiian terrestrial habitat and
exacerbate the impacts resulting from
other threats such as habitat degradation
by ungulates and competition with
nonnative plants. They do this by
destroying native vegetation, opening
the canopy and thus modifying the
availability of light, and creating
disturbed areas conducive to invasion
by nonnative pest species (see ‘‘Specific
Nonnative Plant Species Impacts,’’
above) (Asner and Goldstein 1997, p.
148; Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 539–
540). Because many Hawaiian plant and
animal species persist in low numbers
and in restricted ranges, natural
disasters, such as hurricanes, can be
particularly devastating (Mitchell et al.
2005a, pp. 3–4).
Hurricanes affecting Hawaii were only
rarely reported from ships in the area
from the 1800s until 1949. Between
1950 and 1997, 22 hurricanes passed
near or over the Hawaiian Islands, 5 of
which caused serious damage (Businger
1998, pp. 1–2). In November 1982,
Hurricane Iwa struck the Hawaiian
Islands, with wind gusts exceeding 100
mph (161 kph), causing extensive
damage, especially on the islands of
Niihau, Kauai, and Oahu (Businger
1998, pp. 2, 6). Many forest trees were
destroyed (Perlman 1992, pp. 1–9),
which opened the canopy and
facilitated the invasion of nonnative
plants (Kitayama and Mueller-Dombois
1995, p. 671). Competition with
nonnative plants is a threat to 9 of the
10 ecosystems that support all 13 plant
species and the picture-wing fly
(Drosophila digressa), proposed for
listing in this rule, as described above
in ‘‘Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Nonnative Plants.’’
Nonnative plants also compete with the
native host plants of the picture-wing
fly.
In addition to the habitat destruction
and nonnative plant introduction
resulting from hurricanes, high winds
and intense rains from hurricanes can
directly kill individual picture-wing
flies to the point of decimating an entire
population (Carson 1986, p. 7; Foote
and Carson 1995, pp. 369–370). High
winds can also dislodge fly larvae from
their host plants, destroy host plants,
and expose the fly larvae to predation
by nonnative yellowjacket wasps (see
‘‘Factor C. Disease or Predation,’’ below)
(Carson 1986, p. 7; Foote and Carson
1995, p. 371).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Since 1950, 13 hurricanes have
passed near but not over Hawaii Island.
Eleven of these hurricanes brought
heavy rain, strong wind, or high surf to
the island, which caused erosion, flash
floods, and other damage (Fletcher III et
al. 2002, pp. 11–17; National Weather
Service et al. 2010, pp. 1–22). In 1994,
tropical depression 1C brought over 14
in (36 cm) of rain in just a few days to
windward sections of Hawaii Island
(National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) 1994, pp. 4–5;
National Weather Service et al. 2010,
pp. 4–5).
Although there is historical evidence
of only one hurricane (1861) that
approached from the east and impacted
the islands of Maui and Hawaii
(Businger 1998, p.3), damage from
future hurricanes could further decrease
the remaining native plant-dominated
habitat areas that support the 13 plant
species, and the picture-wing fly
proposed for listing in this rule in 9 of
the described ecosystems (coastal,
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane dry, montane mesic,
montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff).
Habitat Destruction and Modification
Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls, Landslides,
Heavy Rain, Erosion, and Drought
Rockfalls, treefalls, landslides, heavy
rain, and erosion damage and destroy
individual plants, destabilize substrates,
and alter hydrological patterns that
result in changes to native plant and
animal communities. In the open sea
near Hawaii, rainfall averages 25 to 30
in (635 to 762 mm) per year, yet the
islands may receive up to 15 times this
amount in some places, caused by
orographic features (physical geography
of mountains) (Wagner et al. 1999a, pp.
36–44). During storms, rain may fall at
3 in (76 mm) per hour or more, and
sometimes may reach nearly 40 in
(1,000 mm) in 24 hours, causing
destructive flash-flooding in streams
and narrow gulches (Wagner et al.
1999a, pp. 36–44). Due to the steep
topography of some areas on Hawaii
Island where 4 of the 13 plants
proposed for listing in this rule remain,
erosion and disturbance caused by
introduced ungulates exacerbates the
potential for rockfalls, treefalls, and
landslides, which in turn are a threat to
native plants. Such events have the
potential to eliminate all individuals of
a population, or even all populations of
a species, resulting in a greater
likelihood of extinction due to the lack
of redundancy and resilience of the
species caused by their reduced
numbers and geographic range.
Rockfalls, treefalls, landslides, heavy
rain, and subsequent erosion are a threat
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63957
to four of the plant species (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha,
and Cyrtandra wagneri) addressed in
this proposed rule (Lorence and
Perlman 2007, p. 359; PEPP 2010, p. 52;
Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Monitoring data
from PEPP and other field biologists and
surveyors suggest that these four species
are threatened by these events as they
are found in landscape settings
susceptible to these events (e.g., lava
tubes, stream banks, steep slopes and
cliffs). Field survey data presented by
PEPP and other field biologists
document that individuals of Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana that
occur on steep sea cliffs are threatened
by rockfalls and landslides, 1 of the 27
known individuals of Cyanea marksii is
threatened by falling rocks and
landslides, and individuals of Cyanea
tritomantha are threatened by treefalls
(PEPP 2007, p. 52; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). Field survey data presented by
Lorence and Perlman (2007, p. 359)
suggest that heavy rains and subsequent
erosion threaten the only known
location of Cyrtandra wagneri on a
stream bank in the Laupahoehoe NAR.
Since Cyrtandra wagneri is currently
only known from a total of eight
individuals along the steep banks of
Kilau Stream, heavy rains and erosion
could lead to near extirpation or even
extinction of this species by direct
destruction of the individual plants,
mechanical damage to individual plants
that could lead to their death, or
destabilization of the stream bank
habitat leading to additional erosion.
Two plant species, Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla and Schiedea
hawaiiensis, and the picture-wing fly
(Drosophila digressa), proposed for
listing in this rule may also be affected
by habitat loss or degradation associated
with droughts, which are not
uncommon in the Hawaiian Islands
(HDLNR 2009, pp. 1–6; Hawaii State
Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14–1–14–12;
U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center
(NDMC) 2012—Online Archives).
Between 1901 and 2011, there have
been at least 18 serious or severe
droughts that have impacted Hawaii
Island, including the current drought
that began in 2008 and has led to the
island’s first ever drought exceptional
designation (the highest drought level
rating on the scale) (between March and
December of 2010) (HDLNR 2009, pp. 1–
6; Hawaii Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14–1–
14–12). According to the NDMC’s
drought rating system, most of the
island has been rated as in severe
drought since 2008, with extreme
drought ratings intermittently in some
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63958
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
portions of the island (NDMC 2012—
Online Archives). Giambelluca et al.
(1991, pp. 3–4) compiled descriptive
accounts of drought throughout the
Hawaiian Islands between 1860 and
1986, and found that 87 episodes of
drought occurred on Hawaii Island
between those years, although some of
those episodes occurred for periods as
short as one month. The 2011 winter
weather system brought periods of
heavy rain from Kauai to Maui; however
these systems weakened or moved away
from Hawaii Island, leaving the
typically wet windward slopes of the
island under moderate drought
conditions (NOAA 2011—Online
Climate Data Center). The entire
windward side of Hawaii Island is
currently in an abnormally dry state
(NDMC 2011—Online Archives; NDMC
2012—Online Archives).
Pohakuloa Training Area (the location
of the only known individuals of the
plant Schiedea hawaiiensis) was rated
as experiencing extreme drought during
the spring of 2011 (Hawaii State Civil
Defense 2011, pp. 14–1–14–12), and in
2010, as well as most of north and south
Kona. North Kona, including the
lowland dry ecosystem that supports the
largest occurrence of the plant Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, has been
experiencing conditions of extreme to
severe drought over the past few years.
One of the two known extant
populations of the picture-wing fly
(Drosophila digressa) is found in the
lowland mesic ecosystem in south
Kona, in an area that has also
experienced extreme to severe drought
over the past few years. Drought alters
the decay processes of the picture-wing
fly’s host plants and the entire plant
community on which the fly depends.
Monitoring data collected in HVNP
during a drought period between 1981
and 1982 suggest that drought was
associated with a reduction in the
number of picture-wing flies one year
following the drought (Carson 1986, pp.
4, 7). In addition, the ongoing drought
in south Kona has resulted in an
increasing accumulation of dead trees in
the Manuka NAR, which increases the
fuel load and threat of wildfires in the
area where one of the two known
occurrences of the picture-wing fly
occurs (Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
Severe episodes of drought cannot
only directly kill individuals of a
species or entire populations, but
drought frequently leads to an increase
in the number and intensity of forest
and brush fires (see ‘‘Habitat
Degradation and Modification by Fire,’’
above), causing a reduction of native
plant cover and habitat, an increase in
nonnative plant and animal species, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
a reduction in availability of host plants
for the picture-wing fly (Giambelluca et
al. 1991, p. v; D’Antonio and Vitousek
1992, pp. 77–79; HDLNR 2009, pp. 1–
6; Hawaii Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14–1–
14–12). Ecosystems altered by drought
and subsequent fires are further altered
by the introduction of nonnative species
that outcompete native species for basic
life-cycle requirements (see ‘‘Habitat
Destruction and Modification by
Nonnative Plants,’’ above). To further
exacerbate the situation, nonnative
ungulate patterns may be altered as
observed on Maui, where recent
episodes of drought have driven axis
deer (Axis axis) farther into urban and
forested areas for food, increasing their
negative impacts to native vegetation
from herbivory and trampling (Waring
1996, in litt., p. 5; Nishibayashi 2001, in
litt.). Due to the recent widespread
increase in frequency and intensity of
drought on the island of Hawaii, even
the wettest forests on the windward side
of the island may be threatened by longterm drought (JFSP 2009, pp. 1–12).
Prolonged periods of water deprivation
caused by drought can also lead to the
direct death of the remaining
individuals of the plants Schiedea
hawaiiensis and Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, and the picture-wing fly,
possibly leading to extinction of one or
more of these species. Drought is a
direct threat to two of the plant species
(Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and
Schiedea hawaiiensis), and the picturewing fly (Drosophila digressa), proposed
for listing in this rule, as discussed
above.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include
consideration of ongoing and projected
changes in climate. The terms ‘‘climate’’
and ‘‘climate change’’ are defined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). ‘‘Climate’’ refers to the
mean and variability of different types
of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such
measurements, although shorter or
longer periods also may be used (Le
Treut et al. 2007, pp. 93–127). The term
‘‘climate change’’ thus refers to a change
in the mean or variability of one or more
measures of climate (e.g., temperature or
precipitation) that persists for an
extended period, typically decades or
longer, whether the change is due to
natural variability, human activity, or
both (Le Treut et al. 2007, pp. 93–127).
Various types of changes in climate can
have direct or indirect effects on
species. These effects may be positive,
neutral, or negative and they may
change over time, depending on the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
species and other relevant
considerations, such as the effects of
interactions of climate with other
variables (e.g., habitat fragmentation)
(IPCC 2007, pp. 8–14, 18–19). In our
analyses, we use our expert judgment to
weigh relevant information, including
uncertainty, in our consideration of
various aspects of climate change.
Climate change will be a particular
challenge for the conservation of
biodiversity because the introduction
and interaction of additional stressors
may push species beyond their ability to
survive (Lovejoy 2005, pp. 325–326).
The synergistic implications of climate
change and habitat fragmentation are
the most threatening facet of climate
change for biodiversity (Hannah et al.
2005, p. 4).
The magnitude and intensity of the
impacts of global climate change and
increasing temperatures on native
Hawaiian ecosystems are unknown.
Currently, there are no climate change
studies that specifically address impacts
to the Hawaii Island ecosystems
discussed here or the 15 species
proposed for listing that are associated
with these ecosystems. Based on the
best available information, climate
change impacts could lead to the loss of
native species that comprise the
communities in which the 15 species
occur (Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611–612;
Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al.
2002, pp. 14,246–14,248; Allen et al.
2010, pp. 660–662; Sturrock et al. 2011,
p. 144; Towsend et al. 2011, p. 15;
Warren 2011, pp. 221–226). In addition,
weather regime changes (droughts,
floods) will likely result from increased
annual average temperatures related to
˜
more frequent El Nino episodes in
Hawaii (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v).
Future changes in precipitation and the
forecast of those changes are highly
uncertain because they depend, in part,
˜
˜
on how the El Nino-La Nina weather
cycle (a disruption of the ocean
atmospheric system in the tropical
Pacific having important global
consequences for weather and climate)
might change (State of Hawaii 1998, pp.
2–10). The 15 species proposed for
listing may be especially vulnerable to
extinction due to anticipated
environmental changes that may result
from global climate change, due to their
small population size and highly
restricted ranges. Environmental
changes that may affect these species are
expected to include habitat loss or
alteration and changes in disturbance
regimes (e.g., storms and hurricanes).
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Climate Change and Ambient
Temperature
The average ambient air temperature
(at sea level) is projected to increase by
about 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (2.3
degrees Centigrade (°C)) with a range of
2.7 °F to 6.7 °F (1.5 °C to 3.7 °C) by 2100
worldwide (Trenberth et al. 2007, pp.
235–336). These changes would
increase the monthly average
temperature of the Hawaiian Islands
from the current value of 74 °F (23.3 °C)
to between 77 °F and 86 °F (25 °C and
30 °C). Historically, temperature has
been rising over the last 100 years, with
the greatest increase after 1975
(Alexander et al. 2006, pp. 1–22;
Giambelluca et al. 2008, p. 1). The rate
of increase at low elevation (0.16 °F;
0.09 °C) per decade is below the
observed global temperature rise of
0.32 °F (0.18 °C) per decade (Trenberth
et al. 2007, pp. 235–336). However, at
high elevations, the rate of increase
(0.48 °F (0.27 °C) per decade) greatly
exceeds the global rate (Trenberth et al.
2007, pp. 235–336).
Overall, the daily temperature range
in Hawaii is decreasing, resulting in a
warmer environment, especially at
higher elevations and at night. In the
main Hawaiian Islands, predicted
changes associated with increases in
temperature include a shift in vegetation
zones upslope, shift in animal species’
ranges, changes in mean precipitation
with unpredictable effects on local
environments, increased occurrence of
drought cycles, and increases in the
intensity and number of hurricanes
(Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 514–
515; U.S. Global Change Research
Program (US–GCRP) 2009, pp. 1–188).
In addition, weather regime changes
(e.g., droughts, floods) will likely result
from increased annual average
temperatures related to more frequent El
˜
Nino episodes in Hawaii (Giambelluca
et al. 1991, p. v). However, despite
considerable progress made by expert
scientists toward understanding the
impacts of climate change on many of
˜
the processes that contribute to El Nino
variability, it is not possible to say
˜
whether or not El Nino activity will be
affected by climate change (Collins et al.
2010, p. 391).
Globally, the warming atmosphere is
creating a plethora of anticipated and
unanticipated environmental changes
such as melting ice caps, decline in
annual snow mass, sea-level rise, ocean
acidification, increase in storm
frequency and intensity (e.g.,
hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes),
and altered precipitation patterns that
contribute to regional increases in
floods, heat waves, drought, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
wildfires that also displace species and
alter or destroy natural ecosystems
(Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611–612; IPCC
AR4 2007, pp. 26–73; Marshall et al.
2008, p. 273; U.S. Climate Change
Science Program 2008, pp. 1–164;
Flannigan et al. 2009, p. 483; US–GCRP
2009, pp. 1–188; Allen et al. 2010, pp.
660–662; Warren 2011, pp. 221–226).
These environmental changes are
predicted to alter species migration
patterns, lifecycles, and ecosystem
processes such as nutrient cycles, water
availability, and decomposition (IPCC
AR4 2007, pp. 26–73; Pounds et al.
1999, pp. 611–612; Sturrock et al. 2011,
p. 144; Townsend et al. 2011, p. 15;
Warren 2011, pp. 221–226). The species
extinction rate is predicted to increase
congruent with ambient temperature
increase (US–GCRP 2009, pp. 1–188). In
Hawaii, these environmental changes
associated with a rise in ambient
temperature can directly and indirectly
impact the survival of native plants and
animals, including the 15 species
proposed for listing in this rule, and the
ecosystems that support them.
Climate Change and Precipitation
As global surface temperature rises,
the evaporation of water vapor
increases, resulting in higher
concentrations of water vapor in the
atmosphere, further resulting in altered
global precipitation patterns (U.S.
National Science and Technology
Council (US–NSTC) 2008, pp. 69–94;
US–GCRP 2009, pp. 1–188). While
annual global precipitation has
increased over the last 100 years, the
combined effect of increases in
evaporation and evapotranspiration is
causing land surface drying in some
regions leading to a greater incidence
and severity of drought (US–NSTC
2008, pp. 69–94; US–GCRP 2009, pp. 1–
188). Over the past 100 years, the
Hawaiian Islands have experienced an
annual decline in precipitation of just
over 9 percent (US–NSTC 2008, p. 70).
Other data on precipitation in Hawaii,
which include sea-level precipitation
and the added orographic effects, show
a steady and significant decline of about
15 percent over the last 15 to 20 years
(Chu and Chen 2005, p. 4,881–4,900;
Diaz et al. 2005, pp. 1–3). Exact future
changes in precipitation in Hawaii and
the forecast of those changes are
uncertain because they depend, in part,
˜
˜
on how the El Nino-La Nina weather
cycle might change (State of Hawaii
1998, pp. 2–10).
In the oceans around Hawaii, the
average annual rainfall at sea level is
about 25 in (63.5 cm). The orographic
features of the islands increase this
annual average to about 70 in (177.8 cm)
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63959
but can exceed 240 in (609.6 cm) in the
wettest mountain areas. Rainfall is
distributed unevenly across each high
island, and rainfall gradients are
extreme (approximately 25 in (63.5 cm)
per mile), creating both very dry and
very wet areas. Global climate modeling
predicts that, by 2100, net precipitation
at sea level near the Hawaiian Islands
will decrease in winter by about 4 to 6
percent, with no significant change
during summer (IPCC AR4 2007, pp. 1–
73). Downscaling of global climate
models indicates that wet-season
(winter) precipitation will decrease by 5
percent to 10 percent, while dry-season
(summer) precipitation will increase by
about 5 percent (Timm and Diaz 2009,
pp. 4,261–4,280). These data are also
supported by a steady decline in stream
flow beginning in the early 1940s (Oki
2004, p. 1). Altered seasonal moisture
regimes can have negative impacts on
plant growth cycles and overall negative
impacts on natural ecosystems (US–
GCRP 2009, pp. 1–188). Long periods of
decline in annual precipitation result in
a reduction in moisture availability; an
increase in drought frequency and
intensity; and a self-perpetuating cycle
of nonnative plants, fire, and erosion
(US–GCRP 2009, pp. 1–188; Warren
2011, pp. 221–226) (see ‘‘Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Fire,’’
above). These impacts may negatively
affect the 15 species proposed for listing
in this rule and the 10 ecosystems that
support them.
Climate Change, and Tropical Cyclone
Frequency and Intensity
A tropical cyclone is the generic term
for a medium- to large-scale, lowpressure storm system over tropical or
subtropical waters with organized
convection (i.e., thunderstorm activity)
and definite cyclonic surface wind
circulation (counterclockwise direction
in the Northern Hemisphere) (Holland
1993, pp. 1–8). In the Northeast Pacific
Ocean, east of the International Date
Line, once a tropical cyclone reaches an
intensity of winds of at least 74 mi per
hour (33 m per second), it is considered
a hurricane (Neumann 1993, pp. 1–2).
Climate modeling has projected changes
in tropical cyclone frequency and
intensity due to global warming over the
next 100 to 200 years (Vecchi and Soden
2007, pp. 1,068–1,069, Figures 2 and 3;
Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360, Figure 8; Yu
et al. 2010, p. 1,371, Figure 14). The
frequency of hurricanes generated by
tropical cyclones is projected to
decrease in the central Pacific (e.g., the
main and Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands) while storm intensity (strength)
is projected to increase by a few percent
over this period (Vecchi and Soden
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63960
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
2007, pp. 1,068–1,069, Figures 2 and 3;
Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360, Figure 8; Yu
et al. 2010, p. 1,371, Figure 14). There
are no climate model predictions for a
change in the duration of Pacific
tropical cyclone storm season (which
generally runs from May through
November).
In general, tropical cyclones with the
intensities of hurricanes have been a
rare occurrence in the Hawaiian Islands.
From the 1800s until 1949, hurricanes
were only rarely reported from ships in
the area. Between 1950 and 1997, 22
hurricanes passed near or over the
Hawaiian Islands, 5 of which caused
serious damage (Businger 1998, pp. 1–
2). Hurricanes may cause destruction of
native vegetation and open the native
canopy, allowing for invasion by
nonnative plant species that compete for
space, water, and nutrients, and alter
basic water and nutrient cycling
processes leading to decreased growth
and reproduction for all 13 plant species
in this proposed rule (see Table 3,
above) (Perlman 1992, pp. 1–9;
Kitayama and Mueller-Dombois 1995, p.
671). Hurricanes also constitute a threat
to the picture-wing fly proposed for
listing as a result of their high winds
that may dislodge larvae from their host
plants, thereby increasing the likelihood
of mortality caused by lack of essential
nutrients for proper development or
increased exposure to predators, such as
nonnative yellowjacket wasps and ants,
and destruction of host plants (see
‘‘Factor C. Disease or Predation,’’
below). Although there is historical
evidence of only one hurricane that
approached from the east and impacted
the islands of Maui and Hawaii
(Businger 1998, p.3), damage by future
hurricanes could further decrease the
remaining native plant-dominated
habitat areas that support the 13 plant
species and the picture-wing fly
(Drosophila digressa) proposed for
listing in this rule, in nine of the
described ecosystems (coastal, lowland
dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane dry, montane mesic, montane
wet, dry cliff and wet cliff).
Climate Change, and Sea-Level Rise and
Coastal Inundation
On a global scale, sea level is rising
as a result of thermal expansion of
warming ocean water; the melting of ice
sheets, glaciers, and ice caps; and the
addition of water from terrestrial
systems (Climate Institute 2011, in litt.).
Sea level rose at an average rate of 0.1
in (1.8 mm) per year between 1961 and
2003 (IPCC 2007, pp. 30–73), and the
predicted increase by the end of this
century, without accounting for ice
sheet flow, ranges from 0.6 ft to 2.0 ft
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
(0.18 m to 0.6 m) (IPCC AR4 2007, p.
30). When ice sheet and glacial melt are
incorporated into models the average
estimated increase in sea level by the
year 2100 is approximately 3 to 4 ft (0.9
to 1.2 m), with some estimates as high
as 6.6 ft (2.0 m) to 7.8 ft (2.4 m)
(Rahmstorf 2007, pp. 368–370; Pfeffer et
al. 2008, p. 1,340; Fletcher 2009, p. 7;
US–GCRP 2009, p. 18). The species
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana occurs within the coastal
ecosystem. Although there is no specific
data available on how sea-level rise and
coastal inundation will impact this
species, its occurrence in close
proximity to the coastline places it at
risk of the threat of sea level rise and
coastal inundation due to climate
change.
In summary, increased interannual
variability of ambient temperature,
precipitation, hurricanes, and sea-level
rise and inundation would provide
additional stresses on 9 of the 10
ecosystems (all except the anchialine
pool ecosystem) and 14 of the 15
associated species (all except the
anchialine pool shrimp) proposed for
listing in this rule because they are
highly vulnerable to disturbance and
related invasion of nonnative species.
The probability of a species going
extinct as a result of such factors
increases when its range is restricted,
habitat decreases, and population
numbers decline (IPCC 2007, pp. 8–11).
In addition, these 14 species may be at
a greater risk of extinction due to the
loss of redundancy and resiliency
created by their limited ranges,
restricted habitat requirements, small
population sizes, or low numbers of
individuals. Therefore, we would expect
these 14 species to be particularly
vulnerable to projected environmental
impacts that may result from changes in
climate and subsequent impacts to their
habitats (e.g., Loope and Giambelluca
1998, pp. 504–505; Pounds et al. 1999,
pp. 611–612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610;
Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246–14,248;
Giambelluca and Luke 2007, pp. 13–18).
Based on the above information, we
conclude that changes in environmental
conditions that result from climate
change are likely to negatively impact
14 of the 15 species (all except the
anchialine pool shrimp) proposed for
listing in this rule, and exacerbate other
threats. This potential threat will
increase in the near future.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Sedimentation
Anchialine pool habitats can
gradually disappear when organic and
mineral deposits from aquatic
production and wind-blown materials
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accumulate through a process known as
senescence (Maciolek and Brock 1974,
p. 3; Brock 2004, pp. 11, 35–36).
Conditions promoting rapid senescence
are known to include an increased
amount of sediment deposition, good
exposure to light, shallowness, and a
weak connection with the water table,
resulting in sediment and detritus
accumulating within the pool instead of
being flushed away with tidal exchanges
and groundwater flow (Maciolek and
Brock 1974, p. 3; Brock 2004, pp. 11,
35–36).
Based upon what we know about
healthy anchialine pool systems (Brock
2004, pp. 11, 35–36), it is our
understanding that one or more factors
including increased sedimentation, may
be synergistically degrading the health
of the Lua O Palahemo pool system.
Sedimentation is likely reducing the
capacity of the pool to produce adequate
cyanobacteria and algae to support some
of the pool’s ‘herbivorous’ hypogeal
shrimp species. A decreased food
supply (i.e., a reduction in
cyanobacteria and algae) would likely
lead to a lower abundance of
herbivorous hypogeal shrimp species as
well as a lower abundance of the known
carnivorous species, Metabetaeus
lohena, and possibly Vetericaris
chaceorum, whose gut contents
contained fragments of other
crustaceans (including Procaris
hawaiiana, a co-occurring anchialine
pool shrimp), indicating that the species
may be carnivorous upon its associated
anchialine pool shrimp species (see
above, Description of the 15 Species
Proposed for Listing).
A second factor is that increased
sedimentation in Lua O Palahemo may
be overloading the capacity of the pool
and lava tube below to adequately flush
water to maintain the water quality
needed to support the micro-organisms
that are fed upon by several of the pool’s
shrimp species (e.g., Calliasmata
pholidota, Halocaridina palahemo,
Halocaridina rubra, and Procaris
hawaiiana) and their associated shrimp
predators, Antecaridina lauensis and
Vetericaris chaceorum (Brock 2004, pp.
10–11, 16).
A third factor that may be
contributing to the degradation of the
health of the Lua O Palahemo pool
system is that increased sedimentation
and an inability of the pool system to
adequately flush its waters, are either
diminishing or preventing migration
and recolonization of the pool by the
hypogeal shrimp species from the
surrounding porous watertable bedrock.
In other words, this lack of porosity may
be affecting the movement of shrimp to
and from food resources, and the
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
accumulating sedimentation and
detritus reduce productivity within the
pool. This reduction in productivity
reduces the carrying capacity of the
habitat to support hypogeal shrimp like
Vetericaris chaceorum (Brock 2004, p.
10). Indeed, Brock (2004, p. 16) has
established that pool productivity and
shrimp presence are interdependent. In
some cases, a pool that loses its shrimp
populations due, for example, to the
introduction of nonnative fish, more
quickly loses its capacity to support
shrimp in the future as a result of
excessive buildup of algae and
cyanobacterial mats that block and
impede the pool’s ability to flush and
maintain necessary water quality (Brock
2004, p. 16).
As described above, in 1985, visibility
within the lava tube portion of Lua O
Palahemo was as great as 20 m (66 ft).
During this dive survey, Kensley and
Williams (1986, p. 418) estimated that
other species of hypogeal shrimp cooccurring with Vetericaris chaceorum
numbered in the tens of thousands for
Halocaridina sp., in the thousands for
Procaris hawaiana, and less than 100 for
Calliasmata sp. By 2010, visibility had
been reduced to 8 cm (3 in) within the
pool itself, and underwater video taken
during the survey shows continuous
clouds of thick sediment and detritus
within the water column below the
pool. During this survey, only one P.
hawaiiana individual was trapped, and
seven others were observed in the video
footage. No other species of shrimp,
including V. chaceorum, were observed
during the 2010 survey (Wada 2010, in
litt.). Kensley and Williams (1986, p.
426) reported fragments of crustaceans,
including P. hawaiiana, in gut contents
of V. chaceorum. While P. hawaiiana
occurs in other anchialine pool habitats
on Hawaii Island and Maui, V.
chaceorum is currently only known
from Lua O Palahemo. A reduction in
the abundance of P. hawaiiana may
indicate a loss of food resources for V.
chaceorum, although further research is
needed to confirm this.
During the 2010 survey, it was
discovered that a possible partial
collapse of the interior rock walls of Lua
O Palahemo pool may have occurred
and caused the difficulty experienced
by the survey team to bodily survey to
any depth below the pool’s surface
(Wada 2010, in litt.). This collapse may
also be contributing to reduced flushing
in the pool portion of Lua O Palahemo,
leading to an accumulation of sediment
and detritus in the pool. This
accumulation of sediment could
certainly reduce both food productivity
(i.e., reduce the abundance and
availability of other species of hypogeal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
shrimp co-occurring with Vetericaris
chaceorum) and the ability of V.
chaceorum and other species of
hypogeal shrimp co-occurring with V.
chaceorum to move between the pool
and the water table, thus leading to a
reduction of their numbers within the
pool. The degradation of Lua O
Palahemo by senescence from
sedimentation is a threat to the
continued existence of V. chaceorum by
degrading the conditions of the only
known anchialine pool that supports
this species and by reducing available
food resources (Brock 2004, pp. 10–11,
16).
Summary of Factor A
The threats to the habitats of the 15
species proposed for listing in this rule
occur throughout the entire range of
each of the species. These threats
include land conversion by agriculture
and urbanization, nonnative ungulates
and plants, fire, natural disasters,
environmental changes resulting from
climate change, sedimentation, and the
interaction of these threats.
Development and urbanization of
lowland dry habitat on Hawaii Island
represents a serious and ongoing threat
to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
because of loss and degradation of
habitat.
The effects from ungulates are serious
and ongoing because ungulates
currently occur in all of the 10
ecosystems that support the 15 species
proposed for listing in this rule.
Ungulates are a direct threat to the 13
plant species, the anchialine pool
shrimp (Vetericaris chaceorum), and the
picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa)
proposed for listing in this rule (see
Table 3), because they cause: (1)
Trampling and grazing that directly
impact the plant communities,
including the plant species proposed for
listing, and impact the host plants used
by the picture-wing fly for shelter,
foraging, and reproduction; (2)
increased soil disturbance, leading to
mechanical damage to individuals of the
plant species proposed for listing, and
also plants used by the picture-wing fly
for shelter, foraging, and reproduction;
(3) creation of open, disturbed areas
conducive to weedy plant invasion and
establishment of alien plants from
dispersed fruits and seeds, which
results over time in the conversion of a
community dominated by native
vegetation to one dominated by
nonnative vegetation (leading to all of
the negative impacts associated with
nonnative plants, listed below); and (4)
increased erosion, followed by
sedimentation affecting the anchialine
pool habitat of V. chaceorum. These
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63961
threats are expected to continue or
increase without ungulate control or
eradication.
Nonnative plants represent a serious
and ongoing threat to 14 of the 15
species proposed for listing (all 13 plant
species and the picture-wing fly (see
Table 3)) through habitat destruction
and modification, because they: (1)
Adversely impact microhabitat by
modifying the availability of light; (2)
alter soil-water regimes; (3) modify
nutrient cycling processes; (4) alter fire
characteristics of native plant habitat,
leading to incursions of fire-tolerant
nonnative plant species into native
habitat; (5) outcompete, and possibly
directly inhibit the growth of, native
plant species; and (6) create
opportunities for subsequential
establishment of nonnative vertebrates
and invertebrates. Each of these threats
can convert native-dominated plant
communities to nonnative plant
communities (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33–35). This
conversion has negative impacts on all
13 plant species addressed here, as well
as the native plant species upon which
the picture-wing fly depends for
essential life-history needs.
The threat from fire to 4 of the 15
species in this proposed rule that
depend on lowland dry, lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane dry, and montane
mesic ecosystems (the plants Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Phyllostegia
floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis,
and the picture-wing fly; see Table 3) is
serious and ongoing because fire
damages and destroys native vegetation,
including dormant seeds, seedlings, and
juvenile and adult plants. Many
nonnative, invasive plants, particularly
fire-tolerant grasses, outcompete native
plants and inhibit their regeneration
(D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70,
73–74; Tunison et al. 2002, p. 122).
Successive fires that burn farther and
farther into native habitat destroy native
plants and remove habitat for native
species by altering microclimatic
conditions and creating conditions
favorable to alien plants. The threat
from fire is unpredictable but increasing
in frequency in ecosystems that have
been invaded by nonnative fire-prone
grasses, and that are experiencing
abnormally dry to severe drought
conditions.
Natural disasters such as hurricanes
are a threat to native Hawaiian
terrestrial habitat including 9 of the 10
ecosystems (all except the anchialine
pool ecosystem) addressed here, and the
13 plant species identified in this rule,
because they result in direct impacts to
ecosystems and individual plants by
opening the forest canopy, modifying
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63962
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
available light, and creating disturbed
areas that are conducive to invasion by
nonnative pest plants (Asner and
Goldstein 1997, p. 148; Harrington et al.
1997, pp. 346–347). In addition,
hurricanes threaten the picture-wing fly
species proposed for listing in this rule
because strong winds and intense
rainfall can kill individual host plants,
and can dislodge individual flies and
their larvae from their host plants and
deposit them on the ground where they
may be crushed by falling debris or
eaten by nonnative wasps and ants. The
impacts of hurricanes and other
stochastic natural events can be
particularly devastating to 14 of the
species (all except the anchialine pool
shrimp) proposed for listing because, as
a result of other threats, they now
persist in low numbers or occur in
restricted ranges and are therefore less
resilient to such disturbances, rendering
them highly vulnerable to extirpation.
Furthermore, a particularly destructive
hurricane holds the potential of driving
a localized endemic species to
extinction in a single event. Hurricanes
pose an ongoing and ever-present threat
because they are unpredictable and can
happen at any time.
Rockfalls, treefalls, landsides, heavy
rain, and erosion are a threat to four of
the species proposed for listing (the
plants Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, and Cyrtandra wagneri; see
Table 3) by destabilizing substrates,
damaging and destroying individual
plants, and altering hydrological
patterns, which result in habitat
destruction or modification and changes
to native plant and animal communities.
Drought threatens two plant species
(Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and
Schiedea hawaiiensis) and the picturewing fly (Drosophila digressa) by the
loss or degradation of habitat due to
death of individual native plants and
host tree species, as well as an increase
in forest and brush fires. These threats
are serious and unpredictable, and have
the potential to occur at any time.
Changes in environmental conditions
that may result from global climate
change include increasing temperatures,
decreasing precipitation, increasing
storm intensities, and sea-level rise and
coastal inundation. The consequent
impacts on the 15 species proposed for
listing here are related to changes in
microclimatic conditions in their
habitats. These changes may lead to the
loss of native species due to direct
physiological stress, the loss or
alteration of habitat, or changes in
disturbance regimes (e.g., droughts, fire,
storms, and hurricanes). However, the
specific and cumulative effects of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
climate change on the 15 species are
presently unknown, and we are not able
to determine the extent of this possible
threat with confidence.
Erosion and resulting sedimentation
of the Lua O Palahemo pool system is
a threat to the anchialine pool shrimp
(Vetericaris chaceorum). The
sedimentation of the pool may also
change the water chemistry (i.e., salinity
and dissolved oxygen) of the pool and
the ability of the pool to support
hypogeal anchialine pool shrimp such
as V. chaceorum, although further
research is needed. Accumulation of
sediment and detritus reduces the
abundance of food resources, such as P.
hawaiana and other co-occurring
hypogeal shrimp, for V. chaceorum,
although further research is needed to
confirm this. In addition, sedimentation
degrades the conditions of the only
anchialine pool known to support V.
chaceorum.
Factor B. Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
The plant species Pritchardia lanigera
is threatened by overcollection for
commercial and recreational purposes
(Hillebrand 1888, pp. 21–27; Chapin et
al. 2004, pp. 273, 278). We are aware
that some species of Hawaiian
anchialine pool shrimp are sold and
purchased on the Internet; however we
do not believe that the proposed
anchialine pool shrimp is threatened by
overcollection for commercial or
recreational purposes due to the
remoteness of its currently known
location and difficulty of accessing this
species within the deeper lava tube
portions of the Lua O Palahemo
anchialine pool. We are not aware of
any threats to the remaining 12 plant
species or the picture-wing fly
addressed in this proposed rule that
would be attributed to overutilization
for commercial, recreational, scientific
or educational purposes.
Pritchardia lanigera
The genus Pritchardia has 28 known
species, 14 of which are endemic to the
Hawaiian Islands, and its range is
restricted to the Pacific archipelagos of
Hawaii, Fiji, the Cook Islands, Tonga,
and Tuamotus (Chapin et al. 2004, p.
273). Pritchardia palms have been
valued as collectibles for centuries
(Hillebrand 1888, pp. 21–27; Chapin et
al. 2004, pp. 273, 278). In 1888, botanist
Wilhelm Hillebrand noted that, ‘‘* * *
one species of Pritchardia in Nuuanu,
* * * was completely exterminated
when natives found that the trees were
saleable to amateurs of gardening in
Honolulu.’’ Pritchardia has become one
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
of the most widely cultivated
ornamental palm genera in the world
(Maunder et al. 2001 in Chapin et al.
2004, p. 278). There is an international
trade in Pritchardia seeds and seedlings
that has created a market in which
individual Pritchardia seeds sell for 5 to
35 dollars each (Chapin et al. 2004, p.
278; Clark 2010, in litt.;
rarepalmseeds.com). Most seeds sold are
cultivated; however, wild collection of
some ‘‘highly-threatened’’ species does
occur (Chapin et al. 2004, p. 278). There
are over a dozen internet Web sites that
offer Hawaiian Pritchardia plants and
seeds for sale, including Pritchardia
lanigera (e.g., eBay.com; google.com).
Based on the history of collection of
endemic Hawaiian Pritchardia plants
and seeds, the market for Hawaiian
Pritchardia plants and seeds, and the
vulnerability of the small populations of
Pritchardia lanigera to the negative
impacts of any collection, we consider
overcollection of Pritchardia lanigera to
pose a serious and ongoing threat,
because it can occur at any time,
although its occurrence is not
predictable.
Anchialine Pool Shrimp
While we are aware of only one
collection of the anchialine pool shrimp
Vetericaris chaceorum for scientific and
educational purposes (Kensley and
Williams, 1986, pp. 419–429), there is
no information available that indicates
this species has ever been collected for
commercial or recreational purposes.
Other Hawaiian anchialine pool shrimp
(e.g., opaeula (Halocaridina rubra)) and
the candidate species Metabetaeus
lohena (NCN) are collected for the
aquarium market (e.g., FukuBonsai.com; ecosaqua.com; eBay.com;
and, seahorse.com), including selfcontained aquariums similar to those
marketed by Ecosphere Associates, Inc.
(Ecosphere Associates 2011, p. 1). Two
of these companies are located in
Hawaii (FukuBonsai and Stockly’s
Aquariums of Hawaii). However, we
believe the anchialine pool shrimp
proposed for listing in this rule is not
likely to be among those species
collected for commercial or recreational
purposes given the species’ limited
distribution and generally inaccessible
habitat. Therefore, we do not consider
overcollection to pose a threat to
Vetericaris chaceorum.
Summary of Overcollection for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We have no evidence to suggest that
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes poses a threat to 12 of the 13
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
plant species, the picture-wing fly, or
the anchialine pool shrimp proposed for
listing in this rule. The plant species
Pritchardia lanigera is vulnerable to the
impacts of overutilization due to
collection for trade or market. Based on
the history of collection of endemic
Hawaiian Pritchardia spp., the market
for Hawaiian Pritchardia trees and
seeds, and the inherent vulnerability of
the small populations of Pritcharidia
lanigera to the removal of individuals
(seeds), we consider collection to pose
a serious and ongoing threat to this
species.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
We are not aware of any threats to the
13 plant species, anchialine pool
shrimp, or picture-wing fly, proposed
for listing in this rule that would be
attributable to disease.
Predation and Herbivory
Hawaii’s plants and animals evolved
in nearly complete isolation from
continental influences. Successful
colonization of these remote volcanic
islands was infrequent, and many
organisms never succeeded in
establishing populations. As an
example, Hawaii lacks any native ants
or conifers, has very few families of
birds, and has only a single native land
mammal—a bat (Loope 1998, p. 748). In
the absence of any grazing or browsing
mammals, plants that became
established did not need mechanical or
chemical defenses against mammalian
herbivory such as thorns, prickles, and
production of toxins. As the
evolutionary pressure to either produce
or maintain such defenses was lacking,
Hawaiian plants either lost or never
developed these adaptations (Carlquist
1980, p. 173). Likewise, native Hawaiian
birds and insects experienced no
evolutionary pressure to develop antipredator mechanisms against mammals
or invertebrates that were not
historically present on the island. The
native flora and fauna of the islands are
thus particularly vulnerable to the
impacts of introduced nonnative
species, as discussed below.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Introduced Ungulates
In addition to the habitat impacts
discussed above (see ‘‘Habitat
Destruction and Modification by
Introduced Ungulates’’ under Factor A.
The Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range), introduced ungulates
and their resulting impacts are a threat
to the 13 plant species in this proposal
by grazing and browsing individual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
plants (this information is also
presented in Table 3): Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (pigs
and goats), B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla (pigs and goats), Cyanea
marksii (pigs, cattle, and mouflon),
Cyanea tritomantha (pigs and cattle),
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (pigs),
Cyrtandra wagneri (pigs), Phyllostegia
floribunda (pigs), Pittosporum
hawaiiense (pigs, cattle, and mouflon),
Platydesma remyi (pigs), Pritchardia
lanigera (pigs, goats, and mouflon),
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei (pigs and
cattle), Schiedea hawaiiensis (pigs,
goats, sheep, and mouflon), and
Stenogyne cranwelliae (pigs). In
addition, introduced ungulates are a
threat to the picture-wing fly proposed
for listing by grazing and browsing
individuals of its host plant,
Charpentiera spp. (pigs, goats, cattle,
and mouflon).
We have direct evidence of ungulate
damage to some of these species, but for
many, due to their remote locations or
lack of study, ungulate damage is
presumed based on the known presence
of these introduced ungulates in the
areas where these species occur and the
results of studies conducted in Hawaii
and elsewhere (Diong 1982, p. 160).
Magnacca et al. (2008, p. 32) and others
(Maui Forest Bird Recovery Project
2011, in litt.) found that native plant
species such as the Hawaiian lobelioids
(e.g., Cyanea spp.) and plants in the
African violet family (e.g., Cyrtandra
spp.) are particularly vulnerable to pig
disturbance. In a study conducted by
Diong (1982, p. 160) on Maui, feral pigs
were observed browsing on young
shoots, leaves, and fronds of a wide
variety of plants, of which over 75
percent were endemic species. A
stomach content analysis in this study
showed that 60 percent of the pigs’ food
source consisted of the endemic
Cibotium (hapuu, tree fern). Pigs were
observed to fell plants and remove the
bark from native plant species within
the genera Cibotium, Clermontia,
Coprosma, Hedyotis, Psychotria, and
Scaevola, resulting in larger trees being
killed over a few months of repeated
feeding (Diong 1982, p. 144). Beach
(1997, pp. 3–4) found that feral pigs in
Texas spread disease and parasites, and
their rooting and wallowing behavior
led to spoilage of watering holes and
loss of soil through leaching and
erosion. Rooting activities also
decreased the survivability of some
plant species through disruption at root
level of mature plants and seedlings
(Beach 1997, pp. 3–4; Anderson et al.
2007, pp. 2–3). In Hawaii, pigs dig up
forest ground cover consisting of
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63963
delicate and rare species of orchids,
ferns, mints, lobeliads, and other taxa,
including roots, tubers and rhizomes
(Stone and Anderson 1988, p. 137).
In addition, there are direct
observations of pig herbivory, on either
the fresh seedlings, fruits, seeds, or
leaves, on each of the 13 plant species
proposed for listing in this rule,
including Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana (Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011,
pers. comm.), Cyanea marksii (PEPP
2010, p. 52; Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
Cyanea tritomantha (HBMP 2010f; PEPP
2010, p. 60), Cyrtandra nanawaleensis
(Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Cyrtandra
wagneri (Lorence and Perlman 2007, p.
359; PEPP 2010, p. 63), Phyllostegia
floribunda (Perlman and Wood 1993—
Hawaii Plant Conservation Maps
database; Perry 2006, in litt.; Pratt
2007b, in litt.; USFWS 2010, p. 4–66),
Pittosporum hawaiiense (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.), Platydesma remyi (PEPP 2008,
p. 107), Pritchardia lanigera (Wood
1995, in litt.; HBMP 2010c), Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei (Wagner et al.
2005d, p. 32), Schiedea hawaiiensis
(Mitchell et al. 2005a; Wagner et al.
2005d, p. 32; Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
and Stenogyne cranwelliae (HBMP
2010k). According to Magnacca et al.
(2008, p. 32) several of the host plants
of Hawaiian picture-wing flies,
including the host plant of the picturewing fly (i.e., Charpentiera sp.)
proposed in this rule, are susceptible to
damage from feral ungulates such as
pigs. As pigs occur in 9 of the 10
ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry
cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island, the
results of the studies described above
suggest that pigs can also alter these
ecosystems and directly damage or
destroy native plants.
Feral goats thrive on a variety of food
plants, and are instrumental in the
decline of native vegetation in many
areas (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 64).
Feral goats trample roots and seedlings,
cause erosion, and promote the invasion
of alien plants. They are able to forage
in extremely rugged terrain and have a
high reproductive capacity (Clarke and
Cuddihy 1980, p. C–20; van Riper and
van Riper 1982, pp. 34–35; Tomich
1986, pp. 153–156; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 64). Goats were observed to
browse on native plant species in the
following genera: Argyroxiphium,
Canavalia, Plantago, Schiedea, and
Stenogyne (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
64). A study on the island of Hawaii
demonstrated that Acacia koa seedlings
are unable to survive due to browsing
and grazing by goats (Spatz and
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Mueller-Dombois 1973, p. 874). If goats
are maintained at constantly high
numbers, mature A. koa trees will
eventually die, and with them the root
systems that support suckers and
vegetative reproduction. One study
demonstrated a positive height-growth
response of A. koa suckers to the 3-year
exclusion of goats (1968–1971) inside a
fenced area, whereas suckers were
similarly abundant but very small
outside of the fenced area (Spatz and
Mueller-Dombois 1973, p. 873). Another
study at Puuwaawaa demonstrated that
prior to management actions in 1985,
regeneration of endemic shrubs and
trees in the goat-grazed area was almost
totally lacking, contributing to the
invasion of the forest understory by
exotic grasses and weeds. After the
removal of grazing animals in 1985, A.
koa and Metrosideros spp. seedlings
were observed germinating by the
thousands (HDOFAW 2002, p. 52).
Based on a comparison of fenced and
unfenced areas, it is clear that goats can
devastate native ecosystems (Loope et
al. 1988, p. 277).
Goats seek out seedlings and juveniles
of Bidens spp. (Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
and are known to indiscriminately graze
on and eat the seeds of native Hawaiian
Pritchardia species (Chapin et al. 2004,
p. 274; Chapin et al. 2007, p. 20). The
two known occurrences of the plant
Pritchardia lanigera are found in an
unfenced area of the Kohala Mountains,
where they are impacted by browsing
and grazing by goats and other
ungulates (Warshauer et al. 2009, pp.
10, 24; Laws et al. 2010, in litt.).
Schiedea spp. are favored by grazing
goats, and goat browsing threatens the
only known population of the plant
species Schiedea hawaiiensis (Wagner
et al. 2005d, p. 32; Chynoweth et al.
2011, in litt.). In addition, there are
direct observations of goat herbivory, on
either the fresh seedlings, fruit, seeds, or
leaves, of four of the plant species
proposed for listing in this rule,
including Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana (Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011,
pers. comm.; Knoche 2011, in litt.),
Pritchardia lanigera (Wood 1995, in
litt.; Chapin et al. 2004, p. 274), and
Schiedea hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al.
2005a). According to Magnacca et al.
(2008, p. 32) several of the host plants
of Hawaiian picture-wing flies,
including the host plant of the picturewing fly (i.e., Charpentiera sp.)
proposed in this rule, are susceptible to
damage from feral ungulates such as
goats. As goats occur in nine of the
ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry
cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island, the
results of the studies described above
suggest that goats can also alter these
ecosystems and directly damage or
destroy native plants.
Four of the plant species proposed for
listing in this rule (Cyanea marksii, C.
tritomantha, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
and Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei), and
the host plant of the picture-wing fly
(Charpentiera sp.), are impacted by
browsing and grazing by feral cattle.
Cattle, either feral or domestic, are
considered one of the most significant
factors in the destruction of Hawaiian
forests (Baldwin and Fagerlund 1943,
pp. 118–122). Captain George
Vancouver of the British Royal Navy is
attributed with introducing cattle to the
Hawaiian Islands in 1793 (Fischer 2007,
p. 350), by way of a gift to King
Kamehameha I on the island of Hawaii.
Over time, cattle became established on
all of the main Hawaiian Islands, and
historically feral cattle were found on
the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,
Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii.
Currently, feral cattle are found only on
Maui and Hawaii, typically in accessible
forests and certain coastal and lowland
leeward habitats (Tomich 1986, pp.
140–144).
In HVNP, Cuddihy reported that there
were twice as many native plant species
as nonnatives found in areas that had
been fenced to exclude feral cattle,
whereas on the adjacent, nonfenced
cattle ranch, there were twice as many
nonnative plant species as natives
(Cuddihy 1984, pp. 16, 34). Skolmen
and Fujii (1980, pp. 301–310) found that
Acacia koa seedlings were able to
reestablish in a moist A. koa–
Metrosideros polymorpha forest on
Hawaii Island after the area was fenced
to exclude feral cattle (Skolmen and
Fujii 1980, pp. 301–310). Cattle eat
native vegetation, trample roots and
seedlings, cause erosion, create
disturbed areas conducive to invasion
by nonnative plants, and spread seeds of
nonnative plants in their feces and on
their bodies. Cattle have been observed
accessing native plants in Hakalau NWR
by breaking down ungulate exclosure
fences (Tummons 2011, p. 4). In
addition, there are direct observations of
cattle herbivory on three of the plant
species proposed in this rule, including
Cyanea marksii (PEPP 2010, p. 52), C.
tritomantha (PEPP 2010, p. 60), and
Pittosporum hawaiiense (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). In addition, although we have
no direct observations, we also consider
the plant Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei
to be susceptible to herbivory by cattle
because cattle are reported to favor
plants in the genus Schiedea (Wagner et
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
al. 2005d, pp. 31–32) and feral cattle
still occur in the Kohala Mountains, the
location of the only known individual of
this species. Between 1987 and 1994,
populations of Schiedea salicaria on
West Maui were grazed so extensively
by cattle, all of the individuals of this
species in accessible areas disappeared
by 1994 (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32).
Cattle are also known to browse the host
plant of the proposed picture-wing fly
(Charpentiera spp.) (Magnacca et al.
2008, p. 32; Magnacca 2011b, pers.
comm.). As feral cattle occur in five of
the described ecosystems (anchialine
pool, lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane mesic, and montane wet) on
Hawaii Island, the results of the studies
described above suggest that feral cattle
can also alter these ecosystems and
directly damage or destroy native
plants.
Feral sheep browse and trample
native vegetation and have decimated
large areas of native forest and
shrubland (Tomich 1986, pp. 156–163;
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65–66).
Large areas of Hawaii Island have been
devastated by sheep. For example,
sheep browsing reduced seedling
establishment of Sophora chrysophylla
(mamane) so severely that it resulted in
a reduction of the tree line elevation on
Mauna Kea (Warner 1960 in Juvik and
Juvik 1984, pp. 191–202). Currently
there is a large sheep-mouflon sheep
hybrid population (see ‘‘Habitat
Destruction and Modification by
Introduced Ungulates’’ above) on Mauna
Kea that extends into the saddle and
northern part of Mauna Loa, and there
are reports that these animals are
destroying endangered plants (Hess
2008, p. 1). There are direct
observations of feral sheep herbivory on
individuals of the only known
occurrence of the plant species
Schiedea hawaiiensis at PTA (Mitchell
et al. 2005a; U.S. Army Garrison 2006,
p. 34). As feral sheep occur in one of the
described ecosystems (montane dry) on
Hawaii Island, the results of the studies
described above suggest that sheep can
also alter this ecosystem and directly
damage or destroy native plants.
Mouflon sheep graze native
vegetation, trample undergrowth, spread
weeds, and cause erosion. On the island
of Hawaii, mouflon sheep browsing led
to the decline in the largest population
of the endangered Argyroxiphium
kauense (kau silversword, Mauna Loa
silversword or ahinahina) located on the
former Kahuku Ranch, reducing it from
a ‘‘magnificent population of several
thousand’’ (Degener et al. 1976, pp.
173–174) to fewer than 2,000
individuals (unpublished data in Powell
1992, in litt., p. 312) over a period of 10
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
years (1974–1984). The native tree
Sophora chrysophylla is also a preferred
browse species for mouflon. According
to Scowcroft and Sakai (1983, p. 495),
mouflon eat the shoots, leaves, flowers
and bark of this species. Bark stripping
on the thin bark of a young tree is
potentially lethal. Mouflon are also
reported to strip bark from Acacia koa
trees (Hess 2008, p. 3) and to seek out
the threatened plant Silene hawaiiensis
(Benitez et al. 2008, p. 57). In the
Kahuku section of HVNP, mouflon
jumped the park boundary fence and
reduced one population of S.
hawaiiensis to half its original size over
a 3-year period (Belfield and Pratt 2002,
p. 8). Other native species browsed by
mouflon include Geranium cuneatum
ssp. cuneatum (hinahina, silver
geranium), G. cuneatum ssp.
hypoleucum (hinahina, silver
geranium), and Sanicula sandwicensis
(NCN) (Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 59, 61).
On Lanai, mouflon were once cited as
one of the greatest threats to the
endangered Gardenia brighamii
(Mehrhoff 1993, p. 11), although fencing
has now proven to be an effective
mechanism against mouflon herbivory
on this plant (Mehrhoff 1993, pp. 22–
23). Due to their high agility and
reproductive rates, mouflon sheep have
the potential to occupy most ecosystems
found on Hawaii Island, from sea-level
to very high elevations (Hess 2010, pers.
comm.; Ikagawa 2011, in litt.). Further,
Ovis spp. are known throughout the
world for chewing vegetation right
down to the dirt (Ikagawa 2011, in litt.).
Recent research by Ikagawa (2011, in
litt.) suggests that the plant species
Pritchardia lanigera occurs within the
observed range of mouflon, and is
potentially impacted by mouflon
browsing. In addition, there are direct
observations or reports that mouflon
sheep browsing and grazing
significantly impact the plant species
Cyanea marksii, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, and Schiedea hawaiiensis
(Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Pratt 2011e, in
litt.), which are proposed for listing. The
host plant (Charpentiera spp.) for the
picture-wing fly species appears to be
decreasing throughout its range due to
impacts from mouflon browsing
(Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–23;
Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). As
mouflon occur in five of the described
ecosystems (lowland wet, lowland
mesic, montane dry, montane mesic,
and montane wet) on Hawaii Island, the
results of the studies described above
suggest that mouflon sheep can also
alter these ecosystems and directly
damage or destroy native plants.
Axis deer were introduced as a game
animal to Molokai in 1868, Oahu by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
1898, Lanai in 1920, and Maui in 1959,
and between 2010 and 2011,
unauthorized releases occurred on
Hawaii Island (Hess 2008, p. 2; Kessler
2011, in litt.; Aila 2012a, in litt.). This
new introduction to Hawaii Island
raises a significant concern due to the
reported damage axis deer cause on the
island of Maui (see Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range above). Most of the
available information on axis deer in the
Hawaiian Islands concerns observations
and reports from the island of Maui. On
Maui, axis deer were introduced by the
State as a game animal, but their
numbers have steadily increased,
especially in recent years on Haleakala
(Luna 2003, p. 44). During the 4-year El
˜
Nino drought from 1998 through 2001,
Maui experienced an 80 to 90 percent
decline in shrub and vine species
caused by deer browsing and girdling of
young saplings. High mortality of rare
and native plant species was observed
(Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.). Axis deer
consume progressively less palatable
plants until no edible vegetation is left
(Hess 2008, p. 3). Axis deer are highly
adaptable to changing conditions, and
are characterized as ‘‘plastic’’ (meaning
flexible in their behavior) by Ables
(1977, cited in Anderson 1999, p. 5).
They exhibit a high degree of
opportunism regarding their choice of
forage (Dinerstein 1987, cited in
Anderson 1999, p. 5) and can be found
in all but the highest elevation
ecosystems (subalpine and alpine) and
montane bogs, according to Medeiros
(2010, pers. comm.).
Axis deer on Maui follow a cycle of
grazing and browsing in open lowland
grasslands during the rainy season
(November–March) and then migrate to
the lava flows of montane mesic forests
during the dry summer months to graze
and browse native plants (Medeiros
2010, pers. comm.). Axis deer are
known to favor the native plants
Abutilon menziesii (an endangered
species), Erythrina sandwicensis
(wiliwili), and Sida fallax (ilima)
(Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.). During
the driest months of summer (July and
August), axis deer can even be found
along Maui’s coastal roads as they
search for food. Hunting pressure also
appears to drive the deer into native
forests, particularly the lower rainforests
up to 4,000 to 5,000 ft (1,220 and 1,525
m) in elevation (Medeiros 2010, pers.
comm.), and according to Kessler and
Hess (2010, pers. comms.) axis deer can
be found up to 9,000 ft (2,743 m)
elevation. On Lanai, grazing by axis deer
has been reported as a major threat to
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63965
the endangered Gardenia brighamii
(nau) (Mehrhoff 1993, p. 11). Swedberg
and Walker (1978, cited in Anderson
2003, pp. 124–125) reported that in the
upper forests of Lanai, the native plants
Osteomeles anthyllidifolia (ulei) and
Leptecophylla tameiameiae (pukiawe)
comprised more than 30 percent of axis
deer rumen volume. On Molokai
browsing by axis deer has been reported
on Erythrina sandwicensis and
Nototrichium sandwicense (kului)
(Medeiros et al. 1996, pp. 11, 19). Other
native plant species consumed by axis
deer include Achyranthes splendens
(NCN), Bidens campylotheca ssp.
pentamera (kookoolau) and B.
campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis
(kookoolau), Chamaesyce celastroides
var. lorifolia (akoko), Diospyros
sandwicensis (lama), Geranium
multiflorum (nohoanu; an endangered
species), Lipochaeta rockii var. dissecta
(nehe), Osmanthus sandwicensis
(ulupua), Panicum torridum
(kakonakona), and Santalum ellipticum
(laau ala) (Anderson 2002, poster;
Perlman 2009, in litt., pp. 4–5). As
demonstrated on the Islands of Lanai,
Maui, and Molokai, axis deer will
spread into nine of the described
ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry
cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island if
not controlled. The newly established
axis deer partnership (see Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range, above) is currently
implementing an axis deer response and
removal plan, and just recently reported
their first confirmed removal on April
11, 2012 (Osher 2012, in litt.). In
addition, there is a proposed revision to
HRS 91 (see Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
and Factor D. The Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms) that
would address the gap in the current
emergency rules authority and expand
the ability of State agencies to adopt
emergency rules to include situations
that impose imminent threats to natural
resources (i.e., axis deer on Hawaii
Island). The results from the studies
above, combined with direct
observations from field biologists,
suggest that grazing and browsing by
axis deer can impose negative impacts
to the nine ecosystems above and their
associated native plants should this
nonnative ungulate increase in numbers
and range on Hawaii Island.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63966
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Other Introduced Vertebrates
Rats
There are three species of introduced
rats in the Hawaiian Islands. Studies of
Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) DNA
suggest they first appeared in the
Hawaiian Islands along with emigrants
from the Marquesas about 400 A.D.,
with a second interaction around 1100
A.D (Ziegler 2002, p. 315). The black rat
(R. rattus) and the Norway rat (R.
norvegicus) most likely arrived in the
Hawaiian Islands more recently, as
stowaways on ships sometime in the
late 19th century (Atkinson and
Atkinson 2000, p. 25). The Polynesian
rat and the black rat are primarily found
in the wild, in dry to wet habitats, while
the Norway rat is typically found in
manmade habitats such as urban areas
or agricultural fields (Tomich 1986, p.
41). The black rat is widely distributed
among the main Hawaiian Islands and
can be found in a broad range of
ecosystems up to 9,744 ft (2,970 m), but
it is most common at low-to midelevations (Tomich 1986, pp. 38–40).
While Sugihara (1997, p. 194) found
both the black and Polynesian rats up to
6,972 ft (2,125 m) elevation on Maui, the
Norway rat was not seen at the higher
elevations in his study. Rats occur in
nine of the described ecosystems
(coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet
cliff), and predation by rats threatens 11
of the 13 plant species proposed for
listing in this rule (rats are not a
reported threat to the proposed picturewing fly or anchialine pool shrimp (see
Table 3)).
Rats impact native plants by eating
fleshy fruits, seeds, flowers, stems,
leaves, roots, and other plant parts
(Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 23),
and can seriously affect regeneration.
Research on rats in forests in New
Zealand has also demonstrated that,
over time, differential regeneration as a
consequence of rat predation may alter
the species composition of forested
areas (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 68–
69). Rats have caused declines or even
the total elimination of island plant
species (Campbell and Atkinson 1999,
cited in Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p.
24). In the Hawaiian Islands, rats may
consume as much as 90 percent of the
seeds produced by some trees, or in
some cases prevent the regeneration of
forest species completely (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, pp. 68–69). All three
species of rat (black, Norway, and
Polynesian) have been reported to be a
serious threat to many endangered or
threatened Hawaiian plants (Stone 1985,
p. 264; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
67–69). Plants with fleshy fruits are
particularly susceptible to rat predation,
including some of the species proposed
for listing here. For example, the fruits
of plants in the bellflower family (e.g.,
Cyanea spp.) appear to be a target of rat
predation (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp.
67–69). In addition to both species of
Cyanea (Cyanea marksii and Cyanea
tritomantha), nine other species of
plants proposed for listing are
significantly impacted by rat predation,
including Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra
wagneri (Lorence and Perlman 2007, pp.
357–361; Bio 2011, pers. comm.),
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Pritchardia
lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei,
Schiedea hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
pp. 67–69; Gon III and Tierney 1996, in
litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; Pratt 2008b, in
litt.; Bio 2010, pers. comm.; HBMP
2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010j;
HBMP 2010k; PEPP 2010, pp. 101, 113;
Pratt 2011f, in litt.). As rats occur in
nine of the described ecosystems
(coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet
cliff) on Hawaii Island, the results from
the above studies, in addition to direct
observations from field biologists,
suggest that rats can directly damage or
destroy native plants.
Nonnative Fish
In Hawaii, the introduction of
nonnative fish, including bait-fish, into
anchialine pools may have been a major
contributor to the decline of native
shrimp. Predation by, and competition
with, introduced nonnative fish is
considered the greatest threat to native
shrimp within anchialine pool
ecosystems (Bailey-Brock and Brock
1993, p. 354; Brock 2004, pp. 13–17).
These impacts are discussed further in
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence below.
Invertebrates
Nonnative Slugs
Predation by nonnative slugs
adversely impacts 5 of the 13 plant
species (Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae; see Table 3) proposed for
listing through mechanical damage,
destruction of plant parts, and mortality
(U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3–51; Joe
2006, p. 10; Lorence and Perlman 2007,
p. 359; Bio 2008, in litt.; Perlman and
Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010k). On
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Oahu, slugs have been reported to
destroy Cyanea calycina and Cyrtandra
kaulantha in the wild, and have been
observed eating leaves and fruit of wild
and cultivated individuals of Cyanea
(Mehrhoff 1995, in litt.; Pratt and Abbott
1997, p. 13; U.S. Army Garrison 2006,
pp. 3–34, 3–51). In addition, slugs have
damaged individuals of other Cyanea
and Cyrtandra species in the wild
(Wood et al. 2001, p. 3; Sailer and Keir
2002, in litt., p. 3; PEPP 2007, p. 38;
PEPP 2008, pp. 23, 49, 52–53, 57).
Little is known about predation of
certain rare plants by slugs; however,
information in the U.S. Army’s 2005
‘‘Status Report for the Makua
Implementation Plan’’ indicates that
slugs can be a threat to all species of
Cyanea (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3–
51). Research investigating slug
herbivory and control methods shows
that slug impacts on seedlings of Cyanea
spp. results in up to 80 percent seedling
mortality (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p.
3–51). Slug damage has also been
reported on other Hawaiian plants
including Argyroxiphium grayanum
(greensword), Alsinidendron sp.,
Hibiscus sp., Schiedea kaalae
(maolioli), Solanum sandwicense
(popolo aiakeakua), and Urera sp.
(Gagne 1983, p. 190–191; Sailer 2002
cited in Joe 2006, pp. 28–34).
Joe and Daehler (2008, p. 252) found
that native Hawaiian plants are more
vulnerable to slug damage than
nonnative plants. In particular, they
found that the individuals of the
endangered plant Cyanea superba and
the plant Schiedea obovata had 50
percent higher mortality when exposed
to slugs when compared to individuals
of the same species that were protected
within slug exclosures. Slug damage has
been documented on the plant
Stenogyne cranwelliae (HBMP 2010k).
As slugs are found in three of the
described ecosystems (lowland wet,
montane wet, and wet cliff) on Hawaii
Island, the data from the above studies,
in addition to direct observations from
field biologists, suggest that slugs can
directly damage or destroy native
plants.
Nonnative Western Yellow-Jacket
Wasps
The western yellow-jacket wasp
(Vespula pensylvanica) is a social wasp
species native to the mainland of North
America. It was first reported from Oahu
in the 1930s (Nishida and Evenhuis in
Sherley 2000, p. 121), and an aggressive
race became established in 1977
(Gambino et al. 1987, p. 170). This
species is now particularly abundant
between 1,969 and 5,000 ft (600 and
1,524 m) in elevation (Gambino et al.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
1990, pp. 1,088–1,095; Foote and Carson
1995, p. 371) on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai,
Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii Island (GISD
2012b). The western yellow-jacket wasp
is an aggressive, generalist predator
(Gambino et al. 1987, p. 170). In
temperate climates, the western yellowjacket wasp has an annual life cycle, but
in Hawaii’s tropical climate, colonies of
this species persist through a second
year, allowing them to have larger
numbers of individuals and thus a
greater impact on prey populations
(Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169–170). In
Haleakala National Park on Maui,
western yellow-jacket wasps were found
to forage predominantly on native
arthropods (Gambino et al. 1987, pp.
169–170; Gambino et al. 1990, pp.
1,088–1,095; Gambino and Loope 1992,
pp. 15–21). Western yellow-jacket
wasps have also been observed carrying
and feeding upon recently captured
adult Hawaiian Drosophila (Kaneshiro
and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40–45). These
wasps are also believed to feed upon
picture-wing fly larvae within their host
plants (Carson 1986, pp. 3–9). In
addition, native picture-wing flies,
including the species in this proposed
rule, may be particularly vulnerable to
predation by wasps due to their lekking
(male territorial defensive displays
during courtship and mating) behavior
and conspicuous courtship displays that
can last for several minutes (Kaneshiro
2006, pers. comm.). The concurrent
arrival of the western yellow-jacket
wasp and decline of picture-wing fly
observations in some areas suggest that
the wasp may have played a significant
role in the decline of some of the
picture-wing fly populations, including
populations of the picture-wing fly
proposed for listing in this rule (Carson
1986, pp. 3–9; Foote and Carson 1995,
p. 371; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995,
pp. 40–45; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–
23). As the western yellow-jacket wasp
is widespread within three ecosystems
(lowland mesic, montane mesic, and
wet ecosystems) on Hawaii Island in
which the two known occurrences of
the proposed picture-wing fly occur, the
results from the studies above, in
addition to observations by field
biologists, suggest that western yellowjacket wasps can directly kill
individuals of the picture-wing fly
(Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371;
Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40–
45; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–23).
Nonnative Parasitoid Wasps
The number of native parasitic
Hymenoptera (parasitic wasps) in
Hawaii is limited, and only species in
the family Eucoilidae are known to use
Hawaiian picture-wing flies as hosts
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
(Montgomery 1975, pp. 74–75;
Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 44–
45). However, several species of small
parasitic wasps (Family Braconidae),
including Diachasmimorpha tryoni
(NCN), D. longicaudata (NCN), Opius
vandenboschi (NCN), and Biosteres
arisanus (NCN), were purposefully
introduced into Hawaii to control
nonnative pest tephritid fruit flies
(Funasaki et al. 1988, pp. 105–160).
These parasitic wasps are also known to
attack other species of flies, including
native flies in the family Tephritidae.
While these parasitic wasps have not
been recorded parasitizing Hawaiian
picture-wing flies and, in fact, may not
successfully develop in Drosophilidae,
females will indiscriminately sting any
fly larvae in their attempts to oviposit
(lay eggs), resulting in mortality of the
fly larvae (Evans 1962, pp. 468–483).
Nonnative Ants
Ants are not a natural component of
Hawaii’s arthropod fauna, and native
species evolved in the absence of
predation pressure from ants. Ants can
be particularly destructive predators
because of their high densities,
recruitment behavior, aggressiveness,
and broad range of diet (Reimer 1993,
pp. 13–17). Ants can prey directly upon
native arthropods, exclude them
through interference or exploitation
competition for food resources, or
displace them by monopolizing nesting
or shelter sites (Krushelnychy et al.
2005, p. 6). The threat of ant predation
on the picture-wing fly species
proposed for listing in this rule is
amplified by the fact that most ant
species have winged reproductive
adults (Borror et al. 1989, p. 738) and
can quickly establish new colonies in
additional suitable habitats (Staples and
Cowie 2001, p. 55). These attributes
allow some ants to destroy otherwise
geographically isolated populations of
native arthropods (Nafus 1993, pp. 19,
22–23).
At least 47 species of ants are known
to be established in the Hawaiian
Islands (Krushelnycky 2008, pp. 1–11),
and at least 4 particularly aggressive
species (the big-headed ant (Pheidole
megacephala), the long-legged ant (also
known as the yellow crazy ant)
(Anoplolepis gracilipes), Solenopsis
papuana (NCN), and Solenopsis
geminata (NCN)) have severely
impacted the native insect fauna, likely
including native picture-wing flies
(Reimer 1993, pp. 13–17). Numerous
other species of ants are recognized as
threats to Hawaii’s native invertebrates,
and an unknown number of new species
are established every few years (Staples
and Cowie 2001, p. 53). As a group, ants
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63967
occupy most of Hawaii’s habitat types,
from coastal to subalpine ecosystems;
however, many species are still
invading mid-elevation montane mesic
forests, and few species have been able
to colonize undisturbed montane wet
ecosystems (Reimer 1993, pp. 13–17).
The lowland forests are a portal of entry
to the montane and subalpine
ecosystems, and, therefore, because ants
are actively invading increasingly
elevated ecosystems, ants are more
likely to occur in high densities in the
lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems currently occupied by the
picture-wing fly (Reimer 1993, pp. 13–
17).
The big-headed ant originated in
central Africa (Krushelnycky et al. 2005,
p. 24) and was first reported in Hawaii
in 1879 (Krushelnycky et al. 2005, p.
24). This species is considered one of
the most invasive and widely
distributed ants in the world (Holway et
al. 2002, pp. 181–233; Krushelnycky et
al. 2005, p. 5). In Hawaii, this species
is the most ubiquitous ant species
found, from coastal to mesic habitat up
to 4,000 ft (1,219 m) in elevation,
including within the habitat areas of the
picture-wing fly proposed for listing in
this rule. With few exceptions, native
insects have been eliminated in habitats
where the big-headed ant is present
(Gagne 1979, p. 81; Gillespie and
Reimer 1993, p. 22). Consequently, bigheaded ants represent a threat to the
picture-wing fly, in the lowland mesic
and montane mesic ecosystems (Reimer
1993, pp. 14, 17; Holway et al. 2002, pp.
181–233; Daly and Magnacca 2003, pp.
9–10; Krushelnycky et al. 2005, p. 5).
The long-legged ant appeared in
Hawaii in 1952, and now occurs on
Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu (Reimer
et al. 1990, p. 42; https://www.antweb.org
2011). It inhabits low-to-mid-elevation
(less than 2,000 ft (600 m)), rocky areas
of moderate rainfall (less than 100 in
(250 cm) annually) (Reimer et al. 1990,
p. 42). Although surveys have not been
conducted to ascertain this species’
presence in the two known sites
occupied by the picture-wing fly, we
believe that the long-legged ant likely
occurs within the lowland mesic
ecosystem that supports the picturewing fly due to the ant’s aggressive
nature and ability to spread and
colonize new locations (Foote 2008,
pers. comm.). Direct observations
indicate Hawaiian arthropods are
susceptible to predation by this species;
Gillespie and Reimer (1993, p. 21) and
Hardy (1979, pp. 37–38) documented
the complete extirpation of several
native insects within the Kipahulu area
on Maui after this area was invaded by
the long-legged ant. Lester and Tavite
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63968
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(2004, p. 391) found that long-legged
ants in the Tokelau Atolls (New
Zealand) can form very high densities in
a relatively short period of time with
locally serious consequences for
invertebrate diversity. Densities of 3,600
individuals collected in pitfall traps
within a 24-hour period were observed,
as well as predation upon invertebrates
ranging from crabs to other ant species.
On Christmas Island in the Indian
Ocean, numerous studies have
documented the range of impacts to
native invertebrates, including the red
land crab (Gecarcoidea natalis), as a
result of predation by supercolonies of
the long-legged ant (Abbott 2006, p.
102). Long-legged ants have the
potential as predators to profoundly
affect the endemic insect fauna in
territories they occupy. Studies
comparing insect populations at
otherwise similar ant-infested and antfree sites found extremely low numbers
of large endemic noctuid moth larvae
(Agrotis spp. and Peridroma spp.) in
ant-infested areas. Nests of
groundnesting cottelid bees
(Nesoprosopis spp.) were eliminated
from ant-infested sites (Reimer et al.
1990, p. 42). Although only cursory
observations exist in Hawaii (Reimer et
al. 1990, p. 42), we believe long-legged
ants are a threat to the proposed picturewing fly in the lowland mesic
ecosystem.
Solenopsis papuana is the only
abundant, aggressive ant that has
invaded intact mesic to wet forest, as
well as coastal and lowland dry
habitats. This species occurs from sea
level to over 2,000 ft (600 m) on all of
the main Hawaiian Islands, and is still
expanding its range (Reimer 1993, p.
14). Although surveys have not been
conducted to ascertain this species’
presence in either of the two known
sites occupied by the picture-wing fly,
because of the ant’s expanding range
and its widespread occurrence in
coastal, lowland dry, and lowland mesic
habitats, we believe S. papuana is a
threat to the picture-wing fly in the
lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems.
Like Solenopsis papuana, S. geminata
is also considered a significant threat to
native invertebrates (Gillespie and
Reimer 1993, pp. 21–33) and occurs on
all the main Hawaiian Islands (Reimer
et al. 1990, p. 42; Loope and
Krushelnycky 2007, p. 70). Found in
drier areas of the Hawaiian Islands, it
has displaced Pheidole megacephala as
the dominant ant in some areas (Wong
and Wong 1988, p. 175). Known to be
a voracious, nonnative predator in many
areas to where it has spread, the species
was documented to significantly
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
increase fruit fly mortality in field
studies in Hawaii (Wong and Wong
1988, p. 175). In addition to predation,
S. geminata workers tend honeydewproducing members of the Homoptera
suborder, especially mealybugs, which
can impact plants directly and
indirectly through the spread of disease
(Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research
2012—Ant Distribution Database).
Solenopsis geminata was included
among the eight species ranked as
having the highest potential risk to New
Zealand in a detailed pest risk
assessment for the country (GISD
2012c), and is included as one of five
ant species listed among the ‘‘100 of the
World’s Worst Invaders’’ (Manaaki
Whenua Landcare Research 2012—Ant
Distribution Database). Although
surveys have not been conducted to
ascertain this species’ presence in either
of the two sites occupied by the picturewing fly, because of the ant’s expanding
range and its widespread occurrence in
coastal, lowland dry, and lowland mesic
habitats, it is a potential threat to the
picture-wing fly in the lowland mesic
ecosystem.
The Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex
humilis) was discovered on the island of
Oahu in 1940, and is now established
on all the main Hawaiian Islands
(Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). Argentine
ants do not disperse by flight. Instead
colonies are moved about with soil and
construction material. The Argentine
ant is found from coastal to subalpine
ecosystems on the island of Maui, and
on the slopes of Mauna Loa, in the
lowland mesic and montane mesic
ecosystems on Hawaii Island, the
location of one of the two occurrences
of the picture-wing fly (Hartley et al.
2010, pp. 83–94; Krushelnychy and
Gillespie 2010, pp. 643–655). The
Argentine ant has been documented to
reduce populations, or even eliminate
native arthropods in Haleakala National
Park on Maui (Cole et al. 1992, pp.
1313–1322). On Maui, Argentine ants
are significant predators on pest fruit
flies (Wong et al. 1984, pp. 1454–1458),
and Krushelychy and Gillespie (2010,
pp. 643–655) found that Argentine ants
on Hawaii Island are associated with the
decline of an endemic phorid fly
(Megaselia sp.). Krushelychy and
Gillespie (2010, pp. 643–655) suggest
that ants severely impact larval stages of
many flies. While we are not aware of
documented occurrences of predation
by Argentine ants on picture-wing flies,
including the species proposed for
listing, these ants are considered to be
a threat to native arthropods located at
higher elevations (Cole et al. 1992, pp.
1313–1322) and thus potentially to the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
picture-wing fly that occurs from 2,000
ft to 4,500 ft (610 m to 1,372 m) in
elevation, in the lowland mesic,
montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems (Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–
23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
The rarity or disappearance of native
picture-wing fly species, including the
species in this proposed rule, from
historical observation sites over the past
100 years is due to a variety of factors.
While there is no documentation that
conclusively ties the decrease in
picture-wing fly observations to the
establishment of nonnative ants in
lowland mesic, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems on Hawaii
Island, the presence of nonnative ants in
these habitats and the decline of
picture-wing fly observations in some
areas in these habitats suggest that
nonnative ants may have played a role
in the decline of some populations of
the picture-wing fly proposed for listing
in this rule. As nonnative predatory ants
are found in three of the described
ecosystems (lowland mesic, montane
mesic, and montane wet) on Hawaii
Island in which the picture-wing fly
occurs, the data from the above studies,
in addition to direct observations from
field biologists, suggest that nonnative
predatory ants contribute to the
reduction in range and abundance of the
picture-wing fly (Science Panel 2005,
pp. 1–23).
Two-Spotted Leaf Hopper
Predation by the two-spotted leafhopper (Sophonia rufofascia) has been
reported on plants in the genus
Pritchardia throughout the main
Hawaiian Islands and may be a threat to
the plant Pritchardia lanigera proposed
for listing in this rule (Chapin et al.
2004, p. 279). This nonnative insect
damages the leaves it feeds on, typically
causing chlorosis (yellowing due to
disrupted chlorophyll production) to
browning and death of foliage (Jones et
al. 2000, pp. 171–180). The damage to
plants can result in the death of affected
leaves or the whole plant, owing to the
combined action of its feeding and
oviposition behavior (Alyokhin et al.
2004, p. 1). In addition to the
mechanical damage caused by the
feeding process, the insect may
introduce plant pathogens that lead to
eventual plant death (Jones et al. 2006,
p. 2). The two-spotted leafhopper is a
highly polyphagous insect (it feeds on
many different types of food). Sixtyeight percent of its recorded host plant
species in Hawaii are fruit, vegetable,
and ornamental crops, and 22 percent
are endemic plants, over half of which
are rare and endangered (Alyokhin et al.
2004, p. 6). Its range is limited to below
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
4,000 ft (1,219 m) in elevation, unless
there is a favorable microclimate. While
there has been a dramatic reduction in
the number of two-spotted leafhopper
populations between 2005 and 2007
(possibly due to egg parasitism), this
nonnative insect has not been
eradicated, and predation by this
nonnative insect remains a threat
(Fukada 2007, in litt.). Chapin et al.
(2004, p. 279) believe that constant
monitoring of both wild and cultivated
Pritchardia populations will be
necessary to abate this threat.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Nonnative Beetles
The Hawaiian Islands now 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 and
nonnative palm trees, including those in
the genus Pritchardia (Swezey 1927, in
litt.; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–23;
Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). Species
of Coccotrypes beetles prefer trees with
large seeds, like those of Pritchardia
spp. (Beaver 1987, p. 11). Trees of
Pritchardia spp. drop their fruit before
the fruit reaches maturity due to the
boring action of the Coccotrypes spp.
Beetles, thereby reducing natural
regeneration in the wild (Beaver 1987,
p. 11; Magnacca 2005, in litt.; Science
Panel 2005, pp. 1–23). The threat from
Coccotrypes spp. beetles on Pritchardia
spp. in Hawaii is expected to increase
with time if the beetles are not
controlled (Richardson 2011, pers.
comm.). Although Pritchardia spp. are
long-lived (up to 100 years), over time,
Coccotrypes spp. beetles may severely
impact Hawaiian species of Pritchardia,
including Pritchardia lanigera, which is
proposed for listing in this rule.
Summary of Factor C
We are unaware of any information
that indicates that disease is a threat to
any of the 15 species proposed for
listing in this rule.
We consider predation by nonnative
animal species (pigs, goats, cattle,
sheep, mouflon sheep, rats, slugs,
wasps, ants, the two-spotted leaf
hopper, and beetles) to pose an ongoing
threat to all 13 plant species and the
picture-wing fly proposed for listing
throughout their ranges for the
following reasons:
(1) Observations and reports have
documented that pigs, goats, cattle,
sheep, and mouflon sheep browse and
trample all 13 proposed plant species
and the host plants of the picture-wing
fly (see Table 3), in addition to other
studies demonstrating the negative
impacts of ungulate browsing and
trampling on native plant species of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
islands (Spatz and Mueller-Dombois
1973, p. 874; Diong 1982, p. 160;
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 67).
(2) Nonnative rats and slugs cause
mechanical damage to plants and
destruction of plant parts (branches,
fruits, and seeds), and are considered a
threat to 11 of the 13 plant species
proposed for listing (see Table 3). All of
the plants and the picture-wing fly
proposed for listing are impacted by
either introduced ungulates, as noted in
item (1) above, or nonnative rats and
slugs, or both.
(3) Predation of adults and larvae of
Hawaiian picture-wing flies by the
western yellow-jacket wasp has been
observed, and it has been suggested that
wasp predation has played a significant
role in the dramatic declines of some
populations of picture-wing flies
(Carson 1986, pp. 3–9; Foote and Carson
1995, p. 371; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro
1995, pp. 40–45; Science Panel 2005,
pp. 1–23). Because western yellowjacket wasps are found in the three
ecosystems in which the picture-wing
fly is found, and western yellow-jacket
wasps are known to prey on picturewing flies, we consider predation by the
western yellow-jacket wasp to be a
serious and ongoing threat to Drosophila
digressa.
(4) Parasitic wasps purposefully
introduced to Hawaii to control
nonnative pest fruit flies will
indiscriminately sting any fly larvae
when attempting to lay their eggs.
Predation by one or more of these
nonnative parasitic wasps is a
potentially serious threat to Drosophila
digressa.
(5) Picture-wing flies are vulnerable to
predation by ants, and the range of
Drosophila digressa overlaps that of
particularly aggressive, nonnative
predatory ant species that currently
occur from sea level to the montane
mesic ecosystem (over 3,280 ft (1,000 m)
elevation) on all of the main Hawaiian
Islands. We therefore consider predation
by these nonnative ants to be a threat to
Drosophila digressa.
(6) The plant Pritchardia lanigera is
vulnerable to predation by nonnative
invertebrates. The two-spotted
leafhopper has been observed on plants
in the genus Pritchardia throughout the
main Hawaiian Islands, and poses a
threat to Pritchardia lanigera (Chapin et
al. 2004, p. 279). Two-spotted
leafhopper damage results in the death
of affected leaves or the entire plant
(Alyokhin et al. 2004, p. 1).
(7) Several species of nonnative
beetles (Coccotrypes spp.) bore into and
feed upon the seeds of the native palm
genus Pritchardia (Swezey 1927, in litt.;
Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–23; Magnacca
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63969
2011b, pers. comm.), which results in
reduced natural regeneration of the
plants (Beaver 1987, p. 11; Magnacca
2005, in litt.; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–
23).
These threats are serious and ongoing,
act in concert with other threats to the
species, and are expected to continue or
increase in magnitude and intensity into
the future without effective management
actions to control or eradicate them. In
addition, negative impacts to native
Hawaiian plants on Hawaii Island from
grazing and browsing by axis deer are
likely should this nonnative ungulate
increase in numbers and range on the
island. The combined threat of ungulate,
rat, and invertebrate predation on native
Hawaiian flora and fauna suggests the
need for immediate implementation of
recovery and conservation actions.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Feral Ungulates
Nonnative ungulates pose a major
ongoing threat to all 13 plant species,
and to the picture-wing fly, through
destruction and degradation of
terrestrial habitat, and through direct
predation of the 13 plant species (see
Table 3). In addition, nonnative
ungulates (feral goats and cattle) pose an
ongoing threat to the anchialine pool
shrimp through destruction and
degradation of its anchialine pool
habitat. Feral goats and cattle trample
and forage on both native and nonnative
plants around and near the pool
opening at Lua O Palahemo, and
increase erosion around the pool and
sediment entering the pool. The State of
Hawaii provides game mammal (feral
pigs, goats, cattle, sheep, and mouflon
sheep) hunting opportunities on 42
State-designated public hunting areas
on the island of Hawaii (H.A.R. 13–123;
Mello 2011, pers. comm.). The State’s
management objectives for game
animals range from maximizing public
hunting opportunities (e.g., ‘‘sustained
yield’’) in some areas to removal by
State staff, or their designees, in other
areas (H.A.R. 13–123). Ten of the 13
plant species (Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia
floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera,
Schiedea hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae) and the picture-wing fly
have occurrences in areas where
terrestrial habitat may be manipulated
for game enhancement and where game
populations are maintained at
prescribed levels using public hunting
(Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Perlman et
al. 2004, in litt.; Lorence and Perlman
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63970
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
2007, pp. 357–361; PEPP 2007, p. 61;
Pratt 2007a, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.;
Benitez et al. 2008, p. 58; Agorastos
2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP
2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g;
HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i; HBMPk;
PEPP 2010, p. 63; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.; Evans 2011, in litt.; Perry 2011,
in litt.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.;
H.A.R. 13–123). Public hunting areas are
not fenced, and game mammals have
unrestricted access to most areas across
the landscape, regardless of underlying
land-use designation. While fences are
sometimes built to protect areas from
game mammals, the current number and
locations of fences are not adequate to
prevent habitat degradation and
destruction for 14 of the 15 species, and
the direct predation of the 13 plant
species on Hawaii Island (see Table 3).
However, the State game animal
regulations are not designed nor
intended to provide habitat protection,
and there are no other regulations
designed to address habitat protection
from ungulates.
The capacity of Federal and State
agencies and their nongovernmental
partners in Hawaii to mitigate the effects
of introduced pests, such as ungulates
and weeds, is limited due to the large
number of taxa currently causing
damage (Coordinating Group on Alien
Pest Species (CGAPS) 2009). Many
invasive weeds established on Hawaii
Island have currently limited but
expanding ranges and are of concern.
Resources available to reduce the spread
of these species and counter their
negative ecological effects are limited.
Control of established pests is largely
focused on a few invasive species that
cause significant economic or
environmental damage to public and
private lands. Comprehensive control of
an array of invasive pests and
management to reduce disturbance
regimes that favor certain invasive
species remains limited in scope. If
current levels of funding and regulatory
support for invasive species control are
maintained on Hawaii Island, the
Service expects existing programs to
continue to exclude or, on a very
limited basis, control invasive species
only in high-priority areas. Threats from
established pests (e.g., nonnative
ungulates, weeds, and invertebrates) are
ongoing and expected to continue into
the future.
Introduction of Nonnative Species
Currently, four agencies are
responsible for inspection of goods
arriving in Hawaii (CGAPS 2009). The
Hawaii Department of Agriculture
(HDOA) inspects domestic cargo and
vessels, and focuses on pests of concern
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
to Hawaii, especially insects or plant
diseases not yet known to be present in
the State (HDOA 2009). The U.S.
Department of Homeland SecurityCustoms and Border Protection (CBP) is
responsible for inspecting commercial,
private, and military vessels and
aircraft, and related cargo and
passengers arriving from foreign
locations. Customs and Border
Protection focuses on a wide range of
quarantine issues involving nonpropagative plant materials (processed
and unprocessed); wooden packing
materials, timber, and products;
internationally regulated commercial
species under the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES); seeds and plants listed as
noxious; soil; and pests of concern to
the greater United States, such as pests
of mainland U.S. forests and agriculture.
The U.S. Department of AgricultureAnimal and Plant Health Inspection
Service-Plant Protection and Quarantine
(USDA–APHIS–PPQ) inspects
propagative plant material, provides
identification services for arriving
plants and pests, conducts pest risk
assessments, trains CBP personnel,
conducts permitting and preclearance
inspections for products originating in
foreign countries, and maintains a pest
database that, again, has a focus on pests
of wide concern across the United
States. The Service inspects arriving
wildlife products, with the goal of
enforcing the injurious wildlife
provisions of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C.
42; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), and CITES.
The State of Hawaii’s unique
biosecurity needs are not recognized by
Federal import regulations. Under the
USDA–APHIS–PPQ’s commodity risk
assessments for plant pests, regulations
are based on species considered threats
to the mainland United States and do
not address many species that could be
pests in Hawaii (Hawaii Legislative
Reference Bureau (HLRB) 2002, pp. 1–
109; USDA–APHIS–PPQ 2010, pp. 1–88;
CGAPS 2009, pp. 1–14). Interstate
commerce provides the pathway for
invasive species and commodities
infested with non-Federal quarantine
pests to enter Hawaii. Pests of
quarantine concern for Hawaii may be
intercepted at Hawaiian ports by
Federal agents, but are not always acted
on by them because these pests are not
regulated under Federal mandates.
Hence, Federal protection against pest
species of concern to Hawaii has
historically been inadequate. It is
possible for the USDA to grant Hawaii
protective exemptions under the
‘‘Special Local Needs Rule,’’ when clear
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
and comprehensive arguments for both
agricultural and conservation issues are
provided; however, this exemption
procedure operates on a case-by-case
basis. Therefore, that avenue may only
provide minimal protection against the
large diversity of foreign pests that
threaten Hawaii.
Adequate staffing, facilities, and
equipment for Federal and State pest
inspectors and identifiers in Hawaii
devoted to invasive species interdiction
are critical biosecurity gaps (HLRB
2002, pp. 1–14; USDA–APHIS–PPQ
2010, pp. 1–88; CGAPS 2009, pp. 1–14).
State laws have recently been passed
that allow the HDOA to collect fees for
quarantine inspection of freight entering
Hawaii (e.g., Act 36 (2011) H.R.S. 150A–
5.3). Legislation passed and enacted on
July 8, 2011 (H.B. 1568), now requires
commercial harbors and airports in
Hawaii to provide biosecurity and
inspection facilities to facilitate the
movement of cargo through the ports.
This enactment is a significant step
toward optimizing the biosecurity
capacity in the State of Hawaii;
however, only time will determine the
true effectiveness of this Act (Act
202(11)). From a Federal perspective,
there is a need to ensure that all civilian
and military port and airport operations
and construction are in compliance with
the Act. The introduction of new pests
to the State of Hawaii is a significant
risk to federally listed species.
Nonnative Animal Species
Vertebrate Species
The State of Hawaii’s laws prohibit
the importation of all animals unless
they are specifically placed on a list of
allowable species (HLRB 2002, pp. 1–
109; CGAPS 2010, pp. 1–14). The
importation and interstate transport of
invasive vertebrates is federally
regulated by the Service under the
Lacey Act as ‘‘injurious wildlife’’
(Fowler et al. 2007, pp. 353¥359); the
list of vertebrates considered ‘‘injurious
wildlife’’ is provided at 50 CFR 16.
However, the law in its current form has
limited effectiveness in preventing
invasive vertebrate introductions into
the State of Hawaii. On June 21, 2012,
a new State law, Act 144 (‘‘Relating to
Wildlife’’) was signed into law. This Act
prohibits the interisland possession,
transfer, transport, or release after
transport of wild or feral deer, and
establishes mandatory fines. On June 21,
2012, Act 149 (‘‘Relating to Emergency
Rules for Threats to Natural Resources
or the Health of the Environment’’) was
also signed into State law. Act 149
expands the ability of State agencies to
adopt emergency rules to address
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
situations that impose imminent threats
to natural resources (Aila 2012a, in litt.;
Martin 2012, in litt.). However, the
effectiveness of these two recently
enacted laws has not yet been
demonstrated.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Invertebrate Species
Predation by nonnative invertebrate
pests (slugs, wasps, ants, leafhoppers,
and beetles) threaten 6 of the 13 the
plant species and the picture-wing fly
(see Table 3). It is likely that the
introduction of most nonnative
invertebrate pests to the State has been
and continues to be accidental and
incidental to other intentional and
permitted activities. Although Hawaii
State government and Federal agencies
have regulations and some controls in
place (see above), the introduction and
movement of nonnative invertebrate
pest species between islands and from
one watershed to the next continues.
For example, an average of 20 new alien
invertebrate species have been
introduced to Hawaii per year since
1970, an increase of 25 percent over the
previous totals between 1930 and 1970
(The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii
(TNCH) 1992, p. 8). Existing regulatory
mechanisms therefore appear
inadequate to ameliorate the threat of
introductions of nonnative
invertebrates, and we have no evidence
to suggest that any changes to these
regulatory mechanisms are anticipated
in the future.
Nonnative Plant Species
Nonnative plants destroy and modify
habitat throughout the ranges of 14 of
the 15 species proposed for listing in
this rule (see Table 3, above). As such,
they represent a serious and ongoing
threat to each of these species. In
addition, nonnative plants have been
shown to outcompete native plants and
convert native-dominated plant
communities to nonnative plant
communities (see ‘‘Habitat Destruction
and Modification by Nonnative Plants’’
above).
The State of Hawaii allows the
importation of most plant taxa, with
limited exceptions, if shipped from
domestic ports (HLRB 2002; USDA–
APHIS–PPQ 2010; CGAPS 2010).
Hawaii’s plant import rules (H.A.R. 4–
70) regulate the importation of 13 plant
taxa of economic interest; regulated
crops include pineapple, sugarcane,
palms and pines. Certain horticultural
crops (e.g., orchids) may require import
permits and have pre-entry
requirements that include treatment or
quarantine or both, prior to or following
entry into the State. The State noxious
weed list (H.A.R. 4–68) and USDA–
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
APHIS–PPQ’s Restricted Plants List
restrict the import of a limited number
of noxious weeds. If not specifically
prohibited, current Federal regulations
allow plants to be imported from
international ports with some
restrictions. The Federal Noxious Weed
List (see 7 CFR 360.200) includes few of
the many globally known invasive
plants, and plants in general do not
require a weed risk assessment prior to
importation from international ports.
The USDA–APHIS–PPQ is in the
process of finalizing rules to include a
weed risk assessment for newly
imported plants. Although the State has
general guidelines for the importation of
plants, and regulations are in place
regarding the plant crops mentioned
above, the intentional or inadvertent
introduction of nonnative plants outside
the regulatory process and movement of
species between islands and from one
watershed to the next continues, which
represents a threat to native flora for the
reasons described above. In addition,
government funding is inadequate to
provide for sufficient inspection
services and monitoring.
In 1995, the Coordinating Group on
Alien and Plant Species (CGAPS), a
partnership comprised primarily of
managers from every major Federal,
State, County, and private agency and
organization involved in invasive
species work in Hawaii, facilitated the
formation of the Hawaii Invasive
Species Council (HISC), which was
created by gubernatorial executive order
in 2002, to coordinate local initiatives
for the prevention and control of
invasive species by providing policylevel direction and planning for the
State departments responsible for
invasive species issues. In 2003, the
Governor signed into law Act 85, which
conveys statutory authority to the HISC
to continue to coordinate approaches
among the various State and Federal
agencies, and international and local
initiatives for the prevention and
control of invasive species (HDLNR
2003, p. 3–15; HISC 2009; H.R.S. 194–
2(a)). Some of the recent priorities for
the HISC include interagency efforts to
control nonnative species such as the
plants Miconia calvescens (miconia) and
Cortaderia spp. (pampas grass), coqui
frogs (Eleutherodactylus coqui), and
ants (HISC 2009). However, in early
2009, HISC projected that, due to a
tighter economy in Hawaii and
anticipated budget cuts in State funding
support of up to 50 percent, there will
be a serious setback in conservation
achievements, and the loss of
experienced, highly trained staff (HISC
2009).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63971
The Lua O Palahemo anchialine pool
is located in a remote, largely
undeveloped area, but is well known
and frequently visited by residents and
visitors for recreational opportunities, as
indicated by the numerous off-road
vehicle tracks around the pool (USFWS
2012 in litt.; Richardson 2012, in litt.,
pp. 1–2). As of the 2010 survey, a sign
posted near Lua O Palahemo indicates
that individuals who disturb the site are
subject to fines under Haw. Rev. Stat. 6E
(Hawaii’s State Historic Preservation
Act (SHPA)). This statute makes it
unlawful for any person to take,
appropriate, excavate, injure, destroy, or
alter any historic property or aviation
artifact located upon lands owned or
controlled by the State or any of its
political subdivisions, except as
permitted by the State. Violators are
subject to fines of not less than $500 nor
more than $10,000 for each separate
offense. However, sometime between
the 2010 survey and the June 2012 visit
by Service biologists, the sign had been
removed (Richardson 2012, in litt., pp.
1–2). Vetericaris chaceorum is not
protected under Hawaii’s endangered
species law (Haw. Rev. Stat. Sect. 195–
D).
On the basis of the above information,
existing State and Federal regulatory
mechanisms are not adequately
preventing the introduction of
nonnative species to Hawaii via
interstate and international
mechanisms, or intrastate movement of
nonnative species between islands,
watersheds, and anchialine pools in
Hawaii, and thus do not adequately
protect 14 of the 15 species (all except
the anchialine pool shrimp) proposed
for listing in this proposed rule from the
threat of new introductions of nonnative
species, or from and the continued
expansion of nonnative species
populations on and between islands,
watersheds, and anchialine pools.
Nonnative species may prey upon,
modify, or destroy habitat, or directly
compete with one or more of the 14
species for food, space, and other
necessary resources. The impacts from
these introduced threats are ongoing
and are expected to continue into the
future.
We do not believe that existing
regulatory mechanisms provide
adequate protection for the anchialine
pool shrimp, Vetericaris chaceorum,
from the intentional dumping of trash
and introduction of nonnative fish into
Lua O Palahemo (see Factor E. Other
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting
Their Continued Existence). Existing
regulatory mechanisms are therefore
inadequate to ameliorate the threat of
introductions of trash and nonnative
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63972
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
fish into Lua O Palahemo, and we have
no evidence to suggest that any changes
to these regulatory mechanisms are
anticipated in the future.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Summary of Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
The State’s current management of
nonnative game mammals is inadequate
to prevent the degradation and
destruction of habitat of the 13 plant
species, and the picture-wing fly (Factor
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range),
and to prevent predation of all 13 plant
species (Factor C. Disease or Predation).
Existing State and Federal regulatory
mechanisms are not effectively
preventing the introduction and spread
of nonnative species from outside the
State of Hawaii and between islands and
watersheds within the State of Hawaii.
Habitat-altering nonnative plant species
(Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range) and
predation by nonnative animal species
(Factor C. Disease or Predation) pose a
major ongoing threat to all 15 species
proposed for listing in this proposed
rule.
Existing State and Federal regulatory
mechanisms do not provide adequate
protection for the anchialine pool
shrimp, Vetericaris chaceorum, from the
intentional dumping of trash and
introduction of nonnative fish into Lua
O Palahemo (see Factor E. Other Natural
or Manmade Factors Affecting Their
Continued Existence).
Because these regulatory mechanisms
are inadequate to maintain habitat for
the 15 species, and to prevent the
spread of nonnative species (including
nonnative fish into the Lua O Palahemo
anchialine pool), the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is
considered a serious threat, both now
and in the future. Habitat degradation
and loss caused by nonnative plants are
a threat to each of the 13 plant species
and the picture-wing fly (Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range), and nonnative
animals (including nonnative fish) are a
threat to the 15 species (Factor A. The
Present or Threatened Destruction,
Modification, or Curtailment of Its
Habitat or Range and Factor C. Disease
or Predation). Therefore, the inadequacy
of the regulatory mechanisms to prevent
the dumping of trash and introduction
of nonnative fish into anchialine pool
shrimp habitat, and to address threats
posed by other nonnative species
threatens these 15 species.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence
Other factors threatening some or all
of the 15 species include dumping of
trash and the introduction of nonnative
fish, small numbers of populations and
small population sizes, hybridization,
lack of or declining regeneration, loss of
host plants, and other activities. Each
threat is discussed in detail below,
along with identification of which
species are affected by these threats.
Dumping of Trash and Introduction of
Nonnative Fish
The depressional features of
anchialine pools make them susceptible
to dumping. Refuse found in degraded
pools and pools that have been filled in
with rubble have been dated to about
100 years old, and the practice
continues today (Brock 2004, p. 15). Lua
O Palahemo is located approximately
558 ft (170 m) from a sandy beach
frequented by visitors who fish and
swim. In addition, there are multiple
dirt roads that surround the pool
making it highly accessible. Plastic bags,
paper, fishing line, water bottles, soda
cans, radios, barbed wire, and a bicycle
have been documented within the pool
(Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417–
418; Bozanic 2004, p. 1; Wada 2010, in
litt). Physical trash is likely to increase
the accumulation of sediment in the
pool portion of Lua O Palahemo, and
could affect adequate water flushing as
well, by blocking the currently narrow
passage into the much larger water body
in the lava tube below. Introduction of
trash involving chemical contamination
into anchialine pools, as has been
observed elsewhere on Hawaii Island
(Brock 2004, pp. 15–16), could more
drastically affect water quality and
result in local extirpation of hypogeal
shrimp species.
In general, the accidental or
intentional introduction and spread of
nonnative fish (bait and aquarium fish)
is considered the greatest threat to
anchialine pools in Hawaii (Brock 2004,
p. 16). Maciolek (1983, p. 612) found
that the abundance of shrimp in a given
population is indirectly related to
predation by fish. The release of
mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) and
tilapia (Tilapia mossambica) into the
Waikoloa Anchialine Pond Preserve
(WAAPA) at Waikoloa, North Kona,
Hawaii, resulted in the infestation of all
ponds within an approximately 3.2-ha
(8-ac) area, which represented
approximately two-thirds of the
WAAPA. Within 6 months, all native
hypogeal shrimp species disappeared
(Brock 2004, pp. iii). Nonnative fish
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
drive anchialine species out of the
lighted, higher productivity portion of
the pools, into the surrounding water
table bed rock, subsequently leading to
the decimation of the benthic
community structure of the pool (Brock
2004, p. iii). In addition, nonnative fish
prey on and exclude native hypogeal
shrimp that are usually a dominant and
essential (Brock 2004, p. 16) faunal
component of anchialine pool
ecosystems (Bailey-Brock and Brock
1993, pp. 338–355). The loss of the
shrimp changes ecological succession
by reducing herbivory of macroalgae,
allowing an overgrowth and change of
pool flora. This overgrowth changes the
system from clear, well-flushed basins
to a system characterized by heavy
sedimentation and poor water exchange,
which increases the rate of pool
senescence (Brock 2004, p. 16).
Nonnative fish, unlike native fish, are
able to complete their life cycles within
anchialine habitats, and remain a
permanent detrimental presence in all
pools in which they are introduced
(Brock 2004, p. 16). In Hawaii, the most
frequently illegally introduced fish are
in the Poeciliidae family (freshwater
fish which bear live young) and include
mosquito fish, various mollies (Poecilia
spp.), and tilapia, which prey on and
exclude native hypogeal shrimp such as
the herbivorous species upon which
Vetericaris chaceorum presumably feed.
More than 90 percent of the 600 to 700
anchialine habitats in Hawaii have been
degraded in the last 30 years due to the
introduction of nonnative fish (Brock
2004, p. 24).
Lua O Palahemo is highly accessible
to off-road vehicle traffic and located
near an area frequented by residents and
visitors for fishing and other outdoor
recreational activities. We believe the
pool is vulnerable to the intentional
dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish (bait and aquarium fish)
because the area is easily accessible to
vehicles and human traffic, and yet due
to its remote location, is far from
regulatory oversight by the DHHL or
DAR. According to Brock (2012, pers.
comm.), sometime in the 1980s,
nonnative fish were introduced into Lua
O Palahemo. It is our understanding that
the fish were subsequently removed
with a fish poison, and to our
knowledge the pool currently remains
free of nonnative fish. The most
commonly used piscicide (fish
pesticide) in the United States for
management of fish in freshwater
systems is a naturally occurring
chemical, marketed as a product called
Rotenone. Unfortunately, Rotenone use
in marine systems (including anchialine
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
pools) is illegal according to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
2007, pp. 22–23; Finlayson et al. 2010,
p. 2).
More than 90 percent of Hawaii’s
anchialine pool habitats have been
degraded or destroyed by the intentional
dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish. Because the anchialine
pool shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum is
only known from one pool, the
introduction of nonnative fish which
prey on and exclude native hypogeal
shrimp like Vetericaris chaceorum or its
associated prey shrimp species would
likely lead to the extirpation of this
species, directly or indirectly due to the
lower abundance of co-occurring shrimp
species that provide food resources to
Vetericaris chaceorum. In addition, the
loss of native shrimp species leads to
changes in ecological succession in
anchialine pools, leading to senescence
of the pool habitat, thereby rendering
the pool unsuitable habitat (Brock 2004,
p. 16).
Small Number of Individuals and
Populations
Species that are endemic to single
islands are inherently more vulnerable
to extinction than are widespread
species, because of the increased risk of
genetic bottlenecks, random
demographic fluctuations, climate
change effects, and localized
catastrophes such as hurricanes,
drought, rockfalls, landslides, and
disease outbreaks (Pimm et al. 1988, p.
757; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607).
These problems are further magnified
when populations are few and restricted
to a very small geographic area, and
when the number of individuals in each
population is very small. Populations
with these characteristics face an
increased likelihood of stochastic
extinction due to changes in
demography, the environment, genetics,
´
or other factors (Gilpin and Soule 1986,
pp. 24–34). Small, isolated populations
often exhibit reduced levels of genetic
variability, which diminishes the
species’ capacity to adapt and respond
to environmental changes, thereby
lessening the probability of long-term
persistence (e.g., Barrett and Kohn 1991,
p. 4; Newman and Pilson 1997, p. 361).
Very small, isolated populations are also
more susceptible to reduced
reproductive vigor due to ineffective
pollination (plants), inbreeding
depression (plants and shrimp), and
hybridization (plants and flies). The
problems associated with small
population size and vulnerability to
random demographic fluctuations or
natural catastrophes are further
magnified by synergistic interactions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
with other threats, such as those
discussed above (see Factor A and
Factor C above).
Plants
A limited number of individuals
(fewer than 50 individuals) is a threat to
the following six plant species in this
proposal: Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Platydesma remyi,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and S.
hawaiiensis. We consider these species
highly vulnerable to extinction due to
threats associated with small population
size or small number of populations
because:
• The only known occurrences of
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, and
Cyrtandra wagneri are threatened either
by landslides, rockfalls, or erosion, or a
combination of these, because of their
locations in lowland wet, montane wet,
and dry cliff ecosystems.
• Platydesma remyi is known from
fewer than 40 scattered individuals
(Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210; HBMP
2010i). Declining or lack of regeneration
in the wild appears to threaten this
species.
• Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei is
known from a single individual in the
Kohala Mountains (Perlman et al. 2001,
in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106;
HBMP 2010j; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
• Habitat destruction or direct
predation by ungulates, nonnative
plants, drought, and fire are threats to
the 25 to 40 individuals of Schiedea
hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al. 2005a;
NDMC 2012–Online Archives).
Animals
Like most native island biota, the
endemic anchialine pool shrimp and
Hawaiian picture-wing fly are
particularly sensitive to disturbances
due to low number of individuals, low
population numbers, and small
geographic ranges. We consider the
picture-wing fly vulnerable to extinction
due to threats associated with low
number of individuals and low number
of populations because Drosophila
digressa is known from only two of its
five historically known locations. The
following threats to this species have all
been documented: Predation by
nonnative wasps and ants; habitat
degradation and destruction by
nonnative ungulates, fire, and drought;
loss of its host plants; and competition
with nonnative flies for its host plants
(Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–23;
Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63973
Hybridization
Natural hybridization is a frequent
phenomenon in plants and can lead to
the formation of new species (Orians
2000, p. 1,949), or sometimes to the
decline of species through genetic
assimilation or ‘‘introgression’’
(Ellstrand 1992, pp. 77, 81; Levine et al.
1996, pp. 10–16; Rhymer and Simberloff
1996, p. 85). Hybridization, however, is
especially problematic for rare species
that come into contact with species that
are abundant or more common (Rhymer
and Simberloff 1996, p. 83). We
consider hybridization to be a threat to
three species, and potentially a threat to
one more species in this proposed rule
because hybridization may lead to
extinction of the original genotypically
distinct species. Hybrid swarms
(hybrids that can interbreed among
themselves and also with the parent
species) have been reported between the
plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
and B. menziesii ssp. filiformis near
Puuwaawaa in north Kona (Ganders and
Nagata 1983, p. 12; Ganders and Nagata
1999, p. 278); the plant Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis is known to hybridize
with C. lysiosepala in and around the
Nanawale FR (Price 2011, in litt.); and
Cyrtandra wagneri is reported to
hybridize with C. tintinnabula. Only
eight individuals express the true
phenotype of C. wagneri, and only three
of these individuals are reproducing
successfully (PEPP 2010, p. 102; Bio
2011, pers. comm.). Native species can
also hybridize with related nonnative
species. For example, native species of
Pittosporum, including the plant
Pittosporum hawaiiense, are known to
exhibit high levels of gene flow, and
hybridization between native
Pittosporum and nonnative species of
Pittosporum may occur when they
occupy similar habitat and elevation
(Daehler and Carino 2001, pp. 91–96;
Bacon et al. 2011, p. 733).
Regeneration
Lack of, or low levels of, regeneration
(reproduction and recruitment) in the
wild has been observed, and is a threat
to, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma
remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera (Bio
2011, pers. comm.; Magnacca 2011b,
pers. comm.). The reasons for this are
not well understood: however, seed
predation by rats, ungulates, and beetles
is thought to play a role (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
In addition, Cyanea tritomantha is
reported to produce few seeds with low
viability. The reasons for this are
unknown (Bio 2008, in litt.).
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63974
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Competition
Competition with nonnative tipulid
flies (large crane flies, family Tipulidae)
for larvae host plants threatens the
picture-wing fly proposed for listing in
this rule. The Hawaiian Islands now
support several species of nonnative
tipulid flies, and 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 Cheirodendron,
Clermontia, Pleomele, and
Charpentiera, the host plant for
Drosophila digressa (Science Panel
2005, pp. 1–23; Magnacca 2005, in litt.).
The effect of this competition is a
reduction of available host plant
material for the larvae of the picturewing fly. In laboratory studies, Grimaldi
and Jaenike (1984, pp. 1,113–1,120)
demonstrated that competition between
Drosophila larvae and other fly larvae
can exhaust food resources, which
affects both the probability of larval
survival and the body size of adults,
resulting in reduced adult fitness,
fecundity, and lifespan. Both soldier
and nephritid flies have been suggested
to impose a similar threat to Hawaiian
picture-wing flies (Montgomery 2005, in
litt.; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–23).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Loss of Host Plant
Drosophila digressa is dependent on
decaying stem bark from plants in the
genus Charpentiera for oviposition and
larval development (Montgomery 1975,
p. 95). Charpentiera is considered
highly susceptible to damage from alien
ungulates, such as pigs and goats, as
well as competition with nonnative
plants (e.g., Omalanthus populifolius,
Schinus terebinthifolius, and Psidium
cattleianum) (Foote and Carson 1995,
pp. 370–37; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1–
23; Magnacca 2011b, pers.comm.). Barkbreeding Drosophila species are
sensitive to bottlenecks in host plant
populations due to their dependence on
older, senescent or dying plants
(Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 32). Altered
decay cycles in host plants caused by
genetic bottlenecks, or decreasing
availability of host plants due to
browsing and trampling by nonnative
ungulates (pigs, goats, cattle, and
mouflon), competition with nonnative
plants, drought, or other phenomena
can subsequently alter the life cycle of
the picture-wing fly by disrupting the
early stages of development. Predation
by nonnative beetles (the branch and
twig borer (Amphicerus cornutus), the
black twig borer (Xylosandrus
compactus), and weevils (Oxydema
fusiforme) have been documented as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
threats to Charpentiera spp. (Medeiros
et al. 1986, p. 29; Giffin 2009, p. 81).
Summary of Other Natural or Manmade
Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence
We consider the threats from
dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish into the pool that
supports the anchialine pool shrimp
proposed for listing in this rule to be
serious threats that have the potential to
occur at any time, although their
occurrence is not predictable. The use of
anchialine pools for dumping of trash
and introduction of nonnative fish are
widespread practices in Hawaii and
have the potential to occur at any time
at the Lua O Palahemo pool. Nonnative
fish prey on or outcompete native
herbivorous anchialine pool shrimp that
serve as the prey base for predatory
species of shrimp, including the
anchialine pool shrimp proposed for
listing in this rule.
We consider the threat from limited
number of populations and few (less
than 50) individuals to be a serious and
ongoing threat to the 6 plant species
proposed for listing (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Platydesma remyi, Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei, and S. hawaiiensis) because (1)
these species may experience reduced
reproductive vigor due to ineffective
pollination or inbreeding depression; (2)
they may experience reduced levels of
genetic variability, leading to
diminished capacity to adapt and
respond to environmental changes,
thereby lessening the probability of
long-term persistence; and (3) a single
catastrophic event may result in
extirpation of remaining populations
and extinction of the species. This
threat applies to the entire range of each
species.
The threat to the picture-wing fly
from limited numbers of individuals
and populations is ongoing and is
expected to continue into the future
because (1) this species may experience
reduced reproductive vigor due to
inbreeding depression; (2) it may
experience reduced levels of genetic
variability leading to diminished
capacity to adapt and respond to
environmental changes, thereby
lessening the probability of long-term
persistence; (3) a single catastrophic
event (e.g., hurricane, drought) may
result in extirpation of remaining
populations and extinction of this
species; and (4) species with few known
locations, such as Drosophila digressa,
are less resilient to threats that might
otherwise have a relatively minor
impact on widely-distributed species.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
For example, the reduced availability of
host trees or an increase in predation of
the picture-wing fly adults that might be
absorbed in a widely-distributed species
could result in a significant decrease in
survivorship or reproduction of a
species with limited distribution. The
limited distribution of this species thus
magnifies the severity of the impact of
the other threats discussed in this
proposed rule.
The threat from hybridization is
unpredictable but an ongoing and everpresent threat to Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
and Cyrtandra wagneri, and a potential
threat to Pittosporum hawaiiense. We
consider the threat to Cyanea
tritomantha, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia
lanigera from lack of regeneration to be
ongoing and to continue into the future
because the reasons for the lack of
recruitment in the wild are unknown
and uncontrolled, and any competition
from nonnative plants or habitat
modification by ungulates or fire could
lead to the extirpation of these species.
Competition for host plants with
nonnative tipulid flies is a threat to
Drosophila digressa and is expected to
continue into the future because field
biologists report that these nonnative
flies are widespread and there is no
mechanism in place to control their
population growth. Loss of host plants
(Charpentiera spp.) is a threat to the
picture-wing fly, and we consider this
threat to continue into the future
because field biologists have reported
that species of Charpentiera are
declining in the wild.
Proposed Determination for 15 Species
We have carefully assessed the best
scientific and commercial information
available regarding threats to each of the
15 species proposed for listing. We find
that each of the 13 plant species and the
picture-wing fly face threats that are
ongoing and expected to continue into
the future throughout their ranges from
the present destruction and
modification of their habitats from
nonnative feral ungulates and nonnative
plants (Factor A). Destruction and
modification of habitat by development
and urbanization is a threat to one plant
species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla). Habitat destruction and
modification from fire is a threat to
three of the plant species (Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Phyllostegia
floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis)
and the picture-wing fly. Destruction
and modification of habitat from
rockfalls, landslides, treefalls, or heavy
rain is a threat to four plant species
(Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, and Cyrtandra wagneri).
Habitat loss or degradation due to
drought is a threat to two plants, Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and
Schiedea hawaiiensis, as well as to the
picture-wing fly. We are concerned
about the effects of projected climate
change on all species, particularly rising
temperatures, but recognize there is
limited information on the exact nature
of impacts that these species may
experience. In addition, habitat loss or
degradation is a threat to the anchialine
pool shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum due
to sedimentation resulting from
degradation of the immediate area
surrounding the Lua O Palahemo
anchialine pool. Sedimentation reduces
both food productivity and the ability of
Lua O Palahemo to support the
anchialine pool shrimp (Factor A).
Overcollection for commercial and
recreational purposes poses a threat to
Pritchardia lanigera (Factor B).
Predation and herbivory on all 13
plant species by feral pigs, goats, cattle,
sheep, mouflon, rats, slugs, two-spotted
leaf hoppers, or beetles poses a serious
and ongoing threat; as does predation of
the picture-wing fly by nonnative wasps
and ants (Factor C).
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms (i.e., inadequate protection
of habitat and inadequate protection
from the introduction of nonnative
species) poses a serious and ongoing
threat to all 15 species (Factor D). There
are serious and ongoing threats to six
plant species (Bidens hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Platydesma remyi,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and S.
hawaiiensis) and the picture-wing fly
due to factors associated with small
numbers of populations and
individuals; to Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, and potentially to
Pittosporum hawaiiense from
hybridization; to Cyanea tritomantha,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma
remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera from the
lack of regeneration in the wild; and to
the picture-wing fly from competition
for host plants with nonnative flies and
declining numbers of host plants. The
anchialine pool shrimp is threatened by
the intentional dumping of trash and
introduction of nonnative fish into its
only known location. Nonnative fish
drive anchialine species out of the
lighted, highly productive portion of the
pools into the surrounding water table
bed rock, subsequently leading to the
decimation of the benthic community
structure of the pool, and prey on and
exclude native hypogeal shrimp that are
usually a dominant and essential faunal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
component of anchialine pool
ecosystems. Because anchialine pool
health and the presence of hypogeal
shrimp are interdependent, the loss of
the shrimp changes ecological
succession by reducing herbivory of
cyanobacteria and macroalgae allowing
an overgrowth and change of pool flora.
This overgrowth changes the system
from clear, well-flushed basins to a
system characterized by heavy
sedimentation and poor water exchange
which increases the rate of pool
senescence (Bailey-Brock and Brock
1993, pp. 338–355; Brock 2004, pp. iii
and 16) (Factor E) (see Table 3). These
threats are exacerbated by these species’
inherent vulnerability to extinction from
stochastic events at any time because of
their endemism, small numbers of
individuals and populations, and
restricted habitats.
The Act defines an endangered
species as any species that is ‘‘in danger
of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range’’ and a
threatened species as any species ‘‘that
is likely to become endangered
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future.’’
We find that each of these 15 endemic
species is presently in danger of
extinction throughout its entire range,
based on the severity and scope of the
ongoing and projected threats described
above. These threats are exacerbated by
small population sizes, the loss of
redundancy and resiliency of these
species, and the continued inadequacy
of existing protective regulations.
Therefore, on the basis of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we have determined that
each of these species 15 species meets
the definition of an endangered species
under the Act. We therefore propose to
list the following 15 species as
endangered species in accordance with
section 3(6) of the Act: The plants
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia
floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schiedea
hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae;
the anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris
chaceorum; and the picture-wing fly,
Drosophila digressa.
Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant
listing if it is endangered or threatened
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. Each of the 15 Hawaii Island
species proposed for listing in this rule
is highly restricted in its range, and the
threats occur throughout its range.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63975
Therefore, we assessed the status of
each species throughout its entire range.
In each case, the threats to the survival
of these species occur throughout the
species’ ranges and are not restricted to
any particular portion of those ranges.
Accordingly, our assessment and
proposed determination applies to each
species throughout its entire range, and
we do not need to further consider the
status of each species in a significant
portion of their respective ranges.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to
species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include
recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and
prohibitions against certain activities.
Recognition through listing results in
public awareness and conservation by
Federal, State, and local agencies:
Private organizations; and individuals.
The Act encourages cooperation with
the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures
required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities
involving listed animals and plants are
discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The ultimate
goal of such conservation efforts is the
recovery of these listed species, so that
they no longer need the protective
measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of
the Act requires the Service to develop
and implement recovery plans for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery
planning process involves the
identification of actions that are
necessary to halt or reverse the species’
decline by addressing the threats to its
survival and recovery. The goal of this
process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, selfsustaining, and functioning components
of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the
development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed,
preparation of a draft and final recovery
plan, and revisions to the plan as
significant new information becomes
available. The recovery outline guides
the immediate implementation of urgent
recovery actions and describes the
process to be used to develop a recovery
plan. The recovery plan identifies sitespecific management actions that will
achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that help to
determine when a species may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63976
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery
plans also establish a framework for
agencies to coordinate their recovery
efforts and provide estimates of the cost
of implementing recovery tasks.
Recovery teams (comprised of species
experts, Federal and State agencies,
nongovernmental organizations, and
stakeholders) are often established to
develop recovery plans. When
completed, the recovery outlines, draft
recovery plans, and the final recovery
plans will be available from our Web
site (https://www.fws.gov/endangered),
or from our Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions
generally requires the participation of a
broad range of partners, including other
Federal agencies, States,
nongovernmental organizations,
businesses, and private landowners.
Examples of recovery actions include
habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of
native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and
outreach and education. The recovery of
many listed species cannot be
accomplished solely on Federal lands
because their range may occur primarily
or solely on non-Federal lands. To
achieve recovery of these species
requires cooperative conservation efforts
on private and State lands.
If these species are listed, funding for
recovery actions will be available from
a variety of sources, including Federal
budgets, State programs, and cost share
grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and
nongovernmental organizations. In
addition, under section 6 of the Act, the
State of Hawaii would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement
management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of the 15
species. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid
species recovery can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although these species are only
proposed for listing under the Act at
this time, please let us know if you are
interested in participating in recovery
efforts for these species. Additionally,
we invite you to submit any new
information on these species whenever
it becomes available and any
information you may have for recovery
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,
requires Federal agencies to evaluate
their actions with respect to any species
that is proposed or listed as endangered
or threatened with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section
7(a)(1) of the Act mandates that all
Federal agencies shall utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act by carrying out
programs for the conservation of
endangered and threatened species
listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect the continued existence of a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must enter
into consultation with the Service.
For the 15 plants and animals
proposed for listing as endangered
species in this rule, Federal agency
actions that may require consultation as
described in the preceding paragraph
include, but are not limited to, actions
within the jurisdiction of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and branches
of the Department of Defense (DOD).
Examples of these types of actions
include activities funded or authorized
under the Farm Bill Program,
Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, Ground and Surface Water
Conservation Program, Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Partners for
Fish and Wildlife Program, and DOD
construction activities related to
training or other military missions.
The Act and its implementing
regulations set forth a series of general
prohibitions and exceptions that apply
to all endangered wildlife and plants.
The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR
17.21 for wildlife and 17.61 for plants,
apply. These prohibitions, in part, make
it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect; or to attempt any of these),
import, export, ship in interstate
commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any
listed wildlife species. It is also illegal
to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport,
or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. In addition, for plants
listed as endangered, the Act prohibits
the malicious damage or destruction on
areas under Federal jurisdiction and the
removal, cutting, digging up, or
damaging or destroying of such plants
in knowing violation of any State law or
regulation, including State criminal
trespass law. Certain exceptions to the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
prohibitions apply to agents of the
Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out
otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered or threatened
wildlife or plant species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing
permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22
and 17.62 for endangered wildlife and
plants, respectively. With regard to
endangered wildlife, a permit must be
issued for the following purposes: For
scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation and survival of the species,
and for incidental take in connection
with otherwise lawful activities. For
endangered plants, a permit must be
issued for scientific purposes or for the
enhancement of propagation or survival.
Requests for copies of the regulations
regarding listed species and inquiries
about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pacific Region, Ecological
Services, Eastside Federal Complex, 911
NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–
4181 (telephone 503–231–6131;
facsimile 503–231–6243).
It is our policy, as published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34272), to identify to the maximum
extent practicable at the time a species
is listed, those activities that would or
would not constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
the effect of a proposed listing on
proposed and ongoing activities within
the range of species proposed for listing.
The following activities could
potentially result in a violation of
section 9 of the Act; however, this list
is not comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling,
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying,
or transporting of the species, including
import or export across State lines and
international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique
specimens of these taxa at least 100
years old, as defined by section 10(h)(1)
of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species
that compete with or prey upon the 15
species, such as the introduction of
competing, nonnative plants or animals
to the State of Hawaii; and
(3) The unauthorized release of
biological control agents that attack any
life stage of these 15 species.
Questions regarding whether specific
activities would constitute a violation of
section 9 of the Act should be directed
to the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Requests for copies of the
regulations concerning listed animals
and general inquiries regarding
prohibitions and permits may be
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pacific Region, Ecological
Services, Endangered Species Permits,
Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232–4181
(telephone 503–231–6131; facsimile
503–231–6243).
If made final, Federal listing of the 15
species included in this rule would
automatically invoke State listing under
Hawaii’s Endangered Species law
(H.R.S. 195D 1–32) and supplement the
protection available under other State
laws. These protections would prohibit
take of these species and encourage
conservation by State government
agencies. Further, the State would be
able to enter into agreements with
Federal agencies to administer and
manage any area required for the
conservation, management,
enhancement, or protection of
endangered species (H.R.S. 195D–5).
Funds for these activities could be made
available under section 6 of the Act
(Cooperation with the States). Thus, the
Federal protection afforded to these
species by listing them as endangered
species would be reinforced and
supplemented by protection under State
law.
Critical Habitat
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3
of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the
geographical area occupied by a species,
at the time it is listed in accordance
with the Act, on which are found those
physical or biological features
(I) Essential to the conservation of the
species and
(II) Which 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 that are
necessary to bring an endangered 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,
transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
cannot otherwise be relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection
under section 7 of the Act through the
prohibition against Federal agencies
carrying out, funding, or authorizing the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. 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 the
government or public access to private
lands. Such designation does not
require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by
the landowner. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency
funding or authorization that may affect
a listed species or critical habitat, the
consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but in
the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the Federal action
agency’s and the applicant’s obligation
is not to restore or recover the species,
but to implement reasonable and
prudent alternatives to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat
designation, the habitat within the
geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing must
contain the physical or 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 and commercial data
available, habitat areas that provide
essential life cycle needs of the species.
Under the Act and regulations at 50 CRF
424.12(e), 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 and that
designation limited to those areas
occupied at the time of listing would be
inadequate to ensure 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63977
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 we are determining which areas
should be proposed 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 to be necessary for the
recovery of the species, as additional
scientific information may become
available in the future. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation
does not signal that habitat outside the
designated area is unimportant or may
not be required for recovery of the
species.
The information currently available
on the effects of global climate change
and increasing temperatures does not
make sufficiently precise estimates of
the location and magnitude of the
effects to allow us to incorporate this
information into our current designation
of critical habitat, nor are we currently
aware of any climate change
information specific to the habitat of
any of the species being addressed in
this proposed rule that would indicate
what areas may become important to the
species in the future. Therefore, we are
unable to determine what additional
areas, if any, may be appropriate to
include in the proposed critical habitat
for these species; however, we
specifically request information from
the public on the currently predicted
effects of climate change on the species
addressed in this proposed rule and
their habitats. Furthermore, we
recognize that designation of critical
habitat may not include all of the
habitat areas we may eventually
determine are necessary for the recovery
of the species, based on scientific data
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63978
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
now available to the Service. For these
reasons, a critical habitat designation
does not signify that habitat outside of
the designated area is unimportant or
may not be required for the recovery of
the species.
Areas that are important to the
conservation of the species, but are
outside the critical habitat designation,
will continue to be subject to
conservation actions we implement
under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Areas
that support populations 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 scientific information at the
time of the 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 (HCPs), section 7 consultations, or
other species conservation planning
efforts if any new information available
to these planning efforts calls for a
different outcome.
Prudency Determination for 15
Proposed Species and 2 Listed Species
on Hawaii Island
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as
amended, and implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate
critical habitat at the time a species is
determined to be endangered or
threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR
424.12(a)(1) state that designation of
critical habitat is not prudent when one
or both of the following situations exist:
(1) The species is threatened by taking
or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be
expected to increase the degree of threat
to the species; or (2) such designation of
critical habitat would not be beneficial
to the species.
As we have discussed under the
threats analysis for Factor B, above,
there is currently no documentation that
14 of the 15 species proposed for listing
are threatened by taking or other human
activity. Overcollection is a threat to the
plant Pritchardia lanigera (see
‘‘Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific or Educational
Purposes,’’ above). Rare palm trees are
highly desirable to collectors, and there
is an active Internet sale and online
auction market for their seeds and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
seedlings, including P. lanigera
(rarepalmseeds.com 2011;
junglemusic.net 2012; ebay.com 2012).
Several nurseries advertise and sell
seedlings and young plants, including at
least 13 species of Hawaiian Pritchardia.
Seven of these species are federally
protected, including P. affinis and P.
schattaueri on Hawaii Island (ebay.com
2012; junglemusic.net 2012). Seeds of
the endangered P. hardyi on Kauai have
been illegally removed from an
outplanting site in the past (75 FR
18960, April 13, 2010), and there is
evidence of vandalism and illegal
collection of other species of
endangered Pritchardia palms on Kauai
(75 FR 18960, April 13, 2010). In the
1990s, seeds of the endangered P.
schattaueri were removed from plants
in two of the three locations on Hawaii
Island where this species was known at
that time (PEPP 2007, in litt.). We do not
believe that the designation of critical
habitat for P. lanigera will increase the
threat of overcollection for the following
reasons: (1) The area of the known
locations is extremely difficult to access
because most of the rigorous and steep
trails leading into Waimanu and
neighboring valleys were destroyed in
the 2005 Kona earthquake (Magnacca
2011b, pers. comm.); and (2) critical
habitat designation, as proposed, does
not identify the specific location of
individual species . In addition, we
believe that the potential benefit to P.
lanigera from designating critical habitat
is that the designation could serve to
educate landowners, State and local
government agencies, and the general
public regarding the potential
conservation value of the area.
Therefore, we find that the designation
of critical habitat for P. lanigera is
prudent.
At the time we listed the plant
Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi) as
endangered we found that designation
of critical habitat was not prudent
because publication of the location of a
species-specific critical habitat
description would increase the risk of
taking or vandalism, while providing no
additional benefit to the species (51 FR
24672; July 8, 1986). However, we have
examined the best available information
and found no current information to
indicate that this plant is currently
threatened by overcollection or
vandalism, or is otherwise used for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Thus, we believe
there is a benefit to a critical habitat
designation for this species (see
discussion below). Moreover, we have
no current information to indicate that
identification of critical habitat is
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
expected to initiate such a threat to any
of the other species addressed in this
proposed rule.
We reviewed the information
available for the 13 plants, anchialine
pool shrimp, and picture-wing fly
proposed for listing in this rule, and the
endangered plant Mezoneuron
kavaiense, pertaining to the biological
needs of these 16 species and
characteristics of their last known
habitats. In the absence of finding that
the designation of critical habitat would
increase threats to a species, if there are
any benefits to a critical habitat
designation, then a prudent finding is
warranted. The potential benefits to the
15 species proposed for listing and the
endangered plant Mezoneuron
kavaiense include: (1) Triggering
consultation under section 7 of the Act,
in new areas for actions in which there
may be a Federal nexus where it would
not otherwise occur because, for
example, it is or has become
unoccupied or the occupancy is in
question; (2) focusing conservation
activities on the most essential features
and areas; (3) providing educational
benefits to State or county governments
or private entities; and (4) preventing
people from causing inadvertent harm
to the species.
The primary regulatory effect of
critical habitat is the section 7(a)(2)
requirement that Federal agencies
refrain from taking any action that
destroys or adversely modifies critical
habitat. We find that the designation of
critical habitat for each of the 15 species
proposed for listing in this rule and the
endangered plant Mezoneuron
kavaiense would benefit them by
serving to focus conservation efforts on
the restoration and maintenance of
ecosystem functions that are essential
for attaining their recovery and longterm viability. In addition, the
designation of critical habitat serves to
inform management and conservation
decisions by identifying any additional
physical or biological features of the
ecosystem that may be essential for the
conservation of certain species.
Therefore, as we have determined that
the designation of critical habitat will
not likely increase the degree of threat
to the species and may provide some
measure of benefit, we find that
designation of critical habitat is prudent
for the following 16 species, as critical
habitat would be beneficial and there is
no evidence that the designation of
critical habitat would result in an
increased threat from taking or other
human activity for these species:
(1) Plants— Bidens hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana, Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii,
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Mezoneuron kavaiense, Phyllostegia
floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schiedea
hawaiiense, and Stenogyne cranwelliae;
(2) Animals— insects: Drosophila
digressa; crustaceans: Vetericaris
chaceorum.
In this rule, we are also proposing
critical habitat for the listed plant,
Isodendrion pyrifolium. We previously
found that critical habitat is prudent
and determinable (67 FR 36968; May 28,
2002) for Isodendrion pyrifolium on
Hawaii Island, but we did not designate
any critical habitat for the species in
2003, as discussed below.
Critical Habitat Determinability for 16
Species on Hawaii Island
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the
Act requires the designation of critical
habitat concurrently with the species’
listing ‘‘to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable.’’ Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical
habitat is not determinable when one or
both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform
required analyses of the impacts of the
designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species
are not sufficiently well known to
permit identification of an area as
critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not
determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical
habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act
we are to designate critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and
determinable at the time a species is
proposed for listing. In our previous
discussion, we indicated that the
designation of critical habitat would
provide a benefit for the 15 species
proposed for listing in this rule, and the
plant, Mezoneuron kavaiense listed as
endangered in 1986 (51 FR 24672; July
8, 1986). As a consequence, we
determined that the designation of
critical habitat for these 16 species is
prudent.
Next we are to evaluate whether the
designation of critical habitat is
determinable, and if so, propose critical
habitat concurrent with our proposed
listing. At this time, we have found that
the designation of critical habitat is
determinable for only one species that
we are proposing to list, Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and are
including critical habitat for it in this
proposal. We also find that the
designation of critical habitat is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
determinable for the listed plant,
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and are
including critical habitat for it in this
proposal. In addition, we are including
critical habitat for a third species, the
plant Isodendrion pyrifolium listed as
endangered in 1994 (59 FR 10305;
March 4, 1994). We had previously
determined that critical habitat was
prudent and determinable (67 FR 36968;
May 28, 2002) and proposed areas as
critical habitat for Isodendrion
pyrifolium on Hawaii Island. However,
in the final rule for Hawaii Island plants
(68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003), the areas
proposed for critical habitat for this
species were excluded from final
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see discussion regarding
‘‘Reconsideration of Lands Previously
Excluded Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act’’).
The species Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, which is proposed for
listing in this rule, and the listed species
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron
kavaiense co-occur in the same lowland
dry ecosystem on the island of Hawaii.
These three species (Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense)
share many of the same physical or
biological features (e.g., elevation,
annual rainfall, substrate, associated
native plant genera) as well as the same
threats from development, fire, and
nonnative ungulates and plants. In this
proposed rule, we have identified areas
that provide the physical or biological
features essential for the conservation of
these three species and areas that are
essential for the conservation of these
three species in the lowland dry
ecosystem on the island of Hawaii.
Therefore, we find that critical habitat is
determinable for Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
and Mezoneuron kavaiense in this rule.
However, for the remaining 14 species
proposed for listing in this rule, we do
not have the analysis necessary to refine
the identification of the physical and
biological features and delineate the
specific areas that contain those features
in the appropriate arrangement and
quantity or the specific unoccupied
areas essential to the species’
conservation. As a result, we find that
for the remaining 14 species that we are
proposing to list in this rule, the
designation of critical habitat is not
determinable at this time.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63979
Proposed Critical Habitat for Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and
Mezoneuron kavaiense on Hawaii
Island
In this section, we discuss the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for three plant species (Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense).
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is 1
of the 15 species proposed for listing in
this rule, for which critical habitat was
determined to be prudent and
determinable. Critical habitat wa for
Isodendrion pyrifolium on the island of
Hawaii, but was excluded from
designation as critical habitat under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the final
rule published on July 2, 2003 (68 FR
39624). In this proposed rule, we have
determined that critical habitat is both
prudent and determinable for the listed
plant species Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Background for the Listed Plants
Isodendrion pyrifolium and
Mezoneuron kavaiense
It is our intent to discuss only those
topics directly relevant to the proposed
designation of critical habitat on the
island of Hawaii. For additional
information on Isodendrion pyrifolium
and its proposed critical habitat on
Oahu, Molokai, and Maui, refer to the
proposed rules for Listing 23 Species on
Oahu as Endangered and Designating
Critical Habitat for 124 Species (76 FR
46362; August 2, 2011) and the
proposed rule Listing 38 Species on
Molokai, Lanai, and Maui as
Endangered and Designating Critical
Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and
Kahoolawe for 135 Species (77 FR
34464; June 11, 2012). For additional
information on the listed endangered
plant Mezoneuron kavaiense, which
does not have designated critical habitat
in Hawaii, please refer to the listing rule
published in the Federal Register on
July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24672).
Currently designated critical habitat
on the island of Hawaii includes critical
habitat for the plant Kokia drynarioides
(49 FR 47397, December 4, 1984), and
41 other listed plants (68 FR 39624, July
2, 2003), Blackburn’s sphinx moth (68
FR 34710, June 10, 2003), and 3 picturewing flies (73 FR 73794, December 4,
2008). Approximately 55 percent of the
area being proposed as critical habitat in
this rule overlaps with these areas
previously designated as critical habitat.
In some areas, the footprint of the
proposed critical habitat is larger than
the 1984, 2003, and 2008 designations,
to accommodate the future expansion of
one or more of the three species’
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63980
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
populations within the particular
ecosystem in which they occur (e.g.,
expansion into unoccupied habitat). The
proposed critical habitat correlates each
species’ physical or biological
requirements with the characteristics of
the lowland dry ecosystem within
which they occur (e.g., elevation,
rainfall, species associations, etc.), and
also includes areas unoccupied by the
species but determined to be essential
for the conservation of the species. The
proposed critical habitat will enable
managers to focus conservation
management efforts on common threats
and facilitate the restoration of the
ecosystem function and species-specific
habitat needs for the recovery of Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
This information represents the best
current scientific and commercial
information available.
Current Status of Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense
The plant, Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, is proposed for listing as
endangered in this rule. For the status
of B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla see
Description of the 15 Species Proposed
for Listing above.
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho
kula), a perennial shrub in the violet
family (Violaceae), is known from
Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui,
and Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999k, p.
1,331). Isodendrion pyrifolium was
thought to be extinct since 1870, but
was rediscovered in 1991 at Kealakehe,
near Kailua on the island of Hawaii. In
2003, I. pyrifolium was only known
from a single occurrence of
approximately nine individuals at
Kealakehe on the island of Hawaii (68
FR 39624, July 2, 2003). Currently, there
are no extant occurrences on Oahu,
Lanai, Molokai, or Maui. Surveys in
2006 and 2007 have documented the
decline of the total number of
individuals at Kealakehe (from nine
individuals in 2003, to four individuals
in 2006, to three individuals in 2007)
(David 2007, pers. comm. in USFWS
2008, in litt.). Currently, there are only
two wild individuals at Kealakehe, in
the lowland dry ecosystem (Wagner
2011b, in litt.). The two wild
individuals are found within two small,
managed preserves situated in an urban
setting. The larger 26-ac (11-ha) preserve
is bordered by a high school, residential
development, and construction of the
Kealakehe portion of Ane Keohokalole
Highway. The smaller 4-ac (1-ha)
preserve is bordered by the same
highway construction and open space.
Three individuals are represented in ex
situ collections (PEPP 2011, p. 32).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Plants are under propagation at the
Volcano Rare Plant Facility and at the
Future Forests Nursery for seed
production and for outplanting (VRPF
2010, in litt.; VRPF 2011, in litt; Wagner
2011b, in litt.). Five I. pyrifolium plants
have been outplanted at the KalokoHonokohau National Historical Park
(NHP), and another 20 plants were
outplanted in Puu Waawaa and
Kaupulehu in 2010 (Wagner 2011c, in
litt.). There are plans to outplant an
additional 25 plants at both Kealakehe
and Kaupulehu (Wagner 2011c, in litt.).
Critical habitat for this species is also
being proposed on the islands of Oahu
(76 FR 46362; August 2, 2011), and
Maui and Molokai (77 FR 34464; June
11, 2012). There is no currently
designated critical habitat for this plant
on Hawaii Island.
Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi), a
medium-sized tree in the pea family
(Fabaceae), was known historically from
Kauai, Oahu, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii
(Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 647–648). At
the time of listing in 1986, a single large
occurrence of approximately 30
individuals at Puu Waawaa contained
the majority of individuals of this
species on Hawaii Island (51 FR 24672,
July 8, 1986; HBMP 2010m). In 1992, a
second occurrence of 21 individuals
was discovered at Kealakehe (USFWS
1994, p. 14; HBMP 2010m). In 1993, fire
within a kipuka (an area of older land
within the younger Kaupulehu lava
flow) destroyed 80 percent of the
individuals known from Puu Waawaa.
Surveys in 2006 reported the number of
individuals at Puu Waawaa to be
approximately 50 to 100 individuals
(HBMP 2010m). In addition, recently
new information documented 13
individuals near Waikoloa Village
(Faucette 2010, p. 3). Currently, M.
kavaiense is found in 4 occurrences
totaling 90 to 140 individuals in the
lowland dry ecosystem of Hawaii Island
(HBMP 2010m). Critical habitat is not
currently designated for this plant.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act,
we used the best scientific data
available in determining those areas that
contain the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the three species, and for which
designation of critical habitat is
considered prudent, by identifying the
occurrence data for each species and
determining the ecosystems upon which
they depend. This information was
developed by using:
• The known locations of the three
species, including site-specific species
information from the HBMP database
(HBMP 2010b; HBMP 2010m; HBMP
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2010n), the TNC database (TNC 2007—
Ecosystem Database of ArcMap
Shapefiles, unpublished), and our own
rare plant database;
• Species information from the plant
database housed at NTBG;
• Maps of habitat essential to the
recovery of Hawaiian plants, as
determined by the Hawaii and Pacific
Plant Recovery Coordinating Committee
(HPPRCC 1998, 32 pp. + appendices);
• Maps of important habitat for the
recovery of plants protected under the
Act (USFWS 1999, pp. F12);
• The Nature Conservancy’s
Ecoregional Assessment of the Hawaiian
High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps
(TNC 2007—Ecosystem Database of
ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished);
• Color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital
aerial photographs for the Hawaiian
Islands (March 2006 to January 2009);
• Island-wide Geographic Information
System (GIS) coverage (e.g., Gap
Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation data
of 2005;
• 1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics
of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
topographic quadrangles;
• Geospatial data sets associated with
parcel data from Hawaii County (2008);
• Recent biological surveys and
reports; and
• Discussions with qualified
individuals familiar with these species
and ecosystems.
Based upon all of this data, we
determined that those portions of the
lowland dry ecosystems being proposed
for critical habitat designation in this
rule are either currently occupied or
were occupied at the time of listing by
one or more of the 3 species addressed
in this rule. These areas contain the
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, or to
the extent that they are not currently
occupied by one or more of the three
species, they are essential for the
conservation of the species (TNC 2006b,
pp. 1–2)).
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i)
and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and the
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in
determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time
of listing to propose as critical habitat,
we consider the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species and which may require
special management considerations or
protection. These physical or biological
features provide the essential lifehistory requirements of the species, and
include, but are not limited to:
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
(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,
rearing (or development) of offspring,
germination, or seed dispersal; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the
historical geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
For plant species, ecosystems that
provide appropriate seasonal wetland
and dry land habitats, host species,
pollinators, soil types, and associated
plant communities are taken into
consideration when determining the
physical or biological features essential
for a species.
The recovery plans (Recovery Plan for
Caesalpinia kavaiensis and Kokia
drynarioides, June 1994; and Recovery
Plan for the Big Island Plant Cluster,
September 1996) identify several actions
needed to recover the endangered
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron
kavaiense, including: Expanding
existing wild populations and
reestablishing wild populations within
the historic range. These actions are also
needed to recover Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla because this species, found
in the same habitat as the two listed
plants, faces the same threats.
Furthermore, because of their small
numbers or low population sizes, each
of the three species requires suitable
habitat and space for the expansion of
existing populations to achieve a level
that could approach recovery. We have
determined that to recover these
species, it is essential to conserve
suitable habitat in both occupied and
unoccupied units, which will in turn
allow for the establishment of additional
populations through natural recruitment
or managed reintroductions.
Establishment of these additional
populations will increase the likelihood
that the species will survive and recover
in the face of normal and stochastic
events (e.g., hurricanes, fire, and
nonnative species introductions)
(Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Pimm et
al. 1998, p. 777; Stacey and Taper 1992,
p. 27). In this regard, the designation of
critical habitat limited to the geographic
areas occupied by the species at the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
time of listing would be insufficient to
achieve recovery objectives.
We have derived the specific physical
and biological features required for each
of the two listed plants, Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense,
from studies of the species’ habitat,
ecology, and life history. In addition, we
have reevaluated the physical and
biological features for I. pyrifolium
based on ecosystem definitions using
species information from the 2003 Final
Designation and Nondesignation of
Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species
From the Island of Hawaii, HI (68 FR
39624, July 2, 2003) and new scientific
information that has become available
since that time. Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla is found in locations with
the same substrate age and soil type as
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron
kavaiense, and is known to share the
same land cover (vegetation) type as
Mezoneuron kavaiense throughout over
85 percent of its range (HBMP 2010m).
Therefore, we believe that B. micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla shares the same
physical or biological features that we
have determined for Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
When designating critical habitat in
occupied areas, we focus on the
physical or biological features that may
be essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special
management considerations or
protections. In unoccupied habitat, we
focus on whether the area is essential to
the conservation of the species. The
currently proposed physical or
biological features for occupied areas, in
conjunction with the unoccupied areas
needed to expand and reestablish wild
populations within their historical
range, provide a more accurate picture
of the geographic areas needed for the
recovery of each species. We believe
this information will be helpful to
Federal agencies and our other partners,
as we collectively work to recover these
imperiled species.
Under the Act and its implementing
regulations, we are required to identify
the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the three
species for which we are proposing
critical habitat. We identify these
features in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features’ primary
constituent elements. We consider the
primary constituent elements (PCEs) to
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63981
be the elements of physical or biological
features that provide for a species’ lifehistory processes and are essential to
the conservation of the species. The
PCEs identified in this proposed rule
take into consideration the ecosystem in
which each species occurs and reflects
a distribution that we believe is
essential to achieving the species’
recovery needs within that ecosystem.
In this proposal, PCEs for each of the
three species are defined based on those
physical or biological features essential
to support the successful functioning of
the ecosystem upon which each species
depends, and which may require special
management considerations or
protection. As the conservation of each
species is dependent upon a functioning
ecosystem to provide its fundamental
life requirements, such as a certain soil
type, minimum level of rainfall, or
suitable native host plant, we consider
the physical or biological features
present in the ecosystem described in
this rule to provide the necessary
elements for each of the three species in
this proposal. The ecosystem’s features
collectively provide the suite of
environmental conditions essential to
meeting the requirements of each of the
three species, including the appropriate
microclimatic conditions for
germination and growth of the plants
(e.g., light availability, soil nutrients,
hydrologic regime, temperature), and in
all cases, space within the appropriate
habitats for population growth and
expansion, to maintain the historical,
geographical, and ecological
distribution of each species. In the case
of Isodendrion pyrifolium, due to its
recent rediscovery and limited
geographic distribution at one known
occurrence, the more general
description of the physical or biological
features that provide for the successful
function of the ecosystem that is
essential to the conservation of the
species represents the best, and in many
cases, the only, scientific information
available. Accordingly, the physical or
biological features of the lowland
ecosystem are the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of
the three species at issue here.
Table 4 identifies the physical or
biological features of a functioning
lowland dry ecosystem, which each of
the three species identified in this rule
requires.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63982
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—PRIMARY CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE LOWLAND DRY ECOSYSTEM
Ecosystem
Elevation
Lowland Dry 2 .......
< 3,300 ft
(<1,000 m)
Annual
precipitation
< 50 in
(<130 cm)
Table 4 indicates that the specific
elements or PCEs in the lowland dry
ecosystem include elevations of less
than 3,300 ft (1,000 m); annual
precipitation of less than 50 in (130 cm);
weathered silty loams to stony clay,
rocky ledges, and little-weathered lava;
and potential habitat for one or more
genera of the subcanopy plants
Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Osteomeles,
Psydrax, Scaevola, and Wikstroemia,
one or more of the understory plants
Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis,
Chenopodium, Nephrolepis, Peperomia,
and Sicyos, and one or more of the
genera of the canopy species Diospyros,
Erythrina, Metrosideros, Myoporum,
Pleomele, Santalum, and Sapindus.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat Boundaries
We considered several factors in the
selection and proposal of specific
boundaries for critical habitat for these
three species. We propose to designate
critical habitat on lands that contain the
physical or biological features essential
to conserving multiple species, based on
their shared dependence on the
functioning ecosystem they have in
common. The lowland dry ecosystem
that supports the three plant species
addressed here does not form a
contiguous area, and is divided into
seven geographic subunits that we refer
to as ‘‘sections.’’ Although we do not
usually refer to areas of critical habitat
as sections, compliance with Federal
Register publication requirements
necessitated the subdivision into
smaller subunits to correspond with
existing critical habitat units currently
published in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), as some of the
proposed critical habitat for the three
plant species overlies critical habitat
already designated for other plants on
the island of Hawaii. We, thus, refer to
‘‘sections’’ here in order to retain the
focus on the contiguous ecosystem areas
of interest in this proposed rule, while
recognizing that multiple critical habitat
units may comprise these sections.
Further details are provided under the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Substrate
Potential habitat for one or more of these associated native plant
genera
Canopy
Weathered silty loams
to stony clay, rocky
ledges, little-weathered lava.
Diospyros, Erythrina,
Chamaesyce,
Metrosideros,
Dodonaea,
Myoporum,
Osteomeles,
Pleomele,
Psydrax, Scaevola,
Santalum, Sapindus.
Wikstroemia.
section titled ‘‘Proposed Critical Habitat
Designation,’’ below.
The proposed critical habitat is a
combination of areas currently occupied
by these three species, as well as areas
that may be currently unoccupied. The
best available scientific information
suggests that these species either
presently occur within, or have
occupied, these habitats. A properly
functioning ecosystem provides the
physical or biological features that
support life-history requirements of the
species that rely on the ecosystem, and
the specific elements or PCEs essential
for the conservation of the species that
occur there. In addition, due to the
small population sizes, few numbers of
individuals, and reduced geographic
range of each of the three species for
which critical habitat is here proposed,
we have determined that a designation
limited to known present range of each
species would be inadequate to achieve
the conservation of those species. The
areas that may have been unoccupied at
the time of listing have been determined
to be essential for the conservation and
recovery of the species because they
provide the habitat necessary for the
expansion of existing wild populations
and reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical range of the
species. Designating unoccupied critical
habitat for these species would promote
conservation actions to restore their
historical, geographical, and ecological
representation, which is essential for
their recovery. Critical habitat
boundaries for all species were
delineated to clearly depict and promote
the recovery and conservation of these
species by identifying the functioning
ecosystem on which they depend.
Current and historical species
location information was used to
develop initial critical habitat
boundaries (polygons) in the lowland
dry ecosystem that would individually
and collectively provide for the
conservation of the three species
addressed in this proposed rule. For
these three species, we propose critical
habitat only in the geographic area of
historical occurrence, which is
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Subcanopy
Sfmt 4702
Understory
Alyxia, Artemisia,
Bidens, Capparis,
Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis,
Peperomia, Sicyos.
restricted to the lowland dry ecosystem
in the north Kona and south Kohala
regions. The initial polygons were
superimposed over digital topographic
maps of the island of Hawaii and further
evaluated. In general, land areas that
were identified as highly degraded were
removed from the proposed critical
habitat units, and natural or manmade
features (e.g., ridge lines, valleys,
streams, coastlines, roads, obvious land
features, etc.) were used to delineate the
proposed critical habitat boundaries.
The critical habitat areas described
below constitute our best assessment of
the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the
three plant species, and the unoccupied
areas essential for the species’
conservation by providing for the
expansion of existing populations. The
approximate size of each of the seven
plant critical habitat sections and the
status of their land ownership, are
identified in Table 5A. As noted in
Table 5A, all areas proposed for critical
habitat designation are found within the
lowland dry ecosystem. Table 5B
identifies the areas under consideration
for exclusion from critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act (see Exclusions, below).
When determining critical habitat
boundaries within this proposed rule,
we made every effort to avoid including
developed areas such as buildings,
paved areas, and other structures that
lack the physical or biological features
essential for the conservation of the
three plant species. The scale of the
maps we prepared under the parameters
for publication within the Code of
Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed areas. Any
such structures and the land under them
inadvertently left inside critical habitat
boundaries shown on the maps of this
proposed rule have been excluded by
text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical
habitat. Therefore, Federal actions
involving these areas would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat unless the specific action
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63983
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
would affect the adjacent critical habitat
or its primary constituent elements.
TABLE 5A—CRITICAL HABITAT PROPOSED FOR Bidens micrantha SSP. ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense, AND
Isodendrion pyrifolium ON THE ISLAND OF HAWAII
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Proposed critical
habitat area
Size of
section
in acres
Size of
section in
hectares
State
Federal
County
Private
Corresponding
critical habitat
map in the Code
of
Federal Regulations (CFR)
Hawaii—Lowland Dry
—Section 1
Unit 10 ...............
Unit 31 ...............
—Unit 32 ............
—Unit 33 ............
—Unit 34 ............
—Unit 35 ............
—Unit 36 ............
Total Lowland Dry.
2,914
9,936
1,779
1,583
961
1,192
402
1,179
4,021
720
640
389
485
163
2,914
7,101
21
1,080
259
606
5
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
397
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
19
........................
........................
2,834
1,758
502
702
568
........................
18,766
7,597
11,986
397
19
Map
Map
Map
Map
Map
Map
Map
39a.
104.
105.
106.
106.
106.
106.
6,364
TABLE 5B—AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR EXCLUSION UNDER SECTION 4(B)(2) OF THE ACT
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
Total area proposed as critical
habitat in acres
(hectares)
Area considered
for exclusion in
acres (hectares)
Kamehameha Schools .....................................................................................................................................
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC .....................................................................................................................
Kaloko Properties Corp. ..................................................................................................................................
Lanihau Properties ...........................................................................................................................................
SCD–TSA Kaloko Makai LLC ..........................................................................................................................
TSA Corporation ..............................................................................................................................................
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ............................................................................................................
2,834 (1,147)
502 (203)
48 (19)
47 (19)
558 (226)
26 (10)
446 (181)
2,834 (1,147)
502 (203)
48 (19)
47 (19)
558 (226)
26 (10)
87 (35)
Total ..........................................................................................................................................................
4,461 (1,805)
4,099 (1,659)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Owner
The proposed critical habitat
designation is defined by the maps, as
modified by any accompanying
regulatory text, presented at the end of
this document in the rule portion. We
include more detailed information on
the boundaries of the proposed critical
habitat designation in the preamble of
this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on
which each map is based available to
the public on https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
[FWS–R1–ES–2012–0070], on our
Internet site https://www.fws.gov/
pacificislands, and at the Pacific Islands
Fish and Wildlife Office responsible for
the designation. You may obtain field
office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional
offices, the addresses of which are listed
at 50 CFR 2.2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:32 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Special Management Considerations or
Protections
The term critical habitat is defined in
section 3(5)(A) of the Act, in part, as
geographic areas on which are found
these physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the
species and ‘‘which may require special
management considerations or
protection.’’
In identifying critical habitat in
occupied areas, we determine whether
those areas that contain the features
essential to the conservation of the
species require any special management
actions. Although the determination
that special management may be
required is not a prerequisite to
designating critical habitat in
unoccupied areas, special management
is needed throughout all of the proposed
critical habitat units. The following
discussion of special management needs
is, therefore, applicable to each of the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
three Hawaii Island species for which
we are proposing to designate critical
habitat.
For each of the three species currently
found in the wild on Hawaii Island, we
have determined that the features
essential to their conservation are those
required for the successful functioning
of the lowland dry ecosystem in which
they occur (see Table 4 above). Special
management considerations or
protections are necessary throughout the
critical habitat areas proposed here to
avoid further degradation or destruction
of the habitat that provides those
features essential to their conservation.
The primary threats to the physical or
biological features essential to the
conservation of these three species
include habitat destruction and
modification by development,
nonnative ungulates, competition with
nonnative species, hurricanes, fire,
drought, and climate change. The
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63984
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
reduction of these threats will require
the implementation of special
management actions within each of the
critical habitat areas identified in this
proposed rule.
All proposed critical habitat requires
special management actions to address
the ongoing degradation and loss of
habitat caused by agricultural and urban
development. Urbanization also
increases the likelihood of wildfires
ignited by human sources. Without
protection and special management,
habitat containing the features that are
essential for the conservation of these
species will continue to be degraded
and destroyed.
All proposed critical habitat requires
active management to address the
ongoing degradation and loss of native
habitat caused by nonnative ungulates
(goats and cattle). Nonnative ungulates
also impact the habitat through
predation and trampling. Without this
special management, habitat containing
the features that are essential for the
conservation of these species will
continue to be degraded and destroyed.
All proposed critical habitat requires
active management to address the
ongoing degradation and loss of native
habitat caused by nonnative plants.
Special management is also required to
prevent the introduction and spread of
nonnative plant species into native
habitats. Particular attention is required
in nonnative plant control efforts to
avoid creating additional disturbances
that may facilitate the further
introduction and establishment of
invasive plant seeds. Precautions are
also required to avoid the inadvertent
trampling of listed plant species in the
course of management activities.
The active control of nonnative plant
species will help to address the threat
posed by fire in all six of the proposed
critical habitat units. This threat is
largely a result of the presence of
nonnative plant species such as the
grasses Pennisetum setaceum and
Melinis minutiflora that increase the
fuel load and quickly regenerate after a
fire. These nonnative grass species can
outcompete native plants that are not
adapted to fire, creating a grass-fire
cycle that alters ecosystem functions
(D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 64–
66; Brooks et al. 2004, p. 680).
In summary, we find that each of the
areas we are proposing as critical habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
contains features essential for the
conservation of the species that may
require special management
considerations or protection to ensure
the conservation of the three plant
species for which we are proposing
critical habitat. These special
management considerations and
protections are required to preserve and
maintain the essential features provided
to these species by the lowland dry
ecosystem upon which they depend.
The specific areas proposed for critical
habitat that are outside the geographical
area occupied by these species have
been determined to be essential for their
conservation.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 18,766 ac (7,597 ha)
as critical habitat in 7 units within the
lowland dry ecosystem for Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
(See Table 5A above for details). Of
these proposed units, 10,304 ac (4,170
ha), or 55 percent, are already
designated as critical habitat for other
listed species. The proposed critical
habitat includes land under State,
County of Hawaii, Federal (KalokoHonokohau NHP), and private
ownership. The critical habitat units we
describe below constitute our current
best assessment of those areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat for the
three species of plants.
Because some of the proposed critical
habitat for the three plants overlays
critical habitat already designated for
other plant species on the island of
Hawaii, we have incorporated the maps
of the areas proposed for critical habitat
in this proposed rule into the existing
critical habitat unit numbering system
established for the plants on the island
of Hawaii in the Code of Federal
Regulations (50 CFR 17.99(k)). This
required further subdividing some of the
ecosystem areas that we identified as
‘‘sections’’ into units that correspond to
both existing and new critical habitat
unit numbers and maps numbers as
published in the CFR. The maps and
area descriptions presented here
represent the lowland dry ecosystem
areas that we have identified for the
three plant species, subdivided into a
total of 6 sections. The critical habitat
unit numbers and the corresponding
map numbers that will appear at 50 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
17.99 are additionally provided for ease
of reference in the CFR.
Descriptions of Proposed Critical
Habitat
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Section 1
consists of 10,015 ac (4,053 ha) of State
land, and 2,834 ac (1,147 ha) of
privately owned land for a total of
12,849 ac (5,200 ha), from Puu Waawaa
to Kaupulehu on the northwestern slope
of Hualalai between the elevations of
760 and 2,600 ft (231 and 793 m) (Figure
2). The section includes 2,914 ac (1,179
ha) of State land within previously
designated critical habitat and 9,936 ac
(4,021 ha) of newly proposed critical
habitat on 7,101 ac (2,874 ha) of State
land and 2,834 ac (1,147 ha) of privately
owned land. The area that falls within
designated critical habitat lies within
Hawaii Unit 10 of 50 CFR 17.99(k), Map
39a, and proposed new critical habitat
Hawaii Unit 31, Map 104. The area of
Section 1 that overlaps previously
designated critical habitat includes
critical habitat for the following listed
plant species: Bonamia menziesii,
Colubrina oppositifolia, Hibiscadelphus
hualalaiensis, Neraudia ovata, and
Nothocestrum breviflorum. This section
is occupied by the plants Bidens
micrantha spp. ctenophylla and
Mezoneuron kavaiense and includes the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the lowland dry
ecosystem (see Table 4).
This section also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these two species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Hawaii—
Lowland Dry—Section 1 is not known
to be occupied by Isodendrion
pyrifolium, we have determined this
area to be essential for the conservation
and recovery of this lowland dry species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within its historical range.
Due to its small numbers of individuals
this species requires suitable habitat and
space for expansion or reintroduction to
achieve population levels that could
approach recovery.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:34 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
kavaiense and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland dry ecosystem
(see Table 4). Although Hawaii—
Lowland Dry—Unit 32 is not currently
occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla or Isodendrion pyrifolium,
we have determined this area to be
essential for the conservation and
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
recovery of these lowland dry species
because it provides the physical or
biological features necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within the historical ranges of the
species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
these two species require suitable
habitat and space for expansion or
reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could approach recovery.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.004</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 32
consists of 21 ac (8 ha) of State land,
and 1,758 ac (712 ha) of privately
owned land for a total of 1,779 ac (720
ha), at Waikoloa on the western slope of
Mauna Kea between the elevations of
720 and 1,220 ft (220 and 372 m). This
unit is not in previously designated
critical habitat and comprises proposed
critical habitat shown on Map 105 in
this proposed rule. This unit is
occupied by the plant Mezoneuron
63985
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 33
consists of 1,080 ac (437 ha) of State
land, and 502 ac (203 ha) of privately
owned land, from Puukala to Kalaoa on
the western slope of Hualalai between
the elevations of 360 and 1,080 ft (110
and 329 m). This unit is not in
previously designated critical habitat
and comprises proposed critical habitat
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 33 of Map
106 in this proposed rule. This unit is
occupied by the plant Mezoneuron
kavaiense and includes the mixed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:32 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
herbland and shrubland, the moisture
regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species
identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland dry ecosystem
(see Table 4). This unit also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Hawaii—
Lowland Dry—Unit 33 is not known to
be occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
ctenophylla and Isodendrion pyrifolium,
we have determined this area to be
essential for the conservation and
recovery of these lowland dry species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical
range. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
these species require suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could approach recovery.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.005</GPH>
63986
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 34
consists of 259 ac (105 ha) of State land,
and 702 ac (284 ha) of privately owned
land for a total of 961 ac (389 ha), from
Kalaoa to Puukala on the western slope
of Hualalai between the elevations of
280 and 600 ft (85 and 183 m). This unit
is not in previously designated critical
habitat and comprises proposed critical
habitat Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 34
of Map 106 in this proposed rule. This
unit is occupied by the plant Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and
includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 4).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of this species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Hawaii—
Lowland Dry—Unit 34 is not known to
be occupied by Isodendrion pyrifolium
and Mezoneuron kavaiense, we have
determined this area to be essential for
the conservation and recovery of these
lowland dry species because it provides
the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations
within their historical range. Due to
their small numbers of individuals or
low population sizes, these species
require suitable habitat and space for
expansion or reintroduction to achieve
population levels that could approach
recovery.
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35
consists of 606 ac (245 ha) of State land,
19 ac (7.8 ha) of County land, and 568
ac (230 ha) of privately owned land for
a total of 1,192 ac (485 ha), at Kealakehe
on the western slope of Hualalai
between the elevations of 80 and 560 ft
(24 and 171 m). This unit is not in
previously designated critical habitat
and comprises proposed critical habitat
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 35 of Map
106 in this proposed rule. This unit is
occupied by the plants Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense,
and includes the mixed herbland and
shrubland, the moisture regime, and
canopy, subcanopy, and understory
native plant species identified as
physical or biological features in the
lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 4).
This unit also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of these species by
providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild
populations.
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 36
consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of State land and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
397 ac (161 ha) of Federal land for a
total of 402 ac (163 ha), near the
coastline at Kaloko and Honokohau on
the western slope of Hualalai between
the elevations of 20 and 90 ft (6 and 27
m). This unit is not in previously
designated critical habitat and
comprises proposed critical habitat
Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit 36 of Map
106 in this proposed rule. This unit is
occupied by the plant Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, and includes the
mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy,
subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or
biological features in the lowland dry
ecosystem (see Table 4). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat for the
plant Isodendrion pyrifolium that is
essential to the conservation of this
species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild
populations. Although Hawaii—
Lowland Dry—Unit 36 is not known to
be occupied by Isodendrion pyrifolium,
we have determined this area to be
essential for the conservation and
recovery of this lowland dry species
because it provides the PCEs necessary
for the reestablishment of wild
populations within its historical range.
Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes,
these species require suitable habitat
and space for expansion or
reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could approach recovery.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as
amended, requires Federal agencies,
including the Service, to ensure that
actions they fund, authorize, or carry
out are not likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. 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, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would remain functional
(or retain those physical or biological
features that relate to the current ability
of the area to support the species) to
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63987
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
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 issue either:
(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 for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion
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 formal
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies may sometimes need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63988
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may adversely
affect the species included in this
proposed rule or their designated
critical habitat require section 7
consultation under the Act. This
includes activities on State, tribal, 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 us under
section 10 of the Act), or activities
involving some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency). These
types of activities are 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
consultations.
Application of the Jeopardy and
Adverse Modification Standards
Application of the Jeopardy Standard
The jeopardy analysis usually
expresses the survival and recovery
needs of a listed species in a qualitative
fashion without making distinctions
between what is necessary for survival
and what is necessary for recovery.
Generally, the jeopardy analysis focuses
on the status of a species, the factors
responsible for that condition, and what
is necessary for the species to survive
and recover. An emphasis is also placed
on characterizing the condition of the
species in the area affected by the
proposed Federal action. That context is
then used to determine the significance
of adverse and beneficial effects of the
proposed Federal action and any
cumulative effects for purposes of
making the jeopardy determination. The
jeopardy analysis also considers any
conservation measures that may be
proposed by a Federal action agency to
minimize or compensate for adverse
effects to the species or to promote its
recovery.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Application of the Adverse Modification
Standard
The analytical framework described
in the Director’s December 9, 2004,
memorandum is used to complete
section 7(a)(2) analysis for Federal
actions affecting critical habitat. The key
factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species, or would retain its current
ability for the essential features to be
functionally established. Activities that
may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat are those that alter the essential
features, or the essential habitat
qualities of unoccupied habitat, to an
extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for
the three species identified in this
proposed rule.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, 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 destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat for the
three plant species, and therefore may
be affected by this proposed
designation, include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Activities that may appreciably
degrade or destroy the physical or
biological features for the species,
including, but not limited to,
overgrazing, maintaining or increasing
feral ungulate levels, clearing or cutting
native live trees and shrubs (e.g.,
woodcutting, bulldozing, construction,
road building, mining, herbicide
application), and taking actions that
pose a risk of fire.
(2) Activities that may alter watershed
characteristics in ways that would
appreciably reduce groundwater
recharge or alter natural, wetland,
aquatic, or vegetative communities.
Such activities include new water
diversion or impoundment, excess
groundwater pumping, and
manipulation of vegetation through
activities such as the ones mentioned in
(1) above.
(3) Recreational activities that may
appreciably degrade vegetation.
(4) Mining sand or other minerals.
(5) Introducing or encouraging the
spread of nonnative plant species.
(6) Importing nonnative species for
research, agriculture, and aquaculture,
and releasing biological control agents.
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
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
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Management Plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
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.
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))
provides: ‘‘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.’’
We consult with the military on the
development and implementation of
INRMPs for installations with listed
species. We analyze INRMPs developed
by military installations located within
the areas that were being considered for
critical habitat designation during the
development of this proposed rule to
determine if these installations may
warrant consideration for exemption
under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. There
are no Department of Defense (DOD)
lands within this proposed critical
habitat designation. Therefore, no lands
have been exempted from this proposed
critical habitat designation under
section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary must designate or make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration relevant
impacts, including economic and
national security impacts, 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.
When considering the benefits of
inclusion of an area in critical habitat,
we consider the regulatory benefits that
area would receive from the protection
from adverse modification or
destruction as a result of consultation
under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for
actions with a Federal nexus; the
educational benefits of mapping habitat
essential for recovery of the listed
species; and any benefits that may result
from a designation due to State or
Federal laws that may apply to critical
habitat. Benefits could include public
awareness of the presence of listed
species and the importance of habitat
protection, and in cases where a Federal
nexus exists, increased habitat
protection due to the protection from
adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of
exclusion, we consider factors such as
whether exclusion of a specific area is
likely to result in conservation; the
continuation, strengthening, or
encouragement of partnerships; or the
implementation of a management plan
that provides equal to or more
conservation than a critical habitat
designation would provide.
The Secretary can consider
conservation agreements and other land
management plans with Federal,
private, State, and tribal entities when
making decisions under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act. The Secretary may also
consider voluntary partnerships and
conservation plans, and weigh the
implementation and effectiveness of
these against that of designation.
Consideration of relevant impacts of
designation or exclusion under section
4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited
to, any of the following factors: (1)
Whether the plan provides specific
information on how it protects the
species and the physical or biological
features, and whether the plan is at a
geographic scope commensurate with
the species; (2) whether the plan is
complete and will be effective at
conserving and protecting the physical
or biological features; (3) whether a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
reasonable expectation exists that
conservation management strategies and
actions will be implemented, that those
responsible for implementing the plan
are capable of achieving the objectives,
that an implementation schedule exists,
and that adequate funding exists; (4)
whether the plan provides assurances
that the conservation strategies and
measures will be effective (i.e.,
identifies biological goals, has
provisions for reporting progress, and is
of a duration sufficient to implement the
plan); (5) whether the plan has a
monitoring program or adaptive
management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective; (6)
the degree to which the record supports
a conclusion that a critical habitat
designation would impair the benefits of
the plan; (7) the extent of public
participation; (8) a demonstrated track
record of implementation success; (9)
the level of public benefits derived from
encouraging collaborative efforts and
encouraging private and local
conservation efforts; and (10) the effect
designation would have on
partnerships. We will also consider
whether these efforts would be affected
by critical habitat, and, if so, whether
this would outweigh the benefits of
critical habitat.
Based on the information provided by
entities seeking exclusion, as well as
any additional public comments we
receive, we will evaluate whether
certain lands in proposed critical habitat
may be appropriate for exclusion from
the final designation.
To ensure that our final determination
is based on the best available
information, we are inviting comments
on any foreseeable economic, national
security, or other potential impacts
resulting from this proposed designation
of critical habitat from governmental,
business, or private interests and, in
particular, or any potential impacts on
small businesses.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we are preparing an analysis of
the potential economic impacts of the
proposed critical habitat designation
and related factors.
We will announce the availability of
the draft economic analysis as soon as
it is completed, at which time we will
seek public review and comment. At
that time, copies of the draft economic
analysis will be available for
downloading from the Internet at the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov, or by contacting
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63989
the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife
Office directly (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). During the
development of a final designation, we
will consider economic impacts, public
comments, and other new information,
and as an outcome of our analysis of
this information, we may exclude areas
from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act and our implementing regulations at
50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the DOD where a
national security impact might exist.
There are no DOD lands within this
proposed critical habitat designation,
and we are unaware of any potential
impacts to national security on any
lands within the proposed critical
habitat designation. Therefore, we do
not propose to exclude any areas from
the final designation based on impacts
on national security, but will fully
consider all comments in this regard in
the final critical habitat designation.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Factors
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts to national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether the landowners have developed
any conservation plans or other
management plans for the area, or
whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged
by designation of, or exclusion from,
critical habitat. We also consider any
social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
We have identified certain areas that
we are considering excluding from the
final revised critical habitat designation
for the three plant species based on
conservation partnerships. However, we
solicit comments on the inclusion or
exclusion of such particular areas (see
‘‘Public Comments’’ section). During the
development of the final designation,
we will consider economic and other
relevant impacts, public comments, and
other new information before deciding if
inclusion or exclusion of these areas is
warranted. As a result, additional areas,
in addition to those identified below for
potential exclusion in this proposed
rule, may be excluded from the final
critical habitat designation under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Alternatively,
we may decide not to exclude these
lands based on information received
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
during the public comment period or
other new information.
Conservation Partnerships on NonFederal Lands
Kamehameha Schools
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
We are considering excluding 2,834
ac (1,147 ha) of habitat associated with
Two plant species included in this
rule (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
and Mezoneuron kavaiense) occur in
this area. The area under consideration
falls within proposed critical habitat
Hawaii Unit 31, Map 104, and
comprises the entire area owned by
Kamehameha Schools (2,834 ac (1,147
ha)) within the proposed designation
(see Table 5B). This unit is occupied by
the plants Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense
and contains the features essential to the
lowland dry ecosystem and therefore
essential to each species. This area also
contains unoccupied habitat that is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
essential to the conservation of
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Kamehameha Schools is conducting
voluntary actions to promote the
conservation of rare and endangered
species and their lowland dry ecosystem
habitats on their lands, including the
installation of fencing to exclude
ungulates, restoring habitat, conducting
actions to reduce rodent populations,
reestablishing native plant species, and
conducting activities reducing the threat
of wildfire. We will continue working
with Kamehameha Schools during the
public comment period, and will make
a determination regarding the exclusion
from critical habitat designation in the
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Kamehameha Schools lands at
Kaupulehu on the western slope of
Hualalai between the elevations of 940
and 2,600 ft (2,90 and 7,90 m) (Figure
3).
final rule. In addition, we are requesting
comments and information regarding
these areas and will determine whether
these lands may warrant exclusion from
critical habitat in our final rule for the
three plants for which critical habitat is
here proposed on Kamehameha Schools
land.
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC
The Service is considering excluding
502 ac (203 ha) of habitat associated
with the land owned by Palamanui
Global Holdings LLC (Palamanui) at
Kau, on the western slope of Hualalai
between the elevations of 400 and 1,000
ft (120 and 300 m) (Figure 4). The area
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.006</GPH>
63990
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
63991
This unit is occupied by the plant
Mezoneuron kavaiense and contains the
features essential to the lowland dry
ecosystem and therefore for this species.
This area also contains habitat that is
unoccupied but essential to the
conservation of the proposed plant,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and
the endangered plant, Isodendrion
pyrifolium.
The Kona Community Development
Plan (Hawaii County Ordinance 08–131)
identifies the lands owned by
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC as
located within the Kona Urban Area
with a land use designation of Urban
Expansion (Wilson Okamoto
Corporation 2008, pp. 4–29—4–37).
Hiluhilu Development LLC has
proposed development of a master
planned community (Palamanui
Hiluhilu Development Project), which
includes single and multi-family
residential units, university residential
facilities, health facilities, research and
development facilities, mixed
commercial development, a small hotel,
natural and cultural preserves, parks,
open space, and parking areas on a 725ac (293-ha) parcel owned by Palamanui
(Group 70 International 2004, p. 3–36;
DHHL 2009, p. 10). A portion of the
proposed development (502 ac (203 ha))
falls within the area of proposed critical
habitat in Hawaii—Lowland Dry—Unit
33.
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC is
involved in several voluntary actions
that promote the conservation of rare
and endangered species on their lands,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.007</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
under consideration falls within
proposed critical habitat Hawaii—
Lowland Dry—Unit 33, Map 106, and
comprises the entire area owned by
Palamanui (502 ac (203 ha)) within the
proposed designation (see Table 5B).
63992
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
including their participation in the
North Kona Dry Forest working group,
the construction of fencing to exclude
ungulates, developing a dry forest
preserve management plan, and
establishing a fenced research area to
measure and monitor forest dynamics
within the lowland dry ecosystem. We
will continue working with Palamanui
Global Holdings LLC during the public
comment period for the proposed rule,
and will make a determination
regarding the exclusion from critical
habitat designation in the final rule. In
addition, we are requesting comments
and information regarding these areas
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
and will determine whether these lands
may warrant exclusion from critical
habitat in our final rule for the three
plants for which critical habitat is
proposed here on Palamanui Global
Holdings LLC land.
Kaloko Makai Development
The Service is considering excluding
630 ac (255 ha) of habitat associated
with the Kaloko Makai Development, on
the western slope of Hualalai in the land
divisions of Kaloko and Ooma between
the elevations of 320 and 650 ft (100 and
200 m). There are three landowners
with a common interest in the Kaloko
Makai Development, Kaloko Properties
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Corporation (Figure 5–A), SCD–TSA
Kaloko Makai LLC (Figure 5–B), and
TSA Corporation (Figure 5–C). Two
plant species included in this rule
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and
Mezoneuron kavaiense are reported
from this area. The area under
consideration for exclusion falls within
proposed critical habitat Hawaii—
Lowland Dry—Unit 34, Map 106, and is
comprised of, in their entirety, the areas
owned by Kaloko Properties
Corporation, SCD–TSA Kaloko Makai
LLC, and TSA Corporation within the
proposed designation (see Table 5B).
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
63993
EP17OC12.008</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.009</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
63994
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
This unit is occupied by the plant
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and
contains the features essential to the
lowland dry ecosystem and therefore
this species. This area also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
SCD–TSA Kaloko Makai LLC has
proposed the Kaloko Makai
Development, a master-planned
community on 1,139 ac (461 ha) of
which 630 ac (255 ha) are included
within the proposed critical habitat
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Hawaii Unit 34, Map 106. This project
is a master-planned, mixed-use
community village consisting of 5,000
single and multi-family residential
units, up to 1.1 million square (sq) ft
(102,193 sq m) of commercial space,
light industrial use, three public school
sites, a dryland forest preserve, park and
open space, a site for development of a
regional hospital, and four potable well
sites (Hookuleana LLC 2011).
The developers of Kaloko Makai are
participating in several important
partnerships, conservation agreements,
and other actions on their lands to
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63995
promote the conservation of rare and
endangered species, including setting
aside a Dryland Forest Preserve area in
perpetuity, installing fencing to exclude
ungulates, removing ungulates, and
eradicating nonnative species. The
landowner is also working with the
State to develop a multi-species habitat
conservation plan that will provide a
net conservation benefit to the covered
species. We will continue working with
Kaloko Makai LLC during the public
comment period for the proposed rule,
and will make a determination
regarding the exclusion from critical
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
63996
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Lanihau Properties within the proposed
designation. This unit is occupied by
the plant Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla and contains the features
essential to the lowland dry ecosystem
and therefore essential to this species.
This area also contains unoccupied
habitat that is essential to the
conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium
and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Lanihau Properties is promoting the
conservation of rare and endangered
species through their land management
strategies, conservation agreements, and
by setting aside a portion of their land
for establishment of the Kaloko Makai
Dryland Forest Preserve. We will
continue working with Lanihau
Properties during the public comment
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.011</GPH>
Lanihau Properties
The Service is considering excluding
47 ac (19 ha) of habitat associated with
the lands owned by Lanihau Properties,
on the western slope of Hualalai at
Kaloko between the elevations of 320
and 440 ft (100 and 135 m) (Figure 6).
Two plant species included in this rule,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and
Mezoneuron kavaiense, are reported
from this area. The area under
consideration falls within proposed
critical habitat Hawaii—Lowland Dry—
Unit 34, Map 106, and comprises the
entire area (47 ac (19 ha)) owned by
habitat designation in the final rule. In
addition, we are requesting comments
and information regarding these areas
and will determine whether these lands
may warrant exclusion from critical
habitat in the final rule for the three
plants for which critical habitat is
proposed here on Kaloko Makai
Development land.
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Department of Hawaiian Homelands
The Service is considering excluding
87 ac (35 ha) of habitat associated with
the DHHL’s Villages of Laiopua
development at Kealakehe on the
western slope of Hualalai between the
elevations of 400 and 720 ft (122 and
220 m) (Figure 7). Three plant species
included in this rule (Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense)
occur in this area. The area under
consideration falls within proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
critical habitat Hawaii—Lowland Dry—
Unit 35, Map 106, and comprises a
portion of the 355 ac (144 ha) owned by
DHHL within the proposed designation
(see Table 5B). The area owned by
DHHL that is not being considered for
exclusion is approximately 268 ac (109
ha) in size. This unit is occupied by the
plants Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium and
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and contains
the features essential to the lowland dry
ecosystem and therefore essential to
each species.
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.012</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
period, and will make a determination
regarding the exclusion from critical
habitat designation in the final rule. In
addition, we are requesting comments
and information regarding these areas
and will determine whether these lands
may warrant exclusion from critical
habitat in our final rule for the three
plants for which critical habitat is
proposed here on Lanihau Properties
land.
63997
63998
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Beginning in 1990, Housing and
Community Development Corporation
of Hawaii (HCDCH) was the State
agency placed in charge of the masterplanned community known as ‘‘Villages
of Laiopua’’ (VOLA). The construction
of VOLA would be phased, with
increments of the proposed 1,700 homes
(of which approximately 60 percent,
would be offered as affordable housing)
developed as discrete villages as
funding allowed. From 1993 to 1999,
the Service, DOFAW, and HCDCH
worked to develop a mitigation plan for
the listed and other rare plant species
affected by the proposed development.
In 1999, HCDCH produced the
‘‘Mitigation Plan for Endangered
Species at Villages of Laiopua,
Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii’’ to
address impacts to listed and other
plant species affected by the
construction and development of VOLA
(Belt Collins Hawaii 1999, pp. 1–29). By
2004, most of the lands within the
VOLA development were transferred to
the DHHL, which, in consultation with
the Service, continues to implement
these plans for conservation
management. DHHL is involved in
several actions to promote the
conservation of rare and endangered
species, including providing funding to
establish and maintain preserves for
listed plants, installing fencing for
ungulate control, removing nonnative
plants, and promoting community
volunteer programs that support native
plant conservation. In total, DHHL has
allocated $741,564 toward construction
of the preserves, habitat restoration, and
education and community outreach
activities through 2014.
We will continue working with the
DHHL during the public comment
period, and will make a determination
regarding the exclusion from critical
habitat designation in the final rule. In
addition, we are requesting comments
and information regarding these areas
and will determine whether these lands
may warrant exclusion from critical
habitat in our final rule for the three
plants for which critical habitat is
proposed here on DHHL lands at
Kealakehe.
Lands Previously Excluded Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
In 2003, we excluded approximately
329 ac (approximately 133 ha) of land
in proposed unit Y2 owned by the
Queen Liliuokalani Trust (Trust)
because we believed there was a higher
likelihood of beneficial conservation
activities occurring on those private
lands without the designation of critical
habitat than there would be with a
critical habitat designation (68 FR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
39624; July 2, 2003). The exclusion of
this area under 4(b)(2) of the Act was
based on the Trust’s offer to implement
voluntary conservation activities and a
proposal to: (1) Partner with the Service
on a project to conduct research on the
propagation of Isodendrion pyrifolium,
and (2) set aside two areas totaling
approximately 53 ac (21 ha) and allow
for the outplanting of I. pyrifolium,
Neraudia ovata, and other endangered
species.
In 2004, the Service and the Trust
partnered on a project to conduct
research on propagation of Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Neraudia ovata to: (1)
Secure genetic material in ex situ
storage, and (2) provide individuals for
reintroduction or restoration projects.
The Service and the Trust each
contributed $10,000 toward the
completion of the propagation project.
On June 27, 2005, representatives of the
Trust, the Service’s Partners for Fish
and Wildlife Program, Amy Greenwell
Botanical Garden, and U.S. Army
Garrison Hawaii—Pohakuloa Training
Area conducted a site visit to identify
appropriate outplanting sites for I.
pyrifolium and N. ovata. Since 2005, the
Trust has completed an approximately
28-ac (11-ha) chain-link fence exclosure
(to discourage human traffic) in the
southeast portion of the property above
Queen Kaahumanu Highway adjacent to
Palani Road. Within this chain-link
exclosure is a smaller exclosure
approximately 2 ac (less than 1 ha) in
size (to exclude feral pigs) in which
common native plants have been
outplanted. For the outplanting effort,
the Trust partnered with Amy
Greenwell Botanical Garden for
propagation of native plant material and
used the opportunity to educate the
community regarding the restoration of
the native lowland dry ecosystem.
Because the larger, chain-link exclosure
contains various archaeological features,
it has been proposed as a historical
preservation preserve. In addition, the
Trust has consulted with numerous
cultural descendants of the Keahuolu
area who are of native Hawaiian
ancestry. Therefore, work in the fenced
areas involves consideration of both
natural and cultural resources
management. According to Trust
representatives, all work in the
proposed historical preservation
preserve has been suspended until the
historical preservation plan has been
approved by the State Historic
Preservation Division. Aside from the
contribution to research and
propagation of I. pyrifolium and
protection of the 2-ac (1-ha) area, there
have been no additional conservation
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
measures conducted for I. pyrifolium
and N. ovata in the lowland dry
ecosystem on the Trust’s lands at
Keahuolu.
Although the planned management
activities described above (i.e.,
propagation and outplanting, and
habitat conservation) are consistent with
recovery objectives for the endangered I.
pyrifolium (USFWS 1996, pp. 1–252),
they do not address conservation of the
other two plants, the plant Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla or the
endangered plant Mezoneuron
kavaiense (USFWS 1994, pp. 1–82), for
which critical habitat is proposed.
Further, since 2005, we are unaware of
efforts to outplant propagated
individuals of I. pyrifolium or any
current plans to conserve listed species
or their habitats in the lowland dry
ecosystem on the lands at Keahuolu
owned by the Trust. Therefore, the 329
ac (133 ha) of lands owned by the Trust
are not proposed for exclusion in this
proposed critical habitat rule.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy
published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek
the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The
purpose of such review is to ensure that
our proposed listing and critical habitat
designation are based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses.
We have posted our proposed peer
review plan on our Web site at https://
www.fws/pacific/informationquality/
index.htm. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment, during the
public comment period (see DATES), on
the specific assumptions and
conclusions regarding the proposed
listing of 15 species and designation of
critical habitat for 3 species.
We will consider all comments and
information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule
during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, our final
decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more
public hearings on this proposal, if
requested. Requests for public hearings
must be made within 45 days of the
publication of this proposal (see DATES).
We will schedule public hearings on
this proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and place of
those hearings, in the Federal Register
and local newspapers at least 15 days
before the first hearing.
Persons needing reasonable
accommodations to attend and
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
participate in a public hearing should
contact the Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office at 808–792–9400 as soon
as possible. To allow sufficient time to
process requests, please call no later
than one week before the hearing date.
Information regarding this proposal is
available in alternative formats upon
request.
Required Determinations
These required determinations relate
only to the portion of this rule
designating critical habitat. Listing
determinations are made solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available. 16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(1)(A).
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 provides that
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. The Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has determined that
this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the
principles of E.O. 12866 while calling
for improvements in the nation’s
regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty,
and to use the best, most innovative,
and least burdensome tools for
achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996), whenever an agency 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 effects of the rule on small
entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of the agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
entities. 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.
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; as well as small
businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns
with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than
100 employees, retail and service
businesses with less than $5 million in
annual sales, general and heavy
construction businesses with less than
$27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
consider the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this rule, as well as the types of project
modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
The RFA/SBREFA defines ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ as the
government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000. By this
definition, Hawaii County is not a small
governmental jurisdiction because its
population was estimated at 185,079
residents in 2010 (https://hawaii.gov/
dbedt/info/census/Census_2010).
Certain State agencies may be affected
by the proposed critical habitat
designation—such as the Department of
Land and Natural Resources and the
State Department of Transportation.
However, for the purposes of the RFA,
State governments are considered
independent sovereigns, not small
governments.
To determine if a designation of
critical habitat 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., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas
production, timber harvesting). 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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
63999
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.
Under the Act, designation of critical
habitat only affects activities carried
out, funded, or permitted by Federal
agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal
involvement and so will not be affected
by critical habitat designation. However,
in some States there are State laws that
limit activities in designated critical
habitat even where there is no Federal
nexus. If there is a Federal nexus,
Federal agencies would be required to
consult with us under section 7 of the
Act on activities they fund, permit, or
carry out that may affect critical habitat.
If we conclude, in a biological opinion,
that a proposed action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat, we can offer ‘‘reasonable and
prudent alternatives.’’ Reasonable and
prudent alternatives are alternative
actions that can be implemented in a
manner consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency’s legal authority and
jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that would
avoid destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
A Federal agency and an applicant
may elect to implement a reasonable
and prudent alternative associated with
a biological opinion that has found
adverse modification of critical habitat.
An agency or applicant could
alternatively choose to seek an
exemption from the requirements of the
Act or proceed without implementing
the reasonable and prudent alternative.
However, unless an exemption were
obtained, the Federal agency would be
at risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of the
Act if it chose to proceed without
implementing the reasonable and
prudent alternatives. We may also
identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize
or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on critical habitat, to
help implement recovery plans, or to
develop information that could
contribute to the recovery of the species.
Within the proposed critical habitat
designation, the types of actions or
authorized activities that we have
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
64000
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
identified as potential concerns and that
may be subject to consultation under
section 7 if there is a Federal nexus are:
(1) Activities that might degrade or
destroy the primary constituent
elements for the species, including, but
not limited to: (a) Grazing; (b)
maintaining or increasing feral ungulate
levels; (c) clearing or cutting native live
trees and shrubs; (d) bulldozing; (e)
construction; (f) road building; (g)
mining; (h) herbicide application; and
(i) taking actions that pose a risk of fire;
(2) activities that may alter watershed
characteristics in ways that would
reduce groundwater recharge or alter
natural, wetland, aquatic, or vegetative
communities (e.g., new water diversion
or impoundment activities, groundwater
pumping, and manipulation of
vegetation through activities such as the
ones mentioned above); (3) recreational
activities that may degrade vegetation;
(4) mining sand or other minerals; (5)
introducing or encouraging the spread
of nonnative plant species; (6) importing
nonnative species for research,
agriculture, and aquaculture; and (7)
releasing biological control agents.
Three of the proposed critical habitat
units (Hawaii Unit 33, Hawaii Unit 34,
and Hawaii Unit 35) contain
commercial operations or proposed
commercial operations. Hawaii Unit 33
totals approximately 1,583 ac (640 ha)
and extends from Puukala to Kalaoa on
the western slope of Hualalai between
the elevations of 360 and 1,080 ft (110
and 329 m). Approximately 1,080 ac
(437 ha) of this unit are owned by the
State of Hawaii and 502 ac (203 ha) are
privately owned by Palamanui Global
Holdings LLC. The area owned by
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC and
proposed within Hawaii Unit 33
comprises a portion of the 725-ac (293ha) Palamanui Hiluhilu Development
project, which includes single and
multi-family residential units,
university residential facilities, health
facilities, research and development
facilities, mixed commercial
development, a small hotel, natural and
cultural preserves, parks, open space,
and parking areas (Group 70
International 2004, p. 3–36; DHHL 2009,
p. 10). Plans called for the Palamanui
Hiluhilu Development project to be
developed over a 10-year period
beginning in 2004, in a sequence of
phases starting with infrastructure and
continuing with residential, multifamily, and commercial improvements.
However, to date, only construction of
certain infrastructure improvements
have been completed, and the sale of
residential lots is not anticipated until
2013, at the earliest (Harris 2011, pers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
comm.). A draft management plan for
the biological resources within the
Palamanui Hiluhilu Development
project area includes the creation of a
lowland dry forest preserve and other
protective measures to benefit three
endangered plants, Mezoneuron
kavaiense, Nothocestrum breviflorum,
and Pleomele hawaiiensis, and their
habitats (see Palamanui Global Holdings
LLC above). Also within proposed
critical habitat Hawaii Unit 33 and to
the south of the parcel owned by
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC, is a
500-ac (202-ha) parcel owned by the
State of Hawaii, a portion of which will
be developed for the University of
Hawaii Center West Hawaii campus
(UHCWH) (Wil Chee—Planning &
Environmental, Inc. 2007, p. 1).
Development of UHCWH buildings
within a 78-acre portion of the State
owned parcel could begin as early as
May 2012 (Jensen 2011, in litt.). At this
time we are unaware of ongoing actions
or authorized activities with a Federal
nexus that may be subject to
consultations under section 7 of the Act
on the 502 ac (203 ha) of private land
owned by Palamanui Global Holdings
LLC. Palamanui Global Holdings LLC
has demonstrated a willingness to
manage these lands in a manner
compatible with the conservation of
listed and nonlisted species, therefore in
this proposed rule we are considering
excluding these 502 ac (203 ha) of land
owned by Palamanui Global Holdings
LLC within proposed Hawaii Unit 33. If
these lands are excluded from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
in our final rule because the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
critical habitat designation, consultation
with us under section 7 of the Act on
activities funded, permitted, or carried
out by Federal agencies will not be
triggered.
Proposed Hawaii Unit 34 totals 961 ac
(389 ha) and extends from Kaloko to
Ooma on the western slope of Hualalai
between the elevations of 280 and 600
ft (85 and 183 m). There are 259 ac (105
ha) of State land, and 702 ac (284 ha)
of privately owned land in this
proposed unit. The Kaloko Makai
Development is proposed on private
land within this unit. Several
landowners with a common interest in
the proposed Kaloko Makai
Development include Kaloko Properties
Corporation, SCD–TSA Kaloko Makai
LLC, and TSA Corporation. A
description of the proposed Kaloko
Makai Development is given above (see
Kaloko Makai Development). SCD–TSA
Kaloko Makai LLC is working with the
State’s DOFAW to develop a multi-
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
species HCP, to minimize and mitigate
the impacts of the proposed
development on the plant, Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and four
endangered plants, Mezoneuron
kavaiense, Neraudia ovata,
Nothocestrum breviflorum, and
Pleomele hawaiiensis (Hookuleana LLC
2011). In addition, Lanihau Properties
owns private land immediately adjacent
to the Kaloko Makai Development and
is involved in a joint conservation
agreement with the Service, the FHWA,
DOFAW, the County of Hawaii, and the
owners of the Kaloko Makai
Development. In 2010, the Service
concluded an informal consultation
under section 7 of the Act with the
FHWA to address impacts to the same
four endangered plants and one species
proposed for listing in this rule (see
above) associated with the proposed
construction of Ane Keohokalole
Highway from Hina Lani Street to Palani
Road. The proposed highway segments
covered in the consultation fall within
Hawaii Unit 34 in the north and Hawaii
Unit 35 in the south. The Service, SCD–
TSA Kaloko Makai LLC, FWHA, the
County of Hawaii, and Lanihau
Properties negotiated several measures
to achieve conservation for the four
endangered and one plant species
proposed for listing in this rule (see
above) impacted by highway
construction and related development
activities. At this time we are unaware
of any other ongoing actions or
authorized activities with a Federal
nexus that may be subject to
consultation under section 7 of the Act
on the 630 ac (255 ha) of private land
owned by the three landowners with a
common interest in the Kaloko Makai
Development or the 47 ac (19 ha) owned
by Lanihau Partners. These landowners
have demonstrated a willingness to
manage these lands in a manner
compatible with the conservation of
listed and nonlisted species. Therefore,
in this proposed rule we are considering
excluding these 676 ac (274 ha) of
privately owned land within proposed
critical habitat Hawaii Unit 34. If these
lands are excluded from critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in our
final rule because the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of
critical habitat designation, consultation
with us under section 7 of the Act on
activities funded, permitted, or carried
out by Federal agencies would not be
triggered.
Forest City Hawaii Kona proposes to
develop a master-planned community
consisting of approximately 270 ac (109
ha) of privately owned lands in
proposed critical habitat Hawaii Unit 35
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
for the HFDC. The development will
include 1,020 to 2,330 single and multifamily residences (including the
proposed Keahuolu Affordable Housing
Project), commercial and retail space, a
site reserved for a school, parks, an
archaeological preserve, and open
space. The State environmental review
process has been completed and the
developer is targeting early 2012, for
receiving the grading and construction
permits for Phase 1 of development
(Fujimoto 2011a, in litt.; Fujimoto
2011b, in litt.). At this time we are
unaware of any ongoing actions or
authorized activities with a Federal
nexus that may be subject to
consultation under section 7 of the Act
on the 270 ac (109 ha) of land owned
by Forest City Hawaii Kona.
None of the other three proposed
critical habitat units contain any
significant residential, commercial,
industrial, or golf-course projects; crop
farming; or intensive livestock
operations. Few projects are planned for
locations in these other proposed
critical habitat units. This situation
reflects the fact that existing land-use
controls severely limit development and
most other economic activities in the
rugged lava terrain of the north Kona
region of Hawaii Island.
Existing and planned projects, land
uses, and activities that could affect the
proposed critical habitat but have no
Federal involvement would not require
section 7 consultation with the Service,
so they are not restricted by the
requirements of the Act. Further,
although some existing and continuing
activities involve the operation and
maintenance of existing manmade
features and structures in certain areas,
these areas do not contain the physical
or biological features for the species,
and would not be impacted by the
designation. Finally, for the anticipated
projects and activities that will have
Federal involvement, many are
conservation efforts that would not
negatively impact critical habitat, so
they will not be subjected to a
protracted informal section 7
consultation. We also anticipate that a
developer or other project proponent
could modify a project or take measures
to conserve critical habitat, if
designated.
In addition, Federal agencies may also
need to reinitiate a previous
consultation if discretionary
involvement or control over the Federal
action has been retained or is authorized
by law and the activities may affect
critical habitat. In 1984, we designated
critical habitat for the endangered plant,
Kokia drynarioides (49 FR 47397;
December 4, 1984), and between 2003
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
and 2008, we designated critical habitat
for 41 endangered plants on Hawaii
Island (68 FR 39624; July 2, 2003); for
the Blackburn’s sphinx moth on
Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe, and the
island of Hawaii (68 FR 34710; June 10,
2003); and for 12 picture-wing flies on
Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and
Hawaii Island (73 FR 73794; December
4, 2008). We discuss our formal and
informal consultations conducted prior
to 2003 on Hawaii Island in our final
rules to designate critical habitat on this
island (68 FR 34710, June 10, 2003; 68
FR 39624, July 2, 2003).
Since the 2003 critical habitat
designations on Hawaii Island, we have
conducted 25 formal consultations and
260 informal consultations on Hawaii
Island, in addition to consultations on
Federal grants to State wildlife programs
that do not affect small entities. Of these
285 formal and informal consultations,
18 formal consultations and 60 informal
consultations were primarily
consultations regarding Federal permits
to Service employees to implement
conservation actions for listed species.
The remainder, 7 formal consultations
and 225 informal consultations,
involved (in order of frequency) the
Department of Agriculture (USDANatural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), USDA-Pesticide Branch, and
USDA-Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS)), Federal
Communications Commission (FCC),
National Park Service (NPS), Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA),
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), Department of
Transportation (DOT), U.S. Army,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Hawaii Army National Guard,
National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S.
Geological Survey-Biological Resource
Division (USGS–BRD), Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Three of the seven formal
consultations concerned designated
critical habitat, and we concurred with
each agency’s determination that the
project as proposed, was not likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat.
One of the formal consultations was
conducted on behalf of the U.S. Army
Garrison regarding routine military
training at the Pohakuloa Training Area
(PTA). The U.S. Army proposed
helicopter pinnacle landings in palila
(Loxioides bailleui) critical habitat (42
FR 40685; August 11, 1977). The Service
determined the pinnacle landings on
Puu Omaokaoli at PTA were not likely
to adversely modify palila critical
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64001
habitat. This action was not conducted
in proposed critical habitat.
The second formal consultation was
conducted on behalf of the FHWA
regarding the Saddle Road Realignment
and Improvement Project. The FHWA
proposed road construction activities in
critical habitat for the endangered plants
Clermontia peleana and Cyanea
platyphylla. Because the proposed
project included beneficial actions for
these species in other areas to offset any
impacts to habitat from road
construction actions, the Service
determined that this action was not
likely to adversely modify critical
habitat. This action was not conducted
in proposed critical habitat.
The third formal consultation was
conducted on behalf of NOAA regarding
Pelekane Bay Watershed restoration.
The project area overlapped with 243 ac
(98 ha) of unoccupied critical habitat for
an endangered plant Achyranthes
mutica. The NOAA proposed to build
an ungulate exclosure fence around the
16,000-ac (6,500-ha) project area,
remove all the ungulates within the
fenced area, and outplant native plants.
Because these actions would greatly
enhance the suitability of the site to
support Achyranthes mutica in the
future, and likely result in an overall
benefit to the critical habitat by
ameliorating several threats, the Service
determined that this project was not
likely to adversely modify Achyranthes
mutica critical habitat.
The majority of the 225 informal
consultations that did not involve
Service actions were related to proposed
project effects on seabird (e.g., Newell’s
shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli)
and Hawaiian petrel (Pterodroma
phaeopygia)) flyways, the nene or
Hawaiian goose (Branta sandvicensis),
the opeapea or Hawaiian hoary bat
(Lasiurus cinereus semotus), the io or
Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius), and
other listed species and their associated
habitats. About one-third of the informal
consultations were conducted with the
USDA for proposed funding for habitat
restoration projects under NRCS
programs such as the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program and Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. A small
number of the informal consultations
involved the FCC and the construction
of cellular telecommunication sites.
Thirteen of the 260 informal
consultations concerned designated
critical habitat, and in all cases we
concurred with each agency’s
determination that the project, as
proposed, had no effect or was not
likely to adversely modify critical
habitat. These projects were divided
between conservation actions that
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
64002
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
would benefit listed species,
construction, and agricultural
operations. For the 247 informal
consultations that did not concern
designated critical habitat, we
concurred with each agency’s
determination that the project, as
proposed, was not likely to adversely
affect listed species.
In this rule, we are proposing to
designate critical habitat on a total
18,766 ac (7,597 ha) of land. Fifty-five
percent (10,304 ac (4,170 ha)) of this
proposed critical habitat designation
overlaps with already designated critical
habitat for one or more species, and 45
percent (8,464 ac (3,426 ha)) of the
proposed designation is on land newly
proposed as critical habitat. Some of the
Federal actions that were subject to
previous section 7 consultation are on
the lands we are proposing as critical
habitat in this rule. Therefore, there may
be a requirement to reinitiate
consultation for some ongoing Federal
projects.
In the 2003 and 2008 economic
analyses of the designation of critical
habitat for 41 species of plants on the
island of Hawaii and Blackburn’s
sphinx moth, we evaluated the potential
economic effects on small business
entities resulting from the protection of
these species and their habitats related
to the proposed designation of critical
habitat and determined that it would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The overlap between the
critical habitat designations for the 41
plant species and the Blackburn’s
sphinx moth, and this proposed critical
habitat designation is further evidence
that this proposal is not likely to have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Based on our evaluation above, we
have determined that the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion
pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense
will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, for
the reasons described above. As a result,
an initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required. However, we
will reevaluate the potential impacts to
small entities in the economic analysis
we develop for this proposed
designation.
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 would not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
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; AFDC 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 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, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal 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
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule
would significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The lands we are
proposing for critical habitat
designation are owned by the County of
Hawaii, the State of Hawaii, private
citizens, and the Federal Government.
None of these entities fit the definition
of ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
Therefore, a Small Government Agency
Plan is not required. However, we will
further evaluate this issue as we
conduct our economic analysis, and
review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for each of
the three species in a takings
implications assessment. The takings
implications assessment concludes that
this designation of critical habitat for
each of these species does not pose
significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the proposed
designation.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132
(Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects.
A federalism impact summary statement
is not required. In keeping with
Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we
requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this
proposed critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies
in Hawaii. The critical habitat
designation may have some benefit to
these governments because the areas
that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species would be
more clearly defined, and the essential
features themselves are specifically
identified. While making this definition
and identification does alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur, it may assist local governments in
long–range planning (rather than having
them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
64003
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
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 propose designating
critical habitat in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. This proposed
rule uses standard property descriptions
and identifies the physical and
biological features within the designated
areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of each
of the species being considered in this
proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act 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)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Tenth Circuit, we
do not need to prepare environmental
analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v.
Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995),
cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued
an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) on regulations that
significantly affect energy supply,
distribution, and use. Executive Order
13211 requires agencies to prepare
Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. This
proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium,
and Mezoneuron kavaiense is not a
significant regulatory action under E.O.
12866. There are no energy facilities
within the footprint of the proposed
critical habitat boundaries. Accordingly,
we do not expect the designation of this
proposed critical habitat to significantly
affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. Therefore, this action is not a
significant energy action, and no
Species
Vertebrate
population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Common name
*
INSECTS
*
Fly, Hawaiian picturewing.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Scientific name
*
*
*
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in
this rule is available on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are the staff members of the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend
part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title
50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 17—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 17.11(h), the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, as
follows:
a. By adding an entry for ‘‘Fly,
Hawaiian picture-wing’’ (Drosophila
digressa), in alphabetical order under
INSECTS, to read as set forth below; and
b. By adding an entry for ‘‘Shrimp,
anchialine pool’’ (Vetericaris
chaceorum), in alphabetical order under
CRUSTACEANS, to read as set forth
below.
§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened
wildlife.
*
Status
*
*
(h) * * *
*
When listed
*
*
*
*
Drosophila digressa .... U.S.A. (HI) ...................
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Any comments we receive addressing
energy supply will be fully considered
and addressed in our final
determination.
Sfmt 4702
NA
Critical
habitat
*
*
E
*
*
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
*
*
NA
17OCP2
Special
rules
NA
64004
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Species
Vertebrate
population
where endangered or
threatened
Historic range
Common name
Scientific name
*
CRUSTACEANS
*
*
Shrimp, anchialine pool
*
*
*
Vetericaris chaceorum
*
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
*
Jkt 229001
*
*
E
*
*
NA
*
*
c. By adding entries for Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha,
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra
wagneri, Mezoneuron kavaiense,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Critical
habitat
When listed
*
*
*
U.S.A. (HI) ...................
*
3. Amend § 17.12(h), the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants, as
follows:
a. By removing the entry for
Caesalpinia kavaiensis under
FLOWERING PLANTS,
b. By revising the entry for
Isodendrion pyrifolium under
FLOWERING PLANTS to read as set
forth below;
Status
Special
rules
*
*
NA
NA
*
ssp. macraei, Schiedea hawaiiensis, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae in alphabetical
order under FLOWERING PLANTS, to
read as set forth below.
§ 17.12
*
Endangered and threatened plants.
*
*
(h) * * *
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
64005
EP17OC12.013</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.014</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
64006
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
64007
EP17OC12.015</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
64008
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 17.99 as follows:
a. By revising the section heading to
read as set forth below;
b. By revising the introductory text of
paragraph (k) to read as set forth below;
c. By revising the index map at
paragraph (k)(1) as set forth below;
d. By redesignating paragraphs (k)(40)
through (k)(52) as paragraphs (k)(41)
through (k)(53);
e. By adding new paragraph (k)(40) to
read as set forth below;
f. By redesignating newly designated
paragraphs (k)(46) through (k)(53) as
paragraphs (k)(48) through (k)(55);
g. By adding new paragraphs (k)(46)
and (k)(47) to read as set forth below;
h. By removing the map in paragraph
(k)(97)(ii), and adding in its place the
map set forth below;
i. By removing the map in paragraph
(k)(100)(ii), and adding in its place the
map set forth below;
j. By removing the map in paragraph
(k)(101)(ii), and adding in its place the
map set forth below;
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
k. By removing the map in paragraph
(k)(102)(ii), and adding in its place the
map set forth below;
l. By redesignating paragraphs
(k)(104) and (k)(105) as paragraphs
(k)(121) and (k)(122);
m. By adding new paragraphs
(k)(104), (k)(105), (k)(106), (k)(107),
(k)(108), (k)(109), (k)(110), (k)(111),
(k)(112), (k)(113), (k)(114), (k)(115),
(k)(116), (k)(117), (k)(118), (k)(119), and
(k)(120), to read as set forth below;
n. By revising newly designated
paragraph (k)(121) to read as set forth
below;
o. By removing the entry ‘‘Family
Violaceae: Isodendrion pyrifolium
(wahine noho kula)’’ from paragraph
(l)(1); and
p. By adding entries for ‘‘Family
Asteraceae: Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla’’, ‘‘Family Fabaceae:
Mezoneuron kavaiense’’, and ‘‘Family
Violaceae: Isodendrion pyrifolium’’ in
alphabetical order by family name to
paragraph (l)(1) to read as set forth
below:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 17.99 Critical habitat; plants on the
Hawaiian Islands, HI.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Maps and critical habitat unit
descriptions for the island of Hawaii,
HI. Critical habitat units are described
below. Coordinates are in UTM Zone 4
with units in meters using North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD83). The
following map shows the general
locations of the critical habitat units
designated on the island of Hawaii.
Existing manmade features and
structures, such as buildings, roads,
railroads, airports, runways, other paved
areas, lawns, and other urban
landscaped areas, are not included in
the critical habitat designation. Federal
actions limited to those areas, therefore,
would not trigger a consultation under
section 7 of the Act unless they may
affect the species or physical or
biological features in adjacent critical
habitat.
(1) NOTE: Map 1, Index map, follows:
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
(40) Hawaii 10—Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–a (1,179 ha; 2,914 ac)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Hawaii 10—Bidens micrantha ssp.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
ctenophylla–a.]. This unit is also critical
habitat for Hawaii 10—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–a and Hawaii 10—
Mezoneuron kavaiense–a (see
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
paragraphs (k)(46) and (k)(47),
respectively, of this section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 39a follows:
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.016</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
*
64009
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.017</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
64010
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
(46) Hawaii 10—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–a (1,179 ha; 2,914 ac)
(i) See paragraph (k)(40)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(40)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(47) Hawaii 10—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–a (1,179 ha; 2,914 ac)
(i) See paragraph (k)(40)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(40)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
*
*
*
*
*
(97) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 97 follows:
64011
*
(101) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 101 follows:
(100) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 100 follows:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
*
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.018</GPH> EP17OC12.019</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
EP17OC12.020</GPH>
*
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(104) Hawaii 31–Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–b (9,936 ac; 4,021 ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Hawaii 31–Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla–b.] This unit is also critical
habitat for Hawaii 31–Isodendrion
pyrifolium–b and Hawaii 31–
Mezoneuron kavaiense– b (see
paragraphs (k)(105) and (k)(106),
respectively, of this section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 104 follows:
(102) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 102 follows:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
*
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00086
*
Fmt 4701
*
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.021</GPH>
64012
(105) Hawaii 31–Isodendrion
pyrifolium–b (9,936 ac; 4,021 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(104)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(104)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(106) Hawaii 31–Mezoneuron
kavaiense–b (9,936 ac; 4,021 ha)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) See paragraph (k)(104)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(104)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(107) Hawaii 32–Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–c (1,779 ac; 720 ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Hawaii 32–Bidens micrantha ssp.
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
64013
ctenophylla–c.] This unit is also critical
habitat for Hawaii 32–Isodendrion
pyrifolium–c and Hawaii 32–
Mezoneuron kavaiense–c (see
paragraphs (k)(108) and (k)(109),
respectively, of this section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 105 follows:
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.022</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(108) Hawaii 32—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–c (1,779 ac; 720 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(107)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(109) Hawaii 32—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–c (1,779 ac; 720 ha)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
(i) See paragraph (k)(107)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(110) Hawaii 33—Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–d (1,583 ac; 640 ha),
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 33.] This unit is also critical habitat
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for Hawaii 33—Isodendrion pyrifolium–
d and Hawaii 33—Mezoneuron
kavaiense—d (see paragraphs (k)(111)
and (k)(112), respectively of this
section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 106 follows:
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.023</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
64014
64015
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:32 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
EP17OC12.024</GPH>
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
64016
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(111) Hawaii 33—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–d (1,583 ac; 640 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(110)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(112) Hawaii 33—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–d (1,583 ac; 640 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(110)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(113) Hawaii 34—Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–e (961 ac; 389 ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 34.] This unit is also critical habitat
for Hawaii 34—Isodendrion pyrifolium–
e and Hawaii 34—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–e (see paragraphs (k)(114)
and (k)(115), respectively of this
section).
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(114) Hawaii 34—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–e (961 ac; 389 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(113)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(115) Hawaii 34—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–e (961 ac; 389 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(113)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(116) Hawaii 35—Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–f (1,192 ac; 485 ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 35.] This unit is also critical habitat
for Hawaii 35—Isodendrion pyrifolium–
f and Hawaii 35—Mezoneuron
kavaiense—f (see paragraphs (k)(117)
and (k)(118), respectively of this
section).
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(117) Hawaii 35—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–f (1,192 ac; 485 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(116)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Unit name
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Species occupied
1—Clermontia lindseyana–a .......................................................
1—Clermontia peleana–a ............................................................
1—Clermontia pyrularia–a ...........................................................
1—Cyanea shipmanii–a ..............................................................
1—Phyllostegia racemosa–a .......................................................
2—Clermontia lindseyana–b .......................................................
2—Clermontia pyrularia–b ...........................................................
2—Phyllostegia racemosa–b .......................................................
3—Clermontia peleana–b ............................................................
3—Cyanea platyphylla–a ............................................................
3—Cyrtandra giffardii–a ..............................................................
3—Cyrtandra tintinnabula–a ........................................................
3—Phyllostegia warshaueri–a .....................................................
4—Isodendrion hosakae–a .........................................................
4—Isodendrion hosakae–b .........................................................
4—Isodendrion hosakae–c ..........................................................
4—Isodendrion hosakae–d .........................................................
4—Isodendrion hosakae–e .........................................................
4—Isodendrion hosakae–f ..........................................................
4—Vigna o-wahuensis–a ............................................................
4—Vigna o-wahuensis–b ............................................................
4—Vigna o-wahuensis–c .............................................................
5—Nothocestrum breviflorum–a ..................................................
6—Nothocestrum breviflorum–b ..................................................
7—Pleomele hawaiiensis–a ........................................................
8—Clermontia drepanomorpha–a ...............................................
8—Phyllostegia warshaueri–b .....................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–a ...........................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–b ...........................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–c ...........................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–d ...........................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–e ...........................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–f ............................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–g ...........................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–h ...........................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–i ............................................................
9—Achyranthes mutica–j ............................................................
10—Argyroxiphium kauense–a ...................................................
10—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–a ..................................
10—Bonamia menziesii–a ...........................................................
10—Colubrina oppositifolia–a .....................................................
10—Delissea undulata–a ............................................................
10—Delissea undulata–b ............................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:32 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(118) Hawaii 35—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–f (1,192 ac; 485 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(116)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(119) Hawaii 36—Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–g (402 ac; 163 ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 36.] This unit is also critical habitat
for Hawaii 36—Isodendrion pyrifolium–
g (see paragraph (k)(120) of this section).
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(120) Hawaii 36—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–g (402 ac; 163 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(119)(i) of this
section for the textual description of this
unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this
section for the map of this unit.
(121) Table of Protected Species
Within Each Critical Habitat Unit for the
Island of Hawaii
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Species unoccupied
Clermontia lindseyana ...................
Clermontia peleana .......................
........................................................
Cyanea shipmanii ..........................
Phyllostegia racemosa ..................
Clermontia lindseyana ...................
Clermontia pyrularia ......................
Phyllostegia racemosa ..................
Clermontia peleana .......................
Cyanea platyphylla ........................
Cyrtandra giffardii ..........................
Cyrtandra tintinnabula ...................
Phyllostegia warshaueri .................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
Isodendrion hosakae .....................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
Nothocestrum breviflorum .............
Pleomele hawaiiensis ....................
Clermontia drepanomorpha ...........
Phyllostegia warshaueri .................
........................................................
Achyranthes mutica .......................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
Colubrina oppositifolia ...................
........................................................
Delissea undulata ..........................
Clermontia lindseyana.
Clermontia peleana.
Clermontia pyrularia.
Cyanea shipmanii.
Phyllostegia racemosa.
Clermontia lindseyana.
Clermontia pyrularia.
Phyllostegia racemosa.
Clermontia peleana.
Cyanea platyphylla.
Cyrtandra giffardii.
Cyrtandra tintinnabula.
Phyllostegia warshaueri.
Isodendrion hosakae.
Isodendrion hosakae.
Isodendrion hosakae.
Isodendrion hosakae.
Isodendrion hosakae.
Isodendrion hosakae.
Vigna o-wahuensis.
Vigna o-wahuensis.
Vigna o-wahuensis.
Nothocestrum breviflorum.
Nothocestrum breviflorum.
Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Clermontia drepanomorpha.
Phyllostegia warshaueri.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Achyranthes mutica.
Argyroxiphium kauense.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
Bonamia menziesii.
Colubrina oppositifolia.
Delissea undulata.
Delissea undulata.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Unit name
Species occupied
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
10—Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis–a ...........................................
10—Hibiscus brackenridgei–a .....................................................
10—Isodendrion pyrifolium–a ......................................................
10—Mezoneuron kavaiense–a ....................................................
10—Neraudia ovata–a ................................................................
10—Nothocestrum breviflorum–c ................................................
10—Pleomele hawaiiensis–b ......................................................
10—Solanum incompletum–a .....................................................
10—Zanthoxylum dipetalum ssp. tomentosum–a .......................
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii
11—Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii–a ...................................
11—Solanum incompletum–b .....................................................
14—Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii–b ...................................
15—Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii–c ....................................
15—Cyanea stictophylla–a ..........................................................
16—Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii–d ...................................
16—Cyanea stictophylla–b ..........................................................
17—Diellia erecta–a ....................................................................
17—Flueggea neowawraea–a ....................................................
18—Colubrina oppositifolia–b .....................................................
18—Diellia erecta–b ....................................................................
18—Flueggea neowawraea–b ....................................................
18—Gouania vitifolia–a ...............................................................
18—Neraudia ovata–d ................................................................
18—Pleomele hawaiiensis–c ......................................................
19—Mariscus fauriei–a ................................................................
20—Sesbania tomentosa–a ........................................................
21—Ischaemum byrone–a ..........................................................
22—Ischaemum byrone–b ..........................................................
23—Pleomele hawaiiensis–d ......................................................
23—Sesbania tomentosa–b ........................................................
24—Argyroxiphium kauense–b ...................................................
24—Asplenium fragile var. insulare–a ........................................
24—Cyanea stictophylla–c ..........................................................
24—Melicope zahlbruckneri–a ....................................................
24—Phyllostegia velutina–a ........................................................
24—Plantago hawaiensis–a ........................................................
25—Argyroxiphium kauense–c ...................................................
25—Plantago hawaiensis–b ........................................................
25—Silene hawaiiensis–a ...........................................................
26—Hibiscadelphus giffardianus–a .............................................
26—Melicope zahlbruckneri–b ....................................................
27—Portulaca sclerocarpa–a ......................................................
27—Silene hawaiiensis–b ...........................................................
28—Adenophorus periens–a .......................................................
29—Clermontia peleana–c ..........................................................
29—Cyanea platyphylla–b ..........................................................
29—Cyrtandra giffardii–b ............................................................
29—Cyrtandra tintinnabula–b ......................................................
30—Argyroxiphium kauense–d ...................................................
30—Clermontia lindseyana–c .....................................................
30—Cyanea shipmanii–b ............................................................
30—Cyanea shipmanii–c ............................................................
30—Cyanea stictophylla–d ..........................................................
30—Cyrtandra giffardii–c .............................................................
30—Phyllostegia racemosa–c .....................................................
30—Phyllostegia velutina–b ........................................................
30—Plantago hawaiensis–c ........................................................
30—Sicyos alba–a ......................................................................
31—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–b ..................................
31—Isodendrion pyrifolium–b ......................................................
31—Mezoneuron kavaiense–b ....................................................
32—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–c ..................................
32—Isodendrion pyrifolium–c ......................................................
32—Mezoneuron kavaiense–c ....................................................
33—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–d ..................................
33—Isodendrion pyrifolium–d ......................................................
33—Mezoneuron kavaiense–d ....................................................
34—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–e ..................................
34—Isodendrion pyrifolium–e ......................................................
34—Mezoneuron kavaiense–e ....................................................
35—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–f ...................................
35—Isodendrion pyrifolium–f .......................................................
35—Mezoneuron kavaiense–f .....................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:51 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
64017
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Species unoccupied
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis ........
Hibiscus brackenridgei ..................
........................................................
Mezoneuron kavaiense .................
........................................................
Nothocestrum breviflorum .............
Pleomele hawaiiensis ....................
........................................................
Zanthoxylum
dipetalum
ssp.
tomentosum.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii
........................................................
........................................................
........................................................
Cyanea stictophylla .......................
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii
Cyanea stictophylla .......................
Diellia erecta ..................................
Flueggea neowawraea ..................
Colubrina oppositifolia ...................
Diellia erecta ..................................
Flueggea neowawraea ..................
Gouania vitifolia .............................
Neraudia ovata ..............................
Pleomele hawaiiensis ....................
Mariscus fauriei .............................
Sesbania tomentosa ......................
........................................................
Ischaemum byrone ........................
Pleomele hawaiiensis ....................
Sesbania tomentosa ......................
Argyroxiphium kauense .................
Asplenium fragile var. insulare ......
........................................................
........................................................
Phyllostegia velutina ......................
Plantago hawaiensis ......................
Argyroxiphium kauense .................
Plantago hawaiensis ......................
Silene hawaiiensis .........................
Hibiscadelphus giffardianus ...........
Melicope zahlbruckneri ..................
Portulaca sclerocarpa ....................
Silene hawaiiensis .........................
Adenophorus periens ....................
Clermontia peleana .......................
Cyanea platyphylla ........................
........................................................
........................................................
Argyroxiphium kauense .................
Clermontia lindseyana ...................
Cyanea shipmanii ..........................
........................................................
........................................................
Cyrtandra giffardii ..........................
........................................................
Phyllostegia velutina ......................
Plantago hawaiensis ......................
Sicyos alba ....................................
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
........................................................
Mezoneuron kavaiense .................
........................................................
........................................................
Mezoneuron kavaiense .................
........................................................
........................................................
Mezoneuron kavaiense .................
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
........................................................
Mezoneuron kavaiense .................
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
Isodendrion pyrifolium ...................
Mezoneuron kavaiense .................
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis.
Hibiscus brackenridgei.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Neraudia ovata.
Nothocestrum breviflorum.
Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Solanum incompletum.
Zanthoxylum
dipetalum
ssp.
tomentosum.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
Solanum incompletum.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
Cyanea stictophylla.
Cyanea hamatiflora ssp. carlsonii.
Cyanea stictophylla.
Diellia erecta.
Flueggea neowawraea.
Colubrina oppositifolia.
Diellia erecta.
Flueggea neowawraea.
Gouania vitifolia.
Neraudia ovata.
Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Mariscus fauriei.
Sesbania tomentosa.
Ischaemum byrone.
Ischaemum byrone.
Pleomele hawaiiensis.
Sesbania tomentosa.
Argyroxiphium kauense.
Asplenium fragile var. insulare.
Cyanea stictophylla.
Melicope zahlbruckneri.
Phyllostegia velutina.
Plantago hawaiensis.
Argyroxiphium kauense.
Plantago hawaiensis.
Silene hawaiiensis.
Hibiscadelphus giffardianus.
Melicope zahlbruckneri.
Portulaca sclerocarpa.
Silene hawaiiensis.
Adenophorus periens.
Clermontia peleana.
Cyanea platyphylla.
Cyrtandra giffardii.
Cyrtandra tintinnabula.
Argyroxiphium kauense.
Clermontia lindseyana.
Cyanea shipmanii.
Cyanea shipmanii.
Cyanea stictophylla.
Cyrtandra giffardii.
Phyllostegia racemosa.
Phyllostegia velutina.
Plantago hawaiensis.
Sicyos alba.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
64018
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Unit name
Species occupied
Species unoccupied
Hawaii 36—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–g ..................................
Hawaii 36—Isodendrion pyrifolium–g ......................................................
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
........................................................
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla.
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
(v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce,
Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax,
Scaevola, Wikstroemia.
(vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia,
Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(l) Plants on Hawaii; Constituent
elements.
(1) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
(1) Plants on Hawaii; Constituent
elements.
(1) Flowering plants.
*
*
*
*
*
FAMILY FABACEAE:
Mezoneuron kavaiense (UHIUHI)
FAMILY ASTERACEAE:
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
(KOOKOOLAU)
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with
Hawaii 10—Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla–a, Hawaii 31—Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–b, Hawaii
32—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–
c, Hawaii 33—Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla–d, Hawaii 34—Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–e, Hawaii
35—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–
f, and Hawaii 36—Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla–g, identified in the
legal descriptions in paragraph (k) of
this section, constitute critical habitat
for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
on Hawaii Island. In units Hawaii 10–
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–a,
Hawaii 31—Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla–b, Hawaii 32—Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–c, Hawaii
33—Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–
d, Hawaii 34—Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla–e, Hawaii 35—Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla–f, and
Hawaii 36—Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla–g, the physical and
biological features of critical habitat are:
(i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000
m).
(ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50
in (130 cm).
(iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams
to stony clay, rocky ledges, littleweathered lava.
(iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina,
Metrosideros, Myoporum, Pleomele,
Santalum, Sapindus.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:32 Oct 16, 2012
Jkt 229001
Hawaii 10—Mezoneuron kavaiense–a,
Hawaii 31—Mezoneuron kavaiense–b,
Hawaii 32—Mezoneuron kavaiense–c,
Hawaii 33—Mezoneuron kavaiense–d,
Hawaii 34—Mezoneuron kavaiense–e,
and Hawaii 35—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–f, identified in the legal
descriptions in paragraph (k) of this
section, constitute critical habitat for
Mezoneuron kavaiense on Hawaii
Island. In units Hawaii 10—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–a, Hawaii 31—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–b, Hawaii 32—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–c, Hawaii 33—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–d, Hawaii 34—Mezoneuron
kavaiense–e, and Hawaii 35—
Mezoneuron kavaiense–f, the physical
and biological features of critical habitat
are:
(i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000
m).
(ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50
in (130 cm).
(iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams
to stony clay, rocky ledges, littleweathered lava.
(iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina,
Metrosideros, Myoporum, Pleomele,
Santalum, Sapindus.
(v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce,
Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax,
Scaevola, Wikstroemia.
(vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia,
Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
FAMILY VIOLACEAE:
Isodendrion pyrifolium (WAHINE
NOHO KULA)
Hawaii 10—Isodendrion pyrifolium–a,
Hawaii 31—Isodendrion pyrifolium–b,
Hawaii 32—Isodendrion pyrifolium–c,
Hawaii 33—Isodendrion pyrifolium–d,
Hawaii 34—Isodendrion pyrifolium–e,
Hawaii 35—Isodendrion pyrifolium–f,
and Hawaii 36—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–g, identified in the legal
descriptions in paragraph (k) of this
section, constitute critical habitat for
Isodendrion pyrfolium on Hawaii
Island. In units Hawaii 10—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–a, Hawaii 31—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–b, Hawaii 32—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–c, Hawaii 33—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–d, Hawaii 34—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–e, Hawaii 35—Isodendrion
pyrifolium–f, and Hawaii 36—
Isodendrion pyrifolium–g, the physical
and biological features of critical habitat
are:
(i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000
m).
(ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50
in (130 cm).
(iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams
to stony clay, rocky ledges, littleweathered lava.
(iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina,
Metrosideros, Myoporum, Pleomele,
Santalum, Sapindus.
(v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce,
Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax,
Scaevola, Wikstroemia.
(vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia,
Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: September 13, 2012.
Michael Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012–24550 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\17OCP2.SGM
17OCP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63927-64018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24550]
[[Page 63927]]
Vol. 77
Wednesday,
No. 201
October 17, 2012
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 15 Species on
Hawaii Island as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 3
Species; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 63928]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket Number FWS-R1-ES-2012-0070: 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY09
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 15 Species
on Hawaii Island as Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat for 3
Species
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
list 15 species on the Hawaiian island of Hawaii as endangered species
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to
designate critical habitat for 1 of these species. For the remaining 14
species that we are proposing to list in this rule, we find that
critical habitat is not determinable at this time. We also propose to
designate critical habitat for two plant species that were listed as
endangered species in 1986 and 1994. The proposed critical habitat
designation totals 18,766 acres (ac) (7,597 hectares (ha)), and
includes both occupied and unoccupied habitat. Approximately 55 percent
of the area being proposed as critical habitat is already designated as
critical habitat for 42 plants and the Blackburn's sphinx moth (Manduca
blackburni). In addition, we propose a taxonomic change for one
endangered plant species.
DATES: We will accept comments received on or postmarked on or before
December 17, 2012. Please note that if you are using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (See ADDRESSES section below), the deadline for
submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this
date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the
address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
December 3, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Search for FWS-R1-ES-2012-0070, which is the docket number for this
proposed rule. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment Now!''
U.S. Mail or Hand Delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2012-0070; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).
The coordinates or plot points or both from which the maps were
generated are included in the administrative record for the proposed
critical habitat designation and are available at https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands, https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-
2011-0070, and at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Any additional tools or supporting
information that we may develop for this critical habitat designation
will also be available at the above locations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loyal Mehrhoff, Field Supervisor,
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Box
50088, Honolulu, HI 96850; by telephone at 808-792-9400; or by
facsimile at 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:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, we are required to
list a species if we determine that it meets the definition of an
endangered species or a threatened species as defined in the Act. If
this determination is made, we publish a proposed rule in the Federal
Register, seek public comment on our proposal, and issue a final rule.
This action consists of a proposed rule to list 15 species (13 plants,
1 insect (picture-wing fly), and 1 crustacean (anchialine pool shrimp))
from the Island of Hawaii in the State of Hawaii, as endangered.
Further, under the Act, we are to designate critical habitat to the
maximum extent prudent and determinable concurrently with a listing
determination. We are proposing to designate critical habitat
concurrently with listing for the plant Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, due to the imminent threat of urban development to 98
percent of the individuals known for this species and its habitat
within the lowland dry ecosystem. In addition, we are proposing to
designate critical habitat for two previously listed plant species.
Isodendrion pyrifolium, listed as an endangered species on March 4,
1994 (59 FR 10305), and Mezoneuron kavaiense, listed as an endangered
species on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24672). These species co-occur with
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in the same lowland dry ecosystem,
but do not have designated critical habitat on Hawaii Island. We are
also correcting critical habitat unit maps for Cyanea shipmanii,
Phyllostegia racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, and Plantago hawaiensis
to accurately reflect the designated critical habitat units for those
plant species. These map corrections do not change the designated
critical habitat for these plants. For the remaining 14 species that we
are proposing to list in this rule, we find that critical habitat is
not determinable at this time. This proposed rule is organized by
ecosystem, which will allow the Service to better prioritize, direct,
and focus conservation and recovery actions on Hawaii Island.
The basis for our action. Under the Endangered Species Act, a
species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened
species based on any of five factors: (1) Destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) Overuse; (3) Disease or
predation; (4) Inadequate existing regulations; or (5) Other natural or
manmade factors.
One or more of the species proposed for listing in this rule face
the following threats related to these criteria:
Habitat loss and degradation due to agriculture and urban
development; nonnative feral ungulates (e.g., pigs, goats) and plants;
wildfire; hurricanes; flooding; and drought.
Predation or herbivory by nonnative feral ungulates, rats,
snails, and slugs.
Inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms to prevent the
introduction and spread of nonnative plants and animals.
Small number of individuals and populations, and lack of
reproduction in the wild.
This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for 3 plant
species.
Approximately 18,766 acres (7,597 hectares) is being
proposed as critical habitat in seven multi-species critical habitat
units on lands owned by the U.S. National Park Service, State of
Hawaii, County of Hawaii, and private interests.
Approximately 55 percent, or 10,304 acres (4,170
hectares), of the area being proposed as critical habitat overlaps with
areas already designated as critical habitat for previously listed
plant and animal species.
Approximately 45 percent, or 8,464 acres (3,426 hectares),
of the area does not overlap with areas already designated as critical
habitat for previously listed plant and animal species.
[[Page 63929]]
The proposed critical habitat units encompass areas
containing physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of these species and that may require special management
considerations, or are otherwise essential for the conservation of
these species.
The proposed designation includes both occupied and
unoccupied critical habitat for the three species for which we are
proposing to designate critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if
the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless
the exclusion will result in the extinction of the species. We are
considering excluding approximately 4,102 acres of privately owned and
State lands from the critical habitat designation.
We are preparing an economic analysis of the proposed critical
habitat designation. To consider economic impacts, we are preparing an
analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat
designation and related factors. We will announce the availability of
the draft economic analysis as soon as it is completed, at which time
we will seek public review and comment. We will use information from
this analysis to inform the development of our final designation of
critical habitat for these species.
We will seek peer review. We will obtain opinions from
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise regarding our
technical assumptions, analysis, adherence to regulations, and use of
the best available information.
Public Comments
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as
accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments
or suggestions on this proposed rule from other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other interested
parties concerning this proposed rule. We are proposing to list 15
species (13 plants, 1 anchialine pool shrimp, and 1 picture-wing fly)
as endangered species. We are also proposing to designate critical
habitat for one of the proposed endangered plant species and two plant
species that are already listed as endangered species, but that do not
have designated critical habitat on Hawaii Island. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
threats (or the lack thereof) to the 15 species proposed for listing,
and the adequacy of the existing regulations that may be addressing
those threats.
(2) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population sizes of each of the 15 species proposed for listing,
including the locations of any additional populations of these species.
(3) Any information on the biological or ecological requirements of
the 15 species proposed for listing.
(4) Current or planned activities within the area being proposed
for critical habitat and possible impacts to these activities.
(5) The reasons why we should or should not designate areas for
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense (taxonomic
revision proposed for Caesalpinia kavaiense to Mezoneuron kavaiense),
and Isodendrion pyrifolium as ``critical habitat'' under section 4 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). We specifically seek information on any threats to these species
from human activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase
due to the designation, and whether the benefit of designation would
outweigh threats to these species caused by the designation, such that
the designation of critical habitat is prudent.
(6) Specific information on:
The amount and distribution of critical habitat for the
species included in this proposed rule;
Areas that are currently occupied and contain the
necessary physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the species that we should include in the designation,
and why;
Whether special management considerations or protections
may be required for the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species in this proposed rule; and
What areas outside the geographical area occupied at the
time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species, and
why.
(7) Any reasonably foreseeable economic, national security, or
other relevant impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation. We
are particularly interested in any impacts on small entities, and the
benefits of including or excluding areas that may experience these
impacts.
(8) Whether the benefits of excluding any particular area from
critical habitat outweigh the benefits of including that area as
critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, after considering
the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed critical habitat
designation. Under section 4(b)(2), the Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if he or she determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of including that particular area as
critical habitat, unless failure to designate that specific area as
critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species. We
request specific information on:
The benefits of and supporting rationale for including
specific areas in the final designation;
The benefits of and supporting rationale for excluding
specific areas from the final designation; and
Whether any specific exclusions may result in the
extinction of the species, and why.
(9) Whether the private and State lands being considered for
exclusion from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act should or should not be excluded, and why.
(10) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impact of
climate change on the species included in this proposed rule, and any
special management needs or protections that may be needed in the
critical habitat areas we are proposing.
(11) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and
comments.
(12) Specific information on ways to improve the clarity of this
rule as it pertains to completion of consultations under section 7 of
the Act.
(13) Comments on our proposal to revise the taxonomic
classification for Caesalpinia kavaiense to Mezoneuron kavaiense.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in the ADDRESSES
section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, such as your street
address, phone number, or email address, you may request at the top of
your document that we withhold this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Please
include sufficient information with your comments to allow us to verify
any scientific or commercial information you include.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection at
[[Page 63930]]
https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
copies of the proposed rule by mail from the Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (See FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or by visiting
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Hawaii Island Species Addressed in This Proposed Rule
Table 1 below provides the scientific name, common name, listing
status, and critical habitat status for the species that are the
subjects of this proposed rule.
Table 1--The Hawaiian island species addressed in this proposed rule (note that many of the species share a
common name. ``e'' denotes endangered status under the act; ``c'' denotes a species currently on the candidate
list.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name(s) Listing status Critical habitat status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. kookoolau............ Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
hillebrandiana.
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla. kookoolau............ Proposed--Endangered Proposed.
(C).
Caesalpinia kavaiense (taxonomic uhiuhi............... Listed 1986--E....... Proposed.
revision proposed, to Mezoneuron
kavaiense).
Cyanea marksii.................... haha................. Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
Cyanea tritomantha................ aku.................. Proposed--Endangered Not determinable.
(C).
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis........... haiwale.............. Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
Cyrtandra wagneri................. haiwale.............. Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
Isodendrion pyrifolium............ wahine noho kula..... Listed 1994--E....... Proposed.
Phyllostegia floribunda........... no common name (NCN). Proposed--Endangered Not determinable.
(C).
Pittosporum hawaiiense............ hoawa, haawa......... Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
Platydesma remyi.................. NCN.................. Proposed--Endangered Not determinable.
(C).
Pritchardia lanigera.............. loulu................ Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei..... NCN.................. Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
Schiedea hawaiiensis.............. NCN.................. Proposed--Endangered. Not determinable.
Stenogyne cranwelliae............. NCN.................. Proposed--Endangered Not determinable.
(C).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drosophila digressa............... picture-wing fly..... Proposed--Endangered Not determinable.
(C).
Vetericaris chaceorum............. anchialine pool Proposed--Endangered Not determinable
shrimp. (C).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[NCN] = no common name.
Previous Federal Actions
Seven of the 15 species proposed for listing are candidate species
(76 FR 66370; October 26, 2011). Candidate species are those taxa for
which the Service has sufficient information on their biological status
and threats to propose them for listing as endangered or threatened
species under the Act, but for which the development of a listing
regulation has been precluded to date by other higher priority listing
activities. The current candidate species addressed in this proposed
listing rule include the five plants Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Cyanea tritomantha, Phyllostegia floribunda, Platydesma remyi, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae; and the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris
chaceorum, and the picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa. The candidate
status of all of these species was most recently assessed and
reaffirmed in the October 26, 2011, Review of Native Species that are
Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened (CNOR) (76 FR
66370).
On May 4, 2004, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the
Secretary of the Interior to list 225 species of plants and animals,
including the 7 candidate species listed above, as endangered or
threatened under the provisions of the Act. Since then, we have
published our annual findings on the May 4, 2004, petition (including
our findings on the 7 candidate species listed above) in the CNORs
dated May 11, 2005 (70 FR 24870), September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53756),
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 69034), and December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75176),
November 9, 2009 (74 FR 57804), November 10, 2010 (75 FR 69222), and
October 26, 2011 (76 FR 66370). This proposed rule constitutes a
further response to the 2004 petition.
In addition to the seven candidate species, we are proposing to
list four plant species, Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra wagneri, Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei, and Schiedea hawaiiensis, that have been
identified as the ``rarest of the rare'' Hawaiian plant species in need
of immediate conservation under the multi-agency (Federal, State, and
private) Plant Extinction Prevention Program (PEPP). The goal of PEPP
is to prevent the extinction of plant species that have fewer than 50
individuals remaining in the wild on the islands of Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii (PEPP 2012, in litt.). We have
determined that these four plant species warrant listing under the Act
for the reasons discussed in the Summary of Factors Affecting the 15
Species Proposed for Listing section (below). Because these 4 plant
species occur within 4 of the ecosystems identified in this proposed
rule, and share common threats with the other 11 species proposed for
listing under the Act, we have included them in this proposed rule to
provide them with protection under the Act in an expeditious manner.
We are also proposing to list four other plant species (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, and Pritchardia lanigera) that occur on Hawaii
Island. We have
[[Page 63931]]
determined that these four Hawaii Island plant species warrant listing
under the Act for the reasons discussed in the Summary of Factors
Affecting the 15 Species Proposed for Listing section (below). Because
these 4 plant species occur within 7 of the ecosystems identified in
this proposed rule, and share common threats with the other 11 species
proposed for listing under the Act, we have included them in this
proposed rule to provide them with protection under the Act in an
expeditious manner.
We are proposing critical habitat for two endangered plant species,
Mezoneuron kavaiense (currently listed as Mezoneuron kavaiense but
listed in error as Caesalpinia kavaiense in 50 CFR 17.12, see taxonomic
change discussion below) (51 FR 24672; July 8, 1986) and Isodendrion
pyrifolium (59 FR 10305, March 4, 1994; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003) for
which critical habitat has not been previously designated on the island
of Hawaii. We are also proposing critical habitat for Bidens microthia
ssp. ctenophylla, a candidate species proposed for listing in this rule
(76 FR 66370; October 26, 2011).
Proposed Taxonomic Change Since Listing for One Plant Species
We listed Mezoneuron kavaiense as an endangered species in 1986 (51
FR 24672; July 8, 1986), based on the taxonomic treatment of Hillebrand
(1888, pp. 110-111). Following the reduction of Mezoneuron to
Caesalpinia by Hattink (1974, p. 5), Geesink et al. (1990, pp. 646-647)
changed the name to Caesalpinia kavaiensis. In 1989, the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants was revised to identify the listed
entity as Caesalpinia kavaiense. Recent phylogenetic studies support
separation of Mezoneuron from Caesalpinia (Bruneau et al. 2008, p.
710). The recognized scientific name for this species is Mezoneuron
kavaiense (Wagner et al. 2012, p. 37). The range of the species between
the time of listing and now has not changed. Therefore, we propose to
recognize the listed species as Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Critical Habitat Unit Map Corrections
Critical habitat was designated for Cyanea shipmanii, Phyllostegia
racemosa, Phyllostegia velutina, and Plantago hawaiensis in 2003 (68 FR
39624; July 2, 2003). In this proposed rule, we are correcting critical
habitat unit maps published in 50 CFR 17.99(k)(1) for these four
species to accurately reflect their designated critical habitat units.
We are amending 50 CFR 17.99(k)(1) by removing four maps (Map 97, Unit
30--Cyanea stictophylla--d; Map 100, Unit 30--Phyllostegia
hawaiiensis--c; Map 101, Unit 30--Phyllostegia racemosa--c; and Map
102, Unit 30--Phyllostegia velutina--b) that are either a duplicate of
another unit map or labeled with the incorrect species name. We are
replacing these four maps, using the same map numbers, with correctly
labeled maps that accurately represent the geographic location of each
species' critical habitat unit.
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Listing 15 Species on Hawaii Island
On the island of Hawaii, as on most of the Hawaiian Islands, native
species that occur in the same habitat types (ecosystems) depend on
many of the same biological features and the successful functioning of
that ecosystem to survive. We have therefore organized the species
addressed in this proposed rule by common ecosystem. Although the
listing determination for each species is analyzed separately, we have
organized the individual analysis for each species within the context
of the broader ecosystem in which it occurs to avoid redundancy. In
addition, native species that share ecosystems often face a suite of
common factors that may be a threat to them, and ameliorating or
eliminating these threats for each individual species often requires
the exact same management actions in the exact same areas. Effective
management of these threats often requires implementation of
conservation actions at the ecosystem scale to enhance or restore
critical ecological processes and provide for long-term viability of
those species in their native environment. Thus, by taking this
approach, we hope not only to organize this proposed rule efficiently,
but also to more effectively focus conservation management efforts on
the common threats that occur across these ecosystems. Those efforts
would facilitate restoration of ecosystem functionality for the
recovery of each species, and provide conservation benefits for
associated native species, thereby potentially precluding the need to
list other species under the Act that occur in these shared ecosystems.
In addition, this approach is in accord with the primary stated purpose
of the Act (see section 2(b)): ``to provide a means whereby the
ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend
may be conserved.''
We propose to list the plants Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea
tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia
floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia
lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schidea hawaiiensis, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae; and the animals Drosophila digressa and
Vetericaris chaceorum, from Hawaii Island as endangered species. These
15 species (13 plants, 1 anchialine pool shrimp, and 1 picture-wing
fly) are found in 10 ecosystem types: anchialine pool, coastal, lowland
dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane
wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff (Table 2).
Table 2--Species Proposed for Listing on Hawaii Island and the Ecosystems Upon Which They Depend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
Ecosystem -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plants Animals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anchialine Pool......................... ........................... Vetericaris chaceorum.
Coastal................................. Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. .........................................
hillebrandiana
Lowland Dry............................. Bidens micrantha ssp. .........................................
ctenophylla
Lowland Mesic........................... Pittosporum hawaiiense..... Drosophila digressa.
Pritchardia lanigera .........................................
Lowland Wet............................. Cyanea marksii .........................................
Cyanea tritomantha .........................................
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis .........................................
Cyrtandra wagneri .........................................
Phyllostegia floribunda .........................................
Platydesma remyi
Pritchardia lanigera .........................................
Montane Dry............................. Schiedea hawaiiensis .........................................
[[Page 63932]]
Montane Mesic........................... Phyllostegia floribunda.... Drosophila digressa.
Pittosporum hawaiiense .........................................
Montane Wet............................. Cyanea marksii............. Drosophila digressa.
Cyanea tritomantha .........................................
Phyllostegia floribunda .........................................
Pittosporum hawaiiense .........................................
Platydesma remyi .........................................
Pritchardia lanigera .........................................
Schiedea diffusa .........................................
ssp.macraei
Stenogyne cranwelliae .........................................
Dry Cliff............................... Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. .........................................
hillebrandiana
Wet Cliff............................... Cyanea tritomantha .........................................
Pritchardia lanigera .........................................
Stenogyne cranwelliae .........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each species, we identified and evaluated those factors that
threaten the species and that may be common to all of the species at
the ecosystem level. For example, the degradation of habitat by
nonnative ungulates is considered a threat to 14 of the 15 species
proposed for listing, and is likely a threat to many, if not most or
all, of the native species within a given ecosystem. We consider such a
threat factor to be an ``ecosystem-level threat,'' as each individual
species within that ecosystem faces a threat that is essentially
identical in terms of the nature of the impact, its severity, its
timing, and its scope. Beyond ecosystem-level threats, we further
identified and evaluated threat factors that may be unique to certain
species, but do not apply to all species under consideration within the
same ecosystem. For example, the threat of predation by nonnative wasps
is unique to the picture-wing fly in this proposed rule, and is not
applicable to any of the other species proposed for listing. We have
identified such threat factors, which apply only to certain species
within the ecosystems addressed here, as ``species-specific threats.''
An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Determining Primary Constituent Elements
of Critical Habitat
Under section 4(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we are required to designate
critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable
concurrently with the publication of a final determination that a
species is an endangered or threatened species. We are proposing to
designate critical habitat concurrently with listing for the plant
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and for two previously listed plant
species: Isodendrion pyrifolium, which was listed as an endangered
species on March 4, 1994 (59 FR 10305), and Mezoneuron kavaiense, which
was listed as an endangered species on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24672).
These two species are included in this proposed rule because they share
proposed occupied and unoccupied critical habitat with Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla.
In this proposed rule, we propose to designate critical habitat for
three species in seven multiple-species critical habitat units.
Although critical habitat is identified for each species individually,
we have found that the conservation of each depends, at least in part,
on the successful functioning of the physical or biological features of
the commonly shared ecosystem. Each critical habitat unit identified in
this proposed rule contains the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of those individual species that occupy
that particular unit at the time of listing, or contains areas
essential for the conservation of those species identified that do not
presently occupy that particular unit. Where the unit is not occupied
by a particular species, we believe it is still essential for the
conservation of that species because the designation allows for the
expansion of its range and reintroduction of individuals into areas
where it occurred historically, and provides area for recovery in the
case of stochastic events that otherwise hold the potential to
eliminate the species from the one or more locations where it is
presently found. Under current conditions, many of these species are so
rare in the wild that they are at high risk of extirpation or even
extinction from various stochastic events, such as hurricanes or
landslides. Therefore, building up resilience and redundancy in these
species through the establishment of multiple robust populations is a
key component of recovery.
Each of the areas proposed for designation represents critical
habitat for multiple species, based upon their shared habitat
requirements (i.e., physical or biological features) essential for
their conservation. The identification of critical habitat also takes
into account any species-specific conservation needs as appropriate.
The proposed species Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and the
listed species Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense co-occur
in the same lowland dry ecosystem on the island of Hawaii. These three
species (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and
Mezoneuron kavaiense) share many of the same physical or biological
features (e.g., elevation, annual rainfall, substrate, associated
native plant genera), as well as the same threats from development,
fire, and nonnative ungulates and plants. However, for the remaining 14
species proposed for listing in this rule, we do not have the analysis
necessary to refine the identification of the physical and biological
features and delineate the specific areas that contain those features
in the appropriate arrangement and quantity or the specific unoccupied
areas essential to the species' conservation. As a result, we find
that, for the remaining 14 species that we are proposing to list in
this rule, the designation of critical habitat is not determinable at
this time.
The Island of Hawaii
The island of Hawaii, located southeast of the islands of Maui and
Kahoolawe, is the largest, highest, and youngest island of the Hawaiian
archipelago (Figure 1). At 4,038 square
[[Page 63933]]
(sq) miles (mi) (10,458 sq kilometers (km)) in area, it comprises
approximately two-thirds of the land area of the State of Hawaii,
giving rise to its common name, the ``Big Island.'' Five large shield
volcanoes make up the island of Hawaii: Mauna Kea at 13,796 feet (ft)
(4,205 meters (m)) and Kohala at 5,480 ft (1,670 m) are both extinct
volcanoes (volcanoes that are not expected to erupt again); Hualalai at
8,271 ft (2,521 m) is dormant (an active volcano that is not erupting,
but expected to erupt again); and Mauna Loa at 13,677 ft (4,169 m) and
Kilauea at 4,093 ft (1,248 m) are both active (volcanoes that are
currently erupting or showing signs of unrest, such as significant new
gas emission) (McDonald et al. 1990, pp. 345-379; 59 FR 10305, March 4,
1994; USGS 2012, pp. 1-2). Hawaii Island, with its greater mass and
higher elevations, has more distinctive climatic zones and ecosystems
than can be found elsewhere in the State (Juvik and Juvik 1998, p. 22).
The highest and lowest recorded temperatures in the State occur on
Hawaii Island (USFWS 1996, p. 6; Wagner et al. 1999a, p. 38).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.000
The island of Hawaii lies within the trade wind belt. Moisture
derived from the Pacific Ocean is carried to the island by north-
easterly trade winds. Heavy rains fall when the moisture in clouds
makes contact with windward (the direction upwind from the point of
reference, usually the more wet side of an island) mountain slopes
(Wagner et al. 1999a, pp. 38-42). Considerable moisture reaches the
leeward (the course in which the wind is blowing, typically the dryer
side of an island) slopes of the saddle area between Mauna Loa and
Mauna Kea, but dries out rapidly as elevation increases. This
orographic (associated with or induced by the presence of mountains)
effect reaches an elevation of about 2,000 to 3,000 m (6,500 to 9,850
ft) and tends to go around rather than over the high mountains. Thus,
in the leeward saddle area, and high-elevation areas of Mauna Kea and
Mauna Loa, dry or arid conditions predominate (USFWS 1996, p. 6;
Mitchell et al. 2005a, pp. 6-71).
A rain shadow effect, created by Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, on the
leeward side of the island prevents the Kona (west side of the island)
coast from receiving precipitation from the predominantly northeasterly
trade winds (Wagner et al. 1999a, pp. 36-44). However, convection-
driven onshore breezes create upslope showers most afternoons,
resulting in greater than expected annual rainfall (50 to more than 100
inches (in) (1,270 to more than 2,540 millimeters (m)), which supports
[[Page 63934]]
a broad band of mesic forest on portions of leeward Hawaii (Mitchell et
al. 2005a, pp. 6-71-6-91). Another major source of rainfall is provided
by winter (Kona) storms, which develop south of the island, and impact
the island when trade winds subside during the winter months. Kawaihae,
in south Kohala (on the northwest side of the island), is effectively
cut off from the northeasterly tradewinds by the Kohala Mountains, and
from southerly and southwesterly winds of winter storms by Mauna Loa
and Hualalai. It is the driest place in the main (Hawaii, Kauai,
Kahoolawe, Lanai, Molokai, Maui, Niihau, and Oahu) Hawaiian Islands,
receiving only about 8 in (200 mm) of rain per year (Wagner et al.
1999a, p. 39).
Due to its relatively young age (less than 1 million years old),
the island of Hawaii is represented by fewer soil types than the older
main Hawaiian Islands. Sizable areas of lava, cinder, and rubble occur
in the saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, and on recent lava flows
originating from Hualalai, Mauna Loa, and Kilauea (Juvik and Juvik
1998, pp. 44-46; Mitchell et al. 2005a, pp. 6-71-6-72). Other soil
types include: histosols, which are characterized by a thin, well-
drained, organic layer and occur on younger lava flows common in the
Hilo and Kau areas; andisols, which occur on substrates older than
3,000 years, are characterized by the ability to take up large amounts
of phosphorous and are common on the east flank of Mauna Kea and above
Hilo; aridosols, which are characterized by horizons with accumulations
of carbonates, gypsum, or sodium chloride, and are found in the dry
soils of deserts or the dry leeward sides of the island; and mollisols,
which are characterized by a distinct dark-colored surface horizon
enriched with organic matter, and are found under the grasslands on the
dry leeward areas of the island (Gavenda et al. 1998, p. 94).
The vegetation on the island of Hawaii continues to experience
extreme alterations due to ongoing volcanic activity, past and present
land use, and other activities. Land with rich soils was altered by the
early Hawaiians and, more recently, converted to agricultural use in
the production of sugar, diversified agriculture, and pasture for
cattle (Bos taurus) ranching. For example, large areas on the eastern
slopes of the Kohala Mountains, Mauna Kea, and Mauna Loa were
maintained in sugarcane production until the late 1960s (Juvik and
Juvik 1998, p. 22). Intentional and inadvertent introduction of alien
plant and animal species has also contributed to the reduction in range
of native vegetation on the island of Hawaii (throughout this rule, the
terms ``alien,'' ``feral,'' ``nonnative,'' and ``introduced'' all refer
to species that are not naturally native to the Hawaiian Islands).
Currently, most of the native vegetation on the island persists on
upper elevation slopes, valleys, and ridges; steep slopes; precipitous
cliffs; valley headwalls; and other regions where unsuitable topography
has prevented urbanization and agricultural development, or where
inaccessibility has limited encroachment by nonnative plant and animal
species.
Hawaii Island Ecosystems
There are 12 different ecosystems (anchialine pool, coastal,
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic,
montane wet, subalpine, alpine, dry cliff, and wet cliff) recognized on
the island of Hawaii. The 15 species proposed for listing occur in 10
of these 12 ecosystems (none of the 15 species are reported in
subalpine and alpine ecosystems). The lowland dry ecosystem supports
the three species for which critical habitat is proposed. The 10 Hawaii
Island ecosystems that support the 15 proposed species are described in
the following section; see Table 2 (above) for a list of the species
that occur in each ecosystem type.
Anchialine Pools
The anchialine pool ecosystem has been reported from Oahu, Molokai,
Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii Island. Anchialine pools are land-locked
bodies of water that have indirect underground connections to the sea,
contain varying levels of salinity, and show tidal fluctuations in
water level. Because all anchialine pools occur within coastal areas,
they are technically a part of the coastal ecosystem (see below) with
many of the same applicable and overlapping habitat threats. However,
in this proposal, we are addressing this unique ecosystem distinctly.
Over 80 percent of the State's anchialine pools are found on the island
of Hawaii, with a total of approximately 600 to 650 pools distributed
over 130 sites along all but the island's northernmost and steeper
northeastern shorelines. Characteristic animal species include
crustaceans (e.g., shrimps, prawns, amphipods, isopods, etc.), several
fish species, molluscs, and other invertebrates adapted to the pools'
surface and subterranean habitats (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 2009,
pp. 1-3). Generally, vegetation within the pools consists of various
types of algal forms (blue-green, green, red, and golden-brown). The
majority of Hawaii's anchialine pools occur in bare or sparsely
vegetated lava fields, although some pools occur in areas with various
groundcover, shrub, and tree species (Chai 1989, pp. 2-24; Brock 2004,
p. 35). The anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris chaceorum, which is
proposed for listing as an endangered species in this rule, occurs in
this ecosystem (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-437).
Coastal
The coastal ecosystem is found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands,
with the highest native species diversity occurring in the least
populated coastal areas of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe,
Hawaii Island, and their associated islets. On Hawaii Island, the
coastal ecosystem includes mixed herblands, shrublands, and grasslands,
from sea level to 1,000 ft (300 m) in elevation, generally within a
narrow zone above the influence of waves to within 330 ft (100 m)
inland, sometimes extending farther inland if strong prevailing onshore
winds drive sea spray and sand dunes into the lowland zone (TNC 2006a,
pp. 1-3). The coastal ecosystem is typically dry, with annual rainfall
of less than 20 in (50 cm); however, windward rainfall may be high
enough (up to 40 in (100 centimeters (cm)) to support mesic-associated
and sometimes wet-associated vegetation (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp.
54-66). Biological diversity is low to moderate in this ecosystem, but
may include some specialized plants and animals such as nesting
seabirds and the endangered plant Sesbania tomentosa (ohai) (TNC 2006a,
pp. 1-3). The plant Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, which is
proposed for listing as an endangered species in this rule, occurs in
this ecosystem on Hawaii Island (Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping
Program Database (TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles,
unpublished; HBMP 2010a)).
Lowland Dry
The lowland dry ecosystem includes shrublands and forests generally
below 3,300 ft (1,000 m) elevation that receive less than 50 in (130
cm) annual rainfall, or are in otherwise prevailingly dry substrate
conditions that range from weathered reddish silty loams to stony clay
soils, rocky ledges with very shallow soil, or relatively recent
little-weathered lava (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 67). Areas consisting
of predominantly native species in the lowland dry ecosystem are now
rare; however, this ecosystem is found on the islands of Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, Kahoolawe and Hawaii, and is
[[Page 63935]]
best represented on the leeward sides of the islands (Gagne and Cuddihy
1999, p. 67). On leeward Hawaii Island, this ecosystem occurs on the
northwest flank of Hualalai in north Kona and on Mauna Loa in south
Kona, but also occurs on the eastern Hawaii Island in Puna and Kau
(within and adjacent to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (HVNP)) (Gagne
and Cuddihy 1999, p. 67; TNC 2006b, pp. 1-2). Overall native biological
diversity is low to moderate in this ecosystem; however, tree species
exhibit a higher rate of diversity and endemism (Pau et al. 2009, p.
3,167). The lowland dry ecosystem includes specialized animals and
plants such as the Hawaiian owl or pueo (Asio flammeus sandwichensis)
and Santalum ellipticum (iliahialoe or coast sandalwood) (Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, pp. 45-114; TNC 2006b, pp. 1-2). The plant Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is proposed for listing as an
endangered species in this rule, occurs in this ecosystem on Hawaii
Island (TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished;
HBMP 2010b).
Lowland Mesic
The lowland mesic ecosystem includes a variety of grasslands,
shrublands, and forests, generally below 3,300 ft (1,000 m) elevation,
that receive between 50 and 75 in (130 and 190 cm) annual rainfall (TNC
2006c, pp. 1-2). In the Hawaiian Islands, this ecosystem is found on
Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii, on both windward and
leeward sides of the islands. On Hawaii Island, this ecosystem is often
reduced to remnant occurrences, but can be found in north Kohala, on
the southwest and southeast flanks of Mauna Loa and Kilauea (Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, p. 75; TNC 2006c, pp. 1-2). Native biological diversity
is high in this system (TNC 2006c, pp. 1-2). The plants, Pittosporum
hawaiiense and Pritchardia lanigera, and the picture-wing fly
Drosophila digressa, which are proposed for listing as endangered
species in this rule, occur in this ecosystem on Hawaii Island (TNC
2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished; Benitez et
al. 2008, p. 58; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010d).
Lowland Wet
The lowland wet ecosystem is generally found below 3,300 ft (1,000
m) elevation on the windward sides of the main Hawaiian Islands, except
Niihau and Kahoolawe (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 85; TNC 2006d, pp. 1-
2). These areas include a variety of wet grasslands, shrublands, and
forests that receive greater than 75 in (190 cm) annual precipitation,
or are in otherwise wet substrate conditions (TNC 2006d, pp. 1-2). On
the island of Hawaii, this system is best developed in north Kohala, on
the lower windward flanks of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, as well as
leeward areas benefiting from convection-driven upslope showers on
leeward Mauna Loa and Hualalai (TNC 2006d, pp. 1-2). Native biological
diversity is high in this system (TNC 2006d, pp. 1-2). The plants
Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra
wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda, Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia
lanigera, which are proposed for listing as endangered species in this
rule, occur in this ecosystem on Hawaii Island (Lorence and Perlman
2007, pp. 357-361; TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles,
unpublished; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP
2010h; HBMP 2010i).
Montane Dry
The montane dry ecosystem includes grasslands, shrublands, and
forests at elevations between 3,300 and 6,600 ft (1,000 and 2,000 m),
that receive less than 50 in (130 cm) of annual precipitation, or are
in otherwise dry substrate conditions (TNC 2006e, pp. 1-2). In the
Hawaiian Islands, this ecosystem is found on the islands of Maui and
Hawaii (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 93-97). On Hawaii Island, this
ecosystem is best represented on the upper slopes of Hualalai and the
Mauna Kea-Mauna Loa saddle area, and includes specialized animals and
plants such as the elepaio (Chasiempis sandwichensis) and Isodendrion
hosakae (aupaka) (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 45-114; TNC 2006e, pp. 1-
2). The plant Schiedea hawaiiensis, proposed for listing as an
endangered species in this rule, is found in this ecosystem on Hawaii
Island (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 1-55).
Montane Mesic
The montane mesic ecosystem is composed of natural communities
(forests and shrublands) found at elevations between 3,300 and 6,600 ft
(1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where annual precipitation is between 50
and 75 in (130 and 190 cm), or areas in otherwise mesic substrate
conditions (TNC 2006f, pp. 1-2). This system is found on Kauai,
Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii Island (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 97-99;
TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished). Native
biological diversity is moderate (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, pp. 98-99;
TNC 2006f, pp. 1-2). On Hawaii Island, specialized plants and animals
such as io or Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) and Pittosporum hosmeri
(hoawa) occur in the montane mesic ecosystem. The plants Phyllostegia
floribunda and Pittosporum hawaiiense, and the picture-wing fly
Drosophila digressa, which are proposed for listing as endangered
species in this rule, are found in this ecosystem on Hawaii Island (TNC
2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished; Benitez et
al. 2008, p. 58; HBMP 2010d; HBMP 2010h).
Montane Wet
The montane wet ecosystem is composed of natural communities
(grasslands, shrublands, forests, and bogs) found at elevations between
3,300 and 6,600 ft (1,000 and 2,000 m), in areas where annual
precipitation is greater than 75 in (191 cm) (TNC 2006g, pp. 1-2). This
system is found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands except Niihau and
Kahoolawe, and only the islands of Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii have areas
above 4,020 ft (1,225 m) (TNC 2006g, pp. 1-2). On Hawaii Island, the
montane wet ecosystem occurs in the Kohala Mountains, in the east flank
of Mauna Kea, in the Kau Forest Reserve (FR) on windward Mauna Loa, and
on the upper slopes of leeward Mauna Loa (TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database
of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished). Native biological diversity is
moderate to high (TNC 2006g, pp. 1-2). The plants Cyanea marksii, C.
tritomantha, Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei,
and Stenogyne cranwelliae, and the picture-wing fly Drosophila
digressa, which are proposed for listing as endangered species in this
rule, occur in this ecosystem on Hawaii Island (TNC 2007-Ecosystem
Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished; Benitez et al. 2008, p. 58;
HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010d; HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i;
HBMP 2010j; HBMP 2010k).
Dry Cliff
The dry cliff ecosystem is composed of vegetation communities
occupying steep slopes (greater than 65 degrees) in areas that receive
less than 75 in (190 cm) of rainfall annually, or that are in otherwise
dry substrate conditions (TNC 2006h, pp. 1-2). This ecosystem is found
on all of the main Hawaiian Islands except Niihau, and is best
represented along portions of the eroded cliffs of east Kohala on
Hawaii Island (TNC 2006h, pp. 1-2). A variety of
[[Page 63936]]
shrublands occur within this ecosystem (TNC 2006h, pp. 1-2). Native
biological diversity is low to moderate (TNC 2006h, pp. 1-2). The plant
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, which is proposed for
listing as an endangered species in this rule, occurs in this ecosystem
on Hawaii Island (TNC 2007-Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles,
unpublished; HBMP 2010a).
Wet Cliff
The wet cliff ecosystem is generally composed of shrublands on
near-vertical slopes (greater than 65 degrees) in areas that receive
more than 75 in (190 cm) of annual precipitation, or that are in
otherwise wet substrate conditions (TNC 2006i, pp. 1-2). This system is
found on the islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii.
On the island of Hawaii, this system is found in windward Kohala
valleys and on the southeastern slope of Mauna Loa (TNC 2006i, pp. 1-
2). Native biological diversity is low to moderate (TNC 2006i, pp. 1-
2). The plants Cyanea tritomantha, Pritchardia lanigera, and Stenogyne
cranwelliae, which are proposed for listing as endangered species in
this rule, are found in this ecosystem on Hawaii Island (TNC 2007-
Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished; HBMP 2010d; HBMP
2010f; HBMP 2010k).
Description of the 15 Species Proposed for Listing
Below is a brief description of each of the 15 species proposed for
listing, presented in alphabetical order by genus. Plants are presented
first, followed by animals.
Plants
In order to avoid confusion regarding the number of locations of
each species (a location does not necessarily represent a viable
population), we use the word ``occurrence'' instead of ``population.''
Each occurrence is composed only of wild (i.e., not propagated and
outplanted) individuals.
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (kookoolau), a perennial
herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of
Hawaii (Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 275-276). Historically, B.
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana was known from two locations along
the windward Kohala coastline, in the coastal and dry cliff ecosystems,
often along rocks just above the ocean (Degener and Wiebke 1926, in
litt.; Flynn. 1988, in litt.). Currently, there are two known
occurrences of B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana totaling 40 or
fewer individuals along the windward Kohala coast, in the coastal and
dry cliff ecosystems. There are 30 individuals on the Pololu seacliffs,
and 5 to 10 individuals on the seacliffs between Pololu and Honokane
Nui (Perlman 1998, in litt.; Perlman 2006, in litt.). Biologists
speculate that this species may total as many as 100 individuals with
further surveys of potential habitat along the Kohala coast (Mitchell
et al. 2005b; PEPP 2006, p. 3).
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (kookoolau), a perennial herb in
the sunflower family (Asteraceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii
(Ganders and Nagata 1999, pp. 271, 273). Historically, B. micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla was known from the north Kona district, in the lowland
dry ecosystem (HBMP 2010b). Currently, this subspecies is restricted to
an area of less than 10 sq mi (26 sq km) on the leeward slopes of
Hualalai volcano, in the lowland dry ecosystem in 6 occurrences
totaling fewer than 1,000 individuals. The largest occurrence is found
off Hina Lani Road with over 475 individuals widely dispersed
throughout the area (Zimpfer 2011, in litt.). The occurrence at
Kealakehe was reported to have been abundant and common in 1992, but by
2010 had declined to low numbers (Whister 2007, pp. 1-18; Bio 2008, in
litt.; HBMP 2010b; Whister 2008, pp. 1-11). In addition, there are
three individuals in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (NHP)
(Beavers 2010, in litt.), and three occurrences are found within close
proximity to each other to the northeast: five individuals in an
exclosure at Puuwaawaa Wildlife Sanctuary (HBMP 2010b); a few scattered
individuals at Kaupulehu; and a few individuals on private land at
Palani Ranch (Whistler 2007, pp. 1-18; Whistler 2008, pp. 1-11). Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla has also been outplanted within fenced
exclosures at Kaloko-Honokohau NHP (49 individuals), Koaia Tree
Sanctuary (1 individual), and Puuwaawaa (5 individuals) (Boston 2008,
in litt.; HBMP 2010b).
Cyanea marksii (haha), a shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii. Historically,
C. marksii was known from the Kona district, in the lowland wet and
montane wet ecosystems (Lammers 1999, p. 457; HBMP 2010e). Currently,
there are 27 individuals distributed among 3 occurrences in south Kona,
in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems (PEPP 2007, p. 61). There
is an adult and 20 to 30 juveniles (each approximately 1 in (2.54 cm
tall)) in a lava tube in the Kona unit of the Hakalau National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) (PEPP 2007, p. 61), one individual in a pit crater in the
South Kona FR, and 25 individuals on private land in south Kona (PEPP
2007, p. 61; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Fruit has been collected from the
individuals on private land, and 11 plants have been successfully
propagated at the Volcano Rare Plant Facility (VRPF) (PEPP 2007, p. 61;
Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Cyanea tritomantha (aku), a palmlike shrub in the bellflower family
(Campanulaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii (Pratt and
Abbott 1997, p. 13; Lammers 2004, p. 89). Historically, this species
was known from the windward slopes of Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Kilauea,
and the Kohala Mountains, in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet
cliff ecosystems (Pratt and Abbott 1997, p. 13). Currently, there are
16 occurrences of Cyanea tritomantha totaling fewer than 400
individuals in the lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems:
10 occurrences (totaling fewer than 240 individuals) in the Kohala
Mountains (Perlman 1993, in litt.; Perlman 1995a, in litt.; Perlman and
Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010f; PEPP 2010, p. 60); 2 occurrences
(totaling fewer than 75 individuals) in the Laupahoehoe Natural Area
Reserve (NAR) (HBMP 2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1 occurrence (20
adults and 30 juveniles) at Puu Makaala NAR (Perlman and Bio 2008, in
litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.; HBMP 2010f; Bio 2011, pers. comm.); 1
occurrence (a few scattered individuals) off Tom's Trail in the Upper
Waiakea FR (Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.); and 2 occurrences
(totaling 11 individuals) in Olaa Tract in HVNP (Pratt 2007a, in litt.;
Pratt 2008a, in litt). In 2003, over 75 individuals were outplanted in
HVNP's Olaa Tract and Small Tract; however, by 2010, less than one
third of these individuals remained (Pratt 2011a, in litt.). In
addition, a few individuals have been outplanted at Puu Makaala NAR and
Upper Waiakea FR (Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources
(HDLNR) 2006; Belfield 2007, in litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.).
Cyanea tritomantha produces few seeds, and their viability tends to be
low (Moriyasu 2009, in litt.)
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (haiwale), a shrub or small tree in the
African violet family (Gesneriaceae), is known only from the island of
Hawaii (Wagner and Herbst 2003, p. 29; Wagner et al. 2005a--Flora of
the Hawaiian Islands database). Historically, C. nanawaleensis was
known only from the Nanawale FR and the adjacent Malama Ki FR in the
Puna district, in
[[Page 63937]]
the lowland wet ecosystem (St. John 1987, p. 500; Wagner et al. 1988,
in litt.; HBMP 2010g; Pratt 2011b, in litt.). Currently, C.
nanawaleensis is known from 4 occurrences with approximately 140
individuals in the lowland wet ecosystem: 2 occurrences in Malama Ki FR
totaling 70 individuals (Lau 2011, pers. comm.); 1 occurrence in
Keauohana FR (with 56 individuals) (Magnacca 2011a, in litt.); and 1
occurrence in the Halepuaa section of Nanawale FR (with 13 individuals)
(Johansen 2012, in litt.; Kobsa 2012, in litt.). Conversion of areas
within the Halepuaa section of Nanawale FR to papaya production over
the past 25 years is thought to have contributed to the decline of the
species in this area (Pratt 2011b, in litt.; Kobsa 2012, in litt.;
Pratt 2012, in litt.). Biologists report that C. nanawaleensis is in
decline throughout its already limited range (Bio 2011, pers. comm.;
Kobsa 2012, in litt.).
Cyrtandra wagneri (haiwale), a shrub or small tree in the African
violet family (Gesneriaceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii
(Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 357). Historically, C. wagneri was known
from a few individuals along the steep banks of the Kaiwilahilahi
Stream in the Laupahoehoe NAR, in the lowland wet ecosystem (Perlman et
al. 1998, in litt.). In 2002, there were 2 known occurrences totaling
fewer than 175 individuals in the Laupahoehoe NAR: one occurrence
(totaling 150 individuals (50 adults and 100 juveniles)) along the
steep banks of the Kilau Stream (Lorence et al. 2002, in litt.; Perlman
and Perry 2003, in litt.; Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 359), and a
second occurrence (with approximately 10 sterile individuals) along the
slopes of the Kaiwilahilahi stream banks (Lorence and Perlman 2007, p.
359). Currently, there are no individuals remaining at Kaiwilahilahi
Stream, and the individuals at Kilau Stream appear to be hybridizing
with the endangered Cyrtandra tintinnabula. Biologists have identified
only eight individuals at Kilau Stream that express the true phenotype
of Cyrtandra wagneri, and only three of these individuals are
reproducing successfully (PEPP 2010, p. 102; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Phyllostegia floribunda (NCN), a perennial herb in the mint family
(Lamiaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii (Wagner 1999, p.
268; Wagner et al. 1999b, p. 815). Historically, P. floribunda was
reported in the lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems
at scattered sites along the slopes of the Kohala Mountains; southeast
through Hamakua, Laupahoehoe NAR, Waiakea FR, and Upper Waiakea FR; and
southward into Hilo, HVNP, and Puna. One report exists of the species
occurring from north Kona and a few occurrences in south Kona (Cuddihy
et al. 1982, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005b--Flora of the Hawaiian
Islands database; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010h; Bishop
Museum 2011--Herbarium Database). Currently, there are 12 known
occurrences of P. floribunda totaling fewer than 100 individuals, in
the lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet ecosystems (Bruegmann
1998, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in litt.; HBMP 2010h): 2 occurrences
within HVNP, at Kamoamoa (1 individual) (HBMP 2010h) and near Napau
Crater (4 individuals) (Pratt 2005, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.;
HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence behind the Volcano solid waste transfer
station (10 to 50 individuals) (Flynn 1984, in litt.; Perlman and Wood
1993-Hawaii Plant Conservation Maps database; Pratt 2007b, in litt.;
HBMP 2010h); 1 occurrence (with an unknown number individuals) in the
Wao Kele O Puna NAR (HBMP 2010h); at least 1 occurrence each (with a
few individuals each) in the Puu Makaala NAR, Waiakea FR, Upper Waiakea
FR, and TNC's Kona Hema Preserve (PR) (Perry 2006, in litt.; Perlman
2007, in litt.; Giffin 2009, in litt.; PEPP 2008, pp. 106-107; Perlman
et al. 2008, in litt.; Pratt 2008a, in litt.; Pratt 2008b, in litt.;
Agorastos 2010, in litt.); 2 occurrences (each with an unknown number
of individuals) from the South Kona FR; 1 occurrence (one individual)
in the Kipahoehoe NAR; and, 1 occurrence (with an unknown number of
individuals) in the Lapauhoehoe NAR (Moriyasu 2009, in litt.; HBMP
2010h; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). Since 2003, over 400 individuals have
been outplanted at HVNP, Waiakea FR, Puu Makaala NAR, Honomalino in
TNC's Kona Hema PR, and Kipahoehoe NAR (Bruegmann 2006, in litt.; HDLNR
2006, p. 38; Tangalin 2006, in litt.; Belfield 2007, in litt.; Pratt
2007b, in litt.; VRPF 2008, in litt.; VRPF 2010, in litt.; Bio 2008, in
litt.; Agorastos 2010, in litt.). However, for reasons unknown,
approximately 90 percent of the outplantings experience high seedling
mortality (Pratt 2007b, in litt.; Van DeMark et al. 2010, pp. 24-43).
Pittosporum hawaiiense (hoawa, haawa), a small tree in the
pittosporum family (Pittosporaceae), is known only from the island of
Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999c, p. 1,044). Historically, P. hawaiiense was
known from the leeward side of the island, from the Kohala Mountains
south to Kau, in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems (Wagner et al.1999c, p. 1,044). Currently, there are 14
known occurrences totaling fewer than 75 individuals, from HVNP to Puu
O Umi NAR, and south Kona, in the lowland mesic, montane mesic, and
montane wet ecosystems: 1 occurrence in Puu O Umi NAR (several
scattered individuals) (Perlman 1995b, in litt.); 1 occurrence (with a
least one individual) in TNC's Kona Hema PR (Oppenheimer et al. 1998,
in litt.); 1 occurrence (with several individuals) at Kukuiopae
(Perlman and Perry 2002, in litt.); 1 occurrence (with a few
individuals) in the Manuka NAR (Perry 2011, in litt.); 8 occurrences
(totaling fewer than 58 individuals) scattered within the Kahuku unit
of HVNP; 1 occurrence in the Olaa FR (at least one individual), just
adjacent to the Olaa Tract in HVNP; and 1 occurrence (with fewer than 6
individuals) at the Volcano solid waste transfer station (Wood and
Perlman 1991, in litt.; McDaniel 2011a, in litt.; McDaniel 2011b, in
litt.; Pratt 2011d, in litt.). Biologists have observed very low
regeneration in these occurrences, which is believed to be caused, in
part, by rat predation on the seeds (Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Platydesma remyi (NCN), a shrub or shrubby tree in the rue family
(Rutaceae), occurs only on the island of Hawaii (Stone et al. 1999, p.
1210; USFWS 2010, pp. 4-66-4-67, A-11, A-74). Historically, P. remyi
was known from a few scattered individuals on the windward slopes of
the Kohala Mountains and several small populations on the windward
slopes of Mauna Kea, in the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems
(Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210; HBMP 2010i). Currently, P. remyi is known
from 8 occurrences totaling fewer than 40 individuals, all of which are
found in the Laupahoehoe NAR or in closely surrounding areas, in the
lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems: along the banks of
Kaiwilahilahi Stream in the Laupahoehoe NAR (unknown number of
individuals) (Perlman and Perry 2001, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.;
HBMP 2010i); near the Spencer Hunter Trail in the Laupahoehoe NAR
(fewer than 17 individuals) (PEPP 2010, p. 102); the central part of
the Laupahoehoe NAR (5 to 6 scattered individuals) (HBMP 2010i); near
Kilau (1 to 3 individuals) and Pahale (1 to 3 individuals) Streams in
Laupahoehoe NAR; southeastern region of Laupahoehoe NAR (1 individual);
Hakalau unit of the Hakalau NWR (1 individual) (USFWS 2010, p. 4-74-4-
75); and the Humuula region of the Hilo FR (2 individuals) (Bruegmann
[[Page 63938]]
1998, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; PEPP 2008, p. 107; HBMP 2010i).
According to field biologists, this species appears to be declining
with no regeneration believed to be caused, in part, by rat predation
on the seeds (Bio 2011, pers. comm.). In 2009, 29 individuals of P.
remyi were outplanted in Laupahoehoe NAR (Bio 2008, in litt.). Their
current status is unknown.
Pritchardia lanigera (loulu), a medium-sized tree in the palm
family (Arecaceae), is found only on the island of Hawaii (Read and
Hodel 1999, p. 1,371; Hodel 2007, pp. 10, 24-25). Historically, P.
lanigera was known from the Kohala Mountains, Hamakua district,
windward slopes of Mauna Kea, and southern slopes of Mauna Loa, in the
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems (Read
and Hodel 1999, p. 1,371; HBMP 2010c). Currently, P. lanigera is known
from 2 occurrences totaling fewer than 220 individuals scattered along
the windward side of the Kohala Mountains, in the lowland mesic,
lowland wet, montane wet, and wet cliff ecosystems. Approximately 100
to 200 individuals are scattered over 1 sq mi (3 sq km) in Waimanu
Valley and surrounding areas (Wood 1995, in litt.; Perlman and Wood
1996, p. 6; Wood 1998, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2004, in litt.; HBMP
2010c). There are at least five individuals in the back rim of Alakahi
Gulch in Waipio Valley (HBMP 2010c). According to field biologists,
pollination rates appear to be low for this species, and the absence of
seedlings and juveniles at known locations suggests that regeneration
is not occurring believed to be caused, in part, by beetle and rat
predation on the fruits and seeds (Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei (NCN), a perennial climbing herb in
the pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is reported only from the island of
Hawaii (Wagner et al. 2005c--Flowering Plants of the Hawaiian Islands
database; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106). Historically, S. diffusa ssp.
macraei was known from the Kohala Mountains, the windward slopes of
Mauna Loa, and the Olaa Tract of HVNP, in the montane wet ecosystem
(Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; HBMP
2010j). Currently, there is one individual of S. diffusa ssp. macraei
on the slopes of Eke in the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet
ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Schiedea hawaiiensis (NCN), a perennial herb or subshrub in the
pink family (Caryophyllaceae), is known only from the island of Hawaii
(Wagner et al. 2005d, pp. 92-96). Historically, S. hawaiiensis was
known from a single collection by Hillebrand (1888, p. 33) from the
Waimea region, in the montane dry ecosystem (Wagner et al. 2005d, pp.
92-96). Currently, S. hawaiiensis is known from 25 to 40 individuals on
the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) in the montane dry
ecosystem, in the saddle area between Moana Loa and Mauna Kea (Gon III
and Tierney 1996 in Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 92; Wagner et al. 2005d, p.
92; Evans 2011, in litt.). In addition, there are over 150 individuals
outplanted at PTA (Kipuka Alala and Kalawamauna), Puu Huluhulu, Puu
Waawaa, and Kipuka Oweowe (Evans 2011, in litt.).
Stenogyne cranwelliae (NCN), a vine in the mint family (Lamiaceae),
is known only from the island of Hawaii. Historically, S. cranwelliae
was known from the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet and wet cliff
ecosystems (Weller and Sakai 1999, p. 837). Currently, there are 6
occurrences of S. cranwelliae totaling fewer than 160 individuals in
the Kohala Mountains, in the montane wet and wet cliff ecosystems:
roughly 1.5 sq mi (2.5 sq km) around the border between the Puu O Umi
NAR and Kohala FR, near streams and bogs (ranging from 3 to 100
scattered individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k);
Opaeloa, in the Puu O Umi NAR (3 individuals) (Perlman and Wood 1996,
pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); Puukapu, in the Puu O Umi NAR (6-by 6-ft (2-by
2-m) ``patch'' of individuals) (HBMP 2010k); the rim of Kawainui Gulch
(1 individual) (Perlman and Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); along
Kohakohau Stream, in the Puu O Umi NAR (a few individuals) (Perlman and
Wood 1996, pp. 1-14; HBMP 2010k); and Waimanu Bog Unit in the Puu O Umi
NAR (a ``patch'' of individuals) (Agorastos 2010, in litt.)
Animals
Drosophila digressa (picture-wing fly), a member of the family
Drosophilidae, was described in 1968 by Hardy and Kaneshiro and is
found only on the island of Hawaii (Hardy and Kaneshiro 1968, pp. 180-
1882; Carson 1986, p. 3-9). This species is small, with adults ranging
in size from 0.15 to 0.19 in (4.0 to 5.0 mm) in length. Adults are
brownish yellow in color and have yellow-colored legs and hyaline
(shiny-clear) wings with prominent brown spots. Breeding generally
occurs year round, but egg laying and larval development increase
following the rainy season as the availability of decaying matter,
which picture-wing flies feed on, increases in response to heavy rains.
In contrast to most continental Drosophilidae, many endemic Hawaiian
species are highly host-plant-specific (Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 1).
Drosophila digressa relies solely on the decaying stems of Charpentiera
spp. for oviposition (to deposit or lay eggs) and larval substrate
(Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 11, 13). The larvae complete development in
the decaying tissue before dropping to the soil to pupate (Montgomery
1975, pp. 65-103; Spieth 1986, p. 105). Pupae develop into adults in
approximately 1 month, and adults sexually mature 1 month later. Adults
live for 1 to 2 months. The adult flies are generalist microbivores
(microbe eating) and feed upon a variety of decomposing plant material.
Drosophila digressa occurs in elevations ranging from approximately
2,000 to 4,500 ft (610 to 1,370 m), in the lowland mesic, montane
mesic, and montane wet ecosystems (Magnacca 2011a, pers. comm.).
Historically, Drosophila digressa was known from five sites: Moanuiahea
pit crater on Hualalai, Manuka FR, Kipuka 9 and Bird Park in HVNP, and
Olaa FR (Montgomery 1975, p. 98; Magnacca 2006, pers. comm.; HBMP
2010d; Magnacca 2011b, in litt.). Currently, D. digressa is known from
only two locations, one population in the Manuka NAR within the Manuka
FR, in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems, and a second
population in the Olaa FR in the montane wet ecosystem (Magnacca 2011b,
in litt.). The current number of individuals at each of these locations
is unknown (Magnacca 2011b, in litt.).
Vetericaris chaceorum (anchialine pool shrimp) is a member of the
family Procarididae and is considered one of the most primitive shrimp
species in the world (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 428-429). Known
only from the island of Hawaii, the species is one of seven known
species of hypogeal (underground) shrimp found in the Hawaiian Islands
that occur in anchialine pools (Brock 2004, p. 6). Anchialine pool
habitats can be distinguished from similar systems (i.e., tidal pools)
in that they are land-locked with no surface connections to water
sources either saline or fresh, but have subterranean hydrologic
connections where water flows through cracks and crevices, and yet
remain tidally influenced (Holthuis 1973, p. 3; Stock 1986, p. 91).
Anchialine habitats are ecologically distinct and unique, and while
widely distributed throughout the world, they only occur in the United
States in the Hawaiian Islands (Brock 2004, p. i, 2, and 12). In the
Hawaiian Islands, there are estimated to be 600 to 700 anchialine
pools, with the majority
[[Page 63939]]
occurring on the island of Hawaii (Brock 2004, p. i).
Relatively large in size for a hypogeal shrimp species, adult
Vetericaris chaceorum measure approximately 2.0 in (5.0 cm) in total
body length, excluding the primary antennae, which are approximately
the same length as the adult's body length (Kensley and Williams 1986,
p. 419). The species lacks large chelapeds (claws) (Kensley and
Williams 1986, p. 426), which are a key diagnostic characteristic of
all other known shrimp species. Vetericaris chaceorum is largely devoid
of pigment and lacks eyes, although eyestalks are present (Kensley and
Williams 1986, p. 419).
Observations of V. chaceorum indicate the species is a strong
swimmer and propels its body forward in an upright manner with its
appendages held in a basket formation below the body. Forward movement
is produced by a rhythmic movement of the thoracic and abdominal
appendages, and during capture of some specimens, V. chaceorum escape
tactics included only forward movement and a notable lack of tail
flicking, which would allow backward movement and which is common to
other shrimp species (Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 426). No response
was observed when the species was exposed to light (Kensley and
Williams 1986, p. 418).
The feeding habits of V. chaceorum are unknown, although Kensley
and Williams (1986, p. 426) reported that the gut contents of a
captured specimen included large quantities of an orange-colored oil
and fragments of other crustaceans (including Procaris hawaiana, a co-
occurring anchialine pool shrimp), indicating that the species may be
carnivorous upon its associated anchialine pool shrimp species. In
general, hypogeal shrimp occur within both the illuminated part of
their anchialine pool habitat as well as within the cracks and crevices
in the water table below the surface (Brock 2004, p. 6), and relative
abundance of some Hawaii species is directly tied to food abundance
(Brock 2004, p. 10). Furthermore, studies indicate that the lighted
environment of anchialine pools offers refugia of high benthic
productivity, resulting in higher population levels for the shrimp
compared to the surrounding interstitial spaces occupied by these
species, albeit in lower numbers (Brock 2004, p. 10).
Although over 400 anchialine pool habitats have been surveyed on
the island of Hawaii, Vetericaris chaceorum has to date only been
documented from Lua O Palahemo, which is a submerged lava tube located
on the southernmost point of Hawaii Island in an area known as Ka Lae
(South Point) (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-418; Brock 2004, p.
2; HBMP 2010). Age estimates for Lua O Palahemo range from as young as
11,780 years to a maximum of age of 25,000 years based upon radio
carbon data (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-418). Brock (2004, p.
18) states this lava tube is the second most important anchialine pool
habitat in the State because of its unique connection to the ocean, the
vertical size (i.e., depth), and the presence of a total of five
different species including Halocaridina palahemo, Halocaridina rubra,
Procaris hawaiiana, Calliasmata pholidota, and Vetericaris chaceorum.
Lua O Palahemo itself is actually a naturally occurring opening
(surface collapse) into a large lava tube below. The opening measures
approximately 33 ft (10 m) in diameter and is directly exposed to
sunlight. Unlike most anchialine pools in the Hawaiian Islands, which
have depths less than 4.9 ft (1.5 m) (Brock 2004, p. 3), Lua O
Palahemo's deep pool includes a deep shaft with vertical sides
extending downward about 46 ft (14 m) into the lava tube below, which
then splits off into two directions, both ending in blockages (Holthuis
1974, p.11; Kensley and Williams 1986, p. 418). The tube runs generally
north and south, extending northward for 282 ft (86 m) and southward
for 718 ft (219 m) to a depth of 108 ft (33 m) below sea level (Kensley
and Williams 1986, p. 418).
We have information pertaining to three distinct survey efforts at
Lua O Palahemo. The first survey occurred in 1972-1973 (Holthius 1973,
pp. 10-12; 22; Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-2; 17; 50); a second
survey in May 1985 (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-426; Bozanic
2004, p. 1); and a third survey in July 2010 (Wada 2012, pers. comm.).
Descriptions of each survey follow and are considered relevant because
each survey sheds light on the decline of habitat available to
Vetericaris chaceorum.
Lua O Palahemo was first formally surveyed as anchialine pool
habitat sometime between 1972-1973 (Maciolek and Brock 1974, pp. 1-2;
17). During this survey, which did not include SCUBA methods, the
following physical characteristics and measurements of the pond were
noted: salinity ranged between 18 to 22 parts per thousand (ppt); the
pool depth was recorded as deep; the pool bottom was described as rocky
with a large accumulation of sediment; and surrounding flora was noted
as minimal, but included vines and succulents, grasses, and small trees
or shrubs (Maciolek and Brock 1974, p. 50). According to Maciolek and
Brock's (1974, pp. 17, 50) report, hypogeal shrimp species found at Lua
O Palahemo at that time included Procaris hawaiiana (then, only the
second known location), Calliasmata pholidota, Antecaridina lauensis,
and Halocaridina rubra. Maciolek and Brock (1974, pp. 50) reported that
Lua O Palahemo was inhabited by the greatest concentration of H. rubra
ever observed up to that time period (1972-1973), and indeed, Holthius
(1973, p. 22) reported that the density of H. rubra swimming in a swarm
near the pool surface was sufficiently high enough to cause the water
to appear blood red in color. Although neither scientific article
written about this survey explicitly describes water clarity at Lua O
Palahemo, both imply that the water was clear enough to see the various
shrimp species from distances of several meters within the pool and the
area directly below the pool.
In May of 1985, a second, more thorough survey of Lua O Palahemo
was conducted by local biologists, a world-renowned cave diver, and
hypogeal shrimp specialists (Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417-426;
Bozanic 2004, p. 1-2). Because this survey included SCUBA methods, the
full extent of the submerged system was explored, and physical
characteristics, dimensions, and water measurements were completed for
the pool as well as the water column directly below and the main lava
tube. Pool surface measurements revealed a temperature of 75.2 degrees
Fahrenheit (24 degrees Centigrade), salinity of 20 ppt, and dissolved
oxygen of 6.0 parts per million (ppm) (Kensley and Williams 1986, p.
418). At a depth of 108 ft (33 m) (or 590 ft (180 m) from the pool
surface) in the southward or seaward portion of the submerged lava tube
where Vetericaris chaceorum was discovered and observed, measurements
revealed a salinity of 30 ppt and dissolved oxygen at 0.3 ppm (Kensley
and Williams 1986, p. 418).
The 1985 survey team completed a total of three dives within the
Lua o Palahemo lava tube during their 1985 exploration of the site
(Kensley and Williams 1986, pp. 417, 426). During those dives,
researchers made five observations of Vetericaris chaceorum in total
darkness at a depth of 108 ft (33 m) and 590 ft (180 m) from the
opening, collecting two specimens. Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 418)
noted, however, that the area surveyed directly beneath the surface of
the pool contained the highest density of animals (e.g., shrimps and
crustaceans). In addition to the
[[Page 63940]]
discovery of V. chaceorum, a second new species was discovered,
Halocaridina palahemo, and two known species were observed including
Procaris hawaiiana and Calliasmata pholidota. Calliasmata pholidota was
collected within the water column below the pool at a depth of 15 m (49
ft), and its population was estimated at less than 100. Both P.
hawaiiana, numbering in the thousands and H. palahemo, numbering in the
tens of thousands of individuals, were collected in the water column
near the opening into the lava tube below the pool surface (Kensley and
Williams 1986, p. 418). During their 1985 survey, Kensley and Williams
(1986 entire) did not observe nonnative fish species within Lua O
Palahemo.
Regarding water clarity and observation of sedimentation within Lua
O Palahemo during the 1985 survey, both Kensley and Williams (1986, pp.
417-418) and Bozanic (2004, p. 1), noted that water clarity was good
with visibility as great as 66 ft (20 m) during initial entry into the
water column and the lateral lava tube below. However, during the exit
phase of the dive, visibility diminished to a few centimeters as
exhalation bubbles from the divers' expired air tanks disturbed
sediment accumulated upon the ceiling of the lava tube and clouded the
water. At the bottom of the water column below the pool and within both
stretches of the lava tube, all surfaces were observed to be covered in
sediment, which sometimes reached a depth of 3.3 ft (1 m). The survey
team described the large mound located at the bottom of the water
column below the pool opening as comprised of rock and silty sediment
reaching at a total height of approximately 50 ft (15 m) (Kensley and
Williams 1986, pp. 417-418; Bozanic 2004, p. 1). Foreign objects
discovered and removed from the mound included bicycles, barbed wire,
random trash, and assorted cables and lines (presumably fishing line)
(Bozanic 2004, p. 1).
In July 2010, a team comprised of Service and Hawaii State Division
of Aquatic Resources (DAR) biologists conducted a third survey of Lua O
Palahemo. The survey team used snorkeling techniques and an underwater
video camera as well as numerous trapping devices to take measurements,
survey for shrimp species, and record data within the underwater site
(Wada 2010, in litt., pp. 1-2). As noted during a brief 2005 U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service visit to the site, the team described the
immediate area surrounding the depression above the pool opening as
greatly eroded, creating a large soil funnel with the pool opening in
the center of the funnel (Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1). The area was also
described as dry and largely barren with a few clumps of nonnative
grass species scattered throughout. The water immediately within the
pool area was described as extremely low in clarity with visibility
estimated at 3 in (8 cm) (Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1).
Snorkeling within the pool revealed that a partial collapse of the
pool walls may have occurred in the past few years as the team
experienced difficulty in locating an opening large enough for a person
to explore. Wada (2010, in litt. p. 1) hypothesized that the collapse
of the lava tube rock walls above the pool followed an earthquake of
6.7 magnitude (USGS 2010, in litt.) in October 2006 on Hawaii Island.
Despite the blockages encountered, an underwater video camera was
successfully deployed through a small opening and dropped to a depth of
just over 100 ft (30 m) (Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1). The video footage
showed a continuous thick cloud of sediment and detritus through the
entire depth of the water column (Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1). After
viewing photographs taken in 2005 of the pool and surrounding area at
Lua O Palahemo, anchialine pool expert, Richard Brock (Brock 2012,
pers. comm.), stated that a very obvious increase of sedimentation was
occurring at the site and within the pool compared to conditions at the
pool during the 1985 survey and other visits in the 1980s.
Of the five species of hypogeal shrimp known from Lua O Palahemo,
only Procaris hawaiiana was observed. One specimen was captured within
the pool and the underwater video camera captured footage of seven
individuals, which were tentatively identified as P. hawaiiana, based
upon their bright orange coloration (Wada 2010, in litt., p. 1). The
survey team used standard and accepted methods while attempting to
capture and survey for shrimp species. Specific trap types used
included soft traps (i.e., traps using netting), bottle traps,
cylindrical traps, and specially designed traps devised by State DAR
staff. Within the water column below the pool opening, trapping
measures were employed at depths of 10 ft (3.04 m), 15 ft (4.57 m), 25
ft (7.62 m), 50 ft (15.24 m), and 100 ft (30.48 m) (Wada 2010, in
litt., p. 1). According to the same report, no nonnative fish were
observed. Hypogeal shrimp species known from Lua O Palahemo and notably
absent during the survey included Calliasmata pholidota, Antecaridina
lauensis, Halocaridina rubra, and Vetericaris chaceorum. Regarding the
latter species, it is important to note that the survey team did not
survey as deeply (108 ft (33 m) below sea level or 590 ft (180 m)) from
the pool surface) as was done during 1985 survey, in which the species
was first and last observed. Accordingly, it is uncertain whether
surveys conducted after the 1985 effort would have detected V.
chaceorum, given the different methods that were used. For the other
species, based on what is known about the species' behavior, their
presence would have been expected at the depths and locations where
trapping was conducted; however, these species were notably absent
during this survey.
In June 2012, Service biologists briefly revisited Lua O Palahemo
to assess current conditions there (Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1-
2). During this visit, we took measurements of the depression
surrounding the opening to the pool. Roughly oval in shape, the
depression measured approximately 195 ft (65 m) wide by 210 ft (70 m)
long. We noted that there is no outlet for runoff from rain out of the
depression other than into the anchialine pool itself. A total of 7
distinct off-road vehicle tracks into the depression surrounding the
pool were counted and photographed. Snorkeling within the pool revealed
no hypogeal shrimp species, although a common marine species,
Palaemonella burnsi, was abundant and numbered approximately 1,000
individuals. No nonnative fish were observed; however, we noted
approximately 10 mature and young native Hawaiian gobies. Gobies
(family Gobiidae) are distinguished by their fused pelvic fins that
form a disc-shaped sucker. Hawaii has several indigenous goby species,
including the species observed at Lua O Palahemo, Bathygobius coalitus
(Smith 2012, in litt.). Visibility in the water was estimated at
approximately 4 ft (1.2 m), and no trash or debris was seen in the pool
other than a large amount of grass seeds floating on the surface of the
water. We did not dive deep enough to ascertain the condition of the
pool bottom, however all submerged rock surfaces were covered in a 1-in
(2.54-cm) thick layer of algae and mud, and the water smelled strongly
of soil, similar to a smell encountered in wet caves (Richardson 2012,
in litt., pp. 1-2). Lastly, the sign previously posted above the
opening of the pool, and which included a warning and fine against
disturbance of the site, was gone.
Our best understanding of hypogeal shrimp population dynamics in
Hawaii and elsewhere is based upon studies of the comparatively common
species, Halocaridina rubra. Studies and
[[Page 63941]]
anecdotal observations of that species and others indicate shrimp
density may be very low in the water table (i.e., greater than 1
individual per 3,500 cubic ft (approximately 100 cubic m)), compared to
the anchialine pool areas, where abundance may reach many hundreds per
square meter of bottom (Brock and Bailey-Brock 1998, p. 65; Brock 2004,
p. 10).
Because of the ability of hypogeal shrimp species to inhabit the
interstitial and crevicular spaces in the water table bedrock
surrounding anchialine pools, it is very difficult to estimate
population size of a given species within a given area (Brock 2004, pp.
10-11). Therefore, based upon these considerations and the fact that a
total of five individuals have been observed on three occasions during
one survey in 1985, we are unable to estimate the population size of
Vetericaris chaceorum. Furthermore, the methods used and depths
explored between the three surveys (in 1973, 1985, and 2010) of Lua O
Palahemo were not sufficiently comparable for us to determine that
there has been a decline in V. chaceorum abundance.
Brock (2004, p. 7) estimated that there are likely no more than a
couple of dozen individuals of this species remaining in this pool;
however, he provided no basis for this statement. Therefore, it is our
opinion that Vetericaris chaceorum is extant, albeit in low numbers,
and that additional surveys using SCUBA methods and conducted at the
same depths explored in 1985 are warranted. Despite the lack of
information regarding V. chaceorum biology and population demographics,
the Service believes information from the three surveys presents
compelling evidence of habitat decline at Lua O Palahemo. The other
four hypogeal shrimp species formerly known from the site are either
entirely absent or present in very low numbers, and at least three of
those species are considered likely food sources for V. chaceorum. It
is our opinion that these shrimp species have experienced drastic
population decline due to degradation of the water quality at Lua O
Palahemo. This degradation is a result of excessive siltation and
sedimentation of the anchialine pool system at Lua O Palahemo, combined
with the diminished ability of the system to flush, which Brock (2004,
pp. 11, 35-36) described as necessary for a functioning anchialine pool
system.
Summary of Factors Affecting the 15 Species Proposed for Listing
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be
warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.
In considering what factors might constitute threats to a species;
we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor
to evaluate whether the species may respond to that factor in a way
that causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a
factor and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat
and, during the status review, we attempt to determine how significant
a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or contributes
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined
in the Act. However, the identification of factors that could impact a
species negatively may not be sufficient to warrant listing the species
under the Act. The information must include evidence sufficient to show
that these factors are operative threats that act on the species to the
point that the species meets the definition of endangered or threatened
under the Act.
If we determine that the level of threat posed to a species by one
or more of the five listing factors is such that the species meets the
definition of either endangered or threatened under section 3 of the
Act, that species may then be proposed for listing. The Act defines an
endangered species as ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and a threatened species as
``likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' The threats to
each of the individual 15 species proposed for listing in this document
are summarized in Table 3, and discussed in detail below.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 63942]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.001
[[Page 63943]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.002
[[Page 63944]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.003
[[Page 63945]]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Assumptions
We acknowledge that the specific nature of the threats to the
individual species being proposed for listing are not completely
understood. Scientific research directed toward each of the species
proposed for listing is limited because of their rarity and the
challenging logistics associated with conducting field work in Hawaii
(e.g., areas are typically remote, difficult to access and work in, and
expensive to survey in a comprehensive manner). However, there is
information available on many of the threats that act on Hawaiian
ecosystems, and, for some ecosystems, these threats are well studied
and understood. Each of the native species that occur in Hawaiian
ecosystems suffers from exposure to those threats to differing degrees.
For the purposes of our listing determination, our assumption is that
the threats that act at the ecosystem level also act on each of the
species that occur in those ecosystems, although in some cases we have
additionally identified species-specific threats, such as predation by
nonnative invertebrates. Similarly, for the purposes of our critical
habitat determinations, our assumption is that the physical or
biological features that support an adequately functioning ecosystem
represent the physical or biological features required by the species
that occur in those ecosystems (see Critical Habitat section, below).
The species discussed in this proposed rule are the components of the
native ecosystems that have shown declines in number of individuals,
number of occurrences, or changes in species abundance and species
composition that can be reasonably attributed to the threats discussed
below.
The following constitutes a list of ecosystem-scale threats that
affect the species proposed for listing in 10 of the described
ecosystems on Hawaii Island:
(1) Foraging and trampling of native plants by feral pigs (Sus
scrofa), goats (Capra hircus), cattle (Bos taurus), sheep (Ovis aries),
or mouflon sheep (Ovis gmelini musimon), which can result in severe
erosion of watersheds because these mammals inhabit terrain that is
often steep and remote (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 63). Foraging and
trampling events destabilize soils that support native plant
communities, bury or damage native plants, and have adverse water
quality effects due to runoff over exposed soils.
(2) Ungulate destruction of seeds and seedlings of native plant
species via foraging and trampling (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63, 65)
facilitates the conversion of disturbed areas from native to nonnative
vegetative communities.
(3) Disturbance of soils by feral pigs from rooting can create
fertile seedbeds for alien plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65), some
of them spread by ingestion and excretion by pigs.
(4) Increased nutrient availability as a result of pigs rooting in
nitrogen-poor soils, which facilitates establishment of alien weeds.
Introduced vertebrates are known to enhance the germination of alien
plants through seed scarification in digestive tracts or through
rooting and fertilization with feces of potential seedbeds (Stone 1985,
p, 253). In addition, alien weeds are more adapted to nutrient-rich
soils than native plants (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65), and rooting
activity creates open areas in forests allowing alien species to
completely replace native stands.
(5) Rodent damage to plant propagules, seedlings, or native trees,
which changes forest composition and structure (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 67).
(6) Feeding or defoliation of native plants from alien insects,
which can reduce geographic ranges of some species because of damage
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 71).
(7) Alien insect predation on native insects, which affects
pollination of native plant species (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 71).
(8) Significant changes in nutrient cycling processes because of
large numbers of alien invertebrates such as earthworms, ants, slugs,
isopods, millipedes, and snails, resulting in changes to the
composition and structure of plant communities (Cuddihy and Stone 1990,
p. 73).
Each of the above threats is discussed in more detail below, and
summarized in Table 3. The most-often cited effects of nonnative plants
on native plant species are competition and displacement. Competition
may be for water, light, or nutrients, or it may involve allelopathy
(chemical inhibition of other plants). Alien plants may displace native
species of plants by preventing their reproduction, usually by shading
and taking up available sites for seedling establishment. Alien plant
invasions may also alter entire ecosystems by forming monotypic stands,
changing fire characteristics of native communities, altering soil-
water regimes, changing nutrient cycling, or encouraging other
nonnative organisms (Smith 1989, pp. 61-69; Vitousek et al. 1987, pp.
224-227).
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
The Hawaiian Islands are located over 2,000 mi (3,200 km) from the
nearest continent. This isolation has allowed the few plants and
animals that arrived in the Hawaiian Islands to evolve into many highly
varied and endemic species (species that occur nowhere else in the
world). The only native terrestrial mammals in the Hawaiian Islands are
two bat taxa, the extant Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus)
and an extinct, unnamed insectivorous bat (Ziegler 2002, p. 245). The
native plants of the Hawaiian Islands, therefore, evolved in the
absence of mammalian predators, browsers, or grazers. As a result, many
of the native species have lost unneeded defenses against threats such
as mammalian predation and competition with aggressive, weedy plant
species that are typical of continental environments (Loope 1992, p.
11; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 45; Wagner et al. 1999d, pp. 3-6). For
example, Carlquist (in Carlquist and Cole 1974, p. 29) notes that
``Hawaiian plants are notably free from many characteristics thought to
be deterrents to herbivores (toxins, oils, resins, stinging hairs,
coarse texture).''
Native Hawaiian plants are therefore highly vulnerable to the
impacts of introduced mammals and alien plants. In addition, species
restricted and adapted to highly specialized locations (e.g., Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana) are particularly vulnerable to
changes (e.g., nonnative species, hurricanes, fire, and climate change)
in their habitat (Carlquist and Cole 1974, pp. 28-29; Loope 1992, pp.
3-6; Stone 1992, pp. 88-102).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Agriculture and Urban
Development
The consequences of past land use practices, such as agricultural
or urban development, have resulted in little or no native vegetation
below 2,000 ft (600 m) throughout the Hawaiian Islands (TNC 2007--
Ecosystem Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished), largely
impacting the coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, and lowland wet
ecosystems. Although agriculture has been declining in importance,
large tracts of former agricultural lands are being converted into
residential areas or left fallow (TNC 2007--Ecosystem Database of
ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished). In addition, Hawaii's population has
increased almost 7 percent in the past 10 years, further increasing
demands on limited land and water resources in the islands (Hawaii
[[Page 63946]]
Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (HDBEDT)
2010).
Development and urbanization of the lowland dry ecosystem on Hawaii
Island is a threat to one species proposed for listing in this rule,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is dependent on this
ecosystem. Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is currently found in an
area less than 10 sq mi (26 sq km) on the leeward slopes of Hualalai
volcano in the lowland dry ecosystem. The leeward slopes of Hualalai
volcano encompass the increasingly urbanized region of north Kona,
where there is very little undisturbed habitat (Pratt and Abbott 1997,
p. 25). Approximately 25 percent (119 individuals of 475) of the
largest of the 6 occurrences of this species is in the right-of-way of
the proposed Ane Keohokalole Highway Project (USFWS 2010, in litt.) and
Kaloko Makai Development, although 154 ac (62 ha) will be set aside as
a lowland dry forest preserve (Kaloko Makai Dryland Forest Preserve)
(see Kaloko Makai Development, below) to compensate for the loss of
these individuals as a result of highway construction and prior to the
Kaloko Makai Development. In addition, individuals of Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla occur in areas where the development of the Villages
of Laiopua Development at Kealakehe (see Department of Hawaiian Home
Lands (DHHL), below) and of the Keahuolu affordable housing project
(Whistler 2007, pp. 1-18; DHHL 2009, p. 15) is a threat to the species.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates
Introduced mammals have greatly impacted the native vegetation, as
well as the native fauna, of the Hawaiian Islands. Impacts to the
native species and ecosystems of Hawaii accelerated following the
arrival of Captain James Cook in 1778. The Cook expedition and
subsequent explorers intentionally introduced a European race of pigs
or boars and other livestock, such as goats, to serve as food sources
for seagoing explorers (Tomich 1986, p. 120-121; Loope 1998, p. 752).
The mild climate of the islands, combined with the lack of competitors
or predators, led to the successful establishment of large populations
of these introduced mammals, to the detriment of native Hawaiian
species and ecosystems. The presence of introduced alien mammals is
considered one of the primary factors underlying the alteration and
degradation of native plant communities and habitats on the island of
Hawaii. The destruction or degradation of habitat due to nonnative
ungulates (hoofed mammals), including pigs, goats, cattle, sheep, and
mouflon, is currently a threat to the ten ecosystems (lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet,
coastal, anchialine pool, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island
and their associated species. Habitat degradation or destruction by
ungulates is also a threat to all 13 plant species (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Cyanea marksii, C. tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, C. wagneri,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, S. hawaiiensis,
and Stenogyne cranwelliae), the picture-wing fly Drosophila digressa,
and the anchialine pool shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum, which are
proposed for listing in this rule (Table 3).
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to pigs is currently
a threat to nine of the Hawaii Island ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet,
dry cliff, and wet cliff) and their associated species. Feral pigs are
known to cause deleterious impacts to ecosystem processes and functions
throughout their worldwide distribution (Campbell and Long 2009, p.
2319). In Hawaii, pigs have been described as the most pervasive and
disruptive nonnative influence on the unique native forests of the
Hawaiian Islands, and are widely recognized as one of the greatest
current threats to forest ecosystems (Aplet et al. 1991, p. 56;
Anderson and Stone 1993, p. 195). European pigs, introduced to Hawaii
by Captain James Cook in 1778, hybridized with domesticated Polynesian
pigs, became feral, and invaded forested areas, especially wet and
mesic forests and dry areas at high elevations. The Hawaii Territorial
Board of Agriculture and Forestry started a feral pig eradication
project in the early 1900s that continued through 1958, removing
170,000 pigs from forests Statewide (Diong 1982, p. 63). Feral pigs are
currently present on Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii.
These feral animals are extremely destructive and have both direct
and indirect impacts on native plant communities. While rooting in the
earth in search of invertebrates and plant material, pigs directly
impact native plants by disturbing and destroying vegetative cover, and
trampling plants and seedlings. It has been estimated that at a
conservative rooting rate of 2 sq yards (yd) (1.7 sq m) per minute,
with only 4 hours of foraging a day, a single pig could disturb over
1,600 sq yd (1,340 sq m) (or approximately 0.3 ac, or 0.12 ha) of
groundcover per week (Anderson et al. 2007, p. 2).
Pigs may also reduce or eliminate plant regeneration by damaging or
eating seeds and seedlings (further discussion of predation by
nonnative ungulates is provided under Factor C. Disease or Predation,
below). Pigs are a major vector for the establishment and spread of
competing invasive, nonnative plant species by dispersing plant seeds
on their hooves and fur, and in their feces (Diong 1982, pp. 169-170),
which also serves to fertilize disturbed soil (Matson 1990, p. 245;
Siemann et al. 2009, p. 547). Pigs feed on the fruits of many nonnative
plants, such as Passiflora tarminiana (banana poka) and Psidium
cattleianum (strawberry guava), spreading the seeds of these invasive
species through their feces as they travel in search of food. Pigs also
feed on native plants, such as Hawaiian tree ferns that they root up to
eat the core of the trunk (Baker 1975, p. 79). In addition, rooting
pigs contribute to erosion by clearing vegetation and creating large
areas of disturbed soil, especially on slopes (Smith 1985, pp. 190,
192, 196, 200, 204, 230-231; Stone 1985, pp. 254-255, 262-264; Medeiros
et al. 1986, pp. 27-28; Scott et al. 1986, pp. 360-361; Tomich 1986,
pp. 120-126; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 64-65; Aplet et al. 1991, p.
56; Loope et al. 1991, pp. 1-21; Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 52;
Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009, pp. 3,677-3,682; Dunkell et al. 2011, pp.
175-177). Erosion impacts native plant communities by watershed
degradation and alteration of plant nutrient status, as well as damage
to individual plants from landslides (Vitousek et al. 2009, pp. 3074-
3086; Chan-Halbrendt et al. 2010, p. 252).
Pigs have been cited as one of the greatest threats to the public
and private lands within the Olaa Kilauea Partnership (an area of land
that includes approximately 32,000 ac (12,950 ha) in the upper sections
of the Olaa and Waiakea forests above Volcano village) that comprise
the lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems that support individuals of three of the plant species
proposed for listing (Cyanea tritomantha, Phyllostegia floribunda, and
Pittosporum hawaiiense) (Olaa Kilauea Partnership Area Feral Animal
Monitoring Report 2005, pp. 1-4; Perlman 2007, in litt.; Pratt 2007a,
in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in litt.; Benitez et al. 2008, p. 58; HBMP
2010f; HBMP 2010h; PEPP 2010, p. 60, TNC 2012, in litt.). Impacts from
feral pigs are also a threat to the coastal, lowland mesic, lowland
[[Page 63947]]
wet, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff ecosystems in the northern
Kohala Mountains and adjacent coastline. These ecosystems support
occurrences of seven of the plant species proposed for listing (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra
wagneri, Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp.
macraei, and Stenogyne cranwelliae) (Wood 1995, in litt.; Wood 1998, in
litt.; Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Wagner et al. 2005d, pp. 31-33;
Kohala Mountain Watershed Partnership (KMWP) 2007, pp. 54-56; Lorence
and Perlman 2007, pp. 357-361; HBMP 2010a; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP
2010i; HBMP 2010j; HBMP 2010k; PEPP 2010, pp. 63, 101, 106; Bio 2011,
pers. comm.). In addition, feral pigs are a threat to the lowland wet
and montane wet ecosystems in south Kona and the Puna district that
support the plants Cyanea marksii and Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (Bio
2011, pers. comm.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.; Maui Forest Bird
Recovery Project 2011, in litt.). Feral pigs have also been reported in
the lowland dry ecosystem that supports the plants Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.) and the montane dry ecosystem
that supports habitat for the only known occurrence of the plant
Schiedea hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al. 2005c; U.S. Army Garrison 2006,
pp. 27, 34, 95-97, 100-107, 112.). Although we do not have direct
evidence of feral pigs threatening the particular species on Hawaii
Island that are proposed for listing in this proposed rule, those
threats have been documented on other islands where pigs have been
introduced (Mitchell et al. 2005c; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34,
95-97, 100-107, 112). We believe it is reasonable to infer that feral
pig threats to these species that have been observed on other Hawaiian
islands would act in a similar manner on Hawaii Island, where those
species interact.
Many of the most important host plants of Hawaiian picture-wing
flies (Charpentiera, Pleomele, Reynoldsia, Tetraplasandra, Urera, and
the lobelioids (e.g., Cyanea spp.)) are also among the most susceptible
to damage from feral ungulates, such as pigs (Foote and Carson 1995, p.
370; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 8, 39; Magnacca et al. 2008, p.
32). Feral pig browsing alters the essential microclimate in picture-
wing fly habitat by opening up the canopy, leading to increased
desiccation of soil and host plants, which disrupts the host plant life
cycle and decay processes, resulting in disruption of the picture-wing
fly life cycle, particularly oviposition and larvae substrate (Magnacca
et al. 2008, pp. 1, 32). Foote and Carson (1995, p. 369) have
experimentally demonstrated the above detrimental effects of feral pigs
on Drosophila spp. in wet forest habitat on the island of Hawaii. In
addition, Montgomery (2005, in litt.; 2007, in litt.) and Foote (2005,
pers. comm.) have observed feral pig damage to host plants (e.g.,
Charpentiera sp., Cheirodendron sp., Pleomele sp., Tetraplasandra sp.,
Urera kaalae) of Hawaiian picture-wing flies on the island of Hawaii
(Foote 2005, pers. comm.) and throughout the main Hawaiian Islands
(Montgomery 2005, in litt.; 2007, in litt.). Magnacca (2012, pers.
comm.) has observed the lack of regeneration of picture-wing fly host
plants due to destruction of seedlings caused by pig rooting and
herbivory.
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to goats is currently
a threat to all 10 of the described ecosystems on Hawaii Island
(anchialine pool, coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) and
their associated species. Goats, native to the Middle East and India,
were also successfully introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late
1700s. Actions to control feral goat populations began in the 1920s
(Tomich 1986, pp. 152-153); however, goats still occupy a wide variety
of habitats on Hawaii Island, where they consume native vegetation,
trample roots and seedlings, accelerate erosion, and promote the
invasion of alien plants (van Riper and van Riper 1982, pp. 34-35;
Stone 1985, p. 261; Kessler 2011, pers. comm.). Goats are able to
access, and forage in, extremely rugged terrain, and they have a high
reproductive capacity (Clarke and Cuddihy 1980, pp. C-19, C-20;
Culliney 1988, p. 336; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 64). Because of these
factors, goats are believed to have completely eliminated some plant
species from islands (Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 21).
Goats can be highly destructive to native vegetation, and
contribute to erosion by eating young trees and young shoots of plants
before they can become established, creating trails that damage native
vegetative cover, promoting erosion by destabilizing substrate and
creating gullies that convey water, and dislodging stones from ledges
that can cause rockfalls and landslides and damage vegetation below
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63-64). A recent study by Chynoweth et al.
(2011, in litt.), which deployed GPS (global positioning system)
satellite collars on 12 feral goats to track movement patterns every 2
hours for 1 year in Pohakuloa Training Area, found that goats prefer
native-dominated shrublands in the montane dry ecosystem during the day
and barren lava at night. Pohakuloa Training Area supports one of the
few montane dry forest ecosystems on Hawaii Island that supports native
plants in the montane dry ecosystem, including the only occurrence of
the plant Schiedea hawaiiensis (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34;
Evans 2011, in litt.). In addition, one of the two occurrences of the
proposed plant species Pritchardia lanigera is known from an unfenced
area of the Kohala Mountains, where herds of wild goats and other
ungulates occur (Maly and Maly 2004 in KMWP 2007, p. 55; KMWP 2007, pp.
54-55; Warshauer et al. 2009, pp. 10, 24; Laws et al. 2010, in litt.;
Ikagawa 2011, in litt.). Maly and Maly (2004 in KMWP 2007, p. 55)
report that ``herds of wild goats roam throughout this region,
trampling, grubbing, and rending, grinding the bark of old trees and
eat the young ones * * * which will destroy the beauty and alter the
climate of the mountainous region of Hawaii.'' There are direct
observations that goats are also altering the coastal ecosystem along
the Kohala Mountains, the location of the only known wild individuals
of the plant Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (Warshauer et
al. 2009, p. 24; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Goats are also found in North
Kona and have been observed browsing in the lowland dry ecosystem that
supports the plant B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.; Knoche 2011, in litt.). Fresh seedlings from native plants
attract goats to the dry and rough lava (Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Further, the host plant (Charpentiera spp.) of the proposed picture-
wing fly appears to be decreasing throughout its range due to impacts
from browsing goats (Foote and Carson 1995, p. 369; Science Panel 2005,
pp. 1-23; Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 32). Feral goat browsing alters the
picture-wing fly's essential microclimate by opening up the canopy
leading to increased desiccation of soil and host plants, which
disrupts the host plant life cycle and decay processes, resulting in
the disruption of the picture-wing fly life cycle, particularly
oviposition and larvae substrate (Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 1, 32).
Based on observations of goats and their scat (Magnacca 2012, pers.
comm.) within the Ka Lae region where the Lua O Palahemo anchialine
pool is located, the Service believes that goats contribute to the
degradation of the anchialine pool habitat and, thus, are a threat to
Vetericaris chaceorum. Feral goats trample and forage on both native
and
[[Page 63948]]
nonnative plants around and near the pool opening at Lua O Palahemo,
and increase erosion around the pool and sediment entering the pool.
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to cattle is
currently a threat to five of the described ecosystems (anchialine
pool, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane mesic, and montane wet) on
Hawaii Island and their associated species. Cattle, the wild
progenitors of which were native to Europe, northern Africa, and
southwestern Asia, were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in 1793.
Large feral herds (as many as 12,000 on the island of Hawaii) developed
as a result of restrictions on killing cattle decreed by King
Kamehameha I (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 40). While small cattle
ranches were developed on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, west Maui, and
Kahoolawe, very large ranches of tens of thousands of acres (thousands
of hectares) were created on east Maui and Hawaii Island (Stone 1985,
pp. 256, 260; Broadbent 2010, in litt.). Logging of native Acacia koa
was combined with establishment of cattle ranches, quickly converting
native forest to grassland (Tomich 1986, p. 140; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 47). Feral cattle can presently be found on the islands of
Maui and Hawaii, where ranching is still a major commercial activity.
Feral cattle eat native vegetation, trample roots and seedlings,
cause erosion, create disturbed areas into which alien plants invade,
and spread seeds of alien plants in their feces and on their bodies.
The forest in areas grazed by cattle degrades to grassland pasture, and
plant cover is reduced for many years following removal of cattle from
an area. In addition, several alien grasses and legumes purposely
introduced for cattle forage have become noxious weeds (Tomich 1986,
pp. 140-150; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 29).
The wet forests of the Kohala Mountains are reported to have a
feral cattle population of at least 100 individuals that are causing
forest degradation by trampling and browsing, which leads to subsequent
increased nitrogen availability through deposition of feces (Stone
1985, p. 253), all of which contribute to the influx of nonnative plant
and animal species (KMWP 2007, pp. 54-55; Laws 2010, in litt.). Feral
cattle are reported from remote regions on Hawaii Island, including the
back of both Pololu and Waipio Valleys (KMWP 2007, p. 55). Feral cattle
are a threat to the lowland wet and montane wet ecosystems in the
Kohala Mountains where individuals of Cyanea tritomantha and
Pritchardia lanigera, and the last wild individual of Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, are reported (PEPP 2010, pp. 59-60; Bio 2011, pers.
comm.). According to a 2010 Service report (USFWS 2010, pp. 3-15, 4-
86), a herd of 200 to 300 feral cattle roams the Kona unit of the
Hakalau Forest NWR (USFWS 2010, p. 3-15, 4-86). Field biologists have
observed cattle-induced habitat degradation at all elevations in this
refuge unit, including within the montane wet ecosystem that supports
individuals of Cyanea marksii (PEPP 2007, p. 61; USFWS 2010, pp. 1-15,
2-13, 4-10, 4-58-4-59, 4-82, 4-86; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Krauss 2012,
pers. comm.). In addition, the host plant (Charpentiera spp.) of the
proposed picture-wing fly species (Drosophila digressa) appears to be
decreasing throughout its range due to impacts from cattle browsing in
the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems (Science Panel 2005, pp.
1-23; Magnacca 2011b, in litt.). Feral cattle browsing alters the
picture-wing fly's essential microclimate by opening up the canopy,
leading to increased desiccation of soil and host plants, which
disrupts the host plant life cycle and decay processes, resulting in
the disruption of the picture-wing fly life cycle, particularly
oviposition and larvae substrate (Magnacca et al. 2008, pp. 1, 32).
According to Palikapu Dedman with the Pele Defense Fund, observations
of feral cattle in the Ka Lae region where the Lua O Palahemo
anchialine pool is located contribute to the degradation of the
anchialine pool habitat. We therefore conclude that feral cattle are a
threat to Vetericaris chaceorum (Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1-2).
Feral cattle trample and forage on both native and nonnative plants
around and near the pool opening at Lua O Palahemo, and increase
erosion around the pool and sediment entering the pool.
The destruction or degradation of habitat due to feral sheep is
currently a threat to the montane dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island and
its associated species. Sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in 1791,
when Captain Vancouver brought five rams and two ewes from California
(Tomich 1986, pp. 156-163). Soon after, stock was brought from
Australia, Germany, and the Mediterranean for sheep production (Tomich
1986, pp. 156-163; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65-66). Feral sheep
became established on leeward Mauna Kea by 1876 (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 65-66), and by the early 1930s, reached close to 40,000
individuals (Scowcroft and Conrad 1992, p. 627). Acquiring the majority
of their water needs by consuming vegetation, sheep inhabited dry
forests in remote regions of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, including the
saddle between the two volcanoes. Feral sheep browse and trample native
vegetation and have decimated large areas of native forest and
shrubland on Hawaii Island (Tomich 1986, pp. 156-163; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 65-66). Browsing erodes top soil, which alters moisture
regimes and micro-environments and results in the loss of native plant
and animal taxa (Tomich 1986, pp. 156-163; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
65-66). In addition, nonnative opportunistic plant seeds get dispersed
to disturbed forest sites by adhering to sheep wool coats (Hawaii
Division of Forestry and Wildlife (HDOFAW) 2002, p. 3).
In 1962, game hunters intentionally crossbred feral sheep with
mouflon sheep and released them on Mauna Kea (Tomich 1986, pp. 156-
163). In Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (471
F. Supp. 985 (Haw. 1979)), the Federal court ordered complete removal
of feral sheep from Mauna Kea in 1979, because they were harming the
endangered palila (Loxioides bailleui) by degrading and destroying
palila habitat in the montane dry ecosystem. Throughout the past 30
years, attempts to protect the vegetation of Mauna Kea and the saddle
from sheep have only been sporadically effective (Scowcroft and Conrad
1992, p. 628). Currently, a large feral population surrounds Mauna Kea
and extends into the saddle and northern part of Mauna Loa, including
the State forest reserves where they trample and browse endangered
plants (Hess 2008, p. 1). At the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area,
located in the saddle area of the island, biologists have reported that
feral sheep are a threat to the last occurrence of the plant species
Schiedea hawaiiensis, which occurs in the montane dry ecosystem
(Mitchell et al. 2005a; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 27, 34).
Five of the described ecosystems (lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane dry, montane mesic, and montane wet) on Hawaii Island, and
their associated species are currently threatened by the destruction or
degradation of habitat due to mouflon sheep. The mouflon sheep
(mouflon), native to Asia Minor, was introduced to the islands of Lanai
and Hawaii in the 1950s, as a managed game species, and has become
widely established on these islands (Tomich 1986, pp. 163-168; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 66; Hess 2008, p. 1). In 1968, mouflon were
introduced to Kahuku Ranch (now a unit of HVNP) on Mauna Loa for trophy
hunting. By 2008, mouflon ranged over the southern part
[[Page 63949]]
of Mauna Loa in the Kahuku area on adjacent public and private lands
(Hess 2008, p. 1). According to Ikagawa (2011, in litt.), mouflon are
found on the slopes of both Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Ikagawa (2011, in
litt.) also notes that mouflon and mouflon-sheep hybrids are found from
sea level to over 3,280 ft (1,000 m) elevation. Mouflon have high
reproduction rates; for example, the original population of 11
individuals on the island of Hawaii has increased to more than 2,500 in
36 years, even though mouflon are hunted as a game animal (Hess 2008,
p. 3). Mouflon only gather in herds when breeding, thus limiting
control techniques and hunting efficiency (Hess 2008, p. 3; Ikagawa
2011, in litt.). Mouflon are both grazers and browsers, and have
decimated vast areas of native forest and shrubland through browsing
and bark stripping (Stone 1985, p. 271; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63,
66; Hess 2008, p. 3). Mouflon also create trails and pathways through
thick vegetation, leading to increased runoff and erosion through soil
compaction. In some areas, the interaction of browsing and soil
compaction has led to a change from native rainforest to grassy
scrublands (Hess 2008, p. 3). Field biologists have observed habitat
degradation in five of the described ecosystems (lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane dry, montane mesic, and montane wet) that support four
plants proposed for listing (Cyanea marksii, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Pritchardia lanigera, and Schiedea hawaiiensis) (Bio 2011, pers. comm.;
Ikagawa 2011, in litt.; Pratt 2011d, in litt.), and the picture-wing
fly (Drosophila digressa) (Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). Many of the
current and proposed fenced exclosures on Hawaii Island are only 4 ft
(1.3 m) in height, as they are designed to exclude feral pigs, goats,
and sheep. However, a fence height of at least 6 ft (2 m) is required
to exclude mouflon sheep, as they can easily jump a 4-ft (1.3-m) fence
(Ikagawa 2011, in litt.). The increased range of mouflon, as well as
the lack of adequately protected habitat, increase the threat of
mouflon sheep to additional ecosystems on Hawaii Island.
Axis deer (Axis axis) were first introduced to Molokai in 1868,
Lanai in 1920, and Maui in 1959 (Hobdy 1993, p. 207; Erdman 1996, pers.
comm. cited in Waring 1996, in litt., p. 2; Hess 2008, p. 2). Recently
(2010-2011), unauthorized introduction of axis deer to the island of
Hawaii as a game animal has occurred (Kessler 2011, in litt.; Aila
2012a, in litt.). They have been observed in the regions of Kohala,
Kau, Kona, and Mauna Kea (HDLNR 2011, in litt.). The HDLNR-HDOFAW has
developed a response-and-removal plan, including a partnership now
underway between HDLNR, Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA), the
Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISC), Federal natural resource
management agencies, ranchers, farmers, private landowners, and
concerned citizens (Big Island-Big Island.com, June 6, 2011). The
partnership is working with animal trackers and game cameras to survey
locations where axis deer have been observed in an effort to eradicate
them on the island (Big Island-Big Island.com, June 6, 2011; Osher
2012, in litt.). There is a high level of concern by the partnership
due to the negative impacts of axis deer on agriculture and native
ecosystems on neighboring islands (e.g., Maui) (Aila 2011, in litt.;
Schipper 2011, in litt.; Aila 2012b, in litt.). In response to the
presence of axis deer on Hawaii Island, the Hawaii Invasive Species
Council drafted House Bill 2593 (Draft 2), to amend House Revised
Statutes (Haw. Rev. Stat.) 91, which allowed agencies to adopt
emergency rules in instances of imminent peril to the public health,
safety, or morals, or to livestock and poultry health (Aila 2012a, in
litt.). House Bill 2593 (Draft 2) addresses the gap in the current
emergency rules authority, expanding the ability of State agencies to
adopt emergency rules to address situations that impose imminent
threats to natural resources (Aila 2012a, in litt.; Martin 2012, in
litt.) (see Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms,
below). Emergency rules are valid for 120 days after they are
registered and approved, and after 6 months a permanent rule can be
enacted (Cravalho 2012, pers. comm). On June 21, 2012, House Bill 2593
was enacted into law as Act 149 (``Relating to Emergency Rules for
Threats to Natural Resources or the Health of the Environment'').
Axis deer are primarily grazers, but also browse numerous palatable
plant species, including those grown as commercial crops (Waring 1996,
in litt., p. 3; Simpson 2001, in litt.). They prefer the lower, more
openly vegetated areas for browsing and grazing; however, during
episodes of drought (e.g., from 1998-2001 on Maui (Medeiros 2010, pers.
comm.)), axis deer move into urban and forested areas in search of food
(Waring 1996, in litt., p. 5; Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.). Like goats,
axis deer can be highly destructive to native vegetation and contribute
to erosion by eating young trees and young shoots of plants before they
can become established, creating trails that can damage native
vegetative cover, promoting erosion by destabilizing substrate and
creating gullies that convey water, and by dislodging stones from
ledges that can cause rockfalls and landslides and damage vegetation
below (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 63-64). The unauthorized
introduction of axis deer on Hawaii Island is a concern due to the
devastating impacts of habitat destruction by axis deer in nine
ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on the
islands of Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Maui (Mehrhoff 1993, p. 11; Anderson
2002, poster; Swedberg and Walker 1978, cited in Anderson 2003, pp.
124-125 Perlman 2009, in litt., pp. 4-5; Hess 2008, p. 3; Hess 2010,
pers. comm.; Kessler 2010, pers. comm.; Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.). As
reported on the islands of Kahoolawe, Lanai, and Maui, the spread of
axis deer into nine of the described ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet,
dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island is expected to lead to
similar habitat degradation and destruction if the deer are not
controlled. The results from the studies above, in addition to the
confirmed sightings of axis deer on Hawaii Island, suggest that axis
deer can significantly alter these ecosystems and directly damage or
destroy native plants. Although habitat degradation due to axis deer
has not yet been observed on Hawaii Island, we believe it is reasonable
to assume similar habitat effects on this island. Based on the
prevailing evidence of the documented impacts to native ecosystems and
individual plants on the other islands, we determine that the expanding
population of axis deer on the Island of Hawaii, while not currently
resulting in population-level effects to native plants, is expected to
do so in the future if the deer are not managed or controlled. As a
result, we currently do not believe that the existing population of
axis deer on Hawaii Island is a threat; however, we expect that as the
population of axis deer expands, axis deer will become a significant
threat to the native plants and ecosystems on Hawaii Island in the
future.
In summary, all of the 15 species proposed for listing and that are
dependent upon the 10 ecosystems (anchialine pool, coastal, lowland
dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane
wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) identified in this proposed rule are
exposed to the ongoing threat of feral ungulates (pigs,
[[Page 63950]]
goats, cattle, sheep, and mouflon sheep). Additionally, if not
adequately managed or controlled, impacts from axis deer may also
become a significant threat to these ecosystems in the future. These
negative impacts result in the destruction and degradation of habitat
for the native species on Hawaii Island. The effects of these nonnative
animals include the destruction of vegetative cover; trampling of
plants and seedlings; direct consumption of native vegetation; soil
disturbance and sedimentation; dispersal of alien plant seeds on hooves
and coats, and through the spread of seeds in feces; alteration of soil
nitrogen availability; and creation of open, disturbed areas conducive
to further invasion by nonnative pest plant species. All of these
impacts lead to the subsequent conversion of a plant community
dominated by native species to one dominated by nonnative species (see
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants below). In
addition, because these mammals inhabit terrain that is often steep and
remote (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 59), foraging and trampling
contributes to severe erosion of watersheds and degradation of streams
(Dunkell et al. 2011, pp. 175-194). As early as 1900, there was
increasing concern expressed about the integrity of island watersheds,
due to effects of ungulates and other factors, leading to the
establishment of a professional forestry program emphasizing soil and
water conservation (Nelson 1989, p. 3).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative Plants
Native vegetation on all of the main Hawaiian Islands has undergone
extreme alteration because of past and present land management
practices, including ranching, the deliberate introduction of nonnative
plants and animals, and agricultural development (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, pp. 27, 58). The original native flora of Hawaii (species that
were present before humans arrived) consisted of about 1,000 taxa, 89
percent of which were endemic (species that occur only in the Hawaiian
Islands). Over 800 plant taxa have been introduced from elsewhere, and
nearly 100 of these have become pests (e.g., injurious plants) in
Hawaii (Smith 1985, p. 180; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73; Gagne and
Cuddihy 1999, p. 45). Of these 100 nonnative pest plant species, over
35 species have altered the habitat of 14 of the 15 species proposed
for listing (only the proposed anchialine pool shrimp is not directly
impacted by nonnative plants (see Table 3)). Some of the nonnative
plants were brought to Hawaii by various groups of people, including
the Polynesians, for food or cultural reasons. Plantation owners (and
the territorial government of Hawaii), alarmed at the reduction of
water resources for their crops caused by the destruction of native
forest cover by grazing feral and domestic animals, introduced
nonnative trees for reforestation. Ranchers intentionally introduced
pasture grasses and other nonnative plants for agriculture, and
sometimes inadvertently introduced weeds as well. Other plants were
brought to Hawaii for their potential horticultural value (Scott et al.
1986, pp. 361-363; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 73).
Nonnative plants impact native habitat in Hawaii, including 9 of
the described Hawaii Island ecosystems that support 14 of the 15
proposed species (all except the anchialine pool shrimp), and directly
adversely impact the 13 proposed plant species, by: (1) Modifying the
availability of light through alterations of the canopy structure; (2)
altering soil-water regimes; (3) modifying nutrient cycling; (4)
altering the fire regime affecting native plant communities (e.g.,
successive fires that burn farther and farther into native habitat,
destroying native plants and removing habitat for native species by
altering microclimatic conditions to favor alien species); and (5)
ultimately converting native-dominated plant communities to nonnative
plant communities (Smith 1985, pp. 180-181; Cuddihy and Stone, 1990, p.
74; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73; Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 6).
Below, we have organized a list of nonnative plants by their
ecosystems, followed by a discussion of the specific negative effects
of those nonnative plants on the species proposed for listing here.
Nonnative Plants in the Coastal Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, the only plant species proposed for listing in this
rule that inhabits the coastal ecosystem on Hawaii Island, include the
understory and subcanopy species Pluchea carolinensis (sourbush), P.
indica (Indian fleabane), Lantana camara (lantana), and Melastoma spp.
(Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Nonnative
canopy species that threaten B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana
include Casuarina equisetifolia (ironwood) (Perlman and Wood 2006, in
litt.). In addition, B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana is
threatened by the nonnative grass Pennisetum setaceum (fountain grass)
(Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). These
nonnative plant species pose serious and ongoing threats to the species
B. hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, which depends on this ecosystem
(see Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Dry Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, the only plant species proposed for listing in this rule
that inhabits the lowland dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island include the
understory and subcanopy species Lantana camara, Leucana leucocephala
(koa haole), Pluchea carolinensis, and P. indica (HBMP 2010b).
Nonnative canopy species that are a threat to B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla include Grevillea spp., Prosopis pallida (kiawe), and
Schinus terebinthifolius (christmasberry) (HBMP 2010b). In addition, B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla is threatened by the nonnative grasses
Melinis repens (natal redtop) and Pennisetum setaceum (HBMP 2010b). See
Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts below for specific threats
each of these nonnative plant species pose to the species Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which depends on this ecosystem.
Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Mesic Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten two plant species
(Pittosporum hawaiiense and Pritchardia lanigera) and the picture-wing
fly proposed for listing in this rule that inhabit the lowland mesic
ecosystem on Hawaii Island include the understory and subcanopy species
Delairea odorata (cape ivy), Hedychium gardnerianum (kahili ginger),
Lantana camara, and Rubus rosifolius (thimbleberry) (HDOFAW 1992, p.
11-22; Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 24-52; Pacific Islands Ecosystems at
Risk (PIER) 2012a). Nonnative canopy species that are a threat to the
three species include Omalanthus populifolius (Queensland poplar),
Psidium cattleianum, and Schinus terebinthifolius (Benitez et al. 2008,
pp. 24-58). Additional species that are a threat to the three species
are the nonnative grasses Ehrharta stipoides (meadow rice grass) and
Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass) (Denslow et al. 2006, p. 118). These
nonnative plant species pose serious and ongoing threats to the three
species that depend on this ecosystem (see Specific Nonnative Species
Impacts below).
[[Page 63951]]
Nonnative Plants in the Lowland Wet Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that are a threat to the 7 of the 13 plant
species (Cyanea marksii, Cyaneatritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda, Platydesma remyi, and
Pritchardia lanigera) proposed for listing in this rule that inhabit
the lowland wet ecosystem on Hawaii Island include the understory and
subcanopy species Clidemia hirta (Koster's curse), Erigeron
karvinskianus (daisy fleabane), Hedychium gardnerianum, Juncus effusus
(Japanese mat rush), J. ensifolius (dagger-leaved rush), J. planifolius
(bog rush), Melastoma spp., Passiflora edulis (passion fruit), P.
tarminiana (banana poka), Polygonum punctatum (water smartweed), Rubus
argutus (prickly Florida blackberry), R. ellipticus (yellow Himalayan
raspberry), R. rosifolius, Sphaeropteris cooperi (Australian tree
fern), Tibouchina herbacea (glorybush), and T. urvilleana (princess
flower) (Wood 1995, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Perlman
and Wood 2006, in litt.; Perlman and Perry 2003, in litt.; Lorence and
Perlman 2007, pp. 357-361; PEPP 2007, pp. 1-65; PEPP 2008, pp. 87-111;
Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.; HBMP
2010c; HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i; PEPP
2010, pp. 33-121). Nonnative canopy species that are a threat to the
seven species include Angiopteris evecta (mule's foot fern), Falcataria
moluccana (albizia), Miconia calvescens (miconia), Psidium cattleianum,
Schefflera actinophylla (octopus tree) (Palmer 2003, p. 48; HBMP 2010c;
HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i; PEPP 2010,
p. 62; Lau 2011, in litt.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.; Pratt 2011a, in
litt.; Price 2011, in litt.). Nonnative grasses that threaten this
ecosystem are Ehrharta stipoides and Setaria palmifolia (palmgrass)
(Lorence and Perlman 2007, pp. 357-361; PEPP 2007, pp. 1-65; HBMP
2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g). These nonnative plant species pose
serious and ongoing threats to the seven species that depend on this
ecosystem (see Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Montane Dry Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten the plant species Schiedea
hawaiiensis in the montane dry ecosystem on Hawaii Island include the
understory and subcanopy species Heterotheca grandiflora (telegraph
weed) and Senecio madagascariensis (Madagascar fireweed) (Herbst et al.
2004, p. 4; Le Roux et al. 2006, pp. 694-702; U.S. Army Garrison 2009,
p. 5; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Evans 2011, pers. comm.; HISC 2012; Jepson
eFlora 2012-Jepson Herbarium Database). The nonnative grass Pennisetum
setaceum also threatens Schiedea hawaiiensis (U.S. Army Garrison 2009,
p. 5; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Evans 2011, pers. comm.). These nonnative
plant species pose serious and ongoing threats to the proposed species
Schiedea hawaiiensis, which depends on this ecosystem (see Specific
Nonnative Plant Species Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Montane Mesic Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten two plant species
(Phyllostegia floribunda and Pittosporum hawaiiense) and the picture-
wing fly proposed for listing in this rule that inhabit the montane
mesic ecosystem on Hawaii Island include the understory and subcanopy
species Anemone hupehensis var. japonica (Japanese anemone), Buddleia
asiatica (dog tail), Clidemia hirta, Hedychium gardnerianum, Rubus
argutus, and Rubus rosifolius (HDOFAW 1992, p. 17; Benitez et al. 2008,
pp. 24-53; PEPP 2008, pp. 106-107; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.; HBMP
2010h; PIER 2011a). Canopy species that threaten the three species
include Psidium cattleianum and Schinus terebinthifolius (Benitez et
al. 2008, pp. 29-30; Perlman et al. 2008, in litt.). Nonnative grasses
that threaten this ecosystem are Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge),
Ehrharta stipoides, Pennisetum setaceum, and Setaria palmifolia (HDOFAW
1992, p. 17; Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 24-53; PEPP 2008, pp. 106-107;
HBMP 2010c). These nonnative plant species pose serious and ongoing
threats to the species that depend on this ecosystem (see Specific
Nonnative Plant Species Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Montane Wet Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten 8 of the 13 plant species
(Cyanea marksii, C. tritomantha, Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, and Stenogyne cranwelliae), and the picture-wing fly
proposed for listing in this rule that inhabit the montane wet
ecosystem on Hawaii Island include the understory and subcanopy species
Clidemia hirta, Erigeron karvinskianus, Hedychium coronarium (white
ginger), H. gardnerianum, Juncus spp., Lantana camara, Passiflora
edulis, P. tarminiana, Polygonum punctatum, Rubus argutus, R.
ellipticus, R. rosifolius, Tibouchina herbacea, T. urvilleana, and Ulex
europaeus (gorse) (Wood 1995, in litt.; Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 1-118;
Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010d; HBMPe; HBMP
2010f; HBMP 2010h; HBMPi; HMBP 2010j; HBMP 2010k; USFWS 2010, pp. 4-
74--4-75). Nonnative canopy species that threaten the nine proposed
species include Sphaeropteris cooperi and Psidium cattleianum (HBMP
2010c; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i). Nonnative grasses that threaten this
ecosystem are Andropogon ssp., Axonopus fissifolius (carpetgrass),
Ehrharta stipoides, Paspalum conjugatum, and Setaria palmifolia (Wood
1995, in litt.; Perlman and Bio 2008, in litt.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010h;
HBMP 2010i). These nonnative plant species pose serious and ongoing
threats to nine proposed species that depend on this ecosystem (see
Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts below).
Nonnative Plants in the Dry Cliff Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, the only plant species proposed for listing in this
rule that inhabits the dry cliff ecosystem on Hawaii Island, include
the understory and subcanopy species Lantana camara, Melastoma spp.,
and Pluchea carolinensis (Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011,
pers. comm.). Nonnative canopy species that threaten B. hillebrandiana
ssp. hillebrandiana include Casuarina equisetifolia and Psidium
cattleianum (Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Nonnative grasses that threaten this ecosystem include Digitaria
setigera and Pennisetum setaceum (Perlman and Wood 2006, in litt.; Bio
2011, pers. comm.). These nonnative plant species pose serious and
ongoing threats to all three of the species proposed for listing that
depend on this ecosystem (see Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts
below).
Nonnative Plants in the Wet Cliff Ecosystem
Nonnative plant species that threaten the three plant species
(Cyanea tritomantha, Pritchardia lanigera, and Stenogyne cranwelliae)
proposed for listing in this rule that inhabit the wet cliff ecosystem
on Hawaii Island include the understory and subcanopy species Hedychium
coronarium, H. gardnerianum, Juncus effusus, Passiflora tarminiana,
Rubus rosifolius, Tibouchina herbacea, and T. urvilleana
[[Page 63952]]
(HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010k). The three species in this
ecosystem are also threatened by the nonnative grasses Axonopus
fissifolius, Ehrharta stipoides, Paspalum conjugatum, and Setaria
palmifolia (HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010k). These nonnative plant
species pose serious and ongoing threats to the three species that
depend on this ecosystem (see Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts
below).
Specific Nonnative Plant Species Impacts
Nonnative plants pose serious and ongoing threats to 14 of the 15
species proposed for listing (all except the anchialine pool shrimp) in
this rule throughout their ranges by destroying and modifying habitat.
They can adversely impact microhabitat by modifying the availability of
light and nutrient cycling processes, and by altering soil-water
regimes. They can also alter fire regimes affecting native plant
habitat, leading to incursions of fire-tolerant nonnative plant species
into native habitat. Alteration of fire regimes clearly represents an
ecosystem-level change caused by the invasion of nonnative grasses
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass life form supports
standing dead material that burns readily, and grass tissues have large
surface-to-volume ratios and can dry out quickly (D'Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The flammability of biological materials is
determined primarily by their surface-to-volume ratio and moisture
content, and secondarily by mineral content and tissue chemistry
(D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The finest size classes of
material (mainly grasses) ignite and spread fires under a broader range
of conditions than do woody fuels or even surface litter (D'Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 73). The grass life form allows rapid recovery
following fire; there is little above-ground structural tissue, so
almost all new tissue fixes carbon and contributes to growth (D'Antonio
and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). Grass canopies also support a microclimate
in which surface temperatures are hotter, vapor pressure deficits are
larger, and the drying of tissues more rapid than in forests or
woodlands (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 73). Thus, conditions that
favor fire are much more frequent in grasslands (D'Antonio and Vitousek
1992, p. 73).
Nonnative plants outcompete native plants by growing faster, and
some may release chemicals that inhibit the growth of other plants.
Nonnative plants may also displace native species by preventing their
reproduction, usually by shading and taking up available sites for
seedling establishment (Vitousek et al. 1987, pp. 224-227). These
competitive advantages allow nonnative plants to convert native-
dominated plant communities to nonnative plant communities (Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33-35). The following list
provides a brief description of the nonnative plants that pose a threat
to 14 of the 15 species (all except the anchialine pool shrimp)
proposed for listing here. The Hawaii-Pacific Weed Risk Assessment is
cited in many of the brief descriptions of the nonnative plants below.
This assessment was created as a research collaboration between the
University of Hawaii and the U.S. Forest Service for use in Hawaii and
other high Pacific islands (i.e., volcanic in origin, as opposed to
low-lying atolls) and is an adaptation of the Australian-New Zealand
Weed Risk Assessment protocol developed in the 1990s (Denslow and
Daehler 2004, p. 1). The Australian-New Zealand protocol was developed
to screen plants proposed for introduction into those countries, while
the Hawaii-Pacific Weed Risk Assessment was developed to evaluate
species already used in landscaping, gardening, and forestry, and is
used to predict whether or not a nonnative plant species is likely to
become invasive. Not all nonnative plant species present in Hawaii have
been assessed, and information on species invasiveness is lacking or
absent from some of the descriptions below. In general, all nonnative
plant species displace native Hawaiian plants; here we describe other
specific negative impacts of individual alien plant species when known.
Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge) is a perennial
bunchgrass native to northeastern America, now naturalized along
roadsides and in disturbed dry to mesic forest and shrubland (O'Connor
1999, p. 1,497). Seeds are easily distributed by wind, clothing,
vehicles, and feral animals (Smith 1989, pp. 60-69). Andropogon
virginicus may release allelopathic substances that dramatically
decrease native plant reestablishment (Rice 1972, pp. 752-755). This
species has become dominant in areas subjected to natural or human-
induced fires (Gagne and Cuddihy 1999, p. 77). Andropogon virginicus is
on the Hawaii State noxious weed list (Hawaii Administrative Rules
(H.A.R.) Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
Anemone hupehensis var. japonica (Japanese anemone) is
native to China, and is naturalized and locally common in open, wet,
disturbed areas along roadsides and in wet forest in Hawaii. The
species has wind-distributed seeds, and resists grazing because of
toxic chemicals that induce vomiting when ingested. It was designated
as a high risk invasive species in the Pacific Islands Ecosystems at
Risk (PIER) project.
Angiopteris evecta (mule's foot fern) is native throughout
much of the South Pacific, including Australia and New Guinea, and has
established invasive populations throughout the Hawaiian Islands
(Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) 2011a). Rhizomes form a
massive, almost spherical trunk, 5 in (12 cm) high and 39 in (100 cm)
in diameter, and fronds may grow up to 20 ft (6 m) long and 8 to 10 ft
(2.5 to 3 m) broad, allowing this species to form dense stands that
displace and shade out native plants (GISD 2011a).
Axonopus fissifolius (carpetgrass) is a pasture grass that
forms dense mats with tall foliage. This species does well in soils
with low nitrogen levels, and can outcompete other grasses in wet
forests and bogs. In addition, A. fissifolius outcompetes native plants
for moisture, an impact accentuated by drought (Olaa Kilauea
Partnership 2007, p. 3). This species is not subject to any major
diseases or insect pests, and recovers quickly from fire. The seeds are
readily spread by water, vehicles, and grazing animals (O'Connor 1999,
pp. 1,500-1,502; Cook et al. 2005, p. 4).
Buddleia asiatica (dog tail) is a shrub or small tree that
can tolerate a wide range of habitats, forms dense thickets, and is
rapidly spreading into wet forest and lava and cinder substrate areas
in Hawaii, displacing native vegetation (Wagner et al. 1999e, p. 415;
PIER 2011a).
Casuarina equisetifolia (ironwood), native to Australia
(Wagner et al. 1999f, p. 528-529), is a tree 33 to 66 ft (10 to 20 m)
tall (Cronk & Fuller 2001, p. 144 in PIER 2011b). This species is a
pioneer, salt-resistant tree that forms monotypic stands under which
little else grows (PIER 2011b). It is thought that the roots and needle
litter exude a chemical that kills other plants. Ironwood trees are
fire resistant, and the seeds of this species are wind- and water-
dispersed, further contributing to its advantage over native species
(Staples & Herbst, 2005, p. 229).
Clidemia hirta (Koster's curse), a noxious shrub in the
Melastoma family, forms a dense understory, shades out native plants,
and prevents their regeneration (Wagner et al. 1985, p. 41; Smith 1989,
p. 64). All plants in the Melastoma family are on the Hawaii State
noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter 68).
[[Page 63953]]
Delairea odorata (cape ivy), a rapidly growing perennial
bushy vine native to South Africa, covers and suppresses growth and
germination of native species by carpeting the ground and rooting down
at leaf nodes. This species can also grow in the canopy, where it
smothers native trees, often to the point of death (Benitez et al.
2008, pp. 1-115; PIER 2012a; Weeds of Blue Mountain Bushlands 2011).
Digitaria setigera (East Indian crabgrass) is native to
tropical Asia from India to Sri Lanka, and the Pacific Islands. The
species propagates by seeds and runners, a single flowering stem
produces hundreds of seeds. This species is a serious weed, which was
accidently introduced to Hawaii and first collected around 1864.
Ehrharta stipoides (meadow rice grass) is a grass that
creates a thick mat in which other species cannot regenerate; its seeds
are easily dispersed by awns (slender, terminal bristle-like process
found at the spikelette in many grasses) that attach to fur or clothing
(U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 2-1-20).
Erigeron karvinskianus (daisy fleabane) is a sprawling,
perennial herb that reproduces and spreads rapidly by stem layering and
regrowth of broken roots to form dense mats. This species crowds out
and displaces ground-level plants (Weeds of Blue Mountains Bushland
2008).
Falcataria moluccana (albizia), native to Moluccas, New
Guinea, New Britain, and the Solomon Islands, is a tree that can reach
up to 131 ft (40 m) tall with wide-spreading branches. Albizia is
commonly used as a shade plant for coffee plants in plantations in many
parts of the world. This species grows very rapidly. Albizia can
quickly establish in disturbed and nondisturbed mesic to wet areas
(PIER 2011c; GISD 2011b). Its rapid growth habit enables it to
outcompete slow-growing native trees by reducing light availability,
and its abundant, high-quality litter alters nutrient dynamics in the
soil (GISD 2011b). Increased nitrogen in the soil may favor nonnative
plant species (GISD 2011b).
Grevillea spp. are medium to large evergreen trees native
to Australia. Over two million Grevillea robusta trees were planted in
the Hawaii Islands between 1919 and 1959, in an effort to reduce
erosion and to provide timber. The leaves produce an allelopathic
substance that inhibits the establishment of all other plant species
underneath the canopy (Smith 1985, p. 191). This species has been
documented in dry and moist forests, and open areas in Hawaii (Smith
1985, p. 191). Grevillea banksii is similar to G. robusta in most
features and is considered a major infestation in the Kau district on
Hawaii Island.
Hedychium spp. (ginger) are native to India and the
Himalayas (Nagata 1999, p. 1,623; Motooka et al. 2003a). Hedychium
gardnerianum (kahili ginger) and H. coronarium (white ginger) are both
showy gingers introduced for ornamental purposes. Hedychium
gardnerianum was first collected in 1954, at HVNP (Wester 1992, pp. 99-
154; Nagata 1999, p. 1,623). This species grows over 3 ft (1 m) tall in
open, light environments; however it will readily grow in full shade
beneath a forest canopy (Smith 1985, pp. 191-192). It forms vast, dense
colonies, displacing other plant species, and reproduces by rhizomes
where already established. The conspicuous, fleshy, red seeds are
dispersed by fruit-eating birds as well as humans. Hedychium coronarium
is a herbaceous perennial that grows 3 to 7 ft (1 to 2 m) tall and
favors wet habitats (GISD 2011c; PIER 2012b). This species is shade
tolerant but can grow in exposed full sun (Csurhes and Hannan-Jones
2008, p. 7). Similar to H. gardnerianum, the creeping growth habit of
H. coronarium overwhelms low-growing native plants, and this species is
difficult to control due to the presence of rhizomes (Csurhes and
Hannan-Jones 2008, p. 7; GISD 2011c). In addition to outcompeting
native plants, Hedychium spp. reduce the amount of nitrogen in the
Metrosideros forest canopy in Hawaii, thus impacting the availability
of nutrients for native plants (Asner and Vitousek 2005, in litt.;
Jordan et al. 2008, pp. 177-190). It may also block stream edges,
altering water flow (GISD 2011c), which can subsequently lead to
watershed degradation and decline in moisture regimes that are
necessary to support native plants.
Heterotheca grandiflora (telegraph weed) is an annual or
biennial herb native to California and Mexico, as well as a common weed
of dry, disturbed areas on Hawaii Island (PIER 2011d). This species is
an opportunistic colonizer that grows quickly, forms dense stands, and
inhibits recruitment of native plants (Csurhes 2009, p. 2; PIER 2011d).
Juncus effusus (Japanese mat rush) is a perennial herb
widely distributed in temperate regions and naturalized in Hawaii in
ponds, streams, and open boggy sites. It was brought to Hawaii as a
source of matting material, but grew too slowly to be of commercial
value (Coffey 1999, p. 1,453). This plant spreads by seeds and
rhizomes, and forms dense mats that crowd-out native plants (United
States Department of Agriculture--Agricultural Research Division--
National Genetic Resources Program (USDA-ARS-NGRP) 2011--Germplasm
Resources Information Network (GRIN) Online Database; USDA-Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 2012a--Plants database).
Juncus ensifolius (dagger-leaved rush), a perennial herb
native to the western United States, is naturalized in Hawaii and
occurs in standing water of marshy areas (Coffey 1999, p. 1,453). This
weedy colonizer can tolerate environmental stress and outcompete native
species (USDA-NRCS 2012b--Plants Database).
Juncus planifolius (bog rush) is a perennial herb that is
naturalized in Hawaii in moist, open, disturbed depressions on margins
of forests and in bogs (Coffey 1999, pp. 1,453-1,454). This species
forms dense mats and has the potential to displace native plants by
preventing establishment of native seedlings (Medeiros et al. 1991, pp.
22-23).
Lantana camara (lantana), a malodorous, branched shrub up
to 10 ft (3 m) tall, was brought to Hawaii as an ornamental plant.
Lantana is aggressive, thorny, and forms thickets, crowding out and
preventing the establishment of native plants (Davis et al. 1992, p.
412; Wagner et al. 1999g, p. 1,320).
Leucana leucocephala (koa haole), a shrub native to the
neotropics, is a nitrogen-fixer and an aggressive competitor that often
forms the dominant element of the vegetation in low-elevation, dry,
disturbed areas in Hawaii (Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 679-680).
Plants in the genus Melastoma are ornamental shrubs native
to southeast Asia and all species are on the Hawaii State noxious weed
list (H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter 68). Melastoma species have
high germination rates, rapid growth, early maturity, ability of
fragments to root, possible asexual reproduction, and efficient seed
dispersal (especially by birds that are attracted by copious production
of berries) (Smith 1985, p. 194; University of Florida Herbarium 2008,
pp. 1-2). These characteristics enable the plants to be aggressive
competitors in Hawaiian ecosystems.
Melinis repens (natal redtop), a perennial grass native to
Africa, is now widely naturalized in the tropics and in Hawaii. It
invades disturbed dry areas from coastal regions to subalpine forest
(Gould 1977-Desert Museum database; O'Connor 1999, p. 1,588). Dense
stands of this species can contribute to recurrent fires (Gould 1977-
Desert Museum database).
[[Page 63954]]
Miconia calvescens (miconia), a tree native to the
neotropics, first appeared on Oahu and the island of Hawaii as an
introduced garden plant, and has escaped from cultivation (Almeda 1999,
p. 903). Miconia is remarkable for its 2-to 3-ft (70-cm) long, dark
purple leaves. It reproduces in dense shade, eventually shading out all
other plants to form a monoculture. A single mature plant produces
millions of seeds per year, which are spread by birds, ungulates, and
humans (Motooka et al. 2003b). According to the Hawaii Weed Risk
Assessment for M. calvescens, this species has a high risk of
invasiveness or a high risk of becoming a serious pest (PIER 2010).
This species, as well all plants in the Melastoma family, are on the
Hawaii State noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter
68).
Omalanthus populifolius (Queensland poplar) is a large
shrub native to Australia that is now naturalized in disturbed mesic
forests up to 3,280 ft (1,000 m) elevation on Hawaii Island (Starr et
al. 2003, in litt.). Seeds of this species are spread by birds, water,
and machinery-such as roadside mowers (PIER 2011e). Omalanthus
populifolius has the potential to colonize entire gulches, displacing
and inhibiting the regeneration of native plants (Oppenheimer 2004, p.
11).
Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass) is a perennial grass that
is found in wet habitats and forms a dense ground cover. Its small,
hairy seeds are easily transported on humans and animals, or are
carried by the wind through native forests, where it establishes and
displaces native vegetation (Tomich 1986, p. 125; Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 83; Motooka et. al. 2003c; PIER 2008a).
Passiflora edulis (passion fruit), native to South
America, is a vigorous vine that can reach up to 49 ft (15 m) in
length. In Hawaii, its seeds are spread by feral pigs, and it can be
found in agricultural areas, natural forests, disturbed sites, and
shrublands (GISD 2012a). Passiflora edulis overgrows and smothers the
forest canopy, and its fruit encourages rooting and trampling by feral
pigs.
Passiflora tarminiana (banana poka), a vine native to
South America, is widely cultivated for its fruit (Escobar 1999, pp.
1,010-1,012). First introduced to Hawaii in the 1920s, it is now a
serious pest in mesic forest, where it overgrows and smothers the
forest canopy. Seeds are readily dispersed by humans, birds, and feral
pigs (La Rosa 1992, pp. 281-282). Fallen fruit encourage rooting and
trampling by pigs (Diong 1982, pp. 157-158). Field releases of
biocontrol agents to control the spread of this species have not been
successful to date.
Pennisetum setaceum (fountain grass) is a grass that is an
aggressive colonizer that outcompetes most native species by forming
widespread, dense, thick mats. This species is also fire-adapted and
burns swiftly and hot, causing extensive damage to the surrounding
habitat (O'Connor 1999, p. 1,581). Fountain grass occurs in dry, open
places; barren lava flows; and cinder fields, and it is estimated to
cover hundreds of thousands of acres on the island of Hawaii (O'Connor
1999, p. 1,578; Fox 2011, in litt.).
Pluchea spp. are 3- to 6-ft (1- to 2-m) tall, fast-growing
shrubs that form thickets in dry habitats and can tolerate saline
conditions. Pluchea carolinensis (sourbush) is native to Mexico, the
West Indies, and South America (Wagner et al. 1999h, p. 351), and
Pluchea indica (Indian fleabane), is native to southern Asia (Wagner et
al. 1999h, p. 351). The seeds are wind-dispersed (Francis 2004, pp.
577-579). Both species are adapted to a wide variety of soils and
sites, tolerate excessively well-drained to poorly-drained soil
conditions, the full range of soil textures, acid and alkaline
reactions, salt and salt spray, and compaction. They quickly invade
burned areas, but being early successional, they are soon replaced by
other species. These adaptive capabilities increase the species'
competitive abilities over native plants.
Polygonum punctatum (water smartweed), native to North
America, South America, and the West Indies, is a naturalized, aquatic
species found along streambeds, in wet areas, in running or standing
water, and in disturbed forest sites on Hawaii Island (Wagner et al.
1999i, p. 1064). This species is fast-growing but short-lived, and has
long-lived seeds and allelopathic properties (Gutscher 2007, in litt.).
Loh and Tunison (1998, p. 5) found that in pig-disturbed sites, P.
punctatum expanded from 25 percent to 62.5 percent cover in 2 years.
The combination of rapid growth, long-lived seeds, and allelopathic
properties allows this species to form dense patches that prohibit the
establishment of native plants after disturbance events.
Prosopis pallida (kiawe), a large tree up to 30 ft (9 m)
tall, was introduced to Hawaii from northwestern South America in 1828,
and its seeds were used as fodder for ranch animals (Motooka et al.
2003d). This species is now a dominant component of the vegetation in
low-elevation disturbed sites, and it is well adapted to dry habitats.
It overshadows other vegetation and has deep tap roots that
significantly reduce available water for native dryland plants. This
plant fixes nitrogen and can outcompete native species (Geesink et al.
1999, pp. 692-693; Obiri 2011, p. 421). This species is on the U.S.
Federal noxious weed list (USDA-NRCS 2012c-Plants database).
Psidium cattleianum (strawberry guava) is a tall shrub or
tree that forms dense stands in which few other plants can grow,
displacing native vegetation through competition. The fruit is eaten by
feral pigs and birds that disperse the seeds throughout the forest
(Smith 1985, p. 200; Wagner et al. 1985, p. 24).
Rubus argutus (prickly Florida blackberry) is a prickly
bramble with long-arching stems, and reproduces both vegetatively and
by seed. It readily sprouts from underground runners, and is quickly
spread by frugivorous (fruit-eating) birds (Tunison 1991, p. 2; Wagner
et al. 1999j, p. 1,107; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, pp. 2-1-21-2-1-22).
This species, which displaces native vegetation through competition, is
on the Hawaii State noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4, subtitle 6,
Chapter 68).
Rubus ellipticus (yellow Himalayan raspberry), native to
India, is a prickly bramble with long arching stems up to 13 ft (4 m)
long that smother smaller plants, including native species. This
species occurs in wet areas in the Volcano and Laupahoehoe areas on
Hawaii Island (Motooka et al. 2003e).
Rubus rosifolius (thimbleberry) is an erect to trailing
shrub that forms dense thickets and outcompetes native plant species.
It easily reproduces from roots left in the ground, and seeds are
spread by birds and feral animals (GISD 2008; PIER 2008b).
Schefflera actinophylla (octopus tree) is a tree native to
Australia and New Guinea, is found in low-elevation, disturbed and
undisturbed, mesic and wet habitats in Hawaii (Lowry 1999, p. 232;
Motooka et al. 2003f). This species is shade tolerant and can spread
deep into undisturbed forests, forming dense thickets, as its numerous
seeds are readily dispersed by birds (Motooka et al. 2003f; PIER
2012c). Schefflera actinophylla grows epiphytically, strangling its
host tree (PIER 2012c).
Schinus terebinthifolius (christmasberry, also known as
Brazilian pepper), native to South America, forms dense thickets in all
habitats, and its red berries are attractive to and dispersed by birds
(Smith 1989, p. 63). Schinus seedlings grow very slowly and can survive
in dense shade, exhibiting vigorous growth when the canopy is opened
after a disturbance (Brazilian Pepper Task Force 1997). Because of
these attributes, S. terebinthifolius is
[[Page 63955]]
able to displace native vegetation through competition.
Senecio madagascariensis (Madagascar fireweed), native to
Madagascar and South Africa, is a short-lived perennial plant that is
on the State of Hawaii's noxious weed list (PIER 2011f). Each S.
madagascariensis plant can produce abundant seeds each year that are
easily distributed by wind (The State of Queensland, Department of
Employment, Economic Development and Innovation 2011, pp. 1-4). This
combination of long-range dispersal of its seeds and its allelopathic
properties enables this species to successfully outcompete native
plants (Daehler 2011, in litt.)
Setaria palmifolia (palmgrass), native to tropical Asia,
was first collected on Hawaii Island in 1903 (O'Connor 1999, p. 1,592).
A large-leafed perennial herb, this species reaches approximately 6.5
ft (2 m) in height at maturity, and shades out native vegetation.
Palmgrass is resistant to fire and recovers quickly after being burned
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 83).
Sphaeropteris cooperi (Australian tree fern) is a tree
fern native to Australia that was brought to Hawaii for use in
landscaping (Medeiros et al. 1992, p. 27). It can achieve high
densities in native Hawaiian forests, grows up to 1 ft (0.3 m) in
height per year (Jones and Clemesha 1976, p. 56), and can displace
native species. Understory disturbance by feral pigs facilitates the
establishment of this species (Medeiros et al. 1992, p. 30), and it has
been known to spread over 7 mi (12 km) through windblown dispersal of
spores from plant nurseries (Medeiros et al. 1992, p. 29).
Tibouchina species are herbs, shrubs, or trees native to
South America. All members of this genus are on the Hawaii State
noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter 68). Tibouchina
herbacea (glorybush), an herb or shrub up to 3 ft (1 m) tall, is native
to southern Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay. In Hawaii, it is naturalized
and abundant in disturbed mesic to wet forest on the islands of
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii (Almeda 1999, p. 915). It forms dense
thickets, crowding out all other plant species and inhibits
regeneration of native plants (Motooka et al. 2003g). Tibouchina
urvilleana (princess flower), a shrub or small tree up to 3-to 14-ft
(1-to 4-m) tall, is native to southern Brazil (Almeda 1999, p. 916).
Naturalized on Kauai, Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii, this species forms dense
thickets in disturbed areas of wet forest, crowding out all other plant
species and inhibiting regeneration of native plants.
Ulex europaeus (gorse), a woody legume up to 12 ft (4 m)
tall and covered with spines, is native to Western Europe (Geesink et
al. 1999, pp. 715-716). It is cultivated as a hedge and fodder plant,
and was inadvertently introduced to Hawaii before 1910, with the
establishment of the wood industry (Tulang 1992, pp. 577-583; Geesink
et al. 1999, pp. 715-716). Gorse spreads numerous seeds by explosive
opening of the pods (Mallinson 2011, pp. 1-2). It can rapidly form
extensive dense and impenetrable infestations, and competes with native
plants, preventing their establishment. Dense patches can also present
a fire hazard (Mallinson 2011, pp. 1-2). Over 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) are
infested by gorse on the island of Hawaii, and over 15,000 ac (6,070
ha) are infested on Maui (Tulang 1992, pp. 577-583). Gorse is on the
Hawaii State noxious weed list (H.A.R. Title 4, Subtitle 6, Chapter
68).
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire
Fire is an increasing, human-exacerbated threat to native species
and native ecosystems in Hawaii. The historical fire regime in Hawaii
was characterized by infrequent, low severity fires, as few natural
ignition sources existed (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91; Smith and
Tunison 1992, pp. 395-397). It is believed that prior to human
colonization, fuel was sparse and inflammable in wet plant communities
and seasonally flammable in mesic and dry plant communities. The
primary ignition sources were volcanism and lightning (Baker et al.
2009, p. 43). Natural fuel beds were often discontinuous, and rainfall
in many areas on most islands was, and is, moderate to high. Fires
inadvertently or intentionally ignited by the original Polynesians in
Hawaii probably contributed to the initial decline of native vegetation
in the drier plains and foothills. These early settlers practiced
slash-and-burn agriculture that created open lowland areas suitable for
the later colonization of nonnative, fire-adapted grasses (Kirch 1982,
pp. 5-6, 8; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 30-31). Beginning in the late
18th century, Europeans and Americans introduced plants and animals
that further degraded native Hawaiian ecosystems. Pasturage and
ranching, in particular, created high fire-prone areas of nonnative
grasses and shrubs (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, p. 67). Although fires
were historically infrequent in mountainous regions, extensive fires
have recently occurred in lowland dry and lowland mesic areas, leading
to grass-fire cycles that convert forest to grasslands (D'Antonio and
Vitousek 1992, p. 77).
Because several Hawaiian plants show some tolerance of fire, Vogl
proposed that naturally occurring fires may have been important in the
development of the original Hawaiian flora (Vogl 1969 in Cuddihy and
Stone 1990, p. 91; Smith and Tunison 1992, p. 394). However, Mueller-
Dombois (1981 in Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 91) points out that most
natural vegetation types in Hawaii would not carry fire before the
introduction of alien grasses, and Smith and Tunison (1992, p. 396)
state that native plant fuels typically have low flammability. Because
of the greater frequency, intensity, and duration of fires that have
resulted from the introduction of nonnative plants (especially
grasses), fires are now destructive to native Hawaiian ecosystems
(Brown and Smith 2000, p. 172), and a single grass-fueled fire can kill
most native trees and shrubs in the burned area (D'Antonio and Vitousek
1992, p. 74).
Fire represents a threat to four of the species proposed for
listing (the plants Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Phyllostegia
floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis; and the picture-wing fly) found
in the lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, and
montane mesic ecosystems addressed in this proposed rule (see Table 3).
Fire can destroy dormant seeds of these species as well as plants
themselves, even in steep or inaccessible areas. Successive fires that
burn farther and farther into native habitat destroy native plants and
remove habitat for native species by altering microclimate conditions
favorable to alien plants. Alien plant species most likely to be spread
as a consequence of fire are those that produce a high fuel load, are
adapted to survive and regenerate after fire, and establish rapidly in
newly burned areas. Grasses (particularly those that produce mats of
dry material or retain a mass of standing dead leaves) that invade
native forests and shrublands provide fuels that allow fire to burn
areas that would not otherwise easily burn (Fujioka and Fujii 1980 in
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 93; D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70, 73-
74; Tunison et al. 2002, p. 122). Native woody plants may recover from
fire to some degree, but fire shifts the competitive balance toward
alien species (National Park Service (NPS) 1989, in Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 93). On a post-burn survey at Puuwaawaa on Hawaii Island, an
area of native Diospyros forest with undergrowth of the nonnative grass
Pennisetum setaceum, Takeuchi noted
[[Page 63956]]
that ``no regeneration of native canopy is occurring within the
Puuwaawaa burn area'' (Takeuchi 1991, p. 2). Takeuchi (1991, pp. 4, 6)
also stated that ``burn events served to accelerate a decline process
already in place, compressing into days a sequence that would
ordinarily take decades,'' and concluded that in addition to increasing
the number of fires, the nonnative Pennisetum acted to suppress the
establishment of native plants after a fire.
For decades, fires have impacted rare or endangered species and
areas previously designated or proposed for critical habitat
designation in this rule (HDOFAW 2002, pp. 1, 4-6; Dayton 2007, in
litt.; Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP) 2009, pp. 1-12; Weise et al.
2010, pp. 199-220; Kakesako 2011, in litt.). On the island of Hawaii,
wildfires are caused primarily by lava flows, humans, and lightning,
all of which are exacerbated by severe drought and nonnative grasses
(e.g., Pennisetum setaceum) (Dayton 2007, in litt.; JFSP 2009, pp. 1-6;
Armstrong and Media 2010, in litt.; Weise et al. 2010, pp. 199-216;
Adkins et al. 2011, p. 17; Hawaii County Major.com-accessed September
7, 2011; Burnett 2010, in litt.; KHON2, June 6, 2011). Between 2002 and
2003, three successive lava-ignited wildfires in the east rift zone of
HVNP affected native forests in lowland dry, lowland mesic, and lowland
wet ecosystems (JFSP 2009, p. 3), cumulatively burning an estimated
11,225 ac (4,543 ha) (Wildfire News, June 9, 2003; JFSP 2009, p. 3).
These fires destroyed over 95 percent of the canopy cover in the burned
areas and encroached upon rainforests (i.e., forests in the lowland wet
ecosystem) that were previously thought to have low susceptibility or
even be relatively immune to wildfires (JFSP 2009, pp. 2-3; Wildfire
News, June 9, 2003). After the fires, nonnative ferns were reported in
the higher elevation rainforests where they had not previously been
observed, and were believed to inhibit the ability of the dominant
native Metrosideros polymorpha (ohia) trees to recover (JFSP 2003, pp.
1-2). Nonnative flammable grasses also spread in the area, under the
dead ohia trees (Ainsworth 2011, in litt.), increasing the risk of fire
in surrounding native forested areas. In 2011, the Napau Crater
wildfire, ignited by an eruption at the Kamoamoa fissure in HVNP,
consumed over 2,076 ac (840 ha), including 100 ac (40 ha) of the 2,750
ac (1,113 ha) east rift zone's special ecological area (Ainsworth 2011,
in litt.; Kakesako 2011, in litt.). Special ecological areas (SEA) are
HVNP's most intact and intensively managed natural systems (Tunison and
Stone 1992, pp. 781-798). The plant Phyllostegia floribunda, proposed
for listing in this rule, is known from the east rift zone's Napau
Crater, in the lowland wet ecosystem (Belfield 1998, pp. 9, 11-13, 23;
Pratt 2007b, in litt.; HBMP 2010h). In addition, historical records
report that the plant Cyanea tritomantha, proposed for listing in this
rule, also occurred in this area, in the same ecosystem; however the
last survey that reported this occurrence was over 25 years ago
(Lamoureux et al. 1985, pp. 105, 107-108; HBMP 2010h).
Fire is a threat to the Kona (leeward) side of Hawaii Island. In
the past 50 years, there have been three wildfires that burned 20,000
ac (8,094 ha) or more: (1) 20,000 ac (8,094 ha) burned at Puuwaawaa
Ranch in 1985; (2) 20,000 acres (8,094 ha) burned at PTA in 1994; and
(3) 25,000 ac (10,117 ha) burned in Waikoloa in 2005 (Thompson 2005, in
litt.). The only known occurrence (25 to 40 individuals) of the plant
Schiedea hawaiiensis, proposed for listing in this rule, is found on
the U.S. Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), and the 1994 fire burned
to within 2 mi (4 km) of this species (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 34;
Evans 2011, in litt.). Although this fire may seem relatively distant
from S. hawaiiensis, wildfires can travel from 4 to 8 miles per hour
(mph) (6.5 to 13 kilometers per hour (kph)), and burn 2.5 ac (1 ha) to
6 ac (2.5 ha) per minute (the equivalent of 6 to 8 football fields per
minute), depending on the fuel type, wind, and slope of land (Burn
Institute 2009, p. 4). In 2011, a 500-ac (202-ha) wildfire ignited by
lightning and fueled by nonnative Pennisetum setaceum burned within the
State's Puu Anahulu Game Management Area (GMA) and encroached within a
quarter-mile (0.5 km) of PTA (KHON2, June 6, 2011). The Puu Anahulu GMA
lies just 3 mi (5 km) northwest of the only known occurrence of S.
hawaiiensis in the montane dry ecosystem. Also in 2011, a 120-ac (49-
ha) wildfire broke out near Kaiminani Street (Jensen 2011, in litt.),
just north of Hina Lani Road, in the lowland dry ecosystem, where the
largest occurrence of the plant species Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, proposed for listing in this rule, is found. In addition,
the threat of fire to this species is increased by its occurrence in
areas bordered by residential developments, schools, and roads, which
provide numerous ignition sources from the high volume of human
traffic. A recent fire at the Villages of Laiopua subdivision at
Kealakehe, known to have been intentionally set, threatened to burn an
area that supports B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Knoche 2012, in
litt.). Although no B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla individuals were
burned, the immediate proximity of the fire to occupied and unoccupied
habitat for this species demonstrates the threat of fire to B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla in the lowland dry ecosystem at Kealakehe.
Fire is also a threat to the picture-wing fly, proposed for listing
in this rule, at one of its two known locations (the Manuka NAR) due to
the ongoing extreme drought conditions in this region and the resulting
accumulation of dead trees (i.e., fuel load), in the lowland mesic and
montane mesic ecosystems (Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
Throughout the Hawaiian Islands, increased fuel loads and human-
ignited fires caused the average acreage burned to increase five-fold
from the early 1900s (1904 to 1939) to the mid-1900s (1940 to 1976) (La
Rosa et al. 2008, p. 231). In HVNP, fires were three times more
frequent and 60 times larger, on average, from the late 1960s to 1995,
when compared to data spanning 1934 to the late 1960s (Tunison et al.
2001 in La Rosa et al. 2008, p. 231). The historical fire regimes have
been altered from typically rare events to more frequent events,
largely a result of continuous fine fuel loads associated with the
presence of the fire-tolerant, nonnative fountain grass and the grass-
fire feedback cycle that promotes its establishment (La Rosa et al.
2008, pp. 240-241; Pau 2009, in litt.). Extreme drought conditions are
also contributing to the number and intensity of the wildfires on
Hawaii Island (Armstrong and Media 2010, in litt.; Loh 2010, in litt.).
In addition, the combination of El Ni[ntilde]o conditions (see
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change,'' below) in
the Pacific, a half-century decline in annual rainfall, and
intermittent dry spells have fueled wildfires throughout all of the
main Hawaiian Islands (Marcus 2010, in litt.). The entire State is
experiencing dry conditions, but Hawaii Island appears to be
significantly impacted (Kodama 2010, in litt.; USDA-FSA 2012, in
litt.).
Fire is a threat to three plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis), and
the picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa), reported from Hawaii
Island's lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, and
montane mesic ecosystems, because individuals of these species or their
habitat are located in or near areas that were burned in previous fires
or in areas at risk for fire due to volcanic activity,
[[Page 63957]]
drought, or the presence of highly flammable nonnative grasses and
shrubs.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Hurricanes
Hurricanes adversely impact native Hawaiian terrestrial habitat and
exacerbate the impacts resulting from other threats such as habitat
degradation by ungulates and competition with nonnative plants. They do
this by destroying native vegetation, opening the canopy and thus
modifying the availability of light, and creating disturbed areas
conducive to invasion by nonnative pest species (see ``Specific
Nonnative Plant Species Impacts,'' above) (Asner and Goldstein 1997, p.
148; Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 539-540). Because many Hawaiian plant
and animal species persist in low numbers and in restricted ranges,
natural disasters, such as hurricanes, can be particularly devastating
(Mitchell et al. 2005a, pp. 3-4).
Hurricanes affecting Hawaii were only rarely reported from ships in
the area from the 1800s until 1949. Between 1950 and 1997, 22
hurricanes passed near or over the Hawaiian Islands, 5 of which caused
serious damage (Businger 1998, pp. 1-2). In November 1982, Hurricane
Iwa struck the Hawaiian Islands, with wind gusts exceeding 100 mph (161
kph), causing extensive damage, especially on the islands of Niihau,
Kauai, and Oahu (Businger 1998, pp. 2, 6). Many forest trees were
destroyed (Perlman 1992, pp. 1-9), which opened the canopy and
facilitated the invasion of nonnative plants (Kitayama and Mueller-
Dombois 1995, p. 671). Competition with nonnative plants is a threat to
9 of the 10 ecosystems that support all 13 plant species and the
picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa), proposed for listing in this
rule, as described above in ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by
Nonnative Plants.'' Nonnative plants also compete with the native host
plants of the picture-wing fly.
In addition to the habitat destruction and nonnative plant
introduction resulting from hurricanes, high winds and intense rains
from hurricanes can directly kill individual picture-wing flies to the
point of decimating an entire population (Carson 1986, p. 7; Foote and
Carson 1995, pp. 369-370). High winds can also dislodge fly larvae from
their host plants, destroy host plants, and expose the fly larvae to
predation by nonnative yellowjacket wasps (see ``Factor C. Disease or
Predation,'' below) (Carson 1986, p. 7; Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371).
Since 1950, 13 hurricanes have passed near but not over Hawaii
Island. Eleven of these hurricanes brought heavy rain, strong wind, or
high surf to the island, which caused erosion, flash floods, and other
damage (Fletcher III et al. 2002, pp. 11-17; National Weather Service
et al. 2010, pp. 1-22). In 1994, tropical depression 1C brought over 14
in (36 cm) of rain in just a few days to windward sections of Hawaii
Island (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1994, pp. 4-
5; National Weather Service et al. 2010, pp. 4-5).
Although there is historical evidence of only one hurricane (1861)
that approached from the east and impacted the islands of Maui and
Hawaii (Businger 1998, p.3), damage from future hurricanes could
further decrease the remaining native plant-dominated habitat areas
that support the 13 plant species, and the picture-wing fly proposed
for listing in this rule in 9 of the described ecosystems (coastal,
lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic,
montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff).
Habitat Destruction and Modification Due to Rockfalls, Treefalls,
Landslides, Heavy Rain, Erosion, and Drought
Rockfalls, treefalls, landslides, heavy rain, and erosion damage
and destroy individual plants, destabilize substrates, and alter
hydrological patterns that result in changes to native plant and animal
communities. In the open sea near Hawaii, rainfall averages 25 to 30 in
(635 to 762 mm) per year, yet the islands may receive up to 15 times
this amount in some places, caused by orographic features (physical
geography of mountains) (Wagner et al. 1999a, pp. 36-44). During
storms, rain may fall at 3 in (76 mm) per hour or more, and sometimes
may reach nearly 40 in (1,000 mm) in 24 hours, causing destructive
flash-flooding in streams and narrow gulches (Wagner et al. 1999a, pp.
36-44). Due to the steep topography of some areas on Hawaii Island
where 4 of the 13 plants proposed for listing in this rule remain,
erosion and disturbance caused by introduced ungulates exacerbates the
potential for rockfalls, treefalls, and landslides, which in turn are a
threat to native plants. Such events have the potential to eliminate
all individuals of a population, or even all populations of a species,
resulting in a greater likelihood of extinction due to the lack of
redundancy and resilience of the species caused by their reduced
numbers and geographic range.
Rockfalls, treefalls, landslides, heavy rain, and subsequent
erosion are a threat to four of the plant species (Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha,
and Cyrtandra wagneri) addressed in this proposed rule (Lorence and
Perlman 2007, p. 359; PEPP 2010, p. 52; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Monitoring data from PEPP and other field biologists and surveyors
suggest that these four species are threatened by these events as they
are found in landscape settings susceptible to these events (e.g., lava
tubes, stream banks, steep slopes and cliffs). Field survey data
presented by PEPP and other field biologists document that individuals
of Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana that occur on steep sea
cliffs are threatened by rockfalls and landslides, 1 of the 27 known
individuals of Cyanea marksii is threatened by falling rocks and
landslides, and individuals of Cyanea tritomantha are threatened by
treefalls (PEPP 2007, p. 52; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Field survey data
presented by Lorence and Perlman (2007, p. 359) suggest that heavy
rains and subsequent erosion threaten the only known location of
Cyrtandra wagneri on a stream bank in the Laupahoehoe NAR. Since
Cyrtandra wagneri is currently only known from a total of eight
individuals along the steep banks of Kilau Stream, heavy rains and
erosion could lead to near extirpation or even extinction of this
species by direct destruction of the individual plants, mechanical
damage to individual plants that could lead to their death, or
destabilization of the stream bank habitat leading to additional
erosion.
Two plant species, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Schiedea
hawaiiensis, and the picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa), proposed
for listing in this rule may also be affected by habitat loss or
degradation associated with droughts, which are not uncommon in the
Hawaiian Islands (HDLNR 2009, pp. 1-6; Hawaii State Civil Defense 2011,
pp. 14-1-14-12; U.S. National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) 2012--
Online Archives). Between 1901 and 2011, there have been at least 18
serious or severe droughts that have impacted Hawaii Island, including
the current drought that began in 2008 and has led to the island's
first ever drought exceptional designation (the highest drought level
rating on the scale) (between March and December of 2010) (HDLNR 2009,
pp. 1-6; Hawaii Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14-1-14-12). According to the
NDMC's drought rating system, most of the island has been rated as in
severe drought since 2008, with extreme drought ratings intermittently
in some
[[Page 63958]]
portions of the island (NDMC 2012--Online Archives). Giambelluca et al.
(1991, pp. 3-4) compiled descriptive accounts of drought throughout the
Hawaiian Islands between 1860 and 1986, and found that 87 episodes of
drought occurred on Hawaii Island between those years, although some of
those episodes occurred for periods as short as one month. The 2011
winter weather system brought periods of heavy rain from Kauai to Maui;
however these systems weakened or moved away from Hawaii Island,
leaving the typically wet windward slopes of the island under moderate
drought conditions (NOAA 2011--Online Climate Data Center). The entire
windward side of Hawaii Island is currently in an abnormally dry state
(NDMC 2011--Online Archives; NDMC 2012--Online Archives).
Pohakuloa Training Area (the location of the only known individuals
of the plant Schiedea hawaiiensis) was rated as experiencing extreme
drought during the spring of 2011 (Hawaii State Civil Defense 2011, pp.
14-1-14-12), and in 2010, as well as most of north and south Kona.
North Kona, including the lowland dry ecosystem that supports the
largest occurrence of the plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, has
been experiencing conditions of extreme to severe drought over the past
few years. One of the two known extant populations of the picture-wing
fly (Drosophila digressa) is found in the lowland mesic ecosystem in
south Kona, in an area that has also experienced extreme to severe
drought over the past few years. Drought alters the decay processes of
the picture-wing fly's host plants and the entire plant community on
which the fly depends. Monitoring data collected in HVNP during a
drought period between 1981 and 1982 suggest that drought was
associated with a reduction in the number of picture-wing flies one
year following the drought (Carson 1986, pp. 4, 7). In addition, the
ongoing drought in south Kona has resulted in an increasing
accumulation of dead trees in the Manuka NAR, which increases the fuel
load and threat of wildfires in the area where one of the two known
occurrences of the picture-wing fly occurs (Magnacca 2011b, pers.
comm.).
Severe episodes of drought cannot only directly kill individuals of
a species or entire populations, but drought frequently leads to an
increase in the number and intensity of forest and brush fires (see
``Habitat Degradation and Modification by Fire,'' above), causing a
reduction of native plant cover and habitat, an increase in nonnative
plant and animal species, and a reduction in availability of host
plants for the picture-wing fly (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v;
D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 77-79; HDLNR 2009, pp. 1-6; Hawaii
Civil Defense 2011, pp. 14-1-14-12). Ecosystems altered by drought and
subsequent fires are further altered by the introduction of nonnative
species that outcompete native species for basic life-cycle
requirements (see ``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Nonnative
Plants,'' above). To further exacerbate the situation, nonnative
ungulate patterns may be altered as observed on Maui, where recent
episodes of drought have driven axis deer (Axis axis) farther into
urban and forested areas for food, increasing their negative impacts to
native vegetation from herbivory and trampling (Waring 1996, in litt.,
p. 5; Nishibayashi 2001, in litt.). Due to the recent widespread
increase in frequency and intensity of drought on the island of Hawaii,
even the wettest forests on the windward side of the island may be
threatened by long-term drought (JFSP 2009, pp. 1-12). Prolonged
periods of water deprivation caused by drought can also lead to the
direct death of the remaining individuals of the plants Schiedea
hawaiiensis and Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and the picture-wing
fly, possibly leading to extinction of one or more of these species.
Drought is a direct threat to two of the plant species (Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Schiedea hawaiiensis), and the picture-
wing fly (Drosophila digressa), proposed for listing in this rule, as
discussed above.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of ongoing and
projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and ``climate
change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the mean and variability of different
types of weather conditions over time, with 30 years being a typical
period for such measurements, although shorter or longer periods also
may be used (Le Treut et al. 2007, pp. 93-127). The term ``climate
change'' thus refers to a change in the mean or variability of one or
more measures of climate (e.g., temperature or precipitation) that
persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer, whether
the change is due to natural variability, human activity, or both (Le
Treut et al. 2007, pp. 93-127). Various types of changes in climate can
have direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be
positive, neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending
on the species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects
of interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat
fragmentation) (IPCC 2007, pp. 8-14, 18-19). In our analyses, we use
our expert judgment to weigh relevant information, including
uncertainty, in our consideration of various aspects of climate change.
Climate change will be a particular challenge for the conservation
of biodiversity because the introduction and interaction of additional
stressors may push species beyond their ability to survive (Lovejoy
2005, pp. 325-326). The synergistic implications of climate change and
habitat fragmentation are the most threatening facet of climate change
for biodiversity (Hannah et al. 2005, p. 4).
The magnitude and intensity of the impacts of global climate change
and increasing temperatures on native Hawaiian ecosystems are unknown.
Currently, there are no climate change studies that specifically
address impacts to the Hawaii Island ecosystems discussed here or the
15 species proposed for listing that are associated with these
ecosystems. Based on the best available information, climate change
impacts could lead to the loss of native species that comprise the
communities in which the 15 species occur (Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-
612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et al. 2002, pp. 14,246-14,248;
Allen et al. 2010, pp. 660-662; Sturrock et al. 2011, p. 144; Towsend
et al. 2011, p. 15; Warren 2011, pp. 221-226). In addition, weather
regime changes (droughts, floods) will likely result from increased
annual average temperatures related to more frequent El Ni[ntilde]o
episodes in Hawaii (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v). Future changes in
precipitation and the forecast of those changes are highly uncertain
because they depend, in part, on how the El Ni[ntilde]o-La Ni[ntilde]a
weather cycle (a disruption of the ocean atmospheric system in the
tropical Pacific having important global consequences for weather and
climate) might change (State of Hawaii 1998, pp. 2-10). The 15 species
proposed for listing may be especially vulnerable to extinction due to
anticipated environmental changes that may result from global climate
change, due to their small population size and highly restricted
ranges. Environmental changes that may affect these species are
expected to include habitat loss or alteration and changes in
disturbance regimes (e.g., storms and hurricanes).
[[Page 63959]]
Climate Change and Ambient Temperature
The average ambient air temperature (at sea level) is projected to
increase by about 4.1 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (2.3 degrees
Centigrade ([deg]C)) with a range of 2.7[emsp14][deg]F to
6.7[emsp14][deg]F (1.5 [deg]C to 3.7 [deg]C) by 2100 worldwide
(Trenberth et al. 2007, pp. 235-336). These changes would increase the
monthly average temperature of the Hawaiian Islands from the current
value of 74[emsp14][deg]F (23.3 [deg]C) to between 77[emsp14][deg]F and
86[emsp14][deg]F (25 [deg]C and 30 [deg]C). Historically, temperature
has been rising over the last 100 years, with the greatest increase
after 1975 (Alexander et al. 2006, pp. 1-22; Giambelluca et al. 2008,
p. 1). The rate of increase at low elevation (0.16[emsp14][deg]F; 0.09
[deg]C) per decade is below the observed global temperature rise of
0.32[emsp14][deg]F (0.18 [deg]C) per decade (Trenberth et al. 2007, pp.
235-336). However, at high elevations, the rate of increase
(0.48[emsp14][deg]F (0.27 [deg]C) per decade) greatly exceeds the
global rate (Trenberth et al. 2007, pp. 235-336).
Overall, the daily temperature range in Hawaii is decreasing,
resulting in a warmer environment, especially at higher elevations and
at night. In the main Hawaiian Islands, predicted changes associated
with increases in temperature include a shift in vegetation zones
upslope, shift in animal species' ranges, changes in mean precipitation
with unpredictable effects on local environments, increased occurrence
of drought cycles, and increases in the intensity and number of
hurricanes (Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 514-515; U.S. Global Change
Research Program (US-GCRP) 2009, pp. 1-188). In addition, weather
regime changes (e.g., droughts, floods) will likely result from
increased annual average temperatures related to more frequent El
Ni[ntilde]o episodes in Hawaii (Giambelluca et al. 1991, p. v).
However, despite considerable progress made by expert scientists toward
understanding the impacts of climate change on many of the processes
that contribute to El Ni[ntilde]o variability, it is not possible to
say whether or not El Ni[ntilde]o activity will be affected by climate
change (Collins et al. 2010, p. 391).
Globally, the warming atmosphere is creating a plethora of
anticipated and unanticipated environmental changes such as melting ice
caps, decline in annual snow mass, sea-level rise, ocean acidification,
increase in storm frequency and intensity (e.g., hurricanes, cyclones,
and tornadoes), and altered precipitation patterns that contribute to
regional increases in floods, heat waves, drought, and wildfires that
also displace species and alter or destroy natural ecosystems (Pounds
et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; IPCC AR4 2007, pp. 26-73; Marshall et al.
2008, p. 273; U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2008, pp. 1-164;
Flannigan et al. 2009, p. 483; US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188; Allen et al.
2010, pp. 660-662; Warren 2011, pp. 221-226). These environmental
changes are predicted to alter species migration patterns, lifecycles,
and ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycles, water availability,
and decomposition (IPCC AR4 2007, pp. 26-73; Pounds et al. 1999, pp.
611-612; Sturrock et al. 2011, p. 144; Townsend et al. 2011, p. 15;
Warren 2011, pp. 221-226). The species extinction rate is predicted to
increase congruent with ambient temperature increase (US-GCRP 2009, pp.
1-188). In Hawaii, these environmental changes associated with a rise
in ambient temperature can directly and indirectly impact the survival
of native plants and animals, including the 15 species proposed for
listing in this rule, and the ecosystems that support them.
Climate Change and Precipitation
As global surface temperature rises, the evaporation of water vapor
increases, resulting in higher concentrations of water vapor in the
atmosphere, further resulting in altered global precipitation patterns
(U.S. National Science and Technology Council (US-NSTC) 2008, pp. 69-
94; US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188). While annual global precipitation has
increased over the last 100 years, the combined effect of increases in
evaporation and evapotranspiration is causing land surface drying in
some regions leading to a greater incidence and severity of drought
(US-NSTC 2008, pp. 69-94; US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188). Over the past 100
years, the Hawaiian Islands have experienced an annual decline in
precipitation of just over 9 percent (US-NSTC 2008, p. 70). Other data
on precipitation in Hawaii, which include sea-level precipitation and
the added orographic effects, show a steady and significant decline of
about 15 percent over the last 15 to 20 years (Chu and Chen 2005, p.
4,881-4,900; Diaz et al. 2005, pp. 1-3). Exact future changes in
precipitation in Hawaii and the forecast of those changes are uncertain
because they depend, in part, on how the El Ni[ntilde]o-La Ni[ntilde]a
weather cycle might change (State of Hawaii 1998, pp. 2-10).
In the oceans around Hawaii, the average annual rainfall at sea
level is about 25 in (63.5 cm). The orographic features of the islands
increase this annual average to about 70 in (177.8 cm) but can exceed
240 in (609.6 cm) in the wettest mountain areas. Rainfall is
distributed unevenly across each high island, and rainfall gradients
are extreme (approximately 25 in (63.5 cm) per mile), creating both
very dry and very wet areas. Global climate modeling predicts that, by
2100, net precipitation at sea level near the Hawaiian Islands will
decrease in winter by about 4 to 6 percent, with no significant change
during summer (IPCC AR4 2007, pp. 1-73). Downscaling of global climate
models indicates that wet-season (winter) precipitation will decrease
by 5 percent to 10 percent, while dry-season (summer) precipitation
will increase by about 5 percent (Timm and Diaz 2009, pp. 4,261-4,280).
These data are also supported by a steady decline in stream flow
beginning in the early 1940s (Oki 2004, p. 1). Altered seasonal
moisture regimes can have negative impacts on plant growth cycles and
overall negative impacts on natural ecosystems (US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-
188). Long periods of decline in annual precipitation result in a
reduction in moisture availability; an increase in drought frequency
and intensity; and a self-perpetuating cycle of nonnative plants, fire,
and erosion (US-GCRP 2009, pp. 1-188; Warren 2011, pp. 221-226) (see
``Habitat Destruction and Modification by Fire,'' above). These impacts
may negatively affect the 15 species proposed for listing in this rule
and the 10 ecosystems that support them.
Climate Change, and Tropical Cyclone Frequency and Intensity
A tropical cyclone is the generic term for a medium- to large-
scale, low-pressure storm system over tropical or subtropical waters
with organized convection (i.e., thunderstorm activity) and definite
cyclonic surface wind circulation (counterclockwise direction in the
Northern Hemisphere) (Holland 1993, pp. 1-8). In the Northeast Pacific
Ocean, east of the International Date Line, once a tropical cyclone
reaches an intensity of winds of at least 74 mi per hour (33 m per
second), it is considered a hurricane (Neumann 1993, pp. 1-2). Climate
modeling has projected changes in tropical cyclone frequency and
intensity due to global warming over the next 100 to 200 years (Vecchi
and Soden 2007, pp. 1,068-1,069, Figures 2 and 3; Emanuel et al. 2008,
p. 360, Figure 8; Yu et al. 2010, p. 1,371, Figure 14). The frequency
of hurricanes generated by tropical cyclones is projected to decrease
in the central Pacific (e.g., the main and Northwestern Hawaiian
Islands) while storm intensity (strength) is projected to increase by a
few percent over this period (Vecchi and Soden
[[Page 63960]]
2007, pp. 1,068-1,069, Figures 2 and 3; Emanuel et al. 2008, p. 360,
Figure 8; Yu et al. 2010, p. 1,371, Figure 14). There are no climate
model predictions for a change in the duration of Pacific tropical
cyclone storm season (which generally runs from May through November).
In general, tropical cyclones with the intensities of hurricanes
have been a rare occurrence in the Hawaiian Islands. From the 1800s
until 1949, hurricanes were only rarely reported from ships in the
area. Between 1950 and 1997, 22 hurricanes passed near or over the
Hawaiian Islands, 5 of which caused serious damage (Businger 1998, pp.
1-2). Hurricanes may cause destruction of native vegetation and open
the native canopy, allowing for invasion by nonnative plant species
that compete for space, water, and nutrients, and alter basic water and
nutrient cycling processes leading to decreased growth and reproduction
for all 13 plant species in this proposed rule (see Table 3, above)
(Perlman 1992, pp. 1-9; Kitayama and Mueller-Dombois 1995, p. 671).
Hurricanes also constitute a threat to the picture-wing fly proposed
for listing as a result of their high winds that may dislodge larvae
from their host plants, thereby increasing the likelihood of mortality
caused by lack of essential nutrients for proper development or
increased exposure to predators, such as nonnative yellowjacket wasps
and ants, and destruction of host plants (see ``Factor C. Disease or
Predation,'' below). Although there is historical evidence of only one
hurricane that approached from the east and impacted the islands of
Maui and Hawaii (Businger 1998, p.3), damage by future hurricanes could
further decrease the remaining native plant-dominated habitat areas
that support the 13 plant species and the picture-wing fly (Drosophila
digressa) proposed for listing in this rule, in nine of the described
ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane
dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff and wet cliff).
Climate Change, and Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Inundation
On a global scale, sea level is rising as a result of thermal
expansion of warming ocean water; the melting of ice sheets, glaciers,
and ice caps; and the addition of water from terrestrial systems
(Climate Institute 2011, in litt.). Sea level rose at an average rate
of 0.1 in (1.8 mm) per year between 1961 and 2003 (IPCC 2007, pp. 30-
73), and the predicted increase by the end of this century, without
accounting for ice sheet flow, ranges from 0.6 ft to 2.0 ft (0.18 m to
0.6 m) (IPCC AR4 2007, p. 30). When ice sheet and glacial melt are
incorporated into models the average estimated increase in sea level by
the year 2100 is approximately 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m), with some
estimates as high as 6.6 ft (2.0 m) to 7.8 ft (2.4 m) (Rahmstorf 2007,
pp. 368-370; Pfeffer et al. 2008, p. 1,340; Fletcher 2009, p. 7; US-
GCRP 2009, p. 18). The species Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana occurs within the coastal ecosystem. Although there is
no specific data available on how sea-level rise and coastal inundation
will impact this species, its occurrence in close proximity to the
coastline places it at risk of the threat of sea level rise and coastal
inundation due to climate change.
In summary, increased interannual variability of ambient
temperature, precipitation, hurricanes, and sea-level rise and
inundation would provide additional stresses on 9 of the 10 ecosystems
(all except the anchialine pool ecosystem) and 14 of the 15 associated
species (all except the anchialine pool shrimp) proposed for listing in
this rule because they are highly vulnerable to disturbance and related
invasion of nonnative species. The probability of a species going
extinct as a result of such factors increases when its range is
restricted, habitat decreases, and population numbers decline (IPCC
2007, pp. 8-11). In addition, these 14 species may be at a greater risk
of extinction due to the loss of redundancy and resiliency created by
their limited ranges, restricted habitat requirements, small population
sizes, or low numbers of individuals. Therefore, we would expect these
14 species to be particularly vulnerable to projected environmental
impacts that may result from changes in climate and subsequent impacts
to their habitats (e.g., Loope and Giambelluca 1998, pp. 504-505;
Pounds et al. 1999, pp. 611-612; Still et al. 1999, p. 610; Benning et
al. 2002, pp. 14,246-14,248; Giambelluca and Luke 2007, pp. 13-18).
Based on the above information, we conclude that changes in
environmental conditions that result from climate change are likely to
negatively impact 14 of the 15 species (all except the anchialine pool
shrimp) proposed for listing in this rule, and exacerbate other
threats. This potential threat will increase in the near future.
Habitat Destruction and Modification by Sedimentation
Anchialine pool habitats can gradually disappear when organic and
mineral deposits from aquatic production and wind-blown materials
accumulate through a process known as senescence (Maciolek and Brock
1974, p. 3; Brock 2004, pp. 11, 35-36). Conditions promoting rapid
senescence are known to include an increased amount of sediment
deposition, good exposure to light, shallowness, and a weak connection
with the water table, resulting in sediment and detritus accumulating
within the pool instead of being flushed away with tidal exchanges and
groundwater flow (Maciolek and Brock 1974, p. 3; Brock 2004, pp. 11,
35-36).
Based upon what we know about healthy anchialine pool systems
(Brock 2004, pp. 11, 35-36), it is our understanding that one or more
factors including increased sedimentation, may be synergistically
degrading the health of the Lua O Palahemo pool system. Sedimentation
is likely reducing the capacity of the pool to produce adequate
cyanobacteria and algae to support some of the pool's `herbivorous'
hypogeal shrimp species. A decreased food supply (i.e., a reduction in
cyanobacteria and algae) would likely lead to a lower abundance of
herbivorous hypogeal shrimp species as well as a lower abundance of the
known carnivorous species, Metabetaeus lohena, and possibly Vetericaris
chaceorum, whose gut contents contained fragments of other crustaceans
(including Procaris hawaiiana, a co-occurring anchialine pool shrimp),
indicating that the species may be carnivorous upon its associated
anchialine pool shrimp species (see above, Description of the 15
Species Proposed for Listing).
A second factor is that increased sedimentation in Lua O Palahemo
may be overloading the capacity of the pool and lava tube below to
adequately flush water to maintain the water quality needed to support
the micro-organisms that are fed upon by several of the pool's shrimp
species (e.g., Calliasmata pholidota, Halocaridina palahemo,
Halocaridina rubra, and Procaris hawaiiana) and their associated shrimp
predators, Antecaridina lauensis and Vetericaris chaceorum (Brock 2004,
pp. 10-11, 16).
A third factor that may be contributing to the degradation of the
health of the Lua O Palahemo pool system is that increased
sedimentation and an inability of the pool system to adequately flush
its waters, are either diminishing or preventing migration and
recolonization of the pool by the hypogeal shrimp species from the
surrounding porous watertable bedrock. In other words, this lack of
porosity may be affecting the movement of shrimp to and from food
resources, and the
[[Page 63961]]
accumulating sedimentation and detritus reduce productivity within the
pool. This reduction in productivity reduces the carrying capacity of
the habitat to support hypogeal shrimp like Vetericaris chaceorum
(Brock 2004, p. 10). Indeed, Brock (2004, p. 16) has established that
pool productivity and shrimp presence are interdependent. In some
cases, a pool that loses its shrimp populations due, for example, to
the introduction of nonnative fish, more quickly loses its capacity to
support shrimp in the future as a result of excessive buildup of algae
and cyanobacterial mats that block and impede the pool's ability to
flush and maintain necessary water quality (Brock 2004, p. 16).
As described above, in 1985, visibility within the lava tube
portion of Lua O Palahemo was as great as 20 m (66 ft). During this
dive survey, Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 418) estimated that other
species of hypogeal shrimp co-occurring with Vetericaris chaceorum
numbered in the tens of thousands for Halocaridina sp., in the
thousands for Procaris hawaiana, and less than 100 for Calliasmata sp.
By 2010, visibility had been reduced to 8 cm (3 in) within the pool
itself, and underwater video taken during the survey shows continuous
clouds of thick sediment and detritus within the water column below the
pool. During this survey, only one P. hawaiiana individual was trapped,
and seven others were observed in the video footage. No other species
of shrimp, including V. chaceorum, were observed during the 2010 survey
(Wada 2010, in litt.). Kensley and Williams (1986, p. 426) reported
fragments of crustaceans, including P. hawaiiana, in gut contents of V.
chaceorum. While P. hawaiiana occurs in other anchialine pool habitats
on Hawaii Island and Maui, V. chaceorum is currently only known from
Lua O Palahemo. A reduction in the abundance of P. hawaiiana may
indicate a loss of food resources for V. chaceorum, although further
research is needed to confirm this.
During the 2010 survey, it was discovered that a possible partial
collapse of the interior rock walls of Lua O Palahemo pool may have
occurred and caused the difficulty experienced by the survey team to
bodily survey to any depth below the pool's surface (Wada 2010, in
litt.). This collapse may also be contributing to reduced flushing in
the pool portion of Lua O Palahemo, leading to an accumulation of
sediment and detritus in the pool. This accumulation of sediment could
certainly reduce both food productivity (i.e., reduce the abundance and
availability of other species of hypogeal shrimp co-occurring with
Vetericaris chaceorum) and the ability of V. chaceorum and other
species of hypogeal shrimp co-occurring with V. chaceorum to move
between the pool and the water table, thus leading to a reduction of
their numbers within the pool. The degradation of Lua O Palahemo by
senescence from sedimentation is a threat to the continued existence of
V. chaceorum by degrading the conditions of the only known anchialine
pool that supports this species and by reducing available food
resources (Brock 2004, pp. 10-11, 16).
Summary of Factor A
The threats to the habitats of the 15 species proposed for listing
in this rule occur throughout the entire range of each of the species.
These threats include land conversion by agriculture and urbanization,
nonnative ungulates and plants, fire, natural disasters, environmental
changes resulting from climate change, sedimentation, and the
interaction of these threats.
Development and urbanization of lowland dry habitat on Hawaii
Island represents a serious and ongoing threat to Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla because of loss and degradation of habitat.
The effects from ungulates are serious and ongoing because
ungulates currently occur in all of the 10 ecosystems that support the
15 species proposed for listing in this rule. Ungulates are a direct
threat to the 13 plant species, the anchialine pool shrimp (Vetericaris
chaceorum), and the picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa) proposed for
listing in this rule (see Table 3), because they cause: (1) Trampling
and grazing that directly impact the plant communities, including the
plant species proposed for listing, and impact the host plants used by
the picture-wing fly for shelter, foraging, and reproduction; (2)
increased soil disturbance, leading to mechanical damage to individuals
of the plant species proposed for listing, and also plants used by the
picture-wing fly for shelter, foraging, and reproduction; (3) creation
of open, disturbed areas conducive to weedy plant invasion and
establishment of alien plants from dispersed fruits and seeds, which
results over time in the conversion of a community dominated by native
vegetation to one dominated by nonnative vegetation (leading to all of
the negative impacts associated with nonnative plants, listed below);
and (4) increased erosion, followed by sedimentation affecting the
anchialine pool habitat of V. chaceorum. These threats are expected to
continue or increase without ungulate control or eradication.
Nonnative plants represent a serious and ongoing threat to 14 of
the 15 species proposed for listing (all 13 plant species and the
picture-wing fly (see Table 3)) through habitat destruction and
modification, because they: (1) Adversely impact microhabitat by
modifying the availability of light; (2) alter soil-water regimes; (3)
modify nutrient cycling processes; (4) alter fire characteristics of
native plant habitat, leading to incursions of fire-tolerant nonnative
plant species into native habitat; (5) outcompete, and possibly
directly inhibit the growth of, native plant species; and (6) create
opportunities for subsequential establishment of nonnative vertebrates
and invertebrates. Each of these threats can convert native-dominated
plant communities to nonnative plant communities (Cuddihy and Stone
1990, p. 74; Vitousek 1992, pp. 33-35). This conversion has negative
impacts on all 13 plant species addressed here, as well as the native
plant species upon which the picture-wing fly depends for essential
life-history needs.
The threat from fire to 4 of the 15 species in this proposed rule
that depend on lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry,
and montane mesic ecosystems (the plants Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis, and the
picture-wing fly; see Table 3) is serious and ongoing because fire
damages and destroys native vegetation, including dormant seeds,
seedlings, and juvenile and adult plants. Many nonnative, invasive
plants, particularly fire-tolerant grasses, outcompete native plants
and inhibit their regeneration (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 70,
73-74; Tunison et al. 2002, p. 122). Successive fires that burn farther
and farther into native habitat destroy native plants and remove
habitat for native species by altering microclimatic conditions and
creating conditions favorable to alien plants. The threat from fire is
unpredictable but increasing in frequency in ecosystems that have been
invaded by nonnative fire-prone grasses, and that are experiencing
abnormally dry to severe drought conditions.
Natural disasters such as hurricanes are a threat to native
Hawaiian terrestrial habitat including 9 of the 10 ecosystems (all
except the anchialine pool ecosystem) addressed here, and the 13 plant
species identified in this rule, because they result in direct impacts
to ecosystems and individual plants by opening the forest canopy,
modifying
[[Page 63962]]
available light, and creating disturbed areas that are conducive to
invasion by nonnative pest plants (Asner and Goldstein 1997, p. 148;
Harrington et al. 1997, pp. 346-347). In addition, hurricanes threaten
the picture-wing fly species proposed for listing in this rule because
strong winds and intense rainfall can kill individual host plants, and
can dislodge individual flies and their larvae from their host plants
and deposit them on the ground where they may be crushed by falling
debris or eaten by nonnative wasps and ants. The impacts of hurricanes
and other stochastic natural events can be particularly devastating to
14 of the species (all except the anchialine pool shrimp) proposed for
listing because, as a result of other threats, they now persist in low
numbers or occur in restricted ranges and are therefore less resilient
to such disturbances, rendering them highly vulnerable to extirpation.
Furthermore, a particularly destructive hurricane holds the potential
of driving a localized endemic species to extinction in a single event.
Hurricanes pose an ongoing and ever-present threat because they are
unpredictable and can happen at any time.
Rockfalls, treefalls, landsides, heavy rain, and erosion are a
threat to four of the species proposed for listing (the plants Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha,
and Cyrtandra wagneri; see Table 3) by destabilizing substrates,
damaging and destroying individual plants, and altering hydrological
patterns, which result in habitat destruction or modification and
changes to native plant and animal communities. Drought threatens two
plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Schiedea
hawaiiensis) and the picture-wing fly (Drosophila digressa) by the loss
or degradation of habitat due to death of individual native plants and
host tree species, as well as an increase in forest and brush fires.
These threats are serious and unpredictable, and have the potential to
occur at any time.
Changes in environmental conditions that may result from global
climate change include increasing temperatures, decreasing
precipitation, increasing storm intensities, and sea-level rise and
coastal inundation. The consequent impacts on the 15 species proposed
for listing here are related to changes in microclimatic conditions in
their habitats. These changes may lead to the loss of native species
due to direct physiological stress, the loss or alteration of habitat,
or changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., droughts, fire, storms, and
hurricanes). However, the specific and cumulative effects of climate
change on the 15 species are presently unknown, and we are not able to
determine the extent of this possible threat with confidence.
Erosion and resulting sedimentation of the Lua O Palahemo pool
system is a threat to the anchialine pool shrimp (Vetericaris
chaceorum). The sedimentation of the pool may also change the water
chemistry (i.e., salinity and dissolved oxygen) of the pool and the
ability of the pool to support hypogeal anchialine pool shrimp such as
V. chaceorum, although further research is needed. Accumulation of
sediment and detritus reduces the abundance of food resources, such as
P. hawaiana and other co-occurring hypogeal shrimp, for V. chaceorum,
although further research is needed to confirm this. In addition,
sedimentation degrades the conditions of the only anchialine pool known
to support V. chaceorum.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes
The plant species Pritchardia lanigera is threatened by
overcollection for commercial and recreational purposes (Hillebrand
1888, pp. 21-27; Chapin et al. 2004, pp. 273, 278). We are aware that
some species of Hawaiian anchialine pool shrimp are sold and purchased
on the Internet; however we do not believe that the proposed anchialine
pool shrimp is threatened by overcollection for commercial or
recreational purposes due to the remoteness of its currently known
location and difficulty of accessing this species within the deeper
lava tube portions of the Lua O Palahemo anchialine pool. We are not
aware of any threats to the remaining 12 plant species or the picture-
wing fly addressed in this proposed rule that would be attributed to
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational
purposes.
Pritchardia lanigera
The genus Pritchardia has 28 known species, 14 of which are endemic
to the Hawaiian Islands, and its range is restricted to the Pacific
archipelagos of Hawaii, Fiji, the Cook Islands, Tonga, and Tuamotus
(Chapin et al. 2004, p. 273). Pritchardia palms have been valued as
collectibles for centuries (Hillebrand 1888, pp. 21-27; Chapin et al.
2004, pp. 273, 278). In 1888, botanist Wilhelm Hillebrand noted that,
``* * * one species of Pritchardia in Nuuanu, * * * was completely
exterminated when natives found that the trees were saleable to
amateurs of gardening in Honolulu.'' Pritchardia has become one of the
most widely cultivated ornamental palm genera in the world (Maunder et
al. 2001 in Chapin et al. 2004, p. 278). There is an international
trade in Pritchardia seeds and seedlings that has created a market in
which individual Pritchardia seeds sell for 5 to 35 dollars each
(Chapin et al. 2004, p. 278; Clark 2010, in litt.; rarepalmseeds.com).
Most seeds sold are cultivated; however, wild collection of some
``highly-threatened'' species does occur (Chapin et al. 2004, p. 278).
There are over a dozen internet Web sites that offer Hawaiian
Pritchardia plants and seeds for sale, including Pritchardia lanigera
(e.g., eBay.com; google.com). Based on the history of collection of
endemic Hawaiian Pritchardia plants and seeds, the market for Hawaiian
Pritchardia plants and seeds, and the vulnerability of the small
populations of Pritchardia lanigera to the negative impacts of any
collection, we consider overcollection of Pritchardia lanigera to pose
a serious and ongoing threat, because it can occur at any time,
although its occurrence is not predictable.
Anchialine Pool Shrimp
While we are aware of only one collection of the anchialine pool
shrimp Vetericaris chaceorum for scientific and educational purposes
(Kensley and Williams, 1986, pp. 419-429), there is no information
available that indicates this species has ever been collected for
commercial or recreational purposes. Other Hawaiian anchialine pool
shrimp (e.g., opaeula (Halocaridina rubra)) and the candidate species
Metabetaeus lohena (NCN) are collected for the aquarium market (e.g.,
Fuku-Bonsai.com; ecosaqua.com; eBay.com; and, seahorse.com), including
self-contained aquariums similar to those marketed by Ecosphere
Associates, Inc. (Ecosphere Associates 2011, p. 1). Two of these
companies are located in Hawaii (FukuBonsai and Stockly's Aquariums of
Hawaii). However, we believe the anchialine pool shrimp proposed for
listing in this rule is not likely to be among those species collected
for commercial or recreational purposes given the species' limited
distribution and generally inaccessible habitat. Therefore, we do not
consider overcollection to pose a threat to Vetericaris chaceorum.
Summary of Overcollection for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
We have no evidence to suggest that overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes poses a threat to 12
of the 13
[[Page 63963]]
plant species, the picture-wing fly, or the anchialine pool shrimp
proposed for listing in this rule. The plant species Pritchardia
lanigera is vulnerable to the impacts of overutilization due to
collection for trade or market. Based on the history of collection of
endemic Hawaiian Pritchardia spp., the market for Hawaiian Pritchardia
trees and seeds, and the inherent vulnerability of the small
populations of Pritcharidia lanigera to the removal of individuals
(seeds), we consider collection to pose a serious and ongoing threat to
this species.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
Disease
We are not aware of any threats to the 13 plant species, anchialine
pool shrimp, or picture-wing fly, proposed for listing in this rule
that would be attributable to disease.
Predation and Herbivory
Hawaii's plants and animals evolved in nearly complete isolation
from continental influences. Successful colonization of these remote
volcanic islands was infrequent, and many organisms never succeeded in
establishing populations. As an example, Hawaii lacks any native ants
or conifers, has very few families of birds, and has only a single
native land mammal--a bat (Loope 1998, p. 748). In the absence of any
grazing or browsing mammals, plants that became established did not
need mechanical or chemical defenses against mammalian herbivory such
as thorns, prickles, and production of toxins. As the evolutionary
pressure to either produce or maintain such defenses was lacking,
Hawaiian plants either lost or never developed these adaptations
(Carlquist 1980, p. 173). Likewise, native Hawaiian birds and insects
experienced no evolutionary pressure to develop anti-predator
mechanisms against mammals or invertebrates that were not historically
present on the island. The native flora and fauna of the islands are
thus particularly vulnerable to the impacts of introduced nonnative
species, as discussed below.
Introduced Ungulates
In addition to the habitat impacts discussed above (see ``Habitat
Destruction and Modification by Introduced Ungulates'' under Factor A.
The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of
Its Habitat or Range), introduced ungulates and their resulting impacts
are a threat to the 13 plant species in this proposal by grazing and
browsing individual plants (this information is also presented in Table
3): Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (pigs and goats), B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (pigs and goats), Cyanea marksii (pigs,
cattle, and mouflon), Cyanea tritomantha (pigs and cattle), Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis (pigs), Cyrtandra wagneri (pigs), Phyllostegia floribunda
(pigs), Pittosporum hawaiiense (pigs, cattle, and mouflon), Platydesma
remyi (pigs), Pritchardia lanigera (pigs, goats, and mouflon), Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei (pigs and cattle), Schiedea hawaiiensis (pigs,
goats, sheep, and mouflon), and Stenogyne cranwelliae (pigs). In
addition, introduced ungulates are a threat to the picture-wing fly
proposed for listing by grazing and browsing individuals of its host
plant, Charpentiera spp. (pigs, goats, cattle, and mouflon).
We have direct evidence of ungulate damage to some of these
species, but for many, due to their remote locations or lack of study,
ungulate damage is presumed based on the known presence of these
introduced ungulates in the areas where these species occur and the
results of studies conducted in Hawaii and elsewhere (Diong 1982, p.
160). Magnacca et al. (2008, p. 32) and others (Maui Forest Bird
Recovery Project 2011, in litt.) found that native plant species such
as the Hawaiian lobelioids (e.g., Cyanea spp.) and plants in the
African violet family (e.g., Cyrtandra spp.) are particularly
vulnerable to pig disturbance. In a study conducted by Diong (1982, p.
160) on Maui, feral pigs were observed browsing on young shoots,
leaves, and fronds of a wide variety of plants, of which over 75
percent were endemic species. A stomach content analysis in this study
showed that 60 percent of the pigs' food source consisted of the
endemic Cibotium (hapuu, tree fern). Pigs were observed to fell plants
and remove the bark from native plant species within the genera
Cibotium, Clermontia, Coprosma, Hedyotis, Psychotria, and Scaevola,
resulting in larger trees being killed over a few months of repeated
feeding (Diong 1982, p. 144). Beach (1997, pp. 3-4) found that feral
pigs in Texas spread disease and parasites, and their rooting and
wallowing behavior led to spoilage of watering holes and loss of soil
through leaching and erosion. Rooting activities also decreased the
survivability of some plant species through disruption at root level of
mature plants and seedlings (Beach 1997, pp. 3-4; Anderson et al. 2007,
pp. 2-3). In Hawaii, pigs dig up forest ground cover consisting of
delicate and rare species of orchids, ferns, mints, lobeliads, and
other taxa, including roots, tubers and rhizomes (Stone and Anderson
1988, p. 137).
In addition, there are direct observations of pig herbivory, on
either the fresh seedlings, fruits, seeds, or leaves, on each of the 13
plant species proposed for listing in this rule, including Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Cyanea marksii
(PEPP 2010, p. 52; Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Cyanea tritomantha (HBMP
2010f; PEPP 2010, p. 60), Cyrtandra nanawaleensis (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.), Cyrtandra wagneri (Lorence and Perlman 2007, p. 359; PEPP 2010,
p. 63), Phyllostegia floribunda (Perlman and Wood 1993--Hawaii Plant
Conservation Maps database; Perry 2006, in litt.; Pratt 2007b, in
litt.; USFWS 2010, p. 4-66), Pittosporum hawaiiense (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.), Platydesma remyi (PEPP 2008, p. 107), Pritchardia lanigera
(Wood 1995, in litt.; HBMP 2010c), Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei
(Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32), Schiedea hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al.
2005a; Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32; Bio 2011, pers. comm.), and
Stenogyne cranwelliae (HBMP 2010k). According to Magnacca et al. (2008,
p. 32) several of the host plants of Hawaiian picture-wing flies,
including the host plant of the picture-wing fly (i.e., Charpentiera
sp.) proposed in this rule, are susceptible to damage from feral
ungulates such as pigs. As pigs occur in 9 of the 10 ecosystems
(coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island, the
results of the studies described above suggest that pigs can also alter
these ecosystems and directly damage or destroy native plants.
Feral goats thrive on a variety of food plants, and are
instrumental in the decline of native vegetation in many areas (Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 64). Feral goats trample roots and seedlings, cause
erosion, and promote the invasion of alien plants. They are able to
forage in extremely rugged terrain and have a high reproductive
capacity (Clarke and Cuddihy 1980, p. C-20; van Riper and van Riper
1982, pp. 34-35; Tomich 1986, pp. 153-156; Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p.
64). Goats were observed to browse on native plant species in the
following genera: Argyroxiphium, Canavalia, Plantago, Schiedea, and
Stenogyne (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 64). A study on the island of
Hawaii demonstrated that Acacia koa seedlings are unable to survive due
to browsing and grazing by goats (Spatz and
[[Page 63964]]
Mueller-Dombois 1973, p. 874). If goats are maintained at constantly
high numbers, mature A. koa trees will eventually die, and with them
the root systems that support suckers and vegetative reproduction. One
study demonstrated a positive height-growth response of A. koa suckers
to the 3-year exclusion of goats (1968-1971) inside a fenced area,
whereas suckers were similarly abundant but very small outside of the
fenced area (Spatz and Mueller-Dombois 1973, p. 873). Another study at
Puuwaawaa demonstrated that prior to management actions in 1985,
regeneration of endemic shrubs and trees in the goat-grazed area was
almost totally lacking, contributing to the invasion of the forest
understory by exotic grasses and weeds. After the removal of grazing
animals in 1985, A. koa and Metrosideros spp. seedlings were observed
germinating by the thousands (HDOFAW 2002, p. 52). Based on a
comparison of fenced and unfenced areas, it is clear that goats can
devastate native ecosystems (Loope et al. 1988, p. 277).
Goats seek out seedlings and juveniles of Bidens spp. (Bio 2011,
pers. comm.), and are known to indiscriminately graze on and eat the
seeds of native Hawaiian Pritchardia species (Chapin et al. 2004, p.
274; Chapin et al. 2007, p. 20). The two known occurrences of the plant
Pritchardia lanigera are found in an unfenced area of the Kohala
Mountains, where they are impacted by browsing and grazing by goats and
other ungulates (Warshauer et al. 2009, pp. 10, 24; Laws et al. 2010,
in litt.). Schiedea spp. are favored by grazing goats, and goat
browsing threatens the only known population of the plant species
Schiedea hawaiiensis (Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 32; Chynoweth et al.
2011, in litt.). In addition, there are direct observations of goat
herbivory, on either the fresh seedlings, fruit, seeds, or leaves, of
four of the plant species proposed for listing in this rule, including
Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Knoche 2011, in
litt.), Pritchardia lanigera (Wood 1995, in litt.; Chapin et al. 2004,
p. 274), and Schiedea hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al. 2005a). According to
Magnacca et al. (2008, p. 32) several of the host plants of Hawaiian
picture-wing flies, including the host plant of the picture-wing fly
(i.e., Charpentiera sp.) proposed in this rule, are susceptible to
damage from feral ungulates such as goats. As goats occur in nine of
the ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff) on
Hawaii Island, the results of the studies described above suggest that
goats can also alter these ecosystems and directly damage or destroy
native plants.
Four of the plant species proposed for listing in this rule (Cyanea
marksii, C. tritomantha, Pittosporum hawaiiense, and Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei), and the host plant of the picture-wing fly (Charpentiera
sp.), are impacted by browsing and grazing by feral cattle. Cattle,
either feral or domestic, are considered one of the most significant
factors in the destruction of Hawaiian forests (Baldwin and Fagerlund
1943, pp. 118-122). Captain George Vancouver of the British Royal Navy
is attributed with introducing cattle to the Hawaiian Islands in 1793
(Fischer 2007, p. 350), by way of a gift to King Kamehameha I on the
island of Hawaii. Over time, cattle became established on all of the
main Hawaiian Islands, and historically feral cattle were found on the
islands of Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, Kahoolawe, and Hawaii.
Currently, feral cattle are found only on Maui and Hawaii, typically in
accessible forests and certain coastal and lowland leeward habitats
(Tomich 1986, pp. 140-144).
In HVNP, Cuddihy reported that there were twice as many native
plant species as nonnatives found in areas that had been fenced to
exclude feral cattle, whereas on the adjacent, nonfenced cattle ranch,
there were twice as many nonnative plant species as natives (Cuddihy
1984, pp. 16, 34). Skolmen and Fujii (1980, pp. 301-310) found that
Acacia koa seedlings were able to reestablish in a moist A. koa-
Metrosideros polymorpha forest on Hawaii Island after the area was
fenced to exclude feral cattle (Skolmen and Fujii 1980, pp. 301-310).
Cattle eat native vegetation, trample roots and seedlings, cause
erosion, create disturbed areas conducive to invasion by nonnative
plants, and spread seeds of nonnative plants in their feces and on
their bodies. Cattle have been observed accessing native plants in
Hakalau NWR by breaking down ungulate exclosure fences (Tummons 2011,
p. 4). In addition, there are direct observations of cattle herbivory
on three of the plant species proposed in this rule, including Cyanea
marksii (PEPP 2010, p. 52), C. tritomantha (PEPP 2010, p. 60), and
Pittosporum hawaiiense (Bio 2011, pers. comm.). In addition, although
we have no direct observations, we also consider the plant Schiedea
diffusa ssp. macraei to be susceptible to herbivory by cattle because
cattle are reported to favor plants in the genus Schiedea (Wagner et
al. 2005d, pp. 31-32) and feral cattle still occur in the Kohala
Mountains, the location of the only known individual of this species.
Between 1987 and 1994, populations of Schiedea salicaria on West Maui
were grazed so extensively by cattle, all of the individuals of this
species in accessible areas disappeared by 1994 (Wagner et al. 2005d,
p. 32). Cattle are also known to browse the host plant of the proposed
picture-wing fly (Charpentiera spp.) (Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 32;
Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). As feral cattle occur in five of the
described ecosystems (anchialine pool, lowland mesic, lowland wet,
montane mesic, and montane wet) on Hawaii Island, the results of the
studies described above suggest that feral cattle can also alter these
ecosystems and directly damage or destroy native plants.
Feral sheep browse and trample native vegetation and have decimated
large areas of native forest and shrubland (Tomich 1986, pp. 156-163;
Cuddihy and Stone 1990, p. 65-66). Large areas of Hawaii Island have
been devastated by sheep. For example, sheep browsing reduced seedling
establishment of Sophora chrysophylla (mamane) so severely that it
resulted in a reduction of the tree line elevation on Mauna Kea (Warner
1960 in Juvik and Juvik 1984, pp. 191-202). Currently there is a large
sheep-mouflon sheep hybrid population (see ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Introduced Ungulates'' above) on Mauna Kea that extends
into the saddle and northern part of Mauna Loa, and there are reports
that these animals are destroying endangered plants (Hess 2008, p. 1).
There are direct observations of feral sheep herbivory on individuals
of the only known occurrence of the plant species Schiedea hawaiiensis
at PTA (Mitchell et al. 2005a; U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 34). As
feral sheep occur in one of the described ecosystems (montane dry) on
Hawaii Island, the results of the studies described above suggest that
sheep can also alter this ecosystem and directly damage or destroy
native plants.
Mouflon sheep graze native vegetation, trample undergrowth, spread
weeds, and cause erosion. On the island of Hawaii, mouflon sheep
browsing led to the decline in the largest population of the endangered
Argyroxiphium kauense (kau silversword, Mauna Loa silversword or
ahinahina) located on the former Kahuku Ranch, reducing it from a
``magnificent population of several thousand'' (Degener et al. 1976,
pp. 173-174) to fewer than 2,000 individuals (unpublished data in
Powell 1992, in litt., p. 312) over a period of 10
[[Page 63965]]
years (1974-1984). The native tree Sophora chrysophylla is also a
preferred browse species for mouflon. According to Scowcroft and Sakai
(1983, p. 495), mouflon eat the shoots, leaves, flowers and bark of
this species. Bark stripping on the thin bark of a young tree is
potentially lethal. Mouflon are also reported to strip bark from Acacia
koa trees (Hess 2008, p. 3) and to seek out the threatened plant Silene
hawaiiensis (Benitez et al. 2008, p. 57). In the Kahuku section of
HVNP, mouflon jumped the park boundary fence and reduced one population
of S. hawaiiensis to half its original size over a 3-year period
(Belfield and Pratt 2002, p. 8). Other native species browsed by
mouflon include Geranium cuneatum ssp. cuneatum (hinahina, silver
geranium), G. cuneatum ssp. hypoleucum (hinahina, silver geranium), and
Sanicula sandwicensis (NCN) (Benitez et al. 2008, pp. 59, 61). On
Lanai, mouflon were once cited as one of the greatest threats to the
endangered Gardenia brighamii (Mehrhoff 1993, p. 11), although fencing
has now proven to be an effective mechanism against mouflon herbivory
on this plant (Mehrhoff 1993, pp. 22-23). Due to their high agility and
reproductive rates, mouflon sheep have the potential to occupy most
ecosystems found on Hawaii Island, from sea-level to very high
elevations (Hess 2010, pers. comm.; Ikagawa 2011, in litt.). Further,
Ovis spp. are known throughout the world for chewing vegetation right
down to the dirt (Ikagawa 2011, in litt.).
Recent research by Ikagawa (2011, in litt.) suggests that the plant
species Pritchardia lanigera occurs within the observed range of
mouflon, and is potentially impacted by mouflon browsing. In addition,
there are direct observations or reports that mouflon sheep browsing
and grazing significantly impact the plant species Cyanea marksii,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, and Schiedea hawaiiensis (Bio 2011, pers.
comm.; Pratt 2011e, in litt.), which are proposed for listing. The host
plant (Charpentiera spp.) for the picture-wing fly species appears to
be decreasing throughout its range due to impacts from mouflon browsing
(Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). As mouflon
occur in five of the described ecosystems (lowland wet, lowland mesic,
montane dry, montane mesic, and montane wet) on Hawaii Island, the
results of the studies described above suggest that mouflon sheep can
also alter these ecosystems and directly damage or destroy native
plants.
Axis deer were introduced as a game animal to Molokai in 1868, Oahu
by 1898, Lanai in 1920, and Maui in 1959, and between 2010 and 2011,
unauthorized releases occurred on Hawaii Island (Hess 2008, p. 2;
Kessler 2011, in litt.; Aila 2012a, in litt.). This new introduction to
Hawaii Island raises a significant concern due to the reported damage
axis deer cause on the island of Maui (see Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or
Range above). Most of the available information on axis deer in the
Hawaiian Islands concerns observations and reports from the island of
Maui. On Maui, axis deer were introduced by the State as a game animal,
but their numbers have steadily increased, especially in recent years
on Haleakala (Luna 2003, p. 44). During the 4-year El Ni[ntilde]o
drought from 1998 through 2001, Maui experienced an 80 to 90 percent
decline in shrub and vine species caused by deer browsing and girdling
of young saplings. High mortality of rare and native plant species was
observed (Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.). Axis deer consume progressively
less palatable plants until no edible vegetation is left (Hess 2008, p.
3). Axis deer are highly adaptable to changing conditions, and are
characterized as ``plastic'' (meaning flexible in their behavior) by
Ables (1977, cited in Anderson 1999, p. 5). They exhibit a high degree
of opportunism regarding their choice of forage (Dinerstein 1987, cited
in Anderson 1999, p. 5) and can be found in all but the highest
elevation ecosystems (subalpine and alpine) and montane bogs, according
to Medeiros (2010, pers. comm.).
Axis deer on Maui follow a cycle of grazing and browsing in open
lowland grasslands during the rainy season (November-March) and then
migrate to the lava flows of montane mesic forests during the dry
summer months to graze and browse native plants (Medeiros 2010, pers.
comm.). Axis deer are known to favor the native plants Abutilon
menziesii (an endangered species), Erythrina sandwicensis (wiliwili),
and Sida fallax (ilima) (Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.). During the driest
months of summer (July and August), axis deer can even be found along
Maui's coastal roads as they search for food. Hunting pressure also
appears to drive the deer into native forests, particularly the lower
rainforests up to 4,000 to 5,000 ft (1,220 and 1,525 m) in elevation
(Medeiros 2010, pers. comm.), and according to Kessler and Hess (2010,
pers. comms.) axis deer can be found up to 9,000 ft (2,743 m)
elevation. On Lanai, grazing by axis deer has been reported as a major
threat to the endangered Gardenia brighamii (nau) (Mehrhoff 1993, p.
11). Swedberg and Walker (1978, cited in Anderson 2003, pp. 124-125)
reported that in the upper forests of Lanai, the native plants
Osteomeles anthyllidifolia (ulei) and Leptecophylla tameiameiae
(pukiawe) comprised more than 30 percent of axis deer rumen volume. On
Molokai browsing by axis deer has been reported on Erythrina
sandwicensis and Nototrichium sandwicense (kului) (Medeiros et al.
1996, pp. 11, 19). Other native plant species consumed by axis deer
include Achyranthes splendens (NCN), Bidens campylotheca ssp. pentamera
(kookoolau) and B. campylotheca ssp. waihoiensis (kookoolau),
Chamaesyce celastroides var. lorifolia (akoko), Diospyros sandwicensis
(lama), Geranium multiflorum (nohoanu; an endangered species),
Lipochaeta rockii var. dissecta (nehe), Osmanthus sandwicensis
(ulupua), Panicum torridum (kakonakona), and Santalum ellipticum (laau
ala) (Anderson 2002, poster; Perlman 2009, in litt., pp. 4-5). As
demonstrated on the Islands of Lanai, Maui, and Molokai, axis deer will
spread into nine of the described ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry,
lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet,
dry cliff, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island if not controlled. The newly
established axis deer partnership (see Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or
Range, above) is currently implementing an axis deer response and
removal plan, and just recently reported their first confirmed removal
on April 11, 2012 (Osher 2012, in litt.). In addition, there is a
proposed revision to HRS 91 (see Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range and
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms) that would
address the gap in the current emergency rules authority and expand the
ability of State agencies to adopt emergency rules to include
situations that impose imminent threats to natural resources (i.e.,
axis deer on Hawaii Island). The results from the studies above,
combined with direct observations from field biologists, suggest that
grazing and browsing by axis deer can impose negative impacts to the
nine ecosystems above and their associated native plants should this
nonnative ungulate increase in numbers and range on Hawaii Island.
[[Page 63966]]
Other Introduced Vertebrates
Rats
There are three species of introduced rats in the Hawaiian Islands.
Studies of Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) DNA suggest they first
appeared in the Hawaiian Islands along with emigrants from the
Marquesas about 400 A.D., with a second interaction around 1100 A.D
(Ziegler 2002, p. 315). The black rat (R. rattus) and the Norway rat
(R. norvegicus) most likely arrived in the Hawaiian Islands more
recently, as stowaways on ships sometime in the late 19th century
(Atkinson and Atkinson 2000, p. 25). The Polynesian rat and the black
rat are primarily found in the wild, in dry to wet habitats, while the
Norway rat is typically found in manmade habitats such as urban areas
or agricultural fields (Tomich 1986, p. 41). The black rat is widely
distributed among the main Hawaiian Islands and can be found in a broad
range of ecosystems up to 9,744 ft (2,970 m), but it is most common at
low-to mid-elevations (Tomich 1986, pp. 38-40). While Sugihara (1997,
p. 194) found both the black and Polynesian rats up to 6,972 ft (2,125
m) elevation on Maui, the Norway rat was not seen at the higher
elevations in his study. Rats occur in nine of the described ecosystems
(coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland wet, montane dry, montane
mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff), and predation by rats
threatens 11 of the 13 plant species proposed for listing in this rule
(rats are not a reported threat to the proposed picture-wing fly or
anchialine pool shrimp (see Table 3)).
Rats impact native plants by eating fleshy fruits, seeds, flowers,
stems, leaves, roots, and other plant parts (Atkinson and Atkinson
2000, p. 23), and can seriously affect regeneration. Research on rats
in forests in New Zealand has also demonstrated that, over time,
differential regeneration as a consequence of rat predation may alter
the species composition of forested areas (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp.
68-69). Rats have caused declines or even the total elimination of
island plant species (Campbell and Atkinson 1999, cited in Atkinson and
Atkinson 2000, p. 24). In the Hawaiian Islands, rats may consume as
much as 90 percent of the seeds produced by some trees, or in some
cases prevent the regeneration of forest species completely (Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, pp. 68-69). All three species of rat (black, Norway,
and Polynesian) have been reported to be a serious threat to many
endangered or threatened Hawaiian plants (Stone 1985, p. 264; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, pp. 67-69). Plants with fleshy fruits are particularly
susceptible to rat predation, including some of the species proposed
for listing here. For example, the fruits of plants in the bellflower
family (e.g., Cyanea spp.) appear to be a target of rat predation
(Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 67-69). In addition to both species of
Cyanea (Cyanea marksii and Cyanea tritomantha), nine other species of
plants proposed for listing are significantly impacted by rat
predation, including Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, B.
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri (Lorence and Perlman 2007, pp. 357-
361; Bio 2011, pers. comm.), Pittosporum hawaiiense, Pritchardia
lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schiedea hawaiiensis, and
Stenogyne cranwelliae (Cuddihy and Stone 1990, pp. 67-69; Gon III and
Tierney 1996, in litt.; Bio 2008, in litt.; Pratt 2008b, in litt.; Bio
2010, pers. comm.; HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010j; HBMP 2010k; PEPP
2010, pp. 101, 113; Pratt 2011f, in litt.). As rats occur in nine of
the described ecosystems (coastal, lowland dry, lowland mesic, lowland
wet, montane dry, montane mesic, montane wet, dry cliff, and wet cliff)
on Hawaii Island, the results from the above studies, in addition to
direct observations from field biologists, suggest that rats can
directly damage or destroy native plants.
Nonnative Fish
In Hawaii, the introduction of nonnative fish, including bait-fish,
into anchialine pools may have been a major contributor to the decline
of native shrimp. Predation by, and competition with, introduced
nonnative fish is considered the greatest threat to native shrimp
within anchialine pool ecosystems (Bailey-Brock and Brock 1993, p. 354;
Brock 2004, pp. 13-17). These impacts are discussed further in Factor
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence
below.
Invertebrates
Nonnative Slugs
Predation by nonnative slugs adversely impacts 5 of the 13 plant
species (Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis,
Cyrtandra wagneri, and Stenogyne cranwelliae; see Table 3) proposed for
listing through mechanical damage, destruction of plant parts, and
mortality (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3-51; Joe 2006, p. 10; Lorence
and Perlman 2007, p. 359; Bio 2008, in litt.; Perlman and Bio 2008, in
litt.; HBMP 2010k). On Oahu, slugs have been reported to destroy Cyanea
calycina and Cyrtandra kaulantha in the wild, and have been observed
eating leaves and fruit of wild and cultivated individuals of Cyanea
(Mehrhoff 1995, in litt.; Pratt and Abbott 1997, p. 13; U.S. Army
Garrison 2006, pp. 3-34, 3-51). In addition, slugs have damaged
individuals of other Cyanea and Cyrtandra species in the wild (Wood et
al. 2001, p. 3; Sailer and Keir 2002, in litt., p. 3; PEPP 2007, p. 38;
PEPP 2008, pp. 23, 49, 52-53, 57).
Little is known about predation of certain rare plants by slugs;
however, information in the U.S. Army's 2005 ``Status Report for the
Makua Implementation Plan'' indicates that slugs can be a threat to all
species of Cyanea (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3-51). Research
investigating slug herbivory and control methods shows that slug
impacts on seedlings of Cyanea spp. results in up to 80 percent
seedling mortality (U.S. Army Garrison 2006, p. 3-51). Slug damage has
also been reported on other Hawaiian plants including Argyroxiphium
grayanum (greensword), Alsinidendron sp., Hibiscus sp., Schiedea kaalae
(maolioli), Solanum sandwicense (popolo aiakeakua), and Urera sp.
(Gagne 1983, p. 190-191; Sailer 2002 cited in Joe 2006, pp. 28-34).
Joe and Daehler (2008, p. 252) found that native Hawaiian plants
are more vulnerable to slug damage than nonnative plants. In
particular, they found that the individuals of the endangered plant
Cyanea superba and the plant Schiedea obovata had 50 percent higher
mortality when exposed to slugs when compared to individuals of the
same species that were protected within slug exclosures. Slug damage
has been documented on the plant Stenogyne cranwelliae (HBMP 2010k). As
slugs are found in three of the described ecosystems (lowland wet,
montane wet, and wet cliff) on Hawaii Island, the data from the above
studies, in addition to direct observations from field biologists,
suggest that slugs can directly damage or destroy native plants.
Nonnative Western Yellow-Jacket Wasps
The western yellow-jacket wasp (Vespula pensylvanica) is a social
wasp species native to the mainland of North America. It was first
reported from Oahu in the 1930s (Nishida and Evenhuis in Sherley 2000,
p. 121), and an aggressive race became established in 1977 (Gambino et
al. 1987, p. 170). This species is now particularly abundant between
1,969 and 5,000 ft (600 and 1,524 m) in elevation (Gambino et al.
[[Page 63967]]
1990, pp. 1,088-1,095; Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371) on Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Maui, Lanai, and Hawaii Island (GISD 2012b). The western
yellow-jacket wasp is an aggressive, generalist predator (Gambino et
al. 1987, p. 170). In temperate climates, the western yellow-jacket
wasp has an annual life cycle, but in Hawaii's tropical climate,
colonies of this species persist through a second year, allowing them
to have larger numbers of individuals and thus a greater impact on prey
populations (Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169-170). In Haleakala National
Park on Maui, western yellow-jacket wasps were found to forage
predominantly on native arthropods (Gambino et al. 1987, pp. 169-170;
Gambino et al. 1990, pp. 1,088-1,095; Gambino and Loope 1992, pp. 15-
21). Western yellow-jacket wasps have also been observed carrying and
feeding upon recently captured adult Hawaiian Drosophila (Kaneshiro and
Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40-45). These wasps are also believed to feed upon
picture-wing fly larvae within their host plants (Carson 1986, pp. 3-
9). In addition, native picture-wing flies, including the species in
this proposed rule, may be particularly vulnerable to predation by
wasps due to their lekking (male territorial defensive displays during
courtship and mating) behavior and conspicuous courtship displays that
can last for several minutes (Kaneshiro 2006, pers. comm.). The
concurrent arrival of the western yellow-jacket wasp and decline of
picture-wing fly observations in some areas suggest that the wasp may
have played a significant role in the decline of some of the picture-
wing fly populations, including populations of the picture-wing fly
proposed for listing in this rule (Carson 1986, pp. 3-9; Foote and
Carson 1995, p. 371; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 40-45; Science
Panel 2005, pp. 1-23). As the western yellow-jacket wasp is widespread
within three ecosystems (lowland mesic, montane mesic, and wet
ecosystems) on Hawaii Island in which the two known occurrences of the
proposed picture-wing fly occur, the results from the studies above, in
addition to observations by field biologists, suggest that western
yellow-jacket wasps can directly kill individuals of the picture-wing
fly (Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp.
40-45; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23).
Nonnative Parasitoid Wasps
The number of native parasitic Hymenoptera (parasitic wasps) in
Hawaii is limited, and only species in the family Eucoilidae are known
to use Hawaiian picture-wing flies as hosts (Montgomery 1975, pp. 74-
75; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro 1995, pp. 44-45). However, several species
of small parasitic wasps (Family Braconidae), including Diachasmimorpha
tryoni (NCN), D. longicaudata (NCN), Opius vandenboschi (NCN), and
Biosteres arisanus (NCN), were purposefully introduced into Hawaii to
control nonnative pest tephritid fruit flies (Funasaki et al. 1988, pp.
105-160). These parasitic wasps are also known to attack other species
of flies, including native flies in the family Tephritidae. While these
parasitic wasps have not been recorded parasitizing Hawaiian picture-
wing flies and, in fact, may not successfully develop in Drosophilidae,
females will indiscriminately sting any fly larvae in their attempts to
oviposit (lay eggs), resulting in mortality of the fly larvae (Evans
1962, pp. 468-483).
Nonnative Ants
Ants are not a natural component of Hawaii's arthropod fauna, and
native species evolved in the absence of predation pressure from ants.
Ants can be particularly destructive predators because of their high
densities, recruitment behavior, aggressiveness, and broad range of
diet (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17). Ants can prey directly upon native
arthropods, exclude them through interference or exploitation
competition for food resources, or displace them by monopolizing
nesting or shelter sites (Krushelnychy et al. 2005, p. 6). The threat
of ant predation on the picture-wing fly species proposed for listing
in this rule is amplified by the fact that most ant species have winged
reproductive adults (Borror et al. 1989, p. 738) and can quickly
establish new colonies in additional suitable habitats (Staples and
Cowie 2001, p. 55). These attributes allow some ants to destroy
otherwise geographically isolated populations of native arthropods
(Nafus 1993, pp. 19, 22-23).
At least 47 species of ants are known to be established in the
Hawaiian Islands (Krushelnycky 2008, pp. 1-11), and at least 4
particularly aggressive species (the big-headed ant (Pheidole
megacephala), the long-legged ant (also known as the yellow crazy ant)
(Anoplolepis gracilipes), Solenopsis papuana (NCN), and Solenopsis
geminata (NCN)) have severely impacted the native insect fauna, likely
including native picture-wing flies (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17). Numerous
other species of ants are recognized as threats to Hawaii's native
invertebrates, and an unknown number of new species are established
every few years (Staples and Cowie 2001, p. 53). As a group, ants
occupy most of Hawaii's habitat types, from coastal to subalpine
ecosystems; however, many species are still invading mid-elevation
montane mesic forests, and few species have been able to colonize
undisturbed montane wet ecosystems (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17). The
lowland forests are a portal of entry to the montane and subalpine
ecosystems, and, therefore, because ants are actively invading
increasingly elevated ecosystems, ants are more likely to occur in high
densities in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems currently
occupied by the picture-wing fly (Reimer 1993, pp. 13-17).
The big-headed ant originated in central Africa (Krushelnycky et
al. 2005, p. 24) and was first reported in Hawaii in 1879 (Krushelnycky
et al. 2005, p. 24). This species is considered one of the most
invasive and widely distributed ants in the world (Holway et al. 2002,
pp. 181-233; Krushelnycky et al. 2005, p. 5). In Hawaii, this species
is the most ubiquitous ant species found, from coastal to mesic habitat
up to 4,000 ft (1,219 m) in elevation, including within the habitat
areas of the picture-wing fly proposed for listing in this rule. With
few exceptions, native insects have been eliminated in habitats where
the big-headed ant is present (Gagne 1979, p. 81; Gillespie and Reimer
1993, p. 22). Consequently, big-headed ants represent a threat to the
picture-wing fly, in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems
(Reimer 1993, pp. 14, 17; Holway et al. 2002, pp. 181-233; Daly and
Magnacca 2003, pp. 9-10; Krushelnycky et al. 2005, p. 5).
The long-legged ant appeared in Hawaii in 1952, and now occurs on
Hawaii, Kauai, Maui, and Oahu (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42; https://www.antweb.org 2011). It inhabits low-to-mid-elevation (less than 2,000
ft (600 m)), rocky areas of moderate rainfall (less than 100 in (250
cm) annually) (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). Although surveys have not
been conducted to ascertain this species' presence in the two known
sites occupied by the picture-wing fly, we believe that the long-legged
ant likely occurs within the lowland mesic ecosystem that supports the
picture-wing fly due to the ant's aggressive nature and ability to
spread and colonize new locations (Foote 2008, pers. comm.). Direct
observations indicate Hawaiian arthropods are susceptible to predation
by this species; Gillespie and Reimer (1993, p. 21) and Hardy (1979,
pp. 37-38) documented the complete extirpation of several native
insects within the Kipahulu area on Maui after this area was invaded by
the long-legged ant. Lester and Tavite
[[Page 63968]]
(2004, p. 391) found that long-legged ants in the Tokelau Atolls (New
Zealand) can form very high densities in a relatively short period of
time with locally serious consequences for invertebrate diversity.
Densities of 3,600 individuals collected in pitfall traps within a 24-
hour period were observed, as well as predation upon invertebrates
ranging from crabs to other ant species. On Christmas Island in the
Indian Ocean, numerous studies have documented the range of impacts to
native invertebrates, including the red land crab (Gecarcoidea
natalis), as a result of predation by supercolonies of the long-legged
ant (Abbott 2006, p. 102). Long-legged ants have the potential as
predators to profoundly affect the endemic insect fauna in territories
they occupy. Studies comparing insect populations at otherwise similar
ant-infested and ant-free sites found extremely low numbers of large
endemic noctuid moth larvae (Agrotis spp. and Peridroma spp.) in ant-
infested areas. Nests of groundnesting cottelid bees (Nesoprosopis
spp.) were eliminated from ant-infested sites (Reimer et al. 1990, p.
42). Although only cursory observations exist in Hawaii (Reimer et al.
1990, p. 42), we believe long-legged ants are a threat to the proposed
picture-wing fly in the lowland mesic ecosystem.
Solenopsis papuana is the only abundant, aggressive ant that has
invaded intact mesic to wet forest, as well as coastal and lowland dry
habitats. This species occurs from sea level to over 2,000 ft (600 m)
on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, and is still expanding its range
(Reimer 1993, p. 14). Although surveys have not been conducted to
ascertain this species' presence in either of the two known sites
occupied by the picture-wing fly, because of the ant's expanding range
and its widespread occurrence in coastal, lowland dry, and lowland
mesic habitats, we believe S. papuana is a threat to the picture-wing
fly in the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems.
Like Solenopsis papuana, S. geminata is also considered a
significant threat to native invertebrates (Gillespie and Reimer 1993,
pp. 21-33) and occurs on all the main Hawaiian Islands (Reimer et al.
1990, p. 42; Loope and Krushelnycky 2007, p. 70). Found in drier areas
of the Hawaiian Islands, it has displaced Pheidole megacephala as the
dominant ant in some areas (Wong and Wong 1988, p. 175). Known to be a
voracious, nonnative predator in many areas to where it has spread, the
species was documented to significantly increase fruit fly mortality in
field studies in Hawaii (Wong and Wong 1988, p. 175). In addition to
predation, S. geminata workers tend honeydew-producing members of the
Homoptera suborder, especially mealybugs, which can impact plants
directly and indirectly through the spread of disease (Manaaki Whenua
Landcare Research 2012--Ant Distribution Database). Solenopsis geminata
was included among the eight species ranked as having the highest
potential risk to New Zealand in a detailed pest risk assessment for
the country (GISD 2012c), and is included as one of five ant species
listed among the ``100 of the World's Worst Invaders'' (Manaaki Whenua
Landcare Research 2012--Ant Distribution Database). Although surveys
have not been conducted to ascertain this species' presence in either
of the two sites occupied by the picture-wing fly, because of the ant's
expanding range and its widespread occurrence in coastal, lowland dry,
and lowland mesic habitats, it is a potential threat to the picture-
wing fly in the lowland mesic ecosystem.
The Argentine ant (Iridomyrmex humilis) was discovered on the
island of Oahu in 1940, and is now established on all the main Hawaiian
Islands (Reimer et al. 1990, p. 42). Argentine ants do not disperse by
flight. Instead colonies are moved about with soil and construction
material. The Argentine ant is found from coastal to subalpine
ecosystems on the island of Maui, and on the slopes of Mauna Loa, in
the lowland mesic and montane mesic ecosystems on Hawaii Island, the
location of one of the two occurrences of the picture-wing fly (Hartley
et al. 2010, pp. 83-94; Krushelnychy and Gillespie 2010, pp. 643-655).
The Argentine ant has been documented to reduce populations, or even
eliminate native arthropods in Haleakala National Park on Maui (Cole et
al. 1992, pp. 1313-1322). On Maui, Argentine ants are significant
predators on pest fruit flies (Wong et al. 1984, pp. 1454-1458), and
Krushelychy and Gillespie (2010, pp. 643-655) found that Argentine ants
on Hawaii Island are associated with the decline of an endemic phorid
fly (Megaselia sp.). Krushelychy and Gillespie (2010, pp. 643-655)
suggest that ants severely impact larval stages of many flies. While we
are not aware of documented occurrences of predation by Argentine ants
on picture-wing flies, including the species proposed for listing,
these ants are considered to be a threat to native arthropods located
at higher elevations (Cole et al. 1992, pp. 1313-1322) and thus
potentially to the picture-wing fly that occurs from 2,000 ft to 4,500
ft (610 m to 1,372 m) in elevation, in the lowland mesic, montane
mesic, and montane wet ecosystems (Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23;
Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
The rarity or disappearance of native picture-wing fly species,
including the species in this proposed rule, from historical
observation sites over the past 100 years is due to a variety of
factors. While there is no documentation that conclusively ties the
decrease in picture-wing fly observations to the establishment of
nonnative ants in lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane wet
ecosystems on Hawaii Island, the presence of nonnative ants in these
habitats and the decline of picture-wing fly observations in some areas
in these habitats suggest that nonnative ants may have played a role in
the decline of some populations of the picture-wing fly proposed for
listing in this rule. As nonnative predatory ants are found in three of
the described ecosystems (lowland mesic, montane mesic, and montane
wet) on Hawaii Island in which the picture-wing fly occurs, the data
from the above studies, in addition to direct observations from field
biologists, suggest that nonnative predatory ants contribute to the
reduction in range and abundance of the picture-wing fly (Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23).
Two-Spotted Leaf Hopper
Predation by the two-spotted leaf-hopper (Sophonia rufofascia) has
been reported on plants in the genus Pritchardia throughout the main
Hawaiian Islands and may be a threat to the plant Pritchardia lanigera
proposed for listing in this rule (Chapin et al. 2004, p. 279). This
nonnative insect damages the leaves it feeds on, typically causing
chlorosis (yellowing due to disrupted chlorophyll production) to
browning and death of foliage (Jones et al. 2000, pp. 171-180). The
damage to plants can result in the death of affected leaves or the
whole plant, owing to the combined action of its feeding and
oviposition behavior (Alyokhin et al. 2004, p. 1). In addition to the
mechanical damage caused by the feeding process, the insect may
introduce plant pathogens that lead to eventual plant death (Jones et
al. 2006, p. 2). The two-spotted leafhopper is a highly polyphagous
insect (it feeds on many different types of food). Sixty-eight percent
of its recorded host plant species in Hawaii are fruit, vegetable, and
ornamental crops, and 22 percent are endemic plants, over half of which
are rare and endangered (Alyokhin et al. 2004, p. 6). Its range is
limited to below
[[Page 63969]]
4,000 ft (1,219 m) in elevation, unless there is a favorable
microclimate. While there has been a dramatic reduction in the number
of two-spotted leafhopper populations between 2005 and 2007 (possibly
due to egg parasitism), this nonnative insect has not been eradicated,
and predation by this nonnative insect remains a threat (Fukada 2007,
in litt.). Chapin et al. (2004, p. 279) believe that constant
monitoring of both wild and cultivated Pritchardia populations will be
necessary to abate this threat.
Nonnative Beetles
The Hawaiian Islands now 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 and nonnative palm
trees, including those in the genus Pritchardia (Swezey 1927, in litt.;
Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). Species of
Coccotrypes beetles prefer trees with large seeds, like those of
Pritchardia spp. (Beaver 1987, p. 11). Trees of Pritchardia spp. drop
their fruit before the fruit reaches maturity due to the boring action
of the Coccotrypes spp. Beetles, thereby reducing natural regeneration
in the wild (Beaver 1987, p. 11; Magnacca 2005, in litt.; Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23). The threat from Coccotrypes spp. beetles on
Pritchardia spp. in Hawaii is expected to increase with time if the
beetles are not controlled (Richardson 2011, pers. comm.). Although
Pritchardia spp. are long-lived (up to 100 years), over time,
Coccotrypes spp. beetles may severely impact Hawaiian species of
Pritchardia, including Pritchardia lanigera, which is proposed for
listing in this rule.
Summary of Factor C
We are unaware of any information that indicates that disease is a
threat to any of the 15 species proposed for listing in this rule.
We consider predation by nonnative animal species (pigs, goats,
cattle, sheep, mouflon sheep, rats, slugs, wasps, ants, the two-spotted
leaf hopper, and beetles) to pose an ongoing threat to all 13 plant
species and the picture-wing fly proposed for listing throughout their
ranges for the following reasons:
(1) Observations and reports have documented that pigs, goats,
cattle, sheep, and mouflon sheep browse and trample all 13 proposed
plant species and the host plants of the picture-wing fly (see Table
3), in addition to other studies demonstrating the negative impacts of
ungulate browsing and trampling on native plant species of the islands
(Spatz and Mueller-Dombois 1973, p. 874; Diong 1982, p. 160; Cuddihy
and Stone 1990, p. 67).
(2) Nonnative rats and slugs cause mechanical damage to plants and
destruction of plant parts (branches, fruits, and seeds), and are
considered a threat to 11 of the 13 plant species proposed for listing
(see Table 3). All of the plants and the picture-wing fly proposed for
listing are impacted by either introduced ungulates, as noted in item
(1) above, or nonnative rats and slugs, or both.
(3) Predation of adults and larvae of Hawaiian picture-wing flies
by the western yellow-jacket wasp has been observed, and it has been
suggested that wasp predation has played a significant role in the
dramatic declines of some populations of picture-wing flies (Carson
1986, pp. 3-9; Foote and Carson 1995, p. 371; Kaneshiro and Kaneshiro
1995, pp. 40-45; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23). Because western yellow-
jacket wasps are found in the three ecosystems in which the picture-
wing fly is found, and western yellow-jacket wasps are known to prey on
picture-wing flies, we consider predation by the western yellow-jacket
wasp to be a serious and ongoing threat to Drosophila digressa.
(4) Parasitic wasps purposefully introduced to Hawaii to control
nonnative pest fruit flies will indiscriminately sting any fly larvae
when attempting to lay their eggs. Predation by one or more of these
nonnative parasitic wasps is a potentially serious threat to Drosophila
digressa.
(5) Picture-wing flies are vulnerable to predation by ants, and the
range of Drosophila digressa overlaps that of particularly aggressive,
nonnative predatory ant species that currently occur from sea level to
the montane mesic ecosystem (over 3,280 ft (1,000 m) elevation) on all
of the main Hawaiian Islands. We therefore consider predation by these
nonnative ants to be a threat to Drosophila digressa.
(6) The plant Pritchardia lanigera is vulnerable to predation by
nonnative invertebrates. The two-spotted leafhopper has been observed
on plants in the genus Pritchardia throughout the main Hawaiian
Islands, and poses a threat to Pritchardia lanigera (Chapin et al.
2004, p. 279). Two-spotted leafhopper damage results in the death of
affected leaves or the entire plant (Alyokhin et al. 2004, p. 1).
(7) Several species of nonnative beetles (Coccotrypes spp.) bore
into and feed upon the seeds of the native palm genus Pritchardia
(Swezey 1927, in litt.; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b,
pers. comm.), which results in reduced natural regeneration of the
plants (Beaver 1987, p. 11; Magnacca 2005, in litt.; Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23).
These threats are serious and ongoing, act in concert with other
threats to the species, and are expected to continue or increase in
magnitude and intensity into the future without effective management
actions to control or eradicate them. In addition, negative impacts to
native Hawaiian plants on Hawaii Island from grazing and browsing by
axis deer are likely should this nonnative ungulate increase in numbers
and range on the island. The combined threat of ungulate, rat, and
invertebrate predation on native Hawaiian flora and fauna suggests the
need for immediate implementation of recovery and conservation actions.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Feral Ungulates
Nonnative ungulates pose a major ongoing threat to all 13 plant
species, and to the picture-wing fly, through destruction and
degradation of terrestrial habitat, and through direct predation of the
13 plant species (see Table 3). In addition, nonnative ungulates (feral
goats and cattle) pose an ongoing threat to the anchialine pool shrimp
through destruction and degradation of its anchialine pool habitat.
Feral goats and cattle trample and forage on both native and nonnative
plants around and near the pool opening at Lua O Palahemo, and increase
erosion around the pool and sediment entering the pool. The State of
Hawaii provides game mammal (feral pigs, goats, cattle, sheep, and
mouflon sheep) hunting opportunities on 42 State-designated public
hunting areas on the island of Hawaii (H.A.R. 13-123; Mello 2011, pers.
comm.). The State's management objectives for game animals range from
maximizing public hunting opportunities (e.g., ``sustained yield'') in
some areas to removal by State staff, or their designees, in other
areas (H.A.R. 13-123). Ten of the 13 plant species (Cyanea marksii,
Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae)
and the picture-wing fly have occurrences in areas where terrestrial
habitat may be manipulated for game enhancement and where game
populations are maintained at prescribed levels using public hunting
(Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.; Perlman et al. 2004, in litt.; Lorence
and Perlman
[[Page 63970]]
2007, pp. 357-361; PEPP 2007, p. 61; Pratt 2007a, in litt.; Pratt
2007b, in litt.; Benitez et al. 2008, p. 58; Agorastos 2010, in litt.;
HBMP 2010c; HBMP 2010e; HBMP 2010f; HBMP 2010g; HBMP 2010h; HBMP 2010i;
HBMPk; PEPP 2010, p. 63; Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Evans 2011, in litt.;
Perry 2011, in litt.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.; H.A.R. 13-123).
Public hunting areas are not fenced, and game mammals have unrestricted
access to most areas across the landscape, regardless of underlying
land-use designation. While fences are sometimes built to protect areas
from game mammals, the current number and locations of fences are not
adequate to prevent habitat degradation and destruction for 14 of the
15 species, and the direct predation of the 13 plant species on Hawaii
Island (see Table 3). However, the State game animal regulations are
not designed nor intended to provide habitat protection, and there are
no other regulations designed to address habitat protection from
ungulates.
The capacity of Federal and State agencies and their
nongovernmental partners in Hawaii to mitigate the effects of
introduced pests, such as ungulates and weeds, is limited due to the
large number of taxa currently causing damage (Coordinating Group on
Alien Pest Species (CGAPS) 2009). Many invasive weeds established on
Hawaii Island have currently limited but expanding ranges and are of
concern. Resources available to reduce the spread of these species and
counter their negative ecological effects are limited. Control of
established pests is largely focused on a few invasive species that
cause significant economic or environmental damage to public and
private lands. Comprehensive control of an array of invasive pests and
management to reduce disturbance regimes that favor certain invasive
species remains limited in scope. If current levels of funding and
regulatory support for invasive species control are maintained on
Hawaii Island, the Service expects existing programs to continue to
exclude or, on a very limited basis, control invasive species only in
high-priority areas. Threats from established pests (e.g., nonnative
ungulates, weeds, and invertebrates) are ongoing and expected to
continue into the future.
Introduction of Nonnative Species
Currently, four agencies are responsible for inspection of goods
arriving in Hawaii (CGAPS 2009). The Hawaii Department of Agriculture
(HDOA) inspects domestic cargo and vessels, and focuses on pests of
concern to Hawaii, especially insects or plant diseases not yet known
to be present in the State (HDOA 2009). The U.S. Department of Homeland
Security-Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for
inspecting commercial, private, and military vessels and aircraft, and
related cargo and passengers arriving from foreign locations. Customs
and Border Protection focuses on a wide range of quarantine issues
involving non-propagative plant materials (processed and unprocessed);
wooden packing materials, timber, and products; internationally
regulated commercial species under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); seeds and
plants listed as noxious; soil; and pests of concern to the greater
United States, such as pests of mainland U.S. forests and agriculture.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service-Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA-APHIS-PPQ) inspects
propagative plant material, provides identification services for
arriving plants and pests, conducts pest risk assessments, trains CBP
personnel, conducts permitting and preclearance inspections for
products originating in foreign countries, and maintains a pest
database that, again, has a focus on pests of wide concern across the
United States. The Service inspects arriving wildlife products, with
the goal of enforcing the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey
Act (18 U.S.C. 42; 16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.), and CITES.
The State of Hawaii's unique biosecurity needs are not recognized
by Federal import regulations. Under the USDA-APHIS-PPQ's commodity
risk assessments for plant pests, regulations are based on species
considered threats to the mainland United States and do not address
many species that could be pests in Hawaii (Hawaii Legislative
Reference Bureau (HLRB) 2002, pp. 1-109; USDA-APHIS-PPQ 2010, pp. 1-88;
CGAPS 2009, pp. 1-14). Interstate commerce provides the pathway for
invasive species and commodities infested with non-Federal quarantine
pests to enter Hawaii. Pests of quarantine concern for Hawaii may be
intercepted at Hawaiian ports by Federal agents, but are not always
acted on by them because these pests are not regulated under Federal
mandates. Hence, Federal protection against pest species of concern to
Hawaii has historically been inadequate. It is possible for the USDA to
grant Hawaii protective exemptions under the ``Special Local Needs
Rule,'' when clear and comprehensive arguments for both agricultural
and conservation issues are provided; however, this exemption procedure
operates on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, that avenue may only
provide minimal protection against the large diversity of foreign pests
that threaten Hawaii.
Adequate staffing, facilities, and equipment for Federal and State
pest inspectors and identifiers in Hawaii devoted to invasive species
interdiction are critical biosecurity gaps (HLRB 2002, pp. 1-14; USDA-
APHIS-PPQ 2010, pp. 1-88; CGAPS 2009, pp. 1-14). State laws have
recently been passed that allow the HDOA to collect fees for quarantine
inspection of freight entering Hawaii (e.g., Act 36 (2011) H.R.S. 150A-
5.3). Legislation passed and enacted on July 8, 2011 (H.B. 1568), now
requires commercial harbors and airports in Hawaii to provide
biosecurity and inspection facilities to facilitate the movement of
cargo through the ports. This enactment is a significant step toward
optimizing the biosecurity capacity in the State of Hawaii; however,
only time will determine the true effectiveness of this Act (Act
202(11)). From a Federal perspective, there is a need to ensure that
all civilian and military port and airport operations and construction
are in compliance with the Act. The introduction of new pests to the
State of Hawaii is a significant risk to federally listed species.
Nonnative Animal Species
Vertebrate Species
The State of Hawaii's laws prohibit the importation of all animals
unless they are specifically placed on a list of allowable species
(HLRB 2002, pp. 1-109; CGAPS 2010, pp. 1-14). The importation and
interstate transport of invasive vertebrates is federally regulated by
the Service under the Lacey Act as ``injurious wildlife'' (Fowler et
al. 2007, pp. 353-359); the list of vertebrates considered ``injurious
wildlife'' is provided at 50 CFR 16. However, the law in its current
form has limited effectiveness in preventing invasive vertebrate
introductions into the State of Hawaii. On June 21, 2012, a new State
law, Act 144 (``Relating to Wildlife'') was signed into law. This Act
prohibits the interisland possession, transfer, transport, or release
after transport of wild or feral deer, and establishes mandatory fines.
On June 21, 2012, Act 149 (``Relating to Emergency Rules for Threats to
Natural Resources or the Health of the Environment'') was also signed
into State law. Act 149 expands the ability of State agencies to adopt
emergency rules to address
[[Page 63971]]
situations that impose imminent threats to natural resources (Aila
2012a, in litt.; Martin 2012, in litt.). However, the effectiveness of
these two recently enacted laws has not yet been demonstrated.
Invertebrate Species
Predation by nonnative invertebrate pests (slugs, wasps, ants,
leafhoppers, and beetles) threaten 6 of the 13 the plant species and
the picture-wing fly (see Table 3). It is likely that the introduction
of most nonnative invertebrate pests to the State has been and
continues to be accidental and incidental to other intentional and
permitted activities. Although Hawaii State government and Federal
agencies have regulations and some controls in place (see above), the
introduction and movement of nonnative invertebrate pest species
between islands and from one watershed to the next continues. For
example, an average of 20 new alien invertebrate species have been
introduced to Hawaii per year since 1970, an increase of 25 percent
over the previous totals between 1930 and 1970 (The Nature Conservancy
of Hawaii (TNCH) 1992, p. 8). Existing regulatory mechanisms therefore
appear inadequate to ameliorate the threat of introductions of
nonnative invertebrates, and we have no evidence to suggest that any
changes to these regulatory mechanisms are anticipated in the future.
Nonnative Plant Species
Nonnative plants destroy and modify habitat throughout the ranges
of 14 of the 15 species proposed for listing in this rule (see Table 3,
above). As such, they represent a serious and ongoing threat to each of
these species. In addition, nonnative plants have been shown to
outcompete native plants and convert native-dominated plant communities
to nonnative plant communities (see ``Habitat Destruction and
Modification by Nonnative Plants'' above).
The State of Hawaii allows the importation of most plant taxa, with
limited exceptions, if shipped from domestic ports (HLRB 2002; USDA-
APHIS-PPQ 2010; CGAPS 2010). Hawaii's plant import rules (H.A.R. 4-70)
regulate the importation of 13 plant taxa of economic interest;
regulated crops include pineapple, sugarcane, palms and pines. Certain
horticultural crops (e.g., orchids) may require import permits and have
pre-entry requirements that include treatment or quarantine or both,
prior to or following entry into the State. The State noxious weed list
(H.A.R. 4-68) and USDA-APHIS-PPQ's Restricted Plants List restrict the
import of a limited number of noxious weeds. If not specifically
prohibited, current Federal regulations allow plants to be imported
from international ports with some restrictions. The Federal Noxious
Weed List (see 7 CFR 360.200) includes few of the many globally known
invasive plants, and plants in general do not require a weed risk
assessment prior to importation from international ports. The USDA-
APHIS-PPQ is in the process of finalizing rules to include a weed risk
assessment for newly imported plants. Although the State has general
guidelines for the importation of plants, and regulations are in place
regarding the plant crops mentioned above, the intentional or
inadvertent introduction of nonnative plants outside the regulatory
process and movement of species between islands and from one watershed
to the next continues, which represents a threat to native flora for
the reasons described above. In addition, government funding is
inadequate to provide for sufficient inspection services and
monitoring.
In 1995, the Coordinating Group on Alien and Plant Species (CGAPS),
a partnership comprised primarily of managers from every major Federal,
State, County, and private agency and organization involved in invasive
species work in Hawaii, facilitated the formation of the Hawaii
Invasive Species Council (HISC), which was created by gubernatorial
executive order in 2002, to coordinate local initiatives for the
prevention and control of invasive species by providing policy-level
direction and planning for the State departments responsible for
invasive species issues. In 2003, the Governor signed into law Act 85,
which conveys statutory authority to the HISC to continue to coordinate
approaches among the various State and Federal agencies, and
international and local initiatives for the prevention and control of
invasive species (HDLNR 2003, p. 3-15; HISC 2009; H.R.S. 194-2(a)).
Some of the recent priorities for the HISC include interagency efforts
to control nonnative species such as the plants Miconia calvescens
(miconia) and Cortaderia spp. (pampas grass), coqui frogs
(Eleutherodactylus coqui), and ants (HISC 2009). However, in early
2009, HISC projected that, due to a tighter economy in Hawaii and
anticipated budget cuts in State funding support of up to 50 percent,
there will be a serious setback in conservation achievements, and the
loss of experienced, highly trained staff (HISC 2009).
The Lua O Palahemo anchialine pool is located in a remote, largely
undeveloped area, but is well known and frequently visited by residents
and visitors for recreational opportunities, as indicated by the
numerous off-road vehicle tracks around the pool (USFWS 2012 in litt.;
Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1-2). As of the 2010 survey, a sign
posted near Lua O Palahemo indicates that individuals who disturb the
site are subject to fines under Haw. Rev. Stat. 6E (Hawaii's State
Historic Preservation Act (SHPA)). This statute makes it unlawful for
any person to take, appropriate, excavate, injure, destroy, or alter
any historic property or aviation artifact located upon lands owned or
controlled by the State or any of its political subdivisions, except as
permitted by the State. Violators are subject to fines of not less than
$500 nor more than $10,000 for each separate offense. However, sometime
between the 2010 survey and the June 2012 visit by Service biologists,
the sign had been removed (Richardson 2012, in litt., pp. 1-2).
Vetericaris chaceorum is not protected under Hawaii's endangered
species law (Haw. Rev. Stat. Sect. 195-D).
On the basis of the above information, existing State and Federal
regulatory mechanisms are not adequately preventing the introduction of
nonnative species to Hawaii via interstate and international
mechanisms, or intrastate movement of nonnative species between
islands, watersheds, and anchialine pools in Hawaii, and thus do not
adequately protect 14 of the 15 species (all except the anchialine pool
shrimp) proposed for listing in this proposed rule from the threat of
new introductions of nonnative species, or from and the continued
expansion of nonnative species populations on and between islands,
watersheds, and anchialine pools. Nonnative species may prey upon,
modify, or destroy habitat, or directly compete with one or more of the
14 species for food, space, and other necessary resources. The impacts
from these introduced threats are ongoing and are expected to continue
into the future.
We do not believe that existing regulatory mechanisms provide
adequate protection for the anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris
chaceorum, from the intentional dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish into Lua O Palahemo (see Factor E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence). Existing
regulatory mechanisms are therefore inadequate to ameliorate the threat
of introductions of trash and nonnative
[[Page 63972]]
fish into Lua O Palahemo, and we have no evidence to suggest that any
changes to these regulatory mechanisms are anticipated in the future.
Summary of Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The State's current management of nonnative game mammals is
inadequate to prevent the degradation and destruction of habitat of the
13 plant species, and the picture-wing fly (Factor A. The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or
Range), and to prevent predation of all 13 plant species (Factor C.
Disease or Predation).
Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms are not
effectively preventing the introduction and spread of nonnative species
from outside the State of Hawaii and between islands and watersheds
within the State of Hawaii. Habitat-altering nonnative plant species
(Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range) and predation by nonnative animal
species (Factor C. Disease or Predation) pose a major ongoing threat to
all 15 species proposed for listing in this proposed rule.
Existing State and Federal regulatory mechanisms do not provide
adequate protection for the anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris
chaceorum, from the intentional dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish into Lua O Palahemo (see Factor E. Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence).
Because these regulatory mechanisms are inadequate to maintain
habitat for the 15 species, and to prevent the spread of nonnative
species (including nonnative fish into the Lua O Palahemo anchialine
pool), the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms is considered a
serious threat, both now and in the future. Habitat degradation and
loss caused by nonnative plants are a threat to each of the 13 plant
species and the picture-wing fly (Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range), and
nonnative animals (including nonnative fish) are a threat to the 15
species (Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range and Factor C. Disease or
Predation). Therefore, the inadequacy of the regulatory mechanisms to
prevent the dumping of trash and introduction of nonnative fish into
anchialine pool shrimp habitat, and to address threats posed by other
nonnative species threatens these 15 species.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence
Other factors threatening some or all of the 15 species include
dumping of trash and the introduction of nonnative fish, small numbers
of populations and small population sizes, hybridization, lack of or
declining regeneration, loss of host plants, and other activities. Each
threat is discussed in detail below, along with identification of which
species are affected by these threats.
Dumping of Trash and Introduction of Nonnative Fish
The depressional features of anchialine pools make them susceptible
to dumping. Refuse found in degraded pools and pools that have been
filled in with rubble have been dated to about 100 years old, and the
practice continues today (Brock 2004, p. 15). Lua O Palahemo is located
approximately 558 ft (170 m) from a sandy beach frequented by visitors
who fish and swim. In addition, there are multiple dirt roads that
surround the pool making it highly accessible. Plastic bags, paper,
fishing line, water bottles, soda cans, radios, barbed wire, and a
bicycle have been documented within the pool (Kensley and Williams
1986, pp. 417-418; Bozanic 2004, p. 1; Wada 2010, in litt). Physical
trash is likely to increase the accumulation of sediment in the pool
portion of Lua O Palahemo, and could affect adequate water flushing as
well, by blocking the currently narrow passage into the much larger
water body in the lava tube below. Introduction of trash involving
chemical contamination into anchialine pools, as has been observed
elsewhere on Hawaii Island (Brock 2004, pp. 15-16), could more
drastically affect water quality and result in local extirpation of
hypogeal shrimp species.
In general, the accidental or intentional introduction and spread
of nonnative fish (bait and aquarium fish) is considered the greatest
threat to anchialine pools in Hawaii (Brock 2004, p. 16). Maciolek
(1983, p. 612) found that the abundance of shrimp in a given population
is indirectly related to predation by fish. The release of mosquito
fish (Gambusia affinis) and tilapia (Tilapia mossambica) into the
Waikoloa Anchialine Pond Preserve (WAAPA) at Waikoloa, North Kona,
Hawaii, resulted in the infestation of all ponds within an
approximately 3.2-ha (8-ac) area, which represented approximately two-
thirds of the WAAPA. Within 6 months, all native hypogeal shrimp
species disappeared (Brock 2004, pp. iii). Nonnative fish drive
anchialine species out of the lighted, higher productivity portion of
the pools, into the surrounding water table bed rock, subsequently
leading to the decimation of the benthic community structure of the
pool (Brock 2004, p. iii). In addition, nonnative fish prey on and
exclude native hypogeal shrimp that are usually a dominant and
essential (Brock 2004, p. 16) faunal component of anchialine pool
ecosystems (Bailey-Brock and Brock 1993, pp. 338-355). The loss of the
shrimp changes ecological succession by reducing herbivory of
macroalgae, allowing an overgrowth and change of pool flora. This
overgrowth changes the system from clear, well-flushed basins to a
system characterized by heavy sedimentation and poor water exchange,
which increases the rate of pool senescence (Brock 2004, p. 16).
Nonnative fish, unlike native fish, are able to complete their life
cycles within anchialine habitats, and remain a permanent detrimental
presence in all pools in which they are introduced (Brock 2004, p. 16).
In Hawaii, the most frequently illegally introduced fish are in the
Poeciliidae family (freshwater fish which bear live young) and include
mosquito fish, various mollies (Poecilia spp.), and tilapia, which prey
on and exclude native hypogeal shrimp such as the herbivorous species
upon which Vetericaris chaceorum presumably feed. More than 90 percent
of the 600 to 700 anchialine habitats in Hawaii have been degraded in
the last 30 years due to the introduction of nonnative fish (Brock
2004, p. 24).
Lua O Palahemo is highly accessible to off-road vehicle traffic and
located near an area frequented by residents and visitors for fishing
and other outdoor recreational activities. We believe the pool is
vulnerable to the intentional dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish (bait and aquarium fish) because the area is easily
accessible to vehicles and human traffic, and yet due to its remote
location, is far from regulatory oversight by the DHHL or DAR.
According to Brock (2012, pers. comm.), sometime in the 1980s,
nonnative fish were introduced into Lua O Palahemo. It is our
understanding that the fish were subsequently removed with a fish
poison, and to our knowledge the pool currently remains free of
nonnative fish. The most commonly used piscicide (fish pesticide) in
the United States for management of fish in freshwater systems is a
naturally occurring chemical, marketed as a product called Rotenone.
Unfortunately, Rotenone use in marine systems (including anchialine
[[Page 63973]]
pools) is illegal according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
2007, pp. 22-23; Finlayson et al. 2010, p. 2).
More than 90 percent of Hawaii's anchialine pool habitats have been
degraded or destroyed by the intentional dumping of trash and
introduction of nonnative fish. Because the anchialine pool shrimp
Vetericaris chaceorum is only known from one pool, the introduction of
nonnative fish which prey on and exclude native hypogeal shrimp like
Vetericaris chaceorum or its associated prey shrimp species would
likely lead to the extirpation of this species, directly or indirectly
due to the lower abundance of co-occurring shrimp species that provide
food resources to Vetericaris chaceorum. In addition, the loss of
native shrimp species leads to changes in ecological succession in
anchialine pools, leading to senescence of the pool habitat, thereby
rendering the pool unsuitable habitat (Brock 2004, p. 16).
Small Number of Individuals and Populations
Species that are endemic to single islands are inherently more
vulnerable to extinction than are widespread species, because of the
increased risk of genetic bottlenecks, random demographic fluctuations,
climate change effects, and localized catastrophes such as hurricanes,
drought, rockfalls, landslides, and disease outbreaks (Pimm et al.
1988, p. 757; Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 607). These problems are further
magnified when populations are few and restricted to a very small
geographic area, and when the number of individuals in each population
is very small. Populations with these characteristics face an increased
likelihood of stochastic extinction due to changes in demography, the
environment, genetics, or other factors (Gilpin and Soul[eacute] 1986,
pp. 24-34). Small, isolated populations often exhibit reduced levels of
genetic variability, which diminishes the species' capacity to adapt
and respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability
of long-term persistence (e.g., Barrett and Kohn 1991, p. 4; Newman and
Pilson 1997, p. 361). Very small, isolated populations are also more
susceptible to reduced reproductive vigor due to ineffective
pollination (plants), inbreeding depression (plants and shrimp), and
hybridization (plants and flies). The problems associated with small
population size and vulnerability to random demographic fluctuations or
natural catastrophes are further magnified by synergistic interactions
with other threats, such as those discussed above (see Factor A and
Factor C above).
Plants
A limited number of individuals (fewer than 50 individuals) is a
threat to the following six plant species in this proposal: Bidens
hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Platydesma remyi, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and S. hawaiiensis. We
consider these species highly vulnerable to extinction due to threats
associated with small population size or small number of populations
because:
The only known occurrences of Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, and Cyrtandra wagneri are threatened
either by landslides, rockfalls, or erosion, or a combination of these,
because of their locations in lowland wet, montane wet, and dry cliff
ecosystems.
Platydesma remyi is known from fewer than 40 scattered
individuals (Stone et al. 1999, p. 1210; HBMP 2010i). Declining or lack
of regeneration in the wild appears to threaten this species.
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei is known from a single
individual in the Kohala Mountains (Perlman et al. 2001, in litt.;
Wagner et al. 2005d, p. 106; HBMP 2010j; Bio 2011, pers. comm.).
Habitat destruction or direct predation by ungulates,
nonnative plants, drought, and fire are threats to the 25 to 40
individuals of Schiedea hawaiiensis (Mitchell et al. 2005a; NDMC 2012-
Online Archives).
Animals
Like most native island biota, the endemic anchialine pool shrimp
and Hawaiian picture-wing fly are particularly sensitive to
disturbances due to low number of individuals, low population numbers,
and small geographic ranges. We consider the picture-wing fly
vulnerable to extinction due to threats associated with low number of
individuals and low number of populations because Drosophila digressa
is known from only two of its five historically known locations. The
following threats to this species have all been documented: Predation
by nonnative wasps and ants; habitat degradation and destruction by
nonnative ungulates, fire, and drought; loss of its host plants; and
competition with nonnative flies for its host plants (Science Panel
2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.).
Hybridization
Natural hybridization is a frequent phenomenon in plants and can
lead to the formation of new species (Orians 2000, p. 1,949), or
sometimes to the decline of species through genetic assimilation or
``introgression'' (Ellstrand 1992, pp. 77, 81; Levine et al. 1996, pp.
10-16; Rhymer and Simberloff 1996, p. 85). Hybridization, however, is
especially problematic for rare species that come into contact with
species that are abundant or more common (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996,
p. 83). We consider hybridization to be a threat to three species, and
potentially a threat to one more species in this proposed rule because
hybridization may lead to extinction of the original genotypically
distinct species. Hybrid swarms (hybrids that can interbreed among
themselves and also with the parent species) have been reported between
the plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and B. menziesii ssp.
filiformis near Puuwaawaa in north Kona (Ganders and Nagata 1983, p.
12; Ganders and Nagata 1999, p. 278); the plant Cyrtandra nanawaleensis
is known to hybridize with C. lysiosepala in and around the Nanawale FR
(Price 2011, in litt.); and Cyrtandra wagneri is reported to hybridize
with C. tintinnabula. Only eight individuals express the true phenotype
of C. wagneri, and only three of these individuals are reproducing
successfully (PEPP 2010, p. 102; Bio 2011, pers. comm.). Native species
can also hybridize with related nonnative species. For example, native
species of Pittosporum, including the plant Pittosporum hawaiiense, are
known to exhibit high levels of gene flow, and hybridization between
native Pittosporum and nonnative species of Pittosporum may occur when
they occupy similar habitat and elevation (Daehler and Carino 2001, pp.
91-96; Bacon et al. 2011, p. 733).
Regeneration
Lack of, or low levels of, regeneration (reproduction and
recruitment) in the wild has been observed, and is a threat to,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera (Bio
2011, pers. comm.; Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.). The reasons for this
are not well understood: however, seed predation by rats, ungulates,
and beetles is thought to play a role (Bio 2011, pers. comm.; Magnacca
2011b, pers. comm.). In addition, Cyanea tritomantha is reported to
produce few seeds with low viability. The reasons for this are unknown
(Bio 2008, in litt.).
[[Page 63974]]
Competition
Competition with nonnative tipulid flies (large crane flies, family
Tipulidae) for larvae host plants threatens the picture-wing fly
proposed for listing in this rule. The Hawaiian Islands now support
several species of nonnative tipulid flies, and 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
Cheirodendron, Clermontia, Pleomele, and Charpentiera, the host plant
for Drosophila digressa (Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2005,
in litt.). The effect of this competition is a reduction of available
host plant material for the larvae of the picture-wing fly. In
laboratory studies, Grimaldi and Jaenike (1984, pp. 1,113-1,120)
demonstrated that competition between Drosophila larvae and other fly
larvae can exhaust food resources, which affects both the probability
of larval survival and the body size of adults, resulting in reduced
adult fitness, fecundity, and lifespan. Both soldier and nephritid
flies have been suggested to impose a similar threat to Hawaiian
picture-wing flies (Montgomery 2005, in litt.; Science Panel 2005, pp.
1-23).
Loss of Host Plant
Drosophila digressa is dependent on decaying stem bark from plants
in the genus Charpentiera for oviposition and larval development
(Montgomery 1975, p. 95). Charpentiera is considered highly susceptible
to damage from alien ungulates, such as pigs and goats, as well as
competition with nonnative plants (e.g., Omalanthus populifolius,
Schinus terebinthifolius, and Psidium cattleianum) (Foote and Carson
1995, pp. 370-37; Science Panel 2005, pp. 1-23; Magnacca 2011b,
pers.comm.). Bark-breeding Drosophila species are sensitive to
bottlenecks in host plant populations due to their dependence on older,
senescent or dying plants (Magnacca et al. 2008, p. 32). Altered decay
cycles in host plants caused by genetic bottlenecks, or decreasing
availability of host plants due to browsing and trampling by nonnative
ungulates (pigs, goats, cattle, and mouflon), competition with
nonnative plants, drought, or other phenomena can subsequently alter
the life cycle of the picture-wing fly by disrupting the early stages
of development. Predation by nonnative beetles (the branch and twig
borer (Amphicerus cornutus), the black twig borer (Xylosandrus
compactus), and weevils (Oxydema fusiforme) have been documented as
threats to Charpentiera spp. (Medeiros et al. 1986, p. 29; Giffin 2009,
p. 81).
Summary of Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued
Existence
We consider the threats from dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish into the pool that supports the anchialine pool shrimp
proposed for listing in this rule to be serious threats that have the
potential to occur at any time, although their occurrence is not
predictable. The use of anchialine pools for dumping of trash and
introduction of nonnative fish are widespread practices in Hawaii and
have the potential to occur at any time at the Lua O Palahemo pool.
Nonnative fish prey on or outcompete native herbivorous anchialine pool
shrimp that serve as the prey base for predatory species of shrimp,
including the anchialine pool shrimp proposed for listing in this rule.
We consider the threat from limited number of populations and few
(less than 50) individuals to be a serious and ongoing threat to the 6
plant species proposed for listing (Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyrtandra wagneri, Platydesma remyi,
Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and S. hawaiiensis) because (1) these
species may experience reduced reproductive vigor due to ineffective
pollination or inbreeding depression; (2) they may experience reduced
levels of genetic variability, leading to diminished capacity to adapt
and respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability
of long-term persistence; and (3) a single catastrophic event may
result in extirpation of remaining populations and extinction of the
species. This threat applies to the entire range of each species.
The threat to the picture-wing fly from limited numbers of
individuals and populations is ongoing and is expected to continue into
the future because (1) this species may experience reduced reproductive
vigor due to inbreeding depression; (2) it may experience reduced
levels of genetic variability leading to diminished capacity to adapt
and respond to environmental changes, thereby lessening the probability
of long-term persistence; (3) a single catastrophic event (e.g.,
hurricane, drought) may result in extirpation of remaining populations
and extinction of this species; and (4) species with few known
locations, such as Drosophila digressa, are less resilient to threats
that might otherwise have a relatively minor impact on widely-
distributed species. For example, the reduced availability of host
trees or an increase in predation of the picture-wing fly adults that
might be absorbed in a widely-distributed species could result in a
significant decrease in survivorship or reproduction of a species with
limited distribution. The limited distribution of this species thus
magnifies the severity of the impact of the other threats discussed in
this proposed rule.
The threat from hybridization is unpredictable but an ongoing and
ever-present threat to Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis, and Cyrtandra wagneri, and a potential threat to
Pittosporum hawaiiense. We consider the threat to Cyanea tritomantha,
Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia lanigera from
lack of regeneration to be ongoing and to continue into the future
because the reasons for the lack of recruitment in the wild are unknown
and uncontrolled, and any competition from nonnative plants or habitat
modification by ungulates or fire could lead to the extirpation of
these species.
Competition for host plants with nonnative tipulid flies is a
threat to Drosophila digressa and is expected to continue into the
future because field biologists report that these nonnative flies are
widespread and there is no mechanism in place to control their
population growth. Loss of host plants (Charpentiera spp.) is a threat
to the picture-wing fly, and we consider this threat to continue into
the future because field biologists have reported that species of
Charpentiera are declining in the wild.
Proposed Determination for 15 Species
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding threats to each of the 15 species
proposed for listing. We find that each of the 13 plant species and the
picture-wing fly face threats that are ongoing and expected to continue
into the future throughout their ranges from the present destruction
and modification of their habitats from nonnative feral ungulates and
nonnative plants (Factor A). Destruction and modification of habitat by
development and urbanization is a threat to one plant species (Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla). Habitat destruction and modification from
fire is a threat to three of the plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Phyllostegia floribunda, and Schiedea hawaiiensis) and the
picture-wing fly. Destruction and modification of habitat from
rockfalls, landslides, treefalls, or heavy rain is a threat to four
plant species (Bidens hillebrandiana ssp.
[[Page 63975]]
hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, and Cyrtandra
wagneri). Habitat loss or degradation due to drought is a threat to two
plants, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Schiedea hawaiiensis, as
well as to the picture-wing fly. We are concerned about the effects of
projected climate change on all species, particularly rising
temperatures, but recognize there is limited information on the exact
nature of impacts that these species may experience. In addition,
habitat loss or degradation is a threat to the anchialine pool shrimp
Vetericaris chaceorum due to sedimentation resulting from degradation
of the immediate area surrounding the Lua O Palahemo anchialine pool.
Sedimentation reduces both food productivity and the ability of Lua O
Palahemo to support the anchialine pool shrimp (Factor A).
Overcollection for commercial and recreational purposes poses a
threat to Pritchardia lanigera (Factor B).
Predation and herbivory on all 13 plant species by feral pigs,
goats, cattle, sheep, mouflon, rats, slugs, two-spotted leaf hoppers,
or beetles poses a serious and ongoing threat; as does predation of the
picture-wing fly by nonnative wasps and ants (Factor C).
The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (i.e., inadequate
protection of habitat and inadequate protection from the introduction
of nonnative species) poses a serious and ongoing threat to all 15
species (Factor D). There are serious and ongoing threats to six plant
species (Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Cyanea marksii,
Cyrtandra wagneri, Platydesma remyi, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, and
S. hawaiiensis) and the picture-wing fly due to factors associated with
small numbers of populations and individuals; to Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, and
potentially to Pittosporum hawaiiense from hybridization; to Cyanea
tritomantha, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, and Pritchardia
lanigera from the lack of regeneration in the wild; and to the picture-
wing fly from competition for host plants with nonnative flies and
declining numbers of host plants. The anchialine pool shrimp is
threatened by the intentional dumping of trash and introduction of
nonnative fish into its only known location. Nonnative fish drive
anchialine species out of the lighted, highly productive portion of the
pools into the surrounding water table bed rock, subsequently leading
to the decimation of the benthic community structure of the pool, and
prey on and exclude native hypogeal shrimp that are usually a dominant
and essential faunal component of anchialine pool ecosystems. Because
anchialine pool health and the presence of hypogeal shrimp are
interdependent, the loss of the shrimp changes ecological succession by
reducing herbivory of cyanobacteria and macroalgae allowing an
overgrowth and change of pool flora. This overgrowth changes the system
from clear, well-flushed basins to a system characterized by heavy
sedimentation and poor water exchange which increases the rate of pool
senescence (Bailey-Brock and Brock 1993, pp. 338-355; Brock 2004, pp.
iii and 16) (Factor E) (see Table 3). These threats are exacerbated by
these species' inherent vulnerability to extinction from stochastic
events at any time because of their endemism, small numbers of
individuals and populations, and restricted habitats.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We find that each of these 15 endemic
species is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire
range, based on the severity and scope of the ongoing and projected
threats described above. These threats are exacerbated by small
population sizes, the loss of redundancy and resiliency of these
species, and the continued inadequacy of existing protective
regulations. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific
and commercial information, we have determined that each of these
species 15 species meets the definition of an endangered species under
the Act. We therefore propose to list the following 15 species as
endangered species in accordance with section 3(6) of the Act: The
plants Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra
nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum
hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa
ssp. macraei, Schiedea hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae; the
anchialine pool shrimp, Vetericaris chaceorum; and the picture-wing
fly, Drosophila digressa.
Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Each of the 15 Hawaii Island species
proposed for listing in this rule is highly restricted in its range,
and the threats occur throughout its range. Therefore, we assessed the
status of each species throughout its entire range. In each case, the
threats to the survival of these species occur throughout the species'
ranges and are not restricted to any particular portion of those
ranges. Accordingly, our assessment and proposed determination applies
to each species throughout its entire range, and we do not need to
further consider the status of each species in a significant portion of
their respective ranges.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies: Private
organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed
species. The protection measures required of Federal agencies and the
prohibitions against certain activities involving listed animals and
plants are discussed, in part, below.
The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning
components of their ecosystems.
Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline
shortly after a species is listed, preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan, and revisions to the plan as significant new information
becomes available. The recovery outline guides the immediate
implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to
be used to develop a recovery plan. The recovery plan identifies site-
specific management actions that will achieve recovery of the species,
measurable criteria that help to determine when a species may be
downlisted or delisted, and methods for
[[Page 63976]]
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (comprised
of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outlines, draft recovery
plans, and the final recovery plans will be available from our Web site
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal
agencies, States, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and
private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires
cooperative conservation efforts on private and State lands.
If these species are listed, funding for recovery actions will be
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the
academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition,
under section 6 of the Act, the State of Hawaii would be eligible for
Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the
protection and recovery of the 15 species. Information on our grant
programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at:
https://www.fws.gov/grants.
Although these species are only proposed for listing under the Act
at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating
in recovery efforts for these species. Additionally, we invite you to
submit any new information on these species whenever it becomes
available and any information you may have for recovery planning
purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or
listed as endangered or threatened with respect to its critical
habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this
interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR
part 402. Section 7(a)(1) of the Act mandates that all Federal agencies
shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of the Act. Section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat. If a Federal action may
affect the continued existence of a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation
with the Service.
For the 15 plants and animals proposed for listing as endangered
species in this rule, Federal agency actions that may require
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include, but are
not limited to, actions within the jurisdiction of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and branches of the Department of
Defense (DOD). Examples of these types of actions include activities
funded or authorized under the Farm Bill Program, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program,
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program, and DOD construction activities related to training
or other military missions.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife and plants. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for
wildlife and 17.61 for plants, apply. These prohibitions, in part, make
it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States to take (includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import,
export, ship in interstate commerce in the course of commercial
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce
any listed wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been
taken illegally. In addition, for plants listed as endangered, the Act
prohibits the malicious damage or destruction on areas under Federal
jurisdiction and the removal, cutting, digging up, or damaging or
destroying of such plants in knowing violation of any State law or
regulation, including State criminal trespass law. Certain exceptions
to the prohibitions apply to agents of the Service and State
conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered or threatened wildlife or plant species under
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50
CFR 17.22 and 17.62 for endangered wildlife and plants, respectively.
With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the
following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation
and survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with
otherwise lawful activities. For endangered plants, a permit must be
issued for scientific purposes or for the enhancement of propagation or
survival. Requests for copies of the regulations regarding listed
species and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be addressed
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region, Ecological Services,
Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181
(telephone 503-231-6131; facsimile 503-231-6243).
It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1,
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed
listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of species
proposed for listing. The following activities could potentially result
in a violation of section 9 of the Act; however, this list is not
comprehensive:
(1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, possessing, selling,
delivering, carrying, or transporting of the species, including import
or export across State lines and international boundaries, except for
properly documented antique specimens of these taxa at least 100 years
old, as defined by section 10(h)(1) of the Act;
(2) Introduction of nonnative species that compete with or prey
upon the 15 species, such as the introduction of competing, nonnative
plants or animals to the State of Hawaii; and
(3) The unauthorized release of biological control agents that
attack any life stage of these 15 species.
Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Requests for copies of the regulations concerning listed animals and
general inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be
[[Page 63977]]
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region,
Ecological Services, Endangered Species Permits, Eastside Federal
Complex, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181 (telephone 503-
231-6131; facsimile 503-231-6243).
If made final, Federal listing of the 15 species included in this
rule would automatically invoke State listing under Hawaii's Endangered
Species law (H.R.S. 195D 1-32) and supplement the protection available
under other State laws. These protections would prohibit take of these
species and encourage conservation by State government agencies.
Further, the State would be able to enter into agreements with Federal
agencies to administer and manage any area required for the
conservation, management, enhancement, or protection of endangered
species (H.R.S. 195D-5). Funds for these activities could be made
available under section 6 of the Act (Cooperation with the States).
Thus, the Federal protection afforded to these species by listing them
as endangered species would be reinforced and supplemented by
protection under State law.
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(I) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(II) Which 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 that are necessary to bring an endangered
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,
transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population
pressures within a given ecosystem cannot otherwise be relieved, may
include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. 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 the government or public access to private
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration,
recovery, or enhancement measures by the landowner. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but in the
event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the Federal
action agency's and the applicant's obligation is not to restore or
recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent
alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing
must contain the physical or 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 and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide
essential life cycle needs of the species. Under the Act and
regulations at 50 CRF 424.12(e), 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 and that designation limited to those
areas occupied at the time of listing would be inadequate to ensure 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 we are determining which areas should be proposed 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 to be necessary for the
recovery of the species, as additional scientific information may
become available in the future. For these reasons, a critical habitat
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be required for recovery of the species.
The information currently available on the effects of global
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects to allow
us to incorporate this information into our current designation of
critical habitat, nor are we currently aware of any climate change
information specific to the habitat of any of the species being
addressed in this proposed rule that would indicate what areas may
become important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are unable
to determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate to
include in the proposed critical habitat for these species; however, we
specifically request information from the public on the currently
predicted effects of climate change on the species addressed in this
proposed rule and their habitats. Furthermore, we recognize that
designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat
areas we may eventually determine are necessary for the recovery of the
species, based on scientific data
[[Page 63978]]
now available to the Service. For these reasons, a critical habitat
designation does not signify that habitat outside of the designated
area is unimportant or may not be required for the recovery of the
species.
Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of
the Act. Areas that support populations 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 scientific
information at the time of the 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
(HCPs), section 7 consultations, or other species conservation planning
efforts if any new information available to these planning efforts
calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination for 15 Proposed Species and 2 Listed Species on
Hawaii Island
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that designation of critical habitat is
not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The
species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species; or (2) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
As we have discussed under the threats analysis for Factor B,
above, there is currently no documentation that 14 of the 15 species
proposed for listing are threatened by taking or other human activity.
Overcollection is a threat to the plant Pritchardia lanigera (see
``Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific or
Educational Purposes,'' above). Rare palm trees are highly desirable to
collectors, and there is an active Internet sale and online auction
market for their seeds and seedlings, including P. lanigera
(rarepalmseeds.com 2011; junglemusic.net 2012; ebay.com 2012). Several
nurseries advertise and sell seedlings and young plants, including at
least 13 species of Hawaiian Pritchardia. Seven of these species are
federally protected, including P. affinis and P. schattaueri on Hawaii
Island (ebay.com 2012; junglemusic.net 2012). Seeds of the endangered
P. hardyi on Kauai have been illegally removed from an outplanting site
in the past (75 FR 18960, April 13, 2010), and there is evidence of
vandalism and illegal collection of other species of endangered
Pritchardia palms on Kauai (75 FR 18960, April 13, 2010). In the 1990s,
seeds of the endangered P. schattaueri were removed from plants in two
of the three locations on Hawaii Island where this species was known at
that time (PEPP 2007, in litt.). We do not believe that the designation
of critical habitat for P. lanigera will increase the threat of
overcollection for the following reasons: (1) The area of the known
locations is extremely difficult to access because most of the rigorous
and steep trails leading into Waimanu and neighboring valleys were
destroyed in the 2005 Kona earthquake (Magnacca 2011b, pers. comm.);
and (2) critical habitat designation, as proposed, does not identify
the specific location of individual species . In addition, we believe
that the potential benefit to P. lanigera from designating critical
habitat is that the designation could serve to educate landowners,
State and local government agencies, and the general public regarding
the potential conservation value of the area. Therefore, we find that
the designation of critical habitat for P. lanigera is prudent.
At the time we listed the plant Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi) as
endangered we found that designation of critical habitat was not
prudent because publication of the location of a species-specific
critical habitat description would increase the risk of taking or
vandalism, while providing no additional benefit to the species (51 FR
24672; July 8, 1986). However, we have examined the best available
information and found no current information to indicate that this
plant is currently threatened by overcollection or vandalism, or is
otherwise used for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes. Thus, we believe there is a benefit to a critical habitat
designation for this species (see discussion below). Moreover, we have
no current information to indicate that identification of critical
habitat is expected to initiate such a threat to any of the other
species addressed in this proposed rule.
We reviewed the information available for the 13 plants, anchialine
pool shrimp, and picture-wing fly proposed for listing in this rule,
and the endangered plant Mezoneuron kavaiense, pertaining to the
biological needs of these 16 species and characteristics of their last
known habitats. In the absence of finding that the designation of
critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any
benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is
warranted. The potential benefits to the 15 species proposed for
listing and the endangered plant Mezoneuron kavaiense include: (1)
Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act, in new areas for
actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not
otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or
the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on
the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational
benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4)
preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section
7(a)(2) requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any
action that destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. We find
that the designation of critical habitat for each of the 15 species
proposed for listing in this rule and the endangered plant Mezoneuron
kavaiense would benefit them by serving to focus conservation efforts
on the restoration and maintenance of ecosystem functions that are
essential for attaining their recovery and long-term viability. In
addition, the designation of critical habitat serves to inform
management and conservation decisions by identifying any additional
physical or biological features of the ecosystem that may be essential
for the conservation of certain species. Therefore, as we have
determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely
increase the degree of threat to the species and may provide some
measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat is
prudent for the following 16 species, as critical habitat would be
beneficial and there is no evidence that the designation of critical
habitat would result in an increased threat from taking or other human
activity for these species:
(1) Plants-- Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana, Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii,
[[Page 63979]]
Cyanea tritomantha, Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri,
Mezoneuron kavaiense, Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense,
Platydesma remyi, Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei,
Schiedea hawaiiense, and Stenogyne cranwelliae;
(2) Animals-- insects: Drosophila digressa; crustaceans:
Vetericaris chaceorum.
In this rule, we are also proposing critical habitat for the listed
plant, Isodendrion pyrifolium. We previously found that critical
habitat is prudent and determinable (67 FR 36968; May 28, 2002) for
Isodendrion pyrifolium on Hawaii Island, but we did not designate any
critical habitat for the species in 2003, as discussed below.
Critical Habitat Determinability for 16 Species on Hawaii Island
As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable
when one or both of the following situations exist:
(i) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
(ii) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C.
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
Pursuant to section 4(a)(3) of the Act we are to designate critical
habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time a
species is proposed for listing. In our previous discussion, we
indicated that the designation of critical habitat would provide a
benefit for the 15 species proposed for listing in this rule, and the
plant, Mezoneuron kavaiense listed as endangered in 1986 (51 FR 24672;
July 8, 1986). As a consequence, we determined that the designation of
critical habitat for these 16 species is prudent.
Next we are to evaluate whether the designation of critical habitat
is determinable, and if so, propose critical habitat concurrent with
our proposed listing. At this time, we have found that the designation
of critical habitat is determinable for only one species that we are
proposing to list, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and are including
critical habitat for it in this proposal. We also find that the
designation of critical habitat is determinable for the listed plant,
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and are including critical habitat for it in this
proposal. In addition, we are including critical habitat for a third
species, the plant Isodendrion pyrifolium listed as endangered in 1994
(59 FR 10305; March 4, 1994). We had previously determined that
critical habitat was prudent and determinable (67 FR 36968; May 28,
2002) and proposed areas as critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrifolium
on Hawaii Island. However, in the final rule for Hawaii Island plants
(68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003), the areas proposed for critical habitat
for this species were excluded from final designation under section
4(b)(2) of the Act (see discussion regarding ``Reconsideration of Lands
Previously Excluded Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'').
The species Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, which is proposed
for listing in this rule, and the listed species Isodendrion pyrifolium
and Mezoneuron kavaiense co-occur in the same lowland dry ecosystem on
the island of Hawaii. These three species (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense) share
many of the same physical or biological features (e.g., elevation,
annual rainfall, substrate, associated native plant genera) as well as
the same threats from development, fire, and nonnative ungulates and
plants. In this proposed rule, we have identified areas that provide
the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of
these three species and areas that are essential for the conservation
of these three species in the lowland dry ecosystem on the island of
Hawaii. Therefore, we find that critical habitat is determinable for
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and
Mezoneuron kavaiense in this rule.
However, for the remaining 14 species proposed for listing in this
rule, we do not have the analysis necessary to refine the
identification of the physical and biological features and delineate
the specific areas that contain those features in the appropriate
arrangement and quantity or the specific unoccupied areas essential to
the species' conservation. As a result, we find that for the remaining
14 species that we are proposing to list in this rule, the designation
of critical habitat is not determinable at this time.
Proposed Critical Habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense on Hawaii Island
In this section, we discuss the proposed designation of critical
habitat for three plant species (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense). Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla is 1 of the 15 species proposed for listing in this
rule, for which critical habitat was determined to be prudent and
determinable. Critical habitat wa for Isodendrion pyrifolium on the
island of Hawaii, but was excluded from designation as critical habitat
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act in the final rule published on July 2,
2003 (68 FR 39624). In this proposed rule, we have determined that
critical habitat is both prudent and determinable for the listed plant
species Mezoneuron kavaiense.
Background for the Listed Plants Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron
kavaiense
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the proposed designation of critical habitat on the island of Hawaii.
For additional information on Isodendrion pyrifolium and its proposed
critical habitat on Oahu, Molokai, and Maui, refer to the proposed
rules for Listing 23 Species on Oahu as Endangered and Designating
Critical Habitat for 124 Species (76 FR 46362; August 2, 2011) and the
proposed rule Listing 38 Species on Molokai, Lanai, and Maui as
Endangered and Designating Critical Habitat on Molokai, Lanai, Maui,
and Kahoolawe for 135 Species (77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012). For
additional information on the listed endangered plant Mezoneuron
kavaiense, which does not have designated critical habitat in Hawaii,
please refer to the listing rule published in the Federal Register on
July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24672).
Currently designated critical habitat on the island of Hawaii
includes critical habitat for the plant Kokia drynarioides (49 FR
47397, December 4, 1984), and 41 other listed plants (68 FR 39624, July
2, 2003), Blackburn's sphinx moth (68 FR 34710, June 10, 2003), and 3
picture-wing flies (73 FR 73794, December 4, 2008). Approximately 55
percent of the area being proposed as critical habitat in this rule
overlaps with these areas previously designated as critical habitat. In
some areas, the footprint of the proposed critical habitat is larger
than the 1984, 2003, and 2008 designations, to accommodate the future
expansion of one or more of the three species'
[[Page 63980]]
populations within the particular ecosystem in which they occur (e.g.,
expansion into unoccupied habitat). The proposed critical habitat
correlates each species' physical or biological requirements with the
characteristics of the lowland dry ecosystem within which they occur
(e.g., elevation, rainfall, species associations, etc.), and also
includes areas unoccupied by the species but determined to be essential
for the conservation of the species. The proposed critical habitat will
enable managers to focus conservation management efforts on common
threats and facilitate the restoration of the ecosystem function and
species-specific habitat needs for the recovery of Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
This information represents the best current scientific and commercial
information available.
Current Status of Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense
The plant, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, is proposed for
listing as endangered in this rule. For the status of B. micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla see Description of the 15 Species Proposed for Listing
above.
Isodendrion pyrifolium (wahine noho kula), a perennial shrub in the
violet family (Violaceae), is known from Niihau, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai,
Maui, and Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1999k, p. 1,331). Isodendrion
pyrifolium was thought to be extinct since 1870, but was rediscovered
in 1991 at Kealakehe, near Kailua on the island of Hawaii. In 2003, I.
pyrifolium was only known from a single occurrence of approximately
nine individuals at Kealakehe on the island of Hawaii (68 FR 39624,
July 2, 2003). Currently, there are no extant occurrences on Oahu,
Lanai, Molokai, or Maui. Surveys in 2006 and 2007 have documented the
decline of the total number of individuals at Kealakehe (from nine
individuals in 2003, to four individuals in 2006, to three individuals
in 2007) (David 2007, pers. comm. in USFWS 2008, in litt.). Currently,
there are only two wild individuals at Kealakehe, in the lowland dry
ecosystem (Wagner 2011b, in litt.). The two wild individuals are found
within two small, managed preserves situated in an urban setting. The
larger 26-ac (11-ha) preserve is bordered by a high school, residential
development, and construction of the Kealakehe portion of Ane
Keohokalole Highway. The smaller 4-ac (1-ha) preserve is bordered by
the same highway construction and open space. Three individuals are
represented in ex situ collections (PEPP 2011, p. 32). Plants are under
propagation at the Volcano Rare Plant Facility and at the Future
Forests Nursery for seed production and for outplanting (VRPF 2010, in
litt.; VRPF 2011, in litt; Wagner 2011b, in litt.). Five I. pyrifolium
plants have been outplanted at the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical
Park (NHP), and another 20 plants were outplanted in Puu Waawaa and
Kaupulehu in 2010 (Wagner 2011c, in litt.). There are plans to outplant
an additional 25 plants at both Kealakehe and Kaupulehu (Wagner 2011c,
in litt.). Critical habitat for this species is also being proposed on
the islands of Oahu (76 FR 46362; August 2, 2011), and Maui and Molokai
(77 FR 34464; June 11, 2012). There is no currently designated critical
habitat for this plant on Hawaii Island.
Mezoneuron kavaiense (uhiuhi), a medium-sized tree in the pea
family (Fabaceae), was known historically from Kauai, Oahu, Lanai,
Maui, and Hawaii (Geesink et al. 1999, pp. 647-648). At the time of
listing in 1986, a single large occurrence of approximately 30
individuals at Puu Waawaa contained the majority of individuals of this
species on Hawaii Island (51 FR 24672, July 8, 1986; HBMP 2010m). In
1992, a second occurrence of 21 individuals was discovered at Kealakehe
(USFWS 1994, p. 14; HBMP 2010m). In 1993, fire within a kipuka (an area
of older land within the younger Kaupulehu lava flow) destroyed 80
percent of the individuals known from Puu Waawaa. Surveys in 2006
reported the number of individuals at Puu Waawaa to be approximately 50
to 100 individuals (HBMP 2010m). In addition, recently new information
documented 13 individuals near Waikoloa Village (Faucette 2010, p. 3).
Currently, M. kavaiense is found in 4 occurrences totaling 90 to 140
individuals in the lowland dry ecosystem of Hawaii Island (HBMP 2010m).
Critical habitat is not currently designated for this plant.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
data available in determining those areas that contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the three species,
and for which designation of critical habitat is considered prudent, by
identifying the occurrence data for each species and determining the
ecosystems upon which they depend. This information was developed by
using:
The known locations of the three species, including site-
specific species information from the HBMP database (HBMP 2010b; HBMP
2010m; HBMP 2010n), the TNC database (TNC 2007--Ecosystem Database of
ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished), and our own rare plant database;
Species information from the plant database housed at
NTBG;
Maps of habitat essential to the recovery of Hawaiian
plants, as determined by the Hawaii and Pacific Plant Recovery
Coordinating Committee (HPPRCC 1998, 32 pp. + appendices);
Maps of important habitat for the recovery of plants
protected under the Act (USFWS 1999, pp. F12);
The Nature Conservancy's Ecoregional Assessment of the
Hawaiian High Islands (2006) and ecosystem maps (TNC 2007--Ecosystem
Database of ArcMap Shapefiles, unpublished);
Color mosaic 1:19,000 scale digital aerial photographs for
the Hawaiian Islands (March 2006 to January 2009);
Island-wide Geographic Information System (GIS) coverage
(e.g., Gap Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation data of 2005;
1:24,000 scale digital raster graphics of U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles;
Geospatial data sets associated with parcel data from
Hawaii County (2008);
Recent biological surveys and reports; and
Discussions with qualified individuals familiar with these
species and ecosystems.
Based upon all of this data, we determined that those portions of
the lowland dry ecosystems being proposed for critical habitat
designation in this rule are either currently occupied or were occupied
at the time of listing by one or more of the 3 species addressed in
this rule. These areas contain the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, or to the extent that
they are not currently occupied by one or more of the three species,
they are essential for the conservation of the species (TNC 2006b, pp.
1-2)).
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protection. These physical or
biological features provide the essential life-history requirements of
the species, and include, but are not limited to:
[[Page 63981]]
(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, rearing (or development) of
offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical geographical and ecological
distributions of a species.
For plant species, ecosystems that provide appropriate seasonal
wetland and dry land habitats, host species, pollinators, soil types,
and associated plant communities are taken into consideration when
determining the physical or biological features essential for a
species.
The recovery plans (Recovery Plan for Caesalpinia kavaiensis and
Kokia drynarioides, June 1994; and Recovery Plan for the Big Island
Plant Cluster, September 1996) identify several actions needed to
recover the endangered Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense,
including: Expanding existing wild populations and reestablishing wild
populations within the historic range. These actions are also needed to
recover Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla because this species, found
in the same habitat as the two listed plants, faces the same threats.
Furthermore, because of their small numbers or low population sizes,
each of the three species requires suitable habitat and space for the
expansion of existing populations to achieve a level that could
approach recovery. We have determined that to recover these species, it
is essential to conserve suitable habitat in both occupied and
unoccupied units, which will in turn allow for the establishment of
additional populations through natural recruitment or managed
reintroductions. Establishment of these additional populations will
increase the likelihood that the species will survive and recover in
the face of normal and stochastic events (e.g., hurricanes, fire, and
nonnative species introductions) (Mangel and Tier 1994, p. 612; Pimm et
al. 1998, p. 777; Stacey and Taper 1992, p. 27). In this regard, the
designation of critical habitat limited to the geographic areas
occupied by the species at the time of listing would be insufficient to
achieve recovery objectives.
We have derived the specific physical and biological features
required for each of the two listed plants, Isodendrion pyrifolium and
Mezoneuron kavaiense, from studies of the species' habitat, ecology,
and life history. In addition, we have reevaluated the physical and
biological features for I. pyrifolium based on ecosystem definitions
using species information from the 2003 Final Designation and
Nondesignation of Critical Habitat for 46 Plant Species From the Island
of Hawaii, HI (68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003) and new scientific
information that has become available since that time. Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla is found in locations with the same substrate age and
soil type as Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and is
known to share the same land cover (vegetation) type as Mezoneuron
kavaiense throughout over 85 percent of its range (HBMP 2010m).
Therefore, we believe that B. micrantha ssp. ctenophylla shares the
same physical or biological features that we have determined for
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
When designating critical habitat in occupied areas, we focus on
the physical or biological features that may be essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protections. In unoccupied habitat, we focus on
whether the area is essential to the conservation of the species. The
currently proposed physical or biological features for occupied areas,
in conjunction with the unoccupied areas needed to expand and
reestablish wild populations within their historical range, provide a
more accurate picture of the geographic areas needed for the recovery
of each species. We believe this information will be helpful to Federal
agencies and our other partners, as we collectively work to recover
these imperiled species.
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the three species for which we are proposing critical
habitat. We identify these features in areas occupied at the time of
listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements. We
consider the primary constituent elements (PCEs) to be the elements of
physical or biological features that provide for a species' life-
history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.
The PCEs identified in this proposed rule take into consideration the
ecosystem in which each species occurs and reflects a distribution that
we believe is essential to achieving the species' recovery needs within
that ecosystem.
In this proposal, PCEs for each of the three species are defined
based on those physical or biological features essential to support the
successful functioning of the ecosystem upon which each species
depends, and which may require special management considerations or
protection. As the conservation of each species is dependent upon a
functioning ecosystem to provide its fundamental life requirements,
such as a certain soil type, minimum level of rainfall, or suitable
native host plant, we consider the physical or biological features
present in the ecosystem described in this rule to provide the
necessary elements for each of the three species in this proposal. The
ecosystem's features collectively provide the suite of environmental
conditions essential to meeting the requirements of each of the three
species, including the appropriate microclimatic conditions for
germination and growth of the plants (e.g., light availability, soil
nutrients, hydrologic regime, temperature), and in all cases, space
within the appropriate habitats for population growth and expansion, to
maintain the historical, geographical, and ecological distribution of
each species. In the case of Isodendrion pyrifolium, due to its recent
rediscovery and limited geographic distribution at one known
occurrence, the more general description of the physical or biological
features that provide for the successful function of the ecosystem that
is essential to the conservation of the species represents the best,
and in many cases, the only, scientific information available.
Accordingly, the physical or biological features of the lowland
ecosystem are the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the three species at issue here.
Table 4 identifies the physical or biological features of a
functioning lowland dry ecosystem, which each of the three species
identified in this rule requires.
[[Page 63982]]
Table 4--Primary Constituent Elements of the Lowland Dry Ecosystem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential habitat for one or more of these associated
Annual native plant genera
Ecosystem Elevation precipitation Substrate ------------------------------------------------------------
Canopy Subcanopy Understory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland Dry \2\................. < 3,300 ft < 50 in Weathered silty Diospyros, Chamaesyce, Alyxia, Artemisia,
(<1,000 m) (<130 cm) loams to stony Erythrina, Dodonaea, Bidens, Capparis,
clay, rocky Metrosideros, Osteomeles, Chenopodium,
ledges, little- Myoporum, Psydrax, Nephrolepis,
weathered lava. Pleomele, Scaevola, Peperomia,
Santalum, Sapindus. Wikstroemia. Sicyos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 indicates that the specific elements or PCEs in the lowland
dry ecosystem include elevations of less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m);
annual precipitation of less than 50 in (130 cm); weathered silty loams
to stony clay, rocky ledges, and little-weathered lava; and potential
habitat for one or more genera of the subcanopy plants Chamaesyce,
Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola, and Wikstroemia, one or more
of the understory plants Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis,
Chenopodium, Nephrolepis, Peperomia, and Sicyos, and one or more of the
genera of the canopy species Diospyros, Erythrina, Metrosideros,
Myoporum, Pleomele, Santalum, and Sapindus.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat Boundaries
We considered several factors in the selection and proposal of
specific boundaries for critical habitat for these three species. We
propose to designate critical habitat on lands that contain the
physical or biological features essential to conserving multiple
species, based on their shared dependence on the functioning ecosystem
they have in common. The lowland dry ecosystem that supports the three
plant species addressed here does not form a contiguous area, and is
divided into seven geographic subunits that we refer to as
``sections.'' Although we do not usually refer to areas of critical
habitat as sections, compliance with Federal Register publication
requirements necessitated the subdivision into smaller subunits to
correspond with existing critical habitat units currently published in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), as some of the proposed critical
habitat for the three plant species overlies critical habitat already
designated for other plants on the island of Hawaii. We, thus, refer to
``sections'' here in order to retain the focus on the contiguous
ecosystem areas of interest in this proposed rule, while recognizing
that multiple critical habitat units may comprise these sections.
Further details are provided under the section titled ``Proposed
Critical Habitat Designation,'' below.
The proposed critical habitat is a combination of areas currently
occupied by these three species, as well as areas that may be currently
unoccupied. The best available scientific information suggests that
these species either presently occur within, or have occupied, these
habitats. A properly functioning ecosystem provides the physical or
biological features that support life-history requirements of the
species that rely on the ecosystem, and the specific elements or PCEs
essential for the conservation of the species that occur there. In
addition, due to the small population sizes, few numbers of
individuals, and reduced geographic range of each of the three species
for which critical habitat is here proposed, we have determined that a
designation limited to known present range of each species would be
inadequate to achieve the conservation of those species. The areas that
may have been unoccupied at the time of listing have been determined to
be essential for the conservation and recovery of the species because
they provide the habitat necessary for the expansion of existing wild
populations and reestablishment of wild populations within the
historical range of the species. Designating unoccupied critical
habitat for these species would promote conservation actions to restore
their historical, geographical, and ecological representation, which is
essential for their recovery. Critical habitat boundaries for all
species were delineated to clearly depict and promote the recovery and
conservation of these species by identifying the functioning ecosystem
on which they depend.
Current and historical species location information was used to
develop initial critical habitat boundaries (polygons) in the lowland
dry ecosystem that would individually and collectively provide for the
conservation of the three species addressed in this proposed rule. For
these three species, we propose critical habitat only in the geographic
area of historical occurrence, which is restricted to the lowland dry
ecosystem in the north Kona and south Kohala regions. The initial
polygons were superimposed over digital topographic maps of the island
of Hawaii and further evaluated. In general, land areas that were
identified as highly degraded were removed from the proposed critical
habitat units, and natural or manmade features (e.g., ridge lines,
valleys, streams, coastlines, roads, obvious land features, etc.) were
used to delineate the proposed critical habitat boundaries.
The critical habitat areas described below constitute our best
assessment of the physical or biological features essential for the
conservation of the three plant species, and the unoccupied areas
essential for the species' conservation by providing for the expansion
of existing populations. The approximate size of each of the seven
plant critical habitat sections and the status of their land ownership,
are identified in Table 5A. As noted in Table 5A, all areas proposed
for critical habitat designation are found within the lowland dry
ecosystem. Table 5B identifies the areas under consideration for
exclusion from critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act (see Exclusions, below).
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this proposed
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack the physical or
biological features essential for the conservation of the three plant
species. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed areas. Any such structures and the land
under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown
on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the
proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat.
Therefore, Federal actions involving these areas would not trigger
section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat unless the
specific action
[[Page 63983]]
would affect the adjacent critical habitat or its primary constituent
elements.
Table 5a--Critical Habitat Proposed for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Mezoneuron kavaiense, and Isodendrion pyrifolium on the Island of Hawaii
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding critical
Size of Size of habitat map in the Code
Proposed critical habitat area section in section in State Federal County Private of Federal Regulations
acres hectares (CFR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii--Lowland Dry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Section 1
Unit 10.................... 2,914 1,179 2,914 .............. .............. .............. Map 39a.
Unit 31.................... 9,936 4,021 7,101 .............. .............. 2,834 Map 104.
--Unit 32.................. 1,779 720 21 .............. .............. 1,758 Map 105.
--Unit 33.................. 1,583 640 1,080 .............. .............. 502 Map 106.
--Unit 34.................. 961 389 259 .............. .............. 702 Map 106.
--Unit 35.................. 1,192 485 606 .............. 19 568 Map 106.
--Unit 36.................. 402 163 5 397 .............. .............. Map 106.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Lowland Dry...... 18,766 7,597 11,986 397 19 6,364 .......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5b--Areas Under Consideration for Exclusion Under Section 4(b)(2)
of the Act
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total area
proposed as Area considered
Owner critical habitat for exclusion in
in acres acres (hectares)
(hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamehameha Schools.................. 2,834 (1,147) 2,834 (1,147)
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC....... 502 (203) 502 (203)
Kaloko Properties Corp.............. 48 (19) 48 (19)
Lanihau Properties.................. 47 (19) 47 (19)
SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC............ 558 (226) 558 (226)
TSA Corporation..................... 26 (10) 26 (10)
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands... 446 (181) 87 (35)
-----------------------------------
Total........................... 4,461 (1,805) 4,099 (1,659)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed critical habitat designation is defined by the maps,
as modified by any accompanying regulatory text, presented at the end
of this document in the rule portion. We include more detailed
information on the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat
designation in the preamble of this document. We will make the
coordinates or plot points or both on which each map is based available
to the public on https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. [FWS-R1-ES-
2012-0070], on our Internet site https://www.fws.gov/pacificislands, and
at the Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office responsible for the
designation. You may obtain field office location information by
contacting one of the Service regional offices, the addresses of which
are listed at 50 CFR 2.2.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
The term critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act,
in part, as geographic areas on which are found these physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species and
``which may require special management considerations or protection.''
In identifying critical habitat in occupied areas, we determine
whether those areas that contain the features essential to the
conservation of the species require any special management actions.
Although the determination that special management may be required is
not a prerequisite to designating critical habitat in unoccupied areas,
special management is needed throughout all of the proposed critical
habitat units. The following discussion of special management needs is,
therefore, applicable to each of the three Hawaii Island species for
which we are proposing to designate critical habitat.
For each of the three species currently found in the wild on Hawaii
Island, we have determined that the features essential to their
conservation are those required for the successful functioning of the
lowland dry ecosystem in which they occur (see Table 4 above). Special
management considerations or protections are necessary throughout the
critical habitat areas proposed here to avoid further degradation or
destruction of the habitat that provides those features essential to
their conservation. The primary threats to the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of these three species include
habitat destruction and modification by development, nonnative
ungulates, competition with nonnative species, hurricanes, fire,
drought, and climate change. The
[[Page 63984]]
reduction of these threats will require the implementation of special
management actions within each of the critical habitat areas identified
in this proposed rule.
All proposed critical habitat requires special management actions
to address the ongoing degradation and loss of habitat caused by
agricultural and urban development. Urbanization also increases the
likelihood of wildfires ignited by human sources. Without protection
and special management, habitat containing the features that are
essential for the conservation of these species will continue to be
degraded and destroyed.
All proposed critical habitat requires active management to address
the ongoing degradation and loss of native habitat caused by nonnative
ungulates (goats and cattle). Nonnative ungulates also impact the
habitat through predation and trampling. Without this special
management, habitat containing the features that are essential for the
conservation of these species will continue to be degraded and
destroyed.
All proposed critical habitat requires active management to address
the ongoing degradation and loss of native habitat caused by nonnative
plants. Special management is also required to prevent the introduction
and spread of nonnative plant species into native habitats. Particular
attention is required in nonnative plant control efforts to avoid
creating additional disturbances that may facilitate the further
introduction and establishment of invasive plant seeds. Precautions are
also required to avoid the inadvertent trampling of listed plant
species in the course of management activities.
The active control of nonnative plant species will help to address
the threat posed by fire in all six of the proposed critical habitat
units. This threat is largely a result of the presence of nonnative
plant species such as the grasses Pennisetum setaceum and Melinis
minutiflora that increase the fuel load and quickly regenerate after a
fire. These nonnative grass species can outcompete native plants that
are not adapted to fire, creating a grass-fire cycle that alters
ecosystem functions (D'Antonio and Vitousek 1992, pp. 64-66; Brooks et
al. 2004, p. 680).
In summary, we find that each of the areas we are proposing as
critical habitat contains features essential for the conservation of
the species that may require special management considerations or
protection to ensure the conservation of the three plant species for
which we are proposing critical habitat. These special management
considerations and protections are required to preserve and maintain
the essential features provided to these species by the lowland dry
ecosystem upon which they depend. The specific areas proposed for
critical habitat that are outside the geographical area occupied by
these species have been determined to be essential for their
conservation.
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 18,766 ac (7,597 ha) as critical habitat in 7
units within the lowland dry ecosystem for Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense. (See
Table 5A above for details). Of these proposed units, 10,304 ac (4,170
ha), or 55 percent, are already designated as critical habitat for
other listed species. The proposed critical habitat includes land under
State, County of Hawaii, Federal (Kaloko-Honokohau NHP), and private
ownership. The critical habitat units we describe below constitute our
current best assessment of those areas that meet the definition of
critical habitat for the three species of plants.
Because some of the proposed critical habitat for the three plants
overlays critical habitat already designated for other plant species on
the island of Hawaii, we have incorporated the maps of the areas
proposed for critical habitat in this proposed rule into the existing
critical habitat unit numbering system established for the plants on
the island of Hawaii in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR
17.99(k)). This required further subdividing some of the ecosystem
areas that we identified as ``sections'' into units that correspond to
both existing and new critical habitat unit numbers and maps numbers as
published in the CFR. The maps and area descriptions presented here
represent the lowland dry ecosystem areas that we have identified for
the three plant species, subdivided into a total of 6 sections. The
critical habitat unit numbers and the corresponding map numbers that
will appear at 50 CFR 17.99 are additionally provided for ease of
reference in the CFR.
Descriptions of Proposed Critical Habitat
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Section 1 consists of 10,015 ac (4,053 ha) of
State land, and 2,834 ac (1,147 ha) of privately owned land for a total
of 12,849 ac (5,200 ha), from Puu Waawaa to Kaupulehu on the
northwestern slope of Hualalai between the elevations of 760 and 2,600
ft (231 and 793 m) (Figure 2). The section includes 2,914 ac (1,179 ha)
of State land within previously designated critical habitat and 9,936
ac (4,021 ha) of newly proposed critical habitat on 7,101 ac (2,874 ha)
of State land and 2,834 ac (1,147 ha) of privately owned land. The area
that falls within designated critical habitat lies within Hawaii Unit
10 of 50 CFR 17.99(k), Map 39a, and proposed new critical habitat
Hawaii Unit 31, Map 104. The area of Section 1 that overlaps previously
designated critical habitat includes critical habitat for the following
listed plant species: Bonamia menziesii, Colubrina oppositifolia,
Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis, Neraudia ovata, and Nothocestrum
breviflorum. This section is occupied by the plants Bidens micrantha
spp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 4).
This section also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to
the conservation of these two species by providing the PCEs necessary
for the expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Section 1 is not known to be occupied by Isodendrion
pyrifolium, we have determined this area to be essential for the
conservation and recovery of this lowland dry species because it
provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations
within its historical range. Due to its small numbers of individuals
this species requires suitable habitat and space for expansion or
reintroduction to achieve population levels that could approach
recovery.
[[Page 63985]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.004
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 32 consists of 21 ac (8 ha) of State
land, and 1,758 ac (712 ha) of privately owned land for a total of
1,779 ac (720 ha), at Waikoloa on the western slope of Mauna Kea
between the elevations of 720 and 1,220 ft (220 and 372 m). This unit
is not in previously designated critical habitat and comprises proposed
critical habitat shown on Map 105 in this proposed rule. This unit is
occupied by the plant Mezoneuron kavaiense and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 4). Although Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 32 is not currently occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla or Isodendrion pyrifolium, we have determined this area to
be essential for the conservation and recovery of these lowland dry
species because it provides the physical or biological features
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within the
historical ranges of the species. Due to their small numbers of
individuals or low population sizes, these two species require suitable
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could approach recovery.
[[Page 63986]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.005
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33 consists of 1,080 ac (437 ha) of State
land, and 502 ac (203 ha) of privately owned land, from Puukala to
Kalaoa on the western slope of Hualalai between the elevations of 360
and 1,080 ft (110 and 329 m). This unit is not in previously designated
critical habitat and comprises proposed critical habitat Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 33 of Map 106 in this proposed rule. This unit is
occupied by the plant Mezoneuron kavaiense and includes the mixed
herbland and shrubland, the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and
understory native plant species identified as physical or biological
features in the lowland dry ecosystem (see Table 4). This unit also
contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of
this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the expansion of the
existing wild populations. Although Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33 is not
known to be occupied by Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and
Isodendrion pyrifolium, we have determined this area to be essential
for the conservation and recovery of these lowland dry species because
it provides the PCEs necessary for the reestablishment of wild
populations within their historical range. Due to their small numbers
of individuals or low population sizes, these species require suitable
habitat and space for expansion or reintroduction to achieve population
levels that could approach recovery.
[[Page 63987]]
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34 consists of 259 ac (105 ha) of State
land, and 702 ac (284 ha) of privately owned land for a total of 961 ac
(389 ha), from Kalaoa to Puukala on the western slope of Hualalai
between the elevations of 280 and 600 ft (85 and 183 m). This unit is
not in previously designated critical habitat and comprises proposed
critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34 of Map 106 in this
proposed rule. This unit is occupied by the plant Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland
dry ecosystem (see Table 4). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of this species by providing the
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations.
Although Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34 is not known to be occupied by
Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense, we have determined
this area to be essential for the conservation and recovery of these
lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs necessary for the
reestablishment of wild populations within their historical range. Due
to their small numbers of individuals or low population sizes, these
species require suitable habitat and space for expansion or
reintroduction to achieve population levels that could approach
recovery.
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35 consists of 606 ac (245 ha) of State
land, 19 ac (7.8 ha) of County land, and 568 ac (230 ha) of privately
owned land for a total of 1,192 ac (485 ha), at Kealakehe on the
western slope of Hualalai between the elevations of 80 and 560 ft (24
and 171 m). This unit is not in previously designated critical habitat
and comprises proposed critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35 of
Map 106 in this proposed rule. This unit is occupied by the plants
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and
Mezoneuron kavaiense, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland,
the moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland
dry ecosystem (see Table 4). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat
that is essential to the conservation of these species by providing the
PCEs necessary for the expansion of the existing wild populations.
Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 36 consists of 5 ac (2 ha) of State land
and 397 ac (161 ha) of Federal land for a total of 402 ac (163 ha),
near the coastline at Kaloko and Honokohau on the western slope of
Hualalai between the elevations of 20 and 90 ft (6 and 27 m). This unit
is not in previously designated critical habitat and comprises proposed
critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 36 of Map 106 in this
proposed rule. This unit is occupied by the plant Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, and includes the mixed herbland and shrubland, the
moisture regime, and canopy, subcanopy, and understory native plant
species identified as physical or biological features in the lowland
dry ecosystem (see Table 4). This unit also contains unoccupied habitat
for the plant Isodendrion pyrifolium that is essential to the
conservation of this species by providing the PCEs necessary for the
expansion of the existing wild populations. Although Hawaii--Lowland
Dry--Unit 36 is not known to be occupied by Isodendrion pyrifolium, we
have determined this area to be essential for the conservation and
recovery of this lowland dry species because it provides the PCEs
necessary for the reestablishment of wild populations within its
historical range. Due to their small numbers of individuals or low
population sizes, these species require suitable habitat and space for
expansion or reintroduction to achieve population levels that could
approach recovery.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies,
including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or
carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. 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, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain
functional (or retain those physical or biological features that relate
to the current ability of the area to support the species) 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 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 issue either:
(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 for Federal actions that may affect, and
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
If we issue a biological opinion 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
formal consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where
we have listed a new species or subsequently designated critical
habitat that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained
discretionary involvement or control over the action (or the agency's
discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law).
Consequently, Federal agencies may sometimes need to request
reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
[[Page 63988]]
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may adversely affect the species included
in this proposed rule or their designated critical habitat require
section 7 consultation under the Act. This includes activities on
State, tribal, 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 us under
section 10 of the Act), or activities involving some other Federal
action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration,
Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management
Agency). These types of activities are 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 consultations.
Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards
Application of the Jeopardy Standard
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of a listed species in a qualitative fashion without making
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is
necessary for recovery. Generally, the jeopardy analysis focuses on the
status of a species, the factors responsible for that condition, and
what is necessary for the species to survive and recover. An emphasis
is also placed on characterizing the condition of the species in the
area affected by the proposed Federal action. That context is then used
to determine the significance of adverse and beneficial effects of the
proposed Federal action and any cumulative effects for purposes of
making the jeopardy determination. The jeopardy analysis also considers
any conservation measures that may be proposed by a Federal action
agency to minimize or compensate for adverse effects to the species or
to promote its recovery.
Application of the Adverse Modification Standard
The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9,
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analysis for
Federal actions affecting critical habitat. The key factor related to
the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation
of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species, or
would retain its current ability for the essential features to be
functionally established. Activities that may destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat are those that alter the essential features, or
the essential habitat qualities of unoccupied habitat, to an extent
that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for
the three species identified in this proposed rule.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, 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 destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
for the three plant species, and therefore may be affected by this
proposed designation, include, but are not limited to:
(1) Activities that may appreciably degrade or destroy the physical
or biological features for the species, including, but not limited to,
overgrazing, maintaining or increasing feral ungulate levels, clearing
or cutting native live trees and shrubs (e.g., woodcutting, bulldozing,
construction, road building, mining, herbicide application), and taking
actions that pose a risk of fire.
(2) Activities that may alter watershed characteristics in ways
that would appreciably reduce groundwater recharge or alter natural,
wetland, aquatic, or vegetative communities. Such activities include
new water diversion or impoundment, excess groundwater pumping, and
manipulation of vegetation through activities such as the ones
mentioned in (1) above.
(3) Recreational activities that may appreciably degrade
vegetation.
(4) Mining sand or other minerals.
(5) Introducing or encouraging the spread of nonnative plant
species.
(6) Importing nonnative species for research, agriculture, and
aquaculture, and releasing biological control agents.
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
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
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.
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)) provides: ``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.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyze INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the areas that were
being considered for critical habitat designation during the
development of this proposed rule to determine if these installations
may warrant consideration for exemption under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act. There are no Department of Defense (DOD) lands within this
proposed critical habitat designation. Therefore, no lands have been
exempted from this proposed critical habitat designation under section
4(a)(3) of the Act.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
or make revisions to critical habitat on the basis
[[Page 63989]]
of the best available scientific data after taking into consideration
relevant impacts, including economic and national security impacts, 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.
When considering the benefits of inclusion of an area in critical
habitat, we consider the regulatory benefits that area would receive
from the protection from adverse modification or destruction as a
result of consultation under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for actions
with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping habitat
essential for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits that may
result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that may apply
to critical habitat. Benefits could include public awareness of the
presence of listed species and the importance of habitat protection,
and in cases where a Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection
due to the protection from adverse modification or destruction of
critical habitat.
When considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider factors
such as whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result in
conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or the implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide.
The Secretary can consider conservation agreements and other land
management plans with Federal, private, State, and tribal entities when
making decisions under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The Secretary may
also consider voluntary partnerships and conservation plans, and weigh
the implementation and effectiveness of these against that of
designation. Consideration of relevant impacts of designation or
exclusion under section 4(b)(2) may include, but is not limited to, any
of the following factors: (1) Whether the plan provides specific
information on how it protects the species and the physical or
biological features, and whether the plan is at a geographic scope
commensurate with the species; (2) whether the plan is complete and
will be effective at conserving and protecting the physical or
biological features; (3) whether a reasonable expectation exists that
conservation management strategies and actions will be implemented,
that those responsible for implementing the plan are capable of
achieving the objectives, that an implementation schedule exists, and
that adequate funding exists; (4) whether the plan provides assurances
that the conservation strategies and measures will be effective (i.e.,
identifies biological goals, has provisions for reporting progress, and
is of a duration sufficient to implement the plan); (5) whether the
plan has a monitoring program or adaptive management to ensure that the
conservation measures are effective; (6) the degree to which the record
supports a conclusion that a critical habitat designation would impair
the benefits of the plan; (7) the extent of public participation; (8) a
demonstrated track record of implementation success; (9) the level of
public benefits derived from encouraging collaborative efforts and
encouraging private and local conservation efforts; and (10) the effect
designation would have on partnerships. We will also consider whether
these efforts would be affected by critical habitat, and, if so,
whether this would outweigh the benefits of critical habitat.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as any additional public comments we receive, we will evaluate
whether certain lands in proposed critical habitat may be appropriate
for exclusion from the final designation.
To ensure that our final determination is based on the best
available information, we are inviting comments on any foreseeable
economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from
this proposed designation of critical habitat from governmental,
business, or private interests and, in particular, or any potential
impacts on small businesses.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we are preparing an analysis of the
potential economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation
and related factors.
We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be
available for downloading from the Internet at the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). During the development of a final designation, we will
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information,
and as an outcome of our analysis of this information, we may exclude
areas from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the DOD where a national security impact
might exist. There are no DOD lands within this proposed critical
habitat designation, and we are unaware of any potential impacts to
national security on any lands within the proposed critical habitat
designation. Therefore, we do not propose to exclude any areas from the
final designation based on impacts on national security, but will fully
consider all comments in this regard in the final critical habitat
designation.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Factors
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts to national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any conservation plans or other management
plans for the area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that
would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical
habitat. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because
of the designation.
We have identified certain areas that we are considering excluding
from the final revised critical habitat designation for the three plant
species based on conservation partnerships. However, we solicit
comments on the inclusion or exclusion of such particular areas (see
``Public Comments'' section). During the development of the final
designation, we will consider economic and other relevant impacts,
public comments, and other new information before deciding if inclusion
or exclusion of these areas is warranted. As a result, additional
areas, in addition to those identified below for potential exclusion in
this proposed rule, may be excluded from the final critical habitat
designation under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Alternatively, we may
decide not to exclude these lands based on information received
[[Page 63990]]
during the public comment period or other new information.
Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands
Kamehameha Schools
We are considering excluding 2,834 ac (1,147 ha) of habitat
associated with Kamehameha Schools lands at Kaupulehu on the western
slope of Hualalai between the elevations of 940 and 2,600 ft (2,90 and
7,90 m) (Figure 3).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.006
Two plant species included in this rule (Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense) occur in this area. The area
under consideration falls within proposed critical habitat Hawaii Unit
31, Map 104, and comprises the entire area owned by Kamehameha Schools
(2,834 ac (1,147 ha)) within the proposed designation (see Table 5B).
This unit is occupied by the plants Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla
and Mezoneuron kavaiense and contains the features essential to the
lowland dry ecosystem and therefore essential to each species. This
area also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the
conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium.
Kamehameha Schools is conducting voluntary actions to promote the
conservation of rare and endangered species and their lowland dry
ecosystem habitats on their lands, including the installation of
fencing to exclude ungulates, restoring habitat, conducting actions to
reduce rodent populations, reestablishing native plant species, and
conducting activities reducing the threat of wildfire. We will continue
working with Kamehameha Schools during the public comment period, and
will make a determination regarding the exclusion from critical habitat
designation in the final rule. In addition, we are requesting comments
and information regarding these areas and will determine whether these
lands may warrant exclusion from critical habitat in our final rule for
the three plants for which critical habitat is here proposed on
Kamehameha Schools land.
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC
The Service is considering excluding 502 ac (203 ha) of habitat
associated with the land owned by Palamanui Global Holdings LLC
(Palamanui) at Kau, on the western slope of Hualalai between the
elevations of 400 and 1,000 ft (120 and 300 m) (Figure 4). The area
[[Page 63991]]
under consideration falls within proposed critical habitat Hawaii--
Lowland Dry--Unit 33, Map 106, and comprises the entire area owned by
Palamanui (502 ac (203 ha)) within the proposed designation (see Table
5B). This unit is occupied by the plant Mezoneuron kavaiense and
contains the features essential to the lowland dry ecosystem and
therefore for this species. This area also contains habitat that is
unoccupied but essential to the conservation of the proposed plant,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and the endangered plant,
Isodendrion pyrifolium.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.007
The Kona Community Development Plan (Hawaii County Ordinance 08-
131) identifies the lands owned by Palamanui Global Holdings LLC as
located within the Kona Urban Area with a land use designation of Urban
Expansion (Wilson Okamoto Corporation 2008, pp. 4-29--4-37). Hiluhilu
Development LLC has proposed development of a master planned community
(Palamanui Hiluhilu Development Project), which includes single and
multi-family residential units, university residential facilities,
health facilities, research and development facilities, mixed
commercial development, a small hotel, natural and cultural preserves,
parks, open space, and parking areas on a 725-ac (293-ha) parcel owned
by Palamanui (Group 70 International 2004, p. 3-36; DHHL 2009, p. 10).
A portion of the proposed development (502 ac (203 ha)) falls within
the area of proposed critical habitat in Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 33.
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC is involved in several voluntary
actions that promote the conservation of rare and endangered species on
their lands,
[[Page 63992]]
including their participation in the North Kona Dry Forest working
group, the construction of fencing to exclude ungulates, developing a
dry forest preserve management plan, and establishing a fenced research
area to measure and monitor forest dynamics within the lowland dry
ecosystem. We will continue working with Palamanui Global Holdings LLC
during the public comment period for the proposed rule, and will make a
determination regarding the exclusion from critical habitat designation
in the final rule. In addition, we are requesting comments and
information regarding these areas and will determine whether these
lands may warrant exclusion from critical habitat in our final rule for
the three plants for which critical habitat is proposed here on
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC land.
Kaloko Makai Development
The Service is considering excluding 630 ac (255 ha) of habitat
associated with the Kaloko Makai Development, on the western slope of
Hualalai in the land divisions of Kaloko and Ooma between the
elevations of 320 and 650 ft (100 and 200 m). There are three
landowners with a common interest in the Kaloko Makai Development,
Kaloko Properties Corporation (Figure 5-A), SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC
(Figure 5-B), and TSA Corporation (Figure 5-C). Two plant species
included in this rule Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron
kavaiense are reported from this area. The area under consideration for
exclusion falls within proposed critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland Dry--
Unit 34, Map 106, and is comprised of, in their entirety, the areas
owned by Kaloko Properties Corporation, SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC, and
TSA Corporation within the proposed designation (see Table 5B).
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 63993]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.008
[[Page 63994]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.009
[[Page 63995]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.010
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
This unit is occupied by the plant Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla and contains the features essential to the lowland dry
ecosystem and therefore this species. This area also contains
unoccupied habitat that is essential to the conservation of Isodendrion
pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC has proposed the Kaloko Makai Development,
a master-planned community on 1,139 ac (461 ha) of which 630 ac (255
ha) are included within the proposed critical habitat Hawaii Unit 34,
Map 106. This project is a master-planned, mixed-use community village
consisting of 5,000 single and multi-family residential units, up to
1.1 million square (sq) ft (102,193 sq m) of commercial space, light
industrial use, three public school sites, a dryland forest preserve,
park and open space, a site for development of a regional hospital, and
four potable well sites (Hookuleana LLC 2011).
The developers of Kaloko Makai are participating in several
important partnerships, conservation agreements, and other actions on
their lands to promote the conservation of rare and endangered species,
including setting aside a Dryland Forest Preserve area in perpetuity,
installing fencing to exclude ungulates, removing ungulates, and
eradicating nonnative species. The landowner is also working with the
State to develop a multi-species habitat conservation plan that will
provide a net conservation benefit to the covered species. We will
continue working with Kaloko Makai LLC during the public comment period
for the proposed rule, and will make a determination regarding the
exclusion from critical
[[Page 63996]]
habitat designation in the final rule. In addition, we are requesting
comments and information regarding these areas and will determine
whether these lands may warrant exclusion from critical habitat in the
final rule for the three plants for which critical habitat is proposed
here on Kaloko Makai Development land.
Lanihau Properties
The Service is considering excluding 47 ac (19 ha) of habitat
associated with the lands owned by Lanihau Properties, on the western
slope of Hualalai at Kaloko between the elevations of 320 and 440 ft
(100 and 135 m) (Figure 6). Two plant species included in this rule,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and Mezoneuron kavaiense, are
reported from this area. The area under consideration falls within
proposed critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 34, Map 106, and
comprises the entire area (47 ac (19 ha)) owned by Lanihau Properties
within the proposed designation. This unit is occupied by the plant
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla and contains the features essential
to the lowland dry ecosystem and therefore essential to this species.
This area also contains unoccupied habitat that is essential to the
conservation of Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.011
Lanihau Properties is promoting the conservation of rare and
endangered species through their land management strategies,
conservation agreements, and by setting aside a portion of their land
for establishment of the Kaloko Makai Dryland Forest Preserve. We will
continue working with Lanihau Properties during the public comment
[[Page 63997]]
period, and will make a determination regarding the exclusion from
critical habitat designation in the final rule. In addition, we are
requesting comments and information regarding these areas and will
determine whether these lands may warrant exclusion from critical
habitat in our final rule for the three plants for which critical
habitat is proposed here on Lanihau Properties land.
Department of Hawaiian Homelands
The Service is considering excluding 87 ac (35 ha) of habitat
associated with the DHHL's Villages of Laiopua development at Kealakehe
on the western slope of Hualalai between the elevations of 400 and 720
ft (122 and 220 m) (Figure 7). Three plant species included in this
rule (Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and
Mezoneuron kavaiense) occur in this area. The area under consideration
falls within proposed critical habitat Hawaii--Lowland Dry--Unit 35,
Map 106, and comprises a portion of the 355 ac (144 ha) owned by DHHL
within the proposed designation (see Table 5B). The area owned by DHHL
that is not being considered for exclusion is approximately 268 ac (109
ha) in size. This unit is occupied by the plants Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium and Mezoneuron kavaiense, and
contains the features essential to the lowland dry ecosystem and
therefore essential to each species.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.012
[[Page 63998]]
Beginning in 1990, Housing and Community Development Corporation of
Hawaii (HCDCH) was the State agency placed in charge of the master-
planned community known as ``Villages of Laiopua'' (VOLA). The
construction of VOLA would be phased, with increments of the proposed
1,700 homes (of which approximately 60 percent, would be offered as
affordable housing) developed as discrete villages as funding allowed.
From 1993 to 1999, the Service, DOFAW, and HCDCH worked to develop a
mitigation plan for the listed and other rare plant species affected by
the proposed development. In 1999, HCDCH produced the ``Mitigation Plan
for Endangered Species at Villages of Laiopua, Kealakehe, North Kona,
Hawaii'' to address impacts to listed and other plant species affected
by the construction and development of VOLA (Belt Collins Hawaii 1999,
pp. 1-29). By 2004, most of the lands within the VOLA development were
transferred to the DHHL, which, in consultation with the Service,
continues to implement these plans for conservation management. DHHL is
involved in several actions to promote the conservation of rare and
endangered species, including providing funding to establish and
maintain preserves for listed plants, installing fencing for ungulate
control, removing nonnative plants, and promoting community volunteer
programs that support native plant conservation. In total, DHHL has
allocated $741,564 toward construction of the preserves, habitat
restoration, and education and community outreach activities through
2014.
We will continue working with the DHHL during the public comment
period, and will make a determination regarding the exclusion from
critical habitat designation in the final rule. In addition, we are
requesting comments and information regarding these areas and will
determine whether these lands may warrant exclusion from critical
habitat in our final rule for the three plants for which critical
habitat is proposed here on DHHL lands at Kealakehe.
Lands Previously Excluded Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
In 2003, we excluded approximately 329 ac (approximately 133 ha) of
land in proposed unit Y2 owned by the Queen Liliuokalani Trust (Trust)
because we believed there was a higher likelihood of beneficial
conservation activities occurring on those private lands without the
designation of critical habitat than there would be with a critical
habitat designation (68 FR 39624; July 2, 2003). The exclusion of this
area under 4(b)(2) of the Act was based on the Trust's offer to
implement voluntary conservation activities and a proposal to: (1)
Partner with the Service on a project to conduct research on the
propagation of Isodendrion pyrifolium, and (2) set aside two areas
totaling approximately 53 ac (21 ha) and allow for the outplanting of
I. pyrifolium, Neraudia ovata, and other endangered species.
In 2004, the Service and the Trust partnered on a project to
conduct research on propagation of Isodendrion pyrifolium and Neraudia
ovata to: (1) Secure genetic material in ex situ storage, and (2)
provide individuals for reintroduction or restoration projects. The
Service and the Trust each contributed $10,000 toward the completion of
the propagation project. On June 27, 2005, representatives of the
Trust, the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, Amy
Greenwell Botanical Garden, and U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii--Pohakuloa
Training Area conducted a site visit to identify appropriate
outplanting sites for I. pyrifolium and N. ovata. Since 2005, the Trust
has completed an approximately 28-ac (11-ha) chain-link fence exclosure
(to discourage human traffic) in the southeast portion of the property
above Queen Kaahumanu Highway adjacent to Palani Road. Within this
chain-link exclosure is a smaller exclosure approximately 2 ac (less
than 1 ha) in size (to exclude feral pigs) in which common native
plants have been outplanted. For the outplanting effort, the Trust
partnered with Amy Greenwell Botanical Garden for propagation of native
plant material and used the opportunity to educate the community
regarding the restoration of the native lowland dry ecosystem. Because
the larger, chain-link exclosure contains various archaeological
features, it has been proposed as a historical preservation preserve.
In addition, the Trust has consulted with numerous cultural descendants
of the Keahuolu area who are of native Hawaiian ancestry. Therefore,
work in the fenced areas involves consideration of both natural and
cultural resources management. According to Trust representatives, all
work in the proposed historical preservation preserve has been
suspended until the historical preservation plan has been approved by
the State Historic Preservation Division. Aside from the contribution
to research and propagation of I. pyrifolium and protection of the 2-ac
(1-ha) area, there have been no additional conservation measures
conducted for I. pyrifolium and N. ovata in the lowland dry ecosystem
on the Trust's lands at Keahuolu.
Although the planned management activities described above (i.e.,
propagation and outplanting, and habitat conservation) are consistent
with recovery objectives for the endangered I. pyrifolium (USFWS 1996,
pp. 1-252), they do not address conservation of the other two plants,
the plant Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla or the endangered plant
Mezoneuron kavaiense (USFWS 1994, pp. 1-82), for which critical habitat
is proposed. Further, since 2005, we are unaware of efforts to outplant
propagated individuals of I. pyrifolium or any current plans to
conserve listed species or their habitats in the lowland dry ecosystem
on the lands at Keahuolu owned by the Trust. Therefore, the 329 ac (133
ha) of lands owned by the Trust are not proposed for exclusion in this
proposed critical habitat rule.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure
that our proposed listing and critical habitat designation are based on
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We have posted
our proposed peer review plan on our Web site at https://www.fws/pacific/informationquality/index.htm. We will invite these peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period (see DATES), on
the specific assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed listing
of 15 species and designation of critical habitat for 3 species.
We will consider all comments and information we receive during the
comment period on this proposed rule during our preparation of a final
determination. Accordingly, our final decision may differ from this
proposal.
Public Hearings
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal,
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made within 45 days
of the publication of this proposal (see DATES). We will schedule
public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce
the dates, times, and place of those hearings, in the Federal Register
and local newspapers at least 15 days before the first hearing.
Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and
[[Page 63999]]
participate in a public hearing should contact the Pacific Islands Fish
and Wildlife Office at 808-792-9400 as soon as possible. To allow
sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week
before the hearing date. Information regarding this proposal is
available in alternative formats upon request.
Required Determinations
These required determinations relate only to the portion of this
rule designating critical habitat. Listing determinations are made
solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data
available. 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A).
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency 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 effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended 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.
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; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
The RFA/SBREFA defines ``small governmental jurisdiction'' as the
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special
district with a population of less than 50,000. By this definition,
Hawaii County is not a small governmental jurisdiction because its
population was estimated at 185,079 residents in 2010 (https://hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/census/Census_2010). Certain State agencies may
be affected by the proposed critical habitat designation--such as the
Department of Land and Natural Resources and the State Department of
Transportation. However, for the purposes of the RFA, State governments
are considered independent sovereigns, not small governments.
To determine if a designation of critical habitat 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., housing development, grazing, oil and gas
production, timber harvesting). 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.
Under the Act, designation of critical habitat only affects
activities carried out, funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by critical habitat designation. However, in some
States there are State laws that limit activities in designated
critical habitat even where there is no Federal nexus. If there is a
Federal nexus, Federal agencies would be required to consult with us
under section 7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or carry
out that may affect critical habitat. If we conclude, in a biological
opinion, that a proposed action is likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are alternative
actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the scope
of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are
economically and technologically feasible, and that would avoid
destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
A Federal agency and an applicant may elect to implement a
reasonable and prudent alternative associated with a biological opinion
that has found adverse modification of critical habitat. An agency or
applicant could alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the
requirements of the Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable
and prudent alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained,
the Federal agency would be at risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of the
Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the reasonable and
prudent alternatives. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans,
or to develop information that could contribute to the recovery of the
species.
Within the proposed critical habitat designation, the types of
actions or authorized activities that we have
[[Page 64000]]
identified as potential concerns and that may be subject to
consultation under section 7 if there is a Federal nexus are: (1)
Activities that might degrade or destroy the primary constituent
elements for the species, including, but not limited to: (a) Grazing;
(b) maintaining or increasing feral ungulate levels; (c) clearing or
cutting native live trees and shrubs; (d) bulldozing; (e) construction;
(f) road building; (g) mining; (h) herbicide application; and (i)
taking actions that pose a risk of fire; (2) activities that may alter
watershed characteristics in ways that would reduce groundwater
recharge or alter natural, wetland, aquatic, or vegetative communities
(e.g., new water diversion or impoundment activities, groundwater
pumping, and manipulation of vegetation through activities such as the
ones mentioned above); (3) recreational activities that may degrade
vegetation; (4) mining sand or other minerals; (5) introducing or
encouraging the spread of nonnative plant species; (6) importing
nonnative species for research, agriculture, and aquaculture; and (7)
releasing biological control agents.
Three of the proposed critical habitat units (Hawaii Unit 33,
Hawaii Unit 34, and Hawaii Unit 35) contain commercial operations or
proposed commercial operations. Hawaii Unit 33 totals approximately
1,583 ac (640 ha) and extends from Puukala to Kalaoa on the western
slope of Hualalai between the elevations of 360 and 1,080 ft (110 and
329 m). Approximately 1,080 ac (437 ha) of this unit are owned by the
State of Hawaii and 502 ac (203 ha) are privately owned by Palamanui
Global Holdings LLC. The area owned by Palamanui Global Holdings LLC
and proposed within Hawaii Unit 33 comprises a portion of the 725-ac
(293-ha) Palamanui Hiluhilu Development project, which includes single
and multi-family residential units, university residential facilities,
health facilities, research and development facilities, mixed
commercial development, a small hotel, natural and cultural preserves,
parks, open space, and parking areas (Group 70 International 2004, p.
3-36; DHHL 2009, p. 10). Plans called for the Palamanui Hiluhilu
Development project to be developed over a 10-year period beginning in
2004, in a sequence of phases starting with infrastructure and
continuing with residential, multi-family, and commercial improvements.
However, to date, only construction of certain infrastructure
improvements have been completed, and the sale of residential lots is
not anticipated until 2013, at the earliest (Harris 2011, pers. comm.).
A draft management plan for the biological resources within the
Palamanui Hiluhilu Development project area includes the creation of a
lowland dry forest preserve and other protective measures to benefit
three endangered plants, Mezoneuron kavaiense, Nothocestrum
breviflorum, and Pleomele hawaiiensis, and their habitats (see
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC above). Also within proposed critical
habitat Hawaii Unit 33 and to the south of the parcel owned by
Palamanui Global Holdings LLC, is a 500-ac (202-ha) parcel owned by the
State of Hawaii, a portion of which will be developed for the
University of Hawaii Center West Hawaii campus (UHCWH) (Wil Chee--
Planning & Environmental, Inc. 2007, p. 1). Development of UHCWH
buildings within a 78-acre portion of the State owned parcel could
begin as early as May 2012 (Jensen 2011, in litt.). At this time we are
unaware of ongoing actions or authorized activities with a Federal
nexus that may be subject to consultations under section 7 of the Act
on the 502 ac (203 ha) of private land owned by Palamanui Global
Holdings LLC. Palamanui Global Holdings LLC has demonstrated a
willingness to manage these lands in a manner compatible with the
conservation of listed and nonlisted species, therefore in this
proposed rule we are considering excluding these 502 ac (203 ha) of
land owned by Palamanui Global Holdings LLC within proposed Hawaii Unit
33. If these lands are excluded from critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act in our final rule because the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat designation, consultation
with us under section 7 of the Act on activities funded, permitted, or
carried out by Federal agencies will not be triggered.
Proposed Hawaii Unit 34 totals 961 ac (389 ha) and extends from
Kaloko to Ooma on the western slope of Hualalai between the elevations
of 280 and 600 ft (85 and 183 m). There are 259 ac (105 ha) of State
land, and 702 ac (284 ha) of privately owned land in this proposed
unit. The Kaloko Makai Development is proposed on private land within
this unit. Several landowners with a common interest in the proposed
Kaloko Makai Development include Kaloko Properties Corporation, SCD-TSA
Kaloko Makai LLC, and TSA Corporation. A description of the proposed
Kaloko Makai Development is given above (see Kaloko Makai Development).
SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC is working with the State's DOFAW to develop a
multi-species HCP, to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the proposed
development on the plant, Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, and four
endangered plants, Mezoneuron kavaiense, Neraudia ovata, Nothocestrum
breviflorum, and Pleomele hawaiiensis (Hookuleana LLC 2011). In
addition, Lanihau Properties owns private land immediately adjacent to
the Kaloko Makai Development and is involved in a joint conservation
agreement with the Service, the FHWA, DOFAW, the County of Hawaii, and
the owners of the Kaloko Makai Development. In 2010, the Service
concluded an informal consultation under section 7 of the Act with the
FHWA to address impacts to the same four endangered plants and one
species proposed for listing in this rule (see above) associated with
the proposed construction of Ane Keohokalole Highway from Hina Lani
Street to Palani Road. The proposed highway segments covered in the
consultation fall within Hawaii Unit 34 in the north and Hawaii Unit 35
in the south. The Service, SCD-TSA Kaloko Makai LLC, FWHA, the County
of Hawaii, and Lanihau Properties negotiated several measures to
achieve conservation for the four endangered and one plant species
proposed for listing in this rule (see above) impacted by highway
construction and related development activities. At this time we are
unaware of any other ongoing actions or authorized activities with a
Federal nexus that may be subject to consultation under section 7 of
the Act on the 630 ac (255 ha) of private land owned by the three
landowners with a common interest in the Kaloko Makai Development or
the 47 ac (19 ha) owned by Lanihau Partners. These landowners have
demonstrated a willingness to manage these lands in a manner compatible
with the conservation of listed and nonlisted species. Therefore, in
this proposed rule we are considering excluding these 676 ac (274 ha)
of privately owned land within proposed critical habitat Hawaii Unit
34. If these lands are excluded from critical habitat under section
4(b)(2) of the Act in our final rule because the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of critical habitat designation, consultation
with us under section 7 of the Act on activities funded, permitted, or
carried out by Federal agencies would not be triggered.
Forest City Hawaii Kona proposes to develop a master-planned
community consisting of approximately 270 ac (109 ha) of privately
owned lands in proposed critical habitat Hawaii Unit 35
[[Page 64001]]
for the HFDC. The development will include 1,020 to 2,330 single and
multi-family residences (including the proposed Keahuolu Affordable
Housing Project), commercial and retail space, a site reserved for a
school, parks, an archaeological preserve, and open space. The State
environmental review process has been completed and the developer is
targeting early 2012, for receiving the grading and construction
permits for Phase 1 of development (Fujimoto 2011a, in litt.; Fujimoto
2011b, in litt.). At this time we are unaware of any ongoing actions or
authorized activities with a Federal nexus that may be subject to
consultation under section 7 of the Act on the 270 ac (109 ha) of land
owned by Forest City Hawaii Kona.
None of the other three proposed critical habitat units contain any
significant residential, commercial, industrial, or golf-course
projects; crop farming; or intensive livestock operations. Few projects
are planned for locations in these other proposed critical habitat
units. This situation reflects the fact that existing land-use controls
severely limit development and most other economic activities in the
rugged lava terrain of the north Kona region of Hawaii Island.
Existing and planned projects, land uses, and activities that could
affect the proposed critical habitat but have no Federal involvement
would not require section 7 consultation with the Service, so they are
not restricted by the requirements of the Act. Further, although some
existing and continuing activities involve the operation and
maintenance of existing manmade features and structures in certain
areas, these areas do not contain the physical or biological features
for the species, and would not be impacted by the designation. Finally,
for the anticipated projects and activities that will have Federal
involvement, many are conservation efforts that would not negatively
impact critical habitat, so they will not be subjected to a protracted
informal section 7 consultation. We also anticipate that a developer or
other project proponent could modify a project or take measures to
conserve critical habitat, if designated.
In addition, Federal agencies may also need to reinitiate a
previous consultation if discretionary involvement or control over the
Federal action has been retained or is authorized by law and the
activities may affect critical habitat. In 1984, we designated critical
habitat for the endangered plant, Kokia drynarioides (49 FR 47397;
December 4, 1984), and between 2003 and 2008, we designated critical
habitat for 41 endangered plants on Hawaii Island (68 FR 39624; July 2,
2003); for the Blackburn's sphinx moth on Molokai, Maui, and Kahoolawe,
and the island of Hawaii (68 FR 34710; June 10, 2003); and for 12
picture-wing flies on Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Maui, and Hawaii Island (73
FR 73794; December 4, 2008). We discuss our formal and informal
consultations conducted prior to 2003 on Hawaii Island in our final
rules to designate critical habitat on this island (68 FR 34710, June
10, 2003; 68 FR 39624, July 2, 2003).
Since the 2003 critical habitat designations on Hawaii Island, we
have conducted 25 formal consultations and 260 informal consultations
on Hawaii Island, in addition to consultations on Federal grants to
State wildlife programs that do not affect small entities. Of these 285
formal and informal consultations, 18 formal consultations and 60
informal consultations were primarily consultations regarding Federal
permits to Service employees to implement conservation actions for
listed species. The remainder, 7 formal consultations and 225 informal
consultations, involved (in order of frequency) the Department of
Agriculture (USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA-
Pesticide Branch, and USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS)), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), National Park
Service (NPS), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Department of Transportation
(DOT), U.S. Army, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Hawaii Army
National Guard, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Resource Division (USGS-BRD), Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
Three of the seven formal consultations concerned designated
critical habitat, and we concurred with each agency's determination
that the project as proposed, was not likely to destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat.
One of the formal consultations was conducted on behalf of the U.S.
Army Garrison regarding routine military training at the Pohakuloa
Training Area (PTA). The U.S. Army proposed helicopter pinnacle
landings in palila (Loxioides bailleui) critical habitat (42 FR 40685;
August 11, 1977). The Service determined the pinnacle landings on Puu
Omaokaoli at PTA were not likely to adversely modify palila critical
habitat. This action was not conducted in proposed critical habitat.
The second formal consultation was conducted on behalf of the FHWA
regarding the Saddle Road Realignment and Improvement Project. The FHWA
proposed road construction activities in critical habitat for the
endangered plants Clermontia peleana and Cyanea platyphylla. Because
the proposed project included beneficial actions for these species in
other areas to offset any impacts to habitat from road construction
actions, the Service determined that this action was not likely to
adversely modify critical habitat. This action was not conducted in
proposed critical habitat.
The third formal consultation was conducted on behalf of NOAA
regarding Pelekane Bay Watershed restoration. The project area
overlapped with 243 ac (98 ha) of unoccupied critical habitat for an
endangered plant Achyranthes mutica. The NOAA proposed to build an
ungulate exclosure fence around the 16,000-ac (6,500-ha) project area,
remove all the ungulates within the fenced area, and outplant native
plants. Because these actions would greatly enhance the suitability of
the site to support Achyranthes mutica in the future, and likely result
in an overall benefit to the critical habitat by ameliorating several
threats, the Service determined that this project was not likely to
adversely modify Achyranthes mutica critical habitat.
The majority of the 225 informal consultations that did not involve
Service actions were related to proposed project effects on seabird
(e.g., Newell's shearwater (Puffinus auricularis newelli) and Hawaiian
petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia)) flyways, the nene or Hawaiian goose
(Branta sandvicensis), the opeapea or Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus
cinereus semotus), the io or Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius), and
other listed species and their associated habitats. About one-third of
the informal consultations were conducted with the USDA for proposed
funding for habitat restoration projects under NRCS programs such as
the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program and Environmental Quality
Incentives Program. A small number of the informal consultations
involved the FCC and the construction of cellular telecommunication
sites.
Thirteen of the 260 informal consultations concerned designated
critical habitat, and in all cases we concurred with each agency's
determination that the project, as proposed, had no effect or was not
likely to adversely modify critical habitat. These projects were
divided between conservation actions that
[[Page 64002]]
would benefit listed species, construction, and agricultural
operations. For the 247 informal consultations that did not concern
designated critical habitat, we concurred with each agency's
determination that the project, as proposed, was not likely to
adversely affect listed species.
In this rule, we are proposing to designate critical habitat on a
total 18,766 ac (7,597 ha) of land. Fifty-five percent (10,304 ac
(4,170 ha)) of this proposed critical habitat designation overlaps with
already designated critical habitat for one or more species, and 45
percent (8,464 ac (3,426 ha)) of the proposed designation is on land
newly proposed as critical habitat. Some of the Federal actions that
were subject to previous section 7 consultation are on the lands we are
proposing as critical habitat in this rule. Therefore, there may be a
requirement to reinitiate consultation for some ongoing Federal
projects.
In the 2003 and 2008 economic analyses of the designation of
critical habitat for 41 species of plants on the island of Hawaii and
Blackburn's sphinx moth, we evaluated the potential economic effects on
small business entities resulting from the protection of these species
and their habitats related to the proposed designation of critical
habitat and determined that it would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The overlap between
the critical habitat designations for the 41 plant species and the
Blackburn's sphinx moth, and this proposed critical habitat designation
is further evidence that this proposal is not likely to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on our evaluation above, we have determined that the proposed
designation of critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla,
Isodendrion pyrifolium, and Mezoneuron kavaiense will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the
reasons described above. As a result, an initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is not required. However, we will reevaluate the potential
impacts to small entities in the economic analysis we develop for this
proposed designation.
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 would 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, or 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; AFDC 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 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 non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal 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 would significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The lands we are proposing for
critical habitat designation are owned by the County of Hawaii, the
State of Hawaii, private citizens, and the Federal Government. None of
these entities fit the definition of ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as
warranted.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for each of the three species in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for each of these species does not pose
significant takings implications for lands within or affected by the
proposed designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact summary
statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior
and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this proposed critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Hawaii. The critical
habitat designation may have some benefit to these governments because
the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of
the species would be more clearly defined, and the essential features
themselves are specifically identified. While making this definition
and identification does alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur, it may assist local governments in long-range
planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
[[Page 64003]]
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
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 propose designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the physical and
biological features within the designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of each of the species being considered
in this proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act 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)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. This proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Isodendrion pyrifolium, and
Mezoneuron kavaiense is not a significant regulatory action under E.O.
12866. There are no energy facilities within the footprint of the
proposed critical habitat boundaries. Accordingly, we do not expect the
designation of this proposed critical habitat 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. Any comments we receive addressing energy supply will be
fully considered and addressed in our final determination.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this rule is available on
the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, as follows:
a. By adding an entry for ``Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing''
(Drosophila digressa), in alphabetical order under INSECTS, to read as
set forth below; and
b. By adding an entry for ``Shrimp, anchialine pool'' (Vetericaris
chaceorum), in alphabetical order under CRUSTACEANS, to read as set
forth below.
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------------ population
where Critical Special
Historic range endangered Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name or
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Insects
* * * * * * *
Fly, Hawaiian picture-wing......... Drosophila digressa... U.S.A. (HI).......... NA E ........... NA NA
[[Page 64004]]
* * * * * * *
Crustaceans
* * * * * * *
Shrimp, anchialine pool............ Vetericaris chaceorum. U.S.A. (HI).......... NA E ........... NA NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 17.12(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Plants, as follows:
a. By removing the entry for Caesalpinia kavaiensis under FLOWERING
PLANTS,
b. By revising the entry for Isodendrion pyrifolium under FLOWERING
PLANTS to read as set forth below;
c. By adding entries for Bidens hillebrandiana ssp. hillebrandiana,
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, Cyanea marksii, Cyanea tritomantha,
Cyrtandra nanawaleensis, Cyrtandra wagneri, Mezoneuron kavaiense,
Phyllostegia floribunda, Pittosporum hawaiiense, Platydesma remyi,
Pritchardia lanigera, Schiedea diffusa ssp. macraei, Schiedea
hawaiiensis, and Stenogyne cranwelliae in alphabetical order under
FLOWERING PLANTS, to read as set forth below.
Sec. 17.12 Endangered and threatened plants.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 64005]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.013
[[Page 64006]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.014
[[Page 64007]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.015
[[Page 64008]]
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 17.99 as follows:
a. By revising the section heading to read as set forth below;
b. By revising the introductory text of paragraph (k) to read as
set forth below;
c. By revising the index map at paragraph (k)(1) as set forth
below;
d. By redesignating paragraphs (k)(40) through (k)(52) as
paragraphs (k)(41) through (k)(53);
e. By adding new paragraph (k)(40) to read as set forth below;
f. By redesignating newly designated paragraphs (k)(46) through
(k)(53) as paragraphs (k)(48) through (k)(55);
g. By adding new paragraphs (k)(46) and (k)(47) to read as set
forth below;
h. By removing the map in paragraph (k)(97)(ii), and adding in its
place the map set forth below;
i. By removing the map in paragraph (k)(100)(ii), and adding in its
place the map set forth below;
j. By removing the map in paragraph (k)(101)(ii), and adding in its
place the map set forth below;
k. By removing the map in paragraph (k)(102)(ii), and adding in its
place the map set forth below;
l. By redesignating paragraphs (k)(104) and (k)(105) as paragraphs
(k)(121) and (k)(122);
m. By adding new paragraphs (k)(104), (k)(105), (k)(106), (k)(107),
(k)(108), (k)(109), (k)(110), (k)(111), (k)(112), (k)(113), (k)(114),
(k)(115), (k)(116), (k)(117), (k)(118), (k)(119), and (k)(120), to read
as set forth below;
n. By revising newly designated paragraph (k)(121) to read as set
forth below;
o. By removing the entry ``Family Violaceae: Isodendrion pyrifolium
(wahine noho kula)'' from paragraph (l)(1); and
p. By adding entries for ``Family Asteraceae: Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla'', ``Family Fabaceae: Mezoneuron kavaiense'', and ``Family
Violaceae: Isodendrion pyrifolium'' in alphabetical order by family
name to paragraph (l)(1) to read as set forth below:
Sec. 17.99 Critical habitat; plants on the Hawaiian Islands, HI.
* * * * *
(k) Maps and critical habitat unit descriptions for the island of
Hawaii, HI. Critical habitat units are described below. Coordinates are
in UTM Zone 4 with units in meters using North American Datum of 1983
(NAD83). The following map shows the general locations of the critical
habitat units designated on the island of Hawaii. Existing manmade
features and structures, such as buildings, roads, railroads, airports,
runways, other paved areas, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas,
are not included in the critical habitat designation. Federal actions
limited to those areas, therefore, would not trigger a consultation
under section 7 of the Act unless they may affect the species or
physical or biological features in adjacent critical habitat.
(1) NOTE: Map 1, Index map, follows:
[[Page 64009]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.016
* * * * *
(40) Hawaii 10--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-a (1,179 ha;
2,914 ac)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Hawaii 10--Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-a.]. This unit is also critical habitat for
Hawaii 10--Isodendrion pyrifolium-a and Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron
kavaiense-a (see paragraphs (k)(46) and (k)(47), respectively, of this
section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 39a follows:
[[Page 64010]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.017
[[Page 64011]]
* * * * *
(46) Hawaii 10--Isodendrion pyrifolium-a (1,179 ha; 2,914 ac)
(i) See paragraph (k)(40)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(40)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(47) Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense-a (1,179 ha; 2,914 ac)
(i) See paragraph (k)(40)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(40)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
* * * * *
(97) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 97 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.018
* * * * *
(100) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 100 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.019
* * * * *
(101) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 101 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.020
* * * * *
[[Page 64012]]
(102) * * *
(i) * * *
(ii) NOTE: Map 102 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.021
* * * * *
(104) Hawaii 31-Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-b (9,936 ac;
4,021 ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Hawaii 31-Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla-b.] This unit is also critical habitat for Hawaii 31-
Isodendrion pyrifolium-b and Hawaii 31-Mezoneuron kavaiense- b (see
paragraphs (k)(105) and (k)(106), respectively, of this section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 104 follows:
[[Page 64013]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.022
(105) Hawaii 31-Isodendrion pyrifolium-b (9,936 ac; 4,021 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(104)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(104)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(106) Hawaii 31-Mezoneuron kavaiense-b (9,936 ac; 4,021 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(104)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(104)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(107) Hawaii 32-Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-c (1,779 ac; 720
ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Hawaii 32-Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla-c.] This unit is also critical habitat for Hawaii 32-
Isodendrion pyrifolium-c and Hawaii 32-Mezoneuron kavaiense-c (see
paragraphs (k)(108) and (k)(109), respectively, of this section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 105 follows:
[[Page 64014]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.023
(108) Hawaii 32--Isodendrion pyrifolium-c (1,779 ac; 720 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(107)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(109) Hawaii 32--Mezoneuron kavaiense-c (1,779 ac; 720 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(107)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(107)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(110) Hawaii 33--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-d (1,583 ac; 640
ha),
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 33.] This unit is
also critical habitat for Hawaii 33--Isodendrion pyrifolium-d and
Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense--d (see paragraphs (k)(111) and
(k)(112), respectively of this section).
(ii) NOTE: Map 106 follows:
[[Page 64015]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17OC12.024
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 64016]]
(111) Hawaii 33--Isodendrion pyrifolium-d (1,583 ac; 640 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(110)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(112) Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense-d (1,583 ac; 640 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(110)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(113) Hawaii 34--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-e (961 ac; 389
ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 34.] This unit is
also critical habitat for Hawaii 34--Isodendrion pyrifolium-e and
Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron kavaiense-e (see paragraphs (k)(114) and
(k)(115), respectively of this section).
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(114) Hawaii 34--Isodendrion pyrifolium-e (961 ac; 389 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(113)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(115) Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron kavaiense-e (961 ac; 389 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(113)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(116) Hawaii 35--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-f (1,192 ac; 485
ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 35.] This unit is
also critical habitat for Hawaii 35--Isodendrion pyrifolium-f and
Hawaii 35--Mezoneuron kavaiense--f (see paragraphs (k)(117) and
(k)(118), respectively of this section).
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(117) Hawaii 35--Isodendrion pyrifolium-f (1,192 ac; 485 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(116)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(118) Hawaii 35--Mezoneuron kavaiense-f (1,192 ac; 485 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(116)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(119) Hawaii 36--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-g (402 ac; 163
ha)
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 36.] This unit is
also critical habitat for Hawaii 36--Isodendrion pyrifolium-g (see
paragraph (k)(120) of this section).
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(120) Hawaii 36--Isodendrion pyrifolium-g (402 ac; 163 ha)
(i) See paragraph (k)(119)(i) of this section for the textual
description of this unit.
(ii) See paragraph (k)(110)(ii) of this section for the map of this
unit.
(121) Table of Protected Species Within Each Critical Habitat Unit
for the Island of Hawaii
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit name Species occupied Species unoccupied
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii 1--Clermontia lindseyana- Clermontia Clermontia
a. lindseyana. lindseyana.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia peleana-a.. Clermontia peleana Clermontia
peleana.
Hawaii 1--Clermontia pyrularia-a .................. Clermontia
pyrularia.
Hawaii 1--Cyanea shipmanii-a.... Cyanea shipmanii.. Cyanea shipmanii.
Hawaii 1--Phyllostegia racemosa- Phyllostegia Phyllostegia
a. racemosa. racemosa.
Hawaii 2--Clermontia lindseyana- Clermontia Clermontia
b. lindseyana. lindseyana.
Hawaii 2--Clermontia pyrularia-b Clermontia Clermontia
pyrularia. pyrularia.
Hawaii 2--Phyllostegia racemosa- Phyllostegia Phyllostegia
b. racemosa. racemosa.
Hawaii 3--Clermontia peleana-b.. Clermontia peleana Clermontia
peleana.
Hawaii 3--Cyanea platyphylla-a.. Cyanea platyphylla Cyanea
platyphylla.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra giffardii-a. Cyrtandra Cyrtandra
giffardii. giffardii.
Hawaii 3--Cyrtandra tintinnabula- Cyrtandra Cyrtandra
a. tintinnabula. tintinnabula.
Hawaii 3--Phyllostegia Phyllostegia Phyllostegia
warshaueri-a. warshaueri. warshaueri.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae-a. .................. Isodendrion
hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae-b. .................. Isodendrion
hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae-c. .................. Isodendrion
hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae-d. .................. Isodendrion
hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae-e. .................. Isodendrion
hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Isodendrion hosakae-f. Isodendrion Isodendrion
hosakae. hosakae.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis-a... .................. Vigna o-wahuensis.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis-b... .................. Vigna o-wahuensis.
Hawaii 4--Vigna o-wahuensis-c... .................. Vigna o-wahuensis.
Hawaii 5--Nothocestrum .................. Nothocestrum
breviflorum-a. breviflorum.
Hawaii 6--Nothocestrum Nothocestrum Nothocestrum
breviflorum-b. breviflorum. breviflorum.
Hawaii 7--Pleomele hawaiiensis-a Pleomele Pleomele
hawaiiensis. hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 8--Clermontia Clermontia Clermontia
drepanomorpha-a. drepanomorpha. drepanomorpha.
Hawaii 8--Phyllostegia Phyllostegia Phyllostegia
warshaueri-b. warshaueri. warshaueri.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-a.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-b.. Achyranthes mutica Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-c.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-d.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-e.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-f.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-g.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-h.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-i.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 9--Achyranthes mutica-j.. .................. Achyranthes
mutica.
Hawaii 10--Argyroxiphium kauense- .................. Argyroxiphium
a. kauense.
Hawaii 10--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................. Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla-a. ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 10--Bonamia menziesii-a.. .................. Bonamia menziesii.
Hawaii 10--Colubrina Colubrina Colubrina
oppositifolia-a. oppositifolia. oppositifolia.
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata-a.. .................. Delissea undulata.
Hawaii 10--Delissea undulata-b.. Delissea undulata. Delissea undulata.
[[Page 64017]]
Hawaii 10--Hibiscadelphus Hibiscadelphus Hibiscadelphus
hualalaiensis-a. hualalaiensis. hualalaiensis.
Hawaii 10--Hibiscus Hibiscus Hibiscus
brackenridgei-a. brackenridgei. brackenridgei.
Hawaii 10--Isodendrion .................. Isodendrion
pyrifolium-a. pyrifolium.
Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense- Mezoneuron Mezoneuron
a. kavaiense. kavaiense.
Hawaii 10--Neraudia ovata-a..... .................. Neraudia ovata.
Hawaii 10--Nothocestrum Nothocestrum Nothocestrum
breviflorum-c. breviflorum. breviflorum.
Hawaii 10--Pleomele hawaiiensis- Pleomele Pleomele
b. hawaiiensis. hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 10--Solanum incompletum-a .................. Solanum
incompletum.
Hawaii 10--Zanthoxylum dipetalum Zanthoxylum Zanthoxylum
ssp. tomentosum-a. dipetalum ssp. dipetalum ssp.
tomentosum. tomentosum.
Hawaii 11--Cyanea hamatiflora Cyanea hamatiflora Cyanea hamatiflora
ssp. carlsonii-a. ssp. carlsonii. ssp. carlsonii.
Hawaii 11--Solanum incompletum-b .................. Solanum
incompletum.
Hawaii 14--Cyanea hamatiflora .................. Cyanea hamatiflora
ssp. carlsonii-b. ssp. carlsonii.
Hawaii 15--Cyanea hamatiflora .................. Cyanea hamatiflora
ssp. carlsonii-c. ssp. carlsonii.
Hawaii 15--Cyanea stictophylla-a Cyanea Cyanea
stictophylla. stictophylla.
Hawaii 16--Cyanea hamatiflora Cyanea hamatiflora Cyanea hamatiflora
ssp. carlsonii-d. ssp. carlsonii. ssp. carlsonii.
Hawaii 16--Cyanea stictophylla-b Cyanea Cyanea
stictophylla. stictophylla.
Hawaii 17--Diellia erecta-a..... Diellia erecta.... Diellia erecta.
Hawaii 17--Flueggea neowawraea-a Flueggea Flueggea
neowawraea. neowawraea.
Hawaii 18--Colubrina Colubrina Colubrina
oppositifolia-b. oppositifolia. oppositifolia.
Hawaii 18--Diellia erecta-b..... Diellia erecta.... Diellia erecta.
Hawaii 18--Flueggea neowawraea-b Flueggea Flueggea
neowawraea. neowawraea.
Hawaii 18--Gouania vitifolia-a.. Gouania vitifolia. Gouania vitifolia.
Hawaii 18--Neraudia ovata-d..... Neraudia ovata.... Neraudia ovata.
Hawaii 18--Pleomele hawaiiensis- Pleomele Pleomele
c. hawaiiensis. hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 19--Mariscus fauriei-a... Mariscus fauriei.. Mariscus fauriei.
Hawaii 20--Sesbania tomentosa-a. Sesbania tomentosa Sesbania
tomentosa.
Hawaii 21--Ischaemum byrone-a... .................. Ischaemum byrone.
Hawaii 22--Ischaemum byrone-b... Ischaemum byrone.. Ischaemum byrone.
Hawaii 23--Pleomele hawaiiensis- Pleomele Pleomele
d. hawaiiensis. hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 23--Sesbania tomentosa-b. Sesbania tomentosa Sesbania
tomentosa.
Hawaii 24--Argyroxiphium kauense- Argyroxiphium Argyroxiphium
b. kauense. kauense.
Hawaii 24--Asplenium fragile Asplenium fragile Asplenium fragile
var. insulare-a. var. insulare. var. insulare.
Hawaii 24--Cyanea stictophylla-c .................. Cyanea
stictophylla.
Hawaii 24--Melicope .................. Melicope
zahlbruckneri-a. zahlbruckneri.
Hawaii 24--Phyllostegia velutina- Phyllostegia Phyllostegia
a. velutina. velutina.
Hawaii 24--Plantago hawaiensis-a Plantago Plantago
hawaiensis. hawaiensis.
Hawaii 25--Argyroxiphium kauense- Argyroxiphium Argyroxiphium
c. kauense. kauense.
Hawaii 25--Plantago hawaiensis-b Plantago Plantago
hawaiensis. hawaiensis.
Hawaii 25--Silene hawaiiensis-a. Silene hawaiiensis Silene
hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 26--Hibiscadelphus Hibiscadelphus Hibiscadelphus
giffardianus-a. giffardianus. giffardianus.
Hawaii 26--Melicope Melicope Melicope
zahlbruckneri-b. zahlbruckneri. zahlbruckneri.
Hawaii 27--Portulaca sclerocarpa- Portulaca Portulaca
a. sclerocarpa. sclerocarpa.
Hawaii 27--Silene hawaiiensis-b. Silene hawaiiensis Silene
hawaiiensis.
Hawaii 28--Adenophorus periens-a Adenophorus Adenophorus
periens. periens.
Hawaii 29--Clermontia peleana-c. Clermontia peleana Clermontia
peleana.
Hawaii 29--Cyanea platyphylla-b. Cyanea platyphylla Cyanea
platyphylla.
Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra giffardii-b .................. Cyrtandra
giffardii.
Hawaii 29--Cyrtandra .................. Cyrtandra
tintinnabula-b. tintinnabula.
Hawaii 30--Argyroxiphium kauense- Argyroxiphium Argyroxiphium
d. kauense. kauense.
Hawaii 30--Clermontia lindseyana- Clermontia Clermontia
c. lindseyana. lindseyana.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii-b... Cyanea shipmanii.. Cyanea shipmanii.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea shipmanii-c... .................. Cyanea shipmanii.
Hawaii 30--Cyanea stictophylla-d .................. Cyanea
stictophylla.
Hawaii 30--Cyrtandra giffardii-c Cyrtandra Cyrtandra
giffardii. giffardii.
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia racemosa- .................. Phyllostegia
c. racemosa.
Hawaii 30--Phyllostegia velutina- Phyllostegia Phyllostegia
b. velutina. velutina.
Hawaii 30--Plantago hawaiensis-c Plantago Plantago
hawaiensis. hawaiensis.
Hawaii 30--Sicyos alba-a........ Sicyos alba....... Sicyos alba.
Hawaii 31--Bidens micrantha ssp. Bidens micrantha Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla-b. ssp. ctenophylla. ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 31--Isodendrion .................. Isodendrion
pyrifolium-b. pyrifolium.
Hawaii 31--Mezoneuron kavaiense- Mezoneuron Mezoneuron
b. kavaiense. kavaiense.
Hawaii 32--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................. Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla-c. ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 32--Isodendrion .................. Isodendrion
pyrifolium-c. pyrifolium.
Hawaii 32--Mezoneuron kavaiense- Mezoneuron Mezoneuron
c. kavaiense. kavaiense.
Hawaii 33--Bidens micrantha ssp. .................. Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla-d. ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 33--Isodendrion .................. Isodendrion
pyrifolium-d. pyrifolium.
Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense- Mezoneuron Mezoneuron
d. kavaiense. kavaiense.
Hawaii 34--Bidens micrantha ssp. Bidens micrantha Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla-e. ssp. ctenophylla. ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 34--Isodendrion .................. Isodendrion
pyrifolium-e. pyrifolium.
Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron kavaiense- Mezoneuron Mezoneuron
e. kavaiense. kavaiense.
Hawaii 35--Bidens micrantha ssp. Bidens micrantha Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla-f. ssp. ctenophylla. ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 35--Isodendrion Isodendrion Isodendrion
pyrifolium-f. pyrifolium. pyrifolium.
Hawaii 35--Mezoneuron kavaiense- Mezoneuron Mezoneuron
f. kavaiense. kavaiense.
[[Page 64018]]
Hawaii 36--Bidens micrantha ssp. Bidens micrantha Bidens micrantha
ctenophylla-g. ssp. ctenophylla. ssp. ctenophylla.
Hawaii 36--Isodendrion .................. Isodendrion
pyrifolium-g. pyrifolium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(l) Plants on Hawaii; Constituent elements.
(1) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
(1) Plants on Hawaii; Constituent elements.
(1) Flowering plants.
* * * * *
FAMILY ASTERACEAE:
Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (KOOKOOLAU)
Hawaii 10--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-a, Hawaii 31--Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-b, Hawaii 32--Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla-c, Hawaii 33--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-d, Hawaii
34--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-e, Hawaii 35--Bidens micrantha
ssp. ctenophylla-f, and Hawaii 36--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-g,
identified in the legal descriptions in paragraph (k) of this section,
constitute critical habitat for Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla on
Hawaii Island. In units Hawaii 10-Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-a,
Hawaii 31--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-b, Hawaii 32--Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-c, Hawaii 33--Bidens micrantha ssp.
ctenophylla-d, Hawaii 34--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-e, Hawaii
35--Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-f, and Hawaii 36--Bidens
micrantha ssp. ctenophylla-g, the physical and biological features of
critical habitat are:
(i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m).
(ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50 in (130 cm).
(iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams to stony clay, rocky ledges,
little-weathered lava.
(iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina, Metrosideros, Myoporum,
Pleomele, Santalum, Sapindus.
(v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola,
Wikstroemia.
(vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
* * * * *
FAMILY FABACEAE:
Mezoneuron kavaiense (UHIUHI)
Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense-a, Hawaii 31--Mezoneuron kavaiense-
b, Hawaii 32--Mezoneuron kavaiense-c, Hawaii 33--Mezoneuron kavaiense-
d, Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron kavaiense-e, and Hawaii 35--Mezoneuron
kavaiense-f, identified in the legal descriptions in paragraph (k) of
this section, constitute critical habitat for Mezoneuron kavaiense on
Hawaii Island. In units Hawaii 10--Mezoneuron kavaiense-a, Hawaii 31--
Mezoneuron kavaiense-b, Hawaii 32--Mezoneuron kavaiense-c, Hawaii 33--
Mezoneuron kavaiense-d, Hawaii 34--Mezoneuron kavaiense-e, and Hawaii
35--Mezoneuron kavaiense-f, the physical and biological features of
critical habitat are:
(i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m).
(ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50 in (130 cm).
(iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams to stony clay, rocky ledges,
little-weathered lava.
(iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina, Metrosideros, Myoporum,
Pleomele, Santalum, Sapindus.
(v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola,
Wikstroemia.
(vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
* * * * *
FAMILY VIOLACEAE:
Isodendrion pyrifolium (WAHINE NOHO KULA)
Hawaii 10--Isodendrion pyrifolium-a, Hawaii 31--Isodendrion
pyrifolium-b, Hawaii 32--Isodendrion pyrifolium-c, Hawaii 33--
Isodendrion pyrifolium-d, Hawaii 34--Isodendrion pyrifolium-e, Hawaii
35--Isodendrion pyrifolium-f, and Hawaii 36--Isodendrion pyrifolium-g,
identified in the legal descriptions in paragraph (k) of this section,
constitute critical habitat for Isodendrion pyrfolium on Hawaii Island.
In units Hawaii 10--Isodendrion pyrifolium-a, Hawaii 31--Isodendrion
pyrifolium-b, Hawaii 32--Isodendrion pyrifolium-c, Hawaii 33--
Isodendrion pyrifolium-d, Hawaii 34--Isodendrion pyrifolium-e, Hawaii
35--Isodendrion pyrifolium-f, and Hawaii 36--Isodendrion pyrifolium-g,
the physical and biological features of critical habitat are:
(i) Elevation: Less than 3,300 ft (1,000 m).
(ii) Annual precipitation: Less than 50 in (130 cm).
(iii) Substrate: Weathered silty loams to stony clay, rocky ledges,
little-weathered lava.
(iv) Canopy: Diospyros, Erythrina, Metrosideros, Myoporum,
Pleomele, Santalum, Sapindus.
(v) Subcanopy: Chamaesyce, Dodonaea, Osteomeles, Psydrax, Scaevola,
Wikstroemia.
(vi) Understory: Alyxia, Artemisia, Bidens, Capparis, Chenopodium,
Nephrolepis, Peperomia, Sicyos.
* * * * *
Dated: September 13, 2012.
Michael Bean,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-24550 Filed 10-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
